Mormon Definitions of Salvation Useful for Compare and Contrast Debate

[David T]

How one knows this (provided one is not deceived by the lies of Satan or by one

[coolrok7]

Thank you very much for your willingness to present your understanding! I especially hope this has been helpful for the other LDS following this thread to more clearly comprehend the specific differences in our understanding of this key doctrinal principle.

Your welcome and I'm glad to participate but we have critical differences though which in the end are vastly different and serious consequences enough for Mormons to not have Biblical salvation I believe (although I'm not the individual Mormon's judge to determine this).

The term used in the Biblical context of faith is

[David T]

Your welcome and I'm glad to participate but we have critical differences though which in the end are vastly different and serious consequences enough for Mormons to not have Biblical salvation I believe (although I'm not the individual Mormon's judge to determine this).

Although that discussion would probably best serve a different thread, I'm extremely curious as to what specific doctrinal points you feel one must believe (or not believe) to have "Biblical Salvation". Doing a search of the new testament using the terms 'believe' and 'saved' does not bring up any elements LDS do not believe, so I'm curious as to what differences are severe enough that, even though we believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, our savior, and redeemer, and that salvation comes through His grace, God would withhold Justification because we were 'misled' into sincerely believing some additional beliefs.

The term used in the Biblical context of faith is

[coolrok7]

Although that discussion would probably best serve a different thread, I'm extremely curious as to what specific doctrinal points you feel one must believe (or not believe) to have "Biblical Salvation". Doing a search of the new testament using the terms 'believe' and 'saved' does not bring up any elements LDS do not believe, so I'm curious as to what differences are severe enough that, even though we believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, our savior, and redeemer, and that salvation comes through His grace, God would withhold Justification because we were 'misled' into sincerely believing some additional beliefs.

Nack, I would love to further explain the points I

[David T]

Nack, I would love to further explain the points I

[coolrok7]

Elder McConkie's statement here at a BYU Devotional back in 1984 (as a Mormon general Authority) is at the crux of our disagreements: . . .

I do not agree with Elder McConkie's rhetoric. It is my belief that, while he was zealous and sincere in his testimony of the Savior, and did much good for the Church in encouraging the study of the scriptures, he was wrong and presented himself as overly authoritative on many rhetorical points - in fact, his BYU addresses seem to be some of the places where he uses the most inflammatory language of all his addresses. There were many points on which, I believe, he was unnecessarily divisive - and even just plain wrong.

That

[TAO]

That

[David T]

The above speaks to the proper sequence of authority in the context of Scripture (to me only the Bible is authoritative when it comes to doctrine to be believed, never-the-less the Standard Works of Mormonism in the written context is appealed to for some of the doctrine for Mormons but not all).

How the Mormon Church views itself in the context of history. The following excerpts are from the Feb. 2006 Ensign in an article concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls:

*Jesus was at the same time the priestly and Davidic

[Vance]

Coolrok, the purpose of this thread is to discuss the core doctrinal issues pertaining to salvation in a way that permits the best degree of understanding. I have chosen to use as the initial standard what are acknowledged among all Mormons as authoritative for all: the standard works. This thread was not set up for you to tell me what I believe, but it does allow you to express what you believe, and to provide a way in which the scriptural and technical terminologies can be discussed for greater understanding and discussion on both sides.

In such discussions, a standard needs to be agreed to. It's fair to allow you to set the standards for your side. It is not fair for you to set the standards for others.

You were participating admirably and usefully. You presented a controversial non-Church-published McConkie quote (which I'm sure you were aware was contested, and a minority opinion) to sum up the "Mormon View", and when I presented that I did not feel it was an accurate or useful specimen to sum up our beliefs as presented in the scriptures for the means of this discussion, you began tossing out quotes to attempt to prove why we must believe one specific individual's interpretation that happens to be very much in opposition as to what you believe. Instead of contrasting with what I was presenting, you chose the representation to contrast. It was the standard crafting of a strawman.

This is not a thread for telling anyone what they need to believe. When I have tried to sum up what you believe, I did so requesting clarification if my understanding was not correct. I did so in order to better understand your language use concerning the concepts at hand. It was not an attempt to build up a facade in which to then attack.

If you are willing to participate in the spirit and specific topics of this thread, according to terms set by the thread-starter, you are still very welcome. Otherwise, please understand that this is not a thread for debating why you believe Mormons need to accept as binding any statement or doctrinal interpretation presented by any General Authority on any occasion or venue. You can feel free to a thread on this topic, however. I just probably won't be participating.

Your earlier participation in this thread was very pleasant, edifying, useful, and informative. That last post was reverting exactly back to what I'm specifically trying to avoid.

2 Pet 2:22 (and Prov 26:11).

[coolrok7]

Coolrok, the purpose of this thread is to discuss the core doctrinal issues pertaining to salvation in a way that permits the best degree of understanding. I have chosen to use as the initial standard what are acknowledged among all Mormons as authoritative for all: the standard works. This thread was not set up for you to tell me what I believe, but it does allow you to express what you believe, and to provide a way in which the scriptural and technical terminologies can be discussed for greater understanding and discussion on both sides.

In such discussions, a standard needs to be agreed to. It's fair to allow you to set the standards for your side. It is not fair for you to set the standards for others. . . . you began tossing out quotes to attempt to prove why we must believe one specific individual's interpretation that happens to be very much in opposition as to what you believe. Instead of contrasting with what I was presenting, you chose the representation to contrast. It was the standard crafting of a strawman. . . .

