To make it a little more confusing United Pentecostal Church does not believe that God is also Jesus and holy spirit but rather that JESUS is God and Holy Spirit. In other words Jesus is 'head God' so it is really a form of 'trinitarism'.(taken from one of their websites)
JW's aren't too bad, but the Mormon church is 'steeped' in spiritualism.
Just read Templeladies post in 'doctrinal section'..She claims Hitler can be 'saved' if an LDS was baptised for him, but it would still be up to Hitler(who is currently in the spirit world) to ACCEPT it !!
Yes Dr. Wierwille, you made some stuff ups, but I thank you sir for the good that you did do.
sorry..after just reading Raf and Jets last post about JW's I take back what I said about ORGANIZATION.
Not to defend Mormonism, but according to Wierwille's doctrine, if Hitler had been born again as a teenager, then committed all his atrocities, he'd be heaven-bound and all hell couldn't stop him from going.
Is that any less weird than what the Mormons believe?
And what did you say about "organization" that you're taking back?
VPW's theory (which he used to justify his own behaviors) was that since he was a 'Believer' (by way of John 3:16) that he was FORGIVEN for any sins he committed in the past, and the ones he WOULD commit in the future. To heck with a God consciousness as a result of true conversion.
Confession of Believe yields Receipt of Confession.
All Cult Leaders use something to justify their actions as being 'God ordained'.
To me that kinda makes a mockery of God and his Word. There is no darkness in God.
I wonder in the end of days what God would say to VPW. Would he say "Depart from me, for I never knew you?" Would VPW be classified in that group of people who did all these things in the name of God, saying 'lord, lord, look at what we did'?
Anytime a Leader abuses his position, I personally believe God's Word speaks volumes when it says:
(I'm not familiar with the chapter n vs right now). But I'm quoting from Retemory the jest:
Concerning the Household of Faith. IF you do something bad to the 'least of these God's children', you do it unto God also. (Anyone can help me out here, with chapter n verse). But I'm thinking, the lesson was "Don't harm God's Children" -- he won't like it -- GRACE or NOT.
When Charasmatic People start "Organizations" and those organizations gain wealth, and the leaders gain power -- then often times they become dangerous. Sometimes these people start the groups with malice of forethought - and intend on deception and steal, kill and destroy. Other times, they start out innocent enough with good intentions but then power gets it out of control.
I can say this and feel good about it. I am SO GLAD, I am not GOD. I would not of had the patience. I would have smote anyone who crossed the line between godiness and 'darkness'. All those years since I had left TWI, I had no idea how things got so out of control w/various leaders. It breaks my heart.
We can't go back in time, and we can't make up for Lost time, either. I know many people will continue now to measure other 'ministries' by TWI.
About United Pentecostal Church. I am now confused, I thought they were NON-Trinitarian. I read the stuff on their web site, but perhaps I need to read it again. I thought they did not believe Jesus was God. Trinitarian doctrine (from my view point) seems to say Mary is the Mother of God, and therefore Jesus is God. But God is the Alpha and Omega, Mary couldn't possibly have mothered GOD.
There is a wonderful book that I picked up while in TWI (two books actually.) One is Orientalisms of the Bible (By Pillai) the other is Number and Scripture by Bullinger. So glad they weren't TWI literature.
Also, one more book worthy of anyone's library is "Life is Tremendous" by Charlie Jones. I don't think any of these authors were ever involved in TWI.
The United Pentecostal Church International is NOT Trinitarian. It is a Oneness group. Oneness types characteristically deny the eternal identity and existence of the Son of God.
She claims Hitler can be 'saved' if an LDS was baptised for him, but it would still be up to Hitler(who is currently in the spirit world) to ACCEPT it
Allan,
I am so proud of you :)
You actually QUOTED ME CORRECTLY
Setting aside whether or not you believe in the doctirne of Baptism for the Dead
The fact remains that ALL Christian sects teach that salvation is possible with true repentance.
What Hitler thought in those last minutes in that bunker are between him and God
Did he repent??? WE don' we don't know
If he did, did GOd accept that repentance as being true??? WE don't know
That is why we ARE NOT TO JUDGE ANYONE
Because ONLY God has ALL the answers.
Do I personally think that HItler repented --NO-- But that is what I think and it is worth less than nothing in the final analysis if whether HItler is saved or not.
Trinitarian doctrine (from my view point) seems to say Mary is the Mother of God, and therefore Jesus is God. But God is the Alpha and Omega, Mary couldn't possibly have mothered GOD.
jetc57,
I doubt even a significant number of bead-rubbing, to-Mary-appealing Roman Catholics deem Mary to “have mothered GOD” in the way you suggest.
Following is a copy of a post I made previously on the subject of Mary’s being referred to by RCs as the “mother of God.”
*****
I never have been inside a Roman Catholic Church, and I hold Catholics’ Marian religious fetish in utter contempt, but the Christology involved in Mary being referred to as the theotokos (i.e. God-bearer or Mother of God)--at least as it surfaced during the Nestorian controversy--seems sound.
Although there is disagreement concerning what Nestorius himself actually believed, Nestorianism was a heresy characterized by a notion that Jesus Christ was two separate (divine and human) persons. The orthodox position is that Jesus Christ is a single divine person within whom the divine and a human nature were forever joined—without any composition of those natures—at his incarnation.
According to what I remember of a piece I read a while ago (I wish I could find it and post a link to it), Nestorius might have or might not have held a full blown version of two-persons Nestorianism. Nestorius objected, nonetheless, to Mary being referred to as “theotokos,” and maintained something to the effect that Mary was the mother of the human nature of Christ. If Nestorius did not hold that Jesus Christ was two persons, he nonetheless began speaking of the divine and human natures in Christ as if they were persons or quasi-persons.
His chief opponent was Cyril of Alexandria. I think Cyril’s position basically was that what is said of Christ is said of a person rather than of one of two natures in him. It is wrong to say that the human nature of Christ died. It is proper to say that Christ died in his human nature.
Jesus Christ is a divine person. He is the eternal Son. He is the eternal Word. At Christ’s incarnation, Mary became the bearer of that divine person, though she contributed towards that incarnating person only his temporally beginning human nature.
The theological term involved with the idea that Jesus Christ is referred to personally whether what is said about him concerns his divine or human nature is the communicatio idiomatum (i.e. communication of idioms).
