thews

Thank you. This is the answer I was looking for and it mirrors what someone else said. It will help me formulate a response to my family and I appreciate it.

Fair enough, but I'll tell you what I think. Adam and Eve listened to the serpent and wondered what God was hiding from them. The lesson they learned from eating the apple was the knowledge of good and evil. Assume you are a soul and God tells you what love is... would you understand? If he told you what pain was, would you understand? You could probably understand the premis, but you wouldn't really know what these emotions were. Conversely, while we are human we find out first-hand what these emotions are. Now to the concept of hell. Assume the spectrum of intellect spans ten segments of 10% in each. The capacity for understanding in the top 10% is far greater than the botton 10%. A person of greath depth my read the bible and understand the nuances, while a person in the bottom can pretty much only understand do bad things and go to hell. This is one book and it has to encompass the entire spectrum. Using this analogy, then the "meek" would be held to a lower standard when compared to the upper 10%. Is that fair? Life isn't fair, judgment is the Lord's and all we have is our own opinion and beliefs. IMO, in the end we will have learned many things, but unless God showed himself to us and proved it, what we believe is built on faith. That faith is built on truth, our truth, as it forms the opinion known only to us. When we stand before God (again IMO), we will be held accountable for what we decided was the truth. What I believe to be true is that this earth domain is the perfect paradox. We have people that don't believe in God, and those that do, and a bunch of other things in many ways based on culture for the most part. We will know what life is like without God, where evil exists. If evil doesn't exit in the afterlife, then we will never betray God, for we have knowledge of what it's like to live without him. This is just my opinion and it's why I don't believe in hell, but what I reaaaaly don't believe in is judgment other than the Lord's judgment. What I believe is the truth to me, and it has to be based on absolute truth. JMHO.

You are obviously attacking me for asking a question that threatens you. Can you please stop the attack and leave me alone? I just had a simple question.

Actually no, but I'm not allowed to voice that opinion. I'd love to answer you, but I can't, because it's outside the board rules. I find answering questions with questions just leads away from the topic being discussed. If you want to open up the scope of what defines a word, then it depends on the question asked. Again I'd love to answer this, but I can't. I never claimed they didn't, but questions just who Jesus Christ was to each religion. An opinion is one person's view of something. Using ice cream as an analogy, an opinion cannot be wrong, because it's just a matter of preference. An opinion based on factual information can be argued if the facts are in disagreement. Regarding definitions and how they differ, I can't state my opinion here. I do appreciate the respect you have shown me and I hope it's been recriprocated:).

I'll answer whatever you wish, as your questions don't threaten me in the least. If you meanrt this one: I already answered this many times, but I will again. I am not a soon-to-be member of the LDS church, as I've been inactive for a long time. The reason I asked the question, is because I want to take my name off the books of the LDS church, but fear it may have an adverse effect on my family. What I was looking for in an answer was a somewhat "official" (if you want to call it that) response so i can calm the fears of my family members regarding my place in the afterlife, as I am Christian. To answer your question, yes I do not believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and no I don't know what you teach, which is why I asked the question.

This is your opinion and not mine. I just wanted to know the LDS perspective of what they feel happens to a Mormon who rejects Joseph Smith but remains a Christian, and you claimed they were the same. By your logic, you can disagree with me but I can't disagree with you. It really didn't answer the question, but some people gave me great information to formulatye a response to my family. I've alreadt stated what I believe. The question isn't an attack on what you believe, but that's what you're attempting to turn it into... something other that what was asked.

you posted this... and didn't answer my question. Am I not allowed to ask an honest question in the "Christian other beliefs" section without you attacking me?

as you wish So now you're telling me I have no idea what you believe, and it's I who is asking the question in order to figure out what you believe. This "responsibility" to "correct" me is deemed worthy by you, when I would counter with the fact that I'm asking you all the question and being attacked for not subscribing to what you accept. My question is justified in its intent. I simply wanted to know what the LDS view of what they think happens to a person who leaves the LDS church and becomes a Christian while rejecting the doctrine of Joseph Smith. I thank those that offered an answer and didn't chose to attack me for asking the question.

