What degree of obedience qualifies for salvation?

Aaron32

Well-known member
Uh, yep. That's what makes it a works-based theology.

That's the point.

Again, that's the point.
And yet, you say we disagree? There seems to be a lot of agreement on points which you claim we disagree.
It's really come to which term to use "works-based" or "faith based".

:rolleyes: Of course, you can obtain it yourself. It's out there, freely available for the asking.
That doesn't even make sense. If I can obtain it myself, why would I need to ask for it?
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
which is obtaining it ourselves.
Huh?
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
It may be a mischaracterization of what you believe Christians believe, but you don't get to choose what a Christian is nor what they believe.
Ok. Rather than continue to bicker about it, let's just see what Christians believe. If they disagree with me, and say "faith based" means "easy grace" then I'll happily say I believe in a works-based salvation, but I don't think they will.

You can twist this 10 ways from Sunday, it's not going to change the fact that works must always be present for faith to be active.
And, again, the argument "works do not have to be present for faith to be active" is really a strawman argument that's only coming from you, not me.

This is a very conflicted statement. Are you saying that they recognize that easy grace is a fallacy?
Yes.
If that is true, then why do you keep preaching it is what we believe?
Huh? What statements are you referring to?
Trying to rephrase here:
{If "easy grace" is a fallacy, who do I keep preaching it's what we beleive?}
I'm not preaching "easy grace" that's a figment of your imagination.
or are you telling everyone that they are wrong?
I'm telling you that a "works based" salvation is wrong, and yes, "easy grace" is wrong too.
I've been pretty consistent in saying it's nuanced. It's somewhere in the middle. Thus, having faith, leads to work. Works without faith is dead works.

And if they are, then why are you claiming that you are a Mormon?
Rephrasing again to my understanding: {If Christians are wrong about "easy grace", why are you claiming that you are a Mormon?}
That question is non-sequitur. It makes no sense to me.
I'm a Mormon because I believe the priesthood is restored, and there's is only one true Church.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Uh. Yea. and how do we know that faith exists? Works. If you don't get baptized, it doesn't matter how much faith you have, you're not getting into the kingdom of God. That baptism is the life ring and if you don't grab it, you're going to drown. PERIOD. Faith does absolutely nothing for you if you don't act on it. That's why faith and works are two sides of the same coin. Screaming about it isn't going to change it.
But faith needs to come first before we can do any effectual work.
But works still has to be there. If they aren't there is no faith.
Correct. Faith is preserved by works. But works doesn't come before faith.
That is why salvation is works-based, not faith-based without works. You are trying to separate them, but the fact is, as soon as there is works, there is also faith. Even if I believed that the works actually saved me, that's still faith. I might be wrong, but it's still faith. Look. If someone told me that praying to Allah 5 times a day on a carpet, facing Meca would save me, that act, that I perform faithfully, every day no matter where I am, is a demonstration of my faith.
Or I could it's all BS, and I only do it because my parents made me. So, because I do it (absent faith in Allah or whatever) I must be saved. Do you see the problem?

Where you guys get the asinine idea that doing works to be saved is not a sign of faith is beyond me.
You clearly don't debate on Facebook much do you. Here's the general beliefs of liberal members. "I'm saved because I got baptized." "Because I'm a member of the Church I have salvation and everyone else is baaaad." "I'm a child of God, and I'm a member of His Church, but now I think I'm gay. Why would God love me less because I'm gay? That's not fair. I just want to be heaven just like everyone else. Therefore, gay temple marriages should exist, otherwise your just discriminating like you were against blacks and the priesthood."
When children of gay parents were told they couldn't get baptized, (November policy which as since been reversed) some made the argument - "why are you withholding salvation from these children?"

The fact is, people CAN do works WITHOUT faith! We have to know WHY we do the works, for them to MEAN SOMETHING!
They may be useless and frivolous works, but regardless, those works are a demonstration of my faith. The problem isn't faith because obviously faith is there or I wouldn't be doing it. But is that work alone going to save me? No.
Do you see? You can't qualify "works" separate from faith. So it's not works-based.

They may be useless and frivolous works, but regardless, those works are a demonstration of my faith.
So I abstain from coffee, but I eat like a horse, and therefore, by the letter, I keep the word of wisdom so I can be "worthy" of a temple recommend? Don't you see the problem here?

