Honest question for my evangelical friends

[Vance]

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?

Why do you care?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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?

Is that the best you can come up with? FYI we do use the JST in many parts of the bible. I am not aware of any offical inspired version.

[Lightbearer]

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?

Because it is unnecessary to do so. The official Bible is the KJV, the JST helps correct those parts that are hard to understand because of the corrupt interpretations by men. In fact the Book of Mormon and the other scriptures of the restoration have been given to prove the truth of the Bible.

(1 Nephi 13:34-40) "And it came to pass that the angel of the Lord spake unto me, saying: Behold, saith the Lamb of God, after I have visited the remnant of the house of Israel

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

I had written:

[Thunderfire]

I don

[Rob Bowman]

Thunderfire,

No, I was not speaking against viewing baptism as (in some sense) necessary. I realize orthodox Christians have differing points of view on that question. But the question is moot as far as I am concerned, because virtually all Christian denominations practice baptism. The issue here has to do with the distinctive LDS ordinances that have no biblical basis.

While I understand that many times when we write a thought, what's on our mind does not come out completely on the screen. Just for clarification: When you say, " I do have an objection to imposing rituals and ordinances on people as supposedly essential, necessary practices without which people cannot live in eternity as God means for them to live." Does this include baptism?

What concerns me is that ALL Christians promote (impose?) rituals and ordinances for the salvation of man. Also, each denomination has unique "rituals" or sacraments to that group. While there is some overlap with closely related denominations, each have there own uniqueness in how they are interpreted and practiced.

So to be clear here: Are you against baptism as a necessary practice or just those rituals/ordinances not part of your denomination?

[Thunderfire]

Thunderfire,

No, I was not speaking against viewing baptism as (in some sense) necessary. I realize orthodox Christians have differing points of view on that question. But the question is moot as far as I am concerned, because virtually all Christian denominations practice baptism. The issue here has to do with the distinctive LDS ordinances that have no biblical basis.

I understand and thank you! I also agree that while all Christian denominations have the sacrament of baptism, each has a unique theological viewpoint surrounding it (infant baptism, baptism into church membership, baptism unto repentance, etc). So even though by an "outward" appearance they are the same, when viewed from their unique theological perspective are they really the same? Of course not.

What I'm getting at here is that we cannot merely look at the "outward ordinance" and say all baptisms are seen as the same. So the same MAY be true with some of the LDS ordinances which many deem as non-biblical. Except in this case, while the "outward ordinance" may appear different, the spirit or intent of what is being done is the same.

Here is an example (and I am by NO means an expert in LDS rituals or ordinances). Many Evangelical churches have what's called an "alter call". I've seen this happen on many occasions and it is a POWERFUL experience for those who make that walk. But in the end, what is being done is repentance. This is the intent and the "inward ordinance". From my perspective, what is done in the LDS (endowment ceremony) is very similar. It too is repentance based where a glorious gift of grace is received by those who make the walk.

While the "outward" ordinance may appear different, the "inward" is the same offering and seeking the same results. This is the issue I have with many who look at the differences instead of those things which bind us together in Jesus Christ. We need to be honest with ourselves here. If we want to look for differences, we can find them in our own families (or denominations, or whatever group we associate with). Yet we choose not to do that because we have focused first on those things which binds us together. I bet if you tried, you could find enough with anyone to see them as a friend and co-worker in Jesus Christ. But this is a choice many do not want to make and the world is a worse place because of it...

Anyway, just my thoughts...

[David T]

Rob, thanks for your responses.

nackhadlow,

I had written:

[Vance]

I thought it was basic to LDS belief to follow the Prophet and the teachings of the living apostles and prophets (especially in general conference), to allow them to interpret scripture for you and even to go beyond what is in scripture.

Humm, for some reason the phrase "turn again and rend you" comes to mind.

Unlike some, we understand what their (the GAs) motives are, who their audience is, and what they want us to focus on.

[Thunderfire]

I understand you coming from the perspective that nothing presented or added by LDS prophets are authoritative. This is a fundamental point of departure.

Can we see how this is a two way street? As example, we can readily see how revelations given through non-LDS prophets are not seen as authoritive either by the LDS. As we can see, this comment works both ways. So it is not a fundamental point of departure because we were never one in the beginning to even depart from!

I have come from the humbling experience that God speaks to all people in all ages. So I look for the confirmation (whether through scriptures, dreams/visions, or from other prophets). I also come from the perspective that there are those "not of my fold" which offer insights which in fact are authoritive (if I choose to listen).

