The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved!

[webbles]

Concerning your obedient/disobedient list. Only "(b) attempting to be obedient and repents as necessary" is applicable to anyone and describes every believer.

So, no, I don't think a person can truly have faith and is always disobedient.

It appears to me that the 4th article of Faith (of the LDS) requires those 5 things for a person to be saved? (question mark because I don't know)

I don't think they are similar as I see obedience as a fruit out of true faith. No fruit, indicates no true faith. But, it's not the fruit that saves, it's the faith or trust in Christ alone that saves.

All right, so you do believe that if a person has faith, they have to have the fruits of obedience. Or in other words, faith depends on the fruit of obedience or else it isn't true faith. So:

1 - Salvation is dependent on Faith (Faith alone saves you)

2 - Faith depends on Obedience (no fruit, indicates no true faith)

3 - Thus Salvation depends on Obedience as well (since if A depends on B and B depends on C, A has to depend on C as well)

So, you do believe that Salvation depends on obedience as long as that obedience is the fruit of faith. That still sounds like the 4th Article of Faith. First you need faith, then you need the fruits of obedience (repentance, baptism, gift of the holy ghost, etc.) I'm perfectly fine with you saying "it's not the fruit that saves" because I can agree with you and it doesn't invalidate the logic.

Now that we have that common ground, let me present a scenario and a few questions:

Story:

I'm a nice married man who also has a mistress. I visit my mistress about once a month. One day, my heart is touched by the gospel and I start gaining faith. I begin to change my ways because of my faith. I start treating others nicely. I start reading the Bible. I have the fruits of obedience, except that I continue visiting my mistress.

Question 1:

What would you do if you were a friend of mine or my religious leader and you knew I was still committing adultery? Would you tell me to strengthen my faith or would you tell me to obey the commandments? Or would you say that I'm showing a lack of faith by not obeying the commandments? Or would you just say that since I have faith, I'm saved and it doesn't matter.

Story:

Somehow, I'm told that my continuing visitations with my mistress is not good. I agree, but for some reason I don't stop (maybe because I really like my mistress, I don't want to hurt her feelings, or my job depends on it). I continue through life being obedient or repenting as necessary in all aspects of my life except for the mistress.

Question 2:

Would you attempt to correct me again or would you just leave me alone?

Story:

I never change my ways with my mistress (even though you and the Holy Spirit attempted multiple times) and die like that.

Question 3:

Since I've attempted to be obedient in every other way except with my mistress, would I be saved? Would my explicit refusal to obey the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery" not prevent my salvation, even though I had plenty of time to change and was given the chance multiple times to change?

If you say that I am saved, then how many commandments can I expressly disobey and still be saved?

Based on what you've written previously, I think you'd say "he's not a true believer, he's only doing what's in his heart, and his actions expose who he really is." Am I correct in assuming that?

The analogy of your children has to do with relationship and it's correlation to obedience. It's a relationship with God/Christ that saves, not obedience. It's the relationship with your kids that gives them access to you and all you offer as the parent, not their obedience. And to push the analogy further, their obedience to you is based on the relationship you have with them. If they feel grateful and loved, obedience will be a natural "fruit" of the relationship that is formed. If on the other hand, they feel hurt and abused, they might just act out and be disobedient for various reasons. The obedience is a fruit or a result of the type of relationship, than it is anything else.

I don't think your analogy is going to help you. First off, the relationship with my children requires no faith on their part. So, this same relationship with God also requires no faith. I love my kids no matter what they do and God loves us no matter what we do. But, just because I love my kids, doesn't mean that they get access to me and everything I offer (same with God). If I ask them to keep a curfew and they disobey, they loose access to my vehicles. If I ask them to not smoke in the house and they do, they loose access to the house. If I ask them to not do drugs and they do, I put them in jail and they loose access to my company except during visiting hours. In all of those three cases, I still love them and I still have a relationship with them. But they've lost access to me and they've lost access to what I offer. And all because of their actions. Now, if they repent, they can regain their access to me. But in that case, I do not call them disobedient, I call them obedient (under the (b) part).

