BTowns : "What does it take to be "saved" and go to "heaven?" And are you saying all Mormons go to "hell" because they believe in God and Jesus differently than you do?"

It's not a matter of believing in something different or not. You need to understand that theology is a web that connects everything together. When it comes to talking about primary issues in Christianity, if one of the essential doctrines is not true, then the rest will crumble. If one does not understand the attributes of God, their view of His actions would crumble; if one does not understand Jesus as both God and Man, then His death on the cross would be meaningless; if one does not understand what is the gospel, then the understanding of salvation would crumble. That is why these are called essential doctrines in Christianity. These are the linked together in understanding God, our purpose, the problem of sin, God's solution, and the gospel. That is why Paul made it very clear in Galatians, if anyone (and even more important, an angel) believes in a different Jesus, they would be eternally condemned. Another verse also said that if anyone preaches a different gospel, it is no gospel at all.

"My problem with quoting straight out of the bible is that it's been edited by the catholic church for over a millennium to better suit how they wanted to run the world, back before the bible was able to be in anyone's hand."

Edit as in translation or interpretation? I think it is more of them interpreting it to their own cause rather than retranslating to their own cause. It would be dumb for them to continually retranslate it if they want to base it off of the Bible. That is why there was the Reformation that wanted the Bible given to anyone's hands rather than kept to the clergy. That is why Martin Luther can point to the Catholic church on their corruptions and their unbiblical doctrines. That is why Anabaptists left the Catholic church even before the Reformation began. They have something that is reliable to counter. What they can do is what the Pharisees did during Jesus' time, which is to emphasize the traditions over scripture, and to alter the meaning of the law in order for them to look as if they kept the law. It is to fuel their own self-righteousness. It wasn't a matter of scripture, it was the use of scripture that was abused.

"I think the bible has some good stuff in it, but you can't take all of it literally, as it was written by man and not by God, God didn't intervene and take over the role of editor and make sure the bible was exactly as he wanted. If he did, we wouldn't have the dozens of translations of the same thing that we do today."

Ummm...why is there a problem with different translations? They all are reading the same thing. You need to understand about the translation process is that they go back to the original transcripts and translate from the original language in their original contexts in order to make a translation. The only reason that there are different translations is because our language and our culture change, and translations need to be updated so that it would be easier to read and understand without changing the meaning. There ARE two types of ways of translation (word-for-word vs paraphrasing), which we can talk in a different thread. But believe it, what's written in NIV has the same meaning in the NLT or the ESV or the NASB, etc. This is the same as English literature, when you have different translations of the certain classics because it is translated from Old English or a different language, but you would not question the translation, especially when you have the original copy with the original language.

And obviously you don't take everything literally, that is why you look at the context to tell whether something is taken literally or not. For the most part, it's pretty straightforward.

"It was written for people in a different time, in a different language, with a different mindset, who would be able to correctly interpret it literally, as they viewed the world differently. You could get 20 different people who say the same verse means a different thing, that doesn't mean any of them are right because they're still just men. And when these 20 different men re translate the bible based on how they interpret it, without divine assistance, and several other different men come in and do the same for over a thousand years, the end product is extremely different than the original wording and intention behind what was written."

Again, they go back to the original manuscripts to translate the original words and use the context of the sentences to decide what meaning do the words have on the verses. It's fairly straightforward and they can't make interpretations when they translate. It's just understanding the original language, the sentence structure, and the context to translate the Bible. The interpretation of the verses (like taking things literal or figurative) is done later when you have both the original and the translated language.

"Things such as the last verse in revelations talking about how nothing can be added to the bible or to scripture, yet chronologically revelations wasn't the last book of the bible written, it was just put at the end of the bible, so other scriptures were added after the last bit in revelations."

Not true. Both majority Christian and secular scholars show that the Book of Revelation is the last book that is written. The Apostle John wrote the last few chronological books in the Bible (John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation) They were all written around the late 80s~early 90s A.D. This makes more sense because John was the last surviving Apostle on earth at that time.

