[Pascal's Wager Applied To Mormonism/evangelicalism]

We can disscuss scriptures all you want. We can even agree on some pionts. I hope that we will allways be friends. But I will not turn away from this simple truth. Gods mouth has not been shut.

Yeah, I think we're all wonderful cyberfriends.

Just a note on the "God's mouth has not been shut," comment. I agree. Most Christians agree. Here's where we differ:

1. Non-Pentecosta/Charismatich Christians would likely argue that God's "mouth" remains open via the proclammation of his Word.

2. Pentecostals/Charismatics would go further, saying, sure, God still speaks fresh revelation today, via tongues and interpretation, prophetic utterances, dreams, visions, etc.

3. Where we'd differ is that both of these groups would argue that any word from the Lord given today be subjected to the written word of God--and interpreted in that light. In other words, Scripture trumps modern revelation.

[A New Inspirational Science Fiction Novel]

I hope you're not putting too much trust in that assurance, shanstress, because I only buy, and read and study, the "best" books... and a work of fiction very simply isn't "best".

Personally, I enjoy fiction--especially Christian fiction. I view such reading as an author's attempt to understand, flesh out, and apply gospel teachings. It's not dogma, or official anything--but, at the same time, it puts into words what the best of Christian lessons put into lecture format. A healthy spiritual exercise for author and reader, imho.

[Did Human Spirits Exist Before Creation?]

The problem with your conclusion is that it does not follow th eproper study of such instances in scripture. As in Jeremiah, the word "knew" is not of knowledge, but the same hebrew word described in genesis when "Adam knew his wife" and "begat Cain". It is a word intending intimacy of TWO, not one alone. Indeed one cannot have intimacy with the forknowledge of someone but with the present reaction of such person. If God(as a "defense of yours") could have such intimate relationship of love with us without creating us, then He didnt have to create us "out of his love to share it with us" as most protestants teach. He could have remain sharing His love PERFECTLY with His "premonition" of us. Further more, if we speak in terms of logic, He could not have known us intimately(as to "know"-hebrew) us without creating us, because if he had not recently created us he could not remotely remember or forknow such action. He foreknew that He creted us, as he later did. Not other wise.

I studied New Testament Greek in seminary for two years, through which God taught me great humility. The first year we learned all the rules. The second year we learned many of the exceptions to the rules. I very much doubt that the word for God's "foreknowledge," necessarily, or always, in any context, indicate intimate marital-like 'knowing.' As a simple example:

1. I love icecream!

2. I really like you, honey.

Which one do I care more of. Now, the dictionary will clearly indicate that "love" is of a greater degree than "like." Yet, I care more for my honey than I do icecream.

Likewise, God's foreknowledge of us in one case, and Adam's 'knowledge' of Eve in another, would not necessarily indicate the same type of relationship, even if the Hebrew word were the same.

So this simply works otherwise to our fellow christian brethren, just as "Ever incrising Faith Ministries" in california, and "Fount of Living waters' in Puerto Rico, all both conservative and liberal evangelicals, are praching preexistance!

It is interesting that you found a couple of sects that teach preexistence, but I hope you are not trying to create the impression that such doctrine is widespread, or largely accepted in the Christian world. It's not. I would be truly amazed if the # of Christians who believe in the preexistence of human spirits would even register (i.e. would be greater than 0.5% of the 2 billion adherents in the world).

[On The First Cause]

Let me see if I understand the distinction between LDS and traditional Christian teaching, related to FIRST CAUSE:

1. In LDS theology there is no First Cause, because all the Gods, including Elohim, and indeed all of us, have an essence that is eternal. In other words, that are lots of beings that have always been--that had no cause or beginning.

2. In most traditional Christian theologies, God is the First Cause. Only He has always been. Everything else was created, and had a beginning.

BTW, I'd prefer tiramasu, but will take coconut, if there's some left over.

[Purpose Of Life]

This should be interesting and enlightening. Simply fill in the blank if you're so inclined.

The purpose of life is...to fear God and keep his commandments. (Ecclesiastes 12:13)

[Pascal's Wager Applied To Mormonism/evangelicalism]

Yeah, I know, LDS value and understand these things too. What I'm saying is that if you start confirming or condemning things not addressed in the Bible (such as whether it's heretical to believe in living apostles) you get to a point where someone says, "What makes you right and me wrong? By what authority do you teach these precepts?" When there's nothing besides, "I feel the Spirit whisper to me..." then it's a matter of, "The Spirit said this to me," vs. "the Spirit said something different to me."

I could be wrong, but I do not believe the "by who's authority?" question is a natural one. It is one that comes out of LDS teachings. Even Catholics, who's system is very hierarchical wouldn't think to ask the question. Instead, they'd likely go to their priest and say, prisonchaplain said "X"--is that right?

The Bible is the word of God. For most Protestants, that's authority enough. Now, in practice, the teachings of one's home church do serve as guidelines for most believers.

