Christians who are not Mormons

8kvscdpglqnyr4

I rarley post on boards but I do drop in to read from time to time so forgive me if this has been discussed before.

As a Christian, do you reject what Mormons (Latter Day Saints) profess? Do you know enough about their religion to reject it (be honest)? If you do reject it, then why?

I'm not well read on religon, but it seems to me that because the events around Joseph Smith happened less than 200 years should make it as(more) believable than something that happened 2000 years ago. I've always thought that if Jesus really was the son of God, then surely he/God would make a comeback ever century or so just to make sure we all know who really is the boss;)

If you can accept something that occured 2000 years ago based on a book written over several decades by several authors, on what grounds can you reject the book or Mormon?

Run_to_da_hills

Gianluca Flaky Elk wrote: »

I rarley post on boards but I do drop in to read from time to time so forgive me if this has been discussed before.

As a Christian, do you reject what Mormons (Latter Day Saints) profess? Do you know enough about their religion to reject it (be honest)? If you do reject it, then why?

I reject the Mormonism because it totally deny the diety of Christ! The God of the Bible emphatically says that there is ONLY ONE GOD (Deuteronomy 6:4) and He will not share His glory with another (Isaiah 42:8). The Bible talks a lot about false prophets and I would consider Joseph Smith leader and founder of the Mormons in 1830 as one.

Gianluca Flaky Elk wrote: »

I'm not well read on religon, but it seems to me that because the events around Joseph Smith happened less than 200 years should make it as(more) believable than something that happened 2000 years ago. I've always thought that if Jesus really was the son of God, then surely he/God would make a comeback ever century or so just to make sure we all know who really is the boss;)

Jesus spifically warned us about false teachers and those that preach "another Gospel" Jesus also gave us some indications of his return, (He dosen't even know himself when he will return!) He never specified any time as many cults often put dates and figures however he gave us hints as to when we are near the time of his return.

Gianluca Flaky Elk wrote: »

If you can accept something that occured 2000 years ago based on a book written over several decades by several authors, on what grounds can you reject the book or Mormon?

Concerning the Bible, it was not written by men- "Knowing this first, that NO prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were MOVED by the Holy Ghost." -2nd Peter 1:20,21

Mormonism adds to the Bible and preaches "another Gospel". Specifically the Book of Mormon, written by its founder Joseph Smith. Mormonism is also closely knitted to freemasonary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry_and_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement One cannot be both a Christian and a Freemason its a contradiction in terms.

God gives some stern warnings for those who would add to His word or take away from it...

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." -Revelation 22:18,19

Joseph Smith added to the word of God, which is totally forbidded, The Bible says yea, "let God be true and EVERY man a liar". Romans 3vs4

philologos

Gianluca Flaky Elk wrote: »

I rarley post on boards but I do drop in to read from time to time so forgive me if this has been discussed before.

As a Christian, do you reject what Mormons (Latter Day Saints) profess? Do you know enough about their religion to reject it (be honest)? If you do reject it, then why?

I'm not well read on religon, but it seems to me that because the events around Joseph Smith happened less than 200 years should make it as(more) believable than something that happened 2000 years ago. I've always thought that if Jesus really was the son of God, then surely he/God would make a comeback ever century or so just to make sure we all know who really is the boss;)

If you can accept something that occured 2000 years ago based on a book written over several decades by several authors, on what grounds can you reject the book or Mormon?

Thank you for this post. Can I ask you why if you are a Mormon, you reject say the Bhagavad Gita, the Vedas, the Pali Canon and the Qu'ran?

I don't see the Book of Mormon as having as much authenticity as to the Bible through the various historical links and connections with the world in which it was based in. Also, the Spirit doesn't guide me to look at the Book of Mormon. The truth of the Almighty is contained in the Bible. There will be no more revelations until the final judgement. This is my belief by the way.

Zombrex

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Joseph Smith added to the Bible

So did every book in the New Testament

The bits about the false prophets are in the Old Testament, and all the Jew all thought Jesus and his followers were false prophets for the same reason you think Smith is one.

