Monday, October 05, 2009

Lessons Learned OUTSIDE General Conference

It is funny how we can lose track of how important the big things are as we argue about the little things. At General Conference, one such point came out clearly.

I spent a lot of time discussing polygamy with the fake brides of Joseph Smith; I spent a lot of time discussing how the Bible is totally at risk if the incorrect Evangelical understanding of the Bible and the use of archaeology is applied to the Bible as Evangelicals attempt to do against the Book of Mormon. If you live by the sword, you die by the sword. The Evangelicals refused to believe that most archaeologists don't believe the historical accounts contained in Genesis through Joshua are generally "historical myths" (William Dever). So I showed up with multiple books by some of the most respected archaeologists in the world, who explicitly state that the consensus among archaeologists is those early accounts must be abandoned based on the current archaeological evidence. Their response was "wait and see, it will eventually be vindicated", which I replied, "Ditto", are you willing to withhold judgment about the Book of Mormon on the same basis? After all, there are numerous issues which have been shown correct over time in the BoM, and we have great witness testimony as to the reality of the plates.

So when speaking with a few street preachers after the 2nd Sunday Session of GC, a friend of mine was speaking with them and they didn't realize the teachings of Rev 3:21, that the saved sit on the throne with Jesus, just as God brought him onto his throne. They also denied the ongoing need for apostles or other Church officers. So I jumped in with Rev 1:6, noting that Jesus Christ has made us "kings and Priests unto God and his father". I asked them what positions these were, and what it meant. I also asked them how did they describe the positions, since the verse says he "hath made us", as in present tense, something which is already done. The two theological experts (Kevin and Mark) said, "I don't have a crown, where's my crown?" I told them if they got their act together and got into the Temple, I would tell them all about it.

It seems so obvious that I forget we are blessed with inspired teachings. The whole point of salvation is based on exaltation, which is symbolized by the kingship and priesthood ordinations. Margaret Barker made the point in her December 2008 paper on Melchizedek that the holy of holies was the place where the Melchizedek priesthood transformed men into mini Jehovahs. She points out that there were to be many Melchizedek priests, and that Psalms indicates that Jesus became the son in some form of temple, called simply the "holy mount". She notes that knowledge of the Melchizedek priesthood was well understood by early Christians and the first Temple Jews, but was lost by both second temple Jews and by modern Christianity. She asserts that the entire point of worship and religious observance is found in the symbolism and ordinances of the temple revolving around the Melchizedek priesthood. Since this comes from a non-member, it is all the more enlightening.

But temple ordinances identifying the path to exaltation is so obvious, when you recognize that exaltation, which is defined by the "second Adam", or Jesus Christ, is the restoration of mankind to the "Adamic" state, to receive all things which God has. John perfectly describes this in his Revelation: Based on faith and our commitment to Christ, so long as we have a repentant, humble nature we can be exalted on the same throne as Christ. Not replacing him or removing him, or taking over for him, but through his gift, becoming a king and a priest like him.

Anti-Mormons can scream and yell all they want about the "false Gospel" of the Mormons, but it is reminders when speaking to them at the gates of the temple why John also calls them dogs (defined as: 1) a dog; a man of impure mind, an impudent man), who have no part in the holy city. Jesus says in Rev 1:6 that he has made them Kings and Priest unto God and his Father. Since most "Christians" have no clue they are a King or a Priest, then it sort of goes without saying they have no idea who the master is who is calling.

57 comments:

Aaron Shafovaloff said...

Thanks for the dialog at TS, Robert, especially the last half. I appreciate you being willing to talk about the various issues, even though I think you're promoting a false religion

Walker said...

"Ditto"

Well done, Bob.

Jesusismine said...

Amazing...you bring books out to show the street preachers how "respected" archeologists don't believe the bible in its accuracy. I thought you were supposed to believe the bible as a Mormon? I see that you really don’t believe it, you just use it as any lost, religious man or lost, secular man would-- that is-- to discredit it or deceive others with it, twisting the scriptures to your own destruction and bringing others with you. The bible stands. It is perfect and preserved forever.

As far as Jesus saying "I will grant to sit with me in my throne". That is like a child who comes and sits with their daddy in his favorite chair. That child just loves to be with his/her daddy, listening to every word he has to say as she know that Daddy loves him/her so much and wants the best for him/her. He/she loves to listen to that father and all his wisdom. (Those who are saved-are children of God-longing for the day when their faith will be made sight and will see their God face to face) That is the correct way of looking at that passage. Problem is if you believe you can attain godhood, than Christ died in vain to you and you won’t see him as a child but the wrath of God abideth upon you.

Priests, kings, thrones, crowns...exaltation... priesthood, mini Jehovah’s... it sounds like you want to be exalted like Satan before he fell in pride. That is a tough place to be when final judgment falls upon your soul. Sin has pleasure but for a short season.


Overall--Mormon doctrine exalts man to a so-called godhood deception. Christian doctrine exalts the Saviour Jesus Christ and rightfully so.. Christians preach salvation by the only begotten Son of God. God manifest in the flesh, the one true God. The bible over and over says of old that Salvation is of God, there is salvation in none other.

Wake Up! The street preachers are there to help you see who Jesus is in truth. In order to be saved, you need to know who the God of the bible is and who Jesus is in relation to divinity and to you as a sinner in relation to him. Open your heart and receive Jesus in truth. Ask him to save you.

The volume of the book is written of Jesus. Who do you see on the throne? JESUS (part of the Godhead) or yourself? That will determine how you seek the truth in that holy book.


Praise the Lord for faithful street preachers!!! They aren't there for themselves, but for God. In the holy scriptures, Jesus commanded his servants to go into all the world and preach the gospel; That is what they are doing...as God is worthy of all glory, honor, and praise. Street preachers have hope that they will help lead others to the saving arms of Christ Jesus to the saving of their souls from the pit of hell. Behold today is the day of salvation. Turn and trust in the only one who is worthy---Jesus Christ.

Bob the Anti-Anti said...

Well ...isMine,
First, I think flaunting the Savior's name in your title is not just egotistical on your part, I think it is blasphemous. You might be Jesus', but he is surely not yours. I say that because you don't have any idea what he taught, what the point of salvation was, or the humility to investigate your ignorance.

If you had read carefully, I took the books by respected archaeologists to show them that their attacks on Book of Mormon archeology are hypocritical. Do you know what that word means? It means the standard they are applying to the Mormons is equally destructive to the Bible. Maybe I didn't say it clear enough, but it is there. What did you think "live by the sword, die by the sword" meant?

