Mormon church to build 5 new temples worldwide - AP

I never get the Mormons. Wonderful people, but beliefs are bizzare

Never found evidence that was true.

discocrisco wrote:

I never get the Mormons. Wonderful people, but beliefs are bizzare
Never found evidence that was true.

Judging from your words, you seem to be an open-minded person. What about our beliefs do you find bizzare? Im asking because maybe we can explain them in a way that gives better understanding.

lol.....sorry for the double post, it was completely accidental.

Come to Utah for really bizarre beliefs.

You'll be booking the first flight back to John Wayne.

not ashamed wrote:

<quoted text>Judging from your words, you seem to be an open-minded person. What about our beliefs do you find bizzare? Im asking because maybe we can explain them in a way that gives better understanding.

why do we need secret handshakes (proxy) to go to heaven. And what do you believe those origins those proxy proceedings come from. If the savior(which I know He is) died for our sins on the cross, while all the "stuff" in the temples for?

go live wrote:

<quoted text>
why do we need secret handshakes (proxy) to go to heaven. And what do you believe those origins those proxy proceedings come from. If the savior(which I know He is) died for our sins on the cross, while all the "stuff" in the temples for?

Let's take your argument to its logical conclusion, shall we? So, why do we need a ridiculous dunking to go to Heaven? And if the Saviour died for our sins on the cross, why do we need to take any notice at all of what He told us to do?

IOW, why be anything other than antinomian solafidianist Protestants?

Now, maybe that's exactly what you are, and so you accept that logic. But Jesus did in fact say that baptism is necessary for salvation (John 3:5). Most of his recorded words are exhorting people to *do* stuff. Does a tortured reading of Romans and Galatians really let all ostensible Christians off the hook, or is it just possible that that falls under Peter's dictum about "wresting...[the] scriptures to their own destruction"?

Regards,
Pahoran

Pahoran wrote:

<quoted text>
Let's take your argument to its logical conclusion, shall we? So, why do we need a ridiculous dunking to go to Heaven? And if the Saviour died for our sins on the cross, why do we need to take any notice at all of what He told us to do?
IOW, why be anything other than antinomian solafidianist Protestants?
Now, maybe that's exactly what you are, and so you accept that logic. But Jesus did in fact say that baptism is necessary for salvation (John 3:5). Most of his recorded words are exhorting people to *do* stuff. Does a tortured reading of Romans and Galatians really let all ostensible Christians off the hook, or is it just possible that that falls under Peter's dictum about "wresting...[the] scriptures to their own destruction"?
Regards,
Pahoran

You have jumped hastly to an assumption that is found to be ill-founded. I have said no such thing about baptism "only" the need and requirments to partcipate in secret handshakes. I do believe in baptism, just not secret handshakes and secret names. Next time, try not to ssume that since I speak of one part of hwat memebers do in these building that I'm disagreeing or scrutizing it in it's entirety.

go live wrote:

<quoted text>
why do we need secret handshakes (proxy) to go to heaven. And what do you believe those origins those proxy proceedings come from. If the savior(which I know He is) died for our sins on the cross, while all the "stuff" in the temples for?

Because it completely Biblical....check out my blog that shows historical Christians art, and hand and wrist clasps and talks about the 40 day ministry and what the Savior taught the Apostles during that time and especially check out the Article on the 'Catholic Liturgy and the Mormon Temple,'and check out the other blog pages and read the articles, links given....that's if you are asking serious questions or not just jerking our chain.
http://ancient-wisdom-lds-temple.blogspot.com...

Spare me.

Look at me. I've got my own blog! All about Christ! Look at me. I'm so self-righteous.

I'm sure to win brownie points and enter the CK now!

go live wrote:

<quoted text>
You have jumped hastly to an assumption that is found to be ill-founded. I have said no such thing about baptism "only" the need and requirments to partcipate in secret handshakes. I do believe in baptism, just not secret handshakes and secret names. Next time, try not to ssume that since I speak of one part of hwat memebers do in these building that I'm disagreeing or scrutizing it in it's entirety.

Ah, so when you sneered about the "stuff" you were just stone-throwing. The fact is that you do accept that the Atonement of Christ doesn't preclude us doing some "stuff," just not our "stuff."

Thus, the argument from the sufficiency of the Atonement is not adequate to preclude our "stuff."

So, by what logic do you differentiate between them?

Regards,
Pahoran

Pahoran wrote:

<quoted text>
Ah, so when you sneered about the "stuff" you were just stone-throwing. The fact is that you do accept that the Atonement of Christ doesn't preclude us doing some "stuff," just not our "stuff."
Thus, the argument from the sufficiency of the Atonement is not adequate to preclude our "stuff."
So, by what logic do you differentiate between them?
Regards,
Pahoran

By "stuff", do you mean 'works'?

"What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?
Can that faith save him?

If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?

So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.
You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble.
Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?
For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead."
James 2:14-20,26

Hannah Rebekah wrote:

<quoted text>
Because it completely Biblical....check out my blog that shows historical Christians art, and hand and wrist clasps and talks about the 40 day ministry and what the Savior taught the Apostles during that time and especially check out the Article on the 'Catholic Liturgy and the Mormon Temple,'and check out the other blog pages and read the articles, links given....that's if you are asking serious questions or not just jerking our chain.
http://ancient-wisdom-lds-temple.blogspot.com...

Sheesh! You had to bring up Catholic and here I was hoping the LDS would take some Topix heat off us for awhile. LOL

Nice web site you've developed.
Being a student of theology and history, there are some fine points brought out in the article.
As a Catholic, I've noted more familial co-operation recently between our groups. That's good. Reading on the 'Catholic Liturgy and the Mormon Temple' article, it's good to know that ecumenism may be easier reached than some may think.
Peace and blessings of Christ to you.

Kump wrote:

Spare me.
Look at me. I've got my own blog! All about Christ! Look at me. I'm so self-righteous.
I'm sure to win brownie points and enter the CK now!

Somebody sounds green with envy.......

Hannah Rebekah wrote:

<quoted text>
Because it completely Biblical....check out my blog that shows historical Christians art, and hand and wrist clasps and talks about the 40 day ministry and what the Savior taught the Apostles during that time and especially check out the Article on the 'Catholic Liturgy and the Mormon Temple,'and check out the other blog pages and read the articles, links given....that's if you are asking serious questions or not just jerking our chain.
http://ancient-wisdom-lds-temple.blogspot.com...

So is this the same Catholic church that God and Jesus Christ told JS not to join? If he was told not to join those churches because of their teachings, then why would They be in acceptance of such temples and what goes on in them. Also, if Jesus Christ atonement was to be an end to the the old law, then why are temples and the things that go on in them still needed. Just a question that I want to know?

Pahoran wrote:

<quoted text>
Ah, so when you sneered about the "stuff" you were just stone-throwing. The fact is that you do accept that the Atonement of Christ doesn't preclude us doing some "stuff," just not our "stuff."
Thus, the argument from the sufficiency of the Atonement is not adequate to preclude our "stuff."
So, by what logic do you differentiate between them?
Regards,
Pahoran

I wasn't using the word "stuff" to mean something petty that Mormons do in these buildings. If it makes you feel better I will say "the things you all do that are sacred" I just didn't feel like typing that. Anyway, trying focusing on what I'm truly saying, instead of nit-picking on my choice of words. It appears that your just running around the issue by using double-talk, while not really engaging in the issue at hand.