If you reject the LDS message...

[A New Dawn]

Apparently Phoebe has no qualms about assigning Hindus and Muslims to damnation. Clearly, these 2 groups "believe not". Yet when she reads D&C 84 and assumes the label of damnation must be applied to herself (because apparently she has rejected the LDS missionaries), she apparently finds that distasteful, and worthy of pointing out that Mormons apparently think every non-LDS person is assigned damnation if they simply reject the missionaries.

It is not my place to judge, and I can back that up with scripture. Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, that ye be not judged."

It is not my place to judge whether someone has rejected God's messengers. God can decide that. God knows who will be damned, not Phoebe, Rufus, I, or anyone else. God will assign damnation to whoever he feels has rejected his messengers. Assigning damnation to Hindus should be just as distasteful as assigning damnation to a non-LDS Christian. It is not Phoebe's place to judge damnation to herself, Hindus, or any other person. It is God's job, and God's alone.

The difference between PA's position and yours is that Christ, himself, said that salvation is based on faith on Him. Muslims and Hindus don't believe on Christ, or they'd be Christian, not Muslim or Hindu. The LDS position (or, if further clarification is needed, the position of section 84) is that other believers in Christ are not saved, not just those who don't believe in Christ, but those who do believe in Christ but not in the LDS gospel.

I'm not real sure why you are not recognizing the difference in the situations here.

 

[mormonheretic]

The LDS position (or, if further clarification is needed, the position of section 84) is that other believers in Christ are not saved,

I know that seems to be the common perception here, but can you point to a specific verse that states this caveat in any of the verses that Phoebe quoted?

I think it bears repeating again. "Judge Not, that ye be not judged."

 

[sk8Joyful]

All the prophecies of the OT (in fact, all of everything in the OT) looked forward to/pointed to Christ. In the NT, Christ was God's greatest revelation to us.
When the greatest revelation has been revealed, what is left to reveal? And why would God hold back part of his revelation so that everyone all through history is deprived of that knowledge?
There is a word for especial revelation that is not revealed to everyone - gnosis. That type of revelation/belief was rejected very early on in Christianity. God's message of salvation is for everyone, not a very small select group.

also Well said! Thank you.

 

[SoftSpoken]

I don't know.

Could you help me understand why you don't know?

I'm sorry, somehow I missed seeing your post earlier.

It's OK.

I'm not sure that we can assume that if this man stayed on his present course, that everthing else would stay the same. I think that it is important in answering this to consider that in the account of this parable in the Gospel of Mark, chapter 10, that the following is included:

27Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."
​

At this point in time Jesus had not yet suffered, died for our sins, and rose from the dead. That does matter.

It is also worth noting that although the man did not sell his property, he also did not heed Christ's invitation to, "Come and follow me."

21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
​

I'm not sure that I would say that he failed to inherit eternal life because he did not love God enough, rather than he failed to follow Christ. I confess that I have failed to love God with all of heart, all of my soul, all of my heart, and all of my strength. I fall short. We all do. But if we put our faith in Christ, repent, and follow Him, He will forgive us, and we will inherit eternal life.

I, too, have failed to love God with all my heart. Conversion is a is a life-long process for us. And I know that there is no way we can know the outcome of this man. I was trying my best to present a hypothetical situation that would highlight my point of view about rejection of God's commandments.

There are Christians who have rejected the LDS gospel who love God. Their love for God is not less because they are not LDS.

I am not suggesting that these people do not love God less, only that they do not love Him as much as they could through acceptance of His word today.

I think that one way that we show God that we love Him is by loving others. And that transcends religious denominations.

1 John 4
7Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. 9 In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. 10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
​

I agree. I cannot, however, see how the rejection of God's commandments (as in not accepting them, nor making any attempt to keep them) can be negated by loving one's neighbor. The OP is about rejection, not about failure to love, or failure to be perfect.

God bless.
SoftSpoken

 

[SoftSpoken]

All the prophecies of the OT (in fact, all of everything in the OT) looked forward to/pointed to Christ. In the NT, Christ was God's greatest revelation to us. When the greatest revelation has been revealed, what is left to reveal?

Nothing, so long as that revelation were never defiled. I believe it was, and apparently so did God. That's my position.

