For JWs and LDS

[A New Dawn]

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.

Our pastor used the example of a coin. Salvation is a coin, and faith and works are the flip sides of the coin. I liked that example because you can't remove one side or the other from a coin. They are bound to each other inseparably. One can't have faith without works, and they are both beget by salvation.

 

[skylark1]

Our pastor used the example of a coin. Salvation is a coin, and faith and works are the flip sides of the coin. I liked that example because you can't remove one side or the other from a coin. They are bound to each other inseparably. One can't have faith without works, and they are both beget by salvation.

Well, there you go. There are two examples of Christians here whose ministers speak of faith and works being bound together. That some of our other specific beliefs are not in agreement should add weight to the fact that both we and our ministers are in agreement concerning faith and works. I know of no minister who teaches of faith without works, or that only "lip service" is required.

The example of a coin is a good example. There is also the example that C. S. Lewis used of faith and works being two blades of a pair of scissors.

“Christians have often disputed as to whether what leads the Christian home is good actions, or Faith in Christ. I have no right really to speak on such a difficult question, but it does seem to me like asking which blade in a pair of scissors is most necessary. A serious moral effort is the only thing that will bring you to the point where you throw up the sponge. Faith in Christ is the only thing to save you from despair at that point: and out of that Faith in Him good actions must inevitably come. There are two parodies of the truth which different sets of Christians have, in the past, been accused by other Christians of believing: perhaps they may make the truth clearer. One set were accused of saying, ‘Good actions are all that matters. The best good action is charity. The best kind of charity is giving money. The best thing to give money to is the Church. So hand us over 10,000 pounds and we will see you through.’ The answer to that nonsense, of course, would be that good actions done for that motive, done with the idea that Heaven can be bought, would not be good actions at all, but only commercial speculations. The other set were accused of saying, ‘Faith is all that matters. Consequently, if you have faith, it doesn’t matter what you do. Sin away, my lad, and have a good time and Christ will see that it makes no difference in the end.’ The answer to that nonsense is that, if what you call ‘faith’ in Christ does not involve taking the slightest notice of what He says, then it is not faith at all – not faith or trust in Him, but only intellectual acceptance of some theory about Him.”

Mere Christinity​

 

[Rescued One]

Our pastor used the example of a coin. Salvation is a coin, and faith and works are the flip sides of the coin. I liked that example because you can't remove one side or the other from a coin. They are bound to each other inseparably. One can't have faith without works, and they are both beget by salvation.

Yes. God gives faith as a gift. That faith which He gives results in works that please Him because He indwells us and is working in us.

Even the Book of Mormon states that God dwells in believers (although the Doctrine and Covenants denies that).

Book of Mormon, Alma 34:36
And this I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy temples, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell; yea, and he has also said that the righteous shall sit down in his kingdom, to go no more out; but their garments should be made white through the blood of the Lamb.

Doctrine and Covenants 130:3
The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse, is a personal appearance; and the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man's heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false.

 

[TasteForTruth]

One LDS here hasn't once expressed, subscribed to, or agreed with the generalization made by other LDS that "mainstream Christians" are saved on the basis of "lip service," or that they believe works are not germane to being a "true" Christian. This particular LDS would therefore like to be formally excluded from any generalizations made about LDS making such assertions.

In fact, the reason this thread appears to have become a focus on A New Dawn's beliefs is because this same LDS wants to understand her particular understanding of the subject matter related to the tangent of a tangent of a tangent to the OP. Once that third-tier tangential material is understood, the second tier can be addressed again, and so forth until we get back on-topic.

But just so the on-topic opinion of this LDS—who has not spoken on behalf of mainstream Christians or any subset of them—is not forgotten, here it is again:

[M]y view on who is and who is not Christian... anyone who in mortality follows the Light of Christ to the extent which God favors him with it...is Christian, for that is the essence of Christianity! (As opposed to the title of "Christian," which is attached to men by other men, and not by God, who looketh upon the heart (1 Sam. 16:7))

I would add to that this excellent LDS doctrine:

[c]harity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure. Amen. (Moro. 7:34-35)
​

And perhaps it would be worth it to recognize that the Church accepts varying understandings of what a "true Christian" is. In one context, a "true" follower of Christ receives a focus on attitudes, and personal qualities (see Religion 121-122 p. 68) In another context—that of receiving the promised gift of the Holy Ghost—it is someone who has been baptized, etc. Elder Holland taught that a true Christian will not deny the simple idea of an embodied God (Christ). Elder Maxwell taught that true Christians in Paul's and our day are converts to Christ and identify themselves by His name and not by the names of other men. Marvin J Ashton taught that true Christians do not engage in contention. Marion D. Hanks taught that true Christians were those who "have met the simple, charitable tests" mentioned by the Savior in Matt. 25:31-46. There are plenty more...

