Stealth3si

I'd like to quickly digress an unrelated issue here an atheist address to me earlier: According to today's moral standard, the Old Testament in the bible contains violent stories where God instructed His people to 'harshly' treat their neighbors. My response was God never condoned those immoral things. Other than the reason that God had a higher purpose for instructing His people to do those 'immoral' things, how did God justify His motives, not that I doubt His reasons for doing so?

Just wanted to know how you like to be called. most catholics like to be called catholics, protestants generally prefer Christian ....and according to the LDS sample here like to be called Mormons. I suppose it'd be awkward if people addressed you as, "So you're an LDS?" or "A couple of LDS's visited me yesterday."

Which of these do you prefer to be called personally if an atheist/agnostic/apatheist approached you? 1. Christian 2. LDS 3. Mormon 3. Restorationist 4. Other ______________ Appreciate your answer. I would go into other forum sections but not too many people there.

Judging from what you've guys just said, you think I'm here to trash your religion or something? You can put your shields away coz that's not what i'm here for. By now the serious theological dance, as AK put it, is over. I'm just conversating to you guys not as intellectual theologians but as normal people. If you wanna make satrical jokes against me that's fine. I can take it. As long as it's all for fun and respectful, but not uptight. If you wanna put up with me and take my punches, that is if you can, then continue making your nonsensical comments against me. But if you all have something better to do than to have pointless conversation with someone like me who isn't in your click - fine by me. Personally, I don't mind if you close this thread -- you'd be doing me a favor. Personally, i enjoy mindless conversations from time to time. It doesn't have to be all intellectual and sophisticated conversations all the time like you guys expect it to be. AND IT DOESN"T MATTER HOW OLD YOU ARE PEOPLE. if you're the type of person who can't hold on to a bold conversation with someone from a different planet, then what can I do? It doesn't hurt to have a conversatino with people who are different than you. In fact, i enjoy pushing people's button who are totally different from me, because it gives the chance to see what kind of online etiquette they have and how they react. All in all, sometimes I give people a hard time just to see how they'll react, not that I like giving people hard time. Now your turn.

Why? I've already learned that you often use salvation and exaltation interchangeably. Well make up your mind. Mean what you really say. Did I soak your carpets there? oops. [splat splat] Why are you so adament about my own age? Do you have an age-complex or something? Or are you that old that you want to communicate with a younger person it'll make you feel young again? Well I'm glad I could be of service to you. BTW, will you send me a picture of you and Jesus. You're still here?

FYI, I WAS here to learn.. until you all started bashing on me then I had to be on the defensive side. Don't make me take out my sword now. What is it like 4 on 1? Why? Do I talk like a female or something? If you wanted to know whether I'm a male or female just ask straight out in the open forum dood. There's no reason to PM me.

Then take your business elsewhere. B) ..oh wait, this IS the only place where you can take your business to. My bad. With all those hundreds of posts you've got up there, you gotta be doing damage control to your keyboard there.

I get that a lot. .... FYI, a slight change in a meaning of a word can offset the entire concept. If you were on a plane headed from LA to NY and you were an eigth of a mark off, you'd end up hundreds of miles away from your destination buddy. Would you feed to your kids a plate of healthy food that had one drop of cyanide in the corner of the plate? No you wouldn't. So neither should you describe a concept to someone and change the meaning of a word, even though it seems minute. You guys have different definitions for the same biblical words (even regular words) that Christians use, so it VERY IMPORTANT to have perfectly clear communication or else we might end up running in circles. But if you want to give double meanings to words then use them to describe the same concept, then good luck ---- because you'll have a hard time recruiting other people, let alone explain to them what you believe. That's my two cents.