Why is it incorrect to say, "Faith and obedience will save you?" because it's not true. It's not faith and obedience. It's just faith.

Here's an interesting side note. The emphasis on "obedience" has a negative effect on people. It causes comparisons among people. Comparisons are powerful things. And never good.

Let's take an example. John get saved, and was raised as a good boy, but not a believer. But, his upbringing was pretty much as "religious" as one could be, without being so. John was an atheist until I was 17. And another guy (Frank) was beaten most all of his childhood, his dad was an angry drunk and did unspeakable things to him. Frank ran away and got into more trouble, and continued to deal with his pain (both emotional and physical) by lashing out at people. Frank went to jail and but got saved in the process. He still has many emotional and psychological issues, but he's saved, just as John is.

Now, by comparison, Frank still smokes and swears on occasion, and still has a lot of anger, none of which John has. It appears that John is much more obedient than Frank is, right? Why is that? Because we're comparing John with Frank. As I said, comparisons are powerful things. And not at all fair. Why isn't it fair to compare these two? Well, it's very simple. Both have a different set of difficulties to deal with. For John it's very easy to stay consistent and attend church every week, and tithe and pray, etc.. For Frank, it's all very difficult. He struggles to even go to church, let alone tithe.

Why is it incorrect to say, "Faith and obedience will save you?" Because the person observing, (ie God) sees all, and knows who is obedient and who isn't. God looks at the Heart. What happens when the church starts to preach the 4th article of Faith? It uses it to condemn people. It uses it as a big hammer to come down on those who are not living up to *their* expectations. Remember, Christ said, that he didn't come into the world to condemn the world? Remember, when Jesus pointed out that the Widow put in more in the offering plate than anyone else?

It's wrong to focus on the external, which is what saying obedience will save you, does. God looks at the heart, and wants a relationship. Because through that loving relationship, he can change the person from the inside out. We can't do it ourselves, as the Jews have proven to us with the law.

The same interesting side note can be given about emphasis on faith. We all have a bad tendency of judging each other. Its almost like it is hard wired into us . And since we like to judge, how do we go about judging people's faith? By the fruits, one of which is obedience. So de-emphasizing obedience doesn't help with that issue. It just "hides" it.

The phrase "Faith and obedience will save you" is meant to help you achieve salvation (not help you in judging people). It reminds you that you need to have faith and you need to have the fruits of obedience. It reminds you that if you think you have faith and are not being obedient, then you need to work on your faith.

Your entire explanation against the phrase "Faith and obedience will save you" sounds like you misread that phrase. Its as if you read the phrase as "Faith and obedience will save you". Maybe if we reword it as "Faith that has the fruit of obedience will save you."

[GingerRed]

Hughes

The big difference between your faith and ours....is that we believe in living Prophets and continuing revelation. A Prophet is the mouthpiece for the Lord. They have been since the begining. There are so many different interpertations of the Scriptures, that's why Jospeh Smith turned to God Himself to ask and pray, which way should I go? Who do I believe? Which one is right?

We beleive the Lord speaks though our Prophet, Pres. Monson. He is no different than any other Prophet..Moses, Abraham, etc who God spoke to. We get our inpertations of the Scriptures, our theology, our beliefs from our Prophets who, though the years, God spoke to and told him which was right, and then our Prophet speaks to us to tell us what the Lord revealed to him. Our free angency plays a very important role in that. We are free to choose good from evil. We are free to decide, pray about and fast to know these teachings are true. We are free to follow the commandments or not.

For me, since I not only beleive, but I know, the Scriptures the way they are taught to me from my religion, is that same as if God spoke to me Himself, because they came directly from the Father and His Son. So for me to reject it, is like rejecting God Himself.

In your religion, you go only from the Bible. I love the Bible too as much as I love our BOM. We just got through studying the Old Testement all last year in our sunday school and now we studying the New Testement for all of this year.

