1 Nephi 14 -- Any LDS Official Explanation?

[Fit4Christ]

Ran77,

Sorry, won't be able to address your posts for a few days, but will respond as soon as I can.

 

[Ran77]

Ran77,

Sorry, won't be able to address your posts for a few days, but will respond as soon as I can.

No probs. Take your time. I'm going to be busy over the weekend anyway.

 

[Fit4Christ]

The humble follower is teachable. All that is amiss in his current situation is that he has been taught the doctrines of men. However, that can change. He can learn and grow. The difficult thing for man to do is choose to follow Christ rather than the desires of the flesh and the humble follower has already made this choice. So, being humble, he is of one spirit with Christ.

OK.

]Prayer.

You seem to want to focus on methods and teachings in order to lump everyone into one of the two groups. I continue to emphasize the desire of their hearts to serve God. That is what God will judge us on - what is in our hearts. Do you disagree with this? What is it that you think matters to God?

Sorry. Tis not I that focuses on methods and teachings. It's written all over the lds church. Isn't this what you have been contending - that the humble follower is being taught the doctrines of men? That even though his heart is in the right place, what he is being taught is incorrect?

Absolutely what is in our hearts is what matters most, not rituals, regulations, restrictions, or other man made requirements. When God judges us, He will not say "Well done, good and faithful mormon, catholic, presbyterian, or [insert other denomination here]". No, He will say "Well done, good and faithful servant".

For each item, one teaching will represent God's word and the rest are the doctrines of men. It is easy to look out on the world religions and see that there are many differences in what is taught. Too many. The doctrines of men are numerous.

Really? Are you characterizing "world religions" as including all Christian denominations? Or do you separate the two? How many of the Bible believing Christian denominations have you studied? How many doctrines of men would you need to consider them "numerous"?

Look at baptism. God has only one stance on what is acceptable in regards to baptism and everything else are the doctrines of men.[/QUOTE]
Reference, please, for God's "one stance" on baptism.

So, which one is God's way? Baptism by immersion, baptism by sprinkling, baptism as close to birth as possible, baptism when a person is old enough to know what they are doing, no baptism at all.

See your contention at the top - God will judge what's in our hearts. Water baptism has nothing to do with it. But, that is a discussion for another thread.

And that is just a single item. Look at the nature of God, the resurrection, and a host of other items and you end up with a large number of denominations which would appear to be teaching at least a few of the doctrines of men.

The nature of God as written in the Bible, or the nature of God as laid out by the lds church? Two very different viewpoints.

The teachings may not need to come from the same church headquarters, but they need to match, they need to be the same.

Who said they need to match or be the same? You, or God? Did God create everyone the same? Does God expect everyone to worship Him in the same way?

If LDS doctrine was false, that would be true. However, the LDS Church is true. I'm still waiting for someone on this forum to present me with a convincing argument that points out the falseness of the Church. So far, no one has come remotely close to it.

There you go again, putting your "church" ahead of Christ. A fine example of a "doctrine of man". Tis not up to us to convince you, but the Holy Spirit to convict you if it is God's will. We are just vehicles of His word.

 

[Fit4Christ]

I did miss something. The line about it being a summary of the LDS beliefs.

I apologize.

Apolgy accepted.

Later in your post you react to what you perceive as assumptions. The way you mention them it doesn't appear that you hold them in high regard. Yet, claiming that I discounted your thoughts, for whatever reason you choose to include, is an assumption itself. If you think it in poor character to draw conclusions from what is presented then I suggest you set a good example and refrain from it yourself.

The truth is I spent about two hours contemplating what you wrote. I didn't discount it. I considered it, read through scriptures to get a better understanding of it, and eventually decided it was false. Maybe you have a different understanding of what it means to discount something than I do.

I took a moment to look up the meaning in my dictionary and it looks as if we both have valid meanings that do not match exactly. So it appears that we use the word differently. I will concede that your comment is accurate in as much as: I set it aside as inaccurate. Or, to take a statement at less than face value by allowing for bias. However, accepting either one of those meanins would seem to clash with the idea that you make an honest attempt to understand it.

Now, don't get me wrong - I believe that you make an honest attempt to understand the word of God. However, I still see bias reflected in your statements. Seventy percent of communication is non-verbal. In written communication this comes across with word choice. Each word carries its own subtle and important modification to a message. If a person chooses negative words to convey a message it will come across as negative or even hostile towards the topic. That is how it works and I don't accept people's attempts to disassociate themselves from their word choices.

I understand that comments don't always come out the way we want them to and I also understand that written communication is much easier to misread than verbal communication. I have presented what I see as significant about the word choices you have made in this matter and if I am wrong - correct me. If you misspoke then make a new statement that better represents your views. Otherwise, stand by your words if you are a person of integrity.

