What exactly is a 'work'?

[bluebell]

I'll get back to you.

Sounds good.

[bluebell]

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?

Hughes,

I have the impression that this whole temple thing really bothers you a lot and as i've been thinking about it, i don't know that i've discussed just how wrong your 'impressions' about LDS temples are.

Temples, in LDS belief, are centered in Christ.

Our last Prophet, Gordon B. Hinckely stated about temples-

"Each temple built by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stand as an expressionof the testimony of this people that God our Eternal Father lives, that He has a plan for the blessing of His ons and daughters of all generations, that His Beloved Son, Jesus the Christ, who was born in Bethlehem of Judea and crucified on the cross of Golgotha, is the Savior and Redeemer of the world, whose atoning sacrifice makes possible the fulfillment of that plan in the eternal life of each who accepts and lives the gospel."

And

"These unique and wonderful buildings and the ordinances administered therein, represent the ultimate in our worship. These ordinances become the most profound expression of our theology. [Thus the temple] is a statment that we as a people believe in the immortality of the human soul....it speaks of life here and life beyond the grave."

It's important to remember that for mormons, temples are symbolic, in every way, of our Savior Jesus Christ. The way the furniture is set up, the type of clothing we wear-it's all symbolic of the Savior and the Atonement.

As one member put it (Tad R. Callister)-

"it should not seem surprising that the Atonement is the focal point of the modern temple worship, just as in ancient times."

And-

"It is our priviledge, in the sanctity of these holy places, to commune and reflect more meaningfully upon the Savior and His vicarious act of love for each of us,.... The Atonement is the focal point of each saving ordinance."

Robert L. Millet teaches (Professor of religion at BYU)-

"We believe the temple and its ordinances to be the hightest channel of grace,.... These ordinances serve as extensions and reminders of the Lord's infinte and eternal Atonement."

Also important to remember is that temples aren't just about US and the Savior, but they are also about serving those who died without the knowlege of Jesus Christ.

Again Pres. Hinckely expresses-

"Temples become the place of covenant, the place of ordinance, for both the living and the dead. A living person may thus enter the temple and be baptized, for example, in behalf of one who has died. This is a sanctuary of service. Most of the work done in this sacred house is performed vicariously in behalf of those who have passed beyond the veil of death.... It is a service of the living in behalf of the dead. It is a service which isof the very essence of selflessness."

And finally, again from Robert Millet-

"While LDS believe and teach that the highest form of salvation, or exaltation, comes to those who receive the blessings of the temple, we do not in any way believe that it is the temple, or the ordinances contained there, that save us. Salvation is in Christ. We believe the temple to be a house of learning, of communication and inspiration, of covenants and ordinances, of servic, and of personal refinement. We believe that the temple is the house of the Lord. But it is not the Lord. We look to Christ the Person for salvation."

Whether or not you believe in the necessity of temples or not, i hope those quotes help you to understand exactly why the temple and what goes on there is not about 'self' as you believe, but is about the two great commandments: To love God and to love our brother as ourselves.

[coolrok7]

Sounds good.

Ok.After these discussions, where is the confusion, if any, at in your mind now? A work in my thinking in relation to "good works" has only to do with a faith response to the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing one to faith which produces the works as part of sanctification, not part of justification which is what salvation is directly tied to.

This is not the Mormon teaching as I've illustrated in the quotes provided. Merit/eternal life is in the Mormon quotes not in the Bible.

[Aquilifer]

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.

A responsive illustrative of your whole approach to this conversation -- impose your own definitions on the LDS and their beliefs, but waffle on definitions where convenient to your own position.

Good night, showing W-2s to bishops? You haven't the foggiest idea what you're babbling about.

[Hughes]

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.

What's a "mortal god" and where is the reference for that?

And "you don't know about them"? Huh? You aren't making sense. Please state your point.

[Hughes]

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.

The two are the same.

One is that the Holy Spirit resides in every believer from the moment of our belief. (John 3 "born of the spirit") It is our guarantee of Eternal life. Romans 8:9, "And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ."

The power simply refers to the manifestation of the same through our lives.

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.

I suppose if you ignore most of the parts that explain that once a believer believes, they are born of the spirit, and have the spirit residing in them.

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.

Fact is that there is no external way to tell one way or the other.

[bluebell]

The two are the same.

Not according to the bible.

