tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post4194252719569926497..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Faithful Latter-day Saints Dealing with the New LDS Policy on Same-Sex MarriageJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger100125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-37319419578367517422016-10-25T00:57:17.098-05:002016-10-25T00:57:17.098-05:00Life is good when you have your love ones around y...Life is good when you have your love ones around you, I am saying this because when i had issues with my lover i never seen life as a good thing but thanks to Dr. AGBAZARA of AGBAZARA TEMPLE, for helping me to cast a spell that brought my lover back to me within the space of 48hours. My husband left me for another woman after 7YEARS of marriage,but Dr.AGBAZARA help me cast a spell that brought him back to me within 48hours. I am not going to tell you more details about myself rather i will only advise those who are having issues in there relationship or marriages to contact Dr.AGBAZARA TEMPLE through these details via; ( agbazara@gmail.com ) or call him on Whatsapp: +2348104102662Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-92134777598395352282016-02-08T13:29:02.181-06:002016-02-08T13:29:02.181-06:00As a mom of a transgender child I feel sadness yet...As a mom of a transgender child I feel sadness yet hope Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17745539571143714277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-3725436306624269672016-01-24T22:27:51.748-06:002016-01-24T22:27:51.748-06:00When this issue came up it was very interesting ho...When this issue came up it was very interesting how generational the issue has been. I am a faithful member but think the church has totally failed on gay marriage- but not like most people. They failed when they came out for special protections and they fail as they continue to try and bargain with this sin. We don't strive to work so hard to make peace with fornicators, thieves, or murderers all of which are equally born that way as people who suffer from temptations of same sex attraction. I am sure those who have family members who struggle are more aware in the same way that when you have family members who are alcoholics you are more aware. <br /><br />But back to my thoughts - the whole things shows the absolute frivolity of our society. I had family members ready to leave the church over a policy they had know about for 24 hours and decided in their superior moral reasoning was "wrong". As a church we are not long for this world with so many having such shallow roots. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-5590537209355393552016-01-18T08:07:57.893-06:002016-01-18T08:07:57.893-06:00Anti-Left Anon, as a reminder, my request for civi...Anti-Left Anon, as a reminder, my request for civil, polite discourse is not just for our critics, but also for my fellow Mormons, who sometimes get riled over the arguments and criticisms of outsiders. Yes, I know the frustration of talking with those on the other side of my political and religious arena and feeling like they are illogical, close-minded, liars, hypocritical, with bad personal hygiene. But through discourse with them, I've learned that they face the same frustrations with people like me. In fact, there are far more highly intelligent, compassionate, decent and well-groomed non-Mormons that there are Mormons. Further, intelligent, decent people can actually be Democrats. In fact, I think they can even be Republicans! While I lean away from both of those fairly similar big-money parties, I've come to learn that it's possible for people to disagree with my views and still have a soul, in at least some cases, anyway. <br /><br />In our debates, if we get stirred up to the point of hostility and name-calling, we lose. Stay calm and respectful, and remember that those who think we are idiotic are not necessarily idiots, and may have some valid arguments from their perspective, even if we can immediately see that they are missing significant points and, from our perspective, being unfair. More dialog, less name calling. <br /><br />If something really riles you, it doesn't need a response. If you must respond, give them something to think about. If berating is necessary, let me handle that as I do, occasionally, and sadly, sometimes poorly and too harshly. <br /><br />I've come to find that even the "most annoying" are pretty interesting and have some valid perspectives to share and often help us by pointing out where our arguments are weak or need more investigation. <br /><br />Many thanks to those of you who listen and engage respectfully. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-70691887629227758402016-01-17T19:41:10.299-06:002016-01-17T19:41:10.299-06:00everythingbeforeus............if you would quit be...everythingbeforeus............if you would quit being so derogatory and stay on subject and not throw out several unimportant accusations at once, it would not be so bad in dealing with you and this goes for others as well.