For JWs and LDS

[Ran77]

TasteForTruth does not care to discuss this nor attempt to refute it, so I hope that this is helpful to non-LDS who are curious about Mormonism.

Or at least curious about your take on the subject.

 

[Phantasman]

TasteForTruth does not care to discuss this nor attempt to refute it, so I hope that this is helpful to non-LDS who are curious about Mormonism.

My questions about Mormonism is usually not that much, as I really think churches and doctrines come from men. The Rotherham Bible (considered the most accurate translation by many does not see the word church in the Bible but the word "assemblies" instead.

My biggest concern would be the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. If indeed this book is real, is giving true account, and was given to the world by God, it is a treasure. What would happen to Joseph Smith after that would not concern me, as who knows if he chose Judas path or not. The prize is what God gave, not what man says.

When He-Man attacked Nephi I could see no spiritual leg to stand on, and made my point as such. Attacking the church or Joseph Smith is another matter, one in which I take no interest, since I fear deception from everything after 300AD . But I have seen nothing from the Book of Mormon that tells me it is false scripture, and more that it is probably true.

But my mind is open.

 

[Rescued One]

Or at least curious about your take on the subject.

I don't know about "take;" I relate what I was taught in said church and that has not been refuted by LDS.

 

[Ran77]

I don't know about "take;" I relate what I was taught in said church and that has not been refuted by LDS.

Take is definately the correct word. The language (choice of words) you use when explaining LDS beliefs often are negative and obviously chosen to paint our beliefs in a negative light. The phrases that are used change them from our beliefs to a caricature of our beliefs - ones that are easier to mock or discredit. Perhaps tomorrow I will point one of these instances out so you can see what I mean.

 

[TasteForTruth]

TasteForTruth does not care to discuss this nor attempt to refute it, so I hope that this is helpful to non-LDS who are curious about Mormonism.

Thank you for speaking for me, Phoebe Ann. Now, if you don't mind, I'll speak for myself. My words were clear and, as your post was in direct response to mine, they were in direct response to you and were not intended to be for anyone else. I did not say that I would not like to discuss those things at all. I said, in essence, that you and I had discussed them before and there was no need to discuss them again. If others with whom I have not discussed these matters wish to take up the baton, I do not need you to tell them that I do not want to discuss them. I will do that myself, should I ever feel so inclined.

 

[TasteForTruth]

My questions about Mormonism is usually not that much, as I really think churches and doctrines come from men. The Rotherham Bible (considered the most accurate translation by many does not see the word church in the Bible but the word "assemblies" instead.

My biggest concern would be the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. If indeed this book is real, is giving true account, and was given to the world by God, it is a treasure. What would happen to Joseph Smith after that would not concern me, as who knows if he chose Judas path or not. The prize is what God gave, not what man says.

When He-Man attacked Nephi I could see no spiritual leg to stand on, and made my point as such. Attacking the church or Joseph Smith is another matter, one in which I take no interest, since I fear deception from everything after 300AD . But I have seen nothing from the Book of Mormon that tells me it is false scripture, and more that it is probably true.

But my mind is open.

I'm curious... why do you fear deception from 300AD on?

 

[skylark1]

If a person is rigidly adhering to a creed and subordinating the Spirit to it, I think that would have some effect in the person. That was the context of my statement.
Well, in that particular case they were justifying their greed by invoking their their creed—by calling their property "corban." That same instance was recorded in Mark, but it gave more detail:

And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. (Mark 7:9-13)
​

So they used their uninspired rabbinical tradition (the creed, in this instance) to justify a violation of God's law, suppressing the Spirit, which inspires us to care for each other. So the tradition itself, which had a form of godliness (it's good to sacrifice for, or dedicate material goods to, the support of God's work), denied the power thereof.

