What degree of obedience qualifies for salvation?

Aaron32

Well-known member
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 actually agree. I feel that it's Christians that cherry-pick the Bible to mistrue Mormonism to something evil.
I do wonder if modern-day Christian would hold any respect for Abraham - a polygamist, who married is half sister (making him guilty of incest).
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.
I suppose it doesn't really matter what I say at this point. i can appreciate why you'd think that - but I see things differently.
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
I actually agree. I feel that it's Christians that cherry-pick the Bible to mistrue Mormonism to something evil.
Of course you do.

I do wonder if modern-day Christian would hold any respect for Abraham - a polygamist, who married is half sister (making him guilty of incest).
Was Sarai his sister or his cousin? It’s my understanding that the Aramaic word “Khtha” can mean either one. There is enough evidence to think she was actually his cousin.

If you’re referring to Hagar as a polygamist wife, she was his concubine. It was Sarah’s idea, just to have a child. That was a custom back then, for women to have their slaves bear children for them. Then after Sarah died, he married Keturah, as his second wife.

I suppose it doesn't really matter what I say at this point. i can appreciate why you'd think that - but I see things differently.
Of course you do. You’re very invested in the Mormon plan of exaltation.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
It's all a matter of interpretation.
Maybe you aren't aware, but according to the answer given about the situation, their interpretation is that because God said so, it's not only okay. it's perfect. They make God a baby killer for a word. Of course, God didn't actually kill the baby and I'm not complaining about the baby's death. That's bad and all but I believe God has a plan for them, but the problem is that in a faith-alone scenario, God's plan is to damn them eternally. Pointing that out, our critics seem to be happy with that conclusion (even though I believe that not one of them actually believes what they claim the Bible teaches).
They make the same argument to us on how the Bible says only one God exists - it says it word for word.
No, it doesn't. Nor does it say that salvation is based on faith alone. In fact, the only place where the scriptures use the words faith and alone together, it specifically states that man is not justified by faith alone. It spells out what man is justified by. So, yea. that's an interpretation but not based on it says word for word.

You're not getting my point. they crawl all over a point that they have extracted to meet their how "faith-alone" ideology, not theology since that doesn't exist in the Bible, but make words that have no direct correlation and insist that it must be this way because the book says so, when it says no such thing. They are fine with babies burning in hell when the Bible does say that they will but because that's what they think they believe, but then with a statement can be drawn from the scriptures, such as your 1 John 2:3 and James 2:24, word for word refutation that faith-alone will have anything to do with salvation and specific rejection of that idea and still, they interpret it to mean exactly the opposite of what it says.

Again, my point is, I can read it. I know what it says. You keep telling me it says something it doesn't say and expect me to trust your other interpretations? :rolleyes: That's not going to happen.
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.
:rolleyes: They call us a cult because we disagree with their theology. God is a man who once dwelled on an earth like this one and is now an exalted man who sits in yonder heavens. It is statements like that define us as a cult.
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.
I just want everyone to know that you said this, not me.
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?
Because he said we would. Isn't that part of how we treat others? In this line of reasoning, it appears that works are very much necessary, but you seem to be promoting faith-alone theology. Which is it? I'm not the one who is being over bad ideas just because a book said so. I can recognize a bad situation and would never claim that God is just in such silly actions based on a few words in a book.

Now, based on faith, I believe that because God said it that we will do more than he did, that it must be true. I don't know exactly how, but I know that I can't do better things if I'm not at least doing what I believe he taught us to do. Love is not taking a Bible and beating others over the head with it until they believe it says what I tell them it means. That's what I'm trying to point out here. "all have sinned" has to be qualified.
Why is peacekeeping and extending charity a lower level priority than proving doctrines we don't completely understand?
First, I'm not the one who started this war. I'm just here to defend what I believe. Second, I don't need to prove the idea of babies don't fall into the same category of sinners as we do and that it's wrong to believe that God would set up anyone to fail and call it just. That is not something I would want to understand because it simply isn't true. Because it's common sense that such an idea can't possibly be true, it calls in to question, what did Paul mean by "all have sinned". Once we get that straight in our minds, then the discussion can move forward somewhat.

I'd have to ask, why did you bring up 1 John 3:2 if you don't think we completely understand the doctrine? What was the purpose of discussing it?