So because I beleive that faith alone is not enough, I get that belief from the Lord, who told our prophets, who told us. Not just from the words on a page in the Bible...but living proof. We believe in a living, resurrected Christ and His Father who still speak to their children today, though their chosen mouthpiece. We also believe in personal revelation, so we can also hear what the Lord wants us to do.

Thats why you can't convince most Mormons that just faith is the way to salvation. Because we know through modern revelation that it isn't. Unless our Prophets told us to change into YOUR way of thinking, then it won't happen. At least not for me.

Red

[Hughes]

All right, so you do believe that if a person has faith, they have to have the fruits of obedience. Or in other words, faith depends on the fruit of obedience or else it isn't true faith. So:

1 - Salvation is dependent on Faith (Faith alone saves you)

2 - Faith depends on Obedience (no fruit, indicates no true faith)

3 - Thus Salvation depends on Obedience as well (since if A depends on B and B depends on C, A has to depend on C as well)

So, you do believe that Salvation depends on obedience as long as that obedience is the fruit of faith. That still sounds like the 4th Article of Faith. First you need faith, then you need the fruits of obedience (repentance, baptism, gift of the holy ghost, etc.) I'm perfectly fine with you saying "it's not the fruit that saves" because I can agree with you and it doesn't invalidate the logic.

First, no. If a person has faith, they don't *have* to have anything. In other words, faith doesn't depend on the fruit of obedience. The use of the word "depend" is where I disagree.

If I was to reword your statement, I'd say that the fruit of obedience follows faith.

Thus your conclusion #3, that salvation depends on obedience is in error.

Now that we have that common ground, let me present a scenario and a few questions:

Story:

I'm a nice married man who also has a mistress. I visit my mistress about once a month. One day, my heart is touched by the gospel and I start gaining faith. I begin to change my ways because of my faith. I start treating others nicely. I start reading the Bible. I have the fruits of obedience, except that I continue visiting my mistress.

Question 1:

What would you do if you were a friend of mine or my religious leader and you knew I was still committing adultery? Would you tell me to strengthen my faith or would you tell me to obey the commandments? Or would you say that I'm showing a lack of faith by not obeying the commandments? Or would you just say that since I have faith, I'm saved and it doesn't matter.

Story:

Somehow, I'm told that my continuing visitations with my mistress is not good. I agree, but for some reason I don't stop (maybe because I really like my mistress, I don't want to hurt her feelings, or my job depends on it). I continue through life being obedient or repenting as necessary in all aspects of my life except for the mistress.

Question 2:

Would you attempt to correct me again or would you just leave me alone?

Story:

I never change my ways with my mistress (even though you and the Holy Spirit attempted multiple times) and die like that.

Question 3:

Since I've attempted to be obedient in every other way except with my mistress, would I be saved? Would my explicit refusal to obey the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery" not prevent my salvation, even though I had plenty of time to change and was given the chance multiple times to change?

If you say that I am saved, then how many commandments can I expressly disobey and still be saved?

Based on what you've written previously, I think you'd say "he's not a true believer, he's only doing what's in his heart, and his actions expose who he really is." Am I correct in assuming that?

I bolded your pharisaic question. Your question isn't one that any man can answer. Man doesn't see the heart, only God.

So, your story paints a picture of either a really immature believer, or someone who isn't a believer at all, but in name only. As I said, though, only God knows if he's saved, because only God can see his heart.

Re: Your questions. I would follow Jesus' instruction in Matt 18

I don't think your analogy is going to help you. First off, the relationship with my children requires no faith on their part. So, this same relationship with God also requires no faith. I love my kids no matter what they do and God loves us no matter what we do. But, just because I love my kids, doesn't mean that they get access to me and everything I offer (same with God). If I ask them to keep a curfew and they disobey, they loose access to my vehicles. If I ask them to not smoke in the house and they do, they loose access to the house. If I ask them to not do drugs and they do, I put them in jail and they loose access to my company except during visiting hours. In all of those three cases, I still love them and I still have a relationship with them. But they've lost access to me and they've lost access to what I offer. And all because of their actions. Now, if they repent, they can regain their access to me. But in that case, I do not call them disobedient, I call them obedient (under the (b) part).

