mormons scare me

[§outh§tar]

South Star, are you saying that you are innocent of hatred because you are merely in denial that mormonism is the true word of god? If denial is all you have, then why the angry words to go with it. It seems to casual third party observers like me that you do indeed hate mormons.

AGAIN:

Galatians 1

6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

Might I stress, "an angel from heaven"?

 

[StarOfEight]

Your Bible quotes are missing the point.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

AGAIN:

Galatians 1

6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

Might I stress, "an angel from heaven"?

*************
M*W: AGAIN:

Paul was just marketing his business.

 

[§outh§tar]

Your Bible quotes are missing the point.

I think you missed the point of that quote..


Joseph Smith claimed to have recieved his "revelation" from an angel. The Bible SPECIFICALLY warns against such treachery of the devil in that quote. Therefore Smith is a dangerous heretic and a venomous liar who crusades against the glory of Christ. I don't see how the Bible could be any more clear on where Smith stands in regards to his so-called revelation.

Galatians 1

6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.


Hence:

Might I stress, "an angel from heaven"?

And that was my point.

 

[§outh§tar]

*************
M*W: AGAIN:

Paul was just marketing his business.

You really disappoint me. You just insist on making these claims..


Do you dismiss the text as mere coincidence when Mohammed, of the Islam religion, and Smith, of Mormon fame, both allegedly recieved revelations from an angel?

It just can't be, although I know you will squeeze your eyes and dismiss it.



Don't you see the pattern and the relation?

 

[StarOfEight]

South, my original point was very simply this ... you claimed not to hate Joseph Smith, and then launched the first of several denunciations of him. I wasn't disputing what the Bible said about revelations, angels or whatever ...

That being said, the fact that the Bible denounces the possibility of later prophets doesn't make it true ... it's simply trying to maintain a monopoly on the revelation. The essence of all religions, but monotheism in particular, is that they're "the one true faith." You cite a Bible passage "proving" that Mohammed and Joseph Smith are liars, P_M cits a Qu'ran passage "proving" that worshipping Christ as the Son of God is polytheist, and a Mormon poster cites Doctrines and Covenants "proving" that all prior religions got it wrong.

EDIT: Essentially, the problem here is that you're basing your entire argument on the Bible. Where the Bible universally accepted as the Word of God, that'd be legitimate. It's not. I could cite a Pat Buchannan essay "proving" that America's foreign policy should be isolationist, and a Tom Friedman essay "proving" that America's foreign policy should promote globalization, and neither would resolve the question.

This is why I said, much to your displeasure, that religion is a matter of faith, as opposed to logic.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

You really disappoint me. You just insist on making these claims..

*************
M*W: These "claims" as you call them are not my own but are taken from the writings over other, more scholarly, researchers from their publications. I "insist" on perpetuating these "claims," because I believe them to be the truth.
*************

Do you dismiss the text as mere coincidence when Mohammed, of the Islam religion, and Smith, of Mormon fame, both allegedly recieved revelations from an angel?

*************
M*W: I don't know enough about Mohammed's revelations from an angel. I have been to the Mormon museum in Salt Lake City where they have a diarama of Joseph Smith finding the tablets. My personal belief about these two extra-Biblical philosophies are that both of them could be true. I don't know, but I find it hard to believe that Jesus could be the final prophet. There has to be prophets in every age. Regardless of what they profess, that doesn't mean that I'm going to believe every prophet that comes along. I DO believe in what knowledge I acquire and what is revealed to me. This is the ONLY prophecy I can trust--not some unknown prophet elsewhere.

 

[§outh§tar]

South, my original point was very simply this ... you claimed not to hate Joseph Smith, and then launched the first of several denunciations of him. I wasn't disputing what the Bible said about revelations, angels or whatever ...

That being said, the fact that the Bible denounces the possibility of later prophets doesn't make it true ... it's simply trying to maintain a monopoly on the revelation. The essence of all religions, but monotheism in particular, is that they're "the one true faith." You cite a Bible passage "proving" that Mohammed and Joseph Smith are liars, P_M cits a Qu'ran passage "proving" that worshipping Christ as the Son of God is polytheist, and a Mormon poster cites Doctrines and Covenants "proving" that all prior religions got it wrong.

EDIT: Essentially, the problem here is that you're basing your entire argument on the Bible. Where the Bible universally accepted as the Word of God, that'd be legitimate. It's not. I could cite a Pat Buchannan essay "proving" that America's foreign policy should be isolationist, and a Tom Friedman essay "proving" that America's foreign policy should promote globalization, and neither would resolve the question.

This is why I said, much to your displeasure, that religion is a matter of faith, as opposed to logic.

Sorry for misinterpreting you..

But by your own 'logic', you could be wrong just as easily couldn't you?

Besides the point, do you consequently believe faith in the true God is "a matter of faith, as opposed to logic"?

 

[§outh§tar]

Do you dismiss the text as mere coincidence when Mohammed, of the Islam religion, and Smith, of Mormon fame, both allegedly recieved revelations from an angel?

*************
M*W: I don't know enough about Mohammed's revelations from an angel. I have been to the Mormon museum in Salt Lake City where they have a diarama of Joseph Smith finding the tablets. My personal belief about these two extra-Biblical philosophies are that both of them could be true. I don't know, but I find it hard to believe that Jesus could be the final prophet. There has to be prophets in every age. Regardless of what they profess, that doesn't mean that I'm going to believe every prophet that comes along. I DO believe in what knowledge I acquire and what is revealed to me. This is the ONLY prophecy I can trust--not some unknown prophet elsewhere.

Meaning you "ONLY" 'trust' Joseph Smith??? After what I showed you?

I understand there has to be prophets in every age and that we mustn't go for everything they say. But the Bible's "monopoly", as StarOfEight put it, is justified.


How can you dismiss the accuracy of 2000 year old text as coincidence?

 

[Persol]

How can you dismiss the accuracy of 2000 year old text as coincidence?

The same way you can dismiss the contradictions it contains.

 

[okinrus]

Jesus is the final prophet in the sense of his second coming but there will be prophets between his first and second coming as is mentioned in the book of acts and revelation.

You are, however, correct, Star Gate, in that the the Bible does not give someone faith. But the Bible also does not make such a claim. Someone who reads the Bible to destroy their faith will do so.

 

[§outh§tar]

The same way you can dismiss the contradictions it contains.

Shoot away.. I'm listening.