[Are The Ten Commandments Relevent In This Age Of Grace?]

The ideas of how someone uses the name of G-d has always been of great concern to me. Any time his name is used without respect and reverence it is done in both error and misunderstanding. But this has even greater meaning to me. I believe that this commandment also means that we should not take upon ourselves the name of G-d and then desecrate it with ung-dly behavior. Nor should we take upon ourselves his name and consider it lightly or deny where using his name leads. To take upon us the name of G-d is a covenant not unlike marriage and is the first step that man takes toward G-dhood. It is done only with the deepest respect and recognition that in truth G-d is our master and we are his apprentices.The Traveler

Perhaps the reason it has become so difficult to share the gospel is that the Lord's name or title is used so flippantly. Quite frankly, I'm less offended by a nonbeliever who utters the F-word than I am one who calls down a curse from God as a matter of emphasis, rather than true prayer.

This brings up a matter that might deserve another string, but I'll throw out the idea here. The Old Testament concept of prophet was such that few would be brave enough to apply. He was the one who spoke for God, usually to political leadership, and then to the people. His words carried the authority of "Thus saieth the Lord," and usually offered words of warning, judgement-to-come, and a last call for a wicked generation to turn from their ungodly ways.

Quite often these men were reluctant messengers. Consider Jonah. Also, who was it that said he tried not to speak, but the words burned within him? All this to say, that in an age in which God is love, and judgment is...well "judgmental," it would be no wonder if prophets in the near future end up jailed for their "intolerant utterances."

[Are The Ten Commandments Relevent In This Age Of Grace?]

Interesting that you should mention Bob Jones University, prisonchaplain. When I homeschooled, I purchased materials from BJU. On my order, I was told by a fellow homeschooler to list myself as "Christian" instead of "Mormon"; otherwise, BJU would classify me as a non-Christian and refuse to sell me their materials!

That's okay, Aristotle. They probably would not sell them to Pentecostals either, since our tongues-speech is of the devil, in their not-so-humble opinion. As Bill Clinton once said, "I feel your pain."

[Is There A God?]

Genesis 1:27, Ex. 33: 11, John 14:9, 2Corinthians 4: 4, John 14.9, Heb. 1:3 and good ol" "Man is as God once was."

Let's start with the "Man is as God once was" quote. I believe it was from two early Mormon leaders. My understanding is that the quote is found nowhere in the Standard Works. Nevertheless, Prof. Robinson suggests that it is so pervasive in Mormon thinking, that it could be treated as such.

The conclusion of "How Wide the Divide" on this matter was: Mormons believe both that God and humanity are eternal. Therefore, to suggest that God was once a man, does not deny his eternal nature.

As information, Evangelicals, and most of Christianity, believe that God the Father, has always been spirit, and that his Son was spirit, before the incarnation (the enfleshment). We are also more than than a little discomforted about the notion of a God who changes his nature--who seems to evolve.

Genesis 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

The fact that God created both Adam and Eve in his image, would suggest that the physical aspect of this image was not the focus. And indeed, is God then white? Middle-Eastern in appearance (like the Jews)? Why do we not all look like God (we're very different). So, how literal of an interpretation are we to have here?

Exodus 33:11: And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

The whole notion of speaking to God directly is fear-inspiring in the Old Testament. Normally, the High Priest would go into the Holy of Holies once a year, on behalf of the people. If he was found unclean, he would be struck dead. So, that Moses spoke to God directly "face to face" does not necessarily imply that Moses looked literally into a physical face of God. Rather, that Moses spoke directly to him--like I would to you.

John 14:9: Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

If you know Jesus, you know the Father. There is nothing here to imply that the Father has a body.

2 Cor. 4:4: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Jesus is the image of his Father to us--the representation of Him. This does not imply that the Father has a body.

Hebrews 1:3: Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Again, Jesus is the image or the representation of his Father.

In all these verses, if you PRESUPPOSE that the Father has a physical body, you can see it in the verses. If you assume that "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth," well then, no such inference is necessary.

[Bible Under Fire]

First, we refer to Gordon B. Hinckley as President Hinckley, not Prophet Hinckley.

I knew you considered him the living prophet, so assumed it was a church office he held. However, it sounds like the LDS has the same reticence about using the "prophet" as a title as we Pentecostals do. You recognize the gift--give it a much more elevated weight than we do, but also decline to make the gift a title.

BTW, I surely meant no offense or disrespect, and will refrain from using the title Prophet for LDS leaders in the future.

