Islander
-
Posts
1201 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Islander
-
-
Who is CS Lewis?
C. S. Lewis was a British scholar and very prolific author. He is best known for his beloved children’s series The Chronicles of Narnia, including The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, considered the most popular children's book of the twentieth century. He was also an articulate theologian who wrote the apologetic work "Mere Christianity"
He articulated quite clearly and made a case for the existence of God. He also tried to explain why intellectuals and atheist do not feel a need for God. He believed this position to be naive at best but arrogant in secret. Quite an interesting guy.
-
How are people who lived before the Savior "saved" according to non-LDS denominations?
Well, I searched somewhat among the recent talks of the prophets and the apostles of the church but with only mixed results. I will make it a point to research the subject in more detail.
In the last portion of Isaiah 28: the prophet is painting a very clear picture. THe field (ther earth) is His and He has control over all of it. We are all different and thus require special treatment. He "plants" us in different parts of the field and under very different conditions. Some are sheltered and protected (cummin) in clusters and surrounded by shade and int eh most humid portion of the field. Other require more structure and discipline, organized in rows (the wheat) and are expected to produce in high quantity. The barley at the end of teh field where there is rough terrain, salty terrain and not a lot of share but it will be well, the same.
So He knows and is aware of all of us on the earth, whether in long standing, very safe and traditional LDS communities, or in the middle of the Amazon jungle and cut of from all knowledge of God.
In Mosiah 3:8-11 speaks of the Savior and His Atonement. Verse 11 is quite interesting:
"For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned."
I suggest that the passage addresses the issue of those that died prior to the coming of the Christ and had no awareness of the Atonement.
Further, 1 Pet 4:6 it states:
"For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.
And D&C 138 paint a more clear picture of what happens to those that died "in darkness" as the way for God to judge according to His mercies and justice:
56 "But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to fall the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead."
• • •
57 "I beheld that the faithful elders of this dispensation, when they depart from mortal life, continue their labors in the preaching of the gospel of repentance and redemption, through the sacrifice of the Only Begotten Son of God, among those who are in darkness and under the bondage of sin in the great world of the spirits of the dead."
From this very cursory overview of the scriptures is somewhat evident that God does have a plan. That He has made provisions for ALL his children and that He is a fair and just God and that He will avail salvation for all his children across all times, for that is His work and His glory; the salvation and immortality of men.
That would seem like a fairly basic assumption and position for Latter Day Saints.
-
It means that through the sacrament of baptism itself God regenerates your soul and makes it new and sanctified.
LDS theology points to baptism as a critical ordinance and part of what is required for salvation and entrance in the kingdom of God. We see it as the scriptures describes it:
-we do so in faith for repentance and the remission of our sins and as a pre-requisite to receiving the Holy Ghost. That as we are raised out of the water, our sins washed away we are renewed and born in Christ.
This is one of my favorite quotes about baptism in the Book of Mormon:
"Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel."Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter."
2 Ne 31:13, 17. The Book of Mormon
I hope this clarifies. If you go the LDS site and take a look here it will give you some references and quotes
-
Is there a civilized way to leave the subject of homosexuality aside and concentrate on more spiritually centered issues? We are devoting way too much energy on the subject. The Church has a position on the issue and one may or not agree with it but that is the end of the story.
If you are a member of the Church and you are standing across the isle from the prophet of God on this issue, you have problems you better hurry up and resolve. If you are not a member and have an opposing view so be it. But since you know what the official position is, advocating a secular opinion really does not add much to the spirit of this forum. You should try a different venue rather than LDS.net.
Just a suggestion.
-
Thanks for all the great feedback! Lots of different perspectives to consider. Our bottom line is that we are not comfortable with our son sleeping over at anyone's home we don't know well, let alone exposing him to lifesyles we do not condone. We'll continue to have his friend over here though, even though his moms haven't made any effort to get to know us at all. He's a good kid and these two boys get a long great together. We simply told our son that we don't know his friend's family well enough to allow him to spend the night in their home. We just left it at that for now, and he was fine with our decision. We'll have the talk about the alternate lifestyle thing soon enough.
Good job. You should no have to voice your concerns to others, especially since they are not concerned about it. It may come across as critique and judgments and create contention which you do not need. They live how they will and you as likewise.
Better safe than sorry. Again, swell job.
