Question about LDS Church after Smith's death.

[Jazz Spazz]

I completely agree.

The main reason non-Mormons get an especially bad rap is the "One True Church" thing that so many other religions and denominations claim.
Same goes for mainstream Christians. People hate to be told there's one way. They want a broad gate. They view it bad enough that we say it's Jesus and no other way and it gets magnified by the "One True Church" angle.
And in Utah even more so, because it's simply referred to as "the church."

I get it, there's NO reason to defend any of this, I'm just stating how most non-mos view the whole thing.

I think I understand. It will always be a burr in the saddle when two people (groups) both feel they are on the straight and narrow path where there is only one path, yet they are on different paths.

It's also a fine line between having confidence and faith in what you believe as "the" way because that statement can only diminish and challenge another view that also feels the same.

For how it is in Utah with TCJC LDS being the predominant church here, this is definitely not the case in the other 99.99999% of the world.
I think LDS folk get used to talking to other LDS folk and referring to TCJC LDS as "the church", and that spills over into how they (we) talk to other people too.

I don't think anyone should be ashamed of what they believe and it's natural to speak in terms as though your way is the right way. If you didn't feel you were on the right track, it would be silly to believe that way. We really shouldn't be offended by anyone speaking in terms like this. Pretty much everyone does it. I think what we should be able to do is not be offended if someone else does the same and be happy with reasonable discussions where we talk about the common ground we have as well as the differences. It's not just organized religion types that do this either.

We should be happy the other person has found what they feel is truth and that they are happy with the direction of their lives. (assuming it is not harming others as part of this belief/moral system).

I'm also fine with others trying to convince the people around them of the reasoning behind what they believe. When you find something good you want to share it to help the people around you. This should not be seen as an attack as much as a sign that they care.

 

[BENTLEY]

1. Jesus Christ said He is "the way" to the Father.
"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me'" (John 14:6).

2. "The way" God has called us to is challenging.
"Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Matthew 7:14).

3. "The Way" became a title for followers of Jesus—the name of their belief before the term "Christian" was used.
"And asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem" (Acts 9:2; see Acts 11:26 for the first reference to Christians).

The Nelson Study Bible says, "Originally, the church called themselves 'The Way.' But later they began to refer to themselves as Christians, despite the fact that the name most likely was originally used to ridicule the believers."

 

[Jazz Spazz]

1. Jesus Christ said He is "the way" to the Father.
"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me'" (John 14:6).

2. "The way" God has called us to is challenging.
"Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Matthew 7:14).

3. "The Way" became a title for followers of Jesus—the name of their belief before the term "Christian" was used.
"And asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem" (Acts 9:2; see Acts 11:26 for the first reference to Christians).

The Nelson Study Bible says, "Originally, the church called themselves 'The Way.' But later they began to refer to themselves as Christians, despite the fact that the name most likely was originally used to ridicule the believers."

We definitely agree that Christ is the way to the Father.

Usually the disagreement I see is the way to get to Christ.

 

[RandyForRubio]

I'm going to try to summarize my view of "grace vs. works" as an active, card carrying Mormon.
It's like having a job. The end goal is to get a pay check. View this as "salvation". I have a license stating I'm a qualified electrician. View this as "accepting Christ". According to to grace, that should be all I need to get my pay check. But yet if don't actually get my fat butt out of bed and actually do some work, there is no pay check.
Having a license is only part of the requirements to get a pay check. My working alone just doesn't quite cut it. BOTH ARE NECESSARY. ONE ALONE DOESN'T BRING ME THE PAY CHECK.

So, in this scenario, you get a license so you are qualified (this is like Jesus dying for us, we all qualify). Then you have to do work (literally) to ensure this salvation. Then you get the paycheck, yay, you've earned money. So here's my question: who's doing the work? You? God? Both of you? And how does this work with what the Bible teaches?

I'll say it again because I feel like people might be missing it. I'm not saying works are unnecessary. They absolutely are, James even says so. But we know the Bible doesn't contradict itself, and we know Paul said that we cannot earn our salvation. So where does that lead us? That our works are evidence of God in our lives, evidence of our faith, but by no means can they, or will they ever gain/earn us salvation. There is only one who can do that, and His name is Jesus. By saying that your works can earn you salvation, you're putting yourself on an equal level with Jesus, and that is heresy.