Moreover, God and the Bible don't need me to believe or not believe in them for them to still be true. The fact is the make-believe concept of consistency, and the complete inability to rationally process the message of the Bible is why Evangelical anti-Mormons such as yourself condemn scientific inquiry. Thus people have written books about people like yourself, such as "Fat minds, Fit Bodies", or "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind". It wasn't always the way the current generation of black and white thinkers have turned intellectual inquiry on its head in Evangelical so-called Christianity.

As for your ignorance of the temple, the role of being a King and Priest in God's kingdom, and sharing his throne, literally only an IDIOT could accuse me of self-promotion to godhood when all I did was quote directly from scripture. So while you may think I am up in the night, I am not sure where you are since you don't apparently even have the ability to discern dark print on white pages.

Lastly, the street preachers are neither Christian nor praiseworthy. It speaks volumes that you find it praiseworthy the the exact commands of Paul and Peter concerning interaction for missionary purposes is ignored by the Street belchers, and you thank your false deity for them.

Here are two passages apparently unknown to you and your Bible:
1 Peter 3:15 But set Christ apart as Lord in your hearts and always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope you possess. 16 Yet do it with courtesy and respect, keeping a good conscience, so that those who slander your good conduct in Christ may be put to shame when they accuse you. 17 For it is better to suffer for doing good, if God wills it, than for doing evil.

Or:

1 Tim 3:2 The overseer then must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, an able teacher, 3:3 not a drunkard, not violent, but gentle, not contentious, free from the love of money. 3:4 He must manage his own household well and keep his children in control without losing his dignity. 3:5 But if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for the church of God? 3:6 He must not be a recent convert or he may become arrogant and fall into the punishment that the devil will exact. 3:7 And he must be well thought of by those outside the faith, so that he may not fall into disgrace and be caught by the devil’s trap.

1 Tim 3:7 and 1 Pet 3:16 exemplify the LDS missionaries, and provide the stark, Biblical basis to prove both you and those you endorse are not Christian.

Net time, at least try to read the book you claim to endorse. If you find me to be overly harsh, that I apologize for. But in keeping with Peter's statement, and unlike us with the Street Belchers, you asked, so I answer.
Please repent and come unto the real Jesus.

Walker said...

"you bring books out to show the street preachers how "respected" archeologists don't believe the bible in its accuracy."

...Or to show the double-standard of anti-Mormons.

"I thought you were supposed to believe the bible as a Mormon?"

We do. It is the 8th Article of Faith.

"I see that you really don’t believe it"

I see. We recognize textual variants and lack of archeology, so we must not believe it. No leaps in logic there.

"That is the correct way of looking at that passage."

No, it is an heir inheriting a kingdom. This is why Paul constantly stresses that we are both children of God and heirs of God.

"it sounds like you want to be exalted like Satan before he fell in pride"

Or that we believe in deification like the early Christians did. Enjoy: http://walkstar.blogspot.com/2009/08/letter-to-local-pastor.html (under "Deification of Man")

"The street preachers are there to help you see who Jesus is in truth."

The street preachers are there to yell. That is all.

"JESUS (part of the Godhead) or yourself?"

I trust Jesus when He says that He will place me on His throne and that He sits in His Father's throne. If you want to distrust Jesus, that is your problem.

"Praise the Lord for faithful street preachers!!!"

You would say that.

When you are done simply making up blatantly unbiblical nonsense as you go along, feel free to address my post on deification.

Chad said...

Hey Bob,

Great post about the "Street Preachers" I have seen the street preachers mock and taunt members of the LDS church. I have heard news stories about them spitting on new brides and grooms as they come out of the temple just after being married. I have seen the street preachers throw the Book of Mormon on the ground and waving garments around telling LDS members to come and get them. The street preachers just strengthen my testimony that the LDS church is True.

Take care Bob

Chad

Jesusismine said...

You are not a god in embroyo as your article states. Rather you are a sinner and your sin cannot be washed away by your good works. People changing religions doesn't make your religion truth. You have not created anything from nothing. You are not God and never will be.

Jesus NEVER sinned and he created the heavens and the earth. What can wash all your sins??? --nothing but the blood of JESUS received by faith in his finished work at Calvary.

How does one get to know the true Jesus of the Bible. By the HOLY KING JAMES BIBLE which IS PERFECT, PURE AND TRUE like JESUS.

Does someone want truth--IT's JESUS!!! Jesus said, I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE, NO MAN COMETH UNTO THE FATHER BUT BY ME.

Walker said...

"You are not a god in embroyo as your article states."

"'For in [God] we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.' (Acts 17:28) Quoting from Phaenomena by the Greek poet Aratus, Paul puts forth that we (including the non-Christian, unborn-again Athenians) are God’s genos. This Greek word means "offspring," "kin," "family," "descendants," or "race" (the Latin Vulgate uses the word genus). Even Martin Luther’s German Bible reads Wir sind seines Geschlechts ("we are of his race") and gottlichs Geschlechts ("of divine race"). This is made more evident by Hebrews 12:9, which identifies God as 'the Father of spirits" ("our spirits" in the NIV) as opposed to the "fathers of our flesh.'"

Do you actually have a rebuttal or just "nu uh?"

"Rather you are a sinner and your sin cannot be washed away by your good works."

Right. Christ's atonement does that.

"People changing religions doesn't make your religion truth. You have not created anything from nothing. You are not God and never will be."

Irrelevant sentences that don't address anything.

"By the HOLY KING JAMES BIBLE which IS PERFECT, PURE AND TRUE like JESUS."

Oh, goodness, a KJV onlyist. So, what do you think about the Johannine Comma:

"Hopefully, what is known as the Johannine Comma needs no real explanation, but in order to cover all bases I will address it. In the KJV, 1 John 5:7 reads, "There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one." The verse is present in the Latin Vulgate, but not in the majority of Greek manuscripts. It is generally understood to have been a marginal note that found its way into the text. When Erasmus published his 1st edition of the Greek text, he did not include this particular passage due to it being absent in his primary sources. After the publication, Erasmus was accused "of tampering with the text in an attempt to eliminate the doctrine of the Trinity…[Erasmus] agreed that he would insert the verse in a future edition of his Greek New Testament on one condition: that his opponents produce a Greek manuscript in which the verse could be found…And so a Greek manuscript was produced…for the occasion…The manuscript provided to Erasmus, in other words, was a sixteenth-century production, made to order. Despite his misgivings, Erasmus was true to his word and included the Johannine Comma in his next edition, and in all his subsequent editions."22 Not only is the Johannine Comma a misfire for Trinitarians, but it is a powerful weapon and irrefutable evidence against biblical inerrancy/infallibility."

