FormerLDS Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 2 hours ago, bluebell said: Everyone will gain a degree of glory but not everyone will inherit eternal life. Eternal life is defined in the LDS church as being with God for eternity or having the same kind of life that He has. And no, the EV concept of God and Jesus is not more personal than the LDS believe in Him and Jesus. You just said John 5:24 was present tense, and now you're saying eternal life is future tense. "The verse is speaking in the present tense, not the past tense. It says someone who actively hearth and believeth won't come under condemnation." Those who hear and believe have eternal life (present tense). Which is it?
Amulek Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 4 hours ago, FormerLDS said: Jesus Christ said those who have eternal life "shall not come into condemnation" (John 5:24). Do you believe Him or not? I think it's risible to suggest that, just because somebody doesn't agree with your personal interpretation of scripture, that they do not believe Jesus. I believe Jesus when he talks about the promise of eternal life. And I believe Jesus when he says that "anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven." (Luke 12:10) How we go about reconciling all the words of Christ is a matter of interpretation. When one of the Bible Study groups I participate in (as the sole Mormon, unsurprisingly) was going through Luke, this was one of the verses that caused a great amount of discussion: can there be an unpardonable sin? If so, then it seems as though it ought to be possible for one to fall from grace. That was when my pastor friend who I mentioned at the beginning of the thread said that even Charles Stanley has backed away from his position on eternal security (i.e., OSAS) being utterly unalterable - which, for those who aren't in the know, is kind of a big deal since he pretty much wrote the book on eternal security (literally). So, if there is room enough in the Evangelical community for differing opinions on the matter, I think there ought to be more than enough room for the Mormons as well. Especially since we're right.
JLHPROF Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 2 hours ago, bluebell said: Everyone will gain a degree of glory but not everyone will inherit eternal life. Eternal life is defined in the LDS church as being with God for eternity or having the same kind of life that He has. That definition causes all kinds of problems. Not sure why we stick to it. Differentiating between Eternal Life and living eternally may be accurate but it is hardly very practical terminology.
blueglass Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 (edited) 33 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Well now that's just plain silly. It's one thing to not go into details about an ordinance. It's entirely another to try and redact it from history. Not to mention pointless considering the preponderance of references. The only people who would read this would be avid students of Church history who already would know of the ordinance. Whoever this redaction was designed to keep in the dark is unlikely to be the person reading the journals to begin with. Also redacted entirely from the lds.org website. Not sure on familysearch if the ordinance records for your ancestors who received it has also been removed or hidden? I think it was around 30,000 up until 1941 who had received the ordinance and ~ 6,000 proxy ordinances performed for the dead. Edited February 13, 2018 by blueglass
Anakin7 Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 The Evangelical LDS in me - http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/destiny.htm The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine Washing My Garment In His Blood In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7 LDS Sentinel Son Of Thunder Kryptonian Warrior
blueglass Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 2 hours ago, Teancum said: Well according to Mormon doctrine the answer is yes, D&C 20:30-34 answers this. While LDS believe that justification and even sanctification is by grace, the Church does not believe in eternal security and that a person can fall from grace. I think this is joseph's refutation of the Calvinist 5th point, Perseverance of the saints.
bluebell Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 19 minutes ago, FormerLDS said: Those who have eternal life shall never come into condemnation because they are passed from death unto life; they shall never die. What did Jesus Christ plainly say? “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?” John 11:25-26 Nowhere in the scriptures do we see an "unless you quit believing" passage. But there's an even greater problem with your theory. Jesus Christ told the rejected in Matthew 7 and 25 "I never knew you." How could those who once believed but have quit believing change whom the savior has known or never known? He knows you when you are born into His family though the miracle of spiritual birth and, praise the Lord, no one can ever change that! Again, these verses are all in the present tense. Christ says you have to “believeth” (be actively believing) to be saved. Some one who used to believe but doesn’t any longer does NOT believeth. 2
