Posted on 04/26/2007 2:45:58 PM PDT by Sopater
GIG HARBOR, Wash. - Restrictions on the use of security videotape have been tightened at a suburban Tacoma high school after images of two girls kissing were shown to the parents of one of the girls, officials say.
Keith Nelson, dean of students at Gig Harbor High School, said he saw the students kissing and holding hands in the school's busy commons, checked a surveillance camera and showed the parents the tape because they had asked him a few weeks earlier to alert them to any conduct by their daughter that was out of the ordinary.
They then transferred their daughter to a school outside the Peninsula School District, which lies northwest of Tacoma.
Both girls said their privacy was invaded and denied doing anything wrong. Neither was identified by name in an article published Thursday by The News Tribune of Tacoma.
The kiss amounted to a quick "peck," said the girl who remains at the school, a 17-year-old senior described as the daughter of a News Tribune employee.
"We weren't doing anything inappropriate, nothing anyone else wouldn't do," she said.
Nelson said students could not have any expectation of privacy in a crowded place and maintained that he would have taken the same action had the students kissing been a boy and a girl.
An internal investigation into a complaint from a student -- it was unclear whether the complaint came from one of the girls -- established that Nelson had not violated district policy, Assistant School Superintendent Shannon Wiggs said.
Even so, Principal Greg Schellenberg said, school surveillance videotape may now be used only for security monitoring and discipline for actions such as trespassing, vandalism and fighting.
Kissing and other public displays of affection were at the time and remain violations of school rules, but violators will first be given warnings and will be disciplined only for a second offense, Schellenberg said. In addition, school employees are barred from sharing surveillance video in response to an open-ended parental request.
"It's not our normal practice," Schellenberg said. "It's not going to happen again."
In the case of the kiss, he added, "the same information could have been portrayed to the family without the video."
Nelson said he respected the change in policy but added that he believes his first obligation is to parents.
"They're paying good money for us to make their kids good citizens," he said. "Whatever that means to the parents, I'll do it."
A post on a thread, for anyone who is interested in Christianity, in terms of Jesus and the Trinity...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1824186/posts?page=79#79
Regards,
Star Traveler
Well, I did post this once, but forgot to add your name, here — so once again... [it’s getting late... ya know]
—
A post on a thread, for anyone who is interested in Christianity, in terms of Jesus and the Trinity...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1824186/posts?page=79#79
Regards,
Star Traveler
I (as father) do not enter my girl’s rooms while they are in an immodest state, but my wife will not be afraid to enter. Mom and I are of the same mind.
My children may not consider any telephone call private. We parents decide the extent of the use of cell phones, and have the prerogative at any moment to examine the SMS content. At any time we might suspect any problem, we may call for the surrender of cell phones, and that without any explanation being necessary. Actually, our children currently only have cell phones in their possession when we are on an outing and they are not within eye-shot.
Our children may not have email accounts without our knowing their user name(s) and password(s).
We homeschool our children, and we determine the outings. We instruct our children meticulously with regard to the character of any friendships they make.
Our children do not date. My 30-year-old son married at age 21 and was never alone with a girl until his wedding night. Our second daughter was married last November, also at age 21, and never dated. Courtship outings were strictly chaperoned.
Privacy in our home takes second place to the combined characteristics of purity, safety, morality and spirituality.
First off - I would only get paid half price ‘cuz I don’t read all your words as I skim your posts. (They ARE interesting though).
My thought on the guy-guy and gal-gal kissing is that for many men sex is just sex sometimes, whereas for many women it is part of the entire intimate and personal relationship. (Which is hard to do with another guy in the room!).
LOL. As if.
That's really cute, the way your kids have you totally fooled. I hope.
I see you’ve hijacked yet another thread.
[yawn].
You said — “First off - I would only get paid half price ‘cuz I don’t read all your words as I skim your posts. (They ARE interesting though).”
—
LOL - well, you’re gonna have to negotiate a better deal... :-)
.
Then — “My thought on the guy-guy and gal-gal kissing is that for many men sex is just sex sometimes, whereas for many women it is part of the entire intimate and personal relationship. (Which is hard to do with another guy in the room!).”
—
Yep, that’s true for many guygs. And yep, yep for the women.
The “expectation of privacy” might be a legitimate concern, but it’s tough to try to make it stick for things that happen in a public place. Public places have not merely security cams but webcams, phone cams... not to mention bystanders to witness whatever “private” thing might be going on that’s not so private.
