[Of Harps And Heresy]

Yes. I know. We clearly do not agree.

Now what?

Clarity is a beautiful thing. If we have truly come to the place where we understand correctly what each other believes, we have accomplished something wonderful. We do not embrace outlandish caractures of each other. Instead, we know each other, respect each others spiritual journey, and now can allow the Holy Spirit to do his convincing as we occasionally continue to dialogue.

As the elder missionary in God's Army said: we don't do the converting. That's the Holy Spirit's work.

Because even some of us who are so-called "Christians" have been deceived by Satan. Now come on. Admit it. You already knew that, didn't you? :)

Yeah, interfaith dialogue is so messy, slow, and frustrating. Far easier to draw lines in the sand, declare sides, and begin firing.

[Of Harps And Heresy]

Thought: Though G-d created man, G-d does not referred to man as a creation. I wish in this discussion we would all concede that mankind is the “children” of G-d and that he is our “Father in Heaven”. The concept that we cannot be his “only begotten” is ill advised. G-d only had one “only begotten in the flesh” that is Jesus Christ. This is true but I would point out that being an “only begotten” is not the criteria of what a G-d is, for G-d was G-d and a complete G-d with all that defines G-d, prior to the event that produced an “only begotten”. Though you may think so, this “only begotten concept” does not define what is G-d, only something G-d has done (like the difference between a creator and a creation).

1st. I'm not so sure that saying God does not refer to us as creation is true or relevent. Yes, we were clearly created by Him, on the 6th Day. There is no biblical reference to premortal human existence. So, we are not the begotten children--we are the created children of God.

Back to the human embryo. With all the arguing there was no proof that an embryo is a human. Likewise there is no proof that a human is a g-d. This however, is not the point. The point is that even though a human embryo exhibits nothing that can legally be used to identify it as human – Not one single thing (Otherwise there would be no legal abortion); so a human exhibits nothing that can be argued to identify it as a g-d. But such arguments miss what is being presented. It is not that man, as we understand him, is some kind of a g-d – it is that G-d just as G-d can make a human from an embryo, G-d can make a g-d from man. Christos says NO!! but has yet to say or admit that it is because G-d can’t (lacks the power or knowledge or ability or something) or won’t (because he is selfish and wants g-dness all to himself or really does not love us that much or he cannot stand anybody or anything like him or something else).

Essential to this discussion are two understandings of the non-LDS Christian belief system: 1. Humans have no premortal existence. 2. God is unchanging, and was never a man or like a man--He was and is and is to come--the same yesterday, today, and forever.

That said, it becomes one of those nonsense questions to ask, "Can the eternal God take a created, limited being and turn it into an eternal, unlimited one? I suppose He could create an eternal past and paste it to the created being, but we quickly degenerate into absurdities.

The LDS position is a package deal--it requires that humans have an eternal premortal existence. Furthermore, it makes much more sense IF the Heavenly Father is an evolving God.

First - the sin of Adan and Eve was not trying to become like G-d. The Sin was in being disobedient to his commandment not to take the fruit.

Yes, but why did they take the fruit? My post addressed that question, not the very limited "what physical act did they commit?"

I do not understand why you quote Satan as a reliable and truthful source. Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and that did not make them G-ds.

Are you serious? You don't usually play word games, so perhaps you truly misunderstood me. My meaning was pretty clear though. Satan LIED to Adam & Eve--convincing them that if they took the fruit they would become like God. It's not a far leap of understanding that if you're like God you no longer need Him. Thus, God's punishments and anger become understandable. Adam & Eve were not hungry, nor merely curious. They rebelled--they attempted to become independent from God.

I also submit that: as easy as G-d can make a human embryo to become a human being so can G-d make a man to become a g-d.

In our exalted states we shall become godlike, but never of the same essence as the one true, eternal, living God. We are his creation, his subjects, not his co-equal partners.

But if someone like Satan that thinks or even knows he is better than everybody else is suddenly faced with the prospect that the great society would be comprised of “equal” citizens – That could cause a war, even in heaven.)

We do indeed become greater than the angels. It is not necessary for us to become co-equal partners with God to achieve that. We are his highest creation--higher than the angels.

If G-d cannot make a g-d out of a man – then say so openly, let us all admit it – that G-d has his limitations. If he can – why do some of you oppose it as impossible?

Again, understanding that non-LDS believers do not accept the premortal existence of humans, and also that we believe God to be a unique, uncreated, unchanging, and alone in his eternal existence, it quickly becomes clear that to ask why God cannot transform creation into eternal God raises questions that require absurdities.

Jesus is the answer and the proof to the question. As man is (Jesus) G-d once was.

Yes, but we call this the incarnation. Man never became God. Rather, God the Son willingly became "a little lower than the angels" to fulfill the plan of redemption.

As G-d (Jesus) is , man can become.

Jesus is uniquely God the Son, co-eternal and co-equal with the Father. We shall never become what He is and has always, in essence been. Keep in mind, too, that non-LDS believer see the Father and Son being essentially the same, whereas we, his creation, are not.

