In awe of J.Smith ?

[Rescued One]

There you go again bringing your own Bible-only theology into a discussion about LDS theology. This is why I don't answer you.

Truth is what matters. Knowing what the Bible says does not make a person unable to see what the LDS church actually teaches.

You make no effort to put aside what you believe so that you can see clearly what we believe.

Again, knowing what the Bible says does not make a person unable to see what Mormonism says. And just because you claim that what Marion G. Romney and Bruce R. McConkie and others clearly said isn't what it is, only means that Mormonism is trying to present itself as something it was not in the past. However, no matter how you spin it, in Mormonism, works are required in order for one to receive eternal life.

Mormonism:
First, each work of obedience to a law brings a blessing. Second, God is obligated to give the reward that the person earned by keeping that law.

20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.
Doctrine and Covenants 130

5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.
Doctrine and Covenants 132


"I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise."
Doctrine and Covenants 82:10

 

[TasteForTruth]

I felt then exactly as you do now, and of course feelings never determined the truth of anything, Moroni 10:3-5 notwithstanding. What changed my mind was not an OPINION/"personal view"; it was learning real, factual, documented history of the LDS church (unedited and unaltered by the church committees which are appointed by general authorities to edit and alter). Do you really believe me as shallow-minded as that? Apparently so.

Not at all. Think about it for a moment. For 40 years you felt a certain way while you were keeping the commandments. You felt a certain way about keeping the commandments. Your own personal keeping of the commandments was a gift to God—not to Joseph Smith. But when you discovered this historical fact, or set of facts, about Joseph Smith, how you felt about the commandments changed. It changed because your personal understanding of Mormonism changed. Things you were doing in the name of the Lord the day before you would now not do because you held in contempt Joseph Smith. I'm saying nothing of the validity of the facts you discovered. I'm speaking only of the change that occurred in your own mind. It is because of this change that I believe you can no longer understand why we (Mormons) do not view the commandments in the same light that you now do. Because now you project your contempt for Joseph Smith onto our keeping of the commandments, and you have had the repeated audacity to tell us that our doctrine is that the keeping of the commandments is what saves us! Can you really not see that? Can you really not see why we say you don't understand anymore, and why we have conjectured that you never did?

All that said, I won't suggest anymore that you didn't once understand.

And yes, from your own, LDS-colored-glasses perspective, I can totally understand why you have such a skewed perspective because I looked through them myself for four decades.

Now listen. I don't call your Methodist perspective skewed, and I never have. I would therefore appreciate it if you would not compare the value of my LDS perspective against the value of your Methodist perspective, so that you can malign it because you disagree with it. Call my perspective of Methodism skewed all you like. It isn't my religion. I think you have that right until I can show to you that I understand it. But I believe that we LDS likewise should be afforded that same right, in spite of your former membership.

Your series of questions qualifies as neither a substantive nor even halfway satisfactory response.

You claim that, among other things, LDS PPIs are proof that our discipleship is measured by our works. I'd like to understand from you what it is about them that makes you say that, and I'd like to understand that before I respond. Is that unreasonable?

First of all, it could hardly be called a refusal OR a commandment when you're talking about someone who doesn't even believe that Joseph Smith ever saw that so-called first vision (in any of its many variations).

Why is it necessary to toss in your sublte stabs at Mormonism? I know that you think it's a farce. You don't need to remind me of your view every... single... time... you post. How often to I barrage you with my testimony that it is true? Have I ever? How about we just discuss like courteous adults who respect each other.

If I went out and killed someone, then we could talk; if I'm refusing to do what's necessary to qualify to go be sealed in an LDS temple to my husband, then no, because neither of us believes that Joseph Smith was anything remotely close to a prophet.

I'm not talking about the temple. I'm talking about heaven.

So - you see? You've proven it once again: It all and it always goes back to Joseph Smith.

That's been established, and I was not saying otherwise.