clarkgoble Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 25 minutes ago, blueglass said: True, the words "second anointing" are banned in lds discourse. For example in the GQ Cannon journals posted online all references to the two words are redacted. >>9 April 1877 • Monday My wife Martha received her [2 words redacted relating to a temple ordinance] at the Temple to-day. There were several others who also received the same ordinance. Very plain talk on the part of Pres. Young in the Temple to-day to Elder Taylor on the subject of his teaching. Spent the evening with the President. Bro’s. W. Woodruff, L. Snow, Brigham Jr. and myself were present. He inquired our view respecting a change of alphabet and orthography. We agreed that a change was desirable and necessary and covenanted to sustain him in his efforts to effect it. https://www.churchhistorianspress.org/george-q-cannon/1870s/1877/04-1877?lang=eng That's interesting. I didn't know the historian's department was doing that. I don't think it's banned in LDS discussion. I hear it regularly discussed. However it is sacred and usually discussed obliquely. I've certainly discussed it. But the moderators clearly don't want it discussed. But lots of places do. If you go to The Interpreter for instance you'll find lots of articles that at least make reference to it. 2
Anakin7 Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 (edited) If you really have a True ancient middle eastern "Biblical" "Belief," and have a True ancient middle eastern "Biblical "Faith" [pistis ] then you will obey - http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/believing.htm The Atonement It is The Central Doctrine Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood In His Eternal debt/Grace Anakin7 LDS Sentinel, Son Of Thunder, Kryptonian Warrior Edited February 13, 2018 by Anakin7
blueglass Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 (edited) On 2/12/2018 at 1:05 PM, Meerkat said: Can a person take themselves out of God's hand once one believes in Jesus Christ? From GQ Cannon the [2 words redacted relating to a temple ordinance] is a final seal, and Brigham Young said God will intervene and take you unto himself if it looks like you might falter. "When he [Brigham Young] sealed a man up to eternal life, he bestowed upon him the blessings pertaining to eternity, and to the Godhead, or when he delegated others to do it in his stead, God in the eternal world recorded the act; the blessings that were sealed upon that man or that woman, they were sealed to be binding in this life, and in that life which is to come; they became part of the records of eternity, and would be fulfilled to the very letter upon the heads of those upon whom they were pronounced, provided they were faithful before God, and fulfilled their part of the covenant". (George Q. Cannon, 12 Aug. 1883, JD, 24:274) "When men and women have travelled to a certain point in their labors in this life, God sets a seal upon them that they never can forsake their God or His kingdom; for, rather than they should do this, He will at once take them to Himself." (Brigham Young, 17 Nov. 1867, JD, 12:103) Edited February 13, 2018 by blueglass
Anakin7 Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 28 minutes ago, FormerLDS said: You just said John 5:24 was present tense, and now you're saying eternal life is future tense. "The verse is speaking in the present tense, not the past tense. It says someone who actively hearth and believeth won't come under condemnation." Those who hear and believe have eternal life (present tense). Which is it? A Grace gift for FormerLDS - http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/believing.htm
Anakin7 Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 (edited) One of the ancient meanings of Faith [pistis] is obedience. http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/obey.htm Edited February 13, 2018 by Anakin7
Anakin7 Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/kingdom.htm
Anakin7 Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 Former I hope you are a Real Christian Saint . http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/christian.htm The Atonement It is The Central Doctrine Washing My Garment In His Blood In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7 1
FormerLDS Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 32 minutes ago, bluebell said: Again, these verses are all in the present tense. Christ says you have to “believeth” (be actively believing) to be saved. Some one who used to believe but doesn’t any longer does NOT believeth. So, according to your theory, at what point would you say that Christ knows someone?
bluebell Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 34 minutes ago, FormerLDS said: You just said John 5:24 was present tense, and now you're saying eternal life is future tense. "The verse is speaking in the present tense, not the past tense. It says someone who actively hearth and believeth won't come under condemnation." Those who hear and believe have eternal life (present tense). Which is it? Like with most of your scriptural interpretations, I don't agree with your interpretation of 'have eternal life' meaning 'right now'. It's demonstrably false, for one thing (you're not resurrected yet, for example and you're physically separated from God right now, for another-neither which are aspects of actually having eternal life). When Jesus says that we have eternal life when we believe and follow Him He is teaching that we have been given eternal life as our inheritance (just like it says in Hebrews-followers of Christ receive a promise of a enteral inheritance. They don't receive the inheritance the second they believe). That is why it is possible to lose it. If we separate ourselves from Him, then that inheritance is no longer promised. He that believeth not, shall be damned. Just like a person who once believed not can change and believe (and gain eternal life) those who once believed can also change (and lose that inheritance).
bluebell Posted February 13, 2018 Posted February 13, 2018 3 minutes ago, FormerLDS said: So, according to your theory, at what point would you say that Christ knows someone? What does that matter? Are asking at what point Christ will acknowledge that we are His disciples and of His fold?
