Is Pre-mortality part of "the Gospel"?

Aaron32

Well-known member
Nah. @Aaron32 started this thread to find common ground with our critics. But he, like you, are both wrong. .
It's wrong to find common ground?
It's interesting from one who claims to believe Mormonism doesn't believe in truth being one great whole. Is not Mormonism, truth, according to Joseph Smith? Is the 13th Article of Faith only as good as it carries the Church's logo on it?

Some desire to gather (shepherds), some seek to divide (wolves). I care less about knowledge, or rather what you deem as true or false, and more about character and integrity.

I started this thread because of a question organgrinder asked a while ago - "what is the gospel?" and I believe Mormons at large have a difficult time answering that question. I also posted the question because I realized how the concept of pre-mortality is often taken for granted, when it's really not "common knowledge" with the desire that our communication can improve. But, sadly, it seems the goal on both sides is to win an argument, rather than gain understanding.
 
Last edited:

Aaron32

Well-known member
Greetings again Richard7 and brotherofJared,

No thank you. This thread is sufficient.

I am actually fascinated and stand in awe of the brain that God has created not only in man but in every creature. This is no comparison with a statue. There is even no comparison to modern computers.

Again I dismiss this as we all develop character based upon our environment, our education and our individual choices. I believe in the mortality of man and when we die we return to the dust Genesis 3:19, Psalm 6:4-5, Daniel 12:2-3. I find the Mormon spirit worlds (heavens) before birth and after death erroneous. I believe in the resurrection from the grave to live for the 1000 years with Jesus as the King / Priest on David's Temple/Throne centred in Jerusalem.

Kind regards
Trevor
What happens after the 1000 years?
What do you believe is the purpose of existence?
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Greetings again brotherofJared,

There are a number of things that I disagree with in your Post, for example the above. I am not interested in sorting these out because of what I state about Section 3..

The above is from Post #99 and in this Post I mentioned that Section 3 speaks about LDS doctrine. I have now finished reading this section.
Section 3 The Beliefs of the Mormons Compared with Bible Teachings
Introduction pages 59-60
Chapter 12 God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit pages 61-65
Chapter 13 God's Purpose with this Creation pages 66-67
Chapter 14 Baptism for the Dead pages 68-69
Chapter 15 The Devil and the Church page 70
Chapter 16 A Summary of the Beliefs of the Mormons pages 71-80
1. God 2. The Holy Trinity 3. The Holy Bible 4. The pre-existence of man 5. Ecclesiastical authority 6. Baptism 7. Virgin birth 8. "Did Christ organize a church while on earth? ...." 9. The Lord's Supper 10 The Atonement of Christ 11. Life after death 12. Vicarious work for the salvation of the dead 13. Status of non-believers in Christ 14. Miracles 15. Satan 16. Heaven and Hell 17. Is Church connection necessary for salvation? 18. Divine revelation 19. Marriage 20. The purpose of life 21. The second coming of Christ 22. The Holy Ghost 23. The resurrection of man 24. The Calling 25. The Ingathering 26. Right to Worship 27. The Law 28. The virtues.

