Calm Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 I haven't abandoned the conventional biblical doctrine of Evangelicals for a Christianity of the least common denominator, but I now am careful to treat doctrinal differences proportionally. I think this is an essential requirement when attempting to understand someone else's beliefs and compare them with one's own.
Mordecai Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 So I read the whole thing. Sounds like a very nice guy with a good testimony of the Gospel and even a partial testimony of the Church. A very rare individual that can fit in with Mormons and still be evangelical.
Palerider Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 "I no longer argue, as I once did, that a precondition for that salvation is a proper understanding of its heavenly manifestation and the sufficiency of the grace that makes it possible."I think for an Evangelical the above statement is giving Latter Day Saints a pretty big "benefit of the doubt". I don't think the opposite is quite so true from an LDS perspective, in that they would never see salvation available to anyone who does not accept the ordinances as prescribed by the church.
bluebell Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 "I no longer argue, as I once did, that a precondition for that salvation is a proper understanding of its heavenly manifestation and the sufficiency of the grace that makes it possible."I think for an Evangelical the above statement is giving Latter Day Saints a pretty big "benefit of the doubt". I don't think the opposite is quite so true from an LDS perspective, in that they would never see salvation available to anyone who does not accept the ordinances as precribed by the church.What he's saying is that whether or not you are saved does not depend on whether or not you have a specific understanding of grace or the Atonement. I guess i'm not seeing how that's giving LDS a big 'benefit of the doubt'? I mean, he's not saying that salvation is available to those who don't have faith in Christ, for example-he's not saying that his fundamental beliefs about the nature of how one becomes justified has changed (as i understand him). So why would LDS have to change their beliefs about the nature of how one becomes justified in order to make an 'equal' concession in your eyes?
Palerider Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 What he's saying is that whether or not you are saved does not depend on whether or not you have a specific understanding of grace or the Atonement. I guess i'm not seeing how that's giving LDS a big 'benefit of the doubt'? I mean, he's not saying that salvation is available to those who don't have faith in Christ, for example-he's not saying that his fundamental beliefs about the nature of how one becomes justified has changed (as i understand him). So why would LDS have to change their beliefs about the nature of how one becomes justified in order to make an 'equal' concession in your eyes?Hey bluebell,You may be mis-reading me.I think that in the eyes of many of his associates, a proper understanding of Protestant/Evangelical take on grace IS essential to one's salvation and since in their eyes LDS don't have that understanding, they cannot be saved. He says he now disagrees with that notion (as do I). Sometimes I wish it could work the other way as well in the sense that LDS could possibly make room for others receiving salvation without the LDS ordinances. But as I know this is impossible with a "one and only true church" paradigm, I expect little traction on this concept.
nicolasconnault Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 What he's saying is that whether or not you are saved does not depend on whether or not you have a specific understanding of grace or the Atonement. I guess i'm not seeing how that's giving LDS a big 'benefit of the doubt'? I mean, he's not saying that salvation is available to those who don't have faith in Christ, for example-he's not saying that his fundamental beliefs about the nature of how one becomes justified has changed (as i understand him). So why would LDS have to change their beliefs about the nature of how one becomes justified in order to make an 'equal' concession in your eyes?What he does say explicitly, which is more relevant, is this:Consequently, I no longer believe I am in a position to say the biblical salvation of Mormons is more in question than members of other Christian denominations. My current practice, which has contributed to the most productive and meaningful of my inter-faith relationships, is to treat Mormons as Christian brothers and sisters as opposed to members of a non-Christian cult.
