Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sorry I missed this one. Then why are LDS hammmmmmmmeeeerrrrreedd to death about salvation requiring faith and works?
And I for my over-sensitivity to being generalized with all other LDS posters.
From my perspective, Fatboy's error was generalization, not necessarily misunderstanding the substance which undergirds what some Christians believe (although they would probably not agree with his choice of words, at a minimum).
I know you did not think that, and don't think that. After your explanation, I agree that you weren't. But at the time I did feel that I had been. Like you, I dislike being generalized away like I'm just a lemming headed out to sea. But it happens all the time, and I admit that I've grown overly-sensitive to comments that generalize (or appear to) me into certain beliefs or attitudes. That's what I'm referring to.I really did not think that I was generalizing all LDS posters.
You know, I couldn't, off the top of my head, think of a single church that teaches that lip service to God—lip service: An expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction—is OK. I have met individual Christians who told me to my face in very clear terms that literally all one needed to do to be saved was "confess Jesus." This doesn't say anything about how they viewed works, but these Christians I've talked to had to get this "mere confession" idea from someplace. So I did a little search. This church teaches doctrines which could lead a person right down that path:I still don't know of any Christian who believes that faith is not to be accompanied by works; that we are to profess Christ as our Savior but not follow Him as our Lord. I also don't know of any church that teaches that.
I could not disagree more! The foundation of the LDS church is revelation given to a 14.5-year-old boy who trusted in a promise found in the Bible, which led him to seek out his Maker for wisdom he lacked. The foundation of this Restored Gospel is confidence in God's word—the Bible! It is trust in a living, speaking, all-powerful God! It is not built upon some self-declaration that Christianity was corrupt. You've got it totally backward! Christianity's general corruption was exposed to Joseph because of his faith in God, not because he decided that that was the way it was! It is absolutely amazing to me that for a hundred some-odd years people have dismissed everything that preceded God's revelation to Joseph about the state of religion...
as if it simply didn't happen...
in order to establish what they want as the foundation of the Restored Gospel—the dastardly declaration of religious corruption! "What!?! Corrupt you say!?! God forbid!!! Unheard of!!! Not true!!!" It's like the straw that broke the camel's back... the blasphemy that demands that stones be taken and raised... the ultimate violation of human conscience... or some other such form of progress-damming self-absorption! And in light of how many times we LDS are told that we ignore our own Church's history—such selective history is simply beyond comprehension to me!
No, what God told Joseph about religion... is not an easy pill for man to swallow. But it is not the foundation of the Church. History strikes that claim down with a single, mighty blow. Just like I'm told all the time, "you can paint history how you want, but that don't make your painting worth buyin'."
necromancy, or "familiar spirit"is everywhere condemned in the Bible as abominable (e.g. Leviticus 20:17, Deuteronomy 18:10-12, 1 Chronicles 10:13, 2 Chronicles 33:6, Isaiah 19:3).You know, I couldn't, off the top of my head, think of a single church that teaches that lip service to God—lip service: An expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction—is OK. In light of the whole, I don't think I'd classify what this church teaches as "lip service," but I can see how their teachings could leave a person feeling very comfortable going there.
necromancy, or "familiar spirit"is everywhere condemned in the Bible as abominable (e.g. Leviticus 20:17, Deuteronomy 18:10-12, 1 Chronicles 10:13, 2 Chronicles 33:6, Isaiah 19:3).
A ventriloquist or "familiar spirit" can throw his voice to make it so that it appears that the voice is coming from elsewhere like speaking from a rock or from a grave.
I don't agree with you conclusions here, but don't want to get into it here and now.It's funny that this foundation of confidence in God's word led JS to create more works of "God's word" that completely disagree with the original "God's word", and make what it says moot. LDS trust new revelation over anything that is said in the Bible, and let's not forget the article of faith that says that "We believe in the Bible as far as it is translated correctly.
I don't disagree.As I have said many times, there will always be corruption in any organization that men are in charge of. That includes churches. All of them.
