If you reject the LDS message...

[skylark1]

The rich man, as alluded to earlier, was willing to do all things but one to get to heaven. Did he reject or accept God? If reject, on what basis? If accept, same question.

My statement was honest. I am saddened myself that it makes you or anyone else sad. What am I to do? I do not feel to say that fully accepting God and rejecting the Restored Gospel are reconcilable with one another. And so when asked, I respond according to the dictates of my conscience. It is not a matter of whether or not I agree with a fellow-Christian. It is a matter of being true to what God has given me. I also consider all Christians to be my brothers and sisters in Christ, as I have tried to show in my actions in this forum—albeit not with perfection.

I'm not trying to tell you what to do. I just wanted to express my view that I find this to be sad.

I don't know how you could possibly consider any Christians who have rejected the LDS gospel to be your brother or sister in Christ if you equate rejecting the LDS gospel with rejecting God.

 

[SoftSpoken]

I'm not trying to tell you what to do. I just wanted to express my view that I find this to be sad.

I know you weren't. But I felt to express publicly that your expression of sadness places me in a position of sadness myself, and that it is a burden of conscience that prevents any of us from saying things we know we can't, in order that others may be happy. (yes, I know you weren't expecting me to make you happy)

I don't know how you could possibly consider any Christians who have rejected the LDS gospel to be your brother or sister in Christ if you equate rejecting the LDS gospel with rejecting God.

I was very careful earlier to show that I do not consider a rejection of the Restored Gospel to necessarily be a complete or full rejection of God. If you would share your thoughts with me about the other question I asked, it would help me know why you believe I'm suggesting that it is (provided that's what you're really suggesting). Here is the question again (two questions, I guess):

"The rich man, as alluded to earlier, was willing to do all things but one to get to heaven. Did he reject or accept God? If reject, on what basis? If accept, same question."
​

Just in case, the account in the NT to which this refers is:

"And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the ccommandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not ear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy cneighbour as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions." (Matt 19:16-22)

​

God bless.
SoftSpoken

 

[skylark1]

I

I was very careful earlier to show that I do not consider a rejection of the Restored Gospel to necessarily be a complete or full rejection of God. If you would share your thoughts with me about the other question I asked, it would help me know why you believe I'm suggesting that it is (provided that's what you're really suggesting). Here is the question again (two questions, I guess):

"The rich man, as alluded to earlier, was willing to do all things but one to get to heaven. Did he reject or accept God? If reject, on what basis? If accept, same question."​

I don;t see it as accepting or rejecting God.

Here is the parable of the rich man.

The Rich Young Man
17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. 19You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'"

20"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."

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."

22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"

24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

26The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, "Who then can be saved?"

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

28Peter said to him, "We have left everything to follow you!"

29"I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life. 31But many who are first will be last, and the last first."​

This man claimed that he had followed the commandments since he was a boy. Jesus didn't argue with him. Instead he showed him that he did not indeed love the Lord with all of his heart, soul, mind and strength because he did not respond to his call and put his posessions ahead of God. Jesus and this rich young man parted company, and the young man went home sad. That is not the same thing as a Christian rejecting the LDS gospel. A Christian does not turn away fom Christ.​

 

[Zechariah]

I'm not trying to tell you what to do. I just wanted to express my view that I find this to be sad.

I don't know how you could possibly consider any Christians who have rejected the LDS gospel to be your brother or sister in Christ if you equate rejecting the LDS gospel with rejecting God.

Do you remember this thread?

How do Mormons view other Christians

 

[SoftSpoken]

I don;t see it as accepting or rejecting God.

The question is, can you see why I do?

Here is the parable of the rich man.

<omitted for brevity>

​

This man claimed that he had followed the commandments since he was a boy. Jesus didn't argue with him. Instead he showed him that he did not indeed love the Lord with all of his heart, soul, mind and strength because he did not respond to his call and put his posessions ahead of God. Jesus and this rich young man parted company, and the young man went home sad. That is not the same thing as a Christian rejecting the LDS gospel. A Christian does not turn away fom Christ.