So if you judge false prophets as people who add to the Bible when the Bible says false prophets will add to the Bible, then you should ignore the New Testament. And probably be Jewish.

robindch

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

I reject the Mormonism because its straight from the pits of hell [...] false prophets [...] false teachers [...] The cult of Mormonism [...] If you remain deceived [...] cults [...] dirty lie of the Devil [...] he is a liar and is burning in Hell today

Nothing like a good dose of hellfire to get people going on a dreary Wednesday evening, eh?

Keep it up!

philologos

Run_to_da_hills: It's clear we have differences in telling people what is what in relation to Christianity. I don't feel that I have the authority to tell someone that they are either admitted to heaven or hell, that is up to the Almighty.

Run_to_da_hills

Jakkass wrote: »

Run_to_da_hills: It's clear we have differences in telling people what is what in relation to Christianity. I don't feel that I have the authority to tell someone that they are either admitted to heaven or hell, that is up to the Almighty.

Would you put our lord to the test by tampering with his word and then go preaching a different gospel altogether other than salvation in Christ alone?

RealJohn

I won't condemn anyone if they believe in the same God I do (and I won't comdemn them anyway as it's not my place to do so) as I feel that they have the basic idea right and God would not banish to hell those who believe in Him. They might earn themselves a few extra years working off their sins in Purgatory but at the end of the day, our God is a forgiving God and I don't feel He would condemn those who follow Him just because they got led off the right path.

By extension of that, I don't feel Muslims, Mormons or Jews are destined for hell. I'm a Catholic but I know I'm far from a perfect example of Catholisism and I imagine that I will have time to work off myself, so I don't feel as though I'm necessarily any better in God's eyes than anyone who truely believes, even if they don't follow the path I try to follow.

It takes strength to follow Catholisism to the letter, a strength I suspect few (if any) of us here have. I strive to be a better Catholic but it won't happen today or tomorrow.
Similarly, I believe that anyone who is pure of heart and soul and wishes to follow what God wants, even if they have been led astray, is not necessarily hellbound.

Now these Mormons don't know what they believe.
Not that the Christian guy is exactly meek about it but I thought it was amusing.

philologos

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Would you put our lord to the test by tampering with his word and then go preaching a different gospel altogether other than salvation in Christ alone?

Absolutely not, but there are more ways to put the message across instead of telling people they are going to hell. To teach Christ one should not dwell on scaremongering, there is a practical use to Christianity in daily life, wouldn't you agree? Then why not talk of the benefits and what people can do with their lives. Positive is the way to go in my opinion.

kelly1

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I reject the Mormonism because its straight from the pits of hell because they totally deny the diety of Christ!

Nothing like shooting straight from the hip! Blast them all with fire and brimstone (especially the Catholics and the anti-Christ, the Pope)

Fanny Cradock

I sense another 'in-house' brawl

philologos

As do I. But I feel it's important that all respect God's authority in issues of damnation. I would like to speak to members of the LDS more about their faith, I have spoken with a particular member on MSN. There are theological differences that I could never accept, however I will respect the word of my neighbour should they be willing to discuss it.

Wicknight wrote:

The bits about the false prophets are in the Old Testament, and all the Jew all thought Jesus and his followers were false prophets for the same reason you think Smith is one.

According to the New Testament itself (I will however admit that this is not very objective), but it says that the people thought of John the Baptist and Jesus to be prophets. Herod feared killing John for this reason, and the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law were unable to say that John the Baptist did not gain his Authority from God. The verse that leads to the common concept of Christology also claims that Jesus was though as a prophet, along with sections of the Gospel of John.

Deuteronomy 18:18 allows scope for the earthly prophesy of Jesus Christ, however it does not allow scope for Joseph Smith. However the Apostles were prophets and Paul had seen much from Jesus Christ in visions according to his letters. The first of these revelations being on the road to Damascus. However Jesus warned against false prophets, and the translation of the sources of the Book of Mormon (whereas there is both historical and factual basis behind much of the sources behind the Gospels) is a bit dubious. Joseph is reported to have translated it using seer stones in a hat.

