What exactly is a 'work'?

[Flyonthewall]

I am only telling you what I was told. Maybe that's not the practice of your ward or Bishop. My only point is that it's a focus on self, not christ.

It was told to me in the context of, how the church is going to help me "follow" all the commands, by making sure I'm paying the right amount to the church. So, every year they sit down with the Bishop to "make sure" they are paying the proper amount.

I will add my voice to those that have already denied this. You were told wrong! The only validation of whether or not you pay a full tithe, comes from you, the individual themself. The bishop will simply ask: "are you a full tithe payer?", and the individual answers "yes" or "no". If there is a bishop that asks for proof, then the bishop is in the wrong.

You can cross that bit of information off your misinformation list.

[coolrok7]

After all the discussion bluebell, are you still confused? A "good work" can only be accomplished by one who has come to faith in Jesus and have had their sins forgiven. Sanctification is being set apart for works of service in which good works are a natural product of having faith in the "truth":

But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. (Titus 3:4-eight)

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23)

We believe along with Paul (those not Mormon) that we are "saved by grace through faith not by works" (as well as with James that "faith without works is dead") in that the Galatians were chided for trying to follow the law (or the works of the law) in order to be justified or have salvation:

foolish Galatians [Mormons] who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. (Galatians 3:1-9)

The "works of the law" or living the law perfectly can never be acheived (except for Jesus) in that we are born with a sinful nature incapable of satifying the laws demands which is perfection. This is why Jesus came into the world to live a perfect life which culminated in the atonement which made satisfaction for sin. The following is said just before the above:

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. (Galatians 2:16-21)

[LeSellers]

I am only telling you what I was told.

The first question that pops into my mind is "told by whom?"

Maybe that's not the practice of your ward or Bishop. My only point is that it's a focus on self, not christ.

That was not a point you made at the very least.

And you're wrong in your assessment anyway. The logic behind such a statement completely escapes me. If one obeys his master, it is not a focus on himself, but rather a focus on the master. Christ has told us to pay our tithing, we pay it because of our love for Him.

I cannot fathom how anyone would pay tithing (which is essentially in secret, only two or three people in a ward know who pays and who does not, and less so how much anyone pays) can be viewed as focusing on himself.

Whatever you were told is wrong, and it's not just because my bishop was idiosyncratic. That's impossible because in those five decades, I have had at least twenty bishops and branch presidents in two countries and eight states, in at least nine wards and two branches I can recall off the top of my head.

Moreover, I have read the instructions and have received counsel from several of those bishops on this very topic, and it is all uniform: the bishop asks only if you are a full tithe payer. What that means is left entirely up to the individual. He can answer "yes" or "no", but the bishop (with one exception in my experience) accepts that without question.

In my own case, one year I prepaid a year's worth of tithing the previous year for tax avoidance (perfectly legal) purposes, and I paid it directly to the Presiding Bishop in Salt Lake City, so my bishop knew nothing of the matter. That year's tithing settlement showed I had paid $0 in tithing, and it would have even had I not taken care of that obligation in the earlier calendar year. My bishop asked if I was a full tithe payer and I answered truthfully, "Yes." He congratulated me, the same as every other year, and I left his office, the same as every other year with a Temple Recommend.

I suspect you got your information from a non-LDS source, like, oh, say Ed Decker, and mindlessly repeated it because anything that even sounds like the Church of Jesus Christ is weird or odd must be true.

It was told to me in the context of, how the church is going to help me "follow" all the commands, by making sure I'm paying the right amount to the church. So, every year they sit down with the Bishop to "make sure" they are paying the proper amount.

Your informant lied. While you may have believed it, the fact is you passed it along as truth without checking it out, and seem rather more than reluctant to accept countervailing information on the matter.

LDSs are not required, nor asked, nor even encouraged to provide a W2 to the bishop as verification of anything.

There is no distinction between being with Jesus and God, in the bible. They are used interchangeably.

Not always, and I reject your assertion that it is not in the Bible anyway.

The famous thief on the cross passage is one where in order to see them as interchangeable requires you to impose a predisposition to that view on the text.

Lehi

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Even the Book of Mormon:

Alma 11 -"28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?

29 And he answered, No.

30 Now Zeezrom said unto him again: How knowest thou these things?

31 And he said: An aangel hath made them known unto me."

And the Bible teaches what?

Isaiah 43:10 "Before me no god was formed,

nor will there be one after me.

I must be mistaken, and not understanding something... hmm...

I guess you just missed what I said. No point in repreating it.

I am quite aware of the standard prooftext. What do you make of Paul's remarks that I outlined before your post?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Separate in Person, but one in essence.

I suppose you could say it that way.

Essence is "what they are made of." so to speak. Jesus, God the father and God the Holy spirit all share the same "Godness" or essence.

Ok.

Unless Jesus is just as much God as the Father is. Being where he is then is equal to being in Heaven.

too tired to continue tonight... sorry.

Even if Jesus is just as much "God" as you claim he still had not yet ascneded to His Father.

How can you claim that the thief went to hevean when Paradise and Hevean do not seem to be the same places since the Father was not in paradise as Jesus had not yet ascended unto his Father?

