For JWs and LDS

[A New Dawn]

Thanks for your explanation. I'm working on this... let's not get ahead of the horse.

What constitutes sin?

Here is Strongs entry for sin

hamartia
1) equivalent to 264
..a) to be without a share in
..b) to miss the mark
..c) to err, be mistaken
..d) to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong
..e) to wander from the law of God, violate God's law, sin
2) that which is done wrong, sin, an offence, a violation of the divine law in thought or in act
3) collectively, the complex or aggregate of sins committed either by a single person or by many

 

[TasteForTruth]

Here is Strongs entry for sin

hamartia
1) equivalent to 264
..a) to be without a share in
..b) to miss the mark
..c) to err, be mistaken
..d) to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong
..e) to wander from the law of God, violate God's law, sin
2) that which is done wrong, sin, an offence, a violation of the divine law in thought or in act
3) collectively, the complex or aggregate of sins committed either by a single person or by many

Pretty broad...the definitions there.

At any rate, does sin affect salvation?

 

[A New Dawn]

Pretty broad...the definitions there.

At any rate, does sin affect salvation?

Since salvation encompasses several different phases, I would have to answer like this.

Justification - no
Sanctification - yes
Glorification - no

Do you understand what these concepts are, related to salvation? Do you have anything like that in the LDS church? (I can say that there was nothing like this in the RLDS church.)

 

[TasteForTruth]

Since salvation encompasses several different phases, I would have to answer like this.

Justification - no
Sanctification - yes
Glorification - no

Do you understand what these concepts are, related to salvation? Do you have anything like that in the LDS church? (I can say that there was nothing like this in the RLDS church.)

Yes, I'm familiar with the terms, although I have heard somewhat different definitions of them from different people. I think you've answered the question, though. You're saying that no product of the human will can affect whether or not a person is justified. And once justified, no product of the human will can affect whether or not he is glorified, and this because glorification is nothing more or less than reception of the condition promised at justification. If this is the case, though, sanctification being affected by human will makes no sense, unless it is simply a matter of time before God will sanctify the justified. In other words, in this whole equation man's will really and truly plays no role where salvation is concerned. That's how I understand what you've shared.

 

[he-man]

Yes, and Mormons don't have a monopoly on it, either. There are some real doozies out there,

But not the more obvious conclusion that Joseph Smith was simply ignorant of the fact that the King James New Testament uses the Greek version of Old Testament names?

Elias is NOT an OT name.The name in Hebrew is Esaias and refers only to Isaiah ! The Greek name 'Elias' does not occur in the Old Testament!

Each of these King James New Testament passages refers to the words of "Esaias" and then quotes the book of Isaiah. It would seem obvious that in the minds of the New Testament writers Isaiah and Esaias are one and the same.
​

But D&C 84:11-13 says that Esaias was a prophet who lived in the days of Abraham, many centuries before Isaiah. And D&C 76:100 distinguishes Esaias from Isaiah:"...these are they who say they are some of one and some of another; some of Christ; and some of John; and some of Moses; and some of Elias; and some of Esaias; and some of Isaiah; ..."
"Ezias" also occurs in the Book of Mormon (Hel 8:20) in a list of prophets who have testified to the coming of a savior, also as a different prophet from Isaiah: "Zenos... also Zenock, and also Ezias, and also Isaiah,.."

Thus, according to Mormon revelation through Joseph Smith, there was a prophet in the days of Abraham who had a Greek name (several centuries before the Greek language had developed), the same name as used by speakers of Greek two thousand years later for the great prophet Isaiah, and who appears to be unknown to any [Mormon] bible writer, but upon whom God personally conferred the priesthood. And his prophecies of the coming savior are lost.

Perhaps God should have explained to Joseph Smith that the same person's name can appear in different versions in different languages, but it is still the same person?

The name in the form 'Elijah' does not occur in the Greek New Testament, nor does 'Elias' occur in the Old Testament. But 'Elias' occurs thirty times in the King James New Testament , and almost always in reference to the Malachi prophecy. John the Baptist was considered by many to be the returning Elijah.