So if we're going to hold the LDS church to account for what it teaches about who is and who is not a "true Christian," rather than isolate our favorite quotes to prove our point, ought we not to acknowledge that its teachings indicate variation per person, per circumstance, and per context? In my opinion, following any other course simply exposes one's pro-LDS or anti-LDS bias.

And how about everyone else here account for his or her own view of what a true Christian is. I thought that the UT subforum was moving away from hyper-focus on specific groups. If so, how come it continues? Could it be—in this particular case—that some here are just as exclusive with who they consider to be "true" Christians as they claim the JWs or LDS are? I'll maintain the high ground that I have since I first started posting here by letting you all answer for yourselves.

 

[A New Dawn]

And how about everyone else here account for his or her own view of what a true Christian is. I thought that the UT subforum was moving away from hyper-focus on specific groups. If so, how come it continues? Could it be—in this particular case—that some here are just as exclusive with who they consider to be "true" Christians as they claim the JWs or LDS are? I'll maintain the high ground that I have since I first started posting here by letting you all answer for yourselves.

Speaking for CF as to the purpose of Unorthodox Theology, this forum is designated as the place to discuss those topics that conflict with the Nicene Creed, and for discussion of topics related to church institutions that hold beliefs that run counter to the Nicene Creed. That means that in this forum, one may discuss universalism, annihilationism, nestorianism, as well as topics related to LDS theology and JW theology, etc.

For myself, personally, I do not believe that it is my place to judge what may or may not be in a person's heart, but as this is the place to discuss unorthodox theology, that is what I am here to discuss. It is best to not confuse the two. One may be Christian and still believe things that are in conflict with the creed, and addressing those issues does not correlate to believing that someone who holds those beliefs is not a Christian.

 

[skylark1]

One LDS here hasn't once expressed, subscribed to, or agreed with the generalization made by other LDS that "mainstream Christians" are saved on the basis of "lip service," or that they believe works are not germane to being a "true" Christian. This particular LDS would therefore like to be formally excluded from any generalizations made about LDS making such assertions.

This seems to be directed at my comments, since I responded earlier today to fatboys comments concerning Christians and lip service, and used the phrase as well as "mainstream Christian" in my reply. I would like to clarify that my comments were in response to fatboys and what he had written earlier. I did write, "Contrary to what has often been posted here by LDS about our beliefs, we DO believe that faith and works go together." If by writing this it seemed to imply that all LDS posters here thought that mainstream Christians thought that only lip service was required for salvation, that wasn't my intention. However, during the time that I have posted here that thought has been expressed by more LDS than just fatboys. Even so, I did not intend for my words to come across as a generalization.

In fact, the reason this thread appears to have become a focus on A New Dawn's beliefs is because this same LDS wants to understand her particular understanding of the subject matter related to the tangent of a tangent of a tangent to the OP. Once that third-tier tangential material is understood, the second tier can be addressed again, and so forth until we get back on-topic.

I only mentioned it because the tangent had been going on for so long that it seemed awkward going back to fatboys comment, even though I thought that doing so was relevant to the topic of this thread.

Thanks for explaining your views. Now, since I really feel that I have not only interupted the dialogue here, but that my comments have been misunderstood and unwelcome, I will try to step back from the discussion. Sorry for the interuption.

 

[TasteForTruth]

This seems to be directed at my comments,

Prompted by, yes, not directed at... It is the broader use of generalizations by any number of posters to which I refer. Your post did make me feel marginalized, but you'd been marginalized... The whole generalization situation frustrates me, not you personally. My apologies for coming across so direct. I just wanted everyone to remember that not everyone here plays that card (generalizing).

since I responded earlier today to fatboys comments concerning Christians and lip service, and used the phrase as well as "mainstream Christian" in my reply. I would like to clarify that my comments were in response to fatboys and what he had written earlier. I did write, "Contrary to what has often been posted here by LDS about our beliefs, we DO believe that faith and works go together." If by writing this it seemed to imply that all LDS posters here thought that mainstream Christians thought that only lip service was required for salvation, that wasn't my intention. However, during the time that I have posted here that thought has been expressed by more LDS than just fatboys. Even so, I did not intend for my words to come across as a generalization.