I understand what you are trying to do but it doesn't work.

It doesn't work because consider this verse that you missed.

1Pet 3:19

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

Is spirit prison now hevean because Christ went there and you claimed that were God is hevean is and since Christ is God that means prison is now heaven? It doesn't logically flow.

Also what scripture verse to you use to support "one in essence"? I am not familiar with that one.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Not always, and I reject your assertion that it is not in the Bible anyway.

The famous thief on the cross passage is one where in order to see them as interchangeable requires you to impose a predisposition to that view on the text.

Lehi

I reject it as well, because if Christ went to the spirits in prison, is prison now hevean because Christ went there? The people were with God? Right?

[bluebell]

After all the discussion bluebell, are you still confused?

Honestly, yes.

Hughes seems to believe that something is a 'work' if it is physical and you have a completely different definition for 'work' than he does....in the end, i'm really starting to believe that it IS all semantics.

A "good work" can only be accomplished by one who has come to faith in Jesus and have had their sins forgiven. Sanctification is being set apart for works of service in which good works are a natural product of having faith in the "truth":

This is confusing to me for two reasons:

First, i don't believe the bible differentiates between 'good works' and 'works'-it seems to use the term interchangeably sometimes-but it seems that you don't believe the two are ever the same thing.

Second, i'm confused because you seem to be agreeing exactly with LDS doctrine on the subject, which teaches-"It is through the grace of the Lord that individuals, through faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ and repentance of their sins, receive strength and assistance to do good works that they otherwise would not be able to maintain if left to their own means."

We believe along with Paul (those not Mormon) that we are "saved by grace through faith not by works" (as well as with James that "faith without works is dead") in that the Galatians were chided for trying to follow the law (or the works of the law) in order to be justified or have salvation:

LDS believe the same thing. We don't believe we are saved by our works and we believe that faith without works is dead. So again, you're not making any sense to me.

The "works of the law" or living the law perfectly can never be acheived (except for Jesus) in that we are born with a sinful nature incapable of satifying the laws demands which is perfection. This is why Jesus came into the world to live a perfect life which culminated in the atonement which made satisfaction for sin.

Of course.

[Hughes]

This is the point I am trying to make in my post above. If Christ and the Father are not the same person and Christ didn't ascend to His Father, then they both were in different places at the same time. Hence Paradise is not the same as Heaven.

Unless Heaven is defined as where either is located. "you will be with me" That's heaven in my book, don't matter the location.

[Hughes]

[Hughes]

The same Holy Spirit every believer receives.

That sounds good, but it doesn't agree with what the bible has to say.

Paul was a believer after his vision of the Savior, but we are told in Acts 9 that he didn't receive the Holy Ghost until Ananias came to him (in fact, we are told that Christ specifically sent Ananias to Paul so that he could receive the Holy Ghost).

Of course the Holy Ghost witnesses to us of truth, and He can do that whenever He needs to. The gift of the Holy Ghost though is something different. It is the gift of having the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost, rather than Him only as a witness when we are presented with truth.

I would like you to please give me a specific reference for the "gift of having the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost" thanks.

Paul was a believer after his vision. Yes. So what spirit did he have? Are you saying that he didn't have the Holy Spirit inside him, until Ananias prayed for him?

Further, two things Ananias prayed for, one for restoration of his sight, and two that he be filled with the Spirit. Now, one can observe easily if his sight is restored or not. How is it that Ananias knew if Paul was filled with the Spirit or not?

[Hughes]

First, you need to be more clear here.

Which is it?

Did the apostles receive the Holy Ghost the moment they believed or was it when Jesus breathed on them, in your belief? The apostles believed months if not years before Jesus breathed on them, so your statement above, as if they believed and He breathed on them at the same moment-doesn't make sense.

Just as John says in 3:6 "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to Spirit." and continues in verse 15 " That everyone who believes in Him may have Eternal Life. 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

So, to be clear, the Apostles received the Holy Spirit the moment they believed, at which point they had salvation/Eternal Live/forgiveness of sins. However, as seen in Acts 2, they received the power of the Holy Spirit 50 days after Jesus' resurrection.

What might that be? It certainly couldn't have been simply receiving the spirit because they already had that. As the text says, you will be receive "power" when the spirit comes on you, and that's exactly what we see throughout the book of Acts. "Acts of the Holy Spirit" via the believers (didn't matter who), who received power just as Jesus said they would.

So, are you saying that after receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, the Spirit is not always with someone but comes and goes and that this 'power' manifests itself when the spirit comes?

I'm not really following you here.

My point was two fold, one was that the gift of the Holy Spirit, was given to all believers, without regard to their standing in the Church. Two was that any believer could pray for anyone else to receive the Holy Spirit, it didn't have to be a Bishop or anyone special.

As to your question. The Holy Spirit is always with all believers, all the time. The manifestation of the Spirit's Power (as in signs and wonders) doesn't occur all the time.

[Hughes]

Let me ask another question-

How many judgements does the bible teach will occur?

2 for the non believers. 1 for the Believer.

