• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Purpose

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
@BilliardsBall every time I think we (the LDS) are making some headway into helping you understand our theology, you let us down by saying something hateful and malicious. You're really just looking for reasons to justify your contempt for us. @Jane.Doe did not say that there was no such place as Hell. She simply indicated the place of eternal torment you believe so many, many of God's children are destined for is not, in fact, eternal at all. Those who refuse to embrace Jesus Christ and accept His atoning sacrifice will be punished for their own sins throughout the Millennium -- not in a "Lake of Fire", though, but in the "Spirit Prison," which, I can assure you they would describe as "hell" -- and will rise in the Second Resurrection to enter Heaven at that time. By then, these people too will have come to the realization that Jesus is the Christ. They too will acknowledge Him but will not receive the benefit of His having paid for their sins. The only ones whose sins cannot be forgiven and who will spend eternity completely removed from God's glory are those who committed blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. This may not be what you believe, but it's high time you came to the realization that everyone who disagrees with you is not part of a "cult," but part of Christianity, despite the fact that they understand certain Christian doctrines differently than you do. Why must you behave in such an un-Christlike manner?

First, I asked my questions in the form of questions and not accusations. There was no need to be belligerent. Nor did I EVER say that EVERYONE who disagrees with me is cultic. I DO SAY the LDS has many doctrines that are absolutely not biblical.

No other sect who has studied the Bible ever came up with the alterations to sound doctrine like the LDS has, like "Spirit Prison first, then repentance after death, second," especially since the Bible is contrary, "It is appointed to persons to die, then comes the final judgment."

Let's agree peacefully, which IS Christlike. LDS teaches the Bible is incomplete and needs commentary and revelation, therefore the LDS books. These books along with the LDS prophets, doctrines and official modern statements often agree with the Bible--often also disagree with it--universalism and promising people they will escape eternal Hell is a terrible thing to do if eternal Hell without possibility of repentance is real, therefore, there is a separation where all born agains who love the Bible must reject Mormon doctrine.
 

Jane.Doe

Active Member
No other sect who has studied the Bible ever came up with the alterations to sound doctrine like the LDS has, like "Spirit Prison first, then repentance after death, second," especially since the Bible is contrary, "It is appointed to persons to die, then comes the final judgment."
LDS aren't sola scriptura, so that's not much of critique....
Let's agree peacefully, which IS Christlike.
I do agree with this-- but "peacefully" doesn't include calling other people's faith a 'cult'.
LDS teaches the Bible is incomplete and needs commentary and revelation
A much much better way of phrasing things would be: LDS believe that God is still alive and still speaks to His children.
It's not about the Bible being 'incomplete', it's about a living loving God still actively speaking to His children. The Bible was never mean tot be a love letter from a dead God.
-universalism
LDS aren't universalists. Many of the other statements here are also inaccurate.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
First, I asked my questions in the form of questions and not accusations. There was no need to be belligerent. Nor did I EVER say that EVERYONE who disagrees with me is cultic. I DO SAY the LDS has many doctrines that are absolutely not biblical.
Having doctrines that are "not biblical" is not the same thing as having doctrines that are "anti-biblical." You seem to think that unless something is specifically spelled out in the Bible, it couldn't possibly be true. Unfortunately, not even the Bible supports that premise.

No other sect who has studied the Bible ever came up with the alterations to sound doctrine like the LDS has, like "Spirit Prison first, then repentance after death, second," especially since the Bible is contrary, "It is appointed to persons to die, then comes the final judgment."
There is considerable evidence that the "sound doctrine" of the first couple of centuries after Christ's death had a whole lot more in common with Mormon doctrine than it did with Protestant doctrine. You simply haven't studied it, but scholars have, and they know that the Spirit Prison which was mentioned in the Bible continued to be a part of Christian doctrine for quite some time after Christ established His Church. By the way, you added the word "final" to Hebrews 9:27. There is, in fact, a judgment right after death, but the "final judgment" will not take place until the Second Coming of Christ. I would have thought you'd have known that.