The Savior and his Apostles appear to disagree with your position. The NT contains plenty of warnings to then-active members of the NT church—sometimes to entire congregations or regions—that apostasy was both foretold and coming, and already unfolding.The church that Christ started was not an organization with buildings and walls and structures, it is the body of believers. The body of believers cannot apostatize.
You own logic fails you. Organizations are people. The body of Christ is people. People apostatize, not organizations. If an apostle called and ordained by Christ himself can apostatize, anyone can.The body of believers cannot apostatize. Organizations with buildings and walls and men in charge can.
How does flawed logic indicate that LDS don't understand? We accept and teach what Christ and the Apostles taught—that men can, do, and did apostatize. The entire Renaissance was man's attempt to reverse the effects of apostasy! We do understand the Bible, and contrary to your statements further above, no revelation of the Restoration takes anything away from the Bible in the slightest—another backward idea, IMO. The more revelation God gives, the more bullet-proof the entire body of revelations becomes! In the mouth of two or three witnesses... To him that hath shall be given more... etc.This is what the LDS don't understand about the Bible and about what Christ did here on earth.
I don't think that God organizing His church was or is useless. Christ valued organization and was careful in choosing and ordaining His apostles and seventies. These were numbered. They were sent in pairs. Organization. If it was meaningless, why did the Savior do it? And if He did it then, why wouldn't He do it now, particularly if the organization had been corrupted?It is why JS's story cannot be true. Because it is useless to replace one corrupt organizaton with another.
I don't disagree.It isn't what church we sit in that makes us Christian, it is what is inside us.
I know you guys are all busy, but I do not spend a lot of time on any forum now days. I drive bus 8 hours a day plus farm quite a few acres of land. It is just my wife and myself, and we made a bargin 33 years ago that if I did not have to change diapers, she did not have to work of the farm. Stupid stupid stupid. I have had my arm up the rear end of a cow up do my shoulder, you would think that I could have stood a little bit of kiddy poo. Any way it is harvest time and I also do custom work for local farmers. I just can't say no when they ask. So forgive me for not responding to your posts. It is almost never intentional.
I know you did not think that, and don't think that. After your explanation, I agree that you weren't. But at the time I did feel that I had been. Like you, I dislike being generalized away like I'm just a lemming headed out to sea. But it happens all the time, and I admit that I've grown overly-sensitive to comments that generalize (or appear to) me into certain beliefs or attitudes. That's what I'm referring to.
You know, I couldn't, off the top of my head, think of a single church that teaches that lip service to Godlip service: An expression of agreement that is not supported by real convictionis OK. I have met individual Christians who told me to my face in very clear terms that literally all one needed to do to be saved was "confess Jesus." This doesn't say anything about how they viewed works, but these Christians I've talked to had to get this "mere confession" idea from someplace. So I did a little search. This church teaches doctrines which could lead a person right down that path:
<quoted text omitted>
To their credit, they do teach that you shouldn't abuse the Savior's sacrifice by using his unlimited supply of forgiveness as justification to keep sinning (last line of third-to-last paragraph). And in other areas of their site they focus on outreach ministries and service to others. So it's not like they're offering passes to go sin. There is some substance there.
But reading this material, I can easily see how some people could get the idea that salvation and forgiveness are "easy to get"as easy as opening your Bible and reading or saying aloud the verses they reference. In fact they use the phrase "it's that easy!" when talking about being forgiven. And a "golden pass to heaven"? That sounds more like an infomercial than the Gospel. Yes, the Savior did say that his yoke was easy and his burden light. But it is still a yoke and it is still a burden! Men are prone to walk the path of least resistance, and using language like:[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana]
[/FONT]
...using language like this will result in people, well, believing it! It will likely lead some to conclude that as long as they fulfill the letter of the law they have "fulfilled the requirement of repentance," and are good to go. It just seems so cheap to me.