You mention the final judgement, which is where the unrighteous are judged, by their works. Yes this is true. That's because they have relied on their works for their salvation. In other words, their faith was in their works. The believers have their name written in the lambs book of life, and not because of works, but because of what Jesus has done. Confusing that judgement with believers is a mistake.

Actually, the book of Revelation says that EVERY man will be judged by their works-believers and unbelievers alike.

Were you aware of that? I'm not asking to be snide, but because what you just said above is completely contrary to what the bible actually says so i'm not sure, if you new it before, where you are coming from.

The "great white throne judgement" in Revelation isn't a judgement of everyone. And sure there is room for some disagreement here among believers, but I believe that the text is fairly clear when it says that the "dead" are judged (20:12). This isn't a reference to believers but non-believers who are still dead in their sins. As Jesus said, "God isn't not God of the dead but the living."

Throughout the NT it's stated that our names, as believers are in the Lambs book of life, that the Spirit is given to us as a deposit guaranteeing what is to come. Now a guarantee isn't what is given to those who will be judged at the white throne judgement.

When you said-I do believe that God makes a righteous judgement of everyone, as he sees everyone's heart.-i thought you were saying that He judges everyone like that, even people who lived and never heard the name of Jesus Christ and therefore never had teh chance to have faith in Him.

Is that what you meant? If it is, then how can God judge such people as 'saved' unless He saves them without their having to have faith in Christ?

God judges their hearts just as he judges ours.

In essence, people who have limited access to knowledge, have a general understanding of creation and God and it's on that basis that God judges people.

So, I guess I'd answer yes, that God saves them without them having specific "faith" in Christ. Why? Because God makes a righteous judgement.

Well, the bible disagrees with this statement where it teaches that God judges us on our works as well, as i've already pointed out above so i won't go into it again, but i have to ask. How does God judge those people who had good hearts but never heard the teachings of Jesus, or even His name, simply because of the time and place where they lived? Can any of those billions of people be saved in your belief?

What of the people who never knew about Christ? Will God save them without them every having had faith in Christ?

I think I just answered that question.

You do realize that we are talking about 'saved' in the eternal sense, right? Who in the OT did God grant eternal life to who weren't believers? Who in the NT?

If it's all over the bible then there should be a number of references taht you can share.

There is nowhere in the OT that I know of where 'Eternal Life' is mentioned. However, the concepts of "salvation" had more to do with winning wars and overcoming oppression. In other words, the God that was "God" was the one that helped their followers win the war. And in that sense, it was the goal of God to save non-believers as much as the believers, and there were numerous times where non believers helped believers and that was seen as their salvation, for example: By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient. [hebrews 11:31]

And in the New Testament, [john 4] Jesus sat and talked with a Samaritan woman, and she was shocked. In the end, Jesus said, 22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

Um, Jesus taught a few samaritans, for sure, but where does it say that these people were 'saved'?

Do you equate hearing about the gospel to being saved? You've totally lost me with these examples because they don't show at all what you are saying they show. I'm sorry but you're going to have to clarify because i have no idea what you are talking about here.

[coolrok7]

Honestly, yes.

Hughes seems to believe that something is a 'work' if it is physical and you have a completely different definition for 'work' than he does....in the end, i'm really starting to believe that it IS all semantics.

This is confusing to me for two reasons:

First, i don't believe the bible differentiates between 'good works' and 'works'-it seems to use the term interchangeably sometimes-but it seems that you don't believe the two are ever the same thing.

Second, i'm confused because you seem to be agreeing exactly with LDS doctrine on the subject, which teaches-"It is through the grace of the Lord that individuals, through faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ and repentance of their sins, receive strength and assistance to do good works that they otherwise would not be able to maintain if left to their own means."

LDS believe the same thing. We don't believe we are saved by our works and we believe that faith without works is dead. So again, you're not making any sense to me.

Of course.

Thanks bluebell for being honest as I really want to understand your confusion. This will help me clarify what I beleieve instead of what others believe or appear to believe in contrast to me.

I'll get back to you. From my perspective Mormonism has redefined the terms while appearing (my perspective) to be in agreement as you stated but in the end don't really believe the same. The Bible does teach differently in contrast to the BofM as in "after al we can do".

[Hughes]

Saved by the Atonement, but only if you have faith? Saved by the Atonement, but only if you repent? Why don't you believe the Atonement can save you without your faith or your repentance?

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself WHY you have to have faith in Christ to be saved? Is it because the Atonement is insufficient to save you without it?

That's sort of like saying have you ever thought about why you have to have a mouth to drink water to quench thirst? Isn't the water enough to quench your thirst?

What is faith? What is believing? "Who so ever believes in him shall be saved."

It doesn't say, who so ever believes in him shall be saved, if you have works too...

Paul never said that you work out your own salvation, because you'll go to hell if you don't... nope. Rather, he's talking about a process that only begins with salvation.

Aren't you putting words in his mouth?

Nope. I said that "Paul never said"... It's rather easy to disprove me... just tell me where Paul said we have to do works as believers, otherwise we will lose our salvation.

James taught that faith without works is dead. Meaning if we really did believe then fruits of that belief will follow. James didn't say, your works are what save you, or that you must do works in order to continue to be saved.

