the Ogre

Actually, 2Cor 2.11 has nothing to do with what you just said. You are quoting only a sentence fragment again instead of going for the whole thought: First, who is speaking. The L-rd is not the person doing the speaking here. So, who is this "I" in verse 10? Paul of course. So who is this "we" in verse 10? Is it the same as the "ye" in verse 10? What is this "it"? These are some good questions that pertains to the next verse that you are throwing in LDS teeth out of context. This what I am saying, as I have said in the past that you don't read the scriptures appropriately.The "I" is Paul. The "ye" is the Corinthian church. The "we" and the "us" is the body of Chr-st in general. The "it" is sin in general (the "anything" Paul mentions). Paul is saying he forgives the church in Corinth in the name of Chr-st as H-s representative. The reason is given in verse 11: "If I do not forgive you, then Satan will use this as a wedge between the Corinthian church and the body of Chr-st in general." This is a simple explanation and shows easily that you are cherry picking verses to condemn instead of using the language of Paul in context. If there is any deception going on, this is it: quoting a prophet of G-d out of context (and yes, as an apostle, Paul was a prophet, but not the Prophet of the era. That prophet was Peter). So, here again we have to examine the context of the scripture you are using. Who is Paul talking about? In Rom 9.31-33 we find the answer: the Jews. Paul is saying "the Jews" are dying because of their lack of knowledge regarding G-d. I don't mind you using this verse, but this is another example of cherry-picking the scriptures. I do not think you understand the context for what you are saying. This is a problem.I showed how you did this with the Ephesian Verses. You must work in context and look at each section carefully and make sure it does not conflict LDS doctrine. Forgiveness and correct Knowledge are key parts of LDS doctrine and neither of these examples you provided show a clash with the bible. The biggest flags that should be going up is that you cherry-pick the gospel instead of working in context. Cherry-picking is dishonest and highly manipulative.If you want to oppose Latter-day Saints, do so in context and with honesty. Cherry-picking . . . oh, my.

I might be wrong, but I want to try something. AJ: You have brought-up Eph 2.8&9. I think if you do so we better look at Eph 2.10: This is the problem with vs 8 & 9 according to the protestant tradition. They discuss only "by grace are ye saved (8)" and yet in the very next verse do we hear: "workmanship", "unto good works", and "walk in them". This is the divergence with the LDS tradition. We believe that we, the members of the church (and all humanity), are the workmanship of Chr-st: the creation of Chr-st to do work. So then to what work are we to do? "Good works". We believe we were created to do these "good works". That is the ordination we receive: do good works. Why? "That we may walk in them." What does this mean? In our footnotes, we see for the keywork 'walk': "TG Walking with G-d" (the scriptures do not hyphenate). SO with that I turn to the Topical Guide "Walking with G-d" where we see over a hundred references leading through-out the bible much of which refers to salvation. Look at the topical guide contraction for v10: "good works . . . ordained that we should walk in them".So an LDS thinks of this section as three full verses (to only think of this as two verses is incomplete, the sentence begins in verse eight and ends in verse 9, your reference is grammatically incorrect: a sentence fragment and as such is an incomplete sentence -- read the complete sentence as it is supposed to go) saying: we are saved by grace, but we are ordained to work with the warning to avoid pride. The LDS interpretation of this section is different from yours, but we can clearly see that the verses you wanted to use to disprove our "work" is incomplete and still reinforces LDS doctrine.Ephesian still has more to say on this. You question the reason why we would interpret differently than do you. To explain that, I turn to Eph 4.11&14: Paul explained why we need Prophets. You, the disciple of Paul, have selectively forgotten the reason for a prophet: to keep the church from being tossed to and fro with the winds of wild human interpretations through philosophy and deception. AoF#6: "We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth." Why? The world is filled with people who would lead us away from the word of G-d. People who would lead us from our work. People who rely on the philosophies of men forgetting what G-d wanted us to do: accomplish the salvation of all men.You ignore the need for modern revelation and living prophets when Paul was very explicit as to why we need it. If you are such a disciple of Paul, why would you ignore this?

