Denominations?

[ErikJohnson]

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

If someone converted to Christianity as an adult at a Lutheran Church and came to Mars Hill (which is non-demoninational but theologically Reformed Baptist) there would be no need for a re-baptism. Immersion is how we preform baptisms, but it really isn't viewed as essential, and indeed, sometimes medical reasons prevent this from happening. And I know because I do interviews of perspective members.

That said, I've no doubt there's someone out there who takes a hard-line view of this, but that would be a minority view.

[abqfriend]

Thank You for clarifing that you attend a non-denominational church that is Reformed Baptist in theology.

Here is the Southern Baptist Position:

"Baptism & the Lord's Supper

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water. …It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus"

Source : About Us - Basic Beliefs

The Southern Baptist and most Baptist Churches require Baptism by immersion only.

The Reformed tradition of John Calvin allows for baptism by other means.

-Carol

If someone converted to Christianity as an adult at a Lutheran Church and came to Mars Hill (which is non-demoninational but theologically Reformed Baptist) there would be no need for a re-baptism. Immersion is how we preform baptisms, but it really isn't viewed as essential, and indeed, sometimes medical reasons prevent this from happening. And I know because I do interviews of perspective members.

That said, I've no doubt there's someone out there who takes a hard-line view of this, but that would be a minority view.

[bytor2112]

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.

At Mars Hill or other "Christian" orthodox churches....who has the authority to baptize. Your pastor? Members? We allow as LDS that other faiths are Christian, perhaps in a spirit of respect you could allow that we are indeed Christian and strive to live Christian lives, imperfect though we may be......we have doctrinal differences for sure.

[abqfriend]

The LDS Church accepts only their baptism and none other.

-Could the LDS Church also make a step toward coming together by accepting the baptism of other Christians?

At Mars Hill or other "Christian" orthodox churches....who has the authority to baptize. Your pastor? Members? We allow as LDS that other faiths are Christian, perhaps in a spirit of respect you could allow that we are indeed Christian and strive to live Christian lives, imperfect though we may be......we have doctrinal differences for sure.

[Hemidakota]

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.

Hmm....I do worship Him as an eternal GOD and I am LDS.

[Hemidakota]

The LDS Church accepts only their baptism and none other.

-Could the LDS Church also make a step toward coming together by accepting the baptism of other Christians?

Why do you think the LDS church accepts know other baptism? :)

[abqfriend]

It believes other Baptisms are Invalid and not in keeping with LDS doctrine on the subject.

Why do you think the LDS church accepts know other baptism? :)

[bytor2112]

The LDS Church accepts only their baptism and none other.

-Could the LDS Church also make a step toward coming together by accepting the baptism of other Christians?

Yes it is true....Priesthood Authority. The RCC is the same as LDS isn't it? I have no problem with the baptism issue...but I do have an issue with not being referred to as a Christian....wouldn't you?

[ErikJohnson]

Thank You for clarifing that you attend a non-denominational church that is Reformed Baptist in theology.

Here is the Southern Baptist Position:

"Baptism & the Lord's Supper

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water. …It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus"

Source : About Us - Basic Beliefs

The Southern Baptist and most Baptist Churches require Baptism by immersion only.

The Reformed tradition of John Calvin allows for baptism by other means.

-Carol

I'm poking around a bit myself, now. It's certainly clear the SBC baptizes by immersion and requires "re-baptism" in the case of a sprinkled infant or child. But I don't see where the question of a believing adult who was baptized by aspersion is directly addressed. Do you have a link that specifically addresses that scenario?

It's an interesting tangent. I'm willing to concede I may have picked a poor example to illustrate my point...

[ErikJohnson]

Hmm....I do worship Him as an eternal GOD and I am LDS.

You need to drop that indefinite article "an"--because your usage implies polytheism (or special definitions)

What do you say, Hemidakota?

[Hemidakota]

Exactly....how many members of the Godhead are there?

[Hemidakota]

It believes other Baptisms are Invalid and not in keeping with LDS doctrine on the subject.

Not having the appropriate authority from GOD. This would make baptism invalid if one wants to enter into the Celestial Kingdom.

[ErikJohnson]

Exactly....how many members of the Godhead are there?

Christians believe in One God of three Persons, as you've no doubt heard already.

But I'm actually not sure I know how you would answer the same question. So keep indulging me, Hemidakota. How many members (Gods) are in your Godhead (council, as I've heard it described)?

--Erik

[Hemidakota]

Not all Christians dominations stated in the last post do believe in the catholic trinity theory. Yes! I mean theory since I use to be a Catholic.

I do "KNOW" there are three. Now, what do you say?

[abqfriend]

Which denominations?

Catholic doctrine on the Trinity-is considered as doctrine by my church.

You may view it as a theory, but my Church tells me otherwise.

It is OK that we disagree.

-Carol

Not all Christians dominations stated in the last post do believe in the catholic trinity theory. Yes! I mean theory since I use to be a Catholic.

I do "KNOW" there are three. Now, what do you say?

[Hemidakota]

Carol, have any of those clerics made the attempt to ask GOD if this is correct? Simply put - - no! Why not?

On another thread, Finnian talked about this problem, of those who follow blindly without seeking their personal revelation. I did and left the church. If not Carol, remember Luther, when he began question the doctrines of the church?

[abqfriend]

My previous question was not answered.

I am a former Lutheran-Missouri Synod-who converted to the Catholic faith-so I know know about Luther and other reformers and the coruption and politics of the Church at that time.

Luther indeed had a right to question some of the things going on at that time.

There was much coruption-and also there was politics on both sides.

The Catholic Church may not have been right for you-but it is right for me.