-
I have no idea what you're on about, but from what I can tell, your argument is:
-You are a sheltered westerner with no idea what the rest of the world is like
-Your argument is therefore wrong
-My assumptions are right because I know the REAL world
I've done my share of travelling and seen plenty of different versions of what morality is aroung the world, which is exactly why I don't think there is a universal source for morality. All the points in your post support my assertion, but then you end with a conclusion that makes absolutely no sense based on the rest of your post:
You offer absolutely nothing to support why what people consider as moral/immoral varies so much between cultures (which you point out yourself), yet all comes from the same source.
We must resist the temptation to shoot from the hip without actually reading the replies carefully, please.
I point to the fact that, intellectually, we reside in a plateau which is 20,000 feet above the rest of most of the world. The kind of existential questions we wrestle with are foreign to the vast majority of humanity. We should not, as a matter of course, stretch through our intellectual lenses in a philosophical exercise, our mores and values as if they would apply/exist to other peoples across the world. That is simply misguided.
Example, in many places in the world it would be OK for me to settle a pieces of land if it has been "abandoned" for some time and "unproductive." In fact the local government would agree with me and give me title of the land based on my need and history of possession. Regardless of whether you have been paying taxes on the land for 20 years. You just have not develop it. That would never happen in the US, regardless. In many places if I am poor I would be justified in robbing from you that are wealthy and my community would agree. In many places in this world waving a flag that is not the country's flag will land you in prison. You can read employment adds in may countries where the employer asks for "Female assistant, 5'8" - 5'11" light or blond hair, clear eyes, excellent presence, good fitness, single, no children." There is no moral or ethical objections in those social groups to the above. I think we would have a real issue with such here in the US.
Before the God of Abraham, most lived at the pleasure and mercy of the King/rulers, which if he liked your sister she would be taken to the palace, by force, to be a sexual toy never to be seen again. You could be expelled from your land, compelled to serve in the army and die for a cause completely foreign to you. Your clan or tribe would go on raiding expeditions to rob and plunder its neighbors as a way to get new wives, cattle, slaves and the like. If I liked your wife, I would take her and kill you if you came to complain. This last one completely normal then and now in some parts. My friend, much of the above remains alive and well today!! The first moral law and punishment attached for transgressing such law was set forth by YHW, the God of Abraham.
We can not confuse socially imposed limits on behavior with the source of true moral and ethical thinking/being. Social controls have to do with rights and control of property. They evolve by trial and error as a means for communal living, and are handed down from generation to generation until their utilitarian value decreases and they are discarded. True ethical and moral behaviors are rooted in the first moral laws, they have not changed, they are enhanced, they are shared the world over and represent the pinnacle of of human achievement. We are engaged in wars currently in order to give 100 million people freedom. A concept that did not evolve by itself but was set forth by God as a right to all. Do not forget that at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence just about all other people in the world were subject to a ruler, whether they knew it or not.
We could, 10,000 years later after God had spoken, discuss ethical and moral values in a vacuum as "aspirational values." Time and traditions (the absence of religion) may render the conversation voided of certain elements, namely God as the source, but wishing does not make it so. Secular humanistic views of society are a utopia. Marxism and communism tried and failed miserably at attempting to create an individual and society driven by high values and ethical conduct for work, living and evolving, all in the absolute absence of God. I was in Berlin when the wall came down and we all know what happened to that experiment and during that blip in history very well.
I am certain I will not change your mind in the issue. I just wanted to state some facts for the record.It is quite strange, however, that you try to advocate a completely secular point in a religious forum. I just wonder.
-
Dear Islander,
I stumbled accross this off the link Happyday gave me. It is a sub-page of lds.org/ldsnewsroom "One of the grand fundamental principles of ‘Mormonism’ is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.” Joseph Smith, quoted in History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2nded. (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1949), 5:499." I am not arguing or fighting. This is a forum about Mormon beliefs (actually a forum about debating Mormon beliefs with an Evangelical). Can't I ask and learn about LDS beliefs here? Of course I can, with all due respect. Perhaps we have both made up our minds about the Bible's teaching on baptism but that does not mean, of course, that we cannot change our minds. As for now, I have not changed my mind about baptism, however. I must respectfully disagree with your interpretation. Please let me explain why. The general spirit of the New Testament as a whole is that salvation is by grace alone. That means you cannot add anything to it like, for example, baptism. While there are verses that appear to teach the necessity of baptism there are better ways of interpreting such passages so they remain in line with the general thrust of the New Testament as a whole. Now for the examples you gave.
