You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What's Worse? Christians, Help Me Please!
- Thread starter PsychoticEpisode
- Start date
c20H25N3o said:Was that the self-same accusation that forced your own unbelief? And now you must win converts to that self-same state of unbelief? Methinks Jenyar is made of sterner stuff.
*************
M*W: Well youthinks wrong. I don't need to win converts. They will find the truth on their own, just as I did. Jenyar is caught in a very dangerous trap as you are.
M*W said:Jenyar is caught in a very dangerous trap as you are.
Thank you for your concern but you are quite wrong. Before I became a christian I was in far more danger. These days I think much more carefully before I act. Prayer helps me to focus on the things that give me real quality of life, not the things that I thought would give me quality of life but were actually destructive. You should be pleased for me really if your concern is genuine. I spend much more time building relationships these days, something that I sadly neglected in favour of the pursuit of material wealth prior to accepting the message of Jesus. In fact I would say that I am happy now and can see that before I was not. That's good isn't it?
Thanks
c20
Medicine Woman said:*************
M*W: Love yourself today.
Oh, I am loving myself today! This includes loving my neighbour!
M*W: Well youthinks wrong. I don't need to win converts. They will find the truth on their own, just as I did. Jenyar is caught in a very dangerous trap as you are.
I get it! Medicine Woman wants to save the world! But, since she also knows she can't do it, she holds two conflicting stances, she has a cognitive dissonance. And this conflict perpetuates her negativity; to keep up that cognitive dissonance, it takes her a lot of energy, so only little is left for her to be kind, or for rational arguments.
I haven't been reading anything anti-Mormon. My sources are extracts of Mormon publications. I felt they would carry more credibility with a Mormon. "Disagreement in private is allowed" - this is new to me. As long as you keep a belief secret from the church they won't excommunicate you for heresy? My argument obviously only applies for people who want to confess their beliefs publically.Marlin said:I am at liberty to disagree with any doctrine I don't believe in. However, I am to keep such disagreement to myself and not preach against what the leaders of the Church say. Disagreement in private is allowed. And anyway, the most the Church can do to dissenters is excommunicate them. The idea that anyone is not at liberty to disagree smacks of anti-Mormon propaganda, which you have apparently been reading.
Does this mean that disagreement is only condemned when it comes from a non-Mormon, while Mormons can disagree with their doctrine in private with no consequences?
You're either evading or missing the point, but I've said all I wish to say about this.Uh, nope. The Church would never institute slavery. That is indeed a straw man.
The church Joseph Smith established is therefore part of the problem, not the solution. Would they ever consider bringing their doctrines in line with historic Christianity, or is Joseph Smith's observation about the churches he knew an eternal truth? As far as the world is concerned, Mormonism is just another denomination of the Christian faith. Ephesians 4 says prophecy and other gifts prepare God's people for works of service "until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God". Did the church Smith established cause greater unity and humility, or greater division and arrogance?Do you know where the scriptures came from, Jenyar? Let me refresh your memory. Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habbukuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, etc., etc., etc.
These were all prophets. The difference between what these prophets said and what the scriptures say? NO DIFFERENCE! The scriptures came from them through inspiration from God. Can God still speak, or is He now dumb? According to Amos, the Lord will surely do nothing except He reveals it to His servants, the prophets. Ephesians 4:11-14 tells us that we are given prophets and apostles until we all come to the unity of the faith. Has that time come yet? I don't think so, judging from all the thousands of Christian (and non-Christian) denominations.
Sure, scripture came from people - people who stood in a personal relationship with the God of Israel. They weren't speaking with authority just because they happened to belong to the right tradition, received the right sacraments, or followed the right procedures (see 1 Cor. 10 below). Such things are just the religious expressions of a relationship. Look at the list you gave - did any of them establish a new nation, or a new church? No, they called the existing church to repentance.
Of course God still speaks. Mormons are quite mistaken if they think only they believe that. But we also have the clear words of the apostles concerning prophecy:
Hebrews 1:1-2 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.
Acts 10:43 All the prophets testify [present tense] about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.
Revelation 19:10 At this I fell at [the angel's] feet to worship him. But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."
Paul also had a critical question for everyone who would presume to prophecy for the church: "Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?" In addition to the above, Paul explained that prophecy was "for the strengthening of the church", "so that the body of Christ may be built up" and that believers "may be instructed and encouraged".Acts 10:43 All the prophets testify [present tense] about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.
Revelation 19:10 At this I fell at [the angel's] feet to worship him. But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."
Prophecy is not in the first place making something known that wasn't known before. It means reminding people about God's judgement (like Jonah did) and giving them the good news of Christ. He is the unity of the church, not the
Not originally. The "small, fledgeling church" was built with the blood and sweat of the apostles, and its seed was the very Word of God. It was to be a spiritual kingdom of saints, not a fleshly one. In this respect the Mormon church resembles a pre-Christian paradigm rather than a Christ-centred one. Is their focus on the patriarchs, or on Christ?In a small, fledgling church, numbers were necessary at first. You need a spark to ignite the tinder. God chose polygamy as His method of "raising believers from the rocks."
1 Cor. 10:1-5
For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert.
For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert.
Your focus on on the external sign of baptism, the tradition of it, rather than the spiritual power that gives it meaning. In John 3:6 Jesus explains: "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit" and in 3:16 says "whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Whoever.The baptismal covenant is necessary for entrance into the Celestial Kingdom (see John 3:3-5 -- one must be born of water and of the spirit to enter the kingdom of heaven). The one who baptizes must have proper priesthood authority, as we've talked about before, or the baptism is not efficacious. The Lord establishes His covenant through baptism and confirmation.
People become part of Israel through believing the word of faith, not through legalistic means. Baptism was not instituted to become another law to follow, it was given as a sign of grace: "[Christ] redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit" (Gal. 3:14). The blessing given to Abraham was a promise to Christ (v.16), and the law was only added to lead people to Christ. The promise of an inheritance does not depend on the law (v.18), and therefore cannot depend on baptism as a law. Like everything else, it points to Christ.
To use Paul's line of reasoning: Were you baptized into the name of Joseph Smith, or Christ? And is Christ divided among those who baptize? Whether it was Paul or Apollos or Cephas or anyone else "with authority" who baptized you, whose power is your "righteousness, holiness and redemption"? Their authority represents man's authority - though God-ordained - and is dependent on the earthly church - which God gave - but none of these save you, Christ does.
The word of God, the testimony of Christ, and the Spirit of life has come to other Christians as surely as it may come to Mormons. "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Mormons can't control who it comes to ("The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit"). Faith doesn't come through a particular authority, baptism or law (any humanly controlled or administered means), but from hearing (Romans 10:17). Until you accept this, you will be preaching division, not unity.
Last edited:
Does this mean that disagreement is only condemned when it comes from a non-Mormon, while Mormons can disagree with their doctrine in private with no consequences?
Almost.
Although even private disagreement, when other members get wind of it, can cause the person who disagrees, troubles.
There's plenty of stories of former Mormons who describe what happened once other members found out. The letters of admonition by their superiors, the "friendly chats".
Bottomline, even a bad Mormon is better than a non-Mormon.
c20H25N3o said:Thank you for your concern but you are quite wrong. Before I became a christian I was in far more danger. These days I think much more carefully before I act. Prayer helps me to focus on the things that give me real quality of life, not the things that I thought would give me quality of life but were actually destructive. You should be pleased for me really if your concern is genuine. I spend much more time building relationships these days, something that I sadly neglected in favour of the pursuit of material wealth prior to accepting the message of Jesus. In fact I would say that I am happy now and can see that before I was not. That's good isn't it?*************
M*W: If you're happy that you have lost your will and ability to think freely without condemnation, I'm happy for you.
*************water said:Oh, I am loving myself today! This includes loving my neighbour!
M*W: ...but how does your neighbor feel about your "love?"
Jenyar said:I haven't been reading anything anti-Mormon. My sources are extracts of Mormon publications. I felt they would carry more credibility with a Mormon.
Oh, okay. My apologies--it's just that so many people who talk about Mormonism online just copy and paste from the anti sites.
"Disagreement in private is allowed" - this is new to me. As long as you keep a belief secret from the church they won't excommunicate you for heresy? My argument obviously only applies for people who want to confess their beliefs publically.
The errant belief doesn't have to be a secret, but you shouldn't openly preach against what the church leaders have said when they have been acting as prophets.
Does this mean that disagreement is only condemned when it comes from a non-Mormon, while Mormons can disagree with their doctrine in private with no consequences?
Disagreement isn't necessarily condemned, either in members or non-Mormons, especially if it is an honestly-held belief. Preaching a doctrine that is against what the scriptures and prophets have said, however, is discouraged and may result in church discipline if it is continued.
The church Joseph Smith established is therefore part of the problem, not the solution. Would they ever consider bringing their doctrines in line with historic Christianity, or is Joseph Smith's observation about the churches he knew an eternal truth? As far as the world is concerned, Mormonism is just another denomination of the Christian faith. Ephesians 4 says prophecy and other gifts prepare God's people for works of service "until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God". Did the church Smith established cause greater unity and humility, or greater division and arrogance?
No, the LDS Church is the solution to the many sects of Christianity that exist today. Eventually all true Christians, upon hearing the good word, will become Latter-day Saints. The Church will never embrace apostate beliefs such as those found in other Christian denominations--that is why it was restored rather than reformed, because the state of the Christian world was in apostacy.
Sure, scripture came from people - people who stood in a personal relationship with the God of Israel. They weren't speaking with authority just because they happened to belong to the right tradition, received the right sacraments, or followed the right procedures (see 1 Cor. 10 below). Such things are just the religious expressions of a relationship. Look at the list you gave - did any of them establish a new nation, or a new church? No, they called the existing church to repentance.
Joseph Smith had to restore rather than reform the Church of Jesus Christ, because it wasn't on the earth in its pure form before he came along.
Of course God still speaks. Mormons are quite mistaken if they think only they believe that. But we also have the clear words of the apostles concerning prophecy:
Hebrews 1:1-2 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.
Yes, God speaks to people other than the LDS. But your Hebrews quote doesn't say that there is an end to prophecy just because God spoke to us through His Son. Obviously there were apostles (prophets) after Christ left the earth, so this reference isn't saying that prophets have ceased after Christ.
Acts 10:43 All the prophets testify [present tense] about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.
Revelation 19:10 At this I fell at [the angel's] feet to worship him. But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."
Paul also had a critical question for everyone who would presume to prophecy for the church: "Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?"
One would ask Paul the same question. This question doesn't invalidate a prophet's words--just because the word of God doesn't originate with a prophet, doesn't mean his words are invalid.
This is actually a very good scriptural reference. The LDS ask, "Are you (the Jews and Gentiles) the only people the word of God has reached?" The Book of Mormon answers that question with the testimony of the Nephites that God has reached other nations as well as the Jews and Gentiles.
In addition to the above, Paul explained that prophecy was "for the strengthening of the church", "so that the body of Christ may be built up" and that believers "may be instructed and encouraged".
Prophecy is not in the first place making something known that wasn't known before.
I would disagree with that statement, at least in part. Some prophecy has been revealed before, and some has not.
It was to be a spiritual kingdom of saints, not a fleshly one. In this respect the Mormon church resembles a pre-Christian paradigm rather than a Christ-centred one. Is their focus on the patriarchs, or on Christ?
Very much the latter.
1 Cor. 10:1-5
For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert.
The Rock of Mormonism is Christ as well.
Your focus on on the external sign of baptism, the tradition of it, rather than the spiritual power that gives it meaning. In John 3:6 Jesus explains: "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit" and in 3:16 says "whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Whoever.
Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved
John 3:3-5
Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God
Acts 2:37-38
Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins
People become part of Israel through believing the word of faith, not through legalistic means. Baptism was not instituted to become another law to follow, it was given as a sign of grace: "[Christ] redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit" (Gal. 3:14). The blessing given to Abraham was a promise to Christ (v.16), and the law was only added to lead people to Christ. The promise of an inheritance does not depend on the law (v.18), and therefore cannot depend on baptism as a law. Like everything else, it points to Christ.
Yes, it points to Christ, you're correct. But you're wrong to assume it's optional. It is a necessary ordinance of the gospel restored through Joseph Smith.
To use Paul's line of reasoning: Were you baptized into the name of Joseph Smith, or Christ? And is Christ divided among those who baptize? Whether it was Paul or Apollos or Cephas or anyone else "with authority" who baptized you, whose power is your "righteousness, holiness and redemption"? Their authority represents man's authority - though God-ordained - and is dependent on the earthly church - which God gave - but none of these save you, Christ does.
Christ has delegated His authority to His servants (those who hold the Priesthood). We are not baptized in Joseph Smith's name--the baptismal prayer makes that clear.
The word of God, the testimony of Christ, and the Spirit of life has come to other Christians as surely as it may come to Mormons. "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Mormons can't control who it comes to ("The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit"). Faith doesn't come through a particular authority, baptism or law (any humanly controlled or administered means), but from hearing (Romans 10:17). Until you accept this, you will be preaching division, not unity.
You are the one preaching division, not unity. Baptism is God-ordained as a necessary saving ordinance. If you don't like the way He has set things up, go complain to Him, not me. Yes, of course others have the Word, the testimony of Jesus, and the Spirit of life. The Church of Jesus Christ, however, has authority and clear, true doctrines that are not found in other Christian denominations. It is a Restoration of the true gospel in its purity and fulness.
Marlin,
You're chasing a red herring if you think I ever said baptism is optional. I said your focus is in the wrong place. It isn't optional because Christ isn't optional for salvation, not because it adds anything that Christ hasn't done. Baptism is administered and received by people who believed and repented (the scripture you quoted confirm that they go together) - one is internal, the other is external. Who do you think will believe but refuse to be baptised? No orthodox Christian denomination ever taught that it was optional, so Joseph Smith didn't "restore" anything in this case.
The restoration you speak of has brought nothing that wasn't known our believed somewhere before. Mormons frequently attest to this by quoting church fathers, "apostate" Christians, and Jewish precedents to support their claims. Is the Mormon gospel different from the one Christians have been putting their faith in since the apostles? Because if they truly brought truths that had been lost, there would not have been anything to refer to.
The only reason the LDS church would insist on restoration (instead of reformation) is to stake the claim for a "necessary truth" (a gnostic concept) within their walls - something that must be accessed through a specific tradition, in addition to Christ.
People who have Jesus' baptism in common are called "Christian" for that reason, and no other. They professed their faith in Him and acted on it through the means provided. The authority to baptise comes from God, not men. It's not as if God was left behind in time and people needed to take over. We may (and should) carry on the work of the Spirit, but the Spirit goes where it pleases. "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God" (1 John 4:2).
Isn't it you who said someone doesn't have to be baptized to be a Christian? Or do you retract your statement that other Christians can be part of the church of the Lamb of God, "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth" (D&C 1:30), even though their baptism isn't valid? If we are members of the same body, we are "sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus", according to scripture (Eph. 3:6).
Why do you want other Christians to return to the milk (Hebrews 6:2) when they have already moved on to the solid food of the gospel? If your concience requires those traditions, by all means hold fast to them. But not all Christians have faith in Mormon priesthoods. We can't understand why Mormons aren't more wary, since they believe that the first Christians' faith in their apostles and the "authority" received from them was also misplaced: they dropped the ball.
You're chasing a red herring if you think I ever said baptism is optional. I said your focus is in the wrong place. It isn't optional because Christ isn't optional for salvation, not because it adds anything that Christ hasn't done. Baptism is administered and received by people who believed and repented (the scripture you quoted confirm that they go together) - one is internal, the other is external. Who do you think will believe but refuse to be baptised? No orthodox Christian denomination ever taught that it was optional, so Joseph Smith didn't "restore" anything in this case.
The restoration you speak of has brought nothing that wasn't known our believed somewhere before. Mormons frequently attest to this by quoting church fathers, "apostate" Christians, and Jewish precedents to support their claims. Is the Mormon gospel different from the one Christians have been putting their faith in since the apostles? Because if they truly brought truths that had been lost, there would not have been anything to refer to.
The only reason the LDS church would insist on restoration (instead of reformation) is to stake the claim for a "necessary truth" (a gnostic concept) within their walls - something that must be accessed through a specific tradition, in addition to Christ.
People who have Jesus' baptism in common are called "Christian" for that reason, and no other. They professed their faith in Him and acted on it through the means provided. The authority to baptise comes from God, not men. It's not as if God was left behind in time and people needed to take over. We may (and should) carry on the work of the Spirit, but the Spirit goes where it pleases. "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God" (1 John 4:2).
Isn't it you who said someone doesn't have to be baptized to be a Christian? Or do you retract your statement that other Christians can be part of the church of the Lamb of God, "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth" (D&C 1:30), even though their baptism isn't valid? If we are members of the same body, we are "sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus", according to scripture (Eph. 3:6).
Why do you want other Christians to return to the milk (Hebrews 6:2) when they have already moved on to the solid food of the gospel? If your concience requires those traditions, by all means hold fast to them. But not all Christians have faith in Mormon priesthoods. We can't understand why Mormons aren't more wary, since they believe that the first Christians' faith in their apostles and the "authority" received from them was also misplaced: they dropped the ball.
Last edited:
Jenyar said:Marlin,
You're chasing a red herring if you think I ever said baptism is optional. I said your focus is in the wrong place. It isn't optional because Christ isn't optional for salvation, not because it adds anything that Christ hasn't done. Baptism is administered and received by people who believed and repented (the scripture you quoted confirm that they go together) - one is internal, the other is external. Who do you think will believe but refuse to be baptised? No orthodox Christian denomination ever taught that it was optional, so Joseph Smith didn't "restore" anything in this case.
First of all, you are using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy--sure, maybe no "orthodox" Christian denomination ever taught optional baptism, but this assumes that "orthodox" refers to your particular brand of Christianity. Mormons think of themselves as belonging to the true orthodox Christianity as well, as do many others you would probably not consider to be "orthodox."
But anyway, what Joseph Smith was called upon by God to restore were the keys to the Priesthood, which had been lost soon after the apostles died, and the keys to the dispensation of the fulness of times.
The restoration you speak of has brought nothing that wasn't known our believed somewhere before. Mormons frequently attest to this by quoting church fathers, "apostate" Christians, and Jewish precedents to support their claims. Is the Mormon gospel different from the one Christians have been putting their faith in since the apostles? Because if they truly brought truths that had been lost, there would not have been anything to refer to.
The LDS version of the gospel is different in significant ways. The Priesthood is the most important difference--the authority to act in God's name and perform gospel ordinances authoritatively. There are also many other differences, many truths that have surfaced in the light of modern revelation. Such as, the three degrees of glory, temple ordinances, the true nature of God as an exalted Man, the doctrine of eternal progression, the new and everlasting covenant of eternal marriage, the Word of Wisdom (Joseph Smith was preaching against tobacco long before it was considered to be unhealthy, for instance), the law of Tithing, etc.
The only reason the LDS church would insist on restoration (instead of reformation) is to stake the claim for a "necessary truth" (a gnostic concept) within their walls - something that must be accessed through a specific tradition, in addition to Christ.
What's wrong with true traditions?
People who have Jesus' baptism in common are called "Christian" for that reason, and no other. They professed their faith in Him and acted on it through the means provided. The authority to baptise comes from God, not men. It's not as if God was left behind in time and people needed to take over.
The authority to baptize does indeed come from God. That is the point I am trying to make.
We may (and should) carry on the work of the Spirit, but the Spirit goes where it pleases. "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God" (1 John 4:2).
Isn't it you who said someone doesn't have to be baptized to be a Christian? Or do you retract your statement that other Christians can be part of the church of the Lamb of God, "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth" (D&C 1:30), even though their baptism isn't valid? If we are members of the same body, we are "sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus", according to scripture (Eph. 3:6).
I believe that all you have to do to be a Christian is to try to follow the teachings of Christ. Christ taught that baptism was essential to enter the kingdom of God, so I assume that people who want to follow Christ will want to be "buried with Him" in baptism. Yes, people can be part of the Church of the Firstborn without being baptized (yet), but to enter the Celestial Kingdom, baptism is required.
Why do you want other Christians to return to the milk (Hebrews 6:2) when they have already moved on to the solid food of the gospel? If your concience requires those traditions, by all means hold fast to them. But not all Christians have faith in Mormon priesthoods. We can't understand why Mormons aren't more wary, since they believe that the first Christians' faith in their apostles and the "authority" received from them was also misplaced: they dropped the ball.
God has required of us to take the gospel (the restored gospel) to all nations, kindreds, tongues and people. Why do you want us to disobey our God?
If you need me to refer to sects that contradict the scriptures to support your position, it must be very weak. "Orthodox" refers to churches who hold to the validity of scripture and scriptural tradition. As far as I know, only the Quakers and the UCC consider water baptism optional:Marlin said:First of all, you are using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy--sure, maybe no "orthodox" Christian denomination ever taught optional baptism, but this assumes that "orthodox" refers to your particular brand of Christianity. Mormons think of themselves as belonging to the true orthodox Christianity as well, as do many others you would probably not consider to be "orthodox."
Now, preaching about baptism in this congregation is tricky, for unlike practically every other Christian congregation on the planet... or in the history of Christianity, for that matter... United Church on the Green does not require baptism for membership. We're ecclesiastical rebels—who knew!?—and have been since '96... 1796, when this congregation decided that the requirement that all members undergo formal baptism with water unduly discriminated against Quakers, who reject outward sacraments like baptism, but who clearly share in the faith of Jesus Christ. And so they made baptism optional, a practice we maintain even today.
But I have no intention of paying lip-service to strawmen. If your case is against churches that consider baptism optional, it's not against orthodox Christianity. Joseph Smith, on the other hand, considered churches who considered baptism as compulsory to be apostate. He didn't need to redefine the word "orthodox" to believe that. It's only recently that the apostasy Smith believed in had become spiritualized, bringing it more in line with mainstream Christianity.You're changing the topic. Joseph Smith's priority was to restore the gospel "truths" that were supposedly lost from scripture (not from the minds and traditions of men). He didn't have any priesthood or keys when he received his first vision. The priesthood was only conferred on him two years later (according to first-hand witness David Whitmer). Nor is it (or any of its offices) mentioned in the Book of Mormon, which is the cornerstone of your arguments. They were absent from the Book of Commandments (now Doctrine and Covenants) until 1833.But anyway, what Joseph Smith was called upon by God to restore were the keys to the Priesthood, which had been lost soon after the apostles died, and the keys to the dispensation of the fulness of times.
What you have failed to explain is why the first Christian apostles could lose their authority, but not the first Mormon apostles. What has changed? The keys are the same, the people are the same, the gospel is the same. What makes the Mormon church so special? I assume you will point to the following things:
None of these things are found in the Bible. You have to first believe LDS claims before you can find any trace of them in the Bible, and even then it requires some imagination - if it doesn't contradict other scriptures. None of the "truths" you mention affect the present life of a sincere Christian, except by putting it under LDS approval and authority.The LDS version of the gospel is different in significant ways. The Priesthood is the most important difference--the authority to act in God's name and perform gospel ordinances authoritatively. There are also many other differences, many truths that have surfaced in the light of modern revelation. Such as, the three degrees of glory, temple ordinances, the true nature of God as an exalted Man, the doctrine of eternal progression, the new and everlasting covenant of eternal marriage, the Word of Wisdom (Joseph Smith was preaching against tobacco long before it was considered to be unhealthy, for instance), the law of Tithing, etc.
And there are warnings from some Mormons that the current LDS church has already become apostate, and even some about the Book of Mormon. Some Mormon denominations are not recognized by the "orthodox" church (which I assume you belong to), even though they often exist because of the revelations you say should characterize a latter day church. Or does the LDS church put God under censure when He doesn't keep supporting their doctrines? The second largest Mormon denomination, Community of Christ, accepts the doctrine of Trinity, and continues to add new revelations to the Doctrine and Covenants.
Someone should've asked Joseph Smith that.What's wrong with true traditions?
Then you are ignoring the implications. The Mormon church cannot deny (or predict) the validity of baptism performed outside its walls. It is not God.The authority to baptize does indeed come from God. That is the point I am trying to make.
On what grounds will someone from the Church of the Firstborn be disqualified from this celestial kingdom? (Keep in mind that "sin" is defined as disobeying God's commandments.) Which kingdom did Jesus establish "among" us?I believe that all you have to do to be a Christian is to try to follow the teachings of Christ. Christ taught that baptism was essential to enter the kingdom of God, so I assume that people who want to follow Christ will want to be "buried with Him" in baptism. Yes, people can be part of the Church of the Firstborn without being baptized (yet), but to enter the Celestial Kingdom, baptism is required.
Which restored gospel? What would Joseph Smith do?God has required of us to take the gospel (the restored gospel) to all nations, kindreds, tongues and people. Why do you want us to disobey our God?
Last edited:
M*W said:If you're happy that you have lost your will and ability to think freely without condemnation, I'm happy for you.
I just have a conscience that's all. If something seems wrong for me to do, surely I would be more of a slave if I was still compelled to do it despite my conscience. I ignored my conscience before accepting Jesus' message. Now I can live by the rule that everything is permitted me but not everything beneficial. Fortunately I am able to discern now what is beneficial to me or not, rather than assuming that the desires of my flesh automatically lead to benfits to me as an individual.
The only time you would be happy for me M*W is if I burnt an upside down cross and said 'Screw religion. I'll just think for my self.'
That way of life got me deeper and deeper into sh*t. You would be happier for me to live a life and adopt an attitude that has proved to be detrimental to me?
peace
c20
c20H25N3o said:That way of life got me deeper and deeper into sh*t.
Yeah, it's wrong for M*W to say that everyone should be liek her and believe in the same things. Everyone's different, they can't walk the same path.
Jenyar, I'm tired of arguing the same things over and over again with you. It suffices me to say that Joseph Smith restored the true gospel of Jesus Christ to the earth, which had been taken from the earth due to widespread apostasy in the early church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true.
If you want a big argument (contention is of the devil and is not profitable), look somewhere else. I don't want to continue repeating what I've said already many times to you. The Priesthood has been restored, and the truth is rolling forth like a stone cut out of a mountain without hands. It will eventually fill the earth.
If you want a big argument (contention is of the devil and is not profitable), look somewhere else. I don't want to continue repeating what I've said already many times to you. The Priesthood has been restored, and the truth is rolling forth like a stone cut out of a mountain without hands. It will eventually fill the earth.
Adstar said:I believe there is no such thing as a law abiding athiest.
Then why is the prison population (at least in the US) so overwhelmingly religious? I don't have links on hand, but I'm sure someone else 'round here does - but studies have been done which show that atheists account for a much lower percentage of prison populations than they do in the general population.
Maybe atheists just don’t get caught?
*************c7ityi_ said:Yeah, it's wrong for M*W to say that everyone should be liek her and believe in the same things. Everyone's different, they can't walk the same path.
M*W: You're the resident idiot here. I've said so many times that becoming an atheist is not an instantaneous event. It's a process that can take many years to achieve. I've never said that everyone should be like me. That's impossible, nor can everyone be like you, that would be a crying shame. Whether you or the rest of the world believe everyone walks down a different path, you need to re-evaluate the reality of it. The path is clearly the same for each of us whether we accept and understand it or not.
M*W, because you don't agree with me, because you say that the path is the same for all of us, you just show that you walk a different path.
Atheism is not the goal, it is a path, just like religion. Atheists are just like the religious -- human beings.
People don't want to accept what they truly are. They are not honest to themselves. They must follow specific ways in order to remain the persons, the masks and roles, they have fallen in love with. To choose "this" over "that" is to limit oneself. Is the negative better, more true than the positive, is female better than male or good "better" than bad? Of course not, truth includes the whole spectrum, there is no division except in the mind.
If you always put limit on everything you do, physical or anything else. It will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them. All fixed set patterns are incapable of adaptability or pliability. The truth is outside of all fixed patterns.
If you want truth, take no though on who's right or wrong or better than, be not for or against.
Atheism is not the goal, it is a path, just like religion. Atheists are just like the religious -- human beings.
People don't want to accept what they truly are. They are not honest to themselves. They must follow specific ways in order to remain the persons, the masks and roles, they have fallen in love with. To choose "this" over "that" is to limit oneself. Is the negative better, more true than the positive, is female better than male or good "better" than bad? Of course not, truth includes the whole spectrum, there is no division except in the mind.
If you always put limit on everything you do, physical or anything else. It will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them. All fixed set patterns are incapable of adaptability or pliability. The truth is outside of all fixed patterns.
If you want truth, take no though on who's right or wrong or better than, be not for or against.
Last edited: