ErikJohnson

Hello Justice--I'm not a fan of everything C.S. Lewis wrote, but I think he did us all a real service with Mere Christianity. When I was LDS, the emphasis was always on differences/divisions among the Christian churches, and how this proved the need for a restoration, modern prophets, etc. I encountered Lewis's book when I was still LDS, and it startled me to learn that the various Christian denominations are actually quite united in matters of core doctrine. I highly recommend the book. It may cause you to reconsider... --Erik

I'll definitely comply and avoid such blunt statements. I offered a definition of "Christian" in post 31 on this thread. Perhaps I'll re-post on the Christian Belief's forum. It's a worthy topic, and I'm sure it can be discussed without running afoul of your admonition.Thanks prisonchaplain, --Erik

Good morning to you, Maya. Regarding why I waited until I had ~ 60 previous posts under my belt before I posted an intro, Pam asked the same thing and I responded in post #67. I definitely hoped that sharing my background would provide perspective for my posts. A particular thread in the Christian Belief's forum ("Denominations") persuaded me it would be helpful.And it's never too late to post an introduction, in my opinion. I enjoy reading them, although I rarely post on other people's intros. Hope that helps, --Erik

LOL, Thanks KristofferUmfrey! Maybe not quite like that, but yes, there is such a thing as accountability. And I'm glad your a fan of MHC. Good to hear.--Erik

Hi jolee65-- Don't you think your reference to Jim Jones might be a little over the top? Seriously, what does Jim Jones have to do with anything I've written? (You younger posters will have to use Wikipedia, since you probably have no idea who jolee65 is referring to.) Also, what's the bit about my being "all over the net." Are you just repeating FunkyTown and captainmoroni1265's allegations posted earlier on my thread? Do you believe them? For the record--they've been called out, both publically and via private message and they cannot substantiate their claims. Nor are they willing to acknowledge their mistakes. That speaks to character, don’t you think? The only other place I've posted on was the Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board [MA&DB]--and I posted a link to my last thread on that venue in my previous post (feel free to read it). If you think you've seen me anywhere else, by all means--substantiate your claim, either on this thread or via private message. Lastly, I get the impression you're not into dialogue and engagement with people who have different beliefs. Apparently those who do not share your views are supposed to limit themselves to quiet prayer, and thereby be an example. May I ask what you are doing here on this forum, if not to have dialogue and engagement with people who have differing points of view? --Erik

You have the advantage, Wysinger, because I don't know you. But judging from your photo--you look like a stand-up guy. We're probably about the same age, and we both have a kid. I regret if I've caused you any personal offense previously. But first off, let me commend you, Wysinger. Unlike FunkyTown and captainmoroni1265 who claimed I sent them emails, posted on Facebook LDS groups, "Ask a Mormon," etc. and then refused to either substantiate their claims or to own their mistakes--you seem to have referred to an actual event, my posts on the Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board MA&DB. Believe it or not, that's real progress! I'm an open book, and have made no effort to conceal my past life on MA&DB (another poster here recognized me in one of my first posts on the board). That said, I’m still amazed (and a bit exasperated) that FunkyTown & captainmoroni felt the need for such wild embellishment. However, a couple of your characterizations were off the mark (even if Pam and applepansy appreciated them), so kindly permit me to correct the record. First off, I don't have a lot of time on my hands. I've averaged about 2 posts/week here since I signed up and ~ 3/week on the old MA&DB that I used to post on. That's actually very, very light compared to most of the posters on these boards. If you review the record, I'm sure you'll agree with me. Second, none of the discussions I’ve entered into were meaningless to me. I don't know how you could read my opening post and think I was some academic or clinician, detached from it all. As I’ve said before, LDS forums enable me to get responses to questions no one was willing to answer back in the days when I was LDS. And I'm still interested in those responses, and I continue to engage with old LDS friends and acquaintances (and have even had a couple of them visit my Mars Hill Church Bible study/community group, one of whom has come several times). Just because I may not have time to compose a reply to every single post on one of my threads doesn't mean I don't read and consider them all. But no doubt you’ve got everyone here wondering about my posts on MA&DB. And it’s a lot of effort for them to satisfy that curiosity (you can’t use their search function unless you create an account). So to save everyone the trouble and to once again demonstrate that I’m an open book—here is the direct link: Good Friday - Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board I have great confidence in the majority of the members here to reach their own conclusions and decide for themselves. I use my own name and photo, and if and when I make errors in my posts—you will find that I, unlike some here, am quick to own my mistakes and make amends. Hopefully you'll come to appreciate my presence here on the board. --Erik

