igot some thing to say jesus

Originally posted by Alliance
So does this mean that your religion and your god is right, or is your (mormon) interpretation as flawed as the rest?

We claim that the Gospel and the Organization as we believe it are not flawed.

Given this, the people of the religion are not perfect. In the Bible the Israelites begged for a king and God gave them a king because they requested it, he did however tell them that it was not a wise course of action. The people have caused some things to be less than they would be if the people lived properly.

e.g. Our Word of Wisdom, the health code we follow. In it's preface we have:

Doctrine and Covenants 89:3
3 Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.

The key phrase here is "adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest." This means that because we, members of the Church, were unable to maintain a more complete law, we were given this lesser law. Some parts of our beliefs are as such. This does not constitute flaws in our belief, but flaws in the members of the Church.

Interpretation is not always important to us, we believe God speaks to our prophets. Given this, we are told what God expects of us, our interpretations really mean nothing, if God is speaking to the prophet then the important thing is listening to his advice. Interpretation is something man does, and it can be flawed. In our belief God has explained the meaning of the various scriptures through the prophets, at least as far as is important for us to know, so interpretation isn't necessary on some topics.

Here is an example of this: We believe that Joseph Smith saw God, and standing next to him was standing Christ, both with physical bodies. Given this, interpretation of scripture as to the nature of God and Christ's relationship is unnecessary.

Now, by contrast, mainstream Christianity claims that prophets have not existed since the coming of Christ. They need man to interpret the scripture, therefore their beliefs have become flawed. IMO the reason Islam is flawed is due to the belief that Muhammad was the last prophet, perhaps if they had not clung so tightly to this their beliefs would have stayed closer to the true manner religion should take. Other beliefs I hold similar views on.

We also believe that this is the last dispensation of the Gospel and that God has stated that he will not allow it to fall away before the fullness of times.

Now, that doesn't mean that the people in the Church do what they are supposed to either 😉

I think that was clear, if not, let me know, sometimes when I think things through it is more garbled than I'd like it to be.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Sorry Regret.........I forgot I was talking to you........lol

Np, figured you were just forgetting we had the discussion previously 😉

Originally posted by Regret
We claim that the Gospel and the Organization as we believe it are not flawed.

So Mormonism is the one true religion, the only interpretation of all the religous doctrine that the one god has spread?

Originally posted by Alliance
So Mormonism is the one true religion, the only interpretation of all the religous doctrine that the one god has spread?

That would be our claim.

Then I think Mormonism is hypocritical in this respect...and arrogant.

Originally posted by Alliance
Then I think Mormonism is hypocritical in this respect...and arrogant.

I don't see how it would be hypocritical, you would need to explain this view better.

As far as arrogance goes, Bible following religions should believe that there is only one way to do things, it is the only way it has occurred throughout Biblical history. Also, I do not believe that any religion that does not claim such can be accurate. I don't believe we can pick and choose our method of worship, either one is true or all are false. Truth is not a gray area, it is a black and white statement.

Besides we believe God stated it.

Originally posted by Regret
Also, I do not believe that any religion that does not claim such can be accurate. I don't believe we can pick and choose our method of worship, either one is true or all are false. Truth is not a gray area, it is a black and white statement.

Well said.

Originally posted by Regret
I don't see how it would be hypocritical, you would need to explain this view better.

As far as arrogance goes, Bible following religions should believe that there is only one way to do things, it is the only way it has occurred throughout Biblical history. Also, I do not believe that any religion that does not claim such can be accurate. I don't believe we can pick and choose our method of worship, either one is true or all are false. Truth is not a gray area, it is a black and white statement.

Besides we believe God stated it.

I don't believe any of it. And if you look at all religions with the same skeptical eye, you see that they are all ludicris. Every faith, From Scientology to Ancient Greek beleifs, with everything else in betwen are completly silly.

December....who said Jesus had to be born in DEC anyway????

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
You realize that your claim is exactly the same claim that every other religion makes (with the possible exception of Agnosticism, but thats a totally different story) That attitude isn't limited to LDS or even Bible following religions. Its been the only way to keep followers, and been used since the advent of Hinduism (Which as the first organized religion basically set the precident for everything else.) What would a religion be if they didn't say "We'll this is the way it is. Our god, or gods said it so, and people better than you heard it even though you couldn't concieve it every happening you need to follow us anyway or else scary and really bad things will happen."