I do not understand why all other Christians have such a problem with this?

Creation never becomes essentially the Creator.

[Why Does Hell Have To Be Eternal?]

<div class='quotemain'>

Amen?

[Of Harps And Heresy]

Okay, let's see if another rephrase might help you to "see" by giving you some more to pray about.

God has always been God, and God has never been Man, but Man may become what is known as God by becoming who and what God is. Or, in other words, God has always been God, and God has never been Man, but our Father became what is known as God, even though He was once like us, or Man. Or, in other words, God has always been God, and God has never been Man, but Man may become to be known as God by becoming as "unique, all-knowing, all-powerful, infinite, without beginning or end, and unchanging"... exactly like God is now. ...and once you know who God really is you will know we can be like Him.

I think that the person who said it originally (last name Snow, I believe) said it more directly: As man is, God once was. As God is, man can become." What you seem to be offering, is that God was once LIKE man, and man can become LIKE God. Correct?

If so, I simply tell you that all other Christians believe God's nature is unchanging--that he was never 'like man.' Furthermore, while we shall be exalted, and become, perhaps, 'godlike,' we shall never be = in essence with the Father or the Son.

[A Question]

HE healed the sick. HE cast out evil spirits. HE raised the dead. HE rose from the dead. HE was our God.

And if you really don't believe that, then you really don't know who He was.

He did, and we do (in his name). But, he did so by the power of the Spirit that was in him. The beauty of this truth is that, just as Jesus said, we shall do what he did and even more. Hallelujah! (Sorry, you got the Pentecostal in me going, here!)

[Why Does Hell Have To Be Eternal?]

#1: The only way to truly know a truth is to receive an assurance from God, and without God and the assurance He will give us no amount of reading or hearing or talking or seeing can truly assure us of anything.

Often the hearing, talking, or seeing can lead us to the place of asking God for that assurance. Ultimately, you are right--God will reveal himself to whoever seeks him with a sincere heart. Sometimes I sense that you try to hurry people along, rather than allow them to approach God as He prepares them to.

(And in case you don’t know it, some of us choose to simply accept an assurance from people other than God … but those of us who do that are not accepting that assurance from God…and that also includes accepting an assurance from people who wrote the Bible, who claim to be speaking for God, as well as those from other people who write or say what they say… while claiming to speak for God.)

It seems to me that the Old Testament prophets were judged by what they said, not some spiritual enlightment from God. If there words were true, they could be accepted. If not, they could be executed. There wasn't much that was mystical about it. Following God himself could involve such supernatural experiences--but not the prophets. To obey them was to obey God--if they spoke His words.

#2: If you really want to receive God’s assurance you should learn from God and those who claim to speak for Him, and you should always check with God about what anyone but God has to say.[/b

(And as far as I know, there is nobody here at LDStalk who is claiming to speak for God, although some of us here are very sure He has assured us of some truths.)]

I'm in this place to learn and share. I've done both, and have assurance that God is pleased.

#3: The fact that you are still here at LDStalk shows that ...

Sorry to cut you off...but I know why I am here. See my response to #2.

You're simply spinning your wheels if you keep going the way you're going.

I have an assurance from God that He is pleased with my learning and sharing here. So, try to avoid the occasional dirt and rocks that shoot out as my wheels keep spinning.

And btw, the answer to your last question is, No, but for YOU, Tommy, the answer is a definite, Yes.

Or in other words, generally, if someone doesn’t accept the truth of the restored gospel and all the ordinances thereof here during their mortal life, simply because they never had the opportunity, then they will receive an opportunity in the spirit world to hear and accept it there… and all the ordinances will be done for them here just in case they accept them there.

To summarize what you've said in various posts: Since the Heavenly Father is not present in the lower kingdoms, the Terrestial and Telestial heavens could be considered hell (not biblically, but by comparison, perhaps). Anyone who has heard the LDS gospel and not embraced it, will have no further opportunities. In a sense, they really do face "Heaven (Celestial), or hell (paradise minus the Father)."

Many evangelicals would propose an even more stark destination to you. I've discusses the whole issue of salvation and doctrine with SNOW quite a bit. Ultimately, and I suppose we'd agree on this, God-seekers would do well to embrace the truth of God, in it's most accurate and purest form, from those sources that most directly and rightly reflect God's words for us. We have hope for one another, and trust one anothers integrity, so we meet at places like this and dialogue. The Holy Spirit will rightly lead those with open hearts, while others will fall by the wayside or dig their heels in.

But in YOUR case, Tommy, since you have now heard the true gospel and are aware of at least some of the ordinances you need, the Celestial kingdom will be out of the question if you do not accept it all right here, so stop talking to us and listening to us and call those missionaries NOW… or PM one of us and give us your address and we’ll have them sent to you.

And I suppose I could just tell you to phone home. We both know how to find live representatives of each other's faith groups, Ray--and God will show us if/when we need to contact them.

