MormonMason Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 47 minutes ago, FormerLDS said: If you don't do these things, will you receive eternal life or not? Jesus also said: Quote 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:53–54) So, if you don't eat his flesh and blood, do you still receive eternal life? Jesus says no. So it is with baptism. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." But if one would want to discount what the long ending of Mark teaches, one could just as easily cite in support Acts 22:16. "And now why tarriest thou? rise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins." Don't think about trying to twist the grammar of the Greek text like some Reformers and Evangelicals have done, either. The washing from sins is part of the combined action of being baptized and washing away sins, joined by a coordinating conjunction. Other translators have done much worse by putting a non-existent dative into the translation to move the action of washing from sins away from the action of baptism. Take also 1 Pet. 3:20-21. The waters of baptism are analogized on the waters of the flood and its saving action on eight souls. "It isn't for the cleaning of dirt off the skin". John 3:5 is clear that both baptism of the water and Spirit (again, that coordinating conjunction) are necessary. It has nothing whatever to do with coming out of amniotic fluid at birth. It is not a synonym for baptism of the Spirit. The conjunction is not epexegetical. There is a reason why the ancient Christians had a doctrine of baptismal regeneration. They saw it in their Greek Bibles. But many Protestants worked to get rid of and hide it. So, what happens if you refuse water baptism? Evangelicals, who have gone astray, would say, "Nothing". They would say that in spite of the wording of the Greek text in the name of Reformed theology. But remember that we have only received the first installment of eternal life. That is what the Pauline epistles teach us. We have the promise of it now, as promised by Jesus, the first installment of it on pledge of the Holy Spirit, as taught by Paul, but we still have to undergo the process. We still are "are being saved" (1 Cor. 1:18; 2 Cor. 2:15). We still "shall be saved" (future tense, 1 Cor. 3:15). Christ still is giving us life eternal (present tense of ongoing action). He himself said, "I am giving to them eternal life" (John 10:28, Greek). But we still have only received the first installment. We don't get the whole deal until the completion of the contract at the redemption of the body, although it can be sealed upon a person and one can thereby know that they have eternal life. Quote If you don't have eternal life now, you're never going to gain it after mortality. Correction. If you don't have the promise of eternal life, or receive the first installment, you won't have it after mortality. You've got to stop ignoring both the process and down payment scriptures in favor of the "salvation-event" ones. You should take them together as a whole, and not do what the Reformers mistakenly have done before you. One does have it now by faith in Christ, but it only is the first installment pledged to us by the Spirit of God.
MormonMason Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 57 minutes ago, FormerLDS said: If "Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood" was a reference to the sacrament, as you say, why does LDS theology claim you do not have eternal life? Could it be that you are incorrect? It is a reference to what we call Sacrament. This was clearly understood by every ancient Christian who wrote of this text in John. They could see it in the Greek they read and heard just as plainly as we can see the nose on the end of our faces. It is also easy to match up with those other passages scattered through the New Testament that speak of the same symbolism in relation to the body and blood of Christ. Catholics went too far because they forgot about the interpretive meaning of the wording regarding the emblems of Christ's body and blood. Reformers just denied it because it conflicted with their contrived view of salvation. It is because it is a thing to do. Again, present active. Not past tense. Again, an ongoing process renewed each time we partake. That is why Christ taught us to do it repeatedly. By repetition, eternal life is instilled into us as we renew covenants made in the covenant relationship. Reformationism attempts to do away with the covenant altogether all but in name. 57 minutes ago, FormerLDS said: Those who have the Son have eternal life. Those who do not have the Son do not have eternal life. Past, present, future. You either have eternal life or you do not. "Have", present tense. Not past or completed tenses. We still "are being saved" (present tense, 1 Cor. 1:18; 2 Cor. 2:15). Jesus still is "giving to [us] eternal life" (present tense, John 10:28). We have but the promise and first installment, the "earnest of the Spirit". 57 minutes ago, FormerLDS said: "Believe it as a whole" doesn't give you an explanation for "hath eternal life". This most clearly this contradicts LDS theology. No one is as blind as those who will not see, and those who will not see that which is obvious are blind indeed. Yes it does give me an explanation, and translation problems in multiple verses of standard Protestant proof texts provide the rest of the explanation. The promise or first installment has been given. We get the rest after the redemption of the body. That is the teaching of the scripture as a whole. You prefer to isolation and eisegesis. But of your second sentence in the above quote you are correct. "Three fingers pointing back", and all that. 😀 57 minutes ago, FormerLDS said: Not that it really matters at this point, but what does Jesus Christ Himself plainly say about being resurrected from death during mortality for those who HAVE ETERNAL LIFE? "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." John 5:24 Could it be the reason you don't get it is that you don't have eternal life? Present active participles and verbs. Process and reciprocation is implied. That conflicts with the basis for much of Protestant teaching. Still but the first installment and the pledge in mortality. Still require and undergo the process. Still need to make calling and election sure. Still to be completed at the redemption of the body. By the way, I read the Greek New Testament. I get it just fine. You rely on English translation and Protestant-based commentaries, and thereby are misled. And, yes I do have eternal life, the first installment thereof, which I renew each time I take the Sacrament as I undergo the process.
