The discernment of Mormon leaders is questionable

[_Bazooka]

Which, by logical process, means Satan should be applauded not hated.

Do you also applaud school shootings if they manage to bring about new gun control legislation? Because many people think that's the only thing that's going to work to bring about the support that legislation needs. If I make a plan to push for that legislation following school shootings, does it necessitate me applauding the deaths of children?

Your comparison would have been valid were the people behind wanting new gun control legislation the same people who had the power to stop school shootings but consciously and deliberately decided to allow them to happen to further the ends of their own cause. Instead, your comparison is valid when considering your God (who does have the power to stop them if He wanted to, as you yourself confirmed above when you stated " (2) God could change the plan if it needed to be changed.") allows school shootings to happen as a means of furthering His own plan. Should God be applauded (worshipped?) for His manipulation of Satan and use of tragedies as a means to an end?

[_maklelan]

Your comparison would have been valid were the people behind wanting new gun control legislation the same people who had the power to stop school shootings but consciously and deliberately decided to allow them to happen to further the ends of their own cause.

That dynamic wasn't a part of your original concern. Your concern was just that Satan's actions were critical to the success of the plan, and thus he should be applauded. Don't try to demand an analogy stretch further than it was intended to go.

Instead, your comparison is valid when considering your God (who does have the power to stop them if He wanted to, as you yourself confirmed above when you stated " (2) God could change the plan if it needed to be changed.") allows school shootings to happen as a means of furthering His own plan. Should God be applauded (worshipped?) for His manipulation of Satan and use of tragedies as a means to an end?

From a secular point of view, of course not. If one believes that we are recompensed in the eternities, and that our trials and suffering here are a part of our progress, then the plan transcends our mortal perspective, and in the end it is all worth it. If you're willing to let LDS ideology operate on its own terms, then you have no leg to stand on. If you refuse to afford LDS ideology that right, then you're begging the question.

[_Mittens]

Yes and God breathed scripture, not like the man breathed Book of Mormon.

In other words the deciding factor is not temple worship at all.

Mormons follow a different Christ then Christians...

I have seriously never understood how people can see this claim as anything other than naïve and juvenile rhetoric.

Hinckley says Mormons Believe in a Different Jesus, for once I agree with Gordon

by Matt Slick

"In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'" (LDS Church News Week ending June 20, 1998, p. 7).

Christians have long maintained that Mormonism teaches a Jesus that is different from what the Bible reveals. Of course, the Mormons say that they believe in the same Jesus that originally walked on the earth and is revealed in the Bible. Though they may make this claim, it is up to them to prove it--especially in light of what Mormonism says about God and Jesus.

In Mormonism, Jesus is a creation, the product of relations between god and his goddess wife who used to be people from another world (McConkie, Bruce, Mormon Doctrine, p. 192, 321, 516, 589). Jesus is the literal spirit brother of the devil and of you and me (McConkie, p. 192, 589). Also, in Mormon theology, God has a body of flesh and bones (Doctrine & Covenants 130:22) as does his wife, and together they produce spirit offspring in heaven who inhabit human bodies on earth.

Very few, if any, of the 'different' Mormon doctrines are found in their Standard Works: the Bible, The Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. Rather, they are taught by Mormons of high standing: prophets, apostles, members of the 70 Quorum. McConkie, for example, was a member of the 70's Quorum, a very high ranking Mormon, and wrote the book, Mormon Doctrine, from which much of the documentation for this is taken.

President Hinkley, the prophet and revelator of the Mormon church, has publicly declared that the Jesus of Mormonism and traditional Christianity are not the same. Let's take a look at the difference between the Mormon Jesus and the one of Traditional Christianity:

[_maklelan]

Hinckley says Mormons Believe in a Different Jesus, for once I agree with Gordon

Already addressed this.

[_Mittens]

http://thetruthaboutmormonism-creeksalm ... ighty.html

Jesus is Jehovah, the Creeds teach that

[_maklelan]

http://thetruthaboutmormonism-creeksalmon.blogspot.com/2013/07/my-tract-showing-that-jesus-is-amighty.html

Jesus is Jehovah, the Creeds teach that

Please see here:

viewtopic.php?p=825796#p825796

[_Mittens]

Better explain your post and your argument ?

[_maklelan]

Better explain your post and your argument ?

Ok. You linked to a post that was virtually identical to a post in another thread. I responded fully that post in the other thread, so in response to your post here, I posted a link to my post there. The Creeds may teach that Jesus is Jehovah, but that concept did not exist anywhere in the universe until well after the biblical texts had been written.

[_Mittens]

Better explain your post and your argument ?

Ok. You linked to a post that was virtually identical to a post in another thread. I responded fully that post in the other thread, so in response to your post here, I posted a link to my post there. The Creeds may teach that Jesus is Jehovah, but that concept did not exist anywhere in the universe until well after the biblical texts had been written.

Please explain why the Book of Mormon completely agrees with the Creeds, except for the Athanasion Creeds saying not confounding the persons [ mixing them up ] which pre-1835 Joseph Smith did.


Luke 10:
23 All things are delivered to me of my Father; and no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it. JST

Mosiah 15
3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

Mosiah 16:
15 Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen.



Alma 11:38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?


Helaman 14:12 And also that ye might know of the coming of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and of earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and that ye might know of the signs of his coming, to the intent that ye might believe on his name.

Ether 3:14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.


http://carm.org/heresies

[_maklelan]

Please explain why the Book of Mormon completely agrees with the Creeds, except for the Athanasion Creeds saying not confounding the persons [ mixing them up ] which pre-1835 Joseph Smith did.

Smith was influenced by Methodism and other Protestant ideologies in the early going. What's the big deal? Can you tell me why anyone should listen to you given how many misrepresentations and misunderstandings I pointed out in your little collection of putatively trinitarian verses?