Leaderboard

The Folk Prophet may have stumbled upon an aspect of what happens after conversion that even Evangelicals disagree about: the possibility of "falling from grace." If the grace we receive is 100% Christ-dependent than can we lose it, neglect it, or otherwise let go of the salvation it brings? Some--myself included--say that yes, it is possible. We can give it up. We can neglect it to the point of losing it. We can reject it in favor of sin. We can even renounce our grace and our salvation. Our position begins to look similar to the LDS view, then. The one aspect I would strain at is that Evangelicals argue that the one who obeys the Lord in baptism is doing so as one who is already saved. The Christian who "endures to the end," was saved the entire time. He doesn't gain assurance of his salvation at the end. He's had it all along the way. The good works are signals of a salvation already gained, not some kind of installment payments that assure that I get the salvation when the mortgage is paid off. I just caught the last post The Folk Prophet published, and want to add that he captures the dilemma quite well. LDS strive to please God even as they are repenting. We Evangelicals (and Protestants in general) believe there is no pleasing God until we first repent. We come empty-handed. We don't dare try to bring anything that would appear to lessen the reality of our sin. The agency is in choosing to repent. Once converted, what will we do for God. 30-fold? 60-fold? 100-fold? That too is agency. Those of us who do believe salvation can be lost would add that, whether through renunciation or neglect, the giving up of salvation is also agency. Without love, and without the direction, approval and yes empowerment of the Holy Spirit, our good works, even after conversion, won't amount to much. The greatest work is sincerely walking with God--doing his thing in his way and in his time.

Are you the poster-formerly-known-as-LoudmouthMormon? The actors have changed their masks in the middle of the play!

I bite my tongue, depending on my mood I bite it a lot, and when it seems I'm about to bite my tongue in half I try and step away. I step back and try and remember that not everyone is going into conversations with the same goals. Some folks go in with an idea of a back and forth, an engaging of each other's ideas, and other go into them with the idea of simply sharing ideas without necessarily trying to engage them. So when the engager joins a conversation with a sharer it's a good thing to try and give both the benefit of the doubt, the engager isn't trying to be mean and argumentative and the sharer isn't trying to be disingenuous and dismissive. I'm usually the engager but depending on my mood I'm the sharer.

Anatess is so right. We assume way to much on these forums. Sometimes, strings degenerate when one phrase, often meant as an introductory transition into the subject, gets taken out of context, and debated. So, I try to keep the main thing the main thing, and yes, to assume that posters mean well. When I'm pretty sure they do not, I tend to disengage.

I believe you are correct. I would add that the keys of the priesthood are not keys to the things of this world but are keys to unlock the blessings of eternity – specifically to the Celestial Kingdom. For example the keys of the priesthood are necessary before a child reaching the age of accountability to be baptized. Currently only male individuals can baptize. Thus a worthy father can obtain the priesthood and can baptize his children. The only way a worthy mother can secure that her children are baptized is to either rely on her husband or request a worthy priesthood holder of their bishop or other priesthood authority that has the keys. It is important that a father must obtain permission from someone with priesthood keys before he can exercise his authority to baptize. Because priesthood has keys to the Celestial Kingdom – it becomes necessary that for a family to have Celestial possibility that a man and woman must be married under the covenant of the priesthood as presided over by one having the keys to the ordinances. It does not matter that the mother has the priesthood or not because in order to be married in the covenant she must marry a man that does. Also it does not matter if the man has the priesthood but is not worthy or not married to a woman in the covenant – the Celestial kingdom remains locked to that family. This is the purpose of temples and the work for the dead. There is a covenant in marriage and if that covenant is broken the family is locked out of the Celestial Kingdom. The only way for a family into the Celestial Kingdom is through the covenant of the priesthood which seals the family as a family unit. Who gets to assign prayers or who assigns prayers is not associated with an ordinance of the priesthood – nor does it matter who wears pants to church.

I am quite happy and content. This doesn't mean my life is perfect. It just means I feel truly blessed by all God has done for me and given me. We aren't rich. Our home is small. Our cars are old. I am frequently sick, thanks to lupus. But, I have a husband who loves me, wonderful children (two grown, one almost grown) a darling doggy, good friends, peace in our home and most of all the complete assurance of God's love for me as an individual.