Nearly every aspect of Chapters 12-15 and items 1-28 of Chapter 16 do not agree with Bible teaching. Some items are extremely unusual. I suggest that Mormons, if they read the Bible, would see the difference between Mormon teaching and the Bible.
I might have to check out the book after all. I continually enjoy challenging my beliefs. Having said that, it seems there our reasoning and how we determine conclusion (for example, spiritual witnesses) may be different.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
It's wrong to find common ground?
No. That's not what I said.
It's interesting from one who claims to believe Mormonism doesn't believe in truth being one great whole.
I don't know where you're getting your info but I didn't say that either. I simply said you were wrong on the topic this individual broached.
Is not Mormonism, truth, according to Joseph Smith? Is the 13th Article of Faith only as good as it carries the Church's logo on it?
The problem, as I see it, is u seem to think that the truth lies solely in you. I disagree with that. I disagree with a lot of things you claim are true and no, I don't think that the church logo has to be on it to be true. I also don't think it needs your approval to be true as well.
I started this thread because of a question organgrinder asked a while ago - "what is the gospel?" and I believe Mormons at large have a difficult time answering that question.
So that means neither source addresses the pre-existence? Wow. That makes no sense at all, but okay.
I also posted the question because I realized how the concept of pre-mortality is often taken for granted, when it's really not "common knowledge" with the desire that our communication can improve
Yep. Finding common ground. Do u like proving my point for me?
But, sadly, it seems the goal on both sides is to win an argument, rather than gain understanding.
I don't have a problem with gaining understanding. As I recall, your last post to a thread we were arguing, it was you who wouldn't answer the question. So, it seems that everyone else need to gain understanding while you teach us all. 🤔
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
No. That's not what I said.
You said I started this thread, and I was wrong.
That may not be what you meant, but it's still what you said.
I don't know where you're getting your info but I didn't say that either.
Your actions speak louder than words. Why do you always attack me when I seek common ground with opposing views?
I simply said you were wrong on the topic this individual broached.
What am I wrong about on this topic?
The problem, as I see it, is u seem to think that the truth lies solely in you. I disagree with that. I disagree with a lot of things you claim are true and no, I don't think that the church logo has to be on it to be true. I also don't think it needs your approval to be true as well.
Where did I say the truth lies solely in me?
I do believe some thing to be true, and draw my own conclusions, without an appeal to authority. Is that wrong?
I like to vet my ideas, and come to this board to receive oppositional feedback to do so. Is that the same as claiming "only I am true and you need my approval"? Hardly.
So that means neither source addresses the pre-existence? Wow. That makes no sense at all, but okay.
Neither source? What? Are you continuing the discussion from the OP? Can you get out of your head for one minute to comprehend what I'm actually talking about?

The Book of Mormon is meant to restore plain and precious truths. Very minimally it talks about pre-mortality, which tells me that "pre-mortality" isn't a plain and precious truth seeking to be restored. Yet, when we teach the gospel in the Church, we generally give the big picture, starting in pre-mortality, while teachers/missionaries in the Book of Mormon, start with Adam. Maybe we should follow their lead.

Yep. Finding common ground. Do u like proving my point for me?
Which point is that?

I don't have a problem with gaining understanding. As I recall, your last post to a thread we were arguing, it was you who wouldn't answer the question. So, it seems that everyone else need to gain understanding while you teach us all. 🤔
Which I repeatedly acknowledged was a loaded/fallacious question, which you failed to recognize.

Richard7 never had an issue clarifying and validating what I was saying. Mesenja started making the exact same points I was making after a brief time on the Doctrinal Questions board.

So, sorry not sorry for identifying a point that shows how we can pull the punch with our adversaries. I'm trying to be helpful. Yet, for some reason all you can do is the worst of me.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
You said I started this thread, and I was wrong.
And what did I say you were wrong about? Hint: It wasn't about finding common ground. I think you are getting discussions mixed up.
That may not be what you meant, but it's still what you said.
And?
Your actions speak louder than words. Why do you always attack me when I seek common ground with opposing views?
Hopefully, someday you'll learn the difference between attacking you and disagreeing with you. Again, you're barking up the wrong tree. Where do you get the idea that I don't believe in the truth is one great whole? Why are you complaining about me attacking you? What has that go to do with truth?
What am I wrong about on this topic?
Both the Book of Mormon and the Bible clearly reference the doctrine of pre-existence. You claim it's not to be found in either. I gave instances from both that clearly show references to us, you and me and everyone in the world, were present in the pre-existence.
Where did I say the truth lies solely in me?
actions speak louder than words. You're not here to learn. It appears that you are here to convince everyone else that you are right, even down to the point that the church is wrong and you are right.
I do believe some thing to be true, and draw my own conclusions, without an appeal to authority. Is that wrong?
I don't know what you said there. It doesn't make any sense to me. It's not wrong to question (if that's what you mean). However, it is wrong to accept only your own truth in denial of everyone else's input. Especially when you deny the truth of the religion that you claim you believe is true.

