Senate Mormonism

Doesn't make sense.

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

I know it's a cop-out answer to the non-believers, but somethings the Lord sees fit to do we don't understand.

 

Reminds me of what Jesus said.

You worship what you don't know, I worship what I know!

Anyways thanks for the answer

 

Let me provide you an example from my own life. I am currently engaged to a wonderful young lady. I learned through personal revelation that she was the person I should marry a fairly short time after I met her. However, she did not receive the same revelation about me for over a year after we met. It would have been inappropriate for me to go to her and share the personal answer I had received before she was ready and had received the same answer herself.

what if she had received a different answer through what she believed to be personal revelation? what if you believed God had told you that she was the one for you, but she believed that God told her to marry Bill down the street?

or what if you received a personal revelation that she was the one for you, but then you learned that before this revelation, she had secretly done something you believed to be morally inappropriate and/or in violation of Church rules and teachings? would you still marry her, in accordance with your personal revelation, or would you not, in accordance with Church rules?

more broadly, what would you do if you believed yourself to be the recipient of a personal revelation which you understood to be in conflict with your understanding of Church rules? would you share that revelation with someone else like a Church official so that you could work it out and reconcile your personal revelation with the broader law? or does that make you question whether or not you were correct in believing that you had received a personal revelation in the first place? how do you tell the difference between revelation and your own desire to believe you have received revelation?

 

Okay...the Mormon Doctrine on Faith v. Works? Works are important, yes? Could someone explain the interplay between faith and works, please. Thanks.

 

Believing in God isn't enough if you don't do what God wants you to do. Thus good works come in to play. If you do the works, but don't have the faith (or you just do the motions without really believing in God. Maybe because you want worldly praise or something) you will be a bit saddened when God says "I never knew you" when you meet him again.

 

They go hand in hand.

How could one say that they believe in God and follow His mandates...and then turn around and cheat your fellow man out of something...or kill somebody?

Your works are a result of your faith.

 

Well said.

 

I hate to say this, but these answers aren't "well said". That's probably because of the generic nature of the question that I asked. It wasn't a good question, thus I did not receive good answers. Let me try and get to what I would like to know.

We're mortal, right? Nothing we do can come close to Jesus' life. We're forever damned unless we accept him into our hearts and become "saved". So, why does what we do here matter? I am not wondering about the obvious "killing" scenario elucidated above. I am talking about the good person who is just trying to do their best and make it through life. Why, if they have accepted the atoning sacrifice of Christ, does it matter if they do not join a specific church?

Again, this question is not very well put...but it's better than my above question. I would like an explanation of the doctrinal underpinnings for the requirement that we "work out our salvation" rather than relying solely on the atonement of Christ. Thank you.

 

Sorry I'm late. But these are some of my points (and opinions)

Supporting the Trinity

Doesn't this verse conflict with that core belief? If the Bible and Another Testament is true, then one book is lying.

1 John 5:7

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

Also I don't believe works saves anybody. Jesus and his apostles were clear in the NT that by faith through grace saves a person. Don't confuse what James said about works. Works is a product of demonstrating and living your faith. But the faith part always comes first (through grace).

There are three heavens, but they aren't places where believers or nonbelievers go to when they die.

The third heaven is where God resides. That is where the Apostle Paul spoke of when he claimed he was caught up to paradise.

The second heaven is the galaxies, the stars, and the planets.

The first heaven is right above the earth. It is referred to Paul as the heavenlies. The prince of the power of the air is Satan and this is where the demons and the some of the angels of God reside.

Paul claims that when a believer is absent from the body, they are present with the Lord. When a believer dies, he goes to the first heaven.

Christ didn't atone for our sins

The book of Hebrews strongly agrees with this statement. The blood of bulls, and goats atoned (covered) the sins for the the Jews before Christ. The blood of Jesus destroyed and purge sin that cleans our conscience which is much more than the blood of bulls and goats.