Notice however that it is always 'Elias' that is spoken of (Matt 11:14, 16:14, 17:11, Mark 9:11-13, John 1:21, 25 and parallels - KJV).
At Romans 11:2-3, Paul quotes 'Elias' with the words of Elijah from I Kings 19:14. At the Transfiguration, Moses and 'Elias' appear (Matt 17:3, Mark 9:4, Luke 9:30, KJV), and the disciples are informed that "Elias has come" (Matt 17:12, Mark 9:12).
​

Most modern translations of the New Testament use the Hebrew version of the name ('Elijah') instead of the Greek 'Elias' in order to avoid confusion and to emphasize that these two names refer to the same Old Testament prophet.

But Joseph Smith obviously did not know this, and apparently God didn't tell him: In D&C 27:6-9, 'Elias' and 'Elijah' are treated as distinctly different prophets:

"And also with Elias, to whom I have committed the keys of bringing to pass the restoration of all things spoken by the mouth of all the holy prophets since the world began, concerning the last days;
7 And also John the son of Zacharias, which Zacharias he (Elias) visited and gave promise that he should have a son, and his name should be John, and he should be filled with the spirit of Elias;
8 Which John I have sent unto you, my servants, Joseph Smith, Jun., and Oliver Cowdery, to ordain you unto the first priesthood which you have received, that you might be called and ordained even as Aaron;
9 And also Elijah, unto whom I have committed the keys of the power of turning the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to the fathers, that the whole earth may not be smitten with a curse;..." (see also D&C 138:45-46)

Both Elias and Elijah also are reported to have appeared as two separate beings in the Kirtland temple (D&C 110:12, 13):​

"12 After this, Elias appeared, and committed the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, saying that in us and our seed all generations after us should be blessed.

13 After this vision had closed, another great and glorious vision burst upon us; for Elijah the prophet, who was taken to heaven without tasting death, stood before us, and said:​

14 Behold, the time has fully come, which was spoken of by the mouth of Malachi--..."
Thus, for Joseph Smith, the Greek name referred to one prophet and the Hebrew name referred to another. This has caused no end of trouble for Mormon theologians.

 

[A New Dawn]

Yes, I'm familiar with the terms, although I have heard somewhat different definitions of them from different people. I think you've answered the question, though. You're saying that no product of the human will can affect whether or not a person is justified. And once justified, no product of the human will can affect whether or not he is glorified, and this because glorification is nothing more or less than reception of the condition promised at justification. If this is the case, though, sanctification being affected by human will makes no sense, unless it is simply a matter of time before God will sanctify the justified. In other words, in this whole equation man's will really and truly plays no role where salvation is concerned. That's how I understand what you've shared.

And this is why I stated earlier that it seems to me that the LDS believe that nothing that happens after justification is important, and thus, not worth discussing. Do you not feel that you need to continue doing good works after your initial conversion/baptism/commitment to God (however you would phrase it)? Why is that? Do you not see how, without the initial work, the work of justification/salvation, being done by God, that it is reduced to works-based salvation? By God doing the work of salvation, we cannot boast that we have done anything of ourselves to merit salvation. What we can do is participate in being sanctified. That is where we are able to participate without being able to boast in our own salvation.

 

[TasteForTruth]

And this is why I stated earlier that it seems to me that the LDS believe that nothing that happens after justification is important, and thus, not worth discussing. Do you not feel that you need to continue doing good works after your initial conversion/baptism/commitment to God (however you would phrase it)? Why is that? Do you not see how, without the initial work, the work of justification/salvation, being done by God, that it is reduced to works-based salvation? By God doing the work of salvation, we cannot boast that we have done anything of ourselves to merit salvation. What we can do is participate in being sanctified. That is where we are able to participate without being able to boast in our own salvation.

Honestly, it is not a matter of what value I place on anything that follows justification. The theology is what it is, and I have nothing to do with that. If human will is germane to salvation in your theology, it is. If it is not, it is not. I guess I'm just asking you to confirm or amend what I previously concluded. Could you do that without interjecting what you believe my beliefs are? That's all I'm asking.

 

[A New Dawn]

Honestly, it is not a matter of what value I place on anything that follows justification. The theology is what it is, and I have nothing to do with that. If human will is germane to salvation in your theology, it is. If it is not, it is not. I guess I'm just asking you to confirm or amend what I previously concluded. Could you do that without interjecting what you believe my beliefs are? That's all I'm asking.

I spoke to the part of your post that I underlined. You remarked that sanctification made no sense if all that mattered to salvation was justification (and glorification only because it fulfilled the promise of justification). Those were your comments I was responding to. So you make a comment, I respond to it, and you try to chastise me because of it?

