Maxel

Well, I may be a victim of this intellectual movement then, as I only recently graduated high school and I haven't bothered to study this subject much more since then. To the credit of my history teachers, when discussing the creation of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, we studied Locke extensively.Part of the reason I maintain the Constitution was founded on Christian principles is the belief that the Founding Fathers were inspired of God, as was the Constitution. The fact is that both the Constitution and Christian principles derive their intellectual foundation from the eternal principles of God's kingdom- wherever the Founding Fathers actually learned those principles from (for instance Locke, who was influenced by the political and artistic movement of the Enlightenment- something else we believe was influenced by God). In the end, the Constitution is fit only for a society that upholds the morals it was founded upon: today, we find most of those morals embraced in the Judeo-Christian heritage with many of the same morals reflected in other religious philosophies (freedom of choice, innate rights of man, etc.). I keep in mind the foundation of the liberation of our country: the Declaration of Independence, which explicitly references 'Nature's God' and the 'Creator'. Not the Christian God per se, but it recognizes that the rights of man are imputed to him by virtue of God's power. In the most real sense- the sense of following a person's inner conscience and the Light of Christ- the Founding Fathers were, by and large, demonstrably Christian. I didn't know all that, thank you. I'm still confused as to how the conjoining of morals and state somehow equates to the conjoining of church and state- the first is a set of beliefs, the second is an organization. If the Founding Fathers had implicit trust in Christianity, as you said, then wouldn't they want to see its influence continue in public thought? In fact, if even Jefferson who you have pointed to as denying Christ's divinity, recognized that the good principles of citizenship were taught in the Bible, wouldn't the collective group of the Founding Fathers want to see the influence of the Bible continue in society and not be abandoned? My main problem is the movement towards forced secularism- men who wish to make minor observances to their God in the public arena are forbidden to do so. Why is it that it's acceptable to let a prayer be offered in behalf of a new president, yet the basic morals that underlie the acceptance and practice of prayer are rejected as inferior in political arenas? I've decided to PM you some questions to continue the conversation. I appreciate your time- again- explaining this to me. Funny... Most of the secularists I have talked too about this have flat-out stated that they want to see the institution of religion utterly abolished. I again fail to grasp how the perpetuation of Christian principles in government, as long as the basic human rights espoused in the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not trespassed, is somehow the mixing of church and state. I fear it's a belief that religion is entirely a philosophical construct of man. I guess I'm one of those Americans who "do[es] not understand the distinction."

Hey ceeboos_boss! Good to hear from you again. Tell ceeboo Maxel says hi!

ROFL. Where's the laugh button when you need it?As for the video Bible vs. the Book of Mormon, it's been reviewed twice in the FARMS journal- once by David Bokovoy and once by Brant Gardener.

Just like those who try to deny the Holocaust. When someone wants to embrace an ideology badly enough, documented proof isn't enough.

Some of the greatest miracles of the Church today are the same as were evident in the New Testament Church: the healing of the sick and afflicted, the gift of tongues, raising the dead, and more. Personally, I've seen quite a few miracles in my life. My mother was blessed numerous times, and recovered from a chronic illness that her doctors said would be impossible to overcome. Just this last week, my sister's very sick pet turtle received a blessing and is eating again. As far as amazing, publicized miracles, the Church itself is a miracle enough. Life itself is a miracle, wrought by the Atonement of Christ. There is no need in this Church for the loud proclamation of fantastic miracles on a regular basis. However, they do happen frequently.

D&C 10:20-22 20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that Satan has great hold upon their hearts; he stirreth them up to iniquity against that which is good; 21 And their hearts are corrupt, and full of wickedness and abominations; and they love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil; therefore they will not ask of me. 22 Satan stirreth them up, that he may lead their souls to destruction.

It's not so much that the legalization of homosexual marriage will bring an 'end to the country', but that it is a step in the wrong direction. It is a symptom of the degeneration of civilized society, and we are commanded by Christ to halt the flow as much as we are able.

The problem I am most aware of, is that often a Christian's views on morality are not viewed as viable simply because they are derived from an organized religion. I see the same pundits most vociferously arguing for the 'separation of church and state'- as if any organized religion actually holds serious political influence- as the ones who believe non theistic morality is the pinnacle of ethical philosophy. The separation of church and state was largely established to prevent an organized religion from overtaking the government (as the Catholic and Anglican churches had done in the Old World), but that never meant separating the morals and values perpetuated by organized religion (especially Christianity) from the government. I think Bill Maher's wariness of Mitt Romney- solely because of his comments about faith- is a measure of the general disillusionment with organized religion and the false notion that non-religion is the better choice, and what the founding fathers wanted. I think this same disillusionment is a symptom of the deeper problem that is also responsible for this so-called 'Evangelical collapse'- the secularization of society, and the abandonment of the values of our forefathers.

