Jenda

Serapha, "Spiritual experience" is a New Age concept? If it is, then New Age is a lot older than I thought, since "spiritual experiences" go clear back to the NT. What a hoot!

I voted for this one: Anybody who actively on a regular basis disagees with Mormon doctrine and philosphies is anti-Mormon. But I would hasten to add that I would also put in the qualifier: to the extreme. I, myself disagree regularly with LDS doctrine, but I don't consider myself "anti".

They have been. White Mountain, Serapha, Allye, ?BYR? I will add other names as I see them.

Better not say that too loudly. Half of them are over here now.

I think you need to study Catholicism and Protestantism before making more postings that are easily disproven by published church dogma or disciplines. I sure hope that last comment wasn't made regarding the comment you quoted, because I have read quite a bit about the Jesuits. Stuff that would scare your pants off. Maybe you should read up on them. Then tell me I am mistaken.

How untrue. How untrue again strike three I think you need to study Catholicism and Protestantism before making more postings that are easily disproven by published church dogma or disciplines. ~serapha~ ... she said indignantly. Sure it is true that the Catholic Church accepts many Protestant baptisms... NOW. It wasn’t always that way. Back before the Synod of Bishops (1985) and the Second Vatican Council (62-65) Serapha was just a heretic doomed to rot in hell forever. Now, according to the favor of the month theology, Serapha has been promoted to simply one of the a “seperated brethren.” Needless to say Protestants used to think that the Catholic Church was utterly corrupt (hence their Protest and reformation) and the Catholics used to kill people for not being Catholic but Serapha is too busy being indignant to talk about that right now. Thank you, Snow. I knew I wasn't imagining it. Snow, I have a question. Have your feet always danced? They just started dancing on my computer 2 days ago. Curious.

Maybe everyone has gone back to their respective boards. Ammon, you are welcome to stay here. B)

I don't doubt that 95% of all Protestant religions accept the other's baptism, I know for a fact that most do. I was referring to crossing between Protestant and Catholic. In fact, many Protestant churches accept the baptism of my church (RLDS), we, however, don't accept theirs into ours.

How don't they agree with the Nicene Creed? In order to agree with the Nicene Creed, one has to believe in the catholic (universal) church, and one (universal) baptism. Neither one of which is true. The Catholics don't accept the Protestants baptism, and vice versa. If they did, they (the Catholics) would not have closed communion. And if the protestants believed in one universal church, they would not have had to step away from the Catholic church. And the Catholic church doesn't believe in it, either, or the Jesuit order would not be in existence. I thought I read where the RC does accept the Protestant baptisms and vice-versa. I thought the main objection has to do wether or not the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus? Do you have a source for that comment? I'd like to see it. Of course I'll do my own research, but since you mentioned this, I suspect you have what I need. I'm not sure which comment you want a source for, but I am sure you read it on the other board just a while ago, since the same thing was posted there fairly recently (since this morning). What I am saying (except for the Jesuit thing) comes from my own experiences and the experiences of friends. When I have gone to Catholic masses, they made an announcement from the front that if you were not Catholic, you may not take communion there. Discussion about transubstanstiation was not offered as a defense to that practice, and you know what, that would make little difference if someone really wanted or needed to take communion. And I had a friend who wanted to convert from Catholicism to a protestant denomination, and had to be re-baptized. That was 20-odd years ago, maybe times, and practices, have changed. This instance is based on old knowledge, so I am willing to consider new knowledge if someone has some.

Which moderator, Ben Johnson? Is he LDS? Actually, it was Ben Johnson. We had a few back and forths. You must be kidding. No, he is not LDS. They wouldn't have an LDS moderator there.