bluebell Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 34 minutes ago, FormerLDS said: How can having or not having eternal life be insignificant and irrelevant to salvation? John 3:36 describes both those who have eternal life and those who do not have eternal life. "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." Do you think "shall not see life" is irrelevant to the issues of salvation? Does having the wrath of God abiding on those who do not have eternal life seem insignificant to you? FL, we aren't talking about whether or not someone is or isn't saved. We are discussing timing--when someone receives eternal life not if they receive it. Both groups (the one you're in and the one I'm in) believe we will spend eternity with God in heaven and will not be damned. So, your last sentence makes no sense given the topic being discussed.
MormonMason Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 2 hours ago, FormerLDS said: Thank you for confirming Bluebell. So, for clarity, when you said "You are always claiming that you know what LDS believe and teach but your arguments make it clear that you really don't get it", in reality, I actually do understand LDS theology perfectly well - I do "get it". The only thing confirmed is that there are Latter-day Saints out there who have a like understanding. I wish all Latter-day Saints would read their scriptures and could read at least the Greek New Testament. 2 hours ago, FormerLDS said: If resurrection is required prior to receiving eternal life, why does Jesus Christ plainly tell us that eternal life if received prior to the resurrection? One gets the promise of eternal life, the first installment pledged by the Spirit, and one continues to get it infused by obedience to his words. This leads us to the next part. 2 hours ago, FormerLDS said: "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:54 What does "hath eternal life" in this verse mean? Does "I will raise him up at the last day" mean resurrection? "Hath" here means "has" in the present active, not past tense. That is what the Greek text states. But if we don't eat his flesh and drink his blood (emblematically what Mormons call the Sacrament) we get the converse. We don't get eternal life. So long as we continue the action Christ commanded, we continue to infuse into our very lives eternal life by this renewed action of symbolically eating his flesh and blood in remembrance of him. "I will raise him up" does refer to the resurrection. But we still don't get the entire thing until the redemption of the body. It still is the pledge or down payment or first installment. But it is the promise nonetheless.
Calm Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 2 hours ago, Calm said: If someone feels such love for God that they desire to have eternal life with him, is that a selfish desire? Former, I do not see an answer to this question. Perhaps I missed it. Please point me towards it if you answered or answer it if you did not.
MormonMason Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 1 hour ago, FormerLDS said: The D&C and BoM both say that one can have eternal life, that's never been the issue. You are missing the point. One can know one is sealed up to eternal life by revelation and by the spirit of prophecy. That is the point. We are supposed to base our teaching and doctrine on the Standard Works. The Standard Works speak of knowing one is sealed up to eternal life. That is the point of what I posted. 1 hour ago, FormerLDS said: LDS theology clearly states that no one can have eternal life during mortality. True to the Faith, Salvation (P. 150-153) Whoever wrote the manual as it stands seems to state that no one can have eternal life in mortality. But remember that what we have received, according to Paul, is the first installment, not the full deal. The full package comes after the redemption of the body. 1 hour ago, FormerLDS said: Since you've brought it up, how do you deal with the discrepancy between your personal belief about eternal life and what your church plainly teaches? I see it as more a bit of confusion on the part of the author of the manual. My personal belief comes from what I read in the Greek New Testament. I don't have a need to rely on English translations so I don't really need to deal with it at all at this point. Even the leaders of the Church have stated that whatever they have said that conflicts with the Standard Works we are not under obligation to accept it. That would be how I would deal with it if I had to deal with it at all. Thing is, it is not entirely wrong. Until the redemption of the body, all we have is the assurance of the pledge of the Spirit, the first installment of eternal life. You claim to accept Paul and base your tents upon his words but you sure do a lot of avoiding what he taught about eternal life and about salvation being a process. In the sense of being saved as an action, we have already been so. As to the process, as taught by Paul and which relates to the above quote your provided to set up an apparent contradiction, that is not yet complete and will not yet be complete until the redemption of the body. That is the teaching of Paul, part of which you keep ignoring because it is convenient. Paul said that we have received the first installment of eternal life but that we still "are being saved". Jesus taught that he is (present tense) giving us eternal life. His past tense phrases are easily reconciled with Paul's words regarding "the first installment". Why won't you believe them?
