1 Nephi 14 -- Any LDS Official Explanation?

[Ran77]

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?

I'm curious. Did you actually read what I posted? Because if you did you should have noted that I am not saying that at all. So is it fair to say that? No, neither fair or accurate. That is not our belief.

I am not afraid to admit anything that is our Church doctrine. I just really dislike it when twisted versions of it are presented as our beliefs.

Maybe I need to be more specific for you:

The LDS Doctrine on this matter does not define all non-LDS as members of the church of the devil. No one who dilligently seeks to do the work of God is a member of the church of the devil.

I don't think I can make it any clearer than that.

 

[Fit4Christ]

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'.

Just curious... I Nephi 14 lists only 2 options. You either are of the church of the Lamb of God or the church of the devil, as I read it. Since Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God, and the LDS church claims it is the one, true church of Christ, how can you claim that those "outside" of the LDS church may still belong to the church of the Lamb of God in I Nephi 14? Where, in your scriptures, does it say that there are some who may be '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.

Where, in your scriptures, is a third option presented?

 

[Fit4Christ]

I'm curious. Did you actually read what I posted? Because if you did you should have noted that I am not saying that at all. So is it fair to say that? No, neither fair or accurate. That is not our belief.

I am not afraid to admit anything that is our Church doctrine. I just really dislike it when twisted versions of it are presented as our beliefs.

Maybe I need to be more specific for you:

The LDS Doctrine on this matter does not define all non-LDS as members of the church of the devil. No one who dilligently seeks to do the work of God is a member of the church of the devil.

I don't think I can make it any clearer than that.

Ran,

I've been trying to follow this conversation, but I am still not sure of something that I hope you can clarify. Please see what I bolded above. Does LDS doctrine define who is and who is not a member of either of the 1 Nephi 14 churches?

Is "No one who dilligently seeks to do the work of God is a member of the church of the devil." official doctrine? If so, where?

Thanks,
F4C

 

[Swart]

Just curious... I Nephi 14 lists only 2 options. You either are of the church of the Lamb of God or the church of the devil, as I read it. Since Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God, and the LDS church claims it is the one, true church of Christ, how can you claim that those "outside" of the LDS church may still belong to the church of the Lamb of God in I Nephi 14? Where, in your scriptures, does it say that there are some who may be 'blinded by the subtle craftiness of men'?

Where, in your scriptures, is a third option presented?

This isn't a third option. We've been trying to explain that 1 Nephi 14 refers to those who follow Christ. In particular I was referring to D&C 123:12

For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it—

and Epehesians 4:14-15

[BIBLE]Ephesians 4:14-15[/BIBLE]

I've posted this before. There is a physical element and a spiritual one and the overlap is far from congruent. Therefore we have:

1. Those who follow Christ who are members of the CoJCoLDS
2. Those who follow Christ who are not members of the CoJCoLDS
3. Those who do not follow Christ who are members of the CoJCoLDS
4. Those who do not follow Christ who are not members of the CoJCoLDS

 

[Ran77]

I've been trying to follow this conversation, but I am still not sure of something that I hope you can clarify. Please see what I bolded above. Does LDS doctrine define who is and who is not a member of either of the 1 Nephi 14 churches?

LDS Doctrine is derived from the scriptures and for us that would be: Bible, BoM, PoGP, and D&C. So what these four standard works say about any topic is the doctrine of the Church.

The first three verses of 1 Nephi 14, state that those that shall hearken to the Lamb of God and harden not their hearts that they will be numbered among the seed of Israel.

This is what I have been proposing in this thread. Those that accept God and dilligently work to do His will are members of His Church. Those that adhere to the sins of the world are members of the abominable church. Its pretty much the whole - you can't serve two masters - concept.

Is "No one who dilligently seeks to do the work of God is a member of the church of the devil." official doctrine? If so, where?

I believe I posted some Bible verses that demonstrate that it is doctrine. Are you looking for something different than those?


2 Nephi 6: 13

Wherefore, they that fight against Zion and the covenant people of the Lord shall lick up the dust of their feet; and the people of the Lord shall not be ashamed. For the people of the Lord are they who wait for him; for they still wait for the coming of the Messiah.


In the previous verse it talks about the gentile's choice to either join the Lord's Church or the abominable church. This verse places those that fight against the covenant people as being members of the abominable church and those that wait for Him as members of the Lord's Church.

I suppose it can be argued that covenant people are those that fall into the category of being baptized into Christ's Church. But I would counter that all people who dilligently follow Christ will eventually receive that baptism.

