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.
if you don't believe a word of our "other" books, then you wouldn't believe in Christ, the resurrection, the atonement, the fall of adam, the creation, the existence of God the Father, of the Holy Ghost, the devil, the prophets, the scattering of israel, or even the bible, since they are all fairly hefty points of doctrine in those "other" books.
aaron out.
'your' books were written after KJV, to me ...its all new.
I believe 100% in the Word of God from Genesis to Revelations. nothing more, nothing less. Joseph Smith words- to me not prophesy!! I dont need 'your' books. All I need is the Real Thing- One book BIBLE.
love the snide undertones in the post. i can feel the genuine respect and desire for mutual love and support. but i think you put the roll-your-eyes quotation marks in the wrong spot. where you have them, you are signfying the fact that you doubt that they are other books, which in fact they are. really. different name. different content. different authors. where i think you intended to put the quotation marks would have been on the word 'books', but that again runs the problem that they are, in fact, books. so what i think you really meant to say was something along the lines of, 'since i don't believe a word from your other "scriptures". would that be the case?
Dont consider it scripture
second, whether you do or do not believe in the "other" books does not really matter. we do. that is what we base the belief on. if you don't accept that, then you don't accept that. fine by me. but you can't tell me that all of a sudden i can't use the books (including the bible) that define my faith in order to explain that faith, but that i have to use sources. kinda paradoxical. you would be hard-pressed to explain your beliefs in christianity to a jew that said you could not utilize the new testament. you can still do it, as the old testament is still the word of God, but you would be unable to connect the pieces, specifically with regards to 'proving' yourself to the jew.
Hence the Jew might not care to hear about the new testament...
galatians 1: 8-9 tells the believers to reject everything but the true gospel. now, assuming that the mormons believe that they have the true gospel (hmm. probable...), then it is not too far-fetched to say that the mormons believe in this scripture just as much as you, and that therefore they see the scripture applying just as much to *any* of God's word, including that which was not bound into what we call the bible by later councils.
not probable- "preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you"
did YOU read the thread on 'mormon vs. NKJ'
which brings me to the next point, that is the illogicality of trying to claim that the passage refers to anything other than that which is compiled into the holy bible. for as you know, the bible was not conceived at this time, and in fact, not even all of the beloved passages of the bible had been written at this point, so there is really no reason in even waling down this round again for the thousandth time.
If your so tired to respond to yet another 'Born Againer' who doesnt get it,
Dont relpy. I want to talk to some one who lovingly WANTS to talk to me regarding these issues. I dont care about your ' boo hoo you think i have horns'. you assumed the 'rolling eyes' quotes- i aint no english major!!
ok. that said, i think that a lot of your (and that of others) misconception about the b.o.m. comes from the idea that mormons do not value the bible. if you had only read chik tracts and anti-mormon websites then i could see how you come to that conclusion, along with the idea that we have horns, practice demon worship, infant sacrifice, and community orgies--all of which is only true for utah mormons.
I never said you didnt value the bible. no I dont read 'anti-mormon' junk.
where do you get I think your EVIL???
just kidding. mormons place great value upon the bible, and even upon the reformationist movement. without said movement and the bible that inspired it, joseph smith would never have pondered the questions that led him to find the truth of Jesus Christ and God the Father.
If there is new truth from JS, then it is a different Gospel.
the bible is the word of God, and as elder holland said yesterday in conference, it is always listed first among the holy books which God has given us (specific order is holy bible, book of mormon, doctrine and covenants, pearl of great price).
the second thing that i think gets in the way of most people even giving the mormons the time of day is the fact that a whole lot of you think that we dismiss Christ as just a 'cool teacher'.
there is not really anything i can say to that except, ok... Christ is the center of our religion. j smith was just a prophet, same as john, same as noah, same as jonah. good guys. not God. as i said earlier, we believe in the bible as the word of God. i am not sure that there are *any* religions out there that believe that the bible is the word of God that do not accept Christ as their personal Savior.
i am not sure if any of you have ever asked a mormon for his/her testimony, asked what they believe in, asked where their salvation comes from, asked Who is the author of that salvation, etc. if anyone wants to ask me, feel free. if you are going to take the time to ask though, take the time to listen. i hate the threads that start out, 'what do mormons believe?' and then continually decide to ignore what we say we believe in and tell us that we are wrong, that we really believe in (see above paragraph about demonic ceremonies, growing horns, etc).
Yes I have spoken to a mormon about the religion, asked numerous questions.