One is that the Holy Spirit resides in every believer from the moment of our belief. (John 3 "born of the spirit")

Where does the bible teach we get the Spirit 'the moment of our belief'? References?

It is our guarantee of Eternal life. Romans 8:9, "And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ."

Yes, but how does the bible teach one get's the Spirit?

I suppose if you ignore most of the parts that explain that once a believer believes, they are born of the spirit, and have the spirit residing in them.

Where are these parts?

Fact is that there is no external way to tell one way or the other.

Who said there needed to be? I have no idea what your point is here.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I stated

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.

To which you replied,

What's a "mortal god" and where is the reference for that?

You tell me you brought it up. You claimed that that verse of scripture was talking about mortal gods not devine gods. So yeah were is your reference for "mortal gods".

And "you don't know about them"? Huh? You aren't making sense. Please state your point.

THe fact that Paul states that "to us there is one God" is the evidence. He states that though there are gods many and lords many weather in hevean or earth. So there are other gods but to us there is one GOd. Who are these other gods? DO you know? I do not who they are. I think it is self evident from the verse of scripture quoted in the previous posts. Good grief, this is almost commical.

Here is what I said,

"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 them as gods/Gods."

I will just leave out he part in parenthesis.

[bluebell]

Ok.After these discussions, where is the confusion, if any, at in your mind now? A work in my thinking in relation to "good works" has only to do with a faith response to the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing one to faith which produces the works as part of sanctification, not part of justification which is what salvation is directly tied to.

I suppose my main question is, what did paul mean when he said that we aren't saved by 'works'? What was Paul's definition of 'works'? Is his definition different than the LDS definition?

This is not the Mormon teaching as I've illustrated in the quotes provided. Merit/eternal life is in the Mormon quotes not in the Bible.

You really haven't illustrated anything coolroc, except that you don't understand LDS doctrine on the subject.

I'm not trying to be snarky, just honest. If you want LDS to give your words any weight, then meet them where they actually are instead of where you claim they are. Otherwise it's incredibly easy to dismiss everything you say.

Obviously we aren't going to agree on some things in this conversation and you certainly don't have to pretend to agree or anything like that. I just mean, if LDS honestly don't understand the quotes you provide the way that you think they should be understood-and the quotes are from other LDS members-you need to change your understanding, or at the very least be open to their's, to have a discussion about them.

Otherwise, there's no use discussing it at all, is there?

[Hughes]

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'.

Bible disagrees with me?

Well, not exactly. Notice when Jesus sends out the Apostles in Matt. 10:9 At that time you will be given what to say, 20for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

Now, if you were correct, and there wasn't any Holy Spirit given, why would Jesus say this? Unless, the "power" given in Acts 2 is different than the simple infilling of the Spirit that happens when we become believers.

I don't know that this is a huge point, when discussing the disciples. What is more important is what happens today. And from all the Texts, it's clear that from the moment of belief, the believer has the Spirit indwelling in him. Whether he also has the evidences (gifts of the Spirit), that is a different story.

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 )

Clearly? Clearly as I just referenced, the spirit was in the believers. Even John 3 explains this. "Born of the Spirit" and all that.

Now what is your point about Ananias? Who was he? He wasn't an Apostle. Who was he? Was he a bishop or something?

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.

Actually, if you seriously find somewhere that I'm in error, then I will gladly change my position. That hasn't happened yet though.

And with the Mormon question. There's a difference between major theological differences and minor ones. I disagree with a lot of christians on minor issues. But major ones we agree on.

[bluebell]

Bible disagrees with me?

Well, not exactly. Notice when Jesus sends out the Apostles in Matt. 10:9 At that time you will be given what to say, 20for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

And yet, we have Jesus saying that the Holy Ghost had not yet been given, right?

Hence, the gift of the Holy Ghost is different than the power of teh Holy Ghost-otherwise, Jesus lied.

Now, if you were correct, and there wasn't any Holy Spirit given, why would Jesus say this? Unless, the "power" given in Acts 2 is different than the simple infilling of the Spirit that happens when we become believers.

Go back and re-read what i said because you have obviously not undestood me. I specifically said that we know the Holy Ghost was present when Christ was on the earth and that the Holy Ghost is who revealed to men the truth of what Jesus and the Apostles taught.

This 'power' of the Holy Ghost which teaches truth is different though than the gift of the Holy Ghost that is given to believers by the laying on of hands in acts.

