Is the Mormon religion a cult?

[hpkeeper]

where in the bible does it state that no other book other than the bible be used? That's something of interest to me, if someone knows what book it's in, I'd be interested in reading it.

 

[SirFshAlot]

I would not venture out with a bathroom scale to measure a length for a footing, nor would I take a measuring cup to measure an angle.

To understand things of a spiritual nature, you must use the right tools.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: Netopia
BTW... I would not list the LDS as a cult when using the generic term.

They would however (along with the JWs), fall into the more specific definition used by orthodox Christianity, which is more directed towards something being a heresey and calling itself Christian.

Joe

The way that I define a cult would be anything that teaches parallel but incorrectly from the original mainstream Orthodox view. So, yes, it's still a cult. 🙂

Which, of course, was the faith of the Pharisees.
They had a perfectly legitimate orthodox religion going on, based on faith and meticulous scripture and tradition, and along came someone (who dared to claim to be the Messiah even!) who told them they were all wrong. Man, were they pissed.
I'm not defending Mormons here... I'm calling you a hypocrite.

 

[Netopia]

where in the bible does it state that no other book other than the bible be used? That's something of interest to me, if someone knows what book it's in, I'd be interested in reading it.

Nowhere does it use those words. I think that you would find that most people who believe that the Bible is the Word of God would consider all other writings inferior and only to be viewed IN LIGHT OF what the Bible says.

Joe

 

[Tripleshot]

Netopia


>>>MT 22:29 Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.<<<

And how is this relevant t owhat I said and believe? The marriage and sealing is performed in the Temple by only those ib authority to do so. It is a temporal ordinance, not one performed in the spirit world as best I know. I will not suppose that all things are absolute. If so we would never have Moses or Noah, would we?
....................................................................................................................................................................
Since Angels are (as far as we can tell) all one gender (or neutral with masculine names) and we will live like them (so far as marriage is concerned), how is it that your church can do what Christ has said will not be done?

Again, no conflict. If your are not worthy of being sealed for time and all eternity to your spouse, if you are not obedient to the end in all things commanded of your Heavenly Father, then you have no claim to exaltation. If that is the case, then scripture is correct and you will become an angel in heaven.

Personally, I choose to try to follow the will of my Father in Heaven and persue the higher calling. I would prefer to be sealed and united with my wife and children, mother, father, grandfather, grandmother uncles and aunts, etc, etc, etc for time and all eternity.

.......................................................................................................................................................................



Apostles.... Biblically, these are those that Jesus Christ has PERSONALLY chosen AND spoken with. The only one BIBLICALLY that he didn't actually walk with in this physical life was Paul... and it's very clear that he was a BIG exception to that rule. How is it that the LDS declares people to be "Apostles" to this day?


What part of the restored Church do you not understand? WWW.LDS.ORG might have some information to help you. Try there.

......................................................................................................................................................................


Talking about who goes to Heaven and Hell... I've had Mormons tell me that the "worst" hell is reserved for those who walk away from the LDS. Is this true? Seems like a good way to hold people to the organization with a lot of fear.

I would like to have a talk with the Mormon that told you this. I don't believe you. In fact if you had any talk with Mormons, you would not have these silly notions you are posting here.

Hell is the place for the sons of perdition, those who deny the holy ghost after having recieved it, and the 3rd of the hosts of heaven that followed Satan.

To me, anything less than exaltatation will be like a hell, knowing I could have done better , but failed to honor and obey my Heavenly father. If you are obedient, you will be in Gods presence ; disobedient, and you will not bein his presence. Understand?

.......................................................................................................................................................................


Speaking of the end of Revelations and about the meaning of the "...whoever adds ... to this Book... " to be ONLY referring the LETTER TO THE SEVEN CHURCHES which was written by John; do you also believe that when it says that "... all scripture is inspired..." that is means "all writing of ANY kind, since "SCRIPTURE" litterally means things that are written? If you don't accept the latter, then it's a little TOO convenient to accept the former.

