LDS Which Church Really Saves?

[ViaCrucis]

Those that die without knowledge won't be held to the same standard. Marriage isn't possible after resurrection, hence the need for the millennium.

That presumes a literal millennium.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Super14LDS]

I am not responding because it is not even your own words.

Yes, only a few words of introduction are mine per my "seek to be worthy of praise" post which references an article written by a talented author.

Talents, unlike skills are gifts from God. Per Paul's command to seek after that which is praiseworthy, written concepts are best composed by talented authors and of course those called to positions of authority.

Great care is used to select which words to post from a particular article, in effect making them mine for the purpose of shedding the greatest light on the subject at hand, while presenting a ready resource for those that wish to learn more.

Here is a lead-in to a whole book that is hopefully helpful towards a better understanding of the troublesome terminology that oft-times trips-up the conversation between Saints and Christians.

... Well, how then should we answer our friends? When asked, "Are you saved?" do we simply say, "Yes"? Brother Millet gives us this wise counsel:

When we are asked by our friends, "Are you saved?" it wouldn't hurt for us to understand where they're coming from. It also wouldn't hurt for us to tell our friends that we understand where they're coming from. We probably don't want to adopt their terminology--for us to answer, "Yes, I'm saved," may be a correct answer. However, it really isn't making a helpful response to the question. We really don't mean the same thing. It probably wouldn't hurt if we explained our view of salvation and could understand our "saved" status.

What Does "Saved" Mean?

Elder McConkie has said that "saved," as it's used in the scriptures, should be understood by Latter-day Saints as a synonym for "exaltation." While this may be a completely adequate definition in an LDS consideration of salvation, in the context of this discussion there are some important things left unsaid.

First, "Saved from what?" The Evangelical will respond immediately, almost by reflex: "Saved from Hell!" For the orthodox Christian, Hell is very well defined. It's a physical place of everlasting burning.

When an Evangelical says that all men and women who have ever inhabited this planet deserve Hell, they are saying that all deserve to spend eternity in a physical lake of fire and brimstone with a resurrected body that is everlastingly subject to pain. Obviously, to be saved, is not a thing to be taken lightly.

http://www.cometozarahemla.org/saved/saved.html

This is a book written to introduce the LDS community to the Evangelical culture. Thus, that flavor will be seen in this chapter where the LDS doctrine of salvation is examined and explained using the terminology common in Evangelical discussions of salvation. This provides a valuable perspective, shining a new light on a familiar subject. Free use of this article is granted, with attribution, for any non-pecuniary purposes.

 

[Super14LDS]

That presumes a literal millennium.

-CryptoLutheran

... Numerous church leaders in the Post-Apostolic (Patristic) period, such as Justin Martyr of Rome, Papias of Hierapolis, Irenaeus of Lyons, and Lactantius, accepted the notion of a literal Millennium following the resurrection of the dead, when a visible and glorious kingdom of Christ would exist on earth. By the late third and fourth centuries, however, church fathers such as Origen (d. c. A.D. 254) and Augustine (d. A.D. 429) had transformed the notion of a literal Millennium into an allegorical or figurative one: ...

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Millennium

Learn something new every day.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Those that die without knowledge won't be held to the same standard. Marriage isn't possible after resurrection, hence the need for the millennium.

So, are you saying that Jesus was ignorant of one of the foremost commands of God?

 

[bbbbbbb]

... Numerous church leaders in the Post-Apostolic (Patristic) period, such as Justin Martyr of Rome, Papias of Hierapolis, Irenaeus of Lyons, and Lactantius, accepted the notion of a literal Millennium following the resurrection of the dead, when a visible and glorious kingdom of Christ would exist on earth. By the late third and fourth centuries, however, church fathers such as Origen (d. c. A.D. 254) and Augustine (d. A.D. 429) had transformed the notion of a literal Millennium into an allegorical or figurative one: ...

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Millennium

Learn something new every day.

What, exactly, is the difference between a Saint and a Christian?

 

[ViaCrucis]

... Numerous church leaders in the Post-Apostolic (Patristic) period, such as Justin Martyr of Rome, Papias of Hierapolis, Irenaeus of Lyons, and Lactantius, accepted the notion of a literal Millennium following the resurrection of the dead, when a visible and glorious kingdom of Christ would exist on earth. By the late third and fourth centuries, however, church fathers such as Origen (d. c. A.D. 254) and Augustine (d. A.D. 429) had transformed the notion of a literal Millennium into an allegorical or figurative one: ...

