justinc

P.S I myself am former LDS.

Don't you guys think this sort of theology is somewhat disturbing?

I don't think she's talking about divorce. I think she means that after they die she will remarry someone else to get in the Celestial Kingdom. He is quite upset about what she is saying.

Ok, so I have a friend who left the Church. His wife is still a believer. She has told him that her future hope is to remarry someone else so that she can be in the Celestial Kingdom. I need your help. Tell me whats wrong with her Theology because he is really hurt by her believing this.

Is the Chaos theory only coherent within an LDS worldview? I'm just curious how you relate that back to LDS belief.

Not hugely important, though my understanding of the verse differs slightly. Jesus here is arguing how best to follow Torah (Gods Instruction) and it goes something like this (paraphrasing): "In the past some have said love your neighbor but hate your enemy. But you should also love your enemy. God shines sun on both good and evil people - therefore - be perfect even as God is perfect." Jesus argues that since God shows no partiality (ie. Gods love towards humanity is not divided - it is complete) that we therefore should not either. The word perfect here can mean "complete" - which I think makes more sense since Jesus was teaching this for his disciples to implement now - not as a future ideal. ***Whoops, just saw that McLainDow already pointed this out.***

Sorry Leah, if I am in error. Though my point was only that Latter-day Saints and other Christians have not enjoyed a very good history: “What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world.” - Joseph Smith (President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), Section Five 1842-1843, page 270, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith “We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense... Myself and hundreds of the Elders around me have seen its pomp, parade, and glory; and what is it? It is a sounding brass and a tinkling symbol; it is as corrupt as hell; and the Devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century” - John Taylor (Quorum of the Twelve Apostles), Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, 1858, p. 167 “The Christian world, so-called, are heathens as to the knowledge of the salvation of God" - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 8:171 “With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world" - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 8:199 “Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon' whom the Lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. Any person who shall be so corrupt as to receive a holy ordinance of the Gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent" - Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 255 "all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” - History 1:19 "And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth" (1 Nephi 14:10).

This is quite a difficult subject to tackle considering that both Latter-day Saints and Christians have both declared each other as false teachers in one sense or another. Christians typically say that LDS are not Christian and by implication "unsaved". LDS on the other hand emphasize that they are the only way implying that all other denominations are from Satan. While these are the obvious result of doctrinal differences they need not be taken personally. I can recognize that the average Rabbi might think that Jesus was actually a false prophet - but that does not mean that I have a problem with the Rabbi (neither the other way round). Personally I don't think anyone has a monopoly over the title "Christian". To define what a Christian is you would need to know what exactly the person who first coined the term actually meant by it. And since we do not have access to his or her thoughts we must define it as best as we can - but such defining is always going to be subjective or biased depending on who is doing the defining. While the Latter-day Saint affirms he is a Christian - someone of another denomination is going to say he is not a Christian. Then you find others like Jehovah's Witnesses who rarely use the term of themselves because - and I think we can all agree - it's a loaded title. We can't forget Muslims who recognize Jesus as a prophet but don't call themselves Christians - again probably because it's a loaded term (and let's face it - they don't want to be associated with anything to do with a trinity - as though all Christians are trinitarians). Thus the title Christian as far as I see it - should only refer to a person "relating to or professing Christianity or its teachings" (Oxford Online Dictionary). And since we are both (Latter-day Saints and other Christians) professing a faith in the Christian tradition (albeit by somewhat different means) then I think we should all fall under one title - Christian. Latter-day Saints who disagree with Latter-day Saints are still Latter-day Saints. Baptists who disagree with Baptists are still Baptists. In the same (larger) sense Christians who disagree with Christians are still Christian. Next the question becomes "are all Christians going to be saved?" or "are all Christians going to the Celestial Kingdom?" to which all Christians of all denominations (including LDS) must respond - "I cannot judge my brother - this is left to the judgement of God". Also, the obvious scripture comes to mind "Not everyone who say's to [Jesus], 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 7:21). I very much doubt all "Christians" will inherit the earth - but I am not willing to exclude Latter-day Saints - if God wills that a Latter-day Saint is justified at the last day - who am I to disagree with my maker (and vice versa). Having said all of this I do think that we should try to correct each other when we are wrong - but this is to be done in the spirit of loving our neighbor. Comparing ourselves to Jesus overturning tables at the temple is probably not appropriate considering he is the Messiah and was doing the will of the Father (whom certainly brings judgement through people on earth when he wants - just read the Hebrew scriptures!), as disciples however weare commanded to be meek etc. I do believe that we should correct our neighbor but also recognize that our religion is tied up with our emotion - so we should be careful with our approach. I also think that we will be held accountable for failing to search for the truth - my opinion anyway. William Lane Craig points out the difference between arguing and quarreling - arguing is merely upholding a position with logic and reasoning whereas quarreling is arguing in a negative or aggressive manner. We need to learn to dialogue with each other without quarreling. The majority of Latter-day Saints need to learn that not everyone with questions is an anti-Mormon - Christians of other denominations need to recognize that saying someone is not a Christian, is just semantic wordplay that's not going to get anyone anywhere. Thoughts? Disagreements?

