Liberty News Forum - Political News Forum

Chukar57

LNF Senior Staffer1

Offline

Posts: 152
The high desert
Gender: male

Re: Mormonism: Is it really a cult?
Reply #140 - Jun 7^th, 2012 at 4:12pm

Mercy For All wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2012 at 4:23pm:

WRONG! If the entire Bible was a tome about "doctrinal guidelines," then why so much space wasted on narrative, poetry, genealogy, prophecy, etc.?
Compare the Book of Mormon. How much of that is instruction and how much is narrative? I think you need to shift paradigms here.

Okay, “entire” was certainly a poor choice of words. What I should have said is that the biblical narrative (from Genesis to Revelations) as a whole is about doctrinal guidelines and what we call “the plan of salvation”. We learn how to live, how to behave, how God deals with Hs children in various circumstances, and what God expects from us today. With few exceptions the stories, poetry, prophecies, etc., all contain at least an element of doctrine. I would say this applies even more so with the BOM.

Quote:

You've mentioned one verse that communicates exclusion. I'll restate, Jesus says more about unity than doctrines that are used to exclude people. So does Paul.

And I’ll state that I disagree.
The problem here is that we’ll have to count verses dealing with “unity” and verses dealing with “exclusionary” doctrine to settle the matter. You can go first.

Quote:

Did they? What kinds of "thou shalt nots" did they preach over and over? Jesus told a lot of stories about the coming Kingdom. Paul talked about the deadly misuse of legalism while describing what freedom in Christ looked like. What are all these "thou shalt nots"?

Refer to the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount for starters. Paul reiterated the same.

Quote:

Wrong again. You have reduced relationship with God and the pursuit of his Kingdom to a set of rules that would produce conformity.

And how can you have unity WITHOUT conformity? While conformity doesn’t necessarily equate with unity, unity without conformity is impossible.

Quote:

But even the early church had a problem getting it right. Paul had to publicly challenge Peter on his inconsistent behaviour. Why? Weren't the teachings and doctrines clear and unambiguous?

Not all the time, no. Jesus taught His gospel “line upon line, precept upon precept.” Men, even apostles and prophets, aren’t perfect. They can be petty, make mistakes, misunderstand instructions or simply not heed the impressions given them by the Holy Spirit. Even when a principle is taught clearly, imperfect men can muddy the doctrinal waters via their own traditions and prejudices. Before His ascension Jesus instructed His apostles to preach the Gospel to everyone. But it took a dream (three times) to get the principle (that the Gospel was for ALL people) through to Peter.

Quote:

What is the necessity of further prophecy (whether in the Mormon Church or not)? Aren't the teachings and doctrines clear and unambiguous?

Certainly not today they aren’t! I’m confident they were pretty clear and unambiguous as they came from the mouths of the apostles, but for a couple of millennia now they’ve passed through the hands of thousands of careless scribes, uninspired translators, and biased interpreters, and as a result they are no longer clear and unambiguous. Otherwise, as I’ve pointed out multiple times, there would be unity among Christians instead of hundreds and hundreds of differing denominations and sects.
As for the necessity of further prophecy I would ask what further prophecy was necessary after Adam, or Noah, or Abraham, or Moses, or even Jesus Himself? Why weren’t the prophecies and instructions given to Adam sufficient to guide Noah? Why weren’t the prophecies and instructions given to Noah sufficient to guide Abraham? Why weren’t the prophecies and instructions given to Abraham sufficient for Moses? And why weren’t the prophecies and instructions given by the Savior (while He was with them) sufficient to guide Peter and the rest of the apostles after He ascended to heaven? The idea that God has finished His work and everything we need is contained within the pages of the Bible is nonsensical to me. God’s work “this is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.” (Moses 1:39) will never be finished as long as there is one of His children left to be saved. Moreover, each day and age brings problems and needed solutions specific to that day and age, hence the need for continuing revelation.