Further, the purpose of the argument was to bring expose the argument that "there is nothing in the Bible that "conflicts" with Christianity. If our Christian critics think so much of the Bible, are they really willing to believe that God sets up some people to fail from the beginning just because of a few words in a book? Don't they think about what they believe at all?
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
I agree with the bolded statement - probably a topic for the aetheism board.
Well, if you think something belongs over there, I'd suggest you not bring it up here.
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.
Can't we all just be friends. :rolleyes: or was it "get along"?

I'm a firm believer in getting along. Stop attacking what I believe and we'll get along just fine.
You question is the exact opposite of what Christians pose to us - how much work is required?
I know, but the verse you posted in your OP demands work, does it not? So, you're suggesting that the question should be, how much work isn't required? :rolleyes:

Still, the question must be answered, what is the difference between those who will be saved and those who won't. What must those who will be saved do to be saved. They must do something differently. I personally believe they have to do everything differently.
If we receive grace after all we can do, what "all we can do"
Now you're asking the question that you just said is the opposite I shouldn't be asking.
that's personal question.
No, it's not. It's a universal question. What one does about it is personal.
It's very legalistic on both sides.
So?
If you can't capture the spirit of the message,
Which you haven't been able to do.
but would rather kill it with the letter, then IMO you're looking beyond the mark.
IMO, that isn't looking beyond the mark. Trying to figure out who has sex with who to make spirits is looking beyond the mark. Addressing what the saved person must do differently that those who are not saved is right on the mark.

Now, are you going to stop talking about me and start talking about what you think that is?
 

rossh

Well-known member
That's a complete rewrite of the passage. "if the commandments of hem we should [guard]" That doesn't say guard the word of God, period. I'm pretty sure what you just did was show how you all don't know him because if you did, you wouldn't be protecting the commandments, you would be keeping them. ;)

Yes. You did. Impressive. But also clear evidence that your professors, or whoever you think taught you this, is clueless. The commandments are only a subset of God's word. Therefore, by your statement, you are protecting the commandments from us. But we aren't the ones trying to change them. you guys are. I'd say you guys are doing a horrible job of protecting them.

Oh. I have heard and responded. You all are not keeping them or protecting them, you all are abusing them. Wolves among the sheep. Tell me, which commandment do you think you're protecting now?

Yes. You are. You're using the words of a murderer.

If you're going to keep it, then why change it?

Keep this in mind, Cain knew what happened to his brother, didn't he. He knew exactly what happened to his brother because he did it and used that as an excuse to cover his deed. If Abel and died by accident, then it seems likely that Cain could use that statement. This is the same abuse that our critics use on us.

Love one another as Jesus loved us. As you claim to guard the commandments, you break them. Rather than teach the commandments, you claim you are guarding the commandments against us when all I asked, all the OP asked was how does one know if they are keeping/guarding the commandments. Like Cain, you all are not guarding them at all, you all are breaking them. And the question remains unanswered.

And your method of answering leaves a lot to be desired. ;)
God has told us that we can not keep the commandments ( our human sinful nature is to blame for that ) and more than this, and we are ALL stained by the sin nature of Adam. This is why God had/has a flesh and blood Son like us but NOT from Adam and therefore, Yeshua has NO sin nature ( or sinful nature ).. He/Yeshua took our place on the cross and accepted His sufferings for us as well so that we may be healed physically.. Yeshua, from the Hebrew means " He saves " and Joseph was told to name as such and he obeyed..
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Great, so now we get to talk about the subject of this thread. Finally!!
Eternal life are for those that endure to the end in faith
What is faith that we must endure to the end?
and following the HG.
And how does one know they are following the Holy Ghost and not just their own imagination?
The Church identifies what major transgressions are.
How is that relevant?
I steal pens from my work all the time, but not intentionally.
Sure, you steal them by accident. They just fell into your pocket as you were leaving work. The fact that you know you're stealing them is evidence that you are doing it intentionally. So, I guess you're suggesting that we need to confess every sin to the church so that we will know if it's a sin or not.
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.
Uh, yeah.
f 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.
Or, taking that pen isn't a sin at all.
I think I've answered this
Well, this should be the thread where this is being discussed. It certainly seems to have started that way.
the "saved" trust in Jesus Christ for their salvation,
So, babies are damned based on that reasoning, right?
God knows our hearts. God can tell if it's lip-service, or performance out of our ego
So, no one knows if they are saved. Don't worry, I'm just poking holes in your theory as we go along here. You can patch them up or ignore them, it's up to you.
This is a truth I believe can only be understood spiritually.
That may be so. It's convenient that if we don't understand it, then you get to hold the holy grail of understanding and deem those who don't get it as being spiritually out of tune. Nice caveat. :rolleyes:
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.
Of course, you don't, I'm guessing the spirit isn't really helping you much on that point.

