What degree of obedience qualifies for salvation?

[Aaron32]

To an extent. A caveat is needed, "... is scripture for the individual who received it and not for the church".

Yep.

 

[Aaron32]

A Non-LDS opinion will ALWAYS BE "irrelevant". That's how CULTS work.

Just like the cult of anti-Mormonism - always irrelevant.

 

[Aaron32]

Apparently, you are not aware of the work for the dead. Since Baptism is a legal requirement, someone has to do it and the dead can't, so; I believe it is something that "as members of the Church" we need to worry about.

You said billions of people are lost on the belief of "faith only". Now you're moving the goalposts? Yes. Of course faithful members perform proxy ordinances.

 

[Theo1689]

Good to know. Heaven forbid anyone attempt using logic and reasoning against the groupthink of Christianity.

<Chuckle>

Typical Mormon rhetoric and propaganda....

Mormon = "logic and reasoning" (= "good")
Christian = "groupthink" (= "bad").

Without having to point out that you can't simultaneously argue that Christianity is "groupthink" as well as, "confusion with many conflicting doctrines", I was reminded of a quote by Chrysostom:

" 'Each of you,' he says, 'claims to speak the truth.' Quite so! But that's in our favour. If we told you to be convinced by mere arguments, you might well be bewildered. However, if we ask you to believe the Scriptures, and if the Scriptures are plain and true, the choice is easy fo your. Whoever agrees with Scripture, he is the Christian; whoever fights against Scripture, he is far from the rule of belief."
-- Chrysostom, Homily 33 on Acts of the Apostles.

So the true distinction is:

Christian = Scripture
Mormon = rationalization and imagination

Sounds like atheist reasoning in Christian clothing.

<sigh>
More worthless Mormon propaganda and rhetoric.

 

[brotherofJared]

Rhetoric aside and in brief...

Your rhetoric or mine?

Guard or watch over amplifies the intended meaning,

The intended meaning of keep? Don't you think it's the other way around? That "keep" amplifies the meaning fo the word, "guard or watch over"?

it only changes your initial and problematic understanding;

It appears to change the initial or problematic understanding of the translators. Maybe you should contact them and tell them they messed it up. If it amplifies the meaning, please, tell me how it is amplified by a word that the translators, who are scholars, used. I really want to know. This appears to be a great mystery.

Go check out an amplified version and see for yourself

It seems that you have checked out an amplified version, but are unable to explain exactly how it's amplified.

This is a discussion forum

Of course, it is, but you don't seem to be discussing much. You certainly aren't amplifying anything that you claim is amplified.

no one keeps the commandments

False. A better statement would be, No one keeps all of the commandments perfectly. But if you're talking about the 10 commandments, I keep all of them.

when the topic of the law surfaces and finger pointing begins, everyone is guilty.

The law is completely different than the commandments. The Law came in two parts, sacrifices made for sins that have been fulfilled and are no longer performed and a list of crimes and the punishments for committing those crimes. The commandments are a list of things that if we do, we can come to know God, according to 1 John 2:3.

The only commandment that comes with a consequence is Honor thy Father and thy Mother that thy days may be long upon the land. None of them have a penalty associated with them outside of secular law. But they are given that we might draw closer to God and learn more from him.

I believe you.

I realize you do, but it seems that asking questions to find out what you think is rarely answered.

 

[Aaron32]

You can reject what I say,

Done

butut the scriptures seem plain to me.

Me too.

 

[brotherofJared]

Translation: it contradicts my LDS theology, so I don't want to deal with it.

We know.

How would you know?

I certainly AM "Willfully Ignorant" of his (Joseph Smith's) garbage.

Aren't you willfully ignorant of LDS theologies?

 

[Aaron32]

There is. That law is follow Christ. Period.

Follow Christ - that sounds a lot having faith.

The difference in "having faith" and "follow Christ" though is we can't always follow Christ perfectly, but we can always have faith even when we make mistakes. For example, 3 Nephi 11 is says:
"29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another."
Yet, you seem to have no problem creating contention. Does this mean you're not saved?

