AnthonyB

G'day IronLion, I'm Australian but since I'm not LDS, I'm probably not the person to tell you about the LDS church. But I do hope (and pray) that you come to have faith that Jesus is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD (as the intro to the Book Of Mormon says).

rameumptom, Your example of Moses killing is one that I'd query, "Thou shalt not murder" is not the same as not killing. I think David with Uriah is probably a more clear cut case of a murder. But yes the prophets of yesteryear did things that were morally wrong. I could write a long list but drunkeness, lieing, adultery should be enough. Your point about the apostle and polygamy is along the point I was making. By all means follow as diligently as you can a person you believe to be an appointed prophet or leader from God. However they are not God and can lapse, fail or just get God's message wrong. I'm not advocating a disrespectful or arrogant rebuff but rather a loving, honest stand for your convictions. It is far to easy for most Christian when they disagree with their God appointed leadership to just up and move to another church. If we really believe we are all Christians and all part of the one church then we should always seek to move with the approval and blessing of the people whom we have placed ourselves under. I can appreciate the LDS folks seeking to sustain there leadership and although on numerous doctrinal grounds I'm not LDS this is at least something that I applaud in the LDS church about. On a side issue... I have been saddend by applepansy being hurt by some of these posts (on another thread), but I can't do anymore then as lovingly as possible present truth as I heartfeltedly believe it. I know she is unlikely to read this but if she does and any of my posts disconcrted her, then it is only the thoughts of a hopefully sincere non-LDS Christian.

HH, I agree fully with your last post (I have a "normative" view of baptism for remission of sins) but my question still stands, which one of your two baptisms is the "one baptism" of Eph 4:5?

I don't want to get into an unprofitable discussion but I'm curious, what do you make of Eph 4:5 and there being "one baptism"? Sounds like you believe that there are two Christian baptisms. As for those of us who think baptism is an effective expression of faith and not just a pantomine, it isn't about "faith alone" (or "faith from first to last" as I like to say it) but what is "faith". Is it mere mental assent or should it be a full person response to the gospel. Jesus Christ is clearly the centre of the gospel but your question was "Is baptism part of the gospel message?" not "What is the centre of the gospel?" I think... AC 8:34 The eunuch asked Philip, "Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?" 35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus. AC 8:36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?" Jesus is the summary of the whole message, the centre of it and the response is immediate baptism as the expression of faith in Jesus. I'm a little uncertain at your point in your initial post, are you saying the "good news" is only what you get but not how you get it? Surely being told how to receive a gift is part of being able to get the gift?

Hemi, I think that the OP was trying to say that there is no need for a specific prienthood or connectedness with any particular group/church to be the person doing the dunking. He think he wasn't refering to the "dunkee". LDS hold that only baptism performed by a priesthood holder with a true priesthood can do a real baptism. The poster is saying that anyone can do it. (Although I don't agree with the idea that baptism is not part of the gospel. Baptism formed part of Peter's sermon and of mulitple versions of the great commission.)

I believe that you should follow God and someone you believe is a true prophet of God and wholeheartedly at that. Just that if you get what you think is a command that contradicts an already expressed word from God (either directly from God or through a prophet) that you should make sure you really heard God rightly and your motives are pure.

In the light of the idea of always trusting a prophets words, how do LDS see these verses? If you check out Nu 22:1 - 35 But especially 20-22. God tells Balaam to go but is angry with him for going. God has only said go because Balaam really wants to go, else he wouldn't have re-enquired of God. So God tells him to go to teach him a lesson. Balaam should have known that God had already said no to his going and really checked his motives in going before God and asking again, hoping presumeably to maybe twist God's arm into letting him go. Or 2 Chr 18:22 where a prophet deliberately lies until the question is pressed further and it is God who sanctioned what was occurring. IMHO If you need to sometimes go and check the words God is giving us to ensure that our motives in asking are correct or that God doesn't have an alternative reason for allowing us down that path, how much more shouldn't we test the words of a prophet of God.

