LDS: Can the LDS Aaronic priesthood prove (through DNA or historical record) its direct descent from Aaron required, by the Old Testament?

Comments

• I get the distinct impression that k is a psudonym for MrIT

  • Report
  

  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on June 22nd, 2010

• That is a nice compliment TA, but I am way up North in Canada, while Mister It is in the US. And I don't have 30 years of Mormon studies under my belt..I barely have 30 years under my belt at all.

  • Report
  

  by k on June 22nd, 2010

• Thank you for your answer.
  
  I have found nothing on lds.org or anywhere else that states that it is official church doctrine that the lineage requirements were removed in order to qualify for the Aaronic priesthood. So, as far as I can tell, from what I have been told on here and from what I have learned, the lineage requirement was NOT removed. If there is official LdS church doctrine supporting the removal of God's requirement I would appreciate a link to it.
  
  “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not pretend that the modern Aaronic Priesthood is limited to the direct descendants of Aaron. “
  
  The thing is, the Aaronic priesthood HAS continued from the time of Jesus. There has been no break in it. Of course as there is no Temple, their job within the community is not the same as it was in Temple times. None the less, the Jews continue to hold the Aaronic priesthood as they always have, and when the Temple is rebuilt in Jerusalem they will supply the authorised priests to man it. Why does the LdS church believe that the priesthood needed to be re-established? Why is a modern version necessary? Does the LdS church recognize the Jewish Aaronic priesthood?
  
  "Jews have an aristocracy. An aristocracy; however, without castles, but with titles, privileges, duties and restrictions. Unlike most aristocracies, the Jewish aristocracy does not use formal salutations such as "Your Grace" or "My Lord." For Jews, these aristocrats are the Kohanim, the priests that once served in the Temple of Jerusalem. A Kohen (singular form of Kohanim) is just like any baron, marquis or duke—but not quite. And then there are assistants, the Levites....In fact, there is now an International Kohanim Society with thousands of Kohanim in many parts of the world registered in a computerized database. It is being expanded to include Levites."
  http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/762109/jewish/Raise-Your-Hand-If-Youre-A-Kohen.htm
  
  "In Orthodox Judaism and to some extent in Conservative Judaism, Kohanim maintain their separate status in some areas of modern life. However, most of these distinctions derive from custom opposed to technical Jewish law."
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohen#cite_note-1
  
  “How the sacrifice of Christ opened up the Aaronic Priesthood to all males....except the descendants of Cain, is beyond my understanding”
  
  Do you have any Biblical support for this?
  
  “much how the temple veil was rent, allowing all worthy believers into the temple”
  
  Actually, the veil being rent symbolized that there was no longer a separation between man and God. The ultimate fulfillment of this, was Pentacost (Shavuot) when the Holy Spirit descended upon the men in the upper room. From that time on, the Holy Spirit indwells those who are born again in the blood of the Lamb.
  
  “It was divided into two main divisions: the holy place and the holy of holies which were separated by a veil (Exodus 26:31 ff.), the same veil that was torn from top to bottom at the crucifixion of Jesus (Matt. 27:51). Where the veil had represented the barrier separating sinful man from a holy God (Heb. 9:8), its destruction represented the free access sinners have to God through the blood of Christ (Heb. 10:19ff.).”
  http://www.carm.org/dictionary-tabernacle
  
  "Pentecost is a term meaning fiftieth, which was applied to the fiftieth day after the Passover.  It was the culmination of the "feast of weeks" (Ex. 24:22; Deut. 16:10), which began on the third day after the Passover with the presentation of the first harvest sheaves to God, and which concluded with the offering of two loaves of unleavened bread, representing the first products of the harvest (Lev. 23:17, 20; Deut. 16:9-10).
  When Jesus ascended into heaven He instructed his disciples to remain in Jerusalem until they should receive power from on high.  As a group of 120 were praying in an upper room in Jerusalem fifty days after his death, the Holy Spirit descended upon them with the soun

  • Report
  

  by k on June 22nd, 2010

• They began to speak with other languages and to preach boldly in the name of Christ, with the result that three thousand were converted.  In rebuttal to criticism by devout Jews, Peter stood up and, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, gave a wonderful sermon.  After the sermon Luke wrote in verses 41 and 42.  Then read Acts 2:41-42
  This incredible manifestation of divine power marked the beginning of the church which has ever since regarded Pentecost as its birthday.
  1.Pentecost, then, is the anniversary of the coming of the Holy Spirit.
  This day was not the beginning of a denomination.  It was the beginning of the one church: The One True Church.
  1.The Church that is bought with the blood of Christ.
  2.The Church that is united by the indwelling Spirit.
  3.The Church that is taught with the inspired Word.
  4.The world did not know what happened at Pentecost.
  5.The world did not know that God had come to live with His people forever."
  http://www.carm.org/christianity/sermons/acts-241-42-pentecost
  
  Also, even Gentiles were allowed into part of the Temple prior to its destruction, let alone Israelites who were not Levites. So, the Bible shows that the Temple could be accessed in part by those who were not worthy. Gentiles (strangers in Israel) were even allowed by God to bring burnt offerings to the Temple. Not even all members of the priesthood were allowed everywhere in the Temple. The Holy of Holies was only to be entered on Yom Kippur (the day of Atonement, which follows Rosh Hashanna) by the High Priest who was to carry blood with him.
  
  Leviticus 22:17-18, KJV
  And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 18Speak unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them, Whatsoever he be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, that will offer his oblation for all his vows, and for all his freewill offerings, which they will offer unto the LORD for a burnt offering;
  
  Exodus 30:10, KJV
  And Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements: once in the year shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations: it is most holy unto the LORD.
  
  Hebrews 9:25, KJV
  Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
  
  Hebrews 13:11, KJV
  For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.
  
  See also all of Leviticus 16.
  
  “Mormons believe that John the Baptist bestowed the Aaronic Priesthood upon Joseph Smith Jr and Oliver Cowdery, who then baptized others and spread the Aaronic Priesthood. Each LdS Priesthood holder has a "line of authority" saying who received the Priesthood from whom going back to Joseph Smith Jr. “
  
  I have read this on lds.org many times. As I stated in the beginning though, nowhere that I have found does it state that God revoked HIS lineage requirement for the priesthood. How does the LdS church know that it is no longer required? John the Baptist was said to have conffered the priesthood upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, but GOD HIMSELF did not reveal that HIS rules pertaining to it changed, that I have been able to find. This is why I wonder why the LdS church believes it is no longer necessary. If you have any official church doctrine refuting this, I would really like a link to it.

  • Report
  

  by k on June 22nd, 2010

• here is a suggestion. rather than waste 30 years of your life studying something you believe to be untrue mrit has, spend that time on more worthy persuits. if you desire to spend it in the service of the lord then follow his example and focus on spreading what you do believe rather than on tearing down the beliefs of others.

  • Report
  

  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on June 22nd, 2010

• If you had read my original comment correctly, you would have read that I am barely 30 years old, I have certainly not been able to study the LdS religion for that long. There is merit in studying beliefs of all kinds to ensure that what you believe is true. Otherwise, where is your basis for comparison? Only a fool decides what he believes and never ever tests it against anything at all!
  
  Tearing down the beliefs of others.....funny!!! Is that what asking questions is? Is that what asking for official church doctrine as opposed to mere personal opinion is? So I should believe whatever I read about the LdS church without asking for official church proof of it then? Yah right...I would rather know what the LdS church officially believes and actually teaches rather than what some of its members think it does.

  • Report
  

  by k on June 22nd, 2010

• @Laie
  YOU WROTE
  " How the sacrifice of Christ opened up the Aaronic Priesthood to all males (much how the temple veil was rent, allowing all worthy believers into the temple ), except the descendants of Cain"
  
  MY RESPONSE
  May we see this from the Bible please? Thank you.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on June 30th, 2010

• @Mr. Price
  YOU WROTE
  "I get the distinct impression that k is a psudonym for MrIT"
  
  MY RESPONSE
  Your paranoia is showing.
  
  And, BTW, you really need to move on Mr. Price. I'm not going away despite your obsessive trolling. Why don't you go have a chat with your Bishop about how to conduct yourself with those you disagree with?
  
  Or perhaps that chat with a good Mental Health Professional might be in order at this point - your paranoid delusions are, sadly, getting worse and worse.
  
  Thanks.
  
  And, K, sorry to jump into your thread. I will step out now that I've had my say. And please keep up the great work - I'm quite impressed!

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on June 30th, 2010

• k; my comment was not in regards to you posting one question. it was with regards to you considering being compared to MrIT a compliment.
  
  if I am trolling you by responding to less than half your questions about my faith and having those comprise less than 5% of my AB activity then what are you doing by targeting 90% of your AB activity on a faith which you are hostile towards?
  please. I would seriously like to know what your objective deffinition of a troll is.
  have I gone and harassed you in topics where you are not attempting to harass my beliefs? how many questions or answers by you outside of the topic of my religion have I "harassed" you on? if I were trolling would I not chase you down in other topics as well?
  
  and by the way, if your interest in the mormon church were truely noble, intelectual or even something other than simple antiism, you would have put this blatant lie to rest rather than ask "what lawsuit" http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/8923235. someone as educated in mormonism as you would know that very premise of the "question" is false. but instead of using the knowledge gained in your extensive studies to put such an untruth to rest because surely you have enough truth to prove the mormons wrong you do not need people supporting your stand with lies.

  • Report
  

  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on June 30th, 2010

• Mister It thank you! And feel free to jump in any time:)

  • Report
  

  by k on June 30th, 2010

• TA,
  
  I would say that it is in the service of the Lord to try to save those who are lost. Is that not the rational used for sending out LdS missionaries? Are they not trying to save the lost to the one true church? They prosyletize Christians, so should we be angry that they do not leave us alone and focus on what they believe rather than telling us that we are wrong and tearing down our beliefs? Because that is what they do. It is very two faced to be angry at people like Mister It who challenge your beliefs, then think it is okay for your church to prosyletize through mission service (I am assuming here though, maybe you do not sustain your church's missionary service). Mister It is just another kind of missionary. If he were pursuing saving JW or Muslims with such fervor, I doubt you would have a problem with it.

  • Report
  

  by k on June 30th, 2010

• yes, but we do not hound and harang specific groups. we use shotgun techniques to find those receptive, we do not focus on what other believe that is wrong, we focus on what we believe. we spread our faith...
  however I guess you are right. I can not begrudge him for trying to share his faith and as I have said many times, his behavior indicates that antiism is his faith so I guess that is what he should spread. I would be very discriminatory of me to say it is ok for christians to spread their faith but not ok for antiists to spread theirs.

  • Report
  

  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on June 30th, 2010

• Well said K, thank you.
  
  Mr. Price, trolling is trolling regardless the rationalization - and there's ALWAYS a rationalization that makes PERFECT sense in the mind of the troll.
  
  The fact of the matter is my questions and answers disturb you and you don't like it. In fact you have NEVER liked it - since the very first Mr. IT post that you read.
  