Verse 15 of the same chapter, discusses how those who do not believe in Him will receive horrible destruction. And that is still in line with what I have offered on the topic.


2 Nephi 28 seems to cover the topic of the great and abominable church pretty throroughly. It discusses that many of the churches have not been set up to the Lord but teach with their learning. Many false doctrines have been introduced. The Great and abominable church is above them - indicating it is satan that directs the affairs of these people and not a physical church.

Of note, in verse 14 it states: "They wear stiff necks and high heads; yea and because of pride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms, they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men."


In this verse we can clearly see the principle that humble followers of Christ exist in the other churches. They are not considered members of the great and abominable church because their heart is focused on the Savior.

Does that clarify the issue for you?

 

[Fit4Christ]

This isn't a third option. We've been trying to explain that 1 Nephi 14 refers to those who follow Christ. In particular I was referring to D&C 123:12

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

Is that "we" mean Swart, et al on CF, or the LDS church? I was assuming you meant the LDS church and could clarify by official doctrine or statement. Shoot, even teachings would be acceptable. Maybe I'm 'blinded by the subtle craftiness of men', but I'm not seeing D&C 123:12 talking about which church those outside your belief system belong to. Or, am I one of those 'who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it'?? (the latter part of 123:12)

and Epehesians 4:14-15

[bible]Ephesians 4:14-15[/bible]

I've posted this before. There is a physical element and a spiritual one and the overlap is far from congruent. Therefore we have:

1. Those who follow Christ who are members of the CoJCoLDS
2. Those who follow Christ who are not members of the CoJCoLDS
3. Those who do not follow Christ who are members of the CoJCoLDS
4. Those who do not follow Christ who are not members of the CoJCoLDS

Since I am a #2 in the above, are you saying that somewhere down the road, if I am a true follower of Christ, I will accept your version of the gospel, even though I completely reject it now?

 

[Fit4Christ]

LDS Doctrine is derived from the scriptures and for us that would be: Bible, BoM, PoGP, and D&C. So what these four standard works say about any topic is the doctrine of the Church.

The first three verses of 1 Nephi 14, state that those that shall hearken to the Lamb of God and harden not their hearts that they will be numbered among the seed of Israel.

This is what I have been proposing in this thread. Those that accept God and dilligently work to do His will are members of His Church. Those that adhere to the sins of the world are members of the abominable church. Its pretty much the whole - you can't serve two masters - concept.

Is it possible to lose membership in the church of the Lamb of God? For instance, was Judas a member of the Lamb of God church, then, after his betrayal, his membership was revoked?

I believe I posted some Bible verses that demonstrate that it is doctrine. Are you looking for something different than those?

Sorry, must have overlooked them. But, only Titus 1:16 is close to what I was looking for. This is actually what you said "The LDS Doctrine on this matter does not define all non-LDS as members of the church of the devil. No one who dilligently seeks to do the work of God is a member of the church of the devil."

By "The LDS Doctrine on this matter...", I thought there might be something specific in your doctrine that specifically states the 2nd sentence, or comes close to it, as it appeared to me that you linked the two. Perhaps it was just a summary of the lds belief?

By the way, your commentary on Gal. 1:13 seems to indicate that the Jews are of the devils church. Is that what you are really saying?

2 Nephi 6: 13

Wherefore, they that fight against Zion and the covenant people of the Lord shall lick up the dust of their feet; and the people of the Lord shall not be ashamed. For the people of the Lord are they who wait for him; for they still wait for the coming of the Messiah.


In the previous verse it talks about the gentile's choice to either join the Lord's Church or the abominable church. This verse places those that fight against the covenant people as being members of the abominable church and those that wait for Him as members of the Lord's Church.

Got it.

I suppose it can be argued that covenant people are those that fall into the category of being baptized into Christ's Church. But I would counter that all people who dilligently follow Christ will eventually receive that baptism.

That would not be my argument. Israel is God's covenant people and they do not need to be "baptized" into Christ's Church. We, the Gentiles, are grafted into their vine, not the other way around.

Verse 15 of the same chapter, discusses how those who do not believe in Him will receive horrible destruction. And that is still in line with what I have offered on the topic.


2 Nephi 28 seems to cover the topic of the great and abominable church pretty throroughly. It discusses that many of the churches have not been set up to the Lord but teach with their learning. Many false doctrines have been introduced. The Great and abominable church is above them - indicating it is satan that directs the affairs of these people and not a physical church.

Of note, in verse 14 it states: "They wear stiff necks and high heads; yea and because of pride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms, they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men."


