danielwoods Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 Daniel: I appreciate your answering my questions, and I know what it is like to carry on several conversations at once. When I do so, I sometimes don't carefully consider the questions or comments to which I reply.Please let me ask you this: What is grace? It's no problem. I appreciate your questions. Grace by definition is "Unmerited favor" something that one doesn't work for.
danielwoods Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 It's true that most LDS do not separate Christ from the Church that He set up and is the head of. But we see that as actually trusting Christ more, not less. We trust that He gives us the church because it's necessary, and we trust that He can use the church to help us return to Him, and that the Kingdom of Heaven (which we believe the church to be a part of) plays a part in the plan of salvation because He has set it up that way. I believe differently. Excellent insight. I wonder if many non-LDS Christians ever stop to think it is by the very means which you cite (Christ's earthly Church) that the New Testament was produced. Which means are your referring to? The eye-witness accounts? You could make the same argument about evangelical Christians. Many trust the Bible and Paul more than Christ. Some would say Catholics trust the Papacy more than Christ. Some would say Lutherans, Calvinists, Methodists etc trust the teachings of their founders on Christ and the Bible more than Christ.The problem you describe is equally present in both traditional Christians and Mormonism.Both religions teach faith and trust in Christ.Both religions have members that place their trust in other areas. In the end all knowledge either religion has of Christ comes from the teachings of those they revere as prophets and apostles, and their writings. You cannot have your trust and faith in Christ without being taught of him by someone mortal. We accept additional teachers to you, but the principle is the same. Your "trust and faith in Christ" cannot be formed in a vacuum any more than ours can. We accept additional information on Christ as revealed from heaven since God has always taught men more since the beginning of time. I would argue we are able to have MORE faith and MORE trust in Christ because we know MORE about him than a limited closed canon. I know you say "major additions or changes", but that is a different debate for a different thread. As I have argued before, telling someone that this is "additional information" when it changes the original message is not actually additional information at all, it's simply a brand new idea. In fact, I've seen you make the same argument about LDS doctrine, when people question old LDS doctrines as not from God. This is the same principle, and in my mind it negates the "additional information" taught by the LDS. As far as making the same argument about evangelicals. The problem of trusting the Church or a charismatic leader instead of Christ is common and easy to fall into. However, few if any evangelical churches claim to be the "one true church" established by Christ. Rather, our view is that only he knows who are his and apart of his Church. So, it doesn't really happen as a result of the teachings of a particular church, like it does with the LDS.
JLHPROF Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 (edited) The problem of trusting the Church or a charismatic leader instead of Christ is common and easy to fall into. However, few if any evangelical churches claim to be the "one true church" established by Christ. Rather, our view is that only he knows who are his and apart of his Church. So, it doesn't really happen as a result of the teachings of a particular church, like it does with the LDS. Nonsense.You still haven't addressed how you even know of this Christ and the atonement in which you place your faith.You only know of Christ as the result of the teachings of a particular Church and its leaders.Without the teachings of charismatic leaders you would have no Christ to put your faith in. Edited June 14, 2015 by JLHPROF 3
bluebell Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 I believe differently. I understand that, but from my perspective, that doesn't matter in the least. You're not allowed to interpret my beliefs for me, so what you think of them is really irrelevant. The same is true for what i think about your beliefs. 3
Okrahomer Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 I understand that, but from my perspective, that doesn't matter in the least. You're not allowed to interpret my beliefs for me, so what you think of them is really irrelevant. The same is true for what i think about your beliefs. Thank you for this clear-eyed, charitable way of expressing things!!
danielwoods Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 Nonsense.You still haven't addressed how you even know of this Christ and the atonement in which you place your faith.You only know of Christ as the result of the teachings of a particular Church and its leaders.Without the teachings of charismatic leaders you would have no Christ to put your faith in. Actually, I know of Christ because of many things. The main is those who were eye-witnesses and wrote down what they witnessed for others to read about. It wasn't the result of a particular Church, but all those things lead me to Christ.
danielwoods Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 I understand that, but from my perspective, that doesn't matter in the least. You're not allowed to interpret my beliefs for me, so what you think of them is really irrelevant. The same is true for what i think about your beliefs. Sorry I didn't think I was interpreting your beliefs for you. I was simply sharing my perspective.