Popular Post pogi Posted May 10, 2018 Popular Post Posted May 10, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, FormerLDS said: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." John 3:36 Again, and again, and again, I believe on the Son. That is ALL that matters. Can we be done with this now? You keep asking me if I believe that I have eternal life...well, it doesn't matter what I believe about that. Nowhere in the scriptures does it say that I have to believe that I have eternal life, it simply requires a belief on the Son...so I have thoroughly covered my bases. I am good. I am at peace. I am confident in my present, and my future with God. He is alive in my heart. He is alive in my works. The question is, do you believe on the Son? Quote Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these... (John 14:12). Edited May 10, 2018 by pogi 5
bluebell Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 1 hour ago, MormonMason said: You are missing the point. One can know one is sealed up to eternal life by revelation and by the spirit of prophecy. That is the point. We are supposed to base our teaching and doctrine on the Standard Works. The Standard Works speak of knowing one is sealed up to eternal life. That is the point of what I posted. Whoever wrote the manual as it stands seems to state that no one can have eternal life in mortality. But remember that what we have received, according to Paul, is the first installment, not the full deal. The full package comes after the redemption of the body. I see it as more a bit of confusion on the part of the author of the manual. My personal belief comes from what I read in the Greek New Testament. I don't have a need to rely on English translations so I don't really need to deal with it at all at this point. Even the leaders of the Church have stated that whatever they have said that conflicts with the Standard Works we are not under obligation to accept it. That would be how I would deal with it if I had to deal with it at all. Thing is, it is not entirely wrong. Until the redemption of the body, all we have is the assurance of the pledge of the Spirit, the first installment of eternal life. You claim to accept Paul and base your tents upon his words but you sure do a lot of avoiding what he taught about eternal life and about salvation being a process. In the sense of being saved as an action, we have already been so. As to the process, as taught by Paul and which relates to the above quote your provided to set up an apparent contradiction, that is not yet complete and will not yet be complete until the redemption of the body. That is the teaching of Paul, part of which you keep ignoring because it is convenient. Paul said that we have received the first installment of eternal life but that we still "are being saved". Jesus taught that he is (present tense) giving us eternal life. His past tense phrases are easily reconciled with Paul's words regarding "the first installment". Why won't you believe them? I don't think it is so much that the author of the manual is confused, but rather that he or she is using a different definition of eternal life than you are. But, as far as FormerLDS is concerned, it really doesn't matter which definition you use or how you try to explain it. I've been having this discussion with him since 2006 (sometimes on email even) and i've tried explaining it from this perspective and every other perspective that i can. For him, this is the sticking point that proves the LDS church is false. 2
MormonMason Posted May 11, 2018 Posted May 11, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, bluebell said: I don't think it is so much that the author of the manual is confused, but rather that he or she is using a different definition of eternal life than you are. I can see your point. The wording, however, is unfortunate. It will lead to confusion on the part of some like it does for FormerLDS. My definition, on the other hand, comes right out of the Greek New Testament. This is why I wish that more members of the Church would learn to read it. So many things would become so much clearer to us if most of us could do so. Well, there is that and if more members of the Church would read their scriptures with a little more care. Sadly, a great many do not. Quote But, as far as FormerLDS is concerned, it really doesn't matter which definition you use or how you try to explain it. I've been having this discussion with him since 2006 (sometimes on email even) and i've tried explaining it from this perspective and every other perspective that i can. For him, this is the sticking point that proves the LDS church is false. This sticking point will be his undoing, though he would reject that. He doesn't seem to want to accept parts of the Bible's teaching on the matter, in part being caused by reliance upon misleading English translations and Protestant theology. I have tried to get that across to him but seem to be failing miserably at it. I now don't feel so bad about it knowing that others like yourself earnestly have tried while it is like bashing one's head into a concrete wall. Edited May 11, 2018 by MormonMason 2
FormerLDS Posted May 11, 2018 Posted May 11, 2018 16 hours ago, MormonMason said: So, if you don't eat his flesh and blood, do you still receive eternal life? Jesus says no. So it is with baptism. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." But if one would want to discount what the long ending of Mark teaches, one could just as easily cite in support Acts 22:16. "And now why tarriest thou? rise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins." Don't think about trying to twist the grammar of the Greek text like some Reformers and Evangelicals have done, either. The washing from sins is part of the combined action of being baptized and washing away sins, joined by a coordinating conjunction. Other translators have done much worse by putting a non-existent dative into the translation to move the action of washing from sins away from the action of baptism. Take also 1 Pet. 3:20-21. The waters of baptism are analogized on the waters of the flood and its saving action on eight souls. "It isn't for the cleaning of dirt off the skin". John 3:5 is clear that both baptism of the water and Spirit (again, that coordinating conjunction) are necessary. It has nothing whatever to do with coming out of amniotic fluid at birth. It is not a synonym for baptism of the Spirit. The conjunction is not epexegetical. There is a reason why the ancient Christians had a doctrine of baptismal regeneration. They saw it in their Greek Bibles. But many Protestants worked to get rid of and hide it. So, what happens if you refuse water baptism? Evangelicals, who have gone astray, would say, "Nothing". They would say that in spite of the wording of the Greek text in the name of Reformed theology. But remember that we have only received the first installment of eternal life. That is what the Pauline epistles teach us. We have the promise of it now, as promised by Jesus, the first installment of it on pledge of the Holy Spirit, as taught by Paul, but we still have to undergo the process. We still are "are being saved" (1 Cor. 1:18; 2 Cor. 2:15). We still "shall be saved" (future tense, 1 Cor. 3:15). Christ still is giving us life eternal (present tense of ongoing action). He himself said, "I am giving to them eternal life" (John 10:28, Greek). But we still have only received the first installment. We don't get the whole deal until the completion of the contract at the redemption of the body, although it can be sealed upon a person and one can thereby know that they have eternal life. The LDS premise is completely flawed. The LDS doctrine of baptism being required for salvation is a symptom of that flawed premise. If you can understand the root cause, doctrines like baptism will then make sense. According to the Bible, one either has (present tense) eternal life or one does not have (present tense) eternal life. Let me know if you disagree with that. Having or not having eternal life is directly proportional to whether or not Jesus Christ has ever known you. He told the rejected in Matthew 7:23 "I never knew you." The question I have for you, once you "know" someone, can you ever "not know" someone? In other words, I would interpret "I never know you" to mean "I never (EVER) knew you". Let me know if you disagree with this.
FormerLDS Posted May 11, 2018 Posted May 11, 2018 On 5/9/2018 at 5:40 PM, MormonMason said: Another also is the present active, indicating, once again, part of a process. John 10:28 has Jesus say, "I am giving to them life eternal." That is what the Greek there means. He does not use the aorist or perfect to indicate a completed, single action. It is the present active. It is a process of something that started but then continues. Your reference to 1 Jn. 5:12 is mistaken. It is composed of parts of 1 Jn. 5:11-13. In that case the key Greek verb is an aorist indicative active, representing something accomplished in past time. However, this is followed by participles and verbs in the present tense, modifying the sense of the first verb in the text. Right! Jesus Christ is giving me (present tense) eternal life right this second. How can that fit into LDS theology? "And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." 1 John 5:11-13
smac97 Posted May 11, 2018 Posted May 11, 2018 6 minutes ago, FormerLDS said: The LDS premise is completely flawed. The LDS doctrine of baptism being required for salvation is a symptom of that flawed premise. Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." I'm curious as to what you are trying to do here. You're clearly not trying to persuade or convert. 6 minutes ago, FormerLDS said: If you can understand the root cause, doctrines like baptism will then make sense. According to the Bible, one either has (present tense) eternal life or one does not have (present tense) eternal life. Let me know if you disagree with that. With respect, I decline. I don't think we're in a good faith discussion here. 6 minutes ago, FormerLDS said: The question I have for you, once you "know" someone, can you ever "not know" someone? In other words, I would interpret "I never know you" to mean "I never (EVER) knew you". Let me know if you disagree with this. No, thanks. -Smac 2
FormerLDS Posted May 11, 2018 Posted May 11, 2018 16 hours ago, MormonMason said: It is a reference to what we call Sacrament. This was clearly understood by every ancient Christian who wrote of this text in John. They could see it in the Greek they read and heard just as plainly as we can see the nose on the end of our faces. It is also easy to match up with those other passages scattered through the New Testament that speak of the same symbolism in relation to the body and blood of Christ. Catholics went too far because they forgot about the interpretive meaning of the wording regarding the emblems of Christ's body and blood. Reformers just denied it because it conflicted with their contrived view of salvation. It is because it is a thing to do. Again, present active. Not past tense. Again, an ongoing process renewed each time we partake. That is why Christ taught us to do it repeatedly. By repetition, eternal life is instilled into us as we renew covenants made in the covenant relationship. Reformationism attempts to do away with the covenant altogether all but in name. Can you show me specifically where LDS theology teaches that "eternal life is instilled into us" (present active)? You either don't believe what your church teaches about "eternal life" or you really don't believe what you just said. 16 hours ago, MormonMason said: Quote Those who have the Son have eternal life. Those who do not have the Son do not have eternal life. Past, present, future. You either have eternal life or you do not. "Have", present tense. Not past or completed tenses. We still "are being saved" (present tense, 1 Cor. 1:18; 2 Cor. 2:15). Jesus still is "giving to [us] eternal life" (present tense, John 10:28). We have but the promise and first installment, the "earnest of the Spirit". Fair enough, show me where LDS theology teaches that I can "have, present tense" eternal life, like you just pointed out, and I'll recant everything I believe and rejoin the LDS congregation. Deal?
