No, I didn't take the time to hear the whole sermon, when the 2 scriptures you offered before the sermon says:
" And among the dead, no one remembers, neither in hades, does anyone givee thanks." AND "After death, there is no chance".
Those weren't scripture. They were a prayer from the retiring prayers in
the Agpeya based on the Psalms and the translated title of a sermon.
See, you're not even paying attention to what you're responding to. It seems like you just see that a Christian wrote something and immediately decide that it's wrong because it doesn't jive with Mormonism. Why should anyone take your replies to anything seriously when you don't read the posts you're supposedly responding to?
I wasn't interested in what more the sermon says.
Naturally. If I were in a religion that taught against Christianity I wouldn't want to hear what any Christian has to say, either.
Nevertheless, I presented that to prove my assertion that Mormonism is against Christianity on this matter, so whether you watch it or not it remains perfectly fine evidence for the truth of that assertion.
So if the sermon countered these 2 scriptures, then good, because we believe as spirits (eternal spirits), we are well aware of our surroundings and can remember everything, and that there is a chance after death for men and women to hear the true gospel of Jesus Christ and then receive the ordinances by proxy.
This is all lies straight from the bowels of hell. It is the demons that tell men that they can repent after their death, so as to convince us to take our minds and hearts away from the vital work of repentance in
this life, while by contrast the word of God tells us very clearly to be alert and not like others who are asleep when the Day of the Lord comes (e.g., 1 Thessalonians 5).
That is a rather arrogant statement, wouldn't you say?
And yet I've come to it from thousands of hours of interaction with you in particular. Or did you forget the many, many, many theological discussions you and I have already had?
Don't get me wrong here -- the point is not "You know nothing, while I know everything" or anything like that. There's only so much any one person can learn in life, and since Mormonism is quite purposely ignorant of the truth of Christian history (by which I mean what happened when, to who, and why; note I'm not even talking about who is 'right' in any particular conflict, but just recognizing that certain things did in fact happen), and you are choosing to follow that instead, it makes sense that you would have a correspondingly low level of understanding of things outside of that. And I likewise couldn't tell you anything of, say, early Pentecostal history of the history of the Russian Orthodox Church during the Mongol invasions or whatever because I'm not Pentecostal or Russian Orthodox.
That because I don't understand early Christianity in the same way that you do, I don't know anything about early church. Please.
That's not what I'm claiming, though. The Non-Chalcedonian and Chalcedonian churches have very different views on Christianity in some respects, but it's not like we disagree on the basic outline of Christian history and what it means. We all agree that our respective churches were founded in the apostolic era, and that the split came with Chalcedon in 451 but took a while to settle (as all schisms do). We all agree on the Creed, and the necessity of affirming it. We all affirm at least the first three ecumenical councils. None of us say that the Church itself has been 'taken away from the earth' or anything like that, and none of us have 'prophets' that introduce new doctrines by the power of their supposed connection with God or whatever. None of us baptize dead people, and none of us believe in the emergence of future scripture outside of our already accepted canons.
Whereas Mormonism does have all of these things, which thereby place this religion outside of the Christian faith that all historical or at least historically-minded Christians keep as a matter of course. So you don't get to have your own separate understanding of anything that puts you out of step with
literally everyone and still share the same religion, even in the broadest sense by which I'm invoking it here. Appealing to some kind of 'different understanding' only has any currency if anyone else shares that same understanding and can root in something beyond themselves that is accepted (like how the Chalcedonians and the Non-Chalcedonians both claim to be keeping fast to the Orthodox Christology of our common fathers HH St. Cyril, HH St. Athanasius and all the rest from before Chalcedon). Mormonism just doesn't have that connection to early Christianity, so it will never be accepted by anyone who knows even the first thing about Christianity and how and why it got to be as it is. (Which did not involve any kind of 'Great Apostasy' scenario.)
Then what do you call the "meat" of the gospel, and tell me also what is the "milk" of the gospel?
The 'milk' and the 'meat' are not distinct teachings, such that one is hidden and handled in an occultic manner (like Mormonism's temple ritual is, for example), but refer to the
understanding that the people have. For those who are mature in their faith, they take the teaching as a person would take meat, while those who are new or otherwise at the level of babies cannot take it in the same way, but receive it as milk.
I'm almost certain we've been over this before and that the fathers describe it thusly. Hence we find in early witnesses like St. Clement of Alexandria (d. 215) a
pedagogical understanding of the relevant verses. It shouldn't escape anyone's notice that the saint taught at the famous Catechetical School of Alexandria and produced works to this end like his famous
Paedagogus (
The Instructor; written c. 198), wherein he writes:
But the childhood which is in Christ is maturity, as compared with the law. Having reached this point, we must defend our childhood. And we have still to explain what is said by the apostle:
"I have fed you with milk (as children in Christ), not with meat; for you were not able, neither yet are you now able." (
1 Corinthians 3:2) For it does not appear to me that the expression is to be taken in a Jewish sense; for I shall oppose to it also that Scripture,
"I will bring you into that good land which flows with milk and honey." (
Exodus 3:8) A very great difficulty arises in reference to the comparison of these Scriptures, when we consider. For if the infancy which is characterized by the milk is the beginning of faith in Christ, then it is disparaged as childish and imperfect. How is the rest that comes after the meat, the rest of the man who is perfect and endowed with knowledge, again distinguished by infant milk? Does not this, as explaining a parable, mean something like this, and is not the expression to be read somewhat to the following effect: "
I have fed you with milk in Christ;" and after a slight stop, let us add,
"as children," that by separating the words in reading we may make out some such sense as this: I have instructed you in Christ with simple, true, and natural nourishment — namely, that which is spiritual: for such is the nourishing substance of milk swelling out from breasts of love. So that the whole matter may be conceived thus: As nurses nourish new-born children on milk, so do I also by the Word, the milk of Christ, instilling into you spiritual nutriment.
