U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-02-2008, 01:05 PM
 
Location: Missouri
250 posts, read 448,945 times
Reputation: 52

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Preterist View Post
I am sorry, but I am not avoiding Coolcats' question. What was it again? I will look for it.

Having said that your beliefs are far outside the Christian theology, do you agree, then, that you should not tell those of mainstream Christianity that you believe in their God and their Jesus. That has been my entire point all along. If you want to be Mormon--fine. That is your right. No one is denying you that right. The battle has come about by your church attempting to align itself with us and using our terms with different meanings and failing to clearly delineate the irreconcilable differences. I commend you for finally doing that.

Preterist
I will give you some advice. The confusion comes about largely because you do not define what you mean when you say that Mormons do not believe in the "same Jesus", (speaking of all those that say this). Mormons will always protest because they assume that you mean that they deny Jesus of Nazareth as their Savior and King. Try this instead: "Do you believe in a Jesus without a body? Do you believe in a Jesus that is not a separate personage from His Father in Heaven? Be specific. Do not accuse us of false doctrine such as SwM (see my prior posts) as you have done here. If you follow these simple tips, I think we all will be much happier.

You have bitterly accused us of concealing the fact that we believe we can become gods. We do not want to conceal this or any true doctrine of God but only wish teach it on our terms and in our own way in deference to its sacred nature. Enemies of the Church love to mock these doctrines but you don't have to, even if you disagree with it.

If you follow this advice it will foster a greater understanding and mutual repect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-02-2008, 01:22 PM
 
Location: Missouri
250 posts, read 448,945 times
Reputation: 52
Preterist:

We are still waiting for you to answer the question.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2008, 01:47 PM
 
1,897 posts, read 3,095,437 times
Reputation: 284
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolcats View Post
I have a question for Preterist. A few days ago, I posted about the protesters who are planning to picket Gordon B. Hinckley’s funeral this Saturday. I noticed you were conspicuously silent on the matter. Similarly, at every LDS general conference, protesters stand outside with signs and slogans against the LDS Church. I have a question – do you denounce such techniques? Why or why not?

I say this because I believe your crusade against Mormonism to be full of misguided techniques, not that dissimilar to those who protest at LDS funerals and General Conference. Don’t get me wrong, I think you are acting out of concern for us. But I think your techniques are dangerous. At best they create hostility between us and you. At worse, they perpetuate falsehoods that people could use to justify any manner of hateful behavior. I’m sure you have seen the movie “The Godmakers,” because many of your accusations come from that line of thought. Did you know in Arizona, a group of religious leaders reviewed the movie and spoke out against it? And the group that spoke out most about it were the Jewish members because it reminded them of the techniques the Nazi’s used in their propaganda films. Now I don’t think you harbor the hate those groups hold. But I worry that your techniques could give such people ammunition to justify all sorts of un-Christlike behavior.

So I ask again: Do you specifically denounce those protesters who will be outside the funeral tomorrow? Do you see any danger in such techniques?
Coolcats: I am sorry. I missed this entire post and missed your question. I was not avoiding it.

I did not know about these protesters. But I wholeheartedly and vehemently denounce such actions. I would have no part of such a thing and do not personally know of any Christians who would. Were I in that area and witnessed such a thing, I would confront these protesters. This is not of Christ and it is not of biblical Christianity.

What techniques do you find offensive, Coolcats? I do not believe that we need to be militant about these things and I do not advocate any such thing. Must we be afraid to offer a defense of our faith when we believe it is being challenged or compromised for fear of appearing hateful or militant? Without reservation, I denounce any violence over issues of faith.

Again, I have no anymosity toward Mormons. There is plenty of room in this country for different nonmilitant religions. That is our freedom. The battle is not in the taking up of arms and physically attacking those of other persuasions. Such things should never be seen or accepted in America or in the world for that matter. I believe in the peaceful use of persuasion, through the promotion of truth over error as I understand truth to be. And for me, this is not an offensive act on my part, but is what I perceive to be a defensive act. You believe you are being attacked; we believe we are being attacked.

My argument is with Mormonism's claim to be Christian. I know you disagree with that--I would not expect you to do anything else. But I hoped to be able to make it clear that you are not the only ones who are offended. Considering what you believe and considering what we believe, why do you find it so strange that we would seek to defend ourselves against what we perceive as a hijacking of our beliefs?

