Is Pre-mortality part of "the Gospel"?

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings Magdalena and Greetings again Aaron32,
What do you think Zion is?
The pure in heart
Jerusalem in the Land of Israel is used interchangeably for Mount Zion:
Micah 4:1–7 (KJV): 1 But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it. 2 And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 3 And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. 4 But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken it. 5 For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever. 6 In that day, saith the LORD, will I assemble her that halteth, and I will gather her that is driven out, and her that I have afflicted; 7 And I will make her that halted a remnant, and her that was cast far off a strong nation: and the LORD shall reign over them in mount Zion from henceforth, even for ever.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Every religion has some truth
Ok. I accept that. That's no reason to accept the things they teach that are not true, such as the pre-existence not being taught in the Bible and the Book of Mormon.
Truth being one great whole means that even though people have two perspectives on the truth of something, and may use different terms, such as "faith alone" - a protestant term taken out of the 5 solas (where works are already assumed in a saving/living faith) doesn't mean we disagree. And when I identify that I am accused of somehow not believing my own religion.
Ok, well that was a lot of bloviating. Let me see if I can glean from it the answer to my question. Hmmm. Nope. I don't see the answer to my question. But I do appreciate your effort to explain the truth being one great whole. My question was what does your complaining have to do with it.

I'm not sure I can follow your reasoning here though. So, we have two approaches 1. perspective and 2 use different terms (I assume you for the same thing). You don't really address perspective but I gather it's related somehow and you use "faith alone" as a term that supposedly we have different terms to identify it. What term do we use? If there are different terms for faith alone, what is our term for it, as far as I know, we don't have anything even remotely like it.

Can you fill in the missing pieces to help me understand what your argument is? And to be clear. as far as any of the critics on this board have testified, works has nothing to do with our salvation, so maybe you need to explain to them how works is part of faith alone. I believe that's what you're claiming.

If faith alone isn't quite the right term, what should the term be?

My last argument on this point is that regardless of how you look at works in relation to faith, the fact remains that if works are not there, then there is no faith. If there is no faith, no one can be saved. So, if faith was a door, works are the hinge upon which faith swings. Without the hinges, the door is just a slab of wood with a door knob on it. It is completely useless without the hinges. Likewise, faith is completely useless without works.

I have evidence that the slab of wood is a door. It has a door knob on it. But for the door to useful as a door, it has to be mounted on hinges in a door frame. Likewise, I can hear people claim they have faith, but if they do nothing, that claim is like a door knob on a useless slab of wood. Belief without following after the things you claim to believe is not living faith. Works translate empty belief (dead faith) into living faith. Without the works, faith is dead.

Dead faith is not saving faith. Do you not see how important works are? They are so important that if they do not exist, there can be no salvation. It doesn't matter what you claim to believe. That was my question to you that you refused to answer and probably still won't.

Not to worry. I know this is a difficult subject. Jesus broke it down into its most common denominator, works. Those whose works are good will be resurrected to life, and those whose works are evil will be resurrected to damnation. Not one word in there about faith, not in context, not ins verbiage.

A majority of the world has never heard of Christ, how can they have faith? According to the scriptures, they will be judged according to their works, not their faith. That can come later, but our works is the deciding factor. That's what the scriptures teach. Our critics ignore that and have invented a new term for it called "faith alone" which doesn't exist.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
I never made that claim.
This is what you said,
The Book of Mormon doesn't talk about pre-mortality any more than the Bible does.
So, technically, you didn't make that claim. We have to make an assumption here so that it doesn't fit my claim, namely, that you believe the Bible does teach pre-mortality. Reading the context of your OP, one would not draw that conclusion, but that word salad doesn't make much sense anyway.

I wasn't privy to your earlier conversations on the topic, Tou made no reference to it in your opening OP and the question was about pre-mortal existence (I assume of men). Why would anyone drop a topic like that without any background?

Anyway, the general conclusion, I believe is that our critics don't believe the Bible has any reference to the pre-mortal existence of men (even though it does). With that thought in mind, how could I understand your claim as being anything other than what I said it was.

If one assumes that the Bible doesn't talk about pre-mortality, then the Book of Mormon doesn't talk about it either. That's your claim.

This is what I said, "You claim [pre-mortality] not to be found in either". I'm sorry if you disagree, but those two statements are the same and you're just flat-out denying that's what you said. I don't see it.

The sad thing is we're going to beat around the bush and argue about how I misunderstood your claim which is completely pointless. You can't dictate how I receive things nor can you dictate how I'll respond to them. If you see that I misunderstood, then clarify and stop whining about my misunderstanding...

So, answer this question if you will, Do you believe that both the Book of Mormon and the Bible teach pre-mortality as part of the gospel? if you did, then you're right. I completely misunderstood you.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Ok. So my religion teaches Heavenly Mother is a thing, with no scriptural basis at all
It's pretty much common sense. Does God have children? Yes. Do children come from parents? Yes. Are parents in heaven single? Well, that doesn't make any sense, so one must conclude that there is a mother in heaven. The scriptural basis is that God the Father is the father of spirits.

This cracks open a whole new debate that completely obliterates the foundation of our teachings. When we are resurrected, will we be married (if sealed in the temple)? For what purpose? Will we have offspring? Again, for what purpose?
Must I accept other people's input over my own?
Well, that is the problem. you accept no one's input but your own. But yes, you must accept other people's input over your own or you will never learn. No one is insisting that you have to accept everything they say, but you must accept their input or you're just a wall to bounce ideas off of. Learning is the process of evaluating input from others which you are very resistant to doing. You won't answer questions and when you get an answer, so far, all I see is rejection deferring again to your own conclusions.

So, show me in the scriptures where you confirmed that there is no mother in heaven. And that's only the tip of the iceberg of problems your theology has in relation to that of the church's. While we're at it, show us in the scriptures where you confirmed that God doesn't have a body of flesh and bone, where He isn't a resurrected being. It's going to be difficult because generally speaking, God doesn't tell us what he doesn't have or what isn't true. So, have fun with that verification process.

BTW, what's the 5th commandment? How do you know that's not talking about our mother in heaven? What makes you think you're right? Do you know everything that ever was? Can you be absolutely sure that God isn't talking about our mother in heaven? There is historical evidence that Israel worshiped a mother in heaven at the time that the commandment was given, so... you can't really know if it wasn't. It could have been about both sets of parents.
Is that our religion - to defy our our reasoning because a plausible man-made belief is spoken (due to tradition)?
I don't know what tradition you're referring to? I hardly believe the concept of a mother in heaven is tradition. Taking that tradition as an example, you're bothered because someone prior to you, used their reasoning faculties and concluded that there is a mother in heaven, but now that you're here, we can set that aside because you have reasoned that there isn't one. Thank you again for proving my point. If it wasn't for you, the church would be worshiping Mary right now.

Tell me why your reasoning is better than the tradition. I'd love to know.
I have the creativity and ability to actually see and understand another person's perspective and entertain how something might be plausible, even when I don't actually believe it myself.
Well pat yourself on the back and stick a feather in your hat! And I suppose I must accept that because you said it, right? Aren't there a lot of things that I've said that you disagree with? Where is the creative ability to actually see and understand my perspective? Excuse me if I don't believe you have either.
Maybe, premortality may not be as clearly stated as you think it is, otherwise, it would never be a topic of debate.
LOL. The only way it wouldn't be a topic of debate is if everyone agreed that it was so. There are many things that are clearly stated in the Bible and they are debated here every day. But the issue isn't about what everyone else believes. It's about what you believe and what you are arguing. Maybe if you had worded your opening line in a way that indicated that both sources are equally vague, we would be having this discussion but that's not what you said. It turns out, I previously called your post word salad, that no one can be certain what the point of your post was. I assumed it was about pre-mortality. Certainly, the title question was, but your post made no attempt to clarify what the answer was to that question.