The context of John 3 is contrasting natural birth with spiritual birth. It is therefore more hermeneutically appropriate to understand the 'water' as pre-natal fluid or a synonym of natural birth. One obviously has to be born (i.e. of water) before one can be born again (i.e. of the Spirit)
Matthew 20:23 is clearly speaking of martyrdom using baptismal imagery as a euphamism. In other words, literal water baptism is not in view here.
In Romans 6:4 we are told the literal meaning of the nonliteral baptism. Namely, walking in newness of life. The whole context of that verse tells us it is not to be taken overly literally.
Ephesians 4:5 says there is only one baptism. It does not say that it is necessary for salvation. If you were quoting it to tie in with Romans 6:4 it does no good. Romans 6:4 is talking about the one baptism only in a nonliteral way. You speak of "hermeneutically appropriate" and
And the last passage says nothing about baptism at all so far as I can see.
Letting the text of the Bible speak for itself, we must not ignore the context, we see that baptism is not necessary for salvation. It is thus not a biblical teaching.
I sincerely hope that we may continue this discussion. Please don't tune me out just because I bring up hard questions (if that is what you were getting at).
My friend, can you hear yourself? Can you please listen to your own words and realize that you have taken/accepted a theological position rather than read the scriptures. The NT was not designed for imagery and dogmatic visualizations like the one you propose other than the allegories and parables used mostly by the Savior to illustrate a point.
You speak of "martyrdom using baptismal imagery as a euphemism" and "hermeneutically appropriate." That is theological argumentation and reasoning. If a PhD in theology would be required to understand the NT we would all be Muslims by now.
I think we must agree to disagree on this one. There is limited value in arguing when we find ourselves diametrically in opposite sides of the issue. Christ came to his cousing John to be baptized at the Jordan river and the Father in His own voice testified that He was His Son. The Savior Himself spoke of baptism as being born of water and a requirement to enter into the kingdom of God. The Sadducee in attendance wondered about it in received clarification. According to Acts 9, even the apostle Paul was baptized. But of course, you will read something else and no doubt will provide some theological interpretation of the word and use of "baptism in that passage as well.
I cited several portions of the scriptures in regards to baptism but you already made up your mind about it so why argue any further. You seemed fixed on your position and obviously have closed yourself to new information. I must say this, you claim to have come here to attempt to understand the LDS position but ALL you have done so far is advocating your position rather than asking why do we see it the scriptures in a different way.
I have said this before more than once; for the uninitiated but desirous to know and understand the word of God, when the NT speaks of baptism it is such that the reader visualizes. Your theological interpretation requires an academic leap that is not at all part of the normal line of reasoning of most readers.
-
Dear Islander,
Thanks for answering my post! I am talking about modern revelation with MrNirom so we may leave that topic aside for now. However, there were two points you made that I'd like to hear more about from you. The first point is about interpretation of the Bible. I find this a fascinating topic. How would you, then, interpret the Bible that would differ from the way a Protestant may interpret it?
I am a bit puzzled by your second point. Apparently you don't like my choice of words. I did not intend them to be offensive. "Polytheism" is the belief in many Gods. According to the Conference Talk on the Trinity I just read, Mormons apparently believe in at least three. But the speaker did not like the term either. What is a more neutral word for "belief in many Gods"? "Baptismal regeneration" is a term meaning that baptism is necessary for salvation. Articles of Faith 3 and 4 teaches that. What would you prefer I called it? And I heard that "plain and precious promises were removed from the gospel" from LDS missionaries. Plus it is to be found in 2 Nephi if I am correct. Perhaps you just meant the first two. At any rate, let me know the more neutral terminology if you would be so kind. Please and thank you. Bye for now.
In some places there is obviously a difference in interpretation. But that in itself is not unique. Different denominations have different interpretations of the same biblical passage. If you be so kind; what is your interpretation of Isaiah 44, for example. Just read it by yourself, meditate and ponder in your heart and describe what you think the prophet said.
I pointed to the scriptures that clearly specify in the bible that baptism is critical for salvation. We call it baptism. The word "regeneration" in the bible can also be translated renewal or rebirth. We tend to see it as a covenant and part of what we have to do to show faith and willingness to follow the Savior.