Popular Post bluebell Posted February 13, 2018 Popular Post Posted February 13, 2018 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: That definition causes all kinds of problems. Not sure why we stick to it. Differentiating between Eternal Life and living eternally may be accurate but it is hardly very practical terminology. I think it makes perfect sense to differentiate between immortality and eternal life because they both go on forever but are completely different things. Even the sons of perdition will have immortality. But they will not have eternal life and that's an important distinction to make. I think it's imperative that we differentiate between the affects of the Atonement which overcome physical death and those which overcome spiritual death. The fall brought both kinds of death into the world and I think that the gospel would be incomplete if we did not address how reconciliation impacts the affects of both of them. 8
Meerkat Posted February 14, 2018 Author Posted February 14, 2018 (edited) On 2/13/2018 at 6:31 AM, FormerLDS said: And specifically what did Jesus Christ plainly tell us that the will of the Father is? Repent and be baptized. Go thy way, and sin no more. If ye love me, keep my commandments. I am curious, Former LDS, what did you think of Christ when you were a Mormon? I ask because you appear to ignore or misunderstand the many scriptural references LDS people here use to explain their faith in Jesus Christ. Were you ever a believing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints? If not, why identify yourself as Former LDS? Were you baptized without a testimony then went inactive before learning what Mormons actually believe rather than what some Evangelicals say we believe? I don't ask to be cruel. I am seeking to understand where you are coming from, how you could misunderstand us so profoundly and why you parse your scriptures to ignore context that refutes your intended meaning. Edited February 14, 2018 by Meerkat 4
Anakin7 Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 (edited) Response from my LDS Sentinel, Son Of Thunder Catacomb archives - http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/workssalvation.htm The Atonement It Is The Central doctrine Washing My Garment/robe In His Blood In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7 LDS Sentinel Son Of Thunder Kryptonian Warrior Edited February 14, 2018 by Anakin7
Anakin7 Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 (edited) http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/kingdom.htm Edited February 14, 2018 by Anakin7
blueglass Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 (edited) 19 hours ago, bluebell said: I think it's imperative that we differentiate between the affects of the Atonement which overcome physical death and those which overcome spiritual death. The fall brought both kinds of death into the world and I think that the gospel would be incomplete if we did not address how reconciliation impacts the affects of both of them. I think it's important to acknowledge the metaphors of the bible regarding physical and spiritual death, that physical death experienced by humans has existed for many 10's of thousands of years before the judeo-christo adam. It's important to view adam as one chosen from among many children to represent god's people and to receive his covenant. It's obvious that Lehi and his descedants were not the first on the american continent and that they were a small group of chosen people among many natives as per the pre-clovis evolutionary migration model. In the same manner the builders of Göbekli Tepe were humans and had souls. The teachings in the old testament scripture timeline charts handed to seminary children that life and death began in 4000BC in a garden of eden in missouri is not sustainable. What is regarded as human level intelligence/personhood such as "putting breath into him" from Nelson's talk in April 2000 (Discourse on Abbatôn) will become more and more important in the decades to come as AI becomes more lifelike and grows a soul. Nelson's views on the beginning of blood flow in humans after the fall for example were overturned in the 2013 scriptures. Edited February 14, 2018 by blueglass
FormerLDS Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 19 hours ago, bluebell said: Like with most of your scriptural interpretations, I don't agree with your interpretation of 'have eternal life' meaning 'right now'. It's demonstrably false, for one thing (you're not resurrected yet, for example and you're physically separated from God right now, for another-neither which are aspects of actually having eternal life). Those who have eternal life are not resurrected yet? What did Jesus Christ mean when He referred to those who have eternal life as "passed from death unto life" in John 5:24? Is that not present tense? In John 6:53 the Savior plainly says if you do not have eternal life have "no life in you". How do you explain how someone who was dead and is now made alive if not resurrection?
FormerLDS Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 11 hours ago, Meerkat said: Repent and be baptized. Go thy way, and sin no more. If ye love me, keep my commandments. I am curious, Former LDS, what did you think of Christ when you were a Mormon? I ask because you appear to ignore or misunderstand the many scriptural references LDS people here use to explain their faith in Jesus Christ. Were you ever a believing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints? If not, why identify yourself as Former LDS? Were you baptized without a testimony then went inactive before learning what Mormons actually believe rather than what some Evangelicals say we believe? I don't ask to be cruel. I am seeking to understand where you are coming from, how you could misunderstand us so profoundly and why you parse your scriptures to ignore context that refutes your intended meaning. I understand what LDS theology teaches about the matter, but, being a former member, I ask this because I don't want to be accused of telling you what you believe. There is a significant disparity between what LDS theology says and what Jesus Christ plainly says. Jesus Christ plainly tells us what the will of the Father is and it's not "Repent and be baptized. Go thy way, and sin no more. If ye love me, keep my commandments." If you could kindly tell me what does Jesus Christ Himself tells us that the will of the Father is for those whom he does not already know? Recall, the rejected of the Savior in Matthew 7 were rejected because Christ said he did not know them and they did not do His will. He plainly tells us His will. What is it?
Brother Bear Posted February 14, 2018 Posted February 14, 2018 (edited) 31 minutes ago, FormerLDS said: There is a significant disparity between what LDS theology says and what Jesus Christ plainly says. TomAYto, tomAHto. It’s anyone’s guess. How would you propose comparing your “plain” interpretation to Jesus’ intended meaning? Or how do you propose comparing what’s written in the Bible to anything Jesus actually said? You’re criticizing people for not wearing clothes when you yourself are naked. Edited February 14, 2018 by Brother Bear 3
Recommended Posts