I have a lengthy, lengthy experience with the Mormons. I call a large number of them friends, some of them close friends. As a religion, I have not encountered one that is more dedicated, family-friendly, or marked by achievement.

 

I also believe they are a cult, and their inner belief systems I consider bizarre.

 

 

I concur.

I support the Mormons right to believe as they wish. However, any religion that advocates more than one wife is sadistic. I'm not too sure of those of us that have even one.

Why do you think that Isaiah 65 (often referred to as Trito-Isaiah) refers to the 2nd coming of Jesus? Most Bible Scholars believe this part of Isaiah was written and speaking about the restoration of the exiles returning from Babylon and rebuiling the Promised Land.

 

I'm not saying the metaphor can't apply to the 2nd coming but I think it's first purpose is related to the return of the Exiles.

 

First off, I should clarify that in Isaiah 65, I'm only referencing verses 17-25.

 

I don't think it's talking about the second coming, but some time after that. It's unclear to me whether it's talking about the millennial kingdom, the time after that, or a mix of both for reasons I won't bother going into. However, it does seem pretty clear to me that it is speaking of some time after Christ's return.

 

Verse 17 says, "For behold, I create a new heavens and a new earth; and the former shall not be remembered or come to mind."

 

Verse 19 - "...the voice of weeping shall no longer be heard in her, nor the voice of crying."

 

Verse 20 - "...for the child shall die one hundred year old..."

 

Verse 25 - "The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, the lion shall eat straw like the ox..."

 

Several of these statements bear some similarity to things you'll read in Revelation after Christ's return. It seems to strongly suggest more than just a return of exiles from Babylon, IMO...

 

...however, I won't dispute the validity of this prophecy being applicable to the return of the exiles, as many bible scholars (and myself, not that I'm a scholar) believe that it is not uncommon for biblical prophecies to have one level of fulfillment in the immediate future, and a final fulfillment many years later in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

 

An example would be Isaiah 7:14 "...Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel."

 

Many people think this prophecy can be applied Isaiah's wife and child (Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz) in the immediate context, and of course, Christ's birth through the virgin Mary later.

 

So, it's easy for me to see this applying to the exiles. But, it's ultimate and complete fulfillment will come at some point after Christ returns and cleans things up, so to speak. If that's not the case, then there are several statements that either didn't come to pass (which does not happen in Bible prophecy) or has to be explained away (which I would be interested to hear).

 

Does that answer your question?

I have a lengthy, lengthy experience with the Mormons. I call a large number of them friends, some of them close friends. As a religion, I have not encountered one that is more dedicated, family-friendly, or marked by achievement.

 

I also believe they are a cult, and their inner belief systems I consider bizarre.

 

The only problem I have with Mormons is the fact that they are referred to as a Christian denomination. I don't think they are. The Mormon teachings are too far away from core Christian doctrine, IMO, for it to be considered a branch of Christianity. I support their right to believe how they wish and all that comes with that, but I don't think they should be viewed or grouped as Christians.

 

There may be churches that I disagree with some of their practices and teachings, like Catholicism, but at the core, it's still Christian. Mormanism isn't. That's my only complaint.

First off, I should clarify that in Isaiah 65, I'm only referencing verses 17-25.

 

I don't think it's talking about the second coming, but some time after that. It's unclear to me whether it's talking about the millennial kingdom, the time after that, or a mix of both for reasons I won't bother going into. However, it does seem pretty clear to me that it is speaking of some time after Christ's return.

 

Verse 17 says, "For behold, I create a new heavens and a new earth; and the former shall not be remembered or come to mind."

 

Verse 19 - "...the voice of weeping shall no longer be heard in her, nor the voice of crying."

 

Verse 20 - "...for the child shall die one hundred year old..."

 

Verse 25 - "The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, the lion shall eat straw like the ox..."

 

Several of these statements bear some similarity to things you'll read in Revelation after Christ's return. It seems to strongly suggest more than just a return of exiles from Babylon, IMO...

 

...however, I won't dispute the validity of this prophecy being applicable to the return of the exiles, as many bible scholars (and myself, not that I'm a scholar) believe that it is not uncommon for biblical prophecies to have one level of fulfillment in the immediate future, and a final fulfillment many years later in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

 

An example would be Isaiah 7:14 "...Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel."

 

Many people think this prophecy can be applied Isaiah's wife and child (Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz) in the immediate context, and of course, Christ's birth through the virgin Mary later.