Maxel, I do actually believe in modern prophecy and modern day prophets. I have a prophetic word spoken to me nearly 20 years ago, which I hold dearly and count as a specific word of God to me. I do realised that LDS do not take every utterance by a prophet as words from the Lord, you do have a vetting process through which it has to pass before being accepted by the church. A prophet cannot just be having a bad hair day, make an on off the cuff remark and change peoples actions or beliefs. However the impression I had from the posters in this thread was that a prophetic word absolves them of moral responsibility before God. That even if they had a testimony or conviction that a prophecy wasn’t from God, God expects them to follow the prophet’s words against their own witness and God will absolve them of any wrong if they do. Prophets do make mistakes (Num 20:7-12) and I’m sure Moses would have thanked the courageous man if he had stepped up and said, "God told you to speak, don’t use your staff." I’m not LDS but I have the distinct impression from other threads that the LDS church today follows closer to the opinions of Orson Pratt then Brigham Young on some particular issues. And to be a little "Burkean", surely you owe a true prophet of God loyalty and respect but not your conscience on an issue. I’m sure I’ve read about several LDS apostle when confronted with polygamy struggled before God about it. They didn’t seem to just say the prophet has spoken, off I go and obey the prophet without gaining a personal testimony that it was true.

Sort of did it in two days, but that was skimming through narrative story looking for doctrinal passages. I wasn't interested in the historical story but what doctrines were being espoused. Can't say I have a great grasp of just how was doing what to whom or how they were related to each other. On the other hand did get a giggle out of several passages which appeared to be addressed quite humorously at certain other groups. The whole election and rameumptom thing could be seen as a very witty jib at Calvinists. ( If you read the BoM as a Gulliver's Travels, aimed at various doctrines and groups.)

PC, Once someone is saved, do you beleive in different rewards based on different levels/types of work? (I'm not talking about the LDS multi-level heaven but that there is a difference in the reward a believer gets determined by their works. That some works/actions will be burned away as dross and some will remain as gold) Misshalfway, Do you love your kids because of what they do or inspite of what they do? If one of your children "prodigalized" (eg became like the prodigal son), does that change your love, does that change your desire for your child? Wouldn't you be waiting with arms outstretched before the child returned to you? No matter what your child don't they remain your child? Now if they rejected you and refued to allow you to help them, then you can't assist them but up to that point you would do all you can. Even if that meant sometimes allowing them to learn the hard lessons from their disobedience. In the protestant veiw, faith makes you a child of God. Once your God's child he is your loving Father. Your kids don't do chores around your house to be your kids but because (hopefully) out of love for you as their parent.In the same way we don't do works to become God's kids but if we truly are God's kids we can't help but help to become like him, in the same way your kids unknowingly adopt many traits and actions from you.

Tolerancegirl, welcome. This is forum has a mix of people on it. (I'm another non-LDS Christian but from a faith tradition that is like PC's sometimes looked on as suspect by others.) Generally we manage to discuss things from our various viewpoints and accept that we just see somethings differently.

I read this quote and quite liked it.... "It isn't faith and works nor faith without works but a faith that works." A faith that compells us to work because the gift we obtain from it is so generous and wonderful that not to respond meaningfully to it would be nearly impossible. Think of the best news you could imagine receiving, (A loved one thought dead in war suddenly found alive, a long desired for pregnancy) whatever that may be for you. Imagine receiving it. Then attempting to not let that news impact who you are. As for God compelling people. Imagine for instance you could compell anyone you wished to be your spouse or friend. Do you think you could remain satisfied with knowing that they had not freely chosen you but you had compelled them to. That you'd never know that if you did give them freedom to choose, if they would choose to still relate to you. Both we and God are relational beings. We crave relationship and relationship seems to require a free will choice to be created. Maybe what your asking is salvation conditional? Are there conditions required for accepting it? The answer for me is yes, faith is an absolute condition of receiving it. (That is as far as PC is likely to go) I would also believe that repentance, confession and baptism are conditions for being saved but they aren't absolute ones. They are conditions for man to obey but God can in his sovereign choice can save without them. However faith is an absolute condition, without it you cannot receive the gift.