  However, you would think that at some point you would realize that your trolling isn't having any affect and just makes you look like a fool. I know that you don't see this but others do.
  
  And now you've crossed the line into paranoid delusion so I seriously - and I do mean seriously - think that you need to go get some help. A Mental Health Professional would be the best choice IMO, but since I know that Mormons tend to mistrust psychology, a good (and there are some good ones) Bishop would do as well.
  
  After all...
  
  Q: What's the definition of insanity?
  A: "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
  
  However, I would hope that you would stop and ask yourself what has driven you here?
  
  A: The Mind Control thinking that Mormonism engenders and reinforces in it's adherents.
  
  And a REALLY good, healthy, first step would be to stop trolling me - thanks in advance on that.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on June 30th, 2010

• Oh, BTW, as usual Mr. Price you didn't answer the question.
  
  So, what's your answer?
  
  NOTE TO K:
  You'll notice that he does this just about EVERY time he posts.
  
  I suspect that it's a thought stopping technique: Because he doesn't want to think critically or objectively about his Mormon faith he launches into ad-hominem attacks from the "get-go" instead.
  
  That way he's right in the middle of conflict so he doesn't have to THINK, that is, REALLY THINK about any of the multitude of quite serious problems with the claims of Mormonism.
  
  My advice to you is to "keep him honest."
  
  (And, BTW, you will notice over time that this is standard M.O. for many Mormons)

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on June 30th, 2010

• Mister It,
  I have indeed come across this with many Mormons. I am happy to say though that I have met some on AB and know some in real life;) who are NOT like this. And they make up for all of the rest; discussing religion with them is a pleasure rather than an argument.

  • Report
  

  by k on June 30th, 2010

• • Report
  

  by k on June 30th, 2010

• @Mr. Price
  You STILL have NOT answered the question Mr. Price. What is your answer?
  
  YOU WROTE
  "yes, but we do not hound and harang specific groups"
  
  MY RESPONSE
  This comment demonstrates the depth of your paranoia. Do you honestly believe that Christians ONLY challenge the claims of Mormonism? I can assure you that is NOT the case.
  
  My calling is to Mormons which is why I don't deviate. However, I can assure you that there are others that have similar "marching orders" to other groups. Until I have new orders I will stay at my post. I'm sorry that my presence upsets you so.
  
  However, your statement is utter nonsense in light of the Historical Record. Mormonism has traditionally "hounded and haranged" Biblical Christianity since Joseph Smith onward. And your leaders continue to do so today by attempting to recast Mormonism as a Christian organization to the public while inside continuing to reinforce to the faithful that Mormonism is BETTER THAN Biblical Christianity.
  
  So logically Mormonism is attempting to usurp Christianity while simultaneously claiming to BE "just one of the gang!"
  
  Doubts?
  Supporting Evidence:
  (I'll post it since I know that you won't use links)

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on June 30th, 2010

• "What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world"
  - Prophet Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.270
  
  "...all the priests who adhere to the sectarian religions of the day with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels."
  - Prophet Joseph Smith , The Elders Journal, Joseph Smith Jr., editor, vol.1, no.4, p.60
  
  "This is not just another Church. This is not just one of a family of Christian churches. This is the Church and kingdom of God, the only true Church upon the face of the earth..."
  - Prophet Ezra Taft Benson, Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.164-165
  
  "Christianity...is a perfect pack of nonsense...the devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p.167); "Where shall we look for the true order or authority of God? It cannot be found in any nation of Christendom."
  - Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, 10:127
  
  "Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell. The eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and then kicked on to the earth."
  - Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 6:176
  
  "Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon' whom the Lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. Any person who shall be so corrupt as to receive a holy ordinance of the Gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent"
  - Apostle Orson Pratt proclaimed, The Seer, p. 255
  
  "After the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, there were only two churches upon the earth. They were known respectively as the Church of the Lamb of God and Babylon. The various organizations which are called churches throughout Christendom, though differing in their creeds and organizations, have one common origin. They all belong to Babylon"
  - George Q. Cannon said, Gospel Truth, p.324
  
  "When the light came to me I saw that all the so-called Christian world was grovelling in darkness."
  - Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 5:73
  
  "With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world."
  - Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 8:199
  
  "The Christian world, so-called, are heathens as to the knowledge of the salvation of God"
  - Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 8:171
  
  "Christians—those poor, miserable priests brother Brigham was speaking about—some of them are the biggest whoremasters there are on the earth, and at the same time preaching righteousness to the children of men. The poor devils, they could not get up here and preach an oral discourse, to save themselves from hell; they are preaching their fathers' sermons —preaching sermons that were written a hundred years before they were born. ...You may get a Methodist priest to pour water on you, or sprinkle it on you, and baptize you face foremost, or lay you down the other way, and whatever mode you please, and you will be damned with your priest.
  - Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, 5:89
  
  "The Gospel of modern Christendom shuts up the Lord, and stops all communication with Him. I want nothing to do with such a Gospel, I would rather prefer the Gospel of the dark ages, so called"
  - Prophet Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p.196
  
  ANY QUESTIONS?
  
  And Mr. Price please feel free to actually ANSWER K's question rather than responding to my latest challenges and evidence.
  
  K's question should be the REAL focus here not trying to avoid the very real issues that he has brought to our attention by diverting your attention elsewhere via ad-hominem attacks.
  
  Thanks.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on June 30th, 2010

• Great info!
  And I must correct you on one point Mister It...I am a she:) And yes, I would love an answer to my question!

  • Report
  

  by k on June 30th, 2010

• Oh dear!
  (yikes!)
  
  I am SO sorry K.
  
  Sincere apologies for my insensitivity and a compensatory mitzvah to you for my blunder!
  
  And Mr. Price, the courtesy of an answer would surely be appreciated by all, I'm sure.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on June 30th, 2010

• No worries at all!
  
  A mitzvah, how lovely:)

  • Report
  

  by k on June 30th, 2010

• It's the least I can do.
  (Oy! I can be such a schmuck!)
  
  ;-)

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on June 30th, 2010

• so you deffinition if trolling is "trolling" interesting way to give an objective deffinition, not only does it lack bias, but it lacks deffinition. I would say that your OCD in the mormon topic is trolling same as if I were to flood the abortion topic.
  and no, I did not have a problem with you until I noticed about the 4th post in a row was leading and not a sincere question. then I looked at your activity as saw that the vast majority of your activity was mormon.
  your deffinition of insanity applies the same with 90+% of your activity of targeting the mormons as it does with the 5-% of of my activity responding to your targeting. so you are 45 times more insane than I.
  I never said christians are only antimormon, I never even said all christians are antimormon. I said 90% of your activity is antimormon. that is hounding and haranging. but regardless of whether that 90% were just mormon, or included the other popular targets of antiist hatred (JW and SDA) the simple fact of the matter is that your activity is 90+% antiist and 10-% christian. everyone is a mix of many different things but the activity which dominates your behavior defines who you are.
  but guess what. by obsessing about my 5-% of targeting you while ignoring your 90+% of your targeting mormons you have thuroughly convinced me that you are genuinely incapable of looking at yourself. and as such no ammount of words will ever convince you otherwise. enjoy your crusade.

  • Report
  

  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on July 1st, 2010

• That's all very well and good. Thank you for "kicking against the goads" and more ad-hominems I hope you feel better now.
  
  So . . . what's your answer to K's superb question?
  
  We're still waiting.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on July 1st, 2010

• And, Mr. Price, if you would stop trolling and ad-homineming you would have replied that you HAVE answered the question here http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/9222427
  
  So I am now going to put this thread on mute - since all you want to do is rant and rave so you don't have to THINK - and put all my effort there instead.
  
  K, I encourage you to do the same. Perhaps together we can get Mr. Price to start THINKING like a rational, thinking human being rather than engaging in Thought Stopping behavior like a Mind Control Cultist. Frankly, I'm not hopeful based on his history but it's worth a try!

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on July 1st, 2010

• TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT, I don't think that you responding to questions about your religion would be considered "trolling".
  
  Can someone show me where TAPriceCTR was using ad-hominems? I must have missed it, which is possible as I only skimmed through this mostly anti-Mormon thread.
  
  Perhaps someone could also show me where I used ad-hominems in the following thread as well? I got to admit that ad-hominem is kinda a new term for me as I am not sure that I ever heard of it before coming to AB but from what I see from the dictionary definition seems to point the finger at someone else using ad-hominems.
  http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/8301040

  • Report
  

  by Texasescimo on December 30th, 2010

• From the Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary:
  ad hominem
  1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
  2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
  
  To quote from the Wikipedia article on Ad-hominem tactics:
  "An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.[2] ...
  
  Ad hominem abusive
  Ad hominem abusive usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate their argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions."
  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem )
  
  Tex, if you can't see how playing the "persecution card" and focusing exclusively on one's debating opponent's character, motives, etc. rather than addressing the evidence is an ad-hominem then I don't think that I can help you.
  
  And please show us how, "I get the distinct impression that k is a psudonym for MrIT" followed by a litany of unfounded responses about the other people in the thread is, "responding to questions about your religion".
  
  All it is a running ad-hominem, nothing more.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on December 30th, 2010

• "Can someone show me where TAPriceCTR was using ad-hominems? I must have missed it, which is possible as I only skimmed through this mostly anti-Mormon thread."
  
  ROFL
  
  Texas, you never cease to amaze me. You skimmed this thread, so you admit that you might possibly have missed parts of the conversation(gee, you think?!) yet you come away knowing that it was mostly Anti-Mormon. Wow! I am sure that Mr. Price would love to know that you have come to the conclusion that he participated in an Anti-Mormon discussion. Usually LdS stay away from those......
  
  Tell me Texasescimo, what is the Official Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints definition of "Anti-Mormon"? Perhaps you could define that for us, from LdS Church endorsed sources. If you are going to make accusations that someone is being "Anti" you need to support them...otherwise it is slander.

  • Report
  

  by k on December 30th, 2010

• On June 22 TAPriceCTR wrote:
  “I get the distinct impression that k is a psudonym for MrIT”
  
  
  
  On June 30 Mister IT wrote:
  “@Mr. Price
  YOU WROTE
  "I get the distinct impression that k is a psudonym for MrIT"
  MY RESPONSE
  Your paranoia is showing.
  And, BTW, you really need to move on Mr. Price. I'm not going away despite your obsessive trolling. Why don't you go have a chat with your Bishop about how to conduct yourself with those you disagree with?
  Or perhaps that chat with a good Mental Health Professional might be in order at this point - your paranoid delusions are, sadly, getting worse and worse.
  Thanks.
  And, K, sorry to jump into your thread. I will step out now that I've had my say. And please keep up the great work - I'm quite impressed!”
  
  
  From the Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary:
  ad hominem
  1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
  2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
  
  
  Doesn't what Mister IT did qualify as "ad hominem" per Merriam-Webster's #2?
  
