darth_ender

RicOlie_2 said:

But it didn't get lost, did it? We still have the gospels, which contain Jesus' words. The question is whether or not God would have allowed the truth to be corrupted, and let Christianity go off track for almost two millennia.

Matthew 16:18b provides a stronger case against the Mormon (and some Protestant) positions:

NASB: "[...]upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld [many translations have "hell"] shall not prevail against it."

 Well first of all, though there may be lapses, ultimate victory will rest with those who hold the keys.

Second we believe in multiple meanings, I.e. Jesus is also called the Rock of our salvation, and our church is built on him. Furthermore, Jesus told Peter that God revealed that he was the Christ, and we believe that the relationship between God and his prophet, that is revelation, is the foundation of the true church of God. But I like the explanation in the second comment in this thread which probably would satisfy you best.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=485025

Warbler said:

So you think the Paradise Jesus was referring to was not Heaven.  Just what is this Paradise then?   Just where is that thief today?

 Well we believe in a place between earth and heaven where men await judgment. I can elaborate if you care. But I don't know where he is now.

This also will probably interest you and its not a Mormon source.

http://www.worshipinspiritandtruth.net/page34.htm

timdiggerm said:

darth_ender said:

timdiggerm said:

But I definitely agree, there is no threshold

Great!

(except admittedly we Mormons believe in a few essential ordinances).

Oh uh.... but you said.... that's a contradiction?

Which is why I used the word "except".  I am going by the words of Jesus, who said "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," and "Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."  Baptism: an essential ordinance, spoken by Jesus, who I think never contradicted Paul, but even if he did, I would trust him over Paul.

Let's look at that in context.

John 3:1-8 said:

Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Water for the flesh, spirit for the spirit. Now, I don't know if the water is baptism or embryonic fluid - which would fit pretty well with the born again theme - but I think he's saying that birth of the spirit is the important part. Also that such things are as mysterious as the wind?

 Christ is the judge if our actions were pure and motivated by faith.  He doesn't have a set scale for everyone.  He judges us individually. I also agree that if one is truly converted and has faith in Christ, the good works will follow on their own, and any true disciple shouldn't even have to worry about how much good they are doing.  A true convert simply does good for the sake of love and discipleship.

It is helpful, in terms of motivation, to not have works and salvation so tied together.

 I don't disagree with you.  Whenever I have the opportunity, I try to emphasize grace above works.  I think the hangup in the minds of many members of my church is ultimately an overreaction to the extreme rejection of works altogether, as if they didn't matter.  They do.  I don't believe a simple prayer is enough to truly accept Christ into my heart, nor keep him there.  But the truth is I think the Protestant definition is actually closer to the truth than the popular but incorrect mormon view.

wait wait wait what is this "nor keep him there" stuff? The Father gives the Son his sheep, and no one can snatch them out of his hand.

 Very hard to reply with a kindle fire. Forgive the imperfect grammar and formatting. As for born of water meaning baptism, such is pretty clear historically, not to mention the stupidity of the phrase if Jesus were saying it is not only essential to be born again, but that first birth with embryonic fluid is needed too. I mean, duh! Obviously we must be born from our mothers. How does that teach us we must be born again? It's like me saying, "you must be born, AND born again, cuz just once won't cut it." Useful scriptures that support baptism a  part of the rebirth include titus 3:5, romans 6:3-4, and colossians 2:12-13.

Now don't take offense at my lighthearted approach. I mean no disrespect :)

As for your last paragraph, does it perhaps teach that once we have achieved salvation through Christ AFTER this life is over, we are permanently his and no one can take us from him?

I hope you don't misunderstand this thread too much. I don't mind some discussion, but I don't wish to argue. I'm not going to prove or convince you of anything, nor vice versa. I've explained my view which is the point of this thread, and I know yours a  well.

Warbler said:

darth_ender said: Warbler, Catholics teach that baptism is essential.  I can't believe you'd defend the Protestant view there ;)

 um . . . I am a Protestant.

 Oops. I thought you said you were Catholic once. Oh well.

I feel like I'm always bringing this up when it comes to TPM purism, but I must point out that there is an error in Adywan's Theatrical Edition that any new source should correct.  I wouldn't be surprised if there are other changes no one has caught yet, but this one is now known, though I don't think it was common knowledge at the time Adywan did his work (and still seems to be relatively unknown compared to other changes).

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Prequel-Bootlegs/post/611716/#TopicPost611716

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:  I am going by the words of Jesus, who said "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," and "Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."  Baptism: an essential ordinance, spoken by Jesus, who I think never contradicted Paul, but even if he did, I would trust him over Paul.

