What degree of obedience qualifies for salvation?

Theo1689

Well-known member
So you're claiming the Bible doesnt contradict itself?

Okay, here we go again....
Mormons attacking the Bible, which is an admission that they don't believe the Bible.

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

What kind of nonsense is this, "qualify as doctrine"?
This is merely yet another excuse to justify rejecting Mormon "prophets" when you don't like what they've taught.

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

Yes, this is a Mormon novelty.
In the Bible, "prophets" and "apostles" NEVER "governed the church".
The church was given to elders to govern.

And no, unlike false Mormon teachings, there's no relationship between "apostles" and "elders".

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

Let me tell you a little story.... In the first 3-4 years of my becoming a Christian, I ran across a few atheists in the discussion forums. And all they loved to do is try to quote "contradictions" in the Bible. And of course, they weren't even any good at it. They simply got their "contradictions" from Christian books such as Gleason Archer's "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" (Norman Geisler has written one as well), yet they simply IGNORE the resolutions. But they never cared. Once you explained why one example wasn't a contradiction, they didn't apologize, they didn't admit they were wrong, they simply gave three more. And when you reconciled those imaginary "contradictions", they simply tried to drown you with 10 more. They ALL had resolutions, but they tried to bury me with "quantity", rather than "quality".

My resolution to them was for them to give me only ONE "contradiction", the one that they thought was the BIGGEST "contradiction" which couldn't be reconciled. And if I could reconcile that one, then all the "easier" ones could be as well. Of course, they never accepted that challenge.

So let me share with you some common (and stupid) claims of "contradictions":

1) In Matthew and Luke, they list two different fathers for Mary. Wrong. One line is Mary's, the other is Joseph's.

2) Prov. 26 says both that we should, and that we shouldn't, answer a fool according to his folly. We're supposed to believe that Solomon contradicted himself from one verse to the next, and didn't even notice. No. It's a Catch-22 of sorts. There are ramifications if we don't act like the fool, and there are ramifications if we do (ie. to show him his folly).

3) The Old Testament has measurements for spherical baths, which when used to calculate pi, get a wrong value of "3". Well, "3" is an accurate value of pi, to one significant digits. When measuring something with "hands", you're not going to get very precise measurements.

4) Paul's conversion in Acts 9 and Acts 22 are contradictory. No, they're not. Acts 9 says his companions heard a voice, but saw no man. Acts 22 says they "saw a light, but heard not the voice". No contradiction. They saw a light, but didn't see men. They heard a voice, but didn't understand ("hear") it, likely it was in Hebrew.

You see, when people are intent on trying to "prove contradictions" in the Bible, they DEMAND that we hold interpretations which cause the interpretation, while when we're looking for truth, we need to give the source, or the author, the benefit of the doubt. That means that when there is more than one interpretation, we have to hold to the interpretation that is consistent, not the one that is allegedly "contradictory".

Further, most claims of "contradiction" are not true contradictions at all.
A contradiction takes the form of simultaneous assertions of:
<X>
<not>-<X>

But the vast majority of the time, when Bible haters (such as Mormons) claim "contradictions", what they generally claim are assertions of:
<X>
<Y>
<some arbitrary premise that causes <X> and <Y> to be contradictory>

And so it is not <X> and <Y> which are truly contradictory, but the "arbitrary premise" which is false, without which there is no "contradiction".
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
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.
All while ignoring the Bible's contents that specifically refute this idea including the entire New Testament with the presents of God in heaven, God in man, and God in the spirit. There are three gods there whether you like it or not.
1 Cor 8
Gen 1
Ps 82
John 10
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;
Still focusing on 4 or 5 words I see.
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.
Again, still ignoring the content you don't like, wasn't that the point of the argument.
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
Still, :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
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.
True. I can understand and accept faith as the reason we do what we do when it comes to questions like, how does the atonement cover our sins? I don't know the answer to that question, but I have faith that it does. But there is something intrinsically wrong with having faith that babies can sin and will be damned to hell because they never had an opportunity to have faith, much less believe, especially when God put them in that situation. What a horrible theology! What a horrible God! The idea that the question How does God justify damning babies just because all have sinned? Could be responded to as I don't know the answer to that question, but I have faith that it works that way. Is simply wrong and bad. Faith is hope. I don't know the answer to that question, but I hope that it does. Works great for our hope in salvation, but it doesn't work so well for dead babies who have no hope, but you have hope that their damnation si right. Isn't kind of sick?