<br /><br />LDS critics are just like left wing liberal progressives and social justice warriors in that they twist the words of those they do not agree with, out right lie, are politically correct, intolerant of others views, and when the argument does not go their way they attack with verbal abuse and straw man arguments and refuse to see the other sides viewpoint no matter the evidence, do not want real dialogue, bullies, changes the subject, will not answer questions, and too much more to list. And they see nothing wrong with their behavior because their ideology is right (to them) and everyone else is wrong. They are the biggest hypocrites ever.<br /><br />I have been kicked off of anti Mormon blogs because they can not stand a good argument, and some will not even tolerate a Mormon point of view or defense. I have rarely seen any LDS blog kick anyone off like everythingbeforeus. On the contrary. The LDS blogs are 100 percent more tolerant of anti Mormons than anti Mormon blogs are of Mormons. The people on anti Mormon blogs can do nothing but call names, get downright mean and very un Christian, and out right lie. <br /> <br />Interesting how evangelicals throw their own under the bus if evangelicals think the person strayed even a little from their dogma. A good example is Richard Mouw. <br /><br /> Dr. Daniel Peterson will kick people off his blog after multiple warnings of stopping denigrating DR. Peterson himself or the church leaders or doctrine. Keep it civil and one can stay. <br /><br /><br />Tired of <br />Religious and Political <br />Facists<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-53772236269971610292016-01-16T20:19:54.653-06:002016-01-16T20:19:54.653-06:00As for Christ's triumphant victory over death ...As for Christ's triumphant victory over death and sin, we see the great sacrifice being completed on the cross, but the full victory came when He took up His body again and stepped out of the tomb. That ultimate completion matters greatly to us. But His work for us in the garden, on the cross, in the spirit world where he descended to proclaim liberty and initiate the preaching of the Gospel, and then his Resurrection are all part of His redeeming work for us that we remember and celebrate. We do not stumble at any of that, though we may fall to our knees or stagger at the weight of His overwhelming love and infinite sacrifice for us. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-53342991098224604792016-01-16T20:06:32.246-06:002016-01-16T20:06:32.246-06:00You have frequently raised meaningful issues and i...You have frequently raised meaningful issues and insights. It's just sometimes they aren't on an appropriate post, but on the other hand, once commenters take up a thread, it is fair game for you to respond and perhaps I shouldn't be frustrated by that. Sorry about others making it hard for you to be heard. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-67160410665005420242016-01-16T19:25:53.966-06:002016-01-16T19:25:53.966-06:00Well, Jeff, I try it on other blogs, but they just...Well, Jeff, I try it on other blogs, but they just moderate me out of existence, or block me, or delete me. You are the friendliest Mormon blogger there is, and the only one who truly practices what you preach as far it comes to freedom of speech. I have probably overstayed my welcome long enough. I think I will say good-bye, mostly because I think I have said all I could say without becoming painfully repetitious. Do continue to research this Early Modern English stuff. I do find it very fascinating, and quite frankly, I feel very impatient waiting to find out what it could all mean. Thank you for your hospitality. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-78850066968289323102016-01-16T19:00:31.258-06:002016-01-16T19:00:31.258-06:00EBU, your endless efforts to bring up your talking...EBU, your endless efforts to bring up your talking points and belittle our faith puzzle me. Is it just my blog where you do this? <br /><br />Jesus is my Savior and his great Sacrifice was completed on the cross. We remember frequently. Did anyone ever explain to you the symbolism of the sacrament that we take each Sunday? Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-77626898290230809952016-01-16T00:00:05.830-06:002016-01-16T00:00:05.830-06:00There are various meanings of stumbling-block in E...There are various meanings of stumbling-block in English. Not wise to get hung up on one meaning being the only possible one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-42553315542188147352016-01-15T23:15:08.362-06:002016-01-15T23:15:08.362-06:00Nope, I accept Christ's sacrifice. We're ...Nope, I accept Christ's sacrifice. We're good there. Not even in the same universe as the Jews rejecting Christ, so your use of stumblingblock is a misuse as well. It's unfortunate to watch you sidestep everything and simply stoop to being judgment and insulting. <br /><br />I reject the evangelical dogma that you describe for the reasons I described. That does not equate to rejecting Christ, or to Paul. I have quoted Paul all night, and you didn't respond to any of it. Perhaps when you find yourself without much of anything productive to say, then is a good time to error on the side of charity. Have a good one. Piercenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-77650786409857279262016-01-15T16:58:55.696-06:002016-01-15T16:58:55.696-06:00But all of this taken as a whole is not the Protes...