You're comparing the LDS church leadership to the likes of Pope Urban II? Wow, I do take offense at that, as well as the assertion that the LDS church pumps out complacent robot-members soviet-conveyor belt style, all marching to the drum of a false prophet who spreads heresy along the way to the left hand of God.

Or did I misunderstand your appraisal?

Yes you did, perhaps understandably. If I remember right, you said that evangelicals do not react well to the idea of church authority being so central, and I responded by saying it's because we're afraid such systems would bring us back to the corruption of Medieval Catholicism.

To clarify, I was not specifically saying that your Church is in that state of being. I have no idea, quite frankly, having never set foot in one. I was simply expressing the general fears us Christians raised up in churches that are not heavily centralized have about such systems.

Then why did Jesus organize a church in New Testament times, with specific offices like elder, bishop, deacon, seventy, apostle? Specifically, where did Jesus ever teach, "Now guys, this is just a temporary church structure I'm putting together. After my resurrection, and after my hand-picked apostles are martyred, just follow the Spirit's promptings."

I'm not sure Jesus organized much more than the 12 disciples and the 70 missionaries. The rest came later, as the church developed. I would argue that organization comes with growth, and that Jesus was simply encouraging an orderly system for preaching and ministering the gospel. Jesus was as much about the disciples not becoming proud leaders as he was about installing them with authority.

I find no place in the New Testament, PC, where Jesus gives any indication that the church he organized was merely a temporary exercise and not a grand pattern for all mankind to follow thereafter.

And I just don't see Jesus fixated on the organization aspect. Yes, he trained a group of disciples--chose three as his closest confidantes. Yes, at one point 70 were sent out to heal, preach, and free the demonized. But beyond that, leadership power doesn't seem high on his agenda, imho.

Make [the kingdom of God] too neat, and I wonder if you miss some reality.

What sort of reality?

When things simply have to be too perfect, then people will pretend. This isn't an LDS thing, it's a problem in most churches--probably most religions. People's lives are imperfect, but they put on the gospel or kingdom smile, and speak uplifting, faith-affirming words about the glory of living in the fullness of Christ. Inside, they may be fearful, in desperate need of prayer or encouragement, a listening ear, or perhaps a few $--but they dare not speak up, for fear of being seeing as "backsliding," "lacking faith," "walking in defeat," etc.

[Entry Into The Celestial Kingdom]

Heh, how come you still don’t get it?

It’s not the board that is frustrating me, ApostleKnight, but the fact that some people won’t seek to know the truth from God, even when it’s placed right in front of their face.

And btw, I’m saying all of this from a long way off, as I keep walking away from the darkness, and as I walk and continue to walk toward light from God, I bid those who aren't following "goodbye".

I just find it ironic that more than a dozen posts in this string about getting into the Celestial Kingdom have focused on Ray's leaving.

[Pascal's Wager Applied To Mormonism/evangelicalism]

I believe God chooses where each of us is born (what family or lack thereof we are born into). I don't believe He spins the globe, slams His index finger down and says, "And ye shall be born in...Tunisia!" So it seems pretty heartless of Him to have billions of His creations (read: spirit children) born in areas and time periods where/when they'll never have a chance to accept Christ and be saved. Why would He do that? Surely there must be some provision for all to have an equal chance to accept/reject Christ?

Romans 1 does seem to indicate that humanity is without excuse, that all have a revelation of God, through creation and the like sufficient for them to respond according to what they know. Yet, we dare not read too much into this notion. As believers, we're commissioned to deliver the message--to go to the uttermost parts of the world with the Good News of Christ. So, complacency in missions--whether to coworkers, or to the Tunisians, is not an option. We must "Finish the Work." (John 4:34)

But for someone to tell someone else, "Hey, that aspect of your worship is opinion, not Spirit-guided," assumes an amount of authority beyond the priesthood of believers. In the no-formal-authority-is-needed religious arena, who are you or I or anyone to tell our neighbor, "You're getting close to heresy because you're not getting the same Spiritual signals I am?"

You assume the Bible is much more complicated than it is. The salvation message is something that seven-year olds understand. The Beatitudes, the Great Commission, the Two Great Commandments, the Love Chapter, the incredible commandments of Christ found in Matthew 5-7, etc.--these are things most people can comprehend on a single reading. Is there more? Of course! Are there depths to biblical truths that confound theologians with a lifetime of study on their belts? Absolutely! And yet, the heart is quite clear--so that men are without excuse.

At it's core, PC, every supposed "universal religion" requires authority to be believable. I mean authority beyond cardboard sheriff stars and homemade FBI badges (both of which are cool). Yes, yes, I know, that naughty "a" word that drives so many non-LDS crazy...but everyone's claims must bear some authority to be taken seriously by anyone else.