Your reference to faith or not is irrelevant. Because if you believe in God, you know he's your God, you no longer simply "believe" or have faith, because you've established a relationship. And that's where the analogy starts.

Your description of how your kids disobedience has negative effects on your relationship is accurate, and I'm not denying that. What I'm simply pointing out is that the relationship isn't established or held together because of "things you do..." or obedience. Rather, it's based on who you are, and with God, who you put your trust in.

In essence, people aren't condemned because of their actions, but because of their rejection of God. God has already forgiven sins, all is ready for a relationship to be established.

The same interesting side note can be given about emphasis on faith. We all have a bad tendency of judging each other. Its almost like it is hard wired into us . And since we like to judge, how do we go about judging people's faith? By the fruits, one of which is obedience. So de-emphasizing obedience doesn't help with that issue. It just "hides" it.

The phrase "Faith and obedience will save you" is meant to help you achieve salvation (not help you in judging people). It reminds you that you need to have faith and you need to have the fruits of obedience. It reminds you that if you think you have faith and are not being obedient, then you need to work on your faith.

Your entire explanation against the phrase "Faith and obedience will save you" sounds like you misread that phrase. Its as if you read the phrase as "Faith and obedience will save you". Maybe if we reword it as "Faith that has the fruit of obedience will save you."

We all don't have a tendency of judging each other, sorry. Those of us who understand that it's all Grace don't worry about what is God's job in the first place.

If you actually believed that these two statements were equal, then why quibble about them, and just use, "Faith that has the fruit of obedience will save you."

[webbles]

First, no. If a person has faith, they don't *have* to have anything. In other words, faith doesn't depend on the fruit of obedience. The use of the word "depend" is where I disagree.

If I was to reword your statement, I'd say that the fruit of obedience follows faith.

Thus your conclusion #3, that salvation depends on obedience is in error.

Hughes, I think you just contradicted yourself.

First, in post #198, you stated "No fruit, indicates no true faith". Here, you just stated that true faith doesn't need any fruit. So, does "no fruit" mean "no true faith" or not?

Second, if you don't have the fruit of obedience, then that means you have the fruit of disobedience. This is because obedience and disobedience are opposites of each other. You either obey or disobey, there isn't a neutral position. And you stated back in post #198: "I don't think a person can truly have faith and is always disobedient." And here you just stated that a person with faith doesn't need the fruit of obedience, or to reword it with the same meaning, a person with faith can have the fruit of disobedience. So, can you be disobedient and have faith?

Maybe the issue is terminology. Again, an obedient person is not one who is perfect but one who is "attempting to be obedient and repents as necessary" as I stated in #195.

I bolded your pharisaic question. Your question isn't one that any man can answer. Man doesn't see the heart, only God.

So, your story paints a picture of either a really immature believer, or someone who isn't a believer at all, but in name only. As I said, though, only God knows if he's saved, because only God can see his heart.

Re: Your questions. I would follow Jesus' instruction in Matt 18

It looks like you answered the same way I would have.

Your reference to faith or not is irrelevant. Because if you believe in God, you know he's your God, you no longer simply "believe" or have faith, because you've established a relationship. And that's where the analogy starts.

Your description of how your kids disobedience has negative effects on your relationship is accurate, and I'm not denying that. What I'm simply pointing out is that the relationship isn't established or held together because of "things you do..." or obedience. Rather, it's based on who you are, and with God, who you put your trust in.

In essence, people aren't condemned because of their actions, but because of their rejection of God. God has already forgiven sins, all is ready for a relationship to be established.

I think I see why I am confused. You are dealing with my statement that a relationship includes both obedience and faith. Your analogy is making sense now. It looks like we had a miscommunication on what the relationship entails.

But, your analogy doesn't work for you on the statement of "faith alone saves". If the "saves" in the analogy is access to all I have to offer, that is not available to my kids just because they have a relationship with me. If they are not obedient, then they will loose access (to the car, house, my presence, etc). I want to give it to them, but I'll only give it to those that are worthy of it.