  
  PS. Quote: [My calling is to Mormons which is why I don't deviate. However, I can assure you that there are others that have similar "marching orders" to other groups. Until I have new orders I will stay at my post. I'm sorry that my presence upsets you so.]
  
  Where do you get your "marching orders"?
  
  

  • Report
  

  by Texasescimo on December 30th, 2010

• I don't really care what others view as to the proper meaning of anti-Mormon. When I see a pattern of hateful speech directed at Mormons primarily because of their religion, I consider that anti-Mormon.
  
  
  Here are just a few quotes from this thread that I find to be somewhat hateful, sarcastic, or bigoted.
  
  “Or perhaps that chat with a good Mental Health Professional might be in order at this point - your paranoid delusions are, sadly, getting worse and worse.”
  
  
  “A: The Mind Control thinking that Mormonism engenders and reinforces in it's adherents.
  And a REALLY good, healthy, first step would be to stop trolling me - thanks in advance on that.”
  
  “Oh, BTW, as usual Mr. Price you didn't answer the question.
  So, what's your answer?
  NOTE TO K:
  You'll notice that he does this just about EVERY time he posts.
  I suspect that it's a thought stopping technique: Because he doesn't want to think critically or objectively about his Mormon faith he launches into ad-hominem attacks from the "get-go" instead.
  That way he's right in the middle of conflict so he doesn't have to THINK, that is, REALLY THINK about any of the multitude of quite serious problems with the claims of Mormonism.
  My advice to you is to "keep him honest."
  (And, BTW, you will notice over time that this is standard M.O. for many Mormons)”
  
  
  “This comment demonstrates the depth of your paranoia. Do you honestly believe that Christians ONLY challenge the claims of Mormonism? I can assure you that is NOT the case.”
  
  “K, I encourage you to do the same. Perhaps together we can get Mr. Price to start THINKING like a rational, thinking human being rather than engaging in Thought Stopping behavior like a Mind Control Cultist. Frankly, I'm not hopeful based on his history but it's worth a try!”

  • Report
  

  by Texasescimo on December 30th, 2010

• Yes, my response to Mr. Price's ad-hominem was an ad-hominem.
  And?
  
  Or if you prefer, "So what?"
  
  Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. And since you're now oh so interested in defending Mr. Price why don't you go through his activity and see how often he responds with a paranoid "You're just attacked me and my faith" or an ad-hominem rather than addressing the evidence that's been presented. In most cases he never answers the question at all!
  
  In fact, and I have told him this on a number of occassions, I honestly think that Mr. Price needs to seek professional help for his paranoia.
  
  Now Tex if you want to defend a guy who's THAT extreme in his paranoid delusions knock yourself out!
  
  And now Tex, I'll be blunt.
  
  I called B.S. on your B.S. and you don't like it. You got public exposed for deceptive and manipulative behavior and you don't like it.
  
  However, that doesn't give you a license to troll so buddy, knock it off.
  
  I know you probably don't see it but you're now acting like an immature child who's ticked off because you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar.
  
  Do you REALLY think that anyone is impressed?
  If so, please continue. Whenever I see someone discrediting them self and their arguments by making an arse out of them self in public I first let them know how foolish they look . . .
  
  And then I step aside.
  
  So would you like to continue?
  
  If so, please do.
  
  Please show the world that the oft held public perception that Jehovah's Witnesses are out of touch weirdos with an out of touch weird agenda is legitimate.
  
  Knock yourself out - I'm done trying to reason with you.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on December 30th, 2010

• "Please show the world that the oft held public perception that Jehovah's Witnesses are out of touch weirdos with an out of touch weird agenda is legitimate."
  
  Another bigoted ad-hominem?

  • Report
  

  by Texasescimo on December 30th, 2010

• "I don't really care what others view as to the proper meaning of anti-Mormon. When I see a pattern of hateful speech directed at Mormons primarily because of their religion, I consider that anti-Mormon.
  Here are just a few quotes from this thread that I find to be somewhat hateful, sarcastic, or bigoted."
  
  LOL
  
  So you must be an Anti-Christian then Tex. All of the hateful speeches you and your fellow JW's direct at Christians on this web site, and toward Mister It in particular...if that is what your definition of an "Anti" is, you fit the bill!!!
  
  Tell me, is the Mormon church okay with a JW redefining what an Anti-Mormon is? Could you not be bothered to supply the ACTUAL definition of what an Anti-Mormon is, or did you just not want to search their web site? If you are going to begin defending the Mormon faith Tex, you really should be sure you understand what the definition of commonly used LdS words are. It will give you credibility.

  • Report
  

  by k on December 30th, 2010

• YOU WROTE
  "Another bigoted ad-hominem?"
  
  MY RESPONSE
  You can label it anyway that you want to - I frankly couldn't care less.
  
  However, in my opinion, what I said is a statement of both my honest personal feelings (if you recall I did forewarn you that I was going to be blunt!) and the public consensus that I hear from others that's based on EXACTLY the type of public behavior that JWs are known for - and that you are now exhibiting before a world wide audience.
  
  And, apparently, you and other JWs are blind to just how out of touch and strange you all look to the general populous when you behave like this.
  
  So by all mean Tex . . . please continue!
  Please reinforce the stereotype of JWs by engaging in the EXACT behavior that the stereotype was formed from.
  
  We're waiting . . . the world is waiting . . . knock yourself out mate!

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on December 30th, 2010

• I don't know of an official definition of anti-Mormon as put forth by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or any of its General Authorities acting in an official capacity.
  
  When I see the anti- prefix, I take it to mean that the thing the term applies to is better known for what it is against than what it is for. For example, anti-abortion and pro-life. Are you actions more accurately described as anti-Mormon (or more accurately anti-Mormonism) or pro-(something else)? Are you focused on tearing down Mormonism or building up an alternative?

  • Report
  

  by laie_techie on December 31st, 2010

• I would think that a word so heavily used by the LdS church would be defined. Otherwise, how would anyone ever know what being an Anti-Mormon actually IS or how to avoid being one?
  
  And as a Mormon Laie, are you okay with people of other religions defining Mormon words?

  • Report
  

  by k on December 31st, 2010

• "Are you actions more accurately described as anti-Mormon (or more accurately anti-Mormonism) or pro-(something else)? Are you focused on tearing down Mormonism or building up an alternative?"
  
  So by your explaination above, either you are for or against something. How does that work? You are pro-Mormonism, yet because of that you are Anti-Christian? Because I am Pro-Christian, I am automatically Anti-Mormon? And so, because I don't believe in Mormonism, because I am not pro-Mormon, I am automatically anti?

  • Report
  

  by k on December 31st, 2010

• And we are BOTH Pro-Mormon because we're both FOR the Mormon people.
  (I apologize for putting words in your mouth and assuming K but I believe that I've heard you express this very thing before)
  
  And Laie do you REALLY want a JW to define terms for your religion? I know that I certainly wouldn't want a member of another religion to define terms for mine!
  
  But that's me.
  
  And personally I wouldn't take any other member of any group who's on a personal vendetta/agenda (and trolling another member of AB as a result) seriously at all.
  
  But again, that's me.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on December 31st, 2010

• I.T. to K: "I apologize for putting words in your mouth and assuming K but I believe that I've heard you express this very thing before."
  
  K: "Oh, I.T., isn't that amazing that I was thinking the EXACT same thing. It's like you can read my thoughts! You can speak for me anytime you want. We are both PRO-MORMON, because we are both FOR the Mormon people. How could anyone think otherwise? We are also both PRO-Jehovah's Witness, even though we think they are out-of-touch weirdos with an agenda that is illegitimate."
  
  LOL..
  
  You two are soooooo benevolent.

  • Report
  

  by Mike Astill on December 31st, 2010

• http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti
  Definition of anti : one that is opposed
  
  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-
  anti prefix
  Definition of ANTI-
  1: a of the same kind but situated opposite, exerting energy in the opposite direction, or pursuing an opposite policy
  b one that is opposite in kind to
  2: a : opposing or hostile to in opinion, sympathy, or practice b : opposing in effect or activity
  3: serving to prevent, cure, or alleviate
  4: combating or defending against

  • Report
  

  by Texasescimo on December 31st, 2010

• Quote: “And we are BOTH Pro-Mormon because we're both FOR the Mormon people.”
  Sometimes we need to look at how we are treating people as perhaps we don’t realize how we are coming off as offensive to others. Matt 12:33-37 “…out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks…” (Matt 23:27-28; Luke 16:15)
  
  
  Quote: “(I apologize for putting words in your mouth and assuming K but I believe that I've heard you express this very thing before)
  And Laie do you REALLY want a JW to define terms for your religion? I know that I certainly wouldn't want a member of another religion to define terms for mine!”
  Too bad you don’t give that same respect to others. You quite often define what others believe and/or their motives.
  (Luke 6:31) “Also, just as YOU want men to do to YOU, do the same way to them.
  
  
  K, I am not defending the Mormon faith any more than I am defending yours. I have had conversations with Mormons before and they have respectfully disagreed with my beliefs and hopefully I have come off as respectful to them in disagreeing with them. I don’t look at them as mindless cult members. I look at them as fellow human beings with feelings, emotions, families and such just like I have. I don’t look at them as any worse than me. I don’t consider them as sub-human.
  
  
  
  Mister IT, you accused two people in this thread of trolling you. If a JW or a Mormon had said the same thing would one of these loving quotes of yours have been said again?
  
  “This comment demonstrates the depth of your paranoia.”
  
  “Or perhaps that chat with a good Mental Health Professional might be in order at this point - your paranoid delusions are, sadly, getting worse and worse.”

  • Report
  

  by Texasescimo on December 31st, 2010

• LOL and . . .
  
  
  You just can't stop can you Tex?
  It's actually kind of cute and entertaining.
  
  Well knock yourself out mate . . . by all means . . . please continue to make a public arse out of yourself.
  
  And ladies and gentlemen it appears that I have picked up a troll!
  Isn't he cute?

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on December 31st, 2010

• @East Hill
  Well I've got to tell you man! After getting trolled by JWs for two days, my love and respect for Mormons as just gone up about 15-notches!
  
  Oy Gevalt! The behavior of these JWs is UNfraking believable!
  
  I want my Mormons back and I want the JWs to PLEASE go find someone else to troll!
  (really!)
  
  ;-)

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on December 31st, 2010

• And sorry Mormons but I'm muting this thread.
  
  I am utterly fed up with JW trolls!

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on December 31st, 2010

• Texasescimo,
  
  you are saying lies about me and you are slandering me and others. For the wrongs you are inflicting on me, I forgive you. I will pray to the God of Israel, that He will likewise forgive you for your trespasses against me and the others you are hurting in your tirades.
  
  May you be blessed Texasescimo, you have my prayers and my pity.
  
  I am now muting this thread.

  • Report
  

  by k on December 31st, 2010

• Being pro-Mormonism doesn't make me anti-Christian any more than being pro-Christian automatically makes one anti-Mormon. I spend my time building up and promoting Mormonism. I do not spend hours a day tearing done other Christian denominations and sects.
  