Importants things.... Have faith in Jesus redemptive work for me. Don't blaspheme the Holy Spirit. Love the Lord your God. Love your neighbour. Have neither faith plus works nor a faith without works but have a faith that works. Church authorities is primarily Jesus (my eternal high priest) and his teachings as expressed in the NT by him and his original apostles. I'll show respect to elders and teachers and even people I would count as apostles but not at the expense of my own conscience. If I disagree, I will respectfully stand my ground and take the consequences of my disobedience. Hopefully without being too offensive, isn't the concept that following the "prophet" absolves from one from personal moral responsbility to follow God's revealed law problematic. Isn't that how fringe "Mormon" groups justify all sorts of excesses?

Does personages really mean anything different to persons? If the Holy Spirit is a person of God, then everybody that saw the Holy Spirit descend on Jesus has seen two persons of God.

Any number of groups look at the bible and come up with very different beliefs systems. JW's, Christadelphians, World Wide Church of God, Christian Science, The Family (Berg's group), Quakers, Shakers etc etc etc Each of these groups would claim that they have the true understanding of scripture or God's message, just as both LDS and Traditonal Christians do. LDS beliefs do not contradict the Bible when understood solely in terms of their own framework and interpretation. The Traditional Christian belief framework, those common set of interpretations and concepts held largely in common by a broad range of churches have several things going for them. Firstly longevity, most of the concepts go back some way in Christian history. Secondly the number of people who even though they disagreed on many issues still manage to share the core aspects. Thirdly, there have been several groups which stood apart from traditional christianity who have largely returned to more traditonal Christianity. Large parts of the SDA movement are more thoroughly traditional then they once were. A sizable porton of the World Wide Chruch of God have moved to adopt more tradtional thinking. And I'm happy to be corrected by any RLDS (Community of Christ) folk but in a number of areas they too appear to have leaned back to more traditional thinking.

Ugg boots was Australian slang because although there incredibly comfortable they're just plain ugly...

Erik, It isn't me that made a big deal of baptism, its Jesus in the "Great Commission" Matt 28:18-20 and Mark 16:16, Peter in Acts 2:38 etc.... Taking the 1st verse above 1 Pet 3:21, people clearly don't take the time to read 1 Pet 3:20. The symbolism mentioned in the verse is that of Noah's flood waters pointing to our baptism, not our baptism pointing to our real salvation sometime else. If Ephesians really says there is only 1 baptism, then Rom 6:4 and Col 2:12 make a very different case. As for Mark 1:18 it contrasts John's baptism to Christian baptism, which is why the disciples who had already had John's baptism were rebaptised in Acts (in order to receive the Holy Spirit.) My personal experience is not greatly different from yours but if scripture and experience don't match, then for me its an issue. I see baptism as the central point of the salvation process, what happens before is God in his graciousness takes the wil of obedience to baptism somehow in lieu of the act and bestows before the real event occurs. Anyway I will desist and stop pestering you, and rather rejoice that you have obeyed Jesus command.

Erik, So which baptism is Eph 4:5 talking of when it says there is "one" baptism? There is no textual problems in the text. (Well a very small issue at the end of verse 6) "One body and one spirit, just as also you were called in one faith when you were called. One lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and father to all, who [is] near all and through all and in all." I can't think you'd want to affirm there is two of any of the others, so why decide on two baptisms? Clearly the writers of Nicea saw one baptism which did both of what your two baptisms do. I could you give a page of quotes from Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Augustine, Aquinas and Luther on the topic but I'll quote Zwingli himself....."In this matter of baptism all the doctors have been in error from the time of the apsotles." So on what basis do you decide on two baptisms? You have IMHO scripture, creed and the full weight of church tradition for 1500 years against you. If your asking what this has got to do with your original post, in part it is where I think the reformation got it wrong.

