Snow

Well thanks for asking Outshined,Trident has been using the story of the thief on the cross [Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.] as evidence that works are not required for salvation. -First, if that were the case, then it would be contrary to the dozens and dozens of scriptures I posted earlier in this thread. -Second, no one really knows what Christ said. All we know is what the anonymous author of Luke said about it decades and decades after the fact. Actually, since we don’t have the original manuscript, we don’t even know that, but regardless, was the anonymous author of Luke standing so close to the crucifixion that he overhead what was said? That’s highly doubtful. He was probably relying on decades old, oral stories. -Third, If Christ said anything to the thief on the cross, the other three authors of the gospels didn’t think it important enough to mention. -Forth: Even if Christ said it, it doesn’t mean what Trident thinks it means: Christ did not say that the man would be saved. The thief was told that he would be with Christ in “paradise” that day. Yet three days later Christ appeared to Mary and told her, "Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my God, and your God" (John 20:17) Ostensibly, heaven is the place where God dwells and Christ had not yet been there. So wherever “paradise” was, it was not heaven. Obviously the man and Christ had to be someplace else. PARADISE is Persian word meaning a garden. It is not found in the O.T. In the N.T. it occurs in Luke 23: 43, 2 Cor. 12: 4, and Rev. 2: 7. Paradise is that part of the spirit world in which spirits who have departed from this life await the resurrection of the body. It’s condition of happiness and peace. That is a pretty well-known point. You can read many Greek Lexicons and Bible commentaries on the topic – non-LDS sources of course: John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible 23:43 In paradise - The place where the souls of the righteous remain from death till the resurrection. As if he had said, I will not only remember thee then, but this very day. Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise (Shmeron met emou esh en twi paradeiswi). Jews did use the word for the abode of the dead till the resurrection, interpreting "Abraham's bosom" (Luke 16:22) in this sense also. Greek Bible Lexicon …the Greek word for paradise can mean the part of Hades which was thought by the later Jews to be the abode of the souls until the resurrection: but some understand this to be a heavenly paradise. Fifth, We LDS believe that the thief was saved in the sense of a general salvation and so was to be resurrected through the atonement of Jesus Christ, regardless of any good works he may or may not have done.

BZZZZZ!Sorry wrong answer. Lot of people here ask me what I think, all the time, and thank me for answering, even right on this thread. And NO, Trident, this no a discussion of wht the Bible says. This is a discussion about "Does Being "born Again" Mean Better Behavior?, interesting statistics." Now I may not be a Bible scholar but being honest, I know more than you. Remember when you had no clue what Maccabbees was or that it was part of the Bible. Nuff said. Were those enough scriptures above or did you need more?

