Honest question for my evangelical friends

[Tango]

I read posts like this, and I wonder if Mormons and Evangelicals are as different as they are portrayed in this regard (no insult intended Heartleap ) I mean I am with 95% of what you just said. It seems to me that we both see grace and works playing a role, and even both feel that works are the fruit of faith ? It seems to me the only real difference is that I see works as a result of faith, and necessary for salvation, and many evangelicals see works as the fruits of faith, but mainly simply a manifestation of that faith, not a requirement for salvation.

Did I phrase that right?

I think it could probably also be said that we often overemphasize our positions when we disagree, further polarizing those positions when they are really not that different, and playing into the stereotypes.

Actually LDS and EV's ARE that different. There is a huge difference in the way a person is saved. LDS earn their way (this bears pride) to Christ, EV's do not. It is that simple. If you believe the theif on the cross is with Christ because he had faith IN Christ as the true Lord and savior, then you are EV. If you believ the theif on the cross is in some spirt prision who has yet to earn/repent his way to Christ then you are LDS.

Now, did I phrase that right?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Actually LDS and EV's ARE that different.

Semantics really.

There is a huge difference in the way a person is saved.

Really? I was under the impression that both believed that Christ was the one that did teh saving, am I wrong?

LDS earn their way (this bears pride) to Christ, EV's do not.

So we earn our salvtion? How so? That is a new one to me.

It is that simple.

Yup super simple. Just confess Jesus and you can do waht ever you want once saved always saved eh?

If you believe the theif on the cross is with Christ because he had faith IN Christ as the true Lord and savior, then you are EV.

No, you are a person that mis-understands were Christ went after he died. Is paradise the same as Hevean were God the Father resides?

If you believ the theif on the cross is in some spirt prision who has yet to earn/repent his way to Christ then you are LDS.

Well we don't beleive the theif went to spirit prison and has yet to earn/repent his way to Christ. You sure did a lowzy job of trying to reiterate LDS beliefs.

I take it you, as an EV, don't think that repentance is necessary part of Salvation and accepting Christ's atonement?

Now, did I phrase that right?

Nope. Not even close.

Sampsonite. I was way wrong!!

[LeSellers]

LDS earn their way (this bears pride) to Christ, EV's do not. It is that simple.

You may think so, but you have completely misrepresented the LDS position. I believe you know the difference, but cannot bring yourself to write it.

We Saints believe the one must have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. You stop there. It is simply not enough, and Jesus, Peter, Paul, John, and Luke all said it is not enough to have faith. You must, for instance, also be baptized, and follow the commandments of Jesus Christ. One must bend his will to that of Christ.

If you believe the theif on the cross is with Christ because he had faith IN Christ as the true Lord and savior, then you are EV. If you believ the theif on the cross is in some spirt prision who has yet to earn/repent his way to Christ then you are LDS.

Now, did I phrase that right?

Not even close.

You might believe that the malefactor (the scripture does not call him a theif [sic]) is in the place Christ is now (although He did promise him that he'd be with Him that day in Paradise), but we do not believe he would have to "earn" his way to Christ.

I noticed that you use very convoluted phrasing ("to/with Christ") rather than the traditional "in Heaven" or "saved". One wonders why. Assuming that "with Christ" means "saved" or "in Heaven", you are simply making a very basic error. "Paradise", the place Christ promised the malefactor, is not "Heaven", nor could it be. Jesus did not go to Heaven that day, nor any day until after the resurrection. John's Testimony makes that clear as he related the account of Mary's seeing her Risen Lord in the Garden.

Paradise, ("a garden with trees") is part of the post-mortal spirit world where all men go after death and wait there until their final judgment. It is divided into two sections. First is Paradise, where the relatively righteous go. We are not fully informed on the criteria that determine who will go there. The second part is "spirit prison" as per 1 Peter. It was to this place that the Bible tells us Jesus went while His body was in the tomb.

There is a current poll topic asking us our opinions on "Hell". But it does not offer the most basic option. Hell is the tomb. It comes from the Greek "Hades" and the Hebrew, "Sheol". Both mean a place of the dead (spirits), and neither implies any sort of physical punishment.

All men go to hell: we die. Revelation tells us that the grave (hell) will give up her dead in preparation for the judgment.

The malefactor went with Jesus that day to Paradise/Hell, but there was no guarantee that he'd eventually go to heaven (be saved), although the odds seem very good. All he'd need do is repent and accept his vicarious baptism.