You be blessed, Ray! :)

[A Question]

<div class='quotemain'>

Does Jesus has limitation, because he is body. Yes, you could say that. Scripture tells us (Philippians 2) that with the incarnation Jesus willingly gave up his godly powers and became "a little lower than the angels."

That’s a misinterpretation of scripture, because He was still our God on Earth. And He still had every one of His “powers” though He appeared in form as Man.

There is a particular early church heresy--Docetism I believe--that insisted Jesus did not really suffer on earth, but only appeared to do so. John declared such a teaching damnable. He said that when you test the spirits, you can know if they are true if they teach that Jesus really came in the flesh.

When you say Jesus remained God, with all his powers, I beg to differ. Yes, the Spirit was in him. Yes, he could not give up what he was. But, he did give up his powers. He relied on prayers to the Father, on the power of the Spirit, etc. during his sojourn on earth.

[Of Harps And Heresy]

Nothing we do, and nothing we can ever do, will diminish who and what He is.

If your God was once a man and has evolved, and if his essence is on a level shared by many, then this is a lesser God than the one most Christians envision: unique, all-knowling, all-powerful, infinite, without beginning or end, and unchanging. So, it's true you cannot truly diminish God, but your definitions can make him appear to be less than what He is.

[Of Harps And Heresy]

I have raised dogs and children and I see lots of differences.

All right, dogs were not the best example. Since we are creation, it would have been better to speak of us as masterpieces, opuses, or simply greatest creation. God's heart, passion, love, and character, and yes 'breath of life' is in us. We swell with righteous pride when we write a successful book, paint a poignant painting, take a life-capturing picture, sing an audience to tears, etc. Magnify that sense of accomplishment infinitely, and you understand the love of the Heavenly Father for us, His creation.

I am most concerned with the "CAN"T" attitude many religious thinkers express in man's abilities to seek and master divine traits and behavior. I believe it to be true doctrine that "With G-d, all things are possible". I believe to teach otherwise is heresy and a denial of G-d, his love and kindness as well as his power. If there is something man cannot become with G-d influence, direction and help that is not a shortcoming of man but of G-d. To put it bluntly - I do not believe that a one of a kind G-d is a real G-d because such a being must lack the power or intelligence of reproduction that exist in every other existing thing.

At its worst, we see in the efforts of humanity to become GOD as the very sin Satan tempted Adam & Eve with--take the fruit and you'll be just like GOD, knowing good from evil. Our human mother and father were not cast out of the garden for curiosity, but for rebellion. They understood that if they became LIKE God, then they would no longer NEED God.

It's not negative thinking, or an inferiority complex on the part of Christians, when we see God is God, and we are his highest creation. It was so in the beginning, and it will always be so. Our goal is not an = partnership, but reconciliation with the Master.

PC - I did not think I would have to explain these things to you, but since I must - Please do not take them wrong. I say them only because I think you can understand them. I am not sure if everyone on this forum can.

I understand the spirit, or thinking, behind "humans as gods" theology. Even some of our prosperity preachers have wandered into this spiritual field. There are strains of many religions that approach this idea. I understand it, but find it dangerous. Yes, I cast my lot with Jesus! I place all my eggs in his basket--my very life for that matter. If need be, I'd join the host of martyrs throughout the ages. And thus, I will inherit a kingdom with him. BUT, I shall never literally be him--he is the ONLY begotten Son of God.

The mormon.org website says that LDS worship Jesus. Do you really believe that will ever stop? IF you go beyond saying you'll inherit WITH Him, and say you will inherit AS Him...like I said before, I fear we're back in the garden staring at the forbidden fruit.

[Of Harps And Heresy]

...but for a family member, a child a brother or sister, you dont say "I'll do what I can" instead you say "I'll climb up on this cross and die for you" "I'll make sure this is resolved"

If we are just little things that God has made and fell in love with like a divine pet, why would He do what He does for us? PrisionChap, you compair us humans to dogs and Christ as the only begotten of God Almighty...why then does it make sense for the Master to sacrifice His "only" son for the family pets?

I am a son of God. Created in the simlitued of the Begotten. My potential is to recieve All that the Father has as a joint heir with Christ. If I were the devil, I too would attack your most precious attribute, who you are. Thou son of man.

I will say that this is perhaps the most straightforward explanation of the LDS view I've seen. My response?

You will see the same surprise, shock even, when you explain to us that you believe you are are actually God-essence, that you not only existed before your physical birth, but that you are eternal--and that you shall become the same as Christ (GOD, not god, in our view).

You use two terms that diminish our significance in the Heavenly Father's eyes: "pets" and "little things." The problem is that these two examples distance us from our CREATOR. Better to compare us to a prized creation--the artist's greatest masterpiece, the crafter's greatest craft, the writer's opus, etc. In us is the heart, the love, the passion, the nobility of God's highest creation. We are his masterpiece, his opus, his finest production. Yes He is in us--and we are in that dearest place in his heart.

Bottom-line: and this is simple, but profound. You accuse non-LDS believers of diminishing humanity and elevating God, while we see you exalting humanity and diminishing the Heavenly Father.

