quote: When the call is to renewal of faith, that fits with prophecy as it was in the old Testament.
When it crosses into innovation, the precedents are from other sources:
1) The patriarchs (who were decidedly something different from "prophets") and 2) The kings. Including Jesus...
So, where is the line drawn?
Bob, are you grouping Moses in with the patriarchs? I had always thought of the patriarchs as being Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But it seems to me that Moses did a lot of revealing of God's will. In comparison, it doesn't seem like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did much revealing (at least that we have record of.)
And there's Job talking about how after his death he was sure he would once again be in his own flesh again and see God. That seemed like pretty "new" information inasmuch as such a mention of ressurection is not found before that. (Unless it was "lost" which is my personal take on it.)
I am of the belief that there is plenty of ancient scripture out there that we currently don't have. The Bible makes several references to books not contained therein of prophets (or at least writers) never found therein. I also think that much was revealed to the OT prophets that is not currently found in the Bible or anywhere.
Also, I believe we know so very little about what Christ actually did and said. Wow. Can you imagine having a video-tape (Past-Watch style) of His entire life, everything He did and taught. Perhaps we have "the good parts version", but I can't help but think it would be awesome to have more. Basically, I look upon the Bible as inspired words of prophets, but I don't look upon it as perfect, complete or containing all truth that is good for humanity to know. I also believe that many, many of the most precious and plain truths were lost from it.
I don't know if you know much about the Book of Mormon, though I would expect that you probably know something. Heck, you may have read some or all of it for all I know. The LDS view on it is that it is an ancient text, but I think most non-LDS are not willing to believe it is such because it is easier to believe it is a fabrication. But regardless of what you believe it is, I think it would be a good thing to read it and weigh the teachings found there-in. If you automatically dismiss the idea of it being scripture as impossible, then you have not made an informed decision.
Tom:
quote: Seriously, though, the only thing harder than thinking ALL Christians are wrong must be thinking that all but YOUR branch of Christianity is wrong.
By "hard" do you mean difficult to consider? Or difficult to live with? I thought you did think all Christians were wrong. Is that hard to do? I thought that the huge differences from religion to religion were one of the problems agnostics and athiests have with believing in God. (The whole God told one person E and the other F thing.) Wouldn't having one church be "right on" and the others varying distances of near or far help account for that?
posted
Some of the stuff on the second half of page 21 is a little difficult for me. It feels like Mormons are being portrayed as 'exclusivists', by which I mean nobody but us in heaven. The Church has never taught that, quite the opposite in fact. We have never claimed to have a monopoly on the truth. It's usually us that gets consigned to hell by other Christian churches! I had a good friend a few years ago who was Baptist. She was told by some of her friends at her church she had no business even being friends with a Mormon. She agonised in her prayers over what was going to happen to me after this life, and never really was able to admit I was a Christian (didn't fit her definition), whereas I had no problem seeing her as a faithful follower of Christ. It's always been this way with many (not all) Christians attitudes to Mormons. I read in a book on comparitive Chritianity a few years ago that the main problem with Mormonism is that we deny others the spirit, but we don't. It's usually what we are accused of, not having the spirit I mean. We believe, and actively teach that men like Martin Luther, John Wesley, even Buddha and Mohammed, were inspired by God to do what they did in attempting to reform and preach what they believed. The only thing is the authority of the priesthood, which an individual doesn't need to be saved, but which the institutional kingdom of God on the earth, ie the Church, does need to oversee and administer what we consider the saving ordinances of the gospel. What offends me, although even that may be too strong a word, strikes me as ironic is probably closer to it, is that Mormons get accused of denying others their right to believe, when you will never go into a LDS bookstore and find a single publication putting down other churches, there are no 'ministries' among the Mormons focused on criticising other religions, we don't picket other churches, we don't try to block others from building churches, mosques, or whatever,in fact we are on record many times as helping build them (case in point: the building a fundamentalist Christian group met in, directly across the road from one of the chapels in my stake, got burned down -- we offered them the use of our chapel until they found another home: the offer was rejected). I'm ramblimg a bit, but the point of what I'm saying is, it's a bit rich to say Latter-day saints deny others the rights to their beliefs, or look down on them for having them.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To Kat & Jon Boy -- I wrote this late last night and fell asleep before I hit the "Add Reply" button. Sorry to leave it up in the air...
Kat, you and Jon Boy both misunderstood my assertion of the truth of that statement. But I get this all the time. I didn't say there is no universal truth. I said we don't know what they are. We humans don't have access to them. At least not in detail.
However, we do have shared beliefs. And I believe one of the shared beliefs is that God chooses who is saved and who isn't. Not people and certainly not churches or doctrine put forward by churches.
I do think it's interesting that you both found that particular statement of such concern, though. Is it getting at something that's central to LDS? I really am ignorant of this stuff, so I am, in fact asking, not prodding or trying to box you into a corner. Is your version of God somehow limited in who He can save?
At any rate, you are mistaken in thinking I've been inconsistent or presented a tautology. I think we have a shared truth that says God is in charge of Salvation. But I'm beginning to think I'm wrong. That your belief is that God obeys LDS doctrine i.e., that the doctrine describes limits on God's power and on His role in creation. Is that the case? I really am beginning to wonder.