This is a big question...especially for someone from my faith tradition. We set out to re-unify the church around the NT alone, drop the creeds and traditons then go back to the bible and everyone could be one church. Of course the question is who gets to decide what the bible means. We set out membership of the church as one confession "Jesus is Lord" and one act "baptism". I truly believe that Jesus and the NT clearly intends their to be one body that is clearly identified as one church. Clearly the christian church is not that and that IMHO is clearly a sin. However their are significant difference between churches, which many hold as essential doctrines. It would be equally as sinfully to demand someone gives up what they believe is crucial doctrine. I think we all have to prayerfully and carefully consider what really is essential doctrine and practice for christians. However the question that I have is what would one church be like, how would we form it and just what would it mean to local congregations? IMHO it has to be something that God brings about and not merely an initiative of men. What form it takes and how it forms may well surprise us all. I do think we have to distinguish between people who attend churches that have the essentials of the message and practice right, and those that have some of the gospel but have it mingled with wrong teaching and practice. Some will saved with the help of thier church and some savced almost despite their church. I know something that would likely lead to the creation of one church again. Severe persecution of all christians. If we are all facing death for our faith in Jesus, at that point we may care somewhat less for finer points of doctrinal difference and reach out in the common bond of our faith in Jesus.

Justice, Humourously, I'm packing up and moving to SLC, there I'll form a company and only employee LDS. Who I won't have to pay because (or at least I think it sounds like your saying) their church has told them to believe that work doesn't obligate the need for payment. I think the issue between us is possibly semantic because I would agree broadly with your breakdown of those verses. "Work" however can have several meanings. 1) In physics it has a very specific meaning. 2) Sometimes we use it to distinguish between paid employment and other tasks we do. 3) Othertimes it is used to mean any tasks that involves us doing things. When you ask someone, "Where do you work?", your asking where do people pay you to do things not where do you any sort of activity that could be broadly seen as work in a more general option 3 type sense. "Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation" When I read the verse above I see Paul defining which version of the term "works" he is using in this discussion and see it as being in category 2 above. When James uses the word works, I think he means option 3 above. Say I'd be happy to say that baptism is a work, in the option 3 sense, as something that I have to do. I'd not think of works in option 2 sense, that is something that obligates God to pay me for doing it. Hemi, Not being LDS, means that I'm not bound to agree with anything anybody in your church says. However I'd still like an answer as to what LDS think is the reason the NT uses baptism as a passive verb?

Paul defines works... RO 4:4 Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:" In Paul's terms it is not any "action" that is a work but actions that obligates payment. Do you demand payment every time you sign a contract? Or for every action you take?!? We don't make a covenant, we agree to the covenant that is offerred. God offerrs a gift but sets conditions on its receiving. If I offered you a gift of a million dollars but insisted that you come to Australia to pick it up, the flight to Australia is not work. It is just meeting the conditions for getting a gift. I'm not obligated to pay you for the trip and the gift is not being given because you made the trip but because I decided to offer you a gift. Gift givers have the rights to set conditions for someone recieving a gift from them. So why do you think repent, confess, believe are active verbs and "be baptised" is a passive verb?

Baptism isn't a work! Firstly it is passive, "be baptized" is a passive verb, it is something that is done to us not something we do. In two senses, someone else dunk us. Secondly all the things attached to baptism are things God does for us not things we do for ourselves. It is god who remits our sin etc. All we supply is faith and a willingness to obey Jesus command. If supplying faith is a work then every single person who has believed in Christ has earnt their salvation. Baptism is an integral part of the expression of faith in the NT, so it is necessary if your wanting to respond to the inivitation of discipleship in Jesus as the NT records it.