the third paragraph in your OP further drowns the topic of pre-mortality suggesting that the Book of Mormon should clear up anything lost from the Bible, as if it should.
So is pre-mortality part of the gospel? If it is a "plain a precious truth" lost from the gospel, why isn't it talk about more in the Book of Mormon?
The problem here as I see it is that nothing concerning pre-mortal existence is missing from the Bible, so there's nothing to restore. Paul is pretty clear that God predestinated the Ephesians to be where they were in order to hear the gospel when they did. The Old Testament clearly states that God knew at least one other person before they were born. I have to wonder why there isn't a church built to this prophet so we can worship him like we do Christ because, obviously, that must be something special and should set him apart from the rest of us. The issue here isn't that the Book of Mormon restored something that was lost. The issue is that it never was lost. It is our critics who are lost, but you're looking, as I said, to find some kind of common ground by agreeing that it wasn't part of the gospel when clearly it was.

The idea of finding common ground where none exists (on this particular topic) isn't going to help. We either have the truth or we don't and you appear to believe that we don't because you keep compromising what we believe. And while I believe you mean well, It is destructive.
Moreover, I never stated I don't believe in pre-mortality, I'm removing it out of the equation to help my fellow Mormons understand that maybe we creating unnecessary work for ourselves by including into the gospel message.
Once again, proving my point. You're willing to compromise in order to help us understand that maybe we don't need to talk about the pre-existence. Well, was there a pre-existence or wasn't there? If there was, when do you think we should say something about it? Maybe you think we don't need to know about it ever. We call all be resurrected and be surprised!!! It really doesn't play in part in our salvation. It's not like we need to know who we are, right? After all, what does it mean to be the offspring of God? We can just make things up about it because it doesn't really matter.

This is why I take the time to correct your claims about what you believe when it doesn't align with what the church teaches.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
On the other hand, we don't completely understand the nature of God.
Speak for yourself. I believe we have enough information to understand His nature. Once again, you're using the argument of our critics who believe that God is unknowable. So, again, you compromise our beliefs to gain common ground that doesn't exist.
I'm not closed to the idea that he's a 4th dimensional being.
I know you're not. That's a compromise. God exists in time and space. He always has and always will. And while you're open to the idea that he's a 4th-dimensional being, I believe you're closed to the idea that he's not. It's sad that you don't see the problem there. This creates the situation where you are right and everyone must agree with you... that is if you're closed to the idea that he's not a 4th-dimensional being. I'm pretty sure that you're certain that is not bound to time and space as we are.
Of course, for me, that is the easiest justification to explain how God is all-powerful and all things happen according to His will.
For me, the easiest justification for that is that He's always right. I don't think time travel is necessary to be all-powerful or that things happen according to his will. In fact, you know what I believe the source of his power is? 1. That he personally keeps his word and 2. that He perfectly obeys the laws and ordinances he has give us to obey. Order in chaos.
I'm not sure of what pitfalls you speak of, but it does challenge the Mormon belief of agency and foreordination. I'm sure there's other things I fail to recall. So please enlighten me.
I didn't say there were other pitfalls. But you bring up here another pitfall I didn't see. It appears that you have a different belief than "Mormons" do about agency and foreordination. I don't know that I care to hear about it. I'm not sure I'm willing to follow you into any more rabbit holes until you bring it up yourself. I'm not going to encourage you. It's bad enough as it is.

Nevertheless, the pitfall of being created at birth means that we were created to do what we do. Like when someone builds a house. It's designed to be lived in. It can't swim, fly or do anything it's not designed to do. Things created do what the creator created them to do. I cannot think on its own. It just does. So, God created evil and good. Why? Evil will always be evil and good will always be good, even when they are bad and of course evil things are always evil even when they do things good. Our destiny would then be determined by the creator at the time we were created. So, those who are damned were damned at birth and those who are saved were saved at birth and there's nothing they could do about it. That's the problem with creation at birth. We would all be wind-up dolls and nothing we did would make any difference to your destiny.
That by itself doesn't automatically assume pre-mortality. It could also mean that God knows his creation so well he knows exactly where to place them.
Wow. How does that even remotely suggest that God created us at birth?
Joseph Smith spoke to this when he talked about organizing intelligences from greatest to least
No. that's not what Joseph Smith spoke to. Yes, we were organized, but that has nothing to do with creation at birth. We are all brothers and sisters in spirit (without any race involved... literally, there was no family organization outside of our relationship to each other under God). God fixed that by organizing us into families before we were born and that's how we got placed where we are. Thus Jesus, being the firstborn, was organized to be the son of Mary to be born in the meridian of time. We were all organized to be born when and where we are now.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Greetings Magdalena and Greetings again Aaron32,