Yes, extensively and for thousands of pages. Did you check out the JST as I requested or are you ignoring another opportunity to learn.I am a member of the Church of J-sus Chr-st of Latter-day Saints and I say that modern prophecy has rendered entire sections of the bible redundant, and yet the bible does not contradict the doctrines of our church. I think you need to do some more work and stop insisting we agree with you and decide to agree to disagree.

You don't go for denominational tags except when you say "Mormonism" above. You have excluded Latter-day Saints from Chr-stianity as a whole. How kind of you. Latter-day Saints do not believe this (see what President Ezra Taft Benson had to say about that here). You might precedence is important, but we do not agree that a prophet needs to seek biblical precidence.But wait a second, this was explained to you already. You have been told how much we value Modern Revelation, but here it seems you have chosen to ignore those previous explanations. Hmmmm . . . I think this is very open to interpretation. One question I think needs to be addressed is: Was Paul talking to the people of his day (ie.. the people of Galatia?!?) who had to deal with competing brands of Chr-stianity, particularly the Chr-tian-Jews who still felt the Law of Moses must be obeyed?I do not think you have allowed for that probability. Not unless you have heard differently from a modern, living prophet. But Paul is no longer the prophet of our day. President Thomas S. Monson is the prophet of our day. It is to him that we must listen to. Paul is great, but we do not expect our sisters to be voiceless and silent in church. We do not require them to remain covered in church as well. The church has changed much from the time of Paul. In our time we have other concerns and as such we must rely on a modern, living prophet. Yes and that would be pride, we have heard quite extensively on pride in our doctrine, but we are still taught by living prophets that faith without works is dead. It is not the baptisms and other commandments that we place our faith. To do so would be idolatry. We are to have faith in our L-rd J-sus Chr-st. Unfortunately, I think the way you read Paul is a matter of personal interpretation. You have not even shown how your interpretation parallels with current non-LDS doctrine anywhere. So far, we have only heard the interpretations of one aj4u. Must every one in the world agree with you? That is quite a bit of pride in the work of your hands. I wonder how the Ephesian verses you quote would coincide with what you are doing now. Right. We believe in being born again, we call it conversion. It is an important part of being a Chr-stian. No amount of ordinance will save a single soul if one does not accept it through faith in J-sus Chr-st. Yup. I agree. Grace is everything. We still believe in works, just like the Baptists and Catholics do. Different works, but still works. I agree.AJ: You still refuse to respect our belief in Modern Revelation and Modern Prophets. I think you need to agree to disagree. We are not going to change and in the same way I can not expect you to. Aaron the Ogre

Wow, that is a long pre-baptism interview. I wonder how many questions there are now? I also wonder if those "deeper" points of doctrine are covered in Preach My Gospel?

So . . . you are saying they were forced to repent? No free will? No opportunity to refuse?

I know you addressed this to Z, I want to point out it is not in a human or human-conception of G-d that you should believe in, it is G-d H-mself.If I were Z, I do not think he would be comfortable with you taking his word or having faith in him. This is the same for every leader of the LDS church. I think they would rather you have faith in G-d rather than in another person.

Okay, I can't answer you about what other people said. There are so many of those other people. I can tell you we do have a far more detailed belief in the preexistence and life before the creation than many other religions and yet it still requires faith that it was G-d who did the creating. Out of respect.

We do not teach for it or against it. I mentioned there is no stated position on it by the church, however I think evolution is an aspect of his question that many atheists question about religion in general: "What is the role of science in your faith?"

Do Latter-day Saints believe in a Physical Eternal Life? Yes we do. We believe J-sus Chr-st was resurrected and has a perfected body (and all the aspects of identity that come with it: race, gender, age, injury, experience, passion, emotion, intellect, and opinion). We believe H- blazed a path so that we can follow. We believe that there will be a time when every person will be resurrected and that each of us that has, has had, and will have a body will be resurrected in to a perfected body that still reflects who we are and gives us limitless prospects in the eternities.