Not once - not one, single, solitary time - will you find in your King James Bible where Jesus says that if you don't take the sacrament or perform temple ordinances you will be denied entrance in the celestial kingdom. Mormons believe it; everyone else does not because IT'S NOT IN THE BIBLE. And that's the way it will always be.

Where the commandment is found is not the issue. Having the grace of Christ imparted to one who refuses to obey a commandment—that is the issue.

 

[TasteForTruth]

Truth is what matters. Knowing what the Bible says does not make a person unable to see what the LDS church actually teaches.

Sure, but knowing what the Bible teaches does not give a person an understanding of what the LDS church teaches either. Sometimes Mormons themselves don't even understand their own doctrines.

Again, knowing what the Bible says does not make a person unable to see what Mormonism says. And just because you claim that what Marion G. Romney and Bruce R. McConkie and others clearly said isn't what it is, only means that Mormonism is trying to present itself as something it was not in the past. However, no matter how you spin it, in Mormonism, works are required in order for one to receive eternal life.

Works are a sign to God. They are a testimony of one's conversion. They are the life-long fruit of discipleship. Yes, in LDS theology Christ expects us to produce these fruits. They are the outward manifestations of what is in our hearts.

Mormonism:
First, each work of obedience to a law brings a blessing. Second, God is obligated to give the reward that the person earned by keeping that law.

20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.
Doctrine and Covenants 130

5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.
Doctrine and Covenants 132


"I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise."
Doctrine and Covenants 82:10

The quotes are great. The thing, though, that you don't point out is that they are Christ's words. He is the one who said that he was bound when we obey, etc. It is by his word that a blessing is given when a law is kept. If you believe that some other system should be in place, something more suited to your personal beliefs, take it up with him, not us mortals.

 

[Rescued One]

Sure, but knowing what the Bible teaches does not give a person an understanding of what the LDS church teaches either. Sometimes Mormons themselves don't even understand their own doctrines.

And if a Mormon doesn't understand his church's doctrines, he can still think that he does and be very dogmatic about it.

Works are a sign to God.

An omniscient being doesn't need a sign.

They are a testimony of one's conversion. They are the life-long fruit of discipleship. Yes, in LDS theology Christ expects us to produce these fruits. They are the outward manifestations of what is in our hearts.

As A New Dawn said:

Christ fulfilled the law because He knew we couldn't. Christ does give us commandments, which we try our hardest to do out of gratitude for what He has done for us, but our salvation is not held ransom if we fail. That is the difference between Biblical Christianity and Mormonism.

The quotes are great. The thing, though, that you don't point out is that they are Christ's words.

You are attributing Joseph Smith's words to Christ.

He is the one who said that he was bound when we obey, etc. It is by his word that a blessing is given when a law is kept. If you believe that some other system should be in place, something more suited to your personal beliefs, take it up with him, not us mortals.

As long as you choose to read our posts and to post at CF, you can expect a response from either me or another Christian to your claims that Christ is the author of Joseph Smith's words.

And, FYI, I accept the fact that Christ is the One in Whom I should place my faith.

5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
Proverbs 3:5-6

 

[Rescued One]

Where the commandment is found is not the issue. Having the grace of Christ imparted to one who refuses to obey a commandment—that is the issue.

Being baptized in the LDS church and married for time and eternity in an LDS temple are merely the requirements of the LDS church. God doesn't require His sheep to do those things.

Grace isn't grace if it is imparted to only those who have earned it through obedience.

5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.
Romans 11 (NIV)

 

[TasteForTruth]

And if a Mormon doesn't understand his church's doctrines, he can still think that he does and be very dogmatic about it.

True, he can.

An omniscient being doesn't need a sign.

I didn't say God needed them. Strawman alert!

As A New Dawn said:

Christ fulfilled the law because He knew we couldn't. Christ does give us commandments, which we try our hardest to do out of gratitude for what He has done for us, but our salvation is not held ransom if we fail. That is the difference between Biblical Christianity and Mormonism.

