</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Originally posted by Joel33:
I don't want you never to post in this thread. I just hope that when you do, you can maintain your composure and not change what you've said after it's been responded to. Like I said, I find it a little misleading. Also, be prepared to back up what you say. Sometimes even Allen and Steve don't do that
while I believe very passionately in my faith, I am able to discuss it from a fairly academic point of view. I am kind of bothered by assertions, statements without basis in fact, logical fallacies, and downright rudeness
I mean it's pretty easy to be committed to Christ when he's paying the bills.

Nonetheless, I don't really want to discuss it anymore because it distracts from the real issues of this thread and originated with me making some throw-away, pot-shot remark about "filthy lucre". I'm over it. I get it. You are free to think what you want. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">these are reasons that i feel the topic is getting heavy

It's late, but I'll talk fer a bit and see...


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Joel33:

Can someone explain why Paul would speak about baptism for the dead and present day Christianity believes the concept to be ludicrous.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What scripture is that based on? I haven't found it. I have found several scriptures where Paul talks about the symbolism of baptism where "the old you dies and the new you rises" much as Jesus died and rose again, but there doesn't seem to be anything saying we need to 'baptize for the dead'.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Joel33:

Can someone explain why Peter states that the gospel was preached to the dead while they were spirits and no other Christian faith believes it?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again, where is this found? and why is it a matter here? I don't remember it being introduced into the conversation before you posted it.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Joel33:

Can someone explain how God can righteously condemn the majority of he people who have lived on earth simply because they will be born into a situation that will not allow them to hear the Gospel?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">We've discussed this here before... some believe that God allows for that. I think it's the rejection of the sacrifice that condemns someone, not the not knowing. In other words, those that hear and reject are responsible for that, but those that aren't, aren't. I could be wrong, but I'll have to wait like everyone else to find out God's intentions

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Joel33:

Can someone explain why if Paul stated that "no man" could take the Priesthood (or God's authority to minister) unto himself, why that is okay by Christianity today? Is it to okay to ignore what the Apostles said when it doesn't fit your theology?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The difference here is that we believe God does do the calling, He doesn't speak only through Priests, prophets, etc.

This site could be considered such an example - I believe called me to start it and He called me to continue it when the 'real-life' stand318 group died out. I don't wear a suit or robe when I post here, it's usually gym clothes, but the site is still as much a ministry as any brick and mortar building. Many more people 'attend' here from all over the world than most local churches have in attendance. I don't think God intended for me to contact the local mormon temple to get their ok - yet many people have renewed their faith, found the spiritual answers they were looking for, and recieved the answer to prayer as requested - none of it, mind you, was my doing, but of God's work in their hearts, all without the mormons' blessing. Still, a true ministry.


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Joel33:

Can someone explain away the prophesies of an Apostacy and Restoration contained in the Bible? Can someone explain away the prophesies of the Book of Mormon contained in the Bible?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why would we want to 'explain it away' - we don't disagree that it was prophesied, only in the timing... Most would say it wasn't Joseph Smith who ended the dark ages, but Martin Luther and John Calvin much earlier....

As for "the prophesies of the Book of Mormon contained in the Bible" - it's pretty easy to 'prophesy' something that you've already read in the Bible

Here and now I prophesy that Jesus will return - toss a couple 'thee's, thou's, and verily's' in there to make it sound better too - does that make me a prophet just because I read it elsewhere then wrote it down too?

Speakina which - this is a whole other tangent, but the book of mormon contains a lot of scripture lifted from the KJV Bible - it's a simple thing to make your own beliefs sound pretty good if you plagiarize the text from the Bible and call it 'another testament'.


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Joel33:

Can someone explain to me how it can be okay that modern Christianity doesn't resemble the Church Christ personally established when he lived on the earth? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In what way? That's a hugely broad statement... people are being saved, lives are being changed, in what way is it dramatically different?