<i>But all of this taken as a whole is not the Protestant message. It used to be, but it has been hijacked by evangelicalism, IMO. That message is the "arrival" of "being saved", and afterwards just giving thanks for it. This version of grace is, indeed, a stumblingblock.</i><br /><br />I think you need to study Martin Luther, the original Protestant, who had a spiritual experience reading Romans in which he realized the message of "being saved" through grace.<br /><br />I also think you need to study what the word "stumblingblock" means. A stumblingblock is not a false doctrine that trips people up, as you suggest. It is a true doctrine that trips people up. <br /><br />You are saying my version of grace (which is in error) is a stumblingblock. That is wrong. "Stumblingblock" comes from the Greek skandalon. Scandal. Offence. Christ crucified is said to be a stumblingblock to the Jews. It was a truth that the Jews couldn't wrap their heads around because they were convinced that they were right, simply by virtue of having Abraham as their father, and because they had been given the law. <br /><br />This is the way stumblingblock is used in scripture. And therefore, I say that to Mormons, as Paul said to Jews, Christ crucified is a stumblingblock. <br /><br />To Mormons, the cross isn't even where Christ worked out the Atonement. That happened primarily in the Garden. The cross is indeed a scandal to Mormons. They eschew this common Christian symbol. The cross, and Christ crucified, Paul says, is the power of salvation.<br /><br />You can refuse to listen to Paul, but if you do, at least have the courage to admit that you, as a Mormon, reject his message as being apostate Christianity. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-12894973215354159162016-01-15T15:50:06.571-06:002016-01-15T15:50:06.571-06:00-"I believe in the law far more than Mormons ...-"I believe in the law far more than Mormons do."<br />A law is something that has consequences for breaking it. As an example, Paul listed a few commandments that Christians are expected to keep and the consequences for breaking them in 1 Cor 6. EBU, you don't really believe in consequences or that God will hold you accountable for your works. That's what this whole thing is about. It's not <i>you,</i> that Paul could have possibly been talking about, because you're <i>saved</i> already. No wonder Paul added "be not deceived." Almost like he looked into our time. You criticize those who lay up treasures in heaven and don't recognize that there are those will be "great" and "least" in the kingdom of heaven (Christ's words). Maybe I have you pegged wrong on some of these points. But all of this taken as a whole is not the Protestant message. It used to be, but it has been hijacked by evangelicalism, IMO. That message is the "arrival" of "being saved", and afterwards just giving thanks for it. This version of grace is, indeed, a stumblingblock. It prevents one from truly progressing. It's a far cry from the inclusion and focus on discipleship, change, self-denial, and accountability that Christ and the apostles consistently taught throughout all of the New Testament.<br /><br />You are quick to denounce and criticize every point of our doctrine. But quite frankly, I find your attempt to articulate these points contradictory and confusing: how your works affect your place in heaven or hell as a Christian, what judgment scriptures mean, and the meaning of storing up treasures in heaven. And honestly I don't blame you. The thrust of evangelicalism ignores and rewrites swaths of scriptural teaching (especially in the Gospels) in order justify its own interpretation of a few of Paul's teachings. <br /><br />I am going to do what Christ and the apostles taught us to do.Piercenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-55052452694889469912016-01-15T15:49:12.386-06:002016-01-15T15:49:12.386-06:00I don't seek to "liberate" myself fr...I don't seek to "liberate" myself from the commandments of God. Those who seek to do so will be judged, as the scriptures have taught. Instead, I will seek to take up my cross and follow Christ. It's what He requires.<br /><br />-There are two commandments that Jesus said that "all of the laws and prophets" hang on: love God and love your neighbor. Temple covenants are promises that serve to fulfill those covenants to greater degrees. Those who actually do set themselves apart and live up to their covenants receive greater treasure in Heaven. <i> That is what Christ taught</i>. You don't have to believe it, but it follows the scriptural pattern better than anything I've ever heard from Protestantism. In the end, if any person decides to follow the biblical pattern and makes promises to the Lord to serve him--be it in a temple or otherwise--who are you to mock? And how could serving Christ ever be viewed as evil?