Quote:

You have an interesting perspective that is opposed to my experience. Unity is not gained by conformity (of behaviors or ideas). Unity is gained by love and mutual respect and submission.

And you most certainly have a perspective that is foreign to my experience. Unity is gained by people who sincerely believe, accept and practice well defined principles without external or internal compulsion, and therefore unity IS (absent compulsion) "conformity of behaviors and ideas".
As far as “love and mutual respect”, I can love and respect someone without being unified with them on anything. I have a niece I love dearly, but she and I agree on virtually nothing.
And “submission” is nothing more than self-compulsion. It isn’t real unity anymore than a crown is a real tooth.

Back to top

IP Logged

Chukar57

LNF Senior Staffer1

Offline

Posts: 152
The high desert
Gender: male

Re: Mormonism: Is it really a cult?
Reply #141 - Jun 7^th, 2012 at 4:32pm

Mercy For All wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2012 at 4:23pm:

Oh...so some doctrine is crucial and others is not? Where is that line? Isn't it clear and unambiguous? How do you decide?

I can only answer that question based upon OUR doctrine and beliefs, which would be pointless since you don’t believe them.

Quote:

You are inserting "doctrinal truth" into a sentence where Jesus didn't say it. That should concern you.

I am inserting “doctrinal truth” into a sentence where Jesus implied it, and so it doesn’t concern me.

Quote:

Well, you're the one claiming that the message is clear and unambiguous. And that the clear and unambiguous message comes from the Mormon Church. Is there uniformity of doctrine among all people who claim to be Mormons? Is there historical uniformity?

Well there is certainly doctrinal uniformity within the institution itself, and certainly among the leaders of the Church and those members who take the Gospel seriously. But among those who “claim to be Mormon” there are many who are ignorant or lazy and make no attempt to learn or understand the doctrine. There is little uniformity among them, but then they are in large part just members in name only. They rarely if ever attend church, and in many cases they make no attempt to even comply with the doctrines they DO understand.

Quote:

The "error of his way" means doctrine? Again, you say some of those errors will have eternal consequences. Which ones?

Which ones? Pick any commandment given by God and it would be an “error” not to comply, and it would have eternal consequences if you didn’t.
"IF thou wilt enter into [eternal] life, keep the commandments.", said the Savior.

Quote:

From the Holy Spirit.

Fair enough, can you explain when and by what means you received it?

Quote:

Boldness does not guarantee correctness.

No doubt. We either have it or we don’t. We received it the way we claim, or the Church is a fraud.

Quote:

We were talking about priesthood. Jesus never calls the Twelve priests.

I never said he did. There are a number of offices within the Priesthood---Apostles, Seventy, Elder, Priest, Teacher, Deacon, etc.

Quote:

See above.
The problem is that the word "priest" outside the book of Hebrews in the New Testament almost exclusively refers to those who are opposed to Jesus, except in Acts where Luke reports that some priests became followers of Jesus.
What do you do with that?

See above.

Quote:

He did?

He did in my Bible. (John 3:11)

Quote:

So why is it that the disciples were not filled with the Spirit until Pentecost?

There is a difference between “receiving the Holy Ghost” and having a manifestation FROM the Holy Ghost.
“Receiving the Holy Ghost” is to have the right (based on worthiness) to the constant companionship of that member of the Godhead.
A manifestation of the Holy Ghost (such as on the Day of Pentecost) is when the Holy Ghost actually manifests Himself through revelation, visions, speaking in tongues, etc.

Quote:

"I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius...(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.)" (1 Corinthians 1:14,16).
So Paul doesn't claim to have "baptized the Ephesians."

What he claims is that he “doesn’t remember” if he baptized anyone else”, which means he very well could have baptized a few Ephesians and not remembered, right?
Since the particular scripture mentions no one else, I believe we can assume that it was Paul who baptized them. Granted this isn't the same as saying Paul DID baptize them, but based on the narrative I believe he did.