And finally, if you don’t realize it, we [the members of the Church] also acknowledge and sustain the two councilors in the First Presidency, and the members of the quorum of Twelve Apostles, as well as the General Authorities of the Church, as prophets, seers, and revelators in their specific spheres of responsibility, also in recognition of the fact that we can only know those people are prophets, seers and revelators by receiving personal revelation for ourselves.

Or in other words, each and every member of the church of Christ on Earth is or at least should be a prophet of Jesus Christ, acting in our own specific spheres of responsibility with the aid of personal revelation from our Lord.

So, the LDS is closer to the concept of "priesthood of all believers" than I thought. Perhaps "prophethood of all believers" would be more accurate, though?

[Is There A God?]

So what "form" do you perceive God to be in now, Jenda?

And btw, I'm simply wondering if you perceive God to be without form, and without body, parts, or passions, in agreement with the doctrine from other Christians, considering the fact that you once accepted the idea that God is in form like Man... or more correctly stated, that Man is in form like God?

The "passion" word struck me as odd. Christians of all stripes believe God can be angered, that He is love, that He can be saddened, pleased, etc. Do you mean something different?

[Are The Ten Commandments Relevent In This Age Of Grace?]

The issue which bothers me now adays is this: The proposal of eliminating the tax-free status of churches. Does this begin an era where churches are supporting a governement? Does this not cut at the very grass roots of the doctored and manipulated view created by the non-religious groups of separation of church and statem meaning the elimination of God in all things governmentally occupied?

At the age of about 16 I wrote a high school editorial OPPOSING the IRS' threat to withdraw tax-exempt status from Bob Jones University. The government said that BJU's rule against interracial dating was in opposition to policy, and so the IRS could pull the tax-exemption.

Now, I found the BJU policy repulsive. If you doubt that, consider that about fifteen years later I married a Korean national. Nevertheless, the idea that the government could distinguish religion as good or bad (tax exempt or not) was even more repulsive to me. Few other voices came to BJU's defense. Next it was Grove City College. This Presbyterian school prided itself on its independence, refusing to take government grants, etc. The IRS demanded documentation that the school does not discriminate on the basis of sex. The school responded that since it does not accept government monies, and is a private, religious institution, it was not obligated to provide such documentation. The government responded, that since its students used government-back loans and grants, the school did indeed take "government money." So, Grove City had to choose between remaining independent, but only being accessible to the rich and upper middle class, or give up its independence.

I've not yet heard serious proposals to remove tax-exempt status from churches, based on social policy. However, the recent moves to deny churches the right to voice political positions concerns me. Additionally, there have been numerous letters to the editor and columns that suggest pulling the tax exemption.

We continue to fight the good fight, and to look forward to the ever-closer return of our Savior and Master, Jesus, the Christ. Hallelujah!

[Are The Ten Commandments Relevent In This Age Of Grace?]

In the future, it may be necessary for our Church to withdraw its 501©(3) tax exempt status, since we are one of the few churches that does not advocate gay rights.

Sorry, but I beg to differ with you here. The LDS' 12 million is nothing for politicians to ignore, but the Southern Baptist Convention's 17 million, the Assemblies of God's 3 million, and indeed the National Association of Evangelical's nearly six million...and I could go on, make up a much larger chunck of American Christianity than you suppose. The LDS is hardly alone on this issue. On the other hand, Aristotle, you seem to be one of the ones most willing at this site to align yourself with organizations like the ACLJ, which is predominantly evangelical. Kudos to you.

[Activist Judge Cancels Christmas]

That's hilarious!

The Onion mocked news when mocking news wasn't cool.

On a serious note--this in from USA Today/Harris Poll/Gallup

62% of Americans say stores shouldn't change greetings from Merry Christmas to Happy Holidays or Seasons Greetings.

3% of Americans say they're bothered when stores specifically refer to the Christian holiday.

[Bible Under Fire]

I guess that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 does not reall apply to all scriptures - we need to understand it's context so that we can exclude Amos for the reasons you posted.

Ah, that keen but misplaced sense of the ironic shows up, yet again. The Timothy passage specifically says it applies to all Scripture--and especially so the Old Testament, since that was the Scripture of the time (the New Testament writings were still a work in progress at the writing of this letter). To say that all Scripture is inspired and useful is not to say that all Scripture applies carte blanche to all situations, however we wish to apply it. So, Amos saying God warns his people before He punishes them, using his prophets, does not, OF NECESSITY, mean that President Hinckley is the one Prophet for all Christians, and that any previous Scripture must be interpreted in light of his words.

There is a very important doctrine given in these verses (Isaiah 46:9- 10; 44:6-8). That is that G-d does foretell what he will do. He does this by telling us of what he has done anciently. In other words the story of Moses delivering the children of Israel out of Egypt is not just a story of Moses delivering the children of Israel out of Egypt. It is also a prophesy of G-d delivering his children from spiritual bondage throughout many ages.