I am not willing to continue to debate over word choices and the perception of communication. If I have misled or misspoke, then I will retract my statements when shown the error of my ways. However, I believe that focusing too much on what was specifically written distracts from the discussion. Which is where, I believe this portion was headed.

Just a follower. Humble indicates they are teachable. The LDS on this forum constantly point out the necessity of not just saying you believe in Christ, but actively showing it in your deeds. Maybe you haven't read any of the many posts that make this statement.

Without getting into a "works vs. faith" discussion, I would have to agree in principle that it is necessary for a believer in Christ to show their faith by doing. However, I believe that one can just be humble and sit on the sidelines (i.e., not a "doer") and still have their salvation.

Oh look, I added a little spin of my own. I can see that you aren't any more appreciative of it than I am. Maybe you can steer clear of it in the future. You know, stick to the facts without any added color commentary; like being a second class citizen.

"Just stick to the facts, ma'am", huh? Sorry, this is a debate and discussion forum. I will state my opinion if I feel like it, just as you are free to express yours. You are free to agree or disagree with mine, as I am with yours. I clarified my "second class citizen" comments that it was just my personal observation. Hence, my opinion. You, obviously, disagreed with my opinion. Not a problem with me.

Or maybe I could respond that it was just a personal observation.

Do as you choose...

Excellent. This is what I was talking about with word choice. Alleged has a different connotation than supposedly. I would accept that as a nuetral statement - or at least I would hope that I woud.

I'm glad that suits you. I will try to be more careful in my word choices in future discussions with you, as it appears to me (my opinion here!) that proper word choice is important to you in your discussions.

I don't know what a beatitude is, but I find that people will be judged by what is in their heart to be a pretty hopeful message. What I have been presenting to you is a message of hope for all who truly seek out the Lord.

Beatitudes - Matthew 5:1-12. You know "Blessed are the poor in spirit..." etc. Gives hope to the hopeless, direction to the spiritually lost, promises of a better future.

Yea, I was waiting for this argument to surface. This argument depends on the word "church" to mean exactly the same thing everytime it is used. My dictionary has 8 different meanings for the word. And that doesn't even include the way a meaning is affected by the surround text and general topic being discussed.

If you want to include semantics, then I suggest you look beyond your dictionary and look at the original meanings in Greek. Otherwise, it's just another Clinton-esque "Depends on the definition of..."

Besides, you would then have to explain why the Bible isn't contradicting itself when it lists only two churches in one place and multiple churches in another. This works quite well with what I have presented.

I'm not following your request and why I would have to explain it. What do mean by what I have bolded in your post? Reference please?

I have already shown the negative bias that you applied to the BoM verse. If you read the Bible verses with the same critical eye - it would be just negative.

I have read it with the same critical eye and came up with a different conclusion then what you have assumed I would. Please don't project your assumptions on to me. Thanks!

Not to mention that there is a liberal amount of disingenousness in this stance. How hopeful and encouraging are the messages of damnation that have been given about the sinners of the world. There is a huge amount of negative - frightening - wordage in the Bible.

Such as...? Some examples, please... or is this an overgeneralization?

I feel that your earlier post amply demonstrates a bias in your reading the LDS scriptures. We see hope for those who have been misled and you classify them as second class citizens. The same verse, two vastly divergent readings of it.

Sure I have a bias! I'm an lds non-believer. And as such, in the passage we've been discussing, it appears to me to be a lack of message of hope for those who are not in the correct place, receiving the correct teachings. You disagree. Great! More power to you. Doesn't change my opinion of the passage.

People are accountable for what they say. I read your words, studied the subtext, and made a best guess with the data I had available. You made multiple comments about my questions in such a manner that made it sound like it was a problem. The one was written in a manner which idicated that you expected some sort of entrapment on my part. (Again, its all about which words a person chooses to use in his communication.)

OK

You wanted a clarification of what I meant - and I gave it to you. That is what a clarification is - to make something more clearly understood.

Are you looking for me to say that my original comment wasn't communicated well? You'd be right. That is why I provided a clarification.

Are you trying to indicate that I don't know what I meant to say? And that you do? That would be silly. You can accept that this is what I had originally wanted to express - or don't.

Thinking back, you're right - you did provide clarification. I apologize for the "back track" remark.

I notice that your statement attempts to tell me what I was demonstrating with my comments. The interesting thing about is - that isn't it.

Forgive me if I got it wrong, but it appeared to me that you were demonstrating that the Bible doesn't not mention multiple churchs, that there is only one true church. Oh, but that "one true church" sounds vaguely familiar... oh, yeah, that's what the lds church claims to be.

As simply and concisely as I can present it: In the verses that we have been discussing, the two churches that are being discussed are not actual organizations. It represents, as I have said several times now, a body of individuals that are categorized by the intent of their heart to follow either God or the world (satan).