You got it, Maureen. It was on the "Denominations" thread in the Christian Beliefs forum that I realized I needed to share my background so that folks would have some perspective on where I'm coming from. Should have done it sooner. And I'm glad to see some folks continue to engage, despite FunkyTown and captainmoroni1265's allegations. --Erik

Hi captainmoroni1265--I don't know who you are, but I know you've never received any emails from me. I'm a working professional (CPA) in Seattle and I can assure you and everyone else on the board that I'm not in the habit of composing emails to strangers. I know there are other Erik/Eric Johnson's out there, including one who apparently works for a Christian apologetics ministry (CARM). Perhaps that is the source of your confusion. I'll ask you (just as I asked FunkyTown) to back up your allegations. He has not done so, but perhaps you will make some attempt. It's completely unfair to make disparaging, personal allegations against a fellow member of the forum and then not substantiate your claims when asked to do so. So please post a link to whatever it is you attribute to me. As I told FunkyTown, the only other site I posted on was the Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board MA&DB, and that was some months ago. You'll find me nowhere else, as I have neither the time nor the interest. If you're uncomfortable doing it here--then please send me a private message. --Erik

FunkyTown--I promise you I've never posted on any LDS Facebook forums. And I've never sent you an email on any subject. I only opened an account there about 4 months ago, although I do use the same picture. So I'm completely astounded by your claim that my picture (yes, that's really me, although it's a couple years old) and name are being used for this purpose. I'll try to find "Ask a Mormon" to confirm this. The only other place I've used that picture, besides here, is Linkedin. I understand your skepticism. I'm having trouble believing this myself. If someone has done this to deliberately discredit me, it sounds like they've been extremely effective. Any links or additional information you could provide to me (via private message) would be sincerely appreciated. --Erik Edited to say that I just scrolled through 34 pages of Erik Johnson's on Facebook, and I don't see anyone else using my profile picture. I also found that searching on "Ask a Mormon" produces multiple listings on Facebook, and each listing appears to have multiple discussions. I took a quick look at a few of them--but I suspect finding the ones you're referring to would be a bit like finding a needle in a haystack. It's probably time to update my picture anyhow (although I like that one because I've added a bit of weight lately). If anyone else has seen my picture active on Mormon discussion boards (aside from the Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board)--please let me know. This is really, truly wierd.

Hi FunkyTown--You're confusing me with someone else. I've only recently opened a Facebook account and I've never been on any LDS groups on that site. And there's only one other LDS related site I've posted on, and that was Mormon Apologetics Discussion (MAD). It wasn't me! So feel free to engage. And I really don't get angry (a little exasperated at times--but never angry). --Erik