Just to note...thus far, I'm in agreement. It is not uncommon that Old Testament prophecies that see a fulfillment a few generations or even centuries later, foretell yet another and perhaps greater future fulfillment.

Now concerning prophets and if there should be prophets among Christians:

Ephesians 2:19-20: Now Therefore ye are no mor strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of G-d: And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

It is not unusual for New Testament writers to refer to the prophets, or the "law and the prophets" in reference to the Scripture of their day--the Old Testament. I do not believe there is anyone in the New Testament who is referred to as a prophet--though John was "the revelator."

also Ephesians 4:11-13: “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of G-d, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;”

Since Christians are so perfectly united and of a unity of faith - we can no get rid of prophets?

Two comments about "prophets" here. 1. To prophecy is to proclaim, so there is a sense in which every pastor is a prophet.

2. Those with the gift of prophecy are prophets, in this sense. And yet, like the New Testament church, which never seemed to have turned those who exercised the gift of prophecy into "Prophet So & So," likewise, today we tend to say, "Bro. Smith has the gift of prophecy." Or, "Bro. Jones offered an insightful prophecy the other day." Then again, some of our African-American Pentecostal churches do bestow the title of prophet upon those who operate in the gift.

[Are The Ten Commandments Relevent In This Age Of Grace?]

Prisonchaplain says: Although you answered "NO," we actually agree. But rather than simply responding negatively, are you not ultimately saying, "By obeying the higher laws of Christ, we fulfill the law and the prophets."

Syble responds: The word 'fulfill' is the key here. This is a different concept than simply being obeyed. So, though it may appear that we are on the same page, we really are not, until you concede this point.

I'll concede the point, IF, you'll concede that the "Law and the Prophets" is both ALREADY FULFILLED by Christ, and that it is BEING FULFILLED as we obey Christ's 'higher laws' (i.e. Matthew 22:37-40, 1 Corinthians 13).

Bargaining and compromise can be enlightening and refining.

[Are The Ten Commandments Relevent In This Age Of Grace?]

My answer to your question is NO. We do not live the law more. We live a spiritual law which is higher than the 10 commandments which are physical.

The higher laws were laws which actually lived so much higher than the lower laws that the people were freed from them. These scriptures teach about this process better than I can describe. If you want a really good insight to this process read all of them in their entire context.

Although you answered "NO," we actually agree. But rather than simply responding negatively, are you not ultimately saying, "By obeying the higher laws of Christ, we fulfill the law and the prophets."

[Belief-o-matic 2006]

No surprise here:

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons)(100%)

Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant(96%)

Oh, but there is a surprise--a big one! In one simple post, you have answered the question many of us having been hashing out here: How Wide the Divide--between Mormonism and Evangelical Christianity?

The answer? 4%

[Belief-o-matic 2006]

I know we have done this before, but with all the new people, let's see what your results are :)

Belief-O-Matic

Here are my results...

My beliefs are 54% LDS...unorthodox indeed

Hah...I never even was a Mormon and I scored higher than you!

1. Orthodox Quaker (100%)

2. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (98%)

3. Eastern Orthodox (94%)

4. Roman Catholic (94%)

5. Seventh Day Adventist (88%)

6. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (75%)

7. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (64%)

8. Islam (61%)

9. Orthodox Judaism (61%)

10. Sikhism (52%)

11. Liberal Quakers (50%)

12. Bahá'í Faith (50%)

13. Hinduism (49%)

14. Jehovah's Witness (49%)

15. Reform Judaism (46%)

16. Unitarian Universalism (39%)

17. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (33%)

18. Jainism (30%)

19. Mahayana Buddhism (28%)

20. Scientology (28%)

21. Theravada Buddhism (27%)

22. Neo-Pagan (22%)

23. New Thought (22%)

24. New Age (20%)

25. Nontheist (18%)

26. Secular Humanism (17%)

27. Taoism (15%)

Gonna have to check out those Quakers.

[Bye !]

I may be naive but I believe that strong opinions can be shared without name calling and petty bickering. Points can be discussed or even debated without name calling.

What may be missing is the principle of "Loyal Opposition." I don't agree with you, but I know you are trying to bring about what is good. In politics, it's when Republicans and Democrats disagree, but consider one another to be patriotic. In religion, it's when we consider each other to be "God seekers."

Without this concept, my political opponent becomes "the enemy within" or a traitor. My religious opponent becomes a tool of Satan, whom I must rebuke.

[Awesome!]