Thanks. I agree that plenty of LDS have generalized away Christian beliefs, positions, and attitudes. Whether some would believe it or not, it probably irritates me just as much as it irritates mainstream Christians. All it does it kill discussion (well, it does more than that... but hopefully you get what I'm saying).

I only mentioned it because the tangent had been going on for so long that it seemed awkward going back to fatboys comment, even though I thought that doing so was relevant to the topic of this thread.

Yes, I believe that your post was more on-topic than my recent back-and-forth with A New Dawn. I was just trying to explain to everyone (again, prompted by your post, not intending to shoot at you) why I had pursued the tangent so far. It really was heading someplace! I think it had died before your post, so you needn't feel that I felt you'd killed it. I didn't and don't.

Thanks for explaining your views. Now, since I really feel that I have not only interupted the dialogue here, but that my comments have been misunderstood and unwelcome, I will try to step back from the discussion. Sorry for the interuption.

No, don't do that. I am not mad at you, nor do I want you to back out. I would gladly respond to your comments (as far back as the first or second page), and would have long ago, if I really felt that you were looking for a response from someone other than Fatboys. I certainly have a view to share there...

 

[skylark1]

Prompted by, yes, not directed at... It is the broader use of generalizations by any number of posters to which I refer. Your post did make me feel marginalized, but you'd been marginalized... The whole generalization situation frustrates me, not you personally. My apologies for coming across so direct. I just wanted everyone to remember that not everyone here plays that card (generalizing).

I'm sorry that my post caused you to feel marginalized. It wasn't my intention to claim that every LDS who posts here thinks a certain way. My comments were directed towards that who have posted certain comments. (I think that I am starting to repeat myself.) If I had meant all LDS, then I would have worded my comment "contrary to what has been posted by all LDS here..." It might have been better had I worded my comment along the lines of "contrary to what has been posted here by some LDS...." I guess that I just thought that the "some" was implied without directly stating it. Again, I am sorry for the misunderstanding.

Thanks. I agree that plenty of LDS have generalized away Christian beliefs, positions, and attitudes. Whether some would believe it or not, it probably irritates me just as much as it irritates mainstream Christians. All it does it kill discussion (well, it does more than that... but hopefully you get what I'm saying).

I understand.

Yes, I believe that your post was more on-topic than my recent back-and-forth with A New Dawn. I was just trying to explain to everyone (again, prompted by your post, not intending to shoot at you) why I had pursued the tangent so far. It really was heading someplace! I think it had died before your post, so you needn't feel that I felt you'd killed it. I didn't and don't.

Well, I do kind of feel that way. I really didn't intend to kill the thread!

No, don't do that. I am not mad at you, nor do I want you to back out. I would gladly respond to your comments (as far back as the first or second page), and would have long ago, if I really felt that you were looking for a response from someone other than Fatboys. I certainly have a view to share there...

I was hoping that Fatboys would respond. The reason why I posted was because I think that he misunderstands what mainstream Christians believe, and rather than him continuing to believe something that I think most Christians would disagree with, I wanted to help him better understand. At church yesterday, I thought that something said in the sermon (or even knowing the subject of the sermon) might help.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I was hoping that Fatboys would respond. The reason why I posted was because I think that he misunderstands what mainstream Christians believe, and rather than him continuing to believe something that I think most Christians would disagree with, I wanted to help him better understand. At church yesterday, I thought that something said in the sermon (or even knowing the subject of the sermon) might help.

I was perplexed not too long ago when Fatboys failed to respond to one of my own replies to him. Instead, TasteforTruth and other LDS decided to respond instead. As much as I might value their input, I do feel it to be a discourtesy when a poster fails to respond to a post addressed to him. TasteforTruth, to his great credit, never fails in that regard.

 

[TasteForTruth]

Speaking for CF as to the purpose of Unorthodox Theology, this forum is designated as the place to discuss those topics that conflict with the Nicene Creed, and for discussion of topics related to church institutions that hold beliefs that run counter to the Nicene Creed. That means that in this forum, one may discuss universalism, annihilationism, nestorianism, as well as topics related to LDS theology and JW theology, etc.