Hey Berean- Only have 40 minutes before class; I have some advice about apologetics. First off- there's a language shift between traditional Christianity and Mormon Christianity; we use the same words in different ways. Make sure to clarify what you mean, and don't be afraid to ask for more detail if you're confused about a statement another makes. Crossing the language barrier is difficult, but worthwhile. Second, if you're really interested in apologetics I suggest reading the book How Wide the Divide? co-authored by Stephen Robinson and Craig Blomberg. Not only do they set the groundwork for upstanding theological discourse between evangelical Christianity and Mormonism, they also follow a charitable pattern that you would benefit from studying. When you run across statements like this, ask for scripture explaining the doctrine. Then, you know where the other person is coming from. Off the top of my head, I don't know which scriptures claim Christ was born of the 'Holy Spirit', but I'm sure the one who originally posted this does. I'm actually impressed that they stuck to former prophets and benign statements. Nothing they have stated are not doctrine: we believe Christ was born of the Father. However, there is no doctrinal teaching that the Father literally had sexual intercourse with Mary. Such a false view was perpetuated by The Godmakers. There has been speculation, but it has been just that: speculation. Remember that the LDS are bound only by canonized, accepted works. We are only bound by the scripture that is accepted as such in a General Conference and is sustained by the members. Remind others that they are not bound by the personal opinions of past prophets, but only canonical works: the Bible. Make a correlation between the two: modern and ancient canon. This person is correct- barely- in their first sentence, correct in their second, and incorrect in their third. Salvation is not being part of Mormonism. There are many Mormons who will not be saved because they did not make use of Christ's Atonement or go to Him with a broken heart and contrite spirit. In traditional Christianity (especially Evangelical Christianity) a false dichotomy has been set up between faith and works. There are a couple ways you can explain our position:1- Explain that the faith in one's mind can be called 'belief', and the actions one does in Christ' name can be called 'works'. In this sense, one's works are consecrated by that person's belief, and the product of the two is real, living faith. 2- Use C.S. Lewis' scissors analogy- "Arguing about which is more important, faith or works, is like arguing which blade of a pair of scissors is more important". Point to Paul's declarations that by faith alone we are saved, but also to James' explanation that faith without works is dead. 3- Explain that of our own selves we cannot merit salvation. It is impossible. Reaffirm that it is through the Grace of Christ, after all we can do, that we are saved. Remind them we believe that 'working out our own salvation daily' (words of Paul) includes doing the works that Christ has demanded of us. Also, how does a servant know a master he has not served? Serving requires work of some kind. This is the perfect opportunity to pull out D&C 132 and explain the new and everlasting covenant: that of marriage. Continually remind your audience that in all things related to the Celestial Kingdom, faith founds the foundation for everything. None of this is canonized teaching. I am intrigued by this person's use of 'testimony' in the way he uses it, though- I've never seen a Christian of another sect use the term.As a note: theoretically, even if what this person posits is true, for us Christ would still be THE way, the Truth, and the Light who leads us to the Father- and Christ was talking to us, not anyone else. Don't mention this however- that's too much theology for someone trying to understand the basics of the Church to grasp. First, reject wordings such as 'the LDS Jesus'- we worship the same Jesus as all other Christians. Second, this person is making more speculation based on non-canonical LDS speculation. Reject it on those grounds and assure him that Christ is the 'way, truth, and light'. While having good intentions, this person misunderstands our doctrine of canonization and sets up a false dichotomy between Christianity and Mormonism. This person is correct, however, that Mormons and traditional Christians use many similar terms differently. The LDS do not use systematic theology to solidly define terms like traditional Christians have. If the 'purple text' you are referring to are the quotes by former Presidents- I would advise not using the term 'heretics'. Don't apologize for the Discourses or any speculative writings by former General Authorities. Explain the doctrine of canonization and stick to it. Good answer- continue to use the language of the Bible because much of our doctrine is derived from it. However, you would make more of an impact by putting accompanying verses in parentheses, such as inserting (James 2:26) next to your words 'faith without works is dead' so they see the Biblical concept you are explaining. Also, make the online scriptures at lds.org your new best friend, and use HTML/BBCcode hyper linking to link ALL scriptural references to their corresponding scripture there. One word of caution: be wary of anyone who continually asks difficult questions and/or does not at least accept the fact that Mormons feel the way they do and believe what they do. One telltale sign of someone seeking to bash is someone unwilling to acknowledge we actually believe what we do, and who constantly claim that what we believe is inconsistent with the Bible. Your preceding examples aren't bad, but if the same poster continues to do that... Eternal progression is not controversial; the doctrine is sound. However, it is the speculative 'hows' and 'whats' of the doctrine of eternal progression that are controversial, as we know little more than it is sound doctrine. Good questions, but I kind of lost you when you talked about the 'heaven of Mainstream Christianity'.Good job being a defender of the faith and an example of Christ, Berean! Keep up the good work.

