lattelady

Annamaureen, So would you say the same thing my friend is saying, if asked about it? That you have a strong testimony of the Church but not a testimony of Joseph Smith? Or would you not go so far as to say that? (But you can at least understand what she means by that, right?)

The LDS church today teaches the virgin birth--are there members that still subscribe to the teachings of some of the former prophets that God the Father is the literal father of Jesus?

I'm kindof sad that I asked for help in keeping this thread clear of contentious posts (and for the MOST part people have been very gracious to do so), but someone made some unkind comments about tramp stamps has chosen to mock the fact that I felt it was unkind to start a post by saying, "Ugh, not another tattoo post" and then made it a point to mock the fact that my feelings were somewhat hurt. The spirit of mockery on this forum is depressing--why do you choose to treat others like that? It's meanspirited and rude. I'd like to bring it back to the original reason for the post and also thank those that were brave enough and transparent enough and real enough to share themselves--whether you DO have one or you DON'T! But back to the tattoos, I can't remember who it was that had the chinese symbol for forgiveness, but that was pretty cool. They're all unique and interesting and cool in their own way.

I was certainly not trying to start up a contentious post. I don't really want to hear about people's judgements regarding tattoos--I just wanted to hear about the tattoos that people do have and what they mean to them. It actually hurt my feelings to see a post begin with "Ugh, not another tattoo post..." I haven't ever seen one on here before--I was just starting my own post hoping to celebrate people's individuality and creativity. I hope people will help me keep it non-contentious and strictly about the creativity of your tattoos. I didn't get mine until last year when I turned 33! It's the greek word for "freedom" on my back----ELEUTHERIA. It comes from a verse in the Bible that says "It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery." (Galatians 5:1) Thanks to everyone who has shared so far! We're all so unique!

Does anyone on this forum have a tattoo, or more than one? What is it, and what is its significance to you?

It is taught and accepted as truth in most Christian denominations that Jesus was born of a virgin (Mary), a miraculous conception through the Spirit of God. What is the LDS view on Jesus birth? Was He born of a virgin, as taught in the Bible? Or was He the product of a physical union with God the Father (Elohim)?

Actually what they said was that along with being on the "bar", judging people's eternal destiny, he and Jesus "hold the keys" to the Celestial Kingdom.

The reason she has no testimony of Joseph Smith, at least what she'll express to me (there could be more that she's leaving out, but I couldn't know that) is that she struggles with the issue of polygamy. So if she leaves that aside, everything else about the Church she loves. The issue of polygamy and that Joseph Smith for a time seemed on board with it as the Prophet throws her for a loop. She tries to put that in a box a set it on a shelf, which I don't know if you can fully do. Somehow she has to come to terms with that.

Snow, I didn't ask for Snow's "reasoning" on the subject. You keep asking me when I'm going to rebut your reasoning, and the answer is never. When you can give me what I asked for, which is what you repeatedly ask from other posters (back up your claims with real proof), then we'll have a logical discussion. So far, my posts include a question: "Where do you find proof, scripturally, that Paul was a prophet?" Apparently, your own scriptures conclude that he was an apostle. And thus far, your posts continue to include (by your own admission) your own reasoning, "mathmatical equations", extensive quotes that I won't read, and definitions of a prophet. I have yet to see tangible proof that he was given the job prophet, that he calls himself repeatedly a prophet (even though he does call himself repeatedly an apostle), or that anyone else calls himself Prophet Paul. When you show that to me, I will concede that you are correct, and we can put these posts to bed. Don't keep expecting a rebuttal to your "reasoning", though. A rebuttal isn't coming. Show me biblical proof.

Thews, believing in "absolute truth" and "just trusting [your] gut" are opposing belief systems. You either believe in absolute truth, like the truth found in God's Word, or you live life by following your heart (or gut), whichever one leads you best. Do you trust in God, that His Word is truth, or do you trust your gut? Absolute truth is pretty absolute--it's total truth. It seems that you take parts of the Bible that you feel comfortable with, and leave behind the parts that you can't really resolve in your own mind--and that's where you just trust your gut. But God's Word is either to be trusted, or it's not.