It's hard to come to a common ground if we differ in other theological areas. Maybe, maybe not --- that's subjective. But that doesn't change the fact that you guys just tripped over each other. 1.) So you give back to Him through your obedience because Jesus has died for you and instructed you to obey Him (if you love Him). You do "works" because you love Him and because He died for you and saved you from hell, and NOT the other way around where you do "works" to earn His love or His approval to die for you and to save you from hell. At this point, nothing you've done has earned you anything, but everything you've done is credited to God. It is because of Jesus and what He done on the cross that allowed you to do all the things you've done, not to mention that Jesus commanded you to do so anyways. But just because Jesus says that you must do all these things if you love Him doesn't mean that "works" justify us in front of God's eyes. Jesus was pointing out that a true living faith in Him means that it will produce works. That's why He said if you love me you will keep my commandments. Jesus was really saying, "If you truly have faith, then you will obey Me." IOW, true living faith cannot exist without righteous works to back it up. Jesus made a point that without works, faith is dead. Jesus wasn't saying we have the right to "prove" ourselves in front of God, even if Jesus Himself commanded us to obey Him. We "prove" ourselves to God simply by being associated with Jesus (the covenant relationship that He's our Lord and we're His servant). Everything else that comes out of that relationship, like obedience, is to confirm that relationship. But when you talk about attaining to a Celestial glory, you're talking about what qualifies you to attain Celestial glory.2.) So now all the work you've done under Jesus's name is now used to "qualify yourselves" to attain one of the three glories of heaven, and in this case, it is the Celestial glory. Not that you're using your previous works to earn anything but now you're using it to share in God's glory, to qualify yourself a seat in the celestial heaven. No matter how many terminology twists and theological spins you put on it, in the end you eventually earned it. The captain on the boat didn't do the all the work previously to become a captain, he just did it because it was his job at the time, whatever job he held. And now, with all the experience he's invested in, he now qualifies for better jobs. But in the end he earned it, even through his qualifications he earned that spot, no matter how many logical reasons you put in it. If I get hired or promoted because i'm qualified for it by being just me or who I am without my effot, then I haven't earned it. It was just given to me freely. But if I get hired or promoted because I qualified for it through good work ethics, job experience, or through a Bachelor's degree, then that means I've earned it, period. The entire purpose of Jesus saying: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, might, mind and strength. This is the greatest commandment." and "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." is to instruct us on how to worship Him; those instructions are there to give all the glory to Him, not to later qualify ourselves to attain our own glory. We are never to share God's glory, but we are to bask and bathe IN His glory, not to cut a small peice of His glory and put it on our head. Otherwise, attaininging glory is taking away God's glory. Why? Because God deserves all the glory, and all glory is due to Him. Without Him, we would not exist. Without His gift of free will, we would not have to choice to be with or against Him. The whole purpose of God creating life, Adam and Eve, allowing good and evil to exist, saving us from our sin through Jesus's death on the cross and His plan of redemption for mankind is to glorify Himself, is to say to all His creation that He alone deserves all the glory and credit. And God chooses to glorify Himself by creating us (including angels) and having a relationship with us, so that in the end He knows that we love Him and we know he is our God who deserves all the glory and praise. Everything we do should be done and used for the purpose to give glory to God and only Him, not to ourselves. You can't use Jesus's work on the cross to glorify yourself; that's not right. It is like using Jesus's work on the cross as in investment and the product of that investment is works and obedience. And so you use what you've gained from your "worship" of Jesus Christ to qualify yourself to one of the glories of heaven. God never intended for us to glorify ourselves in anyway, even it if is to glorify Him, because that would be taking a part of God's glory and puttint it upon yourself. If you had read verses 29 -31 in context of Mark 12, the first commandment Jesus is talking about is how we are to treat God. It summarazes the first five commandments of Moses's Ten Commandments because the first five deal with our relationship to God. The second commandment Jesus is talking about how we treat other people, including our selves. It summarizes the second half of Moses's Ten Commandments because the second half deal with our relationship with other people and ourselves. Hence: 29And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: 30And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. 31And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. So what does Jesus say about how we deal with God? We give Him all the glory by worship, praise, obedience, works, surrendering our whole self to Him, including our hearts, mind and strength, and the whole enchilda. It's not about us, it's about Him. And so Jesus tells us HOW to do just that. But instead, you've given God everything BUT a little part of your heart. Against Him, a human's heart will use Jesus's instructions of worshipping Him, to qualify oneself a Celesital glory, his own glory, to share with God. Jeremiah said that "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" So what does Jesus say about how we deal with people, including ourselves? Well for one thing, He doesn't say we are to glorify ourselves or exalt ourselves into Gods. He tells us to love ourselves the way God would, the way Jesus would. Jesus said we are to treat ourselves the same way He would treat us if He were living among us as humans, which He did. God wants us to be IN His glory but God would never glorify us or allow us to share in His glory or have our own glory, so what gives us that right? All the glories in the world and universe, heavens and all of time belong to God. Why? Because it is in His nature as God or diety. If I was a God, all the glory would go to me and everything else is submitted to me because the very basic nature and definition of God demands just that. Is that selfish? No, because that is what being a God is all about. But Satan could not stand being second place so he decided in his prideful heart thah he had to be a God. God Himself says there is no other God but Himself and if anyone wants to challenge Him then God will chin-check them, just like He did with Satan. Christians and Mormons differ in the nature of God and how many Gods there are, among other major doctrines as well, not to mention what the gospel is, but that's not what we're here for. I don't see why it is necesary to depend upon a cooperative effort with God to have your sins forgiven which is, essentially, combining the filthy works of man (Isaiah 64:6) with the holy work of God. They don't mix. They can't. But I hope you understand that because we differ in the major doctrinal concepts it is hard to come to a common ground, period. Please understand that I am not here to bash on you guys. Don't take it personally. I believe you are lost and I do not want you to go to hell. What ever I am I am by the Grace of God. I want you to find the real and loving Jesus who can fill your heart with His salvation.