I don't believe any of it. And if you look at all religions with the same skeptical eye, you see that they are all ludicris. Every faith, From Scientology to Ancient Greek beleifs, with everything else in betwen are completly silly.

I do realize this. The question was:

Originally posted by Alliance
So does this mean that your religion and your god is right, or is your (mormon) interpretation as flawed as the rest?

I answered the question. I did not shout it at everyone that disagreed with me, I would find that arrogant and rude. Alliance was asking about my belief, so I stated it. I don't believe in lying, it is our belief. I would never have insulted another's beliefs by stating this, but it is the simple answer to a direct question.

I do not understand the purpose of your post. It is merely a statement saying you disagree. If that was all you were wanting to say, then ok, nice to know.

Originally posted by rare_fox
He couldnt be born in december ok it was realy cold out in the winter the sheperds wount be out there from all the coldness ..

Many have already answered this question based upon their individual resources..but i have another question, we know that Jesus(Yehua) of nazareth at his early young age at 12(correct me if am wrong) was gone at the history til he got back only at the age around 20's to preach his own gospel...where and what did he do during those lost years in life???

anyone?...... 😕

Originally posted by mahasattva
Many have already answered this question based upon their individual resources..but i have another question, we know that Jesus(Yehua) of nazareth at his early young age at 12(correct me if am wrong) was gone at the history til he got back only at the age around 20's to preach his own gospel...where and what did he do during those lost years in life???

anyone?...... 😕

There is evidence that he may have traveled with Joseph of Aramethea (not sure if this was the correct person or spelling, someone correct me here if I'm wrong.) Who was a merchant. There is possible reference to Jesus in rolls at various eastern temples and also in northern Europe. Debbiejo posted the references somewhere on the forum.

I will respond in a bit 😬

Originally posted by mahasattva
Many have already answered this question based upon their individual resources..but i have another question, we know that Jesus(Yehua) of nazareth at his early young age at 12(correct me if am wrong) was gone at the history til he got back only at the age around 20's to preach his own gospel...where and what did he do during those lost years in life???

anyone?...... 😕

This appear to be the consensus now among the scholars. This viewpoint is that Jesus, having travelled to India in his youth, returned there after the Crucifixion. He spent most of his life there, and passed away there, and is burred in Shrinagar, Kashmir. This viewpoint is supported by people such as Holger Kersten, Dr Fida Hussnain and Andreas Faber-Kaiser, all who have written on the subject.

hat evidence is there that Jesus went to India?

A list of documents containing information about Jesus' travels to the East and also his ministry in Kashmir can he seen here.

There is local legend and evidence that the man in the tomb is the same person as Jesus Christ. This evidence is also presented at the Ancient Documents page. The Jewish origin of the people of Afghanistan and India is explored here and also forms part of the documented evidence about Jesus' travels by providing a motive.

Look at these ancient documents...

http://www.tombofjesus.com/ancient.htm

Originally posted by Regret
As far as arrogance goes, Bible following religions should believe that there is only one way to do things, it is the only way it has occurred throughout Biblical history. Also, I do not believe that any religion that does not claim such can be accurate. I don't believe we can pick and choose our method of worship, either one is true or all are false. Truth is not a gray area, it is a black and white statement.

Besides we believe God stated it.

But that is what *all* Christian groups claim. According to the Christian theory all but one are wrong - but they all claim to be the *one* for the exact same reason with out providing a single iota more of proof then any of the others.

So how can any person say, with complete confidence, which is the correct one? Really, God wants people to believe, I'd have thought he would make an effort to point out which is his true religion. But no, he seems happy to have a few hundred different interpretations going, all disliking the others and all claiming to be the one and only.

Originally posted by Regret
Due to this love, God has spoken to all peoples from time to time in their own tongue. This communication is then taken by the people and often interpreted poorly or blatantly altered. As such most religions have a basis in truth, that the same God that spoke in the Bible gave them. From our view it is not a surprise that similarities arise.

This is where your idea fails. You install your god at teh top of this hierarchy. You (magically may I add) have been "able" to not change the word of god, but all other religoins are rip-offs of Mormon Chirstianity. This is completely illogical

It is even more illigical becuase your faith continuously gains new interpretations (but granted from only one prophet at a time (the power structure must be maintained)). This means that the will of god is constantyl changing. Kind of funny for a "god' that has a plan for everything dont ya think?

