Earning Salvation

[Vance]

Mola,

Evangelicals view Scripture (the Bible) as the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

Well, that isn't exactly how they come across. They come across as "Evangelicals view THEIR INTERPRETATION OF Scripture (the Bible) as the only infallible rule of faith and practice".

If a doctrine cannot be substantiated from Scripture, we say it should not be part of church doctrine.

I agree with that statement, but the problem comes down to INTERPRETATION!!!!

[Molloch]

Vance, in response to your comments on official doctrine, how exactly is official doctrine determined?

[Vance]

Vance, in response to your comments on official doctrine, how exactly is official doctrine determined?

Good question.

Since I have no authority to declare "official doctrine" I can't answer that question with surety.

BUT, as I understand it, any doctrinal statement issued unanimously by the First Presidency is "official doctrine". Or in the absence of a First Presidency, any doctrinal statement issued unanimously by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

This is indicated by this scripture (integrated with other revelation).

D&C 102:23 In case of difficulty respecting doctrine or principle, if there is not a sufficiency written to make the case clear to the minds of the council, the president may inquire and obtain the mind of the Lord by revelation.

There may be others than can speak better to this subject.

[cdowis]

..... how exactly is official doctrine determined?

Just ask. If it is official doctrine, we'll tell you.

[zerinus]

Zerinus,

Incorrect. I don't think everybody here except me is stupid.

Nobody is actually, with the possible exception of one.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Nobody is actually, with the possible exception of one.

Dude, you need to stop.

[zerinus]

Dude, you need to stop.

You had better tell that to your hit and run friend.

You have been removed from the thread.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You had better tell that to your hit and run friend.

Were did he ever imply that any of us are stupid? You were the first one that implied to know the heart of Rob. You implied that Rob thinks we are all stupid. He denied that which he should, and then you imply that he is the only one that "possibly" could be stupid here.

And the hit run thing needs to go bye bye, everyone is guilty of it in some manner as most of us are busy and have lives outside this forum. You have not demonstrated that Rob is a hit and run poster. That is that he always leaves in the middle of discussion. And when people get rude about, why should he give those people any time? Which is what has happened, then you accuse him of more hitting and running. He can't win.

The whole damned if you damned if you don't thing comes to mind. If people treated me the way that you have I would simply ignore you, after I tried to get you in vain to retract the statements.

I just suggest you tone it down.

[JDave]

Were did he ever imply that any of us are stupid? You were the first one that implied to know the heart of Rob. You implied that Rob thinks we are all stupid. He denied that which he should, and then you imply that he is the only one that "possibly" could be stupid here.

And the hit run thing needs to go bye bye, everyone is guilty of it in some manner as most of us are busy and have lives outside this forum. You have not demonstrated that Rob is a hit and run poster. That is that he always leaves in the middle of discussion. And when people get rude about, why should he give those people any time? Which is what has happened, then you accuse him of more hitting and running. He can't win.

The whole damned if you damned if you don't thing comes to mind. If people treated me the way that you have I would simply ignore you, after I tried to get you in vain to retract the statements.

I just suggest you tone it down.

I honestly had to put zerinus on Ignore because it was just too frustrating to read that kind of tone coming from a fellow LDS. Reading the exchange here, as well as on another thread, I think Rob gave zerinus plenty of rope. Zerinus just kept tying nooses and jumping into them though. Stopping to converse with him is not a "hit and run". It is more like "plead and plead and sadly walk away".

[Rob Bowman]

LifeonaPlate,

Your suggestion is hypocritical unless you also call for the LDS Church to stop teaching that Christianity outside the LDS Church is apostate and instead "begin simply preaching Christ and Him crucified."

Once again I would like to dedicate my C.S. Lewis signature to Rob. I concur with Lewis and encourage Rob to cease his constant criticism of LDS and begin simply preaching Christ and Him crucified.

[wenglund]

LifeonaPlate,

Your suggestion is hypocritical unless you also call for the LDS Church to stop teaching that Christianity outside the LDS Church is apostate and instead "begin simply preaching Christ and Him crucified."