I think it is.
Ok. To me, I think Theo's response is fair.
And, of course, I don't. I think it's idiotic to accept a horrible doctrine of the basis of the book says so. It just seems to be wrong. God is just, but putting babies in harm's way and then damning them because "all have sinned", isn't. So, why would anyone believe such a horrible thing?
Yet, according to our Christian Mormon critics - for the Mormon position to be right, Mormons must have a justifiable explanation to be acceptable.
Oh. it's much worse than that. Even if it says it word for word in the scriptures they claim to believe, they still reject it. :rolleyes:
Hence, @brotherofJared, this is why I say "less is more".
That probably works for sheep but I don't see how we can defend what we believe with less and not more.
Else, why need personal revelation at all if the prophet will tell you what to believe?
Indeed. This is the principle that sheep live by.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Except were talking about God and His word.
If only. But what we're actually talking about is how you interpret his word over how we interpret his word. For example, when the prophet said no one does good, no not one. I honestly don't think he was talking about himself. Such an idea conflicts with the idea that "the prayer of the righteous availeth much". If the former is true, then prayers don't avail much at all. Likewise, when the apostle says that all have sinned, I don't think it's about breaking the commandments or committing moral transgressions. Whatever he's is talking about, it has to cover everyone and babies simply can't actually commit any sin. But you guys won't think about that. You insist that the statement means we're all depraved slugs and if you believe that and still, God will save you, then why not live as depraved slugs anyway? Again, what sin can be attributed to every living soul? The only one I know of is Adam's transgression. Every person will die as a result of that transgression no matter how good they are. Adam's transgression was willful. Unlike Eve who ate the fruit because it was desirable, Adam had to decide what he will do, live forever apart from Eve or eat the fruit and die or willfully separate himself from God. Every person born in mortality is separated from God and if we are right about the preexistence, and I believe we are, then every person here willfully chose to be separated from God. Was there really a fruit to be eaten or was the fruit just a symbol of choice?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Most? Then you must agree that there are contradictions in the Bible. Thank you for proving our point. :rolleyes:

<Chuckle>
Always trying to rip statements out of context.
Of course I'm not "agreeing" with you.

There are ZERO true contradictions in the Bible.
My point was that most of those claimed to be "contradictions" are not in the proper "contradiction" format (ie. "<X>" and "Not-<X>").

There are other claims that are in that format, but in further analysis wind up not being contradictory.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
All while ignoring the Bible's contents that specifically refute this idea including the entire New Testament with the presents of God in heaven, God in man, and God in the spirit. There are three gods there whether you like it or not.
1 Cor 8
Gen 1
Ps 82
John 10

I'm more than happy to continue posting the citations over and over agin which contradict Mormonism and prove Mormonism false. You always IGNORE them, which proves that Mormons have to constantly RUN AWAY from passages which contradict their teachings.

Now you bring up some citations, and not only do not QUOTE them, but you don't even explain how they teach true multiple "gods". But of course, I've address these passages COUNTLESS times before, and I'm happy to address them again:

1Cor 8 - This is about "idols" (vv.1,4), who Paul says are "nothing in the world" (v.4). These are the "gods many" that Paul refers to. But in CONTRAST to the nations worshiping their idols, who do't exist as true "gods", Paul reasserts the foundational teaching of monotheism, "there is none other God BUT ONE."

Gen.1 - Absolutely NOTHING in this chapter about "multiple gods". That's why you need to actually quote text, and do some exegesis, instead of simply citing random chapters which don't support your false claim.

Ps. 82 - This is about evil human judges, who have abused the authority God gave them to judge Israel. The psalmist condemns them, "they shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes", all the while raising up the one TRUE God, "O God, you shalt judge the Earth, for you shalt inherit the nations" (v.8)

John 10 - This is simply Jesus quoting Ps. 82 to the Pharisees, and since it is an imprecatory Psalm, a Psalm of rebuke and condemnation, He is using the Psalm to rebuke the Pharisees in the same way that the Psalmist was rebuking the corrupt judges.

