because no one can disprove the existence of God. To believe He does not exist in spite of the evidence requires deep faith. For the atheist sect, man's own severely limited wisdom is their "god."

Why do atheists proselytize? Why do they try to convert others to their faith? For many of the same reasons every other faith proselytizes. Community, self-affirmation, even power are among the reasons. Atheists want people to believe like they do so that they can live in a society where man's own limited reason is their god, where government and policy is inspired by their god, where social norms are swayed by their god.

This is a glimpse of one section of the real War. Throughout the history of mankind battles for physical power  have come and gone, but the larger war for the hearts and minds of God's children has continued unabated. The most important battle is not over whether we live or die, but over who and what we will believe in. You cannot help but serve truth or error.
Add Comment
 
 
What I do is a choice, even if I was "born that way." I have many natural tendencies that have been a struggle for me to overcome--in some cases a lifelong struggle.

If we were not born with tendencies toward improper behavior, we'd be perfect right from the womb! Part of the purpose of life is to learn self-mastery, and that includes changing our behavior, our character, our personality, our desires, our very self-definition. We must become new creatures, pushing away our natural selves in favor of becoming like Christ. No matter how impossible the road may seem, with God it can be done.
Add Comment
 
 
Can it be proven? Only if you accept spiritual proof. But contrary to popular opinion, spiritual evidence is the best kind.

Case studies can be biased, social theories can miss critical variables, psychology models can explain a relatively small portion of real-world variance, logical conclusions can be tainted by limited knowledge of facts, mathematical models can be unknowingly incorrectly mapped to real-world phenomena, neuroscience studies can misinterpret signals.

If you rely exclusively on worldly methods of gaining knowledge, there is no way to be 100% sure of anything until you know everything there is to know. It is impossible to identify all the effects of what you haven't yet conceived, and you can never know just how much you haven't yet figured out. Thus, unless you are deceiving yourself you can never rule out your own ignorance as the chief explanation of your findings.

The divine way of attaining knowledge follows a different pattern. God himself tells you what is true in your mind and heart. You then choose to follow his counsel, and the promised outcomes result. Faith acted upon brings the promised blessings, providing supportive evidence of truth little by little with each step. A big difference for this path of gaining knowledge as compared to relying on our own understanding is that God does know everything, so by following His counsel we can avoid the major pitfalls that our own ignorance or self-deception would lead us to.
Add Comment
 
 
Baptism is held in various levels of regard. Some consider it irrelevant, while some consider it just a nice thing to do if you feel like it. Still others consider it a sacred covenant with God, critical for those who wish to live with Him in heaven.

Christ told his apostles to preach the gospel to all the world. and those that "believe and are baptized shall be saved, and those that believe not shall be damned." Elsewhere he said that unless a person is "born of water" he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Some feel this may refer to natural birth. To resolve this argument, God has reaffirmed in our times His commandment to be baptized.

Baptism is not meant to be just a technicality, but a life-changing event. The highest levels of heaven are filled with those who have given their lives to Christ, and who seek every moment to live as He lives, to love as He loves, to be as He is. A baptism asserting one's allegiance to and desires to follow Christ is then not a technicality, but rather an essential beginning step on that path.
Add Comment
 
 
_If gay marriage is sponsored by a government, how could that government deny gay marriage adoptions, or not allow public schools to teach that gay behavior is acceptable, or treat gay behavior as any different than heterosexual behavior in any other public activities?  
 
The people of each country have the responsibiity to choose what morals they wish to sponsor. The sponsorship and enforcement of those morals affects everyone, even if they aren't married to you.
Add Comment
 
 
Is polygamy wrong? I and most every Christian would answer emphatically yes. But there are many Biblical prophets who practiced polygamy (e.g., Abraham was a polygamist, and the entire nation of Israel began with one man who had four wives). These prophets had the Gospel and continual revelation from God; it is difficult to believe that God would not share with such meek and humble servants that polygamy is wrong. And it is difficult to believe that these servants would willfully rebel against such knowledge if they did have it (Abraham was willing to kill his own son at the Lord's command, then why not monogamy?).