<br /><br />-"A person who chooses to reject Christ’s teachings has not accepted Christ as their Savior." Are you saying is that if they are choosing to live in sin, they will be judged for it--testimony of Jesus notwithstanding? So what are we arguing about? And hopefully your answer doesn't contain "we're all sinners" hyperbole. That's a given, but the whole of the N.T. is about rising above that.<br /><br />-"This is not what Christ had in mind when he spoke of laying up treasures." This statement can only be made by a prophet, because Jesus and the rest of the apostles were vague about what heaven is, what the rewards are, what it means to be great in heaven, etc. We claim that a prophet has given us more information about what this is, which actually is in accordance with other scripture, so you'll have to show me your competing revelation and were it comes from. <br /><b>Romans 8<br /> 16 It is that very Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ—if, in fact, we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him. </b><br />Belittle this promise at your own peril. It is God's part of the covenant.<br /><br />-"The covenant of faith comes through Christ. Is there yet another covenant beyond that?" <br />I don't know what "the covenant of faith" means or implies. Covenants have always been promises between two parties where both parties are expected to do something, and were performed by one having authority. The temple is just a method to clearly distill those covenants. You mentioned not swearing any oaths before heaven. If you're talking about Matthew 5, the context is dealing with our communications to each other. The scripture isn't talking about not covenanting with God. Piercenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-59189889994280827192016-01-15T13:37:05.490-06:002016-01-15T13:37:05.490-06:00Mormons actually do acknowledge that God will save...<i>Mormons actually do acknowledge that God will save people from torturous eternal hell (the way traditional Christians view it) through His mercy, but will reward everyone according to their works (Revelation 20:12). We store up "treasures in heaven" as Jesus taught. You know our doctrine about different degrees of glory.</i><br /><br />Yes…it is called exaltation. And the reward you seek is to be worshipped by your spiritual posterity as a God. I do indeed know your doctrine of the degrees of glory. This is not what Christ had in mind when he spoke of laying up treasures. <br /><br /><i>Temple worship revolves around covenants. Yes, making a covenant with Christ is necessary for salvation, and that is biblical doctrine. Otherwise, go ahead and burn that book you call the New Testament, which comes from a Greek word meaning "Covenant."</i><br /> <br />I don’t need to burn my New Testament. I just need to find the Mormon endowment in it somewhere. I can’t find it there. Christ is the New Covenant, but that has nothing to do with what happens in the temple. <br /><br /><i>And yes, this covenant relationship was symbolized through rites in the OT, and was replaced with new rites in the NT, such as baptism and communion. Temple covenants are an extension of that and are part of the Latter-Day church.</i><br /> <br />Do you mean to say that the Latter-day Church has something that the ancient church did not, namely the temple covenants? Because if so, that means you have turned Joseph Smith, the bringer of the New and Everlasting Covenant, into a Messiah figure. That doesn’t square with scripture. The covenant of law came through Moses. The covenant of faith comes through Christ. Is there yet another covenant beyond that? <br /><br /><i>No matter how condescending you describe the way the church dispenses covenants, the concepts of covenants, living a higher law, and laying up treasures in heaven is 100% biblical, and it is sorely lacking in your doctrine and proselytizing.</i><br /><br />You misunderstand “my” doctrine and proselytizing. If you read all I have written to both you and Vance, I think you should understand that I believe in law far more than Mormons do. I believe in it so fully that I will follow Christ, who said I shouldn’t swear any oaths to Heaven. I believe in law so fully that I know not to lie before God and declare myself “worthy” when I know inside that I will never be worthy apart from the Worthy Lamb. <br />I believe in covenant. I believe in laying up treasures. Again, I think I have said it to you before, as I have said to Vance…grace is your stumblingblock. I hope you come to understand it. Not so that you’ll be saved…I trust you already believe in Jesus Christ as you say you do. But I hope you come to understand it so that you can be liberated. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-27425144479173950692016-01-15T13:34:40.347-06:002016-01-15T13:34:40.347-06:00I don't understand how you believe that Christ...<i>I don't understand how you believe that Christ has no law. That is not found in the Old or New Testament. He gave us the New Covenant (New Testament). A covenant is a oath that goes both ways. Israel had expectations and were judged by God's laws--receiving blessings and cursings. Atonement was made to cover their sins and make that possible.