JLHPROF Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 (edited) Actually, I know of Christ because of many things. The main is those who were eye-witnesses and wrote down what they witnessed for others to read about. It wasn't the result of a particular Church, but all those things lead me to Christ. Eyewitnesses?Which writers of the Bible knew Christ personally?I'll let one of our resident scholars explain how little of the New Testament was actually written by people who met Christ during his life. One thing I do know is that Paul had no more authority in his writing than Joseph Smith. Both gained their knowledge of the Savior by revelation/vision. Neither knew Christ during his time on earth. Edited June 15, 2015 by JLHPROF 1
Sp0ckrates Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 It's no problem. I appreciate your questions. Grace by definition is "Unmerited favor" something that one doesn't work for.I guess I'm confused. You said:I tried to explain it above. Let me say it in a different way. "By Grace are you saved..." Grace for what exactly? If not for our sins, then what could it be? By Grace are you saved through faith. So, the very mention of Grace is a reference to the need for repentance and forgiveness, which happens by grace.But if grace is undeserved favor, then it seems to me someone who refuses to repent would be undeserving. So why does the very mention of undeserved favor reference a need for repentance? If God forgave the unrepentant, wouldn't his favor be even more undeserved? 2
Jude2 Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 Jesus alone was given the authority to judge so I certainly am not going to “judge” myself eternally saved. “And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted” Matt 23:12
danielwoods Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 Eyewitnesses?Which writers of the Bible knew Christ personally?I'll let one of our resident scholars explain how little of the New Testament was actually written by people who met Christ during his life. One thing I do know is that Paul had no more authority in his writing than Joseph Smith. Both gained their knowledge of the Savior by revelation/vision. Neither knew Christ during his time on earth.There is one main difference between Paul and Joseph Smith. Paul met with those who were actually witnesses to each event, and made sure his message was in line with theirs. Peter claims to be an eye-witness to these events. Acts 5:32 "We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”
Anakin7 Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 (edited) dw I would invite you to google search an article by John Gee entitled "The Grace of Christ" where he demonstrates that in the Anchient middle east in Biblical Era times Grace was absolutly unmerited Favor which we believe but also had multipe other definitional meanings in the True Hearts/Minds of the True Hebrews/Israelites/Saints/Christians/Non Believers. In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7 Edited June 15, 2015 by Anakin7
danielwoods Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 (edited) I guess I'm confused. You said: I tried to explain it above. Let me say it in a different way. "By Grace are you saved..." Grace for what exactly? If not for our sins, then what could it be? By Grace are you saved through faith. So, the very mention of Grace is a reference to the need for repentance and forgiveness, which happens by grace.But if grace is undeserved favor, then it seems to me someone who refuses to repent would be undeserving. So why does the very mention of undeserved favor reference a need for repentance? If God forgave the unrepentant, wouldn't his favor be even more undeserved? Even forgiving those who want to repent is an extension of "undeserved favor to that person". You question is curious though. Let's think about it for a second. A person who comes to Christ does so for a reason. Something is motivating them to seek Christ. That motivation is different for different people. Some feel empty, some just feel the need to seek the truth found in the Creator. No matter the reason, the closer that person gets to God, the more they realize their own sinfulness and their need to repent is.No one comes to Christ with a complete knowledge of how much we need to repent. We all grow in our knowledge of our own sinful nature and how much it separates us from God. So, if a person comes to Christ, and "refuses to repent" what does that tell you about their need for Christ? They don't really need or want to get close to him. So, it's not the lack of repentance that stops them, that simply is a symptom of a greater problem going on inside. Self-sufficiency or thinking that one doesn't need Christ is the greatest problem going on. It was the same in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve thought they didn't need God to gain knowledge, they could do it on their own and in their own way, violating God's way. In essence, setting themselves up as Gods of their own lives. Edited June 15, 2015 by danielwoods
Anakin7 Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 (edited) danielwoods [Or anyone else] for on a perspective on Grace as only unmerited favor - http://www.donimon.org/graceunmeritedfavor.html In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7 Edited June 15, 2015 by Anakin7
bluebell Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 Sorry I didn't think I was interpreting your beliefs for you. I was simply sharing my perspective. You said that LDS belief about the role of the church in the gospel of Christ means that some LDS believe that the church or the prophet saves them. Since no LDS would agree with that assessment of their beliefs, it can come across as if you are interpreting our beliefs regardless of what they actually mean to us. 2
danielwoods Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 It's true that most LDS do not separate Christ from the Church that He set up and is the head of. But we see that as actually trusting Christ more, not less. We trust that He gives us the church because it's necessary, and we trust that He can use the church to help us return to Him, and that the Kingdom of Heaven (which we believe the church to be a part of) plays a part in the plan of salvation because He has set it up that way. You said that LDS belief about the role of the church in the gospel of Christ means that some LDS believe that the church or the prophet saves them. Since no LDS would agree with that assessment of their beliefs, it can come across as if you are interpreting our beliefs regardless of what they actually mean to us. My observation is just that. That some LDS believe as I described, and as you stated before "that most LDS do not separate Christ from the Church". My observation isn't intended to tell you or anyone what to believe or to interpret for you or anyone what the LDS believe. Rather, it's simply my observation.