In the meantime, you keep RUNNING AWAY from:

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.

Still focusing on 4 or 5 words I see.

Yes, I find it far more God-glorifying to FOCUS on His words, than to IGNORE His words, like you always do.


Mocking is not a valid argument.
But I'm glad to see whenever any victims of Mormon missionaries come here, or even lukewarm or "Jack" Mormons come around, they will see my Biblical citations, and your mockery, and they will know the truth.


Once again, salvation is by faith, NOT BY 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;




Once again, marriage ends at DEATH, and doesn't continue "for time and eternity:

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.

Matt. 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Mark 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.




Once again, elders and deacons are to be older, wise, disciplined men, married men with children and homes, and not immature unmarried teenagers like we find in the LDS church:

Titus 1:5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint eldersin 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

Well-known member
True. I can understand and accept faith as the reason we do what we do when it comes to questions like, how does the atonement cover our sins? I don't know the answer to that question, but I have faith that it does. But there is something intrinsically wrong with having faith that babies can sin and will be damned to hell because they never had an opportunity to have faith, much less believe, especially when God put them in that situation. What a horrible theology! What a horrible God! The idea that the question How does God justify damning babies just because all have sinned? Could be responded to as I don't know the answer to that question, but I have faith that it works that way. Is simply wrong and bad. Faith is hope. I don't know the answer to that question, but I hope that it does. Works great for our hope in salvation, but it doesn't work so well for dead babies who have no hope, but you have hope that their damnation si right. Isn't kind of sick?
So, if we're speaking from a place
I think it is.

And, of course, I don't. I think it's idiotic to accept a horrible doctrine of the basis of the book says so. It just seems to be wrong. God is just, but putting babies in harm's way and then damning them because "all have sinned", isn't. So, why would anyone believe such a horrible thing?

Oh. it's much worse than that. Even if it says it word for word in the scriptures they claim to believe, they still reject it. :rolleyes:

That probably works for sheep but I don't see how we can defend what we believe with less and not more.

Indeed. This is the principle that sheep live by.
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
If only. But what we're actually talking about is how you interpret his word over how we interpret his word. For example, when the prophet said no one does good, no not one. I honestly don't think he was talking about himself. Such an idea conflicts with the idea that "the prayer of the righteous availeth much". If the former is true, then prayers don't avail much at all. Likewise, when the apostle says that all have sinned, I don't think it's about breaking the commandments or committing moral transgressions. Whatever he's is talking about, it has to cover everyone and babies simply can't actually commit any sin. But you guys won't think about that. You insist that the statement means we're all depraved slugs and if you believe that and still, God will save you, then why not live as depraved slugs anyway? Again, what sin can be attributed to every living soul? The only one I know of is Adam's transgression. Every person will die as a result of that transgression no matter how good they are. Adam's transgression was willful. Unlike Eve who ate the fruit because it was desirable, Adam had to decide what he will do, live forever apart from Eve or eat the fruit and die or willfully separate himself from God. Every person born in mortality is separated from God and if we are right about the preexistence, and I believe we are, then every person here willfully chose to be separated from God. Was there really a fruit to be eaten or was the fruit just a symbol of choice?
That’s your spin on the Bible. Not mine.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Yes, I find it far more God-glorifying to FOCUS on His words, than to IGNORE His words, like you always do.
I guess u missed the point. Let me spell it out. What u call focus, seeing only 4 or 5 words is literally IGNORING God's word.
Mocking is not a valid argument.
Making a mountain out of nothing isn't a valid argument either.

You propose that God cares who we call and elder or a deacon? If that's so, then I guess it's ok for God to burn babies in hell for no reason at all.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I guess u missed the point. Let me spell it out. What u call focus, seeing only 4 or 5 words is literally IGNORING God's word.

You're funny!
I'm focussing on God's word, and you call it "ignoring".
And you IGNORE God's word, and you think you're taking the higher road?

You propose that God cares who we call and elder or a deacon?

Yeah, He's in charge.
He gave us His standards in Scripture.

If that's so, then I guess it's ok for God to burn babies in hell for no reason at all.