I also never said "everything is groovy." I said it wasn't up to me to decide what's good for you and what's not good for you. It's up to me to decide what's good for me, and it is up to you to decide what is good for you. It is to be hoped that we make our decisions based on knowledge and Spirit, faith and reason...etc.
Oh, and kat, it does seem to me that you're saying exactly what I proposed as a summary earlier. Because if the LDS has the only priests who have the authority to perform sacraments, then my baptism was not valid.
It seems to me that's not just sort of accurate, but absolutely accurate.
Could someone please explain this in terms a 4 year old could understand, because I just don't get it...
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Moses was more like a king than a prophet. He ordered armies into the field, established a state religion, and led his people.
I realize that in the OT there's often a blurring of roles, but I don't consider Moses a prophet in the sense that Isaah, Ezekial and Jeremiah were prophets.
Maybe prophets do different things in different times, but when I think if the prophets, people like Moses aren't the ones who leap to mind. Moses was clearly something else.
Job was a prophet?????? That's a new one on me. Job was more like an experiemental lab rat than a prophet.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
beverly, this was really nice. And I should probably quit now instead of asking the following. But I feel I'm actually close to understanding something new here, and that makes me forget my manners. So, here goes:
Does you last sentence ("in God's good time" etc.) imply that in the end If I really want salvation, I will be LDS and that's how it'll be worked out? Or do you simply mean that I have salvation if I desire it enough and the path to it, for me, need have nothing to do with the LDS church or teachings?
I think this is probably the central thing. We can agree up to a point, but I'd really like to know whether your view of humanity's salvation rests in your church or in God alone.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only thing is the authority of the priesthood, which an individual doesn't need to be saved, but which the institutional kingdom of God on the earth, ie the Church, does need to oversee and administer what we consider the saving ordinances of the gospel.
Okay...I think I'm getting this but let me rephrase to see if I'm right: An individual is not saved through "saving ordinances", therefore, what other church's priests do really doesn't matter. But to really run a church, you need to have an LDS priest in charge.
I tried to come up with an alternative meaning there, but I kept coming back to the above. I know, it really must sound like I'm twisting your words, but that's exactly what your sentence says to my ears...er, eyes...
Then there's this:
quote: What offends me, although even that may be too strong a word, strikes me as ironic is probably closer to it, is that Mormons get accused of denying others their right to believe, when you will never go into a LDS bookstore and find a single publication putting down other churches, there are no 'ministries' among the Mormons focused on criticising other religions, we don't picket other churches, we don't try to block others from building churches, mosques, or whatever,in fact we are on record many times as helping build them (case in point: the building a fundamentalist Christian group met in, directly across the road from one of the chapels in my stake, got burned down -- we offered them the use of our chapel until they found another home: the offer was rejected). I'm ramblimg a bit, but the point of what I'm saying is, it's a bit rich to say Latter-day saints deny others the rights to their beliefs, or look down on them for having them.
Well...I don't think I said that you deny me the right to believe what I believe. I think I said that your church teaches that I'm being fooled or missing the truth because I don't have The Book of Mormom and I don't follow the living prophet.
I did believe that your faith teaches you that if I don't mend my ways or accept a posthumous baptism into the LDS faith, that I will miss my chance at salvation. But I may be mistaken on that. I can't really tell now what you think the criteria for salvation are.
As for the stupid Baptist (and I do mean stupid), there are a great many people (Baptists probably no more than others) who do deny that the LDS church is a Christian church. I don't understand their reasons and I can't repeat the ones I've heard because, frankly, I don't get it. If you believe that Jesus is Lord, you're Christian. If you don't, you aren't. There aren't a bunch of complicated criteria to apply.
Anyway, I'd like to state that I don't agree with people who claim that LDS are not Christian. I think you are. And maybe that church had other reasons for turning your offer of the use of your temple than that they thought you weren't Christian. But it certainly was a nice gesture on your part.
Some fundamentalist sects are really out there, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are anti-LDS.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Seriously, though, the only thing harder than thinking ALL Christians are wrong must be thinking that all but YOUR branch of Christianity is wrong.
Actually Tom, the way I "read" that statement is really pointing to my personal difficulty:
quote:Seriously, though, the only thing harder than thinking ALL other Christians are wrong must be thinking that YOUR branch of Christianity is wrong.
I've spent my life in search of the one that feels LEAST wrong. And it ain't fun.
But there are folks who went before me and had to try to reform an entire church. I'm just trying to pick one to go to...I can't imagine what Luther went through before he posted his theses.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, I don't think we are using the term "save" in the same way. I mean, considering that LDS has no traditional view of hell, the closest is outer darkness, and the only way to get to outer darkness is to have certain knowledge - not faith, KNOWLEDGE - and then to deny it, but that standard (Who doesn't go to hell?), then it is basically everybody.
*thinks* If you are asking that in LDS theology who is saved in the way mean in your theology, then I'm not suprised by the disconnect.
I feel like we're saying "A happens, and B. And C.", and you're responding, "So, that all means M. And I don't believe M." I'm not even sure what you mean by M, and I'm not going to claim or deny it - it's not the same vocabulary.
--o--
I'm not so sure the church will exist as human/mortal organization after this life. I believe that Lord, because he knows us and knows what we need, has commanded for it to exist now, but I severly doubt that ANYONE is going be spending Sunday Morning in bishopric meetings and Sunday evenings eating jell-o after this particular life is over. If it's a matter of resenting the change of ball team, I wouldn't worry about it.