He took care of bidness; I just hope she's telling the truth, since dad's facing a felony charge.

We had a similar situation locally last year and the student turned out to be making it up.

EDIT: I notice on that site that the Vermont judge changed his sentence for the child rapist.

It's so easy to get so righteously enraged about this kind of stuff. BUT, the child could be mistaken. We had a case several years back, where a teenage daughter went to the pastor's wife for counseling. The parents brought her. The wife had a degree in counseling, but was not a licensed therapist. To make a long story short, through "regression therapy," the daughter recalled that her father had molested her, even using knives.

After two years, the minister losing his ordination, the family being horribly split up, the father's lawyer ordered that the daughter be medically examined. Yeah...she was still a virgin. There was no medical evidence that any of the memories were true...and indeed they could not have been.

I don't believe the girl was lying. I don't believe the counselor intended to plant false memories. BUT, the daughter was terribly wrong. The minister got his ordination back, plus a $1,000,000 settlement. The family slowly healed. BUT, WOW!

I for one, try never to rush to judgment-even when it seems so certain.

[Bible Under Fire]

From Amos I believe the scripture tells us that G-d does not do anything unless he tells his prophet. I believe this scripture. If he ever reveals anything he is going to do to someone other that a prophet and does not reveal it to a prophet then the statement by Amos is FALSE. It does not say that he won't tell anyone else only that anything the he will do he will tell it to a prophet. It does not say most things he will do nor does it say most things up to 74 AD. It does say that if G-d is going to do something - and if he is going to tell anybody - a prophet must be on that list of who he tells.

Some important understandings about Amos.

1. He was a prophet of God for Israel.

2. His audience is national Israel.

3. The overarching theme of Amos is righteousness and divine retribution for sin.

God is warning Israel that they have a deal, and that they've broken it. Punishment is coming, and God is explaining it to his prophets. These prophets, including Amos, will be compelled to proclaim what God is going to do. No one will have an excuse, "I didn't know...why weren't we warned?" It's all laid out. You sin, you suffer.

To wrest Amos 3:7 from this context, and insist that the whole of Christianity is wrong because it does not have the office of prophet is an incredible and unnecessary stretch. Can God still speak through prophets? Of course. Does God still communicate through gifts of prophecy? Absolutely. Does Amos 3:7 mean that there must be ONE living appointed church leader for all of Christians, who's words are so inspired, that written Scripture must be interpreted in the light of his/her truths? I'm not seeing that teaching in Amos. Hard as I look, that is an incredible stretch--at least based on this passage.

The problem I have with the Bible is that G-d did not command it. He did not command what books should comprise it. He did not command what manuscripts should be used. He did not command that it be translated. I believe that like so many things that man does other than what G-d commands that G-d still knows ways to use these things to acomplish his will. This is because he knows all things from the beginning to the end. Now you may think that the Bible is a rather obscure detail that is way beyond the kind of things that G-d considers important to mention in prophesy - and that is where I think you and I differ.

Except that God did command that the words be written and compiled. As evidence I present this testimony:

For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus. That you mightest know the certainty of those tings, wherein thou hast been instructed. Luke 1:1-4

So Luke wrote his gospel so that there would be a perfect understanding of what was believed and what was to be taught.

And perhaps the most famous passage concerning the value of Scripture:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, troughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17

I find it rather interesting that at this point of the discussion that I as LDS am saying that we can believe and trust what the Bible tells us and that you as an evangalical are saying we need to believe and trust in continious revelation concenring this matter. :) Shall we take a poll as to when the two of us will reverse this stand? :)

Your sense of irony is keen, but remember that we both believe in continuing revelation. The difference is that most of Christianity has no testimony about the Standard Works, other than of the Bible. Additionally, most of Christianity has a de facto closed canon, though, admittedly, there is no Scripture that conclusively says it must be so. On the other hand, Mormon canon is not only open, but it is to be interpreted in light of the living prophet's words.

How wide is the divide? More than a little, but perhaps less than many have thought.

[Evangelicals And The Celestial Kingdom]

That's because I'm a member/used to be a member (however one chooses to look at it).

I gave a brief description in the post above, the difference between how I view mainstream Christianity and liberal Christianity, and how the RLDS/CoC fits in.

In a bit more detail, back in the early 60's, in response to the church feeling an identity crunch, and a new prophet that was fairly weak with strong counsellors giving him counsel, the church started down the road toward liberalism. At first, that looked like mainstream Christianity, with the church backing off on stating belief in the restoration story, a backing off on stating a belief in the BoM, and an embracing of beliefs that were not common to the restoration. This kinda backfired for the church because a good many of the saints did not want to become mainstream Christians. They were perfectly happy being RLDS, and so spoke out against the direction the church was going. It came to a head in the mid 1980's when they started ordaining women. A huge group broke off and started meeting separately. The church silenced all the priesthood who went with the group that split off, and at that time, IMO, the church started dying while the "restorationists" (the group that broke off) are fairly thriving.