I agree. No one can be saved if they don't accept Jesus Christ. So, whatever one must do to accept Jesus Christ, that is the work they must do and know we know what that work is. The rest of your reasoning isn't helpful at all, but at least, with that little bit. I have some idea of what I must do to be saved. But, how do I know that I have accepted Christ? We've identified one work that one must do to be saved, but exactly how is that done, and is that all I need to do? Can I go on killing, raping, stealing and cursing God? Are those things that a person would do who has accepted Christ?

Wait a minute, you sad the "saved" trust in Jesus Christ, so they don't really have to accept him. They just have to trust him. So, Billy over here, can gun down people in the street and as long as he trusts in Jesus, he'll be saved. I guess that's a notch down for doing anything. But is that what the scriptures say? Is that what 1 John 2:3 says?

We all trusted in Jesus when we chose to come to this earth. Every single one of us. The only ones who didn't were cast out of heaven. So, will that trust that we had in Jesus be good enough? Are you saying that we can do whatever we want without fear of eternal damnation? My goodness, what a benevolent God we have here. We don't even have to repent as long as we trust in Jesus. :rolleyes:

But thanks for answering my question. I have another one now. Do you really believe you can do whatever you want and still be saved?
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
I can be, it is also very joyous.
:rolleyes:
I suppose that watching your child be strangled, painfully strangled to death by cancer can be very joyous. Yea. I can see that. :rolleyes:
It depends how attached we are to our unrighteous desires.
I don't believe our desires have anything to do with it. Righteous or unrighteous, the pain and suffering come anyway and it isn't joyous. We may be able to handle it better because of faith, but if it's actually joyous, there is something mentally wrong with the person who finds joy in it.

Now, maybe, after all the pain and suffering, it will be joyous, but it sure isn't while we're enduring the pain. It's these kinds of statements that make one question if that person lives in reality or not.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Maybe you aren't aware, but according to the answer given about the situation, their interpretation is that because God said so, it's not only okay. it's perfect. They make God a baby killer for a word. Of course, God didn't actually kill the baby and I'm not complaining about the baby's death. That's bad and all but I believe God has a plan for them, but the problem is that in a faith-alone scenario, God's plan is to damn them eternally. Pointing that out, our critics seem to be happy with that conclusion (even though I believe that not one of them actually believes what they claim the Bible teaches).

No, it doesn't. Nor does it say that salvation is based on faith alone. In fact, the only place where the scriptures use the words faith and alone together, it specifically states that man is not justified by faith alone. It spells out what man is justified by. So, yea. that's an interpretation but not based on it says word for word.

You're not getting my point. they crawl all over a point that they have extracted to meet their how "faith-alone" ideology, not theology since that doesn't exist in the Bible, but make words that have no direct correlation and insist that it must be this way because the book says so, when it says no such thing. They are fine with babies burning in hell when the Bible does say that they will but because that's what they think they believe, but then with a statement can be drawn from the scriptures, such as your 1 John 2:3 and James 2:24, word for word refutation that faith-alone will have anything to do with salvation and specific rejection of that idea and still, they interpret it to mean exactly the opposite of what it says.

Again, my point is, I can read it. I know what it says. You keep telling me it says something it doesn't say and expect me to trust your other interpretations? :rolleyes: That's not going to happen.

:rolleyes: They call us a cult because we disagree with their theology. God is a man who once dwelled on an earth like this one and is now an exalted man who sits in yonder heavens. It is statements like that define us as a cult.

I just want everyone to know that you said this, not me.

Because he said we would. Isn't that part of how we treat others? In this line of reasoning, it appears that works are very much necessary, but you seem to be promoting faith-alone theology. Which is it? I'm not the one who is being over bad ideas just because a book said so. I can recognize a bad situation and would never claim that God is just in such silly actions based on a few words in a book.

Now, based on faith, I believe that because God said it that we will do more than he did, that it must be true. I don't know exactly how, but I know that I can't do better things if I'm not at least doing what I believe he taught us to do. Love is not taking a Bible and beating others over the head with it until they believe it says what I tell them it means. That's what I'm trying to point out here. "all have sinned" has to be qualified.