What I am referring to is not mere discussion of groups or doctrines or institutions. What I am referring to is the "unfair burden" placed upon members of specific religious groups by the "point blank" style in which individual forum members address them. I am speaking about putting "unorthodox group under the microscope of debate"—something specifically mentioned and stated as undesirable by Admin:

The UT sub-forums were inaccurately being seen as both safe havens for specific groups (which was never the intent when creating them), and as a place to focus on said groups and address them at point blank range (also not something we envision here for CF.) This in turn made the areas more like turfs to be protected at all costs, which is also not a fair burden to put upon any group in here. By unifying the area we hope to remove these unfortunate outcomes and not put any one unorthodox group under the microscope of debate alone, but allow discussion and debate to exist in a more general way from now on. source
​

I continue to believe that my point is valid and has not yet been addressed in its context. In fact, your speaking on behalf of CF has not instilled in me much confidence that the restructure has yet sunk into the heart or psyche of those who are responsible to enforce it.

For myself, personally, I do not believe that it is my place to judge what may or may not be in a person's heart, but as this is the place to discuss unorthodox theology, that is what I am here to discuss. It is best to not confuse the two. One may be Christian and still believe things that are in conflict with the creed, and addressing those issues does not correlate to believing that someone who holds those beliefs is not a Christian.

That is fine, but appealing again to your status, doesn't it seem to you to be a conflict of interest to participate in a thread whose OP seeks to discuss what is actually a violation of the rules? AKA, whether or not someone is a true Christian? Or are discussions only violations when the topic is who is and who is not a "mere" Christian?

Just seems that your comments opened a can of worms, rather than explain how liberally you personally feel about the "who is/who isn't Christian" question. Just my two cents.

 

[TasteForTruth]

I'm sorry that my post caused you to feel marginalized. It wasn't my intention to claim that every LDS who posts here thinks a certain way. My comments were directed towards that who have posted certain comments. (I think that I am starting to repeat myself.) If I had meant all LDS, then I would have worded my comment "contrary to what has been posted by all LDS here..." It might have been better had I worded my comment along the lines of "contrary to what has been posted here by some LDS...." I guess that I just thought that the "some" was implied without directly stating it. Again, I am sorry for the misunderstanding.

And I for my over-sensitivity to being generalized with all other LDS posters.

Well, I do kind of feel that way. I really didn't intend to kill the thread!

I was actually speaking about the death of my tangent of a tangent of a tangent, not the thread itself. I don't think the thread is dead yet.

I was hoping that Fatboys would respond. The reason why I posted was because I think that he misunderstands what mainstream Christians believe, and rather than him continuing to believe something that I think most Christians would disagree with, I wanted to help him better understand. At church yesterday, I thought that something said in the sermon (or even knowing the subject of the sermon) might help.

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).

 

[A New Dawn]

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).

In order to generalize, there actually has to be people who feel the way he described, and a rather large number of them. I doubt that there are any who do feel as he described, so he can't be generalizing. So he is either misunderstanding or leaning on many of the church's old(?) teachings about what mainstream Christians believe. As I showed, his statement about lip service is not all that different from JS's claim that we speak of Him with our lips but our hearts are far from Him. In fact, they are identical in meaning.

 

[A New Dawn]

What I am referring to is not mere discussion of groups or doctrines or institutions. What I am referring to is the "unfair burden" placed upon members of specific religious groups by the "point blank" style in which individual forum members address them. I am speaking about putting "unorthodox group under the microscope of debate"—something specifically mentioned and stated as undesirable by Admin:

The UT sub-forums were inaccurately being seen as both safe havens for specific groups (which was never the intent when creating them), and as a place to focus on said groups and address them at point blank range (also not something we envision here for CF.) This in turn made the areas more like turfs to be protected at all costs, which is also not a fair burden to put upon any group in here. By unifying the area we hope to remove these unfortunate outcomes and not put any one unorthodox group under the microscope of debate alone, but allow discussion and debate to exist in a more general way from now on. source
​

I continue to believe that my point is valid and has not yet been addressed in its context. In fact, your speaking on behalf of CF has not instilled in me much confidence that the restructure has yet sunk into the heart or psyche of those who are responsible to enforce it.

TfT, this is a discussion board. It is a discussion/debate forum. It is a discussion/debate forum for theology. What else do you want to discuss? The quote by the advisor was in regards to the subforums that we had for the specific faiths set up in here. It was in the subforums where it was looking like a battleground fighting over turf. Bringing the discussions back out into the main UTD forum was to intermingle the discussions amongst the general unorthodox beliefs so it wasn't so narrowly focused, like in the subforum. It wan't meant to say that LDS or JW beliefs wouldn't be discussed anymore. The way it is now is the way it was before the subforums were created.