It does drive us crazy, because we see where it goes. Back to the corruption of Rome, back to men trying to mediate between me and God, back to believers becoming complacent, and allowing the church leaders to driver their relationships with God. It's not about finding the right church, or the right leaders. It's about Jesus. Yes, that makes the community a bit messier. A single organization, with disciplined compliant 'soldiers' looks spiffier. In fact, it's why, despite the trends, I do prefer denominations over independent or nondenominational works. Nevertheless, the kingdom of God is full of Greeks, Hebrews, men, women, old, young, highly educated, and simple. Make it too neat, and I wonder if you miss some reality.

If an icecream truck pulls me over and gives me a speeding ticket, I sure as sheol ain't gonna pay up. :)

We're offering eternal life through Jesus Christ our LORD--in essence "Get Out of Jail Free" cards. We'll leave the punishment stuff to the Father.

[Pascal's Wager Applied To Mormonism/evangelicalism]

One key difference between LDS and non-LDS teachings, is that we believe everyone will have the chance to hear and accept/reject the gospel of Christ whether in this life or the next. If I understand the evangelical view correctly, only those who grow in evangelical teachings in tune with the Spirit will enter heaven...where does that leave billions of God's children eternally? God notices the fall of every sparrow...I have a hard time believing He'd bar from heaven those who happened to be born in Papua New Guinea or any area non-evangelicized. You see what I'm saying?

Two answers: To Christians--yes, it sure does look like the only hope of salvation is respond to the Good News of Jesus and be converted. Thus, we read in Romans 10:14-17:

14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

16 But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" 17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.NIV

This is why we are so fervent in missions, so eager to "win souls."

To nonbelievers, or to those who have loved ones who passed on, there is another equally valid answer: God knows. He is just and good. On the day of judgment, when we see who is redeemed and who is condemned, there will be no objections raised, no second-guessing. All will declare that God is just and merciful.

Well, hypothetically, if such people were deceived I doubt God would say, "Why didn't you discern my spiritual warnings better? Sheesh, go to that dry-grass pasture yonder with the other black sheep...you're lucky I opened the fold to you at all." I'm being a bit overly-dramatic.

If I discover that my spiritual efforts were largely fruitless and misdirected, and that after all my savior had done for me, I squandered the talents He had for me...well it's not a scene I want to be a part of--nor do any of us, I'm sure!

[Pascal's Wager Applied To Mormonism/evangelicalism]

So, if evangelicals are right in their teachings, and the LDS have strayed into so many crucial areas of wrong teaching, the Holy Spirit warns them. So not only Mormons would be barred from evangelical heaven, but catholics/buddhists/hindus/muslims/atheists/agnostics and in short, everyone who doesn't share evangelical views? Where in the Bible does it say that?

I used the term "evangelical" because it's what I am, and it's the group represented in the book I cited. Yet, a careful reading of my posts would show two things:

1. I left the results of said "straying" open. I'm not mapping at the line between "fringe-but-acceptable Christianity" and "Apostasy-heresy." What I am suggesting is that I don't want to get anywhere near such a line.

2. Every faith has its orthodox, including evangelicals, Catholics, Buddhists, Muslims. Even atheists distinguish between those who are "soft" (there's no god we know of) vs. "hard" (there absolutely is no god). Surely your church has a process for dealing with those accused of teaching heresy?

3. Yes, any who have not embraced God's mercy, offered via the atoning shed-blood of Christ, is barred from heaven. Jesus made the claim in John 14:6 (I'm the Way...to the Father...No man comes but through me).

The problem with your position is that it assumes some amount of authority; authority to interpret the Bible and clarify ambiguous passages. The question becomes, where'd you get that authority?

Well, no, my position does not. My position is that God wants to be worshiped in spirit and in truth, that he does reveal himself, that his Spirit directs us, and that if we try to worship him according to our own opinions and desires, our sacrifice will be rejected.

I'll have to address the rest of the post later. Be blessed.

[Pascal's Wager Applied To Mormonism/evangelicalism]

So where does this idea come from that "if evangelicals are right, Mormons stand to lose so much?"

Without arguing the merits of the differing belief systems, there are significant differences about the nature of God, his Son Jesus Christ, humanity, sin, salvation, Scripture, etc. When someone is initially converted to faith, and truly reconciled to God, the Holy Spirit resides with them. They will begin to grow in truth and sound doctrine. So, if evangelicals are right in their teachings, and the LDS have strayed into so many crucial areas of wrong teaching, the Holy Spirit warns them. If they do not heed the warnings, but continue to resist the promptings of the Holy Spirit. At some point would they not become apostates--heretics? Will those who has spent the majority of their 'Christian' lives out of fellowship with most of God's people (declaring them unrestored), those who misapprehended the nature of God, His creation, His salvation, His communication, His plan of salvation--those who so frequently missed the spiritual signals, be told on the Day of Judgment, "Well done, good and faithful servant--enter into my Kingdom," or "Depart from me...I never knew you?" It's an open question, but, Pascal would argue, a potentially risky wager.