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Millennium

Learn something new every day.

Yes Chiliasm was a common view in the early patristic period; but Amillennialism wasn't begun by Origen or St. Augustine. E.g. St. Justin describes his own Chiliastic views in his writings but acknowledges that it's not shared by all.

"Trypho: I remarked to you sir, that you are very anxious to be safe in all respects, since you cling to the Scriptures. But tell me, do you really admit that this place, Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt; and do you expect your people to be gathered together, and made joyful with Christ and the patriarchs, and the prophets, both the men of our nation, and other proselytes who joined them before your Christ came? Or have you given way, and admitted this in order to have the appearance of worsting us in the controversies?

Justin: I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise." - St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 80

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Super14LDS]

So, are you saying that Jesus was ignorant of one of the foremost commands of God?

Jesus's main focus was mans redemption and to introduce the new covenant in the dispensation of the meridian of time. Elias restored the everlasting covenant for the dispensation of the fullness of times.

Besides which, would you disclose your family situation in those circumstances?

 

[tickingclocker]

18 years of His life are undocumented and He never states He wasn't married.

He never states He WAS married either, but LDS doctrines literally DEPEND upon Him being married, so, they must force Jesus to be married. Christianity's doctrines don't depend upon one way or another if Jesus was married or not. So who has more to gain or lose from this type of needless assumption? Christianity? Or the LDS.

Funny you should say that, when the other day while reading John, I realized LDS don't keep the flow of John 2 going to its plainly obvious conclusion. The chapter highlights His first miracle, not some marriage, as we see in verse 11:

This, the first of His signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee and let His glory be seen openly; and His disciples put their faith in Him.

Why is that? Then Mormons COMPLETELY overlook what happens next in verse 12, 13:

After this He went down to Capernaum, with His mother, His brothers, and His disciples, and they were there not more than two or three days. The time of the Passover of the Jews was near and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

No mention of this wife Jesus just "married" at Cana, like LDS believe. You would think He would mention such a momentous occasion. A new bridegroom? Traveling with His mom, brothers, and a large pack of men... within His "new wife"? What kind of a thoughtless bridegroom is that? He would have taken this "new wife", obviously, to celebrate Passover, it being an intimate family affair in the life of all Jews, even up to today. Bridegrooms got away with a LOT in ancient Jewish culture, being allowed to remain home for an entire year even if Israel was at war! Yet, no mention at all. Nada, zip, zero. Why would John mention everyone else in the crowd... but no new wife? And I won't even get into how all the Apostles left everything to follow Jesus.... while Jesus roams around marrying all these women, then leaving them without means of support? Pretty rotten excuse for a loving bridegroom and worthy teacher if you ask me. Good thing He didn't treat the church the same way He treated those poor women, giving us the Holy Spirit until He returns!

And please do not claim that was one of those "precious things" left out. No can do. The entire bible indicates nothing about Jesus being required to be married in order to shore up an LDS doctrine.

Now, please, before you answer, take some time to ponder these implications. Not just instantly respond with a Mormonized answer. It's been one of my pet peeves about Mormons over the years. They are not being polite when they sit there while you speak. They are not really listening, taking to heart what is said. They are simply waiting for you to shut up--so they can proceed. Can you do that? Take your time, too, because I won't be back until tonight.

And btw, I honesty don't mind that Mormonism has some quirky traditions like keeping those who they deem "unworthy" from their children's temple marriage ceremonies. I feel for the families (as I'm sure you do, too), but it IS your right to pick and choose your own methods for your traditions, just like everyone else. But when--anything--adds and subtracts from God's Word? It shows itself for what it is--instantly. Built more on human assumption than anything divine.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Also super weird that his wife and kids abandoned Him at Calvary.

But..but, the Bible doesn't state his wife and kids weren't there.

 

[Super14LDS]

But..but, the Bible doesn't state his wife and kids weren't there.

Some speculate that the wedding where he turned water into wine was His.

King James Bible John 21:25
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

 

[Kenny'sID]

For the record, I was being sarcastic.