</i><br /> <br />So what was so wrong with this covenant that it needed to be done away? If justice and mercy both received their due through this Old Covenant, what was the problem? <br /><br /><i>[He] also gave us a greater law: "A new commandment I give unto you: that ye love one another." And everything else He taught (Sermon on the Mount) was part of that New Covenant.</i><br /> <br />And where does the wearing of garments, the dietary restrictions, and the rituals and ordinances fit into that commandment to “love one another,” commandment, which by the way, fulfills all the law and the prophets?<br /> <br /><i>Further surprising is that you imply that no matter how much one personally chooses to reject Christ's teachings and live after their own vain imaginations, God will somehow drag them into heaven…</i><br /><br />I never said any such thing. A person who choose to reject Christ’s teachings has not accepted Christ as their Savior. They are not saved. <br /><br /><i> …and they will be the same as Abraham because they simply acknowledged Jesus as a 'personal savior.'</i><br /><br />“…Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness….How was it then accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised…that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised…” Romans 4: 3, 10, 11.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-45706814492895208062016-01-15T11:15:59.197-06:002016-01-15T11:15:59.197-06:00I debated on whether or not to respond to your ass...I debated on whether or not to respond to your assessment of our temple ceremony due to your lack of charity in describing or discussing it. But here it goes.<br /><br />Temple worship revolves around covenants. Yes, making a covenant with Christ is necessary for salvation, and that is biblical doctrine. Otherwise, go ahead and burn that book you call the New Testament, which comes from a Greek word meaning "Covenant." And yes, this covenant relationship was symbolized through rites in the OT, and was replaced with new rites in the NT, such as baptism and communion. Temple covenants are an extension of that and are part of the Latter-Day church. Ultimately, they deal with the simple concept of laying up treasures in heaven--which is something that Christ did indeed teach. Many of the temple covenants are indirectly found in scripture, so it really is nothing new or extraordinary in that regard.<br /><br />No matter how condescending you describe the way the church dispenses covenants, the concepts of covenants, living a higher law, and laying up treasures in heaven is 100% biblical, and it is sorely lacking in your doctrine and proselytizing. Piercenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-3548463453515767892016-01-15T11:01:45.109-06:002016-01-15T11:01:45.109-06:00I don't understand how you believe that Christ...I don't understand how you believe that Christ has no law. That is not found in the Old or New Testament. He gave us the New Covenant (New Testament). A covenant is a oath that goes both ways. Israel had expectations and were judged by God's laws--receiving blessings and cursings. Atonement was made to cover their sins and make that possible. When Christ was here, He fulfilled the animal sacrifices (because He was the great sacrifice, and His atonement makes our redemption possible) and also gave us a greater law: "A new commandment I give unto you: the ye love one another." And everything else He taught (Sermon on the Mount) was part of that New Covenant. You cannot have a commandment (His words) without a reward or punishment, or else it is not a commandment. You absolutely will be judged according to whether or not you keep your covenant. It seems like you talk out of both sides of your mouth when you say that we will indeed be judged by our works (I mean, it's all over the scriptures) but then say "that person is still saved." Further surprising is that you imply that no matter how much one personally <i>chooses</i> to reject Christ's teachings and live after their own vain imaginations, God will somehow drag them into heaven and they will be the same as Abraham because they simply acknowledged Jesus as a 'personal savior.' It really flies in the face of everything Jesus taught, and really what Paul and James and John taught for that matter, based on what I quoted above. Who was Paul writing to in 1 Cor 6 when he said that you should not be deceived about who would and wouldn't enter into heaven? Christians, EBU. He was writing to Christians. And by extension, to you and me. Paul said to be not deceived on this specific point. <br /><br /><b>"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."</b><br /><br />Mormons actually do acknowledge that God will save people from torturous eternal hell (the way traditional Christians view it) through His mercy, but will reward everyone according to their works (Revelation 20:12). We store up "treasures in heaven" as Jesus taught. You know our doctrine about different degrees of glory.