[A Question]

<div class='quotemain'>

...most Christian scholars and leaders would suggest that a body would be a limitation upon the God who is infinite.

Why? And in what sense? And do they also think Jesus has a limitation?

Why is because a body is defining--it marks us in a place. There is a part of me that is here and not there. Likewise, though it could be argued that God's spirit is everywhere, there is still a part of God that is confined to a particular place.

Does Jesus has limitation, because he is body. Yes, you could say that. Scripture tells us (Philippians 2) that with the incarnation Jesus willingly gave up his godly powers and became "a little lower than the angels."

BTW, this particular LDS distinctive--that the Father is corporeal--is not one I find especially troubling.

[A Question]

Of course the main point was redeeming us..... that was the honor....the glory .... that God would send his Son to redeem the world of sin...and all glory given to Him (God) BECAUSE He so loved the world.... glory not to be be lavished on the one who sacrificed himself as Lucifer wanted in the first place.

Well, this is a difference in theology. Satan was a mere angel, and did see himself as being in competition with our Heavenly Father. Jesus, on the other hand, as the one and only Son of God, God himself, is indeed worthy of worship. In Hebrews 1:6-8 we read

6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. KJV

Two simple points: 1. The Heavenly Father commands the angels to worship Jesus--an act that only God can rightly receive (reference the first of the 10 commandments). 2. The Heavenly Father addresses his Son as God. Conclusion: All glory does go to God the Son.

No, that is your opinion only... it's your right to think that...same as it is my right to think he has a form

It's not my opinion that God is spirit. That much is clear in Scripture. God is spirit, those who worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. What is a matter of discussion is whether the Heavenly Father has a body. If the revelations of Joseph Smith are true, then He clearly does. Absent those revelations, most Christian scholars and leaders would suggest that a body would be a limitation upon the God who is infinite.

Well, again PC... that is your interpretation of what "tradition" allows you to think. I believe that the Bible was put together by man, and I have always understood the Bible as being not as it should be...with passages and books missing. This was even BEFORE I had thought about joining the church. If there was a missing book of the Bible that stated that man was created in the EXACT image of God.... arms, legs, chest, ears...etc.... would you ignore that? It would defy the traditional "characteristic" aspect theory of what some want to believe. Would it be wrong to change your view?... just hypothectically speaking..... don't mean to make you pour salt into your coffee as you think about it

Don't get mad at my now, but I'm going to use the "L" word. Within the Christian tradition, those who believe the Bible is mostly allegorical, or myths, or that it is inspired in the manner of Shakespear, or that it is only a collection of writings, and not the Word of God, preserved, truly inspired, and mostly literal, historical, and definitely spiritually binding--we call such folks liberals.

I'm curious now as to whether there are variances in how LDS folk interpret the Triad. Are there fundamentalists who insist on a literal interpretation? Liberals, who find much of it allegorical? I ask this because I've been led to believe that despite the limitations you outline, most LDS seem to indicate that the Bible is roughly equivalent in import and authority to the Triad.

[Of Harps And Heresy]

I beg to differ - I do not believe dogs are loving, kind, gentle obedient, ect -- just like his/her Master. There my be some remote resemblance but this simply is not true or even close to truth. Please do not make up stuff that is not the truth and pass it off as truth - there are commandments concerning such things. I have a hard time even believeing you would even suggest such a thing. The Traveler

Okay, let's first be clear on what I've stated. The question was how non-LDS believers could say that we are in the image of God, and yet not be of the same essence as Him.

My response included no Scripture citations, nor did I claim to be speaking a revelation, dream, or other direct word from God. I stated an example of how I thought such was possible. So, it won't do to suggest I'm making stuff up, or violating God's commandments, when all I'm doing is giving my opinion in response to your question.

And, yes, I do believe animals are capable of love, loyalty, fear, etc. Furthermore, our ability to love, create, etc. is also a mere "remote resemblance" to the Father. Look at our history, see the brokeness, the betrayals...the incredible contrast between the Triumphal Entry (Hosanna in the highest) and Pilate's courtyard (Crucify him!).

BTW, it's possible to blaspheme God, but, if I read you correctly, what struck a cord with you is that I was verging on blaspheming humanity? Did I get that right? Are you hinting that by disagreeing with you about our natures (whether or not we are of the same essence as the Heavenly Father), I am blaspheming humanity???

[Why We Do Missions The Way We Do]

But no, I’m not saying that someone who is authorized to proclaim the gospel (a missionary) may not at some later date do something which would lead his or her leaders to send him or her home, thus ending their authorized mission, or that a missionary can’t at some later date just decide to go home without any authorization from his or her leaders, or that a missionary can’t just decide to proclaim something other than that which he or she has been authorized to proclaim… or that those who control financial investments for the Church can’t do something to compromise their integrity and thus cause the Church to lose some money if the money is invested in a company and the company goes bankrupt because of the bad decisions of someone in charge of making financial decisions for that company, or that, in general, people can’t just decide to do something contrary to the will of our Lord … because our Lord never has and our Lord never will revoke anyone’s power to make their own decisions in opposition to His will… but as I said, our Lord does make His will very clear through revelation to all His prophets and apostles of His Church every day, as well as through His revelations He has given to His other prophets and apostles in the past who are now dead and speak only through scripture.