[David T]

Can we see how this is a two way street? As example, we can readily see how revelations given through non-LDS prophets are not seen as authoritive either by the LDS. As we can see, this comment works both ways. So it is not a fundamental point of departure because we were never one in the beginning to even depart from!

I have come from the humbling experience that God speaks to all people in all ages. So I look for the confirmation (whether through scriptures, dreams/visions, or from other prophets). I also come from the perspective that there are those "not of my fold" which offer insights which in fact are authoritive (if I choose to listen).

So you know where I'm coming from, although I'm obviously LDS, I've been reading Pope Benedict XVI's encyclicals, God is Love, and Saved in Hope, and have just begun Charity in Truth. There are some profound truths in there, expressed in ways not common in LDS discourse, from which I believe I have benefited. I believe there is much truth and spiritual application that can be found in the discourse and behavior of faith traditions of others.

What I meant in context was that often times the "That's LDS. I don't believe it." I aknowledge the same happens in the other direction. "That's Evangelical. I don't believe it." Both serve as a conversation ender. Instead of seeking out what meaning members take from the element (which in many cases is shared with others, but by a different name, in different terms), it is the difference that is focused on. Both become offenders for a word on the surface level, without addressing the substance of what it means. My recent posts have been trying to express what lies behind the symbol which is disagreed upon, and to discuss that. And find out where the real essential and core differences are.

[Thunderfire]

What I meant in context was that often times the "That's LDS. I don't believe it." I acknowledge the same happens in the other direction. "That's Evangelical. I don't believe it." Both serve as a conversation ender.

Yes, you are correct in that it goes both ways. Yet please grant me the opportunity to share what I BELIEVE to be a just criticism of the LDS Church in this regard. I fully understand that this will not change because it is part of the LDS identity, but it is a criticism just the same.

Much of what you do in the temple is "not talked about". The justification is (in many instances) that you do not cast pearls before swine. Now I understand human nature. First offense is taken by those Christians who are seen as a "swine" when I want to believe we are ALL children of God. And second, if something is hidden from view and not talked about, our minds fill in the blanks typically for the worse. My guess is that much of what is done COULD be seen as acceptable by outsiders and even desired, if it was talked about and explained. Yet from an outsiders perspective, the LDS Church is a closed fellowship with secret ordinances and practices.

So threads like this will not end and the deep chasm between the groups will only get wider. I have no answer as too a solution here, because much of the issues in misunderstanding are simply not talked about and fully explained.

[LeSellers]

virtually all Christian denominations practice baptism. The issue here has to do with the distinctive LDS ordinances that have no biblical basis.

This is simply false.

The LDS ordinance of baptism most definitely has biblical bases. The question at hand is that those bases do not coincide with your interpretation of the Bible. There is a huge difference between those two concepts, one you need to understand and recognize.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

The justification is (in many instances) that you do not cast pearls before swine. Now I understand human nature. First offense is taken by those Christians who are seen as a "swine" when I want to believe we are ALL children of God.

The problem with that is that when you take offense at this, you are (inadvertently, perhaps) saying that Jesus was purposefully giving offense to all who disagreed with Him, calling them swine, as well.

Now, I wonder if you are calling Jesus the same things you are calling us.

Lehi

[David T]

This is simply false.

The LDS ordinance of baptism most definitely has biblical bases. The question at hand is that those bases do not coincide with your interpretation of the Bible. There is a huge difference between those two concepts, one you need to understand and recognize.

Lehi

I don't think you read Rob's comment correctly. He said, "virtually all Christian denominations practice baptism. The issue here has to do with the distinctive LDS ordinances that have no biblical basis." - he wasn't claiming the LDS ordinance of Baptism didn't have a biblical basis. He was referring to the additional Temple Ordinances, of which while I agree, are not to be found discussed the Bible.

We do not base our religion on the Bible, but find the Bible to be an incredibly useful additional source of records of the Lord's dealings with mankind, and especially sacred records of the mortal ministry of the Savior.

[Vance]

I don't think you read Rob's comment correctly. He said, "virtually all Christian denominations practice baptism. The issue here has to do with the distinctive LDS ordinances that have no biblical basis." - he wasn't claiming the LDS ordinance of Baptism didn't have a biblical basis. He was referring to the additional Temple Ordinances, of which while I agree, are not to be found discussed the Bible.

