LDS What is the reward?

[Rescued One]

God has said that no one can come unto Him except by His laws. If we receive and obey His laws, then we will come to know God and become like Him, thus having eternal life. (See D&C 132:11–12, 21–25, 32; John 17:3). It is only by obedience to law that one can become sanctified. Those who, by their agency, submit to law and are governed by God’s laws are preserved, protected, and sanctified through the operation of those laws. Those who do not live the laws of God cannot be sanctified by the Savior through those laws; therefore, they must inherit a kingdom other than the celestial. Each of us must be able to abide by the law of the kingdom we inherit (see D&C 88:21–24; 34–35).
Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, 1981, Enrichment G, p. 395

 

[Jane_Doe]

God has said that no one can come unto Him except by His laws.

And I repeat--

Oh how horrible that LDS believe John 3:16!!!! *rolls eyes*

 

[Ironhold]

It's quite possible that when a person's mind is full of Mormonism, they might not see the implication of those verses.
My last post was in response to Peter.

You're still supposed to do more than just lob quotes around.

 

[Ironhold]

However, this is not my responsibility.

If you say that it can't happen, then it is.

 

[JacksBratt]

I feel like we are going in circles here. There are do contradictions with the Bible, God can send whatever messenger He chooses, and God does not stop speaking to His people.

Rather than repeat the same old same old, I'm going to focus on this:

Which cannon do you accept? Various mainstream Christians have between 66-82 books in their Bible.
Why do you accept that cannon and not the others?

Although there is digression among theologians and denominations, for me, I keep it simple and stand on the KJV standard books of the bible from Genesis to the Revelation.

I do believe that there are other books and texts that contain valuable information and history. The selection of these writings would include the Book of Enoch and the others that are included in 18 books you would be mentioning that would bring the bible to 82 books in total.

I will toss out any writings that contradict the 66 books of what is considered canon, today.

 

[JacksBratt]

If you say that it can't happen, then it is.

Show me where it says Jesus "did not" drive a Ford truck.

So if someone says "well , Jesus came to me, driving a Ford F150 and told me I should buy one too"

Then I say "this is not biblical due to the fact that Jesus didn't drive a truck". Can they say "do you have scripture that says Jesus didn't drive a Ford F150"?

The point is...........nowhere, anywhere, in the Bible or other none canonized texts, other than the Book of Mormon, does an man turn into an angel............ever.

All beings are created as animals, birds, fish, angels, man and there is no indication or mention of one turning into the other. Angels can take the form of a man but are still angels..

So, no.........the responsibility is yours to support your claim that a man can turn into an angel. Not mine, due to me saying it is not possible.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Although there is digression among theologians and denominations, for me, I keep it simple and stand on the KJV standard books of the bible from Genesis to the Revelation.

I do believe that there are other books and texts that contain valuable information and history. The selection of these writings would include the Book of Enoch and the others that are included in 18 books you would be mentioning that would bring the bible to 82 books in total.

I will toss out any writings that contradict the 66 books of what is considered canon, today.

Ok, so making sure I understand you correctly: you use the 66 canon, based upon your personal preference. Is that correct?

 

[Jane_Doe]

All beings are created as animals, birds, fish, angels, man and there is no indication or mention of one turning into the other.

Do you have any Biblical reference that messengers and man are different species?

 

[JacksBratt]

Ok, so making sure I understand you correctly: you use the 66 canon, based upon your personal preference. Is that correct?

Yes, that, and the fact that this is generally the accepted Bible of mainstream Protestant denominations.

You didn't mention that I hold the other books as good references but not as Canon.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Yes, that, and the fact that this is generally the accepted Bible of mainstream Protestant denominations.

So ultimately your declaration on what is God's word is determined by man's word? Not God's? How do you know man got it right?

 

[JacksBratt]

Do you have any Biblical reference that messengers and man are different species?

That depends on what context you are using "messenger" in.

There have always been people used as messengers. Angels, a donkey, in the Bible. Men have been used for centuries as messengers for other men and prophets were messengers for God.

Never, has a man returned as an angel or as even a messenger, from the dead.

I understand, you are a Mormon and you stand by the Book of Mormon.

I don't. I don't for many reasons, which I have already discussed in this thread.

I cannot give bible scripture that states that a man hasn't turned into an angel, but I also cannot give scripture that states Jesus didn't like jelly beans, ride a motor cycle, play sports, tell "knock knock" jokes or like snowball fights.

You have a book that is dictated to a man by another man who 1/ lived in the past and came back. 2/ came as an angel. and 3/ gave new information as well as different information than the bible....

Therefore............"I'm out" as they say. I'll stick to the 66 books of the recognized canon.