A better question might be :

The book of mormon was written to contain doctrine that was deemed to be 'the Word of God, "eternal," "everlasting," to govern the church "forevermore."' Why has so much of the doctrine been abandoned over the years to accomodate political expediency?

More specific examples include (but aren't limited to:

• - The Adam-God doctrine (Adam is God the Father);
• - the United Order (all property of church members is to be held in common, with title in the church);
• - Plural Marriage (polygamy; a man must have more than one wife to attain the highest degree of heaven);
• - the Curse of Cain (the black race is not entitled to hold God's priesthood because it is cursed; this doctrine was not abandoned until 1978);
• - Blood Atonement (some sins - apostasy, adultery, murder, interracial marriage - must be atoned for by the shedding of the sinner's blood, preferably by someone appointed to do so by church authorities);

Whether we feel that the church was correct in abandoning them is not the point; rather, the point is that a church claiming to be the church of God takes one "everlasting" position at one time and the opposite position at another, all the time claiming to be proclaiming the word of God.

Hey Allen I got a couple of these.

Joel,
Baptism for the dead:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">1 Corinthians 15:29
Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Paul was talking about a practice that was common in that region people would in fact baptize for the deceased. It is presumed that they were ancestors who passed before the time of Christ, or people who had not been able to hear the Gospel prior to death. The bible is pretty clear that we will all be judged accordingly if we have heard the Gospel.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
About preaching TO the dead:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">1Peter 4:6 For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Who were the dead? We have to look at the previous chapter

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 1 Peter 3:18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is commonly held that God held the Spirits of those people in reserve for the time when Christ came. When Christ died they were told the truth and had the opprotunity to repent.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

About being called to the Preisthood

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Hebrews 5:1 Every high priest is selected from among men and is appointed to represent them in matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. 2He is able to deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray, since he himself is subject to weakness. 3This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people.
4No one takes this honor upon himself; he must be called by God, just as Aaron was. 5So Christ also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him, "You are my Son; today I have become* your Father.[*or have begotten you]" 6And he says in another place, "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Here is Aaron's call

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Exodus 28:1 "Have Aaron your brother brought to you from among the Israelites, along with his sons Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, so they may serve me as priests.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Note, it was God who called people into the Aaronic priesthood. Not a prophet, though in some instances he used prophets to speak through. Now to more meaty stuff. The Bible is speaking specifically about the High Priest in the Aaronic Priesthood, (whom Jesus took on the role of as he atoned for all sin by his personal sacrifice which was the duty of the High priest) NOT a minister or teacher of the Gospel. Even then God calls those whom He will into ministry.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Joel33:

Can someone explain to me how it can be okay that modern Christianity doesn't resemble the Church Christ personally established when he lived on the earth? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I could say the same for Mormonism. Where did the disciples build such an effidice as the Mormon Temple in Utah or even a single building that is recorded in scripture. They met in homes. Yes. I know that you have 12 apostles but that is where you similarities stop as well. Most Christian churches are run by Deacons as prescribed by scripture and many even meet in homes as well. (not all certainly)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Joel my friend a word of caution. I have noticed that much of your material and beliefs are what I call "single sentence doctrine." Taking an unsupported quote or verse and building doctrine around it. That is what (God bless them) has the Pentecostals not wearing any makeup or cutting their hair etc. Scripture tells us that any precept of God will be supported by at least two witnesses. The material you have posted has not been supported that way!

Love ya bud!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have noticed that much of your material and beliefs are what I call "single sentence doctrine." Taking an unsupported quote or verse and building doctrine around it. That is what (God bless them) has the Pentecostals not wearing any makeup or cutting their hair etc. Scripture tells us that any precept of God will be supported by at least two witnesses. The material you have posted has not been supported that way!
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Steve, we've been down this road before and I have to admit that from your point of view, you're right. However, from my point of view - I believe there is a second witness to all of those things provided by living prophets of God. You just don't accept those witnesses. (Also, I think Peter and Paul were separately discussing a larger doctrine -Salvation for the Dead- in two different places and could be considered two witnesses within the bible - I'll explain further down)