Were someone to come along and claim to be a Muslim and yet deny the Muslim belief about Muhammed and the basic tenets of Islam, would not Muslims have the right to respond and insist that they not claim to be something they are not?

My whole purpose here was simply to point out that we in reality do not believe in the same "truths." I hold no ill feelings toward Mormons. I apologize if my zeal and passion has come across in any way as a personal attack against any individual. That was not my intent.

My husband is an ex-Mormon, and we have had many Mormons in our home and have had many CONGENIAL and respectful discussions over these issues. (Note: we did not go to them; they came to us!). Many have thanked us for our kindness and for not hatefully attacking them. We have compassion upon them because we see them as lost as we once were before the love of Christ was shed abroad in our hearts through the grace of God. We seek only their welfare. My husband in particular as a deep and abiding love for Mormons.

I do not believe that you hold ill feelings towards me either. I do not mind being challenged about my beliefs and I don't mind calmly and respectfully discussing our differences. I simply want to make it clear from the beginning (as we always do with Mormon missionaries whom we invite into our home when they come knocking) that we have very different beliefs and, therefore, cannot be said to be of the same faith. That is all I have been trying to achieve here.

Once that groundwork is laid, we, along with the Mormon missionaries
oftentimes enjoy hours of friendly discussions, and we look forward to having them back! Again, these Mormons come to us; we do NOT go out of our way with a mission to convert Mormons!

You know that I believe that those outside of union with the biblical Jesus of historic Christianity are doomed to eternal punishment. I have never denied that belief. I know you do not believe as I do. But surely you must see the difference in motivation that arises from what people believe. Is it not the most loving and natural motivation for those who believe as I do to seek to warn those who come into our lives of the seriousness of entering a Christless eternity? Your motivation is different from ours because you do not believe people will be lost in that way. Actions must be consistent with one's belief system. Your live and let live attitude towards others is consistent with your disbelief in eternal punishment. Our compulsion to "lead" others to Christ is motivated by our belief that there is an eternal punishment for those not born again through faith in Christ. Although you do not agree with us, surely you can understand why we do what we do, believing what we do. Would you expect us to act in any other way?

I am praying for you as the Christ of Christianity would have me do because I believe that He alone brings about faith and regeneration. I cannot persuade anyone--no one comes unto Him except the Father draws Him. But those whom He saves are saved indeed both now and forever. We work because we are saved; we do not work in order to be saved.

Sincerely, Preterist
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2008, 02:00 PM
 
1,804 posts, read 7,007,304 times
Reputation: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preterist View Post

I did not know about these protesters. But I wholeheartedly and vehemently denounce such actions. I would have no part of such a thing and do not personally know of any Christians who would. Were I in that area and witnessed such a thing, I would confront these protesters. This is not of Christ and it is not of biblical Christianity.
Thank you. On that point we agree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2008, 02:33 PM
 
1,125 posts, read 3,240,737 times
Reputation: 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by twin.spin View Post
Sergeant, you had mentioned that some of the Methodist teachings were not biblical, which caused you to look into other churches that included LDS. At first some of the teaching of LDS seemed "were way out". Can you recall what struck you as "way out" at the time? I mean, what teachings that seemed "way out" at the time.
I didn’t say Methodist teachings were not biblical. I said I couldn’t square their teachings with the Bible. Here is a partial list:

Authority:

When I read the Bible, it is clear to me that no one acted in the name of Christ without direct authorization from Christ or someone who had received authority from Christ, such as one of His Apostles. I see nothing in the Bible, which indicates the authority to act in the name of Christ, was passed on after the Apostles were gone. Urban has postulated that the authority was passed on, but it was not recorded in the Bible. My argument against this theory is simple. Someone should be able to trace their Priesthood authority to ancient times, yet no one, other than the Catholic Church, claims Priesthood authority from any Apostle.

I have talked to a number of Ministers of various faiths. I have asked them where they derive the authority to baptize and act in the name of Christ. Many tell me they were ordained after Ecumenical College. I can’t find that in the Bible. Many tell me God called them to the Ministry, but none will claim a personal discussion with Christ authorizing them to act in His name. When I press the point, it always boils down to “they had a feeling it was their calling.” I am not mocking this; I am only stating that for me, I must know I have authority from Christ before acting in His name.

