LDS For Not Following Joseph Smith?

Rescued One · Oct 16, 2017

Peter1000 said:
The mainline Christian position is that all men and women will be celibate angels unto God in the eternities.

No, humans don't become angels.

Peter1000 · Oct 16, 2017

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Yet they still need to be vicariously baptised and married. Would for instance someone who dies in child birth, that the Mormon Church has no knowledge of and cannot perform the necessary ritual of vicarious baptism and marriage be unable to achieve the highest, despite having accepted the gospel in the next life?

No, that person will be made known in the millennium, when Jesus reigns for 1,000 years. One of the large projects that will be happening during that millennium will be to give all people the chance to hear about Jesus and his gospel, and to do the work necessary to their salvation.

So the person you are talking about, and any other scenerio you can possibly come up with, will be taken care of during the millennium, when we can see them face to face and be able to tie their lineage to Adam, so that all people will be accounted for, and will have the opportunity to have their own saving ordinances, in order to enter into the KOG after the final resurrection and the final judgement.

BigDaddy4 · Oct 16, 2017

Peter1000 said:
BigDaddy says:

That's because it is a given. If you are not a believer, you are going to be damned. If you are a not a believer, why would you go get baptized? You would not. There are even a lot of believers that do not go and get baptized. So why would a non-believer? So the scripture does not have to say if you do not believe and are not baptized you are condemned.

So 1 above is correct.
2 above is correct. (no need to mention baptism, they are a nonbeliever)
3 believe and not baptized and be condemned.
If 3 said believe and not baptized and be saved, then 1 would not be true. We know 1 is correct so 3 has to be condemned.

Again, if 3 is believe and no baptism and be saved, then that conflicts with 1. Since we know from Mark 16:16 that 1 is correct, 3 has to be condemned.

This is where I think the cherry picking tactic is seen. You say that numerous scriptures say just belief and faith and you are saved. But then there are many scriptures that say they believed and were baptized and repent and be baptized, etc., etc., etc. So that if you only believe in 1 position or the other, then you have to be troubled by the other position.

LDS believe in both positions. We believe that if you believe you will be saved. And that is because if you truly believe in Jesus you will love him and follow him and keep his commandments. 1 of his commandments is to repent, another is to be baptized of the water by immersion and another is to be baptized of the HS, another is to faithfully do good works, etc.

So if you truly believe, you will be baptized as he says, and that reconciles all the belief scriptures with the baptize scriptures. Both positions are important to understand.

3 is belief, but no baptism is to be condemned. It has to be.

No it doesn't "have to be", according to Scripture. "It has to be" because of the incorrect lds belief system.

From Galatians 5: 1-6, notice the bold (mine) verse about what counts. Substiture baptized for circumcised.

1It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. 2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

The lds want to create different "laws" or works to obtain certain things (blessings, exhaltation, etc.). Scripture clearly indicates this is not God's grace.

Notice further in Galatians 5:14
14For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Fulfillment of the law does not require baptism.

Peter1000 · Oct 16, 2017

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
The Eastern Orthodox just suddenly popped into existence in the 8th century? Who was it's founder?

There were many schisms between the Eastern churches and the Western churches in the 8th century, but the great schism did not happen until the 11th century when Pope Leo sent a delegation to Constantinople to clarify that he was the head of the entire church. Of course Patriarch Michael 1 Cerularius was not going to accept 2nd place, and so Leo's legate formally excommunitcated Michael and Michael formally excommunicated Leo's legate (since Leo was dead by then).

So now that the church was officially torn into 2 pieces, the question is, which piece was the true piece and which piece was the false piece. Just like Jesus said, if by the power of the devil, I cast out devils, the devils house will be divided and will fall. Has anyone asked by what power did Leo use to excommunicate a man of God from Constantinople? Conversely, what power did Michael use to excommunicate a man of God from Rome? Both of them could not be using the power of God, because it would divide the house of God. Oh, it did, the great schism came about because of these 2 stupid excommunications.
The house of God was divided, and it has not been healed to this day, a 1,000 years later.

One of the excommunicants was using a power that was not of God. One of the excommunicants was not in the true church. They cannot both be true, God will not divide His House.