 Jesus must have meant baptism figuartively and not literally.   After all when was the thief that was on Jesus' right at the Crucifixion, that Jesus said would be with him that day in Paradise, baptized?

 It's not specified, although could reasonably assume that he was not.  But I want you and all to bear this in mind that "this day" (usually meaning 'today') Jesus planning on meeting that man in Paradise, yet after his resurrection stating that he had not yet "ascended to [his] Father, and your Father, and [his] God, and your God" (meaning that three days later he had not actually gone to heaven), kind of gives us an indication that perhaps the terms 'Paradise' and 'Heaven' are not the same, which is what LDS doctrine teaches.

Warbler, Catholics teach that baptism is essential.  I can't believe you'd defend the Protestant view there ;)

Arg. Having trouble with MS Office.  Free software not allowing hex background.  Working on iit.

Yes, such issues make it difficult to plug male plugs into my computer's female ports I'm afraid.

Wow, I hope that joke isn't too offensive.

Would someone please send me a copy of the game file as is? My laptop has bitten the dust and I need to try to save my files there, but I'm not at that point yet. My desktop is now set up so I can use that. Thanks.

timdiggerm said:

But I definitely agree, there is no threshold

Great!

(except admittedly we Mormons believe in a few essential ordinances).

Oh uh.... but you said.... that's a contradiction?

Which is why I used the word "except".  I am going by the words of Jesus, who said "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," and "Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."  Baptism: an essential ordinance, spoken by Jesus, who I think never contradicted Paul, but even if he did, I would trust him over Paul.

 Christ is the judge if our actions were pure and motivated by faith.  He doesn't have a set scale for everyone.  He judges us individually. I also agree that if one is truly converted and has faith in Christ, the good works will follow on their own, and any true disciple shouldn't even have to worry about how much good they are doing.  A true convert simply does good for the sake of love and discipleship.

It is helpful, in terms of motivation, to not have works and salvation so tied together.

 I don't disagree with you.  Whenever I have the opportunity, I try to emphasize grace above works.  I think the hangup in the minds of many members of my church is ultimately an overreaction to the extreme rejection of works altogether, as if they didn't matter.  They do.  I don't believe a simple prayer is enough to truly accept Christ into my heart, nor keep him there.  But the truth is I think the Protestant definition is actually closer to the truth than the popular but incorrect mormon view.

I apologize for not commenting lately. My laptop got busted and I have had limited access otherwise. After months in the closet, I finally hooked up my desktop, so we'll see about participating in this discussion again. Right mow I'm at a meeting on my Kindle, which is a challenge to use for serious posting, but I'll try to sneak in a reply or two.

it's bad timing but im having computer troubles at present but i hope to resume the conversation as soon as possible.

having serious computer troubles. will try to resume play asap

gizzy2000 said:

darth_ender said:

gizzy2000 said:

Something I'm curious about, and I hope I don't offend you because this is a genuine question, but how is the history of polygamy in the church (and with Joseph Smith specifically) viewed by mormons today? 

I know that mormons don't practice this now, and I'm not accusing anyone of that, but I'm curious about how it is viewed by the church. Like, does the church say that it's wrong now but it wasn't back then, or do they condemn it altogether, even in the case of Joseph Smith? etc. etc. 

 No offense taken.  We certainly acknowledge it as a practice.  We believe it was divinely inspired for a temporary period of time, but that most of the time it is contrary to the commandments of God.  We now oppose it, and any practitioner today is swiftly excommunicated.

EDIT: Oh, I should add that some have a hard time coming to grips with it.  My wife, for instance, really doesn't like the idea that it was ever practiced.  But historical record is clear: it was.

Also, it is worth noting that for a long time, the Community of Christ, formerly called the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (second largest, though substantially smaller, branch in the LDS movement) spent years denying it was ever practiced.  I am not sure if they still do, but if they have changed their tune, it would only be a recent thing.  But they honestly are pretty prone to gloss over our common movement's history while we are more willing to embrace it, the good and the bad and the ugly.

