Denominations?

[ErikJohnson]

Originally Posted by Hemidakota

If there is additional revelation given, whether it is doctrines, principles, visions of grandeur, GODS or GODESSES, or other universes, it will directly come from the Godhead in person to that individual in order to promote his/her edification.

I have to say, Hemidakota, that all I ascertained from your response was that you didn't much care for the question.

But let me drill into one piece of it (your quote above). If Hemidakota prays and receives any of the following—"doctrines, principles, visions of grandeur, GODS or GODESSES"--how can he be sure he’s not hearing from a demon?

The Bible says we shouldn’t always trust our feelings, that the human heart is "deceitful above all things" (Jeremiah 17:9). And the Bible also says we should, "test the spirits to see whether they are from God" (1 John 4:1).

So how do you do it, Hemidakota? What standard do you use to test your feelings and the answers you receive to your prayers?

--Erik

[Hemidakota]

Am I on to something here, Hemidakota? Or have previous encounters with defenders of the LDS Church just made me paranoid about the answers they give…
;0)

I do care for those who are truly seeking the truth than a person arrogant response claiming to know the truth...see your last line.

Again....use the spirit vice your brain on what I posted. It has nothing to do with feelings here Erik.

[Elgama]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

I have to say, Hemidakota, that all I ascertained from your response was that you didn't much care for the question.

But let me drill into one piece of it (your quote above). If Hemidakota prays and receives any of the following—"doctrines, principles, visions of grandeur, GODS or GODESSES"--how can he be sure he’s not hearing from a demon?

The Bible says we shouldn’t always trust our feelings, that the human heart is "deceitful above all things" (Jeremiah 17:9). And the Bible also says we should, "test the spirits to see whether they are from God" (1 John 4:1).

So how do you do it, Hemidakota? What standard do you use to test your feelings and the answers you receive to your prayers?

--Erik

Just my approach as I suspect every Latter Day Saint has their own relationship with God and may give a different answer.

I test my answers and instincts (its not feelings its instinct that comes from God - after 5 years of being a parent I am very aware of the difference) against the fruits they produce are they good and honourable, do I grow closer to God as a result, the answers and feelings are right everytime they are wise, and full of love. Has my life progressed, am I a better person as a result, do I understand something more. My God has earned my respect, love and trust tenfold in my life, if it turns out he was a demon than I would follow him to hell rather than an absentee God to heaven. I love my God too much to do anything else

Personally I test all scripture against God not the other way round - How did you know the Bible was the one for you? why the Christian Trinity and not Krishna, Thor, Zeus, Allah, YHVH etc

-Charley

[bytor2112]

Erik.....your so arrogant and condescending. Your posts are not meant to discuss, but rather to accuse or attempt to belittle beliefs that others see as sacred and you sound like a know it all.....and Brother, reading your posts.....you don't even understand the part you think you know. You really ought to learn some manners. Were you excommunicated.....is that why your sound so bitter when you post about the church? What's the point? Just to insult?

The Bible isn't infallible and we believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

[jms.mills]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

That said, I've no doubt there's someone out there who takes a hard-line view of this, but that would be a minority view.

Erik, does this mean that doctrine in your particular congregation is based on popular rule? Where is the authoritativeness you frequently espouse? In your post, is seems you have a somewhat diminutive view of those with a "hard-line" view, that they are somehow not as enlightened as the majority. How do you know the minority group has the incorrect stance; or, for that matter, how do you know the "majority" view is correct? If you say, "There is no "correct" view." Why are you reluctant to take a firm stance on doctrine? Is doctrine intended to be pushed around like dust in the wind, blowing to and fro, back and forth, based on the stronger wind currents at any given time?

This kind of bickering within the "mainstream" Christian community is one of the reasons I am thankful for the restoration of the Priesthood. Through this priesthood, all debates regarding doctrine can be ended.

You never answered the question I posed earlier: Did Christ or the Apostles intend for their words to be interpreted in a myriad of different ways in order to justify difference in doctrine? Remember, Paul constantly corrected variants of the Gospel message. There can only be one true intent of Scripture: the original.

Just trying to understand your viewpoint

JMS

[Hemidakota]

To all: when the Master come to knock on your door, does He say, "my servant, my I come in and abide for a time?" Or..."my friend, can I stay and abide for a time?"

[chriscb]

Originally Posted by Hemidakota

Hmm....I do worship Him as an eternal GOD and I am LDS.

He didn't say "AN eternal GOD" he said worshiping Jesus Christ as THE Eternal God. I think there is a big difference there. Also, I'm surprised by your answer. It seems to be a personal choice (depending upon whom LDS are speaking to). But many members of the LDS church will vehemently proclaim that we worship only God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ and that we do not worship Jesus as a distinct God. Mostly, I hear this when the conversation revolves around our being labeled as polytheists.

[chriscb]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

I'm poking around a bit myself, now. It's certainly clear the SBC baptizes by immersion and requires "re-baptism" in the case of a sprinkled infant or child. But I don't see where the question of a believing adult who was baptized by aspersion is directly addressed. Do you have a link that specifically addresses that scenario?

It's an interesting tangent. I'm willing to concede I may have picked a poor example to illustrate my point...

Just a slight correction. Technically, it wouldn't be a "re-baptism" since the infant wasn't baptized by immersion (only sprinkled with water or having water poured on it's head). Coming from a SBC background, we never considered "infant baptism" to truly be "baptism" (since no immersion took place).

[chriscb]

Originally Posted by Hemidakota

Not having the appropriate authority from GOD. This would make baptism invalid if one wants to enter into the Celestial Kingdom.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you explained exactly how one recieves the appropriate authority from God. In other words, what actions must take place? I know what happened to me, but since you brought it up, I'll let you explain in your own words.

[chriscb]

Originally Posted by Hemidakota

Not all Christians dominations stated in the last post do believe in the catholic trinity theory. Yes! I mean theory since I use to be a Catholic.

I do "KNOW" there are three. Now, what do you say?

The word "doctrine" means teaching not theory. The tri-unity of God aka the Trinity is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox as well as Protestant churches. Nowhere have I ever seen them call it a "theory". Your use of the word (theory) comes across to me as a pejorative. If you don't mean it that way, then please explain why you call it a "theory".