In LDS theology, salvation is not held ransom, we have been ransomed.

’Tis sweet to sing the matchless love
Of Him who left his home above
And came to earth—oh, wondrous plan—
To suffer, bleed, and die for man!

For Jesus died on Calvary,
That all thru him might ransomed be.
Then sing hosannas to his name;
Let heav’n and earth his love proclaim.

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Curriculum/music.htm/hymns.htm/sacrament.htm/177%20tis%20sweet%20to%20sing%20the%20matchless%20love.htm#JD_Hymns.177
​

You are attributing Joseph Smith's words to Christ.

I know that's how you feel, but in order to understand LDS theology, you have to view it as LDS do. We do not believe those words to be Joseph's. If you do, then it's no wonder you don't believe them, and it's also little wonder that you struggle so much to understand our theology. But it makes little sense to tell us LDS that words we understand to be Christ's are wrong. That's not what this UT forum is here for.

As long as you choose to read our posts and to post at CF, you can expect a response from either me or another Christian to your claims that Christ is the author of Joseph Smith's words.

You or another Christian... like a Mormon? Other LDS do chime in about Joseph's revelations from Christ from time to time, but they're usually supportive of the position, not critical of it.

And, FYI, I accept the fact that Christ is the One in Whom I should place my faith.

I know. I think that is commendable.

 

[TasteForTruth]

Being baptized in the LDS church and married for time and eternity in an LDS temple are merely the requirements of the LDS church. God doesn't require His sheep to do those things.

As I keep saying, we're discussing LDS theology. And in LDS theology the teachings and commandments that the Savior delivered in life, which are recorded in the Bible—such as baptism—are held as binding upon us. Of course we also hold as binding upon us the teachings and commandments he gives contemporarily, which is why we also marry in the temple.

Grace isn't grace if it is imparted to only those who have earned it through obedience.

I agree. It is imparted to those who have faith in Christ. (Moroni 8:3)

 

[Rescued One]

Works are a sign to God.

I didn't say God needed them. Strawman alert!

Then they aren't a sign to God.

In LDS theology, salvation is not held ransom, we have been ransomed.

’Tis sweet to sing the matchless love
Of Him who left his home above
And came to earth—oh, wondrous plan—
To suffer, bleed, and die for man!

For Jesus died on Calvary,
That all thru him might ransomed be.
Then sing hosannas to his name;
Let heav’n and earth his love proclaim.​

​

The only thing that is assured in LDS theology is that all will be resurrected.

That is why the song says that all might ransomed be.

“And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end” (3 Nephi 27:19).

“...Individual (salvation) --- that which man merits through his own acts through life and by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.”
Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, p.134

“If there is one divine law that he does not keep he is barred from participating in the kingdom and figuratively guilty of all, since he is denied all.”
Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol. 3, p.26

I know that's how you feel, but in order to understand LDS theology, you have to view it as LDS do.

I already know how LDS view it. Some view it one way and some another, but differences of opinion don't erase the fact that those who supposedly go to a Celestial Kingdom, have to obey a Celestial Law. They have to obey the "laws and ordinances" or forego exaltation/eternal life.

We do not believe those words to be Joseph's.

You already claimed that he was not the author.

If you do, then it's no wonder you don't believe them,

I thank God for personal revelation.

and it's also little wonder that you struggle so much to understand our theology.

I'm not struggling to understand it. I was LDS and I've continued to study Mormonism ever since I left your church.

But it makes little sense to tell us LDS that words we understand to be Christ's are wrong.

No, I said those words were authored by Joseph Smith after you claimed they were Christ's words.​

 

[TasteForTruth]

Then they aren't a sign to God.

Maybe not in your theology, but in LDS theology they certainly are. See, you don't know it as well as you think you do.

The only thing that is assured in LDS theology is that all will be resurrected.