And why would God hold back part of his revelation so that everyone all through history is deprived of that knowledge?

Why does it matter if those who were deprived of it in life will have it in death?

There is a word for especial revelation that is not revealed to everyone - gnosis. That type of revelation/belief was rejected very early on in Christianity. God's message of salvation is for everyone, not a very small select group.

The Restoration has been revealed to everyone. Those who reject it like to claim that they are excluded by others, when the reality is that they exclude themselves by the power of their own will. You can get the public revelation here: http://scriptures.lds.org

 

[RufustheRed]

Rufus, I asked you to summarize, rather than restate. I'll do my best to read between the lines and summarize what it appears that you think is relevant in the OP. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding something. I noticed you underlined the following verse from the D&C, so it appears to me you found this particularly important.

95 Wo, I say again, unto that house, or that village or city that rejecteth you, or your words, or your testimony of me;

Phoebe responded,

Phoebe's response appeared to me to be a "intentional misrepresentation" of what I said. I clarified it in the next message when I said,

(Note Phoebe never responded as to whether she felt Hindus are damned. Since she says she believes the Bible completely, I can only surmise that this is her position, since she avoids answering questions directly.)

Now Rufus, which sounds worse: the biblical curse that unbelievers "shall be damned", or the verse in the D&C which says Wo, I say again, unto that house, or that village or city that rejecteth you, or your words, or your testimony of me; "?

Personally, I'd rather have "wo" than be damned (though they're both really bad.) How about you Rufus? So, once again, the distortion here is to look at the D&C verse and say that non-LDS are in "a lot of trouble" without looking at the biblical verse verse and saying "he that believeth not shall be damned."

As Zechariah said, (and Phoebe as a former member somehow forgot), it is not our place to judge--it is God's place.

Phoebe apparently feels that this D&C scripture states that rejecting LDS missionaries automatically consigns her to damnation, and it appears she finds that distasteful.

Apparently Phoebe has no qualms about assigning Hindus and Muslims to damnation. Clearly, these 2 groups "believe not". Yet when she reads D&C 84 and assumes the label of damnation must be applied to herself (because apparently she has rejected the LDS missionaries), she apparently finds that distasteful, and worthy of pointing out that Mormons apparently think every non-LDS person is assigned damnation if they simply reject the missionaries.

It is not my place to judge, and I can back that up with scripture. Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, that ye be not judged."

It is not my place to judge whether someone has rejected God's messengers. God can decide that. God knows who will be damned, not Phoebe, Rufus, I, or anyone else. God will assign damnation to whoever he feels has rejected his messengers. Assigning damnation to Hindus should be just as distasteful as assigning damnation to a non-LDS Christian. It is not Phoebe's place to judge damnation to herself, Hindus, or any other person. It is God's job, and God's alone.

Here is what I see, we agree that it is God's "job," if you will, to judge people. Therefore, it is NOT ours. To knock the dust off our feet is to not be personally infected with whatever afflicted those people with who one has tried to share the Gospel with. To pronounce a cursing on someone, is to assume the responsibility or "job" of God. God and God only, is the one authorized (the LDS usually like that word) to judge or "curse" another person or people.
I can only see that, according to the D & C, Mr. Smith has consigned the job of cursing to the missionaries. I read nowhere where in the Biblical texts that God gives up His responsibility of judging people.

Do you see my point? I do not believe that the same Jesus who said that the second greatest commandment was to love your neighbor as you love yourself (Matthew 22:39) AND who said to turn the other cheek (Luke 6:29), would also tell a believer to leave a cursing on someone else.

The one thing that I DO believe is that we should follow the words of Jesus Christ. I do NOT believe that the word in the Doctrine and Covenants are the words of Jesus Christ (surprised? )

I do not want to speak for you, Phoebe Ann, Fatboys, Resty or Skylark. That, my LDS friend, is not my job. However, perhaps the reason you did not get a response from Phoebe Ann, is that it is not her job to consign people to hell, so why would you even ask?

It used to be that other members exscoriated Phoebe Ann for posting parts of LDS scripture without editorial comment, now it appears that she is being excoriated for giving comment. Sadly, this appears to be a no win world - LDS on one side and the orthodox Christians on the other. Please note, that the other regular non-LDS posters on this forum do NOT concur with your evaluation.