Now there, is that plain enough for you?

I think so. Here's my follow-up question: If Scriptures and revelations tell us all that is needed, does this mean that church leaders might not look for ways to apply the principles of those revelations in manners not specifically spelled out. For example, I'm told that the LDS has english-conversation teachers placed in China. Clearly, there's no Scripture that specifically suggests using foreign-language teaching as a means of establishing a presence in other lands. I suppose it is possible that one of the Church leaders could have received a revelation from God to do this. But, my guess is it is more likely that they came upon this idea, prayed, and sensed that it was okay, and even pleasing to God, that they do so. In other words, the source of the idea might not be Scripture or revelation, but there may have been a revelatory confirmation or "go ahead." If this scenario I've painted is plausible, then we can continue discussion missions strategies. If, on the other hand, all approaches must originate in revelation or direct Scripture sources, then we'd all better simply pray, and give up any such studies.

Heh, and you still missed the main point I was making.

I am saying that no other group, or organized body of religious leaders or followers, aside from those in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, receives directions from our Lord in doing their missionary work or is authorized to do any other work for God… and thus nobody else is “godly” in doing what they are doing… because it is not godly to just assume God’s authority simply because other people have or had His authority.

Okay, which is it. I've heard two different understandings of non-LDS Christian work.

1. Non-LDS Christians are doing good in the work they do as far as they have received God's truth, but they are missing important revelations.

2. Non-LDS Christians are NOT doing good, because they have no authority from God to do any work on his behalf.

... and don't expect to hear any more about this from me.

(heh, edited repeatedly to try to improve my "tone" while trying to make my thoughts more clear in words)

Bold faced sentence screams louder than followup one.

[A Question]

But wasn't that the whole point in the beginning? For the Son to honor the Father and give all glory to Him?

The Son honoring the Father was NOT the main point. The main point was redeeming us. The Father sent his Son, who paid the price for us. The main point is God so loved the world that He sent his one and only Son...

"God is not a blob of mist or energy.

No, He is spirit.

God has made us in his image and in his likeness. We are in the image of His Only Begotten and we *man* have walked and lived with the Son and even after he rose from the dead we did feel his body." Exactally the thing I couldn't figure out while growing up... if God had no real image... was just a blob of energy or some misty configuration.. WHY weren't we made in THAT image... in that likeness as it was stated in the Bible?

No one in the Judeo-Christian tradition, from Moses to John the Revelator ever even hinted at the Father having a physical body. Nobody said, "Since Moses says we're made in God's image, what does He look like?" It has been understood that we being in his image has more to do with our character, our ability to reason, to love, to create, etc.--those aspects that distinguish us from all other creation.

"Out of curiosity, I hear that you believe that God physically came down to Earth and physically had intercourse with the virgin Mary" What I am wondering is WHERE on earth you hear that dribble? Think back on the plagues of Egypt... did the spirit physically go in and kill each first born?.... not that is written that I have found.... it was done by the spirit passing thru/over/around as far as I could tell. Same thing for for the conception of Christ ... it was just done... who are we to ask how? Christos.... you can't believe everything you hear...so many lie just to lie...they have no remorse for deceiving others.... we just have to work double time to help those who have been lied to.

I believe there is a phrase in LDS writings that says that the Father knew Mary in the manner of men, or some such verbage. Granted, the "how" is not spelled out exactly, but the conjecture is not difficult to make. So, Christos' question is not dribble, but rather theological speculation based upon a not-unreasonable reading of text.

[Of Harps And Heresy]

<div class='quotemain'>

Man should be Like God, but NOT Gods.

Please explain the difference. If I have something that in every way there is or can be like a car - we should call it a boat? Or a NOT car?

The Traveler

A dog can be loving, kind, gentle, obedient, etc.--just like his/her Master, and yet not be human. We shall be like Christ, for we shall see Him as He is. It does not necessarily mean that we shall join Him as the only begotten Sons of God.

[Why Does Hell Have To Be Eternal?]

Or in other words, Tommy, this is very important stuff we're talking about here because it affects your eternal welfare, and you should be seriously asking God whether any of this is true instead of relying on us and your reasoning... and if you don't do that in all the sincerity of your heart you won't receive what you could have received, because God can always hear you and assure you of the truth.

Ray, are you so certain I don't seek God's faith about all spiritual discussions I engage in? The "Rev" or "Chaplain" that goes before my name means nothing to God--except perhaps that I will be judged by a more stringent example. Every time I hear a teaching, a sermon, a homily, a "word from the LORD," or, yes, engage in interfaith discussions, I'm seeking God's truths, his voice, his direction, his Way. So, certainly keep sharing, by be assured that I've heeded the admonition to hear from God all along.

