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.
Softspoken gave an excellent correction of your misunderstanding. I have tried to do that as well.
If you believe that Mormons believe this passage from D&C that you have quoted,...
Granted, a "restoration" (of Christ's original Bible-teachings) is necessary;sk8joyful,
Since Mormonism teaches, that it is a restoration
of Christ's original teachings of the Bible
Skylark,
I find that title heinous. I agree with you that Phoebe's title is relatively benign compared to your example. If such sensationalism is considered normal here, perhaps I am in the wrong place. I thought this was supposed to be a place of discussion, not a place where Tabloid headlines dominate.
I hear you, and sympathize. However, I would much rather have a more scholarly discussion, than waste times with tabloid discussions.
I disagree. I think if she was honest, she would tell you that she has a real bitterness toward Mormonism. Perhaps I am wrong, but her distortions sound like they come from a person bitter toward Mormonism, IMO. If she is here to discuss a theological point, I have yet to figure out what it was, and she has been unwilling to answer that question. She has been evasive about her motives for posting this topic, and I think that is very telling. She doesn't want to tell us her motives. Instead of answering my question directly, she uses misdirection:
By this evasion, it seems quite apparent that her purpose is to show the error of the Mormon belief system, and she is not here to discuss theological points. Otherwise, she would not avoid answering the question. If her motives were pure, it should be an easy question to answer, and she would have already shown me the erroneous judgments I may have made about her. (I would have apologized as I did before.) However, her evasiveness seems to indicate that I have hit the mark.
I think I have been very honest about my motives here: I don't like it when people distort Mormon beliefs, and I don't like hypocrisy. I am not ashamed to admit that, and I do want to expose dishonest and evasive answers. I want to have real discussions on religion, not tabloid garbage.
Fortunately, GOD (not mere humanity) is our Creator, Father , SAVIOR , Best-friend & Resurrector &
when one of His human-creations accepts & follows... GOD in these relationships, we are assured Eternal-life with GOD.
(No-where in the Christian-bible, will you find GOD's command to "accept mormonism", for Eternal-life with GOD.)
I believe that God's human creations accept God by submitting to His will. I believe that a person can only submit to God's will in the fullest sense and meaning when they accept what He has most recently commanded. I believe that God restored the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in these last days, and that it is incumbent upon all people to recognize His voice in that Restoration and submit to it. I do not believe God is the Bible, nor do I believe that the composite of all that He has to reveal to His children is contained therein.
Can LDS be members in good standing while rejecting their own scripture? I never heard an LDS say that he only believes some of the Doctrine and Covenants. It makes no sense to me at all. How could he believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God if some of what J. S. claimed was revelation from God in reality was not revelation from God?If you believe that Mormons believe this passage from D&C that you have quoted,...
If you believe that Mormons believe this passage from D&C that you have quoted, have you ever heard it quoted in ANY LDS church meeting that you have attended? If so, was it presented with the same interpretation that you are putting forth here?
What should I conclude regarding this?
Another example of ignoring context?
Or a diversionary tactic to avoid answering what was being asked?
What should I conclude regarding this?
Another example of ignoring context?
Or a diversionary tactic to avoid answering what was being asked?
We also derive these truths from the Bible.I think that one of the main differences between LDS and non-LDS is what each regards as a sufficient guide to eternal life.
For us, we believe that the Bible tells us that Christ is the only way, that He fully paid for the sins of believers, and that the Bible is a sufficient guide for instruction in righteousness. The Bible says that Christ makes His abode with believers and the Holy Spirit is given to them to remind them of truth, to empower them, and to know what God has freely given them.
It is not our conclusion that the Bible is insufficient. It is a revealtion from God that makes us to know that many things have been removed from it, and that this was done at the behest of the adversary to cause many to stumble. I believe that when God reveals a word to man, rejecting that word is equal to accepting insufficiency. Up until 1829, the Bible was not insufficient, for it was all that God had given men (collectively). But now God has given more, and to accept only that which was previously given is indeed insufficient.But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.
Titus 3:4-5
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1 Corinthians 2:12-14
Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
2 Corinthians 1:21-22
LDS teaching is that the Bible alone is an insufficient guide and that some who read it might stumble and come under the power of Satan because many covenants have been removed from it by men.
Nephi testified that the Bible once “contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record” and that “after [the words] go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away” (1 Nephi 13:24, 26).
Did you notice who the apostle said had no excuse?Boyd K. Packer, “Who Is Jesus Christ?,” Ensign, March 2008, 12–19
There is an overwhelming lack of understanding in the world in relation to these principles of salvation and exaltation given to prepare mankind for a place in the kingdom of God, and this lack causes many to stumble. There is no excuse on the part of members of the Church, for they have received the necessary revelation directly from the heavens in this Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. The great mission of the Son of God has been revealed in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants more clearly than any other place. Many passages that have been misunderstood, and therefore mistranslated in the Bible, are clarified in these sacred volumes.
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957-1966], 4:.)
LDS Living
...because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.