First, I'm not the one who started this war. I'm just here to defend what I believe. Second, I don't need to prove the idea of babies don't fall into the same category of sinners as we do and that it's wrong to believe that God would set up anyone to fail and call it just. That is not something I would want to understand because it simply isn't true. Because it's common sense that such an idea can't possibly be true, it calls in to question, what did Paul mean by "all have sinned". Once we get that straight in our minds, then the discussion can move forward somewhat.

I'd have to ask, why did you bring up 1 John 3:2 if you don't think we completely understand the doctrine? What was the purpose of discussing it?

Further, the purpose of the argument was to bring expose the argument that "there is nothing in the Bible that "conflicts" with Christianity. If our Christian critics think so much of the Bible, are they really willing to believe that God sets up some people to fail from the beginning just because of a few words in a book? Don't they think about what they believe at all?
This is where I walk away. I don't see any point in here worth my time. I'm probably wrong, but it looks like you're being disagreeable because you're bored or something. Sorry, dude. It's not worth my time - there's nothing satisfying or edifying about conversing when discussion is brought to the level of divisiveness. Maybe CharismaticLady was right in her diagnosis. LOL!

D&C 50:
19 And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?
20 If it be some other way it is not of God.
23 ...that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness.

What exactly are you aiming for in this line of questioning? Attack anything that moves?

The reason I made the post at the time was because there was a lot of chatter (particularly from Markk's direction) of how impossible for Mormons it is to be obedient, and what new converts are really committing to when they join the church - thereby scaring people off any potential investigator. And guess which side you sided with? Not mine.

Maybe Markk is right after all. Apparently, I seem to be the only Mormon that actually enjoys being a disciple of Christ. It seems like every other Mormon I talk to finds the gospel burdensome and painful, (in contrast to Jesus saying he'd make our burdens light) and they (Mormons) look at their acts of obedience as war wounds, rather than acknowledge the transformative power of Jesus Christ. I see much of the membership of the Church Pharisaical in their viewpoints, and they will continue to stumble until they wake up from this notion that Mormonism can only be right is Christianity is wrong. IMO - Your perspective is anti-Christian, and I'm embarrassed that you represent our side.

Score one for Magdalena and Markk. :)

Pardon me while I dust off my feet.
 

organgrinder

Well-known member
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.
This is where the problem lies from my vantage point. The LDS Church make a very big deal of having a living prophet to give revelation and guide the church. If the Prophet is governing the church, that is not a biblical model. The biblical model is one of elders. There are also offices of apostles, prophets, etc. but not listed as those in church governance. Some may have those respective gifts but it is not required or mandated for church governance.

Now the prophet in the LDS church in his role gives revelation from God, supposedly as the OT prophets did. Yet personal revelation trumps what the prophet may give as a word from God. Member "A" and Member "B" both get conflicting personal revelations from what the "prophet" has said comes from God. Obviously somebody isn't hearing. God is not the author of confusion. and we are no longer in the OT model where only the anointed prophet of God spoke. Yet, the LDS church seems to want it both ways.

No other Christian church claims to have a "prophet" to speak. There are plenty of "prophets" in the Christian churches who claim to speak for God-- I find few that actually do-- but not any that claim world-wide authority as the only true and living prophet.

I agree with you that OT prophets were killed for speaking in God's name. People and leaders knew who the LORD called as a true prophet. Yet some were killed for speaking. It didn't negate the message. Their deaths only showed the unbelief of the people to deny the word spoken to them.
 
Last edited:

Markk

Active member
This is where I walk away. I don't see any point in here worth my time. I'm probably wrong, but it looks like you're being disagreeable because you're bored or something. Sorry, dude. It's not worth my time - there's nothing satisfying or edifying about conversing when discussion is brought to the level of divisiveness. Maybe CharismaticLady was right in her diagnosis. LOL!

D&C 50:
19 And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?
20 If it be some other way it is not of God.
23 ...that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness.

What exactly are you aiming for in this line of questioning? Attack anything that moves?

The reason I made the post at the time was because there was a lot of chatter (particularly from Markk's direction) of how impossible for Mormons it is to be obedient, and what new converts are really committing to when they join the church - thereby scaring people off any potential investigator. And guess which side you sided with? Not mine.

Maybe Markk is right after all. Apparently, I seem to be the only Mormon that actually enjoys being a disciple of Christ. It seems like every other Mormon I talk to finds the gospel burdensome and painful, (in contrast to Jesus saying he'd make our burdens light) and they (Mormons) look at their acts of obedience as war wounds, rather than acknowledge the transformative power of Jesus Christ. I see much of the membership of the Church Pharisaical in their viewpoints, and they will continue to stumble until they wake up from this notion that Mormonism can only be right is Christianity is wrong. IMO - Your perspective is anti-Christian, and I'm embarrassed that you represent our side.

