Denominations?


AnthonyB
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi jms.mills--

Regarding who I would consider to be "in the category of believers in Christ" as you put it, I would answer all Christians. And a Christian is someone who worships Jesus as God.

You can come up with a million what-if scenarios and ask me whether such a person is really a believer in the God of the Bible. I don't think it's worth time to play that game. We can judge bad fruit, of course, including theology that openly contradicts Scripture. But ultimately only God can discern the human heart.

--Erik

Edited by ErikJohnson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Here is some verses from Acts 12;

Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. 20 And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the LORD Jesus. 21 And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord. 22 Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch. 23 Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord. 24 For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord. 25 Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul: 26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

-Carol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can come up with a million what-if scenarios and ask me whether such a person is really a believer in the God of the Bible. I don't think it's worth time to play that game. We can judge bad fruit, of course, including theology that openly contradicts Scripture. But ultimately only God can discern the human heart.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truth is always difficult to deal with, especially when we are seriously invested on a position contrary to it. Regardless of whether we know it or not.

I tend to avoid the theological arguments since I rather concentrate on what God hs revealed to me personally thru the Spirit. The issue at hand is simple. Either Joseph saw The Father and The Son or not. The evidence for the Book of Mormon rests within the pages of the book itself. We invite ALL to search and inquire of God, who is the creator and arbiter of ALL truth if such testimony as the one we bare is also true.

According to Jesus, He is the way, truth and light. Jesus revealed Himself, we can all read the testimony of Jesus Christ in the Bible. It was the Holy Scriptures that foretold Him and it is the Holy Scriptures that reveal Him as well, but it is the Holy Spirit by which God allows us to see Jesus for Who He is and understand Him and His teachings. Jesus never taught the disciples to expect direct revelation, but that the Holy Spirit would cause them to remember what He had taught them. The Holy Spirit enlightens the words of Jesus Christ, but Jesus also spoke plainly on many things to reveal the true doctrine of God.

As such, and according to the teachings of Jesus Christ in the Holy Scriptures, the matter is to keep to what He said and do it because you believe He is who He said He is, that if He is your Lord, you will do what He said. "Blessed is he who hears and does" is the message of Jesus.

So the message of Jesus Christ is not to worry about whether Joseph saw Jesus and the Father, but if Jesus spoke the truth of God and if He told the truth when He said that both His words and the word of God in the Holy Scriptures is imperishable by any means. If Jesus spoke truth, then the matter is to come to know what He taught, not in seeking to add to or take away from what He taught.

Do you do what Jesus said? Do you keep the over 200 teachings of Jesus?

Check it out!

One Disciple to Another

John 14:23,24; "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me."

John 15:9,10; "As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you, abide in My love. If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in in His love."

Luke 24:44-49;

"Then He said to them, ‘These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.’ And He opened their understanding that they might comprehend the Scriptures.

"Then He said to them, ‘Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things. Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high."

Edited by brother01
added a couple of scriptures from web site
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I think you’re mistaken here, JMS. Do you know many Christians? I’ve never heard anyone suggest the intent of Christ and the Apostles was for Christians to divide over matters of doctrine. If you happen to be in (or near) Seattle, I can introduce you to some and you can broaden your perspective, if you’d like.

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?

Good question. The short answer is that we are corrupted by the Fall, sinful in thought, word and deed, and as the KJV put it so well—“we see through a glass, darkly.”

That would bring us to the question that Joseph Smith had: Which church is true?

The one that isn’t made up of corrupted, sinful people—of course! Was Joseph Smith able to start such a church?

;0)

At what point does a theology become heretical?

Another good question. A doctrine is heretical when it contradicts the revealed Word of God. For example, in the 4th century Christians faced dissention regarding the person of Jesus Christ. Some argued that since Jesus was the Son of God and that all sons necessarily have a beginning— Jesus was not Eternal God, but was instead a created being.

Despite the seeming logic of these dissenters, their belief was incompatible with Scripture (e.g., John 1). So Christian leaders called a council, reviewed the arguments, weighed them against the Bible, and issued a statement. The statement (creed) served to officially repudiate the heresy and clarify the doctrine that faithful Christians have held before and since.