In this particular instance, you seem to have completely glossed over the precepts of the preexistence being part of the Bible and Book of Mormon when it's clearly mentioned on both (in almost the exact same wording. How can you continue to believe you are right about that when it's been shown that it does exist? That's a clear case of denial.

It seems to me, that in the pursuit of finding common ground, you're willing to use the same arguments our critics do. Somehow foreknowledge is supposed to trump knowing us before we were born and calling us forth giving us opportunities that others don't have. What is foreknowledge based on? Does God have a crystal ball where he can see everything past, present, and future? I'm not denying that he can see those things, but my question is what is it based on? I certainly hope you don't believe it's based on creating us to do the very things we do. Hopefully, you see the pitfall in such an idea.

I believe that foreknowledge is based on the past. If you have individuals who constantly seek the ill fate of those around them, then you can pretty well tell that in the future, they will continue doing the same thing. That's not to say that many will change. Some people are the way they are because of the people they choose to hang around. I believe a wise parent can see that. That's called foreknowledge.

But the fact that God called them from the foundation of the world based on his foreknowledge is a clear indication of being present before God before we were born into mortality. Both the Book of Mormon and the Bible teach that.
I like to vet my ideas, and come to this board to receive oppositional feedback to do so.
I beg to disagree. From what I've seen of your arguments, you come here to insist that we are wrong and that you are right.
Is that the same as claiming "only I am true and you need my approval"? Hardly.
If that's what you did, then I wouldn't have anything to say about it. Take for example the argument about faith alone. There is no such thing, yet you insist that we are wrong and that you are right. Where have you vetted anything on this forum concerning that subject? You won't even explain what faith alone means to you. I asked over and over and over and you kept deflecting saying it wasn't worth your time, or maybe I'm just not worth your time.
Neither source? What? Are you continuing the discussion from the OP? Can you get out of your head for one minute to comprehend what I'm actually talking about?
At this point, it appears that you're actually just complaining that I'm attacking you. What I was talking about what the OP. That should have been the subject of this whole thread. This statement is all over the place so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Is it the OP or about me attacking you or something else. No matter where you go, I'm always going to try to drag the conversation back to the OP. Frankly, you're whining about the way I discuss things is totally off-topic and is a waste of time. Control yourself. Don't try to control me.
The Book of Mormon is meant to restore plain and precious truths.
So, now you're on the OP. Great. *boggle*
Very minimally it talks about pre-mortality
You said it didn't talk about it, not it talks about it minimally. Those are two different things. FYI. The doctrine about the pre-existence was not restored through the Book of Mormon. We had that in the Bible already. However, the Book of Mormon is a second witness to that doctrine.
which tells me that "pre-mortality" isn't a plain and precious truth seeking to be restored.
(y)
Yet, when we teach the gospel in the Church, we generally give the big picture, starting in pre-mortality, while teachers/missionaries in the Book of Mormon, start with Adam. Maybe we should follow their lead.
You act like we haven't learned anything. Why would we go backward and not talk about the pre-existence? Why pretend it doesn't exist? (of course, they didn't. They knew it existed. They didn't obsess about it because everyone understood it. In the dark period that reigned on the earth after the crucifixion of Christ is where the "church" decided that we aren't really children of God (even though the Bible is pretty clear that we are). The philosophies of men replaced the doctrines that were so plain and easy to understand (imagine that, a Father who has children, sons even). But nope. God only had one son and the rest of us are pets, created for entertainment. Some of them will be saved, the rest will be burned... who cares. The potter makes the pot and destroys it, It means nothing to them. That's all we are to God. Yea. So what was plain and precious was lost, not from the verbiage we find in the Bible and the Book of Mormon but from the forms of godliness that deny the power thereof.