--o--
quote:And maybe that church had other reasons for turning your offer of the use of your temple than that they thought you weren't Christian.
Just to clarify. A chapel/church is what was offered - there are thousands of them, and anyone can go in. There are only 116 temples, and entrance is limited to those with a temple reccomend. The church would NEVER offer use of a temple, but I didn't know that about turning down the use of a church. *grimace* That's tacky.
--o--
quote:Oh, and kat, it does seem to me that you're saying exactly what I proposed as a summary earlier. Because if the LDS has the only priests who have the authority to perform sacraments, then my baptism was not valid.
It seems to me that's not just sort of accurate, but absolutely accurate.
I don't think it's a sham. It isn't meaningless at all. What it means depends on exactly what was in the person's heart at the time, and how much they took it to mean and lived up the promises made then. I am sure the Lord recognizes true intent and honors them for the promises made, and counts them among the children of Christ because of what is in their heart.
I figure every ordinance as a physical and spiritual element (I think that's even this thread somewhere - you know, 600 posts ago). Every baptism has those two elements, and whether or not the spiritual element is valid depends on entirely on whether or not the person has a broken heart and contrite spirit. The Lord loves all of his children and will recognize as a child of Christ those that sincerely promise to be.
There's no way to sugarcoat that the Lord restored the priesthood because the earthly ordinances he commanded need to be done with that authority. If the physical element of baptism isn't done with the priesthood that has been restroed again, then it needs to be done again.
I don't know why, just like I'm not sure why we need two elements to all ordinances, but there it is. It's like...getting married and discovering that the captain of the ship didn't actually have the authority for some reason. You may have to get remarried to fulfill the law, but that doesn't mean your relationship is a sham.
There's no "preaching about other churches" at church. *grin* If it helps, a lot of LDS know NOTHING about other churches. That's nice because there's no innacurate information. Everyone should know about the world, but the church is very firm that we do not preach specific doctrines of other churches in order to trash them. I wish other churches treated our doctrine with the same respect. This thread has shown that even well-intentioned non-members can get it wildly wrong. There's enough problem with false doctrine with just the members.
quote:I realize that in the OT there's often a blurring of roles, but I don't consider Moses a prophet in the sense that Isaah, Ezekial and Jeremiah were prophets
*blink* He talked to God. He brought down the ten commandments. He established the Mosaic Law. He wrote scripture. If he wasn't a prophet, what the heck was he doing?
If you don't consider Moses a prophet, then I suspect we are not using the word in the same way. What do you consider a prophet to be?
Maybe Moses had a role as a prophet, but wasn't he more than a prophet? Wasn't he also a king? I said I was sure there was some blurring of roles back in those days. If I look to the OT prophets (Ezekial, Jeremiah, etc.) as the model of what a prophet is (as opposed to what a king is, can you see where I have concluded that a prophet's role is short on innovation?
Anyway, it's not that important.
What is important is that stuff about me saying "M"...
I just don't get it. I read what you all are saying and it says A, B, and C, and I say then C is true and you all deny it. I'm not putting words in your mouths. You ARE saying that the sacraments I received were administered by someone who lacked the authority to conduct them. The logical conclusion is that the sacrament itself is invalid. I was an infant at baptism. I'm pretty sure what was in my mind at the time had very little to do with God.
I understand baptism of desire, but then instead of calling me a Christian, you and Jon Boy have both used the phrase "Children of Christ." Is that different from "Christian" in your theology? I'm just curious because it actually sounds like you use one phrase when refering to me and another phrase when refering to yourself.
Like goyim -- to you I am outside the fold??? Children of Christ sounds like a buzzword or code for something "lesser."
As for the afterlife and "don't worry about it." Well, of course, I'm not really worried about it. There's not a darn thing I'll do in this life about it. If, after death I am faced with a choice between eternal void and believing the LDS-taught truth that is then explained to me, my first reaction would probably be some exclamation like "Well I'll be damned, they were right!!!!"
And that'll be that, won't it?
Seriously, though, I'm prepared to find out that God is radically different from anything we ever conceived of on Earth. If the full understanding of things does come after death, I think I'll enjoy it no matter what the revealed truth is. If it is something close to what ANY church on Earth describes, I'll be very surprised. And perhaps even a little disappointed. I'm hoping it's a lot better and more interesting.
As for a lack of hell, that seems okay. I guess I should just stick to saying "denied salvation" so as not to confuse the issue.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tend to stay entirely OUT of discussions about Christian issues -- for obvious reasons, I think.
But I did want to comment on two issues that Bob brought up. First, according to Jewish tradition, Moses was not only a prophet, he was the only prophet to speak "face-to-face" (as it were) to God. Not in a vision or a dream, but with full clarity and consciousness. He was a leader (much like the leaders in pre-king times in the just-settled Land of Israel, sometimes referred to as judges, who were also frequently prophets), but not a king.
Second, this line made me cringe
quote: Like goyim -- to you I am outside the fold???
That's not an accurate representation of how Jews view non-Jews. It implies that we think both that you are lesser AND that you ought to be "brought into the fold." Neither is true.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I guess that's what happens when you get your knowledge of Jewish culture from sitcoms.
Thanks rivka.
Oh, and okay, Moses was a prophet!