I find ample (more than one witness) evidence in the Bible that there was to be an apostacy followed by a restoration. I find ample (more than one witness) evidence in the Bible that God works through prophets and that the church that was organized by Jesus was intended to remain in that same state going forward. If I can believe those things based on multiple evidences or witnesses found in the Bible and I accept Joseph Smith as a prophet equal in stature to Moses, then it follows that I would certainly consider things found in the Book of Mormon and revelations recieved by Joseph Smith to be of equal weight and, in my mind, a second witness. I guess in some ways, with any discussion of baptism for the dead or certain other doctrines, I'm getting ahead of myself (difficult not to sometimes) and I really need to establish Joseph Smith as a Prophet who restored the gospel after the a great apostacy that covered the whole earth. Nevertheless it came up and I tried to address it.

Nonetheless, I don't disagree with you about what you say about Paul </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is presumed that they were ancestors who passed before the time of Christ, or people who had not been able to hear the Gospel prior to death. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What I'm saying is that Paul is not condemning the practice as invalid and is in fact using it and its validity as evidence of a pending resurrection. So it existed in biblical times and was apparently approved of by an Apostle. So the fact that a religion today practices it isn't so outlandish. Essentially we do the same thing being baptized for our ancestors and others who have not been able to hear the gospel. Maybe a better question would have been (since you seem to accept this as a legitimate practice, at least in Biblical times - correct me if I'm wrong) --- Why bother with baptism for the dead if baptism is unnecessary in the view of Modern Christianity being surpassed and superceded by mere profession of faith in Jesus Christ? Isn't it then just a waste of time and water? (I believe this is why I brought it up in the first place - as an evidence of the necessity of Baptism - for the dead or otherwise)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is commonly held that God held the Spirits of those people in reserve for the time when Christ came. When Christ died they were told the truth and had the opprotunity to repent.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I believe this I just believe that the Gospel will be preached to everyone who has died without the opportunity to hear it, because I believe God to be equitable and just. The way you've interpreted it gives some sort of wierd cosmic preference to those who were contemporaries of Noah. Doesn't jive with the God that I know - If they get the chance, everyone does. This would be the place that I give a quasi-second Biblical witness to the baptism for the dead as I consider the two to be part of one great whole. You can't baptize someone who has died unless you are reasonably assured that they will recieve the opportunity to hear the gospel and repent. What Paul said and what Peter said go together. Peter says they get preached to so they can be judged and Paul confirms that there did exist an acceptable practice by which people who died as non-Christians may be baptized. Either one alone would be pointless.

As for the stuff in Hebrews, I could go on and on about how Aaron was actually called. And I do agree with Allen, you don't need to be called by one of God's servants to start up useful Christian websites, plenty of well-meaning and sometimes misguided Mormons have done the same (on a side, note, I really do think the site is great thing and I am certain it has helped many people and will continue to help many people - way to go Allen). The authority, as such, is more about God recognizing the performing of certain ordinances (like baptism) because the person performing the ordinance has been called by God through one of his servants and then annointed and consecrated (which is part of the way Aaron was called - toward the end of Exodus 28) to that position by those same servants. It's also about designating divinely appointed leadership over God's flock so that the sheep can be relatively certain that their leaders are shepherds and not wolves because they have been appointed by Prophets. (just pointing out, even though I love this website - someone with not so nice intentions could establish something similar and take advantage of those who use the site based on personal information accessed by the site there by qualifying as a wolf amongst the flock - but not our Cruel Dictator )

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I could say the same for Mormonism. Where did the disciples build such an effidice as the Mormon Temple in Utah or even a single building that is recorded in scripture. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">this is the only thing you said that confused me. Jesus himself sort of thought pretty highly of the Temple in Jerusalem and often retired there to preach (especially during his final week). Moreover, God is clearly a God that builds temples, it's all over the Old Testament and they are certainly use during the New Testament. I'm also sure you would agree that Jesus is very clear in that he does not reject Judaism but rather has come to fulfill Judaism. As such one would expect certain facets of Judaism to remain in place after it was fulfilled. Most definitely, there is reason to believe that sacrifice within temples must end with Jesus' infinite sacrifice, but that does not mean that temples must be done away with. Judaism was the true religion for thousands of years and the only way to gain access to God until Jesus came and fulfilled it.