I think you are comparing obscure LDS mole-hills to in-your-face evangelical mountains. There really is no reasonable comparison, and thus no hypocricy.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

You wrote:

The issue here is what is meant by "earn salvation".

The traditional meaning, the meaning used by the scribes and Pharasees, is that we are saved solely by our own works absent the grace of God, and the atonement of Christ. We clearly do not accept that doctrine, as you well know, that we alone are able to work our way into salvation (for our purposes, let's use salvation to mean exaltation).

The Pharisees did not deny the need for the grace of God. They did, of course, deny the atonement of Christ.

You wrote:

"Nobody can buy or give us salvation in our Father

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

The very raison-d'etre of the LDS Church is the supposed Great Apostasy. I think you've got the picture reversed.

I think you are comparing obscure LDS mole-hills to in-your-face evangelical mountains. There really is no reasonable comparison, and thus no hypocricy.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LifeOnaPlate]

LifeonaPlate,

Your suggestion is hypocritical unless you also call for the LDS Church to stop teaching that Christianity outside the LDS Church is apostate and instead "begin simply preaching Christ and Him crucified."

Serious? The quote doesn't say you can't disagree with people. The LDS message is not chiefly (or frequently) targeting Evangelicals, Baptists, Catholics, Buddhists, we do not have special ministries to the Methodists, we do not create anti-Hindu pamphlets. We don't dedicate our time and resources to police other people's orthodoxy and declare them non-Christian if they do not accept our views. It is simply inaccurate to compare the LDS doctrine of apostasy (which Protestants in general all assent to in some way) with the counter-cult stuff, and with your own dedicated actions.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Wade,

The very raison-d'etre of the LDS Church is the supposed Great Apostasy. I think you've got the picture reversed.

Actually the very raison-d'etre of the LDS Church is Jesus Christ.

[Rob Bowman]

LifeonaPlate,

Actually, we already were following Jesus Christ and enjoying his grace for hundreds of years before the LDS Church came along. So that can't be the raison-d'etre of the LDS Church unless you deny that we had Jesus Christ before the LDS Church was founded.

Actually the very raison-d'etre of the LDS Church is Jesus Christ.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

LifeonaPlate,

Actually, we already were following Jesus Christ and enjoying his grace for hundreds of years before the LDS Church came along. So that can't be the raison-d'etre of the LDS Church unless you deny that we had Jesus Christ before the LDS Church was founded.

I dont' ever remember telling other Christians that they didn't have Jesus. I do remember telling them that I beleive more about Jesus then they do. I also remember telling people that I wanted to share with them how the church has helped me out in life. If they saw no value in that, then I have no issue. I told several on occasion that if they are happy with what they believe I have really no interest in changing their minds.

[JDave]

Wade,

The very raison-d'etre of the LDS Church is the supposed Great Apostasy. I think you've got the picture reversed.

I think the point is that for you to claim the LDS Church is incorrect is different from campaigning to debunk and discredit it. The LDS church does claim that all other churches fall short of the fulness of the gospel. The LDS church does not invest any effort in systematically showing that any of those individual churches is particularly apostate.

The Evangelicals are a bit more inclusive of some other perceived Mainstream Christian churches as being valid vehicles to teach salvation through Christ, whereas the LDS church does unequivocally state that no other church is a valid vehicle to obtain necessary ordinances. We preach that the fulness of the gospel may be found in the LDS church; we don't teach that Church XYZ is dangerous and show why that is so.

So it is perfectly valid for Evangelicals to draw a very bright line distinguishing what they perceive as valid Biblical churches and what are not. But leave it at that. Draw the line and then focus on shining light on all that is good and better on the 'Biblical' side of that line. Contrasts are helpful at times to highlight why it is better, but the good side of the contrast should be able to stand on its own.

Sorry for the tangent, and the soap box. I'll make up for it by making a substantive pertinent post to this thread a bit later.

[wenglund]

Wade,

The very raison-d'etre of the LDS Church is the supposed Great Apostasy. I think you've got the picture reversed.