Let's agree peacefully, which IS Christlike. LDS teaches the Bible is incomplete and needs commentary and revelation, therefore the LDS books. These books along with the LDS prophets, doctrines and official modern statements often agree with the Bible--often also disagree with it--universalism and promising people they will escape eternal Hell is a terrible thing to do if eternal Hell without possibility of repentance is real, therefore, there is a separation where all born agains who love the Bible must reject Mormon doctrine.
You think it's a terrible thing to preach that God will allow everyone to hear the gospel before they are judged? I totally disagree. I believe it's a terrible thing to teach that the billions of good people who lived and died having never heard of Jesus Christ will be destined to suffer eternally for something that was completely beyond their control. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
LDS aren't sola scriptura, so that's not much of critique....

I do agree with this-- but "peacefully" doesn't include calling other people's faith a 'cult'.

A much much better way of phrasing things would be: LDS believe that God is still alive and still speaks to His children.
It's not about the Bible being 'incomplete', it's about a living loving God still actively speaking to His children. The Bible was never mean tot be a love letter from a dead God.

LDS aren't universalists. Many of the other statements here are also inaccurate.

Katzpur used the term "incomplete", regardless, it is offensive to us Bible-thumpers to hear that God required fresh revelation 1,800 years into the church dispensation/age, and that this fresh revelation disagrees with the Bible in hundreds of Bible passages.

I likewise believe God still speaks to His children, but God does not write one volume of scripture than go back on His Word and change His mind in any revelation. Isaiah says "If they speak not according to this Word, they are in darkness." No Bible-contradicting doctrine can stand.

The Bible definition of a cult includes controlling marriage and food (see 1 Tim 4). It is a requirement for peace among Christians that they be in the church universal and not in cultic groups.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Katzpur used the term "incomplete", regardless, it is offensive to us Bible-thumpers to hear that God required fresh revelation 1,800 years into the church dispensation/age, and that this fresh revelation disagrees with the Bible in hundreds of Bible passages.
No it doesn't! It disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Having doctrines that are "not biblical" is not the same thing as having doctrines that are "anti-biblical." You seem to think that unless something is specifically spelled out in the Bible, it couldn't possibly be true. Unfortunately, not even the Bible supports that premise.

There is considerable evidence that the "sound doctrine" of the first couple of centuries after Christ's death had a whole lot more in common with Mormon doctrine than it did with Protestant doctrine. You simply haven't studied it, but scholars have, and they know that the Spirit Prison which was mentioned in the Bible continued to be a part of Christian doctrine for quite some time after Christ established His Church. By the way, you added the word "final" to Hebrews 9:27. There is, in fact, a judgment right after death, but the "final judgment" will not take place until the Second Coming of Christ. I would have thought you'd have known that.

You think it's a terrible thing to preach that God will allow everyone to hear the gospel before they are judged? I totally disagree. I believe it's a terrible thing to teach that the billions of good people who lived and died having never heard of Jesus Christ will be destined to suffer eternally for something that was completely beyond their control. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

I agree, one can be unbiblical without being directly opposed to the Bible. However, it may be worse to preach that eternal doesn't exist, allowing persons we evangelize to coast, knowing they will hear the gospel after they die--without it being too late.

I'm aware that the final judgment comes after the Second Coming. The judgment "right after death" that you wrote about is to be ushered into the presence of the Lord or to the place of suffering described in Luke 16.

I'm also an inclusivist--I believe everyone who hasn't heard of Jesus has an opportunity(s) to be saved, but to be consistent with the Bible, it is in this life only that one's eternal standing is assured.