It would be a fair question, jimuk, if it was based on a fair premise—but I’m afraid your question isn't. No worries, I'll spell it out a bit further for you.Here are some of the things I was taught about Jesus as a Latter-Day Saint (things you say I “still know exactly”)— Jesus is the Son of God, meaning that he was the first of Heavenly Father’s spirit children, our “elder brother” In a “pre-existence,” Jesus favored a plan involving “free agency” for all Heavenly Father’s spirit children. His plan was opposed by Lucifer (another of our spirit brothers). Jesus prevailed, and Lucifer along with 1/3 of the spirit children rebelled, and were cast outJesus is “a God” (one of many, possibly infinite Gods—although speculation was discouraged)Jesus' atoning sacrifice was primarily in the Garden of Gethsemane. His sacrifice made reconciliation with Heavenly Father possible—but it did not finish the workJesus visited some part of the American continent(s) immediately after his deathWe should never pray to Jesus or worship him as we would Heavenly FatherAnd honestly, jimuk—I could not and I did not believe any of those things. As I said in my post—this tension went on for years. Here’s what I believe about Jesus today, as a Christian— Jesus is the Son of God, meaning that He is God (not “a God”), consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity (which I believe has a solid Biblical foundation)Jesus came into human history, God Incarnate—fully God and fully man (what theologians call the “hypostatic union”)Jesus died on the cross as a propitiation. He substituted himself for God’s wrath and punishment that was rightfully mine. With his death, he ransomed all his people. The work of salvation was complete when Jesus said, “It is finished”It is Christ’s righteousness (not my own) which I receive by faith that makes it possible for me to be with God in HeavenHe will never lose me, no matter what may happenAnd I do believe this, jimuk. Paul writes that faith is apportioned by God, that it is a gift of Grace (meaning unmerited favor). And I know I would never have reached such conclusions left to my own devices. I could never will myself into believing—or I would have willed myself into a believing LDS (motivated by the young woman I was courting and who dumped me over my inability to get a temple recommend in the late 90's). To me, the fact I believe and have no hesitation in saying so is evidence of God’s grace upon me, and evidence of the new life I’ve been given. And I know I did nothing to merit God’s favor. What I deserve is hell--eternal punishment for sinning against an eternal God. And that awareness is extremely humbling, to put it mildly. Hopefully this gives you some additional perspective. Regarding your last question concerning the timeline—it was seven years of struggle (as I willfully resisted what God was revealing to me in His Word) and one night of prayer and an amazing sensation peace when God saved me, despite myself. In Christ, --Erik

Hi georgia2— I couldn’t help noticing all the red, bold, upper-case type along with all the exclamation points in your response (post #27). It appears you took very strong objection to the words I wrote. Let me assure you it’s not my desire to cause you any personal and/or emotional distress. One of the things I’ve discovered in the past few years is that LDS often have their own definitions for words. And this frequently causes confusion and frustration for those on the outside. (I suspect this happens in all subcultures, including my own, so please don’t misread this as a criticism of LDS.) So I’ll offer up a couple of definitions—not to argue with you—but with the desire that you’ll better understand and appreciate my meaning and usage going forward. And since I think these may become reoccurring themes, useful for future reference—I’ll keep it all right here on my introduction thread. I’ll start with the definitions of contend and contention. The former is found in Jude 1:3, and the latter you tell us comes from Satan. According to the dictionary, you really can’t have one without the other. Contention is “the act of contending.” The words share the same root: Contendere, and contention is the past participle of that root. Therefore if anyone follows Jude’s (God’s) admonition and contends, then there will be contention, by definition. Etymology: ME contencioun < OFr contention < L contentio < pp. of contendere: see contend If you have a special definition for contention and would like to share it with us, please feel free to open a thread on the subject and post the link on this one. You might title it: If God admonishes Christians to contend—how can contention always be from Satan? I think that could lead to some interesting discussion. Regarding your definition of Christian (“persons who believe in Jesus and accept him as their personal savior”)—there’s certainly nothing wrong with your words, but you don’t go far enough in my opinion. A little Church history to illustrate my point: In the 4th Century, a contention arose in Christianity. Certain people began to contend that Jesus was the Son of God and therefore like any son—he must have had a beginning. They insisted Jesus was a created being and therefore was not eternally God. This is referred to as the “Arian Controversy” (you can look it up on Wikipedia, if you’d like to know more). You can see from this example of heresy in the early Church—a person can say he/she believes Jesus is the Son of God, and yet not believe Jesus is the eternal God, as Christians do. Such persons use Biblical language—but they aren’t true Christians, because they don’t recognize Jesus for who He really is (as revealed by God in Scripture). I’ll offer what I think is a better definition, one that precludes the confusion introduced by the Arians: A Christian is someone who worships Jesus as God. Of course I’m not going to insist you (or anyone) accept my definitions. And I ask that you show me the same courtesy and not demand that I accept yours. Sometimes we’ll need to agree to disagree. Again, if you wish to open a thread on the subject and post the link here, we can discuss our differences further. I’m very agreeable to that! Appreciate your reply, georgia2. --Erik