Thus, then, the milk which is perfect is perfect nourishment, and brings to that consummation which cannot cease.
You'll note, I hope, how this does not despise or place below the meat-eaters those who are as newborns in Christ, taking instead the 'milk' of the teachings for their nourishment. So it is very unlike your treatment of the same verse, which creates a kind of Gnostic division between those who are 'in the know' and those who are not. And where is the second-century witness to your Mormon interpretation, whereby all kinds divergent practices can be admitted and given supposed apostolic backing? You of course don't have one, and that's my point (it's not an appeal to history for its own sake, but to make a point about what was and was not a feature of the early Christian faith): Your 'different understanding' is not actually attested to in Christian history, as there was never a time when secret, occultic things were acceptable. St. Clement gives a true interpretation as one who is an actual teacher and witness of and participant in the early Christian Church, so if you were really 'restoring' anything in Mormonism, we would expect his interpretation to substantially match your own, and yet it doesn't. In fact, his writing calls out such an understanding which disparages the simple faith of those who receive the milk!
We say the milk is faith, repentence, baptism, receiving the Holy Ghost, and living a life that Jesus would have you live, loving everyone, doing good to everyone, and enduring to the end with those attitudes.
Okay. It's not
not any of those things, sure, but the same can be said of those who receive milk. See above.
Actually loving everyone, and doing good to everyone is not an easy task and many in the early church had a tough time living just the fundamental "milk" of the gospel. I would say it seems tough even in our lives today.
Sure.
So, what is this "meat" of the gospel, how does it differ from the "milk". I would say it a higher order of living. Those who are living the meat of the gospel take upon themeselves a deeper commitment to Jesus Christ. We take upon ourselves additional covenants that most Christians are not willing to do. One of those additional covenants is that we will go to the temple and take time out of our daily lives to do work for those who have passed on. A work that allowes all people who have passed, the opportunity to have the saving ordinances in order to be saved in the kingdom of God.
No. Meat is not a bunch of extra 'stuff' to do in some temple somewhere. There is a lot more in the
Paedagogus and many other works (not just by St. Clement, but others like Augustine of Hippo as well) about the place of knowledge in Christianity and this is probably not the place to get into it (I made
an entire thread on this question a few years ago, which may or may not be helpful to someone somewhere), but it is sufficient to say that neither this scripture nor any creates a kind of separate class of religious participants. We are Christians, not Mandaeans.
The difference between "milk" and "meat" in a Christian life, would be like, most Christian are trying to live the "milk". But some Christians go one step further to becomme a priest or an officer of the church. These people have chosen to live the highest levels of "milk". Now take that one step further, and take upon yourself additional higher covenants and higher commitments, even financial commitments, and additional work that God has ordained for you, and that would be living the "meat" of the gospel.
I don't know how many priests you've ever spoken to but that's not generally the way they're looked at in traditional churches. For sure, to serve God's people in that particular way is a responsibility which most people are not raised to, but priests are the
servants of the mysteries of God, not their masters (we've had more than enough conflicts over this sort of thing; see, e.g.,
Donatism), and we too who are laity or deacons or whatever we are that isn't priests are likewise charged with the same responsibility, albeit in a different way. "The holies are for the holy", as the liturgical proclamation goes.
you have offered nothing except your opinion. If you could be in places that I have been, you would change your opinion.
Why's that? Does the truth of Mormonism's claims change geographically?
You are not living in my world. In my world we are bringing into the church hundreds and hundreds of lost Christians every month, over most of the world.
Bringing them in to further confusion, perhaps.
It is energyzing and dynamic to see it happening. We are at the forefront of getting the message of Jesus out into the world to prepare a world for the second coming. Of which I hope is soon.
I would imagine it is energizing for the believers of any religion to see people convert to it. That doesn't mean anything concerning the truth of the religion. Ask any Muslim and they will be happy to tell you that their religion is the fastest growing in the world, so you should be in it too. Ask most atheists and they're likely to say that religion will be gone in the western world within X years or decades. People like feeling like they're on a 'winning' team, but that doesn't mean anything in itself.
In my eight years and counting in the Coptic Orthodox Church I've only met a handful of fellow converts, but I've also noticed that most people in the congregations I've been in tend to know at least a handful of converts as well (many still living in Egypt or Sudan), so the convert population must be at least a bit bigger than I realize. What does this mean? Nothing for the content of the
faith of the Church, which is what I care about much more than being able to say to someone of another group that we have more converts or more people in general or whatever. That's childish, and not in the good 'milk of the Gospel' way.
), and I actually really love talking about this stuff (even outside of poking holes in what Mormonism thinks it knows about early Christianity, which is shooting fish in the proverbial barrel.)