Score one for Magdalena and Markk. :)

Pardon me while I dust off my feet.
Hey Aaron I hope you catch this.

It is really just about Grace and Faith. God is not asking us to figure it all out and certainly not understanding all His ways or who He is beyond the insights He gives us in His word.

One thing that really set me free from Mormonism is understanding the Sabbath as a Christian. We were taught as a young member that the Sabbath was a day that we have to rest from our ”work.” In reality it was resting from shopping, yard work, playing with friends at a park, going to th movies, or what ever, which really have nothing to do with propitiation. It was in reality just a legalistic day we observed because it is what we were told to do and it was what we just did. As if not going shopping or mowing the lawn on a Sunday (not even the true Sabbath day) appeased our sin nature to our Creator.

As a new Believer, when I finally “got” the real meaning of Faith and Grace, the true meaning of the Sabbath finally clicked and made perfect sense. Christ is the Lord of the Sabbath, He owns it so to speak, and when I, through faith, believed in Him and gave my heart to Him, I can now rest in Him, not on a certain day of the week, pretending to be something I can never be, or do something I can never do or achieve.

The moment He died He said it was finished, the propitiation or justice was met. I understood I can‘t buy His suffering by any good works or that He can never owe me anything for my efforts.

Aaron, we can rest in Him, we really can, my ” Sabbath” (day of rest) is resting in Him 24/7. His Yoke is easy. Give it to Him. Obey and do good because you want to, not because you have to and are trying to earn what He did on the cross. He was spat on, hit, his beard was pulled out, he was stabbed and fed vile…willfully. To think we can some how earn that , and that He owes us something for that suffering is,…? You pick the word, too me it is just ”messed up” now that I am a Believer to even think I can earn what He did for me and you.

Phileo ya
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
:rolleyes:
I suppose that watching your child be strangled, painfully strangled to death by cancer can be very joyous. Yea. I can see that. :rolleyes:

I don't believe our desires have anything to do with it. Righteous or unrighteous, the pain and suffering come anyway and it isn't joyous. We may be able to handle it better because of faith, but if it's actually joyous, there is something mentally wrong with the person who finds joy in it.

Now, maybe, after all the pain and suffering, it will be joyous, but it sure isn't while we're enduring the pain. It's these kinds of statements that make one question if that person lives in reality or not.
Your problem seems to be with God. But you’re taking it out on everyone else.
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
This is where I walk away. I don't see any point in here worth my time. I'm probably wrong, but it looks like you're being disagreeable because you're bored or something. Sorry, dude. It's not worth my time - there's nothing satisfying or edifying about conversing when discussion is brought to the level of divisiveness. Maybe CharismaticLady was right in her diagnosis. LOL!

D&C 50:
19 And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?
20 If it be some other way it is not of God.
23 ...that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness.

What exactly are you aiming for in this line of questioning? Attack anything that moves?

The reason I made the post at the time was because there was a lot of chatter (particularly from Markk's direction) of how impossible for Mormons it is to be obedient, and what new converts are really committing to when they join the church - thereby scaring people off any potential investigator. And guess which side you sided with? Not mine.

Maybe Markk is right after all. Apparently, I seem to be the only Mormon that actually enjoys being a disciple of Christ. It seems like every other Mormon I talk to finds the gospel burdensome and painful, (in contrast to Jesus saying he'd make our burdens light) and they (Mormons) look at their acts of obedience as war wounds, rather than acknowledge the transformative power of Jesus Christ. I see much of the membership of the Church Pharisaical in their viewpoints, and they will continue to stumble until they wake up from this notion that Mormonism can only be right is Christianity is wrong. IMO - Your perspective is anti-Christian, and I'm embarrassed that you represent our side.