I haven't read the book. But I assume "Mormon Words" are words commonly used that other people, even Christians wouldn't necessarily know out of the gate. For example, we use the word temple. But what would someone not in the church think of? To me this would scream of something other than mainstream Christian. Or if you are asked to do something on a Monday evening instead of saying that "we have plans" say "we have family home evening on Mondays" and it can open up a conversation. At work I was asked what I did over the weekend. Instead of just saying "church stuff" I said that I watched General Conference and then explained what that was.

It's always difficult for me to apologize when I know I'm not actually being uncivil or harsh...but I usually try to swallow my pride and apologize anyway...usually.... :) Well...that's probably a lie. Not usually. Sometimes. So...taking a guess... Loudmouth?

With old forums theme, I knew I was in mormon land. With the new "full version" theme, it's very nice, consistent with the rest of the site, and at least has a lds.net header at the top. Heck for me it really just lacks one feature, showing me all new threads I haven't viewed. This ip.boards theme, while it's got all the buttons one would need for their daily foruming, it just looks like the generic theme, it has no custom lds.net logo's anywhere, no artwork, etc....

Yeah normally, on any other forum when someone interjects in a friendly conversation with more angry or something taken completely out of context, I would just either ignore them completely, tell them to get lost (abit with more swears) or be completely honest about how I don't care about them or their opinions. But here I felt I ought to be a tad more civil, delving into my actual beliefs without any humour (in terms of belief, I inject my humour most everywhere else) was new territory for me and a unique undertaking. While inside I can still be a crude, uncaring person, I try and rise above it for civil discussions.

(1) Baked potato bar. Bake several potatoes, and then wrap them in foil as soon as you pull them out of the oven (or microwave, if you're a procrastinator). Pull together some toppings -- homemade or canned chili, cooked broccoli, diced ham, black beans, diced red peppers, sour cream, cheese, chopped green onions, etc. Something for everyone. (2) Spaghetti Pie, bagged salad, garlic bread, a bag of frozen veggies, simple dessert. (3) Mac and Cheese, or Mac and Cheese. (The second one I usually make with sharp Cheddar and smoked Gruyere.) These are sure-fire crowd-pleasers for kids. Throw together a salad or some veggies, and you're good. (4) Baked Mexican Penne. Somewhat fusion-inspired, goes together easily, is hearty, filling, and a good one-dish meal, though some people might like a salad to lighten it up a bit. If kids are sensitive to heat, just use mild salsa. This dinner also converts well to baking in a Dutch oven, for camping. The last time I took dinner to a friend was after her baby. I did the baked potato bar with some cookies (I think), a jar of homemade canned applesauce, a bag of apples (maybe oranges?) for her kids' lunches, and a small bag of my homemade granola for her for breakfast (I happen to know that she loves the granola, so that was just a special treat). I also always use disposable dishes. It costs me a little extra to keep a stock of foil casserole dishes, but it's worth it so that the person I'm taking a meal to doesn't have to worry about returning dishes, and I don't forget to get them, either.

This thinking is right in line with Marcos A. Aidukaitis's Conference talk.

BTW...the chicken was first.

If its a meal for someone sick I usually make homemade chicken noodle soup (with homemade noodles). And homemade bread.