So which church was true. The Catholic church or the Eastern Orthodox church? They both cannot be the true church.

Peter1000 · Oct 16, 2017

Phoebe Ann said:
Someone does the genealogocal research and the couple who were married in Connecticut in 1742 will be sealed to each other for eternity. Meanwhile that couple is being taught the Mormon message/doctrine in the Spirit World and given the opportunity to accept or reject Mormonism. If my neighbor and his wife pass away and only one of them accepts Mormonism, the one who accepts it will be given a new spouse.

Or the one who did not accept will be given the opportunity to accept and then by proxy be baptized in the temple and then the couple can be married in the temple for eternity. If the one that did not accept continues to not accept then the other one will be given the opportunity to have an accepting spouse. This giving to another spouse, too will be done in the millennium. A lot of work to be done in the millennium, in the temples that will be created around the entire world.

Peter1000 · Oct 16, 2017

Phoebe Ann said:
No, humans don't become angels.

What do humans become?

Peter1000 · Oct 16, 2017

BigDaddy4 said:
No it doesn't "have to be", according to Scripture. "It has to be" because of the incorrect lds belief system.

From Galatians 5: 1-6, notice the bold (mine) verse about what counts. Substiture baptized for circumcised.

1It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. 2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

The lds want to create different "laws" or works to obtain certain things (blessings, exhaltation, etc.). Scripture clearly indicates this is not God's grace.

Notice further in Galatians 5:14
14For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Fulfillment of the law does not require baptism.

What translation are you using for this post?

Peter1000 · Oct 16, 2017

BigDaddy4 said:
No it doesn't "have to be", according to Scripture. "It has to be" because of the incorrect lds belief system.

From Galatians 5: 1-6, notice the bold (mine) verse about what counts. Substiture baptized for circumcised.

1It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. 2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

The lds want to create different "laws" or works to obtain certain things (blessings, exhaltation, etc.). Scripture clearly indicates this is not God's grace.

Notice further in Galatians 5:14
14For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Fulfillment of the law does not require baptism.

So tell me, are you willing to ignore what Jesus tells you in Mark 16:16 because of what Paul tells you in Galations 5:1-6?

I just looked at the book of Mark and other sayings of Jesus that you would have to ignore in order to follow Paul and Galations 5:1-6:
Mark 4:16-17
Mark 10:15
Mark 10:23
Mark 10:29-30
Mark 11:25-26
Mark 13:13
Mark 16:16

Remember this is just from Mark. There are 26 other books in the NT.

I believe what Paul said in Galations is true, especially in regards to circumcision, but you cannot replace circumcision with baptism. That is how you reconcile Paul with Jesus.

Baptism was not done away with the coming of Christ, like circumcision was. In fact baptism was reintroduced to the Jews by John. Even Jesus was obedient to the command and was baptized. Jesus's final words to his apostles were to go into all the world and preach and baptize.

If baptism was a dead work like circumcision, Jesus would not have told his apostles to preach and baptize. He would have just said preach, but he didn't Jesus said preach and baptize.

Your dispute it seems is with Jesus. Not me.

Rescued One · Oct 16, 2017

Peter1000 said:
Or the one who did not accept will be given the opportunity to accept and then by proxy be baptized in the temple and then the couple can be married in the temple for eternity. If the one that did not accept continues to not accept then the other one will be given the opportunity to have an accepting spouse. This giving to another spouse, too will be done in the millennium. A lot of work to be done in the millennium, in the temples that will be created around the entire world.

You need to pay attention. There aren't multiple opportunties to accept Mormonism. How did you come up with that idea?

There is no such thing as a second chance to gain salvation by accepting the gospel in the spirit world after spurning, declining, or refusing to accept it in this life. It is true that there may be a second chance to hear and accept the gospel, but those who have thus procrastinated their acceptance of the saving truths will not gain salvation in the celestial kingdom of God.

Salvation for the dead is the system by means of which those who "die without a knowledge of the gospel" (D. & C. 128:5) may gain such knowledge in the spirit world and then, following the vicarious performance of the necessary ordinances, become heirs of salvation on the same basis as though the gospel truths had been obeyed in mortality. Salvation for the dead is limited expressly to those who do not have opportunity in this life to accept the gospel but who would have taken the opportunity had it come to them.

