bluebell Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Sunslight said: But all the righteous receive eternal life and all the wicked are sons of perdition according to those verses. Very true. Eternal life in that verse must be defined differently than how eternal life is defined in other verses. Since the scriptures also teach that there are more than just the exalted and the damned. Edited January 18, 2020 by bluebell 1
Sunslight Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 8 minutes ago, bluebell said: Very true. Eternal life in that verse must be defined differently than how eternal life is defined in other verses. Since the scriptures also teach that there are more than just the exalted and the damned. Maybe "eternal life" doesn't mean what we think it means (that it means exaltation). I think eternal life is more synonymous with "salvation". Several scriptures allude to this.
Raingirl Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 3 hours ago, Navidad said: You posted earlier that you don't sin much anymore, at least not intentionally. I thought that was quite an amazing and arrogant statement. I then read the above statement by you. Your former statement was simply arrogance. This one indeed seems sinful to me. It is exactly the kind of statement that I believe in my heart of hearts that makes God cry. Ever since I read this last evening I have been trying to fight the sense that you are representative of the broad LDS community. If so, then I want nothing to do with our ward, this forum, or the world of mormonism, except perhaps for the first time in my adult life, to condemn it. Then this morning I read a post on another thread where someone deemed you a Lord of the Sith. I had no idea what that meant so I looked it up. I read this: "Over their long history, the Sith have established great empires, come close to realizing their ambitions of galactic conquest, and nearly eradicated the Jedi. Ultimately, however, they are self-defeating, their grand plans undone time and again by internal strife, rebellion inspired by their vicious tactics, and the psychologically noxious effects of their dark arts and philosophy." That doesn't sound like an affirmation. I certainly wouldn't want to be called that. "Psychologically noxious effects" are what I have been experiencing after I read the above post by you. I don't want to go to the funeral this morning, have no desire to sing in the choir, regret that I spent a whole evening cleaning last night. I woke hoping that someone, one at least among the hundreds or thousands of faithful LDS folks on this forum would speak against what you said in the above quote. Utter silence usually means affirmation, especially on this forum where members of the Church seem to thrive on debating with each other on the finest tiniest points of doctrine. I thought about it this morning. I form at least 40% of my perspective on Mormonism and Mormons from this forum. You are bishops, former bishops, stake presidents, professors of the Church, etc. That isn't a majority of my perspective, but it is close. The rest comes from my associations at the ward, MHA, and contacts with other LDS folks like in the Church History Department, other wards and conferences, etc. You are Mormonism to me. I draw little of my beliefs about Mormonism from your Scriptures, because I draw little about my beliefs of non-LDS Christians from the Bible. I come to my conclusions by the lived lives of those who claim the name of Christ, be they Catholic, Baptist, or LDS. My wife just came in and asked me what is wrong? How can I explain a Sith Lord to her? I simply read your quote to her. My dear sweet wife looked at me and said, "Get off that forum. I would be infuriated if I read something like that!." This from someone who got up at 5:30 this morning to make a giant salad for the Mormon family of a deceased Mormon friend. Please, don't ever think I haven't been paying attention to what you have said. Like me, you are nothing more than a sinner saved by grace. I don’t understand why you affiliate with a ward of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when you constantly criticize our beliefs and teachings, our members, constantly judge us, and are not actually open to learning and understanding. Not to mention the fact that you frequently take great pains to make sure to enumerate all the ways that you and your wife are so much “better” than the rest of us. Condescending to making “giant” salads for those terrible Mormons and all that. Do you think you are giving us a positive view of Mennonites by your behavior? How ironic. Feel free to criticize me as yet another one of those terrible, sinning Mormons, I won’t be listening. I converted from Judaism. I’m glad I was able to keep an open mind and heart, and didn’t have your attitude. 1
bluebell Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 21 minutes ago, Sunslight said: Maybe "eternal life" doesn't mean what we think it means (that it means exaltation). I think eternal life is more synonymous with "salvation". Several scriptures allude to this. I think in the Bible that is definitely the case, given the translation process. In other verses, I think it depends. But I don’t believe there is any way around the fact that there is a difference between salvation in a lower kingdom and being a joint heir with Christ. I don’t think, in that sense, that both can be referred to as eternal life. 1
Calm Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 1 hour ago, Sunslight said: Maybe "eternal life" doesn't mean what we think it means (that it means exaltation). I think eternal life is more synonymous with "salvation". Several scriptures allude to this. Do you see a need to reconcile scriptures as much as possible or do you take them more on the immediate context or something else?