Also, I'm aware of many of the ideas of the "early church fathers", the point being that some of the "earliest" ones were centuries after Jesus and the NT, believed heresies in many cases, and ushered in the church of Rome in others, which currently remains a place where the saving gospel has been changed from "trust Jesus" to "do all you can, because your works count for salvation". My question isn't "Did Tertullian believe in a Spirit Prison" but "Is there a Spirit Prison in the scriptures?" There is--those within are reserved only for eternal suffering (Peter, Jude, Revelation)!

If you want to continue discussing, respectfully, please stop putting words in my mouth. I NEVER wrote "it's a terrible thing to allow everyone to hear the gospel before they're judged," and I would WELCOME a post-death opportunity for unbelieving friends, family, even strangers, to receive Jesus after they died as skeptics, atheists and immoral persons. I'd LOVE that, but the Bible guides my conscience.

And if I didn't LOVE the gospel going to everyone, I wouldn't evangelize when I'm off the forums! PLEASE stop telling me what I think.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
I agree, one can be unbiblical without being directly opposed to the Bible. However, it may be worse to preach that eternal doesn't exist, allowing persons we evangelize to coast, knowing they will hear the gospel after they die--without it being too late.
I think you're missing the point. If you think we go out and preach the gospel with the disclaimer that, "It's okay if you don't accept what we're saying; you'll get another chance after death," you have grossly misunderstood what we do and why. We stress the need of repentance here and now. On the other hand, we recognize the reality that there are extenuating circumstances in a person's life, that may affect how receptive he is to accepting the gospel. We are not so blind as to think that children growing up today in North Korea will ever even hear the name of Jesus Christ. We all "see through a glass, darkly" and for some, that darkness is not going to be lifted until after death.

I think you're looking at life and death from a strictly human perspective and forgetting that to God, we are merely passing from one state of existence to another when we die. When He told us to forgive 70 x 7, he wasn't telling us to forgive 490 times, but to stop counting their transgressions. Surely, God is more forgiving of us than we are of each other. God doesn't care whether our spirit is still residing in our body (i.e. we are "alive") or if our spirit has moved on to a new realm (i.e. our body is "dead"). God just wants us to come to know the truth. He doesn't have some sort of arbitrary cut-off point where everyone, regardless of their early circumstances, is going to be "saved" or "damned." We're not fortunate enough to be on a level playing field here on earth. He will provide one for us as we await the resurrection and final judgment. And this part of His plan was put into effect when Christ visited the spirits in prison.

I'm aware that the final judgment comes after the Second Coming. The judgment "right after death" that you wrote about is to be ushered into the presence of the Lord or to the place of suffering described in Luke 16.
Then what, pray tell, is the point of the "final judgment." If the judgment right after death is also final in its consequences, what need is there for a later judgment?

I'm also an inclusivist--I believe everyone who hasn't heard of Jesus has an opportunity(s) to be saved, but to be consistent with the Bible, it is in this life only that one's eternal standing is assured.
You're going to have to explain how that works. How's that opportunity going to come about? I need to hear an explanation that you do believe to be consistent with the Bible.

Also, I'm aware of many of the ideas of the "early church fathers", the point being that some of the "earliest" ones were centuries after Jesus and the NT, believed heresies in many cases, and ushered in the church of Rome in others, which currently remains a place where the saving gospel has been changed from "trust Jesus" to "do all you can, because your works count for salvation". My question isn't "Did Tertullian believe in a Spirit Prison" but "Is there a Spirit Prison in the scriptures?" There is--those within are reserved only for eternal suffering (Peter, Jude, Revelation)!
Of course, there's a spirit prison in the scriptures. 1 Peter 3:19 says the Lord went to preach there (in spirit form) during the three days his body lay in the tomb. 1 Peter 4:6 further explains that "the gospel [was] preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." Why on earth would Jesus Christ have preached to the spirits who were dead if it could be of no benefit to them?

