Your thoughts? I know there are some on the site too so please put your input here too.

Bible part two? Golden plates? Magic underwear? Holy trinity?

Brigand :  What thoughts of us do you require exactly? Are they considered to be Christian? Are they going to heaven or not? Are they a cult?
Golden plates & Magic underwear???

SoL@R : I was wondering the same thing when I saw this post yesterday, but not quite brave enough to post my own thoughts. XD  Even if those questions aren't what Brigand was asking, I'd be interested in hearing your opinions on your own questions.  I'm almost willing to bet we agree.  (Although, I don't really know enough about the religion to know what the reference on golden plates and magic underwear is about.)

SoL@R :

Singelli

I was just thinking in general how you see the religion. I assumed you are aware of the general cliché's so to speak when it comes to it. I don't want to argue who gets to heaven or not. But since they don't believe in the holy trinity, they are not basically thought as a Christian faith though they are heavily based on it.

The book of Mormon is supposed to be as holy as the bible. This was written on golden plates that only Joseph Smith was allowed to see. Lets start with that before we go to the underwear part.

And since I guess I ought to put some input or opinion of my own, I guess I can say that the Book of Mormon is pretty good for fantasy literature of its time but I think the Alvin The Maker series by Orson Scott Card (also a Mormon) is more entertaining when it comes to alternative history literature.

I like the south park episode on it.
Despite all the satire in it, they typically have a lot of good points hidden in the story line.

Brigand :

I've done 4 separate 9 week studies with Mormon missionaries over my life as well as talked to their arch-bishop of Houston Galveston and other research, simply for fun. Here are my conclusions.

True faithful devote Mormons are not Christians. They deny the Trinity and believe they can ascend to divinity status after their death. I don't know a more explicit case of blasphemy. Sadly, most mormons know this fact and are totally immersed in it.

There are some mormons that do not have the same undying devotion to their own divinity. These mormons are not devoted to blasphemy, but many of them are only mormon because they were baptized in it and have their other share of problems. They are able to receive salvation, but are just as fallible as a baptist or lutheran or catholic or whathaveyou. They have removed the overly-obvious idolatry, but they may be devoted to other pseudo-idols.

I am a practicing Latter-Day Saint.  I don't profess to be the most devout or most devoted saint, but I try to be my best every day.  To answer Txgangsta's statement, yes, we do believe we can ascend to a divine status after our death.  This gives us a hope in a God that is not seeking to demean or debase us or to have us glorify Him, but to glorify us.  Our glory is serving others, which is also His glory.  If God were a Trinity composed of one being, He would be selfish, telling us to praise Him and contradicting Himself to confuse us.  Instead, Jesus tells us to praise His Heavenly Father, and the Father tells us to praise His Son.  That is true Love, and an understandable love, not some belief that cannot be understood or grasped.  I believe all things can be understood when brought to light, and that is where God dwells, not in the presence of darkness.  We live in a world of darkness now not as a punishment, but so that we may learn to appreciate the light when we are in its presence.  Light shows the color and the beauty of the world that cannot be seen in the darkness.  Why would God call us His children, giving us a concept of Parental Love, then not allow us to have such love in Eternity?  That is not a merciful god, and not one that deserves to be called such.  True gods are beings that grow in the light, and share their light with others.  If God did not share his light with us, then the laws of justice would demand that the light be removed even from Him.  An object in motion tends to stay in motion, while an object at rest tends to stay at rest.  Also, every action deserves an equal and opposite reaction.  That is what the Sermon on the Mount is largely about.  Justice is in place to reward people, and to punish them.  It had little place for Mercy until Jesus' Atonement.  Jesus didn't just suffer to give us redemption, He suffered that He might understand us, so that He might be our friend and reach out His arms to welcome us into the light, bringing us out of the darkness.

Jesus said, "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."  Test these words out by studying the scriptures.  You cannot truly call what I have said blasphemy until you have studied them and prayed about them with an open mind.  I challenge everyone reading this to pray about these words.  They will offend some, but I write not to offend, but to enlighten.

supernerd117:

Most of your writing is Christian-like, but I'll show you why your doctrine cannot fall into the same category as most others.