Here is the comment of the owner of the CF site (ERWIN) ... Breetai: I agree with Serapha and drstevej here. Although there are not too many of them, they(the RLDS/CoC) are posing as 'orthodox Christians'. They refuse to use the Mormon icon because they are not part of the main LDS church. They should at least be using the 'other' icon. They are promoting doctrine that is opposed to the Nicene Creed. Erwin: I agree - it should be Other-church. http://www.christianforum.com/showthread.p...35&postcount=17 Until Serapha and drstevej badgered the owner, I was having quite a good discussion with the moderator about it. We were actually getting to the root of the problem. But, I changed my icon. Mostly because I decided I don't agree with the Nicene Creed completely. Of course, they don't either, they are just lying about it so they can call themselves "Christian" and deny that label to others. How don't they agree with the Nicene Creed? In order to agree with the Nicene Creed, one has to believe in the catholic (universal) church, and one (universal) baptism. Neither one of which is true. The Catholics don't accept the Protestants baptism, and vice versa. If they did, they (the Catholics) would not have closed communion. And if the protestants believed in one universal church, they would not have had to step away from the Catholic church. And the Catholic church doesn't believe in it, either, or the Jesuit order would not be in existence.

Here is the comment of the owner of the CF site (ERWIN) ... Breetai: I agree with Serapha and drstevej here. Although there are not too many of them, they(the RLDS/CoC) are posing as 'orthodox Christians'. They refuse to use the Mormon icon because they are not part of the main LDS church. They should at least be using the 'other' icon. They are promoting doctrine that is opposed to the Nicene Creed. Erwin: I agree - it should be Other-church. http://www.christianforum.com/showthread.p...35&postcount=17 Until Serapha and drstevej badgered the owner, I was having quite a good discussion with the moderator about it. We were actually getting to the root of the problem. But, I changed my icon. Mostly because I decided I don't agree with the Nicene Creed completely. Of course, they don't either, they are just lying about it so they can call themselves "Christian" and deny that label to others.

There goes you chance at a plural marriage if the US Supreme Court keeps changing the marriage laws. :) Ummmmmmm........................ I am not a man, just like Snow is not a woman. Maybe we should switch avatars. People keep getting us gender-confused. So, I would not be eligible for plural marriage anyway. And you don't think I'm going to share my man with anyone else, do you? Get real.

You could save some time and effort by just becoming LDS. Simplify your life, ya know. WOW!!! What an offer!! That is the first time anyone ever said that to me. I'm touched. But, I will have to decline, at least for now. But thank you, WM. :)

Actually, after the onslaught of trolls and the lack of response by the moderators, I told them I wasn't going to be posting on the "unorthodox Christianity" forum. I have been posting on the general apologetics tonight and my regular postings in "questions in Christianity" ... oh yeah.... and the one posting to the senior adminsitrator concerning your use of the "cross" as your icon when you adher to the book of mormon. I would think that you would be proud of your beliefs..... Myself, I like it simple... no crosses, no reps, nothing I don't have to carry around with my name ~serapha~ Oh, good. I will look forward to a message from the administrator. But you know, others reported me, too. And I still haven't heard anything. Oh, and I did hear something from the moderator there. He was upset that the posters there trolled over here and broke internet protocol. Seems that they were worried about something, just not what you expected them to be worried about.

That's funny! Better not post that over there! B) Yeah. When they do post a BoM scripture, it is from the LDS BoM (for some odd reason ), then I have to go the the RLDS website and do a scripture search to see what the scripture is in my BoM. It's really a pain. (Of course, I have to do that here, too. )

I read your discussion with drstevej there. What's a T-U-_-I-P Calvinist? What was the deal with the JST stuff and Romans 8:30? They believe in salvation by justification as opposed to salvation by repentence. Romans 8:30 is one of the scriptures that was changed in the Joseph Smith Translation, and it regards their justification theology. The scripture was changed from reading justified to reading sanctified. That threw their justification theory out the window. So, the choose to challenge it. I, myself, find the nitpicking of the scriptures on a word-by-word basis a bit tiresome, especially when I have to search through 10 different versions to find out what they are talking about half the time. I mean, it is hard enough with two different Book of Mormons and two different Doctrine and Covenants. LOL.

Really. I mean, you should have seen how they treated me just because I am a moderator here. I had to play 50 questions before anyone would believe that I am not LDS.

