Who Gets to Define "Christian"?

Each time a group of Christians comes up with an unfamiliar way of understanding the scriptures and our relationship with God, there are other Christians who are quick to insist that anyone who believes like that can’t really be Christian.

Much blood has been shed over these doctrinal differences; wars have been fought, boundaries have been changed, and people have gone into exile.

Whether it was the often bloody struggle between Arians and Athanasians, between Lutherans and Catholics, between the Church of England and the Puritans, people have been willing, it seems, to die, to kill, and to deprive others of their rights as citizens over differences of Christian belief.

In America, though, we long ago decided — though not easily — to put such things behind us. Many states refused to ratify the Constitution until it included provisions forbidding one religion to be given preference over others.

Besides the first amendment, there is this statement in Article 6: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

This didn’t mean that Americans stopped caring about doctrinal differences. Quite the contrary — America became a place where, if anything, we talked incessantly about religious differences.

I mean, what would have been the point of open religious discussion in Catholic France or Church-of-England Britain or Lutheran Sweden?

But in America, we agreed that people who had very different ideas of what it meant to be Christian could — and must — get along without violence.

Well, mostly without violence. There were many places in America where Catholics were not counted as Christians. And when we Mormons came along, well, we were clearly beyond the pale — for precisely the reasons that Dr. Mohler outlines (though for other reasons as well).

While Dr. Mohler sometimes couches his summary of our beliefs in terms we would not choose, I am happy that his explanation is generally clear and fair-minded. (His characterization of the Book of Mormon’s presentation of Christ is the exact opposite of the truth — the Book of Mormon makes every single point that he says it does not. But I don’t expect him to be an expert on the book, or even to have read it.)

I am also happy to agree with him that when one compares our understanding of the nature of God and Christ, we categorically disagree with almost every statement in the “historic creeds and doctrinal affirmations” he refers to.

The only major point on which I could criticize Dr. Mohler’s essay is that he begged the question in the first and second paragraph.

“Christianity is rightly defined in terms of ‘traditional Christian orthodoxy,” he says. “Thus, we have an objective standard by which to define what is and is not Christian.”

In other words, he began the discussion by saying, “We win. Therefore we can define anyone who is not us as ‘the losers.’”

When he defines “traditional Christian orthodoxy” as “the orthodox consensus of the Christian church [as] defined in terms of its historic creeds and doctrinal affirmations” he is ignoring the fact that these creeds were the result, not of revelation, but of debate and political maneuvering.

Arians and Athanasians got along about as well as Shiites and Sunnis; the Athanasians generally prevailed by the authority of the Roman state and force of arms. It is hard for us Mormons to understand why ancient force and bloodshed, rather than revelation from God, should be the basis for defining the doctrinal consensus of Christianity today.

Many evangelicals have as many doctrinal problems with calling Catholics “Christians” as they have with us Mormons. While they accept the (Catholic) creeds insofar as the various Protestant denominations accept them, they reject other Catholic beliefs that were, prior to the Protestant reformation, every bit as “orthodox.”

Which is why the Catholic (i.e., “universal”) Church branded the Protestants as heretics, using precisely the kind of arguments that Dr. Mohler is using against us Mormons.

Because Martin Luther (and his fellow Protestant reformers) rejected many parts of the traditional beliefs and practices of the Universal Christian Church as they had been defined for a thousand years in the West, they could not be considered Christians — they were heretics, and their ideas were forbidden for any good Christian to hear, let alone believe.

So the Christian world has been down this road before. Thank heaven we live in more tolerant times, where our debate takes place on the internet or from the pulpit or in quiet conversations in people’s homes, instead of on the battlefield or in the courtroom.

But what if we don’t let Dr. Mohler define the question in such a way as to specifically exclude Mormons before the debate begins?

What if we define “Christians” the way most people would: “Believers in the divinity of Christ and in the necessity of the grace of Christ in order to be saved in the Kingdom of God.”

Or, “People who believe Christ is the Son of God and the only way to please God is by following Christ’s teachings as best you can all your life.”

Or how about, “People who believe that the New Testament is scripture and that its account of the life, death, resurrection, and teachings of Jesus is true and that we should act accordingly.”