He had, you see, demonstrated a basic faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. That's the first step for all of us.

Lehi

[David T]

nackhadlow,

Cool. I'll reply when I can (I'm going out the door now.) Thanks.

Hey, after thinking, I have one more clarification to add to your summary, and to my post. I realized my thoughts weren't complete, and felt this would be important to add.

In reference to: "LDS ordinances are tools that help develop sanctification.", I'd like to say one extra thing concerning the ordinance and covenant of Eternal Marriage.

While I do believe it certainly can serve in the role of sanctification, it also serves at its core, the key purpose in going beyond the reception of Justification (Salvation) and Sanctification in the presence of the Father. One can be justified and sanctified, and be living in the full presence and communion with God the Father without entering into the Exalting Covenant of Eternal Marriage.

Baptism has been referred to as the Covenant Gate of Salvation, and Eternal Marriage as the Covenant Gate of Exaltation. In other words, Exaltation rises beyond salvation and sanctification and grants the recipient the opportunity and ability to become an even more powerful and involved participant in the Father's work of Redemption.

To sum up:

Justification opens the gate to Sanctification which in turn makes possible Exaltation.

[bluebell]

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to this. I've been out of town for the last two days.

There is a saying: Hard cases make bad law. It's easy to imagine scenarios in which an individual might seem to us not culpable for his rejecting truth, but this is not a sound basis for making theological generalizations such as "one may reject the resurrection of Jesus and still be saved." For example, I was clearly not concerned about children who die before they are old enough to think about such matters, just as I was not concerned about the mentally retarded (who really cannot reject something they don't understand).

When i gave my answers, i was clearly speaking about everyone and not a specific group of people, so i guess we both missed each other's point.

It seems like you're being tricky here. It's the way you put these together and what you mean by the first statement in particular that leads to our disagreement.

I'm not being tricky.

Please tell me you were joking. Otherwise, I will have to consider this statement offensive.

I was being tongue in cheek.

My position is that a person who rejects (not simply "does not believe") the resurrection of Jesus is showing by his rejection of this basic gospel truth that he has not accepted the gospel. My basis? The Bible explicitly says this is an essential, fundamental element of the gospel (e.g., Rom. 10:9-10; 1 Cor. 15:1-5).

I can agree with that.

I didn't say anything like "50% is not enough." We are not saved by passing a doctrinal exam.

Your beliefs come across that way to me.

However, again, if a person rejects a basic truth of the biblical message, that rejection is evidence that the person has not accepted the gospel.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

My view, based on the Bible, is that people who lived before Christ came but who knew and trusted the true God were saved by his mercy and grace, even though they had not heard about Christ.

I'm sorry if i was not clear. I was asking about people who had never heard of the bible, Christ, or God the Father. Are those people held accountable for knowledge they never had the chance to learn and damned?

Again, I'm going to put up with such judgments of my motives only so far, and then I will simply choose not to engage people in discussion that are prone to make such judgments.

Like it or not Rob, you sometimes come across insincere and judgemental in your posts. I'm not going to engage anyone in a conversation until i feel i can trust what they say. I haven't gotten there with you yet so i'll continue to respond to what you put forth and expect that you will correct me when I am not understanding you in the way that you intended. If you feel that shouldn't be part of having a conversation on the internet-if you don't like having to explain yourself-then yes, please tell me and we can stop communicating. I would be fine with that.

If you have read my other posts in this thread, you should know this isn't really the issue.

This actually is specifically the issue at hand.

[Vance]

Vance,

Since you are unwilling to be held to whatever Romans 2:6-10 means within the context of the epistle, I see no value in trying to explain it to you.

In the context of the epistle, Rom 2:6-10 means EXACTLY what it says.

Feel free to explain it away from the clear and plain meaning if you want to try.

I think I would enjoy seeing the contortions, twisting and torturing of the text.

[Vance]

Faith, in this context, is not doing something to earn or merit salvation; it is humbly and gratefully accepting the gift of what God has done for us that we cannot earn or merit.

Let's apply this rational uniformly and see how it makes Rob protest shall we?

Faith, in this context, is not doing something to earn or merit salvationfood; it is humbly and gratefully accepting the gift of what God has done for us that we cannot earn or merit.

We have to work for food so food is not a gift from God.