<br />What does it mean to you that we will be "judged by our works" and that He will "render every man according to his works?" If you believe that people will be saved from fiery Hell, and also that there are greater treasures in heaven for doing what Christ taught, then we really don't disagree except on fine details. And we certainly don't deserve your condemnation.Piercenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-86762710439520390792016-01-15T08:02:29.864-06:002016-01-15T08:02:29.864-06:00If you are going to quote the "schoolmaster&q...If you are going to quote the "schoolmaster" analogy, you gotta get it right. The law was a schoolmaster, a tutor, to bring us to Christ. Now that Christ has come, we are no longer under a tutor. You have to make sense of this. You skip it. But it is there. What do you think it means? <br /><br />And what does it mean to you exactly that Christ "fulfilled" the law? What does fulfill mean in that context to you?<br /><br />Yes...we are judged by our works. I have no problem with that. <br /><br />But there is a pardon from condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Even if all that person's work is burned, that person is still saved. This is in Corinthians. They may lose all their heavenly reward, but they are still saved from condemnation. <br /><br />How does sitting in a small theatre watching a movie and then learning sacred words and actions provide any solid evidence that you have decided to become a follower of Christ? Did Christ ever tell you that you had to do that? Does everyone who does that go forth from that point on and live honorable lives? You do realize the man who murdered a few people with bombs back in the 80's (Mark Hoffman) was a temple worker at one point. Do you think if his discipleship were on trial that any judge would accept the fact that he participated in these rituals as solid evidence in the case? Do they prove anything at all? <br /><br />Do you seriously think that God, who knows your heart, needs to see you sit down in that theatre to prove it to him? How can you prove your heart to God? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-8345006946933820942016-01-14T22:47:23.257-06:002016-01-14T22:47:23.257-06:00"But, as you declare, if by "us" yo..."But, as you declare, if by "us" you mean those who repent and shun sin, I have to ask you,...have you achieved this yet?"<br /><br />You know exactly what Mormons believe. You know that there is no point of our doctrine that defines some sort of "achievement." You know that we have never had a person who has proclaimed that they have achieved perfection in this life. So why would you insist on stating it like this? It really is disingenuous. The strange thing to me is that I quoted the Bible--PAUL no less-- and you decide to kind of ridicule the actual content of the scripture. I can't understand why. <br /><br />It seems obvious to me that God doesn't judge people by what they "achieve," but what they desire to achieve and what they are changing about themselves. If I had to actually answer your loaded question, then my answer would be this: yes, I have chosen to shun sin and become a follower of Christ, with the ordinances being evidence of my decision. Every day I chose to do that, and every day I have victory and failures. The Spirit of God motivates me to continue to transcend my sinful self, and Satan tempts me to stay where I am at. And I will be judged according to what I choose to do. And so will you.<br /><br />This is all over the Bible. It's not difficult to understand. Piercenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-12213694095797673982016-01-14T22:28:40.644-06:002016-01-14T22:28:40.644-06:00And just to be clear, Mormons don't actually b...And just to be clear, Mormons don't actually believe that our works save us. Christ saves us, and He was very clear that those who repent by shunning their natural selves and live a higher law and believe in Him are the ones whom He will save, and this echoes throughout all of the rest of the Acts and the Epistles. <br /><br />Hands down this the most consistent view in the Old and New Testament. If the Law was a schoolmaster, then it taught us that God has given us a law to follow, and an Atonement was made to account for our fallen nature and sinful behaviors. They went hand in hand, and they still do. Jesus said that he did not come to destroy the law and prophets, but to fulfill it. He gave a new covenant--one with a higher law and greater blessings. And just as God judged Israel for what their heart was set upon, which was reflected in what they did, so we too will be judged. No amount of misquoting Paul will ever excuse a person from that. And just as we are judged according to what kind of being we have changed ourselves into, we will be rewarded by it:<br /><br /><b>Revelation 22:12<br />"Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done." </b>Piercenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-81768452291023127392016-01-14T22:27:22.209-06:002016-01-14T22:27:22.209-06:00A person who is in open rebellion is not saved. It...A person who is in open rebellion is not saved. It doesn't matter if they say they are. They aren't. They can't be in both places at once. They would be a great example of what James talks about, namely vain professions of what is really meaningless faith. <br /><br />So, I reject Vance's scenario outright. A saved person