What is more important is what happens today. And from all the Texts, it's clear that from the moment of belief, the believer has the Spirit indwelling in him.

Yes, the Spirit is present, but nowhere does the bible teach that the spirit was 'indwelling' in anyone before Acts. We specificaly have references of believers who did NOT have the gift of the Holy Ghost until someone gave it to them which contradict what you claim is 'clearly' taught.

Clearly? Clearly as I just referenced, the spirit was in the believers.

What references? Where does the bible teach that the spirit is indwelling in all believers the moment they believe?

Even John 3 explains this. "Born of the Spirit" and all that.

Jesus explains in that verse that man must be born of the Spirit, but no where does it teach that that happens the moment of belief so i have no idea why you believe this reference supports your position. Can you clarify?

Now what is your point about Ananias? Who was he? He wasn't an Apostle. Who was he? Was he a bishop or something?

He was someone who had the priesthood authority to act in the name of God and bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost. That's pretty much all we know about him.

Actually, if you seriously find somewhere that I'm in error, then I will gladly change my position. That hasn't happened yet though.

Only the Spirit can teach a person truth. There's nothing i or anyone else can do to convince anyone of errors.

At the very least, i hope you can see that my beliefs are AS supported as yours are since i have provided references for all of my beliefs in the bible. That would be something-though it's not something that most protestants will admit too. It's like they think it's a weakness or something to admit anything kind about mormon beliefs.

That's why i admire and respect mudcat and paloma SO much-they don't have that hang up.

There's a difference between major theological differences and minor ones. I disagree with a lot of christians on minor issues. But major ones we agree on.

Were you aware that Martin Luther (father of the lutheran church obviously) taught that baptism was necessary for salvation? Was he a 'Christian' even though he disagrees with you on that major issue, in your belief?

And Catholics, who also teach that baptism is necessary for salvation-do you consider them to be Christians?

I'm trying to figure out exactly what a 'major' issue is that one can't disagree with you on or they aren't Christian anymore.

[Hughes]

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.

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.

Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we[a]have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. ...5And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.

6You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

9Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!

Romans 8:1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,[a] 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.[c] And so he condemned sin in sinful man,[d] 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

Notice the words used here. "Justified. Peace with God. Christ died for us. Justified by his blood. Saved from God's wrath. No condemnation. Set me free from the Law of Sin and Death. [Jesus] our Sin Offering. Requirements of the law are fully met in us."

These words are used for believers. Those "in Christ." We will not be judged based on our works because we are in Christ. As Jesus told the 70, "20However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven." (Luke 10:20)

If their names are already written in the book of life (in heaven) then we aren't judged with he non-believers. Salvation means to be saved from eternal death.

The only "judgement" for the believer is to determine rewards in Heaven.

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.

How is it contradictory for me to say that those who haven't ever heard can be saved because God judges them based on their own knowledge? What verse does that concept contradict exactly?

For example: Romans 1:19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Basically, the Bible gives us specific truth about God, but general truth (or revelation) can be seen and understood by all men. And since there's no opportunity after one dies to become a believer in Christ, then God must make a righteous judgement based on the revelation that person already received.

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?

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.

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

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.

Romans 2:27 The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the[c] written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.28 A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.

Romans3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.

In essence, God saves all who are believers or followers of his, even if they or we don't call them that.

[bluebell]

Notice the words used here. "Justified. Peace with God. Christ died for us. Justified by his blood. Saved from God's wrath. No condemnation. Set me free from the Law of Sin and Death. [Jesus] our Sin Offering. Requirements of the law are fully met in us."

We understand this differently.

I read this as Paul teaching that man is justfied through the Atonement of Christ. I don't understand him teaching that the moment we believe in Christ the spirit is automatically sent to us. After all, it is probably that most of the people paul is teaching here have already been baptized and received the gift of the Holy Ghost through the laying on of hands, since Paul always taught that those who believe should have those things done.

These words are used for believers. Those "in Christ." We will not be judged based on our works because we are in Christ. As Jesus told the 70, "20However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven." (Luke 10:20)

If their names are already written in the book of life (in heaven) then we aren't judged with he non-believers. Salvation means to be saved from eternal death.

You believe in 'once saved always saved' then?

I believe the bible teaches that a person can lose their salvation if they want to so just because one's name was once written in the book of life doesn't mean it's still there at the final judgement. Hence the need, as Revelation teaches, that every man will be judged to see if he endure in his faith until the end of his life.