Even assuming that such folk might yet enter the heavenly kingdom, what kind of reward awaits those who were so far from most of God's people and God's truths?

[Pascal's Wager Applied To Mormonism/evangelicalism]

In the book, How Wide the Divide: A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation, Prof. Blomberg (the evangelical) poses a revision of Pascal's Wager to his Mormon counterpart. It goes something like this:

1. If evangelicalism is correct, and Joseph Smith was either deceptive or deluded, Mormons face potentially dire circumstances on the day of judgement.

2. If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is correct, and evangelicals are part of an unrestored, perhaps even 'apostate' faith practice, then on the Day of Judgment, they are likely to enter the Terrestial Kingdom, and enjoy the presence of Jesus Christ. This heavenly realm will be very much like what most evangelicals describe heaven to be anyway.

Conclusion: If evangelicals are right, Mormons stand to lose so much, but if evangelicals are wrong, they'll pretty much get what they expect anyway. So, why not just take the safe spiritual route, and be evangelical?

Professor Robison (the Mormon) responds by saying: Those bound for the Terrestial Kingdom would think like that, and be satisfied with their end. On the other hand, those who hunger for the highest kingdom in God's realm would never be satisfied with anything less than the Celestial Kingdom.

THOUGHTS?

[Wow And Eating Meat]

This is exactly why the Word of Wisdom was given to Joseph Smith by the Lord. The medical/health knowledge of his time was rather ridiculous. Joseph Smith's brother died after being given mercury as a medicine. The Lord sorted out in simple, sweeping principles (not legalistic lists) the best ways to honor the bodies we have on loan from him, and avoid the deception of those who would profit by them.

By way of clarification, is health the official reason given by Joseph Smith for the Word of Wisdom? The reason I ask is that many people assume the same about Jewish kosher laws. However, my sources tell me that the simple reason Orthodox Jews keep kosher is obedience. "God said so." Many rabbis are skeptical of attempts to offer secular rationale for keeping religious commandments.

On the other hand, if Joseph Smith said, "God wants you to keep your temples in good working order, so here's how to do it--sayeth the Lord: WoW--then God would have done something unusual, and offered a secular rationale for his command.

[Wow And Eating Meat]

i personally follow a low-carb lifestyle....usually

helps with weight-loss

I don't know how closely a low-carb, Atkins-like diet goes with the WoW, but it is most biblical.

Neh 8:10: 10 Then he said unto them, Go your way, eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions unto them for whom nothing is prepared: for this day is holy unto our Lord: neither be ye sorry; for the joy of the LORD is your strength.KJV

Furthermore, Jesus declared that all food is clean for believers:

Mark 7:18-20

18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;

19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.

KJV

I'm being a bit facetious here. Vegetarianism can be very healthy. However, beyond obeying spiritual authorities, the New Testament seems to only ask us to care for our bodies, which are the temple of the Holy Spirit.

[What Did You Think]

The "nutwings" remark was meant for those who choose to go over board with evangelical jam it down the throat kind of friends? I have many relatives who fall in to that category.

The remark was broad–“those Christian nutwings.” I looked and looked, but you did not limit it to a few outrageous folks. If that’s what you meant, then I’d agree–there are a few in the evangelical camp who are “nutwings.” God will either be merciful with them, or they are deluded. But, Winnie, if you’re honest, you’ll admit you seem to have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to us evangelical folks.

I was also raised by a learned man (step-father) who was Jewish. To the Jewish community there is a under grounded giggle that as Christian we do not see what is in front of our faces. Its like having our faces right up to a mirror so close we can not see the rest of the possibilities.

First, I’m wondering if your learned Jewish step-father was Torah-observant? Was he Orthodox? I’ve worked quite a bit with an Orthodox rabbi, and also with Lubavitchers. 85% of American Jews on secular–which is why I ask.

The Catholic Church disallowed Priest to marry at a turning point of history of history, you can look it up. It was not until that point that the Church of Rome decided that men and women needed to be separate in order to serve God.

I don’t disagree with you. It happened during the Middle Ages, and to this day the practice is based on tradition, not Scripture.

“Jesus was not officially a rabbi” OK who said? are you so sure he was not?

No, I’m not sure. The New Testament shows people addressing him as such. Perhaps he was officially recognized. Yet, he never declares himself one–preferring to highlight his role as the Son of God, the Son of Man, the “I AM,” and one who can do what only God can do–forgive sins. So, in reality, it’s speculation as to whether he was a certified rabbi, or simply a self-taught teacher who knew more than all the educated rabbis.

You keep saying “hardly universal” and “Pure speculation” again are you sure and who said this wisdom?

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/singlejesus.html

The above is but one example. To paraphrase its conclusions: Yes, there was a general command for Jews to be fruitful and multiply, and that both rabbis and all Jewish men were under this general obligation. Yet, there were acceptable reasons to delay marriage, there were numerous Jewish prophets who did not marry. At the time of Jesus, the Essenes were a celibate sect.