It is a sound theological notion. Scripture itself does not separate what is proper to Christ's divine and what is proper to Christ's human nature from Christ himself. It declares that he was crucified, that he died, that he rose from the dead, and it also declares that he is the same yesterday, today and forever.
I am suitably impressed. However, the term "Mother of God" was beginning to be used about 200 years before the Nestorian Heresy.
Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God5 in the flesh to the world, His advent by the spotless and God-bearing6 Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of His life and conversation with men, and His manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men, and the regeneration by the layer; and the multitude of His miracles, and His blessed passion on the cross, and the insults which He bore at the hands of the Jews, and His burial, and His descent to Hades, and His ascent again, and redemption of the spirits that were of old, and the destruction of death, and His life-giving awaking from the dead, and His re-creation of the whole world, and His assumption and return to heaven, and His reception of the Spirit, of which the apostles were deemed worthy, and again the second coming, that is destined to declare all things.
Hippolytus, Discourse on the End of the World (AD 219)
For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony not to Joseph only, but also to Mary the mother of God, and gives this account with reference to the very family and house of David: "For Joseph went up," says he, "from Galilee, unto a city of Judea which is called Bethlehem, to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child, because they were of the house and family of David. And so it was, that while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered; and she broughtforth her son, the first-born of the whole creation, and wrapped him in swaddling-clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn."
The Nestorians rejected these terms, as they rejected the hypostatic union. The Council of Ephesus then codified usage which already was in existance for a couple of hundred years (and alluded to prior to that time).
And, of course, this makes no sense whatsoever if one does not subscribe to the Trinity.
God Bless You. First of all, I personally believe you are entitled to 'believe' whatever you want. We have freedom of will.
I'm a bit confused, however. I have never had the pleasure of going to an LDS service, but I have family and dear friends who are Mormon., and my sister was as well for over 5 yrs.
My grandparents were and various cousins, and I've been in discussions with them and the subject of 'getting baptized for the dead' never came up.
Please excuse my ignorance. Is this knowledge from the Bible, where they get the notion?
I was under the impression, scripturally, that Baptism is not a requirement for 'Salvation'.
I was also under the impression that each individual person is responsible to God for his/her own actions. The only people who are protected spiritually are those of our own children who are not of the age of accountability and therefore covered by 'their parents believing'.
Aren't you Saved by Grace if you 'Confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised HIM from the dead'? (John 3:16 also comes to mind.) I'm a bit rusty on the chapter and verses to support these thoughts, but can and would find them if you want.
I have thought for many years that the LDS taught this as well. When Jesus died and was resurrected it is said that (what he did) was fullfill all the laws and prophets. It is my understanding that in fullfilling the law, we who Believe then no longer have to go to the 'Holy of Holys once a year to seek forgiveness of sin', 'and being Baptised with Water was now unnecessary'. The OT laws were fullfilled as prohesied. The thing after Pentecost was that we would be baptised in the Holy Spirit.
Curious where the 'baptism for the dead' came about. I can't imagine being responsible for someone other than myself. How are we to be accountable to God for another? The Spiritual Walk (in my opinion) is One on One with God. What am I missing out on? Perhaps I need to read your posts in more depth. If you've answered this delima before, forgive me for asking.
Jet
-----------------
D-Miller; I cannot view the group hug icon, but thanks for trying.
Cynic: I tried to keep up with all that stuff you wrote. TY for the info. I have one of these brains that work best in understanding things if they are 'Simple rather than Complex'. I can never reason with 'circular reasoning, or indepth theory'. I would have never made it in Theology had I taken it in college. I gotta 'Keep it Simple'. or you can call it KISS. Seems the more complex the topic the more I tune out. I personally believe understanding God is pretty simple. Things like: God is Love, God's love is Unconditional, God is Light, etc.
The Trinity theory, however any Religion cares to 'write about it' is NOT LOGICAL to me.
I don't buy into any 'teachings' that get COMPLEX, I don't think God would have us be confused., nor do I feel that it requires explaination. I've never even seen the word 'Trinity' in the Bible.
I'm not criticising you in any way -- I'm just throwing in my personal thoughts on the subject.
What you wrote did validate my notion that there are 'sects' out in the world that DO teach 'Mary is the Mother of God', and I don't agree with their 'theories'.
I was under the impression, scripturally, that Baptism is not a requirement for 'Salvation'.
THere is a difference of opinion there , as noted on another thread here in the doctrinal forum--LDS believe that it is necesssary because we belive that If you truly believe John 3:16 you will strive to be obiedient in all things as Christ was, and he was baptized by immersion in water.
Here are links from the LDS Website --they explain it all in much better terms than I ever could--and this way I don't have to wear out my ring fingers typing LOL
"Else what shall they do which are baptised for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptised for the dead?"
It is a very peculiar passage, -yet there it is. It can be interpreted various ways.
I never really gave much thought to this strange artifact over the years until recently.
Paul attests (though very briefly) to the existence of such a practice.
I'm curious - how have you or anyone else here interpreted or understood this passage over the years? Or have you - like myself - never really given this verse much thought?
Has anyone here ever found themselves praying for dead family, friends and acquaintances?
I know I have, long before I considered this baptism for the dead stuff.
I'm going about my everyday business, and the memory of a deceased person
happens to come to mind. And I sometimes -seemingly naturally -react by praying for their
eternal state and well-being. Why not?
But what misery it can be for those uncertain of the ultimate destination of their loved ones' souls. Can anything more be done? Might we even be able to intervene on their behalf in some way? Make a plea to God for them? Will God listen to our prayers?
Or do we resign ourselves to the notion that when you're dead, you're dead, that's it, plant-em-in-the-ground, and let God or Jesus pick 'em up next Tuesday on the dispensational calendar.
No, I can sense the potential of this practice to be benefical to both the living and the dead.
An expression of Christian love, to be able to speak - or plea - on behalf of those who may no longer be able to speak for themselves.
That's my personal understanding thus far, approaching it from outside the LDS position.
You bring to light some interesting thoughts. Thank you. As to the Cor. Scripture I don't think I recall it EVER until now. Baptism for many Religions is an 'outward manifestation' of an 'inward commitment'., and if it helps someone in their walk with God, I think its a positive thing.
I would also think that 'being baptised for the dead or loved ones' might be of comfort to someone.