 

Ok, here's a better answer. This comes from Bruce R. McConkie in Mormon Doctrine:

Since all good things come by the grace of God, it follows that salvation itself-in all its forms and degrees-is bestowed because of this infinite goodness. However, one of the untrue doctrines found in modern Christendom is the concept that man can gain salvation (meaning in the kingdom of God) by grace alone and without obedience. This soul destroying doctrine has the obvious effect of lessening the determination of an individual to conform to all of the laws and ordinances of teh gospel, such contformity being essential if the sought for reward is in reality to be gained.

Immortality is a free gift and comes without works or righteousness of any sort; all men will come forth in the resurrection because of teh atoning sacrifice of Chirst (1 Cor. 15:22). In and of itsleft the resurrection is a form of salvation meaning that men are thereby saved from death, hell, the devil, and endless torment. "O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no moreour spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more! (2 Nephi 9:8) In this sense, the mere fact of resurrection is called salvation by grace alone. Works are not involved, neither the works of teh Mosaic law nor the works of righteousness that go with the fulness of the gospel.

Salvation in the celestial kingdom of God, however, is not salvationby grace alone. Rather, it is salvation by grace coupled with obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. (Third article of faith). Those who gain it are "raised in immortality unto eternal life." (Doctrine and Covenants 29:43; 2 Nephi 9:22-24) Immortality comes by grace alone, but those who gain it may find themselves damned in eternity. (Alma 11:37-45) Eternal life, the kind of life enjoyed by eternal beings in the celestial kingdom, comes by grace plus obedience. And the very opportunity to follow teh course of good works which will lead to that salvation sought by the saints comes also by the grace of God.

Thus Nephi wrote: "Be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." (2 Nephi 25:23) Again: "Reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of teh devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved." (2 Nephi 10:24) An thus Moroni recorded; "Come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God. And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unot the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot." (Moroni 10: 32-33)

Paul had occasion to teach the Ephesian Saints that salvation in the Kingdom of God did not result from the ordinances and performances (meaning, the works) of teh Mosaic dispensation, but that it came because of the grace of God coupled with ffaith and gospel obedience (meaning, the works inherent in gospel obedience). The passage, though not preserved for us with the same clarity as is common through most of the body of holy writ, is nevertheless plain and clear to those having an understanding of the doctrine of salvation by grace.

"God, who is rich in mercy," Paul explained, "for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us togethre with Christ, (by grace ye are saved [meaning in the celestial kingdom]): And hath raised us up together , and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus [meaning

 

I belive that faith without works is dead. I am PCA (reformed) and i think that this topic is widely discussed.

I belive that the bible is evident with its convants. The covents of grace.

People in the old testament were saved by looking forward to christ.

onw christ died on the cross, he became our sacrafice and our priest. If you watch Passion of the christ you see the veil splitting for just a second. This means that there was no need for us to go to "preists". We have a one on one relation ship with God. That means no pope in the vatican. But yet there is.

in the new testament, or new covenant. WE are saved by looking back to the lord. When we truly love the lord our savior we will produce fruit of the spirit.

This brings me back to faith vs works.
humans are helpless and we have nothing to bring to the lord. God loves us and has payed for our sins with the blood of his son. All he commands us to do is to glorify him. Great faith will pruduce work. If you do mission's, bible studies etc out of pride and greed. that is a sin.

God loves us, that is the bottom line.
I have nothing agains mormons. I don't think the belife systems works. i have tons of mormon friends and they are really nice. They listen to me and i listen to them. Only the holy spirit can change a mans heart. I am just a tool.

God Bless

DKT out

 

Darth-Horax, you can't say it better than that. Did you retype that whole thing? [face_shocked] The reason I ask is I noticed a few spelling mistakes and I'm sure that the original source didn't have "the" spelled as "teh".

 

It's hard to type with a broken finger.

 

LOL! I commend you for your ability to type that much WITH a broken finger.

 

So, is Mormon Doctrine an authoritative source for LDS theology or isn't it? I quoted something from Mormon Doctrine a page or so ago and it was dismissed by Kimball_Kinnison as merely Bruce R. McConkie opining on some doctrine. I can assume that his summary is probably the best summary on faith v. works, but if that's the case then why cannot this source be used for all the doctrinal summations contained therein, i.e., that "Christ was begotten by an immortal father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers"?