Jerusalem in the Land of Israel is used interchangeably for Mount Zion:
Micah 4:1–7 (KJV): 1 But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it. 2 And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 3 And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. 4 But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken it. 5 For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever. 6 In that day, saith the LORD, will I assemble her that halteth, and I will gather her that is driven out, and her that I have afflicted; 7 And I will make her that halted a remnant, and her that was cast far off a strong nation: and the LORD shall reign over them in mount Zion from henceforth, even for ever.

Kind regards
Trevor
Agreed. The scholars of the Septuagint, and rejected Jesus, mistakenly took something figurative as literal.
Likewise, I agree with your statement, yet interpret it in a figurative way.

Jerusalem is a promised land to the seed of Abraham, and a place of gathering.
The Mountain are exalted places and places of instruction. Just as Moses received the 10 commandments in Mt. Sinai.
The imagery describes that the Lord is exalted.

Likewise, when mormons hear the phrase "mountain of the Lord" they interpret as their modern day temples.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
You think you need mormonism for that?
Yes. You can't have a gathering place without a place.
Until I can see the sects of Christianity unite, then I can't trust protestant Christianity. This board is evidence to me that it will never happen.

 
Last edited:

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings again Aaron32, brotherofJared and Richard7,
Likewise, I agree with your statement, yet interpret it in a figurative way.

Jerusalem is a promised land to the seed of Abraham, and a place of gathering.
The Mountain are exalted places and places of instruction. Just as Moses received the 10 commandments in Mt. Sinai.
The imagery describes that the Lord is exalted.

Likewise, when mormons hear the phrase "mountain of the Lord" they interpret as their modern day temples.
I woke up early this morning, heavy rain and flooding in the Sydney suburb and evacuations where I used to live. I lived in a house that was not near the river but it was at the bottom of a hill and was always wet. I was also deciding if I should answer brotherofJared or simply disengage as I had resolved in my mind that LDS teaching did not agree with the Bible. Part of my thoughts revised my encounter with the two 20 y.o. "elders" and also two other encounters earlier, but it was cold and wet and I decided to rest.

I encountered this once before, you say "Jerusalem is a promised land" and I think it was stated like this in the Book of Mormon, but Jerusalem is not a land, as it is a city in the Land of Israel. Isaiah 2:1-4 teaches me that Jerusalem is where Jesus will rule as King / Priest on the Temple Throne of David for the 1000 years of the Kingdom of God upon the earth.
So, we're pets. Good to know.
One line of thought this morning was that my impression is that position and status is important among Mormons, and this is different to my perspective and the thinking of Christadelphians, who like Abraham consider that they are dust and ashes. Another example of this is Richard's statement.
Moses 1:39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.
Perhaps this is personal, but is Aaron32 after the order of Aaron and is brotherofJared after the order of Melchizedek?

Kind regards
Trevor
 

Richard7

Well-known member
One line of thought this morning was that my impression is that position and status is important among Mormons, and this is different to my perspective and the thinking of Christadelphians, who like Abraham consider that they are dust and ashes. Another example of this is Richard's statement.
You left out resurrection of all, dust and ashes for sure and then a return to full restoration of the body in its perfect form... do you agree?
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
It's wrong to take a term from a religion that is not your own, and then redefine it.
The Bible defines it. It was wrong for them to take a word that can be found in the Bible and then redefine it. It's also wrong to take common dictionary words and then define them to mean something other than what it means in our language, like the word Christian.