"If God were a Trinity composed of one being, He would be selfish, telling us to praise Him and contradicting Himself to confuse us."

Jesus calls himself a king. The father demands worship multiple times in the old testament. There surely isn't a problem in saying "hey guys, I deserve honor" if you actually do deserve that honor.

"I believe all things can be understood when brought to light, and that is where God dwells, not in the presence of darkness." " If God did not share his light with us, then the laws of justice would demand that the light be removed even from Him."

Did God create the laws of justice? If so, God is only just because he has made it so. However, if justice exists apart from God so that God must also follow the laws of justice, then justice itself is higher than God and we don't really need Him; we'll just do the just thing on our own. This is a problem inherent of a polytheistic religion discovered by Socrates. The only way around it is to say God is justice, but that means no other things can be divine.

"Why would God call us His children, giving us a concept of Parental Love, then not allow us to have such love in Eternity?"

He does allow us to have love in Eternity. We don't get to have "spirit children" because we are children, and are forever children. There's nothing wrong with this. We exist in perfect relation to God, and that alone is perfection.

Also, your religion uses what's called "emotionalism" as a conversion tool. It's highly effective, but it is nothing more than a Rorschach test. "You cannot truly call what I have said blasphemy until you have studied them and prayed about them with an open mind." I did, both just now and multiple times in the past. Attempting to raise yourself to God-status is blasphemy. It's the original temptation of Satan for crying out loud!

Here's another proof: to merit the third level of heaven, the celestial kingdom, and become a god, you need to be sealed in the temple with your spouse. St. Paul was never married. St. Paul encouraged people not to get married and instead be missionaries. The bible before you contradicts the mormon religion.

But wait! There's more! The mormon religion forgets about resurrection. When you die, you go to one of the three kingdoms (unless you're absolutely horrible, then you go to outer darkness). Those in the celestial kingdoms have spirit children and the cycle continues. Where did resurrection go? It completely disappeared. The entire point of Jesus' passion, death, and resurrection was to free us from death under Adam, and we are to hopefully await Resurrection day.

There are also at least 5 different philosophical arguments that require an eternal being to start the chain of events. In Mormonism, gods simply continue the chain of events, and there is no one being that started the chain. In logical terms, this is ad absurdum, which means that because there was nothing to start the chain of events, there can be no such chain of events. This is obviously not true as we are already in the chain of events, and this is in fact one of the means to proving the existence of God - the Ever-Existing One.

supernerd117 : I think what many of us are trying to tell you is that the way Mormons understand about scripture and core truths about God and man's relationship with God are very in the dark and not in the light. One example I saw from what you wrote to tx is the following: 

"Why would God call us His children, giving us a concept of Parental Love, then not allow us to have such love in Eternity?  That is not a merciful god, and not one that deserves to be called such."  

scripture tells us that not everyone is a Child of God. In fact, no one starts off as a Child of God. Everyone is, by nature, Child of Wrath: "among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." (Ephesians 2:3) That is how we all are by nature, and when John says that you are Children of God, he was talking to the Church, the believers. That is why the Bible uses the lingo "adopted" "found", etc. God is merciful because of what He did, He saved us because we are wretched, even though He is sinless and doesn't have to save us, He showed Grace to us because of His love.

Also, I have no idea what are you even talking about when you mention Newton's 1st Law and 3rd Law when talking about the Sermon of the Mount....seems to come out of the blue.

I actually think that Mormonism is not considered biblical Christianity not only because of the missed idea of the nature of God and the Trinity and the push for polytheism, but also mainly because of the wrong understanding of salvation versus the nature of Man. Because Mormonism do not agree with the essential biblical doctrines of Christianity, it's not considered Christian.

play4fun : I read the scripture and surrounding verses and see it like unto Romans 3:23: "For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God".  We all sin during our lifetimes.  This does not mean that we are sinful, wretched creatures.  This means that the flesh is corruptible.  We were children of wrath after we chose to sin.  But sin is also different than transgression.  I think we too often tend to see a choice as sin.  If you choose to save your child after they run into the street, you have transgressed a law.  You have not broken the law, since you followed a higher law.  This is also how I view Adam and Eve's choice in the Garden of Eden.  Their choice caused the land to be cursed "for their sake", not because their choice was sin.  Having a cursed land would mean they would be tried, tested, have to work hard and do their best to survive and raise their children. This would make them develop into better people and would help them appreciate the virtues of life.  And if we can grow in this life, why can we not grow in the next?

supernerd117 : Just in case you didn't see it, txgangsta also responded to you earlier.



