TRUMP: Convicted Sexual Abuser Topic

I respectfully disagree.

Truth is more important than optics. The fact is they are not Christian. Let's take a very quick look at Mormonism and see what we think.

1.) God used to be a man on another planet. (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321; Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 345; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333).

2.) God resides near a star called Kolob. (Pearl of Great Price, p. 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, p. 428).

3.) The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's (Doctrines and Covenants 130:22)

4.) God is in the form of a man. (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 3). (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 3).

5.) “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see,” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345).

6.) Eventually...you yourself can become a GOD. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345-347, 354).

They believe in a MOTHER God and God is married and the trinity is 3 separate Gods and I would be remiss were I not to mention they tell you Good Works are necessary for salvation - in direct contradiction to the doctrine of Grace set forth in the Holy scripture.

Bars and Clubs do a lot of outreach but I don't send my friends there.We don't hate the Mormons. We pray for them.

5/5/2023 5:02 PM
Yes, I am keenly aware.
Still looks like extremism to the non-believer.
I agree truth is more important.
5/5/2023 5:11 PM
You've heard it here folks. On the Internet, in a thread called "Trump Indicted", a self declared "Christian" unequivocally making the determination/Judgment as to whether (or not!) a differing Faith based Doctrine (two actually!) should be, can be, considered "real" Christian.

How smug and self assuring.
Just like Jesus, right?
5/5/2023 6:48 PM
So, just rambling I guess but...

I enjoy the civil discussion. I find other people's views interesting and often I'll learn something from that sort of discussion. I'm not tied to any particular denomination as I've found all to have some value and Truth, as well as places where they've missed the mark.

Sometimes that miss is bigger and more important than others (as Doug's documentation of the very bizarre doctrine of one of them shows quite clearly), but I've generally still found value in other aspects of their walk.

I've also observed that many folks are more wrapped up in their specific dogma than in cultivating that personal relationship with Christ.

So, when faced with discussion that challenges a notion embedded in them, they get defensive rather than listening. It sorta shakes them up to some degree because they're maybe not as secure in their relationship as they are with the dogma. As if, "if me and/or my church have this wrong, then I must question everything ". Which isn't really true at all.

I try to interpret everything through the lens of the red letters. If some common interpretation seems incongruous to those, I look, first, for where I may be misunderstanding about that discrepancy or if, perhaps, there may be a more harmonious interpretation. I'm sure there's plenty that I'm still wrong about, but I truly feel I've learned a lot by being open and appreciative of what Truth may lie in another's viewpoint.

I've also found value and clarity from some of the teachings of the various worldly religions. But only because I am grounded in my faith and look for where commonality exists that are in harmony with those red letters.

To me, civil and open dialog has a tremendous potential to create clarity. There's also been times where, when I'm really dialed in, I can gain a deeper understanding WHILE I'm trying to articulate a particular view or understanding about some doctrinal matter. As if the Holy Spirit is illuminating the matter right before my eyes and both of us engaged in the discussion gain a deeper understanding.

Sometimes I learn that I was wrong and can now see what I misunderstood or maybe where was needed a slight adjustment. Other times I may have been right, but didn't have the fuller understanding.

Sometimes a verse will really "come to life" and speak loudly to my spirit. Then at some later time I might read that same verse and because of other Truths that I've learned since the first revelation, the verse now means even more.

My first understanding was still 100% true, yet with the foundation having been laid, I now see a much broader and deeper understanding of the verse/concept being taught.

I could have never gotten to point B without first having a firm handle on point A. Maybe akin to marveling at an iceberg and then discovering that you've only seen the tip sticking out of the water. Now you see how large it really is in its entirety.

I'd challenge anyone to come with open mind and open heart to the Word. You WILL hear the Lord speaking.

When I say "come with open mind and open heart" I mean TRULY seeking the truth and not looking for reasons to NOT believe. That's easy.