So, the way I see the bottom-line is that most Jewish men and most Jewish rabbis married, but some did not. There is no indication in the gospels that Jesus married, and based upon his mission (to atone for the sins of humanity), it is likely that he would choose not to marry and bring to widowhood someone that He loved.

Furthermore, again, since he was and is God the Son, there is something quite strange about the notion of God having intercourse with his creation.

Christ to be our mediator he came to earth received a body was tempted and suffered a human life. He came to understand our lives as well. Yes his focus was to die for our sins but how can you die for sins you have not fully understood in a physical manner.

Jesus did not sin, so He would not understand any sins in a physical manner. He was tempted, but sinned not. He would not have to be married to understand the temptations of lust, unrighteous anger, etc.

Your remark “tested by the wiles of women” is a typical man answer since the time of Adam, lets blame the sins of the world on women, she bit the apple giving birth to original sin. Witch is a load of hogwash by the way.

Did you catch the icon with the tongue sticking out. It was a humorous remark, Winnie. Of course, we’re all responsible for our own sins.

Why would God make “IT” a sin then tell them to be fruitful and multiple? The whole sin and sex thing is a man made sin. Chastity is a God given law and there for in a marriage is not a sin.

Huh? I never said that sex within marriage is sin. In fact, it’s been described as a high form of worship for two, whom God has brought together, to join as one, bring joy to one another, and thus glorify the Almighty.

The book was well researched, it’s a shame that you find fault that a husband and wife team some how lessons that research in your mind.

Brown’s repeated response to inquiries about the books research is, “I’m not a detail person. My wife did the background work. Look, this is entertainment, not theology.” Tom Hanks utters that last part as well.

I’m not against collaborative efforts. However, an author should have some grasp of the research his researcher is doing for him, no? And again, if the author is not claiming that serious research went into this book, why are you so adamant about it?

Your right on the money when you stated "It's entertainment, not theology!"

Then why insist that this is a scholarly, well-researched novel? Why so adamant that Jesus must have been married, when your own church insists that such speculations from the early LDS prophets and leaders do not qualify as Scripture, and do not represent the church’s doctrine?

That was my point. The author took all the lore since Jesus death and all the “search for the “holy grail” tales and made an amazing fictional novel. This thread was not meant to debate theology it was to discus a novel. It was entertaining and lead the reader along a more intellectual ride were Indiana Jones did not.

I suppose it depends on who’s ox is getting goared.

So if you have not read the book or even seen the movie why did you post? If it was to debate theology, you need to start a different topic. This was meant for entertainment.

Well, you made several allegations that I had responses to, from reviews and analyses, both secular and Christian. In addition, you original post did not come across as an invitation to a fun discussion of reviews, but rather made rather pointed accusations about “the Christian nutwings.” I took that as an invitation to defend, at least in general, the non-LDS Christian response to the Da Vinci Code phenomena.

Also, I’ve tried to remain calm and treat this as a discussion–not a debate. Nobody will be allowed or denied entry into the kingdoms of heaven based upon their beliefs about Jesus’ marital status. However, I’m a bit surprised that there seems to be so little understanding as to why Catholics in particular, and most traditional Christians as well, would have some strong disagreements with Brown’s ideas.

[What Did You Think]

wasn't there already a thread for this movie?

I believe (could be wrong) the original thread was specifically looking for LDS views on the movie/book. Winnie opened up this thread with a direct challenge to the views of most other Christians. So, I've weighed in.

[What Did You Think]

Have you read the book or seen the movie?

Time for me to weigh in. First, by way of disclosure, I've not seen the movie or read the book. Then again, I'll only comment on some general ideas referred to in the post and in many reviews and summaries of the book.

Not once does it say it was an “affair” that is the load of horse hockey the Christian nut wings want us to believe.

Okay, here's an exaggeration, meant to make a point. My guess is that if Jesus did not marry, and did get a woman pregnant, then the inference is that he commited a sexual sin. However, most reviewers seem to suggest that Jesus did marry, and the gospels simply don't make note of it.

The phrase "Christian nut wings" strikes me as offensive. Most Christians who have critiqued the Code have done so in intelligent, engaging manners. It's only a few "nutwings" who get the press for make rear ends out of themselves.

It never ceases to amaze me that people take what one group or another say with out checking it out for them self’s.

I don't expect you to read or view every critique that gets published about your church. Why should you expect more of your Catholic or evangelical friends?

The Church of Rome taught and believed in marriage as Christ did until the church no longer wished to support such large families and forbad priests to marry. Doing the whole Christ married to the church line of doctrine.

The Catholic Church still approves of large families--just not for the priests. And that rule goes back only the the Middle Ages--not to the time of Christ.

1. to be called a Rabi you must be a married man,

Jesus was not officially a rabbi--though he taught with more authority than they did. He never claimed to be one, either.