  And to answer Mister IT's question, I think Mormons should define Mormon terms, just as Baptists define Baptist terms, and JWs define JW terms. The problem arises when a small group tries defining terms for a broad group. As an example, when a small group of Christians try to define Christian terms for everyone. Baptists, Mormons, JWs, etc. all have presiding bodies whereas there is no single living authority on what is Christianity and what is not.

  • Report
  

  by laie_techie on December 31st, 2010

Comments

Comments

• Thank you for your answer.

  • Report
  

  by k on June 21st, 2010

• delete this comment, posted wrong.

  • Report
  

  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on June 22nd, 2010

• YOU WROTE
  "No, because the Aaronic priesthood of the LDS church was originated by Joseph Smith. He claims that an angel bestowed it upon him, giving him that authority."
  
  MY COMMENTS
  And it should be noted that there is NO mention of the Mormon Priesthoods until 1838. In fact it was one of the key points of disagreement that drove David Whitmer one of the "Three Witnesses" (found right after the Introduction of the Book of Mormon) of the Book of Mormon and an early leader in the Mormon church out.
  
  Here's what he had to say about the priesthoods in the Mormon Church:
  
  "Now Brethren, seeing they had no High Priests in the church of Christ of old, and none in the church of Christ (12) in these last days until almost two years after its beginning (13) -- when the leaders began to drift into error; remembering the fact of the revelation being changed two years after it was given to include High Priests;...
  In no place in the word of God does it say that an Elder is after the order of Melchisedec, or after the order of the Melchisedec Priesthood....This matter of ‘priesthood,' since the days of Sydney [sic] [Sidney] Rigdon(14), has been the great hobby and stumbling-block of the Latter Day Saints. ...This matter of the two orders of priesthood....all originated in the mind of Sydney Rigdon. He explained these things to Brother Joseph in his way, out of the old Scriptures, and got Brother Joseph to inquire, etc. He would inquire and as mouthpiece speak out the revelations just as they had it fixed up in their hearts...How easily a man can receive some other spirit, appearing as an Angel of Light, believing at the time that he is giving the revealed will of God..."
  (An Address to All Believers in Christ, pages 64)
  
  And a full analysis on how the Mormon Priesthoods were fabricated can be found here: http://www.frontiernet.net/~bcmmin/priestod2.htm

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on July 1st, 2010

Comments

• Thank you for your answer
  I have a few questions:)
  
  "The new law, established by Christ Himself, allowed those who were not descendants of Aaron to have the priesthood, especially since the Gospel was taken to the gentiles."
  
  Where in the Bible did Jesus state that those who are not descendants of Aaron may partake of the Levitical or Aaronic priesthood? Even Jesus was not part of that priesthood. And where in the New Testament did God tell us that we are to seek ordination into that priesthood?
  
  Hebrews 7:13-14
  "For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. 14For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood."
  
  As a Christian, I believe the only priesthood in which we are to seek ordination is that of the Royal Priesthood of all true believers in God; and this is NOT the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood, it is the priesthood spoken of in 1 Peter 2:9 "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;". It is a priesthood which is open to people of any race, people of any gender and people of any place or position within the Body of Christ. Jesus is our only High Priest forever.
  
  “Otherwise, based on your logic, you could argue that we should all follow the same dietary restrictions laid out in the O.T. too, right?”
  
  You have hit the nail on the head!! I DO believe that we should follow the old dietary laws, and I practice what I believe. In fact, I believe that the laws God gave in the Old Testament are as valid and good as the ones He gave in the New Testament.
  
  Matthew 5:17-20
  "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
  
  The following of any laws will not obtain salvation.
  
  Ephesians 2:8-9
  "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9Not of works, lest any man should boast."
  
  In this way, the promises have been fulfilled and we no longer HAVE to follow the Laws in order to try to obtain salvation and eternal life with God. So as Jesus Himself said, he did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it; and He did! However, why on earth would anyone choose to ignore God's good advice on how to live a Godly life?! And risk being the least in the kingdom of Heaven as opposed to great in the Kingdom of Heaven?! Following the laws that exist in the Bible, both Old and New testaments, will help us to live a Godly life. The fact that we don't HAVE to follow the Laws, doesn't mean we shouldn't. A saying in my Synagogue that encapsulates this belief is “I do not follow the Laws in order to be saved, I follow the Laws because I am saved.” Because I love God, I follow the advice He gave me in the Bible on how to live well, according to Him. So, because of this, I observe God's Sabbath, I keep the feasts and guide my children in His ways. It's like that phrase, What would Jesus do? Well....being a Jew, He was circumcised, He wore a tallit, He kept the Sabbath, He NEVER ate anything unclean, and He kept every other OT Law, because otherwise He would not have been a perfect sacrifice for us.
  
  Deuteronomy 11:19
  "And ye shall teach them your children, speaking of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, when thou liest down, and when thou risest up."
  
  -CONTINUED BELOW-

  • Report
  

  by k on June 25th, 2010

• Also, even Paul kept the laws AFTER he became a follower of Christ. He went to the Temple and made sacrifices (in keeping with his Nazarite vow). In Acts 28:17-18 Paul even defends himself to the Jewish leaders in Rome stating that he had done nothing against the Jewish people or the customs of their ancestors, and that there was nothing for which he could be punished that would earn him the death penalty; as breaking the Law and advocating others to do so, would have. He kept the Sabbath, the High Holy days, he spoke Hebrew, he taught from the Hebrew scriptures (which at that time were the Old Testament which is the Torah and the Tanakh, and the Talmud), he practiced circumcision (when Timothy became Paul's traveling companion, he had Timothy circumcised, Acts 16:3), and he went to Jerusalem to worship. So, if even Paul, one of the most well known apostles of Jesus, followed the Old Testament laws so well after he was saved, should we not follow that example?
  
  Acts 21:20-26
  And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 21And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. 22What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. 23Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; 24Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. 25As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. 26Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.
  
  “Would you use the Old Testament as the authority on polygamy?
  "But Abijah waxed mighty, and married fourteen wives, and begat twenty and two sons, and sixteen daughters." 2 Chronicles 13:21
  Does this mean polygamy is OK?”
  
  In what way does the Old Testament advocate polygamy? I am not aware of any verses telling us it is something we should seek out. Certainly polygamy was practiced in the Old Testament times. However, that does NOT mean God intended it for us. In fact, God made it clear that one husband to one wife was His ideal. That is why men are missing one rib, not several; God took one rib to make one wife. God said men are to leave their Mothers and cleave to their wife, not wives.
  
  Genesis 2:24
  "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
  
  No, I do not believe polygamy is okay. God set us the example of one man and one woman. Therefor, while He allowed polygamy for His own reasons to be practiced in the Old Testament, that does not mean that it is something we should seek out. Always we should seek out God's ideal, and that is the union of one flesh; one man and one woman.

  • Report
  

  by k on June 25th, 2010

• Great points.
  
  Let me do my best to respond to some of them.
  
  You said: "And where in the New Testament did God tell us that we are to seek ordination into that priesthood?"
  
  We are not taught in the LDS faith to "seek" after the priesthood. Nobody is entitled to it. One must be called of God and be worthy of that calling.
  
  There are multiple scriptures that describe men being called and having "hand laid upon them", which we interpret to mean they were given authority, especially when the new apostles were being called.
  
  But here are two scriptures I will cite discussing examples of men in the N.T. and the priesthood:
  
  "And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them." Acts 6:5-6
  
  "For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." Hebrews 5:1-4
  
  You said: "You have hit the nail on the head!! I DO believe that we should follow the old dietary laws, and I practice what I believe. In fact, I believe that the laws God gave in the Old Testament are as valid and good as the ones He gave in the New Testament."
  
  Very cool. I respect that. Many Christians I know simply dismiss the O.T. as irrelevant if it doesn't support their views. I think there are many valid things from the O.T. that should be honored and followed, but I also think many things have been fulfilled, and are therefore no longer necessary.
  
  Out of curiosity then, what do you think should be done to a woman who is caught cheating on her husband?
  
  (CONT)

  • Report
  

  by Mike Astill on June 26th, 2010

• "He kept every other OT Law, because otherwise He would not have been a perfect sacrifice for us."
  
  Pardon me for not being super knowledgeable here, isn't there a verse that says something to the effect that "it's not what goes in the mouth that makes you unclean, but what comes out of the mouth?" I have always understood that to mean Christ did away with the old dietary law, and instead instituted a new one commanding us to be careful what we say.
  
  There verse also comes to mind when he said something to the effect "it has been said love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I say unto you love your enemy. Do good to those who hate you..." I'm sorry I don't have the reference...(I'm too tired to look it up), but do you see my point?
  
  You said: "The fact that we don't HAVE to follow the Laws, doesn't mean we shouldn't."
  
  OK, but someone who is saved, and doesn't follow any of the Laws--let's say hypothetically the guy truly and honestly accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior and then went out and slaughtered a bus full of kids--he is still saved, right?
  
  I'll stop here because my eyes are too heavy...I look forward to your response.
  
  I hope you have a great weekend.

  • Report
  

  by Mike Astill on June 26th, 2010

• I have had a good weekend, thanks:) I hope you have had one as well!
  I will do my best to answer your questions...they are good ones!
  
  “There are multiple scriptures that describe men being called and having "hand laid upon them", which we interpret to mean they were given authority, especially when the new apostles were being called.
  But here are two scriptures I will cite discussing examples of men in the N.T. and the priesthood: “
  
  Thank you for the verses. I will have to disagree with you about the interpretation you give them though:)
  
  As a Christian, I believe that the laying on of hands is not a transferance of authority (as that is something that the Bible never indicates or states it to mean). In Judaism, the laying on of hands has four distinct meanings. First it means consecration, the setting apart for the service of God (not the same thing as conferring authority). This method of consecration is used in the same way that the annointing with oil is. Second, the laying on of hands is used for the transmission of a divine gift. Third, it means identification, the means whereby an offerer was linked with their sacrifice. Fourth, the laying on of hands confers a blessing from the one laying hands to the one receiving the laying on of hands. So, for example, every week when the children in my Synagogue are standing under the prayer shawl before going to Shabbat school, the Rabbi lays hands upon each child's head in blessing. It should be noted that while the laying on of hands is linked with these things in the Bible, the laying on of hands is not manditory for these things as all of them are done in the Bible without the laying on of hands, as well. Christianity continued the tradition of laying on of hands for these reasons.
  
  
  In regards to the Hebrews passage. I agree that the High Priests spoken of were the Aaronic ones. However, the Bible was talking about how they were chosen and appointed for this position in the past (one of the ways this was done was by lineage requirements, as it states they are called as was Aaron...by God and in accordance with the Laws God Himself set up surrounding the priesthood) in order to act on the behalf of men in relation to God. As of Jesus' blood being spilt for us, a mediator of this sort is no longer necessary. We no longer need anyone offering sacrifices for us for sin. The Bible tells us that Jesus is our only High Priest. The Bible does not tell us that we are to be part of the Aaronic priesthood (unless we are of Aaron's blood), only part of the Royal priesthood, which I have previously stated is not the same at all.
  