The resemblance I'm referring to is the organization, structure, and practices which Jesus implemented being lost. Personally, I find it to be nearly incomprehensible that any Christian would say that Baptism is unnecessary, especially since we are taught to follow Jesus' example and he himself was baptized by one having authority. After all WWJD? He'd get baptized.

Allen's up next.

now yall er just outta muh leage here... so good luck to yuh all

sorry to reply twice but i cant edit so ...
but Jooel let me ask you this do you believe that if you were on your death bed and accepted jesus in to your heart and was born again by spirit....15 seconds later you Die...do you belive that you will go to hellbecause you were not baptised ...I believe that its a very good thing and that if at all possible to get baptised because it shows your faith and i believe it personalises your relationship ...(as a matter of fact i was thinking about getting baptized again just to show God i love him and rededicate my faith to him) but what if you just dont have a chance to get baptized Joel... do you believe that you will go to hell???

i know im new but new era i totally agree with you
that we wont go to hell just for not being baptised... God sees our heart and its really just about relationship,ive been keeping up with this post and like you said ERA, luke 12:31 man
luke 12:31 seek ye first the kingdom of God

I think Steve and I have covered the stuff on Baptism for the dead and the Gospel being preached to the dead so I’ll skip over that stuff. I will mention that I’m pretty sure I quoted both scriptures I was referring to earlier, along with chapter and verse references.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Allen:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Joel33:

Can someone explain how God can righteously condemn the majority of he people who have lived on earth simply because they will be born into a situation that will not allow them to hear the Gospel?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">We've discussed this here before... some believe that God allows for that. I think it's the rejection of the sacrifice that condemns someone, not the not knowing. In other words, those that hear and reject are responsible for that, but those that aren't, aren't. I could be wrong, but I'll have to wait like everyone else to find out God's intentions </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think Steve and I covered this as well. I’m just saying He does judge them and based on what is said 1Peter 3:18-19 and again in 1 Peter 4:6, He gets them taught the gospel before judging them. It's not like he'll say "Well, Osama since you were born and raised in a Muslim country and in a Muslim tradition and no missionaries every knocked on the door to your cave - you're home free!! Congrats - no need for you to accept Jesus." I'm pretty sure that as Paul says to the Romans - Romans 14:11 </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Isn't someone going to have to tell those who didn't learn about it in this life why they have to bow?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The difference here is that we believe God does do the calling, He doesn't speak only through Priests, prophets, etc. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">that wouldn’t qualify as being called in the same manner as Aaron. He was called through prophet by revelation and then ordained by that prophet. And Paul states, "No man" is an exception.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This site could be considered such an example - I believe called me to start it and He called me to continue it when the 'real-life' stand318 group died out. I don't wear a suit or robe when I post here, it's usually gym clothes, but the site is still as much a ministry as any brick and mortar building. Many more people 'attend' here from all over the world than most local churches have in attendance. I don't think God intended for me to contact the local mormon temple to get their ok - yet many people have renewed their faith, found the spiritual answers they were looking for, and recieved the answer to prayer as requested - none of it, mind you, was my doing, but of God's work in their hearts, all without the mormons' blessing. Still, a true ministry. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">well no one called me from Salt Lake City and told me I better hurry on over to praisecafe.org in order to correct some misperceptions about Mormonism that have been posted there. Mormons have a scripture in the Doctrine & Covenants 58:26, which says: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">in other words – we don’t need to wait for God to command us before we go out and do good. As I explained in response to Steve’s post – the authority I’m talking about has less to do with witnessing and generally doing good, and more to do with authority to perform ordinances like baptisms and weddings and the like that are recognized by God. It does help however to have God appoint leaders of congregations so that the congregation can have full faith and confidence that the Pastor or whoever isn’t self-serving and is looking out for the good of the flock. Imagine for instance if someone of your abilities on the internet and your knowledge of the scriptures started such a website as this for predatory purposes, wouldn’t it be easy for that person to take advantage of innocent young folks who came in here asking very deeply personal questions? Do you see my point? Being called by God and authorized is essentially a safety mechanism in order to prevent a culture of pedophilia creeping into a paid group of ministers - oops, I didn't mean to reveal my anti-Catholic bias. Nonetheless it is a good example (I'm not saying that the Mormon system is foolproof either - there have been Mormons in quasi-leadership positions convicted of similar things - we just like to cooperate with the authorities and hand them over - there is certainly not the widespread and accepted culture of sexual perversion that is prevalent within the Catholic priesthood.) However, you have to admit to an aspiring pedophile, who would like to get paid for his abuse - the catholic priesthood used to seem like a really good option. After all, within catholicism, the Priesthood it is far more like a career path than it is like a calling - what with the degrees conferred by mammon and all.