I noticed a big change, though, around the year 2000. It started with seeing the church refusing to take a stand on many issues. Everything was OK. It was a sin, but OK, to get an abortion. It was a sin, but OK to be homosexual. It was a sin, but OK to have an affair. Now, the church is even stepping back on the "sin" part of some of those issues. It is obviously OK to be homosexual and be an active one because they are ordaining homosexuals into the priesthood AND marrying them.

I, being (at the time) a restorationist, spoke out against the stand of the church on the church's discussion board, and was banned from it. Now, since last June, I no longer believe in the restoration, and so have no issue with them foregoing the restoration principles, but still have issue with them rejecting the plain word of God. So I have broken completely with them.

It was good to see that many conservative members who did not break with the church in the mid 80's put up a fuss regarding leaving behind the restoration distinctives, so the church moved slightly back in their direction to at least claim that for some, the BoM is considered the word of God (how big of them. ) It was good because they were forced to take a stand on some issues, which they are not keen on doing.

To summarize this whole church dilemma: When we start believing we have to compete with the golf course, we start downplaying sin, up-playing fellowship, downplaying holiness, up-playing prosperity, down-playing sin and conviction and right and wrong, and up-playing the "fun" that is Christianity...well, the golf course will always have easier fellowship, it will give you the sense of wealth, and it will be more fun. So, maybe it's time to forgo competing with the golf course, and start conducting our church worship, teachings, and practice the way Jesus originally intended. Did I capture the spirit of your disappointment?

[Evangelicals And The Celestial Kingdom]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Just out of curiosity, prisonchaplain, do you consider the Community of Christ "evangelical" since they still profess belief in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine & Covenants?

Probably not. On the other hand, perhaps similar to the Worldwide Church of God (formerly led by Herbert W. Armstrong) they seem to be moving towards a more mainstream Christianity. I'm guessing that is why I included them.

Well, I suppose it could appear that way. But they are bypassing mainstream Christianity and heading straight for liberal protestantism. IMO, a step away from Christianity.

I've only seen cursory bits about this group--the name change, giving up certain distinctives. It sounds like you are more in the know on them than I. So, give us a few highlights, if you don't mind.

[Evangelicals And The Celestial Kingdom]

Just out of curiosity, prisonchaplain, do you consider the Community of Christ "evangelical" since they still profess belief in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine & Covenants?

Probably not. On the other hand, perhaps similar to the Worldwide Church of God (formerly led by Herbert W. Armstrong) they seem to be moving towards a more mainstream Christianity. I'm guessing that is why I included them.

[Is There A God?]

The key to a good test is getting the questions right. So, what is the basic test of life, and what are the right questions?

1. Is there a God? If the answer is no, or that God is unknowable, or that there are many gods, then I lose a great deal of interest in religion.

A. If there is no God, even if religion is healthy, I'd rather live shorter with truth. The Apostle Paul makes this point when he says that if the resurrection of Jesus is not true then Christians are the greatest of fools.

B. If God is unknowable, then why try? I might as well live my life doing what is right in my own eyes. That's probably what a "created the system and left" kind of god would want.

B. If there are many gods, then they are not all powerful, and there are probably easier ways of attaining what I want, or avoiding what I don't want, rather than trying to figure out what I have to do for which god.

Conclusion: So, the first, and most basic question is: Is there a God?

2. Is God all-powerful? If God is not at least largely in control of his creation, than his character does not matter.

3. Is God good? If Sgallan is right, that God, if he exists, is evil, then I would want to avoid him--not worship him.

I'm not offering a lot of apologetics, or "spin" here--just my understanding of what the Big Questions are. Both the Old Testament and New Testament promise that whoever seeks God will find him. However, before the seeking, one must confirm in his/her heart that there is such a God, and if so, He's strong enough, and that He's good to the core.

[Evangelicals And The Celestial Kingdom]

Dude... no matter how big the font.... if you can rationalize a being that makes Hitler and Stalin look like slackers.... just because he is God... well knock yourself out. But there is no way you can spin it to meet the standards of the skeptic. That is what is called "spin" at it's greatest.

What I gave you are answers I've come to. The key to a good test is getting the questions right.

You've raised an issue that is so interesting to me that I'm starting a new string: Is there a God, and if so, what is He like?