  “but I also think many things have been fulfilled, and are therefore no longer necessary.”
  
  Certainly things such as the sin sacrifice are no longer necessary. A greater and perfect sin sacrifice was made in the death of Jesus upon the cross. This was an eternal sin sacrifice that all of mankind could reap the rewards of. Therefor, Jesus did indeed fulfill the requirements laid out in the Old Testament for the sin sacrifice and it is not necessary for it to be done again. The debt has been paid in full for everyone who accepts the payment. Certain Laws in the Old Testament pertain to certain people (such as the Laws concerning lineage for the priesthood and cleanliness Laws for serving in the Temple) and therefor are not to be used by those to whom they do not apply.
  
  “Out of curiosity then, what do you think should be done to a woman who is caught cheating on her husband?”
  
  In accordance with Romans 13 (and other verses) I believe that I am to follow the government I have. Therefor, as a Canadian, my government says that adultery is grounds for divorce. So, I live in accordance with that. I do not cast stones at adulterers (male or female), for that is against the laws of the land. That being said, I assume (though I do hate to assume:) that you are questioning how I can state that I try to follow the Laws and presumably do not cast stones at

  • Report
  

  by k on June 27th, 2010

• In answer to that, I would cite John 8:1-11. If Jesus would not condemn someone who sinned, then who am I to do so? Also, in accordance with OT Laws, there must be at least 2 witnesses for the accusation. There must also be a priest to take the plea to and the witnesses must be virtuous (as Jesus pointed out, who among them was without sin?). If no witnesses are found and the husband suspects adultery, he can have a priest make the water of bitterness for the woman to drink. Numbers 5:11-31. I do not know of any priest, Levitical, Aaronic or otherwise that now days will do this. The act of adultery breaks the covenant of marriage. A true Christian marriage is a covenant between one man, one woman and God. Therefor, it is between those three that reconciliation or retribution must be made when adultery breaks it.
  
  Proverbs 3:30
  Strive not with a man without cause, if he have done thee no harm
  
  Deuteronomy 19:16
  If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong;
  
  "it's not what goes in the mouth that makes you unclean, but what comes out of the mouth?" I have always understood that to mean Christ did away with the old dietary law, and instead instituted a new one commanding us to be careful what we say.”
  
  You are referring to Matthew 15:11
  Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
  
  If you read Matthew 15, the whole chapter, you will see that Jesus is referring to the washing of hands here. In fact in Matthew 15:20 it says:
  These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
  
  What Jesus is talking about in Matthew 15 is that it is not a person's ritual actions which makes him unclean or defiled, it is the state of a person's heart. So, does this mean that Jesus is saying we should never wash our hands before we eat? This is the same assumption as that of all foods being now clean. And, of course that is not what Jesus means. We should wash our hands, it is hygienic. However, it is our hearts that will determine our spiritual cleanliness, not the amount of dirt on our hands. In the same way, what we eat will not determine our spiritual cleanliness, however that does not mean that everything is clean or good for us to eat. In Genesis 1:29 God tells Adam:
  And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
  
  So does this mean that EVERY plant is for food? Of course not! Belladona is only one of many examples of plants that should not be eaten. So, clearly God has created plants and animals upon this earth that we should not eat. And were never meant to be a source of food for us.
  
  “There verse also comes to mind when he said something to the effect "it has been said love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I say unto you love your enemy. Do good to those who hate you..." I'm sorry I don't have the reference...(I'm too tired to look it up), but do you see my point?”
  
  I think I see your point. You are saying that Jesus is contradicting the Old Testament. He is not. As you can see in these verses (there are others too), the OT does not advise us to hate our enemies.
  
  Leviticus 19:17
  Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him.
  
  Proverbs 25:21-22
  If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat,
  and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink,
  22 for you will heap burning coals on his head,
  and the Lord will reward you.
  
  The verse you are referring to are Matthew 5:38-48. These are also the verses where Jesus says we shall turn the other cheek. In here, Jesus is refuting a common attitude of the time (and honestly, that attitude is still around today) not a doctrine of the Old Testament.

  • Report
  

  by k on June 27th, 2010

• This is not a written law, that is why Jesus does not say “it is written” and instead says “you have heard it said”. Nowhere in the Bible that I know of, does God instruct us to hate our enemies.
  
  God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). The Bible therefor is not contradictory. In the end, if Jesus was to be the perfect sacrifice, He HAD to be free of sin. Sin is the trangression of God's Law. That is found in the Old Testament. Sin is also defined as missing the mark. The mark is God's Law. Therefor, Jesus DID NOT trangress God's Law. And so, when the Bible says man is sinful, it means we transgress God's Law. God came to earth to save us from our sins, our transgressions. Why would He turn around and say that the Laws are gone? What then would we be sinning against and why would we need Jesus' blood to save us?
  
  “OK, but someone who is saved, and doesn't follow any of the Laws--let's say hypothetically the guy truly and honestly accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior and then went out and slaughtered a bus full of kids--he is still saved, right?”
  
  Of course he is still saved. Just as those who go to church on Sunday and do not observe the Sabbath are also still saved (provided they are true believers). And just as those who do not keep God's appointed times, or who eat food sacrificed to idols or eat blood (these last 2 are burdens that gentile believers were supposed to observe, they are set out in the New Testament, Acts 15:28-29) are saved. As I said in my previous comment:
  
  “The following of any laws will not obtain salvation.......In this way, the promises have been fulfilled and we no longer HAVE to follow the Laws in order to try to obtain salvation and eternal life with God. So as Jesus Himself said, he did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it; and He did!.......I do not follow the Laws in order to be saved, I follow the Laws because I am saved.”
  
  And to further clarify, I will say that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, it is a FREE GIFT from God. We cannot earn free gifts, so there is NOTHING we can do to earn salvation. And when I say salvation, I mean being washed clean from my sins, being judged righteous in the sight of God, having my name written in the Lamb's book of life and dwelling with Him in Heaven forever. In fact, though I believe that following the OT food Laws is a good thing to do, I do not believe that it is my place to judge or inflict these beliefs on others. As it says in 1 Corinthians 8:9-12 (I usually try to use KJV when speaking with LdS because I know it is the version you use, but here I am using the ESV because I really like how it is written and it is more plain):
  
  But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eatingc in an idol’s temple, will he not be encouraged,d if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? 11And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. 12Thus, sinning against your brotherse and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.
  
  So, when I go to my LdS friends' home for supper (about once per week:), I do not insist that my meat is koshered (washed and rinsed and soaked in salt water to ensure all blood is removed). However, knowing my beliefs, my friends would never think of making pork or shellfish for supper. And likewise, I do not offer them alcohol, coffee or tea when they come to my house. And so, while we respect one another's beliefs, I live in accordance (to the best of my abilities:) with the New Testament injuctions concerning food as well. In the end, nowhere does God say in the Bible that all foods are clean. We could live on dog food (for example), but that does not mean that it was ever God's intent that we should.

  • Report
  

  by k on June 27th, 2010

• Now that I have inundated you with info:) I hope that it is clear. If not, or if you have any more questions, please ask, I am happy to try to explain.

  • Report
  

  by k on June 27th, 2010

• I appreciate your responses.
  
  A few questions and a few comments...
  
  1) Does your church or religion have a website? I'm fascinated with other people's religions. Yours sound very interesting.
  
  2) You stated that there is nothing that one can do to earn salvation. So doesn't that mean that ALL are saved, no matter what we do (or don't do)? If there is nothing that we can do to earn salvation, then that means the opposite is true, that being that there is nothing we can do to earn condemnation either, correct? If our works cannot save us, then they cannot condemn us either.
  
  For the record, I also belief that despite everything we try to do in this life, the only way that we can be saved is through the grace of Christ. As a member of the LDS church, even though I strive to be 100% faithful in all that I am asked to do (tithing, temple attendance, service, Word of Wisdom, etc), I still fall far short of the Kingdom of God. It is only through the blood of Christ that I can be redeemed and perfected and presented to the Father.

  • Report
  

  by Mike Astill on June 28th, 2010

• You said: "I think I see your point. You are saying that Jesus is contradicting the Old Testament."
  
  I never said that. I would never say that Christ contradicted the laws of the O.T., because He, Jehovah, was the One who gave the laws. He who gave the laws cannot and will not contradict them. He can fulfill them, however, and establish a new one, which I believe He did.

  • Report
  

  by Mike Astill on June 28th, 2010

• "You said: "I think I see your point. You are saying that Jesus is contradicting the Old Testament."
  I never said that."
  
  No you didn't say that, but you had asked if I understood what you were saying in your paragraph that I was responding to. (whew, does that even make sense?:). That is what it seemed you were saying. Here is your original paragraph
  
  "There verse also comes to mind when he said something to the effect "it has been said love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I say unto you love your enemy. Do good to those who hate you..." I'm sorry I don't have the reference...(I'm too tired to look it up), but do you see my point?"
  
  I guess I did not see your point. Your explaination has clarified your point, thank you. And, I do agree with you to a point. However, Jesus himself said in Matthew 5:17-19
  
  "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
  
  So Jesus did fulfill, but did not destroy. And He advises against breaking the least of His commandments or teaching others to do so. He goes on to say that they will be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven, while those who keep the commandments will be called great. This is why I believe that both the Old Testament and the New Testament commandments are good to follow, to the best of our abilities. These verses from Matthew also address your other question:
  
  “You stated that there is nothing that one can do to earn salvation. So doesn't that mean that ALL are saved, no matter what we do (or don't do)? If there is nothing that we can do to earn salvation, then that means the opposite is true, that being that there is nothing we can do to earn condemnation either, correct? If our works cannot save us, then they cannot condemn us either.”
  
  Well, I have to say that I think your logic (or rather the logic of the questions you have asked) is faulty here. Yes I believe that there is nothing that we can do to earn salvation. And yes, that means that all may be saved. However, that does not mean that all ARE saved. Righteous and Godly works, keeping commandments, following God's laws, doing good deeds, these are all things that will earn you blessings from God. They can help make you great in the kingdom of Heaven, as Matthew 5 states. However, they will not and can not earn salvation. Ephesians is very clear on this
  
  Ephesians 2:8-10
  For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
  
  Here God separates faith from works. So having faith in Jesus' sacrifice is NOT a work. Therefor nothing you can do, can earn salvation. And it is faulty logic to turn that around and state that there is therefor nothing we can do to earn condemnation. The Bible completely refutes this idea.
  
  Romans 3:23
  
  For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
  
  Romans 6:23
  For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
  
  Romans 5:18-21
  Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

  • Report
  

  by k on June 28th, 2010

• 21That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
  
  The idea that if works cannot save us, they cannot condemn us either is interesting. We are already condemned though, so that is a moot point. Since the time of Adam ALL of mankind has been conemned.
  