I've observed the same thing. When people leave the LDS Church it seems they disproportionately become agnostic or atheistic. I personally know only two other people in the Seattle area who were LDS and became Christian--and one of them is my younger brother, and the other I met at Mars Hill and he came to Christ while incarcerated in a Tijuana prison (and nearly lost his life there--it's an incredible story). I'm definitely up for comparing notes and theories on this. I have my own idea. Shoot me a message or open a thread on the topic and we'll discuss. --Erik

Hi Loudmouth_Mormon—Regarding the previous thread you linked, that described an encounter my wife had with the LDS missionaries. I posted it because I was interested in an LDS response to the encounter, and I appreciated the responses I received. But the part about my showing up in an LDS service to critique a Gospel Doctrine class was purely hypothetical—I never had any such intent. Regarding your comment that I can “start as many introduction threads as like”—let me assure you this will be my one and only introduction on the forum. I post under my own name, with my real picture, and I don’t do sock-puppets. What you see is what you get. Regarding the purpose of this venue and whether it is appropriate to offer a critique of someone else’s beliefs—I’ve observed this site contains a “Christian Beliefs” forum for Christians (regardless of whether they have an LDS background) to dialogue with Mormons. I see nothing that limits the forum to “Christians” who are open-minded or seeking alternatives to doctrines like the Trinity, ex-nihilo creation, and the infallibility of Scripture. And keep in mind a committed Christian is to “contend for the faith” (Jude 1:3), albeit with humility and respect. You wouldn’t disagree with that admonition—would you? Any questions I post will always be honest, L_M. I’m honestly interested in how LDS explain issues and answer questions (especially tough ones). That doesn’t mean I can be open-minded about the Person and Work of Christ or how I’ve seen God work in my life. And to take it further—I don’t think anyone is really free to choose his/her beliefs (our beliefs are a function of our heredity and our experience—until God wills otherwise). So no one who comes to this board is truly open-minded, in my opinion. And now I’ll answer your first question—what do I hope to gain? Let me make clear that I don’t hope to convert anyone. Only God can do that. But I much enjoy dialogue and debate (I used to be one of those misfits in high school on the debate team). And when I first began attending Mars Hill (before I became a Christian), I strongly desired to discuss the things I was learning with other LDS. But no one in my ward had the time or interest. (In fact, when I read my resignation letter to my Bishop explaining why I was leaving—his only feedback to me was that it was “well written.” Funny how he had no inclination whatever to engage me over the substance of anything I had written.) This venue gives me an opportunity to discuss Christian vs. LDS doctrine. And it’s also helpful to me as I continue to engage with LDS locally. I currently have an LDS member in my church small group/Bible Study that we do Tuesday nights from my home. And of course, should God choose to use me as a tool to bring someone else to Christ, well—how could I refuse? ;0) Hopefully you’ll appreciate my candor and we can have some good discussions going forward. I’m looking forward to it. Appreciate your questions, L_M --Erik