I have a clue, but don't understand the label of how "Christian" is being used and what it encompasses in defining "Christian" doctrine. I don't wish to offend you, but without going into the entire Godhead perspective from an LDS view, would you agree with the following, and if not I'd like to know why: Christian (monotheistic) - One God and Jesus Christ is God in man, just as he is God in heaven. Mormon theology (henothestic) - Jesus Christ is a God, but a separate entity from God the father and the Holy Ghost.

Sure. If you want to argue which tastes better, chocolate or vanilla, you would assume one is correct which is my point. If it's not based on factual information, everyon ehas a right to their opinion or belief. Do Mormons in here always attack people that have differing opinions?

So now you're calling me "dumb"?

What does this mean? Is it a disgused was to curse using "holy"? I was told my opinmion was "wrong" and I don't believe my opinion is wrong, just different than yours. Please expalin.

FARMs admits Joseph Smith did have sex with at least 8 of his wives. FARMS Confirms Joseph Smith Had Sex with Nine Wives

Watch some Brian Regan stand up DVD's... he's squeaky clean and a riot.

The video is quite biased IMO and states things that support an atheist’s perspective as sound logic vs. flawed logic. The paradox of the burden of proof is not held to the scientific method as some atheists assert. The scientific method's boundary conditions are defined within “the existing universe.” Using this platform to argue flawed vs. sound logic, then everything existing can be tested, which forces the atheist’s argument out of an empirical paradox and removes the source of the evidence being tested as a variable. Again with my argument to speed this up: If I concede the universe started with a big bang from one atom and all life and matter happened/ sprouted from that single atom, the atheist’s foundation is based on the properties of that atom, but does not answer where it came from. If time is infinite, then the question that cannot be answered is what existed 100 billion years before that atom, and at what point did the atom begin to exist? The “I think therefore I am” argument holds true to me attempting to paint the existence of God as logical. I exist, so I had to come from somewhere/something. If I accept I am finite in my thought process, and time is infinite, as is the origin of matter (something cannot come from nothing), then the burden of proof and either side (theist vs. atheist) has reached a stalemate and neither can be conclusively argued. In that vein, claiming “flawed logic” in this video is assumes an atheist’s logic is not flawed because everything an atheist believes is based on what can be proven, or finite, which limits the boundary conditions to exclude infinite concepts in an attempt to force a theists perspective as flawed.

An opinion can't be wrong if it's not based on facts.

I think you're misunderstanding me and i don't appreciate you telling me I am being "Not being very Christ-like" by asking a question and stating an opinion about the definition of a word. My point was based on what Mormons believe encompasses Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ is part of the Godhead in Mormonism (henotheism), and Christians believe that Jesus was God (monotheism), then that's (along with the different doctrine) where I based my opinion. Can you explain to me who Jesus Christ is WRT to God and Joseph Smith in the Mormon Godhead?

I am not more right and that's not what I'm implying. My point was what each word, by definition encompassed. I'm apologize if I offended anyone, I was meerly stating my opinion.

Thanks... this is what I wanted to know. When I tell my family that because I am Christian, though I had my name removed, they should assume I won't be damned for doing it. I really appreciate this. Where I get confused is the part where BY says Joseph Smith is the one who decides who goes where in heaven, and not God or Jesus Christ. Again thanks for this.

I wouldn't call it a game. Especially when Mormons believe Jesus is not God, but separate from God. Would you agree that Christians believe that Jesus is God in man?

Christians reject Joseph Smith as a false prophet of God. Mormons accept Joseph Smith as a prophet of God and the Mormon doctrine.

This wordplay isn't proving anything. Jews are not Christians, because they do not accept the New Testamant. Would you agree?