Great questions Mordorbund. First, James1's use of "religion" as a negative (or nuetral) term--one not sufficient to describe how he relates to God--is different from the larger culture's aversion to organized religion. Probably since the "Jesus People" movement of the 1960s-70s, Evangelical Christians have used "religion" as a contrast to what is really needed to reconcile with God. "Religion" came to mean rules/regulations/rituals etc. that people do to appease God and earn salvation. In contrast, as the Billy Graham invitational hymn says, we come "Just as I am, without one plea, but that Thy blood was shed for me." It is a humble, repentent approach to God that brings salvation. "God forgive me...a sinner...because of Jesus' crucifixion." The larger culture took the spirit of that approach, combined it with the anti-establishment mood of the time, and started touting phrases like, "I'm not religious--I'm spiritual." "I believe in 'God,' but I'm not into organized religion." So, I'll say the Lord's Prayer, read the Psalms, wear a crucifix, put a Buddha statue in my living room, and I'll take the Book of Mormon the missionaries offered me and put it on the shelf next to my box of crystals. BTW, isn't my pyramid poster cool? 20 years ago we worried about losing our men--today it's our young. Promise Keepers was the largest manifestation of Evangelical efforts to make Christianity relevent to men. Today, we see many of the larger Evangelical churches led by pastors in the mid-40s, trying desperately to look and act like their in their late 20s. None of this is necessarily bad. However, we'd waste less effort if we simply sought the direction and moving of the Holy Spirit, and stuck to preaching/teaching 'the whole counsel of God' (i.e. more than just a few pet 'success passages'). I agree with James1 completely--salvation comes only through humble, repentence, and faith in Jesus' sacrifice for my sins. I cannot prepare for my salvation-encounter by cleaning up, or beefing up my good works account. In fact, attempting to do so is a sign that I don't get it. On the other hand, once saved good works must needs follow. Our fervent protection of salvation by faith alone can cause us to err, once we are saved. We hesitate to do/promote good works, for fear of weakening the salvation doctrine. The result is that converts don't know what to do next. How do I mature? How do I become strong? How do I go from receiving salvation to becoming a messenger of it for the lost? We have the answers. They are the disciplines: prayer, fasting, Bible study, meditation, sharing our faith in word and deed, etc. Even as we engage in these activities, we know that it is faith and reliance on the Holy Spirit that brings blessing and success. Nevertheless, I must cooperate with the Spirit. Works don't save, yet we honor those who engage in the greatest work of all--martyrdom. More than once Revelation gives them special recognition. Some Bible teachers even suggest that it is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. So, it's all about faith and grace in getting saved. Further, it's faith, grace, and Holy Spirit anointing that cause our works--our disciplines--to be effective. Yet, we are indeed to be about the Father's business. Hope this helps!

I'm inclined to agree with you, the rush of new characters was a result of having to establish the universe in which the story is set. Also it is hard to have a continuity when you don't have history to draw upon so the episodes understandably trended towards the episodic. Now that they have an established universe and continuity they are drawing upon it to create long term and short term story arcs and the characters can relate to each other in more nuanced ways because they now have histories, both with each other and singularly.

You still have a wesen of the week* aspect but they have developed an ongoing story arc that gets put front and center every few episodes and simmers in the background quite often when it isn't front and center. They have a developed continuity now where, when appropriate, you see references back to previous episodes. It's a much more established universe and it is by no means just, "Nick beats up a wesen." these days. *It's worth noting that the wesen of the week is usually not a character, they're a challenge for the actual characters to overcome.

PS. A part of what makes clothing look "cheap" is the style of it and how you put it together and wear it. This can make the price tag irrelevant.

It is important to know the best time to bring food as well as what type of food. My husband gets home later than many guys do- about 6:30pm, so when we were brought food after my surgery in December I preferred things that I could heat up instead of things brought to the house already warm at 5:00pm. When I bring food I always ask the recipient if they prefer something they can heat up or something fully cooked. I also ask about food allergies, etc.... Another thing we do at our church is to have people bring 2 meals worth of food. That way we can provide meals for a longer period of time; so a new mom, for instance, recieves meals for two weeks instead of one- or longer if need be.

I try to be aware too of the reason I'm bringing in a meal. I learned that from my own experience. I had gall bladder surgery. One of the things they tell you to avoid for the first few days is anything greasy etc. I was brought a greasy $5 pizza Little Caesars. Couldn't eat it at all so it just got thrown away.

Homemade loaf of bread is nice, or muffins. Those are always so good, and with the bread, there's a lot of things to become of it. I personally don't like soups because unless you know exactly what the person likes in their soup, it could be a toss out once you leave it with them.

That's a big part of why I didn't keep watching House of Cards. Also the violence. It's not a violent show, because there's no action. But there's one episode in particular, in which Character A kills Character B in B's sleep, and it's very cold-blooded, calculated, and non-chalant. A isn't a killer or a villain specifically, and it's really uncomfortable to watch. He's a public figure, in fact, so the discomfort is likely deliberate, to make the audience squirm. The combination of gratuitous HBO-style sex, and casual violence was really too much for me. I have no problem with swearing, and action/adventure is probably my favorite genre in general, so I don't have a problem with violence or "good" killing of bad guys. Even an intense love scene with implied nudity isn't too bad for me. But this combination was a lot, even for me.