Palerider Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 What he does say explicitly, which is more relevant, is this:I agree and believe other non-LDS Christian religions should be afforded the same consideration by us (LDS).As long as they aren't TOO far off the mark.......no human sacrifice you know.......
bluebell Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 Hey bluebell,You may be mis-reading me.I think that in the eyes of many of his associates, a proper understanding of Protestant/Evangelical take on grace IS essential to one's salvation and since in their eyes LDS don't have that understanding, they cannot be saved. He says he now disagrees with that notion (as do I).Got it. Sometimes I wish it could work the other way as well in the sense that LDS could possibly make room for others receiving salvation without the LDS ordinances. But as I know this is impossible with a "one and only true church" paradigm, I expect little traction on this concept.LDS do believe though that someone can die not a member of the church, and very much be saved. Yes, we believe that the ordinances with the proper authority will have to be done, but we do not doubt that non-LDS can be members, in their hearts, of the true church of the Lamb.From the Ensign, by Stephen Robinson:"Individual orientation to the Church of the Lamb or to the great and abominable church is not by membership but by loyalty. Just as there are Latter-day Saints who belong to the great and abominable church because of their loyalty to Satan and his life-style, so there are members of other churches who belong to the Lamb because of their loyalty to him and his life-style. Membership is based more on who has your heart than on who has your records."We do not deny people salvation because they never joined the LDS church. We recognize that God is the final judge because only He can judge the heart. That seems like a pretty big concession to me, especially when you do compare it to beliefs like you listed above where people will deny us salvation because we don't use the right definition of 'grace'.
Palerider Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 Got it. LDS do believe though that someone can die not a member of the church, and very much be saved. Yes, we believe that the ordinances with the proper authority will have to be done, but we do not doubt that non-LDS can be members, in their hearts, of the true church of the Lamb.From the Ensign, by Stephen Robinson:"Individual orientation to the Church of the Lamb or to the great and abominable church is not by membership but by loyalty. Just as there are Latter-day Saints who belong to the great and abominable church because of their loyalty to Satan and his life-style, so there are members of other churches who belong to the Lamb because of their loyalty to him and his life-style. Membership is based more on who has your heart than on who has your records."We do not deny people salvation because they never joined the LDS church. We recognize that God is the final judge because only He can judge the heart. That seems like a pretty big concession to me, especially when you do compare it to beliefs like you listed above where people will deny us salvation because we don't use the right definition of 'grace'.I agree. I think it has taken a loooong time for the church to reach this point however. At one time Elder Robinson might have been chastized for teaching this quite so openly.
Obiwan Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 Hey bluebell,You may be mis-reading me.I think that in the eyes of many of his associates, a proper understanding of Protestant/Evangelical take on grace IS essential to one's salvation and since in their eyes LDS don't have that understanding, they cannot be saved. He says he now disagrees with that notion (as do I). Sometimes I wish it could work the other way as well in the sense that LDS could possibly make room for others receiving salvation without the LDS ordinances. But as I know this is impossible with a "one and only true church" paradigm, I expect little traction on this concept.Boy, you show over and over how really LITTLE and Falsely so you understand LDS Theology, willingly bearing false witness time after time.Mormonism is the ONLY actually "fully inclusive" Christian religion on the planet, despite it's truth claims. Salvatory and Celestial Ordinances are performed for ALL dead or alive for the very reason so ALL may have the "opportunity" to be saved AND exalted. In other words, everyone on the planet be it in this life or the next will have a "chance" to know and accept Christ and live with Him and the Father.Mark/Luke 9 & Romans 14 makes clear as well as LDS scriptures, theology, and practices makes clear that EVERYONE who seeks the Light is Gods, no matter their current understandings. Mormonism is fully inclusive and universal, not exclusive and condemnatory of anyones salvation. That theology is the very reason we don't have "ministry's" nor works or actions against ANY religion or people.LDS scripture further states that we are to "contend against no Church, save the Church of the devil". In other words, we are to contend and stand against evil and wrong, not religions and other believers. Christ made clear in Mark/Luke 9 that to contend against other believers even if they aren't went you is contemptable in his eyes.Thus, start getting a clue and stop bearing false witness.Obiwan: Read the board guidelines. We are not going to tolerate personal attacks. Disagree without insulting others.
