posted
"Baptism of desire" is still around in Catholic thought, kind of as a last resort option, though. For whoever made the comment about them. It might have been Bob.
quote: But if women can teach children about God, women can teach ANYONE about God.
I agree. After all, I did preach the gospel as a missionary for my church for 18 months. We have a woman teacher in our Gospel Doctrine class (teaching adults).
quote: Otherwise, the LDS (and other revelatory churches) would never lag behind social changes that they ultimately adopt.
Not all social changes are good. This church received a revelation in the early 1800s concerning tabacco and alcohol being bad for you. They were *way* ahead of their time.
quote: They are not universal. Because if they were, they would've been true for all time, including the time 100 years before the church finally adopted them.
That's why there are some things in this church that aren't going to change. But of course, only time can prove that to be right. There are other things that do adopt to fit the needs of the current social situation. Our society now is vastly different than that of Biblical times. Having modern revelation addresses that. You'll notice that while we aren't currently practicing polygamy, our doctrine on it is consistent with itself.
quote: And, in a way, you won't let me. Because you insist on telling me that your God isn't my God unless I do like you do and act like you do, etc.
I apologize. I kinda feel like I've gotten that message from you also.
quote: Remember what the old Testament prophets did. They did not invent new observances. They called people to a renewal. Frankly, I don't see the LDS as leading a call to renewal. I think that the prophets (and the pope) to the extent that they innovate rather than explicate, are proving themselves to be something other than real prophets speaking the word of God.
Funny you should mention that, because I feel like that is very much what our current prophets do. Joseph Smith restored things we believe had been lost and forgotten, but were known amongst God's disciples numerous times in the past before falling into apostacy and being slowly "erased" from human knowledge. I have often wondered why the early prophets of the restoration revealed so much more new info than we receive now, and I think you did a very good job of answering that for me.
Bob, I just want to tell you how much I respect you. I am speaking in all honesty when I say you are one of my very favorite people on Hatrack. I just think you are the coolest. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
*wondering what the Pope (especially the current one) has innovated?*
The whole of Catholic Tradition has been about trying to preserve/interpret Jesus' message as it was back in Jesus' time, in the context of His fullfilment of Old Testament prophesy (as in, honoring our Jewish heritage).
No religion is not going to have to respond to modernization over the centuries.
quote: Not all social changes are good. This church received a revelation in the early 1800s concerning tabacco and alcohol being bad for you. They were *way* ahead of their time.
Weren't there, just as there are now, any number of Christian denominations that believed that tobacco and alcohol were, and are, bad for you? Were Mormons really the first?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
IIRC, science in that day and age taught that those things did not harm health, and, I believe, even claimed health benefits. I don't know enough about what other religions taught, but I don't know of any who said they were harmful to the health. They may have said that alcohol was to be avoided because of addiction though.
Did any church before then speak out against tobacco, coffee, or tea? My understanding was that that part in particular was unheard of.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
John Wesley (founder of Methodism) was against tea-drinking in the 1700s. He also said tobacco should only be used "for medicinal purposes," which, oddly enough, included blowing tobacco smoke into someone's ear to cure an earache. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Almost all revelation comes through prayer. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was restored on the earth (assuming you believe of course) because Joseph Smith aked for knolwedge about the one true Church of God. The revelation about alchool and the like came because Emma Smith asked if these types of things were really wholesome. Almost all of the time something is revealed to a Prophet it is because the Prophet asked about, not because the Lord forced it upon the Prophet.
If you really assume something is true, why would you ask about it? The world is round, this is pretty provable, but imagine back when it is was clearly flat, you knew this. Is wasn't a topic for discussion anymore than the world being round is a topic for discussion today. Even less so because to most people there had never been a dissenting opinion (I realize there had been, but almost no one to my knolwedge was aware of it). Why would you ask the Lord if the earth was really flat? It wouldn't even occur to you would it?
posted
Hobbes- Many of the greeks and egyptians, and others, knew the world was round. By the time the "flat earth" theory got going, yes, there were dissenting opinions
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul, I know, that's why I put that in my post. However, most people weren't even aware of this as far as I know when the "earth is flat" theory prevaded. Anyways, that's secondary to my point, which is that if you don't question something you wont ask the Lord if it is true.
posted
The world has been known to have been round for almost all of recorded history. And before we have a good record of people knowing it was round we just don't have a good record at all, not any records that suggest people thought it was flat.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to admit to not much caring if people thought the earth was round or was flat, it has just about nothing to do with the point of what I was writting so I'm not going to debate it. I think you can see what I was getting at even if no one anywhere, ever thought the earth was flat.
posted
It's on the long list of questions to Him that have gone unanswered.
I would think that any Believer would consider it important enough to ask. Especial one who He talks to.
