No - Catholic Christian

Smith was a fraud and he founded a religion. There are plenty of questions about the "character" of Joseph Smith that seems unbecoming of a prophet of God.

 

Like I said, I have no problem with people recognizing Mormonism as a religion. And, I agree with a handful of other posts that say any religion can be called a cult by definition. If you want to call Christianity a cult, that's fine. It doesn't bother me.

 

What bothers me is when Mormonism is called Christianity. It is not Christianity. The God and Jesus of Mormonism bears little in common with the God and Jesus of the Bible, thus it is not Christianity.

 

I assume that you know all there is to know about the life and times of Joseph Smith then. To my knowledge, all religions are created by man at some point or other. So, by your terms, all of these fine and upstanding men are at least guilty of 'fraud'. Most religions based upon christianity rely upon the translation of the bible from the righteous King James. The Mormon church also uses the King James Bible as the true teachings of Jesus. They have chosen to supplement that with other literature they call scripture. Not much different than other religions that teach from other publishing seperate from the bible IMO.

I have a few questions for all of you to ponder...

 

Do you believe that God appears to man today?

 

Do you believe that God's angels appear to man today?

 

I believe firmly yes in both cases.

I assume that you know all there is to know about the life and times of Joseph Smith then.

 

 

Not all about Smith...just enough to know that he was no prophet of God, the true God.

 

To my knowledge, all religions are created by man at some point or other.

 

True. But, only one religion was founded by a God-man.

 

So, by your terms, all of these fine and upstanding men are at least guilty of 'fraud'.

 

I wouldn't refer to all of them as fine and upstanding men. And, I probably wouldn't say they're all guilty of fraud.

 

Most religions based upon christianity rely upon the translation of the bible from the righteous King James.

 

The King James Version of the Bible was translated by a group of 47 scholars in six committees. It was not translated by King James, but for King James, in the sense that he commissioned the group to carry out this task.

 

The Mormon church also uses the King James Bible as the true teachings of Jesus. They have chosen to supplement that with other literature they call scripture. Not much different than other religions that teach from other publishing seperate from the bible IMO.

 

Not much different at all. Like most other religions that supplement scripture with their own literature or scripture, their supplemental "scripture" is given a place a preeminence over the Bible and sometimes contradicts the Bible. When this occurs, like most other religions that do this, they claim that the Bible has been corrupted, thus is wrong when it contradicts the "supplemental scripture". This conveniently allows them to claim the Bible as part of their scripture, while avoiding the task of explaining or defending teachings that contradict the Bible. It can be explained away with a simple statement like, "That part of the Bible has been corrupted and is wrong."

 

And, like most religions that try to springboard from Christianity (Jehovah's Witnesses), they don't typically reveal their more "advanced" teachings at first, choosing rather to mislead people into thinking its just another branch of Christianity with the same core beliefs. Therein lies my problem with said religions...they are not branches of Christianity. They are not Christianity at all. Their teachings of God and Christ do not mesh with Christian doctrine.

There were eyewitness to the raising of the dead and healing the sick/blind done by Jesus.

 

Saul was a nonbeliever....but he met Jesus and had a change of heart.

No, and Catholic.

 

Trace any religion back through time, and each denomination can place some roots into paganism, which really is the ultimate in "cults", IMO.

 

The root of Cult is the same as Culture, and thus, there can be no culture, without cults.

 

1610–20;

You have mentioned "culture" in your comment. My thoughts about any religion is that they are all culture based. All cultures have some kind of beliefs that attempt to explain the three big questions of life : How did we get here, how are we suppose to behave while we are here, and where do we end up after we die.

 

A question to anyone who has already posted in this thread : What if you were an infant and your parents had been on vacation in India. There was a tragedy of some sort and they were killed. You were then raised by a local family. Would you as an adult in later years more likely be a Hindu or a Christian? Or maybe a Muslim since the minority religion in India is Islam?

 

More than likely you will be faithful to the religion of the family you live with. It's part of their culture and it's what you would have been taught. And in their opinion it is the only way. Because it says so in the scripture of their holy book(s).

 

Who is to say that one religion is anymore right than another? They all have scripture and books to prove they are the only way. And it's part of their culture.

You have mentioned "culture" in your comment. My thoughts about any religion is that they are all culture based. All cultures have some kind of beliefs that attempt to explain the three big questions of life : How did we get here, how are we suppose to behave while we are here, and where do we end up after we die.

 

A question to anyone who has already posted in this thread : What if you were an infant and your parents had been on vacation in India. There was a tragedy of some sort and they were killed. You were then raised by a local family. Would you as an adult in later years more likely be a Hindu or a Christian? Or maybe a Muslim since the minority religion in India is Islam?

 

More than likely you will be faithful to the religion of the family you live with. It's part of their culture and it's what you would have been taught. And in their opinion it is the only way. Because it says so in the scripture of their holy book(s).

 

Who is to say that one religion is anymore right than another? They all have scripture and books to prove they are the only way. And it's part of their culture.

 

 

I thought my moment of linguistic genius would go unrecognized.

 

Your explanation is exactly what my point was. I'm glad someone was with me. :notworthy:

Not all about Smith...just enough to know that he was no prophet of God, the true God.

 

 

 

True. But, only one religion was founded by a God-man.

 

 

 

I wouldn't refer to all of them as fine and upstanding men. And, I probably wouldn't say they're all guilty of fraud.

 

 

 

The King James Version of the Bible was translated by a group of 47 scholars in six committees. It was not translated by King James, but for King James, in the sense that he commissioned the group to carry out this task.