With regard to the apostacy you wrote
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why would we want to 'explain it away' - we don't disagree that it was prophesied, only in the timing... Most would say it wasn't Joseph Smith who ended the dark ages, but Martin Luther and John Calvin much earlier </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Then why aren’t you a Lutheran or a Methodist or a Presbyterian (or are you?) If they ended it, then they must have tapped into God’s true religion.

Let’s review:

There are three types of Christian churches and they can be classified as follows.

1. The Catholic Church, which claims that it has had an uninterrupted existence upon the earth since it was originally founded by Jesus Christ.

2. Protestant churches founded by reformers (Luther/Calvin etc) who contend that the original church fell into apostasy and who, therefore, through a study of the Bible, have attempted to return to the original teachings and practices of the church. The number of these churches, I contend, is evidence enough of how impossible it is to agree upon the teachings of the Bible when left to the wisdom of man to interpret and understand them. Because of this lack of unity churches have continued to multiply in a further effort to return to what they consider the original teachings of the Christ. Let’s face it, everyone of these churches strongly believes that it’s interpretation is at least better than the others – otherwise why do the boundaries between them exist. Even you two, Allen & Steve, worship where you worship, most likely because you consider it somehow better than someplace else. Am I wrong?

3. And Restorationist churches - who believe that the church established by Jesus Christ while he was upon the earth fell into an apostate condition as predicted by the apostles, and that the church could not be reestablished upon the earth merely through a reformation, but only through a restoration (if you couldn’t guess, the last group consists of Mormons and Mormons and perhaps even the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ).

Considering these different types of churches, logic dictates, that if the first type is true – there is no support whatsoever for the existence of the other two types of churches. If the first type is wrong and the original church had gone astray could a mere reformation restore what was lost? That’s kind of like trying to get a new, living tree by cutting down a dead tree chopping it up and trying to recreate it from a log off of the woodpile. In other words – it doesn’t work. This leaves the second group in a precarious position. The authority was lost and needed to be restored – instead of pulling a log of off the woodpile to start over; the Lord planted a new seed by calling a new prophet and that seed has grown into the same kind of tree (like seeds have a tendency to do) that had been lost ages before.

