re lds rick s reply robert weiss psyrobtw ubvmsb cc buffalo edu writes rick anderson replied to my letter with ra in article c elp l c acsu buffalo edu ra psyrobtw ubvmsb cc buffalo edu robert weiss says ra just briefly on something that you mentioned in passing you refer to differing interpretations of create and say that many christians may not agree so what that is really irrelevant we do not base our faith on how many people think one way or another do we the bottom line is truth regardless of popularity of opinions it may be irrelevant to you and your personal beliefs or should i say bias but it is relevant to me and many others you re right the bottom line is truth independant from you or anyone else since you proclaim truths as a self proclaimed appointee may i ask you by what authority you do this because it says so in the bible does the bible say so or is it you or someone else who interprets whether a scripture or doctrine conforms to your particular liking or disapproval excuse moi but your line of truths haven t moved me one bit to persuade me that my beliefs are erroneous of all the preachers of truth on this net you have struck me as a self righteous member of the wrecking crew with no positive message to me or other latter day saints whatsoever btw this entire discussion reminds me a lot of the things said by jesus to the pharisees ye hypocrite s ye preach about me with your lips but your hearts are far removed from me also i find it rather strange that in trying to persuade that created and eternally existent are equivalent you say granted the mormon belief you can t grant your conclusion and then expect the point to have been addressed in order to reply to the issue you have to address and answer the point that was raised and not just jump to the conclusion that you grant sophistry look who s talking jumping to conclusions you wouldn t do that yourself right all you address is your own convictions regardless whether we come up with any biblical scriptures which supports our points of view because you reject such interpretations without any consideration whatsoever the bible states that lucifer was created the bible states that jesus is the creator of all the contradiction that we have is that the lds belief is that jesus and lucifer were the same a beautiful example of disinformation and a deliberate misrepresentation of lds doctrine the former kgb would have loved to employ you jesus and lucifer are not the same silly and you know it the mormon belief is that all are children of god literally there is nothing symbolic about it this however contradicts what the bible says the bible teaches that not everyone is a child of god correction it may contradict would you think the bible says the bible indeed does teach that not all are children of god in the sense that they belong to or follow god in his footsteps satan and his followers have rebelled against god and are not children followers redeemed of god but it doesn t mean that they were not once created by god but chose to separate themselves from those who chose to follow god and his plan of salvation the field is the world the good seed are the children of the kingdom but the tares are the children of the wicked one matthew so this illustrates nicely what i just said the children of the kingdom are those who have remained valiant in their testimony of jesus and have shown works of repentance etc and the children of the wicked one are those who rebelled against god and the lamb the issue of satan s spirit offspring and those who followed him has not been addressed in this and other verses you copied from your bible you purposefully obscured the subject by swamping your right with non related scriptures lots of nice scriptures deleted not robert w copyrighted though ra we are told that and this is life eternal that they might know ra thee the only true god and jesus christ whom thou hast sent ra john life eternal is to know the only true god yet the ra doctrines of the lds that i have mentioned portray a vastly ra different jesus a jesus that cannot be reconciled with the jesus of ra the bible they are so far removed from each other that to proclaim correction my jesus is indeed different than your jesus and can be reconciled with the jesus in the bible not your interpretation of him i concur but i honestly couldn t care less ra one as being true denies the other from being true according to the ra bible eternal life is dependent on knowing the only true god and ra not the construct of imagination in this single posting of yours i ve seen more constructs of imagination than in all of the pro lds mails combined i have read so far in this news group first get your lds facts straight before you dare preaching to us about the only true god whom you interpret according to your own likes and dislikes but whose image i cannot reconcile with what i know about him myself i guess your grandiose self image does not allow for other faiths believing in the divinity of jesus christ but in a different way or fashion than your own not that it really matters the mission and progress of the lds church will go on boldly and nobly and no mob or opponent can stop the work from progressing until it has visited every continent swept every clime and sounded in every ear this is really a red herring it doesn t address any issue raised but rather it seeks to obfuscate the fact that some groups try to read something into the bible doesn t change what the bible teaches sigh what the bible teaches or what the bible teaches according to robert weiss and co i respect the former i reject the latter without the remotest feeling that i have rejected jesus on the contrary and by the way i do respect your interpretations of the bible i even grant you being a christian following your own image of him as much as i am a christian following my own image of him in my heart most of the other replies have instead hop scotched to the issue of bruce mcconkie and whether his views were official doctrine i don t think that it matters if mcconkie s views were canon that is not the issue were mcconkie s writings indicative of mormon belief on this subject is the real issue the indication from rick is that they may certainly be the issue is of course that you love to use anything to either mis represent or ridicule the lds church the issue of official doctrine is obviously very important mcconkie s views have been controversial e g the seven deadly heresies has made me a heretic at best or erroneous at worst blacks not to receive the priesthood in this dispensation i respect him as someone who has made his valuable contribution to the church but i personally do not rely on his personal interpretations his book mormon doctrine is oftentimes referred to as mcconkie s bible in mormon circles on mormon doctrine i rather look to official doctrinal sources and to hugh nibley s books the last comment is an lds insider reference summarizing mcconkie was a wise man who contributed undoubtedly far more to the kingdom of god than i have but whose views are by no means dogma or accepted doctrine some of it clearly belongs to personal interpretation and speculation but having said this i find mcconkie even in his most biased and speculative moments far more thought provoking than the trash coming from your proverbial pen i m somewhat appalled that i have allowed myself to sink as low as you in this posting robert weiss psyrobtw ubvms cc buffalo edu casper c knies isscck byuvm bitnet brigham young university isscck vm byu edu ucs computer facilities