Because our own wills are involved, you're right. Our eternal life has been secured, mind you, but not all will choose eternal life.

That is why the song says that all might ransomed be.

We are ransomed already. Not all will accept their Ransomer. That very well could account for the "might."

I already know how LDS view it. Some view it one way and some another, but differences of opinion don't erase the fact that those who supposedly go to a Celestial Kingdom, have to obey a Celestial Law. They have to obey the "laws and ordinances" or forego exaltation/eternal life.

Yes, in the same manner that we have to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, and give drink to those who thirst, or forgo the kingdom of the Father. (Matt. 25:31-46)

I thank God for personal revelation.

As do I. It's nice that we have some things in common.

I'm not struggling to understand it. I was LDS and I've continued to study Mormonism ever since I left your church.

Well, my view is based on the questions and responses you've shared over the last year, particularly the ones that you continually bring up. They indicate to me that you do indeed struggle to understand some things in LDS theology.

No, I said those words were authored by Joseph Smith after you claimed they were Christ's words.

Well you do believe that they are wrong, don't you? I mean, you don't agree that God is bound when we do what He says, and that when we don't do what He says, we have no promise... you don't agree with that teaching, correct?

 

[Rescued One]

Maybe not in your theology, but in LDS theology they certainly are. See, you don't know it as well as you think you do.

Ha! Since LDS like to redefine the English language, tell us your definition of a "sign to God."

Because our own wills are involved, you're right. Our eternal life has been secured, mind you, but not all will choose eternal life.

I guess you have an unusual perception of security.

We are ransomed already. Not all will accept their Ransomer. That very well could account for the "might."

It sounds as if you believe that Christ purchased everyone's soul on a temporary basis. Or did He not really purchase everyone's?

Yes, in the same manner that we have to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, and give drink to those who thirst, or forgo the kingdom of the Father. (Matt. 25:31-46)

If you want your works to get you there, you'd better believe it and keep every single commandment! Or the one who has the new birth can love God and humanity because Christ first loved us. After the new birth, Christians become children of light. You might be surprised at how much Evangelical Christians love to serve the Lord!

Well, my view is based on the questions and responses you've shared over the last year, particularly the ones that you continually bring up. They indicate to me that you do indeed struggle to understand some things in LDS theology.

Don't worry, you've expressed your view many times and I haven't forgotten it. A lot of LDS love to criticize ex-LDS and claim they don't understand Mormonism. I do understand Mormonism and I'm not dependent on your verification of that.

 

[A New Dawn]

There you go again bringing your own Bible-only theology into a discussion about LDS theology. This is why I don't answer you. You make no effort to put aside what you believe so that you can see clearly what we believe.

The LDS church does claim to believe in the Bible, even if it is only as far as it has been translated correctly. That being the case, then why are you disagreeing with me. Is the problem the fact that LDS-only scriptures contradict the Bible? Just come out and say it.

 

[Moodshadow]

There you go again bringing your own Bible-only theology into a discussion about LDS theology. This is why I don't answer you. You make no effort to put aside what you believe so that you can see clearly what we believe.

This was not addressed to me, but you've said this to more than one person and similar things to me, so I'm going to be similarly audacious. When I read it my jaw pretty much hung open in disbelief. You expect - not just respectfully request but EXPECT - these discussions to be only on YOUR terms??? And this is, after all, Christian Forums, where it would be expected - practically taken for granted, even - that posters would use the Bible as reference material. And as Dawn mentioned, even the LDS church still claims the Bible as scripture, even though your revered prophet adjudged it wanting. You sound more than a little bit like a petulant 9-year-old who says, "If you don't play by my rules, I'm takin' my ball and bat and goin' home."

