Ask A Mormon

[LDSYep]

" Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do." (1 Cor. 7:8) How do the Mormons explain what Paul says here?

I believe that Paul is referencing chaste and staying away from sexual activity outside of marriage. He also states that if they cannot remain as he is that they should marry rather than give in. I do not believe that Paul was a proponent of celibacy. It is probable given ECF writings that Paul married at some point.

 

[kimg901]

Love and family being the center of the Gospel and existence is unchangeable.

Really? I would have thought that God/Christ would be the center of the Gospels
The problem with non-LDS perception is that LDS will cling to the speculation and opinion of leaders unless that speculation and opinion is contradicted by prophets and leaders. That we will hold to this speculation and opinion as authoritative does not make it doctrine. We follow our prophet.

You follow your prophet huh? So is what they say true? What about all the prophets that have passed? Do you believe in what they said and did?

I have never heard it stated, as unequivocally as was presented earlier here, that Christ was married. I believe that He was, but I was never sure. It would fit our doctrines that he was. I appreciate the quotes provided. I do not know whether He had children or not, but I don’t have issue with that concept either.

Wouldnt Jesus being married and having kids just limit Him in His Works? And with that He wouldnt baptize His infant children.
Whatever God states is what God states. My beliefs don’t limit His ability to do anything.

But your beliefs do. If you can follow a man made religion and preach another gospel (which Scripture forbids us to do) and think God was a sinful man walking the earth (which by the way there is no evidence in the Bible for this) and He letting His Son start a church then turn His back on it, you are certainly limiting His ability.

 

[LDSYep]

Let me jump in here since I am the one that provided the dictionary lesson.

In that post, I asked you for sources/references for your understanding that children under 8 were not baptized when the Bible says “whole” households.

Please provide the reference that I requested.

I have neither been rude, or ridiculed you, so I would appreciate your answer, OK?

You are asking me to prove the negative. Proof is required of the positive. What evidence is there of infant baptism?

Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:13-14).

Were these little children baptized at the time?

I did pull this quote from Wikipedia, but the source is credible.

“Whether the requirement of faith therefore excludes infants from the Christian sacrament is much debated; there is no explicit evidence either way in the NT” (Oxford Dictionary of the Bible (Oxford University Press 1996, 2004 ISBN 0-19-860890-X), art. “baptism”).

 

[LDSYep]

…

LDSYep : Love and family being the center of the Gospel and existence is unchangeable.

Kimg : Really? I would have thought that God/Christ would be the center of the Gospels

LDSYep : What are the two great commandments? God states He is our Eternal Heavenly Father. Christ states He is our brother. Sounds pretty central to me.

 

[kimg901]

LDSYep : Love and family being the center of the Gospel and existence is unchangeable.

Kimg : Really? I would have thought that God/Christ would be the center of the Gospels

LDSYep : What are the two great commandments? God states He is our Eternal Heavenly Father. Christ states He is our brother. Sounds pretty central to me.

Your really going to ask me what the 2 greatest commandments are? LOL. Well you will get credit for at least loving thy neighbor but you fail (along with your church) when it comes to having 1 God. The greatest of all commandments and the lds church missed it huh? I guess when God & Jesus were restoring their Church they forgot to add “Thou shall have many gods before me”. And you can sit there and truthfully call yourself a christian and not follow the 1st commandment? May the Lord have mercy on all your souls.

 

[kimg901]

You are asking me to prove the negative. Proof is required of the positive. What evidence is there of infant baptism?

Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:13-14).

Were these little children baptized at the time?

I did pull this quote from Wikipedia, but the source is credible.

“Whether the requirement of faith therefore excludes infants from the Christian sacrament is much debated; there is no explicit evidence either way in the NT” (Oxford Dictionary of the Bible (Oxford University Press 1996, 2004 ISBN 0-19-860890-X), art. “baptism”).

But how do you argue against Scripture when it says Whole households were baptized"

 

[Stephen168]

I believe that Paul is referencing chaste and staying away from sexual activity outside of marriage. He also states that if they cannot remain as he is that they should marry rather than give in. I do not believe that Paul was a proponent of celibacy. It is probable given ECF writings that Paul married at some point.

Christ and The Twelve apostles were not married. Paul was not one of the twelve but he was not married either and Paul clearly says it is best to not marry. The Catholic clergy continues in the example set by these men. And the Mormon Church claiming marriage is a requirement for salvation is not a Christian teaching.