Sunslight Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 1 hour ago, bluebell said: I think in the Bible that is definitely the case, given the translation process. In other verses, I think it depends. But I don’t believe there is any way around the fact that there is a difference between salvation in a lower kingdom and being a joint heir with Christ. I don’t think, in that sense, that both can be referred to as eternal life. Suppose for a minute though that "eternal life" means more along the lines of how the Book of Mormon defines it as an eternally spiritually alive sense. Thus, you would have all of the saved go into spiritual life- redeemed from their spiritually fallen (spiritually dead) condition unto new spiritual rebirth which is eternal "life".
Sunslight Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 1 hour ago, Calm said: Do you see a need to reconcile scriptures as much as possible or do you take them more on the immediate context or something else? I see the scriptures basically in agreement but our doctrine, how we understand at times wanders.
bluebell Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 7 minutes ago, Sunslight said: Suppose for a minute though that "eternal life" means more along the lines of how the Book of Mormon defines it as an eternally spiritually alive sense. Thus, you would have all of the saved go into spiritual life- redeemed from their spiritually fallen (spiritually dead) condition unto new spiritual rebirth which is eternal "life". That doesn’t mesh with the verses that actually teach about eternal life, in my opinion.
CV75 Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 6 hours ago, Sunslight said: The BD is the wrong tracks for that definition. We have gone down a different track. The scriptures that are listed do not conform to the definition given. As long as the New Testament carries the bolded qualifiers below, I’m perfectly satisfied with the BD definition. Matthew 23:14: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. Mark 3:29, 12:40: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation… 40 Which devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation. Luke 20:47: Which devour widows’ houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation. That principle holds for greater, lesser, eternal, or whatever. Which is why the isolated, out of context phrase from the King Follett Sermon cannot be used to show what Joseph Smith understood about the greater damnation. 2
Calm Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 1 hour ago, Sunslight said: I see the scriptures basically in agreement but our doctrine, how we understand at times wanders. Scripture is the doctrine of past leaders. Why would it not wander as well? 2
Sunslight Posted January 19, 2020 Posted January 19, 2020 2 hours ago, bluebell said: That doesn’t mesh with the verses that actually teach about eternal life, in my opinion. I think they do. I haven't really found one yet that doesn't, but maybe it's just my train of thinking.
Sunslight Posted January 19, 2020 Posted January 19, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, CV75 said: As long as the New Testament carries the bolded qualifiers below, I’m perfectly satisfied with the BD definition. Matthew 23:14: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. Mark 3:29, 12:40: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation… 40 Which devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation. Luke 20:47: Which devour widows’ houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation. That principle holds for greater, lesser, eternal, or whatever. Which is why the isolated, out of context phrase from the King Follett Sermon cannot be used to show what Joseph Smith understood about the greater damnation. In the same chapter in Matthew verse 34 it speaks of the damnation of hell. In about half of all bibles they use the word "condemnation" in place of damnation. I read the verses you posted as differing degrees of condemnation to hell, some longer durations than others in hell. Edited January 19, 2020 by Sunslight
Sunslight Posted January 19, 2020 Posted January 19, 2020 1 hour ago, Calm said: Scripture is the doctrine of past leaders. Why would it not wander as well? it can, it's just not as prone.
