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.
Feel free to explain to me how it is you did not respond correctly when you in possession of the facts at the time of your response. I call them how I see them, but my opinions are subject to change. Care to help me find a reason to recant my statement?You show no respect when you call another CF member a liar.
And this is also the state of every accountable soul before he accepts the Restored Gospel. Same deal. Why is our position exclusionary and yours not?
You are not wrong in your assessment that there are consequences. If you are right that it is exclusionary, then so is every other Christian sect or belief system that believes these words of Christ:
"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (mark 16:15-16)And if that's the case, I sense a very serious double-standard.
Again, with all due respect, your original comment and question doe not come across as a mere sharing of information. I know that misunderstanding are easily had here, but I'm incline to believe this thread has gone the direction it was crafted to go.
Well, I'm not one to say that it should be that important to you personally, but I think the LDS viewpoint as to what it means and its relative importance should carry a great deal of weight.Phoebe Ann said:I did not mean that it was that secret. But how many non-LDS decide to read all of the Doctrine and Covenants even if they are online?
It is my observation that you have built a reputation for yourself of intentionally misrepresenting the LDS faith.
You are not wrong in your assessment that there are consequences. If you are right that it is exclusionary, then so is every other Christian sect or belief system that believes these words of Christ:"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (mark 16:15-16)And if that's the case, I sense a very serious double-standard.
. . . Christians don't have a problem one being reminded that if we fail to take advantage of the free gift of salvation which Christ has offered us in His grace, we will be damned; we knew that anyway, because there it is, stated in His Word, plain as day. What we do have a problem with is for Joseph Smith - or any other would-be prophet - to come along and change the plain and precious scriptures and change the very rules and requirements for eternal life, adding layer upon complicated layer of commandments, laws and ordinances along the way, and then tell us that oh-by-the-way, if we don't keep ALL these extraneous requirements, we are banned forever from our Father's kingdom.
Well it is not my point of view that it is exclusionary. I believe men exclude themselves by choice, based on what they will accept. But as it is your point of view that the LDS position is exclusionary, I was showing that it is no more or less exclusionary than any other Christian position. And now that we seem to see eye to eye on that, we can acknowledge together that since they are the same in the meaning of their position, the one difference between the two, as it pertains to you, is that in on one hand you number yourself among the included, and on the other you number yourself among the excluded—at least as things are currently. Would you say that's an accurate, yet general, summary of the measure of their repective exclusiveness?IF I'm right that it's exclusionary? Do you see any possible way that verse could be interpreted?
Which is why you don't accept it. No one has a problem with that (or at least shouldn't). Somehwere in there, though, you have lost sight of faith, mercy, charity, etc. Those are operative in my faith just as they are in yours. And I don't have a checklist on my fridge of all the things I have to do with perfection to be saved. I don't have a checklist anywhere. I just live my life as best I know how, with an assurance anchored in Christ that I am acceptable before God through him. And I have a witness in my soul that this will always be, so long as I remain repentant and submissive to Him. As I have said before, it is a source of sincere sorrow to me that your experience was so different.And yes, absolutely, Mark 16:16 says "he that believeth not shall be damned," as well, and "damned" is a very strong word indeed. CURSED, if you will, to an eternity without God. But here we are again at Square One: D&C vs the Holy Bible. The LDS church and its many offshoots are the only ones who believe the D&C to be scripture. Christians don't have a problem one being reminded that if we fail to take advantage of the free gift of salvation which Christ has offered us in His grace, we will be damned; we knew that anyway, because there it is, stated in His Word, plain as day. What we do have a problem with is for Joseph Smith - or any other would-be prophet - to come along and change the plain and precious scriptures and change the very rules and requirements for eternal life, adding layer upon complicated layer of commandments, laws and ordinances along the way, and then tell us that oh-by-the-way, if we don't keep ALL these extraneous requirements, we are banned forever from our Father's kingdom. Um...I don't think so.
