What degree of obedience qualifies for salvation?

[Magdalena]

It looks to me like you believe what you're told without even knowing why.

From God, yes. I’m ok with not knowing all the reasons or mysteries. Because I trust Him.

 

[brotherofJared]

From God, yes. I’m ok with not knowing all the reasons or mysteries. Because I trust Him.

Sad.

If you trust him and he says that you can ask and receive, but you don't know why he would put a child in an abusive relationship and then condemn him because he died before he could learn of God. Either you didn't ask and reacted the way sheep would, or you you did ask and found out once again that your God can't really be trusted. Which is it?

 

[brotherofJared]

So you're saying GOD is wrong?

No. I'm saying you all are wrong.

 

[Magdalena]

Sad.

If you trust him and he says that you can ask and receive, but you don't know why he would put a child in an abusive relationship and then condemn him because he died before he could learn of God. Either you didn't ask and reacted the way sheep would, or you you did ask and found out once again that your God can't really be trusted. Which is it?

Wow. That’s a really demonic statement. I don’t think it even deserves a response. I’ll ask Him to remove that influence from you.

 

[organgrinder]

Yes, God has no obligation to answer to me.

If the Sergeant says, "Jump!"
The private doesn't say, "Why should I?"

If God says, "ALL have sinned".
The sinner doesn't say, "PROVE it!"

I believe God.
You don't.
And that's the bottom line.

And this is exactly what this Mormon has repeatedly done on this forum. You cannot reason with someone who wants to be unreasonable and contrary, especially to the written word of God (the Bible).

 

[brotherofJared]

Wow. That’s a really demonic statement.

Hmmm. What happened here? Did you finally decide to read the post you were replying to? That influence exists in the world and God put those people in those situations.

 

[Theo1689]

Sad.

If you trust him and he says that you can ask and receive,

Well, we would first need to discuss the CONTEXT and specific meaning of that passage.
And only the LDS understanding would be relevant here.

but you don't know why he would put a child in an abusive relationship and then condemn him because he died before he could learn of God.

I certainly have a decent understanding (IMO) of why.
But it's not relevant to Mormonism, so not appropriate for discussion here.

If you would like to discuss the non-Mormon understanding, then perhaps if you took your question to an appropriate forum, then I or someone else might consider responding to you.

Either you didn't ask and reacted the way sheep would, or you you did ask and found out once again that your God can't really be trusted. Which is it?

Is this is the Mormon understanding?
(We are in the MORMONISM forum, after all...)

 

[Bonnie]

From God, yes. I’m ok with not knowing all the reasons or mysteries. Because I trust Him.

That is true. So do I. Some things are not meant to be known, this side of heaven. But we are to trust Jesus Christ in all things.

 

[Aaron32]

That is true. So do I. Some things are not meant to be known, this side of heaven. But we are to trust Jesus Christ in all things.

So here's my question.
If something conflicts in the Bible - mysteries are ok, but if something conflicts in Mormonism - it's a cult, bad, false, etc.

Can't Mormon critics see the double standard?

 

[Theo1689]

So here's my question.
If something conflicts in the Bible - mysteries are ok,

A "mystery" (ie. an unanswered question) is not a "conflict".

There is nothing in the Bible that "conflicts" with Christianity.
There is TONS in the Bible that "conflict" with Mormonism's teachings of:
1) plural gods;
2) works required for salvation/exaltaion;
3) polygamy a virtue;
4) marriages continuing past death;
5) teenaged, immature, unmarried "elders" and "deacons";
6) etc.
7) etc.
8) etc.

but if something conflicts in Mormonism - it's a cult, bad, false, etc.

Correct. Anything that contradicts/conflicts with the Bible is false.

Can't Mormon critics see the double standard?

There is no "double standard".

 

[Magdalena]

So here's my question.
If something conflicts in the Bible - mysteries are ok, but if something conflicts in Mormonism - it's a cult, bad, false, etc.

Can't Mormon critics see the double standard?

We were responding to this statement... “It looks to me like you believe what you're told without even knowing why.”

When it comes to what God says, we believe It on faith without always knowing the reasons behind what He told us.

When Joseph Smith didn’t know, understand, or like the things God said in the Bible, he made up his own reasons/doctrines that conflict with the Bible, and claimed God told him.

 

[brotherofJared]

Well, we would first need to discuss the CONTEXT and specific meaning of that passage.

You need context to understand that those who ask shall receive?

I certainly have a decent understanding (IMO) of why.

Well, the reason you gave is that he sinned. I just want to know what sin you think he committed. You seem to be unable to answer that question.

But it's not relevant to Mormonism, so not appropriate for discussion here.