Hello Jenda, You do seem to be finding a new home at christianforums. I guess maybe it is more to your liking now that you realize that the "bigots" aren't really "bigots" and that the members there are capable of discussions when they aren't "attacked" by trolls. So, Serapha, aren't you a little irritated that they haven't asked me to remove the Christian symbol from my name yet? Just a little? B)

Hello Jenda, You do seem to be finding a new home at christianforums. I guess maybe it is more to your liking now that you realize that the "bigots" aren't really "bigots" and that the members there are capable of discussions when they aren't "attacked" by trolls. I don't want to be misunderstood here, or misquoted. I am not here to "troll" as most of you were at christiansforums. I am here to dialogue on subjects concerning the CoJCoLDS's. This is the right place? BTW, jenda, you need not reply, I see that you are busy on christianforums... someone else may answer ~serapha~ You are welcome here, Serapha. I extended that invitation to anyone who wished to come to our board on yours last night. I keep several browser windows open so I can be in many places at once. B)

Please, Please, Please, do not copy things that you have posted on other boards and bring them here. It is a serious infringement of internet protocol. I had to spend quite a bit of time talking to the moderator there about the posts that they took from here to there. Just because they do it doesn't make it right. Even if they don't act like Christians, please let us act like Christians.

I agree with Curvette.

I think this ties in very closely with the other thread about being Born Again/Good Behavior. Just pretend those scriptures are posted in this thread.

I believe that they mean the same thing. I have never heard that specific term before, but I have heard of "washed in the blood of the Lamb" Christians. People who believe in this, IMO, are convenience Christians. They do only what is convenient for them, and if it isn't, Oh, well, Christ shed his blood for me so I am covered anyway. It is the Christian "easy street", IMO.

As a mormon, do you believe you are saved by grace AFTER all you've done? This belief implies that works still effect salvation, and extra-biblical concept. As a person who is not Mormon, B) , but who believes in the restored gospel a la 1830ish, I believe that grace is what saves us. Period. But, as a believer in the restoration, I also believe in the three glories as outlined in the D&C (which I know you don't accept, but YOU asked.) You seem to be of the opinion that all will be saved in some way or another, well, I do, also, but I believe that because of the glories. As we will be judged by our works, it is safe to say that, in some way or another, we will all be saved to one of the glories. Who judges us? Read John 5:22 and John 3:16/17 before you answer. Funny, John 3:16 in my Bible states that ".........that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." That sure sounds like a covenant to me! We saw in James 2:17 that faith without works is dead, so if we want to have eternal life, according to John 3:16, we need our works to make our faith complete, or we won't be saved. I may be dense, but I don't see how John 5:22 speaks to anything except that it is Christ who will judge us, which I agree with. Of course I am NOT. You are giving the thief credit for things he never did. the facts are very simple, the thief did nothing of merit after Jesus spoke with him. Of course the thief did nothing, he was dead. But while we are judged by our works, our works plainly bespeak the intentions of our heart. That is what is being judged. They say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That is because if it doesn't go beyond good intentions, then there is no commitment, no faith. And again, only God can judge the intentions of our hearts. but you can't get into heaven without your works Can you back that up with scripture specifying that? Sure. Oh, you mean scripture you will accept. Sure. I will start by reposting James 2. Your previous remark regarding this scripture is off to say the least. What do you think is meant by saving if it doesn't mean eternal salvation? James 2:14-17 14 What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be [ye] warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what [doth it] profit? 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. I won't repost the Matthew scripture, but the same applies there. By their fruits ye shall know them. And Narrow is the way that leadeth to life..... What "life" do you think he is referring to? Care to guess "eternal life"? Titus 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. (If you deny God, you will not be saved.) Paul talks a lot of justification. He makes the point that we are not justified by works, rather by mercy. I agree with him completely. You, however, don't seem to see the difference between justification and judgment. They are two different things. Justification is the legal end of thing. It is the means whereby we are saved. Judgment is the way God determines who is eligible for justification. Read my comments about John 3:16 again.