In this verse we can clearly see the principle that humble followers of Christ exist in the other churches. They are not considered members of the great and abominable church because their heart is focused on the Savior.

Interesting. Did you not just say in the post with your Bible references that:

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!)

How can we "clearly see the principle that humble followers of Christ exist in the other churches", yet you appear to be against the idea that these "other churches" are of one spirit?

Does that clarify the issue for you?

Clear as mud...

 

[Ran77]

Is it possible to lose membership in the church of the Lamb of God? For instance, was Judas a member of the Lamb of God church, then, after his betrayal, his membership was revoked?

What do you think? Was Judas a member of the Church of God? Did he lose membership after his betrayal?

The LDS on this forum have been consistent in providing scriptorial support for freewill and the need to continue to do what is right all throughout our lives.

Sorry, must have overlooked them. But, only Titus 1:16 is close to what I was looking for. This is actually what you said "The LDS Doctrine on this matter does not define all non-LDS as members of the church of the devil. No one who dilligently seeks to do the work of God is a member of the church of the devil."

By "The LDS Doctrine on this matter...", I thought there might be something specific in your doctrine that specifically states the 2nd sentence, or comes close to it, as it appeared to me that you linked the two. Perhaps it was just a summary of the lds belief?

I posted 2 Nephi 28: 14 and that addresses those who dilligently seek to do God's work are not members of the church of the devil. I did provide something specific.

If your looking for those exact words in that exact order - you're not going to get them.

By the way, your commentary on Gal. 1:13 seems to indicate that the Jews are of the devils church. Is that what you are really saying?

Nope. That is not what I was saying.

That would not be my argument. Israel is God's covenant people and they do not need to be "baptized" into Christ's Church. We, the Gentiles, are grafted into their vine, not the other way around.

Ok, it's not your argument. If you want to believe Israel does not need to be baptized - that is up to you.

Interesting. Did you not just say in the post with your Bible references that:

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!)

How can we "clearly see the principle that humble followers of Christ exist in the other churches", yet you appear to be against the idea that these "other churches" are of one spirit?

When did the conversion take place that is talked about in Galatians? Lets start there. Do you happen to know when it took place?

 

[Fit4Christ]

What do you think? Was Judas a member of the Church of God? Did he lose membership after his betrayal?

Is this how you answer an honest question - with another question?

The LDS on this forum have been consistent in providing scriptorial support for freewill and the need to continue to do what is right all throughout our lives.

I have not contended for or against free will, nor the need to do what is right throughout our lives, in this thread. Don't know why you brought that up??

I posted 2 Nephi 28: 14 and that addresses those who dilligently seek to do God's work are not members of the church of the devil. I did provide something specific.

Saw the quote, read the chapter and verse, but didn't see anything about "dilligently seek to do God's work". Just saw "humble followers of Christ", but they are wrong anyways because they are "taught by precepts of men." For a supposed book supposedly inspired by God, not very encouraging words for His children outside of the lds. Seems like 2nd class citizens.

If your looking for those exact words in that exact order - you're not going to get them.

Excellent. Not the first time I've been disappointed. Won't be the last either.

Nope. That is not what I was saying.

Then, could you please clarify what you meant by: "Christ was a jew and this verse separates the jewish religion from the church of God"? In context of the discussion (two churches - on of God and one of the devil), if you do not belong to one, you must belong to the other, right? Or is there a third option?

Ok, it's not your argument. If you want to believe Israel does not need to be baptized - that is up to you.

Just saying what the Bible teaches.

When did the conversion take place that is talked about in Galatians? Lets start there. Do you happen to know when it took place?

On the road to Damascus. Next question? I assume somehow that you are going to tie this in somehow to 1 Nephi 14 and/or multiple churches and/or how the Jews can be seperated from the church of God, but not be considered the church of the devil, if there are only two choices, as has been indicated on this thread.

 

[Swart]

Is that "we" mean Swart, et al on CF, or the LDS church?

While it is improper for me to attempt to speak on behalf of all LDS, I maintain that my opinions are congruent with church teachings on this matter and a majority of LDS. Certainly, if any LDS posters here disagree with my opinions they are free to state that.

You need to remember that we aren't told what to believe in the CoJCoLDS. There are teachings, yes, but individuals are encouraged to use primary sources where possible and to seek personal revelation on any matters of concern.