Name:

It makes no sense to me that a Church that is Christian would bare any other name than the Church of Christ, Church of Jesus, or Church of Jesus Christ somewhere. The ancient Christians were “followers of Christ.” I know what Methodist means, and it does not glorify or acknowledge Christ. This applies to any denomination that does not bare the name of Christ, in my opinion.

Trinity:

I would suspect that I have heard every justification for this belief possible. Sorry, it makes no logical sense to me, and what I have found in the Bible clearly tells—ME—the Trinity is incorrect.

The Great Apostasy:

The scriptures tell me the apostasy has already taken place and a restoration was due.

What I initially found way out about the LDS message:

Joseph Smith:

Why would the true Church of Christ be restored through a 14-year old farm boy and not a well educated professor of religion?

Plural Marriage:

Although plural marriage is not practiced in the LDS Church today, it was certainly a practice in the early Church.

Various Priesthood Offices:

It took me a while to understand them and find them in the Bible. I was only accustomed to Popes, Preachers, Ministers, and Reverends.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2008, 03:19 PM
 
Location: arizona ... most of the time
11,826 posts, read 10,173,496 times
Reputation: 1308
Thanks for the answer.
The Great Apostasy? was this a conclusion you had before the LDS faith?

Also can I ask, what other churchs did you look into before you decided on LDS?

The reason I'm asking more questions is because my work schedual is changing on Tue and (to the delight of some?) will not be here as often. Got promoted to manager.......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2008, 04:21 PM
 
1,897 posts, read 3,095,437 times
Reputation: 284
Quote:
Originally Posted by twin.spin View Post
Thanks for the answer.
The Great Apostasy? was this a conclusion you had before the LDS faith?

Also can I ask, what other churchs did you look into before you decided on LDS?

The reason I'm asking more questions is because my work schedual is changing on Tue and (to the delight of some?) will not be here as often. Got promoted to manager.......
Congratulations on the promotion, twin.spin!

Preterist
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2008, 05:26 PM
 
Location: Bronx, NY
1,467 posts, read 2,793,378 times
Reputation: 696
Quote:
Urban has postulated that the authority was passed on, but it was not recorded in the Bible.
The reason I mention this is because I don't recall Christ laying His hands on any of the disciples. He merely called them to do His Work which was/is to feed His sheep and spread His Gospel. There were instances in the Day of Pentecost and afterwards where some of the apostles laid their hands on others to receive the Holy Ghost but perhaps that was the only time it was recorded since it clearly set the precedent on what was done and how. If the groundwork was laid out at that time, it might have become repetitious to mention the process over and over again. Any thoughts?

Quote:
The scriptures tell me the apostasy has already taken place and a restoration was due.
My understanding of the term apostacy explains that there must be a complete falling away of any said beliefs and followers of such beliefs meaning that there are no adherents left at all. Since there are many (about a billion or more I think) who follow the tenets of Christ today, that would show me that there was no apostacy. Was this tenet one of those necessary to justify beginning a new church in regards to distinguishing itself from others at the time? Any thoughts? God bless.

Last edited by urbanlemur; 02-02-2008 at 05:52 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2008, 06:15 PM
 
9 posts, read 13,520 times
Reputation: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimbabwe View Post
I quoted the scripture from the Book of Mormon to demonstrate LDS theology, not to convince you that the Book of Mormon is scripture. Momtofour thinks she heard of "such things" in a wink and a nudge and your husband says they were talked about. My experience is completely different. Moreover, I have LDS scripture and the words of President Benson to back up my asseretion that "sex with Mary" (SwM) is not LDS doctrine.
You've never heard that? I've heard that, in the same way people sometimes speculate about Adam=God theory or whether the Mark of Cain was black skin. It's old folk culture and certainly not talked about as doctrine, but sure, I heard people talk about this in the 70s and 80s and even occasionally in the last ten or fifteen years, although not as much anymore. Now that I think about it, my old seminary teacher rambled on about this subject once, although he hastened to say that it was just speculation.

That doesn't mean it's doctrine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2008, 06:17 PM
 
9 posts, read 13,520 times
Reputation: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preterist View Post
I am praying for you as the Christ of Christianity would have me do because I believe that He alone brings about faith and regeneration. I cannot persuade anyone--no one comes unto Him except the Father draws Him. But those whom He saves are saved indeed both now and forever. We work because we are saved; we do not work in order to be saved.
Sincerely, Preterist
I appreciate that, Preterist, but I believe that Christ will save whom He will. Neither you or I decide who is saved.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top