Uh, this arguement is old and stale. The catholic bible has 5 added books. Its called the apocrapha, I believe.

Read back in these posts for my post called "Articles of Faith." I absoluterly and unequevically believe every word in it.

......................................................................................................................................................................


You say that you believe that Jesus is the only Son of the Father. Do you believe that the Father is the ONLY God?... the ABSOLUTE? Do you believe that there were never God's before or after Him.... that only HE preexists everything? Or do you believe that He is A God in a line of AMWAY-LIKE Gods?.... YES! YOU TOO CAN BE GOD AND HAVE YOUR OWN UNIVERSE! Sounds like some Amway meetings I've gotten suckered into before.

I pity you, Joe. This insulting comment you have made is wrong, inciteful and blasphemus. It is the kind of crap only generated by by hate mongers and those that would seek to destroy YOUR soul, not ours. We know better.

You are welcome to study the Church of Jesus Christ of latter Day Saints and discover the truth for yourself. Our Church makes it easy for you at their website. It is open to all who wish to know the truth about us. You have been led down the wrong path. Please don't let your current source of information be your guide. Go to www.LDS.org. there are many answers there to your questions, and guidence to know how to decern the truthfulness of what you see.

 

[cmdavid]

Originally posted by: sandigga

Originally posted by: Tripleshot

Originally posted by: sandigga
I've got three references in the Book of Mormon that specifically say that the Trinity is the same God.. all one God.. i also have several references out of the Book of Mormon explicitly saying that there is only one God.... i want to know how any rational person who can claim this Book to be more correct than the bible (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 4, page 461) , yet the entire congregation of the church he founded disagrees with this Book...

Show me.

sorry.. i was gone... here are the verses i was referring to...

Alma 11:44;

44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.

Mosiah 15:5;

And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.

2 Nephi 31:21

And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the away; and there is none other way nor cname given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

anybody can explain this for me?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandigga
anybody can explain this for me?

Easy.
I explained that pages back.
Three distinct personages, One mind.
Not hard to understand once you get the smallest grasp on the concept of perfection and what that means. In short, all that is perfect must, by definition, think as though with one mind.
IMO, that makes a little more sense than the "Orthodox" belief of a single personage with three distinct minds.

 

[Netopia]

Tripleshot,

Tell you what. I'm all ears to listening to what you have to say.... but I'm going to do so as the Bereans:

Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

I'm going to assume that God doesn't change his way of doing things. Everything pointing to The Christ was outlined and could be proven by the Old Testement. I would love to discuss with you, assuming that you can back up all of your assertations (like eternal marriages) from the Old and New Testements... those Scriptures that existed BEFORE the LDS stuff.... so that, like the Bereans, one could examine what is said "to see if what LDS said was true."

Joe

 

[petrek]

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

Nice scripture quote, but since if taken chronologically, you throw out ½ the new testament, since that was written before much of the NT. It was only put ?near? then end when it was compiled years later by King James Council. Wait, let me guess, you believe God had it put in the order it currently is for a reason, and you believe it applies in it?s current placement right?

?Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.?

Same teaching. Same bible. Same God. Congratulations, you just threw out 9/10 of your only source of God?s teachings because this scripture is in Deuteronomy 4:2 (near the beginning of the Old Testament) and it?s saying the same thing it says again in you Revelations quote!!

If you take a close look at both verses you will notice that God says that man shall not add or take away. Neither verse prevents God from finishing His Word.

D

 

[petrek]

Yes, I think that God is capable of preserving his own words. So, let's assume that a corruption occurred during a translation of the Bible. Would you believe in the possibility of Him sending a messenger to provide a correct translation in order to rectify the error?

If the Bible I hold in my hand is corrupt, then God did not preserve His Word.

D

 

[petrek]

You should already know our answer, we believe that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit were seperate entities.

Just to clarify then Bignate603. You are saying that God is God, Jesus is a god in the same way that Satan is god, and the Holy Spirit is a god. Unlike what I believe, which is that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, are God, all three make One entity.