Can we or can we not take Mormon Doctrine as an authoritative source to quote from or are we merely using MD as an advisory source, useful only when it suits an explanatory means rather than an inquisitory one?

 

Can we or can we not take Mormon Doctrine as an authoritative source to quote from or are we merely using MD as an advisory source, useful only when it suits an explanatory means rather than an inquisitory one?

Mormon Doctrine is not authoritative, but can be useful at times for discussion of some of the more basic doctrines. The areas where it encounters more trouble are where it includes speculation as if it were official doctrine.

However, in the quoted case, its explanation is fairly accurate.

Kimball Kinnison

 

How are those us that are non-members able to discern what is canon and what is "EU" mormon doctrine, so to speak? I suppose the answer there is that if I were to find a statement, like the above line, then I just have to bring it to the forum and ask if it's official doctrine. I guess that's the only way to learn, right?

 

The only things that are actual, accepted Doctrine in the church are the Standard Works (Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants), and anything stated by the General Authorities while they are acting in their role as a General Authority.

Bruce R. McConkie wrote this book as a means for quick reference to issues. It actually is not accepted as scripture.

However, his explanations are usually dead on with what the Scriptures say and are in accordance to the Gospel.

His explanation of faith vs. works is very valid, and would not be contended by any in the Mormon church as a personal interpretation.

The whole idea that you brought up earlier, the Virgin Birth by Mary, is described by McConkie through a rational approach and not a spiritual one, which is where the error lies. The bottom line is that we do not know how Mary got impregnated, but the fact is that she did and gave birth to the Savior.

Good question and inquiry, though.

 

The whole idea that you brought up earlier, the Virgin Birth by Mary, is described by McConkie through a rational approach and not a spiritual one, which is where the error lies.

But was it really an error to hold such a belief. I thought that it was conceded on the previous page that it is possible that what BRM said is, in fact, true. Is there really an error there or is it merely an unconfirmed statement by an apostle concerning this doctrine. Does its unconfirmed nature automatically make it an error?

 

How are those us that are non-members able to discern what is canon and what is "EU" mormon doctrine, so to speak? I suppose the answer there is that if I were to find a statement, like the above line, then I just have to bring it to the forum and ask if it's official doctrine. I guess that's the only way to learn, right?

One of the first keys is to look at the source. If it is authorized by the First Presidency, then it represents Church doctrine. This includes all sorts of materials, including teaching manuals and other church publications.

For example, on the topic of faith, the Missionary Discussions say this:

The First Principle Is Faith in Christ

The first principle of the gospel is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. [Read and discuss Hebrews 11:6.] To have faith in Christ means to firmly believe that he is the Son of God and the Savior of the world.

Faith in Christ Means Loving and Following Him

When we have faith in Christ, we love him. We accept his atonement and his teachings. We do all that he has asked us to do. We follow the example of his perfect life and trust in him.

If it is not directly authorized by the First Presidency, then it is not a definitive statement of doctrine, but it can be a good advisory source. If you have any questions, you are always free to ask us or another member of the Church. We're always willing to help explain things.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Yes, it does seem that many extremists of every religion think that in one way or another every other religion is contradictive to their own. In fact, there is a site: http://www.exposingsatanism.com/ that does a fancy job of it. It is an extremist Christian group. Probably not too extreme but nonetheless convinced of their religion's superiority. They have some rather vibrant comments about many religions including Mormonism. However, if you are easily offended, don't visit the site. Some things they say are very distasteful and contradictive of the Golden Rule. Have a nice Sunday, Monday or perhaps Saturday depending on where you are!

 

LoL JadeTrinity. That site's contents is actually pretty funny. Thanks for pointing out a funny site that made me laugh and brightened my day.

 

That website's a joke...

 

That site's content was so ridiculously off-base that it makes me cringe. Whatever...I am glad that I am not a party to those extreme beliefs about religion.

Yikes!

 

So here are some questions for the Mormon-frequenters of this forum:

Whatever happened to the "peep" stone Joseph Smith claimed to have? Was it returned to the angel along with the Urim and Thummim?

Do all LDS prophets have a "peep" stone like Joseph Smith? What was the point of having a "peep" stone in addition to the Urim and Thummim?