"Jesus said, I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE, NO MAN COMETH UNTO THE FATHER BUT BY ME."

Very true. Better get with the program and start following what He taught.

Jesusismine said...

My Rebutal:

Here’s the scripture explained. Acts 17:16 shows Paul in Athens, where he was disputing daily with those wholly given to idolatry. (one thing is for sure, man is hopelessly religious and superstitious) v 17 Paul was speaking w/Jews, devout persons, and in the market. In v. 18 he encountered philosophers of the Epicureans and Stoicks which called him a babbler, and said he semeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus , and the resurrection. He tells them that they are too superstitious. v. 22 Paul stood here saying… in all things ye are too superstitious. v. 23 those people had an altar w/this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. (here in Athens they believed in many gods, yet they had one they had an altar for with this inscription…..Paul is saying they worship in ignorance, saying that unknown God they worshipped, him I declare unto you.) v. 24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is the Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands. V. 26 and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth (they believed different bloods of different races and he said no this is not the case, he hath made us of one blood) vs. 27 that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: (they didn’t know GOD, so he is showing to them him) v. 28t For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring v. 29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God (Genesis 1,2,3), we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. V. 30 and the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men ever where to repent. V. 31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. V. 32 some mocked, others wanted to hear again…v. 34 Howbeit certain men clave unto him and believed……. AMEN

Gen 1: 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 2: 7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man (not a god) from the LORD.
Gen 5: 1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. 3And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
God is three in one. God the father, son, and holy ghost. Man is made in the likeness of God: three in one, body, soul, and spirit.
Notice it does not say God created man, not god in embryo.

Jesusismine said...

Atonement by Mormon definition is -- doing your best and then Jesus does the rest??? Right??? Wrong. That’s not BIBLE truth. That’s another gospel. Jesus paid for all sins for those who put their trust in him for salvation. A sinner does nothing to earn salvation, but put their trust in the finished work at Calvary with Jesus payment for sins. It is by his death, burial and resurrection we are saved. Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. To pay a sin debt we could not pay.

It sounds like from your comments, you have a problem with the word of God. Someone who attacks me for saying the Bible is perfect, pure and true and found in the King James Bible doesn’t sound like a person who loves the word or trusts in it or you would say AMEN. I have searched out the matter and the fact is that God’s preserved his word. Sound like something you need to address with the one ALMIGHTY GOD himself. I didn’t write the bible, nor do I try to correct it with other versions, authors or Greek manuscripts, etc. I just love it! It is so perfectly written it could only be of God. Praise God!!!! Oh, I guess I should be scared you called me a KJV onlyist…. NOT. If those people believe the book, PRAISE THE LORD! Do you really think his word is ever changing. Note: God also addresses his preservation in his word itself. I would rather read God’s word and believe it than man’s books about the book. The real God of the Bible is sinless, not like your Mormon god, or your Mormon Jesus. But I ask you to search out the matter as in Acts 17:27 We are not righteous of ourselves. We need the righteousness of God who is sinless.

Your comment: “ Better get with the program and start following what He taught.”…. rather you mean follow you and the doctrines of the LDS church. NOT. Blind guides…know ye not that only Jesus can open your understanding to the scriptures.
Luke 24:44And he (JESUS) said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

People need to look at the facts. There is no historical evidence to back up Mormonism. No ARTIFACTS…. Only art. Acts 17:29 (mentioned above) No facts. Joseph Smith has deceived many with his tactics to enslave the simple. Burdening them with works that will never get them closer to salvation. Jesus said Matthew 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. Mormonism and/or Joseph Smith might have used the name of Jesus Christ. But he was definitely not a follower of him.

Oh how I love JESUS, Oh, how I love JESUS, Oh, how I love JESUS, because he first loved me…. And showed me on Calvary.

Bob the Anti-Anti said...

Hey,
I appreciate all of the comments.

I think ...Ismine misses a couple of important points, even within the verses he cites.

In Acts 17:29 Paul says the poets are correct, and we are the offspring of God. The word "offspring" is the Greek word "genos", or family of God. We are the children and family of God. And note he addresses it to everyone, not just the "saved". So everyone belongs to the family of God.

Next, your quotations from Genesis to tie Acts to this proves God had a physical body back in Genesis, as well as in Acts. Not a big deal for Mormons, but revolutionary to non-LDS. Image and likeness used identically of Adam and Seth, in relation to their fathers, God and Adam, respectively.

Lastly, I doubt you actually use the 1611 King James Bible. You probably use the 1750-ish update. The one without the Apocrypha, and with the editorial changes. The one I want to bring to your attention is found in Mark 10:18

"Why callest thou me good? There is no man good but one, that is god"

So if you are going to tell us the perfect holy KJV is to be believed, then it too, from Jesus' own mouth, affirms God is a man.

This passage was edited to say in later editions "there is none good but one..." I guess calling God a man was bad form in 18th century England, even if that is what the original KJV contained.

Last point. Paul apparently calls Jesus a second, intermediary, god while at Mars Hill. The KJV says in Acts 17:28 "He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus and the resurrection."

The word translated "gods" is 'daimonian', which was a Greek word for gods which intervene between higher gods and mankind. The word evolved into "demons", but has no such connotation here. In any case, Paul apparently in preaching Jesus and the resurrection describes Jesus as a god working between men and the ultimate God in heaven. Since Luke is the author of Acts, it is not like you can say he did not understand what he is communicating.

Thanks for reading.
Bob

Walker said...

You more-or-less pasting Acts 17 didn't answer a single thing. You didn't address the Greek behind the verse I provided, nor did you touch Heb. 12.

"doing your best and then Jesus does the rest??? Right??? Wrong."

I would agree that is wrong. This is why you fundamentally misunderstand the LDS take on the Atonement.

"you have a problem with the word of God"

Wrong. I have a problem with the unbiblical concept of sola scriptura taken to an even more extreme position of KJV onlyism.

"Sound like something you need to address with the one ALMIGHTY GOD himself"

I have. Hence, I am Mormon.

"God also addresses his preservation in his word itself."

I see. The Bible is infallible and inerrant because...the Bible says so. Thanks for NOT answering my question about KJV 1 John 5:7.