In addition, LDS instruction is primarily exegetical. A discussion of 1 Nephi 14 in a GD class would focus spiritual matters and in making sure that not only are we members of the Church of Jesus Christ, but are we also members of the Church of the Lamb of God - drawing a distinction between physically being a member of the Church and spiritually being one. D&C 123:12 would be brought up to demonstrate that God's people are numbered outside of the Church as well as inside and that despite being outside of the Church, they will not lose their salvation.

The point of the lesson would be to say to the members that they can't be smug in being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ. In fact "To whom much is given, much is also expected." If I were teaching the lesson I would tie it up with the parable of the labourers in the vineyard.

Since I am a #2 in the above, are you saying that somewhere down the road, if I am a true follower of Christ, I will accept your version of the gospel, even though I completely reject it now?

I've no idea. I believe anyone who stands in the position of Christ is on perilous ground. If you have accepted Christ in this life, then you have already done the most important thing you could possibly do. Everything else is superfluous to this.

Secondly, as far as belief goes, you can only be judged by your willingness to "prove all things, hold fast to that which is good" and then to follow the promptings of the HG. If the HG hasn't prompted you to accept the BoM as scripture after reading it with a sincere heart and real intent, then you are blameless in this matter.

Thirdly, Jesus criticised people not for what they believed, but for what they did. His most stinging rebuttal was for the hypocrite: the only label that Jesus ever used. LDS who profess Christ, but do not follow the basic teachings of Christ will be in a far worse position than the OC that does. And just in case somebody wants to read something into that statement, when the time comes, the Church a person was a member of will become irrelevent. They will be numbered amongst those mentioned in James 2.

Much of my understanding of these things comes from a personal experience of mine as a missionary. I knocked on the door of a family that were Anglican missionaries to Africa. The Father was a humble, quiet man that greeted us warmly and agreed to hear the discussion we presented. I taught him the 1st discussion and gave him a copy of the Book of Mormon and he agreed to read it and pray about it. I asked him what it would mean if he received an answer from God that it was true. He replied without blinking an eye "It would mean I would have to join your Church."

That completely floored me, but I could see that he was serious. After the discussion he showed us the photos of the mission he had established in Africa, the church and hospital he had built, the families they had helped etc. As he was showing us these photos, the HG whispered to me that this man was exactly where God wanted him to be, doing the work of Christ. If he were to join the Church, he would have to abandon that mission he had established and our Church would not have the ability to use him as effectively as he was being used by God now. I knew then that he would never receive an answer to his prayers. The HG would say the BoM wasn't from God, it just wouldn't say yes.

I hope that explains my personal position a little better.

 

[Ran77]

Is this how you answer an honest question - with another question?

The second sentence in that section of my post answered the question. I hadn't realized that it would be a problem for me to ask a question of my own. Am I not allowed to ask questions?

On the road to Damascus. Next question? I assume somehow that you are going to tie this in somehow to 1 Nephi 14 and/or multiple churches and/or how the Jews can be seperated from the church of God, but not be considered the church of the devil, if there are only two choices, as has been indicated on this thread.

There's some nice speculation there. However, I asked because I am not as familiar with Paul's conversion as I should be and wanted to get a better understanding of the situation that surrounded the verse.

I'm sensing that you have a problem with me asking questions. If this is too troublesome for you I will be happy to move to another discussion.


You state "if there are only two choices, as has been indicated on this thread."

Do you dispute / disagree with the idea that there are two churches?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

In Galatians 1:8, Paul says: "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed". Paul was obviously referring to the still fresh in their mind message that the REAL Jesus Christ had been preaching not long before. How much clearer does it have to be?

I was a mormon for 11 years and by God's grace, finally left and came to know the true Jesus. Let me tell you that the God, Jesus and Holy Spirit that the mormon church speaks of are not the same that the Bible speaks of. There are many parallels between mormonism and Christianity but main differences are striking. There was and is no need for a "restored gospel" so that is a moot point.

The true church is the body of followers/believers in Jesus Christ, not a corporate entity consisting of people who claim to be the same. "Church of the devil"? People will apply that to whomever does not follow their particular belife system. As for me, I will continue to pray for the mormons for their hearts/minds to be openend regarding the true God, Savior and Holy Spirit. But then, that's only my opinion.

First time I ever heard of a "restored gospel", which appears to be about the equivalent of the Talmud and Koran being a "restored" Bible among those religions.

Gala 4:24 which things are allegorized, for these are the two covenants: one, indeed, from mount Sinai, to servitude bringing forth, which is Hagar; 25 for this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and doth correspond to the Jerusalem that now [is], and is in servitude with her children, 26 and the Jerusalem above is the free-woman, which is mother of us all,

 

[Ran77]

How can we "clearly see the principle that humble followers of Christ exist in the other churches", yet you appear to be against the idea that these "other churches" are of one spirit?