I like E.W.Bullingers explanation that Paul was saying " why do Christians bother getting baptised if they are going to remain dead".
Then that 'fits' with all other scriptures relating to it.
Anything else that the LDS promote about it only leads towards ridiculousness and confusion.
Templelady herself stated that someone could indeed be 'baptised' for people like Hitler but it was up to him if he wanted to 'accept it' in the 'spirit world' !!
This is the 'hole' they dig themselves into when 'wrongly dividing scriptures'.
ROTFLMAO (if it wasn't so devilish and WRONG.)
sorry..one can also read the immediate context to see that Bullinger was pretty 'bang on'.
Man (Adam) caused death to hold sway over the world
Man (Christ) shall caused Death to cease to hold sway over the world
VErse 23
Christ was the first to be freed from the bonds of death
then those who are his will be freed
VErse 24-26
Christ when he has subdued all His Enemies , Death being the last enemy, then CHrist shall deliver his Kingdom (the world) up to GOd the FAther and put it under God's rule.
[this will be after the final ressurrection-since death will have no one left]
verse 27-28 (in conjuction with 23-26)
All things are under Christ's feet (subject to HIm) except for God the Father, For it is GOd teh Father who gave Christ the power, therefore Christ himself is under God The Father's power.
Verse 29
ELSE WHAT SHALL THEY DO WHICH ARE BAPTIZED FOR THE DEAD, IF THE DEAD RISE NOT AT ALL?
IN other words IF verses 21-28 WERE NOT an accurate portrayal then Baptism for the dead woudl be futile because the bonds of death would not have been broken
WHY ARE THEY THEN BAPTZED FOR THE DEAD?
Because the Bonds of death HAVE been broken baptism for the dead is viable
Far from declaring the practice of no worth -- Paul uses the practice as a proof of the ressurrection.
In effect Paul says --
"We Baptize the dead because they face the ressurrection since the bonds of death have been broken, if this were not so, we would not baptize the dead.
The United Pentecostal Church International is NOT Trinitarian. It is a Oneness group. Oneness types characteristically deny the eternal identity and existence of the Son of God.
What exactly do you mean by a Oneness group? Prehaps you mean UNITARIAN? Monotheistic (One God who gets worshipped) (One Son who paid the ultimate sacrifice for us, Jesus, whom we are Joint Heirs with)? I don't see THAT as denying the eternal identity and existence of the Son of God. Seems this defense.org are labeling people who do not believe in the Trinity in an unfair and in-accurate way. I think their interpretation of what THEY THINK THEY KNOW about what OTHERS BELIEVE -- to be PURE BULL S_ _ T!
For one thing the JW's don't think or teach that Jesus 'collectively' is GOD. That would be (God in three persons- blessed Trinity). THEY DO NOT TEACH a three-in-one GOD. This web site you provided is just so grossly opinionated and obviously not well researched. I was among the JWs so I know what they teach, as well with TWI, and JESUS IS NOT GOD. In either of these two groups teachings, and I've gone to the UPC web site and they are clear on what they believe. Unitarians do not deny CHRIST, they just don't believe the SON is also the FATHER. The God-head bodily function much like a household where there is a father (head of the house) and children. They have their facts WRONG on so many things they 'think others believe/teach'. Its yet another attempt at a Trinitarian Organization to Blast the teachings of those who don't conform to their way of thinking.
The JW's in their teaching see Jesus as a 'Great Teacher' as well as Michael the Archangel. (that one confused me.)
Other Unitarians see God as Monothiestic (One God but NOT with three persons.)
This organization has misunderstood the teachings of UPC an JW. Probably cause they can't grasp the concept of 'simplicity'. I don't know, but I read it and they WRONGLY Misrepresent the Unitarian Beliefs. To prove what? That the Trinity is the Divine Theory? Heck, the word Trinity isn't even in Scripture!
Concerning 'the spirit world, and people like Hitler 'accepting anything'.
I don't buy into this theory at all because for my own Biblical Research Reasons I've come to believe:
1. When a person dies, their 'spirit' returns back to God.
2. Their body turns to Dust.
3. Their soul awaits the Return of Christ.
With those three points said, the DEAD, know NOTHING and cannot make one single decision.
I do not agree with 'the spirit world reference'.
I can't imagine ALL dead people living in limbo or otherwise.
Until the second coming of Christ, Its my understanding that the Dead are simply dead and awaiting the return. That the 'Dead in Christ' (Christians) will Rise from their graves much like Christ did., they will be raised in newness of life. BUT, its also my understanding the the Dead who are NOT in Christ when they DIED, do NOT get a second chance.
After the "Dead in Christ" are risen, then those who are alive (God's people) will be caught up to meet HIM in the air and so shall they ever be with the Lord.
I've read no mention (and that doesn't mean there isn't one, just means I've not read one.) --
none of any already dead non-believers or any non-believers left at the Return going with Christ anywhere! What am I missing?
I do recall in my reading/research that there WILL be a Judgement for the Just and the UnJust. For the Just it is called the Bema, for the Unjust it is called, Being Cast into the Lake of Fire!
I personally believe that in the Fall of Satan, there were birthed God (Jehovah's Creations) and then there are the Children of darkness (Satan's flock).
The body is made of dust and to dust it shall return. THe soul is the essence of who you are and the spirit comes form GOD.
Soul and Spirit are inexorably intertwined. For if there were no soul there would be no need of Spirit. And if there were soul and no Spirit, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all,
(or for that matter would we need to :D )
The soul --the essence of you is what faces the judgement (your physical body being merely housing for your spirit and soul) -it does not cease to be, for if it did there would be no "you" to be reunited with your body. Death refers to the physical body which goes in the grave. Long before the funeral your spirit and soul have gone elsewhere.
Put another way your soul cannot leave your body until your spirit does else there would be no reason for the spirit to remain, and your spirit cannot leave your body before your soul else there would be no life,
Intertwined at your conception soul and spirit remained intertwined until the judgement.
Christ broke the bonds of Physical death, the death of the body thus making it possible for us to have bodies throughout eternity, bodies in which we can interact and enjoy paradise
It seems to me that the mandate that one must get baptized and the mandate of other that one must not get baptized are mere elements of religion and man-made doctrines.
It seems to me that if the act of baptism enhances, ingrains the commitment and gives a person something to reflect on and strengthen their commitment and relationship with God and with Jesus, then it should be allowed. If someone doesn't want to get baptized, then that should be fine, too. In the church where I grew up people could choose if they wanted to or not.