No I don't. This wordplay is attempting to define what "Christian" encompasses. If I, as a Christian, were to call myself a "Christian-Jew," it would be forcing Jews to accept doctrine they don't believe in. I'm not denying that Mormonism has roots in Christianity, but a "Mormon" is someone who believes Joseph Smith was in fact a prophet of God and accepts the "Mormon" doctrine. This "multiple labels" is watering down what it is to be Mormon IMO and what it encompasses. Mormon = Belief in Joseph Smith Christian = Belief that Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God Again, it's less about what a "Christian" is, and more about what defines one's belief as "Mormon" and what doctrine that encompasses. Ok. Mormons aren't mainstream Christians IMO... they're Mormon. Nothing wrong with either, but the are different enough to define using different words. There is no other "Christian" church that accepts Mormon doctrine... or they would be defines as Mormon. Catholics and mainstream Christians use the bible as doctrine. It may differ, but that's the root of the doctrine they subscribe to. Jews reject the New Testament, so just because Christians accept both, it doesn't make a Jew a Christian. Mormon doctrine is exclusive to Joseph Smith, who was a "M<ormon" prophet of God. By claiming Mormons are in fact Christian by definition, it would imply all Christian denominations accept the doctrine of Joseph Smith. This isn't semantics IMO, it's the basic definition of the word. A Christian believes that Jesus is God in man, and a Mormon believes in a Godhead, where Jesus is not God, be separate from God. Would you agree? The basic definition of who Jesus was is vastly different. These differences are not subtle. Joesh Smith himself said all Christian religions were wrong. How then, can you tell me that Mormons are the real Christians? What do you call a Christian who rejects the BOM and Joseph Smith as a false prophet of God? We're talking about the only religion to believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God (not counting various brands of LDS like RLDS etc.). You make it seem like this is just a small thing? I'm not debating which is correct, just which encompasses what. A "Christian" does not necessarily believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, but a Mormon does. Wht does a Mormon claim both? What's wrong with being Mormon? This is more of the same. I reject Joseh Smith as a prophet of God, yet you're trying to tell me what I believe includes belief in Joseph Smith. It's not what I'm telling you how you are defined, it's you telling me how what I believe is defined, and Christianity does not include Joseph Smith's doctrine. That's why there's two different words that mean different things.

I appreciate your honest replies and have learned much from you all. I understand we differ on what we believe, but we both have a right to believe it without getting feathers all ruffled. You have helped me a great deal and I do appreciate it. For the record I don't believe in hell. I just find it hard to believe that a loving God would hold us accountable for the "right" decision, when we weren't given the rules. We can choose many things, one of them being to not believe in God. What would that prove to the soul? IMO it would prove to the soul what life is like without God ...that's hell to me. So, I don't believe atheists go to hell, not people that do horrible things. The "hell" IMO is the knowledge of evil, which exists here, but not on the other side. Evil done with intent is different than evil done because one didn't know enough to avoid it. I realize this logic is not yours, but it is what I've concluded. My 20 year old daughter died last April. She survived bone cancer at 15, lukemia at 18, and lived to be 20. I got an extra 5 years with her, so my "please God" wish (if you want to call it that, was answered 3 times (she went into remission on 3 different occasions). When she died, I died with her, and I was there when she passed. I was sitting on her hospital bed praying with her about 10:00. She was unconscious and I held her hand and prayed with her. I put her hands back under the covers and just started talking to her. I told her that if the time came, she would decide when to go. I told her I felt she could hear me, and not to be scared. I then told her that if her death experience was anything like my near death experience, she would just know beofre I would, but I'd eventually be there too. He hand moved and I clutched it, and she died seconds later. I brought my baby girl into this world and I also was there when she left. She was and is a beautiful soul. The point of me telling you this s because I had to decide what it was I believed and why. Life is a lesson to the soul and we can't know why right now. The knowledge of good and evil includes both. JMHO

You said love was required in a Mormon marriage. Joseph Smith hasd 38 wives. Using what you said, he should be in love with all 38 women. Where is my logic flawed? It referenced the basis for the question. As I understand it, Mormon men marry multiple wives, while only having one earthy "wife." If that is the case, love is not required for Mormon marriage. I'm being very specific. I understand polygamy/polyandary is a sesitive subject, but the question centers on whether or not love is required for a Mormon marriage if women can expect to share their husbands in the afterlife. Because I think Joseph Smith was wrong, and polygamy/polyandary are fundamentally wrong. Do you believe polygamy/polyandary are morally justified at any time? If that's what you believe, then ok... I don't. Diet changes based on what's healthy because of food storage and adultery are two very vastly different things. You believe polygamy/polyandary was cammanded by God, but I don't. You believe God's will encompasses polygamy/polyandary and I don't, which is where this supposed analogy is being argued. OK... believe what you do, but I know in my heart polygamy/polyandary is wrong. If you believe God doesn't change, then why don't Mormon practice polygamy/polyandry today? I believe you are twisting what I'm saying and not answering the questions asked. Again, do you believe polygamy/polyardry is morally justified for any reason?