 

[Super14LDS]

What, exactly, is the difference between a Saint and a Christian?

These are the LDS definitions.

Saint
In the New Testament the saints are all those who by baptism have entered into the Christian covenant (see Acts 9:13, 32, 41; Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2; Philip. 1:1; 1 Pet. 1:14–15). See also Holiness.

Christians
A name first given to believers in Jesus Christ at Antioch in Syria, about A.D. 43 (Acts 11:26). It was perhaps given contemptuously but was accepted by followers of Christ as a fit title. See 1 Pet. 4:16; Alma 46:15.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd?lang=eng

Interesting, the Christian covenant, more new terminology for me.

... Latter-day Saints enter into an eternal covenant with God at baptism, wherein they promise to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, to keep his commandments, to bear one another's burdens, to stand as a witness of God at all times, to repent, and to serve and remember Christ always (see Baptismal Covenant; Mosiah 18:8-10; D&C 20:37). They renew this covenant by partaking of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. ...

http://www.jefflindsay.com/covenants.shtml

 

[Douggg]

Actually they can by preaching the gospel and leading people to Christ.

Ultimately Jesus does the saving but churches can be the instrument God uses to reveal himself.

"What can wash away my sins? Nothing but the blood of Jesus." Not the church.

"Whosoever shall call on my name shall be saved." The church ares the ones who have been saved, not the ones saving.
The church can be considered witnesses and spreaders of the gospel, called by Jesus in Revelation unto mine angel of the church of ________ but not one speck of saving is by the church.

Let us retain our humility before God, and walk with our heads bowed low low low, before Him.

When a person hold Jesus number one in their life - then there is no room for Joseph Smith, John Calvin, Martin Luther, the Pope, etc.... because none of those guys are going to walk through the door of death with anyone.... only Jesus.

 

[A New Dawn]

Thank you for your keen observation; John's lesser status must be of his own choosing not to get married.

... In order to obtain the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, marriage must be in place first. And that marriage must happen in this life. Jesus taught us in Matt 22:30 (see also Mark 12:25)

“For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven”

This is expanded a bit in Luke 20:34-35

“And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:”

From these teachings we know that marriage is a work that must be accomplished in this life. Marriage will not be performed on resurrected beings.

However, we also know from latter-day teachings that those who are worthy and willing, but do not have the chance for marriage, will not be deprived of exaltation. ... http://askgramps.org/will-single-sisters-able-marry-celestial-kingdom/

John's assignment means Celestial Marriage was available during his lifetime and he choose to remain single. All, with rare exception, will ultimately enjoy a glorious eternal life!

Celestial Marriage was apparently being performed in the Temples during Christ's mortal ministry. Thank you again for adding to my understanding.

Only an LDS member with blinders on will come to this conclusion. What it means is that there is no unity of marriage in heaven. It means that we are all brides of Christ (the closest concept to marriage in the spiritual world is the relationship between Christ and believers. There is no marrying or giving in marriage because heaven is not sexually oriented.)

 

[Job8]

Latter-day Saints enter into an eternal covenant with God at baptism, wherein they promise to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, to keep his commandments, to bear one another's burdens, to stand as a witness of God at all times, to repent, and to serve and remember Christ always (see Baptismal Covenant; Mosiah 18:8-10; D&C 20:37).

There is nothing wrong with this, and in fact it is according to Scripture. It is all the other Mormon baggage that creates problems, as well as who is the Jesus Christ of the LDS?

 

[Rescued One]

LDS "salvation" depends upon a Mormon's obedience level. A "greater salvation reward" goes to Mormons who have been perfectly obedient on earth to all LDS ordinances (Mormon-speak for authorized decrees), entering a higher heavenly reward to godhood. All lesser Mormons enter the lesser, middle heaven with no godhood available. (The LDS is the sole Mormon church which holds this belief.)

Every human is technically "saved" in Mormonism, except a very few like Hitler. Some will be taught after death, without ever walking by faith in this life like Jesus states of His salvation, and will accept it. Others who refuse are sent to "Spirit Prison", where they ponder the facts until they repent and accept it in future.

So you are correct overall in saying Mormon "salvation" is nothing whatsoever like Christianity.

Most people are not spending eternity with God in Mormonism.

 

[A New Dawn]

Saved from what?