It is relevant to this discussion and the discussion is here. I'm not going to argue with your answer if it has some logical basis. but if you believe it because a book said it, then that's just sad. And i accept that too, but it's still sad.

Is this is the Mormon understanding?

It appears to me that all of this is beyond your ability to reason. IOW, it's outside your understanding and that's sad too.

 

[brotherofJared]

There is nothing in the Bible that "conflicts" with Christianity.
There is TONS in the Bible that "conflict" with Mormonism's teachings of:
1) plural gods;

The Bible conflicts with the idea that there is only one God in existence. But that conflict is okay. You all are willing to accept that even though the Bible abounds with passages that reveal other Gods do, in fact, exist.

2) works required for salvation/exaltaion;

Again, The Bible abounds with the necessity of works, but those conflicts are ignored in favor of what you all prefer to believe.

3) polygamy a virtue;

That's your interpretation. None of us have ever said it was a virtue. but it is necessary. And the Bible teaches that it is necessary. But that conflict isn't important.

4) marriages continuing past death;

And yet there was no death in the world when marriage was instituted. And God specifically stated that no man could separate the two, yet you think that death can. Yet another conflict that's okay with you all.

5) teenaged, immature, unmarried "elders" and "deacons";

 

[Theo1689]

The Bible conflicts with the idea that there is only one God in existence.

Deut. 4:35 ... the Lord is God; there is no other besides him
Deut. 4:39 ... the Lord is God... there is no other.
Deut. 32:39 ... and there is no god besides me;
2 Sam. 7:22 ... neither  is there any  God besides thee, ...
2 Sam. 22:32 For who  is  God, save the LORD?
1 Kings 8:60 ... the Lord is God; there is no other.
1 Chr. 17:20 ... neither  is there any  God besides thee, ...
Isa. 44:6 ... I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me  there is no God.
Isa. 44:8 ... Is there a God besides me?  yea, there is  no God; I know not any.
Isa. 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is  no God besides me:
Is. 45:21 ... there is no God else besides me;
Isa 45:22 ... for I am God, and  there is  none else.
Isa. 46:9 ... for I am God, and  there is  none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
Mark 12:32 … for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
1 Cor. 8:4 … and that there is none other God but one.

Again, The Bible abounds with the necessity of works,

Eph. 2:8 ... And this is not your own doing ...
Eph. 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
2 Tim. 1:9 who saved us ... not because of our works
Tit. 3:5 he saved us, not because of works ...
Rom. 4:5 And to the one who does not work ... his faith is counted as righteousness,
Rom. 4:6 ... the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
Rom. 11:6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works;

And yet there was no death in the world when marriage was instituted. And God specifically stated that no man could separate the two, yet you think that death can.

Rom. 7:2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him.
Rom. 7:3 So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress.a But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.

1Cor. 7:39 A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives.a But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.

Theo1689 said:
5) teenaged, immature, unmarried "elders" and "deacons";

Titus 1:5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— 6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.

1Tim. 3:2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

1Tim. 3:12 Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well.

 

[Aaron32]

We were responding to this statement... “It looks to me like you believe what you're told without even knowing why.”

When it comes to what God says, we believe It on faith without always knowing the reasons behind what He told us.

So that statement came from trying to explain Rom 3:23 when BoJ is essentially asking (or rather proving per Theo's request) "What sin can a baby commit?"
Theo's answer is essentially - I don't know, the Bible says so.

Ok. To me, I think Theo's response is fair.
Yet, according to our Christian Mormon critics - for the Mormon position to be right, Mormons must have a justifiable explanation to be acceptable.
BoJ could simply said - "the prophet said so." and the rationale is just as strong or weak.

On both sides of the issue - It's an appeal to authority, and an argument from absence. But, this since this is a religious discussion, "God of the gaps" is a valid answer. Hence, @brotherofJared, this is why I say "less is more".

When Joseph Smith didn’t know, understand, or like the things God said in the Bible, he made up his own reasons/doctrines that conflict with the Bible, and claimed God told him.

That's if you choose to believe that the LDS Church is a cult, and everything Joseph Smith said was a prophetic utterance, which many believing Mormons don't. The simple principle of personal revelation refutes all that. Else, why need personal revelation at all if the prophet will tell you what to believe?

 

[Magdalena]

So that statement came from trying to explain Rom 3:23 when BoJ is essentially asking (or rather proving per Theo's request) "What sin can a baby commit?"
Theo's answer is essentially - I don't know, the Bible says so.

Ok. To me, I think Theo's response is fair.
Yet, according to our Christian Mormon critics - for the Mormon position to be right, Mormons must have a justifiable explanation to be acceptable.
BoJ could simply said - "the prophet said so." and the rationale is just as strong or weak.