How is it contradictory for me to say that those who haven't ever heard can be saved because God judges them based on their own knowledge? What verse does that concept contradict exactly?

The ones that teach that one must believe in Christ to be saved. (Acts 16:30-31 is a good example).

In essence, God saves all who are believers or followers of his, even if they or we don't call them that.

It appears to me that the bible teaches that God saves everyone who enters into a Covenant with Christ through faith in Christ and repentance (in the very least-i personally would add baptism and reception of the gift of the Holy Ghost as well).

[Hughes]

double post deleted.

[Hughes]

I apologize for my slowness in response... life got too busy...

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 )

Uh... my position is that salvation isn't based on works (physical) that we do. Rather it's based on a spiritual action we take, in our spirit. That is Repentance, and Belief, and Commitment to Christ. These are non-physical actions. Christ did all the work for us. All we have to do is follow him (spiritually). Which is what Acts 16 says, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved..." That's it. Just believe, no works are required.

For it to be any other way, then those who are physically handicapped incapable of works or physical actions as required by LDS teachings (ie baptisms) couldn't be saved (as the thief on the cross is an example).

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?

Since isolating one passage for the others is an error when it comes to interpreting anything. No. I'm using the many other concepts taught throughout the text to understand what Paul was saying. And as I said, it's very easy to disprove me.

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?

Did James say that one must have works to be saved? I must have missed it.

James is describing what faith is. Faith by it's nature produces works. But, it's not the works that save us, but the faith.

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.

Both are necessary for salvation. Hmmm.... Then the thief and every handicapped person unable to do works are out of luck then? Maybe you can tell me where it says that both works and faith are necessary for salvation.

IF works are even partly necessary for salvation, then you have salvation by works.

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?

Thanks. It does make sense. However, I'm at a loss as to where unconditional love comes in.

You see... if someone comes to Christ and truly believes, yet struggles with sin (what ever it might be), your system seems to judge them as having "dead" faith, because they don't "appear to you" to be doing all they can. Which is horribly judgmental and wrong. The principles of Christ are based on spiritual power, not physical power. In other words, they don't depend on each person "doing all they can," they don't depend on the flesh. Rather, they depend solely on the power of God as demonstrated through Christ in the resurrection.

In essence, the principles you are describing are no different than those espoused by Islam or Buddhism, which are based on mans ability and desire to do good. The difference with true Christianity is that the power to live/love/and overcome the world come from within the believer, not from their own self, but from God who dwells within each believer from the moment they believe.

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?

If you honestly believe that's what Christ called you to do, then do it with all your might and power.

I'm giving you my impression as to how it looks to me.

Light on a hill? AS if. What it is, is a large expensive building (marble and granite throughout), on expensive property, with huge fences, and lights everywhere, which can be seen for miles. Talk about a waste of money!!!

Now, where did Christ command such to be built? I must have missed that one?

Notice, that the angle had to be replaced in the new temple. Focus on Self, yup. You think that Christ is concerned with the outward appearance of a statue? Who is concerned about such outward appearances? LDS church, or so it seems to me.

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?

Because it's not his Temple. Duh. Sorry to be so smug. But Jesus said his temple was his body. The temple is no longer a building built by men. God dwells in the hearts of men not in building built by men. Ask yourself this question. When a non-LDS person looks at the temple, do they think that it glorifies Christ or the builders?

1 Cor. 3:16 Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? 17If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple.

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?

I find it the exact opposite of what giving in the NT is all about.

I love it because it exemplifies what I've been learning about the LDS church. It's so judgmental. There's a sin or something wrong here or there... and bing fingers are pointed and raised eyebrows everywhere.

Christ taught the exact opposite. Unconditional love and acceptance, rather than judgmental attitudes.

cont.

[Hughes]

cont...

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.

What I find interesting is that you admit that there is a yearly meeting with the bishop. And the point is in no other church does anyone care how much you make. It's completely contrary to the principles of giving in the NT.

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.

Where in those passages does it describe little 'g' gods worshiping God himself?

In this context the judges of Israel are referred to as â??gods,â? not that they themselves possessed the intrinsic nature of Deity but that they became in the eyes of the people as gods.

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'.

First I can't seem to find this quote in the bible, "inherit all that the Father has." Maybe you could help me.

Second. Of course one can be a joint heir and sit with Jesus and not "be" what Jesus is.