We can come up with a lot of definitions that do a much better job of describing what most people mean when they use the word “Christian.”

How many ordinary Christians actually know or care about the “historic creeds and doctrinal affirmations” that form Dr. Mohler’s definition-of-choice?

I remember, as a Mormon missionary in Brazil, how many times I would explain our doctrine of the nature of God, and the Catholic or Protestant family I was teaching would say, “But that’s what we believe.” And they were telling the truth.

Their theological-seminary-trained priest or minister certainly did not believe what we were teaching, but time after time we found that the ordinary church-going Christian already saw things as we did, and thought that our peculiar doctrines were what their church had always taught.

The theologian is bound to say, “Just because ordinary, ignorant Christians don’t understand the doctrine of the Trinity does not mean that their ignorance should prevail over our more-sophisticated understanding.” I agree completely. When Baptist theologians define Baptist beliefs, it is their privilege to base it on as sophisticated an understanding as they please.

But when we are defining words as they are used in the English language, we all get a vote. Dr. Mohler does not get to speak for all Christians. Nor does he get to speak for all English-speakers. The ordinary meaning of the word “Christians” definitely includes Mormons; and when you say Mormons are not Christians, most would take that to mean that Mormons “do not believe in the divinity of Christ,” which would be flat wrong.

That’s why I appreciate the fact that Dr. Mohler made it clear at the start that by “Christian” he means “everybody but the Mormons,” so that if we accept his peculiar definition of the word, the argument is, indeed, over.

But it still makes me sad that he would single us out for rejection, when we really ought to be working together.

I remember a few years ago attending a conference with the Templeton Foundation, which brought together scientists, theologians, and science fiction writers to discuss the future of religion in relation to science.

There was only one theologian present, a man highly trained in all those creeds that Dr. Mohler insists define Christianity. As we listened to a group of brilliant scientists — and some science fiction writers who, unlike me, were also trained scientists — explain with marvelous clarity some highly sophisticated concepts, I was impressed by how eager they were to communicate clearly — to be understood.

But when the theologian spoke, he immediately did what the scientists could have done but chose not to — he plunged into the jargon of his own intellectual community, deliberately excluding non-experts from the conversation.

However, I had read and studied enough traditional Christian theology — and enough deconstructionist and multicultural mumbo-jumbo — to know the vocabulary he was using; and the more I listened, the clearer it became that with all his sophistication, this man did not actually believe in the literal existence of the God and Christ described in the New Testament. He didn’t even believe in the literal existence of the Trinity described in the Nicene and later creeds.

In fact, as I looked around the table, I realized that I was the only person in that room who believed that Jesus is the Savior of the world, the Son of God, and that God created humankind in his image for the purpose of bringing us to a joyful reunion with him, after we had learned to control the desires of the flesh and turn our lives over to him, and after the grace of Christ has cleansed us of our guilt for the many sins we have committed.

He was an ordained minister of the Church of England who did not actually believe in the God of any official Christian creed.

Yes, Dr. Mohler. You and I disagree on exactly the points you listed in your essay. You are correct in saying that we Mormons completely reject the neoplatonic doctrines that were layered onto Christianity long after the Apostles were gone.

And just as you would put any reference to Mormons as “Christians” in quotation marks, we Mormons refer to those who believe as you do as “Christians” in exactly the same way.

Here’s the difference. While we have no patience with creeds that owe more to Plato and other Greek philosophers than to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, we do recognize and respect as fellow Christians anyone who confesses that Christ is the Savior of the world.

So I can go to "The Passion of the Christ" and be moved by it, even though Mel Gibson’s view of what the passion actually consisted of is very different from the Mormon view. I recognize and respect the sincerity of his faith, and I recognize that despite our doctrinal differences, his faith is in Jesus Christ.

It’s like the ancient Hebrew penchant for referring to God as “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” They did not try to subject God to the limitations of human understanding; they did not define him in ways that would say more about the limitations of their own minds than about the nature of God.

Their definition, unlike yours, was simply to point to the great fathers of their religion and say, “The God they worshiped, that’s the God we worship, too.”

Can we not define God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit in a similar way? “The God that Jesus prayed to, that is the God we pray to. The Jesus Christ of the New Testament, he is the one we believe has suffered to redeem the world from sin. He is the way, the truth, the life, as best we understand what he taught.”