This argument tries to equate two things that are not the same.

First, we can clearly see that humble followers of Christ exist in other churches because that is what the verse states. And it states it in a very clear manner.

The verse also discusses how these churches promote the teachings of men. Then I pointed out how they do not offer the same teachings - they are not of one spirit. This further demonstrates how the teachings of men are being promoted rather than the single set of teachings that come from God.

These many churches teaching the principles of men is a different substance from there being humble followers of Christ within them. That is what the verse is saying. That is what I am saying. Do you have a reasonable explanation why the two are invariably connected? Are you of the mind that an honest person could not be conned or lead astray?

The integrity of the follower is pertinant only in those situations where they know the doctrine is false and choose to follow it anyway.

 

[Ran77]

Ran out of time last night to respond to everything in your post.

Saw the quote, read the chapter and verse, but didn't see anything about "dilligently seek to do God's work". Just saw "humble followers of Christ", but they are wrong anyways because they are "taught by precepts of men." For a supposed book supposedly inspired by God, not very encouraging words for His children outside of the lds. Seems like 2nd class citizens.

You asked what the LDS believed on the topic. I gave that to you. You asked for scriptures that support it. I gave that to you. It is beyond my control if you read something differently from those verses than we do. When I read them I do not understand them as you have presented here. My thought is that what you have presented above contains a bit of taint because of you dislike for the LDS beliefs.

The verse does not dispute that they are humble followers of Christ. If you feel that humble followers of Christ don't actually dilligently seek to do God's work - well, that's your choice. The LDS believe that a true follower of Christ demonstrates his faith with action. Because of that belief, I can understand this verse to talking about those who are dilligently seeking to do His work without it being an exact quote. I would guess that it comes from fully getting into the verse and gaining a deeper understanding of it.

I also can't help it if you want to focus on the fact that they are "wrong" above the fact that they are humble followers of Christ. The verse uses the word "err" to describe it. Wrong and err carry different connotations about the situation. Wrong implies a bad choice, wheras err is more indicative of someone that is done a thing without the knowledge that it is bad or incorrect. This seems to be a deliberate word choice to present this verse is a negative light. When I read that they erred, I certainly didn't have an image of a vile sinner that was choosing to follow a path of sin.

Then your comments move to what I feel is probably where you wanted to take this discussion in the first place. It starts off with the comment about a supposed book (it actually is a book, there is no supposition about it) that supposedly is inspired of God. This is wordage, in our current use of the language, that is used to cast doubt on the veracity of a topic. It is very spin heavy. Any comments connected with it will be very difficult to accept as objective.

As for the words not being encouraging, it is this sudden spin heavy interpretation of them that you have presented which is not encouraging. Lest you forget, I have presented that there are humble followers of Christ in probably every christian denomination and that they will judged (favorably) on their works - on how well they attempted to do God's work with the knowledge that they had. That message - which is our message - is very encouraging.

Nothing in what I have presented makes any sort of connection to these humble followers of Christ being second class citizens. This is something wholly inserted by you. It definately doesn't represent the views I have been trying to present here. It is emotional spin. Granted, you are free to feel any way you want about a subject, but this doesn't match how we view the verse or how we feel about it. What you are opposed to is not our beliefs on this topic, but your own interpretation of it. So, perhaps it would be better if you continued this argument with yourself.

Excellent. Not the first time I've been disappointed. Won't be the last either.

No it won't. Especially if you are expecting a person's explanations to show up verbatim in the scriptures. I did the best to explain what I believe.

Then, could you please clarify what you meant by: "Christ was a jew and this verse separates the jewish religion from the church of God"? In context of the discussion (two churches - on of God and one of the devil), if you do not belong to one, you must belong to the other, right? Or is there a third option?

That was my purpose is asking about the timing of the events. To make sure I was understanding it correctly and then demonstrating my point to you. However, I don't think that will work so here is the quick answer.

The way I meant that the people in the Jewish religion is separate from the Church of God is that people could be in the Jewish religion and still be considered to be int he Chruch God. Because it is what is in their heart that determines which master they serve and that is what determines which of the two churches they belong. I was proposing that being a member of the Jewish religion was not mutually exclusive from being a member of the Church of God.

 

[Fit4Christ]

While it is improper for me to attempt to speak on behalf of all LDS, I maintain that my opinions are congruent with church teachings on this matter and a majority of LDS. Certainly, if any LDS posters here disagree with my opinions they are free to state that.