Threadjack... All the /////////////////////////////// are driving me bonkers. I'm not adding them. They're adding themselves! And we now return you to your regularly programmed thread.

Being married to a man who used truth as a weapon... I\\\\\\\'m more than a little leery when the word \\\\\\\"blunt\\\\\\\" comes into play... Even though most people describe me as a weird mix of blunt & waaaaaaaaay over detailed. (I take simple things and complex them up, and complex things and make them simple). One of my favorite things is this acronym: THINK before you speak. Is it: True Helpful Inspirational Necessary Kind ? I think a lot of people use straight shooter, just being honest, it\\\\\\\'s the truth, I say it like I see it, to be blunt, etc... As a way to be cruel, controlling, dismissive, disrespectful, etc. I\\\\\\\'m a fan of blunt speech. I deplore bullying. Sometimes, in order to avoid the appearance one, we have to ditch the other. Like the phrase \\\\\\\"Women aren\\\\\\\'t equal\\\\\\\" can be taken in multiple ways, but in our society, it\\\\\\\'s taken to mean as less than / unimportant. Hence the rephrasing to show value added. Without adding the detail, different groups will take the short version different ways, and all of them as gospel. Creates a lot of division, confusion, and misunderstanding. Personally, I blame English. It\\\'s the language of diplomacy for a very good reason: We HAVE to add more words, because it\\\'s one of the (if not \\\"the\\\" vaguest language on the planet. If we want people to understand the exact meaning of what we\\\'re trying to convey. Q

Oops, I never did really answer the initial post. I'm kind of with Quin. That said, alcohol was easy enough for me to ditch but coffee was really hard. My husband on the other hand, was a drinker, social and just to relax - it was hard for him to stop but he's not had a lick of it for three years. I'm so proud of him.

If you hate Under the Dome, and haven\\\'t watched Jericho, yet (older show, about 10 years ago)... Check out Jericho! It\\\'s like they\\\'re the opposite sides of the same coin. Total 180. Awful terrible people doing the worst thing possible in UTD vs amazing, inspirational people doing their absolute best in Jericho. Q

Thanks for the response. I would say Salvation only comes about from faith because Christ did the work on the cross. At the moment one places their faith in Christ they are immediately made right before God and therefore saved. Evidence that they have been saved is shown through Christ in them transforming the inside which produces fruits or works. Romans 3:28 says: For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. In Galatians chapter 5 Paul says that Christ has become no effect to you, whosoever of you attempts to be justified by law-you have fallen from grace. He said that in Galations to people who were saying its faith in Jesus and also just keep obedience to this work of the law which was circumcision. So Paul says if anyone tries to mix faith in Jesus with any work of the law to get right before God, he says that's not Grace, you're under the curse of the law to fulfill all of it. If someone is choosing works in tandem with grace and faith Paul says that that's false gospel and anyone preaching it is eternally condemned. Paul says very clearly in Romans chapter 3 that by the deeds of the law shall no flash be justified in God's sight and then says, "but now" apart from the law the righteousness of God has been manifested in the law and the prophets-in other words his righteousness from God is through faith in Jesus, it's a gift by his grace through the redemption that's in Christ. You don't need works to be saved but you'll have works if you're already saved. The Christian does not need faith and works. A Christian only needs faith and then they will have works. If someone came to me and said, "I have faith now I just need to get baptized to be justified in Gods sight," I would talk to them. The believer says, "I have faith in Christ now I will get baptized because I'm already made right in Gods sight therefore I want to obey and be obedient." The Christian doesn't do good works to be saved rather they do good works because they're already saved through faith. Agree?