That last phrase is a key to our getting along, I think. It is one of the central tenets of Mormon religion that our understanding is not perfect or complete, that we fully expect that many of our present ideas are incorrect, and we look forward to a day when we will be ready to receive a better understanding.

In the meantime, we do our best with what light and knowledge we have received. We might be in error. So might you. We all struggle to puzzle out things that are, in fact, beyond the ken of mortal minds.

The points of disagreement between us are not insignificant. In fact, they’re so important that we do not recognize the efficacy of baptism performed by any other denomination, and anyone joining our church must be baptized — for the first time, we believe — regardless of any previous Christian baptism they might have received.

In other words, at the level of religious practice we believe that we are the only Christians who act and speak with the authority of Christ today. So we can hardly take offense when Dr. Mohler and many other ministers and priests of other Christian churches return the favor and refuse to recognize us as Christians of their communities.

On the level of theology, doctrine, practice, ritual, and even history, we Mormons stand alone, neither Protestant nor Catholic. Just as Lutherans and Baptists and Presbyterians generally don’t accept the authority of the Pope, we don’t accept the authority of anybody except those that we believe hold the keys of the Kingdom of God on earth today.

And so when we send out our missionaries to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ as we understand it, it is perfectly fair for Baptist ministers and Catholic priests and any other religious leader to point out to their congregants precisely what we point out to them — that our beliefs are very different from theirs.

But that’s a matter of private belief and conscience. Those who put our religion to the test and come to believe in it don’t do so because we fooled them into thinking we believe just like Dr. Mohler.

If that was our message, who would join us? They could join the Baptist Church and accomplish as much (and it would be cheaper and easier, given the way we Mormons tithe and abstain from alcohol, coffee, tea, and tobacco).

We openly state that we teach a version of Christianity radically different from all others. We proclaim it.

But let’s remember now why we are having this discussion. It’s because Mitt Romney is running for President of the United States, and Mitt Romney is a Mormon.

Mitt Romney is not running for Pope of America, or Head Rabbi, or Minister-in-Chief. He is not running for any religious office. He is a citizen of this country, who has a distinguished record of achievement in business and government, asking people to vote for him to become the leader of our country and, perforce, the leader of the free world.

His religious beliefs are not irrelevant. Far from it. Americans should care very much about religious beliefs that will affect how a president would fulfill the duties of his office.

Here’s a man who is faithful to his wife, without a breath of scandal associated with him; he is a devoted father and grandfather; he tithes to his church; he doesn’t smoke or drink and never has. In other words, he not only claims to be a member of a particular church, he lives by the standards of that church.

I think that matters a great deal. It means he’s not a hypocrite, pretending to be religious when he needs the votes. He has put in the time, made the sacrifices — he has walked the walk.

So when Mitt Romney says, “I believe this is the right thing to do, and I’m going to do it,” then American voters can be reasonably confident that he really does believe it and he really will do it.

That’s something that I would look for about any candidate, from any religious tradition. Does he live by what his religion teaches? Or is he a member in name only?

His profession of membership in a Church gives us a way to find out about the standards of good and evil, of right and wrong, that his religion teaches. Where I would be worried is when we have a candidate who does not profess any religion, or does not live up to the standards of the religion he professes.

How then would we find out what he really believes? What his standards are? How well he keeps his commitments? It’s not impossible to determine that even with people whose religious commitments are, shall we say, skin deep. Certainly, for instance, it wasn’t hard to find out what Bill Clinton’s standards of truth-telling and word-keeping were before he was elected; he absolutely performed exactly as his past behavior had given us reason to expect. We got what we voted for.

So by all means look at Mitt Romney’s religion, and how well he has lived up to it. It’s a fair test.

But don’t look at his religion as if it were a complete guide to how he would perform as president. There are those who fear a Romney presidency because somebody’s been telling them that Mormonism is a “cult” and they think Romney would get all his instructions from Salt Lake City — or from what he imagined God might whisper to him.

May I suggest that before you leap to that conclusion, you consider carefully: Senator Harry Reid of Nevada is also a Mormon. As far as I know, he’s a Mormon in good standing. And he’s a Democrat — a liberal Democrat, on most issues.