You need to remember that we aren't told what to believe in the CoJCoLDS. There are teachings, yes, but individuals are encouraged to use primary sources where possible and to seek personal revelation on any matters of concern.

In addition, LDS instruction is primarily exegetical. A discussion of 1 Nephi 14 in a GD class would focus spiritual matters and in making sure that not only are we members of the Church of Jesus Christ, but are we also members of the Church of the Lamb of God - drawing a distinction between physically being a member of the Church and spiritually being one. D&C 123:12 would be brought up to demonstrate that God's people are numbered outside of the Church as well as inside and that despite being outside of the Church, they will not lose their salvation.

The point of the lesson would be to say to the members that they can't be smug in being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ. In fact "To whom much is given, much is also expected." If I were teaching the lesson I would tie it up with the parable of the labourers in the vineyard.

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...

I've no idea. I believe anyone who stands in the position of Christ is on perilous ground. If you have accepted Christ in this life, then you have already done the most important thing you could possibly do. Everything else is superfluous to this.

Secondly, as far as belief goes, you can only be judged by your willingness to "prove all things, hold fast to that which is good" and then to follow the promptings of the HG. If the HG hasn't prompted you to accept the BoM as scripture after reading it with a sincere heart and real intent, then you are blameless in this matter.

Thirdly, Jesus criticised people not for what they believed, but for what they did. His most stinging rebuttal was for the hypocrite: the only label that Jesus ever used. LDS who profess Christ, but do not follow the basic teachings of Christ will be in a far worse position than the OC that does. And just in case somebody wants to read something into that statement, when the time comes, the Church a person was a member of will become irrelevent. They will be numbered amongst those mentioned in James 2.

Much of my understanding of these things comes from a personal experience of mine as a missionary. I knocked on the door of a family that were Anglican missionaries to Africa. The Father was a humble, quiet man that greeted us warmly and agreed to hear the discussion we presented. I taught him the 1st discussion and gave him a copy of the Book of Mormon and he agreed to read it and pray about it. I asked him what it would mean if he received an answer from God that it was true. He replied without blinking an eye "It would mean I would have to join your Church."

That completely floored me, but I could see that he was serious. After the discussion he showed us the photos of the mission he had established in Africa, the church and hospital he had built, the families they had helped etc. As he was showing us these photos, the HG whispered to me that this man was exactly where God wanted him to be, doing the work of Christ. If he were to join the Church, he would have to abandon that mission he had established and our Church would not have the ability to use him as effectively as he was being used by God now. I knew then that he would never receive an answer to his prayers. The HG would say the BoM wasn't from God, it just wouldn't say yes.

I hope that explains my personal position a little better.

Yes it does and I appreciate it. You would be a good Christian, were it not for the fact that you're a Mormon. (just kidding! ). Your explanation seems to be off-center from what I've understood the lds position to be in this matter. I wish others believed and expressed this position more often.

 

[Fit4Christ]

The second sentence in that section of my post answered the question. I hadn't realized that it would be a problem for me to ask a question of my own. Am I not allowed to ask questions?

By all means, ask away. However, the second sentence asks your 2nd of 3 questions. Perhaps you meant the 2nd line or paragraph? If so, then I don't see where that answered my questions of:

• Is it possible to lose membership in the church of the Lamb of God?
• For instance, was Judas a member of the Lamb of God church, then, after his betrayal, his membership was revoked?

It appeared to me that you were asking me my own questions without first answering them yourself.

There's some nice speculation there. However, I asked because I am not as familiar with Paul's conversion as I should be and wanted to get a better understanding of the situation that surrounded the verse.

Speculation on Saul/Paul's conversion as referenced in Galatians 1:13?? The Bible says so in Acts Chapter 9. I apologize for making the assumption that you've read or knew about it.

I'm sensing that you have a problem with me asking questions. If this is too troublesome for you I will be happy to move to another discussion.

You can turn off your hypersensitive sensors and ask me anything. I will do my best to respond. I only ask the same respect in return.

You state "if there are only two choices, as has been indicated on this thread."

Do you dispute / disagree with the idea that there are two churches?

I disagree with the concept of two "churches" and the membership attributes thereof. Especially when the 'church' in "Church of the Lamb of God" is spelled with a capital 'C', indicating a specific church, as in the lds church.

 

[Fit4Christ]

This argument tries to equate two things that are not the same.