Every mortal will be saved from the permanence of death and receive eternal life except those that commit the unpardable sin.

According to the angel who visited Mary and Joseph when Mary was with child, Jesus will save His people from their sins. There is nothing about "being saved from the permanence of death" in anything that relates to Jesus' purpose for coming to earth.

 

[St_Worm2]

Some speculate that the wedding where he turned water into wine was His.

Clearly that's not the case S14. John 2 says:

1 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there;
2 and both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding.
3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.”

Such things are not said of or to the "bridegroom" at his own wedding. There is also never a need to announce that the mother of the bridegroom is in attendance at her son's wedding

Yours and His,
David

 

[Rescued One]

Yes, only a few words of introduction are mine per my "seek to be worthy of praise" post which references an article written by a talented author.

Talents, unlike skills are gifts from God. Per Paul's command to seek after that which is praiseworthy, written concepts are best composed by talented authors and of course those called to positions of authority.

Great care is used to select which words to post from a particular article, in effect making them mine for the purpose of shedding the greatest light on the subject at hand, while presenting a ready resource for those that wish to learn more.

Here is a lead-in to a whole book that is hopefully helpful towards a better understanding of the troublesome terminology that oft-times trips-up the conversation between Saints and Christians.

... Well, how then should we answer our friends? When asked, "Are you saved?" do we simply say, "Yes"? Brother Millet gives us this wise counsel:

When we are asked by our friends, "Are you saved?" it wouldn't hurt for us to understand where they're coming from. It also wouldn't hurt for us to tell our friends that we understand where they're coming from. We probably don't want to adopt their terminology--for us to answer, "Yes, I'm saved," may be a correct answer. However, it really isn't making a helpful response to the question. We really don't mean the same thing. It probably wouldn't hurt if we explained our view of salvation and could understand our "saved" status.

What Does "Saved" Mean?

Elder McConkie has said that "saved," as it's used in the scriptures, should be understood by Latter-day Saints as a synonym for "exaltation." While this may be a completely adequate definition in an LDS consideration of salvation, in the context of this discussion there are some important things left unsaid.

First, "Saved from what?" The Evangelical will respond immediately, almost by reflex: "Saved from Hell!" For the orthodox Christian, Hell is very well defined. It's a physical place of everlasting burning.

When an Evangelical says that all men and women who have ever inhabited this planet deserve Hell, they are saying that all deserve to spend eternity in a physical lake of fire and brimstone with a resurrected body that is everlastingly subject to pain. Obviously, to be saved, is not a thing to be taken lightly.

http://www.cometozarahemla.org/saved/saved.html

This is a book written to introduce the LDS community to the Evangelical culture. Thus, that flavor will be seen in this chapter where the LDS doctrine of salvation is examined and explained using the terminology common in Evangelical discussions of salvation. This provides a valuable perspective, shining a new light on a familiar subject. Free use of this article is granted, with attribution, for any non-pecuniary purposes.

I wouldn't quote Millet if I were you.

“Secondly, we really aren’t obligated to answer everyone’s questions. I’ve not had all my questions answered. The Lord hasn’t chosen to do that. He probably hasn’t answered all of yours. And nor are we obligated to answer everyone else’s questions...
"The principle I would like to get across to you is this: We learn to answer the right question. Answer the right question.”
~ Robert Millet

 

[Rescued One]

Read it again. Here is what Jesus says: " Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."

The key is that there is somebody who is LEAST in Heaven. There are ranks in heaven. The least in heaven is greater than the greatest on earth, but there are greater and lesser in heaven. That's what that text tells us.

Which means that everybody in heaven is not equal. There are the greater in heaven, and there are the lesser in heaven. Just as there are greater and lesser angels, there are (or will be) greater and lesser humans. Which means that everybody isn't equal in Heaven, and we know that for a fact because Jesus said so.

Everyone in heaven is greater than the humans on earth. Rankings of honor are irrelevant when it comes to our membership in the Kingdom of Heaven.

We will each receive many crowns:

1. The Crown of Incorruption: there is no death
2. The Crown of Righteousness: only the righteous are there
3. The Crown of life: we have eternal life
4. The Crown of Rejoicing: we will be without sorrow or pain
5. The Crown of Glory: we will be glorfied
6. The Crown of Gold: we will be valued by God