No. We don't need to follow their lead. We need to follow the lead of those who are the head of the church today. They have not made any mistakes in their leadership, whether it be polygamy, race in the priesthood, or what constitutes a family. In their world, God can do whatever He wants and family has no function in God's plan. We can define it however we want.
Which point is that?
Said. You quoted the point and still didn't see it. You're here to find common ground, even when there isn't any.
Which I repeatedly acknowledged was a loaded/fallacious question, which you failed to recognize.
Again, you prove my point. It was not loaded, it was not fallacious. Your argument and you couldn't answer a question about it. This results in you being right, you don't even have to defend your claims, we must just accept what you tell us and admit we are wrong. Oh wise one.
Richard7 never had an issue clarifying and validating what I was saying. Mesenja started making the exact same points I was making after a brief time on the Doctrinal Questions board.
And now it appears that you are in a world all alone. Everyone agrees with you (but me of course - I can't because you won't answer the questions I ask).
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
So, sorry not sorry for identifying a point that shows how we can pull the punch with our adversaries. I'm trying to be helpful. Yet, for some reason, all you can do is the worst of me.
I assume you are missing a word in that last sentence, maybe it was supposed to say "see" the worst in me.

Anyway, I have never judged you. I have never condemned you. I think you're wrong and I do so because works matter. The idea that the "reason" we do those works may suddenly makes them evil works astounds me. Christ has repeatedly said that our works will determine our salvation or our damnation. To me, that means that regardless of what religion you are committed to, if you do good works, you will be saved. If you do evil works, you will be damned. It's pretty clear. I don't care if you're an atheist, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Methodist, Baptist, Catholic, Mormon, Jehovah's Witness. It's all the same, it all applies across the board... good goes to heaven, evil goes to hell. It's that simple.

How can we be judged according to the flesh but live according to God in the spirit? What is your understanding of that question? Read it in context with 1 Peter 4:6. This verse is in direct relation to the gospel being taught to those who died in the days of Noah. These as well as many Christians today (or Buddhists or Muslims or Hindi or Atheists) have no knowledge of God in the world, but they lived good lives. They lived right. Then, after death, they can be taught about God in the world and accept him and there, they can receive Christ according to their faith. Their works will still be judged according to how they lived in the flesh, but they can receive God in Christ at any time - even after death.

No other religion has anything like this. There is no hope for the dead, but in our church, the work continues and the ordinances they needed to obtain in life can be obtained through vicarious work for the dead.

I'm sorry, not sorry. Works are so vital to our salvation that regardless of why one does them, they will be the mark of faith that will save them whether in life or in death.

I don't think you're bad or evil or anything that might be construed as "worse". I just think you're wrong and misguided. I'm not being very nice about it, I agree. But I have a problem when members judge the church as if they can dictate to the Lord what His church should be doing or should have done.

After all is said and done, I still don't know what you think faith alone means. You won't answer my questions. But this much I do know. There is no such thing as faith alone in our church or in the early church. That is a concoction of evangelicals to excuse themselves from striving to follow Christ and to justify themselves in their evil actions. I also believe it was a way to end confessions as performed in the Catholic church, that no one was beholden to a priest to be forgiven of sins.
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings again Aaron32,
What happens after the 1000 years?
I do not know of any direct reference or explanation as to what will happen. Let us deal with the present and the 1000 years first. We may learn concerning that future period soon after the return of Jesus, but we will have sufficient to occupy our mind and heart during the Kingdom.
What do you believe is the purpose of existence?
We are insignificant individuals in the purpose of God, which is to fill the earth with His Glory Numbers 14:21. Speaking from experience, I can say that I have greatly benefited from my contact with God the Father, His mercy, guidance and caring hand, and our Lord Jesus Christ, and with my wife to whom I have been married for 55 years today, my children, my fellowship with my brothers and sisters in the faith. If I was to die today and had no further part or lot, I would still say Thank You and then breathe my last. I hope that Jesus will return soon or I may need to be resurrected, but I earnestly desire to participate in the 1000 years. I am convinced that the experience will be magnificent, rewarding and many other words that I cannot muster at the moment..