 

[TasteForTruth]

This was not addressed to me, but you've said this to more than one person and similar things to me, so I'm going to be similarly audacious. When I read it my jaw pretty much hung open in disbelief. You expect - not just respectfully request but EXPECT - these discussions to be only on YOUR terms??? And this is, after all, Christian Forums, where it would be expected - practically taken for granted, even - that posters would use the Bible as reference material. And as Dawn mentioned, even the LDS church still claims the Bible as scripture, even though your revered prophet adjudged it wanting. You sound more than a little bit like a petulant 9-year-old who says, "If you don't play by my rules, I'm takin' my ball and bat and goin' home."

You bet I expect people to use the Bible as reference. But when we're discussing LDS theology and someone shifts to a Bible-only view, they are no longer discussing LDS theology, the whole of which is derived from a consideration of all LDS scriptures. So my Bible-only comment was a reminder that if you want to discuss LDS theology—which is what many non-LDS here claim they're doing—you can't confine yourself to the Bible. Call me petulant if you like, but that's sound reasoning. What I see as petulant is using Bible-only theology as some kind of trump card when one's interpretation of the theology being discussed is shown to be faulty.

 

[TasteForTruth]

The LDS church does claim to believe in the Bible, even if it is only as far as it has been translated correctly. That being the case, then why are you disagreeing with me. Is the problem the fact that LDS-only scriptures contradict the Bible? Just come out and say it.

I thought goading was against the rules. And you're an admin! That aside, according to you and others here, LDS-only scriptures do contradict the Bible. But, I could make them appear to as well. It's not that hard. Anyone can do it. But that's why I value the BoM and other scriptures so much. The testimony of one record strengthens the testimony of the others. Here, I'll illustrate their value in this graphic:

Larger image available here: witnesses | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

[TasteForTruth]

Ha! Since LDS like to redefine the English language, tell us your definition of a "sign to God."

Well if you're going to mock us by saying that we re-define words to suit ourselves, no thanks.

I guess you have an unusual perception of security.

Not at all. I can't think of a safer provider of salvation than the Savior. My salvation is safe and secure. All I have to do is accept it. Nothing risky about that.

It sounds as if you believe that Christ purchased everyone's soul on a temporary basis. Or did He not really purchase everyone's?

He purchased them all. But they can reject him. He will not force anyone to accept his offer of salvation, at least not in LDS theology.

If you want your works to get you there, you'd better believe it and keep every single commandment! Or the one who has the new birth can love God and humanity because Christ first loved us. After the new birth, Christians become children of light. You might be surprised at how much Evangelical Christians love to serve the Lord!

Why would that surprise me? They are Christians just like me. And from your description of ECs, it seems that they feel the same way about our new birth and loving Christ and humanity as do we LDS.

Don't worry, you've expressed your view many times and I haven't forgotten it. A lot of LDS love to criticize ex-LDS and claim they don't understand Mormonism.

Well, if they really don't then it's not a criticism. And many who claim they do, don't. Others do.

I do understand Mormonism and I'm not dependent on your verification of that.

That's fine, but it seems that you live in a fantasy land when you when you consistently turn your head to a fair amount of LDS doctrine as if it doesn't exist, and yet say you understand Mormonism. That's like saying one understands Christianity while denying the existence of Jesus Christ. Such a person is certainly entitled to his opinion, and can say he understands Christianity all he likes, but to us Christians he would come across as anything but comprehending Christianity. Wouldn't you think so?

 

[Rescued One]

You bet I expect people to use the Bible as reference. But when we're discussing LDS theology and someone shifts to a Bible-only view, they are no longer discussing LDS theology, the whole of which is derived from a consideration of all LDS scriptures. So my Bible-only comment was a reminder that if you want to discuss LDS theology—which is what many non-LDS here claim they're doing—you can't confine yourself to the Bible.

What we can do is compare LDS theology to the Bible.

 

[TasteForTruth]

What we can do is compare LDS theology to the Bible.