Basically, just because one is a joint heir doesn't mean that our *essence* changes from immortal to Eternal. Meaning, we will always be human in nature, and God will always be divine in nature. There is nothing in the biblical text that suggests we will change our nature or essence simply because we are joint-heirs with Christ.

[bluebell]

Uh... my position is that salvation isn't based on works (physical) that we do. Rather it's based on a spiritual action we take, in our spirit. That is Repentance, and Belief, and Commitment to Christ. These are non-physical actions. Christ did all the work for us. All we have to do is follow him (spiritually). Which is what Acts 16 says, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved..." That's it. Just believe, no works are required.

Why is it based on spiritual action? Why are our spiritual actions necessary if we are saved by Grace?

For it to be any other way, then those who are physically handicapped incapable of works or physical actions as required by LDS teachings (ie baptisms) couldn't be saved (as the thief on the cross is an example).

Not at all.

Do you not remember that i've already explained that LDS believe no one will be denied ANY blessing when it is no fault of their own that they couldn't receive it and that this is largely accomplished through temples.

Since isolating one passage for the others is an error when it comes to interpreting anything. No. I'm using the many other concepts taught throughout the text to understand what Paul was saying. And as I said, it's very easy to disprove me.

What's the point? I agree it's easy to disprove you but it's not going to change your mind.

The scriptures teach that baptism is necessary for salvation-

Matt 3:15 Suffer it to be so now . . . to fulfil all righteousness.

Matt. 28: 19 teach all nations, baptizing them.

Mark 1: 9 Jesus came . . . and was baptized of John.

Mark 16: 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

Luke 3: 21 Jesus also being baptized.

Luke 7: 30 rejected the counsel of God . . . being not baptized.

John 3: 5 Except a man be born of water . . . he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Acts 2: 38 Repent, and be baptized every one of you.

Acts 10: 48 commanded them to be baptized.

Acts 22: 16 be baptized, and wash away thy sins.

Titus 3: 5 saved us, by the washing of regeneration.

1 Pet. 3: 21 baptism doth also now save us.

Did James say that one must have works to be saved? I must have missed it.

He said that faith with no works was dead faith. Do you believe that dead faith brings salvation?

You see... if someone comes to Christ and truly believes, yet struggles with sin (what ever it might be), your system seems to judge them as having "dead" faith, because they don't "appear to you" to be doing all they can.

Not at all. Not ever remotely.

We aren't asked to be perfect and we aren't asked to fix ourselves before Christ's grace kicks in. We are simply asked to covenant with Christ by the conditions that He has set. These conditions are faith in Him, repentance, baptism by immersion and receiving the Holy Ghost.

Once we have entered that Covenant, we are justified. We remain justified by remaining in the Covenant by continuing to have faith, repent, follow Him and doing that until the end.

Which is horribly judgmental and wrong.

It certainly would be, if it was at all true. It's not though.

The principles of Christ are based on spiritual power, not physical power. In other words, they don't depend on each person "doing all they can," they don't depend on the flesh. Rather, they depend solely on the power of God as demonstrated through Christ in the resurrection.

LDS agree.

The difference with true Christianity is that the power to live/love/and overcome the world come from within the believer, not from their own self, but from God who dwells within each believer from the moment they believe.

Absolutely.

Light on a hill? AS if. What it is, is a large expensive building (marble and granite throughout), on expensive property, with huge fences, and lights everywhere, which can be seen for miles. Talk about a waste of money!!!

Would you have been so judgemental of Solomon's temple?

Now, where did Christ command such to be built? I must have missed that one?

There's no reason to share it with you-you aren't sincere in your question.

Notice, that the angle had to be replaced in the new temple. Focus on Self, yup. You think that Christ is concerned with the outward appearance of a statue? Who is concerned about such outward appearances? LDS church, or so it seems to me.

Again, how is wanting the Lord's temple to be not broken a focus on self? You're not being logical.

Because it's not his Temple. Duh. Sorry to be so smug.

I didn't think you would be the kind of person to return derision when sincerity was offered. Don't make it worse by saying your sorry when it's not true.

Our discussion was interesting while it lasted.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I didn't think you would be the kind of person to return derision when sincerity was offered. Don't make it worse by saying your sorry when it's not true.

Our discussion was interesting while it lasted.

Interesting how this discussion regressed. It is to bad. I guess when all else fails do the "christian" thing and belittle and mock your opponets most sacred buildings. THat will win converts for sure.