Quote:

Wow. There's some serious confusion here. I'll try to clear it up.
1. You're saying that preaching required some kind of authority that is passed down from person to person.
2. I'm saying that this authority is inherent in every believer.
The passage to which I refers demonstrates clearly that those who were not leadership were preaching the Gospel. So the text is clear that preaching the Gospel does not require some kind of ordination.
I have absolutely no idea why you would infer from this that I'm saying certain people "no longer had authority to preach." Bizarre, actually... )

I don’t believe the “confusion” is one-sided here.
Preaching the gospel” entails more than just running around with a message about Christ. The Savior commanded His disciples to go into all the world preaching the gospel, and to baptize those who believed their message. I suppose anyone who wants to can go off and preach about Jesus, but there ARE ordinances required for salvation, (such as baptism) and those ordinances cannot be administered by one who does not possess the authority to do so. That authority is NOT inherent in any believer, ( “no man taketh this honor unto himself”) but is conferred upon a man by revelation from God and by those who have authority from Him to do so.
If the authority IS inherent in every believer as you claim, then God’s house IS “a house of confusion” despite what the Savior said.
One Christian teaching one doctrine, while another teaches just the opposite, and both have the authority from God do so??
Bizarre, actually...

Back to top

IP Logged

Chukar57

LNF Senior Staffer1

Offline

Posts: 152
The high desert
Gender: male

Re: Mormonism: Is it really a cult?
Reply #142 - Jun 7^th, 2012 at 4:42pm

Mercy For All wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2012 at 4:48pm:

"Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God." (1 Corinthians 15:7-9).
You could only miss this if you held to the presumption that "apostle" inherently means "one of the Twelve." The plain translation neither says nor implies this. Ironically, this is an extra-biblical church tradition--the kind of thing that LDS reacts against.

As I said in a previous post, I don’t “hold to the presumption” that ‘apostle’ inherently means one of the twelve”.
But neither do I believe that the verse you quoted proves that Paul wasn’t one of the twelve.
I can screw up and do something that as a Mormon I know I’m not supposed to do, and because of that I can say that I don’t even deserve to be called a Mormon, but that hardly changes the fact that I am. It seems to me that Paul simply had a self-deprecatory attitude about his calling based upon his sinful past, rather than saying he wasn’t actually an apostle or was not one of the twelve.

Quote:

Read as many as you can. Check 'em. Go beyond KJV.

I’ll just refer back to my first post (of this session).

Quote:

Nothing prohibits it. The creation of the "soul" in Genesis strongly suggests that it's not the case. If, however, you believe what you believe simply because the Bible does not prohibit it, then you're left with a lot of options. Me, I'm more concerned with what the Bible actually says rather than what it "doesn't prohibit."

And I’m more concerned with what ALL scriptures have to say about the subject, rather than only what the Bible says.

Quote:

Not at all. I've never said nor implied any such thing. But there are a number of really good translations available. Why would you go with a notoriously bad translation when good ones are available? Makes no sense.

Again, refer to my first post of this session.

Quote:

That's all well and good, but "spirit" and "soul" are not interchangeable. "Spirit" is what "animates" us. "Soul" is what we are. Ironically, the Bible actually specifically says that they are not the same thing.

Where does the Bible “specifically” say they are not the same thing? As I noted before, the Bible uses the words interchangeably. The word “soul” is used to denote the spirit only (that part that animates us) in the following verses:
“And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul come into him again.
And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.”
(1 Kings 17: 21-22)
“And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died)…”(Gen. 35:18)
“And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matt. 10:28)

And the word “soul” is used to denote the spirit and body combined (what we are?) in the following verses:
“And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them…
“But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, that pertain unto the LORD, having his uncleanness upon him, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.”
“And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.” (Acts 2:43)

I could list many, many more of each type throughout the pages of the Bible.

Quote:

Funny...it took me almost a week to respond to you...