"If our works don't matter, that means our sins don't matter, since they are works as well. So if I'm a rapist, pedophile, murderer, thief, liar, blasphemer, but I say a little ditty about accepting Christ into my life, does his grace save me even as I continue my wicked ways, and there's no consequence from it whatsoever?"

First of, all I said is that good works have no merit in salvation. To say that God sees good deeds outweighs the bad deeds would violate His attribute of being a just judge (Psalm 7:11; Romans 2:6).

However, good works do matter. In fact, that is one of the indicators on whether one is saved or not. The hypothetical solution that you suggested (it is hypothetical right?) tells me that the person still LIVES in sin as a habitual lifestyle, while the Bible makes it clear that there would be evident change in a person's life after salvation, because, under the power of the Holy Spirit, one undergoes sanctification. There would be a clear progress of change in a person's life, growing more and more to righteousness, and displaying good deeds. These are not from the person themselves, but from God who undergoes the sanctification, and PROMISES that if you are in Him, there is no condemnation because you are set free from the law of sin (Romans 8:1-2)

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come." (2 Corinthians 5:17)

If you have a chance, read Romans 6. It talks about this very issue that you mentioned in your edits very clearly. Paul talks specifically that we go from "slaves of sin" to "slaves of righteousness". The Bible never says that Christians would not sin, but it says you would see a change in a person, and one would not live in a lifestyle of sin, would be remorseful of sin, and would come to repentance of sin. A Christian would have the work of the Holy Spirit in them and they will struggle and fight against sin, because they are saved by God. This is the doctrine of regeneration. This is a result of being saved by God and not by our own actions.

P.S.: I don't believe conversion is done through "a little ditty" or a "sinner's prayer", but through repentance and faith (Mark 1:15). Conversion is an all out receiving God's gift of salvation and a surrender to God and relying on Him as if your life depends on it, because it does. Faith is not "a little ditty," it has a cost, and that one's pride to humble themselves and not to be a servant of themselves, but a servant of God.

P.S.S: Don't worry about the scattered responses. It takes sooo much time to type this much stuff. If you see me type more than 100 or 200 words, it usually means that it takes me hours to type them, cuz I would just type a bit, then take a break and leave the computer browser on, and come back later to organize it better.

My personal belief is that there is no heaven so I no I don't think Mormons or any one will go to heaven. Although I haven't researched Mormonism as much as I would like, I do understand a few things.  One belief  that Mormons have, however strange , is after their death the males will each become a god of their very own planet. This planet will be only inhabited by women, aside from the male "god". This supports their beliefs of polygamy. Their version of heaven is very different, and it would not even be fathomable back when the original bibles were written. In biblical times they only knew of a hand full of planets only in our solar system.This part is a bit off topic but would just like to state a brief view point on religion in general. Mormonism is Christianity with a bunch of wacky/strange ideas added onto it.  In turn, Christianity is Judaism with a bunch of other ideas on top of it. And again,  Judaism is just a mixture of prior religions, mostly Egyptian, Canaanite, and Sumerian. It is hard to say if  those religions borrowed ideas from prior cultures since they were among the first civilizations and first to keep records of their beliefs in stone and in 8th century bc papyrus scrolls. It is likely that prior humans just used the very simple method of word of mouth. I would also like to say that it is possible for Egyptians to think Judaic beliefs were strange as they were different from their own. And Jews could of thought Christianity is strange and not true for the same reason.It is only a matter of time before a new major religion comes about, and every one who doesn't believe it will " eternally suffer"

Bintsy :

Okay, let the Mormon take a whack at this. 

The first thing to understand is that the Church (the main 'LDS' Church) is NOT A CULT. Well, it is, but by the definitions on Webster, so is almost every other religion I've ever heard of. The two Other LDS Churches - the FLDS and the RLDS are not part of the Church - they have their own beliefs and ways of doing things are have changed quite radically over the years - the RLDS Church is now known as the Church of Christ. The RLDS thought that the second LDS prophet should have been Joseph Smith's son - he was the first prophet. The FLDS still recognize polygamy as a practiced doctrine, which the LDS do not. That is, we accept it as doctrine, just one that we don't use any more - like burnt offerings. We make up for this with other things, like tithing (10% of all legally/honestly acquired money - gotten via stealing/ gambling will be returned. It's been done before). 