Kind regards
Trevor
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Where do you get the idea that I don't believe in the truth is one great whole? Why are you complaining about me attacking you? What has that go to do with truth?
Every religion has some truth, and when I point out the common ground you immediately attack me. 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.
Both the Book of Mormon and the Bible clearly reference the doctrine of pre-existence. You claim it's not to be found in either. I gave instances from both that clearly show references to us, you and me and everyone in the world, were present in the pre-existence.
I never made that claim. I said that the BoM talks about it as much as the Bible does. Yet, some people, like TrevorL, interpret those verses in the bible differently, and if you understand how they interpret those verses, you can apply the same understanding to the Book of Mormon. Now, that assertion could be wrong, but instead of point out how I'm wrong, you simply attack me instead.
actions speak louder than words. You're not here to learn. It appears that you are here to convince everyone else that you are right, even down to the point that the church is wrong and you are right.
Projection
I don't know what you said there. It doesn't make any sense to me.
It means I can think for myself without being told what to think, and there's nothing wrong with that.
It's not wrong to question (if that's what you mean). However, it is wrong to accept only your own truth in denial of everyone else's input. Especially when you deny the truth of the religion that you claim you believe is true.
Ok. So my religion teaches Heavenly Mother is a thing, with no scriptural basis at all - a standard I am told by Church Leaders to use in cases of uncertainty. Must I accept other people's input over my own? Is that our religion - to defy our our reasoning because a plausible man-made belief is spoken (due to tradition)? If so, then that means: 1) we would actually be a cult, 2) no one should have ever challenged the Catholic Church and we'd all be worshipping Mary right now.
In this particular instance, you seem to have completely glossed over the precepts of the preexistence being part of the Bible and Book of Mormon when it's clearly mentioned on both (in almost the exact same wording. How can you continue to believe you are right about that when it's been shown that it does exist? That's a clear case of denial.
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. Maybe, premortality may not be as clearly stated as you think it is, otherwise, it would never be a topic of debate.
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.
It seems to me, that in the pursuit of finding common ground, you're willing to use the same arguments our critics do. Somehow foreknowledge is supposed to trump knowing us before we were born and calling us forth giving us opportunities that others don't have.
Yes. That is a necessary process of "finding common ground" - giving plausible legitimacy to their arguments to understand where they're coming from. When you understand both sides of something, and defend your adversary's argument better than they can, you can pull the punch and take the discussion to a deeper level vs just saying "you're wrong."
What is foreknowledge based on? Does God have a crystal ball where he can see everything past, present, and future? I'm not denying that he can see those things, but my question is what is it based on? I certainly hope you don't believe it's based on creating us to do the very things we do. Hopefully, you see the pitfall in such an idea.
On one hand, foreknowledge is based on awareness out of experience, as you describe below.
On the other hand, we don't completely understand the nature of God. I'm not closed to the idea that he's a 4th dimensional being. Of course, for me, that is the easiest justification to explain how God is all-powerful and all things happen according to His will.
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 believe that foreknowledge is based on the past. If you have individuals who constantly seek the ill fate of those around them, then you can pretty well tell that in the future, they will continue doing the same thing. That's not to say that many will change. Some people are the way they are because of the people they choose to hang around. I believe a wise parent can see that. That's called foreknowledge.
Yep. Being an analyst by profession, understanding statistics and probabilities, and knowing how to scientifically determine the strength of a given forecast doesn't make it hard to determine how an all-knowing God can know what will happen before it does. Any parent can anticipate the likely behavior of their children in a given situation. So, on one hand, foreknowledge is based on awareness.
But the fact that God called them from the foundation of the world based on his foreknowledge is a clear indication of being present before God before we were born into mortality. Both the Book of Mormon and the Bible teach that.
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. Joseph Smith spoke to this when he talked about organizing intelligences from greatest to least (in either the KFD or Sermon in the Grove). I can get the exact quote if you want it.
I beg to disagree. From what I've seen of your arguments, you come here to insist that we are wrong and that you are right.
Projection
 
