For JWs and LDS

[TasteForTruth]

Because you were addressing A New Dawn, will you enlighten us as to what she believes Christianity to be?

Kind of how you tell us what LDS doctrines are and mean?

 

[Ran77]

And I see that the members who are no longer LDS are afforded the same ability to retain what they know about the LDS church as the converts from Christianity to the LDS church.

NOT.

I know that we are under direction not to communicate with one another. As an admin on this site, I would expect you to follow the rules better. Please, restrain from futher violations of those sanctions.

 

[A New Dawn]

I know that we are under direction not to communicate with one another. As an admin on this site, I would expect you to follow the rules better. Please, restrain from futher violations of those sanctions.

Those sanctions no longer exist. You are free to write to any of the staff and check. Had they existed, I would not have responded, even though the statement needed a response.

 

[TasteForTruth]

I find it really rather sad that some think God is just a glorified man who demands performance on the part of his creation to determine whether or not he will let them into his Celestial (or otherwise) Kingdom.

LOL, if you think you're talking about members of the LDS church, I can assure you that you are only talking about LDS who don't understand the Restored Gospel!

So to summarize, we have some here who share a particular Christian view, who are taking issue with LDS, claiming that they are misrepresenting what Christians believe. And 100% of the LDS here are taking issue with those same Christians, claiming that they are misrepresenting what LDS believe. Would it make sense, therefore, for both sides to clarify with the other that they actually have the other side's beliefs right before they go off assuming they actually do, sharing their yet-to-be-verified assumptions in-forum, and beating them down like the strawmen they are? If we take a vote, mine is a resounding "yes!"

 

[fatboys]

Like I said, you know nothing about Christianity. Everything you say is hearsay. "From what I gather from mainstream Christians .........." is wrong. Who here has ever said that all you have to do is pay lip service????? Really. Find me one post that says that. And let me remind you that not all who cry "Lord, Lord" are His.

What I mean about LDS being force fed is that the same exact things you are saying now, even in this post I quoted, is nothing different from what JS and all the old prophets have proclaimed since the very beginning of the movement. "They profess with their lips but their hearts are far from me" sounds really similar to "... all one has to do to be saved is lip service".

I have been is discussion online for almost 18 years. Hard to believe that it has been that long. And I have had millions of discussions with mainstream Christans. Are you now saying that a person cannot be saved by confessing the belief of Christ?

 

[Rescued One]

I have been is discussion online for almost 18 years. Hard to believe that it has been that long. And I have had millions of discussions with mainstream Christans. Are you now saying that a person cannot be saved by confessing the belief of Christ?

A person wouldn't sincerely confess Christ if he hadn't already been saved! Insincerely, he might.

 

[Rescued One]

Men don't know what people believe unless God reveals it to them, but they can know what people teach.

 

[A New Dawn]

I have been is discussion online for almost 18 years. Hard to believe that it has been that long. And I have had millions of discussions with mainstream Christans. Are you now saying that a person cannot be saved by confessing the belief of Christ?

Confession of belief is not part of the salvation process. It might be part of the repentance process, which occurs in response to the salvation process, but salvation comes purely from God. We do nothing to earn it, or to further it along. What I gather from you (and the many who seem to make this same error here) is that what comes after salvation is not even worth discussing. That can't be further from the truth. While we can't do anything to earn salvation, our response to the work Christ did on the cross is just as compelling (actually, I'd say more compelling) in making us desirous to follow the commands of Christ than if we were forced to follow them in order to attain salvation. Have you never noticed that when one is forced to do something for merit, they are more prone to rebel against it, but when that same thing is given for free, the person receiving it for nothing is often bound by gratitude to the one who gives it? That is the nature of one who has had their hearts turned by God. If one claims to be saved and does not have this compelling nature within them, then I highly doubt their claim.

 

[bbbbbbb]

LOL, if you think you're talking about members of the LDS church, I can assure you that you are only talking about LDS who don't understand the Restored Gospel!

So to summarize, we have some here who share a particular Christian view, who are taking issue with LDS, claiming that they are misrepresenting what Christians believe. And 100% of the LDS here are taking issue with those same Christians, claiming that they are misrepresenting what LDS believe. Would it make sense, therefore, for both sides to clarify with the other that they actually have the other side's beliefs right before they go off assuming they actually do, sharing their yet-to-be-verified assumptions in-forum, and beating them down like the strawmen they are? If we take a vote, mine is a resounding "yes!"