Some religions baptize the babies and, again, I say if it helps with the faith of the parents, then who am I to judge them?
I think it says somewhere in the Bible, "Judge not, lest you be judged..."
Even Peter asked if anyone could forbid water for some who had been born again.
For me, getting baptized and the whole celebration behind it was terrific and helped me tremendously to start out my "new life" on the right foot and feeling high as a kite.
When I bring forth my posts I'm only writing the way I understand things I've learned.
I certainly believe that we all have an individual walk with God. I also believe there exists natural man, (the one the Bible says receives NOT the things of God because they are Spiritually discerned.) When I say this I'm thinking scripture is referring to non-believers, those people with NO Godly Spirit.
I also agree with Templelady: about the differences in Body, Soul, and Spirit.
However I believe when we die our Spirit goes back to God (because God is Spirit and for other reasons accounted for in scripture). I believe the Soul awaits the Return, and the Body returns to dust.
It really doesn't matter what I think or believe except to my own understanding of God.
Regarding 'Cults', I think its a shame organizations put out books to warn others using such arguments as 'trinity or not'. I do feel groups ought to be exposed when they are taking away the Free Will of others AND are Abusive towards their members. Our nation is built on "Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happiness", and I believe God would have us LOVE one another (all godly people) regardless of race, or biblical convictions.
I enjoy asking questions to find out 'how another person' comes to believe the things they do, tho.
For years while attending a Baptist Church, it never occurred to me to find out why my grandparents were Mormans. Why it was they chose that 'organization' of people to fellowship with. I did not inquire because the Baptist Church like so many others think if your not among THEM you have not the Truth.
It became that way even worse when my dad became a JW, they claim the same thing., Low and behold TWI came into my life, and I kept hearing a various version of this same thing. They justified their teachings as Rightly Divided Truth - because one man said so and said "God said it so that Settles It, whether I believe it or NOT".
That is NO longer My way of Thinking. I have come to the conclusion that EVERY PERSON who wants to Walk with God needs to find the fellowship among others who are like-minded, yet I think they are Mistaken to EVER say "its our way or its hell".
My personal philosophy agrees with whomever said "Religion is Man trying to reach God" "Love is God trying to Reach Man". (something like that.)
I'd like to value each and every thing someone has deep convictions for. We don't all see things in the same way. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John each have different accounts of Jesus, and the color robe he wore, etc. We are all looking through different eyes of understanding. My mind has trouble with 'technical, complicated theology'., so for me I must Walk with God differently. Heck, since TWI, I really haven't had a desire to go back to 'secular mainstreem Religion'. I think its all MAN MADE anyway.
I'm hoping to find somewhere, tho to fellowship with others who are somewhat like-minded.
Hey Scripture teaches me that we only know in part. I've written this before, but I have plenty of questions for God. I cannot answer to another's heart towards God, just my own. I am confident in my heart that I'm a child of God, and that he loves me.
I've pretty much chucked everything I've learned in TWI and started with a clean slate. It's been a fun adventure and I've got much more I'd like to learn, so I really don't have many convictions one way or the other. Occasionally on here I seem to play devil's advocate or waver back and forth between two issues, but really I'm just still working things out in my brain and when we can discuss, disagree and debate issues without bringing name calling and personal attacks or attacks on someone's beliefs then I think we can all get something out of it.
Like the body, soul, spirit thing....If the dead in Christ rise again and, as you commented, it's a physical body raising back up out of the ground, then how does that figure with the dust to dust and the bodies completely decomposing, the bodies eaten by sharks and other animals, the bodies that were burned in the holocaust, those who were blown up in the WTC, those who decided to be cremated, those who donated their bodies to science or their organs to other people?
If the spirit goes back to God for safe keeping, then why couldn't the spirit still be vital, aware and "live"? Otherwise, what is it? Like something in a cryogenic freezer?
Templelady -- Belle you both have such beautiful hearts for God. I am enjoying getting to know ya'll.
Regarding the body, soul, spirit thing. I have no problem understanding how the body goes to dust, infact I'm thankful to GOD to be able to get rid of this 'earthly body' once and for all. I have failed miserably at keeping it or getting it to be PERFECT.
I think the soul is what gets resurrected, and I think after Satan is destroyed and we are back in a paradise, then we will be given NEW and IMPROVED bodies. Least I hope so. I've had nightmares, tho about this, and in my dream I get put back on the earth, then known as Paradise, and someone hands me a Mirror, and I laugh histerically. Everyone around me do not look like I imagined a perfect, beautiful body would be when I was alive before. :unsure: I was laughing cause I wasted too much time being miserable about things I had difficulty changing. (like being fat, etc.) Was kinda funny to discover (in my dream that is) that I was ALRIGHT afterall.
So much for "being content in whatever state we are in"?
The Walk with God, I feel, is a continual thing. If we quit learning, we quit living.
I've known along time that Mormons never 'claimed all truth'. Infact I have to say I greatly admire the LDS religion for the loving way inwhich they are to others., and I especially have noticed how close knit their families are. Now we all know there are off-shoots of even the LDS faith.
I have a question for you, Templelady. I have a neighbor who is LDS, but she spends most of her time in Japan as a teacher. Before she left she said something to me that has me REALLY Puzzled.
For starters, I live in Independence, MO. The LDS here split into other groups, err other groups started from LDS, one is RLDS, the other The Community of Christ. They have this awesome building in our downtown my son called "the curly fry in the sky".
My neighbor (a wonderful and valued friend of mine) told me that LDS believes that when Jesus returns he will set his foot down in Independence MO. (I'm thinkin, then why would I ever want to move back to Texas, if Christ is coming HERE?) Anyway she says that the Garden of Eden was discovered to have been somewhere near St. Joseph MO. But they have Casinos all over MO, and several in St. Joseph. Have you ever heard these reports in your LDS?