In order for it to be universally true, througout history, neither of them can represent organizations and especially not a single organization like the Catholic church or the LDS Church.

You words would be fine, if those outside of the lds church weren't constantly reminded that the lds believe theirs is the "one true church". You yourself have stated as such in a previous post.

 

[Ran77]

Really? Are you characterizing "world religions" as including all Christian denominations? Or do you separate the two? How many of the Bible believing Christian denominations have you studied? How many doctrines of men would you need to consider them "numerous"?

I am using the phrase as in - look at all of the religious beliefs that exist in the world. All beliefs that people accept as being the word of God.

I have spent little time "studying" denominations other than my ow. My understanding of it comes from listening to the supposedly unifed beliefs of Orthodox Christianity and hearing a wide variety of beliefs coming from them.

Oh, I think dozens of the doctrines of men would be adequate to be considered numerous. If you want a specific number lets randomly choose 24.

Reference, please, for God's "one stance" on baptism.

I don't understand you question. Do you want a verse which states which stance on baptism is God's or do you mean something else?

The nature of God as written in the Bible, or the nature of God as laid out by the lds church? Two very different viewpoints.

The nature of God as viewed in all its variations by the people of the Earth.

You try to make a distinction here between what is stated in the Bible and what the LDS believe. Yet there are plenty of christian sects that hold similar views to ours and there is no effort to set them apart from you. And yet it demonstrates my point that within christianity there are very different viewpoints that cannot all be true. Either God has a physical body or He does not. Both cannot be true.

Who said they need to match or be the same? You, or God? Did God create everyone the same? Does God expect everyone to worship Him in the same way?

I believe God did when He talks about His unchanging nature and that He is the same today and tomorrow and forever.

There you go again, putting your "church" ahead of Christ. A fine example of a "doctrine of man". Tis not up to us to convince you, but the Holy Spirit to convict you if it is God's will. We are just vehicles of His word.

Well, you claim that I put the Church ahead of Christ, but nothing in my statement indicates that is true and you certainly are not capable of looking into my heart to determine the truth of the matter. So, it is a hollow claim - Rhetoric.

 

[Ran77]

Without getting into a "works vs. faith" discussion, I would have to agree in principle that it is necessary for a believer in Christ to show their faith by doing. However, I believe that one can just be humble and sit on the sidelines (i.e., not a "doer") and still have their salvation.

And without getting into a "works vs. faith" discussion, I would disagree that anyone can sit on the sidelines.

If you want to include semantics, then I suggest you look beyond your dictionary and look at the original meanings in Greek. Otherwise, it's just another Clinton-esque "Depends on the definition of..."

I take into consideration a number of factors when I study a passage. My comments on the matter so far amply demonstrate how I try to include anything that will affect the meaning of the word into my study of the scriptures.

So, based on you comment above, it would seem that you are ready to present to me evidences - beyond the dictionary - that will support a claim that the word "church" is being used in the same manner in the verses you have been quoting. I'm interested in reading them.

I have read it with the same critical eye and came up with a different conclusion then what you have assumed I would. Please don't project your assumptions on to me. Thanks!

I haven't assumed that you would come up with any specific conclusion - that would be an assumption on your part. If you do not want assumptions projected on you then I suggest you refrain from doing the same.

I have reacted to what is posted in this thread. The negative bias is clearly demonstrated in your word choice on the topic. I am using critical analysis of your communications to come to the observations I have presented. I don't see this as making assumptions.

Such as...? Some examples, please... or is this an overgeneralization?

You want examples of sinners receiving damnation? Or verses in the Bible that demonstrate a lack of hope? I'll provide both.


Jacob 7: 19

I fear lest I have committed the unpardonable sin.


Psalm 32: 10

Many sorrows shall be to the wicked: but he that trusteth in the Lord, mercy shall compass him about.


Matthew 23: 33

Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can you escape the damnation of hell?


These are not messages of hope for sinners. Hope exists in any of the scriptures only for those who are willing to follow Christ.

Sure I have a bias! I'm an lds non-believer. And as such, in the passage we've been discussing, it appears to me to be a lack of message of hope for those who are not in the correct place, receiving the correct teachings. You disagree. Great! More power to you. Doesn't change my opinion of the passage.

As opposed to those in the Bible who have no hope because they are unbelievers?

They are the same thing. What I see presented by the OC is that the LDS are bad because we believe that everyone must accept the Gospel as we understand it or they will not receive their reward in heaven. How is that any different than the OC view on the topic - other than they believe it is their beliefs that must be adopted in order to receive a heavenly reward instead of our beliefs?

You words would be fine, if those outside of the lds church weren't constantly reminded that the lds believe theirs is the "one true church". You yourself have stated as such in a previous post.

If responding to my comments as an individual is a problem, then perhaps you need to continue this discussion with whomever you see as being able to correct represent this argument on behalf of ALL LDS.