Obiwan Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 I agree. I think it has taken a loooong time for the church to reach this point however. At one time Elder Robinson might have been chastized for teaching this quite so openly.You don't know a darn thing you are talking about.Mormonism has ALWAYS taught tolerance toward other religions and faiths. And pulling a few negative quotes from history doesn't change that fact, because you ignore the 100's of more times in which there are positive statements stated. Also ignoring the fact that many of those negative statements are "in response" and anger toward the much more evil and statements said about us. It's like, I'm not the bad guy for having anger toward you when YOU are bearing false witness and degrading my faith. It's that good and evil thing. Woe unto those who call evil good and good evil. You call mormonism evil in various respects bearing false witness against it, when the opposite is actually true. I thus condemn you for your evil. That doesn't make me the bad guy. Even further, most of the negative things said in the past are in fact true. True servants sometimes can and are perfectly well allowed to condemn what they will, and no need to apologize for it. Christ didn't have to apologize for his few anger bursts and condemnations, and neither do LDS leaders. But again, that doesn't mean such negativity is the "standard rule" we live by.So, stop telling us we are a "new" mormonism. There is NOTHING different about us from today compared to the past. If anything is different, it's that we are LESS righteous, just as the world itself is becoming less righteous. The Church itself however is the same in every way. It using different modern ways to promote itself doesn't mean the "message" and underlying teachings and theology is any different. To give you one example, I was first exposed to this Church "prior" to the lifting of the Priesthood ban. I found this Church, it's people, and it's teachings to be so much more tolerant than most of the other religions at the time, that I didn't even know of the Priesthood ban until it was lifted. Other than the Catholic Church at the time, it was basically the least "racist" in nature. I was active in many religions prior to coming upon mormonism. So, please spare us your ignorant judgments. You can pull NOTHING from mormonism today or of the past in which it can compare to what anti-mormons or the anti-cultists do toward us or other religions and other believers or non-believers.You seem to not have the intellectual stills to differentiate between "truth claims" about ones own faith with actions and words toward other faiths. We do the first, not the later save generally and the rare moment of teaching. In our schools, our Institutes of Religion, in our Seminary's etc., we sometimes have classes or courses on other religions, or briefly compare other religions. NONE of them do anything comparable to anti-mormonism. The Religions of the World book used in our institutes was even co-authored by a former Evangelical Minister, and yet, still nothing in that book that compares to anti-mormonism. So, don't tell us we are a more tolerant religion today than yesterday. You don't know at all what you are talking about. You take a little truth and use it to tell great lies about us. Shame.
bluebell Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 LDS scripture further states that we are to "contend against no Church, save the Church of the devil". In other words, we are to contend and stand against evil and wrong, not religions and other believers. Christ made clear in Mark/Luke 9 that to contend against other believers even if they aren't went you is contemptable in his eyes.Thus, start getting a clue and stop bearing false witness.To be fair though, LDS members have often compared the Catholic church to the church of the devil, for example. Palerider's concerns have some truth in them and can't be compared to lying.
TAO Posted January 22, 2011 Posted January 22, 2011 Palerider, I think it matters not so much that we think the saving ordinances are needed for saving... because we believe also that everyone will have them in the end, all the dead as well =D. It's foreordained to be done, I believe.