But you don't think that this has any application to Christian creeds? Not, mind you, speaking narrowly of the Nicene Creed (for example), but of entire Christian systems of belief—anything that a group believes and teaches is a creed. (at least that's how I understand the term)

This discussion between us of creeds began in post #151. (http://www.christianforums.com/t7676613-4/#post61342314 ) In that post you included the following quotation:

JS-History 1:9 - I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."​

I've always assumed and it seemed to me that LDS who I have talked to also thought that the reference to creeds here was a reference to formal creeds. One of the reasons why I thought that is that there was a broader restoration movement that included the time when the LDS Church was founded, and that restoration movement rejected the use of formal creeds.

The following briefly explains:

The Restoration Movement developed from several independent efforts to return to apostolic Christianity, but two groups, which independently developed similar approaches to the Christian faith, were particularly important to the development of the movement.[5]:27-32 The first, led by Barton W. Stone, began at Cane Ridge, Kentucky and called themselves simply "Christians". The second began in western Pennsylvania and Virginia (now West Virginia) and was led by Thomas Campbell and his son, Alexander Campbell; they used the name "Disciples of Christ". Both groups sought to restore the whole Christian church on the pattern set forth in the New Testament, and both believed that creeds kept Christianity divided. In 1832 they joined in fellowship with a handshake....

During the First Great Awakening, a movement developed among those Baptists known as Separate Baptists. Two themes of this movement were the rejection of creeds and "freedom in the Spirit."[10]:65 The Separate Baptists saw Scripture as the "perfect rule" for the church.[10]:66 However, while they turned to the Bible for a structural pattern for the church, they did not insist on complete agreement on the details of that pattern.[10]:67 This group originated in New England, but was especially strong in the South where the emphasis on a biblical pattern for the church grew stronger.[10]:67 In the last half of the 18th century, Separate Baptists became more numerous on the western frontier of Kentucky and Tennessee, where the Stone and Campbell movements would later take root.[10]:68 The development of the Separate Baptists in the southern frontier helped prepare the ground for the Restoration Movement. The membership of both the Stone and Campbell groups drew heavily from among the ranks of the Separate Baptists.[10]:67

Restoration Movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

It is probably best to be sure that we are understanding one another before going any further. Do you think that the term creed in JS-History 1:9 was a reference to formal creeds or to doctrines in general?

 

[TasteForTruth]

This discussion between us of creeds began in post #151. (http://www.christianforums.com/t7676613-4/#post61342314 ) In that post you included the following quotation:

JS-History 1:9 - I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."​

I've always assumed and it seemed to me that LDS who I have talked to also thought that the reference to creeds here was a reference to formal creeds. One of the reasons why I thought that is that there was a broader restoration movement that included the time when the LDS Church was founded, and that restoration movement rejected the use of formal creeds.

The following briefly explains:

The Restoration Movement developed from several independent efforts to return to apostolic Christianity, but two groups, which independently developed similar approaches to the Christian faith, were particularly important to the development of the movement.[5]:27-32 The first, led by Barton W. Stone, began at Cane Ridge, Kentucky and called themselves simply "Christians". The second began in western Pennsylvania and Virginia (now West Virginia) and was led by Thomas Campbell and his son, Alexander Campbell; they used the name "Disciples of Christ". Both groups sought to restore the whole Christian church on the pattern set forth in the New Testament, and both believed that creeds kept Christianity divided. In 1832 they joined in fellowship with a handshake....

During the First Great Awakening, a movement developed among those Baptists known as Separate Baptists. Two themes of this movement were the rejection of creeds and "freedom in the Spirit."[10]:65 The Separate Baptists saw Scripture as the "perfect rule" for the church.[10]:66 However, while they turned to the Bible for a structural pattern for the church, they did not insist on complete agreement on the details of that pattern.[10]:67 This group originated in New England, but was especially strong in the South where the emphasis on a biblical pattern for the church grew stronger.[10]:67 In the last half of the 18th century, Separate Baptists became more numerous on the western frontier of Kentucky and Tennessee, where the Stone and Campbell movements would later take root.[10]:68 The development of the Separate Baptists in the southern frontier helped prepare the ground for the Restoration Movement. The membership of both the Stone and Campbell groups drew heavily from among the ranks of the Separate Baptists.[10]:67

Restoration Movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

It is probably best to be sure that we are understanding one another before going any further. Do you think that the term creed in JS-History 1:9 was a reference to formal creeds or to doctrines in general?

