Question about LDS Church after Smith's death.

[bigb]

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.

I've never said that I wouldn't be saved but for the grace of Christ. That was the purpose of the His life/death. But I have a very hard time with those that say "I'm saved because I accepted Christ" while they continue to live their life in a horrible fashion. One of the superintendents I work with is this way. He claims to be saved because he accepted Christ. Yet he steals, lies, takes the Lord's name in vain, does illegal drugs, etc. For the record, I know plenty of Mormons like this as well. How does this work with His teachings of "if Ye love me, obey my commandments" and "no unclean thing can enter into the kingdom of heaven"?
Honestly Hantlers, I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong. I have no interest in debating it. This is all my thoughts on this principle, based on what I've read in the scriptures and my own pondering of it. Maybe you're right. Maybe I'm right. Maybe we're both wrong and some funky tribe in the middle of Africa has it right. In all honesty, I don't think any of us have a real understanding of what's going to happen and we'll all be surprised when we meet at the pearly gates.

 

[colton]

So you're saying J.Smith taught things about Jesus that were in conflict with what he taught in the King Follett sermon? This reminds me of Mohammad's "satanic verses." Do you guys know about that? It's controversial for Muslims - they don't like people talking about it (ask Salman Rushdie). Google if you want something more accurate than my memory. iirc, these were prophetic words which later Mohammad denied and said Satan put those words in his mouth. So are you saying that the King Follett sermon was like Mohammad's satanic verses?

No, not at all. I'm saying that we don't really know what it means to say "God was once a man" and also to say "God created the universe and everything in it". In what sense was God once a man? What does "once" even mean when referring to in an era before time began (e.g. before the Big Bang)? Etc. Perhaps if Joseph had lived, he could have expounded on that. Since he didn't, it's not even in the canon, and it makes "Mormons believed God lived on a planet called Kolob" a common strawman for the anti-LDS contingent. (As you should know, Mormons don't believe that at all.) As it is, all we have is canonical info on what's sort-of the converse of the statement, which is that man may become like God. There's info on that in the D&C. And in the Bible, for that matter, if you believe that's what the phrase "joint-heirs with Christ" is referring to (as I do).

 

[colton]

The BofM is very Christian in its theology. It just has no evidence supporting its authenticity.

Sorry to re-post, but I just noticed this line. That's not true at all. There is a lot of evidence supporting its authenticity. You just don't accept the evidence. To list some of the evidence that I accept: on the "non scientific" side of things there are the teachings themselves and how they affect my life and there's the spiritual confirmation from the Holy Ghost that it comes from God. On the more scientific side, there's the evidence of Hebraic words and language structures in the text and the description of things such as cement that were not known to exist in the New World and writing on metal plates that was not known to exist in the Old World in Joseph Smith's time, there's the accurate description of a place unknown in Joseph Smith's time in the proper location with the proper function (a burial site), and so forth. You're probably familiar with many of them, feel free to check out Jeff Lindsay's compilation if not: https://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml. Just because you don't accept these evidences doesn't mean they aren't there, and doesn't mean that someone else might not find them compelling. (I myself don't find ALL of the items on the list compelling, but I do find many of them.)

 

[fishonjazz]

Maybe you're right. Maybe I'm right. Maybe we're both wrong and some funky tribe in the middle of Africa has it right. In all honesty, I don't think any of us have a real understanding of what's going to happen and we'll all be surprised when we meet at the pearly gates.

This


is why I'm agnostic.

 

[RandyForRubio]

I've never said that I wouldn't be saved but for the grace of Christ. That was the purpose of the His life/death. But I have a very hard time with those that say "I'm saved because I accepted Christ" while they continue to live their life in a horrible fashion. One of the superintendents I work with is this way. He claims to be saved because he accepted Christ. Yet he steals, lies, takes the Lord's name in vain, does illegal drugs, etc. For the record, I know plenty of Mormons like this as well. How does this work with His teachings of "if Ye love me, obey my commandments" and "no unclean thing can enter into the kingdom of heaven"?
Honestly Hantlers, I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong. I have no interest in debating it. This is all my thoughts on this principle, based on what I've read in the scriptures and my own pondering of it. Maybe you're right. Maybe I'm right. Maybe we're both wrong and some funky tribe in the middle of Africa has it right. In all honesty, I don't think any of us have a real understanding of what's going to happen and we'll all be surprised when we meet at the pearly gates.