We don't believe other churches are evil or anything - we just believe they lack a fulness of the gospel and God's authority (Priesthood). As such I would believe most spiritual experiences you've had are probably genuine as the Spirit testifies of all truth. However, I would clarify to state that there is a little bit more to it. More truth, more light, and more knowledge about Jesus Christ that we like to enlighten people about.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As for "the prophesies of the Book of Mormon contained in the Bible" - it's pretty easy to 'prophesy' something that you've already read in the Bible </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That’s not what I’m talking about – I’m talking about how the Bible prophesies of the Book of Mormon and testifies of its truth. I know the baptist minister post was full of crap on some issues but you cannot ignore others like Genesis 49:22-26 and Deuteronomy 33:13-16 describing the tribe of Joseph and neatly fitting in with what is described in the Book of Mormon. Or Isaiah 29 and what actually happened between Martin Harris and Dr. Anthon. Or Ezekiel 37:15-20 regarding the two sticks (Joseph = Book of Mormon peoples; Judah = Bible peoples). Or the Other Sheep of John 10:16. Or Revelations 14:6 - with another angel (who could reasonably be considered to describe Moroni) bringing with him the everlasting gospel.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Speakina which - this is a whole other tangent, but the book of mormon contains a lot of scripture lifted from the KJV Bible - it's a simple thing to make your own beliefs sound pretty good if you plagiarize the text from the Bible and call it 'another testament'.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">um, why would Jesus come to the people in the Ancient Americas and teach something different? That would truly be weird. In fact, I would expect the Book of Mormon and its teachings to be similar to the Bible and I would expect that Jesus would teach the same things in Jerusalem that he taught in Book of Mormon lands – so he came here and taught essentially the same thing as the sermon on the mount. I don’t get why that would be a problem. What’s the big deal?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The book of mormon was written to contain doctrine that was deemed to be 'the Word of God, "eternal," "everlasting," to govern the church "forevermore."' Why has so much of the doctrine been abandoned over the years to accomodate political expediency?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Allen, you are demonstrating again that you rely heavily on anti-mormon websites and that you haven’t actually read the book yourself. If you had you’d know that

• </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
• - The Adam-God doctrine (Adam is God the Father);</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">is not taught in the Book of Mormon but was rather a theory that was forwarded by Brigham Young. Brigham was a pretty strong-willed individual and if he had wanted to get that doctrine canonized as part of our belief system he would have. The fact that he didn’t speaks volumes about how a prophet is only a prophet when acting under the direction of the Lord. In short, we don’t believe this – Brigham Young may have believed it, but for some odd reason he chose not to ever canonize it. Maybe it was because he was truly a prophet and God told him not to.
  </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
• - the United Order (all property of church members is to be held in common, with title in the church);</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Book of Mormon doesn’t teach this either. The Bible teaches it in Acts 5:1-5 </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">BUT a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why would it be a sin to keep back only a part of the price unless the whole price was demanded by the church? Incidentally, we don’t practice the United Order today and it has only been practiced on a limited basis when economic conditions permit. When it was tried in the past it stopped when members of the church screwed it up. Kind of like Ananias. Also, there is no evidence in the Bible that it was practiced widely either, and maybe there were more like Ananias, thereby undermining the practice entirely. That being said, would I sacrifice everything I own and all my time and talents and energy to build up the Kingdom of God if I was asked to? Absolutely.
  </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
• - Plural Marriage (polygamy; a man must have more than one wife to attain the highest degree of heaven);</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">also not taught in the Book of Mormon as clearly as you've described. The practice came about due to questions asked by Joseph Smith in prayer regarding how men like Abraham and Jacob (Israel) in the Old Testament could be justified in having more than one wife. Then the doctrine was revealed in a revelation which is recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants. It is mentioned in the Book of Mormon briefly in Jacob 2: 26-30 </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In essence God says no plural wives unless I command otherwise and I will only command otherwise should I desire to “raise up seed unto me.” That’s essentially why it happened in our church, we were being killed like flies and in order to “raise up a seed unto the Lord” he commanded that we do it. It ended in 1890 when it was no longer needed. As far as what you say about getting into the highest degree of heaven, well at the time it was considered a commandment of God – if you don’t obey the commandments and you don’t repent you don’t go to the highest degree of heaven. Now it is no longer considered a commandment as it filled it’s purpose and the Lord directed his prophet in 1890 (Wilford Woodruff) to discontinue it. If you think it was only given up due to political expediency, we would have probably given it up a lot sooner, like when Brigham Young was arrested in his old age because he practiced it or when John Taylor (our third prophet) lived in hiding for several years because they sought to arrest him because of it - not even being able to attend the funeral of his first wife.
  </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
• - the Curse of Cain (the black race is not entitled to hold God's priesthood because it is cursed; this doctrine was not abandoned until 1978);</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">again, not taught in the Book of Mormon – That the God's chosen people were to remain separate from the offspring of Cain is taught in the Bible. Here's the deal with the Priesthood, at the time of Moses, only the tribe of Levi or the Levites could hold the Priesthood, gradually over time that was privilege was extended to other tribes of Israel. At the time of Christ it was still restricted only to Israel as was the preaching of the Gospel. Eventually the Gospel was extended (and the Priesthood with it) to other groups of people (the Gentiles) as defined by their ancestry. And now, it has been extended to all. Joseph Smith actually ordained a few black men to the Priesthood before God corrected him. So it wasn’t some racist thing as you would certainly like everyone to think. Many of the prophets of the church prayed for the day that this restriction would be lifted until finally the Lord revealed to Spencer W. Kimball (prophet back in ’78) that the time was ripe. If you think this was a political decision as well, then our timing is suspect. One reason Utah was denied statehood in the 1850's was because we would be coming in as "Free State" thereby upsetting the balance of "Free vs. Slave States" - indicating that we were pretty progressive thinkers for 1850. Also, if our motivation was purely political we probably should have jumped aboard the civil rights band-wagon in the early 1960's instead of waiting almost 20 years to get in line. I'm sorry, God spoke and until he spoke we didn't act.
  </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
• - Blood Atonement (some sins - apostasy, adultery, murder, interracial marriage - must be atoned for by the shedding of the sinner's blood, preferably by someone appointed to do so by church authorities);</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">not a doctrine of the church at all. No doubt, Brigham Young wanted anti-mormons in the early days to atone for the murders of his beloved friends with their own blood and said a few vengeful things from the pulpit. However, Blood Atonement has never been a doctrine of the church. And the Danite death-squads you allude to are pure fiction.