I have met many people who believe that polygamy will be common in the next life. But in my view there is a mathematical problem: For every man in heaven, there would have to be at least 2 women. While it is easy for me to accept that more women will make it to heaven than men (

A particular scripture has helped me understand this conflict just a little more, though there are still many questions.

"Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;..."

"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." (Jacob 2:27,30)

In my view, this scripture seems to imply that polygamy is wrong unless specifically commanded (required!) by the Lord, when He wishes to "raise up seed unto [Him]."
Add Comment
 
 
Politics and religion cannot be fully separated. Many proposed laws and policies have religious implications. Laws respecting economic and social issues have direct impact on religion, and religious beliefs do have and should continue to have considerable impact on policies.

If a candidate is running for political office, should his religion of choice matter? Most certainly, for a man or woman's religious beliefs will influence the decisions they make. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that religion has nothing to say about policy issues such as how to help the poor and whether abortion should be legal, or that these beliefs will somehow be set aside for all decisions of national concern.

The Lord instructs us to seek out "honest and wise men" for our leaders. A man or woman's religion, and more especially the extent to which he or she lives that religion are thus very important factors to consider.
Add Comment
 
 
Capitalism is based on freedom of choice. This is in stark contrast to other forms of government where decisions on how much to charge, how much to build, how much to consume, and so forth are all made by a government. The freedom to choose for oneself is an important gospel principle. We must choose for ourselves to do what is right; if others force us to choose to be good, our own character doesn't change. Our behavior is driven by fear rather than faith.

But capitalism is not without its flaws. One of those flaws many have pointed to is an inherent inability to control immorality. Raw capitalism has built-in incentives to lie, cheat, and take advantage of others, because such acts can increase power and monetary gain. Government regulations such as required audits and standard product testing are an attempt to correct these problems and force a level of morality. But the system still isn't perfect. Greed and lust for power still find holes in and side paths around regulations.

How do we increase morality in a capitalist society? Some have suggested turning to socialism, but history is replete with examples of the corruption, greed, and apathy that result from trying to force all economic decisions and redistribution of wealth. Others insist that expanding regulation is the answer, but decades of increasing regulations has likewise failed to enforce moral conduct. A third suggestion is a stronger focus on "ethics" in schools, but that has likewise failed. Educating students on what is moral without reference to God is like trying to build a house without a foundation--it is destined to fall during the first challenging wind.

Morals are not a scientific or academic exercise. There isn't a universal mathematical formula that explains why we should not overcharge, misinform, or lie to others for personal gain. On the contrary, such acts can often increase wealth and worldly power.

Faith in God has always been and still is the only viable answer. When individuals choose to believe in God and accept his teachings, they place a higher value on those they associate with. Caring about others becomes more important than the bottom line. Building lasting relationships enjoys a higher priority than worldly ambition.

We cannot force anyone to believe in God. But we can choose to include God in our public square, rather than sponsoring atheism to the exclusion of all other religions. We can speak about God and His will often in public venues and in public addresses, rather than acting as though He doesn't exist. We can encourage faith-based behavior in schools rather than insisting that secularism is the sole source of knowledge. We can pray more often as a nation imploring God for help.
Add Comment
 
 
Words are symbols of concepts rather than concepts themselves. Words only help to communicate a concept, and they sometimes fail in this task. Asking if a Mormon is a Christian or non-Christian is like asking if a tomato is a fruit or vegetable: it depends on which definition is being used.