My apologies if you thought I was trying to tell you (or others) what you believe (I wasn

[David T]

Coolrok,

I think I understand where you're coming from, but this thread isn't designed to discuss the authority of viability of the whole of Mormonism. It is to discuss, and deconstruct, specific theological/soteriological concepts that are often spoken of in general and vague terms - even in public discourse, as I have already recognized and mentioned. Much of McConkie's sermons and quotes are highly rhetorical, intentionally emotionally charged, and speak in over-generalizations (he has been known to even edit his more inflammatory remarks for the text versions - at a BYU address, he once stated that someone who believes a particular doctrine taught Brigham Young "doesn't deserve to be saved". That was decidedly softened for the printed version, and even the softened version was highly emotionally charged and rhetorical in nature.)

A key part of the purpose of this thread was to separate the scriptural technical doctrine from the rhetoric and general language often used to frame and teach other general principles.

[David T]

2 Pet 2:22 (and Prov 26:11).

I don't see in what world you could think this would be conducive to the point and spirit of this thread.

[coolrok7]

I

[David T]

I

[coolrok7]

(me)In this context Paul wasn't teaching it as Joseph Smith did. Do you agree?

(nack)I do agree. I believe that D&C 76 and the JST of 1 Corinthians 15 use Paul's language as a framework/jumping off point to teach a newly learned additional principle not presented (or intended) in the original text. Not replacing the original, but adding an additional layer at its side.

I want to make sure here of your point.

Was Paul teaching about the mortal vs. immortal difference in glories as can bee seen in the heavens (this is what I see) or was he teaching as Joseph did in his rendition in the D&C about the telestial (not there in Pauls' letter), terrestrial, celestial kingdom of heaven where people go to as the result of their acceptance of Joseph Smith and what he taught that is different from what Paul taught?

[David T]

I want to make sure here of your point.

Was Paul teaching about the mortal vs. immortal difference in glories as can bee seen in the heavens (this is what I see) or was he teaching as Joseph did in his rendition in the D&C about the telestial (not there in Pauls' letter), terrestrial, celestial kingdom of heaven

Paul is discussing the difference between mortal 'natural' bodies and the glory of bodies in the Resurrection. Just as the Sun and Moon are different, and just as men are different than fish and birds, so Mortal Bodies are in the same way different than Resurrected Bodies.

And you're right: 'Telestial' is a Neologism (perhaps Rigdonite) used to express into writing and scriptural language new principles that were presented in Vision. (there's a great discussion of this in Staker's Hearken O Ye People: The Historic Setting of Joseph Smith's Ohio Revelations )

where people go to as the result of their acceptance of Joseph Smith and what he taught that is different from what Paul taught?

Completely unnecessarily charged (and inaccurate to boot) wording there. You know, the 'Have you stopped beating your wife?' type. You've shown you can play nice without getting jabs in. Please keep doing so, or I will be no longer interested in continuing this discussion with you.

[Vance]

I don't see in what world you could think this would be conducive to the point and spirit of this thread.

Just acknowledging this phenomena.

Completely unnecessarily charged (and inaccurate to boot) wording there. You know, the 'Have you stopped beating your wife?' type. You've shown you can play nice without getting jabs in. Please keep doing so, or I will be no longer interested in continuing this discussion with you.

[coolrok7]

where people go to as the result of their acceptance of Joseph Smith and what he taught that is different from what Paul taught?

Completely unnecessarily charged (and inaccurate to boot) wording there. You know, the 'Have you stopped beating your wife?' type. You've shown you can play nice without getting jabs in. Please keep doing so, or I will be no longer interested in continuing this discussion with you.

Let me rephrase it as I didn

[Zakuska]

Let me rephrase it as I didn

[David T]

Let me rephrase it as I didn

[coolrok7]

. . .Paul is teaching a dichotomy: Mortal flesh vs. Resurrected Flesh.

In the 19th Century, Joseph Smith expanded the understanding of degrees within the classification of Resurrected Flesh. I do not believe this was not part of Paul's presentation in 1 Corinthians 15.

It would be, for example, if Paul said, "There are bodies of cats, and there are bodies of dogs". Joseph then expanded on that by saying, "There are bodies of cats, and there are bodies of dogs. I have learned that within the body of dogs, we have Dobermans, Poodles, and Cocker Spaniels." . . .

I agree with your dichotomy statement. I don

[David T]

I agree with your dichotomy statement.

Good

I don

[Calm]

their salvation is the minimum salvation in the Telestial.

If by this you mean this is what they define salvation as, I would strongly disagree. A requirement for their view of Heaven is the full presence and glory of the Son and the Father and a oneness with God (how they perceive that oneness is different from us, but even so does not resemble the state of the Telestial inhabitants as defined by LDS.

add-on: I see that JD has already pointed this out. I would say this is the most common mistake I've seen LDS make, the idea that the Telestial is the nonLDS Christian version of heaven which ignores imo the most consistent and important condition of traditional heaven and that is the full presence of God.

[David T]

Bump for coolrok7, who I see has been posting today, and in doing so is repeating the above assertion in other threads without responding to my explaining how he is inaccurately characterizing the 'Mormon Gospel' here.

[coolrok7]

Bump for coolrok7, who I see has been posting today, and in doing so is repeating the above assertion in other threads without responding to my explaining how he is inaccurately characterizing the 'Mormon Gospel' here.

I was in the process of responding to your last here and hadn't finished as of yet. This morning I saw the other thread start and made a quick response to it. As usual things get misconstreud. I didn't misrepresent the "Mormon gospel" as defined in the quotations I used (while not in totality of everything that could be said it is I believe representative in how it differs from the Biblical Gospel).