 

So, it's easy for me to see this applying to the exiles. But, it's ultimate and complete fulfillment will come at some point after Christ returns and cleans things up, so to speak. If that's not the case, then there are several statements that either didn't come to pass (which does not happen in Bible prophecy) or has to be explained away (which I would be interested to hear).

 

Does that answer your question?

 

 

Yes, it does. I would say that the writer of this portion is speaking of and in the time of the exilic return and he writes in hyperbole. Now that hyperbole might very well describe the coming kingdom to those of us looking for such description but I don't hold it to detail, just a grand imagery of the sentiment of God's people returning back to their home and back to relationship with God and all things.

 

BTW, you did a great job of articulating your thoughts on the passage. :thumb:

 

For me, I have concerns with determining what is prophecy and what is not, what must be to the detail and what is an apocalyptic vision of today or tomorrow.

The only problem I have with Mormons is the fact that they are referred to as a Christian denomination. I don't think they are. The Mormon teachings are too far away from core Christian doctrine, IMO, for it to be considered a branch of Christianity. I support their right to believe how they wish and all that comes with that, but I don't think they should be viewed or grouped as Christians.

 

There may be churches that I disagree with some of their practices and teachings, like Catholicism, but at the core, it's still Christian. Mormanism isn't. That's my only complaint.

 

 

Believing in Christ is the requirement for being considered Christian. The rest is semantics, really. They do believe in Christ, therefore they are Christian, IMO.

Believing in Christ is the requirement for being considered Christian. The rest is semantics, really. They do believe in Christ, therefore they are Christian, IMO.

 

No, believing that Christ is your one and only Saviour is the pre-requisite for being a Christian. LDS do not beleive that Christ is your one and only Saviour, therefore they are not Christian.

No, believing that Christ is your one and only Saviour is the pre-requisite for being a Christian. LDS do not beleive that Christ is your one and only Saviour, therefore they are not Christian.

 

Sorry, Hearsay, but technically that is incorrect. That is a theological belief, but not the literal definition of Christian:

 

Chris·tian /ˈkrɪstʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kris-chuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective

1.	of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.

2.	of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.

3.	of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.

4.	exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.

5.	decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.

6.	human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn't Christian.

–noun

7.	a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.

8.	a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.

9.	a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.

10.	the hero of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.

11.	a male given name.

 

The belief in Christ is the differnce between Jewish, Islam, Muslim, Hindu, Buddahist, et al, and Christianity.

 

From there, the differences in the way to salvation vary among Christian faiths.

Sorry, Hearsay, but technically that is incorrect. That is a theological belief, but not the literal definition of Christian:

 

 

 

The belief in Christ is the differnce between Jewish, Islam, Muslim, Hindu, Buddahist, et al, and Christianity.

 

From there, the differences in the way to salvation vary among Christian faiths.

 

The definition does not define what "believing in Christ" means. Believe he existed? Believe what he said? I think even the dictionary definition requires, at a minimum, belief in the tenets of what Jesus' teaching were. Now, we may differ on what those are (we are NOT re-starting the Great Schism thread ), but at a minimum I think we can agree that Jesus told us that He was the only Lord.

 

LDS believes that Joseph Smith was also Lord, on par with Jesus. I don't think that meets the theological, or dictionary, defintion of Christian.

The definition does not define what "believing in Christ" means. Believe he existed? Believe what he said? I think even the dictionary definition requires, at a minimum, belief in the tenets of what Jesus' teaching were. Now, we may differ on what those are (we are NOT re-starting the Great Schism thread ), but at a minimum I think we can agree that Jesus told us that He was the only Lord.

 

LDS believes that Joseph Smith was also Lord, on par with Jesus. I don't think that meets the theological, or dictionary, defintion of Christian.

 

Hearsay, in the end, it's semantics. The literal definition is believing in Christ. The rest is window-dressing, and a debate on theological differences.

 

The Mormons DO believe in Christ, and his teachings. The differences have nothing to do with whether or not they believe in Christ and more to do with what they believe about Christ. That is one of the differences between my belief in Catholicism, and the beliefs of others' in their denominational beliefs.

Hearsay, in the end, it's semantics. The literal definition is believing in Christ. The rest is window-dressing, and a debate on theological differences.

 

The Mormons DO believe in Christ, and his teachings. The differences have nothing to do with whether or not they believe in Christ and more to do with what they believe about Christ. That is one of the differences between my belief in Catholicism, and the beliefs of others' in their denominational beliefs.

 

Well, we don't define it the same way. What I consider to be essential, you consider window-dressing and semantics.