I have not ignored that. It is simply not LDS doctrine, which is what this sub-forum is here to discuss. If there is anything being ignored day in and day out in this sub-forum it is that from the LDS point of view, it IS God who as given us the Restored Gospel, not Joseph Smith. Because you don't believe sobecause you view LDS theology from the outside looking in, with Protestant-colored glasses, if you willyou see it as "especial knowledge" that limits salvation to a few. As I said earlier. That is not the case. It is public knowledge available to and offered to all.Why is no one responding to the point that I have made several times (it has just been ignored) that there is a difference between salvation being limited (by God, not us, mind you) to those who believe on Christ (it is, after all, Christ who saves people, not Mohammad or Zeus, or any other false god or prophet), which is a Biblical teaching, and salvation being limited, not just by faith in Christ (as stated in the Bible), to members of a tiny sect who claims to have especial knowledge that limits who is eligible and who's not.
I've accused no one, to my knowledge, of being judgmental. I have pointed out that there exist various double-standards here when comparing the LDS faith to the orthodox Christian faith. The same scriptures that make the orthodox faith inclusionary are said to make the LDS faith exclusionary. That is what I have argued is occurring, and have aruged is unfair, and have pointed out as skewing the message of Mormonsim.Why do you keep claiming that it is us who are being judgmental because God has limited salvation to those who believe in Christ?
I have never said that orthodox Christianity is exclusionary. Others are making the claim that the LDS faith is exclusionary. I have said that both Gospels as taught are inclusionary, and that men exclude themselves, but that if LDS faith is exclusionary so must be orthodox Christianity, as they invoke the same Biblical commandments. Check the threadyou'll see.Why are you taking what God said "..... that whosoever believeth on Him (Christ) shall not die but have everlasting life", and adding to it to make it a very exclusionary gospel (see verse 74)? Why is it that you are telling those that God has already chosen and set His affections on that they are not worthy to live with Him for eternity, but are, in fact, damned?
I really don't know what you mean, and if you'd care to elaborate, I'm all ears. Otherwise, OK.I'm glad I don't have to control your thoughts.
No, you have not. What you have done enough times to warrant the comment is present your viewpoint as the LDS viewpoint.I don't believe I told you to not share your thoughts.
I will remind you that you asked me to make it about you in these two questions:It's my observation that you want to make this about character assassination instead of discussing the topic of the thread.
It is not possible for me to know the why in either case, except for how those questions pertain to me. They are not on-topic, but you asked them. I gave you my opinion and clearly stated it as such. If you don't want people to give their opinions about why people react to you a certain way, don't ask. I don't feel that I have taken any liberty that was not granted in your questions.And why did the topic receive such a reaction from your fellow LDS? Why did people want to know my motive for posting it?
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'm not discounting what you say, but I think far too often, people caricature Jesus into some sort of non-violent Ghandi or Mother Teresa. Jesus was polarizing. While he told us to love our neighbors, he also cursed Pharisees in Matt 23:23, "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" Most of chapter 23 is a rant by Jesus, polar opposite to his "bless them that curse you" Sermon on the Mount. Jesus could dress down probably better than anybody, which is why they crucified him. I think too many people have a 2-dimensional view of Jesus, and many seemingly forget his violent cleansing the temple episodes when focusing on the "love your neighbor" sermons.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.
No, not surprised. But it is interesting that some people seem to take great issue with who is in the "included/excluded" group if they don't believe in the D&C anyway.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?)
Well, apparently it is her job to point out that Mormons have "consign[ed] people to hell". My point in asking for a response was to show that she also does "consign people to hell", but apparently doesn't feel bad in the least, because it appears to me that Phoebe believes that God loves her type of believers more than Mormons or Hindus. I reject that proposition--God loves us all.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?
If we LDS are all wrong in concluding in any given thread that you're out to make us look bad, show us that you're not. A simple addition to a comment can make a world of difference.
