LDS Guy 1986 Posted March 31, 2011 Posted March 31, 2011 Is it fair to say that they believe that they too must do something apart from what Jesus has done so he can grant them eternal life? Was not Jesus baptized? Didn't he obey the commandments of the father?Didn't he receive an endowment on the Mount of Transfiguration?Didn't he selflessly serve his fellow man?Where is the LDS Church teaching us to do anything that Christ didn't do when he walked on the Earth?
kev_stevens67 Posted March 31, 2011 Posted March 31, 2011 I don't see how following the teachings of Jesus Christ would prevent one from being saved, so I voted 'No'..following the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints would not prevent one from being saved.
Questing Beast Posted March 31, 2011 Posted March 31, 2011 "Saved" and "damned" are concepts that anyone not sharing them could point to as mere assertions.My theology does not share these concepts. Rather, I believe that something closer to "always learning" is descriptive of our immortal existence. There is no ultimate "heaven" or "hell". If you are happy then heaven would be no improvement. If you are miserable then no heaven surrounding you would make the slightest difference either. I don't think this poll is stupid. It is just irrelevant....
Nathair/|\ Posted March 31, 2011 Author Posted March 31, 2011 I'm just saying, if it's our "human actions" that gives us salvation why did Jesus have to die, or even come for that matter? If the mind set is "you do your best (joining the church, obeying the word of wisdom, temple works, etc.) and Jesus will do the rest" , doesn't that rob Jesus of his glory for what he has done for us? I'm still confused about your theology. In order to be saved, do we have to believe in Christ, and if so is there anything we have to believe about Him? Will someone be saved if they believe all the "right" things, but they show no interest in following His commandments but rather act without regards to conscience, ethics or common decency? If they refrain from antisocial behavior only when prevented from doing so or because they are not in the mood?Yours under the befuddled oaks,Nathair /|\
Libs Posted March 31, 2011 Posted March 31, 2011 NOES! Reached positive vote quota A "no" vote is good for LDS. It is saying that following LDS teachings would NOT prevent someone from going to heaven.
jadams_4242 Posted March 31, 2011 Posted March 31, 2011 If the Evangelicals are correct, and all we have to do is accept Jesus into our hearts and be saved.... we've done that... and then some. So I fail to see how doing more or living to a more stringent code is going to do you harm.
Magyar Posted April 1, 2011 Posted April 1, 2011 Would a person who accepted Jesus and shouted, "I believe," in some revival service in the fog of their barely-remembered teenage years, then went on to live a life of utter dissipation, even evil, a slave to vicious habits, spurning God with all their might, rolling in the filth of willful sin, even WANT to wake up in the presence of God, halo attached to their head, based only upon those long-forgotten words?
TAO Posted April 2, 2011 Posted April 2, 2011 A "no" vote is good for LDS. It is saying that following LDS teachings would NOT prevent someone from going to heaven. Nah, I was saying that I wished to give that vote a rep-point XD. It was a good quote, so yah... actually... I'll see if I can plus it now =D.
Messenger Posted April 3, 2011 Posted April 3, 2011 There always seems to be some sort of difference of opinion when questions like this arise. First let me say, I don
Maidservant Posted April 3, 2011 Posted April 3, 2011 Salvation is not issued by ticket.Salvation is not a matter of the "afterlife".In fact, salvation is a conventional word, but the expressions in the scriptures (i.e. New Testament, but everywhere) that discuss the consequences of Jesus Christ's atonement and the consequences of the reception of this atonement by a process, by the children of God--more often use terms other than the word 'salvation'. In my opinion, it is very helpful to pay more attention to these more scripturally common concepts.For example, the scriptures (especially the New Testament) speak of "overcoming". Why aren't we debating the concept of "overcoming"? The debate over "salvation" as such, and as the be-all and end-all of atonement energy, is a modern development from either "side", not scriptural, in my understanding. Although I'm not a priori against developments in religion, I think God is always trying to develop religion for our benefit; nor do I think it possible for all truth to be located on "paper" texts, no matter how sacred they are. But in this case, I think a more plain reading of the words and accepting them as they are might be refreshingly truthful to our circumstances as human beings trying to find our way back home to God/Father.The consequences of receiving Christ's atonement are immediate and ongoing and ever-expanding and generate an eternal life. There is nothing going to be handed on a platter or entrance through pearly gates to any human being of any religion or sacrament.We will create our heaven by who we are (whatever state of body or society we find ourselves in). We cannot know or become fully who we are without following Jesus Christ. That "following" is a process, and we are all at stages of that process, even those on earth who do not know or accept the name of Christ, but who still follow the light they have.All religions have their Sacraments that they believe are required for some kind of salvation as they understand it. Catholics have theirs, LDS have theirs, Muslims have theirs, Hindus have theirs, and Evangelicals have the Sacrament of making a verbal proclamation of taking Jesus into their heart. To state that some have sacraments and others don't is disingenious in my opinion. Some may like their sacraments simple, some may like them intricate. But there is always that barrier, yes, barrier, of a sacrament that puts some people on the "inside" line of the sacrament and some on the "outside" line of the sacrament (and by extension, a salvation-by-ticket).Now, I actually have a different view of Sacraments, rituals, covenants as not binary (you have them/saved, you don't/unsaved), but rather sacraments to me are about process and becoming. But most people don't look at religion this way, they stick with the binary.People can know about the level of their "salvation" (or "overcoming", or, or, or) by looking around themselves at the life they are experiencing at the present. If all is good (without deceptions), then it will continue. If there is some misery, captivity, missing light, or anything like this . . . well, then, we ALL have farther to go.God can be with us NOW. It doesn't take death or afterlife or a particular religion per se. It takes a process to knowing God, and then he will remain with us.Of course, for myself, I find that the process provided in priesthood covenants is the most scriptural and most true way to believe (belief is process, and not binary, also) and overcome and to follow (Jesus), and I know of no other place of getting those covenants except in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So that is my personal choice.By the way, the New Testament is replete with temple text. I would love to do a thread on that with anyone.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.