"The real God of the Bible is sinless, not like your Mormon god, or your Mormon Jesus."

I don't recall us ever teaching the Father or Jesus were sinners. Do you, Bob?

"There is no historical evidence to back up Mormonism."

Uh, no. The historical and circumstantial evidence surrounding the witnesses of the Restoration is very strong.

"No ARTIFACTS"

NHM anyone?

"For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

I don't see Him saying there is NO burden.

Once more, you demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Walker said...

Nice call with Acts 17:18, Bob. I hadn't looked at the Greek closely on that particular verse. Very interesting.

Bob the Anti-Anti said...

I was interviewed at length last Sunday at General Conference by an anti-Mormon friend of mine specifically on the subject of whether God was ever a sinner. My answer from the LDS scriptures is an unequivocal "No, God never sinned."

It is only when you start probing the uncanonized statements by Joseph Smith or other LDS leaders that you can even remotely start to speculate that God may have sinned. I don't think there is any support for a position that God sinned in either the King Follett Discourse or the Sermon in the Grove where Joseph Smith preached that God may have had a father God before him (See King Jame Bible Revelation 1:6 "[Jesus] has made us kings and priests to god and his father.") Since the King James Bible explicitly teaches that God had a father, such a piece of speculation is not terribly reaching. However, guessing about the kind of life God the Father may have lived if he did live on a plant before becoming the God of our existence, is completely uncalled for and unsupportable.

Again, LDS scriptures teach that Jesus and God have always been gods. Such existence, according to LDS belief, requires sinlessness. Therefore, according to LDS official doctrine, God never sinned, neither did Jesus.

Saying the LDS God or Jesus committed sins is pure mudslinging. You can't find such a doctrine in the LDS scriptures.
Thanks

Walker said...

This is what I said in my Letter to a Local Pastor"

"I’m not going to touch very much of this subject because it is one of which we have little information. It is equivalent to "What was God doing before He created everything?" Joseph Smith taught, "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret…I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see."69 This causes a great stir among Christians today, as it did in his day. Considering I have given exhaustive attention to God’s nature, I don’t see any real purpose in discussing God the Father once being a man. Christians without a doubt accept John’s proposal that "the Word was God…and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." (John 1:1,14) If Christ, who was deity, was made mortal for a time, why is it blasphemous in any way, shape, or form to say the Father did something similar, especially when we review Christ’s words: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise?" However, the idea that God has not always been God disturbs many. It should be mentioned, though, that several scribes recorded this sermon. Wilford Woodruff’s diary serves as the backdrop for this particular quotation. But we find in Thomas Bullock’s record Joseph saying, "friend it is nec[essary] to understand the char[acter] & being of God for I am going to tell you what sort of a being of God. for he was God from the begin of all Eternity." A couple other records are silent when it comes to "I will refute that idea." Bullock’s notes contradict Woodruff. Blake Ostler has researched these variants and their implications in depth and has come to an understanding called monarchial monotheism, though his personal views are just that: personal. Because of these variants, it is difficult to historically establish what was being taught. Various Church leaders have had their opinions on it, but nothing official has been declared regarding God’s mortal past. The late President Hinckley in a recent interview was asked if Mormons believed God was once a man. In response, he said, "I wouldn't say that. There was a couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about…I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse...I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it."70 The point: we don't know. For me to attempt an explanation would be nothing more than me arguing my personal speculation."

69. Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith
70. David van Biema, "Kingdom Come," TIME Magazine, 4 August 1997

See whole thing here:

Anonymous said...

WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY?
Follower of Christ (Acts 11:26)(John 8:12)(John 10:27)
Mormons are a follower of ?

SALVATION NOT OF WORKS
but...
Book of Mormon says in II Nephi 25:23 "For we know that it is by grace that we are saved after all we can do"
then...
It is written, Eph 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that NOT of yourselves: it is the GIFT of God: NOT of works, lest any man should boast." and in Titus 3:5 "NOT by works of righteousness which we have done, BUT according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;"

The above two books contradict one another. You need to ask yourselves, who or which book will you believe? the inspiration of God according to the holy Bible? or will it be another gospel? another Jesus? which God clearly speaks against. (II Cor. 11:4), (Galatians 1:6-7) (Galatians 1:8-9)

DOCTRINE - Jesus says beware! (Mark 12:38-40)

STUDY - Mark 12:24 "And Jesus said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?"

The bible says in II Timothy 2:15 "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." So a man can rightly divide the truth.

The bible says in 2 Timothy 3:15)"...the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in men.

FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD THAT WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH IN HIM SHOULD NOT PERISH BUT HAVE EVER LASTING LIFE.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to him gave he power TO BECOME the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. Also check John 3:36, Rom. 9:8, Eph 2:3, Eph 5:6

I am praying for MORMONS to come out of the LDS and to know the freedom that can be found in Christ Jesus!

In Ending... "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." Gal. 2:21 *** in other words Jesus paid it all and works are not acceptable to God for salvation.

Anonymous said...

I was wondering where "BOB - The Adversary" was! Here, blogging.....btw, we're not meeting at the Village Inn in SLC after the "SHOW".
Mormonism has none of the core Christian Biblical doctrines, NONE.

By Faith alone
The Bible alone
In Christ alone
By Grace alone
Glory to GOD alone

On October 31st 1517, Martin Luther nailed the "95 Theses" to the door of the All Saints' Church, (Saxony) Germany and the major "return" to The Bible alone began! History shows that every time a man put's himself as a mediator between God's Word & GOD, it never works! Joseph Smith, Jr. was just as wrong as all the Pope's who put themselves in the place of mediator. Jesus is the ONLY mediator between man and GOD.

Forget your "Famous archeologists", and other writers. Stick w/THE AUTHOR: GOD ALONE.

Bob the Anti-Anti said...

I love the comment:

"Forget your "Famous archeologists", and other writers. Stick w/THE AUTHOR: GOD ALONE."

Sure, we should do that, but let's use them in selectively evaluating the Book of Mormon.

The problems you have with your positions are multiple:

First, the Bible never states "Faith alone apart from obedience". I have yet to have an anti-Mormon respond to Hebrews 5:8-9 or Gal 5:4. Both explicitly teach that we can do things which either help save us or unsave us.

There was no "Bible" like we currenly typically cite until the 18th century. That is because the original KJV included the Apocrypha. The earliest Biblical manuscripts included many other letters not found in today's scriptures (Letter from Clement of Rome, etc.). So where do we read there is a closed Bible? We don't.