Snow, I'll keep my post pretty short. Your rabbit trails are unnecessary because I don't get too far into your post and I realize, you have yet to provide biblical proof to back up your claim that Paul was a prophet. You made the claim. You bear the burden of proof. Just as you accept nothing but canonized scripture as proof when others are trying to make a point, I'm still waiting for you to show me a verse from scripture that Paul was called as a prophet. The verse in Acts that you gave me shows me that there's a room full of prophets and teachers. I learned back in Bible school that rather than pull a verse out randomly to try and use it on its own, one needs to view it in light of all the scriptures given. When you do that with Paul, it's pretty easy to see that he's not one of the prophets in Acts 13, he's one of the teachers. Look at his ministry. It's not a prophetic one. It's a teaching one. (and yes, apostles can teach!). So, I'm still waiting. You might want to stop taking all that time typing out definitions and quotes from other people, because all I really care about is biblical proof. Opinions are just that.

Well, I know other members who have a strong belief that Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ will be on the judgement seat, when it comes to our eternal destiny, so I guess I assumed it mattered to them and that their testimony was absolutely tied to Joseph. Maybe it's just different for different people?

I have a friend who is strong LDS (she's not just a "sunday Mormon", but she lives her faith day in, and day out), but she says that she doesn't have a testimony of Joseph Smith. Is that possible?

Snow, Your "tsk" is misplaced. If he who makes the claim bears the burden of proof, then the burden clearly would rest on your shoulders because you made the original claim that Paul was a prophet. Remember? Your supposed reference in Acts to Paul being a prophet is one that you are bending to fit your need. Since you never provided an actual reference, I'm left to assume that you are referring to Acts 13:1? If I'm wrong, I'm sure you'll correct me. But this verse says, "In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul." Saul, we know also to be called Paul. If you're claiming that this obviously means that he was a prophet and a teacher, it doesn't. It means that in that group of people, there were prophets, and there were teachers. In that group, Paul was a teacher. If you've studied him at all, you're aware of his history--that he was a teacher of the Law before his conversion. You shouldn't try to twist scripture to fit your arguments. The burden of proof still rests with you. Nowhere in scripture does he call himself a prophet, nor does anyone else call him one. In fact, if you look at that passage (Acts 13 where he teaches others, he refers to OTHER prophets (don't you think he'd refer to his own prophet-ship if he were one?)--he knows he's an apostle. In the Church, there is a clear distinction of roles (at least the Biblical definition of the church). 1 Corinthians 12:27,28 "Now you are the Body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets,,..."

Snow, I am for real. I do read the Bible. I have the stomach to dig in; it didn't take much digging at all to see, quite at face value, Paul's title--how HE referred to himself. He also mentions over and over in each of the texts that the title/role/authority he has is God-given and comes by the "will of God." It's the role of apostle. Strangely, he never refers to himself as a prophet in the books that he wrote. Nor was he speaking prophetically when he penned the words you quoted. I will take on typical Snow-form and again ask YOU for a Biblical basis or proof that Paul was a prophet. So far, you've come up with nothing but quotes from other people, definitions from the dictionary and some insults to my intelligence. But when you show me proof from the Bible that Paul was called a prophet, you will have made your point. And since you are so convinced that you are right, as you typically tell others in this forum, it shouldn't be that hard to do.

Biblically, you have no basis or proof for making that assertion. You are welcome to say that he was a prophet, but under the guidelines of "prophet" some have posted from dictionaries and Bible dictionaries, you run a dangerous risk of just about ANYONE claiming that they are a Prophet, and then who are you to say otherwise? Paul didn't function as a prophet, any more than you or I do--even though he was called by God. What is your scriptural basis for calling him a prophet?

Dravin, thanks for your post. Which "Hell" was McConkie referring to, then, in the quote I posted? the Spirit Prison one? I'm assuming its not the one that includes "good burning", because his quote mentions that their "suffering" would end. Spirit prison would include suffering, I assume? What are your thoughts?