Asiaprod

Run_to_da_hills that initial post of yours is way over the top and arguably violates the charter. Tone it down please.
Asia

Run_to_da_hills

Asiaprod wrote: »

Run_to_da_hills that initial post of yours is way over the top and arguably violates the charter. Tone it down please.
Asia

Sorry, I got a bit carried away, Ive just removed the sting from it.:o

8kvscdpglqnyr4

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I reject the Mormonism because it totally deny the diety of Christ! The God of the Bible emphatically says

Damn ... only logged back on now and I missed the post of the day:D

8kvscdpglqnyr4

Jakkass wrote: »

Thank you for this post. Can I ask you why if you are a Mormon, you reject say the Bhagavad Gita, the Vedas, the Pali Canon and the Qu'ran?

I'm not a Mormon.
I do reject the Bhagavad Gita, the Vedas, the Pali Canon and the Qu'ran ... and the Bible as well. I'm an atheist and I'm trying to get my head around why most Christians I know of think Mormons are "nuts". I'm not stating every Christian thinks like this, however ALL Christians I've every had this conversation with have sneered at Mormons. When I listen to them talk about Mormons, they gasp in disbelief at the crazy tales Mormons believe (golden tablets, book of Mormon, ... etc). These tales sound all too familiar to me:D

Looking at Christanity from the outside, I find it hard to see why every Christian isn't a Mormon. How can a Christian reject the book of Mormon and not any books of the Bible? If I could manage to believe any of the books of the Bible were true, then I imagine it woundn't be a huge leap of faith to add one more book to it (i.e. the book of Mormon).

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

God gives some stern warnings for those who would add to His word or take away from it...

How can you quote the Bible to reject the book of Mormon? You are quoting one Christian book that is divinely revealed to refute the claims of another divinely revealed Christian book ... the irony!

Run_to_da_hills

Gianluca Flaky Elk wrote: »

How can you quote the Bible to reject the book of Mormon? You are quoting one Christian book that is divinely revealed to refute the claims of another divinely revealed Christian book ... the irony!

Who said the book of mormon is a divine revealed Christian book? If you go to a market and pick up a bootleg dvd of the latest movie you will know well that it is a counterfeit, the picture quality is poor, sound can be distorted and the ink on the cover is faded. likewise would be the same for a "counterfeit" of the teachings of Christ.

The Bible is full of warnings against error and the corruption of God's revelation. That's because Satan and his demons are working overtime corrupting God's truth, propagating worldwide error, and confusing people through organised religion.

philologos

Gianluca Flaky Elk wrote: »

How can you quote the Bible to reject the book of Mormon? You are quoting one Christian book that is divinely revealed to refute the claims of another divinely revealed Christian book ... the irony!

There are distinct differences between mainline Christian theology and Mormonism. I'd accept it as Christian based, but not distinctly Christian. It shares the same status as Rastafarism in my view.

Run_to_da_hills

Jakkass wrote: »

There are distinct differences between mainline Christian theology and Mormonism. I'd accept it as Christian based, but not distinctly Christian. It shares the same status as Rastafarism in my view.

Just because it contains words and names that are found in the Bible dose not necessary make it out to be "Christian" based. If Satan wants to do a good job and trick someone he will not come up with a blatent lie, he will hide himself in the meat!

The Bible in 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 warns of Satan's counterfeit: "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness, "

BrianCalgary

I reject Mormonism because it denies the deity of Christ.

It speaks of a civilisation in North America that never did exist.

It's theology goes agianst the teachings of the Bible.

When Joseph Smith received his vision and directions to the plates on Cumorah he should have tested the plates teachings with the teachings of Christ. He would have found definite teachings that wre not in agreement with the teachings of Christ and rejected them as being false.

Teachings on marriage, godhood and salvation come immediately to mind. As well as the teaching of who Christ is.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I reject Mormonism because it denies the deity of Christ.

Pretty sure Mormons believe that Jesus was God. They don't believe in the Trinity. But sure judging by this forum neither do half the Christians who wander on here. They see Jesus as a separate entity, but still the one "God".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godhead_%28Latter_Day_Saints%29

bonkey

From my perspective, Mormons seem to be yet another group who insist that their belief is the true Christianity, and that others may call themselves such but aren't really Christian.