2. under Jewish laws now and at the time, it was the custom to be betrothed by your 20th birthday.

It was not Jewish LAW for men to marry by 20. It was a common practice, but hardly universal. There were a few sects that practiced celibacy at the time, and it was hardly scandalous for men not to marry young--despite Brown's assertions.

3 Jewish men did not grow beards until he they married.

Did Jesus have a beard? And, even if he did, my guess is this fits under the "common-but-not-universal" response.

4 Since Jesus was a practicing Jew who taught in the Temples he had to have fallowed Jewish costumes.

Again, common customs do not LAWS make--especially when there are known exceptions, such as the Essenes.

It also tells that Jesus after his parents found him in the Temple conversing the elders he returned and fallowed the will of his parents. That would include a marriage arrangement.

Pure speculation.

The last point I like to make is that in order for Christ to be are mediator he came to earth received a body was tempted and suffered a human life. That could and most likely meant being a married.

Jesus came to earth to die for our sins, not model family life. There is no New Testament reference to his marriage, to children, etc. On the other hand, single men can surely be tested by the wiles of women.

Why is that so hard to wrap our brains around? Why would we so quickly assume that he was not?

Because Christians believe Jesus, though fully man, remained the one and only Son of God. In essence, God would be having sex with his creation. That's frankly wierd, and has the feel of being sacreligious to most.

If you read the book with the knowledge us as members have you would know full out that it was entertainment and could notice not once did it disrespect our savor or the masters of art world.

Early LDS church leaders did speculate that Jesus was likely married. Many here took a natural liking to some of Brown's notions. His ideas do not ruffle LDS theology nearly as much as they do traditional Christian theology. Brown's portrayal of the Catholic Church, with its assassin-priests would like offend you a bit more, if they had been LDS priests of the Melchizedek order instead.

The book by the way is well researched

No, it's not. It's a fictional novel. Brown admits that his wife did most of the research, and that he merely built on some theories and tidbits of information. This was not, nor does it pretend to be, scholarly research.

No matter what others may say, the author did his homework.

No, I believe his wife did. And, if he'd done such a bang up job, he wouldn't be crying "It's entertainment, not theology!"

[This Is Just Sick And Wrong!]

And how dare they make us wait for (how many?) MONTHS to find out what happens in SMALLVILLE ?!?!?

And btw, speak carefully, because some people haven't seen that show yet.

I think I heard about it. It's some kind of superman spin off, right?

Sorry folks--I've just graduated from Teletubbies to Blues Clues, Dora the Explorer, and, of course, Disney Princess! We don't have cable or DSL yet, but how many families have a Disney Princess TV with VCR/DVD player combo, huh???

[The Image Of God In Us]

I don't think everything in Matthew 5-7 was meant for the multitudes. The word "disciples" here I take to mean "apostles." In Matthew 7:1 it says Jesus taught his disciples what they should teach the people.

First, I agree that "the disciples" became "the apostles." Except Paul was also an apostle.

But, here's more Scripture from the Sermon on the Mount.

Matt 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. ... 28 When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29 because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law. NIV

I don't see Jesus addressing the disciples in an aside, or a small group meeting, and then they addressing the crowd. RAther, the crowd responds to Jesus direct teaching--a discourse that began in Matt 5 and ended at the end of chapter 7.

[The Image Of God In Us]

Uplifting words, PC. Thanks for sharing. There is much I can say "Amen" to.

<div class='quotemain'>

...we should not worry–God will take care of us. In Matthew 6:25-27 Jesus says...

I read this verse the other day. I wanted to point out that this instruction was given by Christ to his 12 apostles specifically.

It just struck me as odd when you said the words were directed only to the Apostles. After all, this was part of the Sermon on the Mount. So, I went back and checked...

Matt 5:1-2: 5:1 Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, 2 and he began to teach them, saying: ...NIV

So, yes, the disciples were there--but this was a message to the crowds.

[Better Than The Da Vinci Code!]

Here's another lesson I prepared a few years back--primarily about the Bible. It's ironic that many of the points relate to our discussions about Scripture, and more specifically, the Da Vinci Code. Enjoy!

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE HOLY BIBLE

Introduction: Which should a church emphasize, the Bible or the move of the Holy Spirit?

1. Bible is a reliable written record of God’s Word.

2. The Spirit can deliver God’s specific word for us right now.

3. People can be led astray, in the name of the Holy Spirit.

4. People can be led astray, in the name of the Holy Bible.

CONCLUSION: INSTEAD OF EITHER/OR, HOW ABOUT BOTH/AND?

Proposition: We need the Bible and the leading of the Spirit, to live balanced, powerful Christian lives.

Interrogative: What are the dangers of ignoring the Bible or the Spirit, and what is the benefit of living under both?

Transition: First, we do need the Bible.