 

[Theway]

Without getting into a "works vs. faith" discussion, I would have to agree in principle that it is necessary for a believer in Christ to show their faith by doing. However, I believe that one can just be humble and sit on the sidelines (i.e., not a "doer") and still have their salvation.

I too do not wish to get into an endless faith vs works debate, except to say I couldn't disagree more with the above comment
James 4:17, "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

 

[buddy mack]

I too do not wish to get into an endless faith vs works debate, except to say I couldn't disagree more with the above comment
James 4:17, "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

I woke up this morning and couldn't think of a single thing good to do so i went back to sleep.

 

[Theway]

I woke up this morning and couldn't think of a single thing good to do so i went back to sleep.

Proverbs 6:9 How long wilt thou sleep, O sluggard? when wilt thou arise out of thy sleep?

 

[Fit4Christ]

I am using the phrase as in - look at all of the religious beliefs that exist in the world. All beliefs that people accept as being the word of God.

I have spent little time "studying" denominations other than my ow. My understanding of it comes from listening to the supposedly unifed beliefs of Orthodox Christianity and hearing a wide variety of beliefs coming from them.

Which would explain your ignorance on the subject.

Oh, I think dozens of the doctrines of men would be adequate to be considered numerous. If you want a specific number lets randomly choose 24.

I'll accept 24. Name them, please.

I don't understand you question. Do you want a verse which states which stance on baptism is God's or do you mean something else?

You stated: "Look at baptism. God has only one stance on what is acceptable in regards to baptism and everything else are the doctrines of men. "

I just want to know where God's "one stance" is in the Bible?

The nature of God as viewed in all its variations by the people of the Earth.

You try to make a distinction here between what is stated in the Bible and what the LDS believe. Yet there are plenty of christian sects that hold similar views to ours and there is no effort to set them apart from you. And yet it demonstrates my point that within christianity there are very different viewpoints that cannot all be true. Either God has a physical body or He does not. Both cannot be true.

You've already admitted your lack of study of others' beliefs, so I will just dismiss this as ignorance and overgeneralization. God does not have a physical body. The Bible says so. But that is yet another topic for another thread for another time.

I believe God did when He talks about His unchanging nature and that He is the same today and tomorrow and forever.

Only problem is, the above talks about God's nature. It says nothing of how we come to that knowledge. It is well-known that humans are different and unique in their learning styles. Where does that come from? If we all thought and were taught the same way, there would be much room for debate and discussion, would there?

Well, you claim that I put the Church ahead of Christ, but nothing in my statement indicates that is true and you certainly are not capable of looking into my heart to determine the truth of the matter. So, it is a hollow claim - Rhetoric.

If you call thie rhetoric, so be it - "However, the LDS Church is true. I'm still waiting for someone on this forum to present me with a convincing argument that points out the falseness of the Church."

You don't claim that your belief in Christ, or even God, is true. Just the lds Church. At the very least, a building. At the most, an organization. But, undoubtedly, neither of which are Christ. That, my friend, is idolatry.


[/quote]

 

[Fit4Christ]

And without getting into a "works vs. faith" discussion, I would disagree that anyone can sit on the sidelines.

To be addressed.

I take into consideration a number of factors when I study a passage. My comments on the matter so far amply demonstrate how I try to include anything that will affect the meaning of the word into my study of the scriptures.

So, based on you comment above, it would seem that you are ready to present to me evidences - beyond the dictionary - that will support a claim that the word "church" is being used in the same manner in the verses you have been quoting. I'm interested in reading them.

I'm interested in you providing them. After all, twas you who brought up the 8 uncited definitions of church out of a dictionary. I was merely suggesting that if you are looking to include definitions of a word in your discussion of a Bible passage, look to the original language in which it was used to find the root meaning.

I haven't assumed that you would come up with any specific conclusion - that would be an assumption on your part. If you do not want assumptions projected on you then I suggest you refrain from doing the same.

I have reacted to what is posted in this thread. The negative bias is clearly demonstrated in your word choice on the topic. I am using critical analysis of your communications to come to the observations I have presented. I don't see this as making assumptions.

You state: "If you read the Bible verses with the same critical eye - it would be just negative."

You are assuming 1) that I haven't read the Bible with the same critical eye as the BOM and 2) if I had, my conclusion would a negative one. How is that not projecting your false assumptions on me?

You want examples of sinners receiving damnation? Or verses in the Bible that demonstrate a lack of hope? I'll provide both.

That's nice, but that's not what we were talking about. We're all sinners, destined for damnation, until we come to Christ. (Look, there's HOPE!) We were talking about those outside of God's church who are not in the lds church in I Nephi 14:12, not those outside of God's church.

No, I want messages of the Lord's people (either Israel in the OT or Christians in the NT) where the message is void of hope for redemption for them. Please, no one liners; keep it in context.

