1 Nephi 14 -- Any LDS Official Explanation?

[Sherman]

What Sherman has said, and now appears ready to deny, was that if one rejects the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, one has "hardened his heart and has joined the church of the devil".

The restored gospel, according to mormons, is the Book of Mormon. Accordingly, if one rejects the BOM, one has a hardened heart and is now joined the church of the devil.

Billy Graham and the Catholic Church ( ie the Pope) reject the BOM. By Sherman's claim, they are, by his definition, members of the church of the devil.

Sherman may want to try and back peddal at this point, but his written record is contained in this thread.

If you'll notice, and as I predicted, none of the other lds posters want to support him on this one!!!

As I said before and I say again... It is not up to Sherman, Logichopper or anyone else for that matter to determine who has rejected His restored gospel, but God.
God ONLY will make that determination.


So since I do not know Rev Graham's, the pope's or even logichopper heart, in my heart you are all part of the church of the Lamb of God according to 1 Nephi 14.

But God knows who's heart is hardened against the Lamb of God!

 

[A New Dawn]

I have a question for you....lets say you have a co-worker who you have gotten close to....and the two of you begin to talk about things that really matter...ie: family/religion.

Lets also say...that down the line you share with him your beliefs and witness to him that you believe these things (gospel) to be true.

Lets also say...that after a "fair christian hearing" he decides...uh....thanks, but no thanks. According to your belief system...at that moment in time is he consigned to endless torment in hell because he has rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ?

Share with me...at what point along ones journey in life can the determination that a "fair and legitimate" opportunity has been afforded them?

Going back to my original scenario....I ask you...would YOU consider that a "fair and legitimate" opportunity for him? If he were to die the next day...do you believe that the one witness you gave him was enough to convict him to endless hellfire and brimstone?

The answer to your question would be, when he dies, if he hasn't accepted the Lord as his Savior, then it would be too late. Because we do not know the time or the circumstances that the Lord has designated for that person to embrace the gospel.

If that person was one of the elect, he will embrace the gospel before he dies, even though we don't know when that would be. It is God who changes the heart, giving the person "ears to hear", not us who tell the story. We tell the story, but God is the one who effects the change.

 

[Zippythepinhead]

According to the D&C the (first) new and everlasting covenant is baptism by one holding authority, and without which, one cannot enter into celestial glory, as per section 76.

SECTION 22
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Manchester, New York, April 1830. HC 1: 79—80. This revelation was given to the Church in consequence of some who had previously been baptized desiring to unite with the Church without rebaptism.

1, Baptism is a new and everlasting covenant; 2—4, Authoritative baptism is required.

1 BEHOLD, I say unto you that all old covenants have I caused to be done away in this thing; and this is a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning.

2 Wherefore, although a man should be baptized an hundred times it availeth him nothing, for you cannot enter in at the strait gate by the law of Moses, neither by your dead works.

3 For it is because of your dead works that I have caused this last covenant and this church to be built up unto me, even as in days of old.

4 Wherefore, enter ye in at the gate, as I have commanded, and seek not to counsel your God. Amen.

No argument on your points here. Based on what you have quoted in the D and C your point is correct.

 

[logichopper]

For Sherman (or any other lds poster):

If one rejects the Book of Mormon (assuming one has ample opportunity to hear, read, know and/or understand its claims by/from qualified lds priesthood holders), has one hardened their heart and become a member of the "church of the devil"?

A: Yes

B: No

 

[Theway]

For Sherman (or any other lds poster):

If one rejects the Book of Mormon (assuming one has ample opportunity to hear, read, know and/or understand its claims by/from qualified lds priesthood holders), has one hardened their heart and become a member of the "church of the devil"?

A: Yes

B: No

hypothetically speaking (since I'm not God)
NO
However had you added "having also recieved a witness by the Holy Ghost/Spirit of it's truthfullness" then the answer IMO would be
Yes
again hypothetically speaking

 

[Sherman]

For Sherman (or any other lds poster):

If one rejects the Book of Mormon (assuming one has ample opportunity to hear, read, know and/or understand its claims by/from qualified lds priesthood holders), has one hardened their heart and become a member of the "church of the devil"?

A: Yes

B: No

A: Yes

B: No

c: As I said before and I say again... It is not up to Sherman, Logichopper or anyone else for that matter to determine who has rejected His restored gospel, but God. ONLY God will make that determination.