D

 

[Vic]

If you take a close look at both verses you will notice that God says that man shall not add or take away. Neither verse prevents God from finishing His Word.

petrek, with all honesty, I believe you worship a book instead of God. Ask yourself, take away the book, would you still believe? Also, bear in mind that Mormons believe that God was "finishing" His word through Joseph Smith.

If the Bible I hold in my hand is corrupt, then God did not preserve His Word.

Ask yourself... what is His word? Every little tiny detail and trivial aspect for believers to argue and fight over and accuse each other of going to Hell for having different interpretations of the same passage, or the Good News that God exists and has provided a path for our salvation? If it is the former, then I would say yes, His word is corrupt. If it is the latter (which I believe), then His word is completely intact. Now which do you believe?

edit:

Just to clarify then Bignate603. You are saying that God is God, Jesus is a god in the same way that Satan is god, and the Holy Spirit is a god. Unlike what I believe, which is that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, are God, all three make One entity.

But then, of course, you become adversarial over small details and misrepresent what has already been explained, so I guess I already know what you believe.

 

[Lovepig]

Hi Joe. Long time no see. I guess I don't log in here often enough ... You still working for that printing company in landover?

Apostles.... Biblically, these are those that Jesus Christ has PERSONALLY chosen AND spoken with. The only one BIBLICALLY that he didn't actually walk with in this physical life was Paul... and it's very clear that he was a BIG exception to that rule. How is it that the LDS declares people to be "Apostles" to this day?

There was A day when I believed ALL the LDS apostles had walked and talked with Christ. I'm not positive I don't believe it now. They claim to be "special witnesses" of Christ. I'm not sure if seeing Him in a vision can qualify one to be a special witness ... So yes basically we believe that the Apostles know beyond any earthly doubt that Jesus is the Christ.

Talking about who goes to Heaven and Hell... I've had Mormons tell me that the "worst" hell is reserved for those who walk away from the LDS. Is this true? Seems like a good way to hold people to the organization with a lot of fear.

I can see where you got that, but it's not quite right. Lucifer will be in that hell as well. And alot of people who turn against the church will NOT be there. 'Outer Darkness' is reserved for those who had a SURE knowledge of the savior and His gospel and turned against it. I can't judge who will be there, but they are those who knew beyond any doubt then for whatever reason chose to fight against God. Not lazy Mormons who stop going to church. I doubt that very many, Mormon or not, have the requisite spiritual experiences to qualify, no matter how bad they are here. So no it really has no bearing on keeping people in the church. In fact, those who leave the church will end up in a place much much better than earth (unless of course they REALLY knew ...!)

Speaking of the end of Revelations and about the meaning of the "...whoever adds ... to this Book... " to be ONLY referring the LETTER TO THE SEVEN CHURCHES which was written by John; do you also believe that when it says that "... all scripture is inspired..." that is means "all writing of ANY kind, since "SCRIPTURE" litterally means things that are written? If you don't accept the latter, then it's a little TOO convenient to accept the former.

If it only applies to the letter to the seven churchs (which I'm not sure it does) then how do you reconcile the Deut passage? Any way I look at it, if I use these scriptures to disqualify the Book of Mormon, then I also disqualify most of the Bible. And any interpretation allowing the Bible also allows the Book of Mormon. Now that's a far cry from saying the Book of Mormon is true (it IS, but that's another thread!) but it does allow for additioanl scripture and revelation. Heck, even prayer is a form of modern revelation.. no?

-Jeremy Gish (former technical account manager with Light Industries/Panurgy ... in case you've forgotten little 'ole me!)

 

[Tripleshot]

Originally posted by: Netopia
Tripleshot,

Tell you what. I'm all ears to listening to what you have to say.... but I'm going to do so as the Bereans:

Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

I'm going to assume that God doesn't change his way of doing things. Everything pointing to The Christ was outlined and could be proven by the Old Testement. I would love to discuss with you, assuming that you can back up all of your assertations (like eternal marriages) from the Old and New Testements... those Scriptures that existed BEFORE the LDS stuff.... so that, like the Bereans, one could examine what is said "to see if what LDS said was true."