Faith, in this context, is not doing something to earn or merit salvationclothes; it is humbly and gratefully accepting the gift of what God has done for us that we cannot earn or merit.

We have to work for clothes so clothes are not a gift from God.

Faith, in this context, is not doing something to earn or merit salvationshelter/housing; it is humbly and gratefully accepting the gift of what God has done for us that we cannot earn or merit.

We have to work for shelter/housing so shelter/housing is not a gift from God.

Faith, in this context, is not doing something to earn or merit salvationa building to worship in; it is humbly and gratefully accepting the gift of what God has done for us that we cannot earn or merit.

We have to work for a building to worship in so a building to worship in is not a gift from God.

Faith, in this context, is not doing something to earn or merit salvationchildren/family; it is humbly and gratefully accepting the gift of what God has done for us that we cannot earn or merit.

We have to work for children/family so children/family are not a gift from God.

Faith, in this context, is not doing something to earn or merit salvationhappiness; it is humbly and gratefully accepting the gift of what God has done for us that we cannot earn or merit.

We have to work for happiness so happiness is not a gift from God.

Faith, in this context, is not doing something to earn or merit salvationgood health; it is humbly and gratefully accepting the gift of what God has done for us that we cannot earn or merit.

We have to work for good health so good health is not a gift from God.

Faith, in this context, is not doing something to earn or merit salvationknowledge; it is humbly and gratefully accepting the gift of what God has done for us that we cannot earn or merit.

We have to work for knowledge so knowledge is not a gift from God.

Faith, in this context, is not doing something to earn or merit salvationdisease; it is humbly and gratefully accepting the gift of what God has done for us that we cannot earn or merit.

We don't have to work for disease so disease is a gift from God.

Rob, your rational really has problems.

Edited to add,

Faith, in this context, is not doing something to earn or merit salvationanswers to prayers; it is humbly and gratefully accepting the gift of what God has done for us that we cannot earn or merit.

We have to pray to get answers so answers to prayers are not a gift from God.

[Calm]

We have to pray to get answers so answers to prayers are not a gift from God.

This does seem to be where this logic takes us.

[Calm]

We have to pray to get answers so answers to prayers are not a gift from God.

This does seem to be where this logic takes us.

I like Robinson's analogy of God's grace as a train ride, though I use a cruise ship because the 'gift' aspect is more obvious. Even though God has provided all for us, not only the cruise but the car that drives us there, the clothes we pack, even our bodies and the ability to function, we still have to make a choice to accept the gift and we externally express that choice by packing up, getting in the car and arriving at the dock and then getting on the ship. We don't just say when the invitation arrives in the mail, "let's go!" and the Lord transports us (a la Star Trek) on board the ship. Either way though the cruise is still a gift, we haven't earned it, just prepared ourselves to get ready for it.

Preparation for receiving a gift is not earning a gift whether it's a birthday gift you've prepared for by throwing a party for or the gift of salvation.

[Calm]

To sum up:

Justification opens the gate to Sanctification which in turn makes possible Exaltation.

Nicely put.

[Calm]

A better analogy for how LDS view grace involving Daddy and Mary would be for Daddy to come home and tell Mary that he wants to give her a dog, but that he's worried that right now the dog would not be safe in their home because Mary doesn't pick up her toys. So he tells her if she learns to keep her toys picked up, then he will be able to give her the dog. She is not earning the gift of the dog, just preparing herself and her home to receive it.

[Vance]

A better analogy for how LDS view grace involving Daddy and Mary would be for Daddy to come home and tell Mary that he wants to give her a dog, but that he's worried that right now the dog would not be safe in their home because Mary doesn't pick up her toys. So he tells her if she learns to keep her toys picked up, then he will be able to give her the dog. She is not earning the gift of the dog, just preparing herself and her home to receive it.

Nicely put!

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

Here is our summary of your position on salvation, including your addendum:

• We can do nothing to merit either justification nor sanctification.
• Justification refers to the forgiveness of sins, the initial aspect of our salvation, that one receives through faith as expressed in baptism.
• Sanctification refers to the process, continuing aspect of salvation, that changes our nature (with our complete, willing cooperation) to feel at home in God's presence.
• LDS ordinances are tools that help develop sanctification.
• Justification opens the gate to Sanctification which in turn makes possible Exaltation.

And now for my reply.