It actually looks like your analogy works better for me than it does for you.

We all don't have a tendency of judging each other, sorry. Those of us who understand that it's all Grace don't worry about what is God's job in the first place.

If you actually believed that these two statements were equal, then why quibble about them, and just use, "Faith that has the fruit of obedience will save you."

I'm not the one who brought up judging in the first place . I was just pointing out that talking only about faith can still create comparisons.

As for quibbling, I'm trying to understand what you think. I don't see how those two statements are different and yet you do.

[Hughes]

Hughes, I think you just contradicted yourself.

First, in post #198, you stated "No fruit, indicates no true faith". Here, you just stated that true faith doesn't need any fruit. So, does "no fruit" mean "no true faith" or not?

Second, if you don't have the fruit of obedience, then that means you have the fruit of disobedience. This is because obedience and disobedience are opposites of each other. You either obey or disobey, there isn't a neutral position. And you stated back in post #198: "I don't think a person can truly have faith and is always disobedient." And here you just stated that a person with faith doesn't need the fruit of obedience, or to reword it with the same meaning, a person with faith can have the fruit of disobedience. So, can you be disobedient and have faith?

Maybe the issue is terminology. Again, an obedient person is not one who is perfect but one who is "attempting to be obedient and repents as necessary" as I stated in #195.

If you're looking to catch me in a contradiction, have fun. I'm not interested in playing.

If you listened to what I said. I was disagreeing with your latest statement that faith was dependent on obedience. It isn't.

I think I see why I am confused. You are dealing with my statement that a relationship includes both obedience and faith. Your analogy is making sense now. It looks like we had a miscommunication on what the relationship entails.

But, your analogy doesn't work for you on the statement of "faith alone saves". If the "saves" in the analogy is access to all I have to offer, that is not available to my kids just because they have a relationship with me. If they are not obedient, then they will loose access (to the car, house, my presence, etc). I want to give it to them, but I'll only give it to those that are worthy of it.

It actually looks like your analogy works better for me than it does for you.

It actually doesn't matter what you think works or doesn't work. If you don't understand the point of the analogy, then I've failed.

The point was that salvation rests on a relationship with Christ, and that it. If you wish to think that all your relationships are based on obedience, then I don't know what to say.

I'm not the one who brought up judging in the first place . I was just pointing out that talking only about faith can still create comparisons.

As for quibbling, I'm trying to understand what you think. I don't see how those two statements are different and yet you do.

You don't see the two statements as different?

Here's the two statements:

"Faith and obedience will save you"

"Faith that has the fruit of obedience will save you."

In the first one, faith and obedience are set as equally important in the saving. Not so in the second. Faith saves, and obedience is the result.

If you honestly don't think they are different, then again I don't know what to say to a person who thinks that two things that are clearly different, are the same.

John 5:24

[Hughes]

Hughes

The big difference between your faith and ours....is that we believe in living Prophets and continuing revelation. A Prophet is the mouthpiece for the Lord. They have been since the begining. There are so many different interpertations of the Scriptures, that's why Jospeh Smith turned to God Himself to ask and pray, which way should I go? Who do I believe? Which one is right?

We beleive the Lord speaks though our Prophet, Pres. Monson. He is no different than any other Prophet..Moses, Abraham, etc who God spoke to. We get our inpertations of the Scriptures, our theology, our beliefs from our Prophets who, though the years, God spoke to and told him which was right, and then our Prophet speaks to us to tell us what the Lord revealed to him. Our free angency plays a very important role in that. We are free to choose good from evil. We are free to decide, pray about and fast to know these teachings are true. We are free to follow the commandments or not.

For me, since I not only beleive, but I know, the Scriptures the way they are taught to me from my religion, is that same as if God spoke to me Himself, because they came directly from the Father and His Son. So for me to reject it, is like rejecting God Himself.

In your religion, you go only from the Bible. I love the Bible too as much as I love our BOM. We just got through studying the Old Testement all last year in our sunday school and now we studying the New Testement for all of this year.