It really depends on the issue, pepperann27. Some medical problems are mistaken for other things (such as obesity due to diabetes mistaken for a woman not taking care of her body), sometimes they do provide a barrier to an immature man or a man of a certain type. I agree with RachelleDrew: it depends on the medical issue, and the guy in question. However... boys will be boys. I apologize for my gender's occasional (read: frequent) moronic escapades.

True, he made an official apology to an obviously offended group that he made a stupid and untrue remark about. However, the original sentiment is still there: he doesn't like us right now. To me, this makes it worse. They're basically saying they are well aware of the concerns and that Mormons hold the temple ceremony sacred, but they're proceeding anyway. That's like someone apologizing to a Muslim before they burn a copy of the Qu'ran. There are other ways to achieve the director's goals without recreating the endowment ceremony. Pretending there was 'no other way' to is preposterous, unless they plan to make the events of the endowment ceremony somehow integral to the plot: in which case the situation gets worse!Luckily, this will all blow over soon. They'll answer to God eventually- especially their 'consultant'.

I'm kind of shocked, and more than 'kind of' saddened, by some of the Mormons who have posted talking about how great this would be or that Evangelicals had it coming to them. To me, that's like having no sympathy for any of the Native Americans who were pushed from their homes because they 'had it coming' (it was prophesied, even). I will never forget when my sister pulled me aside and reprimanded me, when I was younger, for saying that the Indians got what they deserved. It's a lesson that has not been lost on me. There are many, many good people in the Evangelical movement. If this collapse should occur, it will lead to the religious homelessness of many good people who are following Christ and His Light to the best of their ability. I do not see that as a happy occurrence- even if somehow it were for the greater good of Christianity. Nor do I think these poor Evangelicals should suffer for the wrongs their religious forefathers may have done to us Mormons. Nor do I think these poor Evangelicals should suffer for any misguided direction their leaders may take. Whatever happens, the Evangelical movement is in for a tough battle and, as Christians, we should be strengthening our brother. If the movement falls, it will be according to Christ's plan and because of the sins of the world. I, for one, will not contribute to the widespread hatred of Evangelical Christianity based on the acts of the very, very small minority. Also, I think we would ALL do well to remember that in Mormon history, we have needed help from outside the faith from time to time (Colonel Kane, for example). I remember reading a talk by Neil A. Maxwell in which he states that those of other faiths, seeing the works of the Church, will rally to its cause and be a great help. The Church does not hold a monopoly on goodness, truth, or Christianity. Hand me a spiritual 'weapon' and I'll fight by your side, PC.

This most recent attack from sefton made me think. We really are in the last days. His agenda was to make us doubt the fact that we know what we know. We don't all know every detail about the Gospel, but we can all know the basics: that God exists, that He loves us, and that the Church is true. It seems that wicked men and women who reject these possibilities will become more daring in these last days to try to make us doubt our own testimonies. For me, this is one of the hardest things. I want so bad to sit down with them and explain exactly how and why we believe the way we do... But people who are attacking are already past reason. That's the reason we bear testimony: when we speak the language of the spirit, the listener's spirit responds and that person is forced to accept or reject the new knowledge. The most charitable person may not be swayed to the Church through reason alone- but bear testimony, and (s)he will come to the fountain of the water of life. I guess it's part of living in the last days. I need a hug. Here's a few for everyone else, and one just for pam. I feel your pain. EDIT: I was also thinking... Falling away from the Gospel warps a person's sense of reason, anyway. Seriously... I did not understand what sefton was driving at with his difference between proof and evidence and knowing and believing... It's like he was wrapped up in his own little world.

I think it's the animated cow tongue that seals the deal.And, you're right WillowTheWisp- it is the spiritual person that matters.