Can you back that up with scripture specifying that? Gosh, how hard is this one? I don't even think I'll take the curlers out of my hair for this:Book of Mormon teachings: 2 Nephi 25:23-29 (we access the grace of Christ by keeping our part of the covenant); Moroni 10:32; 2 Nephi 31: 17-21; Alma 34: 9-34; Alma 42; Alma 12: 31-37; Mosiah chap. 3,4, & 5; Alma 36; Mosiah 27: 24-29; Alma 22: 12-23; Hel. 14: 13; 2 Nephi 2, many others Bible Teachings: Diligence, patience, and enduring to the end is required to ensure our salvation: 2 Peter 1:4-10; 2 Peter 3:14-18; Heb. 12:1,7,14,15; Heb. 10:36; James 1:12; Mark 13:13; Heb. 6:15; Heb. 3:14; Rev. 2:7,10,11; Col. 1:22-29; James 5:7-12; 1 John 2:24-25. Why? Rom. 8:16-18; Rev. 3:19-21; Rev. 21:7; Heb.12:9,10; Acts 17:28,29 The words of Christ himself: His teachings show that obedience is required to obtain eternal life; there is no hint of "once saved, always saved" or instant salvation without works: Matt. 19: 16-23 (point blank: to obtain eternal life, keep the commandments); see also Mark 10:17-30; Luke 18:18-30 Luke 10:25-28 (again: keep the commandments to be saved) Mark 12: 28-34 (Christ teaches the two greatest commandments, and tells one who understands them that he is "not far from the kingdom of God") Luke 11:28 (blessed are they that DO the word of God) Sermon on the Mount Matt. chapters 5 to 7 (focuses on works, behavior) Matt. 5:19-21 (must keep commandments) Matt 5:48 (must seek to be perfect) Matt. 7:13,14 (the gate is straight and narrow) Matt. 7:21-23 (Must DO God's will; Christians who did evil will not go to heaven) Matt. 7:24-28 (those who do what Christ says are built on a sure foundation) Matt. 24:13 (endure to the end to be saved) - see also Matt. 10:22 and Mark 13:13 Matt. 12:35-37 (will be judged by our words, to be condemned or justified) Matt. 16:24-27 (we'll be judged by our works) John 8:31-32 (we must continue in the word of Christ) Luke 21:19 (patience is required to preserve our souls) Luke 21:34-36 (be cautious, avoid sin, to be counted worthy to stand before God) Mark 11:25-26 (we must forgive others to be forgiven ourselves) John 5: 28,29 (those that do good obtain life) John 14:15,21,23 (Christ teaches us to keep his commandments) John 15: 1-14 (we must bear fruit, keep commandments) Matt. 13:3-23 (parable of the sower: He warns that some receive the word and believe, but do not endure: will they be in God's kingdom? See Luke 9:24-26) Matt. 12:50 (must do his will to have a close relationship with Christ) Matt. 13:40-43 (parable of the tares: those in his kingdom who do evil are damned) John 12:50 (The Father's commandment is life everlasting) See also Luke 21: 19,34-36; Matt. 25 (esp. v. 31-46); John 3:5 Judged by works: Rom. 2: 4-11; Rev. 20: 12-15; Matt. 16:27; Gal. 6: 7-9; Rev. 22:12-14; 2 Cor. 5:9,10; Col. 3:24-25; John 5:28,29; Eccl. 12:13,14; 1 Peter 1:17; Psalm 62:12; Prov. 24:12; Rev. 2:23; 1 Peter 4:17-19. Repentance and obedience are required for salvation: Acts 2:37-38; Matt. 4:17; Acts 17:30,31; 2 Peter 3:9; 2 Cor. 7:9-11; Ezekiel 18:4,5,9,20-27,30-32; Ezekiel 33:11-20; Acts 26:20; Mark 6:12; Luke 24:47; Heb. 5:8,9; Rom. 2: 4-11; Prov. 4:4; Prov. 19:16; Deut. 6:17; Eccl. 12:13,14; Matt. 4:4; Deut. 8:3; 1 Sam. 15:22; Jerem. 7:23; 2 Cor. 10:5,6; Exo. 19:5; Deut. 29:9-15; John 7:17; Rom. 6:16; James 4:6-10; 2 Thess. 1:4-9; 1 Pet. 1:14-16; Matt. 5:48; Lev. 11:45; Lev. 19:2; Lev. 20:7,26; Matt. 5:19-20; Rev. 3:5,19-21; Joel 2:12,13; 2 Cor. 10:5,6; 2 Cor. 7:15; Phil. 2:8. Saved by Grace - but we access that Grace by obedience: Eph. 2:8; Rev. 22:12-14; Philippians 3:12-14; Heb. 5:8,9; Exodus 20:6; James 4:6-10; Matt. 5:7; 1 Peter 1:13-22. We must do, not just believe: James, Chapters 1 and 2; 1 John 3:18,19; Matt. 7:21-27; Matt. 25:31-46; 2 Cor. 5:9,10; Titus 2; 1 Peter 1:22; Matt. 12:50; 1 Tim. 6:17-19. Christians can fall from grace, so be cautious: Heb. 12:15; 1 Cor. 10:12; 2 Pet. 1:4-10; Heb. 3: 12-14; Heb. 4:1,11; Matt. 7:21-23; Luke 21:34-36; Phil. 2:12; Gal. 5:4; Heb. 6:4-6; Heb. 10:26-31; 2 Cor. 6:1; Jude 1:3-13; Col. 1:23; James 5:12,19,20. Sin can keep you out of heaven: 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:16-26; Eph. 5:3-7; 1 Thess. 4:1-7; Col. 3:5-25; Jude 1:14-25; Heb. 12:1-17; James 4:4; Matt. 5:22; Matt. 25: 31-46; Ezek. 18. We must grow and progress through obedience to be saved: 2 Peter 1:3-10 (heavy!); 1 John 2:4,5; Phil. 3:12-15.