-
O Happyday, I just read the Conference Talk on the Trinity as you recomended. Elder Holland (incidentally, I used to know a much younger Elder Holland-I wonder if they are relatives) does not seem to understand the Protestant/Catholic view. At the beginning he seems to understand the doctrine of the Trinity alright, but then apparently goes on to disprove it from the Bible. But all of his biblical references spoke to a plurality of Persons, which is part of the doctrine of the Trinity itself. So either I misunderstood him or he misunderstood the doctrine of the Trinity. Any thoughts of you own to add?
Perfect!!! That is what is all about. Keep reading and hopefully you would come to understand the LDS view. You don't have to agree with it but at least you will know where it comes from. Please do not go outside the LDS site to try to read on LDS doctrine. You watching Elder Holland was ideal.
It will take a bit more reading, including other sources to grasp the concept. But you are in the right track.
-
There is a distinct difference between having a sense of what is right/wrong and following that sense. I was mostly talking about the origin of that sense and what people consider right/wrong which varies greatly between cultures, even with people of the same declared religion. Whether people follow what they feel is right is an entirely different matter which is unique to that person (Free Agency and all).
I think that humans do have an innate urge to do what they consider right, you can call it the Light of Christ or an evolutionary byproduct to help the survival of the species, but I would agree that it exists. Unfortunately sometimes, people allow the temptation of short term benifet outweight their sense of morality or even justify bad things to themselves. I believe that is more of a character trait than something that can be easily taught though.
I like the discussion so far :)
I suggest that such assumptions hold true in "your world" which by virtue of you being in the west and having access to modern media and technology places you within the 3% percent of all living humans. Generalizing on your very privileged condition and extrapolating that it also holds true across the world is misguided.
Morals and ethics as we know them in the West are not values, or even concepts, that are known or cultivate in most of the world. People in most of the world inhabit a very different moral universe. People do not have such levels of social or even self awareness so the discussion does not exist. I am not saying that there may not be some people with serious existential questions but they are statistically negligible.
Whether a person is able to distance him/herself from God by history or tradition does not mean is able to extricate him/herself from or ignore the history and origin of moral and ethical thought. The source is always the same; God.
-
MrNirom, in regards to post #5 above, you give a fourfold answer to my question. I would like you to flesh these out a bit more if you don't mind. Please let me explain more precisely. The first three points say, "we have more than just the Bible." However, it seems to me, while that may be alright, it is impossible that revelation beyond the Bible would contradict the Bible. I see various doctrines in the Bible that are denied by the LDS church. It is one thing, I think you can agree, to say that the Book of Mormon, for example, clarifies the Bible or further develops it. It is another matter entirely to say, the Bible says 'X' and the Book of Mormon says 'not X'. But it is your final point that particularly bothers me. I clicked on the link you gave which says the gospel "has been restored". Apparently the Christianity of the 1800s was vastly different from today. Back then there was, in other words, a lot of differences on major doctrines. Then Joseph Smith prayed about which denomination to join and so on. What is wrong with this, to my way of thinking? Well, the churches of those days, like the churches of today, had the Bible. In the Bible we read of the gospel. And that gospel really is different from the LDS gospel. For example, I believe it is article 4 (from the Articles of Faith) which says that baptism is necessary for salvation. This idea is foreign to the Bible. "For by grace are ye saved through faith...not of works [including baptism] lest any man should boast." The gospel did not need to be restored, did it, since it was there in the Bible all along?
I think, again, that it may be quite beneficial for you to spend some time really reading, if your desire is to understand, and attempt top explore the LDS position. If your intent is just to argue and discuss the differences between your belief system and the LDS doctrine I think I would have to pass. That is a very exhausted and old road.
The Savior said: "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God". John 3:5
Further in Matt 20:23
Romans 6:4
Eph 4:5
Col 2:12
Just to name some. For you to state that baptism is not necessary denotes that you have adopted a theological position that, I suggest, is not in fact not biblical. It also evidenced that you already decided on this issue.
I reiterate my invitation for you to explore the LDS doctrine and theological positions and examine the foundation for such. Arguing your view points in this forum is contrary to the spirit we are committed to foster here. Truly, it serves no purpose.