Thank you for putting up with my various inquiries. I'm not trying to put you on any spot to get any BS feedback from others, I sincerely want to know.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
11
27
14
Popular Days
Oct 11
24
Oct 18
13
Oct 7
13
Oct 17
12
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 8 posts
Allan 11 posts
jetc57 27 posts
templelady 14 posts
Popular Days
Oct 11 2005
24 posts
Oct 18 2005
13 posts
Oct 7 2005
13 posts
Oct 17 2005
12 posts
Allan
To make it a little more confusing United Pentecostal Church does not believe that God is also Jesus and holy spirit but rather that JESUS is God and Holy Spirit. In other words Jesus is 'head God' so it is really a form of 'trinitarism'.(taken from one of their websites)
JW's aren't too bad, but the Mormon church is 'steeped' in spiritualism.
Just read Templeladies post in 'doctrinal section'..She claims Hitler can be 'saved' if an LDS was baptised for him, but it would still be up to Hitler(who is currently in the spirit world) to ACCEPT it !!
Yes Dr. Wierwille, you made some stuff ups, but I thank you sir for the good that you did do.
sorry..after just reading Raf and Jets last post about JW's I take back what I said about ORGANIZATION.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Allan,
Not to defend Mormonism, but according to Wierwille's doctrine, if Hitler had been born again as a teenager, then committed all his atrocities, he'd be heaven-bound and all hell couldn't stop him from going.
Is that any less weird than what the Mormons believe?
And what did you say about "organization" that you're taking back?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jetc57
Absolutely! Right on Raf!
VPW's theory (which he used to justify his own behaviors) was that since he was a 'Believer' (by way of John 3:16) that he was FORGIVEN for any sins he committed in the past, and the ones he WOULD commit in the future. To heck with a God consciousness as a result of true conversion.
Confession of Believe yields Receipt of Confession.
All Cult Leaders use something to justify their actions as being 'God ordained'.
To me that kinda makes a mockery of God and his Word. There is no darkness in God.
I wonder in the end of days what God would say to VPW. Would he say "Depart from me, for I never knew you?" Would VPW be classified in that group of people who did all these things in the name of God, saying 'lord, lord, look at what we did'?
Anytime a Leader abuses his position, I personally believe God's Word speaks volumes when it says:
(I'm not familiar with the chapter n vs right now). But I'm quoting from Retemory the jest:
Concerning the Household of Faith. IF you do something bad to the 'least of these God's children', you do it unto God also. (Anyone can help me out here, with chapter n verse). But I'm thinking, the lesson was "Don't harm God's Children" -- he won't like it -- GRACE or NOT.
When Charasmatic People start "Organizations" and those organizations gain wealth, and the leaders gain power -- then often times they become dangerous. Sometimes these people start the groups with malice of forethought - and intend on deception and steal, kill and destroy. Other times, they start out innocent enough with good intentions but then power gets it out of control.
I can say this and feel good about it. I am SO GLAD, I am not GOD. I would not of had the patience. I would have smote anyone who crossed the line between godiness and 'darkness'. All those years since I had left TWI, I had no idea how things got so out of control w/various leaders. It breaks my heart.
We can't go back in time, and we can't make up for Lost time, either. I know many people will continue now to measure other 'ministries' by TWI.
About United Pentecostal Church. I am now confused, I thought they were NON-Trinitarian. I read the stuff on their web site, but perhaps I need to read it again. I thought they did not believe Jesus was God. Trinitarian doctrine (from my view point) seems to say Mary is the Mother of God, and therefore Jesus is God. But God is the Alpha and Omega, Mary couldn't possibly have mothered GOD.
There is a wonderful book that I picked up while in TWI (two books actually.) One is Orientalisms of the Bible (By Pillai) the other is Number and Scripture by Bullinger. So glad they weren't TWI literature.
Also, one more book worthy of anyone's library is "Life is Tremendous" by Charlie Jones. I don't think any of these authors were ever involved in TWI.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
The United Pentecostal Church International is NOT Trinitarian. It is a Oneness group. Oneness types characteristically deny the eternal identity and existence of the Son of God.
For a critique of Oneness dogmas, see:
http://christiandefense.org/oneness.htm
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Allan,
I am so proud of you :)
You actually QUOTED ME CORRECTLY
Setting aside whether or not you believe in the doctirne of Baptism for the Dead
The fact remains that ALL Christian sects teach that salvation is possible with true repentance.
What Hitler thought in those last minutes in that bunker are between him and God
Did he repent??? WE don' we don't know
If he did, did GOd accept that repentance as being true??? WE don't know
That is why we ARE NOT TO JUDGE ANYONE
Because ONLY God has ALL the answers.
Do I personally think that HItler repented --NO-- But that is what I think and it is worth less than nothing in the final analysis if whether HItler is saved or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
jetc57,
I doubt even a significant number of bead-rubbing, to-Mary-appealing Roman Catholics deem Mary to “have mothered GOD” in the way you suggest.
Following is a copy of a post I made previously on the subject of Mary’s being referred to by RCs as the “mother of God.”
*****
I never have been inside a Roman Catholic Church, and I hold Catholics’ Marian religious fetish in utter contempt, but the Christology involved in Mary being referred to as the theotokos (i.e. God-bearer or Mother of God)--at least as it surfaced during the Nestorian controversy--seems sound.
Although there is disagreement concerning what Nestorius himself actually believed, Nestorianism was a heresy characterized by a notion that Jesus Christ was two separate (divine and human) persons. The orthodox position is that Jesus Christ is a single divine person within whom the divine and a human nature were forever joined—without any composition of those natures—at his incarnation.
According to what I remember of a piece I read a while ago (I wish I could find it and post a link to it), Nestorius might have or might not have held a full blown version of two-persons Nestorianism. Nestorius objected, nonetheless, to Mary being referred to as “theotokos,” and maintained something to the effect that Mary was the mother of the human nature of Christ. If Nestorius did not hold that Jesus Christ was two persons, he nonetheless began speaking of the divine and human natures in Christ as if they were persons or quasi-persons.
His chief opponent was Cyril of Alexandria. I think Cyril’s position basically was that what is said of Christ is said of a person rather than of one of two natures in him. It is wrong to say that the human nature of Christ died. It is proper to say that Christ died in his human nature.
Jesus Christ is a divine person. He is the eternal Son. He is the eternal Word. At Christ’s incarnation, Mary became the bearer of that divine person, though she contributed towards that incarnating person only his temporally beginning human nature.
The theological term involved with the idea that Jesus Christ is referred to personally whether what is said about him concerns his divine or human nature is the communicatio idiomatum (i.e. communication of idioms).
