I test thoroughly.
That includes extensively "now, what do we think about this using just the Bible alone?"
If you want here about other tests, (including attending and studying at the various Protestant churches you've attend), feel free to ask.
What Mormons Believe--according to a Former BYU Professor
- Thread starter Prayer Warrior
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
That includes extensively "now, what do we think about this using just the Bible alone?"
If you want here about other tests, (including attending and studying at the various Protestant churches you've attend), feel free to ask.
I'm reposting this from page 1 of this thread.
The following excerpt is from Chapter 18 of Unveiling Grace: the Story of How We Found Our Way out of the Mormon Church by Dr. Lynn Wilder:
In Mormonism, the three members of the godhead are separate gods. The Christ I knew was an exalted man who worked his way to become a god. Some even believed he had once been a sinner. He had a body of flesh and bones and could be in only one place at one time. His blood alone did not wash away all sins. I related to this Christ because he was like me, and I thought of him as a kindly brother. Michael and I, as a temple-attending couple, were on the same path to godhood that this Christ had taken (well, I would be a queen or a priestess to my husband in his role as god); this Mormon Christ was just farther ahead.
The Heavenly Father of Mormonism also had a body of flesh and bones. He could not be in more than one place at a time either. He lived near the star Kolob. I thought of him as a merciless judge.
The Holy Ghost of Mormonism could be in only one place at one time as well. I received the gift of the Holy Ghost after Mormon baptism by the laying on of hands, and the Holy Ghost’s influence remained with me (shining down like the sun), but only until I sinned. If I did anything wrong, his influence left me, and I would experience trials until I repented. We took the sacrament every Sunday to have the sin janitor — the Mormon priesthood, who represented Jesus — sweep away these sins so the Holy Ghost’s influence could again shine down and we could be delivered from our sin-induced suffering.
In the pages of the Bible, however, I found a different God. This was a much bigger God whose words challenged my Mormon godhead. “Biggie-size your God!” a Pastor Shaw later told us. And that’s just what happened…. This bigger God has a message that conflicts with Mormonism. As I read the New International Version (and checked with the King James Version used by Mormons), I came upon blatant contradictions between teachings in the Bible and Mormon Church doctrine. Even though I’d taught the Bible in Mormon seminary, I had never paid attention to these contradictions…. We had been taught that we could read the Bible, but since the Bible was corrupt, we could not interpret it in any way that opposed Mormon doctrine.
Wilder, Lynn K.. Unveiling Grace (pp. 194-197). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. (Emphasis in bold was added.)
The Heavenly Father of Mormonism also had a body of flesh and bones. He could not be in more than one place at a time either. He lived near the star Kolob. I thought of him as a merciless judge.
The Holy Ghost of Mormonism could be in only one place at one time as well. I received the gift of the Holy Ghost after Mormon baptism by the laying on of hands, and the Holy Ghost’s influence remained with me (shining down like the sun), but only until I sinned. If I did anything wrong, his influence left me, and I would experience trials until I repented. We took the sacrament every Sunday to have the sin janitor — the Mormon priesthood, who represented Jesus — sweep away these sins so the Holy Ghost’s influence could again shine down and we could be delivered from our sin-induced suffering.
In the pages of the Bible, however, I found a different God. This was a much bigger God whose words challenged my Mormon godhead. “Biggie-size your God!” a Pastor Shaw later told us. And that’s just what happened…. This bigger God has a message that conflicts with Mormonism. As I read the New International Version (and checked with the King James Version used by Mormons), I came upon blatant contradictions between teachings in the Bible and Mormon Church doctrine. Even though I’d taught the Bible in Mormon seminary, I had never paid attention to these contradictions…. We had been taught that we could read the Bible, but since the Bible was corrupt, we could not interpret it in any way that opposed Mormon doctrine.
Wilder, Lynn K.. Unveiling Grace (pp. 194-197). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. (Emphasis in bold was added.)
Hey: should I really believe all the junk that my ex-Protestant friend Mike tells me about what Protestant teach?
Until you say "yes", there's no logical grounds for you to keep trying to pursue this epistemological method.
If what "Mike" tells you is supported by the Bible, then by all means, believe what he says.
What does Lynn say in this quote that is refuted by the Mormon scriptures? Can you quote from your scriptures to show that she is wrong?
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Prayer Warrior, What do you think the Trinity has been up to since the close of the Bible?
Mike tells me how his Protestant church taught about cheap grace, Modulism, and that it was fine for his 15 year old self and his girlfriend to sleep together (because they were already saved). He's got lots of quotes about it too.
Now, should a person ask an ex-axe-grinder what they believe, or ask the person?
Until you literally say "yes, you should ask Mike and trust him about what Protestant teach", then there's no point in discussing Lynn because your very epistemological methodology is groundless from the get-go.
@Jane_Doe22, if someone says something that is refuted in the Bible, I quote the scriptures showing that they are in error. Yo
I don't understand your question.
It seems you have little clear understanding of the history of what took place in 19 th century American religious society. As you did correctly infer, the churches of that time had grown cold and were no different to the world. The gods of fashion, politics, entertainment, money making, and selfish indulgence characterised the Protestant churches of that era. There were numerous newspaper articles and religious tabloids of the time that spoke of this lack of spiritual life.