I guess I need to amend my comments regarding the living prophets in LDS -- they can innovate if they want to and still call themselves prophets. I'm still bothered by that nomenclature, but I guess it was my own ignorance or misunderstanding rather than a incorrect usage on their part.
posted
"It implies that we think both that you are lesser..."
Um. Don't you? Because if you don't, what's the point of the distinction at all?
"Look at those goyim: they're just as good as us in every way. Makes you proud, don't it?"
I would suggest that all discrimination -- ALL discrimination -- creates a "superior" and "lesser" category, and people tend to put themselves into the superior one.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, there should have been a "should" in there.
That is, there are Jews who view non-Jews as lesser. It shows up, as Bob noted, all too often in sitcoms.
I don't; and I don't think we should. I view non-Jews as inherently different, in a manner analogous to the way I think men and women are inherently different.
Which opens up an entirely new can of worms, naturally. This thread will never die! Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, we do have shared beliefs. And I believe one of the shared beliefs is that God chooses who is saved and who isn't. Not people and certainly not churches or doctrine put forward by churches.
I do think it's interesting that you both found that particular statement of such concern, though. Is it getting at something that's central to LDS? I really am ignorant of this stuff, so I am, in fact asking, not prodding or trying to box you into a corner. Is your version of God somehow limited in who He can save?
Um . . . yes and no. It is possible for anyone on earth to be saved, if they follow the commandments. But like Kat has said, we use "salvation" to mean something a little different. Everyone is saved from physical death, and almost everyone (except those who have sure knowledge and then deny it and thus go to outer darkness) will be spiritually saved to at least some extent. To what extent relies on the person's faith and obedience and whatnot. Could God make everyone receive the highest degree of glory? I don't think so. I think that would violate free will and the law of justice. Does that answer your question? Or just make things muddier?
quote:Does you last sentence ("in God's good time" etc.) imply that in the end If I really want salvation, I will be LDS and that's how it'll be worked out? Or do you simply mean that I have salvation if I desire it enough and the path to it, for me, need have nothing to do with the LDS church or teachings?
No, you don't need to be "LDS." Abraham wasn't LDS. Moses wasn't. Neither was Christ. "LDS" really just refers to this dispensation of the gospel. We believe that the gospel has been revealed at various times throughout the history of the earth and that the fundamental doctrines have always been the same. Church organizations were different, cultures were different, and some practices were different, but we believe the same core truth has always been a part of it. So do you need to be one of us to be saved? No. You need to be one of Christ's. He gives the requirements for salvation, and we believe that they include faith, works, ordinances performed by the proper authority, and endurance to the end. I don't think the true church in the afterlife will be a Mormon church, per se—that is, it won't be this latter-day dispensation, but rather an eternal dispensation. Salvation does not come through our church; it comes through Christ. And we believe that he has set forth certain requirements to be followed and that he has chosen prophets to reveal those requirements and to act as authorities on the earth.
quote:I think I said that your church teaches that I'm being fooled or missing the truth because I don't have The Book of Mormom and I don't follow the living prophet.
I wouldn't say that you're being fooled. I would say that you have some truth—maybe even a lot of truth—but not the whole truth. Was Newton fooling people with his theory of gravity? I wouldn't say so. I would say that he was explaining things the best he knew how, and it worked almost all the time. I also wouldn't say that the LDS Church as all the spiritual truth in the universe; there are lots of things we don't know yet, but we believe that all the necessary truths have been restored.
quote:I understand baptism of desire, but then instead of calling me a Christian, you and Jon Boy have both used the phrase "Children of Christ." Is that different from "Christian" in your theology?
I honestly don't remember using that term, and I'm too lazy to scan over my old posts, but I'm going to say that I think that "Children of Christ" and "Christian" are the same thing—you believe in Christ, you have accepted him, and you try to follow his teachings. You are his children. I can't imagine why "Children of Christ" would be different from or lesser than "Christians." They just seem like different terms for the same thing.
[ April 18, 2004, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Jon Boy, that cleared up ALMOST everything.
Here's the one remaining issue I have:
quote:You need to be one of Christ's. He gives the requirements for salvation, and we believe that they include faith, works, ordinances performed by the proper authority, and endurance to the end.
If the part in bold is a requirement for salvation, then I think it contradicts what you've said earlier.
As for violating the laws/rules of justice, I think God violates the rules of human justice all the time. And a God who would save EVERYONE, or save even those who hadn't earned it, but had done nothing really horrible would be displaying mercy and grace that transcend our thoughts of justice.
I think I might prefer a God that ended the Universe on that kind of note rather than one that insisted on justice.
Not that I'm counting on God's mercy or grace towards me, but I sort of figure there's little likelihood of my attaining salvation without it.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to the plan of salvation in which we believe all those born on earth will eventually receive as much spiritual salvation as they were willing to receive. I think that is so beautiful. God knows that some will reject every effort and not be able to receive any of His gift to us. And when we talk about the "highest" heaven, be aware that many LDS talk as though they aren't really interested in that because of the heavy responsibility involved. They believe that even without it, they will be richly blessed beyond understanding. They just do their best and hope for the best.