As a mormon, do you believe you are saved by grace AFTER all you've done? This belief implies that works still effect salvation, and extra-biblical concept. BZZZZ!Nope. Sorry wrong anwer. It all in the Bible and anyone who has read the New Testament can give you dozens of scriptures to that effect. What you really meant, had you bothered to be honet is that the concept is extra-Trident's-narrow-interpretation-of-the-Bible.

I don't find much if anything to be disturbed about in that. More later, right now I have to go see a man about a horse and then plant some evidence on a innocentbystander... Okay, I'm back now. I got a palmino that we are boiling down for glue tomorrow. Why is it disturbing that JS was a treasure seeker? Certainly you are aware of the plethora of recent literature that show just how prevalent such activities were in JS's milleau. See Quinn or Herbert Leventhal, In the Shadow of the Enlightenment: Occultism and Renaissance Science in Eighteeth-Century America (New York University Press 1976) -- That culture, combined with the ubiquitous reports of lost mines and buried treasure fueled the practice of money digging that all classes, save the most intellectually progressive, engaged in. Why should JS have been immune? Given what he had experienced, it seems reasonable that he should suppose himself specially gifted in such pursuits. He came to realize the truth of the matter and put it behind him and maintained a sense of humor about it, commenting that he was never any good at it and even specifying his wages for a Church newpaper.

Okay here's your big chance to say something rational. If you do, I will forever swear, on a stack of Navy-Ranger-SeAl-Brown Berret, terrorist fighting, GI Jean-Jaque medals you never earned in a service you never joined, that I will never say an unkind word about your mother again --- Give us the evidence that JS tried to join the Methodist Church.Come on brave boy, show me the evidence. Buyah! Come on now good buddy.

Maureen, Outshined is right. Dr. (not a Dr. nor a PhD) Martin claimed to have earned a doctorate but in fact was a two bit liar who bought his doctorate at California diploma mill. He claimed to be an ordained minister (Southern Baptist) and in fact had once been one (prior to falsely claiming it as a creditial) but it was revoked when it was discovered that he had been divorced (divorcess were not permitted to be ordained). Dee Jay Nelson touted himself as the "World's Leading Authority on Egyptology." He too was a fraud who obtained a phony degree from a mail order degree mill. He attended no classes and did no homework. The "school" was subsequently shut down by the State of Washington. He insinuated himself into the LDS look at the BoA and even had Nibley give him a quick plug before we caught on to him. Needless to say, he didn't long remain a Mormon and then turned on the ones he tried to bamboozle. The Tanners do indeed profit from their attacks on the LDS-Church. They are professional Church attackers and earn their living from it. Obviously they profit from it and have to pay taxes to prove it. Sandra hadn't retired as of last summer when I saw her last, busy earning a profit from attacking the Church out of her storefront. Decker tells so many lies that it is impossible to know where to start. Basically he blames the Church for him being a serial adulterer and thus breaking up his marriage. Poor victim.

Can anybody guess what I think when Trident starts speaking for Christ and telling us what Christ believes?

Q is only theoretical: "Recent scholarship or, more correctly, recent rethinking of previous scholarship has brought an intriguing possibility to the table. Matthew, Mark and Luke are termed the Synoptic Gospels, so called because they generally agree on the details and timeline of Jesus' life, sometimes even using the same words to describe the same events. Because of this similarity, quite a few scholars posit that there was a previous collection of Jesus' sayings and works which all three gospel writers relied on when compiling their histories. This collection, as yet just a theoretical construct, has been given the name "Q" (short for Quelle, German for "source"). It's a tempting idea. Mark is regarded as the earliest gospel and hence closest to Q. Of the 661 verses in Mark, only 24 aren't quoted in either Matthew or Luke. Matthew and Luke occasionally disagree with Mark regarding Jesus' words or the order of events, but they never both disagree on the same point." (The Straight Dope)

Kudos to the Tanners on that one but are you of the opinion that the brethren are supposed to be able to supernaturally divine forgeries?