I was not commenting on any individual member or members of your church but on the theology expressed by Fatboys. He stated in plain English why your church believes that God has given a list of duties to man to perform. Is there anything in his post with which you disagree? If not, then my commentary on the theology expressed in his post stands. If he holds non-approved LDS theology I suggest that you correct him. As it is, I can only believe that he has expressed acceptable LDS theology.

 

[Ran77]

I was not commenting on any individual member or members of your church but on the theology expressed by Fatboys. He stated in plain English why your church believes that God has given a list of duties to man to perform. Is there anything in his post with which you disagree? If not, then my commentary on the theology expressed in his post stands. If he holds non-approved LDS theology I suggest that you correct him. As it is, I can only believe that he has expressed acceptable LDS theology.

I'm only commenting on the portion of your post that I have bolded.

How does the 10 Commandments fit into this? Isn't that a list of duties that God expects man to perform? If so, do you believe that men should perform them?

 

[TasteForTruth]

Confession of belief is not part of the salvation process. It might be part of the repentance process, which occurs in response to the salvation process, but salvation comes purely from God.

Is repentance part of the salvation process?

We do nothing to earn it, or to further it along. What I gather from you (and the many who seem to make this same error here) is that what comes after salvation is not even worth discussing. That can't be further from the truth. While we can't do anything to earn salvation, our response to the work Christ did on the cross is just as compelling (actually, I'd say more compelling) in making us desirous to follow the commands of Christ than if we were forced to follow them in order to attain salvation.

You can't force people to follow commandments in order to attain salvation. That is absolute nonsense and no religion I know of teaches that.

Have you never noticed that when one is forced to do something for merit, they are more prone to rebel against it, but when that same thing is given for free, the person receiving it for nothing is often bound by gratitude to the one who gives it?

Forcing people to do things for merit? Just what would that look like?

That is the nature of one who has had their hearts turned by God. If one claims to be saved and does not have this compelling nature within them, then I highly doubt their claim.

You know, it is highly offensive when the fruits of my conversion are generalized to have resulted from "doing something for merit" which—whether they who use such language like it or not—happens every time people claim that my religion teaches salvation by the sinner's merits. The hypocrisy inherent in making such a statement is truly stupefying. If Joe Mormon is baptized and does A, B, and C in the Church because he wants to gain God's promised favor and blessings, I will agree that he has yet to realize that there is a higher level of worship and devotion. But I will not exalt myself to Judgehood by claiming his conversion was phony, forced, or not authentic on the backward-looking basis that if it were authentic he'd be doing those things for the "right" reasons!

 

[TasteForTruth]

The problem is that either God requires certain steps to show that we are humble and submissive to the will of God, or we can claim we are, but make no effort to do so. Either God gave us laws and commandments to live by or he did not. How can we show that we are sincere if there is no effort to show that. If a person says he is saved, but shows no signs of it, then it is just lip service. Perhaps that person only puts forth third attemp and can claim salvation. There has to be consistancy. In what I gather from mainstream Christians all one has to do to be saved is lip service. And I don't know what you mean by us being force fed about Christianity. I have learned by my self what you and others believe Christianity to be. I disagree with how some define it.

Herein lie some of the differences between the God of Mormonism and God as understood by orthodox Christianity. I fail to understand how God cannot understand everything about a person (Psalm 139). I don't have to prove anything to God at all because he knows me through and through. I do not have to jump through a lot of hoops in order to gain His favor. He gives me His grace as a totally free gift through faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8,9). I find it really rather sad that some think God is just a glorified man who demands performance on the part of his creation to determine whether or not he will let them into his Celestial (or otherwise) Kingdom.

LOL, if you think you're talking about members of the LDS church, I can assure you that you are only talking about LDS who don't understand the Restored Gospel!

So to summarize, we have some here who share a particular Christian view, who are taking issue with LDS, claiming that they are misrepresenting what Christians believe. And 100% of the LDS here are taking issue with those same Christians, claiming that they are misrepresenting what LDS believe. Would it make sense, therefore, for both sides to clarify with the other that they actually have the other side's beliefs right before they go off assuming they actually do, sharing their yet-to-be-verified assumptions in-forum, and beating them down like the strawmen they are? If we take a vote, mine is a resounding "yes!"

I was not commenting on any individual member or members of your church but on the theology expressed by Fatboys. He stated in plain English why your church believes that God has given a list of duties to man to perform. Is there anything in his post with which you disagree?