pogi Posted January 19, 2020 Posted January 19, 2020 (edited) 20 hours ago, Sunslight said: I think we are getting somewhere now. What do you think it means in section 76 when it says Christ came into the world to cleanse it from all righteousness that through him all might be saved, and that he does save and cleanse all of them and presents them all spotless before the Father? I'm not as optimistic that we are getting anywhere. You have not answered any of my questions and still have not addressed any of the passages I quoted. You ask, what does it mean that Christ will cleanse the world from all unrighteousness? It means that he will "deliver up the kingdom, and present it unto the Father, spotless". It means that the earth will be cleansed, redeemed, and receive its celestial glory - it will become the celestial kingdom where God Himself will dwell, along with all of those who have been made perfect through Christ. It does not mean that all of the past and current inhabitants will be partakers in the same. You misquote the scripture. It doesn't say that he will "cleanse all of them and present them all spotless before the Father". Can you please now address the scriptures I posted? It clearly states that those who do not receive Christ, his baptism, or repent of their sins will still be saved. What is the point of repentance and baptism, if we are all going to be cleansed anyway? If we are all going to be cleansed and made spotless, then what would prevent us all from entering celestial glory? If there are not degrees of righteousness, then you are suggesting that those in the celestial kingdom - those who maintained faith in Christ, repented, baptized, and endured and sacrificed to the end of their lives in his service, are no more righteous than those in the telestial kingdom who rejected Christ and his gospel - you know the "liars, sorcerers, adulterers, whoremongers, and those whosoever loves and makes a lie." Even murderers. How can you for one second suggest that because they are all saved into a kingdom of glory that they are all equally righteous without degree? That is not right! Edited January 19, 2020 by pogi 1
CV75 Posted January 19, 2020 Posted January 19, 2020 18 hours ago, Sunslight said: In the same chapter in Matthew verse 34 it speaks of the damnation of hell. In about half of all bibles they use the word "condemnation" in place of damnation. I read the verses you posted as differing degrees of condemnation to hell, some longer durations than others in hell. I think you mean Matthew 23:33, not 34. Verse 32 reads, “Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers,” before “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?”, demonstrating that the condemnation is commensurate to the rebellion, or of full or partial measure. The right semantics allow that hell is the power that condemns, I suppose. Semantics gave the Greek, Latin, Old French, Middle English, etc. roots of the word “damn” its traditional Christian meaning.
Sunslight Posted January 19, 2020 Posted January 19, 2020 4 hours ago, pogi said: I'm not as optimistic that we are getting anywhere. You have not answered any of my questions and still have not addressed any of the passages I quoted. You ask, what does it mean that Christ will cleanse the world from all unrighteousness? It means that he will "deliver up the kingdom, and present it unto the Father, spotless". It means that the earth will be cleansed, redeemed, and receive its celestial glory - it will become the celestial kingdom where God Himself will dwell, along with all of those who have been made perfect through Christ. It does not mean that all of the past and current inhabitants will be partakers in the same. You misquote the scripture. It doesn't say that he will "cleanse all of them and present them all spotless before the Father". Can you please now address the scriptures I posted? It clearly states that those who do not receive Christ, his baptism, or repent of their sins will still be saved. What is the point of repentance and baptism, if we are all going to be cleansed anyway? If we are all going to be cleansed and made spotless, then what would prevent us all from entering celestial glory? If there are not degrees of righteousness, then you are suggesting that those in the celestial kingdom - those who maintained faith in Christ, repented, baptized, and endured and sacrificed to the end of their lives in his service, are no more righteous than those in the telestial kingdom who rejected Christ and his gospel - you know the "liars, sorcerers, adulterers, whoremongers, and those whosoever loves and makes a lie." Even murderers. How can you for one second suggest that because they are all saved into a kingdom of glory that they are all equally righteous without degree? That is not right! Section 76 certainly speaks of different people who are saved. I read the section in the light that in verses 40-43 Christ cleanses all those he saves through their obedience to the gospel. We aren't so sure the unrepentant are saved. In fact, no one can be saved in their sins. The Kingdom of heaven isn't filthy or full of the unclean. Only the righteous will inherit a place in God's kingdom. All the filthy must be cast aside. There will not be found whoremongers or. Sorcerers, liars or anything that offend in God's kingdom. They all have their place in the lake of fire and brimstone.
Sunslight Posted January 19, 2020 Posted January 19, 2020 37 minutes ago, CV75 said: I think you mean Matthew 23:33, not 34. Verse 32 reads, “Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers,” before “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?”, demonstrating that the condemnation is commensurate to the rebellion, or of full or partial measure. The right semantics allow that hell is the power that condemns, I suppose. Semantics gave the Greek, Latin, Old French, Middle English, etc. roots of the word “damn” its traditional Christian meaning. Most of the scriptures unique to LDS were written by Joseph Smith. The Book of Mormon contains the word of God translated by the gift and power of God through Joseph Smith. In Joseph's vocabulary were the words he himself learned from out of the Holy Bible. The understanding of those words were well known amongst his fellow Christians. Joseph Smith used those same words as found in the bible as the testimony that Christ lives. The word "damnation" as found also in the bible was well understood in his day as the condemnation to hell. God had His word translated into the language familiar to Christians in early 19th century America. It is with this understanding that we can understand the Book of Mormon.