Score one for Magdalena and Markk. :)

Pardon me while I dust off my feet.
No one here is counting score. But good for you for seeing what’s going on.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
This is where I walk away.
You've already walked away twice.
I don't see any point in here worth my time.
Of course not. You don't have any answers, just like our critics. With all the problems that faith alone theology brings up, the option you offer, like them, is God is good, everything will be okay. We'll be happy. Well, not with faith-alone theology we're not going to be.
I'm probably wrong, but it looks like you're being disagreeable because you're bored or something.
No. I'm being disagreeable because I disagree with your take on faith-alone theology, and theirs. You don't seem to understand that that is not our theology.
It's not worth my time - there's nothing satisfying or edifying about conversing when discussion is brought to the level of divisiveness.
blah blah bla bla bla blah. :rolleyes: Could it be that you don't know what you believe?
D&C 50:
19 And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?
20 If it be some other way it is not of God.
23 ...that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness.
There you go, the typical self-righteous Mormon. If you don't accept what I believe, then what you believe is not from God.
What exactly are you aiming for in this line of questioning? Attack anything that moves?
Nope. As I said, I'm just poking holes in your theory. It's entirely up to you to patch the holes up. If you have a patch for the holes then there would be nothing to attack.
The reason I made the post at the time was because there was a lot of chatter (particularly from Markk's direction) of how impossible for Mormons it is to be obedient,
I'm not aware of that chatter. How hard is it to follow the 10 commandments? Many people do it without even knowing they are. I know they list a lot of things and they love to say how much we have to do and do and do, but seriously, if you love God the labor is not difficult and there is no requirement to do them all. We don't kick anyone out of the church for not doing them. We don't do forensic audits to ensure that they are done. Our critics take a list of the things our leaders have said and make it out to be an impossible road, but it really isn't. It certainly isn't impossible.

But I tell you one thing, if a person continues to live the life of a sinner without an effort to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, that person cannot be saved no matter what he claims he believes. This is the work that we, the ones who have learned of Christ, must do. Those who don't will learn of Him and then follow his teachings in spirit.
what new converts are really committing to when they join the church
There is no question about what new converts are "really committing to" when they join the church. That's why they have an interview. If one isn't willing to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, then they have no business joining his church.
thereby scaring people off any potential investigator.
So be it. Exaltation is not for everyone. Salvation doesn't appear to be either. You may be able to convince a lot of people to join the church if you sugar coat the lies that our critics teach. We're not here to entertain the masses. It's not an easy road and it requires commitment. I don't see where there is a problem calling on people to accept the prophet as the oracle of God, of committing to following God's commandment (as, it appears, is suggested in 1 John 2:3). You either believe him or you don't. Christ is the way and any other way is not. If you're not following Christ, you are not in the path that he laid out for us to follow.
And guess which side you sided with? Not mine.
Correct. Your side leaks.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Maybe Markk is right after all. Apparently, I seem to be the only Mormon that actually enjoys being a disciple of Christ. It seems like every other Mormon I talk to finds the gospel burdensome and painful,
That's not what I said. Life is a pain and burdensome, not the gospel. And if every Mormon you talk to believes what you just said, then maybe you're in the wrong place.
(in contrast to Jesus saying he'd make our burdens light)
Making the burden light does not mean that the burden is no longer there.
They (Mormons) look at their acts of obedience as war wounds, rather than acknowledge the transformative power of Jesus Christ.
:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