"All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel," the Lord said to the Prophet, "who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom, for I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts." (Teachings, p. 107.)

This is the only revealed principle by means of which the laws pertaining to salvation for the dead can be made effective in the lives of any persons. There is no promise in any revelation that those who have a fair and just opportunity in this life to accept the gospel, and who do not do it, will have another chance in the spirit world to gain salvation. On the contrary, there is the express stipulation that men cannot be saved without accepting the gospel in this life, if they are given opportunity to accept it.
Second Chance Theory

This is what I said:

"Someone does the genealogocal research and the couple who were married in Connecticut in 1742 will be sealed to each other for eternity. Meanwhile that couple is being taught the Mormon message/doctrine in the Spirit World and given the opportunity to accept or reject Mormonism. If my neighbor and his wife pass away and only one of them accepts Mormonism, the one who accepts it will be given a new spouse."

You don't get two chances; you get ONE chance.

Rescued One · Oct 16, 2017

Peter1000 said:
So tell me, are you willing to ignore what Jesus tells you in Mark 16:16 because of what Paul tells you in Galations 5:1-6?

I just looked at the book of Mark and other sayings of Jesus that you would have to ignore in order to follow Paul and Galations 5:1-6:
Mark 4:16-17
Mark 10:15
Mark 10:23
Mark 10:29-30
Mark 11:25-26
Mark 13:13
Mark 16:16

Remember this is just from Mark. There are 26 other books in the NT.

I believe what Paul said in Galations is true, especially in regards to circumcision, but you cannot replace circumcision with baptism. That is how you reconcile Paul with Jesus.

Baptism was not done away with the coming of Christ, like circumcision was. In fact baptism was reintroduced to the Jews by John. Even Jesus was obedient to the command and was baptized. Jesus's final words to his apostles were to go into all the world and preach and baptize.

If baptism was a dead work like circumcision, Jesus would not have told his apostles to preach and baptize. He would have just said preach, but he didn't Jesus said preach and baptize.

Your dispute it seems is with Jesus. Not me.

BigDaddy4 didn't dispute Jesus.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Oct 16, 2017

Peter1000 said:
There were many schisms between the Eastern churches and the Western churches in the 8th century, but the great schism did not happen until the 11th century when Pope Leo sent a delegation to Constantinople to clarify that he was the head of the entire church. Of course Patriarch Michael 1 Cerularius was not going to accept 2nd place, and so Leo's legate formally excommunitcated Michael and Michael formally excommunicated Leo's legate (since Leo was dead by then).

So now that the church was officially torn into 2 pieces, the question is, which piece was the true piece and which piece was the false piece. Just like Jesus said, if by the power of the devil, I cast out devils, the devils house will be divided and will fall. Has anyone asked by what power did Leo use to excommunicate a man of God from Constantinople? Conversely, what power did Michael use to excommunicate a man of God from Rome? Both of them could not be using the power of God, because it would divide the house of God. Oh, it did, the great schism came about because of these 2 stupid excommunications.
The house of God was divided, and it has not been healed to this day, a 1,000 years later.

One of the excommunicants was using a power that was not of God. One of the excommunicants was not in the true church. They cannot both be true, God will not divide His House.

So which church was true. The Catholic church or the Eastern Orthodox church? They both cannot be the true church.

So Micheal's Church already existed, it just schismed from Rome? In which case it cannot be said that the Eastern Orthodox just came into existence in hte 8th century as you previously stated.

Now the great schism came about due to numerous factors and it wasn't even clear there was an absolute definite schism until the third crusade in which a Latin Patriarch was placed in Constantinople by the Latin victors. I agree both can't be correct, one side must be right the other wrong yet that is not to say those churches just poofed into existence (much like the Mormon Church came out of nowhere with no connection to the family of God before it).

BigDaddy4 · Oct 17, 2017

Peter1000 said:
What translation are you using for this post?

Why is that relevant?

BigDaddy4 · Oct 17, 2017

Peter1000 said:
Your dispute it seems is with Jesus. Not me.

I have no dispute with Jesus. Just religions that falsely represent him!

Other than Mark 16:16, which you posted again, none of the Scriptures you provided mention baptism. Are you trying to distract, knowing your position is weak?