-
Im not sure I agree with that prospectmom. Worry is a natural part of being a parent, and you are bound to worry about people you love. I worry all the time about my husband getting home safe etc. Are you saying thats Satan??
Unix...sounds like you are doing all the right things. Ultimately, you should want your children to be happy with or without the church. Would it be such a bad thing if they didn't go so long as they were happy? I think thats whats important.
Without getting into a legalistic mode, I think worry relates to recurrent preoccupation that can fuel anxiety. I am not referring to critical thinking and analysis of a certain situation for problem solving.
In Matt. 6: 25, 31, 34 the Lord admonishes us not to worry much our material things. We must have our house in order and lean on the Gospel as means to address all spiritual things. Faith and prayer should be the primary weapons. Challenges are designed to teach, to strengthen and to forge, not to rack your soul with anxiety and grief.
So, please, do not worry. The Lord knows your thoughts and he hears your prayers. He will answer you.
-
I am an Catholic-here is my take on the question. It is not my official church position-just me an ordinary Catholic Christian
First Hell-the belief in "hell" is a developed concept-you will find few references to it in the OT for any of the possible words used for it mentioned below. Each of those have subtle different meanings.
Many Jews of today and yesterday-according to a survey- do not believe in an afterlife.
Source: Jewish Beliefs on the Afterlife - ReligionFacts
-Carol
Carol - Again, this is where LDS doctrines restores and re-state doctrine that was previoulsy known, accepted and taught in ancient times but more or less deleted later. The same happened with the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Suddenly the Rabis decided no more Temple was required? I think it was learned helplessness that precipitated that position rather than doctrine.
Carol - The OT makes clear and unambiguous references to the resurrection and thus an afterlife:
"Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead" (Isaiah 26:19).
"I know that my redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And . . . in my flesh shall I see God" (Job 19:25-26)
Even years after the time of Isaiah, the promise was still known. "Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt" (Daniel 12:2). Such promises were not referring to some vague "immortality of the soul," as taught in pagan religions, but to the resurrection of the body!
This was literally fulfilled when "the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after His resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many" (Matthew 27:52-53). Then, when Jesus first ascended to heaven (John 20:17), He led those who had been in "captivity" in the grave with Him into heaven (Ephesians 4:8). All who have trusted Christ in the Christian era will likewise be raised from the dead when He comes again. He has defeated death and has promised, "because I live, ye shall live also" (John 14:19).
Again, Christian theology today has been "filtered" and reinterpreted by theologian and other experts in divinity thru the last 2000 years. The same way that Martin Luther in his thesis pointed to instances where, in his opinion, the church had gone astray, modern Christianity seem ignorant of doctrines that were clearly understood in ancient times. If you look at the Torah and the Law of Moses, at most you will find about 60 commandments. Now the Rabis increased it to about 1000 in the Sefer Hamitzvot. Thus we see it is the hand of men that altered the simple and meaningful.
"The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant." Isa 24:5
I suggest the prophet was right
-
hello, i'm lina!
recently i've been considering converting to mormonism. but mostly i'm just a bit confused.
both my parents are really hardcore... my dad's a religious and devout muslim (beard and all) and my mom is a strong atheist (jewish by birth). i grew up as a proud progressive muslim, but i'm beginning to question some things. i'm hoping i can find some answers here.
i really admire reza aslan (Reza Aslan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), and his book "no god but God" helped, but it didn't really enlighten, i just learned some interesting facts. i guess that was kind of the point of the book though. i've also talked a bit with the daughter of the rabbi who runs a halal/kosher food shop with my dad, but once again, i just learned some interesting facts and that's it
at first i was really skeptical about mormonism because of the "special underwear" thing and because of, um, mitt romney. (believe it or not, i didn't really care about the polygamy thing, i thought people were making too big a deal out of it to be honest.) i know "because mitt romney is a mormon" was a really immature reason. (sorry to any romney supporters.) so that's over now, and i'm ready to learn more about mormonism.
so, um, hello! :)
Welcome to teh forum Lina:
I must admit you have a very interesting background. If information is what you need you could start at lds.org and check out all the information available there relating to the LDS church, doctrine, history, theology, scriptures and the like.
I do suggest that you ponder in your heart why you are embarking in this quest. You mentioned that you are looking for a religion "that is not fear-based." As a convert, I suggest you must find stronger reasons to seek God or the endevour may not be very profitable.