They are the same thing. What I see presented by the OC is that the LDS are bad because we believe that everyone must accept the Gospel as we understand it or they will not receive their reward in heaven. How is that any different than the OC view on the topic - other than they believe it is their beliefs that must be adopted in order to receive a heavenly reward instead of our beliefs?

By reward, I'm guessing, you mean one of the 5 possible kingdoms that your church teaches? Right there, we have a major difference in theology. If we don't know the destination, how do we know where to go? The Bible says "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16). It can't get any plainer than that.

 

[Fit4Christ]

And without getting into a "works vs. faith" discussion, I would disagree that anyone can sit on the sidelines.

I too do not wish to get into an endless faith vs works debate, except to say I couldn't disagree more with the above comment
James 4:17, "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

Misinterpretation. If you know you are supposed to do the "right thing", something good for someone in need for example, and don't do it, that is a sin. Besides, we are talking about salvation, not just sinning. We are all sinners. And Jesus covered mine.

 

[Ran77]

I'm interested in you providing them. After all, twas you who brought up the 8 uncited definitions of church out of a dictionary. I was merely suggesting that if you are looking to include definitions of a word in your discussion of a Bible passage, look to the original language in which it was used to find the root meaning.

You are the one who compared church in two verses. One which spoke of seven churches and the other that spoke of God's Church. In response to that comparison, I have pointed out that the word has several meanings. If you still think the word means the same thing in both of the verses you discussed then it is your responsibility to demonstrate that.

You state: "If you read the Bible verses with the same critical eye - it would be just negative."

You are assuming 1) that I haven't read the Bible with the same critical eye as the BOM and 2) if I had, my conclusion would a negative one. How is that not projecting your false assumptions on me?

I already addressed this in the comments you quoted. It is all based on what you have posted during this discussion.

That's nice, but that's not what we were talking about. We're all sinners, destined for damnation, until we come to Christ. (Look, there's HOPE!) We were talking about those outside of God's church who are not in the lds church in I Nephi 14:12, not those outside of God's church.

Yea, that would be the sinners. Those out side of God's Church are those who choose sin. Maybe that isn't what you are talking about, but it most certainly is what I have been presenting for several posts now.

The future is bleak for those that our outside of God's chuch - for those that choose sin. Do you disagree with that statement?

You keep wanting to hammer your definitions into what I am saying, but it isn't going to work.

No, I want messages of the Lord's people (either Israel in the OT or Christians in the NT) where the message is void of hope for redemption for them. Please, no one liners; keep it in context.

This reminds me of the bait and switch tactic. Guess what, the verse you were referrencing in the BoM is not void of hope for the Lord's people. You have tried to spin it to mean that, but it isn't. There is no difference in how much hope or lack of hope that verse has for the Lord's people than any of the verses I posted from the Bible.

You are trying to manufacture a difference here and there isn't.

By reward, I'm guessing, you mean one of the 5 possible kingdoms that your church teaches? Right there, we have a major difference in theology. If we don't know the destination, how do we know where to go? The Bible says "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16). It can't get any plainer than that.

Wrong again. I am unspecific about reward. Whatever you want to consider the reward that is talked about in the Bible, I am willing to go forward with that.

That's what I'm wondering - how much plainer can it get. Those who believe. Do I need to use those exact words with you? I have been talking about what is in a person's heart, and maybe that isn't clear enough for you. I don't know. How do you think that differs from what I have been saying?

 

[Ran77]

[/I]

Misinterpretation. If you know you are supposed to do the "right thing", something good for someone in need for example, and don't do it, that is a sin. Besides, we are talking about salvation, not just sinning. We are all sinners. And Jesus covered mine.

Previously you stated this: "However, I believe that one can just be humble and sit on the sidelines (i.e., not a "doer") and still have their salvation."


This sounds rather contradictory to me. If its ok to just sit on the side-lines then there is no sin in not doing that good deed that you talked about.

 

[Fit4Christ]

You are the one who compared church in two verses. One which spoke of seven churches and the other that spoke of God's Church. In response to that comparison, I have pointed out that the word has several meanings. If you still think the word means the same thing in both of the verses you discussed then it is your responsibility to demonstrate that.

Au contraire. I jumped into your conversation. Before I arrived, it was you who seemed to be saying God didn't want more than one church, using Bible references to back up your point in I Nephi 14:12. It is your contention, based on your posts, that all these denominations cannot be true. By my mentioning the seven churches in Revelation, I was demonstrating that they were all considered "God's church", but yet apparently were doing things a little bit differently, seeing as how God had something different against each one of them. Maybe we should look at the original text of 1 Nephi 14:12. Oh wait, can't do that.

I already addressed this in the comments you quoted. It is all based on what you have posted during this discussion.