  “For the record, I also belief that despite everything we try to do in this life, the only way that we can be saved is through the grace of Christ. As a member of the LDS church, even though I strive to be 100% faithful in all that I am asked to do (tithing, temple attendance, service, Word of Wisdom, etc), I still fall far short of the Kingdom of God. It is only through the blood of Christ that I can be redeemed and perfected and presented to the Father.”
  
  This is one of those areas that I really find that the LdS church is confusing. I have read and been told by LdS friends the EXACT same thing as you stated above. However, at the same time, the LdS church states that Temple work is essential for exaltation to the Celestial Kingdom. So, my question is, do you believe that you can be saved to the Highest level of Heaven, the one where you dwell with God the Father and where your family will be together eternally, without ANY works of any kind, including Temple work, such as the endowment or even baptism? Do you believe that any person who professes belief in Jesus and has true faith in Jesus' blood upon the cross will live in the Celestial Kingdom with God the Father? Regardless of church membership, regardless of baptism, regardless of post humous Temple work on their behalf? I have been told no by my same LdS friends to these questions, so, in the end according to them and according to answers such as the one I have pasted below, the LdS church does in fact believe that there are things, works, acts, however you want to phrase it, that need to be done to be saved and exalted into the Celestial Kingdom. So, even though Jesus' blood will save you, it is after all you can do, and if you do not do all you can do, then Jesus' blood is not sufficient. Is this correct?
  I have read also that the LdS church regards salvation as ressurection (essentially), while exaltation holds the meaning that mainstream Christianity has always given to the word salvation. Is this correct? And perhaps this is where the misunderstanding and confusion stems from?
  
  “While we understand that no man will ever gain salvation through their own works, Latter-day Saints believe that men need to do more than merely profess a belief in the Lord, Jesus Christ to gain salvation. The following scripture from The Book of Mormon explains this further:
  "For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do" (2 Nephi 25:23.)
  The phrase, "after all we can do" means living His commandments, extending our best effort, loving our fellowmen and praying for those who regard us as their adversary, clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, visiting the sick and afflicted, living chaste lives, and in being honest and doing good to all men. No man will ever be able to live a perfect life, and though we strive to this end, we understand we will fail. Hence, it is only by His grace that we are saved "after all we can do".
  http://lds.about.com/od/apologetics/a/accusations.htm
  
  And now that I have answered your last questions first, I will answer your first question last:)
  
  “Does your church or religion have a website? I'm fascinated with other people's religions. Yours sound very interesting.”
  
  Thank you for your interest. I am a member of a Messianic Synagogue. Our website is
  http://www.bethshechinah.com/
  and another good website is
  http://ffoz.org/
  And this is an okay explaination of the denomination
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism

  • Report
  

  by k on June 28th, 2010

• You said: "This is why I believe that both the Old Testament and the New Testament commandments are good to follow, to the best of our abilities."
  
  I agree 100%.
  
  You said: "Yes I believe that there is nothing that we can do to earn salvation. And yes, that means that all may be saved. However, that does not mean that all ARE saved. Righteous and Godly works, keeping commandments, following God's laws, doing good deeds, these are all things that will earn you blessings from God. They can help make you great in the kingdom of Heaven, as Matthew 5 states. However, they will not and can not earn salvation."
  
  Hmmmmm. I find this comment interesting. On the one hand, you say it is impossible to do any work that will earn you salvation, yet in this sentence you concede that someone who does Godly acts (what I interpret as following God's laws--the ten commandments, sermon on the mount, etc.) will "make you great in the kingdom of God".
  
  Is there a different, greater salvation for one who keeps the commandments, as opposed to the example I gave above of the man who accepted Christ and then murdered a bus full of kids? (and is also saved in the Kingdom of God) I just assumed that, according to your statements above, that saved is saved, regardless of whether you kept the commandments or not.
  
  Now, to help clarify the LDS position on salvation:
  
  You're right. Technically, we believe that ALL are saved, regardless of what they do (or don't do). All will resurrect. All will stand before God to be judged, and all will receive a degree of glory. The lowest is Telestial Kingdom, or the glory of the stars. The middle is the Terrestrial Kingdom, or the glory of the moon. The highest is the Celestial Kingdom, which is the glory of the sun.
  
  For Mormons, the thought of living in the Telestial Kingdom is hell. The lowest of the low will receive that kingdom--murderers, rapists, liars. However, it is interesting to note that Joseph Smith once said that if we were ever able to see the glory of this kingdom, we would want to kill ourselves to get there. (CONT)

  • Report
  

  by Mike Astill on June 28th, 2010

• The Terrestial Kingdom will be for those who were the good, honorable people of the earth. They are people who were good people, but did not accept Christ's plan of salvation. To be frank, it is the place for all of those who choose not to follow God's laws--baptism, temple, etc.
  
  The Celestial Kingdom, as you probably have guessed, is exaltation. It is for those who have accepted the Gospel and followed all of the commandments, to the best of their ability. (according to Mormonism, of course).
  
  So to answer your question: You must be baptized. You must have your temple ordinances done. You must have lived a good life, and been a servant of Christ. You must have all of these things done in order to enter into the Celestial Kingdom. ALL people will have the opportunity to have this glory, if they so choose. If they do not have the opportunity in this life, they will receive a chance in the next. Hence the reason why we believe temple work to be so important.
  
  HOWEVER...the ONLY way this is even possible is because of Jesus Christ. No matter what I do in this life, no matter how many times I serve my fellow man, no matter how many times I pray, or go to church, etc., NONE of it matters if it wasn't for Christ and the Atonement. I am not perfect. I will not be perfect when I die and meet God. But I have faith, and I have hope, that Christ will have mercy on my soul, and he will make up the difference where I fall short. He will purify me, and sanctify me, because HE has the power to do that. He has bought me with a price. He owns me.
  
  This is where I think your statement that those who live Godly lives will be "great" in the kingdom of God is somewhat in line with what we believe as Mormons.
  
  That man who murders the kids on the bus does not deserve salvation, in my opinion. One who claims to accept Christ would not do something like that. But even he will be saved through the blood of Christ. And he will inherit a kingdom of Glory that he probably doesn't deserve, but because of the love of Christ he will receive it.
  
  Those who do all they have asked to do, and live Godly lives, and accept the prophets (both ancient and modern), and have charity, and repent...these will be exalted and live in God's Kingdom forever, even though they don't deserve it either. (Because we're all sinners)
  
  Am I making any sense? I fear I'm rambling on too much here...
  
  BTW...thanks for the links. I'm checking them out now.

  • Report
  

  by Mike Astill on June 28th, 2010

• WOW! You're Jewish and you believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah! VERY COOL.

  • Report
  

  by Mike Astill on June 28th, 2010

• The Book of Mormon talks about you in 2nd Nephi Chapter 6:
  
  Nevertheless, the Lord has shown unto me that they should return again. And he also has shown unto me that the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, should manifest himself unto them in the flesh; and after he should manifest himself they should scourge him and crucify him, according to the words of the angel who spake it unto me.
  10 And after they have hardened their hearts and stiffened their necks against the Holy One of Israel, behold, the judgments of the Holy One of Israel shall come upon them. And the day cometh that they shall be smitten and afflicted.
  11 Wherefore, after they are driven to and fro, for thus saith the angel, many shall be afflicted in the flesh, and shall not be suffered to perish, because of the prayers of the faithful; they shall be scattered, and smitten, and hated; nevertheless, the Lord will be merciful unto them, that when they shall come to the knowledge of their Redeemer, they shall be gathered together again to the lands of their inheritance.
  12 And blessed are the Gentiles, they of whom the prophet has written; for behold, if it so be that they shall repent and fight not against Zion, and do not unite themselves to that great and abominable church, they shall be saved; for the Lord God will fulfil his covenants which he has made unto his children; and for this cause the prophet has written these things.
  13 Wherefore, they that fight against Zion and the covenant people of the Lord shall lick up the dust of their feet; and the people of the Lord shall not be ashamed. For the people of the Lord are they who wait for him; for they still wait for the coming of the Messiah.
  14 And behold, according to the words of the prophet, the Messiah will set himself again the second time to recover them; wherefore, he will manifest himself unto them in power and great glory, unto the destruction of their enemies, when that day cometh when they shall believe in him; and none will he destroy that believe in him.

  • Report
  

  by Mike Astill on June 28th, 2010

• Not rambling any more than I am:)
  
  "Is there a different, greater salvation for one who keeps the commandments, as opposed to the example I gave above of the man who accepted Christ and then murdered a bus full of kids? (and is also saved in the Kingdom of God) I just assumed that, according to your statements above, that saved is saved, regardless of whether you kept the commandments or not."
  
  I know that it seems as though I am saying there are different salvations. But I must clarify that I am absolutely not saying that at all. You are correct in your assumption that I believe that saved is saved. There is one Heaven and one salvation. What we do has no impact on whether or not we are saved. Faith in the blood is how we are saved. Matthew 5 does indeed state that there will be great and the least in the kingdom of Heaven. This in no way means there are different Heavens or different salvations within Heaven. Again, saved is saved. The way I reconcile this verse within the greater context of what the whole Bible says, is that God blesses us. In many ways for many reasons. This is one of those ways. I love God, so I follow his advice, his commandments, his laws. And He blesses me for it. What being the least or great in the kingdom of Heaven means, well I have no idea. That is something that I will find out when I go to God; whether I am the least, great or somewhere in between when I get there:)
  
  "HOWEVER...the ONLY way this is even possible is because of Jesus Christ....:)....Am I making any sense?"
  
  I do understand what you are saying and what you mean. However, by requiring action, works, etc. on the part of believers, such as Temple work, in order to obtain the highest level of Heaven, that DOES technically require works in order to obtain FULL exaltation. I understand the LdS view that damned means not able to progress and the view that salvation is obtained by even those who obtain the Telestial and Terriestrial kingdoms. However, as I said above, it still seems to me that works determine where you end up, rather than faith. And that is the defining difference I believe, between the LdS view of this particular topic and mainstream Christianity. Even though the Terrestrial, Telestial and Celestial are all parts of Heaven (or so I understand), works and not faith are what determine which one you end up in. While in mainstream Christianity, there is only one Heaven and the only way in is through faith. I find the LdS view very interesting though, and I have really enjoyed reading your explaination..it is much more clear than most I have come accross:)
  
  "WOW! You're Jewish and you believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah! VERY COOL."
  
