jms.mills

.... Or the Bible for that matter. There are times when God (for a reason that may be beyond our comprehension) asks a person or group of people to kill fellow human beings. Those who choose to kill another human will face the judgment of God. He will determine if the killing was murder or not. I am sure there will be many who fought on the "Allies" side in WWII who will be judged as murderers (because they killed for pleasure or hatred) , just as there will be those who fought on the "Axis" side who will not be guilty of murder (because the honestly felt as thought they were protecting their families/country). It comes down to individual intent. The Gospel clearly teaches that we are all individual agents. We cannot blame others (parents, leaders, etc.) for our own actions. JMS

I am just curious, why does it matter which language that was spoken by the Early Church? Why is Latin considered sacred? Why not Greek? Why not Aramaic? Other ancient languages used in Early Church writings? Could Hebrew be considered sacred as well, considering this was the language of the ancient Israel (unless I am mistaken regarding this point)? Were not the ancient followers of the Old Testament teachings followers of Christ (if they looked forward to the coming of the Messiah, eagerly waiting for the redemption he would bring to fallen mankind)? I cannot wrap my mind around why one language or another would be sacred (except possibly for the inaudible, undeniable language of love). I respectfully disagree that "ALL" members of the Early Church spoke Latin. That just does not jive with my limited understanding of history. A similar logic would state, "Everyone in the United States speaks English." If one would agree this statement is inaccurate, why would one believe that all early Christians spoke Latin? Am I misunderstanding your statement? Please clarify anything I may misunderstand.JMS

Where do you think Zombie stories come from???

The definition from the link you provided stated that the English word "only" was a translation ofGreek work "monos." Here is the definition for those who did not click the link: monos -- 1) alone (without a companion), forsaken, destitute of help, alone, only, merely I think this definition fits perfectly with the LDS concept of the Godhead. As I stated before, Christ is saying that we should value God's opinion over the opinion of men. It seems to me Christ is not trying to define the nature of God in this message. To force the doctrine of the trinity into this passage is, in my opinion, trying to force a square peg into a round hole. There are numerous other scriptures which justify the LDS view of the Godhead.I am not sure if that answered your question. Please ask for clarification if needed. JMS

Erik, does this mean that doctrine in your particular congregation is based on popular rule? Where is the authoritativeness you frequently espouse? In your post, is seems you have a somewhat diminutive view of those with a "hard-line" view, that they are somehow not as enlightened as the majority. How do you know the minority group has the incorrect stance; or, for that matter, how do you know the "majority" view is correct? If you say, "There is no "correct" view." Why are you reluctant to take a firm stance on doctrine? Is doctrine intended to be pushed around like dust in the wind, blowing to and fro, back and forth, based on the stronger wind currents at any given time? This kind of bickering within the "mainstream" Christian community is one of the reasons I am thankful for the restoration of the Priesthood. Through this priesthood, all debates regarding doctrine can be ended. You never answered the question I posed earlier: Did Christ or the Apostles intend for their words to be interpreted in a myriad of different ways in order to justify difference in doctrine? Remember, Paul constantly corrected variants of the Gospel message. There can only be one true intent of Scripture: the original. Just trying to understand your viewpoint:confused: JMS

I think the culture that others have alluded to is the list of attributes members of the Church of Christ should collectively have (1 Peter 3:8-17): 8) Be of one mind -- take care of your neighbor as you would take care of yourself (the golden rule) 9) Do not retaliate (evil for evil), God has a better plan! 10) In order to live a good life, one must speak kindly towards and about others (in my opinion this would include use of profanity) 11) Stay away from evil. Instead, surround oneself with and pursue only positive, holy influences. 12) The Lord will only answer the prayers of the righteous. If you want God on your side, walk in righteousness. 13-14) What's the worst that can happen to you if you are followers of Christ? Do not worry about the things of this life you cannot control. 15) When people ask, "Why you are happy?" Tell them your happiness is due to the Lord's many blessings in your life! 16-17) Even though people may speak ill of your testimony of Christ, Heavenly Father will reward those who are faithful to that testimony (compared to those who are not faithful). That was, of course, my take (I am sure there are those who would interpret these scriptures differently). Who would not want to be part of a culture which had these principles at their core? Saying that one must be part of a culture that listens to the same music, all one race, is not what means to be of one culture (in the Gospel context). To be of one culture means to have the same world view: We are all children of Heavenly Father; as such, we must treat one another with respect and dignity. Music, literature, language, skin color, etc. are insignificant in the larger picture.That is my take. God Bless, JMS