It is a sound theological notion. Scripture itself does not separate what is proper to Christ's divine and what is proper to Christ's human nature from Christ himself. It declares that he was crucified, that he died, that he rose from the dead, and it also declares that he is the same yesterday, today and forever.
*****
See:
communicatio idiomatum
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Templelady..isn't getting baptised for dead people that you didn't ever really know playing God ??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Let's see if this group hug gif works ---
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Cynic,
I am suitably impressed. However, the term "Mother of God" was beginning to be used about 200 years before the Nestorian Heresy.
Hippolytus, Discourse on the End of the World (AD 219) Gregory Thaumaturgus, The First Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary (AD 262) Methodius, Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna (AD 305)etc.
The Nestorians rejected these terms, as they rejected the hypostatic union. The Council of Ephesus then codified usage which already was in existance for a couple of hundred years (and alluded to prior to that time).
And, of course, this makes no sense whatsoever if one does not subscribe to the Trinity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jetc57
templelady;
God Bless You. First of all, I personally believe you are entitled to 'believe' whatever you want. We have freedom of will.
I'm a bit confused, however. I have never had the pleasure of going to an LDS service, but I have family and dear friends who are Mormon., and my sister was as well for over 5 yrs.
My grandparents were and various cousins, and I've been in discussions with them and the subject of 'getting baptized for the dead' never came up.
Please excuse my ignorance. Is this knowledge from the Bible, where they get the notion?
I was under the impression, scripturally, that Baptism is not a requirement for 'Salvation'.
I was also under the impression that each individual person is responsible to God for his/her own actions. The only people who are protected spiritually are those of our own children who are not of the age of accountability and therefore covered by 'their parents believing'.
Aren't you Saved by Grace if you 'Confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised HIM from the dead'? (John 3:16 also comes to mind.) I'm a bit rusty on the chapter and verses to support these thoughts, but can and would find them if you want.
I have thought for many years that the LDS taught this as well. When Jesus died and was resurrected it is said that (what he did) was fullfill all the laws and prophets. It is my understanding that in fullfilling the law, we who Believe then no longer have to go to the 'Holy of Holys once a year to seek forgiveness of sin', 'and being Baptised with Water was now unnecessary'. The OT laws were fullfilled as prohesied. The thing after Pentecost was that we would be baptised in the Holy Spirit.
Curious where the 'baptism for the dead' came about. I can't imagine being responsible for someone other than myself. How are we to be accountable to God for another? The Spiritual Walk (in my opinion) is One on One with God. What am I missing out on? Perhaps I need to read your posts in more depth. If you've answered this delima before, forgive me for asking.
Jet
-----------------
D-Miller; I cannot view the group hug icon, but thanks for trying.
Cynic: I tried to keep up with all that stuff you wrote. TY for the info. I have one of these brains that work best in understanding things if they are 'Simple rather than Complex'. I can never reason with 'circular reasoning, or indepth theory'. I would have never made it in Theology had I taken it in college. I gotta 'Keep it Simple'. or you can call it KISS. Seems the more complex the topic the more I tune out. I personally believe understanding God is pretty simple. Things like: God is Love, God's love is Unconditional, God is Light, etc.
The Trinity theory, however any Religion cares to 'write about it' is NOT LOGICAL to me.
I don't buy into any 'teachings' that get COMPLEX, I don't think God would have us be confused., nor do I feel that it requires explaination. I've never even seen the word 'Trinity' in the Bible.
I'm not criticising you in any way -- I'm just throwing in my personal thoughts on the subject.
What you wrote did validate my notion that there are 'sects' out in the world that DO teach 'Mary is the Mother of God', and I don't agree with their 'theories'.
For what its worth, those are my thoughts.
Cheers :blink:
Edited by jetc57Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
jetc57
John 3:16 is foundational scripture for LDS
THere is a difference of opinion there , as noted on another thread here in the doctrinal forum--LDS believe that it is necesssary because we belive that If you truly believe John 3:16 you will strive to be obiedient in all things as Christ was, and he was baptized by immersion in water.Here are links from the LDS Website --they explain it all in much better terms than I ever could--and this way I don't have to wear out my ring fingers typing LOL
Links from the LDS CHurch on Baptism for the dead
Scripture references --both Bible and BOM
http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=baptism+for+the+dead
Further explanation
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=t...r%3Bfield%3ARef
=========================
Allan
Only if you consider baptism itself as "playing God"
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Jet -
1 Cor.15: 29
"Else what shall they do which are baptised for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptised for the dead?"
It is a very peculiar passage, -yet there it is. It can be interpreted various ways.
I never really gave much thought to this strange artifact over the years until recently.
Paul attests (though very briefly) to the existence of such a practice.
I'm curious - how have you or anyone else here interpreted or understood this passage over the years? Or have you - like myself - never really given this verse much thought?
Has anyone here ever found themselves praying for dead family, friends and acquaintances?
I know I have, long before I considered this baptism for the dead stuff.
I'm going about my everyday business, and the memory of a deceased person
happens to come to mind. And I sometimes -seemingly naturally -react by praying for their
eternal state and well-being. Why not?
But what misery it can be for those uncertain of the ultimate destination of their loved ones' souls. Can anything more be done? Might we even be able to intervene on their behalf in some way? Make a plea to God for them? Will God listen to our prayers?
Or do we resign ourselves to the notion that when you're dead, you're dead, that's it, plant-em-in-the-ground, and let God or Jesus pick 'em up next Tuesday on the dispensational calendar.
No, I can sense the potential of this practice to be benefical to both the living and the dead.
An expression of Christian love, to be able to speak - or plea - on behalf of those who may no longer be able to speak for themselves.
That's my personal understanding thus far, approaching it from outside the LDS position.
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
moony3424
Nope :(
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jetc57
Danny;
You bring to light some interesting thoughts. Thank you. As to the Cor. Scripture I don't think I recall it EVER until now. Baptism for many Religions is an 'outward manifestation' of an 'inward commitment'., and if it helps someone in their walk with God, I think its a positive thing.
I would also think that 'being baptised for the dead or loved ones' might be of comfort to someone.
Gosh I love learning new things.
Temple Lady, thank you as well for your reply.
Love ya'll
Jet
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
I like E.W.Bullingers explanation that Paul was saying " why do Christians bother getting baptised if they are going to remain dead".
Then that 'fits' with all other scriptures relating to it.
Anything else that the LDS promote about it only leads towards ridiculousness and confusion.
