Haha. Is this you butting in on a public forum discussion?
My name was mentioned. Thus, I jumped in to defend myself.
You posed one and then claimed, along with our critics, that we don't have to keep any of the commandments, we just have to have faith.
What statement of mine are you looking at to think I believe that?
I'm pretty sure in my OP I stated having faith leads to keeping all the other commandments.
I have never been able to understand how a person when given a point-blank question where there is no escape, will not answer it.
When our critics ask point blank questions I don't answer, it's usually because the question has a fallacious question. Do you want answers to questions or do you want understanding?
So I know where you stand on this topic though, please tell me, do you really believe that we are saved by faith alone? Works are not necessary? If you do, then that isn't our theology. I know you still can believe the church is true and all, but your theology creates a conflict. If you don't, you haven't explained it very well.
Do you really want my answer? I'm not sure if you do. If you did, you would have read Alma 5 as I stated in my previous response which says:
10 And now I ask of you on what conditions are they saved? Yea, what grounds had they to hope for salvation? What is the cause of their being loosed from the bands of death, yea, and also the chains of hell?
11 Behold, I can tell you—did not my father Alma believe in the words which were delivered by the mouth of Abinadi? And was he not a holy prophet? Did he not speak the words of God, and my father Alma believe them?
12 And according to his faith there was a mighty change wrought in his heart. Behold I say unto you that this is all true.
13 And behold, he preached the word unto your fathers, and a mighty change was also wrought in their hearts, and they humbled themselves and put their trust in the true and living God. And behold, they were faithful until the end; therefore they were saved.
I know I can't keep all the commandments, but I try to. My trust is in the true and living God, not my works. My faith leads me to my works. Is my faith perfect? No. But I have faith enough to take the sacrament every week.
Along the lines of necessary works, absolutely necessary, is baptism. This would be legalism as I understand what you said from your earlier post. So, Is baptism absolutely necessary for children over the age of 8, regardless of everything else they do in life, no matter how perfect they are, is baptism necessary to enter the kingdom of God? First, what do you think about that and Second, what you think the church teaches and then explain the conflict if there is one.
Answer to 1st question: As I think about it, baptism for 8-year olds is more for the parents than the children. (D&C 68:25)
Answer to 2nd Question: No. I think people can enter the kingdom of God before receiving the ordinance of baptism:
“I saw Fathers Adam and Abraham, and my father and mother, my brother Alvin, that has long since slept, and marvelled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set His hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins.” (D&C 137:5–6)
Joseph did not doubt the truthfulness of the vision, but he “marvelled” at it: His parents were still alive in Kirtland, Ohio, and Alvin, who had been dead for thirteen years, had never been baptized for the remission of his sins. Alvin had, in fact, died seven years before the Church was organized.
Responding to the Prophet’s inner bewilderment, the Lord explained: “All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God.” (D&C 137:7) https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org...mith-reminder-of-the-fairness-of-god?lang=eng
The conflict - there is no conflict if you believe faith is the basis of salvation. Again, that's salvation, not exaltation. Exaltation is collective - where Jesus Christ becomes your Father, and you join your brothers and sisters in Christ.
I know that my abrasive approach will put them off, but the fact is, resistance is always abrasive, even if gentle. I believe the honest seeker of truth will be able to see through the abrasive approach and see that there is an alternative to the critic's narrative.
I believe it doesn't matter what you believe when your duty has already been given to you:
D&C 121:41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; 42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile
No amount of blaming the victim will hold you any less accountable for someone that would have received the gospel if you hadn't been so "abrasive". Impressions matter - Don't play a part in giving Mormons a bad name.
You don't think being accused of running away or told that we don't believe the scriptures or even worse, that we hate the scriptures, is not abrasive? There isn't friction there?
They're men with darkened minds. Why should I care?
Do you believe the honest seeker of truth won't see through such silly antics?
If both sides are participating in silly antics, I don't think they're going to see anything of worth.
These critics are little children stomping about, demanding we must believe what they teach solely on the basis of "because I said so, it's true".
....because "He started it" is always a mature response.
Do I not back up my ideas with reason?
Everything has a reason - good or bad. On the battlefield of ideas, perception is reality.
Have you ever heard the expression "People don't care how much you know, until they know how much you care."?
Logically, if every person in the world is not saved, then those who are must have done something that those who aren't didn't do.
I agree with your premise - I think it's the "something" that we have differences over.
10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
What did the heathen to that the Pharisee did not?
So, I'm not here to teach. I'm here to tell my side of the story...
Yeah, we all know. Maybe saying it AGAIN will make it more convincing.
We agree...it's been said. Now honor men's free agency as God does, and just watch it play out.
You're not the judge of the fruit I bear, nor do you know anything about my fruit.
You're right - I'm not. But you represent my side. If my teammate keeps fumbling the ball over things he can control, I'm going to tell him about it.
On this particular issue, I wasn't aware that we had a disagreement. I see that we do now, but I was responding to a post where they chose not to answer the question. I find it odd that you'd pick a verse that suggests that we need to keep the commandments and then try to explain that we don't need to. But, oh well. I didn't see that one coming.
I think we are in general agreement. But sometimes things can get over-defined and then the true meaning gets lost. (aka. "looking beyond the mark")
Sometimes, less is more.
Here's the situation the way I see it. I tried to help and you got all bent out of shape, then attacked me, telling me that my help isn't needed or wanted.
I'm sincerely sorry if I offended you. But seriously, there's a couple (I believe) well-intended Christians that I've never conversed with (Charismatic Lady and Nic) that I'm conversing with, and then you "abrasively" stomp in on the exchange. I've addressed you in PM a couple times previously. This time, I thought it was important publicly distance myself from your remarks (as I view your behavior giving Mormons a bad name - something I wish our critics would do more of to their own side). In those instances, you weren't helping anybody.
It's ok though. I've had my fill of this forum for a while. Everyone on both sides seems to agree they're not interested in any real discussion. I think after I leave you'll be the last Mormon standing. If you stop posting, just watch - the posts aren't much different as if you posted. It becomes an echo chamber. If I didn't know any better, I'd think they're AI bots.