I believe that everyone will be "satisfied" with the glory they receive (exempting the ones who will accept no part of it.) I also believe that many who receive it will not have been LDS in this life or have ever heard of the gospel. As has already been stated, we certainly don't believe that just being LDS gets you "in". On the contrary, we believe that the more you accept of knowledge from God, the more responsibility you have to live by it. Because of all this, we really do believe that we are judged on the desires of our hearts. If, as we believe, we have been given more of God's words and commandments than was previously available to mankind, then we are required to act according to that knowledge.
With blessings comes great responsibility. We believe that obedience to certain laws carries certain blessings. We believe that accpeting baptism by the proper authority has certain blessings attached to it. As does accpeting the words of God. If the Book of Mormon is scripture (which I believe it is) then certain blessings and responsibilities come with accepting it. Likewise, not accpeting these things means that we don't receive those blessings.
You would not at this time accept baptism at the hand of an LDS priesthood holder because you don't believe that this church is what it claims to be. I don't think God would ever hold someone responsible for that. But let's just pretend that you did believe it (also assuming that it were true). I believe God would hold you responsible for that belief/knowledge/understanding. To what end? Whatever it may appear, I assure you, we don't claim any knowledge on what happens to any individual soul. That is between that person and God.
But I feel like you are saying that if Christ Himself sat down with you after your death and said, "Bob, this is right. If you believe in me, please accept this," that you would be offended and say, "No, what you are telling me has to be wrong because I can't imagine you would require such a thing!" That is somewhat troubling to me. But I also understand that you can't imagine a loving, impartial God requiring what we believe He requires. You don't consider the above scenario because you don't believe it would ever happen.
As (I hope) a friend, I again encourage you to read what the Book of Mormon says so that you can at least take it into account.
In summary, we wouldn't be doing proxy work if we didn't think it was important to God. But it certainly is not a simple matter of a belief that LDS baptism=salvation, no LDS baptism=no salvation.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:There part where supposedly I can be saved without that...
Are you referring to different degrees of salvation? Because baptism is required for the celestial kingdom, but not the terrestrial or telestial. People in these lower two kingdoms are "saved" to a degree from sin because of the atonement of Christ, but they don't receive the highest level of salvation. Is that what you're asking about?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been mulling this over in my mind, wondering about it. Do I think that it is possible that (and in this hypothetical example we are assuming that the LDS church is what it claims to be) God would accpet a baptism by those who may not have received the authority through His established way but would still accept it on account of the sincerity of their hearts? I don't know. I approach that idea with an open mind.
But I have also been thinking that baptism is the entrance into Christ's church. If that church rejects His words (scriptures and prophets) are they really Christ's church? Assuming the above are from God, then I don't think so. That is not to say that they are not full of good people accomplishing good things doing their best to follow the scripture that they have, and being led by God's inspiration. Most of them have not "rejected" the above things because they haven't studied them. But is it safe to assume the church organization probably doesn't teach them either?
There I go, opening a whole new can of worms! I guess I am a glutton for punishment. Perhaps this is the actual issue that we have been dancing around.
Just out of curiosity, why is it OK for a Jew to say all Christians are following a false messiah and for followers of Islam to say that it is blasphemous to claim that God can have a son, but it is not OK for us to say that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only church organization that recognizes all the truths that God has revealed to mankind at the current time?
posted
I would argue all of those are equally "ok" or "not ok."
When one becomes less ok then the others is when one acts on that belief in ways that are disrespectful to others.
We all have our beliefs concerning religion, and for most of us, they are exclusive beliefs, that is, our beliefs are correct and others have it, at best, only partially right, and in many cases we believe that others have no part of religion right. Having these beliefs, as Bob said, is ok.
Its how we present these beliefs, and how we act on them, that causes problems.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Maybe the confusion comes from the term salvation? Because we because everyone has salvation from physical death and from the fall, but there are degrees of glory. By it's very natur, having degrees of glory means you can't answer "Salvation possible?" with a yes or no.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
As for degrees of salvation, I never heard that before so I wasn't really taking it into account in my prior posts.
as for what I would do if Jesus Himself explained things to me...well, let's just say that Thomas (of the doubting fame) is my hero among the apostles. And I would willingly accept whatever level of salvation comes with also getting PROOF of everything that is revealed to me after death.
I'm just wired that way. And I can no more take things on faith than I can change the fact that I need air to breathe.
Perhaps as I get older and (maybe?) wiser, I'll have some sort of epiphany that will increase my ability to take things on faith. But for now, anyway, I like things to be clear and unambiguous. And I like things to make sense. And I figure if God wants to be cryptic, then He must also expect a certain level of skepticism.
I would've made a lousy ancient Jew, for example. All those rules (the Mosaic law) and zero explanation of why they are the rules and not some other thing. I wouldn't have worshiped idols, but I might've abandoned the whole enterprise as making no more sense than the polytheistic mess that we'd just left in Egypt.
Oh well, I guess there are people who believe our gift of reason is there to trip us up. I, on the other hand, believe that it is meant to inform us and guide us in our search toward God. To the extent that I can't prove something, I believe it less strongly.
And I trust the word of other people on such things less than I trust my own experience. So I do pretty poorly with religions that incorporate revelation via a priestly caste (as in Aaron's time, and today in Catholicism and the LDS).
I suppose if Christ Himself came and told me something, I'd still want proof.
Thomas and I are brothers. I could hang with him in whatever level of eternity is allotted to people like us.