[Bible Under Fire]

Consider what G-d tells us in Isaiah 46:9-10 - “I am G-d, and there is non like me. Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.” Here we learn that G-d knows all things from the beginning to the end. We also learn that he declares this same knowledge to man. A complete set of scriptures (Cannon) must declare all things from the beginning to the end. This is not my opinion but G-d’s word. No man has the right to say otherwise or declare a subset of scriptures as the final set of G-d’s word.

Let me break this Scripture reference down into bits:

1. I am G-d. The one true and living God is speaking here.

2. Declaring the end from the begininning. So, God, tells us the beginning to the end. He explains it to us.

3. and from ancient times the things that are not yet done. Yes, God does give us prophecy. He tells us things to come.

4. saying My counsel shall stand, and I will do my pleasure. What God advises is and will remain. Also, God does what He wants.

From the above, I cannot find a promise that God will reveal to us EVERY DETAIL of his plans, or even of that which He has already done. If we say that this passage requires that Scripture (mind you, Scripture is not the topic of this passage at all--and certainly not canon) contain material from the beginning, well Genesis covers that. From the end, John's Revelation of Christ covers that. I'm not arguing here that the canon must be closed, but merely that this passage from Isaiah does not require it, because God does not promise to grant us EVERY DETAIL of his doings.

I would refer the reader to the story of Job. Job demands of God to know WHY troubles have come his way. God's response is basically that He is God and Job is man, and man cannot advise God. Job humbles himself, declaring that God is indeed God. Consider also 1 Corinthians 13, which tells us that we now see through a dark glass, and not until that which is perfect comes (referring to the second coming of Jesus), will we see as God sees.

How does G-d declare his word or by what method does G-d revile his secrets to man? Again the Bible Scriptures answers this question. Consider Amos 3:7 “Surely the Lord G-d will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets”. Contrary to the non scriptural heresy being taught in this thread, G-d does not “inspire” a committee to declare his word nor does he lead men in ways that are not declared.

Amos does not address Scripture canon either. It neither predicts nor denies the possiblity that a later council of church leaders might discern which books belong and which books do not belong in the canon. Keep in mind--no matter how you parse the verbage, the LDS Church does have a canon. Open or closed, there are writings that the church does not regard as Scripture (i.e., the Syrian additions).

You seem to be reading way too much into this passage. This is not an all-encompassing promise that God will always reveal every detail of his work to prophets. Rather, God is saying that to Israel that He warns them when punishment is coming--and that He compels his prophets to issue the warnings. The people are without excuse when judgment comes--they've been warned. This is akin to dad saying, "I told you that if you didn't clean your room you'd be grounded, so why are you crying now that you are grounded?"

Remember he promised through Isaiah that he declares what he does - if he is going to do it then he will declare it. To say G-d does otherwise is to claim the scriptures lie. If G-d revealed his will concerning Canonization then that scripture was lost. If G-d has other methods of revealing his secrets then would someone please quote the scripture?

Again, you've taken a local reminder of God to his people that the troubles they are suffering were declared by God already, and that they are without excuse and without cause to ask, "Why?" at this point. Amos is not addressing canonization one way or the other. God certainly does not offer us every detail of his plans. Adam and Eve got kicked out of the Garden for looking for more than God had revealed.

It has been suggested that G-d inspired man, contrary to scripture, to create a scripture cannon. This he did to answer prayer of good believers. REALLY?

You accuse the LDS Church with the same hammer you would use on the rest of Christianity with this claim. The LDS Church rejects certain books--does not include them in its "Standard Works."

Every time the good believers got to gather to discuss the scripture cannon there were many different opinions of what that should be. To be honest, history seems to record that the group that one won were those that had the biggest army and killed the most people. (Example Charlemagne that declared by his blood stained might his personal preference that would become the most used Christian cannon as it is defined today among Western Christians)

IMHO your opinion of church history and canonization is colored by your doctrine of Restored gospel. You have every incentive to be untrusting of the Early post-apostolic church. Suffice to say that your interpretation here flies in the face of the rest of Christianity, and I dare say, even many LDS religious history scholars probably would not offer such a overarching and frankly dismissive condemnation.

The concept of the LDS “Standard Works” as our “Open” cannon is strictly a matter of semantics. The concept of cannon is that of fixed which does not mean open.

A canon, in the context of religion, is an established Scripture. Whether a religion's leadership is willing to add to or revise a canon is another issue. Thus the adjectives "open and closed." Frankly, you are writing your own definition of canon, so that you can deny that your church has one, and condemn the rest of Christianity for its "heretical canon." It is much harder to condemn a canon, if the difference is one of degree vs. core nature.