I. We need the Bible.

(2 Timothy 3:16-17) All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (NIV)

A. It’s God’s Word, from Genesis to Revelation.

B. It’s profitable.

1. For teaching

2. For rebuking and correcting. Note that discipline may sting, but it also heals and cleanses–much like cleaning a wound with alcohol or peroxide.

3. For training in righteousness. No more excuses for saying you didn’t no better! You should have!

4. For equipping to do good works. You say, “I’d like to do good, but I don’t know how,” or “I’m not capable.” Now you are!

C. It’s objective.

1. Yes, there are different churches with different teachings and emphases.

2. However, Christian churches continue to unite around central teachings that we all share.

a. God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Three persons, yet one God. The Holy Trinity.

b. We are all sinners doomed to hell. However, if we believe in Jesus, and confess our sins, he will forgive us, and we will live forever with him.

c. The Bible is God’s words to us. It is our final guide.

d. God wants us to live good and right, and to avoid sin and evil.

3. (Acts 2:42) says, “They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. (NIV)”

a. The test of proper Bible teachings is not only if the instructor can pull some verses together that seem to support his arguments.

b. The test is also, “is this a teaching that has stood the test of time?”

c. Obviously, any “new teaching,” is suspect.

4. So simple to learn, yet impossible to exhaust.

a. A 5 year old can understand that Jesus loves him/her, and that they need to say sorry to God when they do bad things.

b. Yet, scholars spend their entire lives studying the Bible, yet still find fresh wisdom.

Transition: As important and powerful as the Bible is, we also need the direction of the Holy Spirit.

II. We need the Holy Spirit.

A. We need the power. (Acts 1:8) But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." (NIV). It will enable us to fulfill the Great Commission to go and make disciples.

B. We need the gifts.

1. (Joel 2:28-29) 'And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days. (NIV)

2. It is our protection and our weaponry for living as Christians in the last days

C. We need to listen. Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22

(Revelation 2:7) He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God. (NIV)

(Revelation 2:11) He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt at all by the second death. (NIV)

(Revelation 2:17) He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give him a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to him who receives it. (NIV)

(Revelation 2:29) He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. (NIV)

(Revelation 3:6) He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. (NIV)

(Revelation 3:13) He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. (NIV)

(Revelation 3:22) He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches." (NIV)

1. Seven times Jesus tells us, “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

2. We know that when something is said in the Bible, it is important. When it is repeated, it is very important. If it is mentioned three times, it is vitally important.

3. Jesus repeats seven times that we need to hear what the Spirit is telling us.

4. We dare not ignore the Spirit’s direction and instruction for us!

III. The Spirit and the Bible compliment and enhance each other.

A. Bible Baptists vs. Pentecostals. “We’ve got spirit, yes we do!” “Well, we’ve got the Bible.”

B. All Bible and no Spirit leads to legalism. They were righteous in the technical observance of the law, but they despised people and drove them away from God’s love.

C. All Spirit and no Bible leads to heresy. Too often our own passions and opinions become baptized with the claim, “The Spirit is telling me to do this.”

D. All Bible and all Spirit leads to victory.

1. We are humble enough to submit our knowledge of the Word to God’s leading.

2. We are humble enough to submit our sense of what God is doing to the discipline of his Word.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Pray for the anointing and power of the Spirit.

2. (2 Timothy 2:15) Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. (NIV)

[The Image Of God In Us]

NOTE: I WROTE THIS LESSON A FEW YEARS AGO--LONG BEFORE I ENGAGED IN ANY TYPE OF THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSIONS WITH LDS. SO, WHAT YOU HAVE HERE IS A FAIRLY STANDARD EVANGELICAL, BASED UPON A PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE THAT TAKES ON DISTINCTIVE AND SPECIAL MEANING FOR LDS. CONSIDER THIS AN EXAMPLE OF MY "SHARING."

THE IMAGE OF GOD IN US

Tony Compalo is a Christian sociology professor. He is also an ordained Baptist minister. One day he takes a late-night flight, and the passenger next to him wants to talk. He brags about how important he is, and goes on for what seems to be an eternity. Finally, the passenger asks Compalo, “So, who are you?”

“Oh, I am someone very important.”

“Really, what’s your name?”

“My name is Tony Compalo.”

“Huh...never heard of you.”

“Oh, it’s not me that’s really well-known. It’s my father.”

“Yeah...well, who’s your father?”

“Mister, I am the son of God!”

The man looks at him as if he had just escaped from an asylum, and asks, “Are you okay?”

Compalo explains that as a Christian, he is a brother of Jesus and a son of Almighty God. Likewise, brothers, we too bare the image of God in us.

Genesis 1:26-27 tells us: Then God said, ‘let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air; over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

We are made in god’s image and likeness. God made us. He loves us. We are his masterpiece. Therefore, we should not worry–God will take care of us. In Matthew 6:25-27 Jesus says: Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air. They do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly father feeds them. Are you not much ore valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?