I am glad you found the site. Feel free to ask ask any question. You will find many helpful and knowledgeable people that contribute to the site.
-
Well, I have taken plenty of risks in my life. I am glad I only get to pick and chose what I want to talk about here but soon enough you'll find out the totally insane life I had before finding the Gospel. I think Cedar Fort will put out the book in December.
But, changing gears. When it comes to children I am not about to take ANY chances, specially while they are small. The situation in that (2-mom) house is abnormal to begin with and you are not aware of what else is being taught, spoken, shared and discussed in order to rationalize the arrangement. I will never expose my children to that. They are impressionable and inquisitive. Information is a double edge sword and if they are going to slide their finger over the edge I want to be the one holding it. You do not want to give the child the impression that the arrangement and whatever else he may see there is normal.
I have in-laws that are not member of the church. They drink and smoke and squabble as a matter of course. I NEVER let my children go over there with their cousins if we are not there. Simple, for us is a matter of being able to monitor and mediate should the need arise in an environment that is quite different from our home. I have to be able to point out to them when some is wrong, period. We are commanded to love and embrace into the fold the repentant sinner. Those who do not repent and seem content in their sin we should keep at a distance.
Help him make friends with other children as well so that he would have more choices for play time. Also, do not feel obligated to reciprocate the gesture. There are girls that come to our home all the time, they stay overnight for slumber parties, although non-members they come to church with us sometimes and the like. But we would not let our girls go and stay over at their friends. That is just the way we run our ship.
Just some thoughts.
-
Scripture study and systematic inquiry are patterns that are acquired. We must be disciplined and organized, create priorities and make the time. I tend to read very early in the morning while is very quiet (we have 4 rowdy girls) so that is my own personal time. Family scripture reading is right after dinner. But I read with my wife after we put our clan to bed.
I also carry books around so if I arrive at a meeting a few minutes before, I stay in the car reading for a while. The same at luch time or when I fee like taking a break. I also carry a small journal in my laptop carry-on to make notes, insights or whatever so I will not forget.
In D&C 88 the Lord commands us to study. We must obey this commandment as any other in the scriptures.
-
I am not sure if this is the best place to post this. Anywho, as an evangelical Christian I am in complete agreement, more or less, with all of the many other evangelical denominations. We all agree on the essentials (as defined by us). The Trinity, salvation by grace alone, infallibility of the Bible, etc. There are some relatively minor disagreements on non-essential issues, however. But, between evangelicalism and Mormonism there seems to be very vast differences of doctrine. Polytheism, baptismal regeneration, plain and precious truths removed from the Bible, etc. What am I to make of these differences? The traditional response, within evangelical circles, has been to regect Mormon doctrine as unbiblical. However, Mormon people that I have talked to have vigorously maintained that their beliefs are biblical (perhaps even more biblical than evangelicals' beliefs). So then, whence arises the vast dissimilarity between Mormons and all other Christian groups?
Welcome to the forum Evangelical.
I think that one of the greatest differences relates to interpretation of the Biblical canon in the one hand, and to modern revelation in the other hand.
You use terminology to describe LDS theology, in your opinion, that comes straight out of anti-Mormon literature. It will serve you well to do some reading before stating categorically that we are a "vastly different religion" from other Christian Evangelicals. Precisely, the name of the Thread points to fact that many serious Evangelical theologians are studying LDS doctrine closely and with true intent to learn rather than antagonize and are being surprised by what they learn.
Here is a link to a review at Amazon.com you may find interesting:
Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate
Yo may want to explore Mormonwiki for amny more articles and inforamtion about the Church, doctrine and theology.
I hope it helps
-
That (link) is a very eloquent article. But it is as far from the operating reality today as the crab nebula is from my back yard. The fact is that the academic interpretation and scholarly analysis of the Islamists makes for very good conversation but it does not transcend from the living room where they are gathered. I have read the Islamic texts, ancient and modern commentaries and, if they would live their religion and philosophy according to perhaps the original intent, we would all be friends.
I tend to be a pragmatist and I have traveled the region extensively. The average Muslim cannot read the Qur'an. They rely on the Imans and Mulah's to "translate" the text's into the current context. The aggressive rethoric is coming from inside the Islamic countries. The prevailing speech is one of intolerance and hate. So I am not too impressed with scholarly analysis at this junction.