It’s pretty apparent that you're still reading a lot of Ed Decker’s crap on his saintsalive website. I’ve already provided enough material to thoroughly discredit him and yet you continue to read it. I say judge for yourself, by reading the Book of Mormon, pondering its message, and then praying to ask God if it is true.

NE20 and PraiseJunky - No, I don't believe you will go to hell for repenting on your deathbed. I think if you re-read the posts carefully, you'll see what I believe. In short, I believe what Jesus said and did to be the "Final Answer" on this question - Baptism is necessary for all. End of Story. However, because God is merciful - he has provided a means for those who neglect that duty in this life to be baptized, through the doctrine described above of "salvation for the dead". I believe that missionary work is conducted among the spirits of those who have died (1 Peter 3:18-19 and 4:6) and that people here on earth can be baptized on behalf of the dead (1 Corinthians 15:29), and that baptism will be considered valid provided they also accept Jesus.

(edited to add) You can edit NE20, just don't change things so much that I look at my response and wonder why I said what I said, until I look down at the bottom of your post and see that it is edited.

well Joel thats a pretty long reply for such a simple question but basically i think all this stuff about Momonism is a load of nonsence dude i mean seriously just drop it man i mean why even argue any more here. no one believes what you do and no one agrees with any thing your saying so why come back and back again for constant disagreement, i mean this isnt mormoncafe.org lol although i am sure the people here welcome you with open arms and which is awsome because thats how you win people to the Lord, but they just are not going to give in to your beliefs and if you are not willing to give in to our beliefs then why stay to argue the difference between the two.... look at this topic it has been flaoting around for about 2 or 3 years now and its gotten no where brother. So agin I ask , why keep coming back to prove your belief when nobody is believing it? it just kinda jumbles my mind brother, its almost like you crave or thrive on disagreement. Or do you just enjoy the fellowship of difference of opinion?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Originally posted by Joel33:
Baptism is necessary for all. End of Story. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Baptism is not necessary for all.Point made.

see what i mean brother this could just go on and on forever...whats the point? It gets no where.