Joe

In this medium, you need to read, not hear. Your ears aren't as important as your heart.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

(New Testament | Matthew 16:19)


9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

(New Testament | Mark 10:9)

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 11:11)


7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:
9 Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.
10 For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile:
11 Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it.
12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.
13 And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?
14 But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;
15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

(New Testament | 1 Peter 3:7 - 17)

 

[petrek]

petrek, with all honesty, I believe you worship a book instead of God. Ask yourself, take away the book, would you still believe? Also, bear in mind that Mormons believe that God was "finishing" His word through Joseph Smith.

If I did not have God's word, then NO I would not believe. God says "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Romans 10:17

I ask you to bear in mind what is spoken in Revelation.

Ask yourself... what is His word? Every little tiny detail and trivial aspect for believers to argue and fight over and accuse each other of going to Hell for having different interpretations of the same passage, or the Good News that God exists and has provided a path for our salvation? If it is the former, then I would say yes, His word is corrupt. If it is the latter (which I believe), then His word is completely intact. Now which do you believe?

"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove , rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." 2 Timothy 4:2

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousnes:" 2 Timothy 3:16

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:18

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:21-23

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." John 1:1,14

But then, of course, you become adversarial over small details and misrepresent what has already been explained, so I guess I already know what you believe.

How did I misrepresent what Bignate603 said? That is what I understood him to be saying, which is why I asked him to clarify, to make sure I understood your theology correctly. It appears to me that you are suggesting that a person who uses the same name is necessarily the same person, this is absolutely false and devoid of reason and for you to imply that such is a "small detail" is not realistic. Please clarify your position Bignate603, thanks.

D

 

[hpkeeper]

Hey, My question has not been answered where in the bible does it say that the bible is the only book that should be used? It may not be that exact wording... but I'd like to see where this concept began.

 

[SuperSix]

All religions are cults to some extent

 

[petrek]

Originally posted by: hpkeeper
Hey, My question has not been answered where in the bible does it say that the bible is the only book that should be used? It may not be that exact wording... but I'd like to see where this concept began.

"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Galatians 1:6-9

I think that as well as the numerous warnings of false christs and false doctrines that would accompany the latter days is the reason why Biblical Christians recognize only the Bible as authoritative and entirely trustworthy. Recognizing that the Bible is the verbally inspired, infallible word of God. Keeping in mind as well the knowledge that Satan (the second most intelligent being in existance) is the god of this world who appears as an angel of light and who's only desire is to deceive as many men as possible being that his destiny was sealed the day he thought to exalt himself above God.

D

 

[dawheat]

I was given the following examples as examples of where there are irreconcilable differences between LDS doctrine and Christian beliefs based on the Bible. Can someone provide the exact, uneditorialized text of the following?

Gospel Principles, p. 302 - text referring to those who achieve godhood will have spirit children who will worship and pray to them.

Doctrine and Covenants 130:22

Mormon Doctrine, p. 577 : text referring to God himself has a father, and a grandfather, ad infinitum

Also good reading IMO here Biased? Unbaised? Good reading regardless

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Its quite entertaining to listen to religious people rip apart other religious people by using their own religion as a basis for logic. Pot... kettle, kettle...pot.

Craig

 

[Netopia]

-Jeremy Gish (former technical account manager with Light Industries/Panurgy ... in case you've forgotten little 'ole me!)

DUDE!
At first I scratched my head and wondered "Who on Earth".... Then, as my mind mulled over it (after checking to see if you had a profile).... I finally decided that I would post and ask if your initials were JG... and then at the end of your post, you gave it away!

Your answers were much clearer and to the point than the last person who replied to me. Also, I tend to get some ire going, but it's hard with you (a gentle word turns away wrath) 'cuz you've got a fairly calming demeaner. Gee... guess Tripleshot can't say that I've NEVER spoken to any Mormon's now! 😉

As to the subject at hand... you talked about reconciling the both the passage in Rev. and Deut. I must have missed it... what is the Deut. passage?