Those that attempt to share a more modern, philosophically benign interpretation of Islam are ALL outside in the West. They have no political leverage or influence inside their own countries. My hope is that one way or another we could continue with the business of living but I am not optimistic that any long term peaceful solution can be achieve in the region. If you don't believe me, pick up a newspaper and read what Ahmadinejad, or Hamas, or Hezbolah said about Israel or the US last week. The fact remains that tolerance is not a trait cultivated, in reality, in current Islam.
-
all right, so someone is a genuinely good person, who has followed the teachings of christ even if they didn't know that they did--- for example, what about a nice guy atheist? would they go to heaven?
do you have to both proudly call yourself a mormon and be a "real" mormon in order to go to heaven?
sorry if this has been asked already!
See for yourself:
Matt. 3: 15-16
Matt. 28: 19
Mark 16: 16
John 3: 5
Titus 3: 5
There is no righteousness away from God, for He is the ONE that called us to fulfill the covenant and promise made to the Fathers. That by grace we may avail ourselves of the Atonement of His Son Jesus Christ thru faith in Him and wash ALL our sins and be saved at the last day. There is NONE righteous or good. We become so and are declared clean and righteous/justified by the blood of the Lamb, our Savior, and thus become like Him heirs to the kingdom and all the Father has. There is NO other way to get to heaven/paradise/salvation.
It is not membership in the Church but what you do with it, it is how you live the Gospel, it is the weight of your testimony of the things God has revealed, the faithfulness and cleanliness of your heart and your willingness to do God's work day and night.
There is no middle ground, friends. It is what it is and God has spoken it. There are 3-4 different words in Hebrew and Greek that were translated hell and they all more of less mean/imply the same. To be away from God is Hell. It is sadness, isolation, loneliness, cold, obscurity, regret and emptiness. If you want to add a lake of fire and brim storm to that, help your self. It makes no real difference IMO.
-
all right, so someone is a genuinely good person, who has followed the teachings of christ even if they didn't know that they did--- for example, what about a nice guy atheist? would they go to heaven?
do you have to both proudly call yourself a mormon and be a "real" mormon in order to go to heaven?
sorry if this has been asked already!
See for yourself:
Matt. 3: 15-16
Matt. 28: 19
Mark 16: 16
John 3: 5
Titus 3: 5
There is no righteousness away from God, for He is the ONE that called us to fulfill the covenant and promise made to the Fathers. That by grace we may avail ourselves of the Atonement of His Son Jesus Christ thru faith in Him and wash ALL our sins and be saved at the last day. There is NONE righteous or good. We become so and are declared clean and righteous/justified by the blood of the Lamb, our Savior, and thus become like Him heirs to the kingdom and all the Father has. There is NO other way to get to heaven/paradise/salvation.
There is no middle ground friends. It is what it is and God has spoken it. There are 3-4 different words in Hebrew and Greek that were translated hell and they all more of less mean/imply the same. To be away from God is Hell. It is sadness, isolation, loneliness, cold, obscurity, regret and emptiness. If you want to add a lake of fire and brim storm to that, help your self. It makes no real difference IMO.
-
I think that, by far, The Latter-Day Saints had tried to see the better, more benign part of Islam throughout history. Every religion has good people and, keep this in mind, God has always commanded us to love and care for our neighbor. That portion of the scripture has been rejected in favor of a more radical and aggressive agenda that overshadowed the more gentle parts in the Muslim world. But overall LDS leaders had a more conciliatory tone towards Islam and the Muslim world than they had towards us as Christians in general. We collaborate with Muslim charities in the ME for relief and the like at present.
In the last 50 years Christian communities that have existed throughout all the Middle East since the 1st century have been exterminated systematically. Others have been driven out of all Islamic countries and into Israel who has given them sanctuary.
-
Unfortunately the ONLY antidote for that kind of active opposition is TIME. I just imagine what a new wife and baby can do in a situation like this. but you have to make time during the week to have them arund, do stuff, tell them as to reassure them. Explain that although a divorce took place it was the adults not being able to solve their differences and not the children. Debunk that theory about the "competition" since it is not true is important. Give them time 1-on-1 as to chat about what's going on.
I would call them every day even a few minutes just to check. Text them, find stuff they find interesting and send it tot them. Do geanology and if they are 12 arrange to go to the Temple with them.