The problem isn't faith because obviously faith is there or I wouldn't be doing it.
Lest you misunderstand the effect of culture.
But is that work alone going to save me? No. I can't pray 5 times a day and then fly a plane to a building killing thousands of people and expect that God will save me. There's a conflict there. God said, thou shalt not kill. Praying all day every day isn't going to overcome the fact that I didn't do what God asked me to do, to value life, even above my own, if necessary.
So, at what degree do we have acceptable obedience? I've point out the scripture that Jesus commanded, no contention, and yet you contend. You're breaking a commandment. By your own words, you don't have real faith in 3 Nephi 11. Can you still expect salvation.
Just because someone sins differently than you do, why do you think you get a pass, when others are willing to sacrifice their actual lives. In effect they made a bigger sacrifice than you did. So, we can't measure "faithfulness" by sacrifice either, can we?

I know I shouldn't have to explain this, but I will. The underlying principle of thou shalt not kill is love one another. Just not killing someone is the letter of the law. The spirit of the law is the sanctity of life, It is that every person is precious. Jesus escalated that law to include anger. Again, the underlying spirit of that law is love.
And is it loving when I'm trying to validate your beliefs, trying to find a place of agreement, trying to find a middle ground to find peace, and you keep trolling me that I'm wrong under any circumstance, and that I'm an apostate that's being deceptive as posing as a Mormon. Your behavior is equal to that of our critics. That's not loving. So what makes you think you have a shot at salvation when you don't obey the spirit of the law?
And by pointing that out, I'm not saying I'm perfect either. Nobody is. We can't perform perfectly all the time. We will always be guilty of something. Thus, all we can do it try our best.

So, it doesn't really matter how much faith one has in what one does. Doing A does to cancel out B if A is prayer and B is killing people. We don't pray to be saved. We pray because we want to know what God has to tell us or because we need help or because we are just thankful and we want God to know it. I suppose it would be a great sign of faith, if a person, every Sunday, watched his sports and thank God every day before he turned on that TV for the wonderful events he was about to watch. What a great thing sports is, thank you God for football. Just think, if it wasn't for football, I'd have to sit in church, but now I get to stay home and watch this great blessing that you have provided for me like manna from heaven. Thank you, Jesus!
LOL!
But religiosity to some is not different than a man watching football on Sunday, as they sit on their rameumptoms, talk about how blessed they are pitying the heathens.
There is no such thing as faith-alone. In order for faith to be effective, it must always be accompanied by works.
So we agree that faith to be evident, it must have works. And faith without works is nothing, and yet you imply "faith alone" is doing nothing when there would be no faith if you did nothing. But then just to it must be works-based salvation. When we also know works without faith can exist?


Works is the activating principle here. Again, no matter what work you do, it is always motivated by faith unless you know that work will accomplish what you want. Then it's no longer faith, it is knowledge.

If that is true, then salvation is works-based.
So, if works = faith, I believe you worship the God of contention, since that's what you like to do, and that's what your motivated to do. I know that if I say anything, you're going to find something wrong with it, because all that seems to matter to you is you're right and I'm wrong. Who cares what the actual truth is. I could make my entire case from your own quotes, and you'd still tell me I'm wrong.
Maybe your God is "the Church" since you're unquestionably faithful, silently compliant, and defend every statement hook, line, and sinker, until they tell you to think about it differently. (I.E. - "the Lectures on Faith" is part of the Standard Works, therefore doctrine, but now it's not.)
Maybe you worship the God of your own ego, as you believe you have final say on what terms mean and how everyone must conform to YOUR understanding else they are apostate and working themselves out of the Church.

I really don't know what God you worship, but I do know you have no fruits of a Christlike disciple. So, by your own words, you stand condemned. Now, if we can simply choose to be righteous as you say, then I recommend you do it, or just admit yourself a liar.
 

Fenuay

Well-known member
He's referring to all of God's commandments as articulated in the bible.

By embracing the entirety of Christ's character one cannot then continue to sin. There is no sin in Christ, and therefore those who are in Christ cannot sin.
Often, Mormons are judged by having a high bar of requirements needed for "salvation".

To Christians I ask, what commandments are being referred to in this verse?

And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments - 1 John 2:3

In other words, at what point can I look at a commandment and say "Nah, I don't need to keep this one."
Or, "I'd feel guilty if I was ACTUALLY expected to keep the commandment of (fill in the blank)."
"There's no way I can keep the commandment of (fill in the blank)."

Shall we continue still in sin, that grace may abound? Roman 6:1

For Mormons, the only real encompassing commandment required for eternal life is enduring in faith in Jesus Christ by taking upon His name. And if you have real faith, all other necessary commandments will be kept, and by so doing, the Holy Ghost will give us further guidance.