Do you believe this man, had he permanently maintained the course he was then on, would have received eternal life? I do not. Why? Because he did not love God enough to receive eternal life. I understand that love toward God is best expressed through keeping his commandments in spirit and in truth. So IF (big if) the Restored Gospel is what it purports to be (which restoration is a revealtion of commandments) can a Christian reject it and still say he FULLY loves God? (Please don't interpret this question as some kind of challenge to evoke an endorsement or rejection of Mormonism... it is asked in an attempt to reconcile, if possible, what to me appears to be a significant difference of understanding between us, which reconciliation I understand may not occur at this time)

Peace and blessings.
SoftSpoken

 

[Rescued One]

It's no wonder you LDS are reacting as you do(I didn't realize that some of the scriptures are to be kept secret):

And shake off the dust of thy feet against those who receive thee not, not in their presence, lest thou provoke them, but in secret; and wash thy feet, as a testimony against them in the day of judgment.
D&C 60:15

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 teaches—such a person will in no wise lose his reward.

No, if he never heard the LDS message he will have opportunity to hear it in the next life. If he hears the LDS message and rejects it(that is what this thread is about---rejection of Mormonism), "...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)

And in whatsoever house ye enter, and they receive you not, ye shall depart speedily from that house, and shake off the dust of your feet as a testimony against them.
D&C 75:20

And whoso rejecteth you shall be rejected of my Father and his house; and you shall cleanse your feet in the secret places by the way for a testimony against them.
D&C 99:4

I, on the other hand, have been given more. Therefore I am required, by virtue of that knoweldge, to accept all that God has given me, if I am to receive the same reward as the person described in the paragraph above.

This is off topic because we are not talking about you. We are talking about those who hear the LDS message and reject it.

Your insinuation that we disdain the Bible as insufficient is not accurate in my mind. It presupposes that the Bible itself is so flawed that it cannot lead men to Christ and salvation. We neither believe that nor teach it.

There was no insinuation. The Book of Mormon is very, very clear about the Bible.

And to be clear that the world is bound by divine decree to accept the Doctrine and Covenants or not at their own peril (in other words, that to those who have been given God's most recent revelations, accepting only the Bible is no longer sufficient):

I did not say otherwise. If the LDS revelation of additional commandments were not necessary for eternal life, LDS missionaries would have no excuse for going door to door to bring Methodists, Catholics, Presbyterians, and Wesleyans into their church. Those people have already heard of Jesus and most likely have copies of the Bible in their homes.

LDS teaching:

Keep my commandments continually, and a crown of righteousness thou shalt receive. And except thou do this, where I am you cannot come.
D&C 25:15

 

[Rescued One]

To whom it may concern:

The rich man who came to Jesus was not perfect. Jesus pointed that out. I don't think he was happy with what Jesus said. He turned around and left.

It is not enough for a rich man to keep most of God's laws. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all" (James 2:10). "That's not fair!" the sinner says.

Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
(Mark 10:21)

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
(Romans 3:20)

You may keep 599 of 600 commandments. You have missed the mark. How can you be saved?

Jesus said, "Come, take up the cross, and follow me."

Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
(Isaiah 45:22)

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
(Matthew 23:37)

 

[skylark1]

Do you remember this thread?

How do Mormons view other Christians

I'm not interested, Zechariah. My recent posts in this thread have been addressed to SoftSpoken, not to Mormons at large.

 

[skylark1]

To whom it may concern:

The rich man who came to Jesus was not perfect. Jesus pointed that out. I don't think he was happy with what Jesus said. He turned around and left.

It is not enough for a rich man to keep most of God's laws. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all" (James 2:10). "That's not fair!" the sinner says.

Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
(Mark 10:21)

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
(Romans 3:20)

You may keep 599 of 600 commandments. You have missed the mark. How can you be saved?

Jesus said, "Come, take up the cross, and follow me."

Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
(Isaiah 45:22)

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
(Matthew 23:37)

I don't know if I am part of "to whom it may concern," but I agee with this. No one keeps the law perfectly. If they did, there would be no need for a Savior.

 

[RufustheRed]

My post was not about D&C 84.

It was about taking this snip:

If you believe that Mormons believe this passage from D&C that you have quoted,...

out of this:

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?

and, as if that snip was a stand alone statement, going off about something completely unrelated to what mormonheretic was addressing, and completely ignoring what he was asking in the above quote.

Just as I suspected. You get all ticked off because Phoebe Ann did not answer all of another poster's questions and accuse her of being diversionary (for the record that is post #49 on this thread).
In post #20 the other poster very rudely pointed out his point of view, concluding his post with several questions, in bold. You, in turn, get your garments all in a bunch, because she didn't reply to all of them, and then accuse her of "another example of ignoring context" without providing any evidence that she ignored context. That, my friend, is ad hominem, at best. You then use the "diversionary tactic" that you mimicked from mormonheretic.

However, like I said above, you expect her to jump at your beck and call to answer all of someone else's interrogations. However, when I ask YOU some questions, you only answer ONE. Just one. Just like Phoebe Ann did. Tsk Tsk. Here is my quote from post #51 "Also, I have asked the LDS many questions that are completely ignored. What's with that? Different rules and expectations for different folks?

Why didn't you answer MY questions? Not important enough?

Well, thank you for your time, anyway.

Rufus

 

[Rescued One]

My post was not about D&C 84.

It was about taking this snip:

If you believe that Mormons believe this passage from D&C that you have quoted,...

out of this:

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?

and, as if that snip was a stand alone statement, going off about something completely unrelated to what mormonheretic was addressing, and completely ignoring what he was asking in the above quote.

If something is meant to be kept secret, it won't be taught in Sacrament Meeting, Relief Society, or Sunday School. So the question was not pertinent to the discussion.

 

[SoftSpoken]

It's no wonder you LDS are reacting as you do(I didn't realize that some of the scriptures are to be kept secret):

And shake off the dust of thy feet against those who receive thee not, not in their presence, lest thou provoke them, but in secret; and wash thy feet, as a testimony against them in the day of judgment.
D&C 60:15

What on earth are you talking about Phoebe?

No, if he never heard the LDS message he will have opportunity to hear it in the next life. If he hears the LDS message and rejects it(that is what this thread is about---rejection of Mormonism), "...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)

True enough. I was not touching on post-death, but since you bring it up&#8212;sure. (as long as you are only referring to the dead who never received an authorized teacher of the true Gospel in their dispensation)

This is off topic because we are not talking about you. We are talking about those who hear the LDS message and reject it.

My salvation is tied to the knowledge God has given me. I have left neutral ground. I have heard the Restored Gospel by a called, authorized, sent messenger. It is incredibly ON-topic!

There was no insinuation. The Book of Mormon is very, very clear about the Bible.

No, ma'am. Your opinion has no bearing on what the Book of Mormon says. Your opinion is an insinuation. The Book of Mormon does not disdain the Bible in any way, shape or form. On the contrary, it states very clearly that the Bible and Book of Mormon "shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers in the latter days, and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord." (2 Ne. 3:12) You have taken the declaration made within the Book of Mormon that the Bible would be altered by men and twisted it into a condemnation of the Bible. That is MOST certainly your insinuation, and no teaching in the Book of Mormon.

I did not say otherwise. If the LDS revelation of additional commandments were not necessary for eternal life, LDS missionaries would have no excuse for going door to door to bring Methodists, Catholics, Presbyterians, and Wesleyans into their church. Those people have already heard of Jesus and most likely have copies of the Bible in their homes.

Indeed.

