beforHim

I'm a "traditional" Christian, not an LDS. The way I see my environment surrounding me: Just like everyone else: trees are hard wth green leaves; water is wet, and can be dirty looking; trash tenbds to smell bad and flowers good; most people are clueless as to what "denying themselves" really means; most people end up doing a mixture of selfish and selfless things; animals seemingly respomnd simply by instinct; logic is unbreakable; happiness and sadness avalke; pain generally sucks; etc. etc. etc. I think we see our environment around us as nearly the same. Now of course, people with serious mental illnesses, people on drug trips, mystics, and other types of people who live apart from our "normal" reality (whether willfully or not) will see the world differently. But the average humans see it usually the same. Now if you want to get deep into philosophy and such, even then there's a general, overall "sameness" among them all, but of course the details will then vary widely and the means and ends will vary even more.

I actually totally agree with this, which is why I figured Paul, in Romans, said we had to "believe in our heart" and "confess with our mouths". Abraham believed God, and was circumsized. The blood had to be applied to the doorpost. The last question I'm left with is "Physical + Spiritual I agree, but why a specific physical?" That's were I can't get past. why must it be that specific spiritual act. I'm not asking you to answer this, I'm telling you which part I'm stuck on (well not me, since I don't believe someone must be baptized, but if this were true [ends up being true, I should say] that's were I'd be stuck on).

Thx for the heads up.

Oh by all means, please correct me! That's why I'm here, to learn. I ask intriguing questions, hoping to learn all sorts of stuff. So thx for the knowledge! :) Makes total sense if Jo was a prophet. But why- it seems so. . .arbitrary. I mean, I understand what a) the ritual itself, and b) the person performing the ritual- I understand what these are supposed to get across. So if I understand that, then why MUST a physical action be taken if the understanding and the counterfactual of "I would have had I gotten the chance, so basically I did anyway" is there. Again, if the spiritual aspect is basically there, why is God's hands tied down to an actual action? This is what I'm wondering.

OK, cool. That's what I figured it'd boil down to. Which is fine. I talked to a Catholic Philosopher one tme (a proff at my college) and asked many questions about Catholocism. About the whole communion thing for those who are allergic to wheat, he said tat you can take the wine alone and it be fine, or voice versa, if one were allergic to grapes. I asked wat if one were alergic to both? He smiled with that "Well, you know. . ."kind of smile and said, "That's highly unlikly". So I left it at that. A Church of Christ member told me, when I asked the same question- a person is going to the baptismal pool, but then has a heart attack right before being dunked, are they saved? And he basically said that God would not let tha happen to a saved person, or that the person was not meant to be saved. I'm ok with these answers, as I'm guessing there are some like this somewere in my thinking. I have yet to find them, but I'm only 29, so hopefully I've got a lot of time to think.

Loudmouth Mormon: So why is my scenario not a "loop hole" is what I'm wondering? ========= ========== =============== =============== ============ So it's like molinism, were God knows all counterfactuals? If you've no ide what I'm talking about, look it up on wikipedia, "Molinism". I'm good with that, mostly.But this then contradicts wat you typed next: First you say (via quoting D&C) that those who'll never get a chance to be baptised and such can still be in the Cellestial Kingdom if they would have been given the chance. But then this paragraph you typed seems to say tat everyone will get a chance. I realize I might be being picky, but everyone has their "sticking point", so to speak. Thx for being patient and providing knowledge on this subject. :)

This might be a scenario which has been discussed and brught up before, maybe even all the time, but I don't know. Anyway, here's the scenario: Supose someone at some point in their life has a true co vesrion/repentance/is justified/whatever. At that very moment they pass away (say a heart atack its them, they truely convert n the gurney, and then they pass away). Now suppose that for some odd reason, nobody ever does a proxy baptism for them, ever. Highly unlikely, esp. if they were in a highly "mormonised" ( new word) area I know, but let's say it happens. They get a chance to know Jesus in the telestial kingdom, right? OK, let's say they take advantage of it and they get to know him. But since no one ever gets baptised for them, do they eventually get to "go up" to the next level anyway? Supposing they never got baptised on earth and never get a proxy baptism, yet they know Jesus? Maybe they can then get baptised in their level of heaven? I'm sure I've got this all wrong, but this is why I'm asking the qestion. I don't want to et t al wrong, but to know the truth. This isn't some trick I as a "troll" have "figured out". It actually stems directly from questions about faith vs. works I've had in "traditional" Christianity settings. Anyway, have at it! :)

Great answers guys. This was kind of my thinking. Still as little fuzzy, but I'm even fuzzy when I think of "traditional" Christian doctrine, and doctrine as I see it myself. Thx for the repies! :)

TThe panel discussion ended up being neat. I was able to ask questions about the specific D&C and Gospel Principles quotes, and suprisingly they answered straight up. I can see how speculation could build around this stuff- happens all the time in my "young adult" sunday school class, and that's just us discussing seemingly simple topics like "what is faith" and stuff like that.