No, there isn't. The problem is, your original response spoke from the posit of strawman conclusions (inadvertent, I'm sure). My response to yours was, therefore, neither inharmonious with Fatboy's post, or an over-response to your post. For example, nowhere in Fatboy's post is it stated or implied that God needs our obedience in order to know that we are sincere, as was your conclusion. The meaning you derived from Fatboy's post was that such was the purpose for the commandments. And your post was crafted from this faulty conclusion. Hence, my post. Since he has not yet responded to the post which triggered my involvement, ask Fatboys to clarify whether or not you drew accurate conclusions from his comments.

If not, then my commentary on the theology expressed in his post stands.

Well, I don't disagree with what he said, but I do not agree that your commentary stands, for the reasons above.

If he holds non-approved LDS theology I suggest that you correct him. As it is, I can only believe that he has expressed acceptable LDS theology.

Again, I think you drew a faulty conclusion and formed your response from that. Fatboys can confirm or contradict my assessment.

 

[A New Dawn]

Is repentance part of the salvation process?
You can't force people to follow commandments in order to attain salvation. That is absolute nonsense and no religion I know of teaches that.Forcing people to do things for merit? Just what would that look like?
You know, it is highly offensive when the fruits of my conversion are generalized to have resulted from "doing something for merit" which—whether they who use such language like it or not—happens every time people claim that my religion teaches salvation by the sinner's merits. The hypocrisy inherent in making such a statement is truly stupefying. If Joe Mormon is baptized and does A, B, and C in the Church because he wants to gain God's promised favor and blessings, I will agree that he has yet to realize that there is a higher level of worship and devotion. But I will not exalt myself to Judgehood by claiming his conversion was phony, forced, or not authentic on the backward-looking basis that if it were authentic he'd be doing those things for the "right" reasons!

The problem is, your church requires that certain things be done before salvation can happen. One HAS to join the LDS church, being baptized and confirmed by a member of the LDS priesthood. If one wants to be exalted, one HAS to have a temple recommend, and in order to get a temple recommend, one HAS to follow the Word of Wisdom, and one HAS to pay a specific amount of tithing, etc., and when one gets the temple recommend and goes to the temple, one HAS to learn secret oaths and handshakes in order to progress, and one HAS to be married celestially. That is how you force people to merit their salvation.

Those are all requirements that are not part of what Christ/the Bible says needs to be done. Believe and be baptized (in that order) is all that the Bible says is required for salvation. Anything more than that is a return to the law.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I'm only commenting on the portion of your post that I have bolded.

How does the 10 Commandments fit into this? Isn't that a list of duties that God expects man to perform? If so, do you believe that men should perform them?

Apparently your church does not as it willfully and flagrantly violates the Fourth Commandment.

Please remember we are discussing LDS theology and not necessarily my personal beliefs.

Does your church believe that God expects man to perfectly obey His commandments?

 

[bbbbbbb]

No, there isn't. The problem is, your original response spoke from the posit of strawman conclusions (inadvertent, I'm sure). My response to yours was, therefore, neither inharmonious with Fatboy's post, or an over-response to your post. For example, nowhere in Fatboy's post is it stated or implied that God needs our obedience in order to know that we are sincere, as was your conclusion. The meaning you derived from Fatboy's post was that such was the purpose for the commandments. And your post was crafted from this faulty conclusion. Hence, my post. Since he has not yet responded to the post which triggered my involvement, ask Fatboys to clarify whether or not you drew accurate conclusions from his comments.

Well, I don't disagree with what he said, but I do not agree that your commentary stands, for the reasons above.
Again, I think you drew a faulty conclusion and formed your response from that. Fatboys can confirm or contradict my assessment.

It is a great pity that fatboys has not been here to respond.

Here is his original post -

"The problem is that either God requires certain steps to show that we are humble and submissive to the will of God, or we can claim we are, but make no effort to do so. Either God gave us laws and commandments to live by or he did not. How can we show that we are sincere if there is no effort to show that. If a person says he is saved, but shows no signs of it, then it is just lip service. Perhaps that person only puts forth third attemp and can claim salvation. There has to be consistancy. In what I gather from mainstream Christians all one has to do to be saved is lip service. And I don't know what you mean by us being force fed about Christianity. I have learned by my self what you and others believe Christianity to be. I disagree with how some define it."

Based upon his post, is it not evident that he believes that God "requires certain steps to show that we are humble and submissive to the will of God"? He paints an either/or situation. He then goes on to another either/or situation, making it clear that his position (and presumably that of your church) is that "God gave us laws and commandments to live by ". He does not state who "us" is, but it appears that he may mean members of your church or mankind in general.