So because I beleive that faith alone is not enough, I get that belief from the Lord, who told our prophets, who told us. Not just from the words on a page in the Bible...but living proof. We believe in a living, resurrected Christ and His Father who still speak to their children today, though their chosen mouthpiece. We also believe in personal revelation, so we can also hear what the Lord wants us to do.

Thats why you can't convince most Mormons that just faith is the way to salvation. Because we know through modern revelation that it isn't. Unless our Prophets told us to change into YOUR way of thinking, then it won't happen. At least not for me.

Red

Red,

If you're happy, then who am I to try and change you?

I'm not interested in what someone says. I'm interested in the truth. I've been learning about mormonism and I agree, it's total devotion to the teachings of Joseph Smith. Without whom there'd be no mormonism.

[webbles]

If you're looking to catch me in a contradiction, have fun. I'm not interested in playing.

If you listened to what I said. I was disagreeing with your latest statement that faith was dependent on obedience. It isn't.

It actually doesn't matter what you think works or doesn't work. If you don't understand the point of the analogy, then I've failed.

The point was that salvation rests on a relationship with Christ, and that it. If you wish to think that all your relationships are based on obedience, then I don't know what to say.

You don't see the two statements as different?

Here's the two statements:

"Faith and obedience will save you"

"Faith that has the fruit of obedience will save you."

In the first one, faith and obedience are set as equally important in the saving. Not so in the second. Faith saves, and obedience is the result.

If you honestly don't think they are different, then again I don't know what to say to a person who thinks that two things that are clearly different, are the same.

John 5:24

[GingerRed]

Red,

If you're happy, then who am I to try and change you?

I'm not interested in what someone says. I'm interested in the truth. I've been learning about mormonism and I agree, it's total devotion to the teachings of Joseph Smith. Without whom there'd be no mormonism.

Wrong....I didn't say it was "total devotion to the teaching of Joseph Smith." Don't put words in my mouth. He is only the founder of the restored gospel. Jesus Christ is the head of our church. Didn't I just say we are studying the New Testement in our Sunday school class? Joseph's name was not even mentioned once. Nor was it mentioned in our Sacrament meeting. Josephs Smith's 'teachings' are not HIS teachings...they are the teachings of Christ and Heavenly Father. And that IS the truth.

Of course there would be no LDS church if it wasnt for him. God the Father and Jesus appeared to him. However, if it HADN'T been him, it would have been someone else. The Lord doesn't allow His prophets to lead us astray.

Red

[bu11fr0g]

I think that the real answer is might be more complicated.

(1) Essentially none of us are living perfectly now.

(2) Any who hope to have salvation depend on ongoing repentance

(3) Sins make us unclean and unable to be in God's presence

(4) We depend on Christ's atonement to be reconciled; calling on that atonement is faith. Belief in and of itself is insufficient.

(5) After we die, we will have an alotted period of time to continue to repent before judgment

(6) If we are on the right tract, we will continue to repent. However, our predilections will still be present.

(7) Few forms of disobedience are so wanton that they prevent us from being able to repent. Some people have so fully turned away from the truth, that they may find themselves incapable of repenting.

( After a time period between when we die and have a chance to continue to repent from a framework of more perfect awareness, we will be judged.

(9) If we have been able to fully call on the atonement, we will be saved.

(10) Christ only narrowly limits what sins cannot be atoned for (sin against holy ghost, murder)

(11) God in the end will be the judge with Christ as our advocate as to whether or not we can enter into His rest. We don't know how He will judge but have hope that we will be found on His right hand.

(12) There is a hint about how this judgment will take place based on the descriptions of the three kingdoms and outer darkness.

While on this earth, we should practice works of righteousness, repent of sins, consciously try to perfect our behavior to becoming more like Christ's; but we will fail to fully live up to this ideal. Even as we fail, we can have faith in the atonement of Christ to repent and have hope for salvation.

~

In contrast: Some evangelicals are along the lines of

(1) I believe in Christ as shown in an experience that I have had where I took Him as my Lord.