Obiwan Posted January 22, 2011 Posted January 22, 2011 To be fair though, LDS members have often compared the Catholic church to the church of the devil, for example. Palerider's concerns have some truth in them and can't be compared to lying.Yes, there has been a "Christian" tradition that interpreted/interprets the Catholic Church as the Church of the Devil and some LDS such as McConkie adopted that false idea/interpretation from those other Christians and believed such until he was corrected by the Presidency of the Church, and so he removed it from his book "Mormon Doctrine" by the second edition. But the actual "doctrine" of the Church on the subject of the Church of the Devil has been ALWAYS something else, and 99% of mormons have believed that something else. Just look in your quad scriptural helps on the subject what the actual "doctrine" is and always was. To give you another example, even Orson Pratt was corrected on this issue by the Presidency. That was one of his offensive claims of his book "The Seer". So, even from the beginning of the Church this "idea" of the Catholic Church being the Church of the Devil has been taught to be false by the Church, that the actual doctrine teaches something else.Using a "little truth" to tell a lie is STILL lying, I'm sorry to tell you. Plus, I gave that as an example, not that he was making that claim. I have no idea what his views on that are, just guessing since it's a common theme among many of most anti-mormons. "Facts" alone are not the "truth". I thought you knew that Bluebell?
bluebell Posted January 22, 2011 Posted January 22, 2011 Using a "little truth" to tell a lie is STILL lying, I'm sorry to tell you. Plus, I gave that as an example, not that he was making that claim. I have no idea what his views on that are, just guessing since it's a common theme among many of most anti-mormons. "Facts" alone are not the "truth". I thought you knew that Bluebell?It's not a lie if he sincerely believes it obiwan. He might be wrong, but that is not the same as lying. You need to stop calling everyone a liar who has an opinion you don't agree with. You are doing much more harm than good.
Skylla Posted January 22, 2011 Posted January 22, 2011 It's not a lie if he sincerely believes it obiwan. He might be wrong, but that is not the same as lying. You need to stop calling everyone a liar who has an opinion you don't agree with. You are doing much more harm than good.Agreed. Obiwan:You can make your points without calling anyone a liar. Take a break for a week.Skylla
nicolasconnault Posted January 22, 2011 Posted January 22, 2011 I usually stop reading after I see "99%"...
USU78 Posted January 22, 2011 Posted January 22, 2011 I agree. I think it has taken a loooong time for the church to reach this point however. At one time Elder Robinson might have been chastized for teaching this quite so openly.I don't agree. Not that long ago GBH in GC stated (or in words to this effect): "Bring us what you have and we will add to it!" In doing so, he was paraphrasing BY from 150 +/- years earlier.That's not a "loooong time" reaching that point. That's consistency of message.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 22, 2011 Posted January 22, 2011 "I no longer argue, as I once did, that a precondition for that salvation is a proper understanding of its heavenly manifestation and the sufficiency of the grace that makes it possible."I think for an Evangelical the above statement is giving Latter Day Saints a pretty big "benefit of the doubt". I don't think the opposite is quite so true from an LDS perspective, in that they would never see salvation available to anyone who does not accept the ordinances as prescribed by the church.My personal experience has been that systematic exposure to other points of view and differing religious practice is very healthy and broadening. So I understand very well what that evangelical found in his long-term LDS institute attendance.I used to attend an orthodox synagogue every week (Friday evening and Saturday morning) and found the experience exhilirating, the presence of God tangible. It helped that I knew Hebrew and that a close, goyische friend helped me through the prayer book (siddur) at high speed. I came to understand the spiritual and ethnic survival of the Jews over thousands of years (what T. E. Lawrence called "the eternal miracle of the Jews"). I have had similar experiences with other religions, and I have never thought that everyone has to accept the LDS ordinances in this life. That isn't even possible.I have several non-Mormon relatives (long since passed on) who spent the better part of a lifetime on foreign missions for the Presbyterian and Methodist churches. Their deep commitment to the Gospel of Jesus Christ under very difficult circumstances (in China and the Japanese Empire before WW II) has actually paved the way for the LDS missions which now exist in those same regions. Those non-Mormon ministers of the Gospel will certainly find their reward on the other side. In my view, God is "bringing in the sheaves," which reminds me of a little ditty a friend of mine and I used to sing on our way to shul (synagogue), to the tune of "Bringing in the Sheaves":"Goyim off to shul, Goyim off to shul, We will go rejoicing, Goyim off to shul!!"
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.