Replies

" If Joseph Smith and God decide for us all to wear holy undergarments, I'm not trying to make a joke, they already have."

You weren't trying to make a joke by mocking something others hold sacred here, either, right?

You know, your example of Paul saying "received" is right on. He saiand wrote things after this, why was this able to be received? Because it wasn't changing the gospel that had already been set out, it wasn't changing the Lord's gospel. Then why did he have to say more? Presumably to further teach the Gospel, or to clarify uncertainties. This is exactly what Joseph Smith and other latter-day prophets have done. They aren't changing Christ's gospel, they aren't adding anything.

Please show me what Mormon theology contradicts anything in the Bible. Not merely something that isn't specifically in there - that's what Paul did, too. Show me something contradictory.

Furthermore, people have been kind enough to sddress all of your doctrinal questions (and jokes in poor taste) concerning mormonism, so why not answer a couple of ours? Here are a few:

1. If faith is all that is needed, then please explain James 2, which clearly states that faith without works availeth a man nothing.

2. If baptism is not necessary, how do you explain John 3:5 (Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.)?

3. You say baptism for the dead is some outlandish concept - then why is it that Paul acknowledged and endorsed baptism for the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29?

That's just a start. I would appreciate it if CalJones could answer this without resorting to name-calling, damning of others, and jokes in bad taste, but I would also appreciate sincere responses from anyone less offensively outspoken who can explain to me these issues. Part of this is indeed an admittedly un-Christlike retort to Cal's vitriol, but part of it is also a sincere question I would like to have answered.

I will answer. But where, my Mormon friend, did I do any name calling?

Please show me what Mormon theology contradicts anything in the Bible. Not merely something that isn't specifically in there - that's what Paul did, too. Show me something contradictory.

Mormon belief says that men can become Gods, right ?

The Bible says that there is only one God, ... has only ever been one God, ... and will ever only be one God ...
Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

--------------------------------------------------------------

Isaiah 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

1. True faith produces good works. I don't see what you are asking. When we die, God will judge our good works by fire. Either they will burn up because they weren't done in the proper spirit, or they will endure and we will get a reward. In other words, you cannot do good works if you don't have true faith. So your question about all that is needed is faith is simply a rhetorical one. But you knew that.

2. If the Mormons aren't adding anything, then why did they have to write the PoGP, D and Covenants and the Bof Mormon as sacred texts on par with the Bible? That's adding something, friend. If J. Smith didn't add anything to the gospel delivered in the New testament, they how come you all don't just throw out the Book of Mormon and just read the Word?

You can't throw it out because Smith added something, therefore changed the gospel delivered by Paul and the New Testament. Your question about why Paul had to "say more" after he wrote the letter to the Galatians is not a matter of quantity of writing, as you imply, but a matter of quality. Paul said that we must adhere to the gospel he had already preached. It does no harm to keep preaching the same gospel, in fact, that is what all Christians are charged to do. It does do harm, though, to preach ANOTHER GOSPEL that adds things to what has been received.

Mormonism is another gospel added to the Bible. What part of that don't you understand?

3. The idea of being born of water and spirit -- seems to me that the necessity of Baptism is not the physical act itself but of the public acknowledgment of our commitment to Christ and our repentance before Him. Being baptized is a public act. Jesus warns us that if we forsake Him before men, He will forsake us in Heaven. I think it might have been a stern warning to Nicodemus that he need to be born from above -- born again with the Holy Spirit -- but that the work was incomplete until he made a public validation of his conversion in water like how John the Baptist was baptizing. From all I know, Nicodemus's belief in Jesus was private. Like his admonition to the rich man, Jesus was telling Nicodemus it was not cool that his faith was secret and unrepentant!

It is also not cool for us to ever forsake knowing the Lord or being a Christian.

Your last question about baptism for the dead. Geez, it is so laborious and easy. I got this from a Forerunner Commentary Does Paul Condone Baptism for the Dead (I Corinthians 15:29)?

The practice of being baptized for those who have died is based upon a wrong understanding of I Corinthians 15:29. The New Testament Church did not follow this practice, and the apostle Paul did not teach it. This custom was introduced into the professing Christian world about AD 150 by Marcion, a man who created his own religion and established his own church in Rome in AD 144.

The Bible clearly shows that, before a person may be baptized, he must first repent (Acts 2:38) and believe (Mark 16:16; Acts 16:31, 33). The dead are not able to repent or believe, because "the dead know nothing" (Ecclesiastes 9:5). Baptism is for the living; it is a symbol whereby the living acknowledge their sins, figuratively die with Christ in a watery grave, and rise out of that watery grave to live a new, righteous life through Jesus Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Romans 6:4; 8:9; Galatians 2:20).

Baptism is also a symbol of the resurrection. To rise up out of the watery grave is to acknowledge belief in the resurrection of the dead (Romans 6:1-5). To surrender one's life to Christ now, to crucify the self now, to be baptized—all this is foolish unless there is a resurrection of the dead. If there were no hope of the resurrection, life could be summed up this way: "Let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die" (I Corinthians 15:32).

I Corinthians 15:29 now becomes clear. The whole of I Corinthians 15 concerns the resurrection from the dead. Paul cites the example of those who were baptized as a proof of the resurrection. Their actions symbolized their hope that they would live again. The resurrection is the hope of the dead.

Paul's question seems to be, "Why are they baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all?" (New King James Version). However, this verse is not correctly translated from the Greek. Paul is not talking about being baptized "in the place of," "on behalf of," or "for" the dead. The Greek word translated "for" is huper, and it has several meanings: "above," "over," "instead of," "for the realization of," or "for the hope of," depending upon the context.

For example, Paul declares, "For it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13). As in I Corinthians 15:29, the Greek word translated "for" is huper. In Philippians 2:13, huper cannot mean "instead of." It would be senseless to say, "For it is God who works in you both to will and to do instead of His good pleasure"! Correctly translated, it means, "God works in you both to will and to do for the realization of His good pleasure" (The Analytical Greek Lexicon). What is God's "good pleasure"? "It is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom," says Jesus (Luke 12:32). God works in us "in the hope of" giving us His Kingdom!

Thus, according to the context, hyper in I Corinthians 15:29 should be translated "for the hope of." Notice the verse again: "Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?"

What is the hope of the dead? The resurrection! Baptism illustrates the hope of the resurrection. One who is baptized rises out of a watery grave, symbolic of the resurrection. Paul is thus saying, "What good is it to be baptized if we do not rise in a resurrection from the dead? Why then should one be baptized for a hope that would never come true?" However, Paul affirms that, because Christ died and rose again, we have this true hope, the resurrection, to look forward to (I Corinthians 15:17-22).

This verse, then, has nothing to do with the false doctrine of baptism on behalf of the unbaptized dead.