I enjoy dispelling myths and misperceptions about Mormons and if possible opening closed minds to possibilities outside what may be considered okay within the confines of modern Christianity.

Besides, who know if no one is believing it. You speak only for yourself. Dozens of people read this thread and many probably read it who aren't even on the site.

If I can get one person to have an opinion of Mormonism that is more thought out than </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">this stuff about Momonism is a load of nonsence dude i mean seriously just drop it man</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">then great. Mormons have long been outcasts within the greater Christian community. I guess I believe that if others would think we were at least as legitimate a means of approaching God as what they have - we could better work together to rid the world of its ills.

You bet, I'd love it if Allen's next post said "you're right, you've been right all along, I know the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true - come to Texas and baptize me into your church." I certainly don't expect that, but I still like Allen and Steve and enjoy the high level of debate and discussion with people who really know their Bible. Good times. Even though I've never met them personally, I consider them good friends. In other threads I've occasionally posted some of my problems and they have always given heartfelt and sincere answers - as well as others like Kris and Trusting, you all know who you are. It truly is a great forum for discussing religion and all other issues of faith. And occasionally trying to get the last word in that other thread.

As for this </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">well Joel thats a pretty long reply for such a simple question </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">yes, I know I'm long-winded, but I try to be very precise in what I'm saying and sometimes that takes a lot of words.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by PraiseJunky:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Originally posted by Joel33:
[b]Baptism is necessary for all. End of Story. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Baptism is not necessary for all.Point made.

see what i mean brother this could just go on and on forever...whats the point? It gets no where. [/b]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't see what you mean, because you cannot prove your position from what it says in the Bible. Not to repeat myself, but Jesus said (John 3:5) </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">and no where does Jesus do or say anything to refute that and neither do the Apostles.

And if you refer to the theif on the cross, I'll just tell you to go back and read the thread more carefully. It's been discussed and it's not been refuted sufficiently by Allen or Steve or the Bible.

wow ...just when you thought it was safe to come back to the mormon thread...lol...i can see where Joel is coming from and for him to post for the enjoyment of debate is understandable...and i cant think of any better people to do it with then steve and al but the topic is over my comprehension now so i think its beter left to those threelol happy hunting Joel
love

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">just when you thought it was safe to come back to the mormon thread.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> It will never be safe in the Mormon thread [evil laughter] Mwu-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!![/evil laughter]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Originally posted by Joel33:
I don't see what you mean, because you cannot prove your position from what it says in the Bible. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">dude do you seriously need me to prove it...i mean this guy allen has said it many times in the bible where Jesus himself doesnt mention a thing about needing to be baptised but any way i will just drop this conversation because also like that dude allen said this is really a topic that no one can win so good luck with your debate with al and steve and i really am sorry that i even got involved with the topic
peace

now thats funny ... i laughed at that one Joel...like larry the cable guy says ...thats funny rit there i don' care who you are...lol
nice evil laugh too

love

junky - the idea isn't to win. The idea is to proclaim the truth regardless of consequences.

Allen hasn't refuted it. None of the scriptures he cited said, "you don't need to be baptized." If you look through the bible for something that says that you won't find it.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">dude do you seriously need me to prove it...i mean this guy allen has said it many times in the bible where Jesus himself doesnt mention a thing about needing to be baptised but any way </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There are also many times in the Bible where Jesus does not mention keeping his commandments. Just because he does not mention it in a specific verse, it does not go back and erase what he said in another verse. If there is truly a verse that says baptism is not required, then I will believe it, but like Joel has pointed out, there has been no such verse written.

dude like i said i am droping the conversation because its going no where we argue till we are blue in the face but any way ...think what you want to.....what ever peace later you wont see me back in here...(unless yuh talk bad about me..) lol