Erik, Sorry to be pendantic but the first Christian creed is in the bible. "Jesus is Lord" Rom 10:9 and 1 Cor 12:13. However you have to understand that the Greek word "Lord" is used in the LXX for God (or YHW$) So they would have understood it as "Jesus is Jehovah". Inicidently it is the only creed I hold to be authoratative and infallible. It is not just the "for remission of sins" that is a problem but the "one baptism". Zwinglian baptism suppporters (ie reformed christians) have to have two baptism, a spiritual one and the physical ordinance one, what I include as one baptism with two aspects you have as two distinct and unjoinable things. Problem is that until 1520 when Zwingli thought it up not a single person in the preceeding 1500 years had ever believed that. Zwingli himself admits that not a single "doctor" had seen it his way, not Tertullian, Justin Matyr, Augustine or Luther. There is not the slightest support for Zwingli baptismal solution before he thought it up. No creed, no council, no theologian had ever attempted to deny that there was "one baptism".

This is for Non-LDS posters (or LDS who really want to participate)...I know that LDS doctrine and tradtional Christian doctrine differ somewhat. However when I was reading the Book of Mormon, there wasn't much that if I veiwed from traditional veiwpoint couldn't be fit inside a traditional (non-LDS) Christian viewpoint. For instance the BoM gives IMHO clearer trinitarian verses then the NT. So could people list any BoM verses that would might be incompatible with NT teachings. For instance some object to... "For we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do" (2 Nephi 25:23). But for me it could be veiwed as saying, despite our best attempts (and God expects our best), we still need grace to be saved. Or as in the Keith Green's song, "Just keep doing your best and pray that its blest and Jesus takes care of the rest." Non-LDS can give verses they think contradicts traditional Christians theology in the BoM. LDS can give verse that express LDS truths in the BoM that you don't think traditional Christians could accept.

Erik, The only (major) church that believes in baptismal regeneration is I believe the Roman Catholics, that is the baptism in and of itself remits sins. Although the Christian movement that I align with has been accused of teaching baptismal regeneration, I believe that is a false charge. I affirm that it is faith from first to last that obtains for us justification through the blood of Christ. Baptism without faith is just taking a bath. One of my faith movements’ wording has been "justification through faith at baptism". The NT links baptism to "remission of sins" because baptism is an integral part of a truly faithful response to the gospel. The NT doesn’t encourage people who believe in Christ to come to the front, raise a hand, make a private prayer or write in a response book. Although all of things can be valid first steps on the path of faith, the NT places baptism as the initiation ceremony of Christian faith. Take the time to read Acts and list what people do in and around their Christian conversion. Jesus words in the Great Commission, Peter at Pentecost, Ethiopian eunuch, the Philippian jailer, Saul/Paul (Or the already baptised disciples of John, who were rebaptised). In the NT, Baptism is part of faiths response to the gospel. The answer to what must I do to be saved, isn’t "repent, confess, believe and when you get around to it be baptised". It also isn’t "repent, confess, believe and once you’re a Christian then you should think about being baptised to obey Christ". Baptism is either among the things people are commanded to do upon receiving the gospel or where it isn’t explicitly commanded it is actually what they almost always immediately do when receiving the gospel. However I see God as having given the church baptism as a gift not a burden. It was designed to give us a physical, public and symbol drenched (if you pardon the pun) act to root our response to the gospel, not as a "shibboleth" to judge and condemn others who disagree with what I think the NT says about baptism. OK back to the creeds…. If your saying the creeds are an authority that can assist us in understanding from what viewpoint the Church universally looked at Scripture but your willing to walk away from the creed when it does not follow Scripture then that to me is reasonable. However please keep in mind that wasn’t what the creeds were created for or how they were used for most of their history. They were historically "rods of iron" used by states and state churches for beating people who couldn’t affirm every last words in them and used to divide and judge fellow Christians often on issues where the bible simply isn’t as clear as the creeds make it out to be. Sorry I’ll try to respect the creeds as important historical documents but the blood of so many innocent people that is directly the result of how the creeds were put to use inflames my response. I am acutely aware that for much of history and in much of Christendom, beliefs I hold dearly would have led to my persecution and the objects that would have been used against me are those very creeds and councils.