 

[colton]

The LDS church today keeps saying "we're Christian" because "Jesus Christ" is in the title of their church.

No, the LDS church today says "we're Christian" because we have faith in Christ, believe he is our Savior and the only way to God, accept his atonement on our behalf, and strive to follow his teachings.

But Joseph Smith never identified with the "Christians," but rather demonized them (as did succeeding Presidents of the church). https://mormonthink.com/QUOTES/christianity.htm

Joseph Smith demonized the leaders of other Christian churches to some extent, that is true. But he certainly viewed himself as a Christian. You're just nutty if you think he didn't.

Jesus told his followers that many would come in His NAME, but be ye not deceived. Just because someone claims to be Christian doesn't make it so. God either knows you or He doesn't. But "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?"
23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who work iniquity.'"

OK, no argument from me on that. Fortunately YOU are not the one who will judge whether God knows me. Christ will be my judge.

I would imagine if Mormons were around in Paul's day (humor me) then he would've writen a stern letter to the Mormon sect, correcting their false teachings, as he did with the Galatians or Ephesians, etc.

It's fun to imagine things, isn't it? I imagine that if Paul were around now, he would be telling you to get re-baptized into the LDS church.

But Mormonism teaches with certainty - with pride - that they're the only true Christian sect on the face of the earth. And they refuse to be corrected.

This is the pot calling the kettle black, is it not? You are teaching with certainty -- and with just as much pride as the Mormons -- that Mormonism is false and that only YOUR view of Jesus is the correct one. And you also refuse to be corrected, no?

This statement made in sacrament meetings everywhere is not a statement of faith, but rather a statement of pride. I sympathize with my mormon brothers and sisters' love of Christ, but I don't excuse their pride. That's on me. I'll try to be more understanding and patient, because He wants me to be.

I'll admit some/many/most LDS are prideful. See Pres. Benson's famous talk on that topic--he wouldn't have given it if it weren't a substantial problem in the church. And I'll even admit that I myself can be very prideful. But I don't think the LDS are any more/less prideful than followers of other denominations.

But my salvation is not dependent on my actions.

That's not what Jesus taught.

Anyway, you might be unaware that the LDS church also teaches that we are saved by grace. We are also judged by our works. And if your works are evil, Christ's grace won't save you.

If you believe this will you please provide a scripture as support for this claim. Try Galatians. In fact, to all my fellow Jazzfanz who are wondering about this salvation by works vs. grace debate, I recommend Galatians. Although Paul addresses it in other epistles as well.

Matt 7:21-23 for starters

21 ¶Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Jesus is clearly teaching that our actions have consequences. His grace is not a blanket protection for those who work iniquity. Your salvation is indeed dependent on your actions. Not SOLELY dependent on your actions, of course. But your actions play a role.

And I already quoted Rev 20 earlier in this thread.

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

This is similarly CLEARLY teaching that we will be judged according to our works, and those whose works were evil will be cast into the lake of fire. Your works do indeed matter. You cannot be a true follower of Jesus if you do not turn from your evil works.

I also referred to Matt 25 earlier in this thread.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Again, the teaching is perfectly clear. If you do not bring forth good works (feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc.), then you will be cast out. You will not have been a true follower of Jesus.


Edit: summary line--your works do not save you. But they can damn you, if you work iniquity instead of righteousness.

 

[BENTLEY]

yeah, bigb - that's not a gift, that's commerce. You don't pay for gifts.

Ephesians 2: 8-9:

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

 

[colton]

Colton, you're a lawyer, aren't you? I thought you were.

No, I'm a physicist.

 

[colton]

Yeah, the origins. There is evidence to support that the Smith's were diviners and occultists and swindlers. It's worth looking into, don'tcha think? I mean, when I'm wondering about purchasing something on amazon I read all the reviews to see the positive and negative things people say about a product. It should be the same with religion. Investigate the positive reviews but also read the negatives to weigh for yourself if the negative reviews are objective and valid.

Absolutely. But it's kind of condescending of you to assume I haven't already done that.

In fact, I'd be willing to bet (if I were a betting man) that I've read just as much anti-LDS literature as you have, if not more. At one point in my life I read through everything I could find, and decided that the VAST majority of it was total crap. Mixed in with the crap are a few valid points, which I'm glad I learned about and which I was able to resolve to my own satisfaction. But most of it was crap.