We do not base our religion on the Bible, but find the Bible to be an incredibly useful additional source of records of the Lord's dealings with mankind, and especially sacred records of the mortal ministry of the Savior.

It is interesting to me that Rob is complaining that, ordinances that are so sacred that they are not discussed publicly and wouldn't have been anciently, aren't found in the Bible.

Well, DUH!!!!

[LeSellers]

I don't think you read Rob's comment correctly.

We'll have to disagree on this. I believe I am right. His entire thrust was about baptism, and I can't see where he changed the antecedents.

We do not base our religion on the Bible, but find the Bible to be an incredibly useful additional source of records of the Lord's dealings with mankind, and especially sacred records of the mortal ministry of the Savior.

This is all correct, of course. The question of the source and authority of the canon for those who have neither the sources nor the authority to dictate it rises to its correct place.

Hoary as the Bible is, it is not what most believers claim it to be.

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

You quoted me as follows:

"virtually all Christian denominations practice baptism. The issue here has to do with the distinctive LDS ordinances that have no biblical basis."

You then commented:

This is simply false. The LDS ordinance of baptism most definitely has biblical bases. The question at hand is that those bases do not coincide with your interpretation of the Bible. There is a huge difference between those two concepts, one you need to understand and recognize.

By "distinctive LDS ordinances" I did not mean baptism, since (as should be obvious) baptism is not "distinctive" to the LDS religion. I meant such ordinances as endowments, marriages for eternity, sealings of family members, and proxy ordinances.

[Lightbearer]

So I guess now that the subject has changed, and I have yet to receive an answer or rebuttal, I can claim victory in my arguments in post #321?

Here is the link: post # 321

[David T]

I think the discussion of the elements embodied in your post continues. I know I specifically detail another aspect of it in my post 333 above, which is also awaiting a reply

[LeSellers]

By "distinctive LDS ordinances" I did not mean baptism, since (as should be obvious) baptism is not "distinctive" to the LDS religion. I meant such ordinances as endowments, marriages for eternity, sealings of family members, and proxy ordinances.

You know best what you meant. I obviously misunderstood.

However, the point you make, that distinctive LDS ordinances have no biblical basis is wrong in its own right.

Please describe the reasons for the second floor of the Temple of Solomon (see 2 Ch 3:9 and Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, on page 166 of the Whiston translation).

We take the two "bookend" ordinances, baptism for the dead and eternal marriages, or, better, sealings.

We freely admit that there is no precise descriptions in the Bible, but that does not mean there is nothing in the Bible on these subjects.

For instance, we read Paul telling us that baptism for the dead is a significant evidence for the resurrection of mankind. This is the only direct mention of the ordinance, but it is there. I have seen many commentaries on this verse (1 Cor 15:29) from before the mid-XIX. None of them rejects the concept that we Saints embrace, although they are uniform in saying they do not know what Paul meant by this argument. It was only after God revealed the meaning to His prophet in the 1840s that non-LDS Christians started turning their backs on the clear interpretation (Paul was a much better logician than modern Evangelicals give him credit for being).

Then we read, again from Paul, "neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man in the Lord." We read, from Matthew, that the Church of Jesus Christ would have (in her Priesthood leaders) the power to seal ("bind") and unseal ("loose") both in heaven and on earth. We, with our wider understanding of the power and visions of God, know these passages to point directly to eternal sealings of husbands and wives and their families.

Further, in the same Matthew passage alluded to above, Jesus Christ implicitly (narrowly missing an explicit note) tells Peter, James, and John that His Church (not He, Himself) will overcome the gates of Hell (the entrance point into the spirit world) and release the captives therein.

Your church does not do this, but ours does. That's one of the primary reasons we construct and operate Temples dedicated to the Lord.

You are imposing your idiosyncratic interpretation of the Bible to miss the bases for the "distinctive LDS ordinances", because those bases are there.

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

Lightbearer,

I wrote:

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

You asked:

for the sake of this discussion, Rob, what is your personal belief concerning if one chooses not to participate in this behavior? I do know of many who have accepted Christ, have had a powerful experience and desire initially, but then do not participate in 'biblically based spiritual disciplines'. Their lives, as observed, cannot be considered 'holy' in respect to their behaviors and actions in this life. Is it your belief then that if one dies in this state, at the Judgement, when their Justification through Christ marks them as clean, that they will enter into the presence of God with an automatically transformed Holy behavioral desire? Do you believe that there will be additional progression into becoming such in the Heavenly Realm?