Now, as for the Mormon version of the afterlife, there are four levels. There are three Levels of heaven (it's been said that a man would kill to attain the lowest level), which people will be placed in after the Second Coming (when the Lord walks the earth again) and a place called Outer Darkness. OD is a place where only the people have completely turned away from the Church go - like is President Monson - our current leader - was to utterly deny the Church, the idea is that he would die before he could say anything, and that he would go to Outer Darkness. Same with anyone who absolutely knows that the Church is true. 

Now, Mormons are Christians. Really, we are. We believe in the Trinity, just in a different form. The official doctrine is that the Father, His Son, and the Holy Ghost are all their own beings, with different bodies. We also believe in the Bible - so long as it is translated CORRECTLY. I mean, really, how many translations has the thing gone through? But we do have other doctrines - the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. 

Now, the point of this long, rambling statement was to prove that, yes, we ARE Christian, and that, yes, we do think we will be saved, barring some extreme circumstances that most people will never face. Also, we the masters at casseroles and disaster preparedness. 

Bintsy : I actually am Mormon so for me to say we will would obviously be biased, also our ideas of Heaven and Hell are way different from the classic burn in hell or play the harp idea. If you don't mind me saying I want to get a common misconception out of the way; there are two kinds of mormon (actually I think there is a third but no one ever hears of them). There is the LDS (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) and the FLDS (Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints; the news has a bad tendancy of misunderstanding the differences. The FLDS are the ones in Texas doing polygamy and molesting young girls. The leaders (and followers who know it's wrong)won't go to heaven. Most of the followers of the FLDS are unknowing of what's good and bad.

smotpoker86 : Ha ha! Go funeral potatoes!

noj94 : The 'other' Mormons, the RLDS split away after Joseph Smith died - Emma and a few others thought Joseph III should be the next prophet, not Brigham Young. So Emma and Co split off and did their own thing, forming a Church that was lead by biological heir, not by who was senior in the Quorum of the 12. I think they had to do some fast talking in regards to the Book of Mormon a while ago to be accepted as an 'official' 'Christian' church  by the Vatican. 

play4fun : actualy,in definition,a religious group ceases to be a cult upon its number reaching a certain level.christianity was a cult.
Judism was a cult.
Islam was a cult.
Hinduism was a cult.
Mormons were a cult.they all idolised a figure/figures.and they ALL became established religions.
Why exactly would jesus come to earth,be tortured,nailed to a cross,be beaten up a hill,and allow himself to die,just because of humanitys sin,then throw all who believed in him slightly incorrectly,into a pit of flame.dosent that seem a bit tyranical?and according to the bible there are 3 men there,jesus and 2 others.one laughs and goader him,the other says he has earned his fate but jesus hasnt.he dosent say he believes christ.he dosent say he wants to reform.he does not even repent.yet jesus says he will join him in heaven.yet mormons are less worthy?i dont see the logic.
noj94 : the original concept of hell was not fire and pain,i have to say,this was changed from the original greek view of hell.

thenumberone :
I'm not going to touch the subject of who is going to heaven and who isn't because I just don't want to debate about that, but I want point out that when Jesus was hung on the cross with the other 2, the one said "Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom" (Luke 23:39-43), he did say he believed Christ, he asked to be remembered when Jesus came into his kingdom....

So by this example we are saved - he confessed Jesus to be Lord, confessed that he was guilty of his crime, and asked to be saved.

tRIUNE : touche on that one then,i havent ready any of the bible since i was about 8,since after that atheism called.but really the point stands.he believed in christ.mormons believe in christ.he knew nothing about christianity.mormons follow what they interpret christianity as.if i wrote a book about how to live life,and came back hundreds of years later,i wouldnt expect things to be the same,because i wasnt there to tell them what i meant.thats my failing not theres.