CV75 Posted January 19, 2020 Posted January 19, 2020 25 minutes ago, Sunslight said: Most of the scriptures unique to LDS were written by Joseph Smith. The Book of Mormon contains the word of God translated by the gift and power of God through Joseph Smith. In Joseph's vocabulary were the words he himself learned from out of the Holy Bible. The understanding of those words were well known amongst his fellow Christians. Joseph Smith used those same words as found in the bible as the testimony that Christ lives. The word "damnation" as found also in the bible was well understood in his day as the condemnation to hell. God had His word translated into the language familiar to Christians in early 19th century America. It is with this understanding that we can understand the Book of Mormon. As long as Jesus qualified the concept in the New Testament, He qualified it in the Book of Mormon, no matter what words He used. I'm assuming He spoke Nephite in the Book of Mormon, and Mormon translated that into reformed Egyptian, and Joseph translated that into English. As greater light and knowledge infused the latter-day doctrine under prophetic keys, we have our current correlated teachings and understanding, thank goodness. God had His word translated into the language that would serve as the basis for all translations for all audiences of all faith traditions from 1830 onward. The same Spirit that fulfills Moroni's Promise conveyed the light and knowledge that led to the various doctrines of the restoration and dispensation of the fulness of times. 1
Navidad Posted January 19, 2020 Posted January 19, 2020 (edited) On 1/18/2020 at 1:18 PM, Raingirl said: I don’t understand why you affiliate with a ward of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when you constantly criticize our beliefs and teachings, our members, constantly judge us, and are not actually open to learning and understanding. Not to mention the fact that you frequently take great pains to make sure to enumerate all the ways that you and your wife are so much “better” than the rest of us. Condescending to making “giant” salads for those terrible Mormons and all that. Do you think you are giving us a positive view of Mennonites by your behavior? How ironic. Feel free to criticize me as yet another one of those terrible, sinning Mormons, I won’t be listening. I converted from Judaism. I’m glad I was able to keep an open mind and heart, and didn’t have your attitude. I appreciate all the responses, but probably this one the most. I fairly constantly talk about the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints having a blind spot in understanding how they are perceived by non-LDS Christians. Raingirl's response was eye-opening for me. You see, I almost always view myself as an advocate for LDS Christians. I speak strongly and boldly when involved with non-LDS Christian groups about my certainty that my LDS Christian friends are just that, fully and completely Christians because of their faithful commitment to the atonement of Christ. So, to have Raingirl tell me that I "constantly criticize our beliefs and teachings, our members, constantly judge us and are not actually open to leaning and understanding" is quite an eye-opener to what is perhaps my own blind spot. I have thought long and hard about these words and will do so further. It doesn't matter that I don't think I criticize LDS beliefs and teachings, especially don't criticize its members, don't judge and am very open to learning and understanding. What matters is how I come across; how what I say is being received by those who read my words. There is no doubt that I disagree with a few LDS beliefs (I can only think of two), and that I can't agree or disagree with many because we have no way of knowing with certainty what happened or will happen on either side of the veil. These things are a matter of faith and faith is not to be judged. There is another thing that someone else mentioned that I have thought long about last night and today. I have often thought that members of the church are very quick to claim criticism of their church from outsiders. Sometimes I think they overreact. And here I was yesterday morning reacting to criticism - completely false statements about non-LDS churches and becoming quite angry and irate about it. I responded in anger, just as I have seen some of you do at times when talking about the words and deeds of those you call anti-Mormons. So that is also a good thing for me to ponder as well. I do believe that when I or any of you mock, berate, or stereotype entire groups of another faith, or entire groups of people of another color, or ethnicity, then I or anyone else is sinning by that very act. If that is what Raingirl means about "terrible sinning" Mormons then I own that. I own that yes, Mennonites, Mormons, and Methodists can sometimes be terrible to each other and that involves sinning. Defending one own's faith is great; attacking an entire community of other Christians is not. My comment about the salad was meant in the context of Ahab's post that all other Christians are just members of social clubs. That implies a complete lack of interest in ministry on our part. That offended me. At any rate, I will sincerely try and adjust my attitude and verbiage to do what I can to help my comments to come across better. Thanks for all your comments. Edited January 19, 2020 by Navidad 2