I gotta a get a better calendar. Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

Chukar57 LNF Senior Staffer1 Offline Posts: 152 The high desert Gender:	Re: Mormonism: Is it really a cult? Reply #143 - Jun 7^th, 2012 at 4:43pm fair-minded know it all wrote on Jun 4^th, 2012 at 6:01am: Such arrogance. Do you think I'm following and hanging on every word you type or post? My apologies. I'll not burden you any further.
Back to top	IP Logged

fair-minded know it all LNF Representative3 Offline fair-minded conservative leaning independent Posts: 3,583 Gender:	Re: Mormonism: Is it really a cult? Reply #144 - Jun 7^th, 2012 at 5:32pm Chukar57 wrote on Jun 7^th, 2012 at 4:43pm: My apologies. I'll not burden you any further. Oh don't be a baby, my laughy smilie meant I was messing with ya there.
Back to top	IP Logged

Chukar57

LNF Senior Staffer1

Offline

Posts: 152
The high desert
Gender: male

Re: Mormonism: Is it really a cult?
Reply #145 - Jun 11^th, 2012 at 3:34pm

fair-minded know it all wrote on Jun 7^th, 2012 at 5:32pm:

Oh don't be a baby, my laughy smilie meant I was messing with ya there.

Being a “baby” isn’t really an issue for me, I have a pretty stiff spine? The issue is just one of courtesy. If you’re not going to bother reading what I write there isn’t much point in carrying on a conversation, and I hardly think it’s “arrogance” to hope that you would do so. Perhaps it’s unreasonable to expect you to read a post not directly addressed to you, and if so I apologize. But I can assure you that I read each and every post you make within any thread I’m participating in. It helps me gain a greater understanding of “where you’re coming from”, and it helps to prevent me from bringing up something you’ve already addressed previously.

Back to top

IP Logged

fair-minded know it all LNF Representative3 Offline fair-minded conservative leaning independent Posts: 3,583 Gender:	Re: Mormonism: Is it really a cult? Reply #146 - Jun 11^th, 2012 at 10:05pm Copy that, I apologize. I'll admit I don't follow every conversation in the thread because it goes in many directions, and my eyes start glazing over.
Back to top	IP Logged

Chukar57 LNF Senior Staffer1 Offline Posts: 152 The high desert Gender:	Re: Mormonism: Is it really a cult? Reply #147 - Jun 16^th, 2012 at 12:59pm fair-minded know it all wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 10:05pm: Copy that, I apologize. I'll admit I don't follow every conversation in the thread because it goes in many directions, and my eyes start glazing over. I understand. It happens to me also.
Back to top	IP Logged

Mercy For All

LNF Moderator
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker

Offline

Be completely alive until
you're completely dead.

Posts: 36,914
Gender: male

Re: Mormonism: Is it really a cult?
Reply #148 - Jun 16^th, 2012 at 3:39pm

Chukar57 wrote on Jun 7^th, 2012 at 4:12pm:

Okay, “entire” was certainly a poor choice of words. What I should have said is that the biblical narrative (from Genesis to Revelations) as a whole is about doctrinal guidelines and what we call “the plan of salvation”. We learn how to live, how to behave, how God deals with Hs children in various circumstances, and what God expects from us today. With few exceptions the stories, poetry, prophecies, etc., all contain at least an element of doctrine. I would say this applies even more so with the BOM.

But it isn't. The Bible neither demonstrates that it is primarily about doctrine, neither does it say that it is primarily about doctrine.

Quote:

And I’ll state that I disagree.
The problem here is that we’ll have to count verses dealing with “unity” and verses dealing with “exclusionary” doctrine to settle the matter. You can go first.

Frankly, it's a lot easier to count "exclusionary" passages because there are fewer of them. Jesus also makes it clear that what "excludes people" is not usually what we think excludes people.

Quote:

Refer to the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount for starters. Paul reiterated the same.