And, basically, it sounds like I'd be taking a bigger risk by reading The Book of Mormon than by just leaving it largely unread (as I have to date). Because if you are right and I'd be held responsible for it because I've been exposed to it and still don't believe, I could be in serious trouble.
At least this way I can plead ignorance.
Willful ignorance, to be sure, but still at least I wouldn't be tested on it.
This brings up an interesting question for the evangelical folks among us. If you believe that once a person has heard the "Good News" they then become responsible for acting on it, maybe you aren't really doing them a favor by proseletizing. I mean, if I get more of a chance after death by hearing the message from a source that I could believe in at that time than I would if I heard it here on Earth and rejected it, maybe every bit you tell me now actually harms me.
Hmm...
Fortunately, I don't think God works that way.
Bottom line is that I do like the idea of God knowing what's in our hearts and taking that into account.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
With one little exception. I'd take Jesus's word for it. If Jesus, or God or the Holy Spirit, for that matter, sits me down and explains to me that "insert way of thinking I don't believe in" is right and I need to accept it to move on to salvation, I'll believe him. I won't ask him to show me why, or prove it.
Until, however, that happens... I'm pretty happy as a United Methodist.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, Bob. I think I understand you a lot better now. I don't know why some people have no trouble believing, while so many others need proof. I wish I had the answers to stuff like that.
But I've got two more little nitpicks.
I would never call the priesthood in the Latter-day Saint Church a caste. There's really no prestige attached to having the priesthood, nor do people typically aspire for higher callings (in fact, it seems that people usually dread higher callings). It's not some sort of class system or other social structure.
Second, "Book of Mormon" should not be italicized. This is a more trivial editorial thing, but works of scripture are not italicized. Don't ask me why. That's just the way it is.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not quite sure what the reasoning is behind not italicizing the names of works of scripture, but it seems to be a pretty standard rule. I don't think I've ever seen The Bible italicized before, anyway.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: This brings up an interesting question for the evangelical folks among us. If you believe that once a person has heard the "Good News" they then become responsible for acting on it, maybe you aren't really doing them a favor by proseletizing. I mean, if I get more of a chance after death by hearing the message from a source that I could believe in at that time than I would if I heard it here on Earth and rejected it, maybe every bit you tell me now actually harms me.
Isn't it a part of Terry Prachett's Discworld realm that when you die you go to whatever afterlife you happend to believe in? So in their realm, preachers of "fire and brimstone" were actually evil because their preaching caused people to go there. I thought that was a pretty funny idea.
I do think that having knowledge and understanding are pretty important. I also believe (as I think you do) that we are not "saved in ignorance".
I am certainly not going to point fingers at someone for having issues with faith. If I were to ever "convert" to something, it would be agnosticism. I really do sympathize with the agnostic point of view. I am glad that I do have some faith, I think I am far better off than I would be without it at all.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just because this thread is still here I guess I'll go ahead and post some general responses to comments which may or may not have already been addressed.
Bob said:
quote: And I figure if God wants to be cryptic, then He must also expect a certain level of skepticism.
Well, I agree that there is a lot of information that could have been made infinitely more clear, but I think maybe there is a good reason. I really buy into the old Spiderman saying "With great power comes great responsibility". If you replace that with knowledge then we get the situation we are discussing. I figure that the more a person understands the requirements of the gospel, the more responsible they are for following those requirements and the more culpable they are when they don't.
quote: I would suggest that all discrimination -- ALL discrimination -- creates a "superior" and "lesser" category, and people tend to put themselves into the superior one.
I disagree with this statement quite a lot. I think that it is perfectly possible to recognize inherent differences without designating one as superior. The difference between men and women is a good example- is one better than another? But the principle applies much more broadly. Isn't the whole basis for the PC movement to recognize that different doesn't mean inferior?
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
The priesthood as the Lord has set it up and as it is used by the General Authorities and by the priesthood holders who are actually honoring it is NOT a caste system, it is a principle of service, and it's wonderful.
Not everyone works that way. Some are members of the church. All are jerks. I'm convinced that most who have a problem with priesthood have had more experiences with the latter type.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I have decided I'm kind of glad for this thread. It looks like it will end up as a kind of preparation for me: a bunch of militant atheists are trying to drag me into a discussion of the same topic on another forum, and I'm all alone there as a representative of the LDS position. They are a lot more hostile to the idea of proxy baptism than are most people who have participated in this thread. I am apprehensive about the whole thing.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I disagree with this statement quite a lot. I think that it is perfectly possible to recognize inherent differences without designating one as superior. The difference between men and women is a good example- is one better than another? But the principle applies much more broadly. Isn't the whole basis for the PC movement to recognize that different doesn't mean inferior?"
Yes. Which is why the PC movement is doomed. Because once you move away from things that you have no control over -- like the color of your skin or your sexual preference -- you start dealing with differences you CHOSE to express.
And it's simply human nature for people to believe that they have made better choices than the people around them. It's natural, if you think about it. After all, if you thought THEIR choice was better, why wouldn't you have made it?
So if you're a Mormon and someone else ISN'T a Mormon, of COURSE you believe that you've made a better choice than the person who isn't. If you're a Democrat and someone else ISN'T a Democrat, of course you believe that you are, just slightly, superior to the person who disagrees with your perfectly sensible position.
See how it works?
