Was Jesus a Mormon?

[_BrianH]

If you don't have all of Jesus' words, how do you even pretend to know that your organization has restored them???

You fail by this same logic (John 21:25). I'll bet I could prove I know by the same way you''ll answer if asked "How do you know Jesus Christ is the Son of God?"

I can think of three or four possible answers and any one you give, you must allow me to use as an answer to your question here lest you fall again into intellectual dishonesty.

Your logic is as bad as your hermeneutics. You claim to have "restored" Jesus' teachings, but you admit that you do not have a record of what you claim to have "restored" as ever existing BEFORE it was supposedly "restored"! So by your own admission the very premise to your claim of restoration remains unsubstantiated and inseparable from pure speculation or even fantasy. You have no basis to assert your own premise as a fact because your own premise assumes itself: that Christ's words were lost.

By contrast I do not make this mistake or anything like it, nor do I even have the opportunity to do so since I am not claiming to have "restored" anything, let alone Christ's claim to be the Son of God, since he himself made that quite clear in the Gospels. Do you not believe him?

You can perhaps indeed think of three or four possible "answers" as long as by the word "answer" you mean "reply" or "response". But simply replying to the challenge you have evaded thus far, is not the same thing as "answering" it. Once again, the challenge here is for you to show me where Jesus Christ ever taught the distinctively Mormon doctrines listed above which you attribute to him every time you claim to have "restored" HIS doctrine.

Still waiting for you to address the main topic here, B.

I am very patient, so take your time, but DO get around to it eventually, K?

-BH

.

[Guest]

Consiglieri, nobody connected with your question about possible restored ideas. They require a small moment of thought to connect to the opening question. Saying somethings were restored actually makes more sense to me than expecting a whole shopping list to be explicitly and demonstrably from Jesus.

Hi, Huckelberry!

Yes, I did propose these in seriousness, but that's okay because BrianH has other fish to fry in his own inimitable way.

I will add that BrianH's challenge seems like a stacked deck from the outset.

Here's why:

1. Mormonism claims truths were lost from the Bible and that, at least in large part, the truths that were lost necessitated the Restoration.

2. BrianH now challenges Mormons to prove where their "restored" teachings can be found in the Bible.

3. The whole Mormon rationale for having these teachings restored is that they were lost, and hence cannot by definition be found in the Bible.

4. If the "restored" teachings could be found in the Bible, there likely would have been no need to "restore" them in the first place.

Now, if you want a pinch of irony, I will conclude with the observation that the fact Mormonism's "restored" teachings cannot be found in the Bible prove that they are true. ;^)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Yoda]

Consiglieri, nobody connected with your question about possible restored ideas. They require a small moment of thought to connect to the opening question. Saying somethings were restored actually makes more sense to me than expecting a whole shopping list to be explicitly and demonstrably from Jesus.

Hi, Huckelberry!

Yes, I did propose these in seriousness, but that's okay because BrianH has other fish to fry in his own inimitable way.

I will add that BrianH's challenge seems like a stacked deck from the outset.

Here's why:

1. Mormonism claims truths were lost from the Bible and that, at least in large part, the truths that were lost necessitated the Restoration.

2. BrianH now challenges Mormons to prove where their "restored" teachings can be found in the Bible.

3. The whole Mormon rationale for having these teachings restored is that they were lost, and hence cannot by definition be found in the Bible.

4. If the "restored" teachings could be found in the Bible, there likely would have been no need to "restore" them in the first place.

Now, if you want a pinch of irony, I will conclude with the observation that the fact Mormonisms "restored" teachings cannot be found in the Bible prove that they are true. ;^)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

And this is why I have a crush on Consig! LOL

[_Radex]

I don't think our darling of the moment, BrianH, will return to address the many thoughtful responses he has received from both members and non-members (mostly non-members).

I hope he does, but I have my doubts.

[_consiglieri]

I hope he didn't get too much ink on his pigtails.

[_BrianH]

Consiglieri, nobody connected with your question about possible restored ideas. They require a small moment of thought to connect to the opening question. Saying somethings were restored actually makes more sense to me than expecting a whole shopping list to be explicitly and demonstrably from Jesus.

Hi, Huckelberry!

Yes, I did propose these in seriousness, but that's okay because BrianH has other fish to fry in his own inimitable way.

I will add that BrianH's challenge seems like a stacked deck from the outset.

Here's why:

1. Mormonism claims truths were lost from the Bible and that, at least in large part, the truths that were lost necessitated the Restoration.

2. BrianH now challenges Mormons to prove where their "restored" teachings can be found in the Bible.

3. The whole Mormon rationale for having these teachings restored is that they were lost, and hence cannot by definition be found in the Bible.

4. If the "restored" teachings could be found in the Bible, there likely would have been no need to "restore" them in the first place.

Now, if you want a pinch of irony, I will conclude with the observation that the fact Mormonism's "restored" teachings cannot be found in the Bible prove that they are true. ;^)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

There is a serious flaw in your misrepresentation. Once again, I never specified the Bible as the only source LDS can use. That is why I have been bothering to refute LDS citations of the ECFs.

-BH

.

[_harmony]

There is a serious flaw in your misrepresentation. Once again, I never specified the Bible as the only source LDS can use. That is why I have been bothering to refute LDS citations of the ECFs.

-BH

.

What source would you prefer?

[_Darth J]

I think that we have yet again established that no other church comes closer to the LDS interpretation of the Bible than the LDS Church. Therefore, the LDS Church is the true church because it follows its own interpretation of the Bible.

Similarly, we have also established that the LDS Church is false because it fails to conform to Brian H.'s interpretation of the Bible.

Now all that's left is to come up with some persuasive reason why either the LDS Church or Brian H. has any particular claim of ownership to ancient Hebrew legends and writings of unclear provenance attributed to first century Palestinian Jews.

In the meantime, I hereby declare myself to be the successor to the Roman emperors because I really, really believe in the writings of Marcus Aurelius and Julius Caesar.

[_consiglieri]

What source would you prefer?

Please say Journal of Discourses.
Please say Journal of Discourses.

[_consiglieri]

In the meantime, I hereby declare myself to be the successor to the Roman emperors because I really, really believe in the writings of Marcus Aurelius and Julius Caesar.

All hail Darth J!