Let's see if I can move this discussion along with some of understandings I've gained over the years. Feel free to agree, disagree, fine tune a nuance, etc. 1. Protestant Christians--especially Martin Luther--tend to insist that salvation (i.e. going to heaven and avoiding hell) is only possible through faith in Jesus Christ. Our works are "filthy rags," according to Isaiah. This tenent is so strongly held that if one claims to be a Christian and suggests that his/her good works had any part in appeasing God and earning salvation, we tend to view that person as a heretic. Indeed most of us would wonder if such a one could be labeled a Christian. 2. Many LDS have said to me that salvation is indeed by grace alone, through Jesus Christ. However, that salvation is from the outer darkness, or hell. It gains one entry into the Heavenly Realms--either the Telestial or Terrestial Kingdoms. I've been led to believe that faith in Jesus is not required to enter these realms. That faithful followers of almost any religion could enter the 2nd kingdom, and even some fairly immoral people could enter the 3rd one. It may be that there would have to be some growth in faith in Christ, but that such faith could be gained after death. 3. Protestants--and especially Evangelicals--and LDS tend to talk past each other on this faith/works discussion, because we have such different views of heaven, hell, and the actual meaning of salvation. 4. LDS believe that entry into the highest heavenly realm (Celestial Kingdom) requires certain levels of faithfulness and obedience. Further, exaltation, at the highest levels of that realm, comes only after even greater "endurance to the end." 5. In fairness, many Christians of various denominations would accept the idea that within Heaven there may be some who earn special honors for their sacrifices and faithfulness.

there is already a "like" button which is the same as thanks.

Elder Bednar spoke to this during the Sunday Morning conference. It was very similar to this. https://www.lds.org/ensign/2012/04/the-atonement-and-the-journey-of-mortality?lang=eng His talk spoke about how our burdens act as the traction in life that enables our progress and how taking the yoke offered by the Savior allows us to share our burdens with him, not necessarily place them on him. “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. “For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:28–30).

From everything I have learned of the gospel, I feel the opposite is true. We are fooling ourselves into thinking we don't want to live eternally with our Heavenly Father. For what other purpose did we come to this earth, if not to progress, become like, and return to our Heavenly Father?

Out loud. It helps others in the room to point at who you're laughing at too.

Agree. Also in the cases of single parent homes where there is no Priesthood holder. So while I was raising my kids and asked them to say a prayer on the food was I using authority incorrectly as the only parent?

This doesn't really jibe with me. Asking one of your children to offer the prayer at dinner or family prayer time doesn't really have much to do with the Priesthood at all. To say that it does implies that non-LDS families who pray together, particularly under direction of the father of the family, are doing so without authority and therefore unrighteously. Just doesn't work.

I could be wrong; but I don't recall Elder Oaks talking about priesthood keys operating in the home. I'm familiar with the discourse about the husband presiding; but I think this is subject to President Kimball's "partnership" language (quoted by Oaks). "Presiding" in the home is a very different dynamic than "presiding" in the Church, methinks. Also, I seem to remember a talk Elder Oaks gave sometime back about how, as a young deacon, he was a little affronted that his single mother didn't consult with him on some minor family matter (it might have been the selection of a prayer for a family meal, come to think of it) before finally understanding that his priesthood didn't trump her role as leader of the home, due to her parental authority over him. (I'm hazy on the details, though.)

Oh, I was just giving you a hard time, that's all. I know you've said in the past that you like to keep your personal like separate, private, and personal. And that's fine. I was just teasing you a little. I love A Mighty Girl! I was particularly inspired by the story they shared this week about the young girl who gave away a million books before she was 13.

I was just looking over the Articles of Faith and I saw them for the first time in a different perspective, as a carefully ordered list of subjects that define us, rather than a bunch of random concepts. When you take the Articles of Faith in terms of subjects as a whole, it's very interesting: 1. God's existence 2. Agency 3. The Atonement 4. Principles and Ordinances 5. Authority 6. Organization of the Church 7. Gifts of the Spirit 8. Scripture 9. Revelation 10. Missionary Work and the Building of Zion 11. Right to Worship 12. Law of the Land 13. Character Maybe I'm late in coming to the game on this thinking, but putting it together as a subject list this way gave me some interesting insight, and so I thought I'd share. The first 5 I find particularly important as to order.