Now that’s a pretty big and obvious example. All Christians (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox) are united on the Trinity. The issues that divide denominations in the Protestant world are much less significant than that. For example, Baptists espouse believer baptism. Lutherans, Presbyterians, and others espouse infant baptism. Both make strong, Biblical arguments for their position. And yet at least one of them must be wrong. But does that make them heretics to one another? I think that’s much too strong a term for the disagreement. Despite the difference--they recognize each other’s baptisms. The Presbyterians don’t send missionaries out to convert the Baptists (and vice-versa). They don’t dispute each others membership in the broader Christian Church.

I’m a member at a non-denominational church in Seattle (Mars Hill Church) that is theologically Reformed Baptist. But we view questions like “The Five Points of Calvinism” in an open-handed manner. Prospective members need not subscribe to the Five Points, they only need to be aware of the position of our pastors and agree not to be divisive. Debate and discussion is encouraged. I think that’s a healthy way to look at many of the issues that divide Christians. Some issues are close-handed (e.g., the doctrine of the Trinity) and other issues are open for discussion and study.

Does this make sense?

--Erik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erik,

Do Baptist really recognize infant christianing in the US?

Sorry, didn't mean to be ambiguous. I should have clarified that Baptists accept baptisms performed by Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc. when those baptisms were performed on adults (or children old enough to articulate their beliefs) as happens in the case of converts. If someone was baptized as an infant and goes to a Baptist Church, they may still recognize the baptism if that person's parents were believers (and not just going through the motions out of some misguided sense of tradition) and the person feels that by being "re-baptized” they would be dishonoring their parents.

--Erik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TheLutheran

. . . If someone was baptized as an infant and goes to a Baptist Church, they may still recognize the baptism if that person's parents were believers (and not just going through the motions out of some misguided sense of tradition) and the person feels that by being "re-baptized” they would be dishonoring their parents. . . .

In the Lutheran tradition, infants are baptized and the parents, sponsors (or godparents) and entire congregation pledge to support the child in their Christian education. We view infant baptism as the New Testament version of circumcision from the Old Testament. At the age of about 14, and after completing a course of study of Luther's Small Catechism, these young people reaffirm their baptism and become "adult" members of the church (also called confirmation). We clearly believe in "one baptism for the remission of sins."

Does the Baptist Church actually recognize an infant baptism via the criteria you described -- parents were sincere believers and not wanting to offend the convert's parents?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the Lutheran tradition, infants are baptized and the parents, sponsors (or godparents) and entire congregation pledge to support the child in their Christian education. We view infant baptism as the New Testament version of circumcision from the Old Testament. At the age of about 14, and after completing a course of study of Luther's Small Catechism, these young people reaffirm their baptism and become "adult" members of the church (also called confirmation). We clearly believe in "one baptism for the remission of sins."

Does the Baptist Church actually recognize an infant baptism via the criteria you described -- parents were sincere believers and not wanting to offend the convert's parents?

I can't speak for all Baptists, obviously, but I think that view is pretty common. And we wouldn't use the word "convert" to describe a believing Christian who was raised Lutheran and subsequently became a member at Mars Hill Church. You convert to the Christian faith, not to Mars Hill. Where you choose to gather and collectively worship as a Christian is, I think, largely a matter of individual conscience.

Keep in mind there's no disagreement in the validity of the baptism when the Lutheran Church baptizes an adult (which was my original point, although I didn't qualify it). Afraid I've knocked the thread a bit off track by not being clear on this originally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some LDS posters seem perturbed by denominations; here are some thoughts I’ve had on the topic. It is still a work in progress and I apologize for its length….

I see the redemptive work of God as central to God’s plan. Creation, Fall, Redemption is a recurring theme in the Bible.

God sets up a perfect situation

People mar God’s perfection by allowing sin or its effects to ravage/corrupt the situation.

God redeems. Redemption does not restore or reform but rather transforms the brokenness/failedness into something wonderfully new. (God does not merely remake the broken pot but rather create an exquisite mosaic from it which is far more precious and beautiful then the original.)

God’s plan was for the church to be one, Jesus specifically prayed for it.

Due to brokenness and failings of his people the church failed to remain one.

I think we can all agree the church (the followers of Jesus) is now not one as Christ intended it.