 

[SoftSpoken]

To whom it may concern:

The rich man who came to Jesus was not perfect. Jesus pointed that out. I don't think he was happy with what Jesus said. He turned around and left.

It is not enough for a rich man to keep most of God's laws. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all" (James 2:10). "That's not fair!" the sinner says.

Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
(Mark 10:21)

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
(Romans 3:20)

You may keep 599 of 600 commandments. You have missed the mark. How can you be saved?

Jesus said, "Come, take up the cross, and follow me."

Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
(Isaiah 45:22)

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
(Matthew 23:37)

I don't know if I am part of "to whom it may concern," but I agee with this. No one keeps the law perfectly. If they did, there would be no need for a Savior.

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.

 

[Zechariah]

Just as I suspected. You get all ticked off because Phoebe Ann did not answer all of another poster's questions and accuse her of being diversionary (for the record that is post #49 on this thread).
In post #20 the other poster very rudely pointed out his point of view, concluding his post with several questions, in bold. You, in turn, get your garments all in a bunch, because she didn't reply to all of them, and then accuse her of "another example of ignoring context" without providing any evidence that she ignored context. That, my friend, is ad hominem, at best. You then use the "diversionary tactic" that you mimicked from mormonheretic.

However, like I said above, you expect her to jump at your beck and call to answer all of someone else's interrogations. However, when I ask YOU some questions, you only answer ONE. Just one. Just like Phoebe Ann did. Tsk Tsk. Here is my quote from post #51 "Also, I have asked the LDS many questions that are completely ignored. What's with that? Different rules and expectations for different folks?

Why didn't you answer MY questions? Not important enough?

Well, thank you for your time, anyway.

Rufus

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

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.

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?

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.

 

[Zechariah]

If something is meant to be kept secret, it won't be taught in Sacrament Meeting, Relief Society, or Sunday School.

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

So the question was not pertinent to the discussion.

As if this was pertinent to the discussion:

"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?"

 

[skylark1]

The question is, can you see why I do?

I don't know.

Do you believe this man, had he permanently maintained the course he was then on, would have received eternal life? I do not. Why? Because he did not love God enough to receive eternal life. I understand that love toward God is best expressed through keeping his commandments in spirit and in truth. So IF (big if) the Restored Gospel is what it purports to be (which restoration is a revealtion of commandments) can a Christian reject it and still say he FULLY loves God? (Please don't interpret this question as some kind of challenge to evoke an endorsement or rejection of Mormonism... it is asked in an attempt to reconcile, if possible, what to me appears to be a significant difference of understanding between us, which reconciliation I understand may not occur at this time)

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

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.

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 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.​

 

[sk8Joyful]

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.

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

All Well said! Thank you!

 

[hv/2&#960;]

.

 

[A New Dawn]

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. Thanks for your reply.

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.

 

[mormonheretic]

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;

Sure

If we don't accept your missionaries into our house, we are under a whole bunch of "Wo"

Phoebe Ann calls it "a lot of trouble."

Now if you can you tell me how this is an example of " intentional misrepresentation?"

Are we reading different passages of your D & C?

Rufus

I'm not seeing how this is any different than Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

Are you saying that unbelievers will not be in a lot of trouble?

Phoebe responded,

It was mormonheretic, and not you, who saw no difference between non-LDS and non-believers:

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,

My purpose in pointing out the scripture in Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" was to point out that ALL Christians believe that unbelievers "shall be damned." This is not at all unique to Mormons. Does your belief system believe that Hindus or Muslims "shall be damned"?

(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.

we are not fortune-tellers. We have no way of knowing where you will end up, or each other, for that matter, because we are not mind readers, cannot see into the hearts of other men, and because we have no way of knowing what you, or they, may or may not choose in the future. So we prefer to leave such judgment up to God, as He is the one with that capacity.

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.

Not all Christian denominations consider those of other denominations unbelievers. That is a huge important difference.

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.