Not sure this makes a difference but here's a woman's perspective... The LOC is not broken if you choose to be intimate with your spouse, regardless of if the marriage is crappy, in a state of separation, or pending divorce - you're still married - but that doesn't mean continuing intimate relations is a good idea... If there is a wedge in the marriage that has driven it to the latter two aforementioned, I would be very careful about making the decision to sleep with my estranged husband, and for several reasons. One, assuming the whole downfall of the marriage is due to broken trust, I would question whether he has remained chaste (from other women) during our separation/pending divorce. I would be concerned of contracting an STD (or worse) if he's sleeping with other women. I can't control what he does but I can control what I do with my body and I would opt to protect it. Second, emotionally and psychologically, I'm not sure how beneficial it would be to remain intimate with someone I no longer trusted. Sure, it might fulfil a physical need but that's where better judgement comes into play. Third, if there are children in the picture, I would be careful what message I'm sending to them. Marital affairs can be confusing to those outside of it, and children might have a good idea of what's going on, but in the end they're left with a lot of questions. I think having the mind set of "friends with benefits" with a spouse you are separated from or pending divorce isn't the thought process the Lord would want us to have. So for me it's either (i) work through your marriage and enjoy the benefits that come with it, or (ii) get out of your marriage and live without the benefits that came with it.

It comes from contrasting post-deluvian commandments with post-fall curses. Noah is the first person explicitly told that the animals are tasty. As opposed to Adam's strictly herbivoric toil for food:

Brothers Grimm. Terrible movie. I kept skipping forward and then finally quit watching. Bad acting, bad visuals, dumb story.

I held my daughter when she was blessed. She was nine months old at the time, and wouldn\'t have sat still otherwise. Placing hands under the baby is likely only because a baby\'s head tends to be too small to accommodate many hands, and the baby needs holding anyway (in my daughter\'s case, my husband, our bishop, and the two grandfathers were the only ones in the circle, and they took care to mostly use fingertips instead of whole hands on her head). But the ordinance of \"naming and blessing\" isn\'t exclusive to infants. A five-year-old who is named and blessed in Sacrament meeting isn\'t held by the Priesthood brethren in the circle. Most women who bring up the baby blessing example aren\'t looking to participate in the Priesthood circle, but rather to simply have the privilege and ability to hold the infant that they carried and gave birth to, as it receives the first Priesthood ordinance of its life. It\'s not an unreasonable request.

SeminarySnoozer, your entire post really spoke to me and gave me a lot of food for thought. I know I need to work through my weaknesses and that the Lord will make them strong, and that he will do so in his own time. And I know that even if my weakness becomes a strength that it does not necessarily translate to desire. I guess I need to keep in mind that I am here to do the will of my Heavenly Father, whether it is my will or not. I also know that if I truly love Him and am obedient to Him, eventually my will will become the same as His, even if that process takes my entire life. You are so right. Thank you for the reminder! There is a little girl in Nursery who will only go to me. Not to my husband, not to our assistant, not to any other helper we may have in there. For whatever reason, that little girl needs me. So maybe, at least at this point in time, I need to be at church not for me, but for her. And, of course, there is the matter of the example I set for my own children. How can I expect them to stay strong in the Gospel and be obedient even when they don't want to if I'm not willing to do so myself? Thank you everyone! You have all really helped me to remember why it's important for me to go to church even though I usually don't want to. And you've helped me recommit to do so.

One could also argue that tithing by check eliminates the effort of counting out the money. While we're at it, let's get rid of those preprinted slips and envelopes. If you're not making your own paper and ink for your tithing slips, you're just not obedient enough.

Disagree. The bishop is to make sure his members understand the principle of tithing. And then respect their choice on how they pay or not. If a bishop sees a zero balance and hears a declaration of 'Full Tithe payer' he might easily assume that the person does not understand until he ask further questions.

What I'm seeing in this video is a one sided view of what may have possibly happened. We're not seeing what happened prior to this that caused the police to react in this way. If it is true, it's very sad. But what sickens me is that one sees (if true) the actions of a very small percentage of police officers and immediately call all police mini-gods. I know far too many law enforcement officers who do their jobs well. Care for the people and their communities and yes...There is one officer that I knew that gave his life last year in the line of duty. He left behind a wife and a small son. So please don't lump all police officers into one category.