Hi Traveler—This is a remarkable post. So let me make a few remarks. I was born in Seattle and have lived here most of my life. And all that time, I’ve never heard anyone characterize it as, “one of the major anti-LDS areas.” Are there statistics on that? And can you provide us with a list of the other “major” areas? I’m sure you’ve left others on the board wondering where their city ranks. And what does Ed Decker have to do with anything? I’ve at least heard his name in the context of Mormonism—but I’m sure that puts me in a VERY small minority around here. There actually aren’t that many LDS in the city itself (Mars Hill Church has a larger membership--and it only began in 1996). And since the 1990’s LDS wards have been consolidating (one of the singles wards and the international ward were closed in the North stake) and the overall number is in decline (which is interesting because the city itself has experienced significant population growth during this time). And while I personally know a number of people who have left the LDS Church in Seattle—I have yet to hear anyone credit (or even mention) Mr. Decker. Continuing through your post, why are you “convinced” LDS apostates are drawn to and delight in the negative? Why do you “believe” apostates are bitter? Speaking for myself, I would disagree with you on all counts. Do you suppose that anyone who leaves the LDS Church over matters of doctrine must be bitter and the equivalent of a Pharisee? Lastly, what do you and bytor2112 hope to gain with these personal attacks and innuendo? Do you imagine investigators and other nonpartisans who visit the board will discount my posts because I live in Seattle—a known hotbed of anti-Mormonism (according to you)? I can’t help noting that your tactics are likely to be counterproductive. Mind you, I’m not complaining to the mods or even asking you to stop. But I do think we could challenge each other’s conceptions and worldviews without resorting to labels and name-calling (bitter, anti, delighting in the negative, equivalent of a Pharisee, etc.). You tell me, Traveler… --Erik PS. Bytor2112 did succeed in motivating me to post an introduction so that folks can have a bit of perspective when I write. Feel free to take a look and let me know if it sounds like I’m driven by “bitterness.” ;0)