I'm sorry you think SIN is "no reason at all".
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
True. I can understand and accept faith as the reason we do what we do when it comes to questions like, how does the atonement cover our sins? I don't know the answer to that question, but I have faith that it does. But there is something intrinsically wrong with having faith that babies can sin and will be damned to hell because they never had an opportunity to have faith, much less believe, especially when God put them in that situation. What a horrible theology! What a horrible God!
I somethink there's some nuance here. Aetheists believe it's horrible to believe in an all-powerful God that would permit suffering at all. I generally agree with you, but religion can't simply be one of personal preference either.

The idea that the question How does God justify damning babies just because all have sinned? Could be responded to as I don't know the answer to that question, but I have faith that it works that way. Is simply wrong and bad. Faith is hope. I don't know the answer to that question, but I hope that it does. Works great for our hope in salvation, but it doesn't work so well for dead babies who have no hope, but you have hope that their damnation si right. Isn't kind of sick?

I think it is.
Fair enough, but before we get too judgmental, to Markk's point a while back, let's atleast acknowledge our own religious teachings from past leaders on black slaves being "fence sitters" in pre-mortality. If you expect non-Mormon Christians to somehow back down in a belief for being consistent in the religious reasoning, then you should also support the Church making a formal apology for racist beliefs. My point being - religion, in general, is self serving. I don't know about you, but I certainly didn't here anyone refute racist beliefs growing up, did you. Now, it's more of a "pretend nobody said anything" situation. Oddly enough, I don't see anybody claim to willingly follow a religion they believe is false or bigoted. It's difficult to see our own bias. I extend grace and think the best of Christian beliefs, without trying to pigeon-hole them, just as I'd hope they'd do the same for me.

And, of course, I don't. I think it's idiotic to accept a horrible doctrine of the basis of the book says so. It just seems to be wrong. God is just, but putting babies in harm's way and then damning them because "all have sinned", isn't. So, why would anyone believe such a horrible thing?
I think it's a matter of knowing where to draw the line. If you make exceptions based on personal preference where does it end?

Oh. it's much worse than that. Even if it says it word for word in the scriptures they claim to believe, they still reject it. :rolleyes:

That probably works for sheep but I don't see how we can defend what we believe with less and not more.

Indeed. This is the principle that sheep live by.
It's all a matter of interpretation. They make the same argument to us on how the Bible says only one God exists - it says it word for word. Obviously, you and I can justify our belief beyond what it says beyond just being a sheep. I'm sure they can too. Yet, applying your reasoning above against our beliefs helps us understand why they call us a cult. So, we can forgive them for that, and hear their characterization of us with no animosity - because we know it's simply fruit of ignorance and spiritual blindness.
If there's one common theme to be had in the NT, its less about what we know, and how correct our beliefs are vs how we treat others given the knowledge we have. Jesus came into the world not to condemn but to save, why should we think any of us are permitted do more than what He did? Why is peacekeeping and extending charity a lower level priority than proving doctrines we don't completely understand? I say that the Mormons and Christians alike, but us Mormons should hold each other accountable because we have the greater light and knowledge.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
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.”
You completely side-stepped the issue.
You won't refute that the Bible has contradictions and yet you say you trust God. That must mean there is some picking and choosing on your part. I'm ok with that answer, as I believe in personal revelation, but hopefully you can extend the same grace to us Mormons that you grant for yourself.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Or Aaron, why need a singular prophet at all if everyone has personal revelation which can vary widely?
Because the prophet is in charge of governing the Church, and there is only one in my religion. People's personal revelation and understanding can vary widely because it's personal, each has their own journey and understanding, not only in understanding doctrine, but also in conversion.
OTOT prophets were used by God to speak to the people. When speaking in the name of the Lord they were to be believed.
And yet, some true prophets were stoned because the people thought they were false.
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?
Yes, and it aligns with the scriptures also.
Ultimately, it's all about our companionship with the Holy Ghost, and our relationship with God.
If we don't feel the Spirit on a statement made by the prophet, or any other Church leader, then we're not obligated to believe it, but it's God that knows our hearts.
I think the extreme examples have been raised on this board, but most counsel coming from the church is fairly common sense. IMO
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
I somethink there's some nuance here. Aetheists believe it's horrible to believe in an all-powerful God that would permit suffering at all.
I don't believe that's the basis for atheism at all. My understanding of their belief is simply if you can't prove it, then it isn't true. I believe most Atheists understand that suffering is part of life. They have a forum here. It might be interesting to go ask them what they think of your statement. But, those who believe that an all-powerful God would not permit suffering, usually reject God on that basis and therefore believe in God. You can't reject something that you don't believe exists.
I generally agree with you, but religion can't simply be one of personal preference either.
Faith is always personal and the degree of faith that one has varies from one person to the next. But my point in discussing babies is that salvation cannot be based on faith alone because if it is, then there are a lot of people who will suffer through no fault of their own. Now, some people have faith that "God just wouldn't do that" and I agree. But the problem with that is exactly what you just described, it's a personal preference. God didn't say, don't worry, I would never do that.