The question then becomes how does God redeem his church? LDS (and other restorationist groups) see this redemption as coming through their church, that they are the redemptive work of God in His Church. IMHO a presupposition of this view is that the redemption will bring a restoration of the “one church” of the NT times. (Through new revelation to restore the original doctrines and practices in LDS case, or a return to NT teachings in church of Christ)

However an alternate view is that the redemption will not just bring a restoration of NT unity but somehow a transformation of our sin of disunity into a blessing to God’s people. That through the redemptive work of God He is transforming our disunity into a diverse unity. That recognizes that we are one church with various expressions.

The biblical/historical example that comes to mind is Babel. People were one nation and through sinfulness God divided people into nations. God in his redeeming nature developed various cultures through which we can glimpse the creative nature of God expressed through these diverse nations. We still sometimes see the negative outworking of this sin in the strife between nations. IMHO God’s answer to this is not that people should become one nation (with a single culture, language and custom). Rather that we should recognize our unity as humans (the beings made in his image) whilst rejoicing in the diversity of our expressions of that humanness.

The parallel to the church is that we were once a single church. We sinned and failed to stay unified. This often led to strife to between Christians. Rather than seeking to return to one church, we should see the redemptive work of Christ in all our churches. We should recognize our unity as disciples of Christ whilst rejoicing in the diversity of our expressions of that faith.

It will come to a single church, single culture, and one GOD, no matter what is currently be seen. Have faith in that GOD, it can be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will come to a single church, single culture, and one GOD, no matter what is currently be seen. Have faith in that GOD, it can be done.

I submit that two of your three (one Church, one God) already exist, and your remaining desire (one culture) is un-Biblical. That last one makes me cringe a bit, suspecting that your cultural reference point may be LDS Utah (white shirts, white faces, organ music, caffeine-free Coca-cola).

Again, I’d encourage you to take a broader, Biblical view of the Church as being the body of Christ to which all Bible-believing Christians belong. See Ephesians 5:23, Colossians 1:24, and 1 Corinthians 12:27. Is there disunity, disagreement, and division in the Christian Church? Certainly. When you read some of Paul's letters--you'll see it's been that way since the beginning. But don’t let the trees block your view of the forest God has created.

;0)

--Erik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you’re mistaken here, JMS. Do you know many Christians? I’ve never heard anyone suggest the intent of Christ and the Apostles was for Christians to divide over matters of doctrine. If you happen to be in (or near) Seattle, I can introduce you to some and you can broaden your perspective, if you’d like.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

My advice is the same to you, JMS, as it was to Hemidakota. I think you’ve gotten so hung up on the trees and their individual differences and imperfections—that you missed seeing the forest altogether.

There’s a lot of people out there, Christians, who are in full agreement that Jesus is the Eternal God, and they worship Him accordingly. And they take the Bible for what it is—the infallible Word of God. That’s an amazing fact, when you stop and think about it. And it demonstrates the Holy Spirit is at work in our world.

But the question, “Which church is true?” is a non-starter. All Christian churches are made up of fallen corrupted sinners who, “See through a glass darkly” (1 Corinthians 13:12). That is the root cause of the differences and arguments we see. You didn’t escape this fact by joining the LDS Church. And ironically, for someone so troubled by inconsistencies, you picked an organization whose theology and doctrines are so conflicted as to be nearly incoherent. (Just try reconciling the Trinitarian statements in the Book of Mormon with what Joseph Smith taught about God(s) in his later years—the Book of Abraham and the King Follett Discourse, for example.)

And regarding your last sentence, JMS, I would submit that Scripture is sufficient for you. Scripture is the revealed Word of God. Scripture is sufficient for you because God is sufficient for you. Suggesting that you need God + Joseph Smith & latter-day prophets diminishes God. If you prayed and got the answer that Joseph Smith’s “restoration” was the solution to denominational differences, a man who taught “Gods” and not God… Please forgive my bluntness, but you dialed the wrong number.

And please accept my apology, as I realize my previous post came across as condescending, especially in light of your history. I often word things poorly and cause needless offense.

In Christ,

--Erik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And please accept my apology, as I realize my previous post came across as condescending

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However an alternate view is that the redemption will not just bring a restoration of NT unity but somehow a transformation of our sin of disunity into a blessing to God’s people. That through the redemptive work of God He is transforming our disunity into a diverse unity. That recognizes that we are one church with various expressions.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest that itis profitable to read the scriptures with a clear and present understanding that even the Hebrews read and understand the OT in a different way. The Hebrwe translation of the Torah reads quite differently, for example, than the KJV.