Used to be LDS. Born into it, sixth generation, both sides in my family (Mom and Dad were from Provo). Ancestors who pushed handcarts across the plains, practiced polygamy—things that are nearly impossible to relate to in this day and age. And yet I always struggled with it. I enjoyed the culture, the people (for the most part)—but its doctrines never resonated. Back then I genuinely “hoped” the church was true, but I didn’t really believe it. And I was always honest about my lack of belief in the interviews I had with bishops. I had enough hope to pay my tithing, attend regularly, and make a good effort to fulfill my “callings” (mostly clerical/secretarial ones)—but I never served a mission or took out my “endowments” at the temple. This went on for years. I won’t get into the details, but in the late 90’s I found myself with a brand new motive to get a testimony of the LDS Church sufficient to obtain a temple recommend. (Okay—since you’ve probably guessed already—I met a woman I wanted to marry and she wouldn’t consider anything outside of the temple.) And up till then I’d read the Book of Mormon several times and I’d prayed about it many times more—but I never felt anything one way or the other. The admonition I always got from bishops was to read and re-read that book and keep doing so until I could come back with the right answer. But thinking about the matter one day it occurred to me that my root problem was a lack of “faith in Christ”—which Moroni 10:4 makes requisite. The solution to my lack of faith in Christ, I thought, would be to read the New Testament. And finding the 400 year-old prose of the King James Version hard to read and understand, I purchased a copy of The Precise Parallel New Testament (Oxford Press) which included the KJV along with six other translations. Over the next year, I read KJV, in parallel with the Amplified New Testament and the Rheims New Testament. (Conveniently, my employer staffed me on a long-term project in Dallas, so I had plenty of time for reading each week while sitting on the airplane.) The New Testament was different, nothing like my experience reading the Book of Mormon. And contrary to my initial expectations, I found myself enjoying the time I spent with the New Testament, even to the point of not minding the weekly flight to Dallas. But despite this, I wasn’t really getting it. The message wasn’t sinking in. I couldn’t see the implications. Frankly, I found some of its passages strange and even contradictory. And then I hit Romans chapter 9 and Paul’s rhetorical question: “Has the potter no right over the clay?” (v. 21) and in that chapter I experienced a revelation. Indications of what Paul writes in Romans 9 are found throughout the Gospels, especially John, but somehow it hadn’t sunk in. Here I was confronted with a whole chapter devoted, unmistakably, to a sovereign God. A God who elected, who predestined, and who did all this without regard to human endeavor. Moreover, the author backed himself with examples from the Old Testament, first using Esau and Jacob, and then with God’s hardening the heart of the Pharaoh. This, in the author’s mind, was the same God, then as now. I have to confess that once I realized what Paul was actually saying—the concept struck me as grossly unfair. Initially, I wasn’t a big fan of Paul. Despite my discomfort with something that was fast becoming a recurring theme in Paul’s writing—I kept going. By the end of 1999, I’d read the New Testament three times, using three different English translations. And while I couldn’t profess any real belief in its teachings—at least one thing had become clear to me: The New Testament was very, very different from the Mormon doctrines I’d grown up with. That, and the New Testament was compelling in a way no other book had ever been. From 2000 on, I kept reading. I re-read the Book of Mormon, the D&C and Pearl of Great Price. I read the Jewish Publication Society’s English translation of Tanakh (the 39 books of the Hebrew Bible divided between Torah, The Prophets, and The Writings). I read The Apocrypha (“Deutercanonical Books” as some prefer), and for seeming good measure, a translation of Al Qur’an. But aside from becoming rather formidable in Gospel Doctrine and Elders’ Quorum discussions, none of my efforts were resulting in any actual faith. The opposite was happening—my studies only served to deepen my skepticism of the church’s doctrines. And the “hope” that I had once been able to express to my bishops had largely evaporated. Yet along the way, I lost my objection to Paul. Lost my objection to Paul’s ideas of grace and predestination, his idea of man’s total depravity, and his stubborn, repeated insistence that salvation came “not by works” but through faith—faith alone. Funny thing: Even though I could claim no faith at the time, I could plainly see how right Paul was on that last score. I’d studied my scriptures, prayed fervently, paid my tithing to the full, abstained from pornography, kept the Word of Wisdom, confessed my sexual sins to my bishop—and yet none of my works had brought me faith. Paul taught faith was a gift apportioned by God, not some reward for our own efforts. And it became increasingly evident to me that it could be no other way—no other way than what Paul had written twenty centuries before. In early 2005 I attended an evening service at a non-denominational church that is theologically Reformed Baptist, Mars Hill Church in Seattle. The pastor was in the middle of a 12-month sermon series on Genesis. That evening, during his hour-long sermon, he read and covered every single verse in his chapter, presenting it in the context of the larger book and in the context of the Bible as a whole. It was the first time I could remember sitting in a church and hearing an entire Bible chapter read. In my LDS tradition, speakers would take a verse or two from one book, a verse or two from another and perhaps a third, and splice them together into a whole new context and meaning (invariably supporting LDS doctrine)—that often had nothing to with the original authors’ intent (at least it seemed to me). I was immediately drawn to the pastor’s approach to the Bible and I returned each Sunday evening to hear more (while still going to my LDS services in the mornings). After a long night in prayer in early June of that year I yielded to God’s irresistible grace and became a Christian and was baptized later that summer. I resigned from the LDS Church shortly thereafter (although the resignation process proved something of an ordeal, lasting ~ 9 months and requiring repeated calls to Salt Lake City). I now enjoy a church where the Bible is held as inerrant and Jesus is worshiped as God. And since that time God has blessed me with a wife, and on the evening of December 24th 2008, a daughter. The awkward, misfit, “Single Adult” I once was—has been given a new life. And I know I owe it all to Grace. These days I lead a small group Bible study out of our house, and we’re now up to about 20 people. We’re currently studying 1 John on Tuesday nights, in the University District in Seattle, just a few blocks up from my old Mormon ward. Anyway, I won’t have a ton of time to post here—but wanted to give folks a little background so they could have some perspective when I do. And if you happen to be in the greater Seattle metropolitan area—I’m always up for grabbing a drink and having a conversation. In Christ, --Erik