 

[Jane_Doe]

(rearranging your post to make my reply more sensical)

I understand, you are a Mormon and you stand by the Book of Mormon.

I don't. I don't for many reasons, which I have already discussed in this thread.

I respect your beliefs in that regard, and am not trying to change your denomination in any way. I'm actually trying to understand your beliefs/perspective better (hence my asking questions). I'm also trying to share my perspective.

There have always been people used as messengers. Angels, a donkey, in the Bible. Men have been used for centuries as messengers for other men and prophets were messengers for God.

Never, has a man returned as an angel or as even a messenger, from the dead.

So we both believe that God can use messengers of men, verbose asses, flaming foliage, etc. I'm assuming that both of us also believe that God can raise people from the dead-- not just in one incident, but multiple people. Our God is a God of miracles and unlimited wonder. What I don't understand is why you feel so strongly that such a God of miracles cannot use a resurrected person as a messenger.

 

[JacksBratt]

So ultimately your declaration on what is God's word is determined by man's word? Not God's? How do you know man got it right?

Many "men" have debated extensively on the scriptures that should be included in the bible and considered canon. The same 66 books have past the test of centuries of discernment and debate.

To compare this extensive deliberation to the voice of one man, Joseph Smith, and conclude that they are even close to being in the same class of validity is unrealistic beyond comprehension.

I say "I don't believe Joseph Smith is a prophet, nor is his book worthy of being considered being equal to the Bible, or the content in it" and you try to defend it...

I say I'll stand on the 66 books of canon and you ask "how do I know men got it right"?

You cannot be serious.

 

[Jane_Doe]

I say I'll stand on the 66 books of canon and you ask "how do I know men got it right"?

We both accept 66 books in the Bible, and both use the KJV. But our reasoning behind this decision is different. You accept the 66 Bible books based on the words of sinful men (a much conflicted debate, even to this day). I accept the 66 Bible books based on the word of God-- His declaration, sent via is prophets. I don't accept anything originating with men.

Do you see the difference in reasoning?

 

[JacksBratt]

(rearranging your post to make my reply more sensical)


I respect your beliefs in that regard, and am not trying to change your denomination in any way. I'm actually trying to understand your beliefs/perspective better (hence my asking questions). I'm also trying to share my perspective.


So we both believe that God can use messengers of men, verbose asses, flaming foliage, etc. I'm assuming that both of us also believe that God can raise people from the dead-- not just in one incident, but multiple people. Our God is a God of miracles and unlimited wonder. What I don't understand is why you feel so strongly that such a God of miracles cannot use a resurrected person as a messenger.

The case in point, the back story of the Book of Mormon, IMHO is not consistent with any biblical theology.

One man, one story, anyone could do this and, I expect, in the future, many will fraudulently profess to be messengers of God or have personally heard from a divine being with a message from God.

So, to protect myself from the deception of the enemy, I will dismiss anything other than the 66 books of accepted canonized scripture. I will also ignore any new "words of God" from any source other than the mouth of my Savior, Himself, when I see Him either in the clouds or at the time of my earthly death.

There is nothing in the B of M that I need in order to become a better Christian and bring others to the Lord.

 

[JacksBratt]

We both accept 66 books in the Bible, and both use the KJV. But our reasoning behind this decision is different. You accept the 66 Bible books based on the words of sinful men (a much conflicted debate, even to this day). I accept the 66 Bible books based on the word of God-- His declaration, sent via is prophets. I don't accept anything originating with men.

Do you see the difference in reasoning?

The canon did not originate with men. It was translated by men. This translation was approved by men and the books to be included were approved by men in the same way.

The men who wrote the NT were not prophets. They were apostles. Many were Jesus disciples.

Joseph Smith was not a prophet either. He was just a man. One man with no way to prove his story.

 

[Jane_Doe]

the books to be included were approved by men in the same way.

As I said: you accept the 66 Bible books based on the words of men. I accept them not because of the words of men, but based on the word of God. Do you understand the difference?

 

[JacksBratt]

As I said: you accept the 66 Bible books based on the words of men. I accept them not because of the words of men, but based on the word of God. Do you understand the difference?

No, due to the fact that the 66 books "are" the word of God.

Maybe you could explain what you mean.

 

[Jane_Doe]

No, due to the fact that the 66 books "are" the word of God.

Maybe you could explain what you mean.

You accept the 66 books because men told you to. I accept the 66 books because God said to-- He approved the 66 Bible book canon.

 

[JacksBratt]

You accept the 66 books because men told you to. I accept the 66 books because God said to-- He approved the 66 Bible book canon.

How did God accept the 66 books?

I know they are the word of God, however, where does God state this?