Christians: I intend to watch Passion of the Christ tonight for the first time

[ἀλήθεια]

I would like to add that current LDS teaching is that the Atonement took place in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross. But that is not what I was reading in Katzpur's statement.

Further the Atonement is considered payment for the Fall that occurred in the Garden of Eden and allows all mankind to be resurrected. In LDS teachings eternal life (not just everlasting life, but the right to spend eternity with Heavenly Father) is reserved for those who qualify by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the LDS gospel.

"3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."
The Articles of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

 

[Watchmen]

I would like to add that current LDS teaching is that the Atonement took place in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross. But that is not what I was reading in Katzpur's statement.

Further the Atonement is considered payment for the Fall that occurred in the Garden of Eden and allows all mankind to be resurrected. In LDS teachings eternal life (not just everlasting life, but the right to spend eternity with Heavenly Father) is reserved for those who qualify by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the LDS gospel.

"3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."
The Articles of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

It's not "the laws and ordinances of the LDS gospel." It's the laws and ordinances established by Jesus Christ. They are faith, repentence, baptism, and receiving the Holy Spirit. These are Bible-based teachings.

 

[Katzpur]

Edward,
This post is for you specifically.

I find it amazing, although very consistent, that whenever there is a prolonged discussion about LDS beliefs, some of the LDS invariably resort to not addressing the issues. Instead they apply a tactic called character assassination. It matters not whether the messenger is right or wrong. What matters is that he/she is denigrated to being some type of low-life. In other words, "let's discuss not the issues, but let's talk about the person."

You're relatively new to this forum, so I can understand why you would have come to the conclusion you have in reading this and a couple of other threads. I would like to point out, though, that we LDS are no more inclined to resort to character assassination than any other person on the forum. I can personally say that, without exception, when somebody criticizes my beliefs, my initial response is to try to clear up any misunderstandings they may have, provide biblical support for my doctrines and, in short, try to resolve the issues in a respectful, courteous way. It is only when, after many posts back and forth, I can see that nothing I say is going to satisfy the other person, when every statement is going to be turned into something other than what I meant, and when there is clearly no effort being made to reach an understanding that I lose patience and yes, probably respond with sarcasm and bitterness.

If this was the first time I had witnessed this, I would be stunned. However, it is not. I have found this abhorrent behavior on many forums over the years, so "Religious Forums" does not have a corner on the market. Sadly, it appears to be a standard operating procedure amongst those who cannot discuss their beliefs in a civil manner.

Perhaps if you were to have your beliefs attacked on a daily basis by other Christians who accused you of believing in a fake Christ, of leading people to Hell, of following the words of a madman and charlatan, of believing things you really don't believe at all, of hating the Bible, etc. etc. etc. you wouldn't be quite so stunned at the fact that we get tired of it. We're only human.

When I can't answer a question, I tend to say that I don't know the answer. When I believe that I can and have responded to an issue, I would expect a respectful dialogue in turn. Not some diatribe about how I don't know or understand anything, or rantings about bull excrement or how someone is not worth being responded to.

I would like to invite you to have a personal one-on-one dialogue with me about Mormonism. You ask the questions. I'll give you my best, honest, complete answers. I won't hedge and I won't resort to personal attacks. If I don't have the answers, I'll tell you that, too. As long as the conversation remains civil, we can continue to talk. If I can see that it's getting heated, I'll simply bow out. I would like, in other words, to prove to you that your generalization is not justified. Are you interested?

 

[ἀλήθεια]

Perhaps if you were to have your beliefs attacked on a daily basis by other Christians who accused you of believing in a fake Christ, of leading people to Hell, of following the words of a madman and charlatan, of believing things you really don't believe at all, of hating the Bible, etc. etc. etc. you wouldn't be quite so stunned at the fact that we get tired of it. We're only human.

... I'll give you my best, honest, complete answers. I won't hedge and I won't resort to personal attacks...