Unlike most of these other groups, they seem to invoke less acceptance and more rejection from their fellow Christian-claimant faiths.

po0k

I reject Mormons because any rational being capable of analytical thought can see that it is a scam from a charlatan that too many people thought was a good idea/revenue stream.
It is Snakeoil and utter ball sausage.

Nevyn

SyxPak wrote: »

I reject Mormons because any rational being capable of analytical thought can see that it is a scam from a charlatan that too many people thought was a good idea/revenue stream.
It is Snakeoil and utter ball sausage.

You mean you are not swayed by the magical mystical underwear ?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_garment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9upYoCHyCv4

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

Pretty sure Mormons believe that Jesus was God. They don't believe in the Trinity. But sure judging by this forum neither do half the Christians who wander on here. They see Jesus as a separate entity, but still the one "God".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godhead_%28Latter_Day_Saints%29

They see Jesus as being 'a' god. Whereas teh Bible states that there is only one God. The Bible also states that Jesus is "God with us".

Mormonism also teaches that when you die you eventually become a god yourslef and get your planet to populate, hence the need for a heavenly wife.

Also your wife can only get to Heaven if yoy the husband allow her to get in.

All quite at odds with Christianity.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote: »

They see Jesus as being 'a' god. Whereas teh Bible states that there is only one God. The Bible also states that Jesus is "God with us".

Mormonism also teaches that when you die you eventually become a god yourslef and get your planet to populate, hence the need for a heavenly wife.

Also your wife can only get to Heaven if yoy the husband allow her to get in.

All quite at odds with Christianity.

On the other hand, it sounds like a very good bet for Pascal's Wager - the more so since, afaik, you can be converted after you're dead.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote: »

On the other hand, it sounds like a very good bet for Pascal's Wager - the more so since, afaik, you can be converted after you're dead.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I trust that you are speaking of the Mormon practice of baptising the dead?

The theology of becoming a god and populating your own planet precipitated the necessity for having many wives in order to fulfil the arduous task of bearing so many children. A friend of mine once noted that Mormonism was started by a bunch of dirty old men who wanted to have the maid legally.

With the man making the decision to bring the woman across the veil means that th ewoman is completely dependant upon th eman for her salvation.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

They see Jesus as being 'a' god. Whereas teh Bible states that there is only one God.

Again, having lived with a Mormon in college (strange, strange fellow), I'm pretty sure they see Jesus as being the one "God".

The book of Mormon describes God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Ghost as being the "one God"

Jesus is a separate being from the Father, but they are all the one God

Book of Mormon, Moshiah, Chapter 15 wrote:

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall bcome down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—
3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

I suppose at the end of the day it comes down to what one means by "god" or "God"

My (limited) understand is that all the "gods" that Mormons talk about are actually pieces of God's spirit. Basically everything is God.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The theology of becoming a god and populating your own planet precipitated the necessity for having many wives in order to fulfil the arduous task of bearing so many children. A friend of mine once noted that Mormonism was started by a bunch of dirty old men who wanted to have the maid legally.

You would make a good atheist Brian

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote: »

You would make a good atheist Brian

Well, he is an atheist - he's just atheist about one less God.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Run_to_da_hills

Thaedydal wrote: »

You mean you are not swayed by the magical mystical underwear ?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_garment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9upYoCHyCv4

Do I spot the St Bernard label?

JC 2K3

Thaedydal wrote: »

You mean you are not swayed by the magical mystical underwear ?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_garment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9upYoCHyCv4

I'm sold!

Anyway, you Christians are just dismissing Mormonism just like the Jews dismissed Christianity all those years ago.

Run_to_da_hills

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I'm sold!

Anyway, you Christians are just dismissing Mormonism just like the Jews dismissed Christianity all those years ago.

There is a difference. The Prophecy of the forthcoming of Jesus was made plane to the Jews right throughout Isaiah but because Judaism is steeped in man made tradition and rituals to this day just like other Christian religions rather than being based on the inspired Word of God so they rejected Christ. (There is a growing number of Messianic Jews).

"He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were [our] faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed". Isaiah 53.