- [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana] To make sure that you're saved, all you have to do is...[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana]all you have to do to be saved is...[/FONT]
- [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana]all you have to do to have those sins off your conscience and the slate wiped clean is...[/FONT]
In light of the whole, I don't think I'd classify what this church teaches as "lip service," but I can see how their teachings could leave a person feeling very comfortable going there.
I know I left out the majority of your post, but I wanted to comment on this one part. I've been reading through the New Testament. Funny how so many things the Savior said sounded very much like what God told Joseph about other religions. I'm sure it wasn't easy for them to hear either.
Indeed, and not everything God says is easy for me to hear, either! Some either forgetor never even considerthat we must be converted to the Gospel just like everyone else. We, too, must be changed. All have pride. All must bend the knee. All of us. I have spent plenty of my life damming my own progress because I would not bend... would not be changed. Oh I was willing TO change... but I wouldn't be changed! No, it's not easy.
For example?
Sure. I don't pretend know exactly what Ran77 had in mind, but an example that fits is that the Savior referencing the same scripture in Isaiah when speaking to Joseph that he did when speaking to the scribes and Pharisees:TasteForTruth,
I had directed my question about examples to Ran77. However, since he has not responded. and since your post indicates that you are in agreement with him, could you offer some examples from the Bible of how "so many things the Savior said sounded very much like what God told Joseph about other religions?"
Thanks.
No, I am claiming that the LDS did not understand the verse in Isaiah and that necromancy, or "familiar spirit"is everywhere condemned in the Bible as abominable (e.g. Leviticus 20:17, Deuteronomy 18:10-12, 1 Chronicles 10:13, 2 Chronicles 33:6, Isaiah 19:3).So . . .Are you claiming that ventriloquists are satan's pawns?
A ventriloquist or "familiar spirit" can throw his voice to make it so that it appears that the voice is coming from elsewhere like speaking from a rock or from a grave, making it appear as though they had called up someone from the dead [/FONT]and did not percieve that he was talking about necromancy, or "familiar spirit" and then claim it was that which inspired him [J Smith] to write his Bible. He also falsely believed in a satan.[/SIZE]
A ventriloquist or "familiar spirit" can throw his voice to make it so that it appears that the voice is coming from elsewhere like speaking from a rock or from a grave, making it appear as though they had called up someone from the dead [/FONT]and did not percieve that he was talking about necromancy, or "familiar spirit" and then claim it was that which inspired him [J Smith] to write his Bible. He also falsely believed in a satan.[/SIZE]
The idea that there exists anything capable of setting itself up as God's opponent would be considered overly polytheisticyou are setting up the devil to be a god or demigod.
The word itself, the Hebrew saÆtaÆn, is simply an "adversary," or opponent and is so used in 1 Sam. 29:4; 2 Sam. 19:22; 1 Kings 5:4; 11:14, 23, 25; Num. 22:22, 32; Ps. 109:6. This original sense is still found in our Lords application of the name to St. Peter in Matt. 16:23. It is used as a proper name or title only four times in the Old Testament, viz. (with the article) in Job 1:6, 12; 2:1; Zech. 2:1, and (without the article) in 1 Chron. 21:1.Nelson's Electronic Bible; Smith Bible Dictionary
The term devil is also derived from the same Indo-European root word for deva, which roughly translates as "angel."
It is easy to see how false modern religions adapted the satan to mean "fallen angel".
Only rationalists like Maimonides and Abraham ibn Ezra, clearly denied (devils) their existence. Their point of view eventually became the mainstream Jewish understanding.
The Greek word daemon, daemon, appears in the works of Plato and many other ancient authors, without the evil connotations apparent in the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible and in the Greek originals of the New Testament.
HaSatan acts as a servant of God, not as an opponent or even disobediant child. Angels cannot sin, they cannot fall. (Soc.Culture.Jewish NewsgroupsFrequently Asked Questions and Answers)
The idea that there is a God in heaven above who fights against a god of the underworld, or hell, is not monotheism, however, it is the same duality found in other pagan faiths.