Good call. I believe it was in reference to entire belief and worship systems, not merely to formal creeds.

 

[he-man]

What does that have to do with my comments that you quoted?

Where in Genesis or anywhere else does it say So God created Satan in His own image; in the image of God He created him;

Are there male and female Satans?

What does that have to do with your comments? Just about everything is all, but where then, did your devil come from and if not from the OT, where?

You can hide behind yourself if you are not able to address what I posted that there is not a belief in luck or magical forces of a superstitious devil or do you believe the LORD hath not done it?

Amo 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

Act 3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

Isa 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the destroyer to destroy.

Gen 19:28 And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.
29 And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt.

Luk 17:29But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.

Deu 4:3 Your eyes have seen what the LORD did because of Baalpeor: for all the men that followed Baalpeor, the LORD thy God hath destroyed them from among you.

Psa 9:5 Thou hast rebuked the heathen, thou hast destroyed the wicked, thou hast put out their name for ever and ever.

 

[Ran77]

Where in Genesis or anywhere else does it say So God created Satan in His own image; in the image of God He created him;

Are there male and female Satans?

Wazzup, He-man? Hope you're having a great day.

 

[he-man]

Wazzup, He-man? Hope you're having a great day.

Originally Posted by he-man

What does that have to do with your comments? Just about everything is all, but where then, did your devil come from and if not from the OT, where?

You can hide behind yourself if you are not able to address what I posted that there is not a belief in luck or magical forces of a superstitious devil or do you believe the LORD hath not done it?

Amo 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

Act 3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

Isa 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the destroyer to destroy.

Gen 19:28 And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.
29 And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt.

Luk 17:29But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.

Deu 4:3 Your eyes have seen what the LORD did because of Baalpeor: for all the men that followed Baalpeor, the LORD thy God hath destroyed them from among you.

Psa 9:5 Thou hast rebuked the heathen, thou hast destroyed the wicked, thou hast put out their name for ever and ever.
​

 

[A New Dawn]

Well, you've taken the LDS doctrine of the kingdoms of glory and overlaid it with a traditional Christian doctrine of heaven when applying the verse about overcoming and sitting in the Savior's and the Father's thrones. Then you judged the outcome to be incompatible with what you believe. That doesn't work. If you're going to condemn LDS doctrine as unBibilcal, you have to keep it LDS all the way through the chain. If that doesn't square with the Bible, then your judgment is sound (at least on a logical level).

I didn't necessarily compare LDS doctrine against Christian doctrine, I compared LDS doctrine against what the Bible says. It's the Bible that says that believers will sit in Christ's throne at the right hand of God.

The verse you cited is totally consistent with LDS doctrine. Those who overcome are those who are not overcome by anything. They overcome all impediments to exaltation. Those of any lesser glory do not overcome all. source source

So, in other words, one must become LDS to be saved. Otherwise you are not overcoming everything.

OK. I think you've hit on the issue at stake. You've suggested that perhaps LDS scriptures are not clear where the grace/works issue is concerned. And you've suggested that people act like we must work to get saved. And you've asked whether or not it is fair to say that the LDS scriptures muddy this issue, making it difficult to see exactly what the relationship between grace and works is. I appreciate this approach. And my answer is that I do not believe that the issue is muddied by LDS scriptures. It is as clear to me from LDS scriptures as it is clear to you from the Bible that man is saved by the grace of Jesus Christ. And it is equally clear to me that no other power—including man's God-given will to choose—can save him. I cannot account for the reasons others cannot or do not see this. If people act like the scriptures are confusing, that does not mean that they are. If people believe that they are forging their own salvation, that does not mean that such is what the scriptures teach. And, most importantly for our discussion, if LDS differ from mainstream Christians in our understanding of what works are and what grace is and how grace saves, that does not mean that our scriptures teach that man saves himself by his works. Nor does it mean that our doctrines are unbiblical.