I've looked at those articles. I'm trying to get a bit deeper now (which I totally understand means speculation is bound to abound). I am wondering about the statment "God dwelt on an eartrh, like us" (or is it "like our's"?). I can understand we don't have all details- I'm just wondering if we know that this means a literal "earth", and he literally lived like we are. I could ask, "Did He "eternally progress" or "is He eternally progressing", but I'm just curious about God once "dwell[ing] on an earth like us". I realize I seem like a troll- I've not done my homework, and the panel discussion is tonight. I admit I culd've mentioned al this earlier and made the inquiry seem less troll-like. Forgive me for this. Thx for all the cooperation! :)

I promise I'm not trolling. The reason why I ask here is because anytime I have ever confronted LDS members, whetehr elders, bishop, rgular old congregates, young or old- whoever they were, anytime I'd ask these kinds of questions, I'd get a lot of beating around the bush, a lot of "we don't teach that", a lot of "No, no, just realize we're exactly the same as you 'traditional' Christians", a lot of "that's not important, let's only talk about what's improtant". I know that's what I'll get tonight, so I want to be more knowledgeable so as to ask these qestions and possibly get real answers. Thx to you gys who have given some info. I'ce seen the discussions over "we will be like God" and "Jesus was like God", but I've never seen discussions over what it's meant by "and he dwelt on an earth like us"- that seems to say that he did, so either he did, or else we have to say "what was really meant wea don't know" or "what was really meant was this". If this is as far as it'll ever get, then that's OK, I just don't want to mis anything. I'm in a hurry, so sorry for any misspellings or any weird grammar.

I know I'm beating a dead horse. I read some other threads on these forums and found no answer, and really not even a thread targeting this in specific. What does this mean? I've seen people here and at other LDS forums say things like "He was the Father from eternity", and even "No, he never dwelt on an earth". The second saying must simply be mistaken since this is taught in your gospel principles- unless "dwelling on nan earth" means something totaly different than what we percieve it as. This could be the case, I guess. Like I said, I went through some othewr threads (three or four, to be specific) and didn't find this addressed. I am doing az "religious panel discussion" tonight, with a baptists, catholic, unitarian, and LDS, and know stuff like this will come up (about Mormons becoming gods and such) so I really want to know the correct doctrine and beliefs. Thx a ton!

Through quotes from prophets (used by LDS members here and at other forums), McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine", the "Gospel Principles" and "Institution Manuals", I seem to be coming upon some contradictions. I've seen some info (from these sources) that say Jesus is a god, but sometimes they sem to be saying He is God. SOmetimes they say He is eternal with the father, and sometimes it says He is merely the firstborn spirit person. I've seen and heard (via an official LDS youtube video from one of the apostles) it said that Jesus is the object of the faith and we love and worshiop Him and strive to be like Him. But then in other places I see this being said only about the Father. Yes, sources would be good. My internet connection though is slow, and I loose it frequently. So I hope that a) my word is good for you guys, thus you believe me that i really have seen all this in these sources, thus not having to cite them, and b) that you guys are familiar enough with the sources as to know what I'm talking about. I really want this contradiction cleared up. As a "traditional" Christian (I go to a Methodist church) I know our doctrine about Jesus, and what words like "eternal" and "God" and such mean. But I know that they are a little differently understood from an LDS viewpoint, and I'm trying really hard to understand the LDS viewpoint (and I truly believe that there is no contradiction, just that I don't understand all this doctrine well yet) which is why I ask about this. Cool.

Oh my. I feel totally foolish. Sometimes, I type "good" as "god". lol

I'm new here. I'm a "traditional" Christian- I go to a Methodist church. I cosider myself an apologist, but I used to have the problem of getting my references from anti-mormon sources. Not good. Please forgive me. Anyway. . . I'm here to get accurate information about LDS. I've been inquiring at www.moronapologetics.com and have learned a TON.