Hi bytor2112--I've been slow to respond to your rather inflammatory post. We (my wife and I) just had a baby daughter, and so I haven't had much time for message boards. But I'd like to make crystal clear to you (and anyone else reading this) that I wasn't "excommunicated" from the Mormon Church. If you'd like to know, I became a Christian in 2005 and requested my name be "removed from the records" shortly thereafter (although it took ~ 9 months and repeated calls to Salt Lake City to get the LDS Church to acknowledge it). I'm certainly not "bitter" about how God has worked in my life and have no idea why you read bitterness into my posts. Perhaps you can elaborate. And feel free to do so in a private message (I believe that capability exists on this forum). I'll be glad to take this up with you off-line. Indeed, if you happen to live in the greater Seattle metropolitan area, we can do this in-person—and we can do it over the beverage of your choice in the venue of your choice, on me… --Erik

I have to say, Hemidakota, that all I ascertained from your response was that you didn't much care for the question. But let me drill into one piece of it (your quote above). If Hemidakota prays and receives any of the following—"doctrines, principles, visions of grandeur, GODS or GODESSES"--how can he be sure he’s not hearing from a demon? The Bible says we shouldn’t always trust our feelings, that the human heart is "deceitful above all things" (Jeremiah 17:9). And the Bible also says we should, "test the spirits to see whether they are from God" (1 John 4:1). So how do you do it, Hemidakota? What standard do you use to test your feelings and the answers you receive to your prayers? --Erik

Yes, I know you "know" there are three. But please forgive me, Hemidakota, for suspecting your answer may be ever-so-slightly disingenuous. Do you also think there might be 4 “members” (God has to have at least one wife, right—and you have no rationale for excluding her from the Godhead/council, do you?). So maybe it's three plus a few more, right? Maybe quite a few more. And there are potentially other dominions outside our own universe that likewise have Gods too, right? I think these may even be referenced in a popular LDS worship song ("Praise to the Man"), it says he's now "mingling with Gods," right? Maybe, if you were being completely candid with us, you would have to answer your own question by telling us you have absolutely no idea, because the true number of Gods (and Goddesses) that make up your Godhead or “council” hasn't actually been revealed. Am I on to something here, Hemidakota? Or have previous encounters with defenders of the LDS Church just made me paranoid about the answers they give… ;0)

Christians believe in One God of three Persons, as you've no doubt heard already. But I'm actually not sure I know how you would answer the same question. So keep indulging me, Hemidakota. How many members (Gods) are in your Godhead (council, as I've heard it described)? --Erik

You need to drop that indefinite article "an"--because your usage implies polytheism (or special definitions)What do you say, Hemidakota?

I'm poking around a bit myself, now. It's certainly clear the SBC baptizes by immersion and requires "re-baptism" in the case of a sprinkled infant or child. But I don't see where the question of a believing adult who was baptized by aspersion is directly addressed. Do you have a link that specifically addresses that scenario? It's an interesting tangent. I'm willing to concede I may have picked a poor example to illustrate my point...

If someone converted to Christianity as an adult at a Lutheran Church and came to Mars Hill (which is non-demoninational but theologically Reformed Baptist) there would be no need for a re-baptism. Immersion is how we preform baptisms, but it really isn't viewed as essential, and indeed, sometimes medical reasons prevent this from happening. And I know because I do interviews of perspective members. That said, I've no doubt there's someone out there who takes a hard-line view of this, but that would be a minority view.

No. While LDS use the words of a Christian baptism, they do not have a Christian intent when they baptize. Meaning they do not acknowledge the Triune God (Trinity) of Christianity. LDS do not worship Jesus as the Eternal God, as Christians do. Therefore LDS who convert to Christianity need to be baptized. It's really no different than if they were previously Muslim, Jew, or Atheist.

Perhaps Hemidakota will return to the thread and tell us what he means by "one culture." I don't think his readers would necessarily infer a 1 Peter 3 definition (wives and husbands/suffering for doing good). I'm not sure how you could either--unless you're his evil sock-puppet... That's a joke, btw