If that is your contention, then please tell me how one can be a "humble follower of Christ" in another church, presumably the church of the devil, and yet still be in one spirit? I don't understand your reasoning.

First, we can clearly see that humble followers of Christ exist in other churches because that is what the verse states. And it states it in a very clear manner.

I agree that that is what the verse states.

The verse also discusses how these churches promote the teachings of men. Then I pointed out how they do not offer the same teachings - they are not of one spirit. This further demonstrates how the teachings of men are being promoted rather than the single set of teachings that come from God.

And what is the test of which is from God and which is of men? If a non-lds church teaches straight out of the Bible and another non-lds church teaches the same concept from the same Bible translation, yet use different methods or something other than a "single set of teachings", what's the difference? Is there a difference?

These many churches teaching the principles of men is a different substance from there being humble followers of Christ within them. That is what the verse is saying. That is what I am saying. Do you have a reasonable explanation why the two are invariably connected? Are you of the mind that an honest person could not be conned or lead astray?

First, you would have to prove that the teachings are of men and not from God. A "single set of teachings" doesn't mean they have to come from the same church headquarters to be valid teachings from God, do they?

The integrity of the follower is pertinant only in those situations where they know the doctrine is false and choose to follow it anyway.

Sure, and the same goes for those who know the lds doctrine to be false, yet remain anyway.

 

[Fit4Christ]

Ran out of time last night to respond to everything in your post.




You asked what the LDS believed on the topic. I gave that to you. You asked for scriptures that support it. I gave that to you. It is beyond my control if you read something differently from those verses than we do. When I read them I do not understand them as you have presented here. My thought is that what you have presented above contains a bit of taint because of you dislike for the LDS beliefs.

Perhaps you missed something. I'll repost:

By "The LDS Doctrine on this matter...", I thought there might be something specific in your doctrine that specifically states the 2nd sentence, or comes close to it, as it appeared to me that you linked the two. Perhaps it was just a summary of the lds belief?

It would seem a simple affirmation of my guess that there was nothing specific and it was just a summary of what you interpret the verses to mean would have sufficed. Thank you for discounting my thoughts because they may be "tainted". Just because I totally and wholeheartedly disagree with your religion doesn't mean I can't make an honest attempt to understand it.

The verse does not dispute that they are humble followers of Christ. If you feel that humble followers of Christ don't actually dilligently seek to do God's work - well, that's your choice. The LDS believe that a true follower of Christ demonstrates his faith with action. Because of that belief, I can understand this verse to talking about those who are dilligently seeking to do His work without it being an exact quote. I would guess that it comes from fully getting into the verse and gaining a deeper understanding of it.

I believe there are humble followers and dilligent doers and a combination of the two. I did not know that the lds church thought one had to be a "doer" to be a humble follower.

I also can't help it if you want to focus on the fact that they are "wrong" above the fact that they are humble followers of Christ. The verse uses the word "err" to describe it. Wrong and err carry different connotations about the situation. Wrong implies a bad choice, wheras err is more indicative of someone that is done a thing without the knowledge that it is bad or incorrect. This seems to be a deliberate word choice to present this verse is a negative light. When I read that they erred, I certainly didn't have an image of a vile sinner that was choosing to follow a path of sin.

Just a personal observation and thank you for the mischaracterization of my words to mean "vile sinner". Your words, not mine. Perhaps these humble followers who err have not received the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide them from the error of their ways?

Then your comments move to what I feel is probably where you wanted to take this discussion in the first place. It starts off with the comment about a supposed book (it actually is a book, there is no supposition about it) that supposedly is inspired of God. This is wordage, in our current use of the language, that is used to cast doubt on the veracity of a topic. It is very spin heavy. Any comments connected with it will be very difficult to accept as objective.

You're right it is a book. My bad. I only use "supposedly" because I do not believe it be inspired of God. Should I have used "allegedly"?

As for the words not being encouraging, it is this sudden spin heavy interpretation of them that you have presented which is not encouraging. Lest you forget, I have presented that there are humble followers of Christ in probably every christian denomination and that they will judged (favorably) on their works - on how well they attempted to do God's work with the knowledge that they had. That message - which is our message - is very encouraging.

Just another personal observation. If what you say is true, I would think there would be some sort of message of hope. Like the Beatitudes. But, that's just me.

Nothing in what I have presented makes any sort of connection to these humble followers of Christ being second class citizens. This is something wholly inserted by you. It definately doesn't represent the views I have been trying to present here. It is emotional spin. Granted, you are free to feel any way you want about a subject, but this doesn't match how we view the verse or how we feel about it. What you are opposed to is not our beliefs on this topic, but your own interpretation of it. So, perhaps it would be better if you continued this argument with yourself.