I do not recall being disrepectful to Mormons or telling them that they believe in a fake Christ nor have I said that LDS hate the Bible; I have quoted the Book of Mormon's position about the Bible. If the Book of Mormon doesn't give an accurate portrayal of LDS beliefs about the Bible, I'd appreciate being informed of that. And I don't think any of us ought to resort to personal attacks towards other people, Christian or non-Christian.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

It's not "the laws and ordinances of the LDS gospel." It's the laws and ordinances established by Jesus Christ. They are faith, repentence, baptism, and receiving the Holy Spirit. These are Bible-based teachings.

I'm sorry that you're taking offence of my use of the term "LDS Gospel." Knowing that we do not hold the same beliefs and that LDS consider non-LDS churches apostate, I used the term to distinguish between our two teachings. The laws and ordinances of your church are considered established by Jesus Christ by some people, but if they would be considered such by all of us, there would be no churches outside of yours. When I post here, I am aware of the fact that both LDS and non-LDS are reading my posts. Are your laws and ordinances not LDS? Are non-LDS permitted to take out their endowments, participate in temple washings and annointings, be sealed for eternity to their spouses by one of your Melchizedek Priesthood holders? Is marriage for time and eternity not required for a person to enter God's glory and receive the fulness of salvation which is referred to as eternal life?

I would question whether LDS believe that a baptized Presbyterian who has faith in Christ can have the Gift of the Holy Ghost without the laying on of hands by an LDS priesthood holder. And can a baptized LDS who has received the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost be assured of exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom, without obedience to seeking out his ancestors and submitting their names for vicarious temple work, without paying a full tithe to the LDS church, without attending his meetings on a regular basis, without keeping the Word of Wisdom(dietary law), and without keeping his covenants that he makes in the LDS temple?

 

[Watchmen]

I'm sorry that you're taking offence of my use of the term "LDS Gospel." Knowing that we do not hold the same beliefs and that LDS consider non-LDS churches apostate, I used the term to distinguish between our two teachings. The laws and ordinances of your church are considered established by Jesus Christ by some people, but if they would be considered such by all of us, there would be no churches outside of yours. When I post here, I am aware of the fact that both LDS and non-LDS are reading my posts. Are your laws and ordinances not LDS? Are non-LDS permitted to take out their endowments, participate in temple washings and annointings, be sealed for eternity to their spouses by one of your Melchizedek Priesthood holders? Is marriage for time and eternity not required for a person to enter God's glory and receive the fulness of salvation which is referred to as eternal life?

I would question whether LDS believe that a baptized Presbyterian who has faith in Christ can have the Gift of the Holy Ghost without the laying on of hands by an LDS priesthood holder. And can a baptized LDS who has received the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost be assured of exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom, without obedience to seeking out his ancestors and submitting their names for vicarious temple work, without paying a full tithe to the LDS church, without attending his meetings on a regular basis, without keeping the Word of Wisdom(dietary law), and without keeping his covenants that he makes in the LDS temple?

The point is you try to make it sound like this is outside of the Bible when it is very much supported by the Bible.

 

[LittleNipper]

The point is you try to make it sound like this is outside of the Bible when it is very much supported by the Bible.

The New Testament doesn't say, find a prophet and become a Mormon. It says, believe on the LORD JESUS CHRIST and you WILL be SAVED and all your house... It says you must be born again of the spirit (water represents the HOLY SPIRIT).

 

[Watchmen]

The New Testament doesn't say, find a prophet and become a Mormon. It says, believe on the LORD JESUS CHRIST and you WILL be SAVED and all your house... It says you must be born again of the spirit (water represents the HOLY SPIRIT).

Perhaps it's time to start a new thread because this no longer has anything to do with the OP. However, I will say that FAITH, REPENTANCE, BAPTISM, AND THE GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST BY THE LAYING ON OF HANDS is ALL in the Bible. It's clear, but because I'm a Mormon you've already made up your mind to reject that.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

The point is you try to make it sound like this is outside of the Bible when it is very much supported by the Bible.