  Well, I am not personally Jewish, but many of the members of my Synagogue are. I am a Gentile believer. Sometimes referred to as a Messianic Gentile:)
  
  It is soooo cool though that you went to the sites! So few people are willing to actually learn about other religions beyond the barest of basics. And I personally feel that learing about other religions is of such great benefit!! How can you really understand anyone if you do not understand their faith? And also, when you come across something you do not believe in your religious research, it will usually strengthen what you DO believe because you naturally find reasons for justifying your beliefs. And really, is there much that is more interesting than religion?! And now that I have laid bare my opinions on this, you will understand my continuous LdS questions:) I find the LdS religion fascinating. And, I live less than an hour from Cardston Temple, so I like to know what it is that all of my friends believe:)

  • Report
  

  by k on June 28th, 2010

• K:
  
  I’ve been thinking about this discussion for the past few days. I’ve pondered your belief that works are not necessary for salvation and I’m trying to reconcile some things.
  
  You said a few comments up: “Yes I believe that there is nothing that we can do to earn salvation. And yes, that means that all may be saved. However, that does not mean that all ARE saved.”
  
  Why are not all saved? If there is nothing we can do, is it fair that some are saved and some aren’t? To me, that is like saying to a group of Olympians, “None of you can run the race fast enough to earn a gold medal”, but then you turn around and give someone a gold medal simply because he says he wants one, even though he didn’t do anything to earn it, while the others get nothing.
  
  However, I suspect you are going to say that they have to do SOMETHING in order to be saved…they have to accept Jesus into their hearts, right?
  
  Isn’t that a work? You have to do something. NOT doing something is an act as well. Sometimes we are rewarded or punished by not doing something based on the law. For example, by NOT killing someone, we will stay out of jail and keep our freedom. By NOT paying our taxes, we will go to jail and lose our freedom.
  
  So if I choose NOT to accept Christ as my Lord and Savior, even though I know all about Him and His ways, I would assume I am going to hell (according to your belief. Am I correct?) This act of not doing something so vitally important to my soul--this work of omission--condemns me! Christ, who has all power and has overcome all sin, can do nothing for me if I choose NOT to accept Him. Why? Because that is His law! That is His word! We must accept Him and believe in Him and love Him. If we choose not to, we are damned.
  
  James 2:14 says “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?” He goes on to say if you find your brother naked or hungry, and give him no help, you are wrong. Verse 17: “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.”
  
  I struggle with the idea that a man, who has accepted Jesus as his savior, but is evil—you know, the guy who killed the bus full of kids—is saved, but a man who is a truly good man, and he happens to be a rabid atheist will go to hell.

  • Report
  

  by Mike Astill on June 30th, 2010

• Additionally, I’ve been pondering over the teachings of Christ. Some of my favorite parables are those that clearly teach that he who obeys the commandments, who obeys and does the things Christ has taught us, will be saved. He who does not, regardless whether he claims to have accepted Christ or not, will be damned. All throughout the bible, there are commandments, and teachings, and parables that state clearly that we must do certain things or risk losing our salvation.
  
  Parable of the Ten Virgins (Matt 25:1-13): All of them were invited to the wedding…yet only the 5 who had prepared were allowed to enter. Those who had prepared with oil and had their lamps trimmed were ready for the bridegroom.
  
  Prodigal Son: The prodigal son (probably my favorite parable) went to the depths of hell because of his choices, yet he repented and came back to the father and was received with open arms.
  
  Parable of the Talents (Matt 25:14-30): The one who buried his talent and did nothing had his taken away. Those who worked and increased their talents were blessed.
  
  The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats: Clearly, those who feed the hungry, and house the stranger, and clothe the naked, and visit the sick and imprisoned will enter the kingdom of God, while those who did not do those things will be cast out.
  
  The Parable of the Two Debtors(Luke 7:36-47): Christ rebuked Simon for doing nothing to show love towards Him.
  
  I can’t read the teachings of the bible and come away with the impression that the ONLY thing that is essential for salvation is to accept Christ—and it doesn’t matter what you do after that because you will be saved. I just don’t see it.
  
  I believe that it is only through Christ that we can win the race. No matter how hard we run, it won’t be fast enough and we won’t finish. But he has commanded us to run it nonetheless. If we do everything he asks us to do and we strive to become like Him in word and in deed, he will give us the gold medal. It doesn’t matter if you come in first or last—all that matters is your heart is broken and your spirit is contrite and you love him and show that love by running as hard as you can and doing your best. It doesn’t even matter if you show up late to the race! Join it and run it and you will get the gold medal. HE has won every race and owns all of the medals. And he wants to share them with us, even though we don’t deserve them!
  
  I’ve rambled enough…what do you think?

  • Report
  

  by Mike Astill on June 30th, 2010

• BTW...I absolutely love these discussions. Forgive me if my tone ever sounds harsh or offensive in any of my comments--they are never intended that way. I appreciate your passion for your beliefs and love learning more about them.

  • Report
  

  by Mike Astill on June 30th, 2010

• “Isn’t that a work? You have to do something. NOT doing something is an act as well.”
  
  No, accepting a gift is not a work. Not at all. You are trying to split hairs here. The Bible itself tells us that accepting God's gift and having faith is not a work. See Ephesians 2:8-9. Here is the explaination about salvation that I use with my preschool and elementary students.
  
  “Imagine Jesus walks up to you. He takes you by the hand and says,
  
  “I have a gift for you will you take it?”
  
  You agree to take the gift. Into your hand, Jesus places a box. He tells you,
  
  “within this box is my blood. This is my gift to you, it is the payment for your sins. With this blood, you may now enter Heaven. Heaven is my home. There I have a place prepared for you to live in eternity. You will live with me there and be forever with those you love who also have my gift. You will not be able to open this box until judgement day, so care for it until then. Along with my blood, I give you the gift of faith. That you may believe in this gift I have given you, that you may come to know me in my fullness, that you may now long to learn my truths that I have spoken from the moment of creation. I must go now, but I leave you with my spirit who will comfort you. My spirit will dwell within you and help to convict you of my way. To know my truths, read my Bible, my only written word to you. I love you so much!”
  
  This is how salvation is obtained. The most precious gift that has ever been given has been placed into your hand and all you have to do is accept it. And Jesus gives you the means to accept His gift and the faith to believe in it.”
  
  Romans 5:16
  And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
  
  Romans 5:15
  But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
  
  Romans 6:23
  For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
  
  Acts 8:20
  But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
  
  2 Corinthians 9:15
  Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
  
  Romans 4:16
  Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
  
  Ephesians 2:8-9
  For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9Not of works, lest any man should boast.
  
  Galatians 2:16
  Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
  
  Titus 3:5
  Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
  
  Romans 10:9
  That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
  
  Romans 4:2
  For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
  
  So, that is my preschool and elementary level explaination, if you still don't get it, then I suggest you pray to God for wisdom and read through the Bible, because I don't know how to simplify it any further.
  

  • Report
  

  by k on July 1st, 2010

• The gift of salvation is a GIFT. It is a free gift, which means there is absolutely nothing we can do to earn it. We do not have to drive anywhere to pick it up. We do not have to take a dunk in a tub to get clean and dress up to receive it. We do not have to be good and kind and loving to be given it. We do not have to join any church or be counted with any specific group to qualify for it. We do not have to be a certain race or gender to have it given. All you have to do is accept the gift and have faith, which the Bible tells us is not a work.
  
  “All throughout the bible, there are commandments, and teachings, and parables that state clearly that we must do certain things or risk losing our salvation.”
  
  No actually, the Bible does not tell us that we must work for our salvation, the Bible tells us salvation is a free gift. As I have covered this above, I will not go over it again. The verses you are citing do not say anything about salvation being based on works in any way. The ASSUMPTION that they mean we need to earn our way into Heaven is just that, an assumption, and it is an incorrect one. And if you are thinking of James 2, this is God explaining to us that our faith is visible by our works. See also John 14:12 for evidence that our faith produces and is visible by our good works. “I do good works because I am saved, not in order to be saved.”
  
  “I can’t read the teachings of the bible and come away with the impression that the ONLY thing that is essential for salvation is to accept Christ—and it doesn’t matter what you do after that because you will be saved. I just don’t see it.”
  
  No offense, but it seems very egotistical to me that anyone could think that anything they do could ever be good enough to have an impact on their salvation. I do not understand why “it doesn't matter what you do after that because you will be saved” is the assumption that the LdS have about Christians. Every LdS that I know and that I have spoken with thinks this. Do they teach it in priesthood classes? It is incorrect and shows how little the LdS understand Christian theology. Either that or the LdS are engaged in teaching supposed Christian theologies they KNOW we don't believe; either way....It is incorrect and misleading, just like the whole Trinity means three in one assumption is incorrect. I really do not feel like going into this whole topic, if you are sincerely interested, you can read my answer to this very question here
  http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/9135628
  
  I am enjoying our conversation as well, but if there is anything else that you are wondering about, I would suggest you post it as a question that way you get more than just my input and, this comment thread has gotten too off topic! In light of that, I would still like your answers in regards to my original question.
  
  Is there any OFFICIAL church doctrine that the LdS church has supporting that God told them that the lineage requirements are no longer required?
  
  How does the church KNOW that when God said worthy men could be priests, He meant that the blood requirements were no longer required? Because in the OT, you had to be worthy too; being a blood descendant was part of being worthy.

  • Report
  

  by k on July 1st, 2010

• I apologize that this has gotten off topic. I guess I just got caught up responding to some of your comments above on the whole faith vs. works discussion.
  
  One more quick comment and I'll be quiet..
  
  YOU SAID: "I do not understand why “it doesn't matter what you do after that because you will be saved” is the assumption that the LdS have about Christians. Every LdS that I know and that I have spoken with thinks this. Do they teach it in priesthood classes?"
  
  No, we do not teach it in our classes at church. I assume this because all of my Christian friends have affirmed that this is their belief. I even gave you the same hypothetical situation. I said: "OK, but someone who is saved, and doesn't follow any of the Laws--let's say hypothetically the guy truly and honestly accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior and then went out and slaughtered a bus full of kids--he is still saved, right?”
  
  And you replied: "Of course he is still saved."
  
  I apologize if I misinterpreted your answer...
  
  Thanks again for the debate, however. Have a great night.

  • Report
  

  by Mike Astill on July 1st, 2010

• I have made it very clear that I do not at all believe that "once we are saved we can do whatever we want". Your insinuations that I believe otherwise are dissapointing and misleading...we WERE having an interesting conversation, but I am done with it.
  
  And after 23 comments, you still have not answered my question, if only to say there is no OFFICIAL church doctrine and you are assuming it is okay to ignore the lineage laws. 4 LdS have answered this question and not one of you (a 60 year old elder included) have been able to produce one single citation supporting your assertion that the lineage laws have been removed. Not even a so called revelation or dream. So as I said above, it appears that the LdS church is ASSUMING that worthy includes those who do not qualify for the priesthood according to God.
  
  Have a good night. I look forward to talking with you in the future.

  • Report
  

  by k on July 1st, 2010

• I'm not insinuating anything bro...I've got a direct quote from YOU. Again, I apologize if I've misinterpreted what YOU said (not me), and I apologize the tone of this discussion has become combative (I did not intend it to be that way--I'm frankly a bit surprised you have taken it there. But I'm sure I have some blame as well, so I apologize).
  