The closest thing that God ever said concerning children, as far as I know, is that He frequently likened heaven to them. My understanding is that they were innocent and accepting. And that's fine until those to teach you what's true teach you false ideas like faith alone. What is that? Just accept what I tell you and you'll be saved. That's nuts. What if I read what you just told me and I don't think you're telling me the truth. You insist that it's the truth, but I know better. I can read it for myself and now I don't trust you at all. There are far too many who fall for the theatrics of modern Christianity. They want a feel-good religion and they attend one that makes them feel good, but they don't believe what they teach, not all of it, but enough of it to make it acceptable.

Your question opens a door that really needs to be honestly explored. How much work is enough work? All our critics, and I guess you too, will balk at that. No work is necessary but after a little investigation, we find that you have to at least not kill or rape anyone, stealing might be bad, especially if it's your employer's pen that you "stole". But we do find that some work, even though minimal and easy to do because if you do them, even they don't believe you'll be saved, maybe the pen issue isn't really that big of an issue.

But the point is, and I keep insisting that we discuss this even though no one will, is what do the saved have to do differently than the unsaved? There must be a difference because if there isn't then either we are all saved or we are all damned. Whatever that difference is, that is the work we must do. I am of the impression that whatever that work is, it must consume our whole lives. We can't attend church and then head down to the brothel afterward and expect that we have done enough work. We aren't tallying good things against bad things. Whatever that work is, it has to be you, your whole person, and in everything you do.

Salvation is very expensive. It's also extremely painful.
Fair enough, but before we get too judgmental, to Markk's point a while back, let's atleast acknowledge our own religious teachings from past leaders on black slaves being "fence sitters" in pre-mortality.
That was never the doctrine, but okay. Let's see where this goes.
If you expect non-Mormon Christians to somehow back down in a belief for being consistent in the religious reasoning, then you should also support the Church making a formal apology for racist beliefs.
Well, I don't expect either. I didn't ask them to back down. I asked them to explain it and they refuse to. They either run away with the rules in this forum or they say, it says so in the book and then they believe that, but won't believe anything else that happens to disagree with their theology even though it says so in the book. It's a lame escape, an offering I would expect from sheeple who know no better but to follow any shepherd who is offering some cornmeal (if that's what sheep eat).
My point being - religion, in general, is self serving.
Ok. I can see that.
I don't know about you, but I certainly didn't here anyone refute racist beliefs growing up, did you.
haha. If you didn't then you probably were sitting among the sheep. I know people who got excommunicated over complaining. I'm sure you do too. I understood that blacks couldn't hold the priesthood but other things were foreign to me. The idea that a scout couldn't be a patrol leader because it was black was just odd and where I came from, we just did it and no one thought anything about it. I've challenged it myself, but I did it because I didn't think anyone could answer my question and no one could. At the time, I thought it was funny that the church frequently put up so-called experts who are so easy to stump. I wasn't being rebellious or anything. I was just making fun. That was many many years ago.

But yes, many people disagreed with the idea and don't think I found a single black person who agreed with it, and I was amazed that they accepted it (by remaining faithful to their belief that the church was true). All of them understood, as far as I could tell, that they would eventually be able to hold the priesthood. It was a day to be looked forward to. But the church doesn't change its policies because the members revolt or complain or rebel. AT least, that hasn't been the case so far. It does not bend to social pressure either. They gave way a little to political pressure, but not social pressure.