While our critics expect people to swallow that everyone is a depraved sinner and that God will save them in their sins. There's no transformative power in that. It is a lullaby that puts sheep to sleep with their boat full of holes sinks. Transformative power only comes through sacrifice. Faith precedes the miracle.
I see much of the membership of the Church Pharisaical in their viewpoints
Of course, you do, and in so doing make of yourself a pharisee using your views as a standard. You can't support your views any better than they can. But still, you appear to be right at home wearing a Mormon badge while judging other Mormons.
and they will continue to stumble until they wake up from this notion that Mormonism can only be right is Christianity is wrong
I don't think the person that is a boat full of holes can point to anyone else and say they are the ones who are stumbling. I never said Christianity is wrong. Our critics are. Their churches teach false doctrine such as faith alone, obviously, it takes more than that. Only one church can be right. Anything that the other churches teach that is in any way different from that one church is wrong. That literally what truth is. If X is true, then anything that is not X cannot be.
IMO - Your perspective is anti-Christian, and I'm embarrassed that you represent our side.
Likewise, I'm embarrassed that you think you represent "our side".
Pardon me while I dust off my feet.
Don't let the door hit you on your way out.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
You've already walked away twice.
Yeah, it saved me two hours in responding with something you'd just disagree with anyway.
Of course not. You don't have any answers, just like our critics. With all the problems that faith alone theology brings up, the option you offer, like them, is God is good, everything will be okay. We'll be happy. Well, not with faith-alone theology we're not going to be.
I very much do have answers, which I've given twice, you just don't like the fact the nuance is required.
No. I'm being disagreeable because I disagree with your take on faith-alone theology, and theirs. You don't seem to understand that that is not our theology.
Because we somehow "earn" our salvation? Do tell me, what percentage works contributes to our salvation. Is it like an 80/20 thing? Sheesh.
blah blah bla bla bla blah. :rolleyes: Could it be that you don't know what you believe?
Nope.
There you go, the typical self-righteous Mormon. If you don't accept what I believe, then what you believe is not from God.
Yeah, I mean - who needs fruits of the Spirit? Logic and contention trumps finding areas of agreement and edification, right?
Nope. As I said, I'm just poking holes in your theory. It's entirely up to you to patch the holes up. If you have a patch for the holes then there would be nothing to attack.
No, your just being disagreeable. I make a statement, you say the opposite.
I'm not aware of that chatter. How hard is it to follow the 10 commandments? Many people do it without even knowing they are. I know they list a lot of things and they love to say how much we have to do and do and do, but seriously, if you love God the labor is not difficult and there is no requirement to do them all. We don't kick anyone out of the church for not doing them. We don't do forensic audits to ensure that they are done. Our critics take a list of the things our leaders have said and make it out to be an impossible road, but it really isn't. It certainly isn't impossible.
But I thought you said "Salvation is very expensive. It's also extremely painful." Which is it? Hard or not hard?
But I tell you one thing, if a person continues to live the life of a sinner without an effort to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, that person cannot be saved no matter what he claims he believes. This is the work that we, the ones who have learned of Christ, must do. Those who don't will learn of Him and then follow his teachings in spirit.
I don't think anyone has disputed this.
There is no question about what new converts are "really committing to" when they join the church. That's why they have an interview. If one isn't willing to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, then they have no business joining his church.
So what is asked in the bishop's interview is expensive and painful?

See, this is what I mean about being disagreeable. Whatever you believe, it has no principles, you stand for nothing. Your response is always reactive to be opposite of whatever I say, because I believe you're more interested in bickering than identifying truth.
So be it. Exaltation is not for everyone. Salvation doesn't appear to be either. You may be able to convince a lot of people to join the church if you sugar coat the lies that our critics teach. We're not here to entertain the masses. It's not an easy road and it requires commitment. I don't see where there is a problem calling on people to accept the prophet as the oracle of God, of committing to following God's commandment (as, it appears, is suggested in 1 John 2:3). You either believe him or you don't. Christ is the way and any other way is not. If you're not following Christ, you are not in the path that he laid out for us to follow.
Oh, ok. So it's hard now? You've flip-flopped twice in the same thread. If you believe anything you write, I think you're seriously confused.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
That's not what I said. Life is a pain and burdensome, not the gospel.
No, you quite emphatically said salvation is expensive and painful.
Andnd if every Mormon you talk to believes what you just said, then maybe you're in the wrong place.
I'm starting to think so.
Making the burden light does not mean that the burden is no longer there.
Ummm...ok?
:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

While our critics expect people to swallow that everyone is a depraved sinner and that God will save them in their sins. There's no transformative power in that. It is a lullaby that puts sheep to sleep with their boat full of holes sinks. Transformative power only comes through sacrifice. Faith precedes the miracle.
Maybe you should start an OP on a Christian board summarizing their beliefs like this and see what kind of response you get.
Of course, you do, and in so doing make of yourself a pharisee using your views as a standard. You can't support your views any better than they can. But still, you appear to be right at home a Mormon badge while judging other Mormons.
Im not the one here condemning people, you are. I've supported my views twice, but you succumb to either no true scotman fallacy, or personal incredulity.

I don't think the person that is a boat full of holes can point to anyone else and say they are the ones who are stumbling.
Then you probably ought to stop talking.

II never said Christianity is wrong. Our critics are.
LoL! Nice. Because now you get to define Christianity now. How convenient for you.
Theirir churches teach false doctrine such as faith alone, obviously, it takes more than that.
What else does it take that isn't preceded with faith?
Onlyly one church can be right. Anything that the other churches teach that is in any way different from that one church is wrong. That literally what truth is. If X is true, then anything that is not X cannot be.
I don't think anyone is disputing that.
 

Markk

Active member
While our critics expect people to swallow that everyone is a depraved sinner and that God will save them in their sins. There's no transformative power in that. It is a lullaby that puts sheep to sleep with their boat full of holes sinks. Transformative power only comes through sacrifice. Faith precedes the miracle.
Aaron,

Ponder on that. At least BoJ is honest on how many if not most Mormons respect the cross, even if they do not know it. Basically to him the cross is foolishness, I think we both know what Bible verse I am referring too.