Perhaps your disdain for Phoebe Ann as a person is affecting your objectivity. At least that is the way it appears from here.

Hopefully, I'll have no further comments on your vendetta against Phoebe Ann or any other Christian you deem worth of such ire. I would just love to discuss theology, not psychology (delving into the minds of others to assign motives for their posts).

Please let's just discuss theology, doctrine, dogma, etc. instead of people. The latter is so unbecoming of people who claim to be Christian.

Rufus

 

[RufustheRed]

I know that seems to be the common perception here, but can you point to a specific verse that states this caveat in any of the verses that Phoebe quoted?

PLEASE! This thread is not ABOUT Phoebe Ann. It is about "If you reject the LDS message..."

I think it bears repeating again. "Judge Not, that ye be not judged."

Then STOP!

 

[RufustheRed]

I don't disagree with it myself, but let's not deflect the topic at hand. This isn't about whether or not a person chooses to accept God's commandments and is unable to keep them with perfection. This is about people rejecting God's commandments in the first place.

Is it? I think that we can reduce it even further. I think that it about determining what God's commandment are. If we reject what many say are "God's commandments, e.g. the D & C, BOM, POGP, we are left with the Bible. Then what are His commandments? What is required to be saved? Let's try Matthew 22:37-39 (in the Bible) "

37 And He said to him, “ ‘aYou shall love the Lord your God with
all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’
38 “This is the great and 1foremost commandment.
39 “The second is like it, ‘aYou shall love your neighbor as
yourself.’ (NASB)​

a Deut 6:5; 1 Or first; a Lev 19:18; Matt 19:19; Gal 5:14

New American Standard Bible

It appears that there are others who want to add that. If we reject the writings of Joseph Smith , Jr., we can cut away a lot of stuff that Jesus did not think was necessary. I can only say, "Thank you, Jesus! Thank you for this and thank you for saving my soul."

Rufus

 

[RufustheRed]

"Ticked off?" "Garments all in a bunch?" Gee - did you see any bold red letters or giant text?

Did not need to. I can read words. You needn't use embellishments to show your disdain. I apologize about the garment statement. I meant to say that you were getting your "bloomers" in a bunch. Sorry.

And clearly you missed the point. I am accustomed to Phoebe not answering questions. That was not at issue. What I was addressing was cutting a piece from a sentence, as if that piece was a stand alone statement, which it certainly was not, and running off with it, while completely ignoring the content of what had been written.

I didn't miss the point. The point was about Phoebe Ann. It was not about the topic of this thread. If you don't like how she posts, ignore it, do not post to the thread, go play golf or watch the Jazz play the Lakers, or go mow your lawn. Nobody is asking or telling you to come here and discuss Phoebe Ann. I'm getting a little wary of saying this but, this is a place to discuss LDS and Mormon beliefs and doctrines. It is NOT a place to discuss people's posting styles, their motivation or how many children we have. Why is it so difficult to stay on topic? Paul said, I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." (Philippians 4:13, KJV).

Or, were you so focused on finding fault with me, that you didn't happen to notice that Phoebe's use of that lone, out of context, snippet completely changed the meaning?

The only fault that I could find was that you expect something different from the non-LDS than you do the LDS.

I guess you also didn't notice that her "answer" (if that's what you actually want to call it) was completely unrelated to what mormonheritic wrote and was asking about.

First inclination should be to ask her if she understood the question, politely, if you believe that she was so off base. Second inclination would be to ask the person who asked the question if he was satisfied with the response. Perhaps YOU didn't understand the question. The third would be to answer MY questions of you considering you are so worried about mormonheretic's posts and input. That would take your mind off someone else's issues.

Well, I hope that you have a nice week.

Ol' Rufus the Red

 

[Rescued One]

I think it bears repeating again. "Judge Not, that ye be not judged."

It is very ironic that you say "Judge Not." I did not judge anyone. I said that faith in Christ is a requirement for eternal life. Is a Muslim or Hindu a Christian? I didn't try to cover up the teachings of Christianity. I do not curse non-Christians. I do not wash my feet as a testimony against them. I pray for their conversion.

