LDS Which Church Really Saves?

[Job8]

There is nothing about "being saved from the permanence of death" in anything that relates to Jesus' purpose for coming to earth.

We can't limit the impact of the finished work of Christ to "He shall save His people from their sins". His death, burial, and resurrection are all a part of the Gospel, and within that framework "The last ENEMY that shall be destroyed is death" (1 Cor 15:26). So death will indeed be abolished (1) firstly for all the saints and (2) secondly as something that will affect humanity after the New Heavens and the New Earth as established. Christ destroyed the power of death through His resurrection, since He Himself is The Resurrection and The Life.

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? (John 11:25,26).

 

[Ironhold]

The Marriage Relations
A Lecture by President Orson Hyde, Delivered at the General Conference, in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, October 6, 1854.
Reported by G. D. Watt.
....Gentlemen, that is as plain as the translators, or different councils over this Scripture, dare allow it to go to the world, but the thing is there; it is told; Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee, and he told them what to do.

Now there was actually a marriage; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error. We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was crucified. “Has he indeed passed by the nature of angels, and taken upon himself the seed of Abraham, to die without leaving a seed to bear his name on the earth?” No. But when the secret is fully out, the seed of the blessed shall be gathered in, in the last days; and he who has not the blood of Abraham flowing in his veins, who has not one particle of the Savior's in him, I am afraid is a stereotyped Gentile, who will be left out and not be gathered in the last days; for I tell you it is the chosen of God, the seed of the blessed, that shall be gathered. I do not despise to be called a son of Abraham, if he had a dozen wives; or to be called a brother, a son, a child of the Savior, if he had Mary, and Martha, and several others, as wives; and though he did cast seven devils out of one of them, it is all the same to me.

1854?

The best anyone has is one statement from 1854?

I was thinking that folks would have something a lot more recent and a lot more weighty than this if they were so certain it was "official doctrine".

 

[Super14LDS]

You are correct and scripture does in fact prove mormon error because it plainly states that Jesus was called "invited" to the wedding as His mother and others......

John 2 :
1 And the third day, was there a marriage in Cana a town of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.

2 And Jesus was called also, and his disciples unto the marriage.

3 Now when the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said unto him, They have no wine.

Weird that you quote from the GNV; not that it makes any difference in this case. All versions don't read smoothly for us poor souls who only speak English.

Orson Hyde apparently was fluent in many languages per his transcript leading up to his Cana remarks.

... Have you ever read your Bibles? I must confess I have not read it for some time, but looked more to Him who rules on high, and to those who hold the words of life in the inspiration of the Holy Ghost; I look to them more frequently than to it. I have once memorized the Bible, and when anyone quoted one verse, I could quote the next. I have memorized it in English, German, and Hebrew, still I do not profess to be very familiar with it now, yet the sentiments and spirit of it are in my heart, and will be as long as I live, and still [p. 82a]remain when I am gone to another sphere. When does it say the Savior was married? I believe I will read it for your accommodation, or you might not believe my words were I to say that there is indeed such a Scripture.

http://scriptures.byu.edu/jod/jodhtml.php?vol=02&disc=18

 

[Super14LDS]

... We now have the opportunity to learn more about a woman blessed enough to have been chosen as a companion and help-meet of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and at the same time, discover more about Him on a personal level. In light of this, we must examine the interactions between Jesus and Mary of Bethany, which illustrate the intimate relationship between the two – that would have been inappropriate had they not been husband and wife.

John 12: 3–7 contains a very important account of one of the days He spent with Mary of Bethany:

Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.

Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him, why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.

Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.

The same story is relayed in Matthew 26, Mark 14 and again in Luke 7. What is the apparent significance of this story? An examination of a quiet ordinance called “The Second Anointing”, an extension of the initiatory “Washing and Anointing” performed in the temple will help to clarify;

The Second Anointing – overseen by the President of the Church, is a rite administered only to married couples. The first portion of this ordinance is carried out in the Holy of Holies within the Temple. The second part of the ordinance (implemented at the couple’s home), involves the act of the wife “washing the feet” of the husband, or rather anointing the feet of the husband, in early preparation for his burial, and to allow for her to have claim upon him in the resurrection. (The Mysteries of Godliness, pp. 87-90, Buerger).

Matthew 26: 12–13 elucidates that Mary of Bethany performed this portion of the Second Anointing for her own husband before His death:

For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial. Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.

These scriptures do not describe merely an act of “hero worship”, but a demonstration of an intimate and sacred ordinance taking place between the Savior and His wife! This offers us a clear understanding as to why His love for this particular woman was so great.

http://www.mormonchronicle.com/our-married-savior-jesus-christ/

 

[Strong in Him]

Which Church Really Saves?