I believe that the legal term of relevance here is "calls for speculation." In general, people who profess faith in Christ but live as if Christ doesn't matter to them probably aren't sincere. But that is a generalization and the realities can be far more complex. Since we lack middle knowledge (i.e., the knowledge of what would have happened if things were different), we don't know how people who profess faith in Christ but seem spiritually immature would have lived had they not professed faith in Christ at all. I knew a man, now deceased, whose manner of speech and behavior was rather "rough," and those who didn't know him well would probably have judged him not very spiritual. However, I know enough about his life history and spent enough time with him to know that for all his faults, his faith in Christ made a real difference in his life. Who knows what he would have been like without Christ. For that matter, who knows what I would be like. I'm certainly not the epitome of holiness. But (1) my standing before God is not based on what I do for God but on what God does for me in Christ, and (2) for all my failings I am aware of evidence that my Christian faith has made me a significantly different person.

The Bible doesn't address in any specific or detailed way how God brings about our transformation from believing, partially holy individuals to completely holy, perfected individuals. However, I can find no basis for the notion of progression in spiritual development or personal holiness after death. What I do know is that we will be made spiritually and morally perfect (and physically perfect, too) in the resurrection. My best understanding, and I'm not sure I can be dogmatic on this, is that once a believer dies physically, he or she is completely freed from sin. This follows from the fact that the corruption of sin is effective through the classic biblical trio of spiritual enemies of holiness: the world, the flesh, and the devil. Those who have died in Christ are freed from these negative influences, and so I would assume that those believers will then be freed from all sin.

You wrote:

I understand you coming from the perspective that nothing presented or added by LDS prophets are authoritative. This is a fundamental point of departure.

Indeed.

You wrote:

If the statements are read to say that one earns (IE, deserves) their own Salvation, then yes, I believe their choice of words was unfortunate, and probably led to misunderstanding - especially for those approaching them without a strong understanding of the LDS Scriptures (as I assume the General Authorities have). I believe the proper context needed for understanding would be that of D&C 130:21, "And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated." - the Law that causes one to merit their own Saved/Exalted state is predicated on perfection. As sinners, we broke that law, fell, and nothing we can do can repair it.

The Law of Christ takes us under His power, and saves us by His merits. He earned all the blessings and inheritance He received from the Father, and none else did.

I respect your right as an individual to believe whatever you believe, and to interpret LDS scripture any way you choose. However, I have to say that I don't agree that you have interpreted D&C 130 correctly, and I don't think most LDS leaders or teachers would agree with you, either. As I understand it, and as I see most LDS teachers explaining it, D&C 130:18-21 is a law to which everyone remains subject and has to do with how far each individual advances spiritually. The passage leaves no room, so far as I can see, for the explanation that Christ keeps that law on our behalf. That is a nice, evangelical-sounding way of explaining it, but it is not the customary LDS way of explaining it, and it doesn't fit the passage.

[Vance]

However, I have to say that I don't agree that you have interpreted D&C 130 correctly, and I don't think most LDS leaders or teachers would agree with you, either.

First, nackhadlow is far far far more likely to interpret scripture (including LDS unique scripture) correctly than Rob.

Second, I find nothing wrong with nackhadlow's so called "interpretation" of D&C 130.

As I understand it, and as I see most LDS teachers explaining it, D&C 130:18-21 is a law to which everyone remains subject and has to do with how far each individual advances spiritually.

One of the laws/principles is the law/principle of Repentance. If we obey the law/principle of Repentance we receive the blessing of forgiveness. And with forgiveness comes the imputation of (Christ's) righteousness/perfection to us.

The passage leaves no room, so far as I can see, for the explanation that Christ keeps that law on our behalf.

So?

It doesn't have to, for those that understand the principle/law of repentance.

That is a nice, evangelical-sounding way of explaining it, but it is not the customary LDS way of explaining it, and it doesn't fit the passage.

What do you know about "the customary LDS way of explaining it"? You very often show that you don't really understand things LDS.

[Flyonthewall]

...

All evangelicals believe that when our redemption is complete, consummated, in the resurrection and glorification that is still future, we will then be perfect, sinless, absolutely holy beings.

Then when evangelicals say "I am saved", their salvation is incomplete? Which means salvation is not an all or nothing concept, but a progression? hmmmm...

There is no salvation that does not have this end result. You cannot be saved and not eventually arrive at this consummated state of redemption in which sinless obedience is the norm. However, this does not make meaningless the observation that we don