The frequency with which I post varies. Sometimes I am able to post more, and others not. Misunderstandings will happen regardless of this frequency. I have been on both ends of more of them than I care to think about.I wish I could post more frequently like you do and clear up misunderstandings sooner, but my schedule does not allow that. Of course, you probably don't think much of my opinion, but I will extend a hand of cooperation and friendship anyway. I hope you accept my offer of greater civility. There's the saying that actions speak louder than words: In this case, words are our actions.
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.
Matt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Matt 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Matt 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Ooops.SoftSpoken, I was addressing Phoebe, not you (I edited the post to be more clear.)
You may be the only one right now. But the feeling is mutual.For the record, I have a high opinion of you SoftSpoken.
I have not ignored that. It is simply not LDS doctrine, which is what this sub-forum is here to discuss. If there is anything being ignored day in and day out in this sub-forum it is that from the LDS point of view, it IS God who as given us the Restored Gospel, not Joseph Smith. Because you don't believe sobecause you view LDS theology from the outside looking in, with Protestant-colored glasses, if you willyou see it as "especial knowledge" that limits salvation to a few. As I said earlier. That is not the case. It is public knowledge available to and offered to all.
I've accused no one, to my knowledge, of being judgmental. I have pointed out that there exist various double-standards here when comparing the LDS faith to the orthodox Christian faith. The same scriptures that make the orthodox faith inclusionary are said to make the LDS faith exclusionary. That is what I have argued is occurring, and have aruged is unfair, and have pointed out as skewing the message of Mormonsim.
I have never said that orthodox Christianity is exclusionary. Others are making the claim that the LDS faith is exclusionary. I have said that both Gospels as taught are inclusionary, and that men exclude themselves, but that if LDS faith is exclusionary so must be orthodox Christianity, as they invoke the same Biblical commandments. Check the threadyou'll see.
And if you are damned in your current state it will not have anything to do with me, or with what I have said. It will be because you don't accept what God freely gives you. Yes, you have accepted some, but to-date you refuse to accept more, or all. And I would venture to guess that should some new revelation be given in the coming decades that further shows the power and majesty of God, you would likewise reject that as well for the same reasons. Who is rejecting what, and who is damning who? I don't create the doctrines. I don't make the "hard sayings." Neither did Peter. Neither did Paul. They just delivered them. As do I. I have been warned, and am under obligation thereby to warn others. (D&C 88:81-82) And it is a joy to do, although sometimes only a joy that follows tribulation.
New Dawn,
I wanted to address your post sooner, but this is my first chance.
I want to focus on the underlined part there. I don't know how strict you are on the "faith on him" part, so let me offer a verse and propose a scenario and see where you stand.
Irish Catholics and Protestants have fought wars for years. They believe in Christ. Does Christ accept them, or do they work iniquity?
During the Crusades, Catholic Christians attacked Eastern Orthodox Christians in Constantinople. Does Christ accept Catholic and Orthodox warriors, or do they work iniquity?
In my opinion, it takes a bit more than simply faith in Christ. What do you think?
I bring these situations up because most people clearly see that Hindus are unbelievers. I think Catholic Christians were clearly in the wrong when they attacked Orthodox Christians. (Not my place to judge--just speculating here.) I haven't followed the Irish conflict to make a good assessment of which side is right/wrong, but it could very well be both of them. I think a good case can be made that these Catholic Crusaders were unbelievers as well, despite their "faith in Christ" which led them to Constantinople. (Of course, other Crusades attacked Muslims and Jews as well.) Perhaps Irish Catholics and Protestants are also unbelievers. What do you think--should these groups be considered unbelievers?
I also think that God will be happier with a good Hindu than a bad Christian. LDS theology seems to indicate that the good Hindu can inherit a higher degree of glory than say a Crusading Christian. Does your belief system offer that, or is the good Hindu assigned to Hell because he does not have faith in Christ?