Thanks for the answer. I believe that for a time polygamy/bigamy was permitted, specifically during the times of the Old Testament, but I think that once the Christian Church was established marriage was restored to being between one man and one woman, and I'd be happy to go into more detail on that if anyone is interested. One thing I asked though was what the view of Joseph Smith specifically is. In 1 Timothy 3:2 it says that a Church leader (or "overseer") should be the husband of one wife, amongst other requirements. Joseph Smith had several wives, which is why I'm skeptical of his teachings about the Church. By the way, I'm sorry to keep bombarding you with a bunch of my own thoughts and beliefs, but I'm genuinely interested in theological subjects, and enjoy these discussions because I think we can learn a lot by hearing about each others beliefs. As I said before I have no intent to be rude, and want this to just be friendly discussion :) 

 I appreciate your sincerity and your interest, and your efforts not to offend.  Understand, I created this thread with the awareness that people might be blunt, so I try not to get offended easily.  It's happened a few times, and believe me, you haven't even come close to offending me.

The Book of Mormon also speaks against polygamy, more forcefully than the Bible.  The Book of Mormon predates any actual polygamy on the part of Joseph Smith anyhow.  Start with verse 23.  But you'll notice in verse 30 that there is an exception.  I'll let you read it yourself.  It was for a limited time, served its purpose, and is now ended.

Again, thanks for your thoughtfulness :)

TV's Frink said:

gizzy2000 said:

darth_ender said:

But while this may sound very much like Protestant doctrine, we do differ in this particular: we do believe good works are necessary. Protestants have called us non-Christian for this, but we believe that we accept Christ's grace through faith on our part, and that faith and good works are tied together.

I consider myself a nondenominational Christian, and what I'd have to say is that I believe we are saved by faith alone. Once saved, good works follow because someone who is saved has the spirit, if that makes sense. Look at examples from the Bible. When Paul converted to Christ he had no good works under his belt; all of that came after he was saved from a desire to serve the Lord. Is this kind of what you meant by faith and good works being tied together?

 So...I'm not capable of good works?

 You're only capable of atheist works...weak atheist works, you wimp!

Priesthood, revelation, the fullness of truth known to man.  Truth remained.  Man didn't know it.

Warbler said:

darth_ender said: We believe that after Christ and his apostles died, there was a Great Apostasy wherein the full truth was lost and needed to be restored.  

OK, now I have question.   What about the parts of the Bible indicating that God's word would never disapear? 

From the NASB:

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

Mark 13:31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

Luke 21:33 ^A)">Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

That kind of indicates that there would never be a time when God's word was lost, doesn't it?

 God's word has always been present, and men have always been inspired.  The Bible was never lost, and his words yet rang true, even during the darkness of apostasy.  I don't interpret such scripture to mean there will never be apostasy.

gizzy2000 said:

darth_ender said:

But while this may sound very much like Protestant doctrine, we do differ in this particular: we do believe good works are necessary. Protestants have called us non-Christian for this, but we believe that we accept Christ's grace through faith on our part, and that faith and good works are tied together.

I consider myself a nondenominational Christian, and what I'd have to say is that I believe we are saved by faith alone. Once saved, good works follow because someone who is saved has the spirit, if that makes sense. Look at examples from the Bible. When Paul converted to Christ he had no good works under his belt; all of that came after he was saved from a desire to serve the Lord. Is this kind of what you meant by faith and good works being tied together?

 I'd say it's ultimately more of a difference of emphasis than an actual major difference of doctrine.  I've studied this topic extensively.  Remember, "faith without works is dead."  James 2:17.  Also, for men like Paul (who was actually a very righteous Pharisee, following the Law of Moses with exactness as their doctrine expected), his works made no difference until he accepted Christ.  I love the oft-misunderstood Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard in Matthew 20.  Some are born with the gospel in their lives.  Some are introduced late in life.  But whether they labored for one hour or twelve, the Lord blessed them the same for their faithfulness.  It truly is amazing grace!

timdiggerm said:

darth_ender said:

If someone does not exercise good works, they are not exercising enough faith to truly accept Christ.

I think this is specifically where we differ - the idea that there's an "enough faith" threshold necessary. Protestants believe that good works and faith go hand in hand, though, because good works are the result of faith.

 

 It usually is where I differ with most of my Protestant friends.  Allow me to share an analogy I've probably shared before, but retyping might be easier than finding and linking to it.  I came up with it myself, so hopefully it is adequate.

One night, Jesus was walking on the stormy waters of the Sea of Galilee.  His frightened apostles saw him and were at first frightened, but after he assured them of who he was, Peter asked the Lord to bid him to walk on the water as well.  When Jesus did, Peter stepped onto the waters, to his surprise he was successful at first, but after a very few steps, he was overcome by doubt and fear and began to sink.  At that he cried out to the Lord, who then took hold of him and pulled him to safety.