So, when you decide to get really serious about all this,

I'm frankly disappointed to see you make this assessment. Ray, even if all you say is true, you're going to have to trust God to work with me on it.

and I think you should be NOW, you should listen to His prophets and apostles and ask Him what He thinks about all that... instead of relying on us to tell you what they say or have said while thinking your bases are covered.

Ray, I think you're making some assumptions about my spiritual journey that are not based on a sound discerning of spirits.

... and as I hinted at before, if you're seriously intent on cheating yourself by not talking to some active missionaries in your area, then at least study the writings of prophets and apostles instead of what we tell you here.

If you change that one little word INSTEAD to IN ADDITION, or perhaps even, FIRST AND FOREMOST, then I'd say you are offering classic and sound wisdom.

When our Lord died he bridged the gulf between the wicked and righteous dead by preaching the gospel to the wicked dead, or actually by appointing servants who would preach the gospel to them. And until that time, you're right, Abraham couldn't cross that gulf, but through the Atonement the captives were delivered who had no other way to cross... and as we are told in other revelations, those who reject the gospel (and the ordinances thereof) in this world will not receive the greatest blessings even if they receive the gospel there... because they could have learned the truth in this world if they had simply learned from God.

Are you saying that the Celestial Kingdom is out of the question for those who do not embrace the restored gospel in their earthly lifetimes?

[Why We Do Missions The Way We Do]

I am telling you that all of the official work done by the leaders and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is done in accordance with revelation and inspiration received directly from Jesus Christ, and the “issues of canon and modern-day prophetic offices” are directly related to that.

Or in other words, if by “the Church's administrative, tactical, and otherwise practical decisions” you’re referring to the decisions which direct the work of leaders and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then Yes, I am saying that all of them are “inspired, coming directly from Christ… or in other words, all of them are authorized and approved through revelation the Church has received and continues to receive directly from God through Jesus Christ.

Ray, Snow, and I believe MrsS have both confirmed my belief that you do not realize what I am asking you, and how you are responding. They both are quick to say that all decisions that come out of LDS Headquarters are not necessarily perfect, without error, or, in hindsight, could not have been done in a different and more effective manner. Called missionaries do come home early. Occasional wise investments may not pan out perfectly. There may be the occasional typo in Ensign. To admit such is not a retreat from your general argument about authority, etc. Quite frankly, if you really do believe EVERY SINGLE DECISION, NO MATTER HOW MINOR, OBSCURE, OR INCONSEQUENTIAL comes directly from the Christ, then I'd guess yours is the kind of faith that is outside the LDS mainstream.

… and remember: the point I was making is that the work we [LDS] are doing is authorized by Jesus Christ through direct revelation from Him, through His words to His living prophets and apostles today and the revelations they write for us...which is distinctly something different than what you and your leaders claim to receive and accept today in your groups... by your own open admission.

Do I understand you to mean: Since the LDS is authorized by God as His restored Church, and our leaders are his authorized prophets and representatives, then however we do missions IS Christ's way. However any other group does it, no matter how apparently successful, is a less godly approach.

If so, quite frankly, there's not much left to discuss, eh?

PC, I sure that I don't need to tell you but that's just not a true statement.

Correct, I think I see it. Psst! You might want to whisper this to Bro. Ray.

If all official would were done under divine revelation and inspirations, then there would never be any mistakes or less than optimal choices made. While we believe that our leaders earnestly seek and recieve guidance, obviously they don't always get it or act on it correctly.

Such a stance might ultimately make the authority claims of the LDS church at least plausible, and certainly leaves more room for discussion. Quite frankly, if I saw that Muslims were gaining a great number of converts, I'd at least want to know what practical approaches they are using. B)

[Why Does Hell Have To Be Eternal?]

1) Whoever or whatever has convinced anyone of this idea, I think it’s important to state that this is not the true doctrine of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, no matter how much anyone believes it. And yes, anyone can believe what they want to believe no matter who speaks for or against them.

I've shared with you Jesus' recounting of what happened with the rich man and Lazarus, and the citation from Hebrew about it being appointed to men once to die, and then the judgment. So, can you give me something more than a strong statement of disagreement. Some Scripture verses perhaps?

2) This idea is influenced partly from something one of the prophets who wrote the Bible said concerning the truth that how after death comes judgment, and it is also influenced partly by another statement from a prophet who said something about the truth that how after death no labor can be performed.

If I'm reading this right, it agrees with my contention: Get ready to meet your Maker now, for tomorrow is not guaranteed.

3) We [LDS] now know there will be some time between our death and the day of our “final” judgment, before this world comes to an end, and while it is true that we will not be able to do any of our own work that should be done in this world after the day of our mortal death, that doesn’t mean other people can’t do some work for some of us who don’t know they need to get it done, or that some of us won’t accept some of that work done in the behalf of others of us either before the day of “final” judgment or after this world has come to an end.

Even if you're right, that's some thin ice to be skating on. What if the work is not done on our behalf? What if our hardness of heart passes on to that time between death and the final judgement? Far better to reconcile with God in the here and now.