It breaks down, as I said, over things you have no choice over. The only way to maintain THAT kind of prejudice -- which we still DO see, but at a lesser frequency -- is to try to prove some kind of genetic superiority, or else a God-mandated distinction between the two classes.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Wow, your take on Mormonism is certainly refreshing, albeit a little hard to swallow.
quote: It feels like Mormons are being portrayed as 'exclusivists', by which I mean nobody but us in heaven. The Church has never taught that, quite the opposite in fact. We have never claimed to have a monopoly on the truth.
Although we have never claimed to have a monopoly on truth, we have declared we are the only true church. And nobody but US will get into heaven. The whole point of the saving ordinances is to get us in heaven. What non-Mormon can get into heaven?
Of course the dead who accept the proxy saving ordinances, done by the members of the kingdom on earth, can be exalted, but if they are proxy baptized into our church, that kinda makes them members if they accept the proxy baptism.
quote:I read in a book on comparitive Chritianity a few years ago that the main problem with Mormonism is that we deny others the spirit,
We don't deny inspiration, but we do deny the spirit, otherwise, why do we get the Holy Ghost during confirmation?
quote:The only thing is the authority of the priesthood, which an individual doesn't need to be saved, but which the institutional kingdom of God on the earth, ie the Church, does need to oversee and administer what we consider the saving ordinances of the gospel.
Again, without the saving ordinances we can not be saved. I almost think you are trying to do a disservice to the church by making members look bad.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Although we have never claimed to have a monopoly on truth, we have declared we are the only true church. And nobody but US will get into heaven. The whole point of the saving ordinances is to get us in heaven. What non-Mormon can get into heaven?
I'm going to ask something rather blunt: are you a troll, or do you just not understand what "Mormon" means? "Mormon" only refers to members of the church in this dispensation. Nobody from Adam to the Apostles could have been called a Mormon.
quote:Again, without the saving ordinances we can not be saved. I almost think you are trying to do a disservice to the church by making members look bad.
The problem here is that people are using multiple definitions of the word "saved." People who end up in the telestial kingdom are still saved—saved from death and from their sins. The only people who aren't saved from their sins are those who go to outer darkness because they have a sure knowledge of the gospel and choose not to accept it. Very, very few people fit into that category.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's see, what non-Mormon will get into Heaven?
Jesus wasn't Mormon. Neither were any of the prophets before him. Neither were any of the apostles after him.
Nephi wasn't Mormon. Neither were any of the BOM peoples.
I think a lot of non-Mormons are going to make it to heaven.
The work for the dead has nothing to do with making them part of our religion and has everything to do with their own personal relationship with God and formalizing it with covenants, which we believe must happen within the mortal sphere.
There are a great many people I believe God prefers where they are, and not converting to Mormonism. They do great good as religious and secular leaders, and that would be lessened if they converted to Mormonism. Of course, there are those who would do more good as Mormons as well. Everything has a time and place. God doesn't love Mormons more than he loves anyone else, and everyone will have equal opportunity in this life and the next. I suspect Mormons will be in the minority in the highest level of heaven.
quote:Do I think that it is possible that …God would accpet a baptism by those who may not have received the authority through His established way but would still accept it on account of the sincerity of their hearts?
From a Mormon perspective: definitely not. If you were sincere, then when the after-life missionaries approach you, you will accept the proxy baptism done in your behalf. It is the proxy baptism by authority that will save you (assuming you have the character and faith that warrants saving).
quote:But I have also been thinking that baptism is the entrance into Christ's church. If that church rejects His words (scriptures and prophets) are they really Christ's church? Assuming the above are from God, then I don't think so. That is not to say that they are not full of good people accomplishing good things doing their best to follow the scripture that they have, and being led by God's inspiration. Most of them have not "rejected" the above things because they haven't studied them. But is it safe to assume the church organization probably doesn't teach them either?
Can you elaborate on this paragraph? I got a little confused. Are you talking about the Mormon church? General Christianity? A non-Christian church?
posted
I dunno, Alexa, as I studied and pondered what was written in scripture about the plan of salvation, it sure seemed to me that the best part about it is that everyone will receive as much spiritual "salvation" as they are willing and desirous to receive. Everyone who receives a kingdom of glory, any kingdom of glory, does so because of the grace of Christ. Without him, we would all be going where Satan is going. Christ's work is to redeem all who are willing to be redeemed from that fate. So the majority of souls born to earth (I assume the majority) will be "saved" from that eventual fate. Salvation, like many scriptural terms, can have multiple layers of meaning.
No denying proxy baptism has a purpose or we wouldn't be doing it.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: We don't deny inspiration, but we do deny the spirit, otherwise, why do we get the Holy Ghost during confirmation?
There's a difference between the influence and gifts of the Spirit and the Gift of the Holy Spirit by th laying on of hands. Remember Cornelius who started speaking in tongues and manifesting gifts of the spirit before he was even Baptised? These signs were proof to Peter (I think) that he had accepted everything willfully, and that there was absolutely no reason to deny him Baptism at this point.
quote: I'm going to ask something rather blunt: are you a troll, or do you just not understand what "Mormon" means? "Mormon" only refers to members of the church in this dispensation. Nobody from Adam to the Apostles could have been called a Mormon.