 

 

 

Not much different at all. Like most other religions that supplement scripture with their own literature or scripture, their supplemental "scripture" is given a place a preeminence over the Bible and sometimes contradicts the Bible. When this occurs, like most other religions that do this, they claim that the Bible has been corrupted, thus is wrong when it contradicts the "supplemental scripture". This conveniently allows them to claim the Bible as part of their scripture, while avoiding the task of explaining or defending teachings that contradict the Bible. It can be explained away with a simple statement like, "That part of the Bible has been corrupted and is wrong."

 

And, like most religions that try to springboard from Christianity (Jehovah's Witnesses), they don't typically reveal their more "advanced" teachings at first, choosing rather to mislead people into thinking its just another branch of Christianity with the same core beliefs. Therein lies my problem with said religions...they are not branches of Christianity. They are not Christianity at all. Their teachings of God and Christ do not mesh with Christian doctrine.

 

I am not going to argue the points of your version of christianity, after all, how could I since they are your views. However, your points on mormons are worthy of debate. In a previous post, you said Smith was a fraud. How so? Please give examples of your knowledge of such. I walked the walk of the mormon for years, so I know a little of which I speak.

 

To your point that only one was founded by a God-man. What does that mean? Please help me understand. I consider myself a God fearing Christian. Does that make me a God-man as well?

 

To the point about springing the basis of their faith on you later. Simply not true. Every potential convert to Mormonism has to buy in early about Joseph Smith, up front or they can not be baptised in the faith. Fact is, many a potential convert can not get past that and turns away from the teachings of the church.

 

Please understand that I am not trying to attack your comments, just understand your process. Who knows, maybe you can shed some light on a few things that I have wondered about myself.

I am not going to argue the points of your version of christianity, after all, how could I since they are your views. However, your points on mormons are worthy of debate. In a previous post, you said Smith was a fraud. How so? Please give examples of your knowledge of such. I walked the walk of the mormon for years, so I know a little of which I speak.

 

To your point that only one was founded by a God-man. What does that mean? Please help me understand. I consider myself a God fearing Christian. Does that make me a God-man as well?

 

To the point about springing the basis of their faith on you later. Simply not true. Every potential convert to Mormonism has to buy in early about Joseph Smith, up front or they can not be baptised in the faith. Fact is, many a potential convert can not get past that and turns away from the teachings of the church.

 

Please understand that I am not trying to attack your comments, just understand your process. Who knows, maybe you can shed some light on a few things that I have wondered about myself.

 

Old recollections here so I may be not be remembering correctly, but wasn't Smith's given profession that of a magician and treasure seeker who used "magic" stones to help locate hidden treasures? And then used these magic stones to translate the Book Of Mormon from some plates he found in the ground? I know I recall reading something about him placing the stones in a hat and jamming his face into the hat to receive some of the visions/revelations (I remember thinking this was rather funny). And I recall somewhere reading that Smith was convicted for practicing magic and conning someone out of money (I think they found the actual arrest record). Wasn't he thrown in jail for sending a mob to shut down a newspaper after they wrote stories about his polygamist activities?

Yes

 

I was raised Presbyterian, but I attend a Southern Baptist Church now.

 

I was baptized as an infant, but proclaimed my faith at age 12. I have always known that Jesus is my Lord and Savior, but what does bother me about the Southern Baptist Church is that since I wasn't dunked at age 12 when I accepted Christ, they wouldn't allow me to transfer my church membership. I would have to be dunked at the Baptist church to be considered a member. I don't let it bother me too much, because to me all that matters is that I know who my Savior is and he does too.

Yes

 

I was raised Presbyterian, but I attend a Southern Baptist Church now.

 

I was baptized as an infant, but proclaimed my faith at age 12. I have always known that Jesus is my Lord and Savior, but what does bother me about the Southern Baptist Church is that since I wasn't dunked at age 12 when I accepted Christ, they wouldn't allow me to transfer my church membership. I would have to be dunked at the Baptist church to be considered a member. I don't let it bother me too much, because to me all that matters is that I know who my Savior is and he does too.

 

The reasoning behind that is very simple and I have to admit, I agree with.

 

Baptism is a personal decision that ONLY YOU CAN MAKE.

 

And you didn't make it. Your parents decided it for you.

 

You and ONLY you can choose to be baptized.

The reasoning behind that is very simple and I have to admit, I agree with.

 

Baptism is a personal decision that ONLY YOU CAN MAKE.

 

And you didn't make it. Your parents decided it for you.

 

You and ONLY you can choose to be baptized.

So since one must to choose to be baptized at an older age, anyone who was baptized as an infant was not legitimately baptized? What are the consequences of not getting baptized?

So since one must to choose to be baptized at an older age, anyone who was baptized as an infant was not legitimately baptized? What are the consequences of not getting baptized?

 

Doesn't make any sense to me. If you were baptized as an infant, and are a practicing member of the church, why would you need to be baptized again?

Doesn't make any sense to me. If you were baptized as an infant, and are a practicing member of the church, why would you need to be baptized again?

From what I understand of what LBBC said, if you don't choose to be baptized than it doesn't count. Personally, I think living like Christ is much, much more important than the actual event of getting baptized.

From what I understand of what LBBC said, if you don't choose to be baptized than it doesn't count. Personally, I think living like Christ is much, much more important than the actual event of getting baptized.

 

That's what I'm saying. If you go and get baptized at age 30, but don't attend church or live a Christ-like life, then how is that better than the guy who was baptized as an infant who follows Christ's example in all walks of life?