In fact, read this book. It was written by a mormon who worked for 34 years in the CES:
https://www.amazon.com/An-Insiders-View-Mormon-Origins/dp/1560851570

I will admit I haven't read that specific book. But I have read summaries of it, and my conclusion from those summaries is that the book doesn't really contain anything I haven't seen before. Just more of the crap.

 

[colton]

My understanding of this is that there was a gate in Jerusalem they called "the Eye of the Needle". It was low and required all camels to be unloaded and they had to crawl through the gate to enter into Jerusalem.

The rich people can do it, but they must be "unloaded" and kneel to their maker in order to make it in. If you do not love your riches, but use them to help others and if you are humble and turn yourself to the Lord, that may be what was meant there.

Just what I've heard, don't know it 100% for a fact.

This is probably not true. See: https://www.straightdope.com/column...t-the-camel-going-through-the-eye-of-a-needle

More probable is that Jesus was just using hyperbole, to make the point that it's very hard or even impossible for men to be saved if they set their hearts on riches.

 

[colton]

So, in this scenario, you get a license so you are qualified (this is like Jesus dying for us, we all qualify). Then you have to do work (literally) to ensure this salvation. Then you get the paycheck, yay, you've earned money. So here's my question: who's doing the work? You? God? Both of you? And how does this work with what the Bible teaches?

I'll say it again because I feel like people might be missing it. I'm not saying works are unnecessary. They absolutely are, James even says so. But we know the Bible doesn't contradict itself, and we know Paul said that we cannot earn our salvation. So where does that lead us? That our works are evidence of God in our lives, evidence of our faith, but by no means can they, or will they ever gain/earn us salvation. There is only one who can do that, and His name is Jesus. By saying that your works can earn you salvation, you're putting yourself on an equal level with Jesus, and that is heresy.

It seems like your view is closer to the LDS view than you realize. I think all LDS I know would agree with your second paragraph there. And I don't think bigb was saying that his works earn him salvation.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Absolutely. But it's kind of condescending of you to assume I haven't already done that.

.

I don't doubt that. But I can't help but wonder whether you did that with a mind truly open to the possibility that you, and JS, were wrong, applied the same level and rigor of scrutiny and evidence to your beliefs that you do for others', and were prepared to take your conclusion to the logical end if you found your beliefs to be wrong.

For years I too read pro and con stuff, but I never did so with a truly open mind, privileged my own beliefs and failed to apply the same standards of evidence to them as to others', and was looking more to find reasons to support my own beliefs than to truly discover 'truth.' I was, in other words, doing Mormon apologetics and not actual truth seeking. This is what I perceive many LDS faithful do when ostensibly putting their faith to the test.

So, while I don't doubt that you read and think a lot about this, I am not convinced (and I base this on what I've seen of your appeal to Mormon apologetics in different cases), that your approach to doing so is not more apologetics than honest, truth seeking inquiry.

I could be wrong and don't assume for a minute that everyone who honestly researches this stuff comes to the same conclusion I did. I've just seen enough of apologetics and enough people engaged in it, coupled with an understanding of LDS culture, that I'm naturally a bit skeptical in such cases.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Absolutely. But it's kind of condescending of you to assume I haven't already done that.

.

I don't doubt that. But I can't help but wonder whether you did that with a mind truly open to the possibility that you, and JS, were wrong, applied the same level and rigor of scrutiny and evidence to your beliefs that you do for others', and were prepared to take your conclusion to the logical end if you found your beliefs to be wrong.

For years I too read pro and con stuff, but I never did so with a truly open mind, privileged my own beliefs and failed to apply the same standards of evidence to them as to others', and was looking more to find reasons to support my own beliefs than to truly discover 'truth.' I was, in other words, doing Mormon apologetics and not actual truth seeking. This is what I perceive many LDS faithful do when ostensibly putting their faith to the test.

So, while I don't doubt that you read and think a lot about this, I am not convinced (and I base this on what I've seen of your appeal to Mormon apologetics in different cases), that your approach to doing so is not more apologetics than honest, truth seeking inquiry.

I could be wrong and don't assume for a minute that everyone who honestly researches this stuff comes to the same conclusion I did. I've just seen enough of apologetics and enough people engaged in it, coupled with an understanding of LDS culture, that I'm naturally a bit skeptical in such cases.