Article Calling Mormonism a 'Cult' Removed From Billy Graham Website
An article describing Mormonism as a "cult" was removed from the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association's (BGEA) website following Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's visit with Graham last week.
The article described The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly referred to as Mormonism, as a group that "teaches doctrines or beliefs that deviate from the biblical message of the Christian faith." Other groups identified as cults in the article include Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, the Unification Church, Scientologists and Spiritists.
The article was removed sometime after Romney, a Mormon, visited Graham at his Montreat, N.C., home last week. Ken Barun, chief of staff for BGEA, said in an emailed statement on Tuesday that the organization removed the article in order to avoid a debate, though he did not specify whether or not the candidate's visit had anything to do...
John UK wrote: Yes, it was very well said. As for poor old DOS, he can't even discern which thread to post on. Funny how they have to keep changing monikers to avoid being tied down. And then they never answer questions put to them (him). The evidence stacks up, and they never argue against it, just distract and try to forget what has gone before. False brethren, false teachers, cult members, you find them all coming on here and trying their subterfuge.
Of course you are correct. I think it is noteworthy that you can pick up on them using different monikers. I guess I just don't understand why someone would do that so I never look for it. If they are trying to represent the truth of God's word and not "actually" trying to mislead people, they wouldn't do that. I even put my email address on my things because if I can't argue a point, then I should probably leave it alone. Some have actually taken me up on that, but they have all lost. Anyway, good for you!
Yes, John this is a miserable world we live in. If I didn't feel that way, then I would be tempted to love it and we know that will never happen. KJV
Curious wrote: Gentlemen, what is a meditation book?
I have in the past written out my thoughts and studied the scriptures on issues which were puzzling me at the time. I found that writing them out was conducive to thinking objectively about them, and I came to very firm conclusions through that sort of exercise. It was therefore a great blessing to me, although I would not have called the stored material a "meditation file", because of eastern religion connotations.
As for poor old DOS, he can't even discern which thread to post on.
Funny how they have to keep changing monikers to avoid being tied down. And then they never answer questions put to them (him).
The evidence stacks up, and they never argue against it, just distract and try to forget what has gone before. False brethren, false teachers, cult members, you find them all coming on here and trying their subterfuge.
Curious wrote: Gentlemen, what is a meditation book?
Sorry about the confusion; it isn't really a book. I am one who meditates on doctrinal and theological issues ( I am also curious) and then I write my thoughts down. I simply call it my meditation file and it is huge. In fact, I actually have some others that are really big, but they are only concerned with one issue. I write my thoughts out and then use the scriptures along with them, so I have literally thousands of scriptures in that file. So when I am looking for something, I usually go to that to find it. If I don't find it there, then I do the usual google or some other bible search tool.
Frank wrote: Thanks for your comment. I only tease you with my KJV trials and tribulations. Although that issue is something that does concern me. I remember arguing with StevenR and I used the NASB. He said something to the effect that how can I be taken seriously if I use something other than the KJ and others have said that as well. So, as not to offend those, I really do go through those trials, but it really is not a problem. But, thanks for your comment. When I am in a hurry, then I am likely to use the NASB. I actually don't have any objections to the KJ; as you know I used it for years. I am not a NASB only like jim is. Lastly, right or wrong, I really don't want to offend my weaker brothers.
You've got some good humour Frank, born no doubt out of many decades of living in this miserable world. Keep it up bro, we need some more smiles around here.
John UK wrote: Ah now I see what you meant, yes indeed it looks that way. Frank, if you have a favoured Bible which you trust, and accept it as inerrant, then do please use it, and do not inflict yourself with so many wounds and unnecessary trials and sacrifices. I should not want you to suffer unduly out of deference to those who hold their Bible to be the inspired and inerrant word of God. Great to see you have a meditation...
Thanks for your comment. I only tease you with my KJV trials and tribulations. Although that issue is something that does concern me. I remember arguing with StevenR and I used the NASB. He said something to the effect that how can I be taken seriously if I use something other than the KJ and others have said that as well. So, as not to offend those, I really do go through those trials, but it really is not a problem. But, thanks for your comment. When I am in a hurry, then I am likely to use the NASB. I actually don't have any objections to the KJ; as you know I used it for years. I am not a NASB only like jim is. Lastly, right or wrong, I really don't want to offend my weaker brothers.
No, I teach them to cut ties with the Anglican Church, e.g., The Influence of An Anglican Archbishop on the KJV. Thankfully for Southern Baptists they have, now if we can get a lot of IFB's and Black churches to do the same!