But you are taking this entirely wrong. We had a lame excuse at the time when this policy was questioned. It was wrong but we had an excuse and it wasn't that some book said so. We at least tried to find a basis to support the policy where it wouldn't interfere with any other doctrine we had and there was always going to be an end to that practice. We knew there was going to be an end to it, just like there was an end to shedding blood for atonement. We just didn't know when. Unfortunately, some people tried to guess when it would happen. But none that made it doctrine.

On this subject, I believe the Lord's motivation to not do anything about it was because of the rampant racism of the time. 1. We had enough problems without taking on additional problems of abolitionists. 2. I don't believe in the racist environment that black people would have been able to exercise their priesthood. There would have been severe issues with blacks judging whites. It was a hostile environment and if we had pushed the issue, segregation would have increased, not decreased, and then 3. Would blacks have joined the church and gathered to Zion because the church was true or because they would be free there? Now we know the reason they joined the church and so do they, every one of them who joined the church before 1975 joined it because they believed it was true. No one can question that. The African saints constantly beat on the doors for leadership to come to their country and formed churches named after ours in the hopes that the doors would one day be open to them. They did it because they were convinced it was true in spite of the issues with the priesthood.

So, that sad point in history is not so sad. Our theories were wrong. No one understood, but I believe in the near future, people will look back and say, God certainly knew what He was doing. I have no doubt that the whole operation was being directed and managed by God to fulfill his purposes.
Now, it's more of a "pretend nobody said anything" situation. Oddly enough, I don't see anybody claim to willingly follow a religion they believe is false or bigoted. It's difficult to see our own bias. I extend grace and think the best of Christian beliefs, without trying to pigeon-hole them, just as I'd hope they'd do the same for me.
I don't see it as a "pretend" situation. I see it as necessary and a course that no human would have reasoned was the correct path from the other side of history. Who would know that the whole world would be up in arms about the injustice of slavery? The bigots are now in the minority and their group continues to shrink.
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
You completely side-stepped the issue.
You won't refute that the Bible has contradictions and yet you say you trust God. That must mean there is some picking and choosing on your part. I'm ok with that answer, as I believe in personal revelation, but hopefully you can extend the same grace to us Mormons that you grant for yourself.
No I didn’t. If you cherry pick verses here and there, like mormons do, you can find contradictions in anything. You can try to make it mean what you want it to mean. But if you look at God’s word as a whole, in context, the message is pretty clear.

I‘m ok with not having all the answers to the universe. He gave us what we need. We trust the rest. Joseph Smith didn’t. It wasn’t enough for him, so he felt the need to make up doctrine. And it contradicts with what God said in many ways. God told us that’s how to recognize false prophets... they teach a different gospel.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
I don't believe that's the basis for atheism at all. My understanding of their belief is simply if you can't prove it, then it isn't true. I believe most Atheists understand that suffering is part of life. They have a forum here. It might be interesting to go ask them what they think of your statement. But, those who believe that an all-powerful God would not permit suffering, usually reject God on that basis and therefore believe in God. You can't reject something that you don't believe exists.
I agree with the bolded statement - probably a topic for the aetheism board.
Faith is always personal and the degree of faith that one has varies from one person to the next. But my point in discussing babies is that salvation cannot be based on faith alone because if it is, then there are a lot of people who will suffer through no fault of their own. Now, some people have faith that "God just wouldn't do that" and I agree. But the problem with that is exactly what you just described, it's a personal preference. God didn't say, don't worry, I would never do that.

The closest thing that God ever said concerning children, as far as I know, is that He frequently likened heaven to them. My understanding is that they were innocent and accepting. And that's fine until those to teach you what's true teach you false ideas like faith alone. What is that? Just accept what I tell you and you'll be saved. That's nuts. What if I read what you just told me and I don't think you're telling me the truth. You insist that it's the truth, but I know better. I can read it for myself and now I don't trust you at all. There are far too many who fall for the theatrics of modern Christianity. They want a feel-good religion and they attend one that makes them feel good, but they don't believe what they teach, not all of it, but enough of it to make it acceptable.
I think you mis-characterize Christianity to an extreme, like Christians mis-characterize Mormonism. I'm not sure why we can just believe the best of both religions.