I believe that a person should accept whatever God reveals.Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 13:29
Satan certainly wants people to stumble. On this LDS and Protestants can agree. Should a person be required to do more than what is set forth in the Bible or should a person not have added more commandments to those already revealed?
Again, the man of God in ages past was required to accept what God had revealed in his age. In this age, God has given the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants. They are for all men. (D&C 1:2) Therefore I conclude that the man of God today will be thoroughly furnished unto all good works by accepting and becoming one with all that God has given us today.All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Timothy 3:16
Can the man of God be thoroughly furnished unto all good works through biblical instruction, or must he also follow the Doctrine and Covenants?
If you are equating salvation with exaltation, yes.The Doctrine and Covenants instructs men to do temple work, to achieve eternal families, that there are degrees of glory, etc. Are these teachings pertinent to one's salvation?
I believe an exceedingly great many have and do continue to stumble.The LDS would say they are. Without these teachings, they say "an exceedingly great many do stumble."
Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.
I know.Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 29:10
I do not believe that the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, or the Doctrine and Covenants are revelations from God.
I have.I have never met anyone who believes "God is the Bible," as you implied above.
I know.The Bible did not die for our sins!
Well, let's look at the verse in context:The Elders are to leave a CURSING instead of a blessing, Now I would NOT consider this good example of "turning the other cheek."
Would you? Anyone?
Rufus
It is not our conclusion that the Bible is insufficient. It is a revealtion from God that makes us to know that many things have been removed from it, and that this was done at the behest of the adversary to cause many to stumble.
Again, the man of God in ages past was required to accept what God had revealed in his age. In this age, God has given the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants. They are for all men.
Up until 1829, the Bible was not insufficient...
It is not our conclusion that the Bible is insufficient.
Well, let's look at the verse in context:
"And in whatsoever place ye shall enter, and they receive you not in my name, ye shall leave a cursing instead of a blessing, by casting off the dust of your feet against them as a testimony, and cleansing your feet by the wayside." (D&C 24:15)
Now let's compare it to what Christ taught in his mortal ministry:
"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.The land of Sodom and Gomorrah were consumed by fire. The first-century apostles were not instructed to witness against men for striking them, but for not receiving them or hearing their words. The form of their witness against such was to shake off the dust of their feet. The effect of this witness, as per the Savior's word, was not a blessing. It was a judgment worse than that received by the land of Sodom and Gomorrha. I would say that is a curse.
In modern times, Christ has repeated that the elders invoke this same witness, in the same manner. If what the Elders do today is contrary to Christ's teachings, then what Christ instructed the apostles of ancient times to do was also against Christ's teachings. Feel free to show me where I have either misunderstood your words, or the words of NT scripture.
I don't know that it is anyone's conclusion, other than maybe yours. I have stated clearly that I believe it is insufficient to accept less that all that God has revealed. And we cannot accept that of which we are not aware. So any person who possesses only the Bible, knowing nothing of any other common revelation from God, studies that Bible, accepts the witness of Christ it contains, and does all that it otherwise teachessuch a person will in no wise lose his reward.So whose conclusion is it and do you believe that conclusion?
I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.
And it was. Christ first taught that truth (as far as has been recorded anyway) to the Israelites:Joseph Smith
The Book of Mormon says that an exceedingly great many do stumble and come under Satan's power. Why? " ...because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them." (Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 13:29)
I asked, "Can the man of God be thoroughly furnished unto all good works through biblical instruction, or must he also follow the Doctrine and Covenants?"
Your reply:
Joseph Smith claimed that it was God's conclusion.
Yes, I am.Phoebe Ann said:Are you saying that rejecting Mormonism is rejecting God (fully or in part)?
I mean in this dispensation... this generation... this age... and yes, I am referring to that which was revealed to Joseph Smith."In modern times..." Do you mean what J. Smith said?
Well what do you believe that receiving a judgment worse than that received by Sodom and Gomorrha is? Is it a blessing? Is it a curse? Is it neither? What is it to you?Believe me I understand the dusting off of the feet, but no where do I read where Jesus told us to leave anybody with a cursing.
Of course it does. But they are two separate teachings with two different purposes. When facing rejection of their testimony of Christ, they most certainly were not to engage in violence. They were to turn the other cheek as previously taught and, after they had departed, shake off the dust from their feet. I don't see how following the Lord's instructions to dust off one's feet is a violation of the injunction to turn the other cheek.I stand by what I said, that we are to turn the other cheek. Also, what about loving our neighbor as ourselves? Does that play into the equation?
The instruction in that passage is clearly to LDS missionaries. It would not be presented to church members in general in meetings or classes where non-LDS might be present. Does that make it non-scripture?
What kind of question is this? Conclude what ever you want to conclude.
What are you talking about? She posted pretty much the entire 84Th section of your D&C. How much context do you want? The entire Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints?
I find it very sad that you feel this way.
Christians of any denomination do not reject God, but accept Him and His call to come to Christ. I consider them to be by brothers and sisters in Christ. That we might not agree on all issues would never lead me to say that they reject 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?