cannot be in open rebellion. A saved person can, however, continue to screw up. As we all do, and will all continue to do until we are dead and gone. <br /><br />Mormons do believe that those who are struggling to overcome the flesh can be saved. Sure. But they do not believe that those who have NOT overcome the flesh are exalted. That's the difference. And from the practical Mormon position, exaltation is the only salvation to seek. <br /><br /><i>You also say this: "Heaven will be filled with the unrighteous." This is false doctrine, and a misrepresentation of the idea that we are all sinners who do not "deserve" salvation but who can attain it thru the grace of Christ anyway. Heaven is not filled with the unrighteous, because Christ's Atonement makes makes us righteous.</i><br /><br />I was speaking poetically, and I think you misunderstood what I meant. We are in Heaven only because Christ's atonement is the imputed to us. So, yes..in that sense we are righteous. But we are sinners who are made righteous. <br /><br />But, as you declare, if by "us" you mean those who repent and shun sin, I have to ask you,...have you achieved this yet? Do you shun sin? Are you in complete compliance with the law? Have you truly repented in the Kimball-sense of the word, meaning you have overcome ALL your weaknesses? <br /><br />Why would you need Christ's atonement to make you righteous when you have already done it yourself?<br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-88510896458861147522016-01-14T22:06:32.803-06:002016-01-14T22:06:32.803-06:00Everything,
Your statements are confusing and to ...Everything,<br /><br />Your statements are confusing and to me seem contradictory. You make this statement:<br /><i>"A homosexual who proclaims living faith in Christ, but who is, like all of us, ***struggling to overcome the flesh,*** can be saved."</i><br /><br />Is there a reason that you slipped in the caveat that the person is "struggling to overcome the flesh?" That sounds like repentance--a "work." In Vance's scenario, the person is in open rebellion, calling evil good and good evil. Yet he believes in Christ and will be saved (according to your doctrine). There are actually many people who believe this way. So I would like to see a response to the actual scenario, because Mormons agree that those who are "struggling to overcome the flesh can be saved." That's our whole message that you are openly criticizing. <br /><br />You also say this: "Heaven will be filled with the unrighteous." This is false doctrine, and a misrepresentation of the idea that we are all sinners who do not "deserve" salvation but who can attain it thru the grace of Christ anyway. Heaven is not filled with the unrighteous, because Christ's Atonement makes makes us righteous. And by us, I mean those who actually repent and shun sin and who become disciples of Christ the way HE taught them to. That's why you see verses like this all throughout the scriptures: <br /><br /><b>1 Cor 6:<br /> 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,<br /><br /> 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.</b><br /><br />Or this:<br /><b>Revelation 21<br />27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life. </b><br /><br />So EBU, in the words of your man Paul, "be not deceived."<br /><br /><br /><br /> Piercenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-55294028451768520112016-01-14T08:54:41.171-06:002016-01-14T08:54:41.171-06:00Okay...I accept. I have conflated thought and acti...Okay...I accept. I have conflated thought and action. I see your points. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-76126159166420589862016-01-13T22:06:44.712-06:002016-01-13T22:06:44.712-06:00There is no action without thought (excluding refl...There is no action without thought (excluding reflexive actions) but there <i>are</i> thoughts without actions. You are conflating the two and they are not the same. Feeling attraction is not the same as acting on that attraction.<br /><br />As far as what qualifies as a sin, the Bible does a pretty thorough job of pointing out most of what qualifies and often illustrates the consequences of sin on a personal level as well as a societal one. There are subtleties such as when physical affection crosses the line (see your examples above) that are not addressed Biblically. That is where your personal belief comes into play. Mormons believe that their leadership (both local and higher up) receive revelation as to what is not specifically addressed in the Bible. This concept applies to good works as well as bad. I think that has been the role of ecelsiastical support throughout the history of religion--to interpret the subtleties of the laws of God for their followers and counsel their followers in what they interpret as God's will. For Mormons, their leadership has declared what they believe is God's will in regards to same-sex attraction. It would be up to the local leadership to discus with the individual whether or not the actions they have participated in are sinful or not--this applies to both homosexual as well as heterosexual attractions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com