 

I am enjoying my cup of Sysco truck-stop coffee too much to argue this morning. I'll just let you and your caramel-macchiato Starbucks ease into the day, and we can take this up later when we both get grumpy.

Well, we don't define it the same way. What I consider to be essential, you consider window-dressing and semantics.

 

I am enjoying my cup of Sysco truck-stop coffee too much to argue this morning. I'll just let you and your caramel-macchiato Starbucks ease into the day, and we can take this up later when we both get grumpy.

 

I just drink plain, black coffee, preferably Indonesian, and french-pressed.

 

Here: Consider this:

 

2. "Latter-day Saints believe that salvation comes through their own works rather than through the grace of Christ."

 

While we understand that no man will ever gain salvation through their own works, Latter-day Saints believe that men need to do more than merely profess a belief in the Lord, Jesus Christ to gain salvation. The following scripture from The Book of Mormon explains this further:

 

"For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do" (2 Nephi 25:23.)

 

The phrase, "after all we can do" means living His commandments, extending our best effort, loving our fellowmen and praying for those who regard us as their adversary, clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, visiting the sick and afflicted, living chaste lives, and in being honest and doing good to all men. No man will ever be able to live a perfect life, and though we strive to this end, we understand we will fail. Hence, it is only by His grace that we are saved "after all we can do".

 

3. "Latter-day Saints believe Joseph Smith was greater than Christ."

 

This, simply put, is a falsehood. I've never met a member of the LDS Church who professes Joseph Smith to be greater than Jesus Christ. While we revere and honor Joseph Smith as the prophet of the restoration, we most certainly do not believe he is greater than Jesus Christ. Speaking on this topic, Elder Charles W. Penrose declared:

 

"I bear testimony to you that I know this Church is the Church of Jesus Christ; that it has been built up by the power of God; that God Almighty has revealed it; that Jesus Christ, His Son, has manifested Himself, and that this Church is His Church, because He has built it up, and He guides and directs and controls it, through His servants who stand at the head of the Church. They are but men. We do not worship any man. We do not worship Joseph Smith, as some people imagine; but we look upon him as a very great Prophet, and we have reasons for this."

 

 

Are Mormons Christians?:

Many Christian groups spend too much time finding fault with those who do not have the same set of beliefs. It may be better if they practiced the tenet of removing the log from their own eyes before worrying about the speck in the eye of their brother/sister.

 

I am one who firmly believes that no group has all the answers and that all- Southern Baptists, Catholics, Methodists, Campbellites, et als.- have a goodly number of flaws in their "interpretations".

 

Unfortunately, if we are honest, we must admit that the Holy Bible is open to spin and all groups spin to suit their own conclusions.

If SOME of you want to discuss Mormons or what it takes to get to heaven please start a new thread. Rookies. :irked:

If SOME of you want to discuss Mormons or what it takes to get to heaven please start a new thread. Rookies. :irked:

You made me laugh Dad... :lol:

 

The older I get, the more I begin to see the Bible as 2+2=4 rather than if A2 x B2 = C2 then C2 divided by B2 + D3 = A2 + D3 if D3 represents three out of four Sundays.

 

I don't believe that a great and loving God would make a rocket science out of drawing near Him. I certainly don't believe that a Savior who scolded religious legalists and overturned the tables of those intent upon profiting from the worship of God, would endorse making the free gift He provided us at the greatest cost imaginable some kind of exclusive club where only a handful of really smart insiders who figured out the precise dress code and rules of conduct are able to "earn" their salvation and be approved by God.

 

Jesus made it so simple, we struggle and trip all over ourselves to make it something more than it is. Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Sorry Buddha, sorry Muhammad, sorry sacred cows and idols of other faiths. Jesus is it.

 

I hear people complain, "Why would God limit us to one way only?" I am convinced that if God had provided 1,000 ways we would cry out for 1,001. I will concede that there are as many ways to Jesus as there are people who have ever lived. We each have our own story. The key... or more appropriately the door is Jesus. Get to him however you must, but get to Jesus. I do believe there are better ways than others to draw near Jesus Christ, there may even be a perfect way to do this, but I doubt sincerely that any human has figured it out. (Sorry Catholics, sorry Baptists, sorry other denominations.)

 

I agree with Kingfish, we spend too much time pointing out the splinters in our brothers eyes and ignoring the logs in our own eyes. If you think your faith is superior to another's and you practice this judgmental division, I assure you that Jesus would not approve of your approach. The Church of Jesus Christ will not be the church He intended us to become until we get out of each other's way and pull together in love. We have a common Lord and commission. It's time we get on with it... or get used to the smell of goats.