I didn't try to make it sound like anything. I attempted to present a factual representation. If you don't agree, that's your perogative, but I suggest that you show us the verses in the Bible that prove LDS temple marriage is biblical.

 

[Watchmen]

I didn't try to make it sound like anything. I attempted to present a factual representation. If you don't agree, that's your perogative, but I suggest that you show us the verses in the Bible that prove LDS temple marriage is biblical.

When did I say anything about LDS temple marriage (there are verses to support it by the way)? I said FAITH, REPENTANCE, BAPTISM, AND THE HOLY GHOST.

This is my last post on the matter - would you like to start a new thread or will you continue to derail this one? Your answer will reveal your motives.

 

[edward]

Perhaps it's time to start a new thread because this no longer has anything to do with the OP. However, I will say that FAITH, REPENTANCE, BAPTISM, AND THE GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST BY THE LAYING ON OF HANDS is ALL in the Bible. It's clear, but because I'm a Mormon you've already made up your mind to reject that.

Oh, wow! Now why would you say that? I thought that you might be interested in having meaningful dialogue. Why do you presume to know the motive of each person who is not LDS? Isn't it possible that some people might reject some concept based on something OTHER than because you are a Mormon? I know I could care less if you are a Mormon or not. If you are spewing false doctrine, I will call you on that, regardless of your denominational leanings.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

Here you go, Watchmen:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/same-faith-debates/79288-lds-atonement.html

By the way, I don't reject the Bible. I accept Hebrews 6, but I don't recall any verse that says it is necessary to lay on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. God is not limited to that procedure.

Hebrews 6

1Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

 

[edward]

Edward,
This post is for you specifically.

You're relatively new to this forum, so I can understand why you would have come to the conclusion you have in reading this and a couple of other threads. I would like to point out, though, that we LDS are no more inclined to resort to character assassination than any other person on the forum. I can personally say that, without exception, when somebody criticizes my beliefs, my initial response is to try to clear up any misunderstandings they may have, provide biblical support for my doctrines and, in short, try to resolve the issues in a respectful, courteous way. It is only when, after many posts back and forth, I can see that nothing I say is going to satisfy the other person, when every statement is going to be turned into something other than what I meant, and when there is clearly no effort being made to reach an understanding that I lose patience and yes, probably respond with sarcasm and bitterness.

Perhaps if you were to have your beliefs attacked on a daily basis by other Christians who accused you of believing in a fake Christ, of leading people to Hell, of following the words of a madman and charlatan, of believing things you really don't believe at all, of hating the Bible, etc. etc. etc. you wouldn't be quite so stunned at the fact that we get tired of it. We're only human.

I would like to invite you to have a personal one-on-one dialogue with me about Mormonism. You ask the questions. I'll give you my best, honest, complete answers. I won't hedge and I won't resort to personal attacks. If I don't have the answers, I'll tell you that, too. As long as the conversation remains civil, we can continue to talk. If I can see that it's getting heated, I'll simply bow out. I would like, in other words, to prove to you that your generalization is not justified. Are you interested?

Okay, but I must warn you that I do not post very often. Now if we can just agree to interact with ALL posters in the way you have discribed - something good will have happened.
Thanx

 

[Katzpur]

By the way, I don't reject the Bible. I accept Hebrews 6, but I don't recall any verse that says it is necessary to lay on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. God is not limited to that procedure.

Acts 8:17-20 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.

God is not "limited" to any procedure, but He has established saving ordinances which must be performed in a specific way by an individual holding the proper authority. A person receives "the Gift of the Holy Ghost" in one way and one way alone. That does not mean that the Holy Ghost cannot testify to someone who has not yet received this gift or influence the life of someone who has not yet even received baptism.