And yes, coming out of the great religious revival that took place throughout America on the back of preaching from such as William Miller, and Whitefield and others, there were a number of loose cannons firing off blanks when it came to truth and the real gospel. Fanatics there were aplenty, and twice as many mockers and deceivers.
Then of course one must consider the reason for the Protestant reformation to begin with. Was it not born out of a sense of need for the word of God? Was it not established because of a sense of hunger and thirst for something that for centuries had been hid under a bushel? The world was in darkness...(hence dark ages)... And the preaching of the Bible... Its growing availability through the printing press... And the increase in literacy... All contributed to the unmasking of the hypocricy and ostentatious emptiness if the papal church. And people fled the church in their thousands. But by the 19th century that fervour had waned. The counter reformation had made an impact and the Protestant world did not look upon the Catholic church with the disfavour it once had. No longer were the reformers believed... Their churches had sunk into a mire of unbelief and careless indifference to biblical truth. No longer was the papacy the Antichrist. Perhaps Catholicism wasnt that bad after all they thought.
The reformation needed a kick in the pants, and the revivals in early America had a hand in that... As did even the Jesus movement of the late sixties and early seventies... Of which Keith Green played a prominent role.
But there was a vast difference between Ellen White and Joseph Smith. Joseph Smiths teachings were based on the premise that the gospel taught by the apostles had been completely lost, and thus he was the vehicle through which the original was now offered... Even though there is no evidence that the apostles ever taught anything remotely resembling the rites, ordinances, and doctrines of the LDS.
Ellen White on the other hand taught that the gospel was there all along in the scriptures, that outside of the papal church many understood the true nature of the gospel and taught it despite the attacks and persecutions that followed them,and spent all her life dedicated to pointing people back to the Bible as the only authority in religious faith and practice. She added no further scripture. She did not change the Bible or write a paraphrase or translation. She taught the Bible as received but pointed people back to the gospel of the Bible... Not a new gospel nor an invalid one.
And the gospel she taught is the same gospel our church preaches today.. And it is the same gospel of grace and mercy of a loving God that was taught Adam and Eve and taught throughout biblical history. And it is the same gospel that the reformers began to understand, but that their churches failed to follow up, and that their numerous off shoots since have not fully come to grips with. . And it is not the gospel of the Catholic church... Nor is it the gospel of the LDS.
And continuing revelation a no no? Are you sure? Does God not reveal things to you today that you didn't understand yesterday?
Until you literally say "yes, you should ask Mike and trust him about what Protestant teach", then there's no point in discussing Lynn because your very epistemological methodology is groundless and fails every possible test from the get-go.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Not derogatory. It has been 2000 years since the close of the Bible, what do you think the Trinity has done since the close of the Bible?
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Here is the issue with debating
We are led to believe that we are enlightening our opponent
Letting them know all the reasons why their doctrine doesn’t match up
Yet, what we are really doing is proving their doctrine doesn’t match our own
At the end of the day we’ve only proven, our opinions are different than their opinions
Correct, perfect, pristine doctrine is the gold at the end of rainbows
Love, not doctrine is what we were created to perfect
Doctrine is a hobby; love is our profession
We are led to believe that we are enlightening our opponent
Letting them know all the reasons why their doctrine doesn’t match up
Yet, what we are really doing is proving their doctrine doesn’t match our own
At the end of the day we’ve only proven, our opinions are different than their opinions
Correct, perfect, pristine doctrine is the gold at the end of rainbows
Love, not doctrine is what we were created to perfect
Doctrine is a hobby; love is our profession
You're repeating yourself, JD. There's no way Mike can justify fornication using a legit. Bible translation. Or cheap grace, for that matter. Unless he twists the scriptures.
I've addressed what you have said. Now, it's your turn to answer my question.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
So, are you saying that there is no objective truth?? Like Pontius Pilate--"what is truth?"
I'm drawing a complete blank about what you're asking me. You'll have to clarity what you mean.
No youu have not: you have not remotely addressed the epistemological methodology.
Until you do so, every time you try to site Lynn you're completely failing every single logic test and just shows hypocrisy. And frankly, my patience for that hypocrisy has already been exhausted.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
No. But thank you for jumping to that tired conclusion.
I said all we can do is generate opinion on truth.
And our opinions vary widely
Yeah, you've said that before. Doctrine doesn't matter. Tell that to the Jim Jones folk who loved him to bits and followed him to Guiana.
Then what did Jesus mean by this:
John 8:32--“If you continue in My word, you really are My disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
The close of the Bible did not gag God. Did not tie the hands of the Trinity. So what do you think the Trinity has been doing for 2000 years?
Did the close of Bible stop the Word of God? Some rule that stated that, what was between the covers of the Bible is all God could do or say?
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
You think it was Jim Jones Doctrine that killed those people?
You think it damned them?
Jim Jones was a psychopathic demigod - see White House for example.
His demonic personality lured those people who were looking for someone to save them
Jim Jones killed those people
Similar threads