If you want to continue discussing, respectfully, please stop putting words in my mouth. I NEVER wrote "it's a terrible thing to allow everyone to hear the gospel before they're judged," and I would WELCOME a post-death opportunity for unbelieving friends, family, even strangers, to receive Jesus after they died as skeptics, atheists and immoral persons. I'd LOVE that, but the Bible guides my conscience.
Oh brother! Talk about putting words in people's mouth. You do that all the time. I can't even begin to count the number of times you've paraphrased something I've said and done such a bad job of it that I was hardly even able to recognize in it what I had actually said! I'm glad the Bible guides your conscience. It also guides mine. But more than that, the Spirit guides my conscience in recognizing that a truly loving God would not cause anyone to suffer throughout eternity due to never having had the opportunity to hear, understand, and accept His Son's gospel.

And if I didn't LOVE the gospel going to everyone, I wouldn't evangelize when I'm off the forums! PLEASE stop telling me what I think.
Only if you will do the same, because you have told me what Mormons think and believe many, many, many times, despite my repeated attempts to help you understand what we really believe.
 
Last edited:

Jane.Doe

Active Member
Only if you will do the same, because you have told me what Mormons think and believe many, many, many times, despite my repeated attempts to help you understand what we really believe.
For me this is the big point: I'm really a proponent of letting people talk for themselves.

I'm happy to answer honest questions (as I'm sure most of us are), but when someone misrepresents another person's views or say "you're ______" and doesn't listen to correction.... that doesn't go over well for anyone.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Katzpur used the term "incomplete"...
So I did. And I'll say it again, word for word: The Bible is incomplete. The Bible actually tells us that if everything Jesus ever said or did had been written down, it would fill more than all the books in the world. You may feel that what whatever wasn't written down wasn't important, and that's your prerogative. When you stop to consider that Jesus' ministry lasted a full three years, you've got to admit that the four gospel accounts of His ministry really don't cover all that much. We have an accounting of a few of His conversations with people, His answers to questions He asked and a handful of sermons. Was He just talking about the likelihood of an upcoming storm on the Sea of Galilee or the price of a good sheep for all of the hundreds of hours of His time that we have no record of?

This is why I say it is incomplete and why the Bible itself states much the same thing.

...regardless, it is offensive to us Bible-thumpers to hear that God required fresh revelation 1,800 years into the church dispensation/age
I can't imagine why anything God had to say would be offensive to you. Do you have any idea how many times the biblical canon has changed since the second century? Books have been included only to later be excluded and visa versa. How do you know that the canon we have today is the "correct" one. Why couldn't it be the canon that was accepted back in the 8th century?

...and that this fresh revelation disagrees with the Bible in hundreds of Bible passages.
Except that it doesn't. As I've said about a hundred times now, it doesn't disagree with the Bible any more than Genesis 1 disagrees with Genesis 2. It's a matter of interpretation.

I likewise believe God still speaks to His children, but God does not write one volume of scripture than go back on His Word and change His mind in any revelation. Isaiah says "If they speak not according to this Word, they are in darkness." No Bible-contradicting doctrine can stand.
Blah, blah, blah. God didn't change His mind. He just said a few things you can't accept because they aren't in the Bible.

The Bible definition of a cult includes controlling marriage and food (see 1 Tim 4). It is a requirement for peace among Christians that they be in the church universal and not in cultic groups.
So stop calling Mormonism a cult. It doesn't meet even the most basic criteria.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
No it doesn't! It disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible.

Yes, that would be the only perspective that would make the LDS doctrines acceptable. However, take for example, eternal Hell, which is in both testaments and has been the clear interpretation of not only biblical sects but pseudo-Christian groups and most worldwide religions, for millennia.

To accept LDS doctrine, we not only must accept fresh encouragement in the written form from God, but that all Christians of all stripes were wrong about major doctrines, including the apostles who were eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ and wrote the New Testament.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I think you're missing the point. If you think we go out and preach the gospel with the disclaimer that, "It's okay if you don't accept what we're saying; you'll get another chance after death," you have grossly misunderstood what we do and why. We stress the need of repentance here and now. On the other hand, we recognize the reality that there are extenuating circumstances in a person's life, that may affect how receptive he is to accepting the gospel. We are not so blind as to think that children growing up today in North Korea will ever even hear the name of Jesus Christ. We all "see through a glass, darkly" and for some, that darkness is not going to be lifted until after death.