The following would warn you on the likes of Mormonism: "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." Matthew 7:15.

JC 2K3

Was Jesus not supposed to bring world peace and a host of other things promised in scripture that he didn't deliver though?

(I only have a vague understanding of this, don't crucify me if I'm wrong )

Run_to_da_hills

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Was Jesus not supposed to bring world peace and a host of other things promised in scripture that he didn't deliver though?

(I only have a vague understanding of this, don't crucify me if I'm wrong )

Jesus, by no means came to bring peace, but to divide his children from the world. Pasters and Christian leaders should do the same. But so called Christian leaders such as the Pope do the exact oposite, they try bring unity and world peace. Christians are to be seperate and holy and not of this world. Jesus said that families would be split up over him. My family is certainly split up.

"Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." Luke 12vs51

Zombrex

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

There is a difference. The Prophecy of the forthcoming of Jesus was made plane to the Jews right throughout Isaiah but because Judaism is steeped in man made tradition and rituals to this day just like other Christian religions rather than being based on the inspired Word of God so they rejected Christ.

Thats great, except Isaiah 35 isn't about the messiah, its about Israel.

"My servant" is explained in numerous other passages in Isaiah to refer to Israel itself.

Isaiah 41:9
[Thou] whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou [art] my servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away.

Run_to_da_hills

Wicknight wrote: »

Thats great, except Isaiah 35 isn't about the messiah, its about Israel.

Isaiah 35 is not Isaiah 53, nor is it Isaiah 7:14 both of which predicted Christ.

One of the points of contention between Christians and Jews is the proper interpretation of Isaiah 7:14. If you read Matthew 1:22-23, it's easy to see why:

"Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us". Matthew 1:22/23

The author of the Gospel of Matthew was quoting Isaiah 7:14. Let us examine this verse:

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.


Israel was/is considered the "Fig tree",

Zombrex

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Isaiah 35 is not Isaiah 53, nor is it Isaiah 7:14 both of which predicted Christ.

Isaiah 52:13
Behold, My servant will prosper,
He will be high and lifted up and greatly exalted.

The "servant" of God is not Jesus, it is Israel itself. It says this in numerous other passages in Isaiah.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Pretty sure Jesus wasn't named Immanuel.

Also, what land of 2 kings was forsaken while Jesus was a child?

Run_to_da_hills

Wicknight wrote: »

Isaiah 52:13 Behold, My servant will prosper, He will be high and lifted up and greatly exalted. The "servant" of God is not Jesus, it is Israel itself. It says this in numerous other passages in Isaiah. Pretty sure Jesus wasn't named Immanuel.

Isaiah 52:13 is not Isaiah 53 although this is also clearly speaking of the coming Messiah.

Matthew 1 23 reads "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us".

Immanuel or Emmanuel or Imanu'el (עִמָּנוּאֵל "God [is] with us" consists of two Hebrew words: אל (El, meaning 'God') and עמנו (Immanu, meaning 'with us'); Standard Hebrew ʻImmanuʼel, Tiberian Hebrew ʻImmānûʼēl). It is a name used in the Bible in Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 8:8. It also appears in Matthew 1:23 in the Christian New Testament.

Zombrex

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Isaiah 52:13 is not Isaiah 53 although this is also clearly speaking of the coming Messiah.

The original writing didn't have chapters. Biblical scholars (both Jewish and Christian) accept that it is all the same piece, the "person" (ie Israel) being spoken about at the end of 52 is the same person in 53.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Matthew 1 23 reads "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us".

What the Christians said after Jesus was born is rather irrelevant. For a prophecy to be considered relevant it has to correct predict the future before the fact.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Immanuel or Emmanuel or Imanu'el (עִמָּנוּאֵל "God [is] with us" consists of two Hebrew words: אל (El, meaning 'God') and עמנו (Immanu, meaning 'with us'); Standard Hebrew ʻImmanuʼel, Tiberian Hebrew ʻImmānûʼēl). It is a name used in the Bible in Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 8:8. It also appears in Matthew 1:23 in the Christian New Testament.

None of that changes the fact that Jesus' name wasn't Immanuel.