The work itself does not save us, but if the work is not done, you can't be saved. Look at it this way, the work qualifies us for salvation. You cannot be saved if you are not baptized. PERIOD. But getting baptized does not save you. You cannot be exalted if you are not married, but getting married does not save you. It is necessary to enter through the door to get inside the house but you don't have to stay inside the house. You can leave any time you want. Only those in the house will be saved, metaphorically speaking.

I agree. It sounds like your trying to describe "having faith".

 

[Aaron32]

CHuckle!!! Real Christians ARE "Athiests" to the LDS.

That's quite an omission.

 

[Theo1689]

Yet, you seem to have no problem creating contention. Does this mean you're not saved?

<Chuckle>

So predictable.... Whenever a Mormon is losing an argument, he accuses the other of "creating contention", or "being contentious". Even if it's another Mormon he's arguing with.

So Aaron disagrees with BoJ.
And BoJ disagrees with Aaron.

So I'm curious as to how you determined it was BoJ who was "creating contention", and not Aaron...

🤣🤣🤣

 

[brotherofJared]

You said billions of people are lost on the belief of faith only.

That was not the context of my statement. I was talking about the billions who have died without a knowledge of Christ.

No you're moving the goalposts?

I don't think so. Let me check. I know I did once already but maybe it changed somehow.

This is what I said:

I also noticed that you completely blew off my statement in this post that there is a difference between those who will be saved and those who won't and the question is, what is that difference? If anyone seriously believes that only those who say "I believe" are those who will be saved, then we truly live in a horrible world and God made it that way. There are so so many good people who will, based on this horrible idea, be lost simply because they believed something else, but were still good people. The idea is ludicrous and is absolutely not just and these are the ones we know about. There are billions upon billions of people who never even heard the words, Jesus Christ, who, through no fault of their own will be damned by such an idea.

I don't see faith only anywhere in my statement. Faith only, would require people who have some knowledge of Christ in order to have this erroneous doctrine. As I said before, there is no such thing as faith alone. The point of my statement is about people who never knew, from infancy to old age they never heard the name of Jesus Christ. If this horrible doctrine is true, then it was God's fault that they didn't hear it. So, through no fault of their own, they would be condemned to damnation.

No you're moving the goalposts? Yes.

So, no, I'm not moving the goal-posts. You just don't know where the goalposts are.

 

[brotherofJared]

Done

Me too.

One of us is wrong. We might both be wrong, but there can only be one correct answer.

 

[Theo1689]

So, through no fault of their own, they would be condemned to damnation.

Or maybe... Just maybe.... They are condemned to damnation because of their SINS.
You don't seem to understand the Bible.
But then again, you're Mormon, so I wonder why I'm surprised.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

How would you know?

Aren't you willfully ignorant of LDS theologies?

Couldn't even get the frame of reference correct. As I said, it's the "Doctrines and Covenants" fairy tale, I'm "willfully ignorant" of.

 

[Aaron32]

So, no, I'm not moving the goal-posts. You just don't know where the goalposts are.

That's for darn sure. Maybe if you didn't write a paragraph for every one of my sentences it would be easier to follow.

I'm really lost on anything you're trying to convey, going on tangents to issues I've never even raised, but I'm sure whatever it is, the conclusion is that you believe I'm wrong - no surprise there. I think the only people you're convincing is you, yourself, and you. Nobody seems to think this board is for actual enlightening discussion, so I guess I'll be on my merry way then. Have fun, y'all.

 

[brotherofJared]

CHuckle!!! Real Christians ARE "Athiests" to the LDS.

Yes. You clearly don't know what we believe.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

How would you know?

Aren't you willfully ignorant of LDS theologies?

Well hey!! Aaron32 thinks Salvation is "Works based" which puts Him (as a representative of the LDS) completely into Biblical Error.

 

[brotherofJared]

A Non-LDS opinion will ALWAYS BE "irrelevant". That's how CULTS work.

How would you know we're a cult? You said you were willfully ignorant of what we believe and that seems more apparent every post.

 

[Aaron32]

Well hey!! Aaron32 thinks Salvation is "Works based" which puts Him (as a representative of the LDS) completely into Biblical Error.

???

 

[Bob Carabbio]

How would you know we're a cult? You said you were willfully ignorant of what we believe and that seems more apparent every post.

I get some idea from what all you LDS victims write.