Koizito:Are you asking if we, as Latter-day Saints, accept evolution? If you are, then I would say it is very much a personal decision. There isn't a formal position issued by the church on it (be warned: there are quibble mice out and about). I would say that there are a great many members who are comfortable with evolution, after all G-d does not say how H- created the cosmos. H- only mentions in the OT, Abraham, and Moses that H- did. There are members who are not comfortable with evolution. I'm not sure why, but it might be because some evolutionists have used this theory as an excuse to oppose religion. I do not think evolution and the Genesis account are mutually exclusive. I still do not think evolution has been 100% explored, but then it is a scientific theory that is still quite contentious and controversial amongst the scientific community. Science believes in it, but does not agree yet on how life came about. Science still can not explain how the earth was created, how life was created on the earth or in space, how life creates itself independent of other life, or how we as humans evolved into intelligent, reasoning animals. Because of the amount of doubt on the topic, I am free to be comfortable with both noting the exact process of creation is still unknown to both science and religion. I am also free to be curious, question, and have doubts (particularly about the science aspects of creation as envisioned by imperfect humans). Welcome to LDS.net. I hope you post more and often. Aaron the Ogre

Absolutely.

Yup, I think this one is doomed to be a fast-moving thread.

I'll give him time. Have no fear. He has to show that he is listening and dialoging with us. Did you note PC's post above. He was very clever in opposing both Joseph Smith and aj4u. PrisonChaplain is an honest, intelligent, and welcome discursive partner because he listens.I have hope for AJ, but . . .

Mom:I'm listening to ya. He has time, but I doubt his sincerity, honesty, and willingness to learn. He has never shown this in the past. We'll see. Aaron the Ogre

No, I think they have failed to support your positions. After reading your posts for weeks, I think you will never be satisfied with the LDS position. I think it is important for you to know that because we believe in modern revelation and the importance of a Living Prophet, we do not need to agree with any interpretation of the Bible other than that of G-d's as given by revelation to the Living Prophets. No one needs to justify anything to you. YES!!!!!!!!! How often do people need to tell you. Then you are free to condemn us. The world is free with agency, but I do not think anyone needs to agree with you. I think for starters you need to look at the Joseph Smith Translation of the King James Version of the Holy Bible. We call it the JST. It is footnoted in the Standard Works and other sections are given in the Index. I recommend getting the Standard Works (not the internet version, but a hardcopy version available at any church distribution center).

I think obedience to the church is very important. I think it is something we all struggle with. I no not think the First Presidency trumps the two greatest commandment, because the church follows them to the max.Matthew 20.34-40 34 But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. 35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, atempting him, and saying, 36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. I: The Leaders do the "thinking". "When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan--it is God's Plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give directions, it should mark the end of controversy, God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God (Ward Teachers Message, Deseret News, Church Section p. 5, May 26, 1945)." The problem with this quote is that it was not written by a member of the First Presidency. It was written by a very well meaning member of the church called to assemble a new manual. I like it however. I think it is nice to know the First Presidency has thought carefully about the positions for the church and the direction it must go (see section III below for a modification to this statement by George Albert Smith). II: President Benson's fourteen points (paraphrased): 1) Only the President speaks for the Lord in everything. 2) The living prophet trumps the standard works. 3) The living prophet trumps a dead prophet. 4) The President never leads the Church astray. 5) The prophet may speak or act on any subject or matter regardless of training and credential. 6) The prophet can skip "Thus saith the Lord" to give scripture. 7) The prophet tells us what we need, not what we want. 8) The prophet can ignore the political/philosophical morals of the day. 9) The prophet can function as a prophet on any topic, religious or otherwise. 10) “The prophet may be involved in civic matters.” 11) The proud, rich and/or educated in particular, obey the prophet with the most difficulty. 12) The prophet can spurn worldly popularity. 13) The First Presidency is the highest quorum in the Church. 14) Follow the first presidency and be blessed; ignore them at your own risk. I have always loved this set of guidelines. It is evident many other members of the forum are familiar with it. I think it is a handy guide to know what the prophet and his councelors are free to do. I think many people would love to put the prophet in a box (particularly apologeticists, skeptics, and other scholars). III: We are free to "Think", too. " . . . Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel, must, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, work out his own salvation, and is personally responsible to His Maker for his individual acts. The Lord Himself does not attempt coercion in His desire and effort to give peace and salvation to His children. He gives the principles of life and true progress, but leaves every person free to choose or to reject His teachings. This plan the Authorities of the Church try to follow. "The Prophet Joseph Smith once said: "I want liberty of thinking and believing as I please." This liberty he and his successors in the leadership of the Church have granted to every other member thereof. "On one occasion in answer to the question by a prominent visitor how he governed his people, the Prophet answered: "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves." (President George ALbert Smith, Letter to Dr. J. Raymond Cope, Dec. 7, 1945)" I love this section. I am free to think about what ever the church has to offer. It is very important to me. Not thinking would be impossible. Please note, I do not think this statement is in opposition to the two sections above it. Many members have used it as such (particularly with section I). I appreciate learning principals and governing myself, but I also know the church is going to be right and I need to make sure I am there with them even if I have thought out every pronouncement knowing the implications for each. As for your OP, they are Matt 20.37&39 and Joseph Smith's "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves". The two of these are great governing principals that govern my life.I am a free-thinking, stubborn, and willful person who has little time for apologetics and skeptics. I am not going to allow them to think for me. If I'm not the one thinking, I will always leave the work to the First Presidency. It is then up to me to conform myself. Sorry about the very long post.