Originally posted by debbiejo
It's said he went to India...

This appear to be the consensus now among the scholars. This viewpoint is that Jesus, having travelled to India in his youth, returned there after the Crucifixion. He spent most of his life there, and passed away there, and is burred in Shrinagar, Kashmir. This viewpoint is supported by people such as Holger Kersten, Dr Fida Hussnain and Andreas Faber-Kaiser, all who have written on the subject.

hat evidence is there that Jesus went to India?

A list of documents containing information about Jesus' travels to the East and also his ministry in Kashmir can he seen here.

There is local legend and evidence that the man in the tomb is the same person as Jesus Christ. This evidence is also presented at the Ancient Documents page. The Jewish origin of the people of Afghanistan and India is explored here and also forms part of the documented evidence about Jesus' travels by providing a motive.

Look at these ancient documents...

http://www.tombofjesus.com/ancient.htm

* Saint Luke provides the age, Jesus was 12 when He was seen talking in synagogues, after that, a big gap and Jesus started preaching at the age of 30... so where was He?

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary , the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him."
Mark 6:3

* the Jews knew Jesus from His early childhood up to His preaching... the missing 13-29 age gap was clearly spent on carpentry, Jesus helping His foster father Joseph... 😉

Originally posted by Alliance
This is where your idea fails. You install your god at teh top of this hierarchy. You (magically may I add) have been "able" to not change the word of god, but all other religoins are rip-offs of Mormon Chirstianity. This is completely illogical

It is not at the top of this hierarchy. It is only the current incarnation of the same thing. They are not rip offs, they were given what they needed at that time. As to our ability to not change the word of God, refer to my comments further below.

History of the Church 5:135
This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted - by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed

"Adapted to the circumstances" is the important phrase. Throughout history there have been variances in the application of the Gospel. This was due to what the people needed.

Originally posted by Alliance
It is even more illigical becuase your faith continuously gains new interpretations (but granted from only one prophet at a time (the power structure must be maintained)). This means that the will of god is constantyl changing. Kind of funny for a "god' that has a plan for everything dont ya think?

We do not gain new interpretations. The will of God is not constantly changing. Most frequently the prophet and the Twelve are maintaining the Gospel, similar to what is described here:

Eusebius Pamphilus, The Ecclesiastical History..., trans. and intro. by Christian Frederick Cruse (Grand Rapids, Mich.:Baker Book House, 1955), 118.

The same author [Hegesippus], relating the events of the times, also says, that the church continued until then [the early second century] as a pure and uncorrupt virgin; whilst if there were any at all, that attempted to pervert the sound doctrine of the saving gospel, they were yet skulking in dark retreats; but when the sacred choir of apostles became extinct, and the generation of those that had been privileged to hear their inspired wisdom, had passed away, then also the combinations of impious error arose by the fraud and delusions of false teachers. These also, as there was none of the apostles left, henceforth attempted, without shame, to preach their false doctrine against the gospel of truth. Such is the statement of Hegesippus.

Also, if there were revelation since the time of Christ, there would be no room for non-Christians to claim that changes had occurred. Why? Because God would have been there constantly correcting the Christians that were in error. The problem is that the Apostles disappeared, there became a void in the authority in the Church. Due to this many truths were lost, you yourself have claimed this is so even though you do not believe in it.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
But that is what *all* Christian groups claim. According to the Christian theory all but one are wrong - but they all claim to be the *one* for the exact same reason with out providing a single iota more of proof then any of the others.

So how can any person say, with complete confidence, which is the correct one? Really, God wants people to believe, I'd have thought he would make an effort to point out which is his true religion. But no, he seems happy to have a few hundred different interpretations going, all disliking the others and all claiming to be the one and only.

We claim that God speaks directly to our prophet today. Mainstream Christians do not claim this. They typically claim that prophets were ended with Christ. We believe God speaks to a prophet today.

I understand other religions may claim similar, I don't deny it. This is our belief, and the question was what we believed.

but you still calim that your interpretation of "gods word" is more right than anyone elses.

Example: polygamy. It was accepted. Now it is not. There was a change in interpretation. There wil be future ones. How can you say your interpretation is any more right?