-Carol

Carol, have any of those clerics made the attempt to ask GOD if this is correct? Simply put - - no! Why not?

On another thread, Finnian talked about this problem, of those who follow blindly without seeking their personal revelation. I did and left the church. If not Carol, remember Luther, when he began question the doctrines of the church?

[Hemidakota]

And there is nothing wrong with that Carol. You are indeed blessed.

[ErikJohnson]

I do "KNOW" there are three. Now, what do you say?

Yes, I know you "know" there are three. But please forgive me, Hemidakota, for suspecting your answer may be ever-so-slightly disingenuous.

Do you also think there might be 4 “members” (God has to have at least one wife, right—and you have no rationale for excluding her from the Godhead/council, do you?). So maybe it's three plus a few more, right? Maybe quite a few more. And there are potentially other dominions outside our own universe that likewise have Gods too, right? I think these may even be referenced in a popular LDS worship song ("Praise to the Man"), it says he's now "mingling with Gods," right?

Maybe, if you were being completely candid with us, you would have to answer your own question by telling us you have absolutely no idea, because the true number of Gods (and Goddesses) that make up your Godhead or “council” hasn't actually been revealed.

Am I on to something here, Hemidakota? Or have previous encounters with defenders of the LDS Church just made me paranoid about the answers they give…

;0)

[Hemidakota]

No Erick! You assumed too much here I do see. Is this a personal weakness? Erick, what is needed for our salvation as a testimony of the Godhead? God the Father, Jesus the Christ [HIS Son], and the Holy Ghost. Is there anything else beside that, we are required to know? No! If there is additional revelation given, whether it is doctrines, principles, visions of grandeur, GODS or GODESSES, or other universes, it will directly come from the Godhead in person to that individual in order to promote his/her edification. This maybe new to you seeing you are not a member but it seems from what I am reading, apparently, you should stay away from judging those that you have no personal knowledge about. Is this a correct assumption to make? I have already received my answer did you? To remind you, it was confirmed by the Holy Ghost. This is something you cannot fake or pretend to feel. :)

Getting back to your candidness, did you in fact, ask the Godhead about this trinity theory? Did you receive any answer by first hand account from any member of that council of three? Well? Did they even speak to you in person? Was it a feeling of peace? Was it a burning of the bosom? Did you in fact, see any of them in person?

If [LDS perspective to a non-member] there is a Goddess, or called MOTHER, do we worship her, as we do the FATHER or HIS Son? No! Is it necessary to know “SHE LIVES” for our salvation? No!

Now, what was your question again?

Edited November 14, 2008 by Hemidakota

[ErikJohnson]

If there is additional revelation given, whether it is doctrines, principles, visions of grandeur, GODS or GODESSES, or other universes, it will directly come from the Godhead in person to that individual in order to promote his/her edification.

I have to say, Hemidakota, that all I ascertained from your response was that you didn't much care for the question.

But let me drill into one piece of it (your quote above). If Hemidakota prays and receives any of the following—"doctrines, principles, visions of grandeur, GODS or GODESSES"--how can he be sure he’s not hearing from a demon?

The Bible says we shouldn’t always trust our feelings, that the human heart is "deceitful above all things" (Jeremiah 17:9). And the Bible also says we should, "test the spirits to see whether they are from God" (1 John 4:1).

So how do you do it, Hemidakota? What standard do you use to test your feelings and the answers you receive to your prayers?

--Erik

[Hemidakota]

Am I on to something here, Hemidakota? Or have previous encounters with defenders of the LDS Church just made me paranoid about the answers they give…

;0)

I do care for those who are truly seeking the truth than a person arrogant response claiming to know the truth...see your last line.

Again....use the spirit vice your brain on what I posted. It has nothing to do with feelings here Erik.

[Elgama]

I have to say, Hemidakota, that all I ascertained from your response was that you didn't much care for the question.

But let me drill into one piece of it (your quote above). If Hemidakota prays and receives any of the following—"doctrines, principles, visions of grandeur, GODS or GODESSES"--how can he be sure he’s not hearing from a demon?

The Bible says we shouldn’t always trust our feelings, that the human heart is "deceitful above all things" (Jeremiah 17:9). And the Bible also says we should, "test the spirits to see whether they are from God" (1 John 4:1).

So how do you do it, Hemidakota? What standard do you use to test your feelings and the answers you receive to your prayers?

--Erik

Just my approach as I suspect every Latter Day Saint has their own relationship with God and may give a different answer.

I test my answers and instincts (its not feelings its instinct that comes from God - after 5 years of being a parent I am very aware of the difference) against the fruits they produce are they good and honourable, do I grow closer to God as a result, the answers and feelings are right everytime they are wise, and full of love. Has my life progressed, am I a better person as a result, do I understand something more. My God has earned my respect, love and trust tenfold in my life, if it turns out he was a demon than I would follow him to hell rather than an absentee God to heaven. I love my God too much to do anything else

Personally I test all scripture against God not the other way round - How did you know the Bible was the one for you? why the Christian Trinity and not Krishna, Thor, Zeus, Allah, YHVH etc

-Charley

[bytor2112]

Erik.....your so arrogant and condescending. Your posts are not meant to discuss, but rather to accuse or attempt to belittle beliefs that others see as sacred and you sound like a know it all.....and Brother, reading your posts.....you don't even understand the part you think you know. You really ought to learn some manners. Were you excommunicated.....is that why your sound so bitter when you post about the church? What's the point? Just to insult?

The Bible isn't infallible and we believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

Edited November 15, 2008 by bytor2112

[jms.mills]

That said, I've no doubt there's someone out there who takes a hard-line view of this, but that would be a minority view.

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

Edited November 15, 2008 by jms.mills