Jesus saves.
The church is all believers - all who belong to him and have received him and been born again. We meet in local groups or fellowships which have become known as a churches but are in fact part of the church.
No church saves; we only exist because we belong to the one who has saved us.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Now there was actually a marriage; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error.

Ridiculous.

I can't prove the groom wasn't their version of Bozo the Clown either but that doesn't make Bozo the groom. The things some of these people will do to get a following are at the very least entertaining.

 

[Super14LDS]

How about the book of Abraham?

Plz be more specific.

 

[tickingclocker]

Never mind the legion of angels and miraculous wonders at His command. They crucified Him; what would of happened to His family?

Well, even the militant Romans wouldn't have done harm to Jesus' "wife and kids" if they had been there! They didn't murder His mother, who was in attendance, just because she was "the criminal's mother". They didn't even toss the Apostles in jail, as "accessories" to His crimes. Even the Jewish leaders wouldn't have done so.

Remember, our own US laws are built upon this Greco-Roman foundation of justice. It is the individual who commits the crime, not the entire family.

 

[tickingclocker]

You are correct and scripture does in fact prove mormon error because it plainly states that Jesus was called "invited" to the wedding as His mother and others......

John 2 :
1 And the third day, was there a marriage in Cana a town of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.

2 And Jesus was called also, and his disciples unto the marriage.

3 Now when the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said unto him, They have no wine.

Talk about a Jewish mother pushing her Son to... "DO something will You? Did I endure such terrible pain and suffering in a filthy stable, to have you stand around with these new friends of yours drinking and eating? What? At thirty years old, a pile of bricks has to fall on you first? Oy vey."

 

[tickingclocker]

1854?

The best anyone has is one statement from 1854?

I was thinking that folks would have something a lot more recent and a lot more weighty than this if they were so certain it was "official doctrine".

WHEN are you going to get the message that we never claimed it was "DOCTRINE"? Jesus marrying sisters Mary and Martha, and Mary Magdalene is 'popular tradition' within the LDS! I even mentioned it wasn't believed by EVERY Mormon either!

And it's not "anyone". Not everyone was searching for evidence of LDS traditions. Oh the Drah-mah! (Cute,huh!)
But if you want me to, I will! I'm sure its there in more recent work, too.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Weird that you quote from the GNV; not that it makes any difference in this case. All versions don't read smoothly for us poor souls who only speak English.

Orson Hyde apparently was fluent in many languages per his transcript leading up to his Cana remarks.

... Have you ever read your Bibles? I must confess I have not read it for some time, but looked more to Him who rules on high, and to those who hold the words of life in the inspiration of the Holy Ghost; I look to them more frequently than to it. I have once memorized the Bible, and when anyone quoted one verse, I could quote the next. I have memorized it in English, German, and Hebrew, still I do not profess to be very familiar with it now, yet the sentiments and spirit of it are in my heart, and will be as long as I live, and still [p. 82a]remain when I am gone to another sphere. When does it say the Savior was married? I believe I will read it for your accommodation, or you might not believe my words were I to say that there is indeed such a Scripture.

http://scriptures.byu.edu/jod/jodhtml.php?vol=02&disc=18

What you ignore is that one needs to be saved and indwelt with the Holy Spirit to comprehendbecause God's word and yes I agree the version does matter most of the latter day versions are corrupt including all of the "other book" .

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Plz be more specific.

It's been found fraudulent as well as most of your church documentation.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Talk about a Jewish mother pushing her Son to... "DO something will You? Did I endure such terrible pain and suffering in a filthy stable, to have you stand around with these new friends of yours drinking and eating? What? At thirty years old, a pile of bricks has to fall on you first? Oy vey."

Yes even though Christ was God incarnate He still obeyed His dear mother and I bet He was thinking "Gee Wiz Mom can't you see I have to prepare myself for something that will affect the whole of man kind?".

 

[Four Angels Standing]

1854?

The best anyone has is one statement from 1854?

I was thinking that folks would have something a lot more recent and a lot more weighty than this if they were so certain it was "official doctrine".

Does anyone else find it odd that Christians are being asked to prove to a self-professed Mormon official doctrine of the LDS church?

http://en.fairmormon.org/Jesus_Christ/Was_Jesus_married

 

[ToBeLoved]

1854?

The best anyone has is one statement from 1854?

I was thinking that folks would have something a lot more recent and a lot more weighty than this if they were so certain it was "official doctrine".

Your church does hide the more controversial doctrine and puts forward what they want people to see.