Circumcision was not salvational. It was a covenant sign, but even the wicked, evil Pharasees were circumcised. Jesus had some choice words for them if they didn't change their ways. Likewise, baptism does not save. It is a convenant sign. One can go under the water as an unsaved sinner and come up the same. God looks at the heart. Love conquers law, as it is written in the New Testament.

fatboys · Oct 17, 2017

BigDaddy4 said:
I have no dispute with Jesus. Just religions that falsely represent him!

Other than Mark 16:16, which you posted again, none of the Scriptures you provided mention baptism. Are you trying to distract, knowing your position is weak?

Circumcision was not salvational. It was a covenant sign, but even the wicked, evil Pharasees were circumcised. Jesus had some choice words for them if they didn't change their ways. Likewise, baptism does not save. It is a convenant sign. One can go under the water as an unsaved sinner and come up the same. God looks at the, heart. Love conquers law, as it is written in the New Testament.

Rationalizing what it means. Why did they say this if it wasn't important?

Peter1000 · Oct 17, 2017

BigDaddy4 said:
I have no dispute with Jesus. Just religions that falsely represent him!

Other than Mark 16:16, which you posted again, none of the Scriptures you provided mention baptism. Are you trying to distract, knowing your position is weak?

Circumcision was not salvational. It was a covenant sign, but even the wicked, evil Pharasees were circumcised. Jesus had some choice words for them if they didn't change their ways. Likewise, baptism does not save. It is a convenant sign. One can go under the water as an unsaved sinner and come up the same. God looks at the heart. Love conquers law, as it is written in the New Testament.

Did I, or did the bible falsely represent him? Mark 16:16 is in the bible, not D&C.

What do you know of a covenant sign? The key word being covenant? Men covenant to God to do X, and God covenants with men to do X. God's X usually has to do with getting into heaven or salvation. Covenants with God are not taken lightly, if you do not follow up on your covenant, God will not follow up on his. IOW your out. Circumcision was one of those signs that men took upon themselves that distinquished them from ungodly men. Their circumcision was a sign that they were for YHWH. Don't get circumcised, no heaven, get circumcised, you have the opportunity for heaven. Circumcision is only salvific if you do all the other things required of you under the Law of Moses. If you had kept all the Law of Moses, but refused to be circumcised you would be out.

Baptism is also a covenant sign. Men covenant with God to do X, God covenants with men to do X. If you are baptized and then disregard the other requirements you need to be saved, then your baptism is not going to save you. But if you are baptized, and do all the other requirements to be saved, then you are saved.
If you do all the requirements to be saved, but you refuse to be baptized, you will be out.
IOW baptism is just 1 of many requirements necessary to be saved.

As for the scriptures that I quoted from Mark. They have to do with different things that Jesus tells us we must do to be saved. It is not a reflection away from baptism, it is shining a light on other requirements that Jesus thinks are necessary for salvation. Remember this is only the book of Mark, there are 26 others that give us other requirements to be saved.

For instance:
Mark 10:15 says that we must be as a little child or you will no wise enter into the KOG.
Jesus does not mention any requirements except you must be as a little child. What about that?
Mark 10:23
.....hardly shall they that have riches enter into the KOG. So Jesus tells us to be careful about being rich, it may keep us from entering the KOG. Jesus mentions nothing of any requirements to be saved except riches may keep us out.
Mark 11:25-26
Forgive those who trespasses again you, that your Father my for your trespasses. If you do not forgive, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. So does that mean if you are a believer, but you have a hard time forgiving people that trespass against you, you will not be forgiven of your sins, and you be out? Yes.
Mark 13:13
When men hate you for Christ's sake, if you will endure to the end, the same shall be saved.
So in this case you obviously believe, but it indicates that if you do not endure to the end you will not be saved. So you must believe and endure to be saved. No sunshine Christians in the highest levels of heaven.

Finally Mark 16:16. The only one scripture in Mark where Jesus tells us that belief and baptism are essential for salvation. If I read this I would not teach people that baptism is an option.

Peter1000 · Oct 17, 2017

BigDaddy4 said:
Why is that relevant?

Because some translations are different than others. Different words and many times different meanings.