(2) I am saved because of that irregardless of my subsequent behavior.

(3) Belief in Christ results in a change in personal behavior.

~

The real difference between these two frameworks is whether or not ongoing repentance is necessary. I have met evangelicals who have stated that repentance is an act of denying faith in the initial experience; that a saved person not only does not need to repent, but should not repent.

Moreover, even the meaning of repentance markedly differs. For Mormons, repentance is a multistep process that includes never doing the act again. Some evangelicals regard repentance as a "turning towards Christ" without any amends, recognition, remorse, etc. about previous sinful behavior.

I think that this is the reason that sometimes the groups will talk past each other without even recognizing it.

[Hughes]

Wow, I guess I struck a chord. I'm not trying to find a contradiction, I'm trying to figure out how you think and see if there is agreement. Reading what you write makes me feel that you pretty much believe the same thing I do (at least with regards to the relationship between salvation, faith and obedience). So, I attempt to take what you say and reword it according to how I understood it. This way, I can make sure that I'm understanding you correctly. But this last post, you appeared as if you had done a reversal and I was asking for clarification. I had thought for sure you would agree with it since it was pretty much your own words (in fact, the words in parenthesis next to the first two points are your words).

But, apparently this conversation has come to an end. It was great talking with you and very enlightening. I still don't understand why you are going to such great lengths to throw obedience under the bus but I can partially understand why you use the phrase "faith alone saves". I hope you can understand that I also believe faith is extremely important for salvation. But, for me, faith must include obedience for it to be faith and that means that salvation must include obedience. Faith alone might get you that relationship, but without obedience, you won't get any of the rewards.

(I'm horrible at scriptural one-lines but I'll try with one a few verses later of yours, John 5: 29 "they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.")

I bolded that last statement of yours because we weren't talking about rewards, we were talking about salvation.

[Hughes]

Wrong....I didn't say it was "total devotion to the teaching of Joseph Smith." Don't put words in my mouth. He is only the founder of the restored gospel. Jesus Christ is the head of our church. Didn't I just say we are studying the New Testement in our Sunday school class? Joseph's name was not even mentioned once. Nor was it mentioned in our Sacrament meeting. Josephs Smith's 'teachings' are not HIS teachings...they are the teachings of Christ and Heavenly Father. And that IS the truth.

Of course there would be no LDS church if it wasnt for him. God the Father and Jesus appeared to him. However, if it HADN'T been him, it would have been someone else. The Lord doesn't allow His prophets to lead us astray.

Red

For a follower of the LDS faith all of the Bible is viewed through the lens of the teachings of Joseph Smith.

You disagree with this statement?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

For a follower of the LDS faith all of the Bible is viewed through the lens of the teachings of Joseph Smith.

You disagree with this statement?

Yes.

I would say that the bible is viewed through the lens of the teachings of God as revealed through JS.

That is a vastly different statement then what you have made.

[TAO]

For a follower of the LDS faith all of the Bible is viewed through the lens of the teachings of Joseph Smith.

You disagree with this statement?

Yes, just as for other Christian faiths, the Bible is viewed through the lens of Martin Luther, or in the case of the RC church, the Pope, or in the case of a few other denominations, their founder.

And all people also look through it through their own lens as well.

It's pretty much applicable to everyone. So I don't see any use in pointing it out.

[GingerRed]

For a follower of the LDS faith all of the Bible is viewed through the lens of the teachings of Joseph Smith.

You disagree with this statement?

Absolutly disagree! I just told you we were studying the New Testement in our Sunday School last Sunday and Joseph Smith's name was never mentioned. We discussed what was directly from the Bible. You don't listen very well, do you?

I also am getting the impression you don't know what the role of a prophet is or how they are supposed to be a mouthpiece for the Lord.

Red

[Hughes]

Yes.

I would say that the bible is viewed through the lens of the teachings of God as revealed through JS.

That is a vastly different statement then what you have made.

"as revealed through JS"

I don't see an appreciable difference between my statement and yours. I'm happy with using yours.