pogi Posted January 20, 2020 Posted January 20, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, Sunslight said: Section 76 certainly speaks of different people who are saved. I read the section in the light that in verses 40-43 Christ cleanses all those he saves through their obedience to the gospel. Funny, because I read verses 40-43 in light of the rest of the verses. For your interpretation to be true, then that means literally every person on earth will choose to be baptized. There could not be one soul on earth who chooses not to be baptized. Is that what you really believe - that literally everyone will choose baptism? That is what you are suggesting after all if you think about it. You are saying that every person in the 3 different kingdoms must be baptized and cleansed to be saved in one of the 3 kingdoms. Who is left after that? Only the sons of perdition - and we know from revelation that one of the qualifications to become a son of perdition is baptism of water and fire (the Holy Ghost). Where is agency? Where are those who choose not to be baptized? There are none according to you. I simply don't buy it. It makes no sense! 4 hours ago, Sunslight said: We aren't so sure the unrepentant are saved. Yes we are sure. In fact, as I already mentioned, repentance and baptism is a requirement for outer darkness...so, who are the unrepentant then? Who are those who never repent or choose baptism? There aren't any according to you. 4 hours ago, Sunslight said: In fact, no one can be saved in their sins. Remember that "saved" is used in many different ways in the scriptures, and can refer to exaltation. 4 hours ago, Sunslight said: Only the righteous will inherit a place in God's kingdom. All the filthy must be cast aside. Correct - the celestial kingdom. The Father will not even visit the other kingdoms. 4 hours ago, Sunslight said: There will not be found whoremongers or. Sorcerers, liars or anything that offend in God's kingdom. They all have their place in the lake of fire and brimstone. 101 But areceived not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets, neither the beverlasting covenant. 102 Last of all, these all are they who will not be agathered with the saints, to be bcaught up unto the cchurch of the Firstborn, and received into the cloud. 103 These are athey who are bliars, and csorcerers, and dadulterers, and ewhoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie. 104 These are they who suffer the awrath of God on earth. 105 These are they who suffer the avengeance of eternal fire. And yet, we read that they are saved. Edited January 20, 2020 by pogi 2
mfbukowski Posted January 20, 2020 Author Posted January 20, 2020 30 minutes ago, pogi said: Funny, because I read verses 40-43 in light of the rest of the verses. For your interpretation to be true, then that means literally every person on earth will chose to be baptized. There could not be one soul on earth who choses not to be baptized. Is that what you really believe - that literally everyone will chose baptism? That is what you are suggesting after all if you think about it. You are saying that every person in the 3 different kingdoms must be baptized and cleansed to be saved in one of the 3 kingdoms. Who is left after that? Only the sons of perdition - and we know from revelation that one of the qualifications to become a son of perdition is baptism of water and fire (the Holy Ghost). Where is agency? Were are those who chose not to be baptized? There are none according to you. I simply don't buy it. It makes no sense! Yes we are sure. In fact, as I already mentioned, repentance and baptism is a requirement for outer darkness...so, who are the unrepentant then? Who are those who never repent or chose baptism? There aren't any according to you. Remember that "saved" is used in many different ways in the scriptures, and can refer to exaltation. Correct - the celestial kingdom. The Father will not even visit the other kingdoms. 101 But areceived not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets, neither the beverlasting covenant. 102 Last of all, these all are they who will not be agathered with the saints, to be bcaught up unto the cchurch of the Firstborn, and received into the cloud. 103 These are athey who are bliars, and csorcerers, and dadulterers, and ewhoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie. 104 These are they who suffer the awrath of God on earth. 105 These are they who suffer the avengeance of eternal fire. And yet, we read that they are saved. Yep I agree. Now THAT statement should put a few traditional Christans into conniption fits! Such is the ambiguity of the word "saved". The problem is we can answer questions they have never even thought of. It's all very nuanced though, and must be explained at length. Language cannot really contain at the gospel. It must be understood by the spirit. 2
Navidad Posted January 20, 2020 Posted January 20, 2020 Probably the most loved verse in the Bible for Evangelical Christians is John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." How do members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints interpret that verse?