If that's your rational, so be it...

Yea, that would be the sinners. Those out side of God's Church are those who choose sin. Maybe that isn't what you are talking about, but it most certainly is what I have been presenting for several posts now.

Alright, you lost me. That's not what we were talking about, but if you want to think so, then go for it.

The future is bleak for those that our outside of God's chuch - for those that choose sin. Do you disagree with that statement?

No, I don't. We all choose to sin at one point or another, if we are going to be honest with ourselves. The difference is for those who put their trust in Jesus Christ to forgive their sins. Those who choose not to put their trust in Him, then yes, their future is bleak.

You keep wanting to hammer your definitions into what I am saying, but it isn't going to work.

Nope, just looking for some consistancy and dispel the notion that lds like to avoid answering questions.

This reminds me of the bait and switch tactic. Guess what, the verse you were referrencing in the BoM is not void of hope for the Lord's people. You have tried to spin it to mean that, but it isn't. There is no difference in how much hope or lack of hope that verse has for the Lord's people than any of the verses I posted from the Bible.

You are trying to manufacture a difference here and there isn't.

No, all I said was that it appeared to me to be lacking in the hope department. My opinion, take it or leave it. I'm not trying to force anything upon you or "manufacture" a difference.

Wrong again. I am unspecific about reward. Whatever you want to consider the reward that is talked about in the Bible, I am willing to go forward with that.

If I am wrong about your reference of a "reward in heaven" then please explain what that reward is. What other worthwhile reward is there in heaven? You stated it, define what you meant by it and let's see where that takes us.

That's what I'm wondering - how much plainer can it get. Those who believe. Do I need to use those exact words with you? I have been talking about what is in a person's heart, and maybe that isn't clear enough for you. I don't know. How do you think that differs from what I have been saying?

As I said before, your church does not state that only what is in a person's heart is enough. There are ordinances to be followed, especially when, in your theology, following those ordinances determines where in "heaven" you may end up. That's part of the problem I see on this forum and in real life discussions. Representatives of your church don't always tell the whole story. Please don't misrepresent your churches teachings.

 

[Fit4Christ]

Previously you stated this: "However, I believe that one can just be humble and sit on the sidelines (i.e., not a "doer") and still have their salvation."

A humble 97-year old woman can barely get out of bed. She loves the Lord, but cannot walk, can barely see, and needs 24 hour assistance. She does not go to church or read the Bible due to her condition. She is on the "sidelines". Has she lost her salvation?

A 9-year old boy has weeks to live due to leukemia. He loves the Lord and smiles whenever the name of Jesus Christ is mentioned. Is his salvation gone because he cannot be a "doer"?

This sounds rather contradictory to me. If its ok to just sit on the side-lines then there is no sin in not doing that good deed that you talked about.

What if we are not called to do a good deed for a period of time? Do we lose our salvation? What if we are one of the "least of these" and need the good deeds, but cannot do them ourselves? Is salvation lost for those who fall down that far?

There are 2 concepts here sin and salvation. Just because we sin, doesn't mean we lose our salvation.

Darn it! I said I didn't want to get into a faith vs. works discussion and here I am!

 

[Ran77]

If you call thie rhetoric, so be it - "However, the LDS Church is true. I'm still waiting for someone on this forum to present me with a convincing argument that points out the falseness of the Church."

You don't claim that your belief in Christ, or even God, is true. Just the lds Church. At the very least, a building. At the most, an organization. But, undoubtedly, neither of which are Christ. That, my friend, is idolatry.

Just because I believe something is true, does not rule out the possibility that I believe other things are true. People believe a wide range of things to be true. There isn't an arbitrary limit on how many things a person can believe to be true.

By this reasoning, if I believe 2 + 2 = 4 to be true then I must be a godless heathen. Because I haven't profess a belief in God whatsoever. I also haven't stated that I believe in the law of gravity, so I must not believe in that either.

I mean, what a ridiculous assumption to determine what I believe, or don't believe is based on one comment.

Just in case it missed your attention, the thread wasn't discussing the truthfulness of Christ or God. I didn't think that was something worthy of debate in this forum. Don't all of us agree that Christ is the Savior and God is our God? And because I haven't commented on this you put forth this incredible leap of logic that excludes me from believing other truths, or even that you can determine how important they are to me. Wow.

It is this sort of data processing that causes me to have a high level of doubt as to the veracity of the conclusions that get sent my way. After all, if this is the same level of critical thinking that goes into determining the meaning of Biblical verses, how can they be even reasonably accurate.

 

[Ran77]

That's part of the problem I see on this forum and in real life discussions. Representatives of your church don't always tell the whole story. Please don't misrepresent your churches teachings.