Mormons don't have salvational faith in anyone except Christ. Mormons don't think they can save themselves, no matter how good they are. While we believe we must be obedient and repent, we know that is useless without the atonement.

By "Grace alone" is nowhere in scripture. It says through Faith, which Paul defines in Romans 10:16 as, once again, obedience. Moreover, I have yet to have a response which actually addresses the language of Romans 5:18, which expressly teaches that ALL people ARE made righteous. In fact, Romans 5:19 goes even further by saying that Adam's transgression caused "the many" to sin, and Christ's righteous act "the Many" will be made righteous. Since Paul is therefore expressly saying EVERYONE is saved (which is consistent with his point in Romans 3:22-26 that since all have sinned, redemption must be applied equally, for all have sinned, and they are redeemed through the faith of Christ, not their own faith, vs. 26), so salvation is retained through obedience, which is the very lengthy and detailed discussion found in Romans 6.

Remember, there were no chapters or breaks in the original letter. In fact, there was no spaces between the letters nor punctuation marks. They simply read the whole letter, which is why the thought of Paul found in Romans 5 flows into Romans 6 without interruption.

Lastly, the Bible expressly states that we will also be glorified. Now if you mean only god should be worshipped or praised, I agree with that, and in the sense of divine worship, Mormons only worship God. However, a song like Praise to the Man has nothing to do with displacing or even taking away from God's Glory or Worship. Abraham and Moses were considered praiseworthy in the sense of being great prophets. I don't know of any "Praise to Martin Luther" songs, but then again he was not a prophet.

Thanks for telling me 4 or 5 months after the fact you have stopped going to Village Inn. I obviously was aware of it right after it stopped. No big deal, Shawn had canceled Pastor in the Pub two years ago because I was attending, so this is not a big deal. At least I don't have to worry about being threatened any more with being beat up, so that is a positive.
Thanks for the note.
Bob

Walker said...

I love how Evangelicals never seem to acknowledge that Nephi explicitly states that it is grace that saves us. Or how they never go a little further in the chapters they love to quote to include Eph. 2:10 or Titus 3:8.

Perhaps David DeSilva can shed some light on this whole "grace" deal. He recognizes the social and cultural context of the New Testament's "grace" to be that of a client/patron relationship and that He recognizes that "today, grace is a primarily religious word, heard only in churches and Christian circles…For the actual writers and readers of the New Testament, however, grace was not primarily religious, as opposed to a secular, word." This client/patron relationship was as follows: "This relationship would be marked by the mutual exchange of desired goods and services, the patron being available for assistance in the future, the client doing everything in his or her power to enhance the fame and honor of the patron…remaining loyal to the patron and providing services whenever the opportunity arose. Sometimes the most important gift a patron could give was access to (and influence with) another patron who actually had power of the benefit being sought." This was relationship than involved giving, receiving, and giving back: "Grace must be met with grace; favor must always give birth to favor; gift must always be met with gratitude." This is why "faith" must be understood as "loyalty, commitment, & trust." This isn't some mere intellectual assent or empty words. This was action aka works.

Walker said...

The last information came from David DeSilva's (BA in English from Princeton University; a master of
divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary, specializing in New Testament
Studies; and a Ph.D. in Religion from Emory University, with emphases on New Testament
interpretation, Roman history, and sociology of religion) "Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture."

Bob the Anti-Anti said...

Just to "second" Walker's comment from DeSilva, the two most recognized Greek Lexicons in the world, Liddell and Scott (Xaris, pg 1978-79) and Bauer's Greek English Lexicon (BDAG) (Xaris, pg 1078-81)both agree that the meaning of the word is that of an exchange in a system of patronage (BDAG, Xaris, definition 2, which contains nearly every instance of the use of "grace" where Evangelicals say nothing is required (Eph 1:6; 2:5,7,8; Acts 15:11; Rom 5:15, etc.)). It is not something unearned in the sense that nothing is required. It is initiated by the more powerful party, in the case of Roman patronage by a high official, who then expected reciprocation.

The concept then is that it is not a debt on the part of the Lord for us to be granted grace. He did it first without obligation. Thus 1 John says we love him because he loved us first. But the gift comes with lots of rigid conditions. Failure to fulfill the conditions results in the gift not being renewed. Thus Paul asks "Should we continue in sin that Grace may abound? God Forbid" (Rom 6:1-2,). That is because once he gives grace, as he says he did in Rom 5:18 to everyone, to retain the gift we must "serve" righteousness, Rom 6:16, 21-22.

The "fruit" is the offering, in faith, that is delivered back to Jesus in the patronage system called "Grace". Thus it is impossible to be "once saved, always saved", because Grace abounds to us only when we give a gift back, our heart felt desire for obedience and good deeds.

BDAG uses several examples where political "favors", or "graces", are granted by political leaders. See Acts 24:27, 25:3 & 9 as examples. The point being that while these were "free" and not earned, there was in fact an expectation of response. Failure to respond would result in losing the grace so granted. Thus Gal 5:4 explains that by turning back to the Law by the converted Jews in Galatia, they were "fallen from grace". Fallen comes from the Greek "ekpipto", which literally carries the idea of a leaf dropping away. It figuratively means to fail, as in 1 Cor 13:1 of love. As BDAG notes, "3. to change for the worse from a favorable condition, lose...grace, favor (Gal 5:4)".

In fact, in many passages "grace" is very close to being a reward (Heb 4:16 approaching the throne of Grace with boldness to get help in time of need.)
Definition 5 of BDAG explains that "gratitude" is the "appropriate response to deity for benefits conferred." Demonstrating gratitude is precisely why Grace is not a one shot deal, nor something with no strings attached. It simply means the giver was not obligated to give it. Beyond that it absolutely was understood that to retain and continue in grace, the recipient had to do something.

I hope talking at such depth of the teachings in the Bible is not too confusing to those whose teachers routinely tell them they don't need to do anything to obtain their salvation. Obtaining it is easy. Retaining it takes faith and obedience.

At least, that's what the Bible says.
Peace.

Walker said...

Excellent post, Bob. DeSilva continues:

"An image that captured [the idea of grace] for the ancients was the picture of three goddesses, the three "Graces," dancing hand in hand in a circle...from [many] ancient witnesses, we learn that there is no such thing asan isolated act of grace. An act of favor and its manifestation (the gift) initiate a circle dance in which the recipients of favor and gifts must "return the favor," that is, give again to the giver...Only a gift requited is a gift well and nobly received. To fail to return favor for favor is, in effect, to break off the dance and destroy the beauty of the gracious act."