Which version are you using? The KJV says this in John 5:44 "How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only." There is just a slight wording difference, but I think these two short phrases can change the entire meaning of the verse. In my opinion, the difference between "only God" and "God only" is vast.Based on context of the sermon Jesus is giving, I believe Jesus is saying we should be looking for God's approval not the approval of men. I hope that made sense. JMS

I know many will see my next question as negative. This is an honest question. Hopefully I can receive an honest answer. How do "mainstream Christians" rationalize the above statement with Scriptures such as Matthew 7:13-14? "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Just curious?JMS

I too have the ability to word posts poorly. I did not feel as though you were beating up on me individually. I realize you do not agree with we LDS, and I do not agree with the premise that the Bible is infallible. I take no personal offense from your comments, I just have a different opinion. I look forward to future discussions. Hopefully we can keep future posts on the positive side(I know I have been guilty of being somewhat negative too). God Bless! JMS

Eric, Yes, I know many people from different denominations who profess to be Christian (LDS profess to be Christians too). I grew up in various Pentecostal churches; and, I have attended several Baptist churches as well. In addition, virtually all of my extended family, as well as many of my closest friends, profess to be Christians. I am sorry, but did you think that all LDS live in isolated religious islands (I am sorry if this sounds sarcastic, but I really do wonder what you think)? I ask my questions from personal experience (not to attack any individual person). I sat through countless Pentecostal Sunday School classes and sermons as a child hearing Sunday School teachers and ministers teach lessons regarding why "we are right" and "the other churches are wrong" (I am not saying this was in every class and sermon, but was a not-so-rare subject). Specifically, why speaking in tongues is a sign of a "true" believer (there were other doctrinal differences discussed too). Then, when I decided to attend a Baptist church as a young adult, I met with the pastor of the church to discuss the doctrinal differences between general Baptist beliefs and general Pentecostal beliefs (I wanted to hear for myself what a Baptist believed, not simply taking someone else's word about what a Baptist believed). I was disheartened to hear once again this minister more or less say, "we are right and they are wrong." Both Pentecostal and Baptist churches use the same Bible, yet they have different doctrines, based on the Bible. Some, including yourself, may say these differences in doctrine may be insignificant. There can only be one "correct interpretation" of the Bible. To say that there can be many different interpretations of biblical passages effectively removes the authoritativeness that you (and others) declare is found in the Bible. Are you willing to say that Christ or the Apostles had multiple meanings built into their messages? I stand firm in my conviction that the true church must be centered around a unified doctrine. I came to this conclusion long before I became LDS (I have been a member for almost two years now). After seeing the divisiveness for myself, I simply could not and cannot believe that God could be the author of divisiveness. The only way to settle the differences between the denominations is to go to the source, God. Joseph Smith (I know you will sneer) prayed and received the answer to these differences. I too prayed and found resolution to my question. Justification by the scriptures alone is simply not enough. So, we could argue back and forth until we are blue in the face. Arguing about this subject will not change the mind of someone who already has their mind made up. In my opinion, the simple fact remains: if you want to know the truth regarding which church is true, you must go to the source. You must pray. Only Heavenly Father, the originator of all pure doctrine, can give you your answer if you ask with sincere intent and are willing to listen to His reply. Studying the scriptures (including the Bible) is important. However, the scriptures are only words -- which can, have, and will be twisted by men to suit their selfish purposes. I will agree to disagree with you on this issue. I wish you the best in your spiritual journey through this life. Respectfully, JMS

It is funny you mention this scripture. I was watching a documentary on the Early Church last night. They mentioned the same bit of Bible trivia... just thought I would say thanks for the repetition... it will help me cement this information in the ol' memory bank.

I could not agree more. Yet, I still believe there are many individuals out in the Christian world who still have a hard time believing that Christ's original intent was to have one church, united under one doctrine. Paul made it extremely clear that there was room for only one doctrine in the early church. If it was the case then, why is that not the case now? That would bring us to the question that Joseph Smith had: Which church is true? Regarding your comment about "theology that openly contradicts scripture," this argument has been batted around for centuries between many, many denominations. So, if this is your argument against the LDS theology, are you willing to consider other "denominations" heretical as well (you seem to imply that LDS doctrine is heretical)? At what point does a theology become heretical? Who draws that line? (The obvious answer is God) However, who on this earth can draw that line? If there is such a person, how and why do they have the authority to declare one doctrine or another heresy? As I agreed with you earlier, I believe only God can judge a man's heart. I do not declare other churches heretical. Just the opposite. I understand that many other churches are full of honest people who are doing their best to live a Christ-centered life. This does not conflict with my belief that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Days is the true Church of Christ, as originally established by Christ himself. Respectfully, JMS