Again, personal observation, but based on what I read in the Bible. For instance, even in Revelation Chapters 2 & 3, when Christ admonishes the 7 churches (oh my gosh, more than one church!!), there is hope and encouragement in the message, even though He has a few things against each of them. Which, to me, would mean they err in what they are doing.

Maybe it's just me, but when I read the Bible, I see messages of hope and encouragement mixed with admonishment to Christ's followers. Should I expect less from a book supposedly, allegedly, or considered to be inspired by God? Again, maybe it's just me...

That was my purpose is asking about the timing of the events. To make sure I was understanding it correctly and then demonstrating my point to you. However, I don't think that will work so here is the quick answer.

Gotta love those assumptions about your audience!

The way I meant that the people in the Jewish religion is separate from the Church of God is that people could be in the Jewish religion and still be considered to be int he Chruch God. Because it is what is in their heart that determines which master they serve and that is what determines which of the two churches they belong. I was proposing that being a member of the Jewish religion was not mutually exclusive from being a member of the Church of God.

Nice backtrack. You didn't specify individuals. You specifically said "this verse separates the jewish religion from the church of God". In context, you were demonstrating that multiple churches of God cannot exist because the Bible doesn't mention it. A similar statement could be "this verse separates the lds religion from the (universal) church of Christ (or Christianity)". Reading what that appears to say would be that lds are not Christians. Would you take offense or object to that? Notice my similar statement made no mention of individuals in the lds religion being Christian or not. I'm pretty sure that if I made a blanket statement like that, the lds on this board wouldn't be very happy and would probably report me.

 

[Ran77]

If that is your contention, then please tell me how one can be a "humble follower of Christ" in another church, presumably the church of the devil, and yet still be in one spirit? I don't understand your reasoning.

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.

And what is the test of which is from God and which is of men? If a non-lds church teaches straight out of the Bible and another non-lds church teaches the same concept from the same Bible translation, yet use different methods or something other than a "single set of teachings", what's the difference? Is there a difference?

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?

First, you would have to prove that the teachings are of men and not from God. A "single set of teachings" doesn't mean they have to come from the same church headquarters to be valid teachings from God, do they?

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.

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

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

Sure, and the same goes for those who know the lds doctrine to be false, yet remain anyway.

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.

 

[Ran77]

Perhaps you missed something. I'll repost:

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

I apologize.

It would seem a simple affirmation of my guess that there was nothing specific and it was just a summary of what you interpret the verses to mean would have sufficed. Thank you for discounting my thoughts because they may be "tainted". Just because I totally and wholeheartedly disagree with your religion doesn't mean I can't make an honest attempt to understand it.

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 believe there are humble followers and dilligent doers and a combination of the two. I did not know that the lds church thought one had to be a "doer" to be a humble follower.

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.

Just a personal observation and thank you for the mischaracterization of my words to mean "vile sinner". Your words, not mine. Perhaps these humble followers who err have not received the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide them from the error of their ways?

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.

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

You're right it is a book. My bad. I only use "supposedly" because I do not believe it be inspired of God. Should I have used "allegedly"?

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.

Just another personal observation. If what you say is true, I would think there would be some sort of message of hope. Like the Beatitudes. But, that's just me.

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.

Again, personal observation, but based on what I read in the Bible. For instance, even in Revelation Chapters 2 & 3, when Christ admonishes the 7 churches (oh my gosh, more than one church!!), there is hope and encouragement in the message, even though He has a few things against each of them. Which, to me, would mean they err in what they are doing.

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.

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.

Maybe it's just me, but when I read the Bible, I see messages of hope and encouragement mixed with admonishment to Christ's followers. Should I expect less from a book supposedly, allegedly, or considered to be inspired by God? Again, maybe it's just me...

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.

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.

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.

Gotta love those assumptions about your audience!

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.)

Nice backtrack. You didn't specify individuals. You specifically said "this verse separates the jewish religion from the church of God". In context, you were demonstrating that multiple churches of God cannot exist because the Bible doesn't mention it. A similar statement could be "this verse separates the lds religion from the (universal) church of Christ (or Christianity)". Reading what that appears to say would be that lds are not Christians. Would you take offense or object to that? Notice my similar statement made no mention of individuals in the lds religion being Christian or not. I'm pretty sure that if I made a blanket statement like that, the lds on this board wouldn't be very happy and would probably report me.

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.


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.

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.