Can a person who has no good works be saved? Yes or no.

Of course. Works aren't necessary for salvation, faith in Christ is.

I see a pattern here. You don't seem to separate "faith" and "works". This is just my observation, but it seems to me that you see them almost as the same thing.

My goal is to break things down to it's simplest form so that we can discuss them and pinpoint where the point of disagreement lies. It seems to me that the LDS don't have as a doctrine "who so ever will believe, shall have everlasting life..." It seems to me (and please correct me as I'm probably wrong) that the LDS say something like, "Who so ever will can now do good works and believe and have everlasting life..." As in, I keep hearing that belief in Christ only allows us access, it's up to us after that, to do good works and be saved.

The whole focus of the LDS church (seems to me) is not on Christ, but on self.

Have you gone to a worship service at an LDS church? Have you read the book of mormon? Have you met with the missionaries to see what the LDS church believes?

My impression has little to do with what the church believes. And no I haven't gone to a "ward", I have read parts of the Book of Mormon. I have talked with missionaries before.

My impression stems from living here in Utah. Drive down to Salt Lake at night and what do you see? Temples lit up like light houses on the hills in the surrounding areas. What's the message?

It comes through loud and clear.

LOOK AT US!!!! Look at this great building... all lit up and looking perfect. Focus isn't on Christ, but self.

Or look at who is on the very top of the Temple. The Angle Moroni? Focus on Christ? I don't think so.

OR maybe you could explain how that's a focus on Christ?

Don't worry, i'm not offended.

I appreciate that, I truly do.

Is this REALLY any different than protestant churches? Are the LDS you may have come in contact with really behaving towards you any differently than you are behaving towards them?

I mean, talking to you and other protestants, i hear-

Who isn't right? The LDS.

Who denies the ATonement of Christ? The LDS.

Who is only concerned with themselves? The LDS

Who interprets the bible correctly? The protestants

Who wants to work their way to heaven? The LDS

Who thinks they can be God? The LDS

I also don't mean to offend-only to point a light where maybe there hasn't been one yet. It's easy to feel ganged up on when there are a lot of people around who believe differently than you do, and yes, some people, no matter what they say they beleive, are just jerks. These are issues with human nature though, not the LDS church.

Is it human nature that glorifies the church building instead of Christ himself? As Paul said there are those who take pride in what is seen rather than in what is in the heart.

I'm sorry but this is laughable. Who the heck told you this? It isn't true. I've been a member for over 20 years and no one has EVER asked to see my w-2's. Also, tithing isn't mandatory anyway. I know a ton of LDS who don't pay their tithing as they should but they are still LDS, still welcome at church, still have jobs at church like teaching other members.

Whoever told you this, you should probably not listen to anymore. If they got this wrong then who knows what else they don't understand correctly and believe they do.

I love how you say that a ton of LDS don't pay their tithing as they should. How do you know this?

My experience, and listening to what LDS members say is just that. If I were to deny that I heard them talking about their yearly meeting with the bishop, with their W-2's then I would be a liar.

Are goal is to become like God through becoming a joint-heir with Christ and gain all that the father hath. We believe that then we will be gods (little 'g') because of who we will be like. We believe that even in that state though that we will still worship God and we will never be equal to Him.

What is so blasphemous about that belief?

The error is in trying to say that there is such as thing as a little 'g' god that worships a bigger 'g' God. The blasphemous aspect has to do with claiming that this teaching comes from God of the Bible. Maybe you can explain where in the Bible is says that you become gods who worship God.

[Hughes]

Continuing on....

The Jewish religion teaches that it is what you DO that matters. It is our actions that will determine where we go after we die.

So really, they are guilty of the same thing you have been accusing me of, as well as being guilty of rejecting the Savior yet you still claim to have more in common with them than LDS? Not that i don't have much respect for the Jewish faith (I knew a few Jews in California because the LDS church allowed the local synagogue to use it's building when they had need because their building was too small for use during some of their Holy Days). Still though, the comparison makes no sense.

The Jewish religion doesn't teach it's what you do that matters. Here's but one example, Hosea 6:6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

While, I've heard countless times now in this thread and others:

We gain eternal life by keeping the commandments of God. This does not mean that we are saved by works but, on the other hand, we cannot be saved without them. The sacrifice of Jesus simply allows us to be judged according to our works, which the scriptures already tell us.

I find it rather funny actually, in a sad way that someone can honestly say that they really don't think that they are believing in salvation by works... but we can't be saved without them.... Uh... ok.

It's called english. If works are required... then it's salvation by works. Simple as that.

And the Jewish religion doesn't teach that. No.

I, being LDS, completely agree that God never changes, but i must understand that differently than you do because i realize that God DOES change in the way that He interacts with His children and does change the things He teaches them.

Otherwise, the Jewish people are correct and the NT is a blasphemy because it 'changed' the laws that God had taught early and added to the teachings they already had.

Actually the NT fulfilled the Law and the Prophets.

Here's something that I've been wondering about lately. I agree that God changes the ways he interacts with his believers (we no longer follow prophets like the Jewish religion did for example because we all have the Holy Spirit).