2 Ne 31:
14 But, behold, my beloved brethren, thus came the voice of the Son unto me, saying: After ye have repented of your sins, and witnessed unto the Father that ye are willing to keep my commandments, by the baptism of water, and have received the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, and can speak with a new tongue, yea, even with the tongue of angels, and after this should deny me, it would have been better for you that ye had not known me.

15 And I heard a voice from the Father, saying: Yea, the words of my Beloved are true and faithful. He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.

16 And now, my beloved brethren, I know by this that unless a man shall endure to the end, in following the example of the Son of the living God, he cannot be saved.

17 Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost.

18 And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive.

19 And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.

20 Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.

And I imagine some will ask "Well, what about temple ordinances?"
And I would reply that's a fulfillment of prophecy (Micah 4:1-2) and "going on to perfection" (Heb 6:1). And by "perfection" I'm NOT referring to being "sinless", but rather complete, full grown, and fully embracing the entirety of Christ's character - essentially resulting in Charity (1 Cor. 13). Learning and Covenanting to laws of Obedience, Sacrifice, the Gospel, Chastity, and Consecration help us do that.
Aaron, I'm curious why the Bible itself says no man is perfect except Jesus Christ. So all humanity is imperfect. I sin. We all sin. I had a Mormon tell me once that he never sins. I find that difficult to accept as truth. While people can deny they have impure or vengeful thoughts we know they do. If someone is cruel or hurtful emotionally or physically to your child do you not feel anger and maybe even disgust for that person? I do. And that is sin. I grew up with a father who is cruel, narcissistic, and abusive. There are times I think about the relief we will feel when he is gone. Yep, I'm a sinner. I have had evil thoughts about Adolph Hitler and about rapists and murderers. So when any human being says they are sinless I don't find that likely at all. Do you sin? Sure we can strive to be everything Jesus was and desire with our whole heart to be righteous and sinless but we fail.. otherwise why would we have needed the Atonement if not to save us from our sinful nature. Have you ever lusted for a woman not your wife? Do you ever? Do you always have pure and righteous thoughts? Do you ever laugh when someone else falls or makes a mistake because it seems humorous. I would say we are all sinners. So when Mormons say they don't sin do you believe they NEVER sin? Even in thought?
 

Fenuay

Well-known member
You said Mormons try and convert people, telling them that they are wrong. That's an either or fallacy. If I'm wrong, does that make you automatically right, or vice-versa? Is that what conversion is for you?

No different than Jesus claiming he's "the way, the truth, and the life" while being perfectly comfortable letting the blind lead the blind.

So because I believe in something, and accept that others have their own beliefs - sharing my belief is somehow automatically condemning others? We can't add to our truths? Do they only cancel each other out?

Maybe that's the abomination God was referring to - only providing competing philosophies of men through secular learning (flesh and blood) rather than simply turning to God himself to be taught.
When I was an investigator, the missionaries said only two churches claim to have the truth, the Roman Catholic Church through Apostolic succession and the CoJCoLDS through the Restoration. So if the Catholic Church was wrong because they did not have the priesthood authority or keys to the kingdom then that meant the Mormon church was correct. So back then for me it was an either/or.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
When I was an investigator, the missionaries said only two churches claim to have the truth, the Roman Catholic Church through Apostolic succession and the CoJCoLDS through the Restoration. So if the Catholic Church was wrong because they did not have the priesthood authority or keys to the kingdom then that meant the Mormon church was correct. So back then for me it was an either/or.
So from a priesthood perspective, the either/or view is correct, (as I am not aware of any other churches claiming to have priesthood authority passed down directly from Jesus Christ).
But that doesn't mean the teachings of other Christian churches were necessarily wrong, they just didn't have authority to perform the ordinances.
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
So from a priesthood perspective, the either/or view is correct, (as I am not aware of any other churches claiming to have priesthood authority passed down directly from Jesus Christ).
But that doesn't mean the teachings of other Christian churches were necessarily wrong, they just didn't have authority to perform the ordinances.
Joseph Smith said God appeared to him and told him all churches were an abomination. That means “wrong.”
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
Yeah, but that's not helpful for "sheep stealing" from Christian denominations.... ;)

Looking back, I just have to thump myself on the forehead for telling the Joseph Smith story to so many people. And then saying that doesn’t mean their churches were wrong. Of course that’s what it means.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Looking back, I just have to thump myself on the forehead for telling the Joseph Smith story to so many people. And then saying that doesn’t mean their churches were wrong. Of course that’s what it means.