You are going to have to do constantly do damage control by insisting they got o church on Sunday. You may have to arrange for somebody to pick them up and YOU may have to go and pick them up some times and attend with them. I vaguely remember early in the year during our Stake Conference in the Priesthood session stats about this very issue being discussed. Something like 70% of those that divorce and remarry away from the church with small children only 5% find their way back to the church. The odds are not good.
You may have to go and visit with a family and marriage counselor to give you professional advise and a play by play book of dealing with these issues.
My heart goes out to you.
-
I feel for those that find themselves in such a situation. I had a friend that divorced and the girls stayed with their mom with every other weekend with dad . Nothing "weird' happened but she walked away from the church and of course took the girls with her. They shifted to a more secular lifestyle with Sunday outings, social drinking, lax parental controls and the like. Soon the girls did not want to spend time with dad since mom always had an "exciting" activity for Sunday.
It's been over 5 years and those girls are as good as gone from the church at age 18-19. They want nothing to do with it and there is nothing to indicate that they will ever return. I am not discounting the possibility but given the fact the they no longer even associate with church members and former friends, it casts a doubt in my mind that such would be the case any time soon.
The older they get the more difficult it becomes to pull them back into the Gospel since the secular social environment offer a lot more seductive and emotionally appealing choices. They have lived for so long away from the Spirit that it no longer influences them. Since their mother has done the same and absolutely hates everything to do with church there no hope in that corner either in terms of support.
My friend's heart broken. His new wife and 2 young children are active in the church but the above remains a constant reminder of his failures (at least in his mind) of the past. He keeps hoping and praying but that is all he can do which given how he feels about it is not much in terms of consolation.
-
Hahah. I love these sorts of questions(I'm a convert) because it boils down to one simple thing:
Converts are seen as second-class citizens to people 'born in the covenant'. It's not intended and it's certainly not acted on, but it's definitely perceived by many. People treat me well, I'm respected and have friendships in the church, but I do hear these sorts of questions all the time. If it was irrelevant, we wouldn't hear the question. Nobody asks, "Would you date somebody who owned a blue shirt?" or "Would you marry someone who once made a matchbox car?" because those are perceived as irrelevant stats.
The simple truth is that it's perceived to be something wrong. It's understandable, though, because converts -don't- have the knowledge of the LDS culture. Converts -don't- know when to stand, when to sit or who is important in the church. They make social gaffes and mistakes and don't know the simplest things in the church that 'everyone knows' in your area.
It's something that's bound to happen in any social structure regardless of intentions - The outsider will always be treated differently because he -acts- differently.
That is a very interesting perspective and experience that you share. I am also a convert and my experience has been totally the opposite. People are thrilled to hear the things I have gone thru to find and hold on the Gospel of Christ. They are amazed at my simple and transparent but also solidly anchored testimony I have of the Restoration and the priesthood. Many of my friends, born in the church lamented that they had a very benign conversion experience at age 18, 20 or so when they hear about my story of conversion. Many wish they had been trodden down under foot somehow before they could make a claim to the Atonement.
I have more friends in the church in 10 years than I thought possible or fair for a man to have. I was 29 and single when I was baptized and had no shortage of prospects, much younger girls mind you, and born in the church.
I suspect it varies from place to place and on many other factors. My HT companion a few years ago was a HS kid that got interested in the church while befriending a girl that was a member. He converted, baptized, received his priesthood, put in for a mission, went to Mongolia, baptized 200 people, came back married that girl and now he is the ECP at his ward in Boise. All in 4 years and being a convert. Many born in the church do not measure up to that. So I think that speaks for itself.
It is possible to hear meaningless chatter everywhere, I think It means that; very little and you should not worry much about it my brother. :)
Claiming Christ (The Book): A Mormon-Evangelical Debate
in Learn about The Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints
Posted
Apology accepted although I see no need to apologize.
I do think that the exchange seem rather unprofitable to me at this point. I must sound like a broken record by now but I have very few options. Unless and until you resist the temptation to bring your own understanding and theological position into the discussion, you can not approach and explore the LDS position. Arguing from different sides of the street is truly meaningless/
Please read the cites on baptism and explore the meaning. If you have any questions then we welcome those. Until then al we are doing is arguing which I do not find appealing.