However, it's seems strange to me that the angels that supposedly reveal truth to the LDS church have changed their revelations. Who do you believe?

For example. First Polygamy is right. Then it's wrong.

First Black are cursed. Then they aren't anymore, but they are still black?

You see, my question really revolves around the concept of Discernment. How does one have discernment and also believe in the LDS teachings?

For example. If the LDS teach that Blacks are cursed for example, do people accept that teaching without question? And then years later when it's "revealed" that Blacks are no longer cursed, is that then supposed to be just 'accepted' as truth now without question?

The principle of discernment is huge in the Bible. Test the spirits to see if they are true. That's a major principle. But how does one do that if you're LDS and you're committed to believing what ever the latest revelation is supposed to be?

And I just the opposite. I can't help but wonder why people believed JS in the beginning.

The testimony of the Holy Ghost.

Uh... nope. If it was truly the Holy Spirit they would have been told he's lying.

It's right up there with LDS saying, "Hey we're Christians too...." Nope.

You see, let's flip it around. If I said, well, I'm LDS Too! (but I deny that JS is a prophet, that the BOM is true etc). You'd say to me that I'm not LDS, because I don't believe in the fundamentals of LDS.... Uh yep.

1 Cor. 26-29

For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

Quite a difference between a prideful, selfish, narcissistic personality, and one that is humble and seeking God's truth. If you've never had to live with or work under a narcissistic person, count yourself lucky.

And that surprises me that so many people would follow him.

I think Saul thought the same thing of the followers of Jesus for a while.

I'm not sure what he thought, other than he thought that Christians deserved death.

It surprises me to hear you say that you think that intellectually, that their teaching support the bible, because so many of their teaching undermine what the bible teaches.

I haven't found any.

I've found a lot of protestant teachings that it undermines, a few Catholic teachings that it undermines, some Jewish teachings that it undermines and a lot of interprtations of the bible that it undermines, but no actual biblical teachings.

Which is surprising. Because the three you mentioned are based solely on Biblical Teachings. It's only the LDS that are based on extra biblical documents primarily and use those to "interpret" the Bible.

A distinction only made by the LDS. The understanding throughout the Bible is that if you are with Jesus/God, then you have eternal life.

I'm not talking about anyone else but the thief that we are speaking of. To no one else has Jesus said those words to and in no other circumstance do we know where Jesus was and where He wasn't on the day that He is speaking about.

Let's not try to make our discussion about the thief into more than it actually is.

First, understand that Jesus said those words to his disciples and meant the same thing. I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.(John 14:3)

Second, Let's look at the passage: One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!"

40But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? 41We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."

42Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[f]"

43Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

He asked Jesus to remember him when he comes into his kingdom. And Jesus, didn't say no, he said today you will be with me... Just reading the biblical text what does that say?

1 Cor. 8: 5-6

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

No matter how many gods in heaven, to us there is but one God, the Father.

Since there's only one God (as I posted earlier...) there is only one. And those others that are called "gods" are not divine. As in they are mortal.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Since there's only one God (as I posted earlier...) there is only one. And those others that are called "gods" are not divine. As in they are mortal.

That is a gret interpretation, however I must ask this one question. Are there "mortal gods" in hevean?

If so on what grounds to you get to that point? Thanks

The verse states, weather in hevean or in the earth.

I also don't see any refrence in that verse to "not devine" gods. Can you help me find it? It might be better to state that they are gods that might be devine and are real but we do not worship them or even acknowledge (I use the term to mean that we do not know about them) them as gods/Gods.

[Tanyan]

Thanks bluebell for being honest as I really want to understand your confusion. This will help me clarify what I beleieve instead of what others believe or appear to believe in contrast to me.

I'll get back to you. From my perspective Mormonism has redefined the terms while appearing (my perspective) to be in agreement as you stated but in the end don't really believe the same. The Bible does teach differently in contrast to the BofM as in "after al we can do".

[bluebell]

I would like you to please give me a specific reference for the "gift of having the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost" thanks.

Sadly, there isn't one.

This is one of those places where the bible is less than clear or concise about the differences between the power of the Holy Ghost and the gift of the Holy Ghost. What is clear, however that there IS a difference between the two.

We know there is a difference between the two because of a couple of things. First, because it is the power of the Holy Ghost that teaches men truth, and because we know that there were people on the earth during His ministry who knew the truth about who Christ was and the truth of what He taught, we know that it was the power of the Holy Ghost revealing such to them.

This is alluded to when Jesus tells peter that it is only through revelation that peter knows who Christ is.

Second, we know that this 'power' which comes of the Spirit and reveals to truth men is NOT the same thing as the gift of the Holy Ghost because Christ teaches His disciples that the gift of the Holy Ghost would not come to them until after He is glorified. (john 7:39 and john 16:7) In other words, He teaches that while He is in His mortal ministry, the gift of the Holy Ghost wil not be available to anyone but that it will come later.

So, we have the Holy Ghost revealing truth to men while Christ is ministering to them and we have Christ teaching that the gift of the Holy Ghost will not be given until after His death and resurrection. Thus, the gift of the Holy Ghost is something more than just having access to the Spirit occasionally.