[Tanyan]

[bluebell]

To finish out our conversation...

What I find interesting is that you admit that there is a yearly meeting with the bishop. And the point is in no other church does anyone care how much you make. It's completely contrary to the principles of giving in the NT.

Yes, there is a yearly meeting-to make sure that your records (of what you have given) matches the church's records, to get a copy of the total amount given that year (for tax purposes) and to declare whether what you have paid is a full or part tithe.

Many other churches also provide the paperwork on what has been donated that year to their members, i've been told they just usually mail it out rather than have a personal visit.

These meetings are not mandatory. We are asked to sign up when a good time to meet would be but no one makes anyone do it.

Where in those passages does it describe little 'g' gods worshiping God himself?

In this context the judges of Israel are referred to as â??gods,â? not that they themselves possessed the intrinsic nature of Deity but that they became in the eyes of the people as gods.

Jesus explains this verse Himself and His explanation doesn't match yours.

John 10: 32-35

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Jesus essentially says, "Why stone me for claiming to be God when God Himself has also called the children of Israel gods. If God called you gods rightfully, what can I be blamed for?"

First I can't seem to find this quote in the bible, "inherit all that the Father has." Maybe you could help me.

Revelation 21:7

Second. Of course one can be a joint heir and sit with Jesus and not "be" what Jesus is.

My question was, can one inherit ALL and not receive ALL.

Basically, just because one is a joint heir doesn't mean that our *essence* changes from immortal to Eternal.

One cannot inherit eternal life and not be eternal.

Meaning, we will always be human in nature, and God will always be divine in nature.

Not so. You have not understood the scriptures.

Eph. 4: 11-13

"11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:"

It's is Christ and our Heavenly Father's greatest desire that we become perfect men and gain the FULL measure of Christ.

1 John 3:2

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Paul teaches-Being saved, we are not yet what we will be, but we do know eventually we shall be like Him.

[Hughes]

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:

Yes it does.

Salvation through obedience to the law of moses.

Of course I disagree. Romans 2:28 A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code.

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.

Uh... gentiles could always become jews. Quite different from declaring that black skin is a curse. And no. God doesn't change.

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

Right that is the claim.

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?

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.

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.

I don't know how you could honestly say that when JS and others teach things that are contrary to teachings of the "Traditional" church (for lack of a better term).

For example. If you used the same principles of discernment as I do, then why would LDS teach that Jesus was Lucifer's brother?

He wasn't lying.

A claim that can't be verified and is another topic eh?

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.

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

On a personal level I have no idea if you are a christian or not. I'm not even attempting to determine that one way or the other. I'm only interested in examining and understanding what the LDS church teaches (Which can be analyzed and discussed). Which as near as I can tell is based on some things that Christ taught, but mostly based on what JS taught. As he says, he was told that all the churches were wrong, so he started his own, right?

LDS isn't a christian denomination in the traditional sense of the term. LDS is a church that uses Christian terms and ideas, but rejects the historically accepted uses of those terms and doctrines and replaces them with those that JS taught.

[Hughes]

Hughes,

I have the impression that this whole temple thing really bothers you a lot and as i've been thinking about it, i don't know that i've discussed just how wrong your 'impressions' about LDS temples are.

Temples, in LDS belief, are centered in Christ.

Our last Prophet, Gordon B. Hinckely stated about temples-

"Each temple built by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stand as an expressionof the testimony of this people that God our Eternal Father lives, that He has a plan for the blessing of His ons and daughters of all generations, that His Beloved Son, Jesus the Christ, who was born in Bethlehem of Judea and crucified on the cross of Golgotha, is the Savior and Redeemer of the world, whose atoning sacrifice makes possible the fulfillment of that plan in the eternal life of each who accepts and lives the gospel."

And

"These unique and wonderful buildings and the ordinances administered therein, represent the ultimate in our worship. These ordinances become the most profound expression of our theology. [Thus the temple] is a statment that we as a people believe in the immortality of the human soul....it speaks of life here and life beyond the grave."

It's important to remember that for mormons, temples are symbolic, in every way, of our Savior Jesus Christ. The way the furniture is set up, the type of clothing we wear-it's all symbolic of the Savior and the Atonement.

As one member put it (Tad R. Callister)-

"it should not seem surprising that the Atonement is the focal point of the modern temple worship, just as in ancient times."