Peter1000 · Oct 17, 2017

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
So Micheal's Church already existed, it just schismed from Rome? In which case it cannot be said that the Eastern Orthodox just came into existence in hte 8th century as you previously stated.

Now the great schism came about due to numerous factors and it wasn't even clear there was an absolute definite schism until the third crusade in which a Latin Patriarch was placed in Constantinople by the Latin victors. I agree both can't be correct, one side must be right the other wrong yet that is not to say those churches just poofed into existence (much like the Mormon Church came out of nowhere with no connection to the family of God before it).

Michael's church existed from long before the 11th century. But as soon as the schism went into affect, he belonged to a different church, with different doctrines and different organization, and different traditions than the other church in Rome. 2 different churches. Which one is the right church. Which one is the false church? They cannot both be the true church. God's house divided will fall.

Peter1000 · Oct 17, 2017

Phoebe Ann said:
BigDaddy4 didn't dispute Jesus.

It is a clear case of what a dispute is:

Jesus says baptism is necessary to be saved (Mark 16:16). BigDaddy4 says it is not necessary for salvation.

Who will you back in the dispute?

BigDaddy4 · Oct 17, 2017

fatboys said:
Rationalizing what it means. Why did they say this if it wasn't important?

No rationalization, just quoting Scripture. No one said it wasn't important, it's just not salvational. Why did they not say it every time the topic came up of what it takes to be saved if it was that important?

BigDaddy4 · Oct 17, 2017

Peter1000 said:
Did I, or did the bible falsely represent him? Mark 16:16 is in the bible, not D&C.

What do you know of a covenant sign? The key word being covenant? Men covenant to God to do X, and God covenants with men to do X. God's X usually has to do with getting into heaven or salvation. Covenants with God are not taken lightly, if you do not follow up on your covenant, God will not follow up on his. IOW your out. Circumcision was one of those signs that men took upon themselves that distinquished them from ungodly men. Their circumcision was a sign that they were for YHWH. Don't get circumcised, no heaven, get circumcised, you have the opportunity for heaven. Circumcision is only salvific if you do all the other things required of you under the Law of Moses. If you had kept all the Law of Moses, but refused to be circumcised you would be out.

Baptism is also a covenant sign. Men covenant with God to do X, God covenants with men to do X. If you are baptized and then disregard the other requirements you need to be saved, then your baptism is not going to save you. But if you are baptized, and do all the other requirements to be saved, then you are saved.
If you do all the requirements to be saved, but you refuse to be baptized, you will be out.
IOW baptism is just 1 of many requirements necessary to be saved.

As for the scriptures that I quoted from Mark. They have to do with different things that Jesus tells us we must do to be saved. It is not a reflection away from baptism, it is shining a light on other requirements that Jesus thinks are necessary for salvation. Remember this is only the book of Mark, there are 26 others that give us other requirements to be saved.

For instance:
Mark 10:15 says that we must be as a little child or you will no wise enter into the KOG.
Jesus does not mention any requirements except you must be as a little child. What about that?
Mark 10:23
.....hardly shall they that have riches enter into the KOG. So Jesus tells us to be careful about being rich, it may keep us from entering the KOG. Jesus mentions nothing of any requirements to be saved except riches may keep us out.
Mark 11:25-26
Forgive those who trespasses again you, that your Father my for your trespasses. If you do not forgive, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. So does that mean if you are a believer, but you have a hard time forgiving people that trespass against you, you will not be forgiven of your sins, and you be out? Yes.
Mark 13:13
When men hate you for Christ's sake, if you will endure to the end, the same shall be saved.
So in this case you obviously believe, but it indicates that if you do not endure to the end you will not be saved. So you must believe and endure to be saved. No sunshine Christians in the highest levels of heaven.

Finally Mark 16:16. The only one scripture in Mark where Jesus tells us that belief and baptism are essential for salvation. If I read this I would not teach people that baptism is an option.

Again, you are trying to distract with your rabbit holes. And again, you rely on 1 scripture to support your baptism saves theology.

LDS For Not Following Joseph Smith?

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me

Well-Known Member

It's a new season...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me

Dissident

It's a new season...

It's a new season...

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

It's a new season...

It's a new season...

Similar threads