Thank you. I try to keep it short as possible. You are misusing words and misapplying them to mean something else. But I know what you're basically saying, you feel so indebted to God you feel the need to owe Him back through your actions and responsibilities. But remember Jesus Christ said “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes. 26 Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight. 27 All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. 28 Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” (Matthew 11:25-30)And what you say? “ The heart is deceitful above all things,And desperately wicked; Who can know it? Jeremiah 17:9 "But no man can tame the tongue. It is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison." James 3:8 Wow. That's very righteous of you. And what about yourself?"I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. 10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ." (Galatians 1:6-10) of course, you can NOT just do whatever you want. We've already established that long ago in the thread. Does this mean that those justified by grace can sin as much as they want?Romans 6:1-2 says, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer in it?" 1 Thess. 4:7 says, "God has called us not for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification." The Scriptures teach us that we are to live holy lives and avoid sin (Col. 1:5-11). Just because we are saved and eternally justified before God (John 10:28), that is no excuse to continue in the sin from which we were saved. Of course, we all sin (1 John 1:8). But the war between the saved and his sin is continuous (Rom. 7:14-20) and it won't be until the return of Jesus that we will be delivered from this body of death (Rom. 7:24). To continually seek sin and use God's grace to excuse it later is to trample the blood of Christ underfoot (Heb. 10:29) and to reveal the person's true sinful, unsaved nature (1 John 2:4; 2:19). (Other verses worth checking out are: Heb. 12:14; 1 Pet. 1:14-16; and 1 Pet. 2:21-22.) WOW this is the first time I've seen two people of the same religion accidentally condtradicted each other in the defense of their own religion. WOW. This is going in my books -- for sure.