Paul was a believer after his vision. Yes. So what spirit did he have? Are you saying that he didn't have the Holy Spirit inside him, until Ananias prayed for him?

That's what the bible teaches.

Further, two things Ananias prayed for, one for restoration of his sight, and two that he be filled with the Spirit. Now, one can observe easily if his sight is restored or not. How is it that Ananias knew if Paul was filled with the Spirit or not?

I would suppose that ananias knew because he knew that Christ sent him to bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost to Paul and Ananias trusted that Christ would honor the reason that he was sent.

Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

[bluebell]

So, to be clear, the Apostles received the Holy Spirit the moment they believed, at which point they had salvation/Eternal Live/forgiveness of sins. However, as seen in Acts 2, they received the power of the Holy Spirit 50 days after Jesus' resurrection.

The bible disagrees with you here.

Christ teaches in the bible that the gift of the Holy Ghost would not be available to anyone until after Christ' s resurrection. No one had it until Acts 2. Otherwise, Christ was not telling the truth when He taught-"

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

and

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

It says right there in John that those who believe in Christ 'should receive' the Holy Ghost but that it was 'not yet given'.

My point was two fold, one was that the gift of the Holy Spirit, was given to all believers, without regard to their standing in the Church. Two was that any believer could pray for anyone else to receive the Holy Spirit, it didn't have to be a Bishop or anyone special.

These beliefs are not in the bible-they contradict what the bible teaches actually.

Clearly, the gift of the Holy Ghost was not given to believers until after Christ's resurrection (i already provided references for that teaching) and clearly only certain people could bestow the gift of teh Holy Ghost upon someone. (Acts 9 where Ananias is sent to bestow the Holy Ghost and Acts 8 )

Why do you believe things that contradict the bible if you profess to believe only what the bible teaches? I'm sincerely asking and not being snarky. I don't understand your position because you claim that one of the things you dislike about mormonism is that our beliefs contradict the bible while you yourself hold beliefs that also go against what the bible actually teaches.

[bluebell]

2 for the non believers. 1 for the Believer.

Can you provide references that support your belief?

From what i understand, the bible teaches that there are two judgements. One at death and the final judgement after the resurrection and it appears that everyone goes through these two judgements.

The "great white throne judgement" in Revelation isn't a judgement of everyone. And sure there is room for some disagreement here among believers, but I believe that the text is fairly clear when it says that the "dead" are judged (20:12). This isn't a reference to believers but non-believers who are still dead in their sins. As Jesus said, "God isn't not God of the dead but the living."

Throughout the NT it's stated that our names, as believers are in the Lambs book of life, that the Spirit is given to us as a deposit guaranteeing what is to come. Now a guarantee isn't what is given to those who will be judged at the white throne judgement.

If you are right, and this judgement that says 'every man' will go through, is actually speaking only about non-believers, then why does this judgement invovle the book of life? Why does this judgement invovle checking to see who's name is in the book of life IF none of the people being judged are in the book of life?

Your interpretation sounds forced because it doesn't fit in with everything Revelation teaches will occure. You have to wrestle with the words to make them fit with what you are saying. That's how it comes across anyway.

So, I guess I'd answer yes, that God saves them without them having specific "faith" in Christ. Why? Because God makes a righteous judgement.

So when Christ taught that eternal life was knowing God and Jesus Christ, He was wrong?

And when Paul taught in Romans 10 that salvation comes to those who believe in Christ, he was wrong?

Again, i'm truly not trying to be snarky, i just don't understand your position, which again contradicts biblical teachings and again you don't seem to have any problems with that at all.

There is nowhere in the OT that I know of where 'Eternal Life' is mentioned. However, the concepts of "salvation" had more to do with winning wars and overcoming oppression. In other words, the God that was "God" was the one that helped their followers win the war. And in that sense, it was the goal of God to save non-believers as much as the believers, and there were numerous times where non believers helped believers and that was seen as their salvation, for example: By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient. [hebrews 11:31]

I already said though that i was speaking about 'salvation' in the eternal sense. Where does the bible teach that God will save, eternally, unbelievers?

John 4:39 "Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony, "He told me everything I ever did." 40So when the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days. 41And because of his words many more became believers.

So, we know that God will save believers-but my question was, where does the bible teach that God will save unbelievers? That is what you claimed the bible taught so THAT is what i am interested in seeing references too-not references that God will keep nonbelievers from harm or will save believers. I didn't ask for references to those beliefs.

They were saved because the believed.

Again, it's not in question whether or not God will save believers-we both agree that He does, obviously.

And if they were Jews, then why did she say, "you jews say..." to Jesus?

The samaritans were decendents of the House of Israel but were despised by the Jews at that time because they were mixed blood and not 'pure'. Both groups claimed Jacob as a 'father' though.

[bluebell]

That's sort of like saying have you ever thought about why you have to have a mouth to drink water to quench thirst? Isn't the water enough to quench your thirst?

What is faith? What is believing? "Who so ever believes in him shall be saved."