Not only does this destroy the entire "no works" concept, but it also holds some interesting insights to LDS temple rites. Two birds with one stone.

Walker said...

I had someone tell me that they thought it was a stretch that 'ekpipto' meant "to fall away," yet carried the meaning "to lose." They actually didn't believe me and thought I was making it up.

And Mormons supposedly are the ones who twist scripture.

Walker said...

From DeSilva's "Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle 'to the Hebrews'" (this is commenting on Heb. 4 as you were, Bob):

"The effect of this affirmation is, first, to remind Jesus' clients of their obligation to obey him if they hope to remain recipients of God's favor, especially this forthcoming deliverance...articulating the relationship between remaining the loyal and obedient client of the Son and receiving the good of "eternal salvation"...If one dissociates oneself from the "cause," one will also separate oneself from the effect."

Then, after pointing out that "faith" should be recognized as a "title deed" in Heb. 11:1, he states that this is within "the context of patronage or friendship. After a client receives the patron's promise that a certain benefaction will be given to him or her..."trust" is all the client has. If the parton is honorable and reliable, however, having "trust" is a good as having the promised item itself. Conversely, showing "distrust" toward the patron means letting go of the grasp on the promised item not only psychologically (because distrust produces anxiety) but in reality (as "distrust" manifested itself in "disobedience," which caused the wilderness generation to lose their possession of the promised land)."

Sorry to make several comments, Bob. You made me hit the books again!

Jesusismine said...

Walker, you statement "unbiblical concept of sola scriptura" is not scriptural. There is no other way to know the word of God but by HIS WORDS. Don't you read HIS book??? or do you just read corrupt words about the book.

GRACE: Appropriately, the free UNMERITED love and favor of God, the spring and source of all the benefits men receive from him.

And if by grace,then it is no more of works. Rom.11.

The application of Christ's righteousness to the sinner.

Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound. Rom.5.

Romans 3:24 Being justified FREELY by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus

WORKS VS. GRACE: Romans 4:4 Now to him that WORKETH is the reward NOT reckoned of grace, but of debt.

Romans 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

LAW: Romans 5:20 Moreover the LAW entered, that the OFFENCE might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it NO MORE OF WORKS: otherwise grace is no more grace. BUT if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Ephesians 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

FAITH: Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Jesusismine said...

Bob:

Hebrews 5:8-9 says "Though he (JESUS)were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered(Jesus-God manifest in the flesh(1 Tim 3:16), lowered himself lower than the angels for the suffering of death Heb 2:9); And being made perfect, he (JESUS) became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

So then the question is how do we obey or have obedience toward God??? Answer: Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of ONE shall many be made righteous. (and in) Romans 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the OBEDIENCE OF FAITH:

Now for Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. (so Christ is of no effect if you believe you are justified by the law)

Which doctor will fix your present condition? Please listen to: Dr Law and Dr. Grace. Grhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ6IiLBRO-A

Walker said...

"There is no other way to know the word of God but by HIS WORDS"

I agree. Unfortunately for you, "HIS WORDS" does not equal "ONLY THE BIBLE." The Bible itself is evidence against the practice of sola scriptura. If the early Christians had only relied on written scripture, the New Testament would never have been written. You cannot find support for sola scriptura in the Bible.

Apparently, you misunderstand the client/patron relationship. It isn't an employer and employee. Paul speaks against works that put God into debt (which is impossible). We cannot EARN salvation. This isn't the same as a client/patron relation. Until you understand that, you will continue to parrot your misrepresentation of Romans.

And I don't know why you mentioned Hebrews 11 when it has already been explained.

Walker said...

Romans 5 references Christ's obedience by which He became the "author of eternal salvation" as mentioned in Heb. 5. We must obey Christ if we want to partake of eternal salvation. That is what the verse says.

As for Gal. 5, who said anything about being justified by the law? We were pointing out that it makes it clear that we can fall from grace i.e. "once saved, always saved" is incorrect.

Walker said...

Attempting to say Romans does not teach works is preposterous:

"Obedience of faith" is mentioned in Romans 1:5. Habbakuk 2:4 is quoted in Romans 1: "The just shall live by faith." When Habbakuk said this, he used the Hebrew "emunah" for 'faith.' This means "faithfulness, steadfastness." 'Faithfulness' obviously means action. Romans 2:6-8 states, "[God] will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing (Greek is literally "perseverance in good works") seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath." Romans 6 mentions both baptism and obedience being necessary. Romans 8 talks about walking after the Spirit and suffering with Christ. Romans 10 speaks of calling upon God, confession, and clearly equates believing with obedience (especially since Paul quotes from Deut. 30, which mentions keeping the commandments within its context). And Romans 11 talks about branches being cut off due to "unbelief" (or, as the Greek indicates, "unfaithfulness"), but can be grafted in again.

Martin Abegg also points out that MMT from the Dead Sea Scrolls clarifies what "works of the law" are. They were rabbinical interpretations and expansions of the law. N.T. Wright takes this position: “Supposing, I thought, Paul meant ‘seeking to establish their own righteousness’, not in the sense of a moral status based on the performance of Torah and the consequent accumulation of a treasury of merit, but an ethnic status based on the possession of Torah as the sign of automatic covenant membership? I saw at once that this would make excellent sense of Romans 9 and 10, and would enable the positive statements about the Law throughout Romans to be given full weight while making it clear that this kind of use of Torah, as an ethnic talisman, was an abuse.” He, along with other scholars, recognizes the works as Jewish "boundary markers," which were no longer necessary. This does not make all works unnecessary.

Anonymous said...

By Faith alone
The Bible alone
In Christ alone
By Grace alone
Glory to GOD alone

Amen!

Anonymous said...

Bob and Walker,

I am amazed at how arrogant you are. You are truly the products of Mormonism.

Walker said...

"By Faith alone
The Bible alone
In Christ alone
By Grace alone
Glory to GOD alone"

Didn't realize you could have so many 'alones'...

Walker said...

"I am amazed at how arrogant you are."

I am amazed that you actually posted this without rebutting what we have presented. Arrogance and confidence are two different things.

"You are truly the products of Mormonism."

Taken alone: Thank you. I try.

Taken within context and the ill will intended: What an ironic, condescending thing to say. Easy to say when you don't have a name or a rebuttal.