There's certainly no shortage of things one could point to as an excuse not to believe, but instead come asking for revelation and understanding. If you're heart is sincerely seeking truth, there is no doubt He will answer.
5/5/2023 10:17 PM (edited)
Posted by Lennybruce26 on 5/5/2023 6:53:00 PM (view original):
If someone believes that Jesus is the son of God - from the Old Testament with or without the trinity I believe that person is Christian. Many Protestants don’t like Catholics or even each other and definitely visa versa.
Some Christians don’t accept all 4 gospels as equal in their truth.
in every major religion there are significantly different variations of belief with a core that is mutual for the most part. Even Buddhism which technically is not a religion has different bodies of belief and philosophy.

My understanding is that there are so many sects of
Protestant because people can never agree and different groups want their own independent system beholden to no other group.

So while I can certainly agree that LDS seems to be off the beaten track they are a branch like branch Dravidian’s are a branch but they both believe in the divinity of Jesus as in the gospels.

From 60 - 200 there were other competing gospels some still known and even followed to this day.
The 4 gospels won and were bound together.

Every major religion has splintered groups that compete and in some cases even violently fight today and many violently fought centuries ago.
That is very counterproductive and the desire for fundamental believers to try to dominate the evolutionary branches both religious wise and sometimes political is wrongheaded and unfortunate and harmful.
This is a good post.

My understanding is that there are so many sects of Protestant because people can never agree and different groups want their own independent system beholden to no other group.


This portion is of particular interest to me because it's related to much of what i was rambling on about above.

It's also an interesting study with many facets. What I believe to be the case is essentially this:

The early church was in fact Jesus and His disciples. The writers documented quite a lot of what went on during His lifetime and immediately after the Ascension. Most of the writers were martyrd prior to the 2nd century. These stories had been orally transmitted for a few decades and finally started becoming written as early as the 40s AD. Written narratives, as early as the 60s.

Some will point to this timeline as a way to discredit. However, it is imperative to remember a few important points.

First, when Jesus said He would return, the apostles believed it would be fairly soon. At some point they realized maybe He wouldn't return as quickly as they had hoped, and it'd be a good idea to preserve these events in writing.

Second, it was a very illiterate culture. Very few could read and write, so writing something down wasn't a very effective way of "spreading the Gospel". Again they wrote it after realizing "His return may be awhile, so we better preserve His teachings".

Third, this was long before the printing press so preserving multiple copies of a written record was both very tedious and very expensive.

Simultaneously, IMO, the Romans kinda took control over this strange phenomenon they were witnessing. They didn't understand what was going on and why it was having such a profound impact but they knew they'd better gain control over it pretty quickly. IMO this was the first "corruption" of the Truth.

The Roman Catholic Church was, by far, the largest and most dominant denomination of Christianity for literally more than a millenia. Throughout this entire 1500 years or whatever, they determined what was and what wasn't "scripture". Additionally, because of the aforementioned illiteracy most folks didn't own a Bible, nor could they read it even if they did. This presented a great opportunity for perversion of the Word. Popes were revered as having the pinnacle of understanding and communion with the Lord, but as history reveals many of them were wretched and vile men. It is impossible for me to believe that the two can go hand in hand.

Those Catholic leaders who were actually devout, saw their role as shepherd of their flock. Indeed there is much Biblical support for taking this position. In fact, it was even necessary because of the illiteracy of their flock.

Over the centuries, lots of corruption entered the church. It's no coincidence that the protestant reformation coincided with the invention of the printing press. As more people became literate and combined with the newfound accessibility of the Bible, these perversions became more clear to many more folks. With the invention of the press literacy rates grew from barely over 10% in 1500 to roughly 60% by 1750.

While Martin Luther is well known as the "founder" of protestantism, there were plenty of others who had similar revelations due to the ability to now read the Word for themselves.

Because they were seeking truth they were given revelation to help "correct" these errors. The Lord opened their eyes to the doctrinal missteps of the Catholic church leaders, and they separated themselves from what had been THE church for 1500 years.