I choose C

 

[randypamjohnson]

The answer to your question would be, when he dies, if he hasn't accepted the Lord as his Savior, then it would be too late. Because we do not know the time or the circumstances that the Lord has designated for that person to embrace the gospel.

If that person was one of the elect, he will embrace the gospel before he dies, even though we don't know when that would be. It is God who changes the heart, giving the person "ears to hear", not us who tell the story. We tell the story, but God is the one who effects the change.

Dawn,

You know the drill!! You know what my next obvious question would be!

What about those people?

Back to the scenario I set up....would YOU consider that one conversation around the dinner table talking about the "gospel" his one and only opportunity to accept Christ?

The above is a rhetorical question (but I wanted to make double sure I understood you) since I believe your position is that YES..it would be sufficient for him...thus it would in your words..."to late" for him.

Is your position that the "Elect" will all..without fail...have the opportunity in this life to accept Christ...and thus, being one of the "elect"..they all will..without fail...accept Christ?

Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[A New Dawn]

What I consider has nothing to do with it. It is God who intervenes, not me/the storyteller.

The answer to your other questions is Yes.

 

[randypamjohnson]

What I consider has nothing to do with it. It is God who intervenes, not me/the storyteller.

The answer to your other questions is Yes.

Dawn,

I have to tell you...."before" you were straight forward...clear and articulate in your position. Now..you tend to be abstract...avoiding giving straightforward answers....like you have to be PC or something.

Do you believe that one of the "elect" could hear the gospel message for the first time "after" he has died...and accept Christ there?

 

[A New Dawn]

I am nothing if not straightforward. How can "Yes" be interpreted any other way?

No, I do not believe that one can accept Christ after he has died. (Is that NO any more straightforward than my YES was?) (I didn't believe that "before", either.)

 

[buddy mack]

The answer to your question would be, when he dies, if he hasn't accepted the Lord as his Savior, then it would be too late. Because we do not know the time or the circumstances that the Lord has designated for that person to embrace the gospel.

If that person was one of the elect, he will embrace the gospel before he dies, even though we don't know when that would be. It is God who changes the heart, giving the person "ears to hear", not us who tell the story. We tell the story, but God is the one who effects the change.

so i did, i checked to see when was the right time to accept Salvation and found it in 2 Cor 6:2.

 

[randypamjohnson]

I am nothing if not straightforward. How can "Yes" be interpreted any other way?

No, I do not believe that one can accept Christ after he has died. (Is that NO any more straightforward than my YES was?) (I didn't believe that "before", either.)

Dawn,

Obviously you know that billions have lived and died...and countless numbers of them have died without ever knowing about a "Christ" let alone actually be taught his gospel.

Do you believe your position balances the scales between mercy and justice with respect to those people?

How can they be judged according to the law when they have never been taught the law? How can they accept Christ when they have never known about a "Christ"?

Dawn...actually you did! I had asked you that specific question and you said that you believed they could...but admittedly you said that "that acceptance" would not be in the form of vicarious baptisms. So yes....you most certainly did believe it.

 

[A New Dawn]

Dawn,

Obviously you know that billions have lived and died...and countless numbers of them have died without ever knowing about a "Christ" let alone actually be taught his gospel.

Do you believe your position balances the scales between mercy and justice with respect to those people?

How can they be judged according to the law when they have never been taught the law? How can they accept Christ when they have never known about a "Christ"?

Dawn...actually you did! I had asked you that specific question and you said that you believed they could...but admittedly you said that "that acceptance" would not be in the form of vicarious baptisms. So yes....you most certainly did believe it.

Ever read Romans 4? Did Abraham know Christ? His faith in God was counted as righteousness.

So, are you into universal salvation, or what, now?

 

[randypamjohnson]

Ever read Romans 4? Did Abraham know Christ? His faith in God was counted as righteousness.

So, are you into universal salvation, or what, now?

Huh? what in the wide wide world of sports are you talking about?

You avoided my direct question.

Is there a response in my future...or ya gonna answer a question with a question?

 

[Swart]

For Sherman (or any other lds poster):

If one rejects the Book of Mormon (assuming one has ample opportunity to hear, read, know and/or understand its claims by/from qualified lds priesthood holders), has one hardened their heart and become a member of the "church of the devil"?

A: Yes

B: No

For me it's B: No

This refers to someone who has rejected Christ.