The phrase you're looking for is, "cognitive dissonance".
Put the thoughts on two different shelves, so you never have to look at them together.
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
The phrase you're looking for is, "cognitive dissonance".
Put the thoughts on two different shelves, so you never have to look at them together.
Exactly. And that’s the way it is with just about everything in mormonism. There are a lot of shelves.

It was such a huge relief to realize I only needed to focus on the simplicity of what Christ said. That’s how it is with the truth.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
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?
Mysteries in the Bible are simply something God has not yet revealed fully to us, this side of heaven. That is not the same thing as conflicting teachings. So, no double-standard.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Mysteries in the Bible are simply something God has not yet revealed fully to us, this side of heaven. That is not the same thing as conflicting teachings. So, no double-standard.
But "conflicting teachings" are determined to the degree of faith we're willing to justify them and seek understanding and context. And sometimes we need to fill in the blanks.
For example, here's where aetheists see contradictions taking every single word of the Bible as absolute: https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/biblical-contradictions/
To aetheists the Bible is confusion, but most knowledgeable Christians can see the underlying error of atheists because they understand foundational principles and context.
Likewise, Christians use the same atheistic type reasoning against Mormons to claim "contradictory teachings".
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
The phrase you're looking for is, "cognitive dissonance".
Put the thoughts on two different shelves, so you never have to look at them together.
Another sign of "cognitive dissonance" is echo chambers, which I find so rampant on this board by Christians.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Another sign of "cognitive dissonance" is echo chambers, which I find so rampant on this board by Christians.

Actually, "cognitive dissonance" and "echo chambers" are two completely DIFFERENT things.

Cognitive dissonance is having two particular beliefs which don't fit together at all, and ignoring the fact that they conflict. One example that comes to mind is the LDS belief that "families are forever", and that parents and children who are sealed together will live together in eternity. The children of parents are parents themselves, and are supposed to live with their children, who are themselves parents to other children. And a couple will have two sets of parents (own and inlaws). It simply doesn't work.

"Echo chambers" are when people choose to not listen to people who disagree with them, such as you pretty much ignoring all my posts.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
But "conflicting teachings" are determined to the degree of faith we're willing to justify them and seek understanding and context. And sometimes we need to fill in the blanks.
For example, here's where aetheists see contradictions taking every single word of the Bible as absolute: https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/biblical-contradictions/
To aetheists the Bible is confusion, but most knowledgeable Christians can see the underlying error of atheists because they understand foundational principles and context.
Likewise, Christians use the same atheistic type reasoning against Mormons to claim "contradictory teachings".

And once again, Mormons know they are unable to defend their bankrupt beliefs, so they instead have to try to attack Christianity, and try to attack the Bible by trying to bring up the false idea of "Bible contradictions", even though Mormons are shooting themselves in the foot, since the Bible is part of the LDS "Standard Works".

When atheists attack the Bible, they generally use one of two different logical fallacies. A contradiction is the simultaneous assertion of "<X>" and "not-<X>", but atheists instead try to assert the simultaneous assertions of "<X>" and "<Y>", with some unsubstantiated assertion that "<X> and <Y> can't both be true because, reasons...".

Now, your rationalization that "Atheists claim the Bible has contradictions, which isn't true, therefore the Christian claim that Mormonism has contradictions, is also not true", is fallacious. Whether a contradiction exists in a corpus of religion is based on the facts themselves, not based on other irrelevant ideas.

For instance, if you want to keep discussion ON-TOPIC for Mormonism, we could talk about the contradiction that the Book of Mormon and the Bible both teach that only one god exists, while Mormonism teaches that many gods exist ("plural gods").
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
It seems like two different points are being debated simultaneously.
1. You believe I'm saying "no works are required for salvation."
That's not what I believe you are saying. I believe you refuse to say what the works are. Having your "heart in the right place" is not work. You are so vague in your explanations that no one really knows what they are supposed to do.
faith is the "basis" of our works.
Ok. I accept that faith is the basis for our works. Now, what works are those?
I get that. But you can't ignore that Faith is also a principle of power
power is a subtle and interesting concept, I don't see why you'd introduce it now.
Recognizing that having a life ring thrown at you as a result of your asking for it is also the substance of that hope.
I didn't say anything about asking for the life ring Once again, please address what I said, don't put words in my mouth. Faith is our hope in the things we believe are true. It is useless if we don't act on it. But, since you brought it up, of course asking is evidence of hope, it is also work. Ask and ye shall receive. We have faith that if we ask, we shall receive. If we don't ask, then our faith is null and void, the only evidence that we have faith in such a principle is that we actually ask.
The works-based vs faith-based debate is essentially answering the question - who takes the credit for our salvation?
Correct. It is the little investment we make to obtain huge dividends.
The Christians whom we debate credit the guy throwing us the life ring,
And they'd be right.
knowing our works wouldn't be possible without him acting first - answering our prayer.
Again, no prayer was offered. The action that saved the drowning person isn't the prayer.

