Why I Know

[ELF1024]

ELF1024 you and Hughes seem to have branched off into the need for the restoration vs. reformation. A separate or sub-topic of Joseph Smith's calling as a prophet.

No formal warning- just an invitation to expand on those ideas on another topic or to focus back on central idea of the OP.

Thanks

Thank you, your fearsomeness; I was attempting to re-orient myself to the topic, as I had come in late.

Much appreciated. I didn't feel like getting flogged today.

You will be spared. This time. -Ares

[Hughes]

"All of non-LDS Christianity" is Apostate, along with you. Apostate religions have always denied, opposed, and contradicted true restored religions. So they along with you are acting true to form by opposing and obstructing God's true and restored religion in our day. Whenever God has established a new dispensation of the gospel, it has always started off as a minority. Then it has grown to become a majority. No true religion ever started off as a majority. Therefore your argument that there are more of them than there are of us is a false argument. The truth of a religion is not determined by its number.

You don't really know what you are talking about, do you. Matthew 16:4 occurred when Jesus' critics demanded a sign form him as proof of his prophetic mission. Jesus gave them that answer, the meaning of which is that it is wrong to demand a sign of a prophet as evidence of his prophetic calling. You just don't do that. It is wrong whether you demand it of Jesus, or of Peter, or of Joseph Smith. That is what that scripture means. It looks like your problem is more serious than I had thought. You seem to lack the most basic, elementary understanding of the Bible. That may be the real reason behind your turning a blind eye to my scriptural quotes.

Your words are a maze of contradictions. To learn something new you have to be humble and teachable, not have an “already know it” attitude that kills all learning and communication.

Well, in your previous post you were demanding a sign, which puts you in the same league as the Pharisees. Even if we did produce those kinds of signs, you would still not believe. Faith does not come by signs, but signs follow those that believe.

I have quoted you enough verses that demonstrates that only one organization run by men who were appointed by God which constituted God’s only true Church. That is how it was in ancient times, and that is how it is today.

I wouldn’t say that all of it is contradictory; but a lot of it is.

Didn't demand a sign.

In fact, I was simply pointing out that even if there were miracles such as what happened around Peter, the word of God still points to himself not your message that there is "only one organization run by men who were appointed by God which constituted God’s only true Church."

In fact, please tell me where the bible even uses the phrase, "true church."

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Didn't demand a sign.

In fact, I was simply pointing out that even if there were miracles such as what happened around Peter, the word of God still points to himself not your message that there is "only one organization run by men who were appointed by God which constituted God’s only true Church."

In fact, please tell me where the bible even uses the phrase, "true church."

It does not need to. We know that Christ's church will be built upon a foundation of prophets and apostles.

What church has that? Does yours have prophets and apostles in it? We know that God is a God of order. I would expect that Christ's church would be on of order not a bunch of randomness.

[zerinus]

Didn't demand a sign.

In fact, I was simply pointing out that even if there were miracles such as what happened around Peter, the word of God still points to himself not your message that there is "only one organization run by men who were appointed by God which constituted God’s only true Church."

In fact, please tell me where the bible even uses the phrase, "true church."

Show me one verse in the Bible where it says that there were more than one true church. In those days there was only one true Church, so it doesn't need to say the obvious. It is only following the Apostasy that Christian Church splintered into many churches, none of which any longer held divine authority from God.

[Hughes]

It does not need to. We know that Christ's church will be built upon a foundation of prophets and apostles.

What church has that? Does yours have prophets and apostles in it? We know that God is a God of order. I would expect that Christ's church would be on of order not a bunch of randomness.

Correction. We know that Christ is building his church from the beginning until today upon those who have faith in him.

Your question about my church is exactly my point about focusing on things on earth, not on Christ.

Show me one verse in the Bible where it says that there were more than one true church. In those days there was only one true Church, so it doesn't need to say the obvious. It is only following the Apostasy that Christian Church splintered into many churches, none of which any longer held divine authority from God.

So, there is nothing in the Bible that says there is one true church on earth, as you've been saying.

In fact, there's many churches mentioned. Each book Paul wrote, each church John wrote to in Revelation. "To the church at..."

[shalamabobbi]

So, there is nothing in the Bible that says there is one true church on earth, as you've been saying.

Try Ephesians chapter 4

[Ares]

Try a new thread for the topic of apostacy.

[Ares]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: Off topic

Kind regards,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff