SciFly

Nobody would say family values (making, keeping family) is "to be ashamed of". That smacks of cynicism.

Why even go there? I think a fresh point here is to be made: Is religion and the social networking entailed in churchgoing -essential- in making a healthy family and social order?

I reply: for some it is. for many others it is not. for those in the "no religion" place, we feel patronized by overt pleas in public to God and Christian piety, spouted by polititians in particular.

God guides my hand. Uhhhh....

Well, you all here believe in free will? Then let it be of your free will to make strong families how you like, but always consider the non-believer in a fair light. As if you were he, and how would he like to be addressed/thought of by those who -may well think that all nonbelievers are damned to hell because ThAT is what Christianity pins its skirts upon: fear of damnation.

Well, not to incite but only to reflect here. thanks,
reid.

cvrefugee

I'm sorry, but what was the point of your post? You're answering your own questions.

SciFly

It was cogent response to his closing line:
best,
r

jmiller20874

My post is not pointed at anyone in particular. If you have happiness without religion that's fine and commendable. For others it not so easily obtained. I do share your views about the die-hard Christians that believe it is their sole mission to "save" you or you go to Hell. Examples like that crazy woman on Wife Swap(?) where she's like "I rebuke thee in Jesus's name"..."Now get the F*** out of my house". Does she actuallly consider cursing and anger the way of our Lord? The Book tells us that Anger leads one further off of the path. Watching those stuck-up snobbish friends of hers verbally attack the other wife was just plain shameful and uncalled for.

Mormons are considered Christians BUT we'd never use anger and treachery to persuade someone to join our church. Our beliefs state that it is extremely hard to go to "Hell" and just about all those that are there have been since the war in Heaven that cast Satan down.

It is our free-will to become Mormons. As stated above, Mormons will never force anyone to take their views. Having other Mormon families around is also a great support system. Look at the national divorce rate, on average 1 out of 2 marriages is doomed. That rate is much, much lower in families with strong Mormon beliefs. As for keeping non-believers in a fair light, absolutely. I will never look down on someone because they choose that way of life, that's not what Jesus would have done, it is your will and forcing you to believe otherwise is not right.

WeDriveScions

This is why Mormonism Scares me..... Things always change....like this "Removal of the Ban by the LORD" in 1978 and this doctrine is not supported our advocated whatsoever in the bible.... The death of Christ accounted for all men's sin and became a new convenant... Black people are the results of Cain's Sin??????

Q. Why did the Mormon Church deny the Priesthood to people of Hamitic lineage (Black) until 1978?

A. Because people of Hamitic lineage are the descendants of Cain, via Egyptus, the wife of Ham. They were banned from the Priesthood because of God’s curse on Cain; that his descendants would not receive the Priesthood until the descendants of Abel, whom Cain slew, received it first. To allow Cain’s seed to receive the Priesthood before Abel’s seed would have been an affront to the Justice of God. Since Cain cut-off Abel’s posterity, the LORD said that Cain’s posterity could not receive the Priesthood until Abel’s posterity had it first. The first shall be last, and the last shall be first. However, because of the exceeding faith of the Hamitic Saints around the world (especially in Brasil) President Spencer W. Kimball and the Twelve Apostles supplicated the LORD for weeks to remove the ban, and the LORD finally did on June 1st 1978.

Why then would Black People not be allowed the priesthood until 1978???? The New Testament teaches ABSOLUTE EQUALITY amoung men, Jew or Gentile, no more restrictions on lineage or ancestry.... the old law was done away with..... This makes the Bible and the Book of Mormon mutally exclusive...

So, prior to 1978 Black individuals could not hold the priesthood, and after 1978, they could??? Cause the LORD said so.....

That scares the crap out of me.... Ever-Changing doctrine...[/b]

SCXB

I hear Mormons only have sex when trying to have children and wear special clothing for the event.They also teach that masturbation is a sin........Just curious,, honest.

cvrefugee

-No special clothing is used when having sex.
-It is a married couple's choice whether or not to use contraceptives
-Masturbation is a misuse of the powers of procreation before marriage.

cvrefugee

Don't even get me started on "ever-changing doctrine". Do you think the Mormon Church is the only church that has ever had a change in doctrine?

WeDriveScions

Didn't say it was the only.... just scares the crap out of me that there is that change... Ever doctrine is fallable, cause it's taught by men... the foundation is where everything must be consistent...

I can think of protestant doctrine that went ary as well... (Slavery, Segregation...etc...) But at its foundation (Biblical), there wasn't any grounds for that rational) The Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon hold within their foundation the curse of Cain, baptism for the dead, eternal marriage, levels of heaven, temple rights, and other doctrines that are mutually exclusive of the bible and have later been abandoned or modified because of later, more recent "Prophecy"...

It's a scary proposition, to think that the foundations of your faith can be currently changed by men, who are inherantly fallable, and open to corruption...

cvrefugee

What about all of the sacrificial rituals done in the Old Testament? You don't think that what Christ taught was a huge change in doctrine?

I told you not to get me started on this...

Poison

This thread went completely sour from the start, All I wanted was to talk to some people here at scion life that I can relate to other then Cars, Obviously all of you immature people can't handle the idea of having a MORMON thread around so mods please do close this thread.

WeDriveScions

Christ's teachings were prophecised in the OT in Isaiah and Jeremiah... the sacrifices of animals were the product of the old covenent God made, promising to bring a new covenent with the Messiah, which was the plan from Exodus through the OT, to the NT, which the new covenant came, at that time, Christ declared the new covenant final and prophecy fullfilled....

It was written and promised in the OT and fullfilled in the NT... absolutely consistent. The doctrine never changed.... the animal sacrifices were made non-neccesary by the sacrifice of Christ on the cross (Reffered to as "The Perfect Lamb, who was slain"), which was a sacrifice that accounted for ALL sin, rather than the individual sacrifices neccesary with the old covenant and the old law...

Consistent doctrine....

Not to hate.... I understand the post, but realistically, if anyone was to post anything of such weight... people would throw their opinions in on lots of sides... People on here get into hate matches over vertical doors, who's to think people can handle faith and complex theology....

Thought is Thought... I have met Mormon Missionaries in over 20 countries (YES, I've been around) and the thing that troubled me is the lack of critical questioning... I've studied many faiths and studied the questions that result from each and every one of them... I have problems with almost every theology, as it's made by men to understand complex religious thought and is subject to opinion, but have found that LDS really has some hurdles that are really hard to overcome theologically... I challenge you to dig deep, cause principals such as baptism for the dead and salvation by anything other than pure grace (not by any works) disagree with the NT teachings of Christ in the Bible.

Locked or not Locked.... At least I've been Fair....

jmiller20874

cvrefugee

We believe in continuous revelation from God. If that means certain practices or parts of doctrine are changed or modified, we believe it was a change made by God for our benefit or learning. Read Amos 3:7.

The problem is that people want logical answers where faith is needed.. I cannot convince or convert anybody, I do not have that power. Read I Cor. 2:9-13

cvrefugee

John 3:5
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

It is a requirement for all to be baptized to enter into the kingdom of God. But what about those who died before having this chance? What about the billions of people who lived before Christ? What about those who never heard of Jesus? Should they not have the chance to enter into the kingdom of God? God is fair and just.

1 Cor. 15:29
Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

What does that passage mean to you? To us it is speaking of baptism by proxy. To redeem the dead. To allow those who have passed on to have the chance at entering into God's kingdom. How does baptism of the dead have no New Testament backing?

James 2:14-20
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Man cannot be saved by grace alone.

jmiller20874

^^^ Amen.


(Sorry about my above post, trying to lighten the thread up a bit. Hardcore Bible-belt Christians crack me up.)

WeDriveScions

This post is insanely long.... as any doctrine's support cannot be supported by one verse...

Also, if you have not studied religion, you may not understand many of the principles or even agree.... that's cool.... this is just a reference to the Christian Apologetics (Core Beliefs) related to those referred verses....

The Following contents are excerpts from the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, which I've studied and which can better put the perspective than me alone... so credit for this information must primary be to them...

This is the danger of context.... what you MUST realise is that any one verse taken out of context can become a dangerous doctrine.... this is where many cults have started..... Branch Dividians and Jim Jones's following are large examples of even Evangelical Christianity gone wrong... also pay close attention to the 8 verses that describe salvation by faith....

Now to the Meat.....


In response to John 1:5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proof is found in God's word. Clearly, salvation is by faith. For example, Rom. 5:1 states that we are justified (declared righteous) by faith. It does not say faith and baptism. If baptism were part of salvation, then it would say we were justified by faith and baptism. But it does not. If justification is by faith, then it is by faith. Baptism is not faith. It is a ceremony. It is something we do as a ritual. Furthermore, please consider the following verses when declare how we are saved.

Rom. 3:22, "even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction."

Rom. 3:26, "for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."

Rom. 3:28, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law."

Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness."

Rom. 5:1, "Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,"

Gal. 3:8, "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham."

Gal. 3:24 , "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith."

Eph. 2:8, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God."

Additionally, Paul tells us that the gospel is what saves us and that the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, (1 Cor. 15:1-4). Baptism is not included in the description of the gospel.

This explains why he said he came to preach the gospel, not to baptize: "I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." (1 Cor. 1:14-17). If baptism is necessary for salvation then why did Paul downplay it and even exclude it from the description of what is required for salvation? It is because baptism isn't necessary for salvation. Therefore, John 3:5 must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the rest of scripture.

Another way of making this clear is to use an illustration. Let's suppose that a person, under the conviction of the Holy Spirit (John 16:, believed in Jesus as his savior (Rom. 10:9-10; Titus 2:13), and has received Christ (John 1:12) as Savior. Is that person saved? Of course he is.

Let's further suppose that this person who confesses his sinfulness, cries out in repentance to the Lord, and receives Jesus as Savior, then walks across the street to get baptized at a local church. In the middle of the road he gets hit by a car and is killed. Does he go to heaven or hell? If he goes to heaven then baptism isn't necessary for salvation. If He goes to hell, then trusting in Jesus, by faith, isn't enough for salvation. Doesn't that go against the Scriptures that say that salvation is a free gift (Rom. 6:23) received by faith (Eph. 2:8-9)? Yes it does. Baptism is not necessary for salvation and John 3:5 cannot teach that it is.

in Regards to I Cor 15:29..... Context.....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Numerous explanations have been offered for this verse ranging from the inane to the sophisticated. Mormonism, in particular, has claimed that this verse supports their view of baptism for the dead.

In that practice, individuals go to their local Mormon temple, dress appropriately for a baptism, representatively adopt the name of a person who has died, and then the Mormon is baptized in water for that deceased person. This way, the dead person has fulfilled the requirements of salvation in the afterworld and can enjoy further spiritual benefits in the spiritual realm.
But, the Mormons are incorrect. They have usurped this verse and taken it out of context. So, let's examine 1 Cor. 15 briefly so we can see what Paul is talking about when he mentions baptism for the dead.
In Verses 1-19, the fact of Christ's resurrection is detailed by Paul. Beginning in verse 20 and going through verse 23, Paul speaks about the order of the resurrection. Christ is the first one raised -- in a glorified body -- and then who are His at His return. Next, verses 24 - 29 mention Christ's reign and the abolition of death. This is when this controversial verse occurs: "Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?"
Just north of Corinth was a city named Eleusis. This was the location of a pagan religion where baptism in the sea was practiced to guarantee a good afterlife. This religion was mentioned by Homer in Hymn to Demeter 478-79.2 The Corinthians were known to be heavily influenced by other customs. After all, they were in a large economic area where a great many different people frequented. It is probable that the Corinthians were being influenced by the religious practices found at Eleusis where baptism for the dead was practiced.
Paul used this example from the pagans in 1 Cor. 15:29, when he said, "...if the dead are not raised, then why are they baptized for the dead?"

Paul did not say we.

This is significant because the Christian church was not practicing baptism for the dead, but the pagans were.

Paul's point was simple. The resurrection is a reality. It is going to happen when Jesus returns. Even the pagans believe in the resurrection, otherwise, why would they baptize for the dead?

However, some are not convinced by this argument and state that the word "they" is not in the Greek and, therefore, Paul is not speaking about the pagans.. Let's take a look.

Literally, the verse is translated as "Since what will do the being immersed on behalf of the dead if wholly dead not are raised why also are they immersed on behalf of them."

The issue here is the word, "baptizontai" -- "they are baptized." It is the present, passive, indicative, 3rd person, plural. In other words, it is THEY ARE BEING BAPTIZED or, THEY ARE BAPTIZED.

I -- first person singular
you (singular) -- second person singular
he/she/it -- third person singular
we -- first person plural
you (plural) -- second person plural
they -- third person plural

It is the latter form, the third person plural (they) which the verb "baptizo" is in. Therefore, the best translation is "THEY are baptized."

And in regards to James....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is erroneous to take a verse, read it without its context, and then attempt to develop a doctrine from that verse alone.

Therefore, let's take a look at the context of James 2:24 which says that a man is justified by works. James chapter 2 has 26 verses: Verses 1-7 instruct us to not show favoritism. Verses 8- 13 are comments on the Law. Verses 14-26 are about the relationship between faith and works.

For simplicity, I've summarized each verse and arranged the section in an outline style.

14 - What use is it if someone says he has faith but no works?
15 - If you see someone in need
16 - and you don't give him what he needs, but say, ‘Go in peace, be
warmed.' What use is that?
17 - therefore faith with no works is dead
18 - therefore, someone says "I will show you my faith by my
works."
19 - you believe in God? Good. The demons do too.
20 - faith without works is useless.
21 - Abraham was justified by works when he offered Isaac
22 - faith was working with his works.
23 - Scripture says, "And Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as
righteousness"
24 - you see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.
25 - Rahab, was justified by works
26 - faith without works is dead

Notice that James begins this section by using the example of someone who says he has faith, verses 14. He then immediately gives an example of what true and false faiths are. He begins with the negative and demonstrates what an empty faith is (verses 15-17). Then he shows that that type of faith isn't much different from the faith of demons (verse 19). Finally, he gives examples of living faith by showing Abraham and Rahab as examples of people who demonstrated their faith by their deeds.
James is examining two kinds of faith: one that leads to godly works and one that does not. One is true, and the other is false. One is dead, the other alive; hence, "Faith without works is dead," (James 2:20).
This is why in the middle of his section on faith and works, he says in verse 19, "You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder." James says this because the demons believe in God, that is, they have faith, but the faith they have is useless. It does not result in appropriate works. Their faith is only a mental acknowledgment of God's existence.

Ascentia and Fiducia

Two words are worth introducing here: ascentia and fiducia. Ascentia is the mental ascent, the mental acknowledgment of something's existence. The demons acknowledge and believe that God exists. Fiducia is more than mental acknowledgment. It involves a trust in something, a giving over to it, a complete believing and acceptance of something. This is the kind of faith that a Christian has in Christ. A Christian, therefore, has fiducia; that is, he has real faith and trust in Christ, not simply an acknowledgment that He lived on earth at one time. Another way to put this is that there are many people in the world who believed that Jesus lived: ascentia. But they do not believe that He is their savior, the one to be looked to and trusted for the forgiveness of their sins.
Ascentia does not lead to works. Fiducia does. Ascentia is not of the heart. Fiducia is.

What is James Saying?

James is simply saying that if you ‘say' you are a Christian, then there had better be some appropriate works manifested or your faith is false. This sentiment is echoed in 1 John 2:4 which says, "If you say you have come to know Him, yet you do not keep His commandments, then the truth is not in you and you are a liar."
Apparently, there were people who were saying they were Christians, but were not manifesting any of the fruit of Christianity. Can this faith justify? Can the dead ‘faith' that someone has which produces no change in a person and no good works before men and God be a faith that justifies? Absolutely not. It is not merely enough to say you believe in Jesus. You must actually believe and trust in Him. If you actually do, then you will demonstrate that faith by a changed and godly life. If not, then your profession is of no more value than the same profession of demons: "We believe Jesus lived."
Notice that James actually quotes the same verse that Paul uses to support the teaching of justification by faith in Rom. 4:3. James 2:23 says, "and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, ‘and Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.'" If James was trying to teach a contradictory doctrine of faith and works than the other New Testament writers, then he would not have used Abraham as an example.
Therefore, we are justified by faith. That is, we are made righteous in the eyes of God by faith as is amply demonstrated by Romans. However, that faith, if it is true, will result in deeds appropriate to salvation. After all, didn't God say in Eph. 2:8-10, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."


Congratulations if you made it to this point..... nothing in faith is simple or basic...

You may agree or not... but critical thought and consideration is important to any worldview....

WeDriveScions

BTW, the lighten things up...

That LADY ABOVE IS INSANE....

I just watched the previews for that episode and was amazed.... good ol' wifeswap...

I liked the last one, where they took an wife who lived without most of her furniture and was strickly vegitarian and replaced her with a wife from an upperclass steak eating household.... come on.....

I would have thought it really incredible to live with someone for a week who has much different beliefs..... That's why I'd sit for hours with the LDS missionaries in Central and South America.... Most of the time we'd sit and talk about pop-culture and music, as they couldn't keep up with it without email and not being able to listen to it.... but, we'd always talk a bit about our worldview.... it's cool to discuss...

obz

Here is the problem with everything you said earlier, it's all based on view. Tell me, if there was one view of the bible, wouldn't there only be one religion? Regardless of the context or any kind of "factual" evidence, this is irrelivant. There are hundreds of religions in the world that believe their "translation" of the bible is correct. If your translation of what the bible says is correct, then why does a catholic, jew, protestant, or baptist not agree? I could take all those scriptures and start up my own church that says we should dig up the dead and baptize them physically, not by proxy. I could start a church that says we are all going to hell regardless of faith or works. Why not? There are certain facts that you are not considering. Tell me, how was the King James version of the bible created? How was the Gideon version of the bible created? Why are their multiple versions of the bible? Mormonism has determined that these scriptures mean something else, just as a baptist pastor may believe something different as well. This is the problem and at the same time the appeal of faith. One must choose a path to follow and stick to it. You may feel Mormonism is weird, or outside of the norm, but in the end why is it your place to judge? Afterall, doesn't the Bible (not sure if it's yours or mine) say "Judge not, let ye be judged?"

surfcity40

christ did not speak English. you certainly put a lot of faith in man's ability to translate language. it's quite possible the King James version of the bible is an eggagerated game of "Telephone".

see, many words do not "literally" translate very well into other languages. there are close facsimiles and we "get the gist", but i'm a little concerned about a literal translation into English from a two thousand year old language with a plethora of regional vernacular and ideosyncratic "slang". a wrong word inadertently placed here or there and i'm on my way to hell.