The definitions of "Christian" are many and varied. Those who claim Mormons are not Christians are often correct, as long as their definition is the standard by which Christianity is measured. These arguments tend to latch on to Mormon beliefs that differ from most other large sects that consider themselves Christian. Specifically, they cite Mormon doctrines of baptism for the dead, temple ordinances, man's potential to become a God, the idea that Jesus is the spiritual brother of all, including Satan, alternatives to the Trinity doctrine, and others. If being a Christian requires a rejection of these beliefs, it is accurate to claim Mormons are not Christians.

Mormon apologists claim to be Christians based on alternative definitions. They tend to claim that being a Christian simply means that one believes in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Savior, the only way to salvation and eternal life, and tries to the best of his or her ability to follow His teachings. If this is the definition by which one is judged as Christian or not, it is accurate to claim that to the extent they live up to these claims, Mormons are Christians.

If this is all relative, is there an absolutely correct definition? Perhaps not, but only one definition really matters in the long run, and that is the definition God Himself lives by. Rather than asking a religious scholar, a written creed, an online news story, or an opinion poll, the One to ask is Him! If He says Mormons are or are not Christian, what greater evidence can there be?
Add Comment
 
 
Note: Apostasy = loss of Priesthood authority given by Christ & perversion of doctrine and ordinances as taught by Christ.

1)      Scriptures that reference church members practicing willful disobedience: (Galatians 3:1; Titus 1:16; 2 Peter 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:15; James 2:6) especially immorality: (1 Corinthians 5:1; 2 Corinthians 12:21; James 4:4; 2 Peter 2:14; Jude 1:4,8, 17-19, Revelation 2:14)

2)      Scriptures that reference an apostasy in progress: (Revelation 2:5—"candlestick" means church, ref: Rev 1:20;  2 Timothy 1:15; Acts 20:29)

3)      The Bible ended. Has the church continued, revelation would have continued. To suggest that we do not need more revelation beyond the Bible is to deny reality. Never in the history of mankind has a voice from heaven been more needed than it is needed today.

4)      The apostles died, and there is no evidence that new Apostles beyond Matthias were called. It isn’t certain how or exactly when each one died, though with the exception of John, all were gone by 100 A.D.

Fox’s Book of Martyrs researched their deaths, and recorded the most likely alternative. Some are more certain than others:

a.       Peter, Philip, Andrew, Jude, Bartholomew, and Simon were crucified
b.      James was beheaded
c.       Matthew was slain by a spear and a battle axe
d.      The other James was beaten and stoned to death
e.      Thomas was killed with a spear
f.        Judas committed suicide
g.       Fox notes that John the Beloved was “the only apostle who escaped a violent death”

5)      Not only were new apostles not called, but there is no historical evidence that they somehow passed their authority to others. In A.D. 258, Cyprian (the bishop of a place called Carthage) called a council of 87 bishops. Together they wrote that there was no central leadership in place (no “pope”):
“For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel  his colleague to the necessity of obedience, since every bishop according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.”

6)      The bishop of Rome finally achieved dominance around A.D. 860 by declaring himself as such. Documents were also forged at the time to make it seem as though earlier Christians had also held this view. It wasn’t until 1440 that the fraudulent documents were exposed by Lorenzo Vallo.

7)      The leaders of the church ended up among the most wicked in the world, with contemporaries testifying of their love of pornography, prostitution, orgies, sanctioned torture, love of blood, blackmail and extortion, assassinations, drunkenness, selling permission to commit sins, and so on. John Huss is quoted to have said: “And these very ones who ought to be leaders in imitating Christ are his chief enemies.”

While there is precedent to say that God calls men in weakness to be his leaders on earth, there is not precedent or reasonable scriptural justification for claiming that God would continually call men in total unrepentant wickedness to be his leaders on earth.

8)      Other scriptures testified that the apostasy would occur: (Amos 8:11-12; 2 Thessalonians 2:2-3; Revelation 13:7)

9)   Most importantly, the Spirit testifies of the truthfulness of the Restoration. But that isn’t evidence you can cite, you have to experience it to be convinced of its worth.
Add Comment