As far as answering your question, no, our will has nothing to do with it.

 

[TasteForTruth]

I spoke to the part of your post that I underlined. You remarked that sanctification made no sense if all that mattered to salvation was justification (and glorification only because it fulfilled the promise of justification). Those were your comments I was responding to. So you make a comment, I respond to it, and you try to chastise me because of it?

Well, it sounded like you were suggesting that if I didn't agree with or understand your beliefs, it was because I was LDS (presumably my LDS beliefs impede me from understanding). Honestly, I am not judging whether or not what you believe is good or makes sense by comparing it to what I believe. It will stand or fall on its own merits, just like everything else. So if I conclude incorrectly, keep clarifying. But my LDS beliefs don't factor in here. Let's keep going...

As far as answering your question, no, our will has nothing to do with it.

OK. That's what it sounded like. So, in your opinion, what ultimate purpose does human will serve?

 

[A New Dawn]

Well, it sounded like you were suggesting that if I didn't agree with or understand your beliefs, it was because I was LDS (presumably my LDS beliefs impede me from understanding). Honestly, I am not judging whether or not what you believe is good or makes sense by comparing it to what I believe. It will stand or fall on its own merits, just like everything else. So if I conclude incorrectly, keep clarifying. But my LDS beliefs don't factor in here. Let's keep going...

OK. That's what it sounded like. So, in your opinion, what ultimate purpose does human will serve?

To follow the commandments Christ laid before us, and to show our gratitude to God for the marvelous gift He gave us. To grow in the Spirit and become conformed to the image of Christ.

 

[TasteForTruth]

To follow the commandments Christ laid before us, and to show our gratitude to God for the marvelous gift He gave us. To grow in the Spirit and become conformed to the image of Christ.

All good things, to be sure. All expressions of will in mortality. Is the human will relevant in the eternities?

 

[A New Dawn]

All good things, to be sure. All expressions of will in mortality. Is the human will relevant in the eternities?

In the eternities there will be no sin. At that time, our will will match the Father's in desire and action. Again, I'm not understanding where this is going, does anyone believe that we will have a will or a desire to fight against the pull of the Lord after we are living in glory with Him?

 

[TasteForTruth]

In the eternities there will be no sin. At that time, our will will match the Father's in desire and action. Again, I'm not understanding where this is going, does anyone believe that we will have a will or a desire to fight against the pull of the Lord after we are living in glory with Him?

It is going toward understanding. Posters' beliefs are judged and tossed under the bus all the time around here, and 90%+ of the time the one doing the judging doesn't even understand what the other person really believes. I am trying to understand what you believe. The better I understand that, the better I understand your posts and the easier it becomes for me to make myself understood as well.

Personally, I find it hard to believe that Satan rebelled against God in the beginning. So while it might seem odd that anyone would have a desire to fight against him in the eternities, I'm just asking if anyone will be able to. The one is a desire, the other the capacity to do so—two distinct things. Where there is no choice, there is no will, regardless of desire. That is the basis for my question, "Is human will relevant in the eternities?" So far it sounds like it is not. Is that correct?

 

[fatboys]

In the eternities there will be no sin. At that time, our will will match the Father's in desire and action. Again, I'm not understanding where this is going, does anyone believe that we will have a will or a desire to fight against the pull of the Lord after we are living in glory with Him?

As I understand what mainstream Christians believe is that Angels lived with the Father in all his glory. This includes Satan. Did he have a different will than the Father?

 

[Ran77]

As I understand what mainstream Christians believe is that Angels lived with the Father in all his glory. This includes Satan. Did he have a different will than the Father?

Good point. Not just satan, but doesn't it mention something about the angels that followed him were also cast out. If so, it seems that there was an awful lot of freewill in God's presence that went against what Heavenly Father wanted.

 

[A New Dawn]

It is going toward understanding. Posters' beliefs are judged and tossed under the bus all the time around here, and 90%+ of the time the one doing the judging doesn't even understand what the other person really believes. I am trying to understand what you believe. The better I understand that, the better I understand your posts and the easier it becomes for me to make myself understood as well.