Social Worker (for individuals with disabilities) Married -Education: 3 -- everyone must learn a skill in order to survive -Wealth: 1 -- wealth is temporary -Marriage: 5 -- I would not be the person I am today without my wife -Children: 3 -- Children are a blessing, but I can only handle a few -Religious Belief: 4 -- Religion is important, but it is what you do with those beliefs that matter. -Friends/Relationships: 3 -- We cannot do everything by ourselves, but at the same time I think we need to be able to be independent if the need arises. -Lucky Breaks: 5 -- I know there are many times I probably should have died while riding my motorcycle. Thrifty, Diligent, Consistent I would say that these individuals have spent so much time on one endeavor that they have lost touch with other aspects of life (i.e. family, hobbies, recreation, friends/family, health). My highest priority is to give all I can to those I am around. Give my employer the best work I can, give my family all the love I can, and give to those who are less fortunate. -My family loves me. -I hope others remember me as a person who tried to help out where needed. -I hope my wife is more in love with me as the day we got married. I would rather work in a job that is emotionally rewarding than work in a job that pays well if it means I get to spend more time with my family. As long as the bills get paid, that is all I really care about. Be in debt to no one. If you feel like you owe someone or something part of your life (time, money, energy, etc.), you can never be yourself. I like to "go with the flow." In my experience, the more you try to force something to happen, the more it fails. So, my career is light years away from where I wanted to go when I was in high school. I got married sooner that I was planning because I found the woman I just could not pass up. Leaving my family alone. I hate being alone, so I never want them to be alone, especially my wife. I do not know the answer to that. I think it is like trying to explain what a bar of chocolate tastes like. The only way to understand is to taste it. As said above, if someone has not "tasted" God, then they cannot believe. Some may have tasted, but do not recognize the taste. Trial by fire. I think many people in times of trouble. Others may see God in the blessings he bestows... it is an individual experience. Miracles are simply phenomena that we cannot fully explain. These could be the "biblical" miracles (i.e. raising the dead, healing the sick, parting the Red Sea, etc.), but there are also miracles in nature (i.e. gravity, birth, light, etc.). Abortion is killing an innocent life. I love to go fishing. At the same time my heart sinks when I end the fish's life before it becomes a meal. If I feel this way about a fish, then how much more guilty would I feel if the potential for human life was ended by my action? I would tell my child to listen to their gut. I believe that each of us knows what is right and wrong. It is up to us to make the right decisions. When a person's life ends, they go to a place where they realize that mortality was just the beginning. The beginning can mean something different for each of us. Charity -- giving unselfishly to others. What holds the earth into orbit? I would want to find a way to end the excessive wasting of resources (myself included).

sorry.. double post

I do not disagree that the church is the figurative body of Christ. I only seek clarification on who (in your line of reasoning) you would include in the category of believers of Christ. There could be many different ways in which a person could "believe." For example (this list is by no means conclusive): 1) One person may say a believer is one who simply acknowledges the existence of Christ (knowledge of Christ) 2) Another may say that a believer must follow the teachings of Christ (works). Then again, one must be able to define what teachings one must follow (another discussion... for anther thread). 3) Still some may say that one must acknowledge the divinity of Christ and realize that he/she is a sinner and requires the atonement that Christ paid to be free from those sins. (faith). 4) Member of a certain religious organization 5) Or, a combination of any of the above. Personally, I feel that a person must acknowledge that Christ is his/her Savior, and follow the teachings of Christ to the best of their knowledge and ability. As to what those teachings are... that is another discussion. In my opinion, as long as an individual is honestly trying to follow the teachings of Christ (as they understand them) then they are true believers. Then, the individual must ally themselves to an organization, so they can commune with other believers. In the end, only the individual and God knows the inner heart and intentions of one's soul. That said, the early church was organized as one "body." There were no divisions at that time. Any divisions/conflicts that did arise were met with quick and firm correction (hence, the reason many of Paul's letters to clarify doctrine). In the context of the early church, the body was, indeed, "all believers" of Christ. Today, I do not feel that verse has near the same application that it did when Paul penned his letters. If you are trying to say that Paul is somehow allowing/dismissing denominational differences in this verse(s), this is where I disagree. To say that Paul is condoning a denominational fracture of the church, in my opinion, would be taking the scripture(s) out of context. I am misunderstanding you? JMS