"Romans 3:23: "For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God".  We all sin during our lifetimes.  This does not mean that we are sinful, wretched creatures.  This means that the flesh is corruptible.  We were children of wrath after we chose to sin."



Nope. If you read a couple of chapters after that, Paul exclaimed this "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" (Romans 7:24) [emphasis added]. Being sinful MEANS that we are sinful, wretched creatures. Even in the words of Jesus, when talking about "ask and it will be given to you", he was comparing to how we ask God versus a son ask something from his father. When he talked about us, he said "If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!" (Matthew 7:11) [emphasis added] He is saying even us, who are by nature evil, know how to give gifts to our children. How sinful are we? Isaiah says that our "righteous deeds are like polluted garments" (Isaiah 64:6) and James says that even if someone keeps the whole law but just missing one of them "is accountable for all of it" (James 2:10). So when Paul says "fall short," he means that we are nowhere close.



Also, it is not after we sin that we are children of wrath. For us, the curse starts when we are born. When God promised Noah to never use the flood to eliminate everyone, God says “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth." (Genesis 8:21) [emphasis added]. The Psalmist King David said "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." (Psalm 51:5) (emphasis added), which is why later in the Psalm, David asks God to create a clean heart in him, because the heart originally is not clean in the first place.



But sin is also different than transgression.  I think we too often tend to see a choice as sin.  If you choose to save your child after they run into the street, you have transgressed a law.  You have not broken the law, since you followed a higher law.  




You can't put cultural and situational laws in the same level as moral laws. "Not to cross the street when there are cars" is a law that appears during the existence of cars, and it is made to prevent accidents from happening for the safety of the people. Moral laws, on the other hand, are eternally established and are set and stone (literally with Moses' Ten Commandments) as God's standard of right and wrong. So when we are talking about Moral law, transgression is the same as sin. In fact, John spoke the exact thing: "Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness." (1 John 3:4) The KJV translates it as "for sin is transgression of the law." which is the same thing.



This is also how I view Adam and Eve's choice in the Garden of Eden.  Their choice caused the land to be cursed "for their sake", not because their choice was sin.  Having a cursed land would mean they would be tried, tested, have to work hard and do their best to survive and raise their children. This would make them develop into better people and would help them appreciate the virtues of life.  And if we can grow in this life, why can we not grow in the next?



Genesis 3:17 makes it clear that the land is cursed "because of you[Adam]" Nowhere does it say it's for their sake, nor is it implied. It is the cause of sin that affects them and the land. It is not made so that they can be made better because they will never be deemed good unless they are under the Grace of God. "And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment," (Hebrews 9:27) If one dies while still in sin and not under God's Grace, they are judged by the Law. There is no "growing" to get better after this life.

This is why I think the root starts from what we are that you are in the dark, because without the understanding of our nature versus God's nature, you would never understand God's Grace and salvation, on why we would need Jesus, and following with that, not receive salvation in Christ.

play4fun :
supernerd117 :

"This is also how I view Adam and Eve's choice in the Garden of Eden. ?Their choice caused the land to be cursed "for their sake", not because their choice was sin. ?Having a cursed land would mean they would be tried, tested, have to work hard and do their best to survive and raise their children. This would make them develop into better people and would help them appreciate the virtues of life. ?And if we can grow in this life, why can we not grow in the next?"

We cannot grow because we have already been given everything. You cannot become better than perfect. This is the same reason why there cannot be multiple gods: some gods will be more perfect than others and therefore, depending on your definition of god, not actually gods.

Edit: my summons never work for the second person...

Txgangsta :

Try hitting the spacebar forward with the : of the last person you tried the summon. Works for me.

Mostly.

Brigand :

No luck. Maybe it'll work when it's not an edit...

supernerd117 :

I'm attempting the summons!