Posts: 318 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well... all I can say is it's not that important to me. I have a relationship with the Lord, and it's a very personal and meaningful one. I'm just not all that interested in asking about his relationship with his other children. What can I say? I'm just plain not that interested.
posted
Considering that He seems to tell other people things that you believe will keep them from getting into the kingdoms of heaven, that's rather a selfish attitude.
But, hey, so long as your saved . . . . that's what it's all about, right?
[ April 17, 2004, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: peter the bookie ]
Posts: 318 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why don't you ask God himself, peter? Or else stop baiting Hobbes into giving an answer you have no intention of taking seriously, only picking apart.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I already posted, I have. He's never answered any of my questions, though. So I'm not suprised.
Posts: 318 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I rather thought missionary and certain temple work were exactly about caring what God's relationships with his other children were.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well Fugu, those are good example of people caring about other's salvation, and I guess the literal meaning of what I said wasn't quite true. Let me put it this way: I do care about the relationship between the Lord and his children (besides me as well as we've already established ), but I do not want to pry into it. Giving people the opportunity have that relationship is to me, a good thing, but I'm not going to pry into it if no one wants me there.
posted
Fugu, just because others have come to the conclusion that coffee, tea, tobacco, and alcohol have health risks doesn't change the purpose for which I used the example. I was showing how a religion can be ahead of the knowledge and movements of society, not claiming it as unique to TCoJCoLDS.
The great majority of society believed there was no inherent health risk in these things. They could see from experience that they were addictive, but that is different. Besides, I have already said that one religion does not have the "corner" on Truth. Perhaps these others were inspired?
Peter, you are asking Hobbes to ask a pretty loaded question. It is your question, not his. I do not believe that God gives conflicting information. I'm not sure he does either.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK ptb, I'll explain further but I'm not going to answer your question directly because merely answering it really means agreeing to your assumption that God does give His Children contradictory answers, which I happen to not hold.
It is not my position to get in between the Lord and His children, what I think my goal should be is to become His servant, make my will like His. So if help is needed in strengthing the bond between Him and His child through something like baptism, I'll be ready. If He needs someone to tell one of His children about Him, well I'll try to be ready there too, but the reason people don't believe what I believe about Him really don't matter in their salvation as much as reasons that they will believe what I believe. (Of course that's assuming I'm right, which obviously I do or I wouldn't believe it in the first place).
posted
Dana, from what little I know of Methodism, it sounds pretty darn cool. I've been thinking that for awhile and thought I'd express that. I would love to hear more about the defining aspects of it sometime if you would like to share.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have a nice big John Wesley statue in the middle of one of the squares here in Savannah. Just thought I'd say that Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I feel like there's a difference between caring about whether or not someone is SAVED, and caring about their relationship with God. I mean, if they're saved, you have to assume God is handling that stuff. I think he can take care of things just fine without me getting involved.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, right, prefrontal cortex it is. Consider me done and gone of this thread.
I'll try to contain my overwhelming disappointment.
Edit: Incidentally, since you're calling Hobbes stupid, 'gone of this thread' is a pretty poorly constructed insult. Not to mention, you proved I was right.
quote:I apologize. I kinda feel like I've gotten that message from you also.
beverly, if you really mean that, then I've done a simply horrible job of explaining myself. And I apologize as well.
I would never, ever deny the idea of your salvation. And I would never for a minute want to sew doubt in your mind about your own beliefs. But at the same time, I do not think you have it "right" because I think none of us have it right.
So, the fact that I don't believe as you do shouldn't surprise you or make you think that I belittle your beliefs. I don't. I honor them. For you.
For me, they aren't any better than the ones I left behind in Catholicism. And they are far less true than the ones I currently adhere to. For me.
And while I think I have never once said that any person's religion is wrong in that it is "leading that person down a path that will ultimately deny them salvation," I think I clearly hear this message from several people in the LDS church about me (and anyone who is not LDS). So, you are mistaken if you think I'm saying that LDS members can't go to Heaven. But I think I'm not mistaken in saying that the LDS church teaches exactly that about me.
Am I wrong?
Is the following a correct summary of LDS teachings on the subject or not? 1) Non-LDS are missing the better 1/2 of available Scripture. 2) Non-LDS are committing a grave error by failing to attend to the teachings of the living prophets. 3) Non-LDS priests/ministers are charlatains. 4) and thus, sacraments administered by them are a sham. 5) Barring post-humous baptism or conversion to LDS beliefs, non-LDS will be denied salvation.
Really, I'm not trying to be difficult. I just resent being told that I have ever once denied or questioned someone else's salvation.
I think Jesus warned us to stay well away from that particular activity.
I do believe, however, that your church teaches that. And that items 1 - 4 above are accurate reflections of the teachings I've heard here. And item 5 is the logical conclusion.