Snow, I continue to ask you for proof from scripture that anyone besides YOU considers the apostle Paul to be a prophet. Did he ever PROPHECY as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Ezekiel did? Do you know what the role of prophet was in the Bible? You're talking about PAUL, a biblical character, not a modern day prophet and revelator whom you can define as you see fit. Biblical prophets were called by God to go to a certain people group, one that was in rebellion (many times it was the Israelites themselves) to prophecy (thus the title) coming wrath if they did not repent. Paul wasn't called in that way. He was called in a dramatic way, yes, but not as a prophet. He preached the gospel. He wasn't foretelling the future as a rule of thumb. He was a missionary. The role of prophet, at least in the Bible, is considered a VERY IMPORTANT ONE. Only a select amount of people had it. It was a role assigned by God to prophecy, often prophecy about coming wrath because a people had turned their hearts from God. I recognize that within the LDS church, many people are considered prophets (apparently even people who haven't been given that title--like Peter and Paul of the Bible. In the Bible, that is not the case. The truth is you know the difference. You are a proud person who can't stand to be wrong. You simply used one word out of context. It's an easily forgiveable mistake. Just admit, "whoops! I'm human, like everyone else, and I accidentally used the word prophet instead of apostle. ' I'm sure you knew that he was an apostle. But for some reason you want everyone to think you always know the right answer, so now you think it'd be better to argue your point by using lots of words and an unkind attitude. It would be much more appreciated if you just humbly admitted you don't know everything, just like the rest of us (you're in GREAT company), and we'd really get along splendidly.

Snow, I must admit that I'm suprised you would fail to note how Paul refers to himself: 1 Corinthians 1:1 "Paul, called to be an APOSTLE of Christ Jesus..."; 2 Corinthians 1:1 "Paul, an APOSTLE of Christ Jesus by the will of God..." Galatians 1:1 "Paul, an APOSTLE--sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father,..." Ephesians 1:1 "Paul, an APOSTLE of Christ Jesus by the will of God,..." Colossians 1:1 "Paul, an APOSTLE of Christ Jesus by the will of God..." 1 Timothy 1:1 "Paul, an APOSTLE of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and Christ Jesus our hope..." 2 Timothy 1:1 "Paul, an APOSTLE of Christ Jesus by the will of God,..." Titus 1:1 "Paul, a servant of God and an APOSTLE of Jesus Christ..." But then the conclusion I am forced to draw is once again, you do not like being wrong. So you ignore the evidence in front of you and either 1) make rude comments about others who are right so you don't feel embarassed like, "I see that english isn't your first language." I've seen you use that dig before. OR 2) You try to assert your opinion through foolish arguments that have no foundation,(like: "Paul WAS a prophet. He WAS."). You have no evidence to prove your claims. I do.

Snow, I know that you despise being wrong...alas, you are wrong. Paul was not a prophet, was never called of God to be a prophet, and..you are wrong on yet another note--english IS my first language. Sorry! You're funny. :)

It says in "Mormon Doctrine" by McConkie pp.349-350 "Hell will have an end...After their resurrection, the great majority of those who have suffered there will pass into the telestial kingdom." So I learned something new. There isn't just the three "heavens" and outer darkness, there is a place termed "Hell" in LDS doctrine.

jadams_4040, your take on "born-again's" is an interesting one. I'm not sure if a "born-again" mistaught you, or if you misunderstood what happens when we have "the Lord in our heart." Though I don't refer to myself as a "born-again Christian", that is precisely what I am. I don't for one minute believe that when the Lord (the Holy Spirit) took up residence in my heart I instantaneously--miraculously--do only good works. I do believe that from the moment the Holy Spirit came to dwell inside of me, I had a new nature and now had an ability that I didn't have before to choose to allow the Holy Spirit to produce good fruit in me--ones I would display like: love, joy, peace, etc. Unfortunately, I still have the old nature, the fleshly one in me that chooses to fulfill SELF, chooses to sin instead of choosing to please God. The difference is: before Christ, I would not and could not choose to please God. With Christ, I can. Interesting that you would judge those "born-again's" around you as not being able to consistently have good works. I don't actually know anyone who consistently does good works and doesn't fall short in some area. Being born-again doesn't exempt us from failure and sin. We now possess the ability and power to please God, but do we do it perfectly? No. I'm thankful that I still have the assurance of Heaven, because it's not resting on my perfection or my failure--it rests securely on what Jesus did FOR me.

Except that Paul wasn't a prophet. He was an apostle.

This is why I believe when Hebrews 9:27 says "Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgement", we're to take it seriously. We have a decision to make. It would be great if we didn't really have to worry about it, and we could just depend on someone getting baptized for our souls later. But that isn't what scripture teaches. We will die, and then we will face a judgement. I want to know where I'm going.

Thews, if what you believe has to be based on absolute truth, what is the absolute truth in reference to hell? Do you believe that the Bible teaches the reality of such a place of judgment?