I am a bit concerned here. AJ, I think this thread is going to be closed for the same reason the other was. The OP was about the Telestial and the Terrestrial Kingdoms, if you are going another direction then you are highjacking the thread. That would be one of the methodologies that perfectly describes your type of postings. If you do not, I believe this thread will be closed instead of discussing quite an interesting and informative subject.

Oi . . . sometimes devil's advocacy can go too far (tho, that was funny).

As a vet, I always am thankful for the young people who serve, who stand on that far wall and defend us. They are remarkable people who deserve our appreciation and our thanks. To the members of our forum who are in the military, I really want to thank you. You are fantastic. Thank you so very much.

I hate to quibble, but I think switching "receive" with "accept" might work a tad better.PS: anyone who quotes that parable is missing the intent of the S-vior and to whom he was speaking.

Terri: Welcome to LDS.net. Have fun posting here and getting to know people. Aaron the Ogre

Dravin:I think you are making loads of sense. I differentiate between the two. I, like everyone else, have done the same. However, there are many who have experienced racism so often they are unwilling to make exceptions equating extreme racism with accidental, incidental racism. I think purging oneself of every type of bigotry is important. We are not supposed to feel ill of another person. It is hard. Since 1978, in my opinion, there is nothing that would preclude anyone from the celestial kingdom as long as they participated in every temple ordinance. Even those who have blazed the trail before that time and died, their temple work may be done. The biggest problem is that many of the old talks (by Bruce R. and Brigham Young) still haunt the paths of those who are in interracial marriages. I was once encouraged to seek a divorce to amke sure I will be able to receive celestial glory. I'm divorced now, but that divorce was because of infidelity and desertion. After fourteen years, I think we had overcome all the racists (even though a new one or two would pop-up every year, we just learned to avoid them). I think Italics and I only wanted some type of clarity. Aaron the Ogre

I agree with you, but people in interracial relationships often hear otherwise. That is what we are discussing.

PC, you bring up a good point. We had this fight on another thread a couple of years ago. I posted on it extensively. That thread caused me to review my beliefs on the matter. I have not corrected anyone on it in a long time. I just hate it and that is my problem. News organizations, however, get e-mails every time I see it. In the last month I have emailed Wolf Blitzer and the Guardian's ombuds-person. I think the news needs to discontinue focusing on the religions of criminals and focus on their crime. Activism like this works. No one ever mentioned that Bernie Maddoff was a Jew except to say most of his victims were Jews. If it worked for the Jews, then why not Latter-day Saints. I do not think anyone's religion is a matter for public debate unless the person in particular makes it so (Mitt and his mormon-speech qualifies). What happened to Obama was wrong as well and did much to further drive me and many others away from the GOP. Religion is a personal, private affair and should be treated as such unless the person in question make religion important.