Joseph Smith-History 1:18-20

[drstevej]

You can classify it as revelation if you like. Or you can contest it, if you disagree with it. Oh, but if you do, make sure you bring supporting data! Or does this rule only apply to LDS, or to those with whom you do not agree? (You thought I didn't notice that you didn't ask A New Dawn to substantiate her claim about me not understanding the doctrine of election, didn't you... whoop!...another case of "do as I say, not as I do"?)

Your posts show you do not understand the doctrine of election.. Start a thread if you want me to help you with that.

 

[TasteForTruth]

Here's a hint, TfT...

Romans 4:1-2

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God

I thought we'd all learned our lesson about isolating scripture...

But the doctrine of election is not the topic of this thread. How about we return to the topic. Or, if everyone has tired of talking about it, we can have the thread closed.

 

[drstevej]

You started the election derail in post #213.

 

[skylark1]

Yes, our own view of those not in the LDS religion matters to us. We do not recognize the good in others in order to entertain ourselves, or to patronize them.

And joneysd does not speak for a single LDS soul when he voices his opinion that for us to call others "faithful" is a "sick joke." Such a view stems (most likely) from a superimposition of Calvinist interpretations of the Bible (where all things related to man and salvation are stark black and white) onto the Restored Gospel (where many things related to man and salvation are graded, to say nothing of how judgment is viewed and carried out in each of these theological systems). For it is not an LDS view that an eternity in hell await all but Mormons—but it is a Calvinist view that all but those Christians who have been elected to salvation are destined for an eternity in hell. It seems to me, then, that joneysd's interpretation of LDS doctrines is being filtered through this Calvinist view, making without merit his claim that his view represents, or accurately summarizes, LDS views. For if you superimpose this extreme Calvinist view onto LDS doctrines, the result is exactly the kind of Frankendoctrine that joneysd proposes, in which it truly would be nonsensical for a person to claim that those who aren't "saved" can be said to also be "faithful."

Even though it is also my understanding that the Calvinist view is that all of those who have not been predestined for salvation are destined to hell, I think that the black and white thinking that you mentioned might be more of fundamentalist views.

After explaining the fundamentalist Christian view, one blog writer opined:

The problem with this kind of either/or mentality is that it ignores stark reality and lived experience. Lumping all people into the binary categories of “saved = good” and “unsaved = bad” turns a blind eye to the fact that a lot of people exist outside those labels. The assumption seems to be that the rest of the world is going down, but we real, true Christians aren’t going with it. And if you’re not for us, you’re against us (a faulty paraphrase of Jesus’ actual words). Which might be true.

Except that it isn’t.

This dichotomy ignores the Christians who spend a good chunk of time posting rude, ignorant things on social media sites. It pays no attention to the pastors who spew hate from the pulpit. It allows people to appear to be “good” Christians by attending every Sunday, wearing the correct modest clothing, and avoiding the Big Evil Things that No One Should Ever Do (like swearing, getting drunk, having premarital sex, and [omitted as topic not allowed here in this forum]) while simultaneously failing to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and visit the sick and imprisoned. You know why? Because they can claim the slogan, “I’m not perfect, just forgiven.”

Meanwhile, the Cops and Robbers theme successfully pretends that there are no decent people outside of Christian faith. It pays no heed to the atheists who have strong moral convictions; the people of other religions who have deep, abiding, personal faith; the thousands of [edited to group of people who some Christians do not accept] people who love Jesus with all their hearts, souls, minds, and wills. It assumes that “the world” is the way it is because of people who aren’t Real True Christians™.

Why I’m not a fundamentalist | unchained faith​

These are harsh words, but I think that there is an element of truth in them. It was the view of black and white thinking that led me to post this. I think that sometimes black and white thinking can cause us to fail to appreciate the good that we do find in those whose beliefs differ from our own.

 

[skylark1]

You know, TBH, it is all of Christianity (well, maybe more like all of Protestantism (because I don't really know what the apostolic faiths believe on this front)), not just Calvinism, that believe that all those who aren't saved will go to hell. And the fact that you denigrate "election" shows that you have no idea what it truly means.

Yes, but some Christians choose to act as though they have the right to determine who is and isn't or who will be and won't be saved. I think that all Protestants teach that it is through faith in Jesus Christ that one is saved, but some seem to be more willing than others to let God be the judge.

While some churches seem to have a more black and white view, others have adopted a view similar to this:

"While we as Christians respond faithfully to the call to proclaim the gospel in all places, we can never presume to know the full extent of God's work in the world, and we recognize the reality of God's activity outside the Christian church. It is central to our faith that salvation is accomplished not by human beings, but by God. We know that judgment as to the ultimate salvation of persons from any faith community, including Christianity and Judaism, belongs to God alone."​

source

 

[drstevej]

Posting a flame of fundamentalism is your way of representing fundamentalism? I thought you were an advocate for letting a group explain their theology and not looking to critics for definitions.

 

[TasteForTruth]

You started the election derail in post #213.

I used election to make a point; election did not constitute the point, nor was it the purpose of my post.

 

[skylark1]

Posting a flame of fundamentalism is your way of representing fundamentalism? I thought you were an advocate for letting a group explain their theology and not looking to critics for definitions.

It wasn't intended to be a flame. It was intended to show that the black and white thinking that TasteforTruth attributed to Calvinism, might be more of a result of fundamentalist doctrines.

I wasn't trying to represent fundamentalism, but trying point out that it can result in attitudes such as not seeing good in those of other faiths, seeing others as being against us if they are not for us, lumping all people into the binary categories of “saved = good” and “unsaved = bad,” and turning a blind eye to the fact that a lot of people exist outside those labels. To me, that does seem to be very relevant to things that have been said on this discussion.

I thought that it was relevant to statements such as this:

"if the mormons teach that non lds can be virtuous and faithful, why convert them, it also means nothing as without being lds they cannot be in the presence of God so them claiming others are faithful is a sick joke asin mormon eyes it means nothing."​

 

[drstevej]

That site was no way objective. Nice try.

 

[skylark1]

That site was no way objective. Nice try.

I did not say that the site was objective.

I was looking for a quote that explained how fundamentalist black and white thinking can lead to not seeing the good in others. As I feel that I have a difficult time putting this into words, I thought that a quote from someone else could pobably convey the thought better than my own words. I passed up quotes from several other sources because I thought that the pages were too controversal and inflamatory of beliefs of fundamentalists.

My point was not that I believe that all fundametalists post hate, adhere to rules while failing to take care of their neighbor, but that some people tend to see things in black and white terms of saved/not saved and nothing else matters. Some people fail to appreciate the good that we do find in those whose beliefs differ from our own. I guess that I could have omitted the middle paragraph, or a great deal of it, but I am not a big fan of taking out a chunk of the author's words and replacing them with ellipses. When it is someone else's word's and their view, then I think that it is usually best to try to present it as they wrote it.

 

[drstevej]

Some of any group do lots of things, sometimes.

 

[Criada]

Mod Hat On

​

Thread closed at OP request.

Mod Hat Off​