I think you're looking at life and death from a strictly human perspective and forgetting that to God, we are merely passing from one state of existence to another when we die. When He told us to forgive 70 x 7, he wasn't telling us to forgive 490 times, but to stop counting their transgressions. Surely, God is more forgiving of us than we are of each other. God doesn't care whether our spirit is still residing in our body (i.e. we are "alive") or if our spirit has moved on to a new realm (i.e. our body is "dead"). God just wants us to come to know the truth. He doesn't have some sort of arbitrary cut-off point where everyone, regardless of their early circumstances, is going to be "saved" or "damned." We're not fortunate enough to be on a level playing field here on earth. He will provide one for us as we await the resurrection and final judgment. And this part of His plan was put into effect when Christ visited the spirits in prison.

Then what, pray tell, is the point of the "final judgment." If the judgment right after death is also final in its consequences, what need is there for a later judgment?

You're going to have to explain how that works. How's that opportunity going to come about? I need to hear an explanation that you do believe to be consistent with the Bible.

Of course, there's a spirit prison in the scriptures. 1 Peter 3:19 says the Lord went to preach there (in spirit form) during the three days his body lay in the tomb. 1 Peter 4:6 further explains that "the gospel [was] preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." Why on earth would Jesus Christ have preached to the spirits who were dead if it could be of no benefit to them?

Oh brother! Talk about putting words in people's mouth. You do that all the time. I can't even begin to count the number of times you've paraphrased something I've said and done such a bad job of it that I was hardly even able to recognize in it what I had actually said! I'm glad the Bible guides your conscience. It also guides mine. But more than that, the Spirit guides my conscience in recognizing that a truly loving God would not cause anyone to suffer throughout eternity due to never having had the opportunity to hear, understand, and accept His Son's gospel.

Only if you will do the same, because you have told me what Mormons think and believe many, many, many times, despite my repeated attempts to help you understand what we really believe.

Thanks for your detailed response:

1) There are two judgments in the Bible: a judgment of believers for rewards, followed by a Heavenly banquet, and a judgment of nonbelievers

2) I'm an inclusivist as both testaments say "trust God", there are people who never heard of Christ who sincerely trust God for the afterlife and for guidance

3) I wrote in my previous post there is a Spirit Prison in the scriptures--the Bible says those held there are being held for a terrible judgment and says they are like those punished in Sodom and Gomorrah

4) I'm okay with us both paraphrasing--mistakes are made unintentionally by both of us--but I remark when people write what I'm thinking, which is different
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
So I did. And I'll say it again, word for word: The Bible is incomplete. The Bible actually tells us that if everything Jesus ever said or did had been written down, it would fill more than all the books in the world. You may feel that what whatever wasn't written down wasn't important, and that's your prerogative. When you stop to consider that Jesus' ministry lasted a full three years, you've got to admit that the four gospel accounts of His ministry really don't cover all that much. We have an accounting of a few of His conversations with people, His answers to questions He asked and a handful of sermons. Was He just talking about the likelihood of an upcoming storm on the Sea of Galilee or the price of a good sheep for all of the hundreds of hours of His time that we have no record of?

This is why I say it is incomplete and why the Bible itself states much the same thing.

I can't imagine why anything God had to say would be offensive to you. Do you have any idea how many times the biblical canon has changed since the second century? Books have been included only to later be excluded and visa versa. How do you know that the canon we have today is the "correct" one. Why couldn't it be the canon that was accepted back in the 8th century?

Except that it doesn't. As I've said about a hundred times now, it doesn't disagree with the Bible any more than Genesis 1 disagrees with Genesis 2. It's a matter of interpretation.