Frank wrote: I sure hope this fellow doesn't believe that way (believe that Christians will be judged by Christ), but I have a feeling you are correct (actually I am convinced you are correct) and he does feel that way. If he feels that way, then he doesn't understand the verses that I included and he is a lost soul. So, brother, I agree with your thoughts. I even put my proof verses in the KJV. Do you realize what a pain that is for me to do. I search my meditation file (I have written 870 pages), find the verse in the NASB in my meditation file and then go to Blue Letter Bible and seach for them in the "original" KJ; copy them to a word file and then recopy all that to SA. All kidding aside, let me know if I can clarify what I said. Your thoughts have as usual been a blessing to me and others I am sure.
Ah now I see what you meant, yes indeed it looks that way.
Frank, if you have a favoured Bible which you trust, and accept it as inerrant, then do please use it, and do not inflict yourself with so many wounds and unnecessary trials and sacrifices. I should not want you to suffer unduly out of deference to those who hold their Bible to be the inspired and inerrant word of God.
Jim Lincoln wrote: but they should cut all ties with Billy Graham as well.
Jim L If you teach that people should cut ties with Billy Graham - Surely you should also teach them to cut ties with Westcott and Hort too. Its the same family.
2 John 1 8 Watch yourselves, that you might not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. 9 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.---NASB
John UK wrote: Could you rephrase that, Frank. I wot not that thou sayest.
I sure hope this fellow doesn't believe that way (believe that Christians will be judged by Christ), but I have a feeling you are correct (actually I am convinced you are correct) and he does feel that way. If he feels that way, then he doesn't understand the verses that I included and he is a lost soul. So, brother, I agree with your thoughts.
I even put my proof verses in the KJV. Do you realize what a pain that is for me to do. I search my meditation file (I have written 870 pages), find the verse in the NASB in my meditation file and then go to Blue Letter Bible and seach for them in the "original" KJ; copy them to a word file and then recopy all that to SA.
All kidding aside, let me know if I can clarify what I said. Your thoughts have as usual been a blessing to me and others I am sure.
John UK wrote: That is a most odd comment, but then it is probably in keeping with its writer. Perhaps you'd like to explain yourself. How can a Christian be judged mercilessly? Or perhaps you do not believe that the Lord Jesus was judged in our place and bore the whole brunt of God's wrath in our stead, and was judged mercilessly as a substitutionary atonement for his chosen people.
I sure hope he doesn't believe way, but you are probably correct.
Romans 8:1 [There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
2 Corinthians 5:19,21 19. To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 21 For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Thatposter wrote: You make sure you foolish foolish men that you NEVER mention repentance without mentioning faith and grace from now on, and word everything correctly and leave nothing out - on that you will be judged and mercilessly.
That is a most odd comment, but then it is probably in keeping with its writer. Perhaps you'd like to explain yourself. How can a Christian be judged mercilessly?
Or perhaps you do not believe that the Lord Jesus was judged in our place and bore the whole brunt of God's wrath in our stead, and was judged mercilessly as a substitutionary atonement for his chosen people.
Christopher000 wrote: I'm finished with this. You are completely misunderstanding. Reply or don't, I won't be returning to read it. Honestly, I'm not really understanding your replies anyway, but I'm sure others are and can comment. Maybe I'm completely wrong here and just don't realize it. Again, my apology for obviously offending you. Take care.
I'm finished with this. You are completely misunderstanding. Reply or don't, I won't be returning to read it. Honestly, I'm not really understanding your replies anyway, but I'm sure others are and can comment.
Maybe I'm completely wrong here and just don't realize it.
Again, my apology for obviously offending you. Take care.
Christopher000 wrote: "What business is it of yours what another repents of" Normally it would not be but the reason for asking was made crystal clear in the post which should be read again. Once comprehended, it can be taken no other way than one genuinely concerned for another...that's all. Also, please do not go around speaking for God, singling out who He is going to judge mercilessly. I'm sorry if I offended you, that was not my intention.
I will repeat myself. What business is it of yours what others repented of? What is your understanding of Gods forgiveness? Is it partial or obliterated? As far as east from west, or a bit nearer?
COMMENTS | 
Anyway, good for you!
But, thanks for your comment. When I am in a hurry, then I am likely to use the NASB. I actually don't have any objections to the KJ; as you know I used it for years. I am not a NASB only like jim is. Lastly, right or wrong, I really don't want to offend my weaker brothers. 