And that is why I said that you misjudged LDS doctrine. I don't say it to be rude, or to insult your knowledge or to marginalize your past as a member of the RLDS church. I say it because I can see the doctrine clearly, and I truly believe you've misjudged it. And 99 times out of a hundred, it's due to one's own beliefs muddying the waters, making it difficult to see what the other person sees. Just like what I did last post... where I didn't take into account an important part of your theology (about why the world just didn't end when Christ had finished His work on earth). My own understanding of the purpose of mortality muddied the waters of your theology, and I concluded incorrectly. That's how easily it happens.

I don't see grace mentioned anywhere in LDS scripture, and, until very recently, I had never heard an LDS talk about grace. (And yes, I have talked to many LDS in the past, and attended services at an LDS church for months when I worked at Nauvoo.) Granted, the Bible talks about grace, but the more recent LDS scriptures are very works-oriented.

So, how does grace work for you when, according to LDS scripture, so many things are required in order to be saved?

Please be courteous and answer my questions. I am not setting a trap. I simply don't know what you believe. I will answer your questions after that, and the answer I give will not depend on or be affected by your response in any way.

I was really unsure of what you meant by the question. It just seems to me that the purpose of the mortality of an unsaved individual is the same no matter what the belief system is. We are all God's creation. (We are not all God's children.) All that was created was created for God's glory.

 

[Ran77]

LDS do not work to get to the telestial kingdom. By God's grace, he assigns many of the wicked to that place. Some Christians (those who weren't valiant enough) are forever kept from Heavenly Father's presence and are assigned to the terrestrial kingdom.

I mentioned yesterday that I would provide an example of how you posted your take on LDS beliefs rather than a straight-forward representation of them. This paragraph works nicely.

1. You have selected to state that "LDS do not work to get to the telestial kingdom . . ." While technically correct, what you have left out is that in our belief system no one has to "work" to get to the telestial kingdom. In this sentence you have isolated the LDS unnecessarily, which creates an us versus them position that is not part of our belief system. Or in other words, you create a division between the reader and the LDS.

2. You also have chosen to use the word "Work" to describe the supposed belief, a word that many non-LDS Christians seem to have an aversion. In this specific situation, since it is unnecessary it serves to present the supposed belief in a negative light.

What the LDS actually believe is that all the people who have been, or will be, born on Earth automatically qualify for the Telestial Glory - except for a very small handful who have committed the unforgiveable sin. The difference between what I have just presented and what you presented is significant in their tone. One is inclusive and positive while the other is exclusive and negative.

The same thing happens when you state: "Some Christians (those who weren't valiant enough) are forever kept from Heavenly Father's presence . . ."

3. Once again, you have used discriminatory language when you indicate that "some Christians" are impacted. LDS beliefs in this area apply to all people. No need to draw special attention to the sub-set of humanity who are Christian and not LDS. This will of course elicit an emotion from non-LDS Christians who will likely be prejudiced against the belief since it seems to be targeting them and no one else.

4. The use of the word "kept" implies action on the part of Heavenly Father to prevent "Christians" from heaven. That is not how LDS believe. God invites all of His children to return to Him. However, He also has given us commandments which we need to obey. Your comment removes the culpability for disobedience from us and places the inescapable repercussions for our actions on God. And by doing this, it presents the LDS view of Heavenly Father as harsh, uncaring, and unfair.


And finally, all of this is being applied to a concept that Christians already accept. While LDS and non-LDS Christians don't agree on everything that God has commanded us to do, we can take a look on a commonly held set of beliefs and see that what you presented has been spun.

As far as I know, the majority of Christian sects believe that we must adhere to the Ten Commandments. They aren't suggestions. There are repercussions for not following them. And I'm pretty sure most of the Christian sects believe that if a person rejects those commandments they will be judged and such judgment will probably result in them being "kept from heaven."

To be more specific, lets create an example. A man knows about the 10 Commandments and yet kills a string of people because he wants to take all of their possessions. Will this man be "kept from heaven" or would you indicate that he has made bad choices and the repercussion of those choices is that he will not be judged worthy of heaven?