If Salt Lake City is telling Mormon politicians what to do, they’re sure giving Harry Reid a different set of instructions from those they’ve been giving to Mitt Romney.

Like Harry Reid, I’m a Democrat. If my own party nominates somebody that I think would make a better president than Mitt Romney, I’ll vote for the Democrat. If my party doesn’t, and the Republican Party nominates Romney, I might well vote for him.

It won’t be because he’s a Mormon. It’ll be for a whole range of reasons — his political views, his announced plans, and my assessment of his character. And that assessment won’t be based on mere membership in the same Church as me. It will be based on how well I think he lives up to the commitments that Mormons make.

Now, what if you are an American citizen who absolutely hates every Mormon doctrine you’ve heard about?

My advice is: Don’t join the Mormon Church if you feel that way. But what does it have to do with choosing a president?

Dr. Mohler has gone on record elsewhere as advising evangelical Christians not to vote for Mitt Romney, even though he’s the candidate whose life practices and whose professed beliefs are the closest to fitting the political agenda of many or perhaps most evangelicals.

Why? Because he fears that the election of Mitt Romney will lend “legitimacy” to Mormonism.

Guess what, Dr. Mohler. Mormonism has legitimacy. Millions of American citizens already believe in it. And not the dumbest American citizens, either. We’re above average in our education. We’re also above average in our religious activity, our charitable donations, our marital fidelity, and the time we spend with our families. We try to be good neighbors and good friends.

We are as legitimate, as citizens and therefore as potential officeholders, as anybody else in America. Because there is no religious test for holding office in America.

And if you try to impose one, by saying that all persons belonging to this or that religion should never be elected president, then who is it who is rejecting the U.S. Constitution? Who is it who is saying that people with certain beliefs are second-class citizens, for no other reason than their religion?

I urge all evangelicals Christians who are worried about a Mormon as president to consider this:

What if somebody were saying that no evangelical Christian should be elected president, solely on the basis of his religious beliefs?

Think about it. How often has President Bush been mocked because he believes he was born again? How often have his critics ridiculed him because he believes that when he prays, God hears him and even, sometimes, answers?

How many have, in effect, claimed that evangelical Christians have no business holding the office of President — that they are unfit for such a vital public trust precisely because of their beliefs about how God and human beings interact?

We Mormons don’t agree with you on many vital points of doctrine. But I hope we all agree with each other about this: In a time when a vigorous atheist movement is trying to exclude religious people from participating in American public life unless they promise never to mention or think about their religion while in office, why are we arguing with each other?

You don’t want your kids to join the Mormon Church; well, I don’t want mine to join the Baptist Church, either. That’s because you think you’re right about your religion, and I think I’m right about mine.

But I would rather vote for a believing Baptist who lives up to his faith than for a Mormon who doesn’t take his religion seriously or keep the commandments he’s been taught.

You really are not very good at this.

Logic: If the Bible says that God is not a man and if the Bible also says that Jesus is/was a man, then Jesus cannot be God.

If God cannot die, and Jesus died, then Jesus cannot be God.

If no man has seen God at any time, and many saw Jesus, then Jesus cannot be God.

If God cannot be tempted with evil, and Jesus was tempted in all ways, then Jesus cannot be God.

And you still did not find the word “trinity” in the Bible, and I don’t give a hoot if the word Mormon is in there or not. I also don’t recall seeing the word Baptist, Catholic, Adventist, or Republican. So what?

Trinity = 3. Three. Uno, dos, tres. Three is not one. (Remember Logic 101?)

If something is one, then it cannot be three.

If you have God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit you have...let’s count’em...one, two, three Gods!

The Father is not the son and the son is not the Father. To say they are the same and identical is a contradition of spripture. (no, you go find it!)

You aren’t even a challenge on this. And yes, I repeat myself a lot because y’all don’t respond, y’all just ask ignore the facts and ask new questions.

Jesus was given a lot of authority from God, his father.

Jesus forgave sins on behalf of God.

The religious leaders did not understand his ability to do so and jumped on the opportunity to charge him with blasphemy for doing what they thought only God could do.