I don’t see a “privacy” issue here.
You said — “I see you’ve hijacked yet another thread.”
—
LOL..., I couldn’t figure out how to post a thread, on its own, about a tag line... :-)
Perhaps I could have posted a thread in “Breaking News” — “Tagline Found to be Incompatible with Reality!”, but then the link I supplied would have had to come back to this thread. So..., there I was...
And so, we have Christianity in the midst of thread on “women kissing women”... what can I say...
What in the heck does that word-salad say? LOL...
Nevermind... am signing off. Will try again in a day or two.
Be well.
This from a guy with your tagline of all Bible quotes? That's rich.
You're also wrong. My dad was not afraid to use that hammer and guess what? I love him to death, and I am still a mostly model citizen.
------------------------------------------------- Would you like me to have them write directly to you? What’s your problem? — You have so lost touch with God that you don’t believe God can help young people remain pure? Your remarks only expose what we would consider your own disqualification to befriend our children.
We still have several children at home. We know where they are at all times. By the way, they love to be home with their brothers and sisters and parents. At this moment our young people are playing table games with each other. Our 15-year-old son is a serious biblical prophesy student, mastering the writings of the British Brethren and their prophesy journals written between 1890 and 1915.
We are missionaries. Our two married children are both Baptist Christian missionaries. They married the children of other missionaries; children with missionary intent in their hearts. One couple have been serving in Mongolia for years, and the newlyweds are preparing to return to Russia to plant churches. My daughter’s groom was raised under missionary parents in Russia from age 9 and is a graduate of Bible college. We ourselves were in the Russian Pacific Maritime Territory for 2 years ministering Chinese merchants there.
If you think that young people cannot be raised to love their parents and siblings . . . and the Lord Jesus, then you are the one who is duped. Sorry for you. WHAT? Are your children allowed to run the streets without your knowledge of their friends or whereabouts? WHAT? They wouldn’t rather be with their parents in the evenings and on weekends?
We know of scores and scores of families who have sound biblical families and who have watched their children to grow up to love the Lord Jesus and their homes. It is still possible, by the help and grace of God, to raise children pure to the marriage altar. And it REQUIRES the help and grace of God, in a world of people who have given up such standards of purity and are sarcastic with us about it too.
You don’t need pity, Sir, you need TRUTH . . . biblical TRUTH. By your words, I assume your family needs it too, and they are probably not getting it from you thus far.
You said to another FReeper — “You don’t need pity, Sir, you need TRUTH . . . biblical TRUTH. By your words, I assume your family needs it too, and they are probably not getting it from you thus far.”
—
Yep, there are a lot of people in need of Biblical truth. And there are a lot of people so extremely jaded by their own sin condition, not having the Holy Spirit, along with the rampant sin in the world and our culture — that they believe that what the Bible says is an impossibility. Anyone who would uphold the Bible is ridiculed.
I pray that you and your family stay under God’s protection.
The problem comes when the Parents aren't good and honorable people or disagree with State policies. Does the State have the right to interfere if the Father is raping the daughter? Does the State have a right to interfere if the children aren't being fed properly? Does the State have the right to interfere if the children aren't getting proper medical attention? Does the State have the right to interfere if the Children aren't getting a proper education? Does the State have a right to interfere if the Children object to how they are being raised? Does the State have a right to interfere if the Child wants an abortion?
For example, going to the final question first, you make it sound very normal and un-alarming that a child should be in a situation to want an abortion. A child should not even want to be pregnant. A child should not be having sex. Forgive me if I am misunderstanding you, but I get the idea that you see things that are increasingly common moral distortions as being a thing of normalcy.
So let me be frank and say, if one of my daughters were immoral and promiscuous, and this led to a pregnancy, I would not offer the child a choice. I would not approve of an abortion, and I would have the girl to go through the pregnancy. I and the girl’s mother would endure the shame — yes SHAME — of having allowed the girl to develop a relationship unsupervised in which her sexual appetites and temptations were unnecessarily stirred. We believe that it is murder to abort the unborn, and more egregious when carried out to hide the sin or escape the shame of the sin.
You asked about education. We homeschool. Many, many in the education field in states where we have resided would certainly say that our children “aren’t getting a proper education.” They would say this because they don’t agree with our world view and belief system. some would say this because they believe that the state somehow knows best for everyone’s children, when that is not the case. Many would say we are depriving our children, because they know that so much tax money per head in the school district is at stake. Sorry, the state desn’t know best.