Personally, I find it hard to believe that Satan rebelled against God in the beginning. So while it might seem odd that anyone would have a desire to fight against him in the eternities, I'm just asking if anyone will be able to. The one is a desire, the other the capacity to do so—two distinct things. Where there is no choice, there is no will, regardless of desire. That is the basis for my question, "Is human will relevant in the eternities?" So far it sounds like it is not. Is that correct?

Angels are on a different level from humans (God created man a little lower than the angels), so maybe that affects their ability to choose to will against God, but everything that happens God allows. If God didn't allow it, it wouldn't happen (see Job).

Man is a creature of his nature. Only in the Garden of Eden did we live in a state where we could truly make choices because we had a dual nature then. When Satan entered the world and offered an alternative to good, man chose it, creating the fall, and now we can only choose out of our fallen nature. When we are born, we are depraved in nature, and so act out of that depravity. When we encounter God and he changes our heart, we again have the ability to make choices based on our dual nature. We make choices for evil based on the presence of evil. Before Satan showed up in the GoE, Adam's choices were all good. In the eternities, with no Satan available to present an evil choice, what is left to choose. We'd be like Adam in his pure state again.

JMO from logical reasoning.

 

[TasteForTruth]

Angels are on a different level from humans (God created man a little lower than the angels), so maybe that affects their ability to choose to will against God, but everything that happens God allows. If God didn't allow it, it wouldn't happen (see Job).

Man is a creature of his nature. Only in the Garden of Eden did we live in a state where we could truly make choices because we had a dual nature then. When Satan entered the world and offered an alternative to good, man chose it, creating the fall, and now we can only choose out of our fallen nature. When we are born, we are depraved in nature, and so act out of that depravity. When we encounter God and he changes our heart, we again have the ability to make choices based on our dual nature. We make choices for evil based on the presence of evil. Before Satan showed up in the GoE, Adam's choices were all good. In the eternities, with no Satan available to present an evil choice, what is left to choose. We'd be like Adam in his pure state again.

JMO from logical reasoning.

Thanks. I don't follow your logic here, though. How did Adam have a choice prior to Satan's introduction of an alternative to good? And subsequently, how could we have a choice in the eternities if there will be nothing "left to choose" but good? Seems to me that your logic is backward.

 

[A New Dawn]

Thanks. I don't follow your logic here, though. How did Adam have a choice prior to Satan's introduction of an alternative to good? And subsequently, how could we have a choice in the eternities if there will be nothing "left to choose" but good? Seems to me that your logic is backward.

The ability to make a choice and the desire to make a choice are two different things.

 

[TasteForTruth]

The ability to make a choice and the desire to make a choice are two different things.

I agree. But desire did not factor into the logic you presented. It was all about the ability to choose. And it still doesn't follow a sound course, IMO.

 

[skylark1]

The problem is that either God requires certain steps to show that we are humble and submissive to the will of God, or we can claim we are, but make no effort to do so. Either God gave us laws and commandments to live by or he did not. How can we show that we are sincere if there is no effort to show that. If a person says he is saved, but shows no signs of it, then it is just lip service. Perhaps that person only puts forth third attemp and can claim salvation. There has to be consistancy. In what I gather from mainstream Christians all one has to do to be saved is lip service. And I don't know what you mean by us being force fed about Christianity. I have learned by my self what you and others believe Christianity to be. I disagree with how some define it.

I have been is discussion online for almost 18 years. Hard to believe that it has been that long. And I have had millions of discussions with mainstream Christans. Are you now saying that a person cannot be saved by confessing the belief of Christ?

James 2:14-18

I realize that the discussion has become about what Dawn believes about faith and sin, but I hope that no one minds going back to this. Perhaps it is stll close to the OP question of if LDS and JW consider themselves to be the only "true Christians."

Fatboys, from what you have written I have the impression that you think that mainstream Christians do not believe that faith is to be accompanied by works. Although there might be a Christian somewhere who believes this, it is not what any Christian I know believes. When I went to church yesterday, the sermon was about faith and works, and I couldn't help but think of your comments in this thread. The children were told that faith and works go together like peanut butter and jelly, or salt and pepper. It was said that although we are not saved by our works, that our works are evidence that we are saved; that we are Christians. Contrary to what has often been posted here by LDS about our beliefs, we DO believe that faith and works go together.

Just thought that I would add my two cents on this Labor Day, as we pause top think about work and works... I really hope that helps you to better understand our beliefs.