I was just offering my perspective on the OP. No offense, just my opinion. Was there something wrong with my post that would be any different from Latter-day Saints disagreeing with each other on here? (eg. Latter-day Saints debating why God allows suffering)

If you hold to a worldview which is motivated largely by personal revelation and then allow for the possibility that one cant think they are getting revelation when in fact they have just concocted it in their mind or are actually getting it from from Satan - it just seems to me to be unreliable. Though I am open to you solving the dilemma if I'm wrong :)

My understanding of Latter-day Saint revelation is that it is largely unreliable. "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil.” - Joseph Smith (President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), An Address to all Believers in Christ by David Whitmer (Book of Mormon witness), p 31, 1887 "All inspiration does not come from God. The evil one has the power to tap into those channels of revelation and send conflicting signals which can mislead and confuse us. There are promptings from evil sources which are so carefully counterfeited as to deceive even the very elect." - Revelation in a changing world - Boyd K. Packer "If something is counterfeit, it means that it resembles the original so closely that it is difficult to distinguish which is the true and which is the false. So it is with counterfeit revelation. On the surface it may feel real. It may appear to be from the Lord. We may even have very strong feelings about what we have received. But this alone is not proof it is from God. Note that President Packer warns that we must ever be on guard against being deceived by our emotions or by revelation from an unworthy source. That suggests that counterfeit revelation is not a rare thing." - Gerald N. Lund (Church Educational System zone administrator), BYU Speech 1997 "Persons who persist in seeking revelatory guidance on subjects on which the Lord has not chosen to direct us may concoct an answer out of their own fantasy or bias, or they may even receive an answer through the medium of false revelation." - Dallin H. Oaks (Quorum of the Twelve Apostles), Our Strengths Can Become Our Downfall "Be ever on guard lest you be deceived by inspiration from an unworthy source. You can be given false spiritual messages. There are counterfeit spirits just as there are counterfeit angels. Be careful lest you be deceived, for the devil may come disguised as an angel of light. The spiritual part of us and the emotional part of us are so closely linked that is possible to mistake an emotional impulse for something spiritual. We occasionally find people who receive what they assume to be spiritual promptings from God, when those promptings are either centered in the emotions or are from the adversary." - Boyd K. Packer, The Candle of the Lord

"Mk 10.2-13 bans divorce under any circumstances, while Mt 3.31-32 (and see Mt 1.9; Lk 16.18) permits divorce only in cases of "porneia," sexual impropriety (see Duet 24.1)." (Shira Lander, The Jewish Annotated New Testament, p. 298) "to those caught in unhappy or failing marriages, [Paul] cites the norm of Jesus' own teaching: that divorce should not be countenanced, or, failing that ideal, a separated partner should not marry someone else ([1 Corinthians] 7.10-11). . . [To be noted however is that Paul was specifically addressing] the situation of the Corinthian believers. . . not obviously envisaged by Jesus' command. That is to say, the fact that one of the partners had not become a Christian made some difference." (James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, p. 696-697)

I would like to focus briefly on Ether 4 (the one tovarisch absolutely loved). First, I have to disagree with the author when he say's "whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me". The Quran can and does persuade people to do good but it doesn't follow that the Quran is from Jesus. Second, why does the author record Jesus as calling himself the Father right after he has just referred to his Father? This seems to imply that the author was a modalist or similar.

This is probably an allusion to the cup of God's wrath mentioned throughout the Hebrew scriptures. "The cup of suffering referred to in [Matthew] 20:22 clearly employs a common OT metaphor, frequently used for the outpouring of God's wrath (e.g., Ps. 75:8; Isa. 51:17)." (Craig L. Bloomberg, Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament, p. 63) God's wrath being poured on Jesus was no doubt symbolic of the sacrificial lamb (John 1:29). How Jesus actually received the wrath of God for the sins of others in any rational sense remains a mystery. It seems at least Paul understood Jesus as becoming sin and then suffering so that the sin itself would be condemned in the flesh (2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:13; Romans 8:3). This second question probably wouldn't have made sense to the earliest Christians. To them God sent Jesus specifically (among other things) to deal with the problem of sin. We read that he was sent "for sin" (Romans 8:3) "to save sinners" (1 Timothy 1:15) "to give his life a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28) "not to do [his] own will, but the will of [God]" (John 6:38).

