HillCumorahCC

Members
  • Posts

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

HillCumorahCC's Achievements

  1. Emma didn't really "join" the RLDS church, she entered into fellowship there on her original baptism which is what most of the early RLDS did. They felt there was no need for those who were baptised prior to 1844 to be rebaptized or "join" their church, as they felt they were already the church.
  2. I don't know that it "bridges the gap", but I think it is a teaching with enough similarities to "Once Saved Always Saved" that church members would be advised not to be overly critical of that particular belief in the manner in which Traveler was in an earlier post.
  3. It is rather mean-spirited to address a question to a specific person and when they give reasonable answer to call them out as swine who are unable to see the truth. Lattelady... you gave an excellent answer, and I particularly enjoyed how you used the Book of Mormon in your response. I would add that the Title Page also includes the statement as to the purpose of the Book of Mormon, "to show unto the Jews and the Gentiles that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting Himself unto all the world".
  4. "And in this verse, apparently the consequences will be on earth." Does it make sense to you that they can committ any sin, except murder, and only be punished in mortality, but afterwards receive a fullness of exaltation? If it does, please explain to me why it makes sense to you. Thanks.
  5. Obedience to only one commandment, not to murder, but you can do anything else. I don't see much of a fundamental difference between the two concepts. But hey, I'm just dumb me, I still don't see the distinction PC is trying to make between Arminianism and Grace+Works= Salvation. Maybe I'm slow :)
  6. I would beg to differ. Let me assemble some of the verses I am thinking of and begin a new topic. Be patient.
  7. I, myself, was ministered to by his book "Loose that Man and Set Him Free", though I may not agree with his particular preaching style or personal excess. "...anything virtuous lovely or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things." His books are praiseworthy, even if, perhaps (and we can't know for sure), he is doing it for money. But seeing interviews he has done, I believe he is sincere, if not a little caught up in the prosperity gospel craze.
  8. Just so happens I started reading "The Cost of Discipleship" a couple days before you posted this topic. So far I have found it very good. The only problem I have is he seems to promote the Calvinist idea that Jesus chooses who to call to Him for salvation and you can exercise your agency to choose to follow Christ. But thus far his points about grace and discipleship are very good.
  9. Before we get to down on the "Once Saved Always Saved Crowd", we should explore the concept of having your "Calling and Election Made Sure" a teaching found within the Doctrine and Covenants which states that once you have had your calling and election made sure there is no sin besides murder that can keep you from exaltation and all the blessings of eternity. Go.
  10. While I admire your bravado, I must inquire how you came to such a conclusion? Thanks in advance.
  11. You points may be revelant in terms of the Calvinist mindset and belief concerning grace, but does not explain Arminiast teaching which is fundamentally no different then the LDS teaching of Grace+Works= Salvation. I think there in a tendancy by members of the church to want to be correct and be the ones to "know" a certain truth, so they will sometimes argue semantically with those that have essentially the same belief but are not members of the church, so they can be correct and have something they perceive the other person as not having. Wouldn't it be better to admit that the Arminians, indeed, were correct and rejoice that through the Bible they were able to see truth and not be deceived by Calvinism?
  12. That's the trouble of a written forum... people read words differently because we each have our own unique spin on the definition of certain words. I hope their is no impatience with PC, because he is, after all, trying to explain something he himself does not personally believe in.
  13. Will it be acceptable to continue this discussion and try to discuss the question of this topic? I don't want to be reprimanded for going into speculation. The quote left in the new GP manual brings up questions I believe are pertinent to the original question of this topic.
  14. I would also add that one could make a case for the "Pentecostal" part of "Oneness" using the Book of Mormon also... The Nephites: Clapped their hands for joy Shouted for joy Were "Slain in the Spirit" Prayed to Jesus at times I dare say if someone completely unaware of the traditional LDS form of worship and beliefs concerning the nature of God were to read the Book of Mormon, they would think it was written by a "Oneness Pentecostal".