Blah, blah, blah. God didn't change His mind. He just said a few things you can't accept because they aren't in the Bible.

So stop calling Mormonism a cult. It doesn't meet even the most basic criteria.

The Bible does not say, "one more book or two should do it," it says, "more than all the books of the world," because Jesus is the eternal God of Creation who made all and is sovereign over all. Right now, Jesus is responding to a million prayers--it would take more books than can be written, sure.

We can discuss canon elsewhere, the main concern is that all the apocrypha have this in common with the Book of Mormon and etc.--contradictions to the 66 books. Before you disagree, please know I'm honestly racking my brain for any non-Mormon Christian speaker or commentator who remains outside LDS while stating anywhere that the LDS scriptures and works harmonize with sound Bible doctrine.

Yes, interpretation of the Bible and the Book of Mormon are vital, but we can know for certain in many cases, which is the right interpretation. For example, the Bible does not teach that Jesus was a figure of myth. Either it teaches He rose from the dead or didn't. We'd agree that clearly the Bible says He rose from the dead.

I'd in a likewise vein say the Bible teaches a trinity.
 

Jane.Doe

Active Member
Yes, that would be the only perspective that would make the LDS doctrines acceptable. However, take for example, eternal Hell, which is in both testaments and has been the clear interpretation of not only biblical sects but pseudo-Christian groups and most worldwide religions, for millennia.

To accept LDS doctrine, we not only must accept fresh encouragement in the written form from God, but that all Christians of all stripes were wrong about major doctrines, including the apostles who were eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ and wrote the New Testament.
I realize that this is your perspective from your interpretation of the Bible. And I respect that.

Now, can you realize and respect that I have a differ perspective and interpretation? That your words here are extremely abrasive and .... frankly it sounds like you're trying to bastardize warp things it is very very offensive.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
So I did. And I'll say it again, word for word: The Bible is incomplete. The Bible actually tells us that if everything Jesus ever said or did had been written down, it would fill more than all the books in the world. You may feel that what whatever wasn't written down wasn't important, and that's your prerogative. When you stop to consider that Jesus' ministry lasted a full three years, you've got to admit that the four gospel accounts of His ministry really don't cover all that much. We have an accounting of a few of His conversations with people, His answers to questions He asked and a handful of sermons. Was He just talking about the likelihood of an upcoming storm on the Sea of Galilee or the price of a good sheep for all of the hundreds of hours of His time that we have no record of?

This is why I say it is incomplete and why the Bible itself states much the same thing.

I can't imagine why anything God had to say would be offensive to you. Do you have any idea how many times the biblical canon has changed since the second century? Books have been included only to later be excluded and visa versa. How do you know that the canon we have today is the "correct" one. Why couldn't it be the canon that was accepted back in the 8th century?

Except that it doesn't. As I've said about a hundred times now, it doesn't disagree with the Bible any more than Genesis 1 disagrees with Genesis 2. It's a matter of interpretation.

Blah, blah, blah. God didn't change His mind. He just said a few things you can't accept because they aren't in the Bible.

So stop calling Mormonism a cult. It doesn't meet even the most basic criteria.

1. I want to keep on a friendly basis, but I want to be honest when someone is lost or believes the wrong gospel IMHO

2. Respectfully, Mormonism controls marriage and diet--with some restrictions having been lifted in recent decades--and meets the criteria for "demonic doctrine" per Timothy, which is worse than a cultic belief, please do not be angry with me for wanting to share what I understand as truth!

3. "Blah, blah, blah." is not a worthy response IMHO to the prophet Isaiah's comments that those who depart from the Bible are speaking from darkness

4. It's not "a few things I cannot accept from the Bible"--it's really one, I believe Mormonism has a different Jesus presenting a different, non-salvific gospel, I apologize if that sounds harsh but I am being honest with you
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I realize that this is your perspective from your interpretation of the Bible. And I respect that.

Now, can you realize and respect that I have a differ perspective and interpretation? That your words here are extremely abrasive and .... frankly it sounds like you're trying to bastardize warp things it is very very offensive.