This right here- the language 'i believe'- tells me your entire argument is based on your own opinion. You're using the most circular kind of logic here: you have your conclusion, and you interpret the facts to come to that conclusion. That's fine; I don't care- but don't come in here telling us that we have it all wrong. What authority do you have anyway? Really? I've never heard that. In fact, I clearly remember the numerous times I've been taught that Christ was perfect. However, let's look at what you say next. Frankly, unless you have some prophetic authority to interpret that scripture, you cannot know exactly what Christ meant. You can guess, but you cannot definitively say that and expect anyone to believe you based on your own opinions. Don't forget the formation of the Catholic Church, too. The fundamentals of the Christian church were never taken from the earth: once Christ came, the knowledge of His life and divine mission was never lost again. However, other precious truths were. Again, circular reasoning. If the church fell away, of course there would be no official records or admittances of the fact. That's like saying the Roman government never admitted its corruption and predicted its own doom. Simply because the leaders never admitted they were corrupt, doesn't mean they weren't.The entire point is that, over time, the Christian church fell into apostasy and the authority to act in God's name, the Priesthood, was taken from the earth. What does that prove, exactly? There have been many more Christian martyrs since then. Again, the apostasy's major effect was the taking of the Priesthood from the earth, and the losing of key truths from the Gospel of Christ.By the way, I'm really getting tired of you deflecting every honest question. You're not here to discuss; we're talking past each other. You don't accept my evidence; I don't accept yours.

Connie's got the right idea. Hear me now, oh thou bleak and unbearable world, Thou art base, and debauched as can be. And a knight, with his banners all bravely unfurled, Now hurls down his gauntlet to thee! (CHORUS) I am I! Don Quixote! The Lord of La Mancha! Destroyer of evil am I... I will ride, ever onward To the trumpets of glory Forever to conquer or die. Hear me heathens, and wizards, and serpents of sin- All thy dastardly doings are past. For a holy endeavor is now to begin, And virtue shall triumph at last! I am I! Don Quixote! The Lord of La Mancha! My destiny calls and I go... And the wild winds of fortune, Shall carry me onward, Oh wither soever they blow... Onward, to glory, I go! I, Don Quixote, from the musical Man of La Mancha.

I don't see how your interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2 is more correct than BrotherDorsey's. I understand the correlation you draw between 2 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation, but I don't see it founded on anything other than the fact that 2 Thessalonians 1- the preceding chapter- is about the Second Coming of Christ. What you seem to be doing is saying that, despite the clear differentiation through chapter division (and therefore topical division), 2 Thessalonians 2's proximity to 2 Thessalonians 1 should give it the context of the end of days. Even if that were true, however, it does not mean the phrase 'that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first,' cannot reference an apostasy, as if an apostasy were to happen, it must needs be before the Second Coming of Christ. The scripture is rife with examples of large time periods being mentioned in much smaller terms, such as 'day', 'generation', etc. Daniel's vision of the idol actually represents periods over centuries (millenia, even) yet it makes no reference to the time lapse within the revelation itself.However, you're not looking for answers, or to learn. Someone please close this thread- the OP is no longer visiting it, and this most recent activity has all been Mormon-bashing.

I think part of the problem is that such a wide variety of religious views and practices fall under the umbrella-term of 'Evangelical'. I've known some Evangelical Christians who do all these things you've mentioned and are great examples to their communities. However, when you get Christianity-with-water (C.S. Lewis term) mega-churches with hyper-hypocritical pastors like Teg Haggard thrown into the same mix... Not good. I think the popular idea of 'Evangelical Christianity' suffers from a lack of unifying practice and doctrine (besides the Creeds, which aren't really that unifying anyway...).I think the evangelical Christians who are focused on those basics you talked about, Fiannan, will come out just fine. Don't know what will happen if the 'whole system' fails, but I know Christ takes care of His own, no matter their religion.

If this is true- and sadly, I don't doubt that these things could happen- I feel absolutely horrible for my evangelical friends. If this does happen, then their faith will be shaken to its very core. I could see cultural evangelicals evaporating from the churches overnight, and those who truly are converted to Christ will need safe havens to go without changing theology. That's why I think, as the world gets worse, we'll see a growing, albeit small, counter-culture movement of true godliness. I've always thought that there will start to be a larger niche for family-oriented and Christ-oriented entertainment among Christians- the real ones, not the cultural ones. I'm not surprised the author of this article thinks the same thing. It's the principle of the wheat and the tares: as the tares grow up, so must the wheat. I see the heart of Evangelical Christianity as a bastion of morality in society. It will be a sad day when it falls, if it does.