 

[Stephen168]

You are asking me to prove the negative. Proof is required of the positive. What evidence is there of infant baptism?

Infant baptism is the teaching of Christ and the Apostles. It is historical, biblical and reasonable. See post 451 for why Mormon teaching on baptism is NOT historical, biblical, or reasonable.

 

[Stephen168]

LDSYep : Love and family being the center of the Gospel and existence is unchangeable.

Kimg : Really? I would have thought that God/Christ would be the center of the Gospels

LDSYep : What are the two great commandments? God states He is our Eternal Heavenly Father. Christ states He is our brother. Sounds pretty central to me.

The Mormon gospel is very changeable. See posts 218,220,221, and 240.

 

[Stephen168]

But how do you argue against Scripture when it says Whole households were baptized"

As it has been said before, Mormons must not consider children as part of their household. That would explain a Mormon thinking he is being required to prove a negative.

 

[twopekinguys]

You are asking me to prove the negative. Proof is required of the positive. What evidence is there of infant baptism?

Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:13-14).

Were these little children baptized at the time?

I did pull this quote from Wikipedia, but the source is credible.

“Whether the requirement of faith therefore excludes infants from the Christian sacrament is much debated; there is no explicit evidence either way in the NT” (Oxford Dictionary of the Bible (Oxford University Press 1996, 2004 ISBN 0-19-860890-X), art. “baptism”).

You are the one who made the statement, it is up to you to prove it. Whether it is proving the negative or not.

Don’t make assertions that cannot be backed up. It is really quite simple.

Try this little scripture on for size. John 21:25
*
“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.”*

Couple that with “Whole” households, and the argument for baptisms under age 8 is overwhelming.

You on the other hand have made an assertion you can’t back up. Tisk, Tisk.

Good try though.

ETA: Now I suppose you’re going to start telling me the things that weren’t written down.

 

[kimg901]

As it has been said before, Mormons must not consider children as part of their household. That would explain a Mormon thinking he is being required to prove a negative.

Its funny yet sad that the lds pick and choose what Scripture passages they are going to use then twist them to fit their needs

 

[7armyrugrats]

Christ and The Twelve apostles were not married. Paul was not one of the twelve but he was not married either and Paul clearly says it is best to not marry. The Catholic clergy continues in the example set by these men. And the Mormon Church claiming marriage is a requirement for salvation is not a Christian teaching.

St. Peter WAS married. Jesus even cared for Peter’s mother in law. As for the rest of the Apostles I am unsure. I know Paul and John were single and remained single. And, yes, Jesus was never married.

Since there is no mention of Peter’s wife that I can recall, I always assumed he was widowed before Jesus called him, but he did visit his mother in law. And Jesus cured her at one point as well.

 

[kimg901]

Okay LDSyep, since the thread is “Ask a Mormon” I have some questions for you.
And before you can say “Unless its been interpreted correctly” I must say that we here on the forums have seen numerous times lds posters posting Scripture thats the same as our Catholic Bibles. So here goes.
1st: Where in the Bible does it state that man will become gods?
2nd: Where in the Bible does it state that Jesus and satan are brothers?
3rd: Where in the Bible does it state that having more than 1 wife is acceptable?
4th: Where in the Bible does it say God cursed dark-skinned people?
5th Does the Bible not say we should not trust in another gospel?
6th: Why do you and other mormons trust joe smiths book more than the Bible?
7th: How does an apostacy occur when the lds still believe John walks the earth and the lds state that it occured when the last Apostle died?
8th: How do you follow a mans religion when Christ said He will never leave His Church? (7 & 8 can be put together)
9th: How can you say men & woman will be married in heaven(s?) when Scripture plainly tells us that not true?
10th: How can the lds say they follow Christ but yet He said the 2 greatest commandments are “Thou shall not have any other god(s) before me & love thy neighbor” but yet the lds believe joe smith and others are gods in heaven? And for loving thy neighbor, if you trully did, you wouldnt preach false doctrine to thy neighbor but embrace Christ True Church. And by doing these things you deny the Holy Spirit who guided the Apostles in their writings and teachings as well as the authors of the Bible. So by having the KJB, Mormon edition or any other bible that Scripture has been changed you are denying God, Christ & the Holy Spirit.

 

[kimg901]

St. Peter WAS married. Jesus even cared for Peter’s mother in law. As for the rest of the Apostles I am unsure. I know Paul and John were single and remained single. And, yes, Jesus was never married.

Since there is no mention of Peter’s wife that I can recall, I always assumed he was widowed before Jesus called him, but he did visit his mother in law. And Jesus cured her at one point as well.

Touche That is sooo true huh? I forgot that passage in Scripture.

 

[zaffiroborant]

LDSYep : Love and family being the center of the Gospel and existence is unchangeable.
Kimg:

Really? I would have thought that God/Christ would be the center of the Gospels

LDSYep:

What are the two great commandments? God states He is our Eternal Heavenly Father. Christ states He is our brother. Sounds pretty central to me.

Really you’re going to go with that as the two great commandments?

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Neighbor is in there in the top two commandments odd that family isn’t mentioned.

It always surprises me when LDS push aside Christ. Apparently He is peripheral to the “gospel” and just an aside in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.

 

[debbie_h]

LDS believe that murder cannot be forgiven. D&C 42:18

eom.byu.edu/index.php/Murder
**Murder violates the sanctity of life and cuts off the ability of its victims to “work out their destiny” (Benson, p. 355). Moreover, because “man cannot restore life,” and restoration or restitution is a necessary step for repentance, obtaining forgiveness for murder is impossible (Kimball, 1969, p. 129; D&C 42:18-19). **

In that case then, this creates a paradox. abortion is murder/killing of an unborn child. The LDS church teaches that abortion is permissible under certain circumstances…

 

[TexanKnight]

LDSYep : Love and family being the center of the Gospel and existence is unchangeable.

Kimg : Really? I would have thought that God/Christ would be the center of the Gospels

LDSYep : What are the two great commandments? God states He is our Eternal Heavenly Father. Christ states He is our brother. Sounds pretty central to me.

I think it is an LDS symptom…make claims about BoM cities they can’t support…make claims about prophets they can;t support

just as this person has made claims about me that, when I have asked for evidence…he can’t support.

The fact is, if you stump him and prove him wrong, he calls you discourteous. And once he knows you will stump him, he ignores you.

How so very sad.

 

[Porknpie]

You are asking me to prove the negative. Proof is required of the positive. What evidence is there of infant baptism?

Reason: If I go to a Mormon house…a house where there is a family…and the mother has a baby…is the baby not a member of the household? If not, what do you call it for there must be a name for this condition where the baby is not a member of the household.

Continued…the OT convenantal sign was circumcision at day 8 of life…this prefigures the new convenantal sign in the NT of baptism. Jewish converts to Christianity readily understood this and the debate on baptism was whether to perform baptism on the day of birth or on day eight of life. There was no debate on waiting until the age of reason.

Continued…we can read the writings of the Church to understand how the bible should be interpreted on infant baptism. Here’s a link. to read what they said. Conversely, do you have evidence from early church writings that the Church believed that baptism should be delayed to the age of reason. It does not exist…if it did…that would have been quite a debate at an early Church council…

I did pull this quote from Wikipedia, but the source is credible.

“Whether the requirement of faith therefore excludes infants from the Christian sacrament is much debated; there is no explicit evidence either way in the NT” (Oxford Dictionary of the Bible (Oxford University Press 1996, 2004 ISBN 0-19-860890-X), art. “baptism”).

Seriously, you quote a publishing house as to what is credible?? I don’t think I have seen that one used before…

 

[TexanKnight]

Reason: If I go to a Mormon house…a house where there is a family…and the mother has a baby…is the baby not a member of the household? If not, what do you call it for there must be a name for this condition where the baby is not a member of the household.

Continued…the OT convenantal sign was circumcision at day 8 of life…this prefigures the new convenantal sign in the NT of baptism. Jewish converts to Christianity readily understood this and the debate on baptism was whether to perform baptism on the day of birth or on day eight of life. There was no debate on waiting until the age of reason.

Continued…we can read the writings of the Church to understand how the bible should be interpreted on infant baptism. Here’s a link. to read what they said. Conversely, do you have evidence from early church writings that the Church believed that baptism should be delayed to the age of reason. It does not exist…if it did…that would have been quite a debate at an early Church council…

Seriously, you quote a publishing house as to what is credible?? I don’t think I have seen that one used before…

only Mormons who need to prove a point would argue that whole households do not include children