1. I think I agree with your first two points. We can do nothing to merit justification or sanctification, and justification refers to the initial aspect of our salvation that consists of the forgiveness of our sins. We receive justification through faith. I agree that we express this initial faith in baptism, though I don't regard baptism as per se necessary for salvation (we might disagree on this sub-point).

2. I agree only in part with your third point. The definition that you give of sanctification is one legitimate way to define the term for the purposes of articulating a systematic soteriology (doctrine of salvation). However, I do not agree with the idea, which your exposition presupposes, that some people who are justified will nevertheless not be sanctified sufficiently to live in God's presence. Those whom God justifies, he also sanctifies and glorifies (Rom. 8:29-30; 1 Cor. 6:11; see also Phil. 1:6). Furthermore, the change in our nature is essentially complete at regeneration as exhibited in conversion, when a person has turned from darkness to light, from unbelief to faith, from Satan's domain of darkness to the kingdom of God's beloved Son, and has passed from death to life (John 3:3-8; 5:24; Acts 26:18; Eph. 5:8; Col. 1:12-14; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:3, 23; 2:9). Sanctification as an ongoing process is the working out of this initial sanctifying work of regeneration in our mortal life experience.

3. As I'm sure you understand, I reject the distinctive LDS ordinances (endowments, marriage for eternity, and proxy ordinances) and can find no biblical basis for claiming that such ordinances help, let alone are essential, in the development of a sanctified nature.

4. I don't accept the idea of human beings becoming exalted in the LDS sense of becoming Gods of the same nature and attributes as God the Father.

5. Your presentation does not seem to explain how human beings "merit" or "earn" their individual salvation, as LDS Church authorities have repeatedly insisted.

[Vance]

. . . , though I use a cruise ship because the 'gift' aspect is more obvious. Even though God has provided all for us, not only the cruise but the car that drives us there, the clothes we pack, even our bodies and the ability to function, we still have to make a choice to accept the gift and we externally express that choice by packing up, getting in the car and arriving at the dock and then getting on the ship. We don't just say when the invitation arrives in the mail, "let's go!" and the Lord transports us (a la Star Trek) on board the ship. Either way though the cruise is still a gift, we haven't earned it, just prepared ourselves to get ready for it.

This analogy is interesting and I would like to explore it a little.

I think Rob, (and he can correct me if I am wrong), would say that IF the tickets arrived in the mail BEFORE any preparation was made for the cruise, THEN the tickets/cruise would be a "true" gift.

But IF it was only an invitation arriving in the mail and the tickets were waiting at the dock, so that all the preparation for the cruise was made before the tickets/cruise were received, THEN the tickets/cruise would NOT be a "true" gift.

Now for the second situation to NOT reflect a "true" gift is ridiculous.

[David T]

nackhadlow,

Here is our summary of your position on salvation, including your addendum:

• We can do nothing to merit either justification nor sanctification.
• Justification refers to the forgiveness of sins, the initial aspect of our salvation, that one receives through faith as expressed in baptism.
• Sanctification refers to the process, continuing aspect of salvation, that changes our nature (with our complete, willing cooperation) to feel at home in God's presence.
• LDS ordinances are tools that help develop sanctification.
• Justification opens the gate to Sanctification which in turn makes possible Exaltation.

And now for my reply.

1. I think I agree with your first two points. We can do nothing to merit justification or sanctification, and justification refers to the initial aspect of our salvation that consists of the forgiveness of our sins. We receive justification through faith. I agree that we express this initial faith in baptism, though I don't regard baptism as per se necessary for salvation (we might disagree on this sub-point).

Okay. This is a good starting point.

2. I agree only in part with your third point. The definition that you give of sanctification is one legitimate way to define the term for the purposes of articulating a systematic soteriology (doctrine of salvation). However, I do not agree with the idea, which your exposition presupposes, that some people who are justified will nevertheless not be sanctified sufficiently to live in God's presence. Those whom God justifies, he also sanctifies and glorifies (Rom. 8:29-30; 1 Cor. 6:11; see also Phil. 1:6). Furthermore, the change in our nature is essentially complete at regeneration as exhibited in conversion, when a person has turned from darkness to light, from unbelief to faith, from Satan's domain of darkness to the kingdom of God's beloved Son, and has passed from death to life (John 3:3-8; 5:24; Acts 26:18; Eph. 5:8; Col. 1:12-14; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:3, 23; 2:9). Sanctification as an ongoing process is the working out of this initial sanctifying work of regeneration in our mortal life experience.