I respect people who disagree. I will continue to pursue honesty to show that respect, openly. I will say I find LDS heretical to the scriptures in the all-important area of how one gets to eternal life or to Hell, as I understand it.

I would risk much to tell you truth, if I can do so respectfully, in love, as a friend. I've read the whole Bible and enough of the LDS texts to be greatly concerned, but I would also run inside a burning building to help you rather than silently passing by--I wouldn't garner your respect or friendship if I did so, passing by, without at least shouting, "GET OUT OF THE FIRE."

My Mormon friends have some similar beliefs, some different ones. I'm VERY concerned, however, when anyone says:

* The Bible wasn't enough for life changes
* The Bible is incomplete
* We need something more than the clear Bible statements to find Christ and start our relationship with Him
 

Jane.Doe

Active Member
I respect people who disagree.
Could you please stop twisting LDS beliefs then? That's the opposite of respectful. Same with the insults.
I've read the whole Bible and enough of the LDS texts to be greatly concerned
And I have also read the entire Bible through multiple times, all LDS scriptures through and attended LDS services. I've also studied Messianic beliefs, various Protestants beliefs, Orthodox, Catholic, and attended services at all of the above.
, but I would also run inside a burning building to help you rather than silently passing by--I wouldn't garner your respect or friendship if I did so, passing by, without at least shouting, "GET OUT OF THE FIRE."
Are you willing to do something that requires MUCH more courage and fortitude than jumping into a burning building?
 
Last edited:

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
1. I want to keep on a friendly basis, but I want to be honest when someone is lost or believes the wrong gospel IMHO

2. Respectfully, Mormonism controls marriage and diet--with some restrictions having been lifted in recent decades--and meets the criteria for "demonic doctrine" per Timothy, which is worse than a cultic belief, please do not be angry with me for wanting to share what I understand as truth!

3. "Blah, blah, blah." is not a worthy response IMHO to the prophet Isaiah's comments that those who depart from the Bible are speaking from darkness

4. It's not "a few things I cannot accept from the Bible"--it's really one, I believe Mormonism has a different Jesus presenting a different, non-salvific gospel, I apologize if that sounds harsh but I am being honest with you
Whatever. It flat out doesn't make any difference to me how you see Mormonism. I know you're misguided; I know you've not put forth any effort whatsoever to actually understand why Mormons believe as they do, and quite frankly, I'm starting to tire of your self-righteous, condescending attitude. I think it's time we just stopped trying to communicate with each other. You can continue if you want to, but I'm done trying to have a civil conversation with you. I've had it with your insults. Go preach to somebody else. I'm sure you can find plenty of people who don't mind listening to some stranger on the internet tell them they believe in the "wrong" Jesus, but I'm not one of them. See you in Heaven, pal. Till then, I'm done with you.
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Could you please stop twisting LDS beliefs then? That's the opposite of respectful. Same with the insults.

And I have also read the entire Bible through multiple times, all LDS scriptures through and attended LDS services. I've also studied Messianic beliefs, various Protestants beliefs, Orthodox, Catholic, and attended services at all of the above.

Are you willing to do something that requires MUCH more courage and fortitude than jumping into a burning building?

I don't think I'm twisting LDS beliefs. I am being honest, my understanding of LDS beliefs includes:

* The Bible is incomplete revelation from God
* Where LDS beliefs seems to contradict the Bible, LDS is correct
* Unrepentant sinners can escape Hell after death
* Saved Christians are incomplete, and would do better in eternity if they leave evangelical/conservative churches to become LDS members
* LDS controls timing of marriage (for example, two-year mission orders) and food (for example, former restrictions on caffeine) but is not disobeying, somehow, the warning that the true church of Jesus Christ does not control marriage or food, per the Bible
* Etc.

Are you saying I don't understand LDS, I do understand LDS or I'm lying?
 
Top