Last edited:

Aaron32

Well-known member
If that's what you did, then I wouldn't have anything to say about it. Take for example the argument about faith alone. There is no such thing, yet you insist that we are wrong and that you are right. Where have you vetted anything on this forum concerning that subject? You won't even explain what faith alone means to you. I asked over and over and over and you kept deflecting saying it wasn't worth your time, or maybe I'm just not worth your time.
It's wrong to take a term from a religion that is not your own, and then redefine it.
It's doubly wrong to use that term, and your definition, and then attribute it to the person of the opposing religion. 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.
You said it didn't talk about it, not it talks about it minimally. Those are two different things. FYI. The doctrine about the pre-existence was not restored through the Book of Mormon. We had that in the Bible already. However, the Book of Mormon is a second witness to that doctrine.
Read the OP. First sentence - "The Book of Mormon doesn't talk about pre-mortality any more than the Bible does."
It's clear you over looked the italicized qualifying statement to think I actually didn't believe in pre-mortality. 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.
You act like we haven't learned anything. Why would we go backward and not talk about the pre-existence?
Because examples of missionaries never did. Because the D&C counsels to speak only of repentance. Maybe it's a mystery and a "heavenly thing" when when we've assumed it's common knowledge, causing more opposition than necessary and pulling us off the message we should be proclaiming.
Why pretend it doesn't exist? (of course, they didn't. They knew it existed.
I'm not advocating to pretend it doesn't exist. But it wasn't necessary for Nephi or Jesus to bring it up to explain the Doctrine of Christ - which is really the only message that matters.
It would eliminate the 8 definitions of "salvation", and define salvation in a singular context - leading to a proper understanding of temple ordinances.
They didn't obsess about it because everyone understood it.
That's your assumption.
So what was plain and precious was lost, not from the verbiage we find in the Bible and the Book of Mormon but from the forms of godliness that deny the power thereof.
Exactly. You just restated the point of my OP.
No. We don't need to follow their lead. We need to follow the lead of those who are the head of the church today.
To my knowledge, church leaders tell us to read scriptures daily, and follow the examples of the faithful in the scriptures. (Cue in Nephi's Courage, Book of Mormon Stories) So you're kinda contradicting yourself here.
They have not made any mistakes in their leadership, whether it be polygamy, race in the priesthood, or what constitutes a family.
So, people that misunderstand is on the part of the hearer not the speaker? That's called blaming the victim.
The Church has tried to market itself to become distinct from other Churches - centralizing the message on Joseph Smith and the family. No doubt Church Leadership tried the best they could, but that doesn't mean it was perfect. Thus, they are doing everything they can to make it Christ centered now.
Said. You quoted the point and still didn't see it. You're here to find common ground, even when there isn't any.
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.
Again, you prove my point. It was not loaded, it was not fallacious. Your argument and you couldn't answer a question about it. This results in you being right, you don't even have to defend your claims, we must just accept what you tell us and admit we are wrong. Oh wise one.
Lol!
As I recall, the question is "How important are our works to our salvation?"
This assumes "works are important to our salvation." I can "work" for anything - duty, reward, praise, etc. Yet, If I believe it's faith in Jesus Christ that is of key importance to our salvation, and works are a RESULT of that faith then it's not works that are of primary importance. You must first look at the causality and intent of those works to be of any efficacy. Ordinances only count when their sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise.
I can, and have, watched many people in my Church work themselves to death, popping anti-depressants along the way. Works, of their own merit are completely worthless - and are of zero importance of we don't correctly understand the salvation Christ has offered to us, and understand the doctrine of Christ. Meaning - we follow the Holy Ghost out of worship for God and fulfilling His will, and it's promptings that may come from our thoughts, the scriptures, or Church Leaders. We don't follow our thoughts, the scriptures, or Church Leaders just for the sake of obedience.
Thus, asking "How important are works?" doesn't really get to the point. I can, and have, said "very important" or "zero importance" - both answers are true given the context.
I'm sorry that you find it so frustrating that I'm not wrong. Hopefully, you can shift your mind out of the win/lose paradigm and just seek truth objectively out of a natural curiosity.