Can you please expound upon what you mean by 'working out of this initial sanctifying work of regeneration in our mortal life experience?' I am intrigued, as this is what seems to be our key point of departure.

3. As I'm sure you understand, I reject the distinctive LDS ordinances (endowments, marriage for eternity, and proxy ordinances) and can find no biblical basis for claiming that such ordinances help, let alone are essential, in the development of a sanctified nature.

I acknowledge that such isn't in the Bible.

In addition to the doctrine that is contained in modern revelation, I do believe that one thing that can be appreciated by nonbelievers (even without believing) is the value in the symbolic re-enacting of elements of the Life of Christ to remind us of his sacrifice, and to bring to mind ways we can walk in his footsteps. In the ordinances, apart from the spiritual and covenantal aspects which in and of themselves commit us to obeying Christ, being willing to sacrifice for the Kingdom's sake, obeying the Law of the Gospel as taught in the Sermon on the Mount, living according to standards of chastity and fidelity, and being willing to consecrate all we have or will have to the cause of Christ, we also re-live(re-enact) the Crucifixion, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ, as well as the eternal union of Christ and the Church.

All of which bring to our minds repeatedly to the Savior, and increase our desire not to just emulate him in symbols, but in very deed in our lives.

4. I don't accept the idea of human beings becoming exalted in the LDS sense of becoming Gods of the same nature and attributes as God the Father.

I know This is a different discussion entirely.

5. Your presentation does not seem to explain how human beings "merit" or "earn" their individual salvation, as LDS Church authorities have repeatedly insisted.

This is intentional, Franky, because I believe those who said as much with such terms misspoke, seeing as all the scriptures in the canon (as I cited above) that mention merits all affirm that the only one whose merits we rely on are Christ's, and that man cannot merit anything on their own.

[ED500]

Actually LDS and EV's ARE that different. There is a huge difference in the way a person is saved. LDS earn their way (this bears pride) to Christ, EV's do not. It is that simple. If you believe the theif on the cross is with Christ because he had faith IN Christ as the true Lord and savior, then you are EV. If you believ the theif on the cross is in some spirt prision who has yet to earn/repent his way to Christ then you are LDS.

Now, did I phrase that right?

Temple recommend <--- isn't this a clear example of "works" to earn your WORTHINESS to the LDS god?

In Matthew 11:30 Jesus Christ said "For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

[Calm]

Temple recommend <--- isn't this a clear example of "works" to earn your WORTHINESS to the LDS god?

No,not any more than a driver's license earns you a car.

[canterdogs]

There's no doubt that LDS deliberately distort the gospel in astonishing ways.

People like Vance who do not accept correction according to the scriptures are completely lost. Rob has done a mighty effort in pointing out the problems in LDS theology. All of his points on grace and salvation are solidly and indisputably founded in scripture. All LDS want to do is to add to the scriptures. They want to embrace a man made doctrines. they want to scorn proper study of scripture. They twist James 1:5 into thinking that you don't have to study scripture, all you have to do is close your Bible and pray.

LDS doctrine is akin to the abominations the great reformers fought against. Their doctrine is so obviously false when one examines them in light of scripture. It is clearly the teachings of men, not of God. It is by definition the teachings of men, not a restoration of the original religion. The temple ceremonies are indeed unspeakable and testify to the human origin of the religion. The Joseph Smith "translation" of the Bible is the most eggregious distortion ever perpetrated on the holy scriptures. Removing the Song of Solomon and adding prophesies about himself... and LDS accuse us of distorting scriptures?!

In short, the religion is a monumental deception. Christ did warn us that these false teachers would come into the world and distort the true church.

[Calm]

all you have to do is close your Bible and pray.

Yes, that is why we have been encouraged by our leaders to read scriptures daily and study scriptures every week in Sunday School, with the Bible occupying two years out of the four as the emphasis (though it's used as always used as a reference.)

[Calm]

There's no doubt that LDS deliberately distort the gospel in astonishing ways.

People like Vance who do not accept correction according to the scriptures are completely lost. Rob has done a mighty effort in pointing out the problems in LDS theology. All of his points on grace and salvation are solidly and indisputably founded in scripture. All LDS want to do is to add to the scriptures. They want to embrace a man made doctrines. they want to scorn proper study of scripture. They twist James 1:5 into thinking that you don't have to study scripture, all you have to do is close your Bible and pray.