  I did my best to answer your question even though it is obviously not satisfactory to you.
  
  Again, my apologies.

  • Report
  

  by Mike Astill on July 2nd, 2010

• BTW...I've always suspected it, but I'm becoming more and more convinced you're a sock puppet for Mister I.T.

  • Report
  

  by Mike Astill on July 2nd, 2010

• Not a sock puppet, a real person:) You are the second person answering this question to say that. He has been a Mormon scholar for 30 years, I am barely 30 years old. And while he may be a "bro" I am a girl. He is American and I am Canadian. He is a Charismatic Presbyterian and I am a Messianic believer. Well, I could go on, but I hope you get the point.
  
  The tone is not combative (not even close as far as I am concerned!). I was clarifying my position on your misunderstanding. You did not understand what I felt was a clear explaination. It happens and that is okay...I just wanted to be sure that my beliefs were not misconstrued.
  
  I have found on AB that some religionists try to pretend that what is being said makes so little sense, that it cannot even be understood. They try to twist the conversation, insisting over and over again that what is being said is not actually what is meant. That kind of feigned misunderstanding is a sad attempt to make themselves seem smarter and the other person seem irrational and stupid. I thought our conversation was heading the same direction and wanted to nip that in bud. I am glad to see that this is not what was happening in this case.
  
  As it seems that you truely were confused by my responses, I apologize for the misunderstanding. I thought you were saying something different from what you were and based my explaination on that. I thought you were asking if the bus driver would be saved if he accepted salvation AFTER having commited that crime. While you have clarified that you were asking if he could be saved THEN go out and commit that crime. Big difference!!!!!! And therin lies the confusion on both of our parts. Hopefully, my answers make more sense in light of this.
  
  In regards to the original question, if you have answered it as far as you want to, then I thank you for your input. As I have said in other threads, when it comes to LdS beliefs, I like to know that what I am learning is OFFICIAL church doctrine as well as non-official. So I will always try to find the OFFICIAL stance whenever I can. You have been a great help in clarifying LdS beliefs and I hope you continue to be.

  • Report
  

  by k on July 2nd, 2010

• Fair enough...another question for you:
  
  Why didn't you correct Mister I.T. on this comment thread to your answer when he called you "sir"? You're a female, and he called you "sir", and you responded with "Thank you, Thank you" instead.
  
  http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/9249703

  • Report
  

  by Mike Astill on July 2nd, 2010

• Sir is a generic term that's correct gender these days East Hill.
  
  Cheese & rice dude!

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on December 31st, 2010

• lol... Sure dude, whatever you say.

  • Report
  

  by Mike Astill on December 31st, 2010

• Didn't you mean to say . . .
  
  "Sure, SIR, whatever you say."
  
  And of course you can use that with K too if you wish!
  
  ;-)
  
  Later man - it's been fun.
  (really dude, really)

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on December 31st, 2010

Comments

• Thank you for your answer
  
  So the LdS church bases its qualification to ordain members other than Joseph Smith into the Aaronic priesthood, on the spiritual adoption spoken of in Matthew 3:9? Does that mean that the lineage requirements God set out in the Old Testament are no longer required according to the LdS? And if so, is there any official church doctrine regarding that?

  • Report
  

  by k on June 24th, 2010

• Yes in the Lds church we do not believe it is nescessary to be a direct blood descendant of any line to hold the priesthood.
  Heres a little bit from the Doctrine and Covenants about spiritual adoption and it's relation to the priesthood: "For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies.
  They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God." D&C 84:33-34

  • Report
  

  by John Cox will be back April 6th 2013 on June 25th, 2010

• Thank you for the D&C passage. This is the ONLY official information that has been shared to date. I very much like to know, when it comes to LdS beliefs, that I am learning OFFICIAL church beliefs as well as non-official ones. Telling them apart though, can be very difficult for us non-LdS; and so the probing questions:)

  • Report
  

  by k on June 25th, 2010

• Your very welcome. Feel free to probe away, if I can answer I'm more than happy to, if I can't I try to be humble enough to admit that too lol.

  • Report
  

  by John Cox will be back April 6th 2013 on June 26th, 2010

• Thank you!

  • Report
  

  by k on June 26th, 2010

Comments

• Thank you for your answer
  
  "All you'd have to do is compare their Y chromosome DNA with the other groups who makes the same claim - Jewish kohanim"
  
  Yes, and as the Chabad article I cited states, that possibility has been available since 1997.

  • Report
  

  by k on June 21st, 2010

Comments

• Thank you for your answer.
  And just so I understand......
  So then the Aaronic priesthood that the LDS claim, is not in any way related to nor is it a re-establishment of the Aaronic priesthood in the Bible then? The LDS just happen to use the same name, but otherwise they are completely and totally unrelated in any way?

  • Report
  

  by k on June 21st, 2010

• Also, I realized after the edit button vanished (darn thing!) that I should be saying LdS, not LDS. I apologize for the mistype

  • Report
  

  by k on June 21st, 2010

• LDS, LdS, lds same difference. we believe it is teh same priesthood. but we believe it is no longer lineage obligated.

  • Report
  

  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on June 21st, 2010

• Thank you for clarifying
  
  "LDS, LdS, lds same difference"
  
  :)
  
  "we believe it is teh same priesthood."
  
  In what way does the CoJCoLdS Aaronic priesthood claim authority as the same priesthood that is outlined in the OT, if it does not conform to the OT lineage requirements surrounding it?
  
  
  "but we believe it is no longer lineage obligated."
  
  When does the CoJCoLdS believe that lineage was removed as a requirement for it and how did the change come about (ie. was it a revelation to Joseph Smith, are new requirements contained in The BoM or D&C or in the PoGP, etc.)? Do you have any links or official church doctrine that outlines who qualifies for the Aaronic priesthood in the Mormon church?

  • Report
  

  by k on June 21st, 2010

• what is cojsolds mean?
  we believe it was removed at the same time as the requirement to sacrifice lambs... or was that not clear?
  no, I do not have any links on specific doctrine, if you have any sincere interest then try lds.org

  • Report
  

  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on June 21st, 2010

• "what is cojsolds mean"
  
  You answered before I finished editing, it is corrected now
  
  "we believe it was removed at the same time as the requirement to sacrifice lambs... or was that not clear?"
  
  Not clear. As your original answer states you ALSO do not sacrifice lambs....nowhere that I read did you say that the requirements were removed at the same time.
  
  I have read the lds.org many times concerning the Aaronic priesthood, but have yet to find where it states official church doctrine supporting the nullification of the lineage requirement for the Aaronic priesthood.

  • Report
  

  by k on June 21st, 2010

• no, it does not declare it. however it was implied. correcting 1 letter in an acronym I am unfamiliar with will not tell me what cojcolds means?

  • Report
  

  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on June 21st, 2010

• My apologies...CoJCoLdS=Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.It saves me from writting it all out and it is an acronym that I have seen used several times on AB when referring to that particular denomination of Mormon churches.

  • Report
  

  by k on June 21st, 2010

• "no, it dies not declare it."
  
  I think you are saying lds.org does not officially declare the requirement was removed? I thought so, as I had not found it, but then, I find it very difficult to tell what is OFFICIAL doctrine in the LdS church and what is not, so I thought I had better ask.

  • Report
  

  by k on June 21st, 2010

• I was saying my statment does not declare it, it implies it. funny, difficult to tell what is official doctrine? the LDS church is an easy target for antis because unlike most of christianity it's doctrine is spelled out. perhapse the reason some things are held back is because the church tries not to cast it's pearls before swine.... after all, antis attack everything, give them more pears and they will turn and rent again.

  • Report
  

  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on June 22nd, 2010

• Every religion is an easy target for antis. The LdS church is no different. It certainly has never had to deal with the sort of hate that Jews (for example) have had to endure. And honest questions asked by those who seek to understand religions other than their own, are not attacks. Just because someone does not agree with your beliefs does not make them "anti". And when proof to support statements that YOU make is asked for, that is not "renting pearls". It is requiring you to support that the information is "pearls" in the first place.
  
  Implication does not equal God speaking. And I asked whether the LdS church declared it, not you. So, the LdS church has not OFFICIALLY declared that God told them the lineage requirement was removed then? Therefor, it is an assumption by the church that it is no longer required.

  • Report
  

  by k on June 22nd, 2010

• if an angel of the lord give you something it is fair to assume that you are authorised to have it.

  • Report
  

  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on June 22nd, 2010

• Thank you for clarifying your position

  • Report
  

  by k on June 22nd, 2010

• @TAPriceCtr...
  YOU WROTE
  "if an angel of the lord give you something it is fair to assume that you are authorised to have it."
  
  MY RESPONSE
  Then why does the Bible tell us:
  
  "...if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed."
  -- Galatians 1:8
  
  AND
  
  "Test all things and hold fast to that which is good"
  -- 1 Thessalonians 5:21
  
  "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
  -- 2 Timothy 2:1
  
  AND
  "If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
  
  Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
  
  Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him..."
  -- Deuteronomy 13:6-8
  
  So apparently God's requirement is that we DON'T just accept something because someone - even an angel - claims to have the authority to give it. In fact, we are SPECIFICALLY told to NOT listen to someone who is preaching something that contradicts what God has already told us in the Bible.
  
  God SPECIFICALLY tells us that the BIBLE is our plumbline by which we are to judge all things including: feelings, revelations, angelic visitations, you name it.
  
  Which, of course, is why Book of Mormon witness David Whitmer exposed Mormon Priesthood in "An Address to All Believers in Christ" as a Joseph Smith/Sidney Rigdon created sham. He said:
  
  "Now Brethren, seeing they had no High Priests in the church of Christ of old, and none in the church of Christ (12) in these last days until almost two years after its beginning (13) -- when the leaders began to drift into error; remembering the fact of the revelation being changed two years after it was given to include High Priests;...
  
  In no place in the word of God does it say that an Elder is after the order of Melchisedec, or after the order of the Melchisedec Priesthood....This matter of ‘priesthood,' since the days of Sydney [sic] [Sidney] Rigdon(14), has been the great hobby and stumbling-block of the Latter Day Saints. ...This matter of the two orders of priesthood....all originated in the mind of Sydney Rigdon. He explained these things to Brother Joseph in his way, out of the old Scriptures, and got Brother Joseph to inquire, etc. He would inquire and as mouthpiece speak out the revelations just as they had it fixed up in their hearts...How easily a man can receive some other spirit, appearing as an Angel of Light, believing at the time that he is giving the revealed will of God..."
  (An Address to All Believers in Christ, pages 64)
  
  David Whitmer, compared the Mormon Priesthood to the Bible plumbline and discovered that it was CLEARLY "out of plumb" so why is it that this LDS of his day and ours are so blind to what he and others outside of Mormonism see so clearly?
  
  Something to think about . . .

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on July 1st, 2010

Comments

• Thank you for your answer
  
  That is the conclusion I am coming to as well

  • Report
  

  by k on June 22nd, 2010