On this topic, LDS believe that all three of the Glories are marvellous places. None of them are places of punishment. Man has his agency to choose to follow the commandments of God - or not. If a man chooses to obey all (the full amount) of the commandments that God has given us then he can expect a fullness in his reward. Heavenly Father desires that all men return to Him. It is entirely up to us whether we do.

 

[TasteForTruth]

I didn't necessarily compare LDS doctrine against Christian doctrine, I compared LDS doctrine against what the Bible says. It's the Bible that says that believers will sit in Christ's throne at the right hand of God.

No, it does not say that. It says that those who overcome will. In traditional Christian theology, this is all the believers, because there are only two possible destinations for men—heaven or hell.

But in LDS theology a believer may inherit a lesser glory than Celestial, depending on his circumstances. Only those who overcome—or rather those who are not overcome by any impediment to salvation—shall sit down..."

My statement is accurate. You've got to keep it LDS across the board if you're going to compare the Restored Gospel to the Bible. Tossing in some traditional Christian thought sullies the test.

So, in other words, one must become LDS to be saved. Otherwise you are not overcoming everything.

This is a much broader discussion. We can do it here if you like, but it will be a tangent all its own. Suffice it to say that your conclusion is an oversimplification. Under certain conditions I can agree with it, but under others I cannot. And I'm assuming that when you say "saved," you're referring to exaltation, since we're talking about LDS theology. If you're referring to either of the other two kingdoms of glory, then I outright disagree with your statement.

I don't see grace mentioned anywhere in LDS scripture, and, until very recently, I had never heard an LDS talk about grace. (And yes, I have talked to many LDS in the past, and attended services at an LDS church for months when I worked at Nauvoo.) Granted, the Bible talks about grace, but the more recent LDS scriptures are very works-oriented.

The word "grace" appears 68 times in our modern scriptures. Variations in the general term "grace of God" appear 18 times. Variations of "grace of Christ" appear 7 times. Variations of "grace of God the Father" appear 4 times.

As for why you never hear LDS speak of it, more than likely it is because we typically refer to it differently than to mainstream Christians.

So, how does grace work for you when, according to LDS scripture, so many things are required in order to be saved?

In your theology (as I understand it) grace is given to a select few at some point in mortality. These will be saved. All others are damned. In LDS theology, grace is given to all people at birth. It works for us always. Every day. We are never not under the grace of God. And we grow, as the Savior did, grace for grace as we respond to it favorably using our agency (also a gift from God). This is wholly consistent with the Bible, and nowhere in this can it be said that man is working to get salvation. He is already saved. Mortality, then, is a time when man applies God's gifts to Him how he chooses—all the while under grace, both in terms of the promise of salvation and in terms of power to make right choices—which determines the nature of his salvation.

I was really unsure of what you meant by the question. It just seems to me that the purpose of the mortality of an unsaved individual is the same no matter what the belief system is. We are all God's creation. (We are not all God's children.) All that was created was created for God's glory.

So the purpose of those who are born destined for damnation is to glorify God. Is that what you're saying?

 

[strangertoo]

So the purpose of those who are born destined for damnation is to glorify God. Is that what you're saying?

... examine the scripture and the mistranslation friend... God's judgement is not pre-judgement, it is just... no-one is ever condemned... the word means 'judgement' ,not 'condemnation ... simply look how long the mercy of God lasts and compare it with what sinners claim to try and frighten sinners into paying for the lies ...

Psalms 100:5 For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.

it does not suit sinners to speak the Truth about the mercy of God... but then why would you prefer what they say to the scripture they only 'say' they believe ? ... as you say 1+1=1 | 1+0=0 in the Truth stakes, so why would you prefer sinners' deceitful words to God's Truth of Love of ALL that doesn't end ?

 

[skylark1]

If a person is rigidly adhering to a creed and subordinating the Spirit to it, I think that would have some effect in the person. That was the context of my statement.
Well, in that particular case they were justifying their greed by invoking their their creed—by calling their property "corban." That same instance was recorded in Mark, but it gave more detail:

And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. (Mark 7:9-13)
​

So they used their uninspired rabbinical tradition (the creed, in this instance) to justify a violation of God's law, suppressing the Spirit, which inspires us to care for each other. So the tradition itself, which had a form of godliness (it's good to sacrifice for, or dedicate material goods to, the support of God's work), denied the power thereof.