And-

"It is our priviledge, in the sanctity of these holy places, to commune and reflect more meaningfully upon the Savior and His vicarious act of love for each of us,.... The Atonement is the focal point of each saving ordinance."

Robert L. Millet teaches (Professor of religion at BYU)-

"We believe the temple and its ordinances to be the hightest channel of grace,.... These ordinances serve as extensions and reminders of the Lord's infinte and eternal Atonement."

Also important to remember is that temples aren't just about US and the Savior, but they are also about serving those who died without the knowlege of Jesus Christ.

Again Pres. Hinckely expresses-

"Temples become the place of covenant, the place of ordinance, for both the living and the dead. A living person may thus enter the temple and be baptized, for example, in behalf of one who has died. This is a sanctuary of service. Most of the work done in this sacred house is performed vicariously in behalf of those who have passed beyond the veil of death.... It is a service of the living in behalf of the dead. It is a service which isof the very essence of selflessness."

And finally, again from Robert Millet-

"While LDS believe and teach that the highest form of salvation, or exaltation, comes to those who receive the blessings of the temple, we do not in any way believe that it is the temple, or the ordinances contained there, that save us. Salvation is in Christ. We believe the temple to be a house of learning, of communication and inspiration, of covenants and ordinances, of servic, and of personal refinement. We believe that the temple is the house of the Lord. But it is not the Lord. We look to Christ the Person for salvation."

Whether or not you believe in the necessity of temples or not, i hope those quotes help you to understand exactly why the temple and what goes on there is not about 'self' as you believe, but is about the two great commandments: To love God and to love our brother as ourselves.

While I appreciate that the LDS think that Temples are focusing on Christ, no one else thinks that.

Having moved here from the Seattle area, I'm giving you my impression. And I was always aware of the Seattle Temple. However, I didn't realize how many there were and how much money went into them, and then to keep them lit up 24/7. It's amazing to me.

So, I'm sorry but no. Not even close. Temples don't glorify Christ. Not in my view.

For example. You quoted Hinkley, Most of the work done in this sacred house is performed vicariously in behalf of those who have passed beyond the veil of death.... It is a service of the living in behalf of the dead. It is a service which isof the very essence of selflessness."

I would argue that the helping those in need, who are here on earth would be an act of selflessness. Not some ritual done in a temple, where no one benefits. No where did Jesus ever teach or command us to do anything for the departed. Rather, he taught that when we help those in need, we are helping him. When we feed and clothe those without those things, we are feeding and clothing him. Never, and no where and at no time did he ever say we could help those who have passed from this life.

[Hughes]

Not according to the bible.

Where does the bible teach we get the Spirit 'the moment of our belief'? References?

Yes, but how does the bible teach one get's the Spirit?

Where are these parts?

Who said there needed to be? I have no idea what your point is here.

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life

We receive his spirit when we believe. By Faith we are justified.

Romans 4:13 It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

While I appreciate that the LDS think that Temples are focusing on Christ, no one else thinks that.

I wouldn't say that, all that tells us is that you are ignorant. So you see this really isn't our problem, it is yours.

[bluebell]

Of course I disagree. Romans 2:28 A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code.

We are speaking of Judaism in our day, and Jews reject that the NT is scripture. The words of Paul mean nothing to them.

I don't know how you could honestly say that when JS and others teach things that are contrary to teachings of the "Traditional" church (for lack of a better term).

Jesus taught things that were contrary to the teachings of "Tradtional" Judaism. He didn't care and neither did His followers.

His followers still don't care how His teachings fit in with 'Tradition'.

For example. If you used the same principles of discernment as I do, then why would LDS teach that Jesus was Lucifer's brother?

We teach that Lucifer is a spirit son of God because it's the true.

On a personal level I have no idea if you are a christian or not. I'm not even attempting to determine that one way or the other. I'm only interested in examining and understanding what the LDS church teaches (Which can be analyzed and discussed). Which as near as I can tell is based on some things that Christ taught, but mostly based on what JS taught. As he says, he was told that all the churches were wrong, so he started his own, right?

No.

LDS isn't a christian denomination in the traditional sense of the term. LDS is a church that uses Christian terms and ideas, but rejects the historically accepted uses of those terms and doctrines and replaces them with those that JS taught.

Yes. Traditional Christianity fell away from Christ's true gospel. Traditions are only good if they are true. False traditions are nothing to hang on to.