No, the problem is that these discussions just don't fit into the predetermined prejudices and mischaracterizations of our beliefs. Don't try to make your failure to understand them my fault. I understand what the LDS Church teaches and I do not misrpresent those teachings. Instead of it being the LDS that aren't telling the story the way you want them to being wrong, maybe it is your understanding of our beliefs that are wrong. Have you bothered to consider that.


If you wanted a discussion about the necessity of an LDS baptism to enter into the Celestial Kingdom - then you should have started there. Don't get uppity because this topic didn't pay off in the manner you wanted it to.

 

[Ran77]

That's part of the problem I see on this forum and in real life discussions. Representatives of your church don't always tell the whole story. Please don't misrepresent your churches teachings.

Would post #3 be part of that whole story that you tried to state isn't being told? Or is there something other than what I stated there that you think is being left out here?

 

[Ran77]

Thank you for your clarification on your position. I was hoping that there would be some "official" clarification in your doctrine or even teaching manuals, or even "semi-official" clarification from "unofficial" statements of the leaders of your church. I'm pretty sure I could do a web search and come up with something, but the lds on here continuously harp on us OC's about "if you want to know what we believe, just ask us". So rather than search an "anti" site and have that be the focus of the discussion (as, somehow, it tends to be the case), I thought I'd ask.

Well, I want to know what your church teaches (from primary sources, as also is harped on in this forum) on the subject. So far, all I have is your opinion. While I value and respect your right to your opinion, as you said, you do not speak for the church. It appears I may be asking for too much. Oh well...

This talk by Stephen E. Robinson covers the topic very nicely and is a semi-official clarification - I guess.


Stephen E. Robinson, “Warring against the Saints of God,” Ensign, Jan 1988, 34
In 1 Nephi 13–14, [1 Ne. 13–14] the prophet Nephi relates a vision in which he saw the future of the world and its kingdoms as it related to his posterity. Nephi’s vision is the type of revelation known in biblical literature as apocalyptic, a type represented in the New Testament most fully by the Revelation of John. The two revelations have more in common, though, than apocalyptic form, for they both deal in part with an often misunderstood concept, the great and abominable church of the devil. The visions together give us prophetic information about the matter.

Before proceeding further, however, we must define some of the terms that bear upon the two visions. The Greek word apostasia (apostasy, falling away) means rebellion or revolution. It conveys the sense of an internal takeover by factions hostile to the intentions of the previous leaders. I personally prefer the translation mutiny, as it suggests that unauthorized members commandeer a ship and take it where the ship is not supposed to go. Since early Christians often thought of the church as a ship, I think mutiny conveys the sense of what Paul and others meant by the term apostasia. (See 2 Thes. 2:3.)

The word great in the phrase great and abominable church is an adjective of size rather than of quality and, like the Hebrew gadol or the Greek megas, informs us of the great size of the abominable entity. Secondary meanings might refer to great wealth or power.

The term abominable is used in the Old Testament to describe what God hates, what cannot fail to arouse his wrath. In Daniel, the abomination of desolation is that thing so hateful to God that its presence in the temple causes the divine presence to depart, leaving the sanctuary desolate. In the Old Testament, the terms translated into English as abominable or abomination (Hebrew roots shiqqutz, ta’ab, piggul; Greek Septuagint and New Testament bdelugma) are usually associated with idolatrous worship or gross sexual immorality.

The word church (Hebrew qahal or edah; Greek ekklesia) had a slightly broader meaning anciently than it does now. It referred to an assembly, congregation, or association of people who bonded together and shared the same loyalties. Thus, the term was not necessarily restricted to religious associations; in fact, in Athens the Greeks used the term to denote the legislative assembly of government.

Originally, the term ekklesia, formed from two words meaning call and out, referred to those citizens whom heralds called out or summoned to public meetings. Thus, it was an ideal word to represent the body of individuals whom God “calls out” of the world through the Holy Ghost. The civil dimension of the word appears in Acts 19:32, where assembly in the KJV is a translation of the Greek ekklesia. We must, however, remember that we don’t know the original word on the gold plates that Joseph Smith translated as church. Whatever it was, the Prophet chose to translate it as church instead of as assembly.

When we put all this together, we find that the term great and abominable church means an immense assembly or association of people bound together by their loyalty to that which God hates. Most likely, this “church” is involved specifically in sexual immorality, idolatry (that is, false worship), or both. While the book of Revelation does not use the exact phrase “great and abominable church,” both John and Nephi use a number of similar phrases to describe it. They call it the “Mother of Harlots, and Abominations,” “mother of abominations,” and “the harlot that sitteth upon many waters.” (Rev. 17:1, 5; 1 Ne. 14:10–11.)