I'm glad that I asked about your use of the term creed, and what you thought that it meant. I wouldn't call that a creed, rather I would call it traditions or doctrine. I realize that technically according to the dictionary definiton that creed can be used this way. However, my experience with the discussions here is that creed is most always used to refer to a formalized set of beliefs.

Why do you think that in JS-History 1:9 both creeds and doctrines were mentioned, if the intended meaning was that they were the same thing?

But you don't think that this has any application to Christian creeds? Not, mind you, speaking narrowly of the Nicene Creed (for example), but of entire Christian systems of belief—anything that a group believes and teaches is a creed. (at least that's how I understand the term)

I can't answer this question until we are in agreement about our use of the term creed.

I was curious how the term creed is used by LDS leaders, as I thought that it might give a clue as to how they viewed the use of the term creed in JS-H 1:9. So I looked up some references.

Can a person be a New Testament Christian and yet not subscribe to later creeds that most of traditional Christianity adopted? source


Constantine became a Christian in the fourth century, he called together a great convocation of learned men with the hope that they could reach a conclusion of understanding concerning the true nature of Deity. All they reached was a compromise of various points of view. The result was the Nicene Creed of A.D. 325. This and subsequent creeds have become the declaration of doctrine concerning the nature of Deity for most of Christianity ever since. source


In some faith traditions, theologians claim equal teaching authority with the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and doctrinal matters may become a contest of opinions between them. Some rely on the ecumenical councils of the Middle Ages and their creeds. Others place primary emphasis on the reasoning of post-apostolic theologians or on biblical hermeneutics and exegesis. source


(Quoting Henry Van Dyke)

Men have dulled their eyes with sin,
And dimmed the light of heaven with doubt,
And built their temple walls to shut thee in,
And framed their iron creeds to shut thee out.
Addressed to God of the Open Air

source


This first article of faith epitomizes our doctrine. We do not accept the Athanasian Creed. We do not accept the Nicene Creed, nor any other creed based on tradition and the conclusions of men. source


Significantly, our belief in the nature of God is what distinguishes us from the formal creeds of most Christian denominations.

The Articles of Faith, our only formal declaration of belief, begin as follows: “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.”

source​

I hope that is enough references to make my point. I think that the one that I highlighted in crimson explains best why I do not feel that the traditions of the Pharisees were there creeds. President Hinckley mentioned creeds as being based on traditions and conclusions of men. If they were based on the tradtions of men, then they would not be the traditions themselves. (We will save the discussion of what every else believes that they were based on for another time. )

I am not trying to be overly picky. I just can't answer your question about creeds until we come to an understanding about what we are talking about.

 

[A New Dawn]

No, it does not say that. It says that those who overcome will. In traditional Christian theology, this is all the believers, because there are only two possible destinations for men—heaven or hell.

But in LDS theology a believer may inherit a lesser glory than Celestial, depending on his circumstances. Only those who overcome—or rather those who are not overcome by any impediment to salvation—shall sit down..."

My statement is accurate. You've got to keep it LDS across the board if you're going to compare the Restored Gospel to the Bible. Tossing in some traditional Christian thought sullies the test.


This is a much broader discussion. We can do it here if you like, but it will be a tangent all its own. Suffice it to say that your conclusion is an oversimplification. Under certain conditions I can agree with it, but under others I cannot.

The word "grace" appears 68 times in our modern scriptures. Variations in the general term "grace of God" appear 18 times. Variations of "grace of Christ" appear 7 times. Variations of "grace of God the Father" appear 4 times.

As for why you never hear LDS speak of it, more than likely it is because we typically refer to it differently than to mainstream Christians.