You bet you can. Compare all you like. But you can't say that you're sharing LDS theology by comparing it to your understanding of the Bible. Look back at the thread. It has happened at least two or three times. We'll be discussing what LDS theology is or means (usually with LDS pointing out that others are forgetting/omitting/ignoring some other important, relevant, and related LDS teaching on the topic) and out of the blue someone will shift gears to "the Bible says," in order to support his/her view of what LDS theology is or means, casting aside what modern revelation says about the topic.

 

[Rescued One]

Well if you're going to mock us by saying that we re-define words to suit ourselves, no thanks.
Not at all. I can't think of a safer provider of salvation that the Savior. My salvation is safe and secure. All I have to do is accept it. Nothing risky about that.
He purchased them all. But they can reject him. He will not force anyone to accept his offer of salvation, at least not in LDS theology.

Are you saying that everyone has been redeemed or rented? So it's a salvation that can be lost? If one doesn't accept and obey LDS teachings, he loses the salvation he once had? That fits with LDS teachings.

Why would that surprise me? They are Christians just like me. And from your description of ECs, it seems that they feel the same way about our new birth and loving Christ and humanity as do we LDS.

Tell us how you believe the new birth occurs and whether or not one has to be LDS to have it.

That's fine, but it seems that you live in a fantasy land when you when you consistently turn your head to a fair amount of LDS doctrine as if it doesn't exist, and yet say you understand Mormonism. That's like saying one understands Christianity while denying the existence of Jesus Christ.
Such a person is certainly entitled to his opinion, and can say he understands Christianity all he likes, but to us Christians he would come across as anything but comprehending Christianity. Wouldn't you think so?

Where is the proof that you understand Mormonism?

Would a son of perdition have an understanding of what he rejects, or did he become a son of perdition by unknowingly rejecting the Gospel? I believe you criticize our understanding because we reject your theology. Instead of defending your faith, you attack the understanding of those who disagree with you.

Excerpt from King Follett Sermon:

If I show, verily, that I have the truth of God, and show that ninety-nine out of every hundred professing religious ministers are false teachers, having no authority, while they pretend to hold the keys of God's kingdom on earth, and was to kill them because they are false teachers, it would deluge the whole world with blood.

I will prove that the world is wrong, by showing what God is. I am going to inquire after God; for I want you all to know Him, and to be familiar with Him; and if I am bringing you to a knowledge of Him, all persecutions against me ought to cease. You will then know that I am His servant; for I speak as one having authority.

God An Exalted Man

I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of a being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of man.
(Joseph Smith delivered the discourse before about twenty thousand Saints, being the funeral sermon of Elder King Follett, Sunday, April 7, 1844)

Show us the veracity of LDS teachings from the Bible.

 

[A New Dawn]

I thought goading was against the rules. And you're an admin! That aside, according to you and others here, LDS-only scriptures do contradict the Bible. But, I could make them appear to as well. It's not that hard. Anyone can do it. But that's why I value the BoM and other scriptures so much. The testimony of one record strengthens the testimony of the others. Here, I'll illustrate their value in this graphic:

Larger image available here: witnesses | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

You have accused me of goading you a couple of times now, and I asked before how you believe that what I said is goading. Goading means that I say something that requires you respond with a rule violation. Nothing I have said falls into that category. All I have asked you to do is clarify your beliefs and/or the LDS church's beliefs.

 

[Rescued One]

You bet you can. Compare all you like. But you can't say that you're sharing LDS theology by comparing it to your understanding of the Bible. Look back at the thread. It has happened at least two or three times. We'll be discussing what LDS theology is or means (usually with LDS pointing out that others are forgetting/omitting/ignoring some other important, relevant, and related LDS teaching on the topic) and out of the blue someone will shift gears to "the Bible says," in order to support his/her view of what LDS theology is or means, casting aside what modern revelation says about the topic.

The Bible is the measuring stick, and no we won't say that what the Bible says is what the LDS theology means. I haven't been casting aside what LDS "modern revelation" says. I frequently quote LDS scriptures. Do you?