Altho Mormonism is a for "this dispensation," it still claims to be the Kingdom of God on earth-- with the same priesthood from Adamic times. It is the same authority, same priesthood, same baptism, same ordinances that save you. Yeah, there was no Book of Mormon and official "Mormon" title, but it is the same church. Otherwise it would not be a restoration.
quote: The problem here is that people are using multiple definitions of the word "saved."
I am using saved to mean returning to live with God. That is the traditional usage of saved in Christianity. As a Mormon, it would have been clearer to say exalted.
quote: I am using saved to mean returning to live with God. That is the traditional usage of saved in Christianity.
The traditional usage of the word Saved in Christianity would more accurately refer to someone who is not going to hell.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Altho Mormonism is a for "this dispensation," it still claims to be the Kingdom of God on earth-- with the same priesthood from Adamic times. It is the same authority, same priesthood, same baptism, same ordinances that save you. Yeah, there was no Book of Mormon and official "Mormon" title, but it is the same church. Otherwise it would not be a restoration.
That still doesn't mean that anyone before Joseph Smith could be called a Mormon. Also, it isn't the exact same church. Lots of things have changed since Adam's time.
And there's no h in Jon Boy.
[ April 19, 2004, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: The traditional usage of the word Saved in Christianity would more accurately refer to someone who is not going to hell.
Now we are getting into semantics. I have clarified my use of the word "saved." I was using saved to mean returning to live with our Savior in the highest degree of glory--for that baptism is essential.
quote: There's a difference between the influence and gifts of the Spirit and the Gift of the Holy Spirit by th laying on of hands.
I was defending the book Cashew read...
quote:a book on comparitive Chritianity a few years ago that the main problem with Mormonism is that we deny others the spirit, but we don't.
I was just pointing out that since we do deny others have the Holy Ghost as a constant companion, that book excerpt is not so far off the mark as Cashew was proclaiming. Personally I can't tell the difference. If you can be influenced by the Holy Ghost, why do you need to have him/her/it confirmed on you?
Amka,
quote:God doesn't love Mormons more than he loves anyone else,
I never said he did. I only state that receiving the saving ordinances that are "Currently" only offered by Mormons, is the only way to be exalted.
Bev,
quote: it sure seemed to me that the best part about it is that everyone will receive as much spiritual "salvation" as they are willing and desirous to receive. Everyone who receives a kingdom of glory, any kingdom of glory, does so because of the grace of Christ.
I agree. That is one reason I LOVE Mormonism. I am only talking about how the saving ordinances are necessary to be exalted.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alexa, I was mostly "thinking aloud" wondering if according to an LDS POV baptism under those circumstances would be acceptable to God. I stated that I have an "open mind" meaning I admit to not understanding God's will fully based on what I know.
As I continued thinking, I thought about how one of baptism's many purposes is entrance into Christ's church. My point was (assuming LDS scripture/revelation is from God, as I believe it is) that the LDS church is the only one that recognizes these things. We believe other churches err in part because they do not accept a portion of God's words. Therefore baptism into a non-LDS Christian church is entrance into a church that rejects words of Christ. Therefore they are not "Christ's church". So my eventual conclusion was that, no, such a baptism could not meet the qualifications.
posted
That is an interesting point. Only Catholics really have purgatory as an in-between far as I'm aware.
I think part of the problem is that the normal protestant definition of "saved" is both saved from sin and damnation, and part and parcel and included is the "exalted" state of heaven. So the one word includes two concepts that have been totally re-defined in LDS terminology.
But I believe even most Catholics (and catholics feel free to correct me) view "saved" to mean going to heaven to be with God So anything less than being with God is a definite cheapening. In fact Hell has been defined by some theologians (Dana knows which ones but I can't remember) as the "absence of the presence of God" So if you can't be in God's presence when you die you are therefore "in Hell" regardless of whether you are actually being tormented or not.
So yes I would think when assigning "non-exalted status" to non-LDS while I understand that the intent is generous, to someone who is non-LDS it is like giving the kid the broken garage sale toy and saying "oh but it is just as good as the shiny new toy!"
quote: That still doesn't mean that anyone before Joseph Smith could be called a Mormon. Also, it isn't the exact same church. Lots of things have changed since Adam's time.
Our Church today isn't even called Mormon. Mormon just is slang for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The Church of Jesus Christ is the Kingdom of God on this earth. I am sorry that my use of slang has caused so many people anxiety. I guess I bought into the importance of membership into our church the prophet has emphasized.
Lots of things have also changed since Joseph restored the church.
**let me ostracize the "h" I kept using as a asign of apology. h
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I was using saved to mean returning to live with our Savior in the highest degree of glory--for that baptism is essential.
Not quite right, IMO. We believe that Christ's presence will be in the Terrestrial K. My mom is fond of saying that the Terrestrial K. is exactly what traditional Christianity believes heaven to be. Ressurrection, glory, good people, being with Christ, and no marriage. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually AJ, I would never say it was "as good as". There's a reason it's refered to as a higher degree of glory. I see it more like, you give a child a tri-cycle since he/she doesn't know how to ride anything, and a tri-cycle, but you give an experienced adult rider a really nice, Trek road bike.
That's a rather condescending analogy I know, I don't actually think of myself as an adult in a world full of inexperienced children, that's just the general idea. We get what we are ready to recieve.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
It implies that we think both that you are lesser AND that you ought to be "brought into the fold." Neither is true.
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
h
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