And now it appears that you are in a world all alone. Everyone agrees with you (but me of course - I can't because you won't answer the questions I ask).
Well, if everyone agrees with me, then that would mean you're the isolated one.
And you will probably continue to claim I still haven't answered your question, because I haven't met the criteria of your preconceived "correct" answer. That's a stumbling block you will probably need God's help to remove if you still are unable to understand my reasoning.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Greetings again Aaron32,

I do not know of any direct reference or explanation as to what will happen. Let us deal with the present and the 1000 years first. We may learn concerning that future period soon after the return of Jesus, but we will have sufficient to occupy our mind and heart during the Kingdom.
Very wise.
We are insignificant individuals in the purpose of God, which is to fill the earth with His Glory Numbers 14:21. Speaking from experience, I can say that I have greatly benefited from my contact with God the Father, His mercy, guidance and caring hand, and our Lord Jesus Christ, and with my wife to whom I have been married for 55 years today, my children, my fellowship with my brothers and sisters in the faith. If I was to die today and had no further part or lot, I would still say Thank You and then breathe my last. I hope that Jesus will return soon or I may need to be resurrected, but I earnestly desire to participate in the 1000 years. I am convinced that the experience will be magnificent, rewarding and many other words that I cannot muster at the moment..

Kind regards
Trevor
Yes!!! Agreed 100%! Sounds like the Westminster Catechism "Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever."

Thank you for sharing! I wish more members of my church shared this understanding and permitted themselves to feel the simple joy of living the gospel without even worrying about reward in the next life.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
I assume you are missing a word in that last sentence, maybe it was supposed to say "see" the worst in me.

Anyway, I have never judged you. I have never condemned you. I think you're wrong and I do so because works matter. The idea that the "reason" we do those works may suddenly makes them evil works astounds me. Christ has repeatedly said that our works will determine our salvation or our damnation. To me, that means that regardless of what religion you are committed to, if you do good works, you will be saved. If you do evil works, you will be damned. It's pretty clear. I don't care if you're an atheist, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Methodist, Baptist, Catholic, Mormon, Jehovah's Witness. It's all the same, it all applies across the board... good goes to heaven, evil goes to hell. It's that simple.

How can we be judged according to the flesh but live according to God in the spirit? What is your understanding of that question? Read it in context with 1 Peter 4:6. This verse is in direct relation to the gospel being taught to those who died in the days of Noah. These as well as many Christians today (or Buddhists or Muslims or Hindi or Atheists) have no knowledge of God in the world, but they lived good lives. They lived right. Then, after death, they can be taught about God in the world and accept him and there, they can receive Christ according to their faith. Their works will still be judged according to how they lived in the flesh, but they can receive God in Christ at any time - even after death.

No other religion has anything like this. There is no hope for the dead, but in our church, the work continues and the ordinances they needed to obtain in life can be obtained through vicarious work for the dead.

I'm sorry, not sorry. Works are so vital to our salvation that regardless of why one does them, they will be the mark of faith that will save them whether in life or in death.

I don't think you're bad or evil or anything that might be construed as "worse". I just think you're wrong and misguided. I'm not being very nice about it, I agree. But I have a problem when members judge the church as if they can dictate to the Lord what His church should be doing or should have done.

After all is said and done, I still don't know what you think faith alone means. You won't answer my questions. But this much I do know. There is no such thing as faith alone in our church or in the early church. That is a concoction of evangelicals to excuse themselves from striving to follow Christ and to justify themselves in their evil actions. I also believe it was a way to end confessions as performed in the Catholic church, that no one was beholden to a priest to be forgiven of sins.
The point made here are worthy of starting a new thread which I'll most likely post later today.
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
Very wise.

Yes!!! Agreed 100%! Sounds like the Westminster Catechism "Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever."