And you are no different, you don’t understand how in those very verses Jesus said that he was sent by the Father to accomplish the Father’s works.

(Remember some logic? If Jesus is God, and if God is the Father of Jesus, then God is his own son and own Father, and therefore sent himself on behalf of himself to do his own mission.)

Remember, no man has seen God at any time, so these Pharisees had to be talking to the invisible man if Jesus was God.

I’m all for bringing logic into this discussion!

Just remember, logically speaking, one must interpret difficult scripture in light of clear scripture, not vice versa.

Yeah, that is one of the very first rules of Biblical study and interpretation and that very rule sinks almost all yourships.

Jesus died. Did God die?

God told Peter that Jesus was His son and to listen to him...you say Jesus is God....I’ll go with what God says in clear verse.

Just remember, logically speaking, one must interpret difficult scripture in light of clear scripture, not vice versa.

You really need to make up your mind...

God told Peter that Jesus was His son and to listen to him...you say Jesus is God....I’ll go with what God says in clear verse.

Clearly, God spoke to ALL of them.

Mark 9

1. And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
2. And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.
3. And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them.
4. And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.
5. And Peter answered and said to Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
6. For he wist not what to say; for they were sore afraid.
7. And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
8. And suddenly, when they had looked round about, they saw no man any more, save Jesus only with themselves.

We believe in a physical resurrection, that is that the body will be reunited with its soul. In Luke 24:36-43, the disciples are astonished that Christ is not just a spirit, but that He is a resurrected being, with flesh and bones.

6 ¶ And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

We believe that Christ is the express image of His Father, God the Father. (Read about that in Genesis 1:26,27 and Gen. 5:1-3.) After Christ's resurrection, Matthew 27:52-53 teaches that many graves were open and many of the saints who slept arose, went into the Holy City, and appeared unto many.

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

In Phillipians, Paul says that our bodies will change and be resurrected, like Jesus Christ was resurrected. In Phillipians 3:20-21:

20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:
21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

And I am now trying to quote from the Bible and the Book of Mormon, so from Alma 11:42-45:

42 Now, there is a death which is called a temporal death; and the death of Christ shall loose the bands of this temporal death, that all shall be raised from this temporal death.
43 The spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form; both limb and joint shall be restored to its proper frame, even as we now are at this time; and we shall be brought to stand before God, knowing even as we know now, and have a bright recollection of all our guilt.
44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.
45 Now, behold, I have spoken unto you concerning the death of the mortal body, and also concerning the resurrection of the mortal body. I say unto you that this mortal body is raised to an immortal body, that is from death, even from the first death unto life, that they can die no more; their spirits uniting with their bodies, never to be divided; thus the whole becoming spiritual and immortal, that they can no more see corruption.

In John 5:29, it does say "resurrection of the damned." Our beliefs say that the damned are those Sons of Perdition who will be cast out from God's presence and live in Outer Darkness. Some will have bodies, some will not. And those who have bodies will reign over those who do not. (Satan does not have a body, but Cain will, so he will reign over Satan.)

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not confused about the resurrection of damnation. It's those Sons of Perdition who knew God and knowingly turned away from Him and worked actively against him. (Cain is a good example.) Also in LDS beliefs, 1/3 the host of heaven went with Lucifer, and they will also dwell in Outer Darkness. This is an excellent description of our beliefs Hell in Christian Beliefs: Latter-Day Saints (Mormons)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that the word hell is used in scripture in at least two senses.
First, Mormons believe in a concept of hell as a temporary state of punishment. They believe that those who refuse to accept Jesus will suffer in hell for their sins for 1000 years during the millennial reign of Christ. Righteous people, whether Latter-day Saint or not, will be resurrected and live with Christ on earth.^[7] After the 1000 years, the individuals in hell will also be resurrected and receive an immortal physical body.^[8] The LDS Church explains biblical descriptions of hell being "eternal" or "endless" punishment as being descriptive of their infliction by God rather than a unending temporal period; Latter-day Saint scripture quotes God as telling church founder Joseph Smith, Jr.: "I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—Eternal punishment is God’s punishment. Endless punishment is God’s punishment."^[9] It is in this sense of the word "hell" that David prayed to the Lord, "thou wilt not leave my soul in hell".^[10]
Latter-day Saints also believe in a more permanent concept of hell, commonly referred to as outer darkness. It is said that very few people who have lived on the earth will be consigned to this hell, but Latter-day Saint scripture suggests that at least Cain will be present.^[11] Other mortals who during their lifetime become sons of perdition—those who commit the unpardonable sin—will be consigned to outer darkness.^[12] It is taught that the unpardonable sin is committed by those who "den[y] the Son after the Father has revealed him".^[13] However, the vast majority of residents of outer darkness will be the "devil and his angels ... the third part of the hosts of heaven" who in the pre-existence followed Lucifer and never received a mortal body.^[14] The residents of outer darkness are the only children of God that will not receive one of three kingdoms of glory at the Last Judgment.
It is unclear in the teachings of Mormonism whether the temporary hell during the millennium and outer darkness are physical places or if both are merely descriptions of personal states of suffering and torment. It is also unclear whether those in outer darkness will ultimately be redeemed; of outer darkness and the sons of perdition, Latter-day Saint scripture states that "the end thereof, neither the place thereof, nor their torment, no man knows; Neither was it revealed, neither is, neither will be revealed unto man, except to them who are made partakers thereof".

And you can use both the words 'endless' and 'eternal' to mean punishment or reward. We believe in eternal progression.

See my previous post. We believe in both a spiritual and a physical resurrection. The Atonement of Christ and the grace He offers us is perhaps the most important thing that we could ever know. It is the core of the Gospel, of our religion, and should be at the core of our lives. We must likewise know how He offers us the riches of his grace, and what we must do to accept and partake of that grace. Without the grace of Christ, there is nothing we can do in this life that would guarantee us salvation. However, we believe in keeping the commandments because Christ asks us to. Christ asks us to follow Him with all our heart, and we do that by striving to obey and honor Him. Our failure to be perfect is made up by His grace, for His grace is sufficient to cover our failings and imperfections if we truly strive to accept Him.

James 2:24 & 26 says:

24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

I know I have seen several comments on other threads that we Mormons believe we are buying our salvation with our good works. That is not our belief. We believe, as Jesus taught, in Matthew 25:40

Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

And I do believe in Jesus Christ, and that by doing so, I am born again. I can lay my burdens upon Him and become a new creature in Christ. I must have a broken heart and a contrite spirit and strive to live his commandments because I have changed. And I must repent of my sins in order to take advantage of the Atonement.

I read a really good analogy of grace the other day, saying that I will take advantage of Christ's Atonement when I am perfect someday is like saying I will take that medicine when I get better.

Stephen Robinson has written a couple of books that really explained the concept to me. They are titled "Believing Christ", which means believing Christ's words, not just believing in Christ. We need to believe His words, His Atonement, and His sacrifice for us, and that His is the only way to salvation.

You must be kidding.

Even a bag of hammers knows that Easter includes paganism!

The Pagan Origins of Easter By Royce Carlson Easter celebrations were held hundreds of years before Christ was born as festivals of spring honoring Eostre, the great mother goddess of the Saxons. This name was fashioned after the ancient word for spring, Eastre. The goddess Ostara was the Norse equivalent whose symbols were the hare and the egg. From this comes our modern tradition of celebrating Easter with eggs and bunnies. In the Mediterranean region, there was a pre-Christian spring celebration centered around the vernal equinox (March 20 or 21) that honored Cybele, the Phrygian goddess of fertility. Cybele’s consort, Attis, was considered born of a virgin and was believed to have died and been resurrected three days later. Attis derived his mythology from even earlier gods, Osiris, Dionysus, and Orpheus, who also were supposed to have been born of a virgin and suffered death and resurrection as long as 500 years before Christ was born. The death of Attis was commemorated on a Friday and the resurrection was celebrated three days later on Sunday. There are other Easter traditions that are pagan in origin. The Easter sunrise service is derived from the ancient pagan practice of welcoming the sun on the morning of the spring equinox, marking the beginning of spring. What we now call Easter lilies were revered by the ancients as symbols of fertility and representative of the male genitalia. The ancient Babylonian religions had rituals involving dyed eggs as did the ancient Egyptians.

http://www.zenzibar.com/Articles/easter.asp

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.