Walker said...

High five, Bob, for being products of Mormonism!

Bob the Anti-Anti said...

Walker, I thoroughly appreciate your comments and responses. I started a new business this year, and I just can't take the time to respond. Frankly, I don't think I would have said anything differently than you have.

I do marvel that it is considered arrogant to provide factual, scholarly and non-LDS responses to gross ignorance displayed by folks like the Street preachers. They stand outside, mock LDS beliefs, desecrate our sacred held beliefs or priesthood garments, act completely ignorantly and unChristianly, and when we point out that the most basic of all points concerning salvation they can't respond to.

The Atonement of Jesus Christ brings us back into a relationship with God from which man fell away. To provide as much Earthly power behind those concepts as possible, the symbolism of the Atonement is draped in the Melchizedek priesthood and Kingly ascension concepts. Jesus has us sit on his throne, as God had him sit on his (Rev 3:21). Jesus has made us Kings and Priests to God and his father.

What is the point of priesthood? To minister in godly things says scripture (Heb 10:11). Why does he make us "priests", if there is no need for ministering in Godly things? And who does it minister for? Between God and man. So who do we now minister between, based on Rev 1:6? And what is that priesthood called? Basic questions for those who claim they know the sole way to Christ. Check the non-LDS commentaries on this. They are all over the place, and they in fact almost all agree there is a mistranslation here. In the end, Moses wanted to make us a kingdom of Priests, in other words every man is close to God who is saved. But John expressly teaches we shall jointly sit on the throne and reign with him (Rev 20:6). And we know that when we see God, we will be like him (1John 3:2).

So well the angry rail, I take comfort knowing the mystery which God revealed through his servants in Christ.

Walker said...

"Walker, I thoroughly appreciate your comments and responses. I started a new business this year, and I just can't take the time to respond. Frankly, I don't think I would have said anything differently than you have."

No problem. School makes it hard for me. I have to do this in spurts.

Anonymous said...

"I am amazed that you actually posted this without rebutting what we have presented. Arrogance and confidence are two different things."

It wasn't my intention to argue the topic but to show you how arrogant you are. In your case, it is not confidence, it is over-confidence, which is arrogance. And I can give you my name. It's Jehovah. There, is that arrogant enough for you?

Jesusismine said...

Observation regarding Bob and Walker: unfortunately you two are ever learning and never able to come unto the knowledge of the truth of the scriptures on how to be saved.... That is the most important subject that each man, woman, and child will need to address in this lifetime; Not a position in heaven.

No one cares for your soul like Jesus. He can still bring you out of this self-righteous religion if you are willing.

Please check out the following site and let me know what you think: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ6IiLBRO-A

Walker said...

"It wasn't my intention to argue the topic but to show you how arrogant you are."

In other words, it was a pointless comment. Whether I'm arrogant or not doesn't have anything to do with the information I presented.

"it is over-confidence, which is arrogance"

The only way to determine if it is over-confidence is to actually refute my claims.

"It's Jehovah. There, is that arrogant enough for you?"

More like blasphemous.

Walker said...

Bob,

Don't you love how most of the comebacks are nothing but "Mormons aren't Christian," "Nu uh," "No, YOU'RE wrong!" "You're arrogant," and accusations of cherry-picking or reading out of context without clarification?

I know I do.

Bob the Anti-Anti said...

One man's evidence is another person's arrogance. I have heard people fawn over James White's command of "evidence", and in the same set of comments people despising him for his arrogance. (Side note, I have found Mr. White to be a reasonably nice guy in person or personal correspondence, but I have also found him to be evasive and self-laudatory in public debates, as well as insightful and an effective public speaker. Few people are easily classed as "evil" or "good" based on a few comments, has been my experience.)

The point for this article continues to be that the Bible teaches there are just two recognized priesthoods, the Aaronic/Levitical and the Melchizedek. The latter was, according to Margaret Barker and the Bible, the priesthood of kingship. The Temple, even after Jesus' resurrection and ascension, continued to be the central PLACE of worship for the early Christians (See Acts 21:17-30). The concept of Revelation 1:6, 3:21, etc., is that saved men will jointly share the Throne and the priesthood of Jesus Christ in serving God for men.

To say "nuh uh" is a response. It is just not much of a response. And certainly, if scriptural sources matter, the Mormons have it right.

Uh Huh!

Anonymous said...

"Don't you love how most of the comebacks are nothing but "Mormons aren't Christian," "Nu uh," "No, YOU'RE wrong!" "You're arrogant," and accusations of cherry-picking or reading out of context without clarification?"

Hmmm, this seems very similar to the words and phrases presented in your responses, Walker. Projection anyone?

Walker said...

"this seems very similar to the words and phrases presented in your responses"

I do love mocking my opponents...

Anonymous said...

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

You may like mocking your opponents, but be sure your sin will find you out. To think you will sit on the throne is not only arrogant but outright defiance. Rev. 3:21 can be easily be explained but it's hidden manna is given to those who have overcome, which I can tell you have not done.

Walker said...

"be sure your sin will find you out"

Oooh, scary.

"Rev. 3:21"

Yay for scriptures that teach deification.

"which I can tell you have not done"

Your observations about my supposed character does not make the information I've presented invalid.

Anonymous said...

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

You may like mocking your opponents, but be sure your sin will find you out. To think you will sit on the throne is not only arrogant but outright defiance. Rev. 3:21 can be easily be explained but it's hidden manna is given to those who have overcome, which I can tell you have not done."


Very well said.

If I were Bob, I would be ashamed of him as a Latter Day Saint. Although I don't agree with their beliefs, most of the Latter Day Saints I know in my town are the sweetest people in the world, even I would say, very Christlike people. Walker is not. He makes the LDS look bad.

Walker said...

"Walker is not. He makes the LDS look bad."

Excuse me that I don't bend over when my beliefs are attacked.

Walker said...

"even I would say, very Christlike people"

How good of you to "even" consider calling them Christlike.

Bob the Anti-Anti said...

I say this quite often: I try to be a little nicer than my critics, but I am happy to dish as good as I am given. I get tired of folks like anonymous in the other blog entry who just flat out lie about Mormonism to try to make them look spiritually bereft and "untrue".