But the point isn't about how others define it. The point is, I ask you a question to get an understanding of how you define it and you refuse to answer the question. That's the issue here.
It's doubly wrong to use that term, and your definition, and then attribute it to the person of the opposing religion.
That may be your opinion, but it's not mine. If the word has meaning in our language then that meaning should be adhered to. Therefore it would be doubly wrong to change the meaning of the word and not tell anyone else about it.
Half of the argument me and Mesenja we're having before you butted in was how protestants use the term "faith alone". As soon as I was able to get Mesenja to look at the other board, the tune changed quickly.
I defined faith alone repeatedly, stating works are a result of faith, and it's by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone that we are saved.
I don't care how protestants or anyone else defines it. I was asking you. and I narrowed that field significantly by asking how important works were to our salvation and you refused to answer that question. Then, when you finally did about baptism, I asked about keeping the commandments and you bailed. Why would that be?

So, The book of Mormon is very clear about how one can find their way into hell on a permanent basis. Keep breaking the commandments until the day you die and your fate is pretty much sealed... That's an oversimplification. It describes that repentance is necessary to overcome the sins we commit in our mortal state.
It's clear you over looked the italicized qualifying statement to think I actually didn't believe in pre-mortality.
First, your OP does not italicize that phrase. Second, as I said, you expect your audience to read your mind. Third, I don't believe I said that you don't believe in pre-mortality. I know what the church teaches and to me, the idea of a pre-existent life is evident in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. You asked a question in the thread heading, "Is pre-mortality part of the gospel"? Did you answer it? No. You handed us a tossed salad and expected us to read your mind. Your claim appears to be that we teach it but it's not in those earlier scriptures. Now, it appears that you're attempting to blur the line and went from those scriptures don't teach it to, those scriptures contain minimal reference to the possibility of premortal life.

I stated how the belief is stated in Mormon beliefs, and also that I was a Mormon. So...if you're actually reading what I'm writing, that should have been enough to conclude what I believed.
I think everyone on this board knows that you hold beliefs that are definitely not taught in our church so that connection is about as vague as the answer to your opening question. There is no reason for me to believe that you think there is any reference in the Bible to pre-mortal existence.

I can hardly wait for you to stop complaining about what I should have known and just accept that I didn't know.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Greetings again Aaron32, brotherofJared and Richard7,

I woke up early this morning, heavy rain and flooding in the Sydney suburb and evacuations where I used to live. I lived in a house that was not near the river but it was at the bottom of a hill and was always wet. I was also deciding if I should answer brotherofJared or simply disengage as I had resolved in my mind that LDS teaching did not agree with the Bible. Part of my thoughts revised my encounter with the two 20 y.o. "elders" and also two other encounters earlier, but it was cold and wet and I decided to rest.
My desire is to reach understanding. If people have their minds made up, and stuck in the duality of true or false, and there's nothing to be gained, by all means ignore my comments, but you asserted your belief, and I asserted mine. That's all. I'm just explaining how/why I would see differently than you. It's not intended as a judgment of your beliefs.
I encountered this once before, you say "Jerusalem is a promised land" and I think it was stated like this in the Book of Mormon, but Jerusalem is not a land, as it is a city in the Land of Israel. Isaiah 2:1-4 teaches me that Jerusalem is where Jesus will rule as King / Priest on the Temple Throne of David for the 1000 years of the Kingdom of God upon the earth.
True, Jerusalem is not a land, but it's representive of THE land that it's in.
Perhaps this is personal, but is Aaron32 after the order of Aaron and is brotherofJared after the order of Melchizedek?
Lol! No. I am a Melchizedek priesthood holder with the office of a High Priest.