If someone stretches it enough one can make any prophecy fit anything, particularly in the context of this thread.

It is rather pointless giving out about the Mormons not holding to a strict interpretation of the Bible when none of the rest of you do either.

ryoishin

The world council of churches came to an agreement that to be a Christian a faith must profess that they believe in One God who is Trinitarian. I think that this excluded 6 self proclaimed Christian faiths (could be wrong on the number) but one of which was Mormonism. I think it had something to do with God living on another planet and therefore existing within time and space and being subject to time means getting old and dying meaning that one is not divine and so not God.

Run_to_da_hills

ryoishin wrote: »

The world council of churches came to an agreement that to be a Christian a faith must profess that they believe in One God who is Trinitarian. I think that this excluded 6 self proclaimed Christian faiths (could be wrong on the number) but one of which was Mormonism. I think it had something to do with God living on another planet and therefore existing within time and space and being subject to time means getting old and dying meaning that one is not divine and so not God.

It has always been the desire of the Devil to get all of us under one canopy and his favourite tool is through ecumenism. Organised religion is never of God but is of the Devil. The World Council of Churches is not of God. A Christian Church should be separate from any such an organisation. http://www.wcc-coe.org/

ryoishin

I think thats a bot extreme. to hold that view would mean that all those involved in the world council of churches are abandoned by God.

However I dont know much about the world council of churches it just came up in college at one stage. Im sure they have negative and positive points but I would agree that the Trinity is core to Christianity.

Run_to_da_hills

ryoishin wrote: »

I think thats a bot extreme. to hold that view would mean that all those involved in the world council of churches are abandoned by God. .

Its a case of the World Council of Churches abondoning the Word of God.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Mormonism also teaches that when you die you eventually become a god yourslef

Run brought up an interesting point that I wasn't aware of, that Satan himself is referred to as a "god" in the Bible, the god of this world.

Is it possible that Mormons are using this term in this way. And does that contradict the Bible?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Run brought up an interesting point that I wasn't aware of, that Satan himself is referred to as a "god" in the Bible, the god of this world.

Is it possible that Mormons are using this term in this way. And does that contradict the Bible?

I don't think that Satan's designation as 'the god of this age' means much more than if we said, "Americans have made money their god". It signifies that Satan is honoured by society's standards. It may well also refer to him exercising some level of authority over this present age - but that is a far cry from the biblical doctrine of God as the Eternal Creator.

Mormon doctrine declares that God is not Eternal, but was once a man on another planet who managed to get promoted to Godness and therefore now rules over our planet. This concept of God as a localised deity certainly contradicts the biblical idea of one God as the Eternal Lord of heaven and earth.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

Again, having lived with a Mormon in college (strange, strange fellow), I'm pretty sure they see Jesus as being the one "God".

The book of Mormon describes God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Ghost as being the "one God"

Jesus is a separate being from the Father, but they are all the one God



I suppose at the end of the day it comes down to what one means by "god" or "God"

My (limited) understand is that all the "gods" that Mormons talk about are actually pieces of God's spirit. Basically everything is God.

That is one interesting quote. Thanks.

We in Southern Alberta are surrounded by Mormons. My son is just after spending a sleepover birthday party where there was one present. My son was quite interested to hear this young fellows understandings of who God is.

It doesn't seem to agree with that statment from the book.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

Run brought up an interesting point that I wasn't aware of, that Satan himself is referred to as a "god" in the Bible, the god of this world.

Is it possible that Mormons are using this term in this way. And does that contradict the Bible?

PDN said it well.
The concept of a lower case 'god' is anything that is the priority in our life. There are those who would claim that my god is football, with the shrines being Old Trafford and the Brandywell. (one of which I have been to )

Satan is the 'god' of this world and he is the one who gets worshipped in a round about way.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Mormon doctrine declares that God is not Eternal, but was once a man on another planet who managed to get promoted to Godness and therefore now rules over our planet. This concept of God as a localised deity certainly contradicts the biblical idea of one God as the Eternal Lord of heaven and earth.

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/godhead/farms_man.htm

Well the Mormons, surprisingly, disagree