If you'll excuse the polemics here (probably unavoidable considering we are essentially discussing soteriology). We would maintain that someone who accepted Christ but rejected the BoM are those who have been 'blinded by the subtle craftiness of men'.

To that I would add a third category (based on personal experience) of those who accept Christ, but God has work elsewhere for them to do and so has not at this point in time drawn them into His Church.

 

[logichopper]

We would maintain that someone who accepted Christ but rejected the BoM are those who have been 'blinded by the subtle craftiness of men'.

And I think the entire Christian world would unanimously conclude that mormonism is exactly that, the result of the "craftiness of Joseph Smith"!

To that I would add a third category (based on personal experience) of those who accept Christ, but God has work elsewhere for them to do and so has not at this point in time drawn them into His Church.

Precisely my point and the same conclusion and or position (although he now wants to deny it) as that of Sherman. Since there are but TWO Churches (per mormon doctrine in 1Nephi 14), one has to conclude that "HIS CHURCH" is that of the "CHURCH OF THE LAMB OF GOD". Accordingly, if they are not yet drawn into the HIS CHURCH per mormon doctrine, then they must be part of the "OTHER" church, ie; the "church of the devil"!

My point remains that while mormons want to avoid discussing this in any detail, when they try to explain it, it always ends up defining those outside to the mormon church as being members of the church of the devil. They simply can't get around it. Obviously it does not sell well or promote their cause in a positive way, so it is yet but another one of thier doctrines they would rather avoid explaining in an "officail capacity". They leave it up to members to try and explain, get numerous and varying explanations, none of which deal with the issue directly, and all of which categorize non-members as members of the Church of the Devil.

Ironic isn't it? A church that can claim that all others are abominable (per their doctrine), and yet now seeks to find some political correctness!

Wouldn't it be better for the mormon church to just finally admit it is not a teaching of God?

 

[Theway]

...Wouldn't it be better for the mormon church to just finally admit it is not a teaching of God?

You're right! We give up! You're logical and eloquent argument has swayed us.. Will the last person leaving please turn the lights out.

 

[Fit4Christ]

Dawn,

Obviously you know that billions have lived and died...and countless numbers of them have died without ever knowing about a "Christ" let alone actually be taught his gospel.

Do you believe your position balances the scales between mercy and justice with respect to those people?

How can they be judged according to the law when they have never been taught the law? How can they accept Christ when they have never known about a "Christ"?

Dawn...actually you did! I had asked you that specific question and you said that you believed they could...but admittedly you said that "that acceptance" would not be in the form of vicarious baptisms. So yes....you most certainly did believe it.

I am not Dawn, but I would like to chime in, if I may. I hear this question, and others like them, often in my Alpha class. The motives are varied - some are genuinely curious and some just want to judge the Creator ("how dare God condem those who haven't heard"). It's my belief that Joseph Smith was the latter and provided a way to skirt the issue by saying all will be given the opportunity to hear the Gospel, whether in this life or the next. Definitely unBiblical.

However, since you asked... God has universally revealed Himself in creation, Gospel or not (Psalm 19, Romans 1). Everyone throughout the earth, past, present, and future, has a conscious that tells them the difference between good and bad. Was that by evolution or design? Who was the Designer?

Primitive societies and other cultures who have not "heard the Word" have set up rules and laws for them to function. They set up a system of justice and appointed rulers and judges to oversee that system. God promises to judge these peoples according to their motives conditions of their hearts (Prov. 16:2, Psalm 98:9, I Cor. 4:4).

Please note in Rev. 5:9 that because Jesus died He "purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation." Also, see Rev. 7:9 - "After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb." It says nothing about having the requirements of belonging to a particular church or even having heard the Gospel. ALL peoples are represented in heaven.

When you let God be in control, it's much easier to believe that ""For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Is. 55:8-9). God is in control and has a plan and purpose for everyone.

 

[Ran77]

And I think the entire Christian world would unanimously conclude that mormonism is exactly that, the result of the "craftiness of Joseph Smith"!

And this is important. . . how?

Is truth determined by numbers? If the rest of the christian world has it wrong, then what should it matter to us what they think? Are you concerned that the followers of Buddism or Native American Spiritualism think that the christian beliefs are wrong?