The Catholic church and their leaders obviously rejected these new teachings. Even the truly good ones were concerned that scripture in the hands of the lay person would ultimately result in ever fracturing sects. The common man hadn't spent years studying and would be likely to draw erroneous conclusions. In many ways, because the church was born out of Judaism, the priests were basically rabbis who dedicated their lives to the understanding the Word. Only real difference being they studied both testaments, while the rabbi studied only the Tanakh.

If every man could assign their own interpretation as the Truth, surely the Truth will get perverted. Ultimately they were proven right, evidenced by the fact that we now have an enormous amount of differing "Christian" denominations. So the protestant reformation was simultaneously a great thing and a bad thing.

Even from the very beginning of the reformation there were factions who could agree that many of the Catholic teachings were wrong, but couldn't cone together among themselves.

This due to having a different understanding on certain issues and which issues were more paramount than others. An immediate catch 22. Some revelation of Truth coupled with some fracturing and blurring of what that Truth might ultimately be.

Over the years more Truth was revealed through some new teacher who shared that Truth with many. Typically, when that new teacher passed away, followers of his wonderful insight would desire to codify his teachings and often called themselves by his name (Lutheran, Calvinist Weslyan (which became Methodists)).

So THAT'S a big part of why there are so many. Along with what you mention, just simple humanism and ego getting in the way of what could have been a harmony of Truths. The pieces are out there, but they have been scattered among all the different denominations.
5/5/2023 9:03 PM
Posted by Lennybruce26 on 5/5/2023 9:38:00 PM (view original):
It is my respectful opinion that when it comes to the fundamental believers of any religion, that the least tolerant of debate or the failure of one to surrender to strict obedience of the doctrine is primarily due to an abject fear. Fear of doubt in the perfection of their beliefs and also fear motivated by an overwhelming desire for indisputable proof that in their heart they know is impossible but refuse to admit which creates a very hostile prickly shield. The relationship issues are due to their fear and not some type of intellectual adverse reaction to another opinion.
I think most of that is very close to what I said, or at least what I was trying to say.

...and also fear motivated by an overwhelming desire for indisputable proof that in their heart they know is impossible...


This is one part where I will offer an objection.
I definitely agree with your assessment concerning fear and doubt being the root cause of an inability to discuss openly and truly hear another's viewpoint.

I cannot speak to the certainty or "absolute proof" of other religions, or any other individual for that matter.

But I can say, without a doubt, such certainty exists within me in the form of the Holy Spirit.

It is as certain as any tangible object and in some aspects even more so.

That's what drives the zealousness of those who strive to share the Gospel.

Unfortunately in many cases their tone and/or method sometimes resembles too closely the zealots of other faiths.

Then still there are others who have no real relationship with the Lord and their true motivation comes from the shallow "I'm on the right team" mentality.
5/5/2023 10:13 PM
Agree 1000%
5/6/2023 8:10 AM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Posted by DougOut on 5/5/2023 5:02:00 PM (view original):
I respectfully disagree.

Truth is more important than optics. The fact is they are not Christian. Let's take a very quick look at Mormonism and see what we think.

1.) God used to be a man on another planet. (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321; Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 345; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333).

2.) God resides near a star called Kolob. (Pearl of Great Price, p. 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, p. 428).

3.) The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's (Doctrines and Covenants 130:22)

4.) God is in the form of a man. (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 3). (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 3).

5.) “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see,” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345).

6.) Eventually...you yourself can become a GOD. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345-347, 354).

They believe in a MOTHER God and God is married and the trinity is 3 separate Gods and I would be remiss were I not to mention they tell you Good Works are necessary for salvation - in direct contradiction to the doctrine of Grace set forth in the Holy scripture.

Bars and Clubs do a lot of outreach but I don't send my friends there.We don't hate the Mormons. We pray for them.

I want to revisit this a bit.

I would hope most identifying as Christians would agree that the denomination one belongs to is not any measure of whether or not they are "saved".

What DOES determine one's salvation?

Accepting Christ as your personal Savior. Right?