In your theology (as I understand it) grace is given to a select few at some point in mortality. These will be saved. All others are damned. In LDS theology, grace is given to all people at birth. It works for us always. Every day. We are never not under the grace of God. And we grow, as the Savior did, grace for grace as we respond to it favorably using our agency (also a gift from God). This is wholly consistent with the Bible, and nowhere in this can it be said that man is working to get salvation. He is already saved. Mortality, then, is a time when man applies God's gifts to Him how he chooses, which determines the nature of his salvation.

So the purpose of those who are born destined for damnation is to glorify God. Is that what you're saying?

The Bible talks about common grace, which is a different thing than the grace of salvation (the sun shines on the just and the unjust, etc.). The definition of grace is unmerited favor. If everyone was to receive the unmerited favor of salvation, then it would not be grace. It would be something that is expected of God. According to John 3:16, salvation is something that only believers receive. " ......... that whosoever believeth on Him shall not perish but have everlasting life." If you consider either the terrestrial glory or the telestial glory to be salvation, as so many here have said, it conflicts with this most basic, most oft-repeated, scripture.

 

[Ran77]

I mentioned yesterday that I would provide an example of how you posted your take on LDS beliefs rather than a straight-forward representation of them. This paragraph works nicely.

1. You have selected to state that "LDS do not work to get to the telestial kingdom . . ." While technically correct, what you have left out is that in our belief system no one has to "work" to get to the telestial kingdom. In this sentence you have isolated the LDS unnecessarily, which creates an us versus them position that is not part of our belief system. Or in other words, you create a division between the reader and the LDS.

2. You also have chosen to use the word "Work" to describe the supposed belief, a word that many non-LDS Christians seem to have an aversion. In this specific situation, since it is unnecessary it serves to present the supposed belief in a negative light.

What the LDS actually believe is that all the people who have been, or will be, born on Earth automatically qualify for the Telestial Glory - except for a very small handful who have committed the unforgiveable sin. The difference between what I have just presented and what you presented is significant in their tone. One is inclusive and positive while the other is exclusive and negative.

The same thing happens when you state: "Some Christians (those who weren't valiant enough) are forever kept from Heavenly Father's presence . . ."

3. Once again, you have used discriminatory language when you indicate that "some Christians" are impacted. LDS beliefs in this area apply to all people. No need to draw special attention to the sub-set of humanity who are Christian and not LDS. This will of course elicit an emotion from non-LDS Christians who will likely be prejudiced against the belief since it seems to be targeting them and no one else.

4. The use of the word "kept" implies action on the part of Heavenly Father to prevent "Christians" from heaven. That is not how LDS believe. God invites all of His children to return to Him. However, He also has given us commandments which we need to obey. Your comment removes the culpability for disobedience from us and places the inescapable repercussions for our actions on God. And by doing this, it presents the LDS view of Heavenly Father as harsh, uncaring, and unfair.


And finally, all of this is being applied to a concept that Christians already accept. While LDS and non-LDS Christians don't agree on everything that God has commanded us to do, we can take a look on a commonly held set of beliefs and see that what you presented has been spun.

As far as I know, the majority of Christian sects believe that we must adhere to the Ten Commandments. They aren't suggestions. There are repercussions for not following them. And I'm pretty sure most of the Christian sects believe that if a person rejects those commandments they will be judged and such judgment will probably result in them being "kept from heaven."

To be more specific, lets create an example. A man knows about the 10 Commandments and yet kills a string of people because he wants to take all of their possessions. Will this man be "kept from heaven" or would you indicate that he has made bad choices and the repercussion of those choices is that he will not be judged worthy of heaven?


On this topic, LDS believe that all three of the Glories are marvellous places. None of them are places of punishment. Man has his agency to choose to follow the commandments of God - or not. If a man chooses to obey all (the full amount) of the commandments that God has given us then he can expect a fullness in his reward. Heavenly Father desires that all men return to Him. It is entirely up to us whether we do.

As I was doing my normal scripture reading this morning, I came across a passage that related to this topic. Basically, that of how Heavenly Father invites us to participate in His kingdom and not everyone accepts.