What he wrote above is the bottom line difference between Mormonism, and Christianity in regards to salvation. …It actually hurts my heart in a big way.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Yeah, it saved me two hours in responding with something you'd just disagree with anyway.
It's just an observation. It would be nice, if you plan on staying, if you'd explain exactly how a person knows that they are saved and when they aren't saved anymore.
I very much do have answers
I'm still waiting. Your boat is sinking.
which I've given twice, you just don't like the fact the nuance is required.
:unsure: eh?
Because we somehow "earn" our salvation?
You're missing the point. Those who are saved must do something different that those who are. I don't care if you want to put a label on it. The fact remains, it is what we do that makes the difference.
Do tell me, what percentage works contributes to our salvation. Is it like an 80/20 thing? Sheesh
100%. You're not paying attention. I said it takes one's whole life. There isn't a list of things we must do and do them to a certain degree. We don't get a grade on it, we just have to do it and do it every day. That seems to be the "nuance" you're missing.
No, your just being disagreeable. I make a statement, you say the opposite.
I"m sure you know that isn't true. But it is typical of our critics to make such claims... "If you don't agree with everything I say, then do don't agree with anything I say." :rolleyes:
But I thought you said "Salvation is very expensive. It's also extremely painful." Which is it? Hard or not hard?
LOL. It is hard, depending on how serious one is about following Christ. Do just avoid murder? or do we also avoid anger? Do we just avoid adultery or do we also avoid lust. Do we just go to church on Sunday or do we keep the Sabbath day holy? Do we not bear false witness or do we not lie? Do we not steal or do we not covet? Jesus told the rich man "If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” It seems rather straightforward, this man asked and got an answer. The other renditions of the same story show Jesus volunteering the additional information, but Matt shows a different side of the rich man, he said he kept the commandments and wasn't satisfied that it was enough. What he got was much more difficult and painful than the first answer he got. I'm guessing that it must have been too easy, but regardless, If he wanted to enter life, all he needed to do was keep the commandments.

I believe Jesus. I don't know why you all don't. It is clear from this passage and many many others like it and like the one you quoted at in your OP 1 John 2:3 that we at least need to do the easy stuff.
I don't think anyone has disputed this.
If this is true and no one can dispute it, then no one can dispute that salvation is works-based. If one can work their way out of heaven, then one can work their way into heaven. The question is how does one work their way out of heaven? By rejecting the teachings of Jesus Christ. Then doing the opposite should make it so one can work their way into heaven. And just for clarity's sake, how does one do that? By following the teachings of Jesus Christ. And now we have defined the difference between the saved and the unsaved.

It seems odd that you all recognize when a person isn't saved but not when a person is. The unsaved person works to be unsaved, but the saved person doesn't do anything? How odd.
So what is asked in the bishop's interview is expensive and painful?
If you ask our critics, they are. You almost can't untie them they are so twisted up in knots about it.

But, what does the questions being asked of new converts have to do with pain or difficulty? The point was, they aren't getting into our church without knowing what's expected of them. It isn't painful if they are willing to commit. If they are unwilling then they don't join the church. Many of them get baptized, but never show up for confirmation which is only half of the ordinance. One might say, it's the bread half and they skipped the water half (I don't know if anyone will understand that, but... it's a thought. The sacrament would not be complete if we only took the bread. Hint, I guess.).

Your statement was, "The reason I made the post at the time was because there was a lot of chatter of how impossible for Mormons it is to be obedient" (It's not impossible) "and what new converts are really committing to when they join the church" Then you alluded to some fantasized trauma, "thereby scaring people off any potential investigator". You're the one alluding to expense and pain and it is, for those who don't want to walk in the newness of life. "I don't want to give up my pornography", "I don't want to stop lying about my identity so I can get free stuff", "I don't want to tell my wife where I'm really going because she'll get mad at me if I do", "I don't want to tell my employer I just don't want to come into work today, I'd much rather call in sick". All of these are painful for some people to let go of and rather than let go of them, they say they will commit to doing them and then don't. Will these people go to hell because they weren't willing to walk in that newness? I don't know. I'm not the judge who will determine that. I suspect that we all have our issues and it is my opinion that if you recognize the shortcoming and repent of it as often as you fail to overcome it, you have done all you can do. I believe that working on those things is hard and it takes a lifetime of work for some to make it happen.

So, no. the questions aren't painful. The answers are.
 
Top