It doesn't say, who so ever believes in him shall be saved, if you have works too...

You didn't answer my question.

If Christ's grace is sufficient to save without you doing anything to add to it, then why do you believe you have to have faith, or have to repent, to be saved? Why can't you do 'nothing' and be saved?

(and please don't say you can do nothing and be saved because you want to pretend that 'belief' isn't something that a person 'does'. Such a definition of 'belief' isn't supported by the bible-Acts 16:30-31 )

Nope. I said that "Paul never said"... It's rather easy to disprove me... just tell me where Paul said we have to do works as believers, otherwise we will lose our salvation.

You claimed that Paul was talking about 'a process that only begins with salvation'. Aren't you putting words in Paul's mouth when you claim that's what he was speaking of?

Of course. Works aren't necessary for salvation, faith in Christ is.

So, James was lying when he said that faith without works was dead?

I see a pattern here. You don't seem to separate "faith" and "works". This is just my observation, but it seems to me that you see them almost as the same thing.

Not the same thing, but both necessary for salvation.

My goal is to break things down to it's simplest form so that we can discuss them and pinpoint where the point of disagreement lies. It seems to me that the LDS don't have as a doctrine "who so ever will believe, shall have everlasting life..." It seems to me (and please correct me as I'm probably wrong) that the LDS say something like, "Who so ever will can now do good works and believe and have everlasting life..." As in, I keep hearing that belief in Christ only allows us access, it's up to us after that, to do good works and be saved.

It's how we define 'believe'.

Can a person truly believe in Christ who does not follow Him? Can a person be saved who does not 'take up their cross'? LDS generally use the word 'believe' or 'have faith' as an action word. It is something that a person does, not something that only happens in their head.

Belief that has the power to save is knowledge plus action. If someone claims belief but then does not obey the commandments of Christ to the best of their ability then their belief is dead, as james taught, and dead belief, or dead faith, cannot save anyone.

Does that make sense?

My impression stems from living here in Utah. Drive down to Salt Lake at night and what do you see? Temples lit up like light houses on the hills in the surrounding areas. What's the message?

It comes through loud and clear.

LOOK AT US!!!! Look at this great building... all lit up and looking perfect. Focus isn't on Christ, but self.

Or look at who is on the very top of the Temple. The Angle Moroni? Focus on Christ? I don't think so.

You want to judge the LDS because they obey Christ's admonision to be a 'light on a hill'? Isn't that a petty thing to hold against us?

You want to suggest that you are more focused on Christ than the LDS church because they have an angel on the top of their temple which symbolizes the angel sounding his trump announcing the second coming of Christ, which is really a focus on self? Is that a righteous judgement on your part? Is it even a logical judgement?

OR maybe you could explain how that's a focus on Christ?

I just did.

Is it human nature that glorifies the church building instead of Christ himself? As Paul said there are those who take pride in what is seen rather than in what is in the heart.

How is glorifying the house of the Lord-His temple-NOT glorifying Christ Himself?

I love how you say that a ton of LDS don't pay their tithing as they should. How do you know this?

Because half of them are my own personal family and the rest i know through church where they have admitted as much too me. Just two weeks ago i had a conversation with a lady in church about how she's trying really hard to want to pay her tithing but it's something that she struggles with and hasn't been able to do consistently as of yet. Why do you 'love' that?

My experience, and listening to what LDS members say is just that. If I were to deny that I heard them talking about their yearly meeting with the bishop, with their W-2's then I would be a liar.

There IS a yearly meeting with the bishop-there are NO w-2's. WHO has told you that they have to present W-2's at their yearly meeting with their bishop? I flat out don't believe you when you say that 'lds members' have told you this.

Sorry.

The error is in trying to say that there is such as thing as a little 'g' god that worships a bigger 'g' God.

Psalm 82 disagrees with you.

God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods....I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

The blasphemous aspect has to do with claiming that this teaching comes from God of the Bible. Maybe you can explain where in the Bible is says that you become gods who worship God.

It is what the bible means when it says that those who gain eternal life will becoming joint-heirs with Christ and inherit all that the Father has. Can one gain 'all that He has' and NOT be like Him?

It seems like it would be blasphemous to suggest that when the bible says we inherit 'all' that it doesn't actually mean 'all'.

[bluebell]

The Jewish religion doesn't teach it's what you do that matters. Here's but one example, Hosea 6:6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

Come on hughes-are you really trying to say what Judaism teaches about being saved by using one scripture in the entire OT?

I see your Hosea 6:6 and raise you a 1 Sam. 15:22 "And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. "

Please study it for yourself. Judaism teaches that salvation comes through observance of the Law of Moses. Judaiams is a salvation through works religion. Just google it.

While, I've heard countless times now in this thread and others:

And the Jewish religion doesn't teach that. No.

Yes it does.

Salvation through obedience to the law of moses.

Here's something that I've been wondering about lately. I agree that God changes the ways he interacts with his believers (we no longer follow prophets like the Jewish religion did for example because we all have the Holy Spirit).

However, it's seems strange to me that the angels that supposedly reveal truth to the LDS church have changed their revelations. Who do you believe?