[Maturity]

sign of maturity:

1Cr 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

If maturity means putting away childish things, would old age be when you start taking them out again?

[Why We Do Missions The Way We Do]

The drift I am getting is some think that the LDS missionary effort isn't as much in force out side of the US as other Christian faiths.

That's not quite the right nuance, because, once again, it engenders a competitive, "who's best?" line of posts. I'm really more interested in why some missions efforts result in great growth overseas, while others see moderate growth, and still others not so much. My general notion is that the more quickly a mission effort can be made indigenous (i.e., turned over to national church workers) the more likely it is to succeed and grow.

SNOW correctly pointed out the downside to rapidly turning over missions work to local members--the chance of diverse teaching and methods will lead to a lack of cohesion and unity.

Not only does the LDS Church have Prostelizing Missionaries. Those are the young men in Black suits, white shirts with the short haircuts and wearing the LDS Badges that you see. Oh, yes, there are young women too. Wearing black, navy blue and dark grey clothes. We also have Senior Missionaries who not only prostelyize, but serve in other areas also.

This is news to me...thanks MrsS.

I don't know about other faiths, but the LDS Church does not send Prostelyizing Missionaries in where the country does not want Prostelyizing.

My guess is that most of the denominational missions groups do not do so, but smaller independent works do so. It would be cruel not too. Why deny people the opportunity to hear the gospel, because a government is hostile, or because a dominant culture is not receptive? This gospel is worth contending for, and, yes, dying for. In particular, countries in what is called the 10-40 Window are heavily non or anti-Christian, and have little gospel witness. Praise God for the brave missionaries who risk their lives to bring truth to these most difficult areas.

We send Medical, educational missionaries. Nurses and Doctors who care for the people as well as teach their the citizens how to care for their sick. From the basics on up. We send in Missionaries who teach the citizens how to grow crops that will grow and flourish in their area. Same with livestock. We teach them how to be self sufficient and to be contributing and valuable citizens to their own countries. We do not prostelyze, and we are ever so careful how we answer questions about our faith.

Such wholistic mission efforts are very christ-like. Jesus not only preached/teached, he healed, and he delivered folk from demons.

We do NOT go against the host governments laws. Article of Faith 12: We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

While Romans 13 is certainly an appropriate reference here (be subject to authorities), the New Testament is also full of missionary efforts that ran counter to what the local authorities wanted. God's law trumps the laws of men, but when in doubt, usually it is possible to live for Christ and to do so in a lawful manner.

I knew a JW who told me that their Missionaries considered it a great honor to go to jail for prostelyzing in any country where they were told not to. She said that that is why they went there, and they would gladly die if need be by "Witnessing" to them.

I say they are right in this stance. Don't agree with their teachings--but admire their willingness to risk life and freedom for proclaiming what they perceive to be Jehovah's message.

[Why We Do Missions The Way We Do]

Did I miss something here? Did Ray say that? Where have you read that Gordon B. Hinckley or any other Latter-day Prophet claimed to be without any error in every decision, no matter how minor? There is no way there would ever be confirmation to this claim, because it has not happened.

Yep, Ray said it, and I was as surprised as you, because I doubt that your leaders have made such claims. Keep in mind that we were discussing missions strategies (not doctrine). Ray said:

Or in other words, we believe our leadership decisions come directly from our Lord Jesus Christ, as He reveals His will to the President (or presiding officer) of His church here on this Earth, (who is President in accordance with our Lord’s revelations), who then reveals those revelations from our Lord concerning the Church and the world to other prophets and leaders of the Church (who are also authorized by our Lord in accordance with our Lord’s revelations), who then confirm those revelations with our Lord… if they have any doubts concerning what the President declares to be true… and then delegate some responsibilities to some other members of the Church.

I asked for clarification, and Ray stood by his words, and then noted that the leaders of my faith tradition do not make such claims. I heartily agreed.

Of course the Prophet is a human being. Just like Moses, Abraham, Nephi, Paul, Joseph Smith, etc. Yes they have all made mistakes. Personal mistakes. Joseph Smith wrote many times about how he had to repent often because he was too lighthearted. He loved a good joke, and he loved to wrestle, he loved to play with the children. He felt that this was not becoming of the Lord's Prophet. Personally ~ I feel that this shows him to be a great man.

Of course there have been Missionaries who have come home before their mission was over. It could be because they were ill, or so homesick that they could not complete their mission. Some have come home in disgrace too. Male and female, Senior Missionaries too. We are human first and foremost. We fall down and go bump. We sin, we make mistakes. Are you without sin, Prison Chaplain? Isn't that why we go to Church every Sunday and partake of the Sacrament. We repent of our sins constantly. Isn't that what Christ's atonement is all about?

You have no argument from me. Again, we were discussion missions strategy, not doctrine. Ray said that my church leaders think strategically, while the LDS leaders receive their instructions DIRECTLY from Christ. I sought clarification, and he said I had read him correctly.