There also exists disagreement among some denominations concerning what role baptism plays. It's certainly not an easy one to answer because on the one hand Jesus himself in Mark 16:16 says:
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned".

Additionally Jesus himself was baptised by John.
Matthew 3:13-15 reads:
"Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John.
But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented".
Lastly, we also see Jesus command us to baptize.
Matthew 28:19:
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"

However, Ephesians 2:8-9 reads:
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast".

Is baptism "works"? In this context I'd have to answer yes. Something YOU did that earned you salvation.

But maybe we're actually conflating two separate ideas of what "baptism" is.

John the Baptist clearly draws a distinction here:
Luke 3:16 reads:
"John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire"

1 Corinthians 12:13 reads:
"For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink".

And finally Colossians 2:12 reads:
"having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead"

So obviously here it's symbolic, as we certainly weren't really "buried".

The baptism referred to when Jesus says "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved"
is the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

This is where the Lord accepts that one's "belief" is sincere and earnest. If that is the case you are immediately "baptized" with the Holy Spirit.

Certainly a water baptism is important for many reasons,, but I think it's hard to conclude it is a necessary pre-requisite of one's salvation.

Now, I'll come back to the beginning again. If one belongs to a church who teaches the necessity of a water baptism, and therefore believes it to be true, does it bring into question their salvation?

I don't think so.
5/6/2023 8:18 PM
It's my personal belief and understanding of the scripture that water baptism is not necessary for salvation.

Salvation occurs the moment you accept Christ as your savior. That is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. He indwells you. You are now a part of the family of God. You have been adopted and GOD is your Abba father.

The most obvious example I can give is the crucifixion itself. Christ was tortured and murdered while hanging between two State determined criminals. The one denied Christ and mocked him asking him to save himself. The other ended up believing. The one who accepted Christ was told by Jesus he would be in Paradise that very day. He wasn't baptized while hanging there on the cross.

Water baptism is like communion. It is a commandment from Christ we do these things as a display of our belief and love in GODs son and in remembrance of and to and in him. We do these things with our fellow believers to strengthen and edify each other as an act of love.

That's my understanding.

5/7/2023 7:29 AM
That is my understanding as well.

I know my example about baptism kind of took center stage. I was trying to demonstrate that sometimes good intentioned people could draw erroneous conclusions because there is, in some cases, so much nuance involved in "getting it right".

However, the much broader idea I was trying to excavate from all of that is the last paragraph and question. I'll rephrase and elaborate a bit.

Tommy belongs to a church that teaches the necessity of a water baptism, and therefore believes it to be true. Tommy may call into question the legitimacy of Billy's salvation because Billy wasn't baptized.

Let's just say for the purpose of this exercise, Billy is a person with a horrific phobia of water and declines any submersion baptism whatsoever.

In Tommy's mind Billy isn't "really" saved. Billy isn't hanging from a cross and is entirely capable of getting baptized, only he refuses to do so.

Tommy and his congregation may shout Mark 16:16 at Billy and may even ask him to leave their church, since Billy openly refuses to obey, what they believe to be, a very straightforward command from the Lord.

Now you and I agree that Tommy's church has it wrong and there's nothing more required of Billy.

Still, Tommy will debate with us over Mark 16:16 and It's unlikely we will win over Tommy's mind. In fact I would argue we could not.

IF Tommy came to our discussion with an open mind seeking the truth and asking for clarity from the Holy Spirit, NOW our arguments and evidence may change his mind.

So my question posed to you is this:

Since Tommy belongs to a church that "has it wrong". In this example, one that attributes the power of Salvation to a secondary requirement of water baptism. Does that then bring into question Tommy's salvation? For believing that erroneous interpretation and insisting "without baptism you really aren't saved"?
5/7/2023 9:06 AM (edited)
Posted by Mwett on 5/7/2023 9:21:00 AM (view original):
This has potential to go down dangerous rabbit trails and segways. I suggest caution. It's not an accident in my previous reply I didn't mention either way the necessity or unessential required to or not to of particular matters. Ask someone if they luv Jesus and they might answer well I go to church and read the bible and sing happy joy joy songs. But they didn't answer the question; they actually may luv Jesus but none of those signs in and of themselves indicates you're a saved Christian anymore than standing in a garage makes you a car. Again, I'd be careful specially with unbelievers watching the potential of believers 'disagreements' and whataboutism. I'd advocate a K.I.S.S. approach.