Thank you for sharing! I wish more members of my church shared this understanding and permitted themselves to feel the simple joy of living the gospel without even worrying about reward in the next life.
Aaron, mormonism is based on rewards in the next life. The doctrines revolve around racking up points to get higher exaltation… godhood, eternal increase, etc. Whereas, Christ spoke mostly about how to live here, how to show our love for God and each other. And God gets all the glory. Not humans hoping for higher status in the next life.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Aaron, mormonism is based on rewards in the next life. The doctrines revolve around racking up points to get higher exaltation… godhood, eternal increase, etc. Whereas, Christ spoke mostly about how to live here, how to show our love for God and each other. And God gets all the glory. Not humans hoping for higher status in the next life.
Unfortunately, many see mormonism as you do (member and non-member alike).
For me, Mormonism is less about rewards, and more about establishing Zion.
 

Richard7

Well-known member
Greetings again Richard7 and brotherofJared,

Even this comment seems strange to me as I believe that the One God, Yahweh, God the Father created all things.

I finished reading the book I mentioned this morning. Previously I had some idea of a few of the teachings of LDS, but this book certainly covered a much larger perspective on the history, the teachings and the practices of the Mormons. One thing I was uncertain about is that I assumed that the teenage or 20 y.o. "elders" may have represented the only major interaction and preaching to the public and I assumed that older Mormons were inactive and I was not sure if they were at all interested or enthusiastic. Both of you have given an insight that some of the older generation feel strongly about their beliefs and are willing to strongly defend these. I appreciate the time and effort, but I will be putting my book back on the shelf now, and I doubt that another pair of "Elders" will visit me in the next 30 years. I would be 108 y.o. by then and I anticipate the return of Jesus before the next 30 years, and realistically my health will also fail soon. We have one 105 or 106 year old member in our meeting.

Kind regards
Trevor
I'm a General Contractor, I create homes, building, cabinets, etc..... just like God, I use existing materials...

Its always good to study and learn.... Light and knowledge is what God gives us...
 

Elijah the Tishbite

Active member
The pure in heart

Moses 7:18 And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For other uses, see Zion (disambiguation) and Mount Zion (disambiguation).

Zion (1903), Ephraim Moses Lilien
Zion (Hebrew: צִיּוֹן Ṣīyyōn, LXX Σιών, also variously transliterated Sion,[1] Tzion, Tsion, Tsiyyon)[2] is a placename in the Hebrew Bible used as a synonym for Jerusalem[3][4] as well as for the Land of Israel as a whole (see Names of Jerusalem).
The name is found in 2 Samuel (5:7), one of the books of the Hebrew Bible dated to before or close to the mid-6th century BCE. It originally referred to a specific hill in Jerusalem (Mount Zion), located to the south of Mount Moriah (the Temple Mount). According to the narrative of 2 Samuel 5, Mount Zion held the Jebusite fortress of the same name that was conquered by David and was renamed the City of David. That specific hill ("mount") is one of the many squat hills that form Jerusalem, which also includes Mount Moriah (the Temple Mount), the Mount of Olives, etc. Over many centuries, until as recently as the Ottoman era, the city walls of Jerusalem were rebuilt many times in new locations, so that the particular hill known as Mount Zion is no longer inside the city wall, but its location is now just outside the portion of the Old City wall forming the southern boundary of the Jewish Quarter of the current Old City. Most of the original City of David itself is thus also outside the current city wall.
The term Tzion came to designate the area of Davidic Jerusalem where the fortress stood, and was used as well as synecdoche for the entire city of Jerusalem; and later, when Solomon's Temple was built on the adjacent Mount Moriah (which, as a result, came to be known as the Temple Mount) the meanings of the term Tzion were further extended by synecdoche to the additional meanings of the Temple itself, the hill upon which the Temple stood, the entire city of Jerusalem, the entire biblical Land of Israel, and "the World to Come", the Jewish understanding of the afterlife.
 
Top