The Church IS without error ~ Prison Chaplain. It is the members (who are human) who error. I think you are confusing the members with the Church. Just like we humans are wont to confuse the sin with the sinner.

I'm just trying to clarify what was said--I found it hard to believe the Church insisted that it's administrative decisions were infallible, but that was the message I seemed to be getting.

You seem to have missed what I meant.

I’m saying that when the President of the Church and any other prophet and apostle of our Lord receives revelation from Him, they know beyond doubt it’s from Him, and they consider it to be of the same quality as other revelations received by other prophets and apostles in the past… or just as binding as “scripture”… and yet you and your leaders (and the leaders of other non-LDS groups) do not consider what they receive to be of the same quality as other revelations from our Lord, or of the same quality as scripture… which shows that you do not have the same faith or confidence in the revelations you and your leaders receive, as we do from that of our leaders… after receiving our own assurances from God.

But yes, on your point, that just as some people today misunderstand and misinterpret revelations from our Lord in the Bible, concerning what our Lord and His prophets and apostles actually meant, there are still people who misunderstand the revelations from our Presidents and other prophets and apostles in the Church, or don't know they are inspired by God.

Or in other words, you don't have the same confidence in your leaders and the inspiration and revelations they receive, while claiming they are authorized and inspired by God, as we [LDS] have faith in our leaders and the revelations they receive, while knowing they are inspired by God... and you have admitted that fact.

Ray, I'm not sure if you're revising the claim that the Church's administrative, tactical, and otherwise practical decisions are all inspired, coming directly from Christ. That was the understanding I was seeking clarification on. The original topic of this string was missions strategy. You now seem to be addressing the issues of canon and modern-day prophetic offices, which may be a worthy topic, but might come across more clearly in a new post topic.

[Why We Do Missions The Way We Do]

<div class='quotemain'>

For clarification, Ray (and all who might know), are you saying that EVERY day to day administrative decision that comes out of LDS HQ is inspired of God, similar to when the Catholic Pope claims to speak ex cathedra (infallibly)??? You've made yourself abundantly clear in matters of doctrine and who truly and bestly (made the word up) represents God, but you even claim that all accounting, logistical, secretarial decisions are absolutely "of God?"

Yes I am, and Yes I do, although I didn’t compare it with any claims of the Pope.

Or in other words, Yes, the President and other prophets and apostles of our Lord’s church on Earth do(es) seek inspiration and revelation from our Lord daily, to help them live their lives and make the best decisions they can possibly make in all their areas of responsiblity… just as anybody else on Earth now does or if not should start to do.

Ray, maybe what you are saying is accurate. You're more qualified than me, obviously, to comment. However, I still find it hard to digest that church authorities would claim absolute inspiration from God (100% correctness) in even their most mundane day to day tasks. Even the Pope would probably say, from time to time, "I should have done that differently." I welcome other LDS to confirm or clarify whether it is true that all decisions that come from the church authorities, regardless of topic, or level of importance, is correct and inspired of God, and thus unquestioned.

And btw, I did notice that you didn’t even address my statement considering the fact that your leaders (and the leaders of other non-LDS groups) openly admit to NOT receive revelation from God of the same quality that prophets and apostles did in the past, (and which LDS claim today), because you consider what you (and they) receive to be inferior to that in the scriptures… which shows not only do you lack His Faith but you really CAN see the difference… although you still can’t see the truth of His Faith, because you really don’t have His Faith… which you openly admit.

Sure I addessed your statement. I said that the bretheren (and sisters) in Springfield, MO would readily admit that not every decision they make is the result of perfectly discerning the will of God. Our magazine may contain occasional typos. A picture may have the wrong caption under it. A missionary candidate convinced the authorities s/he was called to go, and came home six months later, depressed, and unable to continue.

If i read you right, no LDS missionary has ever come home early, or failed--after all, they were called, and the church is without error.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I'm just finding it hard to believe that even one who truly would be a modern day prophet of God, would claim to be without any error in every decision, no matter how minor. Further, I'm seeking confirmation that this claim really is the one the LDS church makes.

[Lesspotential Missionaries.]

So is that what you guys and gals plan to tell Him when He asks you why you rejected His prophets?

I'll not reject anyone that God reveals to me is his prophet.

[Lesspotential Missionaries.]

<div class='quotemain'>

I don't hold God's masculinity against Him. Also, He hasn't placed anyone in leadership over me. I don't need anyone to tell me of my business with God... I can take it up with Him... no 'middle man' necessary. :)

Shantress70, I am so sorry you feel that way.

In John 14:6 Jesus Christ is telling us that He is in leadership over all of us mortals, and He is the "middle man".

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

I gotta stand up for Shantress70 on this one. First, her point was that she didn't need church leaders trying to micromanage her relationship with God. I didn't catch any hint of her suggesting that Jesus did not fit into her relationship with the Heavenly Father. But, even on the "technical" matter, she's right: Jesus is not a mer middle-man, He is God the Son. So, she's correct to say that she doesn't need a middleman between her and God.