Heres My point. chronologically If KJV bible exists in 1600 (ish) and it states Gal 1:8-9. Then JS shows up. (and Im not the first to question his visions{ id put vision in quotes, but im afraid youd go off again) how do YOU know JS was not talking to an angel sent to decieve.
To clarify
I am not typing with a (OMG they are all going to hell, ill show them how with all my pre-highlighted versed from the anti-mormon track) attitude.
I am curious, you get this all the time (right?) how do you answer, to convince me I need The Bible to show me cuz I dont believe in the mormon (not sure how to type; books?) words, I dont think their scripture, so show me in the scripture i know. does not the bible say " have every man an answer"?
i hope that this illuminates something of our beliefs.
As fot the hundresmillionth time your typing the same thing......I havent heard it. If you dont want to bother....dont.
Zimbabwe,
I really hope that someday our paths cross. I think we both would find that outside of our passion for our own beliefs, that we really are not monsters. I have no personal animosity with you.
If I at times write "aggressively", please don't take it in like I'm demeaning you or others LDS here. My passion for what we believe as the truth sometimes comes out incorrectly, which isn't productive. I apologize for my short comings. At times I have multiple thoughts running through my head and end up combining them into one. Sure, you have every right to shoot back when I lose tact and I deserve it.
Take care,
Twin.
last night i spent over an hour responding to these last posts, and had my computer eat the entire message when i hit the post button.
i suppose it is probably better for you all this way, as there will not be one giant post. i will attempt to cut it up into smaller posts.
ahem.
Quote:
If your so tired to respond to yet another 'Born Againer' who doesnt get it,
Dont relpy. I want to talk to some one who lovingly WANTS to talk to me regarding these issues. I dont care about your ' boo hoo you think i have horns'. you assumed the 'rolling eyes' quotes- i aint no english major!!
i am certainly no english major either. my comments were an attempt at witty sarcasm. obviously i need to go to michael scott's school of improv and comedy.
i have no problem, and indeed enjoy, listening to (or reading) the questions and comments, and then replying, giving my own insight, and clarifying the actual beliefs of the church as opposed to the rumors and urban legends.
you mention twice that you think i am pouting about my 'everyone's picking on the mormons' attitude. i am sorry you saw it that way; wasn't even a remotest thought in my mind. i did not see your post as offensive or irritating in the least, just unfounded, and maybe a little hypocritical, but i am willing to concede that i severely misinterpreted the ??? and the "". i took it as a kind of roll-my-eyes-at-the-cult-inspired-nonsense, which would indeed have been ignorant and unfounded.
one of my qualms though, is when mormons are asked a question, the mormons answer, and their replies are ignored. example: someone (not gonna finger-point) asked a few threads ago if the mormons believe in salvation through faith, or through works. we answered faith (i'll admit i was the one that was miffed cuz i offered a very accurate, very comprehensive reply that i spent time and emotional attachment to, which was then sumarily ignored by everyone that had been accusing us of works-mongering--but this is a consistent problem when people walk into religious discussions with preconceived, emotionally biased notions about another group), but no one paid any attention. they did not care to hear our answers, even though they asked us the questions. they just wanted to make their point.
i am going to respond to some topics over the next couple of posts, not with the intent of proving me right, or of proving anyone else wrong, but of sincerely sharing what we--the mormons--believe. you can take it or leave it, but that is what we believe. i am not deluded, confused, mistaken, or astray from my church's teachings.
Hence the Jew might not care to hear about the new testament...
exactly. thus, using the old testament solely in order to convince someone that already believes in the ot, in order to convince them of the validity of the new testament does not make all that much sense. sure, it has happened, and it can still happen. but it is not a very well-grounded way to explore the possible validity of source B by just using source A, when people already think they know what they believe about source A.
this will come back in a later post when i respond to your question about how i know, and how can anyone know.
where i mentioned the normal views of mormons 'disrespecting' the bible and the Savior, i wasn't sure that this would be a category that you, nay624, would fit in, but i figured that it was common enough that even if you didn't, someone lurking around here did.
so i wanted to reiterate the fact that we relish the day when Christ returns, that the whole point and purpose of mormonism is to find Christ and to humbly accept His redmeption. and the bible is the chiefest of our works in that arena. i don't remember if it was here, on another thread, or in the one that my computer mangled, but i shared the words of elder holland as he spoke at conference over the weekend, saying that the holy bible is always the first book of scripture mentioned when we list the holy canon.