Joe

PS Jeremy, my email is available from this thread. Since yours isn't, shoot me a note and let me know what you are up to.

 

[Netopia]

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Yeah, I know that one well... having grown up in the RC church, it's often quoted as the basis for Priest to be able to forgive or hold back sins against a person.

JN 20:21 Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

I don't agree with either their interpretation or yours. Yours is more easily shown to be wrong though.

Rom 7:2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. 3 So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.

Seems Paul indicates that marriage is for this life alone... VERY CLEARLY. BTW... what happens if a Mormon woman marries a man and he dies... and she marries another and he dies... and this happens seven times, each with the husband dying. In the end, whose eternal wife is she?... or is it as Jesus said, we don't have marriages in heaven!?

9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Well... that's speaking of divorce... the whole passage it is in is talking about DIVORCE! You are taking it out of context to try to support your belief rather than basing your beliefs on what is actually said! And notice in the next verse or two, Jesus says that they become one FLESH... which will perish, not one eternal perfected spirit or body. Taking the verse IN ITS CONTEXT, I don't see what that has to do with being eternally married. BTW... the only "Eternal Marriage" I see anywhere in the Bible is that of Jesus (the Groom) the Church (his Bride). If your wife and you are married both to each other and as part of the Church to Jesus, are you saying that both you and she will be polygamists with God's blessing?

1 Cor 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

You snatched this one so out of context that it is actually almost funny... if it wasn't for the fact that you are trying to pervert God's word to support your belief. This whole area of Scripture is talking about BEHAVIOR IN CHURCH during the time when people meet together... teaching what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. It is NOT teaching about some sort of eternal binding of people in marriage... unless you willingly take it completely out of context to support your own views.

As for you last quote from 1 Peter... I don't even see where that is pertinent to the current discussion.

SOOOoooooo...., my question remains, with a small change; can you show me anything from the New or Old Testament, taken in context and not perverted that supports your beliefs in eternal marriage?



As to the question of preservation of God's Word and the problems involved with translation.... this is why I don't use only one Bible. Every Bible has the intent of its translators and each presents problems. The King James attempts exact word translation which is impossible... the NIV attempts closest meaning translation, which can be flawed... and so on. Taken together as a whole and checked against each other, it is pretty easy to get to what the intent of the passage is.

Joe

 

[farscape]

Vic: I hope that you are not equating orthodoxy with tradition.

Christ railed against the pharasees because of their "adding to" the Laws of God with the laws of man. Statutes, upon statutes, don't do this ontop of don't do thats. One man's genuine outpourings to God, becoming another man's burden ( "Well, if he is brought closer to God's presence by doing such and such, then EVERYONE has got to do it") Then it all becomes rote and meaningless. That's the tradition that God uphoars.

During the era of the Cold War, those who would want peace at any cost, would hear the words coming from both sides, and say that both were saying the same things, and that we just need to trust the other side. Yes, many of the words were the same, but the definitions were alltogether different - very many times, the exact opposite. The USSR, in editions shipped to their country, had definitions changed in the Oxford Dictionary to reflect what they wanted certain words to mean. The moonies did the same with their doctrines- it all sounded good - then they set the hook, and you're caught in the net.

The early Church fathers anguished over the truths of the scriptures. And through their faithful prayers and deliberations, put forth the truths that we now hold as orthodox doctrine.

 

[petrek]

As to the question of preservation of God's Word and the problems involved with translation.... this is why I don't use only one Bible. Every Bible has the intent of its translators and each presents problems. The King James attempts exact word translation which is impossible... the NIV attempts closest meaning translation, which can be flawed... and so on. Taken together as a whole and checked against each other, it is pretty easy to get to what the intent of the passage is.

Joe, PLEASE take the time to study the issue.

D

 

[Netopia]

petrek, have. As has, as you know, Athanatius. KJV is another debate altogether and should be left to a seperate thread.

Joe