And that, in particular, bugs me.
The fact that SOME Baptist ministers (and no doubt others -- some Catholics for example) teach similar negative things about the LDS bugs me too.
It's wrong no matter who does it.
I repeat, I believe that God will save whomever God wants to save and it's none of our business to attempt to judge others' salvation.
I have a hard time figuring out how anyone who believes in God can deny that essential truth. But I do think that the LDS church teaches something different.
I guess I'd better stop. I feel like I'm crossing a line here already. But I just don't think you understood what I was saying because you seemed to believe that I deny your salvation when I call some aspects of your church's doctrine "wrong." And I find that completely incredible. It seems to indicate something that I've never really understood about the LDS church before. That you all may actually believe that an individual's salvation is judged based on their adherence to doctrine set down by the church. In other words, that the church is the authority or has the authority to save or condemn.
I'm very worried if that's a true statement. Because it means that everything I've said up to now has been incredibly offensive to you and all LDS members. Because criticizing your doctrinal beliefs might be the same (to your ears) as hearing me claim that you will be denied salvation.
I hope I'm erring in this new understanding. But if I'm not, I apologize for all that I've said up to this point. It was never my intention to have you think I denied your salvation.
I think doctrine and salvation are related, but not inextricably tied. I can't even imagine a world in which they are one and the same. That's probably the biggest reason why I cannot be a Roman Catholic anymore. Because I see the Church as a separate authority distinct from God, close perhaps, but not identical. And certainly flawed because it involves human beings.
But people who are Roman Catholics have just as much opportunity for salvation as anyone else on this earth. It is up to them and God, not the Roman Catholic church.
Oh well. Why do I feel I'm digging a very big hole for myself here?
I hope this doesn't mean that no-one will want to visit me in SLC.
Dang.
I'm getting really bummed out here.
I half want to erase all my posts in this thread.
But actually, I think I need to get this cleared up now. I feel too badly to let this just hang.
I'm very sorry if this causes anyone here any pain. I promise that if anyone asks me to, I'll erase it all and never bring up the subject again.
posted
OK, I haven't gone through the whole post yet Bob but:
quote:3) Non-LDS priests/ministers are charlatains. 4) and thus, sacraments administered by them are a sham. 5) Barring post-humous baptism or conversion to LDS beliefs, non-LDS will be denied salvation.
Absolutley not part of the doctrine I adhear to. We believe that Jesus Christ gave His apostles power to act in his name. They gave others variants of this power (as in, the ability to baptize doesn't necessarily mean you have the right to lead the members of Isreal, these are sperate "keys" as they're called). After about 100 years this power stopped being given and the power to act in Christ's name was gone from the earth until various prophets and Apostles of old came to Earth (physcially) and gave Joseph Smith and others that power again. The docrtine of my Church has nothing to do with what kind of people those who adhear to other religions are (besides all children of God), it simply states that they just haven't been given that power.
posted
OK, I read the rest of the post and I'm mulling over it, but while I do that (and watch Simpsons! ) I want you to know, that at least you haven't offended me, and I hope you realize I think you're super-duper great in the literal meaning of the word.
And to your question, no, not in the LDS Curch, should you join you would have to be baptizied by a member of the Priesthood. The Lord's house is a house of order, and for the conventant to be recognizied by the Lord, it has to be preformed by someone who has the authority to do so in His name.
quote:I have a hard time figuring out how anyone who believes in God can deny that essential truth.
I thought you said that you didn't believe in such universal truth.
quote:I guess I'd better stop. I feel like I'm crossing a line here already. But I just don't think you understood what I was saying because you seemed to believe that I deny your salvation when I call some aspects of your church's doctrine "wrong." And I find that completely incredible. It seems to indicate something that I've never really understood about the LDS church before. That you all may actually believe that an individual's salvation is judged based on their adherence to doctrine set down by the church. In other words, that the church is the authority or has the authority to save or condemn.
I'm very worried if that's a true statement. Because it means that everything I've said up to now has been incredibly offensive to you and all LDS members. Because criticizing your doctrinal beliefs might be the same (to your ears) as hearing me claim that you will be denied salvation.
Yeah, it kind of does seem that way. It seems like you say that there's no universal truth and all ways are equally good, but that nonetheless, we've got some stuff fundamentally wrong. Well, if there's no universal standard of truth, then what's "wrong"? You say that we shouldn't assert that we have the full truth, but then you go and assert your opinion that we've got it wrong. So which is it? I don't believe that you're trying to be a hypocrite or that you're trying to be self-righteous, but that's sort ofhow you're coming off, at least in my opinion. But I understand that you're trying to be fair and reasonable, so I'm not going to jump all over you and say, "You can't say that! I'm so offended!" And I'll still try to make time to meet you when you come to Salt Lake.