"Earn" is not the same thing as "qualify for." I don't believe we "earn" exaltation. Before I go further, confirm that you understand what I'm saying there. Then why did Desire say you EARN celestial glory? Exaltation is the same as celestial glory because they BOTH are in the Celestial Heaven. Whether you are exalted as a God or have celestial glory, you travel on the same road. So which road is it? The road fo "earning" it or the road of "qualifying for" it. At first, yes "Earn" and "qualify for' are different. To PROPERLY "qualify for" something there has to be an inserted object that satisfies the condition. What inserted object, you ask? The inserted object I'm talking about is a word/term/statement that denotes the act of BEING. OTHERWISE, inserting a word/term/statement that denotes the act of DOING invalideates the "qualify for" statement and essentially makes itself to be the same as "Earn" statement. For example, ______________ qualifies for Godhood. The blank line should have an object that is an act of BEING to validate the "qualify for" statement. An act of DOING will invalidate the "qualify for" statement and make it essentially the same as "EARNING" it. state/act of BEING is like faith, association with someone, permanent characteristic, a position, title or rank, something that does not require ACTION on our part state/act of DOING is like works, obedience, to be actively doing something, something that requires ACTION on our part. Here's the catch: 1.) if the blank line is a state of being, like faith, then "Earn" and "qualify for" are different. Why? BEING faithful to qualify for Godhood is NOT the same as BEING faithful to "EARN" Godhood. 2.) BUT IF THE blank line is a state of DOING, like works, then "Earn" and "qualify for" are the same. Why? Using the terms "works" and obedience to "qualify for" Godhood is essentially the same as DOING works to "EARN' Godhood because "works" and obedience is used to denote the act of DOING not the act of BEING. 3.) IF a blank line is both a state of BEING and DOING, like faith AND works, then "Earn" and "qualify for" are the same. Why? BEING faithful and DOING works to "qualify for" Godhood is the same as BEING faithful and DOING works to "Earn" Godhood. In other words, if we need to DO anything on our part to "qualify for" anything, even lifting our fingers or applying our efforts to the equation, then THAT IS THE SAME AS EARNING IT. WHY? Because they are all STATE OF DOING, NOT BEING. The proper way to "qualify for" something is to insert a state of being (like faith, or a characteristic). Whenver you insert a state of doing (like works or obedience) then you are twisting the "qualify for" statement into a "EARN" statement. I believe Faith and works should be together. But when you take both of them and use it as a "qualify for" statement, then you are invalidating the "qualify for" statement, therfore, making it essentially the same as "EARN" statement. But it depends on what your definition of "Earn" and "qualify for" are. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Earn (Verb) to earn (third-person singular simple present earns, present participle earning, simple past earned, past participle earned); "earnt" is incorrect 1. (transitive) to gain (success) through applied effort or work 2. (transitive) to receive (money) for working 3. (transitive) to deserve (something) 4. (intransitive) to receive money for working Qualify (Verb) to qualify (qualified, qualified) 1. to describe or characterize something by listing its qualities 2. to make someone, or to become competent or eligible for some position or task 3. to certify or license someone for something 4. to modify, limit, restrict or moderate something 5. to compete successfully in some stage of a competition and become eligible for the next stage --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So which one are you referring to?

But ApostleKnight just said you don't earn exaltation (or in your case, celestial glory). But then again he said "works" and obedience is requried for salvation. And I don't know if he used the world 'salvation' to mean exaltation/celestial glory. So I'll wait for what he has to say about what you just said. Besides, why are you answering for him anyway? I thought you stopped posting in here.

I dislike being called a Mormon because it makes my religion and faith seem focused on a disciple, not the Savior. Mormon was a prophet, and a mighty man, but a man nonetheless. Consider how a Christian would feel if they were called "Pauls" or "Peters" because of their belief in the New Testament. Sure those men were great disciples, but they aren't the Savior and it'd be irresponsible to reduce their faith to the name of one disciple. I don't like it because of that, and it leaves out the part that we are all saints doing out best to live the commandments... Glad to see you're on a band-wagon again. I'm just speculating here, but what was so special about Mormon the prophet that gave all of you guys the nickname "Mormons"? What was his role in the presentation of your new gospel? Was he the one who brought you the news? I thought Joseph Smith was the founder of Mormonism.

I don't see why you're avoiding my questions because they're real simple. There's no need to analyze them. The reason why I ask again is to make sure we are on the same page. Haven't you noticed by now that our understanding of terminology is important to our communication? Forgive me if I sound a little pretentious just for the sake of eye-to-eye communication. Just answer them please, otherwise, you're allowing me to draw conclusions based on what you say. And I hope they're right.So let me get this straight: You don't earn exaltation (godhood) but you do "works" and obedience because you love Him, etc. Yet you said "works" and obedience is required to qualify for salvation (or exaltation)? Please clarify that one for me. :)

OK your definitino is much more easier to understand. The wikipedia's definition was a little tedious to understand. So let me get this straight. The LDS started out as a movement but eventually became a religion in its own right, as LDS and the LDS church, while still holding the informal nickname, "Mormons". FYI, every religion in this world started out as movement and became a religion.Commonly, I've seen the LDS and Community of Christ buildings before but I've never expected there to be so many different denominatinos. Why did Wikipedia include all those denomonations? Could it be that those denominations once existed but no longer exist? Whatever maybe, so basically Mormons, LDS and Community of Christ are all theologically under the same religion in its own right today, yet all three are on different belts, for lack of a better term, because of minor issues? The exception is that Mormons now is informally what LDS and Community of Christ are called or labeled by, as you put it, "misinformed", people. Please remember that people do NOT use Mormon in a derogorative manner to insult you or degrade. It is simply a term used to identify you, despite its negative connotation in past history. So why do some LDS prefer not to be called Mormons while others are laid back about it? I mean it's not like "Mormon" refers to a particular race of people in a negative manner.