When dealing the New Covenant, referring to the Ten Commandments is irrelevant. What "thou shalt nots" are in the Sermon on the Mount? I would suggest that these are not "rules to guarantee inclusion" but the characteristics of what it looks like to live in God's age to come.

Quote:

And how can you have unity WITHOUT conformity? While conformity doesn’t necessarily equate with unity, unity without conformity is impossible.

Wrong. Conformity and unity are not synonymous. I am united with my wife. We are not the same sex, height, weight. We have opposite personalities. There are probably literally hundreds of ways in which we do not "conform." In fact, it is our differences that cement our unity.

Quote:

Not all the time, no. Jesus taught His gospel “line upon line, precept upon precept.” Men, even apostles and prophets, aren’t perfect. They can be petty, make mistakes, misunderstand instructions or simply not heed the impressions given them by the Holy Spirit. Even when a principle is taught clearly, imperfect men can muddy the doctrinal waters via their own traditions and prejudices. Before His ascension Jesus instructed His apostles to preach the Gospel to everyone. But it took a dream (three times) to get the principle (that the Gospel was for ALL people) through to Peter.

The biggest problem is people focusing on rules, doctrines, expectations, etc., at the exclusion of Christ.

Quote:

Certainly not today they aren’t! I’m confident they were pretty clear and unambiguous as they came from the mouths of the apostles, but for a couple of millennia now they’ve passed through the hands of thousands of careless scribes, uninspired translators, and biased interpreters, and as a result they are no longer clear and unambiguous. Otherwise, as I’ve pointed out multiple times, there would be unity among Christians instead of hundreds and hundreds of differing denominations and sects.
As for the necessity of further prophecy I would ask what further prophecy was necessary after Adam, or Noah, or Abraham, or Moses, or even Jesus Himself? Why weren’t the prophecies and instructions given to Adam sufficient to guide Noah? Why weren’t the prophecies and instructions given to Noah sufficient to guide Abraham? Why weren’t the prophecies and instructions given to Abraham sufficient for Moses? And why weren’t the prophecies and instructions given by the Savior (while He was with them) sufficient to guide Peter and the rest of the apostles after He ascended to heaven? The idea that God has finished His work and everything we need is contained within the pages of the Bible is nonsensical to me. God’s work “this is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.” (Moses 1:39) will never be finished as long as there is one of His children left to be saved. Moreover, each day and age brings problems and needed solutions specific to that day and age, hence the need for continuing revelation.

You missed my point. If the doctrines are "clear and unambiguous" today (especially, as you claim, in the Mormon church), what is the necessity of prophets today? Were the doctrines "clear and unambiguous" 100 years ago? Because you've already seem to have acknowledged the necessity of prophets to refine some of these doctrines...

Quote:

And you most certainly have a perspective that is foreign to my experience. Unity is gained by people who sincerely believe, accept and practice well defined principles without external or internal compulsion, and therefore unity IS (absent compulsion) "conformity of behaviors and ideas".
As far as “love and mutual respect”, I can love and respect someone without being unified with them on anything. I have a niece I love dearly, but she and I agree on virtually nothing.
And “submission” is nothing more than self-compulsion. It isn’t real unity anymore than a crown is a real tooth.

"Sincere belief" creates unity? What if the sincere belief is wrong? Then it's "wrong unity"? Can you support this idea that "sincere belief" creates unity through scripture? Because my perspective that is foreign to your experience is support biblically (see Colossians 3:14).

Back to top

IP Logged

Mercy For All

LNF Moderator
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker

Offline

Be completely alive until
you're completely dead.

Posts: 36,914
Gender: male

Re: Mormonism: Is it really a cult?
Reply #149 - Jun 16^th, 2012 at 3:50pm

Chukar57 wrote on Jun 7^th, 2012 at 4:32pm:

I can only answer that question based upon OUR doctrine and beliefs, which would be pointless since you don’t believe them.

Not pointless at all. Give me an example of an "essential doctrine" and a "non-essential doctrine." And surely we hold common doctrines that might be "essential" or "non-essential."