LDS doctrine is akin to the abominations the great reformers fought against. Their doctrine is so obviously false when one examines them in light of scripture. It is clearly the teachings of men, not of God. It is by definition the teachings of men, not a restoration of the original religion. The temple ceremonies are indeed unspeakable and testify to the human origin of the religion. The Joseph Smith "translation" of the Bible is the most eggregious distortion ever perpetrated on the holy scriptures. Removing the Song of Solomon and adding prophesies about himself... and LDS accuse us of distorting scriptures?!

In short, the religion is a monumental deception. Christ did warn us that these false teachers would come into the world and distort the true church.

And you are here wading in the abominations, why?

[Lightbearer]

Although you say that I misunderstood your question, I don't see any clarification as to what that question meant. I fully expected that you would affirm that LDS obey God's commandments because they love him and want to please him. Yet it is puzzling that you would ask what the point of the commandments is if they are not preconditions of salvation. Perhaps you could try to clarify what you were asking.

What I am asking is if keeping the commandments (such as those given in the sermon on the mount) is not a condition for salvation, then why did Jesus give them? What good can they accomplish? Now if the reason they are given is to convict one of their sins, then why the need for these things to be observed after a person attains to faith in Christ? Now I realize that your argument is that good works are evidence of faith, not a requirement for the "so-called gift" of salvation. Yet do you not see the contradiction here? If we have no good works, if we do not keep God's commandments then that can only mean that one does not have faith in Christ. If one does not have faith in Christ one cannot be saved. So how then can one accept the gift? Is there a way of loosing this gift once it is gained? That is what I am asking!

I have already responded to this line of reasoning. There is a fundamental difference between faith as an act of accepting a gift and works as acts one must perform as conditions for receiving the (so-called) gift. I must insist that it is only "so-called" if there are conditions of works to be performed before the "gift" may be received. Confirming the problem is the fact that LDS authorities routinely affirm that a person must "earn" or "merit" this individual salvation. I'm sorry, but it is axiomatic that if you have to earn or merit something, it's not a gift. This is true not only definitionally but also biblically. "Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due" (Romans 4:4 NRSV). If God gives us salvation as a gift, as an act of grace on his part, then it is not something we can earn or merit by our works. Again, Paul says so explicitly: "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace would no longer be grace" (Romans 11:6). To try to overturn this point by claiming that even evangelicals agree that we must have faith to be saved completely misses the point. Faith, in this context, is not doing something to earn or merit salvation; it is humbly and gratefully accepting the gift of what God has done for us that we cannot earn or merit.

So the heart of the argument is what constitutes "humbly and gratefully accepting the gift of what God has done for us that we cannot earn or merit" what is the means of that acceptance? Is it faith alone? Now James (the book of "straw" according to Luther) explains something very different from what you are proposing:

(James 1:21-27) "Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man

[Vance]

. . .

People like Vance who do not accept correction according to the scriptures are completely lost.

. . .

Blah, Blah Blah

. . .

I guess if you can't refute the argument, you can always attack the messenger.

It is evident from your post that you have no counter argument.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

There's no doubt that LDS deliberately distort the gospel in astonishing ways.

No doubt, I am truly astonished.

People like Vance who do not accept correction according to the scriptures are completely lost. Rob has done a mighty effort in pointing out the problems in LDS theology. All of his points on grace and salvation are solidly and indisputably founded in scripture. All LDS want to do is to add to the scriptures. They want to embrace a man made doctrines. they want to scorn proper study of scripture. They twist James 1:5 into thinking that you don't have to study scripture, all you have to do is close your Bible and pray.

Non sense. Who here has stated to close the bible and not read it? Nothing like a straw man.

LDS doctrine is akin to the abominations the great reformers fought against. Their doctrine is so obviously false when one examines them in light of scripture. It is clearly the teachings of men, not of God. It is by definition the teachings of men, not a restoration of the original religion. The temple ceremonies are indeed unspeakable and testify to the human origin of the religion. The Joseph Smith "translation" of the Bible is the most eggregious distortion ever perpetrated on the holy scriptures. Removing the Song of Solomon and adding prophesies about himself... and LDS accuse us of distorting scriptures?!

This is laughable. If it is such a clear "abomination" you should be easy to demonstrate it.