bluebell Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 My observation is just that. That some LDS believe as I described, and as you stated before "that most LDS do not separate Christ from the Church". My observation isn't intended to tell you or anyone what to believe or to interpret for you or anyone what the LDS believe. Rather, it's simply my observation. It's the interpretation of the observation that i'm talking about, and not the observation itself. You interpreted your observation to mean that some LDS believe that they are saved by the prophet or the church. It's an inaccurate interpretation, absolutely no LDS believe they are saved by the prophet. I explained previously why not separating Christ from Church does not equal what you interpreted it to mean. 3
Bobbieaware Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 (edited) You said that LDS belief about the role of the church in the gospel of Christ means that some LDS believe that the church or the prophet saves them. Since no LDS would agree with that assessment of their beliefs, it can come across as if you are interpreting our beliefs regardless of what they actually mean to us. It's only because non-LDS folks who think like Daniel seem to be unwilling to step outside of the bounds of their own religious experience and try to imagine what it would be like to be a member of a church the looks and operates as the New Testament church did -- a church organization with living revelators (Apostles and Prophets) who preside at the leadership helm. Even though the New Testament itself places the inescapable truth of the New Testament Church organization right before their eyes, such folks refuse to acknowledge it was a normal part of everyday church life for the New Testament era saints to serve under the authority and leadership of living Apostles and Prophets who led the saints by revelation from Jesus Christ. But the fact is that such folks cannot afford to admit the obvious without having their entire worldview turned upside down. Edited June 15, 2015 by Bobbieaware
ERayR Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 My observation is just that. That some LDS believe as I described, and as you stated before "that most LDS do not separate Christ from the Church". My observation isn't intended to tell you or anyone what to believe or to interpret for you or anyone what the LDS believe. Rather, it's simply my observation. It seems you don't get around, in LDS circles, much.
danielwoods Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 It's the interpretation of the observation that i'm talking about, and not the observation itself. You interpreted your observation to mean that some LDS believe that they are saved by the prophet or the church. It's an inaccurate interpretation, absolutely no LDS believe they are saved by the prophet. I explained previously why not separating Christ from Church does not equal what you interpreted it to mean. I agree, if you asked people (LDS) what they believe, they wouldn't say they are putting their trust in the Church, Prophet, etc.. but from a practical point of view, that is what they do. Again, this is just my view of the situation. It's based on living and working with many LDS in Utah. And (Gasp!) reading what people say and how they describe their life on this little website.
bluebell Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 I agree, if you asked people (LDS) what they believe, they wouldn't say they are putting their trust in the Church, Prophet, etc.. but from a practical point of view, that is what they do. Again, this is just my view of the situation. It's based on living and working with many LDS in Utah. And (Gasp!) reading what people say and how they describe their life on this little website. It is your interpretation of the situation and it's not accurate. As i said earlier, you don't get to tell people what they believe. None of us get to do that for someone else. There are a lot of things i could say that Evangelicals believe based on what they've said to me or what i've seen, but if they flat out deny that they believe such, then I go with that. 2
danielwoods Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 It is your interpretation of the situation and it's not accurate. As i said earlier, you don't get to tell people what they believe. None of us get to do that for someone else. There are a lot of things i could say that Evangelicals believe based on what they've said to me or what i've seen, but if they flat out deny that they believe such, then I go with that. Happens all the time on this website. Just one example below. But the fact is that such folks cannot afford to admit the obvious without having their entire worldview turned upside down.
bluebell Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 Happens all the time on this website. Just one example below. Being a jerk happens all the time on websites too, but I doubt you would argue that that means it's a valid way to express yourself. 3
Bobbieaware Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 Happens all the time on this website. Just one example below.Is it not true non-LDS Christians, many of whom claim to be very knowledgable about the Bible, routinely ignore the fact that the churches they attend are not even remotely similar in organization and function to the New Testament era church? And is it not true that at a time when the church of Christ was led by living apostles and prophets that Paul warned the saints of that day they should never allow the time to come when living apostles and prophets are not standing at both the foundation and head of the church? And is it not also true that while claiming to so zealously follow the New Testament that non-LDS Christians pretend it doesn't contradict the Bible when they say, in effect, that they have no need for living apostles and prophets? Finally, would not the world of non-LDS Christianity begin to be turned upside down if some of the leaders of all those churches proclaimed that the true Church of Jesus Christ cannot exist without living apostles and prophets at the head, just as Paul said? Tell me what's jerky about anything I've said?
danielwoods Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 Is it not true non-LDS Christians, many of whom claim to be very knowledgable about the Bible, routinely ignore the fact that the churches they attend are not even remotely similar in organization and function to the New Testament era church? And is it not true that at a time when the church of Christ was led by living apostles and prophets that Paul warned the saints of that day they should never allow the time to come when living apostles and prophets are not standing at both the foundation and head of the church? And is it not also true that while claiming to so zealously follow the New Testament that non-LDS Christians pretend it doesn't contradict the Bible when they say, in effect, that they have no need for living apostles and prophets? Finally, would not the world of non-LDS Christianity begin to be turned upside down if some of the leaders of all those churches proclaimed that the true Church of Jesus Christ cannot exist without living apostles and prophets at the head, just as Paul said? Tell me what's jerky about anything I've said? Please quote for me where Paul states, "they should never allow the time to come when living apostles and prophets are not standing at both the foundation and head of the church?"
Recommended Posts