Quote:

I am inserting “doctrinal truth” into a sentence where Jesus implied it, and so it doesn’t concern me.

Your argument is that it is implied. It doesn't support your case to say that you inserted it because it's implied. That's circular.

Quote:

Well there is certainly doctrinal uniformity within the institution itself, and certainly among the leaders of the Church and those members who take the Gospel seriously. But among those who “claim to be Mormon” there are many who are ignorant or lazy and make no attempt to learn or understand the doctrine. There is little uniformity among them, but then they are in large part just members in name only. They rarely if ever attend church, and in many cases they make no attempt to even comply with the doctrines they DO understand.

Then what's the point? Are we back to "essential vs. non-essential doctrines"?

Quote:

Which ones? Pick any commandment given by God and it would be an “error” not to comply, and it would have eternal consequences if you didn’t.
"IF thou wilt enter into [eternal] life, keep the commandments.", said the Savior.

How about wearing clothes with mixed fabrics for a start? Is every command in the Bible "for today" and to be taken literally?

Quote:

Fair enough, can you explain when and by what means you received it?

When I put my faith in Christ. The Holy Spirit attests with my spirit that I am a son of God. That in itself carries the authority and responsibility of priesthood.

Quote:

No doubt. We either have it or we don’t. We received it the way we claim, or the Church is a fraud.

Quote:

I never said he did. There are a number of offices within the Priesthood---Apostles, Seventy, Elder, Priest, Teacher, Deacon, etc.

Then where does it come from, this "authorization for priesthood"? It's not in the Bible as you describe or imply.

Quote:

See above.

He did in my Bible. (John 3:11)

Wow! WOW! WOW! WOW! In other words...NOTHING!

There is nothing in the Bible to support what you have described.

Quote:

There is a difference between “receiving the Holy Ghost” and having a manifestation FROM the Holy Ghost.

Yes, there is.

Quote:

“Receiving the Holy Ghost” is to have the right (based on worthiness) to the constant companionship of that member of the Godhead.
A manifestation of the Holy Ghost (such as on the Day of Pentecost) is when the Holy Ghost actually manifests Himself through revelation, visions, speaking in tongues, etc.

Okay...

Quote:

What he claims is that he “doesn’t remember” if he baptized anyone else”, which means he very well could have baptized a few Ephesians and not remembered, right?

Hang on, now...Paul is making a point here that you are ignoring because it disproves what you're saying. Paul is making the point that he didn't baptize a heck of a lot of people. If this second baptism was necessary, why would Paul forget it?

Quote:

Since the particular scripture mentions no one else, I believe we can assume that it was Paul who baptized them. Granted this isn't the same as saying Paul DID baptize them, but based on the narrative I believe he did.

Or maybe the Holy Spirit baptized them...

Quote:

I don’t believe the “confusion” is one-sided here.
Preaching the gospel” entails more than just running around with a message about Christ. The Savior commanded His disciples to go into all the world preaching the gospel, and to baptize those who believed their message. I suppose anyone who wants to can go off and preach about Jesus, but there ARE ordinances required for salvation, (such as baptism) and those ordinances cannot be administered by one who does not possess the authority to do so. That authority is NOT inherent in any believer, ( “no man taketh this honor unto himself”) but is conferred upon a man by revelation from God and by those who have authority from Him to do so.
If the authority IS inherent in every believer as you claim, then God’s house IS “a house of confusion” despite what the Savior said.
One Christian teaching one doctrine, while another teaches just the opposite, and both have the authority from God do so??
Bizarre, actually...

The confusion has occurred because I clearly demonstrated that those who were not leaders were preaching the Gospel while those who were leaders did not leave Jerusalem.

You obfuscated and implied that I meant the opposite.

Do we agree that in Acts 8 it was the "laity" that was preaching the Gospel while the "clergy" did not?

Back to top

IP Logged