and yes, i was kidding about the utah mormon stuff. i am a utah mormon myself; my wife calls us utards. but either way, we don't do the pentagram-dancing, blood-letting, baby-stealing, goat-sacrificing thing either.
not probable- "preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you"
did YOU read the thread on 'mormon vs. NKJ'
i probably read the one you speak of, but am not positive because of the gigantomungus number of mormon threads that have been active here in the last few months. if you'd send me a link, i'd be happy to read the posts you're thinking of.
now, i assumed that you already knew what i was refering to when i said we didn't need to walk down that road again.
galatians 1:8-9 was written before the bible was compiled, and before other books of scripture were written. frankly though, it does not matter. it applies to later inspired works as much as it applies to those written beforehand. we were not being warned to stay away from other books, or other scrolls, other testimonies, but to stay away from other gospels. that is the key.
galatians had nothing to do with warning people to stick to the post-nicene creed doctrines of men, but the truth as it was originally, and would continue to be, revealed through authorized servants of God.
the same is true of revelations 22:18-19, and deuteronomy 4:2. both of them mandate us to not take away from, or add to the doctrine. obviously they were not refering to the bible (otherwise there would not have been anything in the way of prophecy or scripture after moses). they were referring to the gospel of Jesus Christ, as a whole.
but, the whole had not even been voiced yet, or at least written down. Christ Himself added the catalyst for the new testament, even after moses' words of precaution. that did not detract from moses' message, although it completed the law of moses. it added to it. revelation is similar. it cannot apply to the bible, again, because the bible was not compiled until centuries later. nor can it applky to further revelation or divine writ. because revelation was not the last book written. we would need to tear other books out of the bible as we now have it, and i am pretty sure that you would agree with me that such an act would be heart-breakingly horrific.
now, consider that. missing books from the bible.
we already know that we are missing books from the bible. off the top of my head, books that we *know* are missing: the (real) first epistle to the corinthians (which would make 2nd corinthians really 3rd corinthians), the 1st epistle of judas, the book of the battles of Jehova, and many others.
those are some of the known books. someone decided that they didn't rate scripture. the words of paul, the words of moses. i can only shrug. there were probably others that weren't lsot as a result of human ignorance. maybe fire, war (well, we all know that war is still human ignorance, but not specifically toward removing the holy word of God), flood, earthquake, etc destroyed some books.
how many other books are there? there are allusions to other books in the bible that scholars think might just be renamed books that we already have. but there are others that we are not even remotely sure of, and there are probably dozens that we are not even aware are lost.
how cool would it be to have the book of jacob? or the book of isaac? or to learn of jonah's repentence from his own hand? how much do you want to bet that moses did not write his account of the creation from oral historical tradition? how much do you want to bet that he condensed volumes of other scripture that had been written by earlier servants? how would you like to be able to read the book of enoch, or the book of adam?
i am certain that many of these would be merely history--not divine revelation. but there are certainly others among them. what of the lost ten tribes? they were to have their own prophets among them. do you think that they recorded their prophecies and their historical strivings with God? would these be of no use to the rest of us, merely because they were for an obscure people?
the point is that galatians, revelation, deut, and any other scriptures that warn of the tampering of God's word refer to His gospel in its entirety, to His plan of salvation. the mormons believe that the book of mormon is another evidence of that salvation, and of Christ's role. to us, galatians applies as much as protective warning over the words of the book of mormon as it does to the new and old testaments.
that is how we see it.
there will be more. but i have to go to class. aaron out.
Zimbabwe,
I really hope that someday our paths cross. I think we both would find that outside of our passion for our own beliefs, that we really are not monsters. I have no personal animosity with you.
If I at times write "aggressively", please don't take it in like I'm demeaning you or others LDS here. My passion for what we believe as the truth sometimes comes out incorrectly, which isn't productive. I apologize for my short comings. At times I have multiple thoughts running through my head and end up combining them into one. Sure, you have every right to shoot back when I lose tact and I deserve it.
Take care,
Twin.
Twin:
Thanks very much! I really appreciate your comments and it makes me feel a lot better. Your words above are the best evidence of your Christian spirit! I respect you because you are so knowledgable and you don't indulge in the kind of Mormon bashing that ended up closing the other thread we were on. You almost always confine your comments to doctrine and scriptures which is why I was surprised at the way you opened this thread. I admit I got my feelings hurt and I fired back. If you make mistakes, I make them just as much and probably more. Feel free to express yourself. I won't take offense just because you are vigorous and forceful in your beliefs.
Zimbabwe
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.
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.