I get insulted here all the time. So does Walker. I don't know Walker personally, but I think his method of argumentation is just fine for the audience. I wouldn't use my own methods on a primary class, but then I probably wouldn't be getting hate mail threatening me violence from my primary students. My point is, if you walk into my corner of the Internet thinking your "everybody knows...the Mormons are false" attitude will go unchallenged, you are going to get blasted. Plain and simple. And you are going to feel it is unfair. And you are going to feel your intelligence being questioned, as well as your integrity.

I think all that falls into the "do unto others" those 'good Christians' are assumed to be living when they show up doing all that about me and Mormonism.

Watch the Youtube video by Aaron Shaf where I discuss the concept of did God ever sin. He starts by saying he would see me as a good friend and his worst enemy. That's just about right.

So put on your big boy pants, open your books, cite some sources or expect to turned into ground chuck.

This place is all about peer review. If you present yourself as a hostile enemy, you have found some peers. If you want to have an honest, scholarly based exchange, sans name calling, welcome aboard.

Enter to learn (or teach nicely), or you will go forth served...on a plate!

I hope that clears up where this blog is coming from.

Anonymous said...

Well Bob, I opened my 66 books and I turned to II Thes 5:21 "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." So I charge thee to prove what you are saying about sitting on God's throne someday. How readest thou? II Thes 2:3-4 "...That man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God."

The Lord says who that person is in verse 8. Is that you?

Why not turn and truely humble yourself before the Lamb who alone is worthy?

Anonymous said...

"My point is, if you walk into my corner of the Internet thinking your "everybody knows...the Mormons are false" attitude will go unchallenged, you are going to get blasted. Plain and simple. And you are going to feel it is unfair. And you are going to feel your intelligence being questioned, as well as your integrity."

This is because your response to every commenter, with or without knowing them very well, even if they just write one sentence, is "Well, it's obvious you don't know anything about the topic or ..." You are very condescending and it's even more frustrating because you are trying to defend a position that is ludicrous. The reason people come in with the attitude, "everybody knows...the Mormon beliefs are false" is because anyone with a little common sense can see clearly that Mormon beliefs are utter nonsense. It's like arguing with the members of the Flat Earth Society that the Earth is not flat and getting back, "Well it's obvious you don't know anything and are intellectually inferior to me because look at all this BS I know that you don't." Give me a break!

Anonymous said...

"The reason people come in with the attitude, "everybody knows...the Mormon beliefs are false" is because anyone with a little common sense can see clearly that Mormon beliefs are utter nonsense."

Yeah, I agree, it's kind of a given that they are false.

Walker said...

"Why not turn and truely humble yourself before the Lamb who alone is worthy?"

I don't know if Bob is truely humble, but I bet he is truly humble.

"defend a position that is ludicrous"

This is probably why he is so "condescending." We have people coming in saying what we believe is ludicrous and then prove to know next to nothing about the topics at hand.

"anyone with a little common"

Oh, ok. How about using some of that common sense to actually discuss the information rather than make stupid assertions like "your beliefs are ludicrous!"

"Flat Earth Society"

What is it with you and these guys? Repeating yourself doesn't make this a valid comparison.

"Give me a break!"

No. You don't get a break when you make assertions with no back up. If we are so stupid and our beliefs are obviously wrong, then give us something to work with besides your insults. Put up or shut up.

Bob the Anti-Anti said...

Anonymous said:

"so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God."

The Lord says who that person is in verse 8. Is that you?"

Interesting. So you are now going to assert that in the latter-days, there will be temples of god? Since the temples of God, the real temples of the REAL God, were well known to be different than either Christian meeting places or Jewish synagogues, I guess before I answer the question I need to see if you believe there are separate, sanctified and holy buildings where ordinances take place which are rightfully called the Temple of God?

If so, I think you have made a remarkable change. If not, by your own analysis of "proving all things", then you have demonstrated from your own post that your belief system is deficient, but for some reason other than "proof", you are electing to remain.

Unless, without any proof, you are going to assert that for Paul, a temple is not a temple.

I will point out that the traditional, and I believe untenable, arguments offered by non-LDS Christians is the temple is now our bodies, as it now holds the holy Spirit. This is a bit of preventative Straw Man argumentation on my part, since you have not raised the issue yet, but I just want to set the expectation that the man of sin sitting in the temple cannot be sitting "in" a human body. This verse obviously makes reference to a physical structure.

So, which is it? Are you saying the Mormons, the only Christian people with separate ordinances only conducted in temples, are in view here, and do have temples of God and, ipso facto, acknowledging you "Christian" faith is deficient; or, Are you acknowledging your Christian faith is deficient without asserting anything about the LDS faith?

From reading your citation of sources and assertion about me, there is no logical third choice.

But then again, maybe you were not proving all things, in violation of the commandments you just cited.

I guess the third choice is you are appealing to me for help in determining if option 1 is correct, seeing you have already logically eliminated traditional Christianity as the faith referenced in the Bible.

Let me know.
Bob

Walker said...

Bob,

Your last three paragraphs were gold.

Anonymous said...

EARTHLY TEMPLES -- PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE
1. PAST: Luke 18:10
2. PRESENT--AFTER CHRIST'S RESURRECTION: God dwelleth not in earthly temples made with hands. Born again believers are the temple of the living God.
Acts 17:24 "God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;" The true church of the Lord Jesus Christ today does NOT worship in a temple OF STONE. Rather the holy ghost is dwelling inside each born again Christian.
Acts 7:48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands... (read to v.57)
1 Cor 3:16; Paul speaking to those in Christ: "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?"
2 Corinthians 6:16 Again, Paul speaking to the CHURCH ... for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
3. FUTURE: Jesus Christ the Lord will build his holy temple in his holy place, Jerusalem, when he returns at his 2nd coming. He alone will build it and he ALONE will sit on the throne. Zach. 6:12-13 a) he shall build the temple b) he shall bear the glory c) he shall sit and rule upon his throne; Micah 1:2; Hab. 2:20

THIS WILL NOT BE YOU! ARE YOU REALLY FOOLISH ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THAT YOU WILL SIT ON HIS THRONE?

~Mark

Tony said...

His residence is in the heavens. He can come down, however, to the houses built to His name. Anyone who is familiar with the works of Jesus in the Bible while at the temple will know of it's importance to Him. He said that it was His House.

Christians continued to worship at the temple, His apostles even:
Acts 2:42,46
Acts 3:1
Acts 21:26

Bible says nothing about not ever building a temple to our God after His ascension. Rather, as you showed us Mark, it shows that temples will be built. They are still of importance.

And yes, I am "foolish enough" to believe in the Biblical promises.