I was actually wondering if Hanks' anger at the Church over its support of Proposition 8 had anything to do with the decision to include the temple rites in the show, effectively breaking the assurance HBO made to the Church about separating the fictional pseudo-Mormons on 'Big Love' from the real Mormons of the world.At first, I was shocked, but I'm glad everyone has been reasonable and some posted the official LDS response. I think it makes sense: when smitten, turn the other cheek. Christ always wins in the battle between good and evil, and we can see that Big Love's producers are clearly not on the side of Christ.

Refusal to answer cross-examination yourself is not a good thing. Brother Dorsey has a point: apostasy came after the collective writing of the New Testament was written. However, Faded gave you answers.You're not here to find answers; accept we believe what we believe without trying to convince us otherwise. I notice you demand we accept that you interpret the scriptures otherwise. Fine; but don't demand one thing of us and another thing of yourself. Are you here for answers or to poke fun and insult us? It seems you're well aware there are no verses in the Bible that, in your opinion, prove the Apostasy happened. If there was, you would be one of us. You're obviously not.

Thanks. This is where I was going, but sefton refused to answer me. Maybe because he knows the weakness of his own position?

Ah pammie, no need to puppy-ize the convo. Just close the thread if you want, lol. I get the feeling sefton will open another one if he REALLY WANTS TO. sefton, I do not know everything. I do not KNOW many of the beliefs I hold true. What I do know is that when I feel the Holy Ghost, I am feeling the presence and knowledge of God. How? I learn things that I could not have known otherwise. A small sliver of God's omniscience is given to me in those moments, and when that happens, there is no denying the utter joy nor the source of that joy. The source of that joy is all-knowing, all-loving, and all-merciful. The source of that joy is God. This is the foundation of my testimony and my knowledge. It is helped by the fact that this feeling of peace acts in a predictable manner and reacts to my spiritual self. I can interact with it and invoke it through prayer and pondering. I lay it at your feet to judge: can a bitter tree bring forth good fruit? I have seen naught but the evidence of Godliness when I live the tenets of my religion. It has changed my life, but more importantly, it has changed me. It has improved my soul and body. You ask for 'proof', not 'evidence'. I assume the difference is in the mind of the person judging. You have not felt what I have felt. You have not experienced my experiences. You have not wrought in your life what I have wrought in mine. Proof is in the eye of the beholder because each man must go through the process himself. You say you can live through belief. That is good. What I challenge you to do now requires belief. I cannot prove to you what I know to be true- that is, make you believe what I know is 'proof'. However, you can prove to yourself. You can turn to God in prayer and repent of your sins. You can read the Book of Mormon, having faith in Christ and really wanting to know if it is true with the intent to act on your answer, and then pray to the Father in the name of Christ if these things are not true. I promise you, if you do these things, you will be given the proof you need. It will no longer be a ragtag bundle of evidence; it will be proof. Yet, I cannot prove these things to you. Perhaps we could discuss more if you gave me more than analogies and explained the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'- until then, no progress can be made. Let me put this in the format you suggested: I am certain that the feelings I've gotten that testify of the truth of the Church are from God because they are wrought through the same process every time, where no other conceivable explanation becomes possible. ---- The reason I asked about the scientific method is this: the feelings and knowledge testifying of truth are wrought through very scientific means. That is, if we were conducting an experiment and did X, Y, and Z every time, we would get result A every time. The steps of the process are (as read in Moroni 10:4-5): 1) Receive the things in the Book of Mormon. That is, read and ponder them. 2) Ask God the Father, in the name of Christ, if what one has received is true. 3) Ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ. That is, ask with the intent of acting on one's witness (change of lifestyle, etc.) and have faith that, through Christ, receiving a witness IS possible. The result is: 1) We shall receive a witness of the truth of these things through the Holy Ghost. Then, doubt will be removed and we will know.

I keep asking.. what's the difference between evidence and proof? The way I'm familiar with the terms, convincing bodies of evidence usually equal reasonable proof. Assume I'm an idiot and answer the question.

Sefton, the moon analogy, though helpful in demonstrating your opinion, is not helpful in defining how you see truth. You skirt the main issue: how can anyone know anything? What is the difference between proof and evidence? When does a body of evidence become proof?Do you believe it's possible to KNOW anything- and I don't mean just pertaining to religion here; I'm talking about anything.