Jump to content

snowflake

Members
  • Content count

    644
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

83 Excellent

1 Follower

About snowflake

  • Rank
    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Florida

Recent Profile Visitors

832 profile views
  1. Acts 17:28 Question

    Isa 7:16 is referencing Jesus, not all children. 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. 16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
  2. Acts 17:28 Question

    This helps me understand where you are coming from here, thank you. I would like to point out what seems to me to be a contradiction. Moroni chapter 8 10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children. 11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins. 12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism! It seems to me that according to these verses at some point either Christ abandons children allowing them to sin and at that point they need baptism and repentance, or that Children are incapable of sin. Both of these do not seem to be true, Once Christ is with someone he would not abandon them and if you have kids you know very well at age 3 they manipulate, lie, steal, cheat, hit, bite, pull hair and disobey their parents (all sin).
  3. Acts 17:28 Question

    The BOM agrees with the bible on many doctrinal topics, this being one of them. That being said, there are many doctrines in the BOM that the current Salt Lake LDS sect don't recognize or practice, being born "fallen" would be one of them. Article of faith #2 would deny what the BOM and Bible teach about being under the curse of Adam. AOF #2: We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.
  4. Acts 17:28 Question

    I believe one of the big distinctions between the LDS and traditional Christianity is that the LDS believe that people in general are "good", and are born sinless. Christians don't really think people are good in general (at least I don't)because they are born under a curse because of Adam's sin (the fall). Understanding this premise helps one to understand the need for "salvation" in Christianity, to the Christian, without accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior before death = Hell. For the Mormon....meh.....no big deal.... everyone is basically "saved" at some point, either on earth or in the afterlife.
  5. God, the prophet and slavery

    But how do the LDS Apostles live their lives? Don't they all live in Salt Lake in nice homes with a nice salary? All married? No mission trips since their 20's? When you compare and contrast the NT Apostles with the LDS apostles there is literally no comparison, All NT apostles are clearly direct witnesses of the Lord Jesus, almost all of the NT apostles are martyred in some brutal way, they spent their entire lives going out into the word, preaching Christ risen, and are killed for their witness of Christ. LDS Apostles......not so much.
  6. God, the prophet and slavery

    Mathias, who replaced Judas yes, Paul too.
  7. God, the prophet and slavery

    The NT church apostles were direct eyewitnesses the the Lord Jesus, I certainly see them and their roles differently than the current LDS "apostles", no doubt. On a side note, do the current LDS appostles ever claim to be direct eyewitnesses?
  8. God, the prophet and slavery

    I have no doubt that they obviously had been chosen by the Holy Spirit and were filled with the Holy Spirit to document, witness and record much of the Lord Jesus' ministry. Paul and John yes they were called as apostles, but not Matthew and Luke, none the less they were tasked with very specific roles as witnesses and to document these events. Matthew was a tax collector so he was probably very gifted at shorthand and documentation/organization of documents and recording transactions. John wrote Revelation and clearly is prophecy of things to come. Paul i'm not so sure about prophesy, i can't think of any off hand but he probably did. I think we might be talking past each other with the term "prophecy and prophet"?
  9. God, the prophet and slavery

    But that clearly is not the case, Matthew was a tax collector, Luke a physician, Paul a Pharasee. These guys never claimed to be prophets, only followers of Christ.
  10. Discussing temple stuff online

    Correct, and the Jews don't do this either because the temple was destroyed around 70 a.d. by Nero. Christians are not Jewish Levites. Correct again, interesting how the veil was torn at the time of Jesus' Crucifixion, a symbol that all believers now have direct access to God through our mediator Jesus. Yet the Jews repaired the veil, and the Mormons put up another veil in their temples to separate their members from God. I just don't understand the claim that the temple is some form of restoration, clearly it is not a restoration of the First century NT church, and it is not a restoration of the temple and the levitical customs of that first century time, so what is it restoring?
  11. Discussing temple stuff online

    Maybe you could list some of the elements that have been restored for us, when I compare the current LDS temple ceremony to the OT temple and rituals there simply isn't any restoration whatsoever! It's all completely different. Boyd K. Packer claims it is a restoration.....I'm still looking for a single element other than the word "temple" that is a "restoration"! Restore means to make like the original.
  12. Removing truths from the BOM or Bible.

    Christians baptize children....not sure what you mean here by Check! Many children give their hearts to Jesus and get baptized. Priesthood authority? Alma 13 is extremely vague describing multiple high priests at one time. Impossible in the OT, only one high priest at a time was allowed. No ordinances described, no keys described, no laying on of hands.....very vague and incomplete. Also Alma 13 31 And Alma spake many more words unto the people, which are not written in this book. Where is the other book recording Alma's teachings?.....the BOM surely is incomplete!!!!
  13. Removing truths from the BOM or Bible.

    I assume you are talking about 2 Kings 22? Josiah does not go back and change the law or change Doctrine, he realizes that the people are not living the law of Moses and brings the Jews to once again come under the law. Not sure about your claims under Jeremiah, specifics please.
  14. Removing truths from the BOM or Bible.

    So prophets have the "authority" to change scripture?......only in LDS land do we get such revisions, the current "Prophet" always trumps the previous one with the ability to change doctrine at will and "reinterpret" scripture to fit the current Salt lake LDS sect, i.e. polygamy, adam God, priesthood ban, blood atonement, non-levites holding priesthood, God has a dad etc.
  15. Removing truths from the BOM or Bible.

    There are many books in the Catholic bible not included in the KJV. These books are of historical value but never made it in to the cannon because they were not considered inspired. Why didn't Joseph put these in his revised version? Why haven't the LDS prophets fixed the Bible if it is missing so much?
×