Templelady herself stated that someone could indeed be 'baptised' for people like Hitler but it was up to him if he wanted to 'accept it' in the 'spirit world' !!
This is the 'hole' they dig themselves into when 'wrongly dividing scriptures'.
ROTFLMAO (if it wasn't so devilish and WRONG.)
sorry..one can also read the immediate context to see that Bullinger was pretty 'bang on'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Okay, Lets put it in context
I Corinthians Chapter 15
Verse 21 -22
Man (Adam) caused death to hold sway over the world
Man (Christ) shall caused Death to cease to hold sway over the world
VErse 23
Christ was the first to be freed from the bonds of death
then those who are his will be freed
VErse 24-26
Christ when he has subdued all His Enemies , Death being the last enemy, then CHrist shall deliver his Kingdom (the world) up to GOd the FAther and put it under God's rule.
[this will be after the final ressurrection-since death will have no one left]
verse 27-28 (in conjuction with 23-26)
All things are under Christ's feet (subject to HIm) except for God the Father, For it is GOd teh Father who gave Christ the power, therefore Christ himself is under God The Father's power.
Verse 29
ELSE WHAT SHALL THEY DO WHICH ARE BAPTIZED FOR THE DEAD, IF THE DEAD RISE NOT AT ALL?
IN other words IF verses 21-28 WERE NOT an accurate portrayal then Baptism for the dead woudl be futile because the bonds of death would not have been broken
WHY ARE THEY THEN BAPTZED FOR THE DEAD?
Because the Bonds of death HAVE been broken baptism for the dead is viable
Far from declaring the practice of no worth -- Paul uses the practice as a proof of the ressurrection.
In effect Paul says --
"We Baptize the dead because they face the ressurrection since the bonds of death have been broken, if this were not so, we would not baptize the dead.
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
jetc57
What exactly do you mean by a Oneness group? Prehaps you mean UNITARIAN? Monotheistic (One God who gets worshipped) (One Son who paid the ultimate sacrifice for us, Jesus, whom we are Joint Heirs with)? I don't see THAT as denying the eternal identity and existence of the Son of God. Seems this defense.org are labeling people who do not believe in the Trinity in an unfair and in-accurate way. I think their interpretation of what THEY THINK THEY KNOW about what OTHERS BELIEVE -- to be PURE BULL S_ _ T!
For one thing the JW's don't think or teach that Jesus 'collectively' is GOD. That would be (God in three persons- blessed Trinity). THEY DO NOT TEACH a three-in-one GOD. This web site you provided is just so grossly opinionated and obviously not well researched. I was among the JWs so I know what they teach, as well with TWI, and JESUS IS NOT GOD. In either of these two groups teachings, and I've gone to the UPC web site and they are clear on what they believe. Unitarians do not deny CHRIST, they just don't believe the SON is also the FATHER. The God-head bodily function much like a household where there is a father (head of the house) and children. They have their facts WRONG on so many things they 'think others believe/teach'. Its yet another attempt at a Trinitarian Organization to Blast the teachings of those who don't conform to their way of thinking.
The JW's in their teaching see Jesus as a 'Great Teacher' as well as Michael the Archangel. (that one confused me.)
Other Unitarians see God as Monothiestic (One God but NOT with three persons.)
This organization has misunderstood the teachings of UPC an JW. Probably cause they can't grasp the concept of 'simplicity'. I don't know, but I read it and they WRONGLY Misrepresent the Unitarian Beliefs. To prove what? That the Trinity is the Divine Theory? Heck, the word Trinity isn't even in Scripture!
Edited by jetc57Link to comment
Share on other sites
jetc57
Concerning 'the spirit world, and people like Hitler 'accepting anything'.
I don't buy into this theory at all because for my own Biblical Research Reasons I've come to believe:
1. When a person dies, their 'spirit' returns back to God.
2. Their body turns to Dust.
3. Their soul awaits the Return of Christ.
With those three points said, the DEAD, know NOTHING and cannot make one single decision.
I do not agree with 'the spirit world reference'.
I can't imagine ALL dead people living in limbo or otherwise.
Until the second coming of Christ, Its my understanding that the Dead are simply dead and awaiting the return. That the 'Dead in Christ' (Christians) will Rise from their graves much like Christ did., they will be raised in newness of life. BUT, its also my understanding the the Dead who are NOT in Christ when they DIED, do NOT get a second chance.
After the "Dead in Christ" are risen, then those who are alive (God's people) will be caught up to meet HIM in the air and so shall they ever be with the Lord.
I've read no mention (and that doesn't mean there isn't one, just means I've not read one.) --
none of any already dead non-believers or any non-believers left at the Return going with Christ anywhere! What am I missing?
I do recall in my reading/research that there WILL be a Judgement for the Just and the UnJust. For the Just it is called the Bema, for the Unjust it is called, Being Cast into the Lake of Fire!
I personally believe that in the Fall of Satan, there were birthed God (Jehovah's Creations) and then there are the Children of darkness (Satan's flock).
IT just seems this simple to me for some reason.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
The body is made of dust and to dust it shall return. THe soul is the essence of who you are and the spirit comes form GOD.
Soul and Spirit are inexorably intertwined. For if there were no soul there would be no need of Spirit. And if there were soul and no Spirit, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all,
(or for that matter would we need to :D )
The soul --the essence of you is what faces the judgement (your physical body being merely housing for your spirit and soul) -it does not cease to be, for if it did there would be no "you" to be reunited with your body. Death refers to the physical body which goes in the grave. Long before the funeral your spirit and soul have gone elsewhere.
Put another way your soul cannot leave your body until your spirit does else there would be no reason for the spirit to remain, and your spirit cannot leave your body before your soul else there would be no life,
Intertwined at your conception soul and spirit remained intertwined until the judgement.
Christ broke the bonds of Physical death, the death of the body thus making it possible for us to have bodies throughout eternity, bodies in which we can interact and enjoy paradise
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
It seems to me that the mandate that one must get baptized and the mandate of other that one must not get baptized are mere elements of religion and man-made doctrines.
It seems to me that if the act of baptism enhances, ingrains the commitment and gives a person something to reflect on and strengthen their commitment and relationship with God and with Jesus, then it should be allowed. If someone doesn't want to get baptized, then that should be fine, too. In the church where I grew up people could choose if they wanted to or not.