Anakin7 Posted May 11, 2018 Posted May 11, 2018 (edited) Once again FormerLDS on the necessity of Water Baptism as necessary for True Salvation - http://www.bebaptized.org The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine Washing My Garment In His Blood In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7 Edited May 11, 2018 by Anakin7 2
FormerLDS Posted May 11, 2018 Posted May 11, 2018 18 hours ago, bluebell said: 19 hours ago, FormerLDS said: How can having or not having eternal life be insignificant and irrelevant to salvation? John 3:36 describes both those who have eternal life and those who do not have eternal life. "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." Do you think "shall not see life" is irrelevant to the issues of salvation? Does having the wrath of God abiding on those who do not have eternal life seem insignificant to you? FL, we aren't talking about whether or not someone is or isn't saved. We are discussing timing--when someone receives eternal life not if they receive it. Both groups (the one you're in and the one I'm in) believe we will spend eternity with God in heaven and will not be damned. So, your last sentence makes no sense given the topic being discussed. There are those who have eternal life and those who do not have eternal life. Like you said, there are only two groups. According to what Jesus Christ said, both groups will not "spend eternity with God in heaven". "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." John 3:36 How can someone who "will not see life" and has the wrath of God upon them see eternal life after mortality?
pogi Posted May 11, 2018 Posted May 11, 2018 2 hours ago, FormerLDS said: Fair enough, show me where LDS theology teaches that I can "have, present tense" eternal life, like you just pointed out, and I'll recant everything I believe and rejoin the LDS congregation. Deal? Again, it is not your belief in eternal life which gives eternal life, it is your belief in Jesus Christ. 2
bluebell Posted May 11, 2018 Posted May 11, 2018 (edited) 26 minutes ago, FormerLDS said: There are those who have eternal life and those who do not have eternal life. Like you said, there are only two groups. According to what Jesus Christ said, both groups will not "spend eternity with God in heaven". "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." John 3:36 How can someone who "will not see life" and has the wrath of God upon them see eternal life after mortality? One. More. Time. Both you and I believe we are in the group that has eternal life. We just interpret what that means differently. And that interpretation does not impact whether we actually will live with God or not. That is why the issue of interpretation is insignificant. It doesn't make any sense that you are willing to die on this hill, given that how someone interprets "hath eternal life" does not effect whether or not they actually do. Edited May 11, 2018 by bluebell
Anakin7 Posted May 11, 2018 Posted May 11, 2018 Well said pogi, True belief and Faith in Jesus Christ gives and keeps you in The True Grace of Christ Jesus by way of accepting, accessing, activating, grabbing hold of, obtaining, recieving, holding on to The True Grace of Christ Jesus which gives you Eternal Life. This is done by keeping the 2 great commandments. The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine, Washing My Garment In His Blood, In His Eternal Debt, Grace. Anakin7. 1
FormerLDS Posted May 11, 2018 Posted May 11, 2018 18 hours ago, Calm said: 21 hours ago, Calm said: If someone feels such love for God that they desire to have eternal life with him, is that a selfish desire? Former, I do not see an answer to this question. Perhaps I missed it. Please point me towards it if you answered or answer it if you did not. The rejected of the Savior in Matthew 7 cast out devils in the name of Jesus Christ. They performed miracles and prophesied all in the name of Jesus Christ. Did they not feel a genuine and sincere love for God? Likewise, there are those who love God because they have eternal life and those who love God because they desire to have eternal life.