I'm agreeing with you on that dude though. His works are evidence he doesn't have a true relationship with Christ.

 

[bigb]

I'm agreeing with you on that dude though. His works are evidence he doesn't have a true relationship with Christ.

I'd be willing to bet that we could get out of our own way, we'd agree more than we disagree about most things.

 

[b_line]

I'm agreeing with you on that dude though. His works are evidence he doesn't have a true relationship with Christ.

Earlier on in the thread you had invited a couple people to read some verses from the bible and pray about them to prove that Mormonism was not Christianity. Are you willing to do read the Book of Mormon and pray about its authenticity and truth?

 

[RandyForRubio]

Earlier on in the thread you had invited a couple people to read some verses from the bible and pray about them to prove that Mormonism was not Christianity. Are you willing to do read the Book of Mormon and pray about its authenticity and truth?

I'll be honest, I'm not. I know about Joseph Smith, and personally, I believe it's easily proven that he was a false prophet. I'm asking people to read the Bible, which they already should be doing as it is one of your religions holy books. You're asking me to read and pray about something that I view as heresy. There's a bit of a difference there. I mean, this is an outlandish example, but would you use a Ouiji board and pray that God speaks to you through it?

 

[Stoked]

Maybe we can agree that we're all lousy human beings trying the best we can to find truth. Which is the enjoyable thing about this thread, in spite of the inevitable conflict.

The part of your quote I bolded is something I heard many times in LDS church. This gets perpetuated in sacrament meetings and isn't the case for many. It's tantamount to a straw man argument - "they were offended" or "they want to sin" rather than they studied LDS church history and discovered unsavory truths there. Rather than look at the issues that so troubled this person, they smear the person's character and then blindly go to Sunday school. You don't deny that Mormonism is full of controversial historical issues (polygamy for one, polyandry as well. The Kinderhook plates, Book of Abraham, the list goes on). If you concede that mormonism does indeed have issues that can be labeled "controversial" then perhaps you could cut this truth seeker a little slack. Try be understanding of their struggle, rather than assuming something about their character.

From what I have found it is true. It would be nice to think that most people put such deep thought as the bolded into their decision. But then you go onto talk about "blindly going to Sunday School".

I agree that far to many Mormons, and thos of other faiths, do so out of habit and the need to fit in. But such shallow reasons also apply on the other side of the isle. Someone got offended by a fellow member, laziness and other reasons. I'm not assuming anything about their character any more than you are about those that attend.

My experiences and what I have found to be true are as valid as yours.

As for "controversial", absolutely there are and there are ex members, or those that investigated the church and decided not to join, that have done so after research, thought and prayer. Good for them for giving that decision the time it deserved. Unfortunatly most people are not that deep. And that is something that works both ways.

Keep in mind I am a 100% "inactive Mormon" and I will not be back anytime soon if ever.

 

[Stoked]

I'll be honest, I'm not. I know about Joseph Smith, and personally, I believe it's easily proven that he was a false prophet. I'm asking people to read the Bible, which they already should be doing as it is one of your religions holy books. You're asking me to read and pray about something that I view as heresy. There's a bit of a difference there. I mean, this is an outlandish example, but would you use a Ouiji board and pray that God speaks to you through it?

Hahahahaha, I need that. Thank you.

 

[LogGrad98]

I'll be honest, I'm not. I know about Joseph Smith, and personally, I believe it's easily proven that he was a false prophet. I'm asking people to read the Bible, which they already should be doing as it is one of your religions holy books. You're asking me to read and pray about something that I view as heresy. There's a bit of a difference there. I mean, this is an outlandish example, but would you use a Ouiji board and pray that God speaks to you through it?

The Jews in the day viewed Jesus as a heretic. Should they have reconsidered?

 

[RandyForRubio]

The Jews in the day viewed Jesus as a heretic. Should they have reconsidered?

Jesus fulfilled prophesy, Joseph Smith made false prophecy.

Please don't compare the two.