I don't find much if anything to be disturbed about in that. More later, right now I have to go see a man about a horse and then plant some evidence on a innocentbystander...

Cal,I see the point but counter that it is not consistent with the fraud angle. If JS had been doing the preliminary work or the fraud angle for five years, I doubt he would do something to sabotage it then, if only for attending sunday school in a future competitors church, when he was so close to rolling the fraud out. Your idea that his associating with a Methodists being consistent with a supposed fraud is just the opposite was what one might do in that circumstance. First, JS did not join the Methodist Church. There is no record of any such event. What happened was that in a very dark period in Joseph's life, having lost the 116 pages, having lost the U&T, having spent a year or so with the plates and nothing to show for it, JS was down, borrowing and scrapping by to feed his family. Even Emma's family gave no help. It was then that JS and Emma attended a few Methodist meetings. Why? -Because it was part of a supposed fraud plan? No, that makes no sense. -Because he was abandoning a supposed fraud plan? No, shortly thereafter the real BoM translation work really took off. -Because he came to believe that the Methodist Church offered an acceptably true way to worship? No, I have attended other religions approx. 15 times in the past 2 years. I didn't attend because I thought it was truer than my own faith. Outshined was right. Joseph stayed the course of his calling. So why then? What idea makes sense? Probably to placate Emma's family and thus make nice with Emma who was struggling mightly under the sacrifice placed upon her and Joseph. One of Emma's uncles preached as a Methodist lay miinister. A brother-in-law was a class leader. Joseph was said to have asked the circuit preacher to be enrolled in the class. A cousin of Emma objected the inclusion of a "practicing necromancer," demanded repentance of Joseph. Since JS had nothing to repent of - not from the Methodists, he withdrew. For some unknown reason, his name remained on the roll for another six months, although there is no record of his attendance. Beyond that, you have the credibility factor. The account is late, 40 to 60 years (depending on the accreditation) after the event and is told by a non-friendly.

BZZZ!Nope, stupid idea.

Cal, We don't know why exactly JS attended the Methodist Church, but I do know a possible reason that is much more plausible and fits the known facts than your idea that he joined (which he didn't) the Methodist Church out of some suspicious reason - like he was lying and committing fraud. I will tell you the reason later, right now I have to go out do the mambo with a pretty little filly from San Antone.

Okay okay Stephen, I do have a serious question for you. What is it in the born-again psyche (or the psyche of many born-agains) that cause them to react to other religion in a way that I would describe as a bad case or insecurity and low-self esteem. They would describe it differently I am sure but they seem to be speaking from either a case of extreme nastiness (that's my gig) and lack of Christian perspective, OR a case of inferiority syndrome. What cases the movement to give rise to people, like "Dr" Walter Martin and Dee Jay Nelson to lie about their credentials and write books full of lies and misstatments about other religions (Mormons)? What causes people like Sandra and Jerald Tanner to start a for-profit business and earn their livings by denigration other religions? What is it that makes people like Ed Decker write the most vile and hateful bigotry in an attempt harm another faith? Of course they are just the tip of a large cadre or equally disgusting bigots (yeah, I know - you probably want to dig up quotes from 100 years ago and more from LDS figures to show that we are blameworthy). Granted all religious types have their weaknesses, but what flaw of moral character do such born-again types have that is so noticeably absent in the Catholics, the Presbyterians, the Jews, the Mormons, etc?

I have been in a Sunday School class where some lass acted all indignant and spoke about how persecuted Mormons are. BULL, Except for the nasty look I got when I signed my daughter up at a "born-again" pre-school in response to their question and I told them I was LDS, I have never been even minorly offended by anyone. In fact, most people have lots of interesting questions and are quick to relate the positive example of other Mormons they know and are generally quite respectful - outside obvious evangelical circles. The victim tag is utter nonsense. Only a spineless woose makes that claim. No one is a victim unless they want to be. [i am not talking about true abusive relationships and crimes]. We live in the real world, with real responsibilities and you are what you make yourself.