That is fine, but appealing again to your status, doesn't it seem to you to be a conflict of interest to participate in a thread whose OP seeks to discuss what is actually a violation of the rules? AKA, whether or not someone is a true Christian? Or are discussions only violations when the topic is who is and who is not a "mere" Christian?

Just seems that your comments opened a can of worms, rather than explain how liberally you personally feel about the "who is/who isn't Christian" question. Just my two cents.

What is a "mere" Christian? I'm not sure I understand what that question means.

But surely you have to understand that there was a lot of your church history that was built on the foundation that we (mainstream Christians) are not really Christians. It's not like it's not common knowledge that JS said that God said that we are just paying lip service (as fatboys also acknowledged). And it's not like the church ever renounced that vision as not true, or folklore, or anything, which means that it is open for discussion. The Catholic church also holds a similar position in which it says it knows where the church is, but it doesn't know where it isn't. All they can be sure of is that it is in the Catholic Church. That gets discussed, too, in GT.

Your church/beliefs are not under any closer scrutiny than any other church's beliefs or teachings. Just take a stroll around the board and see how it's not confined to UTD. What is your goal in this line of questioning? Do you want to make LDS beliefs/teachings off-limits to discussion?

 

[fatboys]

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.

Sorry I missed this one. Then why are LDS hammmmmmmmeeeerrrrreedd to death about salvation requiring faith and works?

 

[fatboys]

I was perplexed not too long ago when Fatboys failed to respond to one of my own replies to him. Instead, TasteforTruth and other LDS decided to respond instead. As much as I might value their input, I do feel it to be a discourtesy when a poster fails to respond to a post addressed to him. TasteforTruth, to his great credit, never fails in that regard.

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.

 

[A New Dawn]

Sorry I missed this one. Then why are LDS hammmmmmmmeeeerrrrreedd to death about salvation requiring faith and works?

Because there are two ways something is required. One is up-front, the other is after-the-fact. The LDS require things up-front. One can't be saved if they don't do certain things. Or to rephrase it, certain things are required before salvation is given. One has to be baptized by a member of the LDS priesthood and be a member of the LDS church. Those are up-front requirements. After-the-fact requirements are not requirements for God, they are only requirements for us, and only in the loosest sense. They are requirements we put on ourselves out of gratitude for the gift God has given us.

 

[TasteForTruth]

TfT, this is a discussion board. It is a discussion/debate forum. It is a discussion/debate forum for theology. What else do you want to discuss?

Why is it that you boil the content of my point away to make it seem like I have something against discussion? Stop with the strawman assertions! I do not appreciate it! Do you really not understand the difference between "discussing religion" and "placing those of a specific religious group under a figurative microscope"? This is not my language. This is not my idea. This is a CF Admin's idea and language. I understand what is being described and I continue to see it. Apparently you do not. Either that or you consider what the other Admin describes as equal to "discussion," which I would find flabbergasting and unsurprising at he same time. But I can only repeat the point so many times. So I withdraw the point!

What is a "mere" Christian? I'm not sure I understand what that question means.

A nominal Christian. A Christian by self-identification.

But surely you have to understand that there was a lot of your church history that was built on the foundation that we (mainstream Christians) are not really Christians.

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'."

It's not like it's not common knowledge that JS said that God said that we are just paying lip service (as fatboys also acknowledged). And it's not like the church ever renounced that vision as not true, or folklore, or anything, which means that it is open for discussion. The Catholic church also holds a similar position in which it says it knows where the church is, but it doesn't know where it isn't. All they can be sure of is that it is in the Catholic Church. That gets discussed, too, in GT.

Your church/beliefs are not under any closer scrutiny than any other church's beliefs or teachings. Just take a stroll around the board and see how it's not confined to UTD. What is your goal in this line of questioning? Do you want to make LDS beliefs/teachings off-limits to discussion?

Please stop with your strawman interpretations of what I want. You have not yet even understood my point. How, then, can you possibly presume to know what I want?

No matter. Neither of us wants this dead-end discussion to continue on its present and infinitely irritating course. As I said above, I wholly withdraw the point.

 

[Ran77]

No, what God told Joseph about religion... is not an easy pill for man to swallow.

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.

 

[TasteForTruth]

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 forget—or never even consider—that 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.

 

[skylark1]

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.

For example?