Over a period of time I have come to understand a major aspect of Christianity can be best summed up in the question "Who are the children of Abraham?" to which the Jew might respond "the children of Abraham are those who are his decedent's, who are circumcised and who follow Torah" and to which the Christian might respond "the children of Abraham are those who by their faith and faithfulness to the God of Israel accept Jesus as Messiah and Lord whether they be Jew or non-Jew". Whilst summing up Judeo-Christian religion in a few sentences is no doubt going to be much too simplistic, this will have to suffice for now. I hope to reach any Latter-day Saints who are familiar with the New Perspective on Paul and probably have read some of N.T Wright or James D. G. Dunn. My question then is how does the Latter-day Saint faith fit into the New Perspective? If the purpose of Israel was to be a light to all other nations so that they might come and worship the God of Israel (whilst still remaining Jew and Gentile) - doesn't the Latter-day Saint faith run the risk of restricting the grace of God by claiming to be the only way? I am sincerely interested - I've had this question for a while now :)

Another non-LDS response. I hate when people talk about "adding to the bible" as though it's somehow the final authority of everything. I almost wish it was never compiled. The bible is a collection of ancient writings handed down by religious people who believed they were the people of God. The issue is not then "adding to the bible" the real issue would be "falsely claiming/adding to the history of Gods people." Personally I am not convinced about the Book of Mormon and LDS history, in fact I think there are good reasons not to believe it. But to say "The Mormon religion adds to what the Bible says and that is just wrong" comes from a lack of understanding on their part.

How does someone become part of Gods people?

"Jesus works under the direction of the Father" - Guide to the Scriptures, LDS.org I have to agree with Traveler. A straightforward reading of the New Testament would lead to the belief that Jesus is subordinate to the Father.

"Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This [i.e., Brigham Young's teaching on Adam], however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel." - Bruce R. McConkie (Quorum of the Twelve Apostles), letter to Eugene England, p. 6, 19 February 1981 “To be sure Brigham Young and a few others taught that [Adam-God] for a period of years. But by the criteria I have just given you it would not qualify as being the doctrine of the church because frankly when President Young passed away that doctrine passed away with him. - Robert L. Millet (Professor of Ancient Scripture, Brigham Young University), Dialogue with Greg Johnson, Mt. Olympus Presbyterian, 23 April 2006 Does this sound like the Adam-God doctrine was revised?

The Adam-God doctrine was taught. And then revised by succeeding Prophets. Prophets are subject to the word of God.

I agree. Sometimes things are left unchecked, which is why I think anyone who wishes to seriously understand Christianity should know it is a lifelong learning process of reading and revising.

Nothing can be hidden from an omniscient being, including my thoughts, experience, desires etc. Me and God have individual minds, even though he knows whats happening in mine by virtue of his being God :). How did lambs atone for sins without knowing what the sins were? I don't think its necessary to know what the sins were. Jesus own self understanding was probably that he was suffering for the sins of the world. In him, the totality of sin was being condemned in the flesh.

They must experience their own individual states of consciousness, or else how could they tell themselves apart from each other as they so clearly do? But is Jesus talking about our ability to become one being/person or is he talking about us becoming unified? Paul often expresses the concept of being "in Christ" which scholars believe is a mystic metaphor, perhaps belonging to or having a sense of devotion - or having the entire life bound up with the person referred. The reference you quote hardly shows that the Father and Son are indistinguishable, rather it shows their close relationship of unity.

I'm not entirely sure about the traditional idea of a "trinity". But the way I would distinguish them (God and Jesus) on my own view is that they each experience an individual mindset. Their states of consciousness are individual - that is to say they each experience thought, feeling, awareness etc as individuals. So if they are one "God/head" it must be by virtue of their unity. The Son as fulfilling the will of the Father in an expression of love and holiness. This comes from my simplistic view of 'being' and applying it to the divine. Also keeping in mind ancient Jewish expression conceived of God's thoughts/ways as beyond their understanding (Isaiah 55:8-9).

I conceive of God as a being existing without form (Deuteronomy 4:15-18) and self existent (John 5:26). He is called Jehovah (Isaiah 42:8), the God of the Old & New Testaments (Romans 3:29). I understand Jesus as the pre-existant wisdom figure of Jewish tradition. "What pre-Christian Judaism said of Wisdom and Philo also of the Logos, Paul and the others say of Jesus." (James DG Dunn, Christology). Jesus is the Son of the Father in that he reflects the nature of the Father into the world. That's my unorthodox non-denominational Christian perspective :)