JESUS is Life ! The rest is just details.
To address complex and nuanced ideas does certainly have potential. Both good and bad.

The refusal to do so is a key problem in many unbeliever's eyes. They may have similarly complex and nuanced questions that have been ignored or unanswered due to fear of "bad potential" on the part of the believer.

To a thinker, this looks evasive and is very unpersuasive.
5/7/2023 9:40 AM (edited)
Well.....that's the end of that then.

NEXT TOPIC
5/7/2023 1:07 PM
Posted by Mwett on 5/7/2023 9:53:00 AM (view original):
Really ? It's mine and other believers here valid opinion that most minds are already made up and nothing we do or say here will persuade them to our side, but our own in-house can't agree or get along is joyous confirmation for them of their yeah haha no thanx.

Question for the doubters and nit-pickers and hole punchers : if you see believers here agree on some Christian doctrine matter or another, will that ever be enough for you to consider Jesus ? Come back in a week and publicly declare yes you claim Christ as your personal savior and cleanser of sins and you want to spend eternity with Him, and I've got a WIS team fee free for you.

There's nothing wrong with what you're suggesting but I believe in lite of this particular environ is better suited and labeled as Bible study and home fellowship. The minute one of us here says yeah this is mandatory and another of us says no it's not, we both lose and the watching world skeptics win. As far as 'thinkers' go, you're entitled to your opinion, and this is mine.
Fair enough. Though it's a shame I never got an answer from Doug.

If any of you care to engage in such dialog:

https://wis-biblestudy.freeforums.net/thread/2/study-1
5/7/2023 1:18 PM (edited)
Posted by Lennybruce26 on 5/7/2023 11:16:00 AM (view original):
Posted by Mwett on 5/7/2023 9:53:00 AM (view original):
Really ? It's mine and other believers here valid opinion that most minds are already made up and nothing we do or say here will persuade them to our side, but our own in-house can't agree or get along is joyous confirmation for them of their yeah haha no thanx.

Question for the doubters and nit-pickers and hole punchers : if you see believers here agree on some Christian doctrine matter or another, will that ever be enough for you to consider Jesus ? Come back in a week and publicly declare yes you claim Christ as your personal savior and cleanser of sins and you want to spend eternity with Him, and I've got a WIS team fee free for you.

There's nothing wrong with what you're suggesting but I believe in lite of this particular environ is better suited and labeled as Bible study and home fellowship. The minute one of us here says yeah this is mandatory and another of us says no it's not, we both lose and the watching world skeptics win. As far as 'thinkers' go, you're entitled to your opinion, and this is mine.
I am not a doubter or nit picker or any other similar adjective. I have literally zero belief strictly from my own analysis of both the Old and New Testament.
I don’t have a hole that needs to be filled in by surrendering to something that - to me - is like a man going down a chimney.
I resent people who are unable to accept the sincerity and authenticity of non believers of Jesus which are 75% of planet Earth.
I do resent a condescending attitude toward non believers in a public forum.
I will not now and hopefully ever debate the veracity of the gospels or the Old Testament.
It would cause anger to some people and they would say you are going to hell.

Condescension has no place in honest, open dialog from anyone engaging in the discussion.

Yes, some would definitely "lose their cool". I think that this fairly common reaction comes from a place of frustration, borne out of the fact that they rarely engage in such dialog and are therefore "out of their element".

I find it valuable and enjoy such dialog.
5/7/2023 1:31 PM
◂ Prev 1...9|10|11|12|13 Next ▸
TRUMP: Convicted Sexual Abuser Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.