Some religions baptize the babies and, again, I say if it helps with the faith of the parents, then who am I to judge them?
I think it says somewhere in the Bible, "Judge not, lest you be judged..."
Even Peter asked if anyone could forbid water for some who had been born again.
For me, getting baptized and the whole celebration behind it was terrific and helped me tremendously to start out my "new life" on the right foot and feeling high as a kite.
To each his own....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jetc57
Belle: I totally agree with what you have stated.
When I bring forth my posts I'm only writing the way I understand things I've learned.
I certainly believe that we all have an individual walk with God. I also believe there exists natural man, (the one the Bible says receives NOT the things of God because they are Spiritually discerned.) When I say this I'm thinking scripture is referring to non-believers, those people with NO Godly Spirit.
I also agree with Templelady: about the differences in Body, Soul, and Spirit.
However I believe when we die our Spirit goes back to God (because God is Spirit and for other reasons accounted for in scripture). I believe the Soul awaits the Return, and the Body returns to dust.
It really doesn't matter what I think or believe except to my own understanding of God.
Regarding 'Cults', I think its a shame organizations put out books to warn others using such arguments as 'trinity or not'. I do feel groups ought to be exposed when they are taking away the Free Will of others AND are Abusive towards their members. Our nation is built on "Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happiness", and I believe God would have us LOVE one another (all godly people) regardless of race, or biblical convictions.
I enjoy asking questions to find out 'how another person' comes to believe the things they do, tho.
For years while attending a Baptist Church, it never occurred to me to find out why my grandparents were Mormans. Why it was they chose that 'organization' of people to fellowship with. I did not inquire because the Baptist Church like so many others think if your not among THEM you have not the Truth.
It became that way even worse when my dad became a JW, they claim the same thing., Low and behold TWI came into my life, and I kept hearing a various version of this same thing. They justified their teachings as Rightly Divided Truth - because one man said so and said "God said it so that Settles It, whether I believe it or NOT".
That is NO longer My way of Thinking. I have come to the conclusion that EVERY PERSON who wants to Walk with God needs to find the fellowship among others who are like-minded, yet I think they are Mistaken to EVER say "its our way or its hell".
My personal philosophy agrees with whomever said "Religion is Man trying to reach God" "Love is God trying to Reach Man". (something like that.)
I'd like to value each and every thing someone has deep convictions for. We don't all see things in the same way. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John each have different accounts of Jesus, and the color robe he wore, etc. We are all looking through different eyes of understanding. My mind has trouble with 'technical, complicated theology'., so for me I must Walk with God differently. Heck, since TWI, I really haven't had a desire to go back to 'secular mainstreem Religion'. I think its all MAN MADE anyway.
I'm hoping to find somewhere, tho to fellowship with others who are somewhat like-minded.
Hey Scripture teaches me that we only know in part. I've written this before, but I have plenty of questions for God. I cannot answer to another's heart towards God, just my own. I am confident in my heart that I'm a child of God, and that he loves me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Jet, that's very well said and I agree. :)
I've pretty much chucked everything I've learned in TWI and started with a clean slate. It's been a fun adventure and I've got much more I'd like to learn, so I really don't have many convictions one way or the other. Occasionally on here I seem to play devil's advocate or waver back and forth between two issues, but really I'm just still working things out in my brain and when we can discuss, disagree and debate issues without bringing name calling and personal attacks or attacks on someone's beliefs then I think we can all get something out of it.
Like the body, soul, spirit thing....If the dead in Christ rise again and, as you commented, it's a physical body raising back up out of the ground, then how does that figure with the dust to dust and the bodies completely decomposing, the bodies eaten by sharks and other animals, the bodies that were burned in the holocaust, those who were blown up in the WTC, those who decided to be cremated, those who donated their bodies to science or their organs to other people?
If the spirit goes back to God for safe keeping, then why couldn't the spirit still be vital, aware and "live"? Otherwise, what is it? Like something in a cryogenic freezer?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
YYYEEESSSSSSS :lol: :P :D B) :)
BTW LDS theology DOES NOT teach that if you aren't LDS you won't make it to heaven, or gain eternal life--you'll just be in a "different" Heaven
"In my Father's house there are MANY Mansions"
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
jetc57
Templelady -- Belle you both have such beautiful hearts for God. I am enjoying getting to know ya'll.
Regarding the body, soul, spirit thing. I have no problem understanding how the body goes to dust, infact I'm thankful to GOD to be able to get rid of this 'earthly body' once and for all. I have failed miserably at keeping it or getting it to be PERFECT.
I think the soul is what gets resurrected, and I think after Satan is destroyed and we are back in a paradise, then we will be given NEW and IMPROVED bodies. Least I hope so. I've had nightmares, tho about this, and in my dream I get put back on the earth, then known as Paradise, and someone hands me a Mirror, and I laugh histerically. Everyone around me do not look like I imagined a perfect, beautiful body would be when I was alive before. :unsure: I was laughing cause I wasted too much time being miserable about things I had difficulty changing. (like being fat, etc.) Was kinda funny to discover (in my dream that is) that I was ALRIGHT afterall.
So much for "being content in whatever state we are in"?
The Walk with God, I feel, is a continual thing. If we quit learning, we quit living.
I've known along time that Mormons never 'claimed all truth'. Infact I have to say I greatly admire the LDS religion for the loving way inwhich they are to others., and I especially have noticed how close knit their families are. Now we all know there are off-shoots of even the LDS faith.
I have a question for you, Templelady. I have a neighbor who is LDS, but she spends most of her time in Japan as a teacher. Before she left she said something to me that has me REALLY Puzzled.
For starters, I live in Independence, MO. The LDS here split into other groups, err other groups started from LDS, one is RLDS, the other The Community of Christ. They have this awesome building in our downtown my son called "the curly fry in the sky".
My neighbor (a wonderful and valued friend of mine) told me that LDS believes that when Jesus returns he will set his foot down in Independence MO. (I'm thinkin, then why would I ever want to move back to Texas, if Christ is coming HERE?) Anyway she says that the Garden of Eden was discovered to have been somewhere near St. Joseph MO. But they have Casinos all over MO, and several in St. Joseph. Have you ever heard these reports in your LDS?
Thank you for putting up with my various inquiries. I'm not trying to put you on any spot to get any BS feedback from others, I sincerely want to know.
B)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.