Well it is not my point of view that it is exclusionary. I believe men exclude themselves by choice, based on what they will accept. But as it is your point of view that the LDS position is exclusionary, I was showing that it is no more or less exclusionary than any other Christian position. And now that we seem to see eye to eye on that, we can acknowledge together that since they are the same in the meaning of their position, the one difference between the two, as it pertains to you, is that in on one hand you number yourself among the included, and on the other you number yourself among the excluded—at least as things are currently. Would you say that's an accurate, yet general, summary of the measure of their repective exclusiveness? Sorry, you lost me in there somewhere. Let me just say again that seven years ago I volunteered to be excluded from Mormonism and am still perfectly comfortable with that decision and will take whatever the consequences might be. Likewise, I volunteered to accept mainstream Christianity and will take whatever the consequences of that might be. There's your summary, and it should fall neatly somewhere within the confines of your Article of Faith Number Eleven, and thank you for graciously allowing me that privilege.
Which is why you don't accept it. No one has a problem with that (or at least shouldn't). Somehwere in there, though, you have lost sight of faith, mercy, charity, etc. Really? Will you please enlighten me? Do you see evidence in me of a lack of faith in Christ? Have I been uncharitable to you? Unmerciful? If so I have some serious repenting to do! Those are operative in my faith just as they are in yours. And I don't have a checklist on my fridge of all the things I have to do with perfection to be saved. I don't have a checklist anywhere. I just live my life as best I know how, with an assurance anchored in Christ that I am acceptable before God through him. And I have a witness in my soul that this will always be, so long as I remain repentant and submissive to Him. There's such a checklist in your articles of faith, and that's only the bare-bones ABCs. That one doesn't even mention "keeping the commandments," which would also include 1) receiving and honoring the priesthood with all that that entails (and that's a lot); 2) receiving and accepting and honorably fulfilling all callings from bishops, branch presidents, stake presidents and other priesthood leaders, with all that that entails; 3) keeping yourself worthy to attend the temple and receiving your endowment, with all that that entails; 4) preparing for and serving an honorable mission; 5) being sealed in the temple to a worthy companion; 6) continuing to serve and keep all the commandments and endure to the end, with all that that entails. Are you really telling me that that "checklist" exists nowhere in your thinking? If that's the case, I think you must've slept through a sacrament meeting or two.
As I have said before, it is a source of sincere sorrow to me that your experience was so different.
Good for you. I'm glad you found what brings you peace.Well it is not my point of view that it is exclusionary. I believe men exclude themselves by choice, based on what they will accept. But as it is your point of view that the LDS position is exclusionary, I was showing that it is no more or less exclusionary than any other Christian position. And now that we seem to see eye to eye on that, we can acknowledge together that since they are the same in the meaning of their position, the one difference between the two, as it pertains to you, is that in on one hand you number yourself among the included, and on the other you number yourself among the excludedat least as things are currently. Would you say that's an accurate, yet general, summary of the measure of their repective exclusiveness? Sorry, you lost me in there somewhere. Let me just say again that seven years ago I volunteered to be excluded from Mormonism and am still perfectly comfortable with that decision and will take whatever the consequences might be. Likewise, I volunteered to accept mainstream Christianity and will take whatever the consequences of that might be. There's your summary, and it should fall neatly somewhere within the confines of your Article of Faith Number Eleven, and thank you for graciously allowing me that privilege.
Of course I allow you that privilege.