"Worthy men 18 and older may receive the Melchizedek Priesthood and be ordained to the office of elder. A man ordained to that office enters into a sacred covenant to assist God in accomplishing His work (see Doctrine and Covenants 84:33–44)."
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Exactly. You just restated the point of my OP.
If you think you made that point in your OP, I'd be happy for you to point it out because to me, it was just a word salad that didn't make any point. It didn't even answer your topic question.
To my knowledge, church leaders tell us to read scriptures daily, and follow the examples of the faithful in the scriptures.
The prophet today trumps any of your interpretations of the scriptures.
So you're kinda contradicting yourself here.
How so?
So, people that misunderstand is on the part of the hearer not the speaker? That's called blaming the victim.
That would be correct. When the children of Israel rejected their prophets, the consequences that followed were not the prophet's fault. That is as true today as it was then.
The Church has tried to market itself to become distinct from other Churches
That is the silliest thing I have ever heard. No marketing is required to make our church distinct from other churches. I find it fascinating that you would think that is the reason we believe that the Trinity consists of separate and distinct beings. I guess you don't think we really believe that.
centralizing the message on Joseph Smith
Our church is not centralized on Joseph Smith. It is centralized on Jesus Christ. Check the name of our church if you have any questions about that. We may focus on the authority to administer the gospel, that we have prophets and apostles, but Joseph Smith is not the central theme of our church, no more than was Adam the central theme of the beginning of mortality or Noah the beginning of life after the fload, or Abraham the beginning of the era of faith, or any of the patriarchs. Joseph is the beginning of the restoration. Of course, he's going to stand out among other members of our church. That's as it should be, but it was never about Joseph Smith.
No doubt Church Leadership tried the best they could, but that doesn't mean it was perfect.
If you think the "church leadership" is leading this church, then you really out to reconsider your membership. I don't think there was a perfect way to disobey God in the first place and eat the forbidden fruit, but it had to be done. Sure, we're not perfect and maybe we did some things that we ought not to have done it the way we did, but everything we did had to be done. We did it as well as we could, yes. I don't think the church has made any mistakes. Men may have. And maybe they could have done it better. For example, I don't think Brigham Young making an issue out of color being associated with IQ in front of state representatives. I don't think he should have said that in the name of God. Those were his mistakes if they were. There's no way to verify if any of that is true. It doesn't appear to be so now. Their intelligence was probably more because of the lack of opportunity for education than it was the color of their skin and of course, the lack of opportunity was because of the color of their skin. That was wrong, but it wasn't an issue that the church created.

But I am certain that if the priesthood had been extended to people of color at that time, the consequences would have been grave. I personally don't think the church would have survived if that had occurred. You have to remember, everyone that was a member of the church at that time was a member of some other church or belief system before they joined ours. They all brought their beliefs with them and their prejudices. Our church is a lay-run church where we stand in judgment of each other without the benefit of being trained on how to do it. Every Bishop, no matter what color they are, is thrown into the deep end of that pool with no more than a very thin line to help them stay afloat. That line was almost nonexistent in the days of Brigham Young. When a Bishop decides to castrate a member of his ward for such and such a transgression as he understood it to be a transgression, I challenge you to consider the consequences of a black bishop exercising authority over a white congregation. Just think about that for a moment.

No. The church made no mistakes. Our leaders are not trying to impress the world that we're different. I think the Book of Mormon did that very well on it's own. No one came up with that idea but God and he came up with it long before Joseph was ever born. Keep that fixed in your mind. The Book of Mormon makes us unique, not family, not Joseph Smith. We really don't need anything else (even though we have a lot of things that make us unique) and we aren't trying to impress the world. I would think, if anything, we are trying to alienate the world by throwing at them such radical ideas as God the Father being a resurrected being of flesh and blood. No, we're not trying to make friends or find common ground, you are, but we're not. What we believe is either true or it's not.
Thus, they are doing everything they can to make it Christ centered now.
Now? LOL
Yeah, I'm lost here. We can clarify our arguments and cite evidence directly, or we can play childish games and attack each other. I'm not interested in childish games.
Are you going to take your ball and go home now? Again?
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
I had resolved in my mind that LDS teaching did not agree with the Bible.
I think someone resolved that for you.
One line of thought this morning was that my impression is that position and status is important among Mormons, and this is different to my perspective and the thinking of Christadelphians, who like Abraham consider that they are dust and ashes. Another example of this is Richard's statement.
I can see that my comment went right over your head. It's not about position and status. It's about the promises of God made.

But, if being a pet is okay for you, then I'm sure you'll be happy doing tricks for God and fetching his slippers for eternity.
 

Richard7

Well-known member
Thanks for admitting it.
Reward as as in a Gift.. I'm sure Brother of Jared was stating this as we all know and understand one of the greatest gifts of all is... are you ready for this...

Gift:
the greatest scriptural witness of Christ, the atonement, and the work and glory of the Father and the Son.
 
Top