For example. First Polygamy is right. Then it's wrong.

First Black are cursed. Then they aren't anymore, but they are still black?

First, you have to distinguish between some teachings of the previous leaders of the LDS church and actual 'revelations' or doctrine. The only doctrine that the LDS church had concerning blacks was that they could not have the priesthood until 1978. Everything else is someone's opinion as to why that doctrine existed. In truth, why that doctrine existed has not been revealed.

As to how could the blacks not be allowed to have the priesthood and then suddenly be allowed to have it, if God doesn't change? I would say the same way that the gentiles were not allowed to have the gospel and then suddenly were allowed to have it.

Second, LDS believe that our revelations come from God, not 'angels'.

Third, it has ALWAYS been the doctrine of the LDS church that polygamy is only alright with God when He specifically commands it. Otherwise, it is an abomination before God.

You see, my question really revolves around the concept of Discernment. How does one have discernment and also believe in the LDS teachings?

I don't really understand your question. Could you phrase it in another way?

For example. If the LDS teach that Blacks are cursed for example, do people accept that teaching without question? And then years later when it's "revealed" that Blacks are no longer cursed, is that then supposed to be just 'accepted' as truth now without question?

The LDS church teaches that it is up to each person to gain a testimony, through the Holy Ghost, of the truthfullness of the teachings of the LDS church.

The principle of discernment is huge in the Bible. Test the spirits to see if they are true. That's a major principle. But how does one do that if you're LDS and you're committed to believing what ever the latest revelation is supposed to be?

Ah, now i think i understand what you are saying.

LDS are committed to having a personal relationship with our Father in Heaven where we strive to learn all of His truths for ourselves through a witness of the Spirit. We believe the same thing about discernment as you do.

Uh... nope. If it was truly the Holy Spirit they would have been told he's lying.

He wasn't lying.

It's right up there with LDS saying, "Hey we're Christians too...." Nope.

I prefer C.S. Lewis's answer to people who think they know if someone else is or isn't a Christian.

It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian.

The truth is, you have no ability, nor right, to suggest whether or not i have a personal relationship with my Savior. I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe He is the Son of God. I believe i am saved by grace through His Atonement. If you want to declare taht such beliefs aren't 'christian', you certainly can. You're wrong, but there's no law against that.

You see, let's flip it around. If I said, well, I'm LDS Too! (but I deny that JS is a prophet, that the BOM is true etc). You'd say to me that I'm not LDS, because I don't believe in the fundamentals of LDS.... Uh yep.

The difference is that LDS is a denomination. Christian is a religion.

Quite a difference between a prideful, selfish, narcissistic personality, and one that is humble and seeking God's truth. If you've never had to live with or work under a narcissistic person, count yourself lucky.

Of coures there is.

My only point is that God doesn't use perfect people to be His servants AND that the servants of God are often seen as being weak in some way by those who don't have the ability to see the truth. The Jews accused the Son of God of being self-righteous and prideful to the point of being a blasphemer. They were wrong, and they crucified their Lord while believing they were doing His will.

Paul persecuted the saints and caused many of their deaths because he could not see the truth that was right in front of him.

When people claim they know that JS was something weak, evil, or whatever, he is in good company.

Which is surprising. Because the three you mentioned are based solely on Biblical Teachings.

You dont' know much about Catholicism do you? They are not a 'bible-only' religion.

Neither is Judaism.

It's only the LDS that are based on extra biblical documents primarily and use those to "interpret" the Bible.

Not true. You need to study up other religions before you claim to know what they believe.

First, understand that Jesus said those words to his disciples and meant the same thing. I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.(John 14:3)

He said those words to them at a different time though.

Never have i said that the words 'be with me' don't mean have eternal life. I said that when Christ said that to the thief they didn't mean that. Again, don't try to make my words more than they were.

He asked Jesus to remember him when he comes into his kingdom. And Jesus, didn't say no, he said today you will be with me... Just reading the biblical text what does that say?

We've already agreed that that's what Jesus said. Jesus wasn't with the Father on that day though, right?

Since there's only one God (as I posted earlier...) there is only one. And those others that are called "gods" are not divine. As in they are mortal.

So there are 'mortal' gods in heaven then?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hughes said,

"My impression stems from living here in Utah. Drive down to Salt Lake at night and what do you see? Temples lit up like light houses on the hills in the surrounding areas. What's the message?

It comes through loud and clear.

LOOK AT US!!!! Look at this great building... all lit up and looking perfect. Focus isn't on Christ, but self.

Or look at who is on the very top of the Temple. The Angle Moroni? Focus on Christ? I don't think so."

Bluebell Said,

"You want to judge the LDS because they obey Christ's admonision to be a 'light on a hill'? Isn't that a petty thing to hold against us?

You want to suggest that you are more focused on Christ than the LDS church because they have an angel on the top of their temple which symbolizes the angel sounding his trump announcing the second coming of Christ, which is really a focus on self? Is that a righteous judgement on your part? Is it even a logical judgement?"

You have more patience than I do in dealing with some of the "slams" that Hughes has made againt Christ's Church.

[coolrok7]

[Tanyan]