Yes, just as for other Christian faiths, the Bible is viewed through the lens of Martin Luther, or in the case of the RC church, the Pope, or in the case of a few other denominations, their founder.

And all people also look through it through their own lens as well.

It's pretty much applicable to everyone. So I don't see any use in pointing it out.

Of course speaking generally isn't aways good, but most people who belong to other churches don't reference the "Luther" translation, or the RC, The Pope or other denominational translations. They just don't exist.

Yet LDS rely on the "teachings of God as revealed through JS."

You don't see this statement in other christian churches - "teachings of God as revealed through Luther, etc".

Absolutly disagree! I just told you we were studying the New Testement in our Sunday School last Sunday and Joseph Smith's name was never mentioned. We discussed what was directly from the Bible. You don't listen very well, do you?

I also am getting the impression you don't know what the role of a prophet is or how they are supposed to be a mouthpiece for the Lord.

Red

Joseph Smith's name doesn't need to be mentioned for the "teachings of God as revealed through JS" to be used, that argument isn't even worthy of trying to refute.

[volgadon]

but most people who belong to other churches don't reference the "Luther" translation

The Germans do.

[volgadon]

Martin Luther's name doesn't need to be mentioned for the "teachings of God as revealed through ML" to be used.

[Hughes]

The Germans do.

Looks like you agree with me. "Most" certainly isn't Germans.

Martin Luther's name doesn't need to be mentioned for the "teachings of God as revealed through ML" to be used.

Another agreement. Yes.

[Vance]

Martin Luther's name doesn't need to be mentioned for the "teachings of God as revealed through ML" to be used.

You mean like the false doctrine of "the priesthood of all believers" which was fabricated by Martin Luther?

[Nathair/|\]

You mean like the false doctrine of "the priesthood of all believers" which was fabricated by Martin Luther?

Or the false doctrine promulgated by some modern Protestants that one can be a citizen of the Kingdom of God without baptism performed by one of His authorized agents?

[Hughes]

Or the false doctrine promulgated by some modern Protestants that one can be a citizen of the Kingdom of God without baptism performed by one of His authorized agents?

Yeah, like Jesus, who taught that the basis for citizenship was relationship, not actions.

Matt. 7:21

[Vance]

Yeah, like Jesus, who taught that the basis for citizenship was relationship, not actions.

Not actions?

Seriously?

Matt. 7:21

[volgadon]

Yeah, like Jesus, who taught that the basis for citizenship was relationship, not actions.

And the relationship was intrinsically bound with actions.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yeah, like Jesus, who taught that the basis for citizenship was relationship, not actions.

Matt. 7:21

[Hughes]

Not actions?

Seriously?

The verses you cite refute your assertion.

Back to ignoring you.

I do appreciate you ignoring me.

And the relationship was intrinsically bound with actions.

"I never knew you..." Indicating that it was the relationship (knowing) that was the key.

Good greif hughes. I can no longer take you seriously (not that that ship sailed long ago before this). This holds true only if you ignore all of these verses you just quoated.

So sorry.

The quoted section is about false teachers. It's talks about doing the "will" of him who sent Jesus.

What was the greatest commandment? You must love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind. Right?

Notice that doing the will of him who sent Jesus is to Love. It's all about love. And love is the basis for what? A relationship.

Now, also notice. The quoted passage contains an interesting example. Those who *claimed* to do his will were *doing* prophesy in his name and in his name drove out demons and in his name performed many miracles, correct?

So, we have a group of people who *do* things in the name of Jesus, but don't *know* him. Now isn't that interesting? I wonder how that could happen? Do you happen to have any idea how a group of people could do miracles and prophesy in the name of Jesus yet not have a relationship with him? I mean could a group of people go around emphasizing the great works they do in the name of Jesus? And down play and criticize those who emphasize how relationship with God is the most important aspect of our Christian life? Could a group like that possibly exist? I mean the greatest commandment is clear, how could anyone miss that? I don't know, but Jesus said that a group like that exists.