Except were talking about God and His word. Not mormon prophets. Mormons claim to believe in God’s word... until they don’t.

On both sides of the issue - It's an appeal to authority, and an argument from absence. But, this since this is a religious discussion, "God of the gaps" is a valid answer. Hence, @brotherofJared, this is why I say "less is more".


That's if you choose to believe that the LDS Church is a cult, and everything Joseph Smith said was a prophetic utterance, which many believing Mormons don't. The simple principle of personal revelation refutes all that. Else, why need personal revelation at all if the prophet will tell you what to believe?

Mormons used to believe what their prophets said. They were supposed to speak for God on earth. The prophets spoke for the church and the doctrine. Personal revelation was for your own life. And personal revelation didnt trump what the prophets said. If you got a different answer, yours was wrong. Not the prophets.

If modern Mormons don’t think they have to believe the prophets, then why have them? It’s like with the Bible... you believe your prophets until you don’t.

Its like believing in nothing.

 

[Aaron32]

Except were talking about God and His word. Not mormon prophets. Mormons claim to believe in God’s word... until they don’t.

So you're claiming the Bible doesnt contradict itself?

Mormons used to believe what their prophets said. They were supposed to speak for God on earth. The prophets spoke for the church and the doctrine. Personal revelation was for your own life. And personal revelation didnt trump what the prophets said. If you got a different answer, yours was wrong. Not the prophets.

Yet, it still has to qualify as doctrine to be considered doctrine.

If modern Mormons don’t think they have to believe the prophets, then why have them?

Like I've said before, the Prophets and apostles govern the Church.

It’s like with the Bible... you believe your prophets until you don’t. Its like believing in nothing.

So again, this is based on the assumption no contradictions in the Bible. Yet, there are.

 

[Magdalena]

So you're claiming the Bible doesnt contradict itself?


Yet, it still has to qualify as doctrine to be considered doctrine.

Like I've said before, the Prophets and apostles govern the Church.


So again, this is based on the assumption no contradictions in the Bible. Yet, there are.

No, I said we trust God. We don’t throw Him under the bus when we don’t understand something or don’t have all the answers. And we don’t make them up ourselves.

We do what He said... “Be still and know that I am God.”

 

[organgrinder]

So that statement came from trying to explain Rom 3:23 when BoJ is essentially asking (or rather proving per Theo's request) "What sin can a baby commit?"
Theo's answer is essentially - I don't know, the Bible says so.

Ok. To me, I think Theo's response is fair.
Yet, according to our Christian Mormon critics - for the Mormon position to be right, Mormons must have a justifiable explanation to be acceptable.
BoJ could simply said - "the prophet said so." and the rationale is just as strong or weak.

On both sides of the issue - It's an appeal to authority, and an argument from absence. But, this since this is a religious discussion, "God of the gaps" is a valid answer. Hence, @brotherofJared, this is why I say "less is more".


That's if you choose to believe that the LDS Church is a cult, and everything Joseph Smith said was a prophetic utterance, which many believing Mormons don't. The simple principle of personal revelation refutes all that. Else, why need personal revelation at all if the prophet will tell you what to believe?

Or Aaron, why need a singular prophet at all if everyone has personal revelation which can vary widely? OT prophets were used by God to speak to the people. When speaking in the name of the Lord they were to be believed. Here, from what I can see in your church and these statements, is what the prophet speaks in the Lord's name is to be believed provided it agrees with personal revelation. Some do and some don't. Is that a fair assesment?

 

[Theo1689]

Ok. To me, I think Theo's response is fair.
Yet, according to our Christian Mormon critics - for the Mormon position to be right, Mormons must have a justifiable explanation to be acceptable.

The issue is not that "Mormons don't have explanation".
The issue is that Mormon teachings EXPLICITLY contradict the Bible.

BoJ could simply said - "the prophet said so." and the rationale is just as strong or weak.

Except that Mormon "prophets" aren't true "prophets".

And we still have the problem that Mormon "prophets" have CONTRADICTED the Bible.
That's why Joseph Smith had to CHANGE the Bible, after all.

That's if you choose to believe that the LDS Church is a cult, and everything Joseph Smith said was a prophetic utterance, which many believing Mormons don't. The simple principle of personal revelation refutes all that. Else, why need personal revelation at all if the prophet will tell you what to believe?

Well, first of all, the Bible does TEACH "personal revelation".
In fact, the Bible teaches that the Scriptures are sufficient, without needing "personal revelation":

2Tim. 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Further, it could easily be argued that the Bible argues AGAINST "personal revelation", at least Mormons make that argument whenever they appeal to:

2Pet. 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.