Through His prophet Isaiah, God profoundly states, "I form light and create darkness, I make peace and CREATE evil; I am God, I do all these things" (Isaiah 45:7).Consider this: If there were such an opponent and foe of God (Satan) as false Christianity claims, don't you think God is capable of eliminating His created angel with a mere breath - or thought (anthropomorphically speaking)? If God spoke him (Satan) into existence; God could simply quit speaking and Satan would simply cease to exist.
(Abraham Joshua Heschel, The Prophets, Jewish Publication Society, 1962, Philip Birnbaum, Encyclopedia of Jewish Concepts, Hebrew Publishing Company, 1991, Aryeh Kaplan, Jewish Meditation, Schocken Books, 1985.).
Superficial believers in the Miltonic antecedents of "the Prince of Darkness," quote Rev. 12:7, in proof of themRev. 12: 7-9
7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
Sure. I don't pretend know exactly what Ran77 had in mind, but an example that fits is that the Savior referencing the same scripture in Isaiah when speaking to Joseph that he did when speaking to the scribes and Pharisees:
Isaiah 29:13 - "Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:"The wording is not identical in any combination, but it is the same language and ideas being communicated, but about different groups of people. Other, potentially less-obvious examples exist (and perhaps more just as obvious, although I can't think of any right now), such as Christ accusing the scribes and Pharisees of transgressing the commandments by their tradition (Matt 15:3) and Christ accusing our generation of straying from ordinances and breaking the everlasting covenant (D&C 1:15). Christ called the scribes and Pharisees a "generation of vipers" (Matt. 3:7) and used the same phrase reference to the wicked in this generation (D&C 121:23) Does it all constitute "so many things" though? I think there is a good amount, yes. And is it all about specific churches or groups? No. But there is enough of this kind of repetition of principles and ideas in modern-day scripture that I can't, in good conscience, disagree with Ran77's statement.
Matt. 15:7-9 - Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
JS-History 1:9 - I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."
In reality it would probably be more accurate to say that my agreement with Ran77's statement is more with the sentiment that things were told to or about the people in Christ's time which have been repeated in our day, but not exclusively by the Savior, and not necessarily about scribes, Pharisees, churches, or professors of religion.
The implication is there that "all of Christianity" is the target, but only to the extent that it actually applies. For example, look carefully again at what the Savior said to the scribes and Pharisees:I agree with you that the language is similar.
Maybe I am reading too much into yours and other's words, but I had the impression that by pointing out the similarity of the words in the First Vision and the words of Jesus to the Pharisees, that there is an implication that there are similarities between the Pharisees and all of Christianity of Joseph Smith's day.
I didn't include any of those, but I can. God is no respecter of persons.Until I read the examples from the D&C that you offered, I thought that perhaps you had included scripture where LDS were also chastized.
Yes, in a general sense where the collective is concerned, and specifically where guilty individuals are concerned, just like with the scribes and Pharisees and Israel.However, after reading the verses that does not appear to be the case. In most of the examples that you offered, you noted that commandments were trangressed or ordinances and covenants were broken.
Absolutely. Rigid adherence to creeds over the Spirit, and to traditions over revelation... those are no different, in my mind. I believe Christ condemns them all.But don't you also [think] that it was often the Pharisees rigid adherence to laws, while neglecting the spirit of the law that Jesus was criticizing?
Only in a general sense. That is the only tenable conclusion, in my mind (in accordance with the thoughts I shared above).If you think that the criticism was similar between the Pharisees and the Christians of the time of Joseph Smith, do you think that is because they both failed to follow commandments, ordinances, and covenants?
Again, I understand the entire quoting of the prophecy in both instances as indicative of general conditions where the masses were concerned. It was not germane to the present objective in either case to identify individuals who were exempt from the descriptions Christ used, even though they clearly existed.Or do you think that it is because they both put the letter of the law above the spirit of the law. Or because both of their hearts were far from God. And if your answer is the last suggestion offered, why do LDS believe that the hearts of Christians of Joseph Smith's day were far from God?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?