Not only will God take care of us. He will redeem–or pay the price for–our wrongdoings. No matter what evil we have done, we are still creations of God. We still have hope and worth. Consider the story of Cain. Genesis 4:15-17 says: But the lord said to him, “not so; if anyone kills Cain he will suffer vengeance seven times over. Then the lord put a mark on cain so that no one who found him would kill him. So Cain went out from the lord’s presence and lived in the land of nod east of eden. Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch.

Even though Cain murdered his own brother, God spared his life and commanded others to do likewise. There was still worth in him–still hope. That hope eventually bares fruit in his son, Enoch. From the beginning of time until now parents have tried to justify their difficult and seemingly failed lives by looking to the successes of their children. Indeed, if we look at the genealogical line of Cain we find that his descendants became raisers of livestock, musicians who played harps and flutes, and forgers of tools made out of bronze and iron. Perhaps they were not the most glamorous figures in history. Yet, most seemed to make contributions to their communities.

It is wonderful to know that I can redeem my life through my children, and through God’s mercy. How do I go about obtaining God’s forgiveness? The answer is found in the Good News. The image of God is restored within us when we are saved. Ephesians 4:24 says, “And to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.” When we become part of the kingdom of God, through belief in Christ and repentance, we put on a new self–which is the image of God! Our original godly images were distorted by the poison of sin that entered humanity when Satan deceived Adam and Eve. Thank God for his pronouncement against the Devil in Genesis 3:15, “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heal.” Jesus has crushed Satan, and his curses. This means that sin and death are no longer our nature. We can once again bare the unblemished image of God in us!

Leaving the theological language and imagery behind, what we have just learned is that we can succeed at being righteous–or, simpler yet, we can be good. Galations 5:22-23 lists the good characteristics we are capable of if we wear the full of the image of God: But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. The key here is that these are fruits of the Spirit, not of our labor or will power. Zecharia 4:6 says that our victories are, “Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit says the lord.” My prayer is that God will fill us with his Spirit, that we might live the fruits of the Spirit. Amen? Amen!

Not only can we succeed in being good. We can also overcome the evil temptations that still endeavor to entice us. Romans 6:15-16 says: What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey–whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?

While will power will not produce holiness, we must determine in our hearts that we want to live in obedience to God, rather than to sin. Then we can pray with confidence, “God, help me to be, say and do all that you want of me.” We can also pray as Jesus taught us to, “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”

If you are not a Christian, do you not want to have the image of God restored in your life? Ask Jesus to help you today. If you are a Christian, thank God for such a great salvation. You can be good and pure before God. Ask Jesus to help you today.

[Where In The World Would You Like To Go?!]

The holy land

It's said that two-weeks in the Holy Land (Jerusalem, not SLC or Springfield, MO ) is like a year of theological education. I'd love to do a study tour in the Bible lands!

[Entry Into The Celestial Kingdom]

In defence of Ray - Jesus entered into some interesting discussions with the Scribes and Pharisees and although I believe there were converts among the Scribes and Pharisees - I do not think they came from these discussions. It is quite possible that the main reason for these discussions is for people of faith to recognize the wolfs in our day that come in sheep clothing intending to do harm to those with who they do not agree.

Traveler, in your defense of Ray did you really mean to imply that the non-LDS who come to engage in conversation here are akin to Scribes and Pharisees?

[Fox's Visit To Utah]

Yes, but using your analogy if someone calls and asks if they can come over and spend some time with me then I'll be a lot more positive than if I come home and find them taking over one of the rooms in my house (and let's say I don't even know them) and then calling me a racist if I question the appropriatness of their commiting an illegal act of squatting on my property.

I'm not opposed to us getting control of our borders in a reasonable, consistent matter. But, to nod and wink at illegal immigrants for decades, knowing that they provide cheap labor for some businesses, and then to, every once and a while (when a vulnerable politicans decide to pull out the Nativist card), demonize them, jail them, etc.--well, me thinks we end up looking silly and vindictive.

<div class='quotemain'>

Now, I am sure that is how the Mexican "guests" (by the way, do other country's make their guests clean their toilets too???) will see your ideas--walls, armies, etc., but silly me--I must be blind to the you're trying to communicate to them.

Make them clean our toilets? You have to be kidding me. Do you mean pay them more money cleaning toilets than they could ever HOPE to make in Mexico? I calculated in another thread how much a lady makes cleaning houses in my neighborhood... it was about 80K per year, and that's tax free money! Please don't pain the Mexican immigrants as being in an unfortunate situation. If it was so bad, why in the world do they risk everything to come here?

1. We wink and nod at their crossing into our land to provide labor at much cheaper wages than our own workers would make.

2. $80K--I guarantee you, despite no research, that the average Mexican illegal immigrants wages are probably under $20K.

3. What's bad is that we cannot control our borders, and then lash out with silly, Nativist-sounding meanness that usually lasts two or three years, before things get back to 'normal.'