Precisely my point and the same conclusion and or position (although he now wants to deny it) as that of Sherman. Since there are but TWO Churches (per mormon doctrine in 1Nephi 14), one has to conclude that "HIS CHURCH" is that of the "CHURCH OF THE LAMB OF GOD". Accordingly, if they are not yet drawn into the HIS CHURCH per mormon doctrine, then they must be part of the "OTHER" church, ie; the "church of the devil"!

Really? It is a LDS-only belief that there are but two churches? That would mean that the rest of the christian world don't believe these verses are true:

Gal 1:13

For ye have heard of my conversion in time past in the Jews religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it.

(No mention of multiple churches of God. Christ was a jew and this verse separates the jewish religion from the church of God.)


Eph 4:4

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling.

Eph 5: 23

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church. . .

(Here again, no mention of multiple churches. And I find the comment about one spirit even more telling in this case. Can a group of churches that all teach variations on a common theme really be considered to be of one spirit? No!)


Matt 13: 38

The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one.

(Everyone in the "world" is clearly placed into one of two camps. Whether the referrence is to being children of God rather than the devil or it is belonging to either the Church of God rather than the church of the devil is a matter of personal flare. It is still an a matter of being in one of two camps.)


1 Peter 4: 3

For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, and excess of wine, revellings banquetings, and abominable idolatries.

(Well, this really gets to the heart of what the LDS have been saying. Gentiles are unbelievers. These unbelievers gladly wallow in sin. We even get a connection to abomination here associated with those who prefer to remain unbelievers.)

(Additionally, the abomination is directly tied to idolatries. How many times on this forum have the LDS been told that we worship a different God because our understanding of His nature is different than everyone elses. The charges of abominable idolatry come quite freely from OC. Why would this then be a problem for the OC? If the LDS looked at the misunderstood views of the OC as the worship of a false God, because they don't understand the true nature of Him, then all of this would be us standing on the other side of the debate using the exact same argument. Hey, I know what they call that - they call it hypocrisy.)


Lev 18: 26-27, 30

Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you.

For all of these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled.

Therefore shall you keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye not defile yourselves therein.

(Here again we have acts of sins that are being performed by unbelievers. Customs that are considered abominable to God. And it is interesting that the word ordinance is used here - which is exactly what the LDS define as the difference between us and OC. We have the authority to perform these ordinaces. So, customs that vary from what God has commanded are considered an abomination to Him.)


There are a lot more verses that separate God's teachings from the traditions of men, but I think this set of them is sufficient.


Titus 1: 16

They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

(Ok, the LDS have been saying that those who believe in God and work to serve Him are not the ones who are being referrenced in the quotes being debated. And what do we have here? It is a verse that states that those who do not works to display their committment to God are abominable. Yes sir, we have a match here. This is our belief and this is what we have been saying.)

My point remains that while mormons want to avoid discussing this in any detail,

Weak point. I have responded in detail. Not having wanted to participate is not the same thing as avoiding it.

when they try to explain it, it always ends up defining those outside to the mormon church as being members of the church of the devil.

There goes your "Always." I have just defined it differently and I know that I have heard others in the past explain it in pretty similar terms.

They simply can't get around it.

I just did.

Obviously it does not sell well or promote their cause in a positive way. . .

To be accurate, the twisted version of our belief does not sell well. Our actual doctrine is just fine.

. . .so it is yet but another one of thier doctrines they would rather avoid explaining in an "officail capacity".

I'm sure that I have read several statements by the Church leadership that have addressed this issue. So this claim is not accurate.

They leave it up to members to try and explain, get numerous and varying explanations, none of which deal with the issue directly, and all of which categorize non-members as members of the Church of the Devil.

Again, you can stow away that "All" portion of your diatribe. I have just provided an explanation of our Doctrine that is not what you claim.

Ironic isn't it? A church that can claim that all others are abominable (per their doctrine), and yet now seeks to find some political correctness!

Here is some irony. Any someone would want to pursue this with the OC attitude towards Muslims, Buddists, and the other non-christian religions being what it is.

Of course this is pure spin. Unsubstantiated subjective rhetoric.

Wouldn't it be better for the mormon church to just finally admit it is not a teaching of God?

Why would it be better to lie? Is that what they teach you in your church - to lie?

 

[logichopper]

Why would it be better to lie? Is that what they teach you in your church - to lie?

Ran,

So is it fair to say that you believe those who are not members of the LDS church are members of the "Church of the Devil"?

If you believe your church doctrine, why be afraid to admitt that?