Sunslight Posted January 20, 2020 Posted January 20, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Navidad said: Probably the most loved verse in the Bible for Evangelical Christians is John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." How do members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints interpret that verse? Well, as a Latter Day Saint and disciple of Jesus Christ I interpret it to mean that if we are to be saved from the everlasting death, the second death which is the lake of fire and brimstone prepared for the Devil and his angels, we have to believe in Christ and follow him by being obedient to all he commands us to do. Only then are we brought from spiritual death and hell into life everlasting and are saved into the. Fathers kingdom of heaven. Edited January 20, 2020 by Sunslight
Sunslight Posted January 20, 2020 Posted January 20, 2020 5 hours ago, pogi said: Funny, because I read verses 40-43 in light of the rest of the verses. For your interpretation to be true, then that means literally every person on earth will choose to be baptized. There could not be one soul on earth who chooses not to be baptized. Is that what you really believe - that literally everyone will choose baptism? That is what you are suggesting after all if you think about it. You are saying that every person in the 3 different kingdoms must be baptized and cleansed to be saved in one of the 3 kingdoms. Who is left after that? Only the sons of perdition - and we know from revelation that one of the qualifications to become a son of perdition is baptism of water and fire (the Holy Ghost). Where is agency? Where are those who choose not to be baptized? There are none according to you. I simply don't buy it. It makes no sense! Yes we are sure. In fact, as I already mentioned, repentance and baptism is a requirement for outer darkness...so, who are the unrepentant then? Who are those who never repent or choose baptism? There aren't any according to you. Remember that "saved" is used in many different ways in the scriptures, and can refer to exaltation. Correct - the celestial kingdom. The Father will not even visit the other kingdoms. 101 But areceived not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets, neither the beverlasting covenant. 102 Last of all, these all are they who will not be agathered with the saints, to be bcaught up unto the cchurch of the Firstborn, and received into the cloud. 103 These are athey who are bliars, and csorcerers, and dadulterers, and ewhoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie. 104 These are they who suffer the awrath of God on earth. 105 These are they who suffer the avengeance of eternal fire. And yet, we read that they are saved. I can't believe for even a second that I should disregard the entire Book of Mormon to believe the position and opinions of man to think there would be even one unrepentant whoremonger saved from the everlasting hell. I am not sure exactly what to make of our beliefs regarding section 76 but I am not willing to bet away the entire doctrine of Christ found in the Book of Mormon which state that it is impossible to be saved from an everlasting hell unless we become perfectly spotless before God's judgment seat. But, I am willing to bet that perhaps, just as we do not properly understand "damnation" or "eternal life" in LDS circles, neither do we understand section 76. There are just too many witnesses in Scripture including the Savior himself that teaches us he cannot save us in our sins and that it is an absolute requirement to repent and be baptized.
Sunslight Posted January 20, 2020 Posted January 20, 2020 5 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Yep I agree. Now THAT statement should put a few traditional Christans into conniption fits! Such is the ambiguity of the word "saved". The problem is we can answer questions they have never even thought of. It's all very nuanced though, and must be explained at length. Language cannot really contain at the gospel. It must be understood by the spirit. It is comments like yours why traditional Christians get their backs up against us. We should be sure of what we teach and say. We are not careful enough. The word "saved" is not ambiguous at all. The Book of Mormon is the most simple and clear doctrine regarding salvation. In the great plan of redemption being "saved" means to be saved from damnation which literally means to be saved from the condemnation of an eternal hell. If we are saved we are saved into God's kingdom. The scriptures do not teach of any other salvation. There is only one plan of redemption and one path for that redemption. Failure to find the path and endure til the end results in not being saved and instead being cast off forever at the last great day. The Book of Mormon teaches this doctrine with a perfect clarity. There is no ambiguity.
Recommended Posts