Here is the analogy.  The stormy sea is much like this life of sin.  As in this story, Jesus has always been able to remain above water, never succumbing to even the slightest of sin.  But while he bids us to keep his commandments, we will always fall short and sink.  But if we call out to him for salvation, with the faith that he can save us, he indeed will reach out and pull us to safety.  However, all the calling in the world won't do any good if we refuse to do our part.  Imagine if Peter refused to hold out his hand, or if once Jesus grabbed him, he then said, "Okay Lord, I've got it, I've got it," and pulled away.  He would once again sink.  As long as he was doing his part to keep hold on his Master, both physically and in faith, Jesus could bring him safely back to the boat.

"Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."

-Jesus

Matthew 7:21

But I definitely agree, there is no threshold (except admittedly we Mormons believe in a few essential ordinances).  Christ is the judge if our actions were pure and motivated by faith.  He doesn't have a set scale for everyone.  He judges us individually.

I also agree that if one is truly converted and has face in Christ, the good works will follow on their own, and any true disciple shouldn't even have to worry about how much good they are doing.  A true convert simply does good for the sake of love and discipleship.

I don't see a hole (or a whole, or a half), but I do see a vulnerable pleasure garden now that you blocked your rook and lance and my lance is gone :(

moviefreakedmind said:

how do Mormons believe you get to heaven?

 In greater detail, but still briefer than would be just, we believe that all men fall short of the glory of God.  As sinners, we do not deserve to enter the perfection of heaven.  But through Jesus Christ, we can be forgiven of our sins.  We must accept him and his atonement, acknowledging that we cannot make it on our own.  But while this may sound very much like Protestant doctrine, we do differ in this particular: we do believe good works are necessary.  Protestants have called us non-Christian for this, but we believe that we accept Christ's grace through faith on our part, and that faith and good works are tied together.  If someone does not exercise good works, they are not exercising enough faith to truly accept Christ.  Thus, a believer may have accepted Christ and lived a good life, only later to turn against what he knew to be true and live a lifestyle of sin, inconsistent with God's commandments, and lose the salvation he had before already secured.  But it must be remembered at all times, at no point does anyone deserve or earn his or her salvation.  It is the gift of God through our relationship through Christ, and if we are sincere in our desire to maintain that relationship, we must live a good life.

gizzy2000 said:

Something I'm curious about, and I hope I don't offend you because this is a genuine question, but how is the history of polygamy in the church (and with Joseph Smith specifically) viewed by mormons today? 

I know that mormons don't practice this now, and I'm not accusing anyone of that, but I'm curious about how it is viewed by the church. Like, does the church say that it's wrong now but it wasn't back then, or do they condemn it altogether, even in the case of Joseph Smith? etc. etc. 

 No offense taken.  We certainly acknowledge it as a practice.  We believe it was divinely inspired for a temporary period of time, but that most of the time it is contrary to the commandments of God.  We now oppose it, and any practitioner today is swiftly excommunicated.

EDIT: Oh, I should add that some have a hard time coming to grips with it.  My wife, for instance, really doesn't like the idea that it was ever practiced.  But historical record is clear: it was.

Also, it is worth noting that for a long time, the Community of Christ, formerly called the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (second largest, though substantially smaller, branch in the LDS movement) spent years denying it was ever practiced.  I am not sure if they still do, but if they have changed their tune, it would only be a recent thing.  But they honestly are pretty prone to gloss over our common movement's history while we are more willing to embrace it, the good and the bad and the ugly.

dclarkg said:

darth_ender said:

 Let me ask you a couple of questions and we will go from there.  Are you religious?  If so, what are you?

 I don't see how that's relevant for my original question (or the answer itself) but ok. I'm not religious, I was raised on a mild-devoted Catholic home but it never got into me.

 Well, many churches consider themselves to have the fullest truth.  How would my church's claim differ from others in acceptability?

But I will say, we claim that we have genuine priesthood and prophetic leadership, modern day revelation, and approval from God justifying our position.  Of course many dispute this, but that is our claim, and what I believe.  We believe that after Christ and his apostles died, there was a Great Apostasy wherein the full truth was lost and needed to be restored.  We believe it has been.

^Yep, that's an accurate POV ;)

Neglify said:

darth_ender said:

Oh yeah?!  What if I h8 FE.org?  What then, huh?  Maybe it's bad news for me!

 Then it's good news for me because I got you make you mad. :D

 Gosh, reading this comment makes me h8 FE.org even more, especially that punk Neglify!