I will concede the LDS “Standard Works” as a open cannon but with the following exceptions:

A. The Standard Works are scriptures that have been given through prophets and are G-d’s word to all. Because G-d (according to his promise) does reveal his work through his servants that are called by him to be prophets LDS know that the Bible contains some of G-d’s Word. No other Christian denomination can make that claim and demonstrate the Bible by prophesy.

Pardon my confusion here, but you have said that the Bible is God's Words. Your only argument is that there is more available. Then you say that non-LDS Christians (the other 99.4%) cannot claim and demonstrate the Bible by prophesy. What do you mean? Do you believe the Bible or not? Do we have to prove it to you?

Beside the Standard Works, LDS know that there are other scripture that is given only to special followers. For example Jesus often taught his 12 apostles things that were not taught to his other followers. Although Jesus taught many things to his Apostles at the last supper most of what he taught is not in the Bible. LDS have learned that certain things are not taught in scriptures open to public. These things are taught as sacred “pearls” in the temple as prophesied (once again G-d declares his knowledge in advance) in Isaiah 2:2-3 (BTW the Ute word “Utah” means the top of the mountains. Is it not amazing how G-d’s words are fulfilled?)

There is no question but that Jesus shared things with his leadership that He did not explain to the crowds--many of whom were not even believers. However, if you extend this principle to say that God always intends to reserve for his most faithful followers enticing secrets, hidden knowledge, etc., you come in danger of the Gnostic heresy. For the most part, the Bible is an open book, easily understood. Yes, it is also one that scholars can never fully fathom! However, the primary focus of the gospel is not mystery, hidden knowledge, or enticing secrets. It is Christ, and him crucified, for the salvation of his creation.

Without this understanding I am not sure anyone can understand the LDS stand concerning scripture. And again I ask the question? Does no one believe the scriptures - That G-d must declare it in his way if there is to be a cannon and what that cannon must be.

And again I respond, if God truly considers canon a heresy, than the .06% of Christendom that is the LDS Church has as much to answer for as the 99.4% that are not. Either canon is God's will or it isn't. You have not demonstrated why an open canon is superior. Rather, you have argued against canon itself--something your church has.

[Are The Ten Commandments Relevent In This Age Of Grace?]

THE 10 COMMANDMENTS

HOW SHOULD CHRISTIANS OBSERVE THEM?

All of the great religions that proclaim belief in one God submit to the 10 Commandments. Yet, how do we, as Christians, understand and obey these so-called Jewish commandments?

Please read Exodus 20:1-17

For the Christian, the 10 Commandments are more stringent, yet more achievable, than Jewish practice demanded. How is the Christian understanding of the 10 Commandments more stringent, and why can we more easily achieve them? We shall first consider the stringency of Christian obedience to the Commandments. The first commandment reads: YOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME. The ancient Jews understood this to mean they must worship the God of Israel, and no other. Likewise, modern Judaism’s mission is to protect the spiritual life and practice of Jewish people. There is no mandate to reconcile non-Jews to the one true living God. Jesus also says to worship no other gods. But he goes further, calling his followers to a rigorous mission of proclaiming the Good News to all peoples. Jesus says in John 14:6 that He is the only way to reconciliation with God the Father. Additionally, in the Great Commission he tells us to make and train his disciples.

The second commandment reads: YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FOR YOURSELF AN IDOL. Ancient Israel focused on the literal making of idols, because false idolatrous religion was so common then. Today one could be certain to find prohibitions in Judaism against religious statues and the like. Jesus took this one step further. He said that we must not let family become an idol. You had better be willing to hate–or abandon–your parents and siblings rather than compromise your love for God. Jesus also said we must not let our possessions become an idol. We cannot serve God and money.

The third commandment reads: YOU SHALL NOT MISUSE THE NAME OF THE LORD YOUR GOD. Ancient Israel hesitated to use the name of God at all. This is why you so often see the terms “GOD” and “LORD” in the Bible, rather than YAHWEH. Today, the more conservative Jews even hesitate to use the title God. In their writings they write G-d instead. Jesus teaches that we can use the name of God–in power. He still insists that the name be revered however. Jesus says that in his name you shall heal the sick, cast out devils, and do works greater than he has done. Many shall say to Jesus, “Did we not do great works in your name?” And He will respond saying, “Depart from me, I never knew you.” Recall that the seven sons of Sceba used the name of Jesus to deliver a man from demons. Yet, they did not know Jesus. The demons left the man–but attacked those who would disrespect Jesus name by using it in ignorance.

REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY BY KEEPING IT HOLY. Ancient Jews had numerous rules about what could and could not be done on the Sabbath. Modern Jews have those same rules and volumes of commentary on how they can be applied with today’s technology. As an example, in the heavily Jewish neighborhoods in South Miami Beach the elevators in condominiums automatically stop on each floor during the Sabbath. This way, no Jew is “creating work,” by pressing buttons or causing power surges in the elevators’ mechanisms. Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Therefore, it is okay to heal on the Sabbath. It is okay to work at getting food, so as not to go hungry, on the Sabbath. Finally, it is okay to have special days or to treat every day the same, so long as the glory and honor go to God.

HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER. Ancient Israel had specific laws about how you were to honor your parents. So long as your treatment towards them complied with the laws, you were okay. Modern Jews continue to pay general homage to the need to honor parents, and comply with religious guidelines on how to do so. Jesus said we have to honor our parents with our hearts and spirits, as well as our mere compliance. Corban meant you could give money to the Church (Temple) that should have gone to your parents. Jesus says you must not use the Church as an excuse not to care for your parents. Jesus also says that parents must not drive their children to anger through harsh treatment.

YOU SHALL NOT MURDER. Ancient and modern Jewish practice would take this literally. You should not kill people. Jesus said that to angrily denounce someone is a murderous act. He said we are to love our enemies.

YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY. Ancient and modern Jews would take this literally–you must not have sex with somebody other than your spouse. Jesus said that to even lust after another woman is adultery.

YOU SHALL NOT STEAL. Ancient and modern Jews would take this to mean that we must not take what is not ours. Jesus said that we must obey our bosses–even when they are unreasonable. Otherwise, we “steal” what belongs to them.

YOU SHALL NOT GIVE FALSE TESTIMONY AGAINST YOUR NEIGHBOR. Ancient and modern Jews said that it is wrong to lie with the purpose of hurting a neighbor. But, they tolerated promises that were sometimes less than fully honest. Jesus said, “Let your yes be yes, and your no no.”

YOU SHALL NOT COVET. Ancient and modern Jews say it is wrong to try to get what belongs to your neighbor. Jesus said we should not worry about money or “the cares of this world.” Paul said we are to be content whether we are wealthy or poor.

Transition: Compliance with these Commandments seems all but impossible. How can we obey them?

The power source that allows Christians to obey the 10 Commandments is the Holy Spirit. Not by might nor by power but by my Spirit says the Lord. (Zecharia 4:6). Jesus also promised that we shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon us. (Acts 1:8)

Jesus says we are to be perfect even as he is perfect. (Matthew 5:48). We do this by love. We are to love God and our neighbor. We accomplish this by power from the Holy Spirit. Galations 5:22-23 list several characteristics–or fruits–of the Holy Spirit. The first of these is love. Some commentators have even suggested that love is the fruit, and all the other characteristics are aspects of love.

We conclude by noting that Jesus did do away with some of the superficial, man-made customs surrounding the 10 Commandments. However, he strongly endorsed the spirit of the Commandments–even raising the standards his disciples were to obey. Nevertheless, it is possible to live in obedience to the Commandments–If the Spirit of God empowers you! Do you love God? Jesus says that if you do you will obey his commands (John 14:23).

[Evangelicals And The Celestial Kingdom]

2. However, if I am wrong, and Mormonism is deemed unacceptable in God's eyes, I lose my place in eternal heaven, and will instead be doomed to hellfire.

For me I rather like the LDS version. I get to go to the TK. That works. I sure as heck don't want to spend an eternity in the CK..... that would be ahell. With your faith I am doomed either way. On the one hand I get hellfire. On the other hand I'd have to spend an eternity with a psychopathic god who would allow the eternal torture of the vast majority of humanity AND evangelicals, baptists, and the religious right. I think the fire would be preferable.

I start with two basic assumptions about God: That He's all-powerful, and that He's good. I interpret the Bible stories, the commands, etc. from this core anchor. You haven't reached that place of faith, yet. You question God's character, and thus wonder if He even is.

Ultimately, though, like most here, you seem the type that will grab hold of what is true. Until then, we all just keep shining our little lights. B)

[John Birch Society Posts]

This is the one thing I don't like about posting in forums and I try to show with emoticons but it just doesn't seem to come through. I agree Outshined I think that PC's post was funny and your laughing guys too. I created the forum so that postings of a JBS would be centrally located if someone wants to read one and or offer rebuttal. That will help keep from getting off track with the other forums. Or so I thought. :)

Now that is funny too. The Dylan song.

Okay... ...my bad my bad Oh...I can't stop ...let's see, John Birch Society--isn't that a subforum of GR88T's http://www.enterprisemission.com?