What they are trying to do now is show that they have some 'connection' to Christianiity, something to cover-up that they are actually a cult.

That's how your missionaries 'sell' your doctrine to many.

, many people who know something about the Christian faith. That the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has something that God gave AFTER the Christian cannon of the 66 books of the Bible closed. That what you have is God's revelation since 1st Century AD.

That is EXACTLY why you use the same words we use (salvation, gospel, Holy Spirit, ect) but it means something totally different to LDS, but when their missionaries are out, they sound like Christians.

It is a fairly clever scheme to use the most basic knowledge that people know about Christianity, and try to tie your religion to it.

I hope Christians begin to talk amongst themselves and on blogs of what is really going on, because it is evil.

People should be putting out WARNINGS, especially for those new in Christ to not be lead astray

 

[ToBeLoved]

Does anyone else find it odd that Christians are being asked to prove to a self-professed Mormon official doctrine of the LDS church?

http://en.fairmormon.org/Jesus_Christ/Was_Jesus_married

Very odd. But they are pumped up in pride with the 'other' information they think they have.

Proverbs 16:5
5 Everyone who is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD; Assuredly, he will not be unpunished.

Proverbs 16:18-19
18 Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before stumbling. 19 It is better to be humble in spirit with the lowly Than to divide the spoil with the proud

Isaiah 2:12
12 For the LORD of hosts will have a day of reckoning Against everyone who is proud and lofty And against everyone who is lifted up, That he may be abased

James 4:6
6 But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, "GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE."

Proverbs 8:13
13 "The fear of the LORD is to hate evil; Pride and arrogance and the evil way And the perverted mouth, I hate.

Proverbs 21:4
4 Haughty eyes and a proud heart, The lamp of the wicked, is sin.

Psalm 10:4
The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts.

I would be thinking about what God says. For God only speaks truth.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Talk about a Jewish mother pushing her Son to... "DO something will You? Did I endure such terrible pain and suffering in a filthy stable, to have you stand around with these new friends of yours drinking and eating? What? At thirty years old, a pile of bricks has to fall on you first? Oy vey."

This is blasphemous. Mary was the most Godly of her generation. And you are talking about the Son of God.

The one who will save you from hell, mind you

 

[ToBeLoved]

Yes even though Christ was God incarnate He still obeyed His dear mother and I bet He was thinking "Gee Wiz Mom can't you see I have to prepare myself for something that will affect the whole of man kind?".

Did Jesus Christ die and take on your sin so you can be reconciled back to Himself? Are you saved through Christ or is this not an Anabaptist belief? I honestly do not know.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Plz be more specific.

The mistranslated Book of Abraham that is a fraud. The papyrai contains ancient burial text.

That Book of Abraham.

 

[withwonderingawe]

You are correct that denominations will never represent the one faith and one doctrine required of the one church as proscribed in scripture.

"It comes down to authority" this was the first hit on Google for that phrase with lds appended. A quick way to learn the pros and cons of an idea from a lds perspective.

... There are understandable justifications for individuals who choose to leave the church ... This post is not meant to be an attack on those who don’t believe in the church but rather simply my testimony as to why I believe it to be true.

So with all this being said, let me start with just a couple of reasons of why I still believe the way I do.

The Strength of Our Position

... Many years ago there came to Salt Lake City a learned doctor of divinity, a member of the Roman Catholic Church. I became well acquainted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar, with perhaps a dozen, languages at his tongue’s end, he seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy, and was never weary of displaying his vast erudition. One day he said to me: “You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don’t even know the strength of your own position.

It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that’s all there is to it.

The Protestants haven’t a leg to stand on. If we are wrong, they are wrong with us, for they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we really have, as we claim, the apostolic succession from St. Peter, there was no need for Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism’s attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the Gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the Gospel in latter days.”

It really is one or the other when it comes down to authority. It either continued through the apostles to the modern day or it was lost when they died and thus a restoration of those keys was needed to restore the gospel in our day. This idea or notion of the need to have the gospel restored is such a crucial aspect to Mormon theology. It either happened or it didn’t.

What Happened to the Billions of Individuals Who Died Not Ever Hearing About Christ?

So we know that Christ Himself taught that He was “the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6.) If this premise is true and we know that baptism is an essential ordinance that one must receive in order to receive salvation, what happens to all those who died never being baptized? What happens to the billions of individuals who have never heard about Christ. ...

http://www.ldssmile.com/2014/07/01/strength-position/

I included the last bit to show our Heavenly Father didn't just abandon Gandhi and everyone who has or will die without the opportunity to hear the gospel.

Matt 9:
16 No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.
17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.