FormerLDS Posted May 11, 2018 Posted May 11, 2018 19 hours ago, MormonMason said: Quote True to the Faith, Salvation (P. 150-153) Whoever wrote the manual as it stands seems to state that no one can have eternal life in mortality. But remember that what we have received, according to Paul, is the first installment, not the full deal. The full package comes after the redemption of the body. Those words came from Dallin H Oaks infamous Ensign article entitled "Have you been saved?" (May 1998). You sound as if the author really doesn't understand LDS theology. Perhaps you don't sustain the quorum of the twelve Apostles and the First Presidency as General Authorities? Seems to me they should know what LDS doctrine is or is not, right? I mean, how many Ensign articles have you written? Sorry, not trying to be condescending, but you see my point (I hope). How can this "seem to state" that no one can have eternal life during mortality? "If we use the word salvation to mean eternal life, none of us can say that we have been saved in mortality. That glorious gift can come only after the Final Judgment." It PLAINLY STATES that no one can have eternal life during mortality!
FormerLDS Posted May 11, 2018 Posted May 11, 2018 18 hours ago, bluebell said: I don't think it is so much that the author of the manual is confused, but rather that he or she is using a different definition of eternal life than you are. But, as far as FormerLDS is concerned, it really doesn't matter which definition you use or how you try to explain it. I've been having this discussion with him since 2006 (sometimes on email even) and i've tried explaining it from this perspective and every other perspective that i can. For him, this is the sticking point that proves the LDS church is false. My whole point - my fundamental thesis - is exactly what you just stated. HOW CAN I BE A MORMON IF I HAVE A DIFFERENT DEFINITION OF ETERNAL LIFE THAN MY CHURCH? You claim that it's me the doesn't get it and don't understand LDS theology. I could see it not being a big deal if the disagreement was about historical events or the priesthood or a "Heavenly Mother", but eternal life? Eternal life the single most important doctrine! How can you disagree with your church about the doctrine of eternal life and just go on as if it's no big deal? That I don't get.
bluebell Posted May 11, 2018 Posted May 11, 2018 (edited) 15 minutes ago, FormerLDS said: My whole point - my fundamental thesis - is exactly what you just stated. HOW CAN I BE A MORMON IF I HAVE A DIFFERENT DEFINITION OF ETERNAL LIFE THAN MY CHURCH? You claim that it's me the doesn't get it and don't understand LDS theology. I could see it not being a big deal if the disagreement was about historical events or the priesthood or a "Heavenly Mother", but eternal life? Eternal life the single most important doctrine! How can you disagree with your church about the doctrine of eternal life and just go on as if it's no big deal? That I don't get. I don't. My beliefs about eternal life are the same as my church's. I have different beliefs than you do about what it means to have eternal life and that isn't a big deal. Edited May 11, 2018 by bluebell
FormerLDS Posted May 11, 2018 Posted May 11, 2018 (edited) 51 minutes ago, bluebell said: I don't. My beliefs about eternal life are the same as my church's. I have different beliefs than you do about what it means to have eternal life and that isn't a big deal. Ok, fair enough Bluebell. Your beliefs about eternal life are the same about your church's. Where does LDS doctrine say that you "are in the group that has eternal life" (your own words)? Please, just show me because I really do think your church teaches that you are in the group that has eternal life. Your church teaches that you do not have eternal life. Edited May 11, 2018 by FormerLDS
pogi Posted May 11, 2018 Posted May 11, 2018 (edited) 28 minutes ago, FormerLDS said: Ok, fair enough Bluebell. Your beliefs about eternal life are the same about your church's. Where does LDS doctrine say that you "are in the group that has eternal life" (your own words)? Please, just show me because I really do think your church teaches that you are in the group that has eternal life. Your church teaches that you do not have eternal life. Former, you are getting hung up on a semantics issue. It is a common use of language to use the present tense of have/has/hath for something that a person is only promised in the future and does not actually have yet. For example, "Take care of my dog, and you have my inheritance...it's yours". Does the person actually have the inheritance, or is that simply a figure of speech? Isn't it more of a promise that they will receive the inheritance if they keep their end of the bargain? Edited May 11, 2018 by pogi
Recommended Posts