Which is why you don't accept it. No one has a problem with that (or at least shouldn't). Somehwere in there, though, you have lost sight of faith, mercy, charity, etc. Really? Will you please enlighten me? Do you see evidence in me of a lack of faith in Christ? Have I been uncharitable to you? Unmerciful? If so I have some serious repenting to do! I think you have misunderstood. Let me rephrase. When I said "Somewhere in there, though, you have lost sight of faith, mercy, charity, etc.," what I was saying was as I read your assessment of the burden it is to be a Mormon I see that you have lost sight of faith, mercy, charity, etc. within Mormonism. According to your assessment, Mormonism is this huge cumbersom luggage that must be hauled along until we die and are released from the pain that Mormonism is to live. You seem to only see what you want to see in it. You don't see that there is faith involved that sustains, mercy extended within it by the Savior, etc. Those are operative in my faith just as they are in yours. And I don't have a checklist on my fridge of all the things I have to do with perfection to be saved. I don't have a checklist anywhere. I just live my life as best I know how, with an assurance anchored in Christ that I am acceptable before God through him. And I have a witness in my soul that this will always be, so long as I remain repentant and submissive to Him. There's such a checklist in your articles of faith, and that's only the bare-bones ABCs. That one doesn't even mention "keeping the commandments," which would also include 1) receiving and honoring the priesthood with all that that entails (and that's a lot); 2) receiving and accepting and honorably fulfilling all callings from bishops, branch presidents, stake presidents and other priesthood leaders, with all that that entails; 3) keeping yourself worthy to attend the temple and receiving your endowment, with all that that entails; 4) preparing for and serving an honorable mission; 5) being sealed in the temple to a worthy companion; 6) continuing to serve and keep all the commandments and endure to the end, with all that that entails. Are you really telling me that that "checklist" exists nowhere in your thinking? That is exactly what I'm telling you. You make it sound as though these things must occupy our thoughts incessantlythat we must verify from minute to minute that we are in harmony with all this. My oldest son is turning 12 in 7 months. Do you think I harp on him every day that if he doesn't receive the Aaronic Priesthood he'll be damned? My goodness! What a religion you lived! No thanks. I'll take Mormonsim any day over that insanity you describe. My life within Mormonsim is as fluid from day to day as yours is without it. I believe you have a seriously warped view of what it means to live the Restored Gospel.
If that's the case, I think you must've slept through a sacrament meeting or two. Ha ha. Very funny.
As I have said before, it is a source of sincere sorrow to me that your experience was so different.
It was a source of sorrow to me, too, at first - deep, gut-wrenching sorrow the likes of which I had never before experienced in all my life. I wasn't even sure I wanted to survive it, in fact. But I did survive, and now I can't even tell you how grateful I am to have finally learned the truth, even though it took me forty years to get here. It is - at long last - the peace that passes understanding.
Well this is getting circular now. You will not afford me the perspective of having God as the author of my faith. My faith is exclusionary one that one basis alone. So be it.The post of yours that I quoted remarked on the exclusionary nature of Christianity and saying we believe in a double standard (likely because we are trying to show how "exclusive" the LDS church is.) I don't think anyone is claiming that Christianity, in general, is not exclusive, but the exclusivity is built into the covenant from above. It is not a stipulation that man added to the mix. God laid down the stipulation of belief, not us. And that was the only stipulation He laid down.
I defend the position that to receive an inheritance in the Celestial Kingdom of God one must have faith in Jesus Christ, be baptized by one holding authority, be confirmed into the Church and receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, and remain true to his faith in Christ as long as he walks the earth. Period. Place me in whatever group you see fit.I said "you" plurally to those of you who defend the position of section 84, that professing Christians are not saved because they have not bought into Mormonism. If you defend that position, then you are included in the "you".
God did not change his mind. Men changed.Perhaps you can revisit your answer to a previous post of mine in which you said you don't see a contradiction between what the Bible lays out about salvation, and what the LDS scripture says about it. There is clearly a contradiction, a change of position by God, and that is concerning because God has been unchangeable throughout the ages. A vague statement saying "I don't see a change" doesn't lessen the change, so can you speak to why you believe God had to change his mind and bring the law back.
Christ's sacrfifice was, is, and always will be sufficient, commeasurate to the degree that men submit to Christ.Can you speak to why Christ's sacrifice was not sufficient? Thanks.
Mat 17:19 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out?
Mat 17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
Mat 17:21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
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?