Your question opens a door that really needs to be honestly explored. How much work is enough work? All our critics, and I guess you too, will balk at that. No work is necessary but after a little investigation, we find that you have to at least not kill or rape anyone, stealing might be bad, especially if it's your employer's pen that you "stole". But we do find that some work, even though minimal and easy to do because if you do them, even they don't believe you'll be saved, maybe the pen issue isn't really that big of an issue.
You question is the exact opposite of what Christians pose to us - how much work is required? If we receive grace after all we can do, what "all we can do" - that's personal question. It's very legalistic on both sides. If you can't capture the spirit of the message, but would rather kill it with the letter, then IMO you're looking beyond the mark.
Eternal life are for those that endure to the end in faith, and following the HG. The Church identifies what major transgressions are. I steal pens from my work all the time, but not intentionally. I walk around with a pen in my pocket, I go home. I forget the pen. If we really went legalistic on sins I supposed we could break them into 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degrees, etc. Or, if I'm that worried about it, I'll just go buy a box of pens to make restitution. Either way, even if I had a perfect record on keeping pens at work, does that mean I automatically qualify for salvation? No, because I'm probably sinning in ignorance in some other area.

But the point is, and I keep insisting that we discuss this even though no one will, is what do the saved have to do differently than the unsaved? There must be a difference because if there isn't then either we are all saved or we are all damned. Whatever that difference is, that is the work we must do. I am of the impression that whatever that work is, it must consume our whole lives. We can't attend church and then head down to the brothel afterward and expect that we have done enough work. We aren't tallying good things against bad things. Whatever that work is, it has to be you, your whole person, and in everything you do.
I think I've answered this - the "saved" trust in Jesus Christ for their salvation, and the unsaved do not. God knows our hearts. God can tell if it's lip-service, or performance out of our ego. This is a truth I believe can only be understood spiritually. But as we hear the word of God, I think the "saved" recognize that it makes the comforts the afflicted, and the afflicts the comfortable. It's more of a condition of the heart. I'm not sure what else I can say on this.

Salvation is very expensive. It's also extremely painful.
I can be, it is also very joyous. It depends how attached we are to our unrighteous desires.

That was never the doctrine, but okay. Let's see where this goes.
<cropped for brevity> . They did it because they were convinced it was true in spite of the issues with the priesthood.
I have no desire to derail the thread on to that topic. But to merely illustrate the point (that we agree on) that "the sheep" accepted it, even though we can recognize how discriminatory and judgmental is it now. If you're surrounded by white people, and never have to consider a non-white person's perspective you probably accepted easier than those that actually had to deal with it. Likewise, if you're Christian, always raised Christian, surrounded by Christians, it's a overly simplistic belief that all people need Christ, even if you're a baby. Like I said, it's self serving. As we gain more awareness, our reasoning becomes more nuanced, shifted entirely. or just chalked up to a mystery. Like most faith based beliefs, where there is no clear explanation, everything is hindsight 20/20. I will say quotes do exist that show that some believe the blacks would never get the priesthood, about as strongly as we believe women shouldn't hold the priesthood or gays getting sealed in the temple. And yet, I can see how some could justify it, and 30 years from now the bulk of the population would say "Oh yeah, we all knew it was going to happen eventually."

So, that sad point in history is not so sad. Our theories were wrong. No one understood, but I believe in the near future, people will look back and say, God certainly knew what He was doing. I have no doubt that the whole operation was being directed and managed by God to fulfill his purposes.
I agree with you, but some people aren't so easily forgiving - and some are justified for holding a grudge. For some, it DID violate their conscience to support cultural reasons spoken by men of authority - it's their stumbling block, and downplaying it does nothing.

I don't see it as a "pretend" situation. I see it as necessary and a course that no human would have reasoned was the correct path from the other side of history. Who would know that the whole world would be up in arms about the injustice of slavery? The bigots are now in the minority and their group continues to shrink.
Thank goodness. But again, tying it back to the subjective beliefs of those that we don't agree with - they have a valid reason to be believe what they do. There may still be a few surprises of cultural beliefs that we consider bedrock doctrine, but isn't necessarily so. Hence, the safest course of action is to simply seek to understand and validated.
 
Top