 

[Katzpur]

Okay, but I must warn you that I do not post very often. Now if we can just agree to interact with ALL posters in the way you have discribed - something good will have happened.
Thanx

I would like that. Unfortunately, since not everyone would like to interact in that way, it's difficult for those of us who would like to do so to continue to have a meaningful dialogue with them. I don't care how often you are able to post. The next time you have a question or comment on Mormonism, if you would like to start a new thread in the One on One Debates forum and PM me that it's there, I would be happy to respond.

 

[edward]

I would like that. Unfortunately, since not everyone would like to interact in that way, it's difficult for those of us who would like to do so to continue to have a meaningful dialogue with them. I don't care how often you are able to post. The next time you have a question or comment on Mormonism, if you would like to start a new thread in the One on One Debates forum and PM me that it's there, I would be happy to respond.

Great. I finally found it. It took a little while to do so, though. Can you tell me the advantage of posting there as opposed to here? Just curious, don't ya know

Also, if people don't want to be nice, why do you play with them?

 

[tomspug]

Acts 8:17-20 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.

God is not "limited" to any procedure, but He has established saving ordinances which must be performed in a specific way by an individual holding the proper authority. A person receives "the Gift of the Holy Ghost" in one way and one way alone. That does not mean that the Holy Ghost cannot testify to someone who has not yet received this gift or influence the life of someone who has not yet even received baptism.

Established by whom? Your logic is wrong. The idea that "laying on of hands" is the means by which the holy spirit is received is REJECTED by Peter in the very verse you quote! It's ironic that the scripture you quote contradicts your own belief.

The Holy Spirit is a gift from God, not man, in the same way that salvation is a gift from God, and cannot be given by man. Jesus received the Holy Spirit through baptism. The apostles received it by a wind. How can you possibly limit your view of God and his Spirit?

 

[Katzpur]

Great. I finally found it. It took a little while to do so, though. Can you tell me the advantage of posting there as opposed to here? Just curious, don't ya know

Also, if people don't want to be nice, why do you play with them?

On the One-on-One Forum, only two people can post. It would be you and me. It's most often used for debate, and I guess our discussion might be considered a debate. On the other hand, I would prefer that it not turn into an "I'm right and you're wrong" kind of thing. I prefer it because it's often easier to stick to the topic with just two people posting.

I guess I play with pretty much everybody until I can't deal with them any more.

 

[Katzpur]

Established by whom? Your logic is wrong. The idea that "laying on of hands" is the means by which the holy spirit is received is REJECTED by Peter in the very verse you quote! It's ironic that the scripture you quote contradicts your own belief.

The Holy Spirit is a gift from God, not man, in the same way that salvation is a gift from God, and cannot be given by man. Jesus received the Holy Spirit through baptism. The apostles received it by a wind. How can you possibly limit your view of God and his Spirit?

Seriously, I feel as if I just quoted from one of the gospel accounts of the crucifixion and you responded by saying, "This scripture isn't saying that Christ died on the cross. It's saying that He drowned in the Sea of Galilee."

Let's look at another translation and back up a couple of verses to verse 14...

When the apostles back in Jerusalem heard that the people of Samaria had accepted God's message, they sent Peter and John there. As soon as they arrived, they prayed for these new Christians to receive the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them, for they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John laid their hands upon these believers, and they received the Holy Spirit.

When Simon saw that the Holy Spirit was given when the apostles placed their hands upon people's heads, he offered money to buy this power. "Let me have this power, too," he exclaimed, "so that when I lay my hands of people, they will receive the Holy Spirit!"

But Peter replied, "May your money perish with you for thinking God's gift can be bought!"

Jesus had previously given Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and had told him that with this power he would be able to bind in Heaven those things which He was to bind on Earth. Peter had the power and authority to confer the Gift of the Holy Ghost on a person who had been baptized by water. This ordinance (or sacrament, if you prefer) has eternal significance. In other words, it's effect extends beyond the grave and what is bound on Earth is bound in Heaven. Only one who has received the authority to lay his hands on someone else's head to confer upon that person the Gift of the Holy Ghost can legitimately do so. The authority can not be purchased with money or obtained in any other way.