“If the children object to how they are being raised?” The question seems to be based on some premise that children have adult wisdom from kindergarten and are supposed to know enough to know what they they should object to. God didn’t give my children to the state, and if the state were to remove the children, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE CHILDREN OBJECT TO THE STATE’S POLICIES FOR RAISING THEM??!!Would the state care? No! Would the state ask the children how they want to be raised? Of course not.
There are already laws on the books against incest. There are already laws on the books against rape. Rape is rape regardless of the perpetrator. No sane man believes that a father forcing a daughter is somehow not rape. It is rape and the father should be punished to the full extent of the law.
Feeding and medicating can be touchy. In 1984, while having our daughter treated at a university hospital in Florida, state workers kept pestering us to accept all kinds of government services for all of our children. When we wouldn’t cooperate, they began accusing us of being terrible parents and depriving our children of this and that and the other. State paid people are trained to think this way. I know this first hand from having worked for a “human development” corporation (1980) that got all of its funding from the federal government. All of us on staff were told that we had to be promoters of every program and we had to try to convince citizens who were minding their own business that they NEEDED the government-funded service. In other words, we were told that we had to try to make government dependents out of people who had been living self-sufficient lives up to that time.
I don’t mean any ill-will toward you, but your questions seem to be telling me that you actually trust the state in these things. Sorry, but a very long time ago I quit trusting what the government and the government-funded educational apparatus has to say about what families and children need.
Well not exactly. I asked for a scriptural reference in the Old Testament that specifically mentioned the Trinity. You failed to provide any reference at all.
Then you directly contradicted yourself and went to a source outside of the Bible, the Nicea council, for a reference and condemned other faiths at the same time for doing exactly what you did.
And to top it all off you provided several scriptural references proving that God and Christ are not the same Being.
I will go through your last reference line by line.
John 1:1-18
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Let me rephrase this clearly without allusions. In the beginning was Christ and Christ was with God the Father and Christ was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
John just repeating himself to emphasize that they are separate. Christ was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
Through Christ, God created the Universe.
4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
Again God the Father created life through Christ. Christ is the God of this creation.
5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend F1 it.
Light is Truth.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
Again, another being from God the father.
7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe.
John the Baptist is a witness, because he was with God the Father and he can testify that Christ was there too.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
Clearly separate entities. Couldn't be any plainer.
9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
Reference to Christ. The son of God and creator of this world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
Reference to Christ again. With emphasis on the fact that the world was made by God through Christ. Clearly two separate entities again.
11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.
Christ came to his people, who rejected him.
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
The people that didn't reject him became Children of god.
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
The people became children of God by Gods will.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
Christ, the Son of God the Father, became a man, full of glory, grace and truth.
15 John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’ “
John testifying to the divinity of Christ.
16 And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace.
We are blessed to be in his presence.
17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
The atonement.
18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
This last scripture couldn't be any clearer. No man has seen God the Father, period, Christ certainly can't be God the Father. Christ is his emissary, his representative. Just as John testified for Christ, Christ testified of God the father. Are the scriptures so hard for you to understand?
The Scriptures couldn't be any plainer. Christ is the Son of God. He isn't God the Father. Why is that such a hard concept for you to understand, especially when you profess to believe just the Bible?
The State has also intruded into the family. The reason I asked the questions was to try and determine where you felt the line should be drawn. Most people would think that the State has the right to intrude in cases of neglect and abuse. The question though is who determines what neglect and abuse is? A case could be made that you neglected and abused your kids by home schooling them. I don’t necessarily agree with that, but the power of the State just keeps increasing and it never gives up any power that it takes.
I am guessing that you are fine with laws against drugs, laws forcing you to wear seat belts, laws allowing wide discretion for wire taps in the war against terror, laws forbidding you to take a gun on a plane, RICO statutes, etc.
The problem is that many seemingly fine laws turn around and bite the honorable and good people.
You said — “Well not exactly. I asked for a scriptural reference in the Old Testament that specifically mentioned the Trinity. You failed to provide any reference at all.
Then you directly contradicted yourself and went to a source outside of the Bible, the Nicea council, for a reference and condemned other faiths at the same time for doing exactly what you did.
And to top it all off you provided several scriptural references proving that God and Christ are not the same Being.”
—
At this point, we have clearly centered on Christianity as the teaching under discussion (as opposed to Islam and Judaism). And we have now clearly centered on the one central aspect of Christianity, which has been identified by Christians from the beginning of Christianity, to the present day (a span of almost 2,000 years) as *the central doctrine* of Christianity.
[ One interesting side note, of the comparison of Christianity, Judaism and Islam is that they are labeled as the three main “monotheistic” religions of the world. I only mention that for a point in the consideration of the doctrine of the Trinity, in Christianity (it being one of those “monotheistic” religions). ]
In fact, what we see — is this doctrine, of the Trinity (which describes and explains who the Jesus of the Bible is) — is the *primary attack* by non-Christian cult groups (and their teachings) — against Christianity and its teachings and doctrines.
Now, we see that once a group and its teachings depart from this primary and foremost doctrine of Christian teaching — then it departs from all sorts of other Christian teaching, also. In fact, when the Bible warns about “false teachers”, it says that you can recognize them by “their fruits”. That means you can see the *results* of their teachings — and these actual results (of further teachings gone awry) will be the warning that whatever this group is promoting is not from the Bible.
The doctrine of the Trinity is one of the main and core tenets of Christian teaching from the beginning of Christianity. When a group removes this from its teachings, you can see that kind of result from the “other teachings” of that group — which go *way far afield*.
Here is a quote from that source I gave you in the last post (Probe Ministries)...
What is a cult? The greatest authority on the cults, the late Dr. Walter Martin, described a cult as “A group of people gathered around a specific person’s misinterpretation of the Bible.”{2} Cults are groups that claim to be in harmony with Christianity but deny foundational Christian doctrines such as the Trinity or the unique deity of Jesus Christ.
In Matthew 7:15-17, Jesus gives us a warning about the coming of the cults. He states, “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them.” What Jesus was warning was that cultists will look, act, and sound like Christians. However, that is only in external appearance. One can parade as a true believer for a time, but eventually one’s words, actions, and especially one’s beliefs—their “fruit”—will give one away as a counterfeit.
The growth of the cults can be attributed to several factors. First, it is a fulfillment of the warning given by Jesus and the apostles. In Matthew 24:23-26, Jesus warns us that as His return draws near, there will be an increase in false prophets who will ensnare many in their false teachings. In 2 Peter 2:1-3, Peter warns us that false teachers will arise from within the church.
And so, one of the main aspects of cult teachings, in general, is the attack upon Christianity’s main tenet, the teaching of the doctrine of the Trinity, and who the Jesus of the Bible is. Just to give one example of a large and significant “non-Christian cult” who *denies* who the Jesus of the Bible is, and the main Christian doctrine of the Trinity — we can look at the teachings of Mormonism. This will give an *example* of teachings which go “far afield” of the teachings of Christianity from the Bible.
The following comes from CARM, which is Chistian Apologetics and Research Ministry [ http://www.carm.org/lds/lds_doctrines.htm ]. It is not alone, with this exposition of Mormon teachings. These are *Mormonism’s* accurate teachings. The information is freely available across the board, and is given for an example of one particular non-Christian cult which has departed from that primary and main tenet of Christianity, and who the real Jesus of the Bible is — and how *far afield* (away from Christianity) these teachings have gone, as a result.
What does Mormonism teach?
The doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) are very interesting. Most of the ‘odd’ ones are not initially taught to potential converts. But they should be. Instead, “they are revealed later as one matures and gains the ability to accept them.” The LDS Church tries to make its official doctrines appear Christian but what underlies those Christian sounding terms is far from Christian in meaning.
Following are the teachings of its officials throughout the years. Please note that these teachings are documented from Mormon writers, not anti-Mormon writers.
Finally, many Mormons respond that most of the the citations below are not from official Mormon writings, as if that disproves the doctrines they teach. If they are not official, fine. But, if not, then why have the Mormon apostles and high officials taught them, written them, and why are their books sold in Mormon bookstores? The truth is, the following is what Mormons are taught.
1. Atonement
(A) “Jesus paid for all our sins when He suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane,” (Laurel Rohlfing, “Sharing Time: The Atonement,” Friend, Mar. 1989, 39.)
(B) “We accept Christ’s atonement by repenting of our sins, being baptized, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and obeying all of the commandments,” (Gospel Principles, Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1979, pg. 68.)
2. Baptism
(A) Baptism for the dead, (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. II, p. 141.) This is a practice of baptizing each other in place of non-Mormons who are now dead. Their belief is that in the afterlife, the “newly baptized” person will be able to enter into a higher level of Mormon heaven.
3. Bible
(A) “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. . .” 8th Article of Faith of the Mormon Church.
(B) “Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.” (1 Nephi 13:28).
4. Book of Mormon
(A) The book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible, (History of the Church, 4:461.)
5. Devil, the
(A) The Devil was born as a spirit after Jesus “in the morning of pre-existence,” (Mormon Doctrine, page 192.)
(B) Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163.)
(C) A plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus offered a plan to the Father and Satan offered a plan to the father but Jesus’ plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Savior of all Mankind and to “deny men their agency and to dethrone god.” (Mormon Doctrine, page 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, page 8.)
6. God
(A) God used to be a man on another planet, Mormon Doctrine, p. 321. Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Vol 5, pp. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol 2, p. 345, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333.)
(B) “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s...” (D&C 130:22).
(C) God is in the form of a man, (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3.)
(D) “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345
(E) God the Father had a Father, (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 476; Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 19; Milton Hunter, First Council of the Seventy, Gospel through the Ages, p. 104-105.)
(F) God resides near a star called Kolob, (Pearl of Great Price, pages 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, p. 428.)
(G) God had sexual relations with Mary to make the body of Jesus, (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, p. 218, 1857; vol. 8, p. 115.) - This one is disputed among many Mormons and not always ‘officially’ taught and believed. Nevertheless, Young, the 2nd prophet of the Mormon church taught it.
(H) “Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body . . . of flesh and bones.” (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 38).
7. God, becoming a god
(A) After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pages 345-347, 354.)
(B( “Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them,” (DC 132:20).
8. God, many gods
(A) There are many gods, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163.)
(B) “And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light: and there was light (Book of Abraham 4:3)
9. God, mother goddess
(A) There is a mother god, (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443.)
(B) God is married to his goddess wife and has spirit children, (Mormon Doctrine p. 516.)
10. God, Trinity
(A) The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. “That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man.” (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35.)
11. Gospel, the
(A) The true gospel was lost from the earth. Mormonism is its restoration, (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 182-185.)
(B) Consists of laws and ordinances: “As these sins are the result of individual acts it is just that forgiveness for them should be conditioned on individual compliance with prescribed requirements — ‘obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.’” (Articles of Faith p. 79)
12. Heaven
(A) There are three levels of heaven: telestial, terrestrial, and celestial, Mormon Doctrine, p. 348.
13. Holy Ghost, the
(A) The Holy Ghost is a male personage, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, (Le Grand Richards, Salt Lake City, 1956, page 118; Journal of Discources, Vol. 5, page 179.)
14. Jesus
(A) The first spirit to be born in heaven was Jesus, (Mormon Doctrine, page 129.)
(B) Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163; Gospel Through the Ages, p. 15.)
(C) Jesus’ sacrifice was not able to cleanse us from all our sins, (murder and repeated adultery are exceptions), (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 247, 1856.)
(D) “Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body . . . of flesh and bones.” (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 38).
(E) “The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood - was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8: p. 115).
(F) “Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers” (Mormon Doctrine,” by Bruce McConkie, p. 547).
(G) “Christ Not Begotten of Holy Ghost ...Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God!” (Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith, 1954, 1:18).
(H) “Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh ...” (First Presidency and Council of the Twelve, 1916, God the Father, compiled by Gordon Allred, pg. 150).
15. Joseph Smith
(A) If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation. There is no salvation [the context is the full gospel including exaltation to Godhood] outside the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 670.)
16. Pre-existence
(A) We were first begotten as spirit children in heaven and then born naturally on earth, (Journal of Discourse, Vol. 4, p. 218.)
(B) The first spirit to be born in heaven was Jesus, (Mormon Doctrine, page 129.)
(C) The Devil was born as a spirit after Jesus “in the morning of pre-existence,” (Mormon Doctrine, page 192.)
17. Prophets
(A) We need prophets today, the same as in the Old Testament, (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 444-445.)
18. Salvation
(A) “One of the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation.” (Miracle of Forgiveness, Spencer W. Kimball, p. 206.)
(B) A plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus offered a plan to the Father and Satan offered a plan to the father but Jesus’ plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Savior of all Mankind and to “deny men their agency and to dethrone god.” (Mormon Doctrine, page 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, page 8.)
(C) Jesus’ sacrifice was not able to cleanse us from all our sins, (murder and repeated adultery are exceptions), (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 247, 1856.)
(D) Good works are necessary for salvation, Articles of Faith, p. 92.)
(E) There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, p. 188.)
(F) “The first effect [of the atonement] is to secure to all mankind alike, exemption from the penalty of the fall, thus providing a plan of General Salvation. The second effect is to open a way for Individual Salvation whereby mankind may secure remission of personal sins (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 78-79.)
(G) “As these sins are the result of individual acts it is just that forgiveness for them should be conditioned on individual compliance with prescribed requirements — ‘obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.’” (Articles of Faith p. 79).
(H) “This grace is an enabling power that allows men and women to lay hold on eternal life and exaltation after they have expended their own best efforts” (LDS Bible Dictionary, p. 697).
(I) “We know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do,” (2 Nephi 25:23).
19. Trinity, the
(A) The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. “That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man.” (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35.)
(B) “Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God [anyhow]—three in one and one in three. . .It is curious organization… All are crammed into one God according to sectarianism (Christian faith). It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster.” (Joseph Smith, Teachings, 372).
Some Mormons may disagree with a few of the points listed on this page, but all of what is stated here is from Mormon authors in good standing of the Mormon church.
[ This from CARM — http://www.carm.org/lds/lds_doctrines.htm ]
Just from this one example of a non-Christian cult teaching (Mormonism), we can see how *far afield* these teachings go away from Christianity, when one abandons the truth of the Scripture (adding one’s own books and discounting the Bible), adds one’s own “prophets” (outside of the prophets of the Bible), make many “gods” (polytheism, not monotheistic), makes Jesus to be someone different than the “Jesus of the Bible” (by denying the Trinity; making Jesus to be the spirit brother of Satan). This is an example of the “fruits” that are borne out of abandoning and denying the Trinity, abandoning and denying the One True God (making many gods, polytheism), and abandoning the true Jesus of the Bible (abandoning and denying the Trinity).
.
And then you said — “This last scripture couldn’t be any clearer. No man has seen God the Father, period, Christ certainly can’t be God the Father. Christ is his emissary, his representative. Just as John testified for Christ, Christ testified of God the father. Are the scriptures so hard for you to understand?
The Scriptures couldn’t be any plainer. Christ is the Son of God. He isn’t God the Father. Why is that such a hard concept for you to understand, especially when you profess to believe just the Bible?”
—
Well, why is it so hard to believe a “non-Christian cult teaching” — which denies the true Jesus of the Bible? Well, it might be because it has been the understanding of Christians for almost two thousand years that this is what the Bible teaches. That might be one reason.
Another reason could be because we see the results (”know them by their fruits”) of *one example* of some “non-Christian cult teachings” (i.e., Mormonism, in the example given above) which deny the Trinity and that this is who the real Jesus of the Bible is. That *definitely* could be another reason.
Another reason could be that in this example of non-Christian cult teachings (i.e., that example above of Mormonism) — that we see this results in adding a “prophet” outside of the Bible’s prophets (with no authority from God), that it ends up denying the veracity and reliability of the Word of God, the Bible (as described in previous posts), that it places other “canon” of “Scripture” above the Bible, the Word of God.
—
A side note: for the accurancy, infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture (the Bible as described in previous posts) see the clear understanding of Christians, in the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” — http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html .
And for the principles of interpretation for the Bible (listed as explanations under the “articles”), from Christians — http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago2.html .
—
So, yes, there could very well be many reasons, for not believing non-Christian cult teachings...
—
But, all this is not to *deny* anyone from following any “non-Christian cult group” if they want to. It’s a free society. This is only for pointing out the primary and main attack upon Christianity, from non-Christian cult groups, in their teachings — centers on the doctrine of the Trinity, and who the real Jesus of the Bible is.
Non-Christian cults groups are free to practice and teach whatever they want. It’s only when these groups start claiming “We are Christians!” that one must point out that they are definitely not teaching Christian doctrines.
And in what you have been presenting as a “teaching” here — is definitely *not* a Christian teaching or doctrine of the Christians, across the board, today or for the last (almost) two thousand years. When someone rejects and departs from a *main tenet* of this teaching that has been recognized as from the Bible for the *entire time* of its existence — then it’s clear that whoever is promoting this “non-Christian cult” teaching — is not trying to promote Christianity.
You may be definitely promoting some other non-Christian cult teaching — but it’s not Christian teaching that you are promoting (whatever it may be...).
Regards,
Star Traveler
I will ask you one more time. Do you have any Old Testament scripture supporting your belief in the Trinity? I am certain that you don’t. So from what I can see you don’t believe in the God of the Old Testament and you don’t believe in the God of Moses, Noah and Abraham.
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.