My point is that I find a God who needs to observe such behavior in order to conclude that individual people are humble and submissive to His will is really quite sad and not omniscient.

Does your church believe in such a God or does it not?

 

[TasteForTruth]

The problem is, your church requires that certain things be done before salvation can happen. One HAS to join the LDS church [(an exercise of one's will)], being baptized and confirmed by a member of the LDS priesthood [(an exercise of one's will)]. If one wants to be exalted, one HAS to have a temple recommend [(an exercise of one's will)], and in order to get a temple recommend, one HAS to follow the Word of Wisdom [(an exercise of one's will)], and one HAS to pay a specific amount of tithing [(an exercise of one's will)], etc., and when one gets the temple recommend and goes to the temple, one HAS to learn secret oaths and handshakes in order to progress [(an exercise of one's will)], and one HAS to be married celestially [(an exercise of one's will)]. That is how you force people to merit their salvation.

Hmmm. Seems, then, that what you describe below is also forcing people to merit salvation:

Those are all requirements that are not part of what Christ/the Bible says needs to be done. Believe and be baptized (in that order) is all that the Bible says is required for salvation. Anything more than that is a return to the law.

In your presented recipe for salvation, it is required—prerequisite, obligatory, etc.—that one believe (an exercise of one's will) and be baptized (an exercise of one's will). The only difference I see between the list far above and the list immediately above is that one is longer. They both involve human beings exercising their individual wills to obey God's commandments.

 

[TasteForTruth]

It is a great pity that fatboys has not been here to respond.

Here is his original post -

"The problem is that either God requires certain steps to show that we are humble and submissive to the will of God, or we can claim we are, but make no effort to do so. Either God gave us laws and commandments to live by or he did not. How can we show that we are sincere if there is no effort to show that. If a person says he is saved, but shows no signs of it, then it is just lip service. Perhaps that person only puts forth third attemp and can claim salvation. There has to be consistancy. In what I gather from mainstream Christians all one has to do to be saved is lip service. And I don't know what you mean by us being force fed about Christianity. I have learned by my self what you and others believe Christianity to be. I disagree with how some define it."

Based upon his post, is it not evident that he believes that God "requires certain steps to show that we are humble and submissive to the will of God"? He paints an either/or situation. He then goes on to another either/or situation, making it clear that his position (and presumably that of your church) is that "God gave us laws and commandments to live by ". He does not state who "us" is, but it appears that he may mean members of your church or mankind in general.

My point is that I find a God who needs to observe such behavior in order to conclude that individual people are humble and submissive to His will is really quite sad and not omniscient.

Yes, I understand what the point is. But Fatboys does not say (directly or by implication) that God needs to "observe" our behavior in order to conclude anything. Where does he say that? It certainly isn't in any of the blue stuff you highlighted. We both must be reading this totally differently.

Is it the word "show"? Is that where you're getting it? Do you believe that Fatboys is saying that God waits for us to manifest our works so that He can show that we are humble, etc.?

Does your church believe in such a God or does it not?

No, we don't!

 

[A New Dawn]

Hmmm. Seems, then, that what you describe below is also forcing people to merit salvation:

In your presented recipe for salvation, it is required—prerequisite, obligatory, etc.—that one believe (an exercise of one's will) and be baptized (an exercise of one's will). The only difference I see between the list far above and the list immediately above is that one is longer. They both involve human beings exercising their individual wills to obey God's commandments.

Faith is given by God, not something we need to exercise ourselves. Being baptized is a response to the work God has done in us. It is not required for salvation. It is a statement of belief.

 

[TasteForTruth]

Faith is given by God, not something we need to exercise ourselves. Being baptized is a response to the work God has done in us. It is not required for salvation. It is a statement of belief.

Couple things:

1. You speak as though faith and belief are one and the same thing. Is that what you believe?
2. Either baptism is required for salvation or it is not. You previously said it was and now you're saying it's not. Which is it, in your view?

 

[A New Dawn]

Couple things:

1. You speak as though faith and belief are one and the same thing. Is that what you believe?
2. Either baptism is required for salvation or it is not. You previously said it was and now you're saying it's not. Which is it, in your view?

I made a error then. I didn't mean to say baptism was required for salvation. It is something we are commanded by Christ to do, but not for salvation. We are commanded to believe and be baptized (in that order), but the scripture goes on to say that it is only belief that is required for salvation.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Only belief is coupled with salvation.