Rob,

With all due respect, the raison-d'etre was stated over 150 years ago in answer to a private prayer, and the entre, itself, occured a few year thereafter. Since then, and for the more than a century and a half, the LDS Church, and individual or group efforts on the part of its members, have overwhelmingly been about bringing people to Christ--about what is right with our faith, and not with what may be wrong with the faith of others. Equating a few isolated statements made by Church leaders to members over the last 150 years, with all the contrarian material and actions flooding pretty much daily over the last few decades from so-called counter-cult ministries like IRR, is as absurd as your statement above. Sorry, your "thinking' in this case is upside-down.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

For most of your history, LDS evangelistic efforts were aimed almost entirely at converting Christians to LDS religion, and this is still largely the case. If necessary, we could go through the missionary lessons and document just how integral to LDS missionary efforts the supposed apostasy of historic Christianity is. The subject also comes up repeatedly in such a basic manual of LDS doctrine as Gospel Principles. We are not talking about "a few isolated statements," but about something essential to the very identity and core claims of the LDS Church.

Rob,

With all due respect, the raison-d'etre was stated over 150 years ago in answer to a private prayer, and the entre, itself, occured a few year thereafter. Since then, and for the more than a century and a half, the LDS Church, and individual or group efforts on the part of its members, have overwhelmingly been about bringing people to Christ--about what is right with our faith, and not with what may be wrong with the faith of others. Equating a few isolated statements made by Church leaders to members over the last 150 years, with all the contrarian material and actions flooding pretty much daily over the last few decades from so-called counter-cult ministries like IRR, is as absurd as your statement above. Sorry, your "thinking' in this case is upside-down.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Wade,

For most of your history, LDS evangelistic efforts were aimed almost entirely at converting other Christians and other religious and non religous peoplesto LDS religion, and this is still largely the case. If necessary, we could go through the missionary lessons and document just how integral to LDS missionary efforts the supposed apostasy of historic Christianity is. The subject also comes up repeatedly in such a basic manual of LDS doctrine as Gospel Principles. We are not talking about "a few isolated statements," but about something essential to the very identity and core claims of the LDS Church.

As I recall the Apostacy appeared in part of the 3rd of 6 discussion. Even the apostacy is directly related to LDS doctrine and canon. How does saying "such a such is not Christian" relate to EV doctirne?

I fixed your statement to be more accurate.

[LifeOnaPlate]

LifeonaPlate,

Actually, we already were following Jesus Christ and enjoying his grace for hundreds of years before the LDS Church came along.

I don;t deny it, after all, Christianity changed the world. The Church itself has made good use of things preserved by good Christians for centuries.

So that can't be the raison-d'etre of the LDS Church unless you deny that we had Jesus Christ before the LDS Church was founded.

That's an unnecessary either/or, so I disagree with you here.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Wade,

For most of your history, LDS evangelistic efforts were aimed almost entirely at converting Christians to LDS religion, and this is still largely the case. If necessary, we could go through the missionary lessons and document just how integral to LDS missionary efforts the supposed apostasy of historic Christianity is. The subject also comes up repeatedly in such a basic manual of LDS doctrine as Gospel Principles. We are not talking about "a few isolated statements," but about something essential to the very identity and core claims of the LDS Church.

Undoubtedly the Church has taught an apostasy/restoration model of history. Of course. This overlooks the many good things Church leaders had to say over the years, and further, the LDS Church does not deny such people salvation, unlike your own brand of Christianity would.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I dont' ever remember telling other Christians that they didn't have Jesus.

Exactly. Rob doesn't see the difference, and it's a big one. There's a huge difference between "you believe incorrect things and will thus be damned to hell" and "you believe incorrect things but God knows your heart and will judge you accordingly. Can I offer some suggested corrections to your beliefs?"

[LifeOnaPlate]

As I recall the Apostacy appeared in part of the 3rd of 6 discussion. Even the apostacy is directly related to LDS doctrine and canon. How does saying "such a such is not Christian" relate to EV doctirne?

I fixed your statement to be more accurate.

Yes. The missionary lessons have never taught that such-and-such professing Christians are not really Christians. Denying the actual Christianity of others has never been a part of LDS doctrine, plain and simple.