Luke 14: 16-24

16. Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many:

17. And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready.

18. And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused.

19. And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused.

20. And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.

21. So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind.

22. And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room.

23. And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.

24. For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper.

 

[strangertoo]

The Bible talks about common grace, which is a different thing than the grace of salvation (the sun shines on the just and the unjust, etc.). The definition of grace is unmerited favor. If everyone was to receive the unmerited favor of salvation, then it would not be grace. It would be something that is expected of God. According to John 3:16, salvation is something that only believers receive. " ......... that whosoever believeth on Him shall not perish but have everlasting life." If you consider either the terrestrial glory or the telestial glory to be salvation, as so many here have said, it conflicts with this most basic, most oft-repeated, scripture.

You seem to have missed the point that only few are saved by grace in this life [Matt 7:14] and the many are destroyed [Matt 7:13] , but the many are freed from sin by its only wages , not punishment, but death which frees them from sin just as effectively as grace [Rom 6:7]

and indeed countless many are later saved through all being resurrected from hell [Rev 20:13] to be judged at judgement day by WORKS after death frees them from sin ... so very clearly the many are NOT judged by grace, NOT CONDEMNED by judgement based on grace to the few saved first by belief in this life...

in short anyone can BECOME a believer in Love and Jesus states that countless many will by judgement day, but only few are taken with him to build the kingdom come where the many are later saved, God requires but a few as kings and priests, most cannot be kings and priests rather obviously...

thus we know the many later saved [Rev 7:9-10] were indeed unbelieving sinners in this life, and we know they are not condemned for sin in this life, just justly judged NOT READY to Love yet because they are still ssinning, still abusing others with sin by time of their death [or time of Jesus' return if sooner than death]

also it is not John, but you , who is pre-judging ... there are still folsk who don't yet believe in Love who can change their mind and ways before Jesus returns... it is not sinners in churches who decide who will believe by time of Jesus' return... they should judge their own sins first, then they would not need judgement, and forget about pronouncing anyone else an 'unbeliever' before the time for such decision BY GOD , not men... consider how few Jesus takes, about one in three million alive today... consider how many disagree right down to individual beliefs, so are not even baptised of the spirit, cannot yet be saved as they cannot enter the kingdom... it is almost all the world -Rev 13:3-4 which obviously includes all mass religions...

 

[A New Dawn]

You seem to have missed the point that only few are saved by grace in this life [Matt 7:14] and the many are destroyed [Matt 7:13] , but the many are freed from sin by its only wages , not punishment, but death which frees them from sin just as effectively as grace [Rom 6:7]

and indeed countless many are later saved through all being resurrected from hell [Rev 20:13] to be judged at judgement day by WORKS after death frees them from sin ... so very clearly the many are NOT judged by grace, NOT CONDEMNED by judgement based on grace to the few saved first by belief in this life...

in short anyone can BECOME a believer in Love and Jesus states that countless many will by judgement day, but only few are taken with him to build the kingdom come where the many are later saved, God requires but a few as kings and priests, most cannot be kings and priests rather obviously...

thus we know the many later saved [Rev 7:9-10] were indeed unbelieving sinners in this life, and we know they are not condemned for sin in this life, just justly judged NOT READY to Love yet because they are still ssinning, still abusing others with sin by time of their death [or time of Jesus' return if sooner than death]

also it is not John, but you , who is pre-judging ... there are still folsk who don't yet believe in Love who can change their mind and ways before Jesus returns... it is not sinners in churches who decide who will believe by time of Jesus' return... they should judge their own sins first, then they would not need judgement, and forget about pronouncing anyone else an 'unbeliever' before the time for such decision BY GOD , not men... consider how few Jesus takes, about one in three million alive today... consider how many disagree right down to individual beliefs, so are not even baptised of the spirit, cannot yet be saved as they cannot enter the kingdom... it is almost all the world -Rev 13:3-4 which obviously includes all mass religions...

I haven't missed any point, nor am I pre-judging. The Bible says that we only have hope for salvation during this life. And it also says that salvation is by grace, not works, so clearly, I am not misunderstanding, misrepresenting, missing the point or anything else of that nature.

I am also not prejudging since I am only reporting what the Bible says, not making any judgments of my own.