If Muslims, Hindus, pagans, atheists, or Methodists reject the LDS message, what instruction does D&C give the missionaries?

 

[Rescued One]

Phoebe apparently feels that this D&C scripture states that rejecting LDS missionaries automatically consigns her to damnation, and it appears she finds that distasteful.

My name isn't in the D&C.

Apparently Phoebe has no qualms about assigning Hindus and Muslims to damnation. Clearly, these 2 groups "believe not".

I'm not in charge of anyone's eternal destiny! For that I am very grateful.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Matthew 5:44

Yet when she reads D&C 84 and assumes the label of damnation must be applied to herself (because apparently she has rejected the LDS missionaries), she apparently finds that distasteful, and worthy of pointing out that Mormons apparently think every non-LDS person is assigned damnation if they simply reject the missionaries.

This is not about what I think Mormons think. We are talking about LDS scripture. This certainly isn't about me. You may secretly curse me all you want and if you choose not to, that's fine with me, too.

It is not my place to judge whether someone has rejected God's messengers. God can decide that.

Your scripture does not tell God to wash his feet as a testimony against those who reject the LDS message. Nor does it instruct God to curse them.

Assigning damnation to Hindus should be just as distasteful as assigning damnation to a non-LDS Christian. It is not Phoebe's place to judge damnation to herself, Hindus, or any other person. It is God's job, and God's alone.

You are right. So what's your problem with my posts? Is it because they reveal LDS scripture?

 

[Zechariah]

Did not need to. I can read words. You needn't use embellishments to show your disdain.

If embellishments are not needed to show disdain, then you can stop decorating yours.

I apologize about the garment statement. I meant to say that you were getting your bloomers in a bunch. Sorry.

Thanks, but, while you may wear bloomers, I never have.

I didn't miss the point. The point was about Phoebe Ann. It was not about the topic of this thread.

As opposed to the multitude of barbs you've thrown in this thread that had nothing to do with the topic.

If you don't like how she posts, ignore it, do not post to the thread, go play golf or watch the Jazz play the Lakers, or go mow your lawn. Nobody is asking or telling you to come here and discuss Phoebe Ann. I'm getting a little wary of saying this but, this is a place to discuss LDS and Mormon beliefs and doctrines. It is NOT a place to discuss people's posting styles, their motivation or how many children we have. Why is it so difficult to stay on topic? Paul said, I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." (Philippians 4:13, KJV).

Well if you don't like how I post, then you should practice what you preach.

The only fault that I could find was that you expect something different from the non-LDS than you do the LDS.

Not at all. I expect the same, which, in this case, is not to take a snippet of what someone says out of context in order to play agenda games with it.

First inclination should be to ask her if she understood the question, politely, if you believe that she was so off base. Second inclination would be to ask the person who asked the question if he was satisfied with the response. Perhaps YOU didn't understand the question. The third would be to answer MY questions of you considering you are so worried about mormonheretic's posts and input. That would talk your mind off someone else's issues.

Well, I hope that you have a nice week.

Ol' Rufus the Red

Again, I am accustomed to Phoebe not answering questions. Again, that was not the issue.

Then STOP!

This was choice.

Do as you say, not as you do. I get it.

 

[RufustheRed]

If embellishments are not needed to show disdain, then you can stop decorating yours.

Thanks, but, while you may wear bloomers, I never have.

As opposed to the multitude of barbs you've thrown in this thread that had nothing to do with the topic.

Well if you don't like how I post, then you should practice what you preach.

Not at all. I expect the same, which, in this case, is not to take a snippet of what someone says out of context in order to play agenda games with it.

Again, I am accustomed to Phoebe not answering questions. Again, that was not the issue.

This was choice.

Do as you say, not as you do. I get it.

This post is totally off topic, therefore, I will not dignify any part of this post with any dialog.

Rufus

 

[RufustheRed]

Okay. Back on topic ... I hope. Based on Doctrine and Covenants 84:74-95, what happens if we reject the message of Joseph Smith, Jr. as stated?