Oh you big meany. I am not. You are.By the way fringe boy, I am not nor have ever consider myself or the modern Church persecuted nor a victim, not for lack of clowns who try to make us that. So your wrong on that account, surprize, which make your next claim that I have no credibility, um, what, less than credible? I have nothing in particular against Born-Agains, other than I think that many of you are kind of silly and backwoodish. It just than many/most of the idiotics and bigots who try to attack and demean the Church are Born-Agains, or claim to be. Go into a Catholic or Jewish bookstores and check out how many imbecilic anti-Mormon diatribes have been written by members of their faith. NOt many or any. Then go into a Born-Again shop and try and count all the nasty, lying, twisted filth they right about, oh, anybody who disagrees with their particular brand of watered-down, flavor of the month theolgy. Look on the internet at any anti-Mormon site. See any Episcopals running them? Any Greek Orthodoxs? It's not me you should be whining about. You ought to be complaining about the bigots who give the REAL Born-Again a bad name.

Well if would be fine you that's what you do/did. State the obvious. What you actually do instead is give everything about the Church the same old, disaffected ala Stephen spin - and then try and pass it off as something other that the biased, slanted view that it is.

Well which is it going to be Trident? Either you can't judge whether someone else is born-again or you can? Fisrt you say you can't then you tell Jenda that it nothing more than an emotional experience. Your first guess was right. You have no idea. Just which one of us do you think was mistaking you for a supreme being?

Do you think that the Church controls the University of Utah Press who published the book by that name? I can assure that they do not.Which media outlet are you referring to that tared and feathered us? When did it happen? I can't even remember the tar and I am quite certain that I was involved with any feathers? What society are you talking about that issued a death order? I am aware that Govenor Boggs issued one but I am blissfully unaware of any such order by society or media. You suffer from a false persecution/victim syndrome. My guess is that you have never been persecuted in your life.

Except that bad press or the lack of bad press is not the only drives of membership increases. Theres:-Live births, -good press, -desire for the positive family/social benefits of the Church -the gospel being true -etc.

Better? Yes better though I think the Church disagrees. They agressively fight to protect their image and control the publicity and spin. There's a rumor/myth that whenever the Church receives some onslaught of media/public negative attention that baptisms go up. That may have happened in some cases but I doubt it is the rule.I'm thinking that the Mountain Meadows Massacre or the polygamy trials and government interventions at the turn of the century (last century) really didn't help the Church all that much.

Unless you think that being an all-powerful, all-knowing god doesn't include all three R's: reading, riting, and rithmatic. Grammar school, even in Bethlehem, ain't what it used to be.

Thanks for insulting us yet again Stephen. I thought we were running low on cheapshot and presto, you're here to help out. For you more rational types... its not a matter of embarrassment, but one of being protective of your reputation.

Hi Lurker, I was at the Shipps lecture as well. My wife and I looked all over for you; well, we would have - if we knew you were going, and we knew what you looked like, and if we hadn't snorted all that glue and .... If you were sitting by me you may have heard me chortle loudly when one of the evangelicals asked Dr. Shipps the dishonest question: "What about the Mormon's claim that the blood of Christ isn't enough to cover our sins" right before my wife elbowed me in the side. The Dean that spoke to us Saturday night was the one that invited and hosted Jan Shipps and she was thrilled with the way it turned out. The previous year they had invited one of America's top historians, the LDS scholar Richard Bushman. The turnout for that was so much more than then typically had for regular lectures that they moved the Shipps lecture to the auditorium. If you are asking about the crowd that was there Saturday, we are all LDS or LDS related - a few look a bit fundamentalist (but I don't really know) and some are quite liberal and many of us are orthodox. It is an LDS study group and scholars, authors, poets, historians, general authorities, and the like are invited to address the group every month. Several scholars/authors are regular members of the group. Richard Dutcher is the next scheduled speaker: http://www.mesg.tierranet.com/