The Savior pointed again and again to the Hebrews, His contemporaries, that if they read the scriptures they were not understanding them correctly, in the least. The NT comes from the Greek, translated 600 years ago and we are trying to make sense of it with a 21 st Century lexicon. Caution is called for, if not reflection when it comes to interpretation. The myriad of positions and interpretations present across denominations points to the vast differences in positions the same text has for the Christian community.

The Latter day Saints position is quite simple. We have modern revelation and new insights into the scriptures that come from it. Without contention and with all reverence and respect for the position our Christian brothers and sisters have taken on a certain scripture, we invite ALL to search these truth and inquire of God if they are indeed what we declare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I submit that two of your three (one Church, one God) already exist, and your remaining desire (one culture) is un-Biblical. That last one makes me cringe a bit, suspecting that your cultural reference point may be LDS Utah (white shirts, white faces, organ music, caffeine-free Coca-cola).

Gospel culture, my friend. I won't bother posting reams of Bible quotes to prove it because given your knowledge of the Bible, you know that we are to embrace a Gospel culture. If you just can't figure out it out, read 1st Peter Chapter 3.

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gospel culture, my friend. I won't bother posting reams of Bible quotes to prove it because given your knowledge of the Bible, you know that we are to embrace a Gospel culture. If you just can't figure out it out, read 1st Peter Chapter 3.

:D

Perhaps Hemidakota will return to the thread and tell us what he means by "one culture." I don't think his readers would necessarily infer a 1 Peter 3 definition (wives and husbands/suffering for doing good). I'm not sure how you could either--unless you're his evil sock-puppet...

:ph34r:

That's a joke, btw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erik, after the initial period of the millennium, all countries and cultures will begin a merging into one class of people, one language, and finally do away with the hundreds of different cultures. Do you not think that missionary work will end in this telestial world? No! It will continue as we enter the terrestrial state in bringing the righteous from all corners of this globe into the Savior’s church.

Now, isn't the City of Enoch considered one culture, one class of people? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, didn't mean to be ambiguous. I should have clarified that Baptists accept baptisms performed by Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc. when those baptisms were performed on adults (or children old enough to articulate their beliefs) as happens in the case of converts. If someone was baptized as an infant and goes to a Baptist Church, they may still recognize the baptism if that person's parents were believers (and not just going through the motions out of some misguided sense of tradition) and the person feels that by being "re-baptized” they would be dishonoring their parents.

--Erik

Does that include LDS as well....those baptized at 8?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That last one makes me cringe a bit, suspecting that your cultural reference point may be LDS Utah (white shirts, white faces, organ music, caffeine-free Coca-cola).

Don't cringe......some of us drink full flavored Coca Cola and where colored shirts and prefer the piano over the organ. I am guessing that Hemi means a Christ like culture...one of love, respect and reverence of the sacred...one without the profane or pervasive hatred that plagues humanity in this fallen sphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree-as a former Lutheran. Adults that come into the Lutheran Church-and baptized as adults are not baptized by immersion. Water may be poured on their head-but no immersion.

Baptists reject baptism by any other means than immersion.

The Lutheran Sacrament of Baptism is similar to the Catholic Sacrament.

-Carol

Sorry, didn't mean to be ambiguous. I should have clarified that Baptists accept baptisms performed by Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc. when those baptisms were performed on adults (or children old enough to articulate their beliefs) as happens in the case of converts. If someone was baptized as an infant and goes to a Baptist Church, they may still recognize the baptism if that person's parents were believers (and not just going through the motions out of some misguided sense of tradition) and the person feels that by being "re-baptized” they would be dishonoring their parents.

--Erik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does that include LDS as well....those baptized at 8?

No. While LDS use the words of a Christian baptism, they do not have a Christian intent when they baptize. Meaning they do not acknowledge the Triune God (Trinity) of Christianity. LDS do not worship Jesus as the Eternal God, as Christians do. Therefore LDS who convert to Christianity need to be baptized. It's really no different than if they were previously Muslim, Jew, or Atheist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share