Rufus

 

[A New Dawn]

The Restoration has been revealed to everyone. Those who reject it like to claim that they are excluded by others, when the reality is that they exclude themselves by the power of their own will. You can get the public revelation here: Scriptures

The problem is .......... The stuff that has been "revealed" in the restoration is stuff that has never been taught, and it contradicts what has been revealed in known scripture. When one is faced with conflicting revelation, and the HS hasn't seen fit to open their minds to the new (different) stuff, then it is kind of hard to follow it. It is, indeed, gnosis when an isolated group claims to hold the secrets of salvation, and makes them available to a small, select group of believers. Indeed, not even all within Mormonism are going to be saved.

The further problem with this is that Christ said that all that is necessary for salvation is faith on Him. He mentioned nothing about further requirements.

 

[Moodshadow]

The Restoration has been revealed to everyone. Those who reject it like to claim that they are excluded by others, when the reality is that they exclude themselves by the power of their own will.

"Those who reject it" would include a broad spectrum of folks, not necessarily limited to those who investigated Mormonism and decided not to join, as well as those of us who did join and later realized we had made a serious mistake and un-joined. I've been in the latter category for seven years now and have known many, many people in both - and the longer I'm out, the more I'm finding in both.

When you say we "like" to say we are excluded by others - who are these others? Members of the LDS church? Please elucidate. Thanks.

 

[Rescued One]

The Restoration has been revealed to everyone. Those who reject it like to claim that they are excluded by others, when the reality is that they exclude themselves by the power of their own will.

Moodshadow brought this to my attention with her response to you. I am not concerned so much about exclusion. We had LDS neighbors move in next door and I was asked to baby-sit their youngest. I wasn't excluded as a possible baby-sitter. I don't even care if LDS want to curse me or not curse me(I've been bought by the blood). Other LDS have not treated me as kindly. I'll live whether people include me or exclude me.

However, people must wonder why your scriptures say to curse the person who rejects Mormonism (free agency has nothing to do with this discussion). These scriptures that I posted from the D&C are not in keeping with how Christ told us to treat others (Christian or non-Christian). These verses do not say if they are Protestant or Catholic, curse them. If they are Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, or whatever, they are to be cursed for rejecting the LDS message.

 

[Rescued One]

The further problem with this is that Christ said that all that is necessary for salvation is faith on Him. He mentioned nothing about further requirements.

So if a person has faith in Christ, why must he be a Latter-day Saint person who has faith in Christ?

 

[A New Dawn]

I know that seems to be the common perception here, but can you point to a specific verse that states this caveat in any of the verses that Phoebe quoted?

How about right here in verse 74 (the first verse PA quoted)

74 Verily, verily, I say unto you, they who believe not on your words, and are not baptized in water in my name, for the remission of their sins, that they may receive the Holy Ghost, shall be damned, and shall not come into my Father’s kingdom where my Father and I am.

Is there something in this verse that suggests that there is any hope for anyone outside of Mormonism?

I think it bears repeating again. "Judge Not, that ye be not judged."

I don't think anyone here is judging. I think we are reading the scriptures for what they have to say. The Bible says that only those who believe on Christ will be saved. Repeating what something says is not judgmentalism. But, as noted earlier, with the LDS putting further restrictions on salvation than even Christ laid out, that is a whole 'nother ball park. You are taking those whom Christ said were already His, and telling them they are not good enough. So I'm still not seeing how you are not seeing that these situations are not even close to similar.

 

[SoftSpoken]

The problem is .......... The stuff that has been "revealed" in the restoration is stuff that has never been taught, and it contradicts what has been revealed in known scripture.

This is your opinion only. My opinion differs. I find no contradiction.

When one is faced with conflicting revelation, and the HS hasn't seen fit to open their minds to the new (different) stuff, then it is kind of hard to follow it.

And no one has suggested you act contrary to your conscience.

It is, indeed, gnosis when an isolated group claims to hold the secrets of salvation, and makes them available to a small, select group of believers. Indeed, not even all within Mormonism are going to be saved.

You are using the same argument against Mormonism that was used against the early Christians. That might just be the most wonderful thing I've heard in a long time. It is a compliment to my faith that is not easily topped. Absolutely no sarcasm there.

The further problem with this is that Christ said that all that is necessary for salvation is faith on Him. He mentioned nothing about further requirements.

There is no problem but with not accepting God whenever he speaks. In my opinion, anyway.