We have not removed the Songs of Solomon, but if you wish they were inspired I just cant' see how talking about womens boob's using imagery is inspiring. You can have them.

In short, the religion is a monumental deception. Christ did warn us that these false teachers would come into the world and distort the true church.

Yes, it is a monumental deception. ACtaully when Christ talked about false teachers, he was specifically talking about you and your EV freinds. While we are throughing out shallow charactures of each others faith. Here is one for you.

Confess Jesus with you mouth and you can never loose your salvation and you can do what ever you want. For there is no sin that you cannot commit that God wont forgive you of.

[Lightbearer]

There's no doubt that LDS deliberately distort the gospel in astonishing ways.

Really and what gospel might that be? The gospel according to Luther?

People like Vance who do not accept correction according to the scriptures are completely lost.

Judge not, lest ye be judged. What gives you the right to give "correction"? The priesthood? Or you perverted interpretation of the Bible? He is completely lost? Are you saying that the "gospel" preached by you does not have the power of God unto salvation? Does it not have the convincing power of the Holy Ghost? For no man knows that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost.

Rob has done a mighty effort in pointing out the problems in LDS theology. All of his points on grace and salvation are solidly and indisputably founded in scripture.

All Rob has done (and I might add he has done it with much more respect than you have) is show his opinion of what grace is and the opinions of some men who desired to break away from the Catholic Church without the authority to do so. What better way than to deny authority or ordinances are necessary for salvation?

All LDS want to do is to add to the scriptures. They want to embrace a man made doctrines. they want to scorn proper study of scripture. They twist James 1:5 into thinking that you don't have to study scripture, all you have to do is close your Bible and pray.

No actually we recognize that God exists outside the Bible, that we can ask and we will receive, we can seek and we can find. We do not base our idea of who God is on hearsay evidence, we believe that we can boldly come to the throne of grace and ask Him and He will answer us by the power of the Holy Ghost. It is because of man made doctrines that Joseph Smith could not discover the true Church by an appeal to the Bible alone. He discovered that the God of Heaven lived outside the Bible, that His beloved Son Jesus Christ is alive and also that He desired to restore the fulness of the truth because of centuries of apostate teachings that came from the philosophies of men had corrupted the doctrines of the existing churches.

LDS doctrine is akin to the abominations the great reformers fought against. Their doctrine is so obviously false when one examines them in light of scripture. It is clearly the teachings of men, not of God. It is by definition the teachings of men, not a restoration of the original religion. The temple ceremonies are indeed unspeakable and testify to the human origin of the religion.

So you admit that there has been an apostasy from the original religion taught by Christ and His apostles? The doctrine is so glorious that the truth of them is self evident to all those who have the spirit of truth. You seek to blaspheme the temple ceremonies because you are devoid of the spirit of truth and you know full well that here (on this board) we cannot and will not cast pearls before swine by getting into a discussion of Temple content. But I will say this, that the truths that are learned in the temple are so Christ centered that it is obvious they came from our God and His Christ and that the covenants we make there are holy and may appear as foolishness to the carnal mind. That is why we must have a temple recommend to show that we have prepared ourselves spiritually to receive those blessing that help us to become holy as He is holy.

The Joseph Smith "translation" of the Bible is the most eggregious distortion ever perpetrated on the holy scriptures. Removing the Song of Solomon and adding prophesies about himself... and LDS accuse us of distorting scriptures?!

The Joseph Smith translation corrects the perversions and contradictions that exist in the Bible, and restore the plain and precious doctrines that were lost as a result of the influence of the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth. It is the everlasting Gospel which was restored by the ministration of angels as foreseen by John in His Revelation.

In short, the religion is a monumental deception. Christ did warn us that these false teachers would come into the world and distort the true church.

It is Satan who blinds the eyes and hardens the hearts of the children of men against the truth when it is proclaimed by His servants the Prophets and Apostles. What true church are you talking about? The Catholic Church from which your religion revolted? Yes there are an abundance of false teachers and false prophets in the last days, the reason Christ warned of them is because there would be true ones as well, the only way to determine them as true or false was not to measure them by the corrupt interpretations of the Bible, but by their fruits (works) ye shall know them. One other point on the fruits of the spirit:

(Galatians 5:16-26) "This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ

[canterdogs]

Lightbearer, if the Bible is so corrupt and the JST corrects it, why doesn't the LDS church do away with the King James and adopt the "inspired" version as the official Bible?