The major characteristics of the great and abominable church described in 1 Nephi may be listed as follows:

1. It persecutes, tortures, and slays the Saints of God. (See 1 Ne. 13:5.)

2. It seeks wealth and luxury. (See 1 Ne. 13:7–8.)

3. It is characterized by sexual immorality. (See 1 Ne. 13:7.)

4. It has excised plain and precious things from the scriptures. (See 1 Ne. 13:26–29.)

5. It has dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people. (See 1 Ne. 14:11.)

6. Its fate is to be consumed by a world war, when the nations it incites against the Saints war among themselves until the great and abominable church itself is destroyed. (See 1 Ne. 22:13–14.)

Another symbol used in the book of Revelation to represent the great and abominable church, as well as worldliness and wickedness in general, is Babylon. Five of the six characteristics identified in 1 Nephi are also attributed to Babylon in the book of Revelation:

1. Babylon is drunk with the blood of the Saints, the martyrs of Jesus, and the prophets. (See Rev. 17:6; Rev. 18:24.)

2. She is known for her enjoyment of great wealth and luxury. (See Rev. 17:4; Rev. 18:3, 11–16.)

3. She is characterized by wanton sexual immorality. (See Rev. 17:1–2, 5.)

4. She has dominion over all nations. (See Rev. 17:15, 18; Rev. 18:3, 23–24.)

5. Her fate is to be consumed by the very kings who, because of her deceptions, have made war on the Lamb. (See Rev. 17:14–16; Rev. 18:23.)

The one characteristic not common to both prophetic descriptions is Nephi’s statement that the great and abominable church has held back important parts of the canon of scripture. This omission in Revelation is not surprising since John’s record is one of the scriptures Nephi says was tampered with. (See 1 Ne. 14:23–24.)

In noting the characteristics of Babylon, we should be careful to distinguish between her and the beast in Revelation 17 They do not represent the same things, though the beast supports the great and abominable church. (See Rev. 17:3, 7.) The beast, for instance, is entirely missing in Nephi’s description of the great and abominable church.

Babylon, the “woman … arrayed in purple and scarlet” described in Revelation 17–18, is specifically the Satanic counterpart of the virtuous woman in chapter 12 who symbolizes the church of Jesus Christ that was forced into the wilderness (see JST, Rev. 12:6)—that is, which became inaccessible to human beings. Symbolizing the counterfeit church as an immoral woman underscores the nature of her evil: she is physically and spiritually unfaithful, representing both sexual immorality and idolatry, the twin abominations of the Old Testament. Thus, she is the “mother of abominations.”

It appears in Revelation that while the symbol of the unvirtuous woman represents false religion, the beasts, the image of the beast, and its horns represent other aspects of the devil’s kingdom. The “Mother of Harlots” cannot represent kingdoms or governments—the beast and its horns do that (see Rev. 17:12; also JST, Rev. 13:1)—but she can represent the false beliefs and ideologies that often capture and motivate governments. The same evil genius, Satan the old dragon, is behind both, but the beast and the harlot symbolize separate entities with separate functions in the evil empire.

When the civil governments (the kings of the earth) commit fornication with the false religion—that is, when church and state are joined together—then the wine of their fornication makes all the world drunk, and her sins and plagues reach unto heaven. (See Rev. 17:2; Rev. 18:3–5.) The immorality and idolatry of the great and abominable church, together with the power of the civil states, dominate the economy and the life-styles of all nations and destroy the spiritual equilibrium and discernment of human beings.

In this context, we need to remember the uses to which Satan puts secret combinations. The Book of Mormon makes it clear that secret combinations have existed from the beginning of time among all nations. These secret organizations are closely allied with Babylon in seeking power and wealth and in killing the Saints of God. Moroni lamented that secret combinations destroyed both the Jaredites and his own people and warned that a similar fate awaits any nation that allows these combinations to prosper. (See Ether 8.)

Perhaps the greatest difficulty in understanding Nephi’s description of the great and abominable church is what seems to be a contradiction between chapter 13 and chapter 14. In 1 Nephi 13, [1 Ne. 13, 1 Ne. 14] the great and abominable church is one specific church among many. Nephi’s description of it as “most abominable above all other churches” (1 Ne. 13:5, 26) does not make sense otherwise. Moreover, the great and abominable church in chapter 13 has a specific historical description: it was formed among the Gentiles after the Jews transmitted the Bible in its purity to the Gentiles. (1 Ne. 13:26.) It is also the specific historical agent responsible for excising plain and precious truths from the scriptural record.

To this, we must add the information given in Doctrine and Covenants 86:1–3, [D&C 86:1–3] which states that the great and abominable church did its work after the Apostles had “fallen asleep”—that is, after the end of the first century A.D. In Revelation, the role of the harlot also has a historical frame. She comes into the picture after the appearance of the beast, which she rides and which supports her, and she is eliminated from the scene while it yet continues. (See Rev. 13:1; Rev. 17:3, 7, 16.) Clearly, “great and abominable” here refers to one specific church among many others that are not “great and abominable.”

. . . to be continued.