Edited for clarity and such.
[ April 17, 2004, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:3) Non-LDS priests/ministers are charlatans. 4) and thus, sacraments administered by them are a sham. 5) Barring post-humous baptism or conversion to LDS beliefs, non-LDS will be denied salvation.
Bob, no, not at all.
1. Do they believe what they are saying? Feel the spirit? Teach the best they know and honor the covenants they have made? Witnesses from the Spirit is not limited to any one religion.
The whole thing I can think of that you make you think that LDS says anyone who is sincere and doing their best is a charlatan (which is so weird to me, because no one has said that) is that we claim that the priesthood was lost in the apostasy, and the answer from many is, "No, we have it right here." "Not really, no."
Well, if someone is sincere in what they believe, how could they be a charlatan for doing it? I'm not sure how to deny something that was never said, but all I can think of is Moroni 7. It's sort of long, please forgive me. I'll try to quote the most relevant part. That whole chapter is great.
quote:5 For I remember the word of God which saith by their works• ye shall know them; for if their works be good, then they are good also.
6 For behold, God hath said a man being evil• cannot do that which is good; for if he offereth• a gift, or prayeth• unto God, except he shall do it with real intent• it profiteth him nothing.
... 10 Wherefore, a man being evil cannot do that which is good; neither will he give a good gift.
11 For behold, a bitter fountain• cannot bring forth good water; neither can a good fountain bring forth bitter water; wherefore, a man being a servant of the devil cannot follow Christ; and if he follow• Christ he cannot be a servant of the devil.
12 Wherefore, all things which are good• cometh of God; and that which is evil• cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin•, and to do that which is evil continually.
13 But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good• continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth• to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.
14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil• to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.
15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge•, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.
---- >>4) and thus, sacraments administered by them are a sham.<<
Is civil marriage a sham because it isn't done with the priesthood? Is a solemn promise to someone on their deathbed a sham because it isn't an official sacrament? Is an inward covenant to a sweetheart a sham? I don't think anything done with sincere intent is a sham, and I am certain that the Lord does not consider it as such.
If the priesthood didn't matter, then mothers could baptize their children in the bathtub one Wednesday evening. I know some people believe that is the case, but you can't believe that having the priesthood is important, and then say that claim that because one religion considers the priesthood important enough to have been restored and to have some extra attention paid to it, there's something...hateful about it. If it's important, then to say that following revelation concerning it is hurtful because it is by necessity exclusive somewhere just means that you don't want anyone making the rules except for yourself. ----- >>5) Barring post-humous baptism or conversion to LDS beliefs, non-LDS will be denied salvation.<<
That's a whole different topic - what does salvation mean? - but the answer is No and Yes. No, because through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind, every one, was saved from physical death. No, in the sense the repentance works for everyone, baptized or not, because of Christ's sacrifice, so we can be saved from the spiritual death brought by sin.
But if you mean what Tom termed the Super-Duper Heaven as opposed to, uh, whatever the other one was - Pretty Good Heaven - then Yes. Your body has to be baptized with the authority of God, either in person or by proxy. One of the principle purposes of the Restoration that also resulted in the creation in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was to restore the priesthood of God which had been lost.
----
I do agree with Jon Boy. If there's no universal truth and everyone's groovy, how could there be a violation of it?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a lighter note, I have this piece of advice:
If you are ever baptized by immersion, hold your nostrils closed with one hand. Really.
I refused to do so during my baptism, on the grounds that "it wouldn't look poetic."
Guess what else doesn't look poetic?
Me, trying to cough up the water I inhaled by accident, while my friends wondered if they were witnessing the Fairview ward's first-ever baptismal drowning.
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, Bob. I just got back. I am feeling really sad right now that you were feeling sad about one of us being offended. I know so many times I have hit the "reply" button and thought, "Oh no! I am going to offend someone I really respect!" But you know what? In all the posts I have ever read from you, I have never felt that you were being disrespectful or offensive. I feel from you consideration and kindess, truly wishing for the good of those around you. How could I possibly be offended?
Now, I believe in my heart that all people who love God and truly wish to follow Him will receive the salvation they long for. End of story. Above and beyond all these ordinances and requirements is the idea that it is the desires of our hearts that truly determines where we end up. The details to that are secondary. I think we both can agree pretty closely to that. Now if we have different views on how best to get there, for now that's fine. I am confident it will all be worked out in God's good time. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Seriously, though, the only thing harder than thinking ALL Christians are wrong must be thinking that all but YOUR branch of Chriatianity is wrong
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) I want you to know, that at least you haven't offended me, and I hope you realize I think you're super-duper great in the literal meaning of the word. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
*resists urge to add "j/k ![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