This argument gets more ridiculous as it goes on which is typical of our critics who, when they can't directly address it, they start adding components and start arguing about those instead of the argument at hand.

I thought you would offer the flip side of this argument to show me how wrong I am, but instead your argument got even more ridiculous. The flip side of this argument is, I'm guessing, that you think that the drowning man, in a "works-based" salvation, saved himself and that the he would get all the credit. I'm sure you realize that that is ridiculous and maybe that's why you didn't suggest it. In the above scenario, the person throwing the life right is Jesus Christ. The gift is the life ring. All you are required to do is grab on to it and keep holding it until the end which is marked by your being safely on dry ground. For your little bit of effort, you have obtained life, but without your little bit of effort, you would have drowned. The brunt of the work was performed by the person who threw you the life ring. All you had to do is all you could do and that was hold on. You didn't pull yourself out of the water. You didn't pick up the life ring and throw it and you didn't haul yourself back in.
The "irresistible grace" means no rational man recognizing his situation is going to reject the life ring.
True. Why would they, unless they thought there was a better chance some other way? An easier way.
Thus, one could say God giving us the awareness is also God's grace
One could say that. The problem is, in this life, God isn't the only voice that people hear.
Hmmm...
First, you don't think there's significance in the BoM's words about "acting in no hypocrisy and without guile" or praying in "sincerity of heart" or "with real intent"? That's all motive,
No. It isn't all motive, my friend. It's all work. We have no idea what the motive is.
How? I'm confused at this statement.
I'm confused how you could be confused. If you do something good "BECAUSE I believe.", there is an expectation for a reward. How much better is the person who does the work having no knowledge of any reward?
Unless we recognize that the baby was geographically in hell to begin with.
I suppose that one could make anything that isn't true or makes no sense whatsoever true if one "recognizes" that's true.
If we're born into telestial glory, and ignorant of any other higher glory, as they say "ignorance is bliss". We also know "man can be saved in ignorance".
Telestial glory is not hell unless we make it hell by not following Christ. Babies are not able to make this life hell. If it becomes hell for them, it's through no fault of their own, but you are, apparently, willing to make them pay for it anyway. We've already discussed ignorance. That can be fixed at any time before judgment day.
Or maybe you've tried to do the work, (keep a commandment) but you've failed over and over, so you give up trying and simply ask God to provide the way, and your heart gets changed to no longer desire to sin.
:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
None of that matters if you keep doing the sin. Again, I don't what to beat you to death and therefore it's not a sin when I beat you to death. Got it.
Then pay attention closely - if our salvation is WORKS-based, and Im guilty of a sin of omission (a sin that would have been prevented if I had "done the work") - then I have no rational way of having hope. Works-based salvation has no room for grace.
Pay close attention, that is true only because you say so. A couple of things here. 1. That's not what a sin of omission is. Omission is not doing things we should be doing. That would be like Joseph Smith being commanded to practice polygamy and then not practicing it. 2. works-based salvation isn't about saving ourselves. It's about qualifying for the blessings of Salvation which is based on our actions. It recognizes the fact that what we do is the work that qualifies us and that if we refuse or choose to do some other work instead, it may disqualify us.

Faith-alone ignores the work and makes it nice but not necessary and then tries to skew good works to be evil if we do them for the wrong reasons which is totally ridiculous.
You do by saying we believe in a "works based" salvation.
No. I don't.
Yep. Hence we do temple work.
Doing temple work does not mean people will believe in Christ. Now, It appears that you believe in works based salvation. Our work saves them. :rolleyes:
And that Utah is one of the largest consumers of porn and anti-depressants.
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Let's translate that claim into Greek, the language the NT was written in:

"belief ... is .. not faith."
"πιστις έστιν ου πιστιν."
Sorry if you can't see the difference.
Belief is the conviction that something is true.
Faith is the hope that it is true.
hope moves us to action, sometimes observed as being strange by others
Action is the evidence of our faith.

If there were no difference, there wouldn't be another word for it.
 
Top