CrimsonKairos

Technically correct, Ray. However, I was referring to the fact that in the LDS Church, we sustain the apostles are prophets, seers and revelators, in regards to their stewardship for the entire Church. Also, I was referring to apostles as those ordained to be special witnesses of Jesus Christ and his divinity, even though yes, the Greek word means "one who is sent."

I think apostles are prophets. Hence, Judas as an apostle could be considered a prophet.

Dr. T, you certainly could equate prayer and faith in Jesus to flipping the light switch. I don't believe that's an accurate metaphor for how salvation is acquired, but it could be interpreted that way. I guess the point of the analogy is that loving God and having faith in Jesus is not enough to access Christ's grace. We are not what we believe; we are what we do. If we truly love God, we will keep His commandments (John 14:15). If we are converted by the Spirit, we will have a mighty change of heart and desire what God desires. Hence, we will serve others, serve God and seek to further His will. Assuming works means obeying commandments and partaking of ordinances, I guess you could look at that two ways: 1) We aren't saved without works, inasmuch as works are an indication of our truly being converted and having given ourselves to God and His work. 2) We aren't saved without works, inasmuch as God requires certain specific acts and ordinances to be performed by those who will dwell with Him eternally. It quickly becomes very semantical, very connotative and very contextual. In the end, it comes down to one question: Does God require us to do certain things before we can apply Christ's grace in order to be sanctified and return to His presence, clean and without spot? I submit that the New Testament teaches that there are things we must do, and that believing alone is not enough to acquire salvation. Ray makes a valid point as well, to wit: we must accept Christ's grace, and I assert that the way we do that is by serving God and loving our neighbors. God cannot force us to love Him against our will; God cannot force us to love others against our will; God cannot save us against our will.

It's a matter of point of view, or paradigms. Here's an analogy to illustrate my understanding that I'm saved by faith and works and grace. Let's assume the following associations: grace = electrician installing wires and power faith = trusting the electrician's installation works = flipping a light switch salvation = light bulb emitting light. A light bulb needs electricity in order to shine. I cannot generate or transfer enough electricity to power a light bulb with just my body. I need electricity which I cannot create by myself no matter how hard I try. So I have an electrician install necessary wires and a light switch connected to my light bulb. He assures me that I can now "turn on" the light and have it shine. Even though I have electricity now, it will never cause the light bulb to shine if the light switch is in the "off" position. If I believe the electrician doesn't know what he's doing, I won't believe there's power and I won't flip the light switch. If I do believe the electrician has installed everything correctly, I will flip the light switch in order to "turn on" the light, fully expecting the bulb to shine when I do so. I have to trust that the electrician truly has provided power, then I have to flip the switch to access the electricity that will cause the light bulb to shine. Similarly, I have to trust that Jesus's atonement has made salvation possible, then I have to covenant with him and obey God's commandments to access the grace of Christ that will save me in God's presence hereafter. It's no good to identify the cause of salvation with one word, i.e. by faith, or by works, or by grace. We're saved by all of them together, and in no other way. The way I believe it's best phrased is: We are saved by grace; we access that grace through obedience and service. Back to the analogy, a light bulb is illuminated by electricity; we access electricity by flipping the light switch. Does that mean we "earn" salvation because we have to do something to access grace? Of course not. Earning implies exchanging things of equal value, as in a worker getting paid $50 for five hours of work at $10/hr. We as finite beings can never contribute anything equal to Christ's infinite atonement. But we can contribute, and we must. Our best efforts aren't enough, but they are necessary.

Yeah, I was actually being a smart aleck, but if scholars find a stone with "Nephi was here" written on it all I'd have to say would be "booyah!" Hahahaha, j/k.

There are some real jerks in the world, no doubt. I think Confucius said: All good deeds are punished; all unpunished goods are deeds. Or something equally cryptic and mysterious. I have to wonder though, if all these Confucius quotes are authentic. I mean, he supposedly also said: Man who run in front of car get tired; man who run behind car get exhausted. And I know that they didn't have cars in Confucius's lifetime. Hmmmm, makes you wonder... B)

I just know there's a stone somewhere in or around Guatemala that bears the inscription: "Nephi was here." B)

Like I always say (okay, sometimes say): You can't get dizzy from doing too many good turns.

Thanks Pushka, I think a lil' tylenol and plenty of sleep will do the trick. Rosie, I enjoyed your comments. The example of a father/mother/child to illustrate justice/mercy/repentance was quite apt, in my opinion. I think nearly everyone can understand or has experienced that phenomenon (mothers being the "mediator" in the family most of the time). Well said. And I'm glad you're glad I'm still around.

It would make sense for Joseph Smith and others to emphasize "works" since the watchword of Christianity for centuries prior to the Restoration had been grace alone (for the most part). Now that "works" has been firmly established as a necessary element of personal salvation (from an LDS point of view) the shift seems to be back to grace since its received little attention and many members are confused about its role in our salvation (or even what grace consists of). These are my observations only; I may be completely wrong.

It's like I always say...copyright means I have a right to copy. j/k

Hahahaha pushka, good call. I've been hit hard the past few days with a serious flu/virus and my brain has been throbbing regularly every few seconds so...I misspelled dam as damn. Reminds me of a joke: What did the salmon say when it swam into a concrete wall? Dam. (Sounds better when spoken...the whole homonym thing )

I think the difference here is based on the LDS belief that there are other gods with their own kindgoms and spirit children elsewhere in the universe, and that no "one" made the rules so to speak; they just always have been, and those who adhere to them progress eternally while those who disregard them are damned...literally, held back from progressing as a stream is held back by a dam.

I surrender, who was it?

Tyndale is smiling in his grave PC. :)

That would be robbing justice. Precisely. Christ's sacrifice was about overpowering justice, not merely transfering the punishment from us to him. I believe that the universal laws of "right and wrong" are self-existing laws that even God must abide by. So in that sense, it's not that God wrote the law and demands His laws be fulfilled. It's inherent morality or eternal "justice" that demands that a punishment be dispensed when a law is broken. If God wishes to be perfectly good and just, He must administer these laws that He did not create. As beautiful as that idea may be, the fact remains that the scriptures describe justice's demands and the need to deal with them in one way or another. The symbolism in the Law of Moses involved a pure and innocent sacrifice appeasing God's wrath, wrath provoked by His people's sins. Of course the people had to be repentant. I don't see how this idea of the atonement as being a revelation of God's love alone meshes with the scriptural teachings on justice, laws, sins, and punishments. There has to be more to it than that. Plenty of parents spare their children from being disciplined, but that's not divine love, that's sentimentality and weakness in many cases. The reason Christ was willing to suffer for us was not just because he doesn't like seeing us suffer. The reason he suffered for us is stated succinctly in D&C 45:5 as below: "Wherefore, Father, spare these my brethren that believe on my name, that they may come unto me and have everlasting life." Interesting ideas Dror, though I'd have to talk to this friend of yours to really make sure I understand what he/she means.

Yes, it was the same hacker who deleted soulsearcher's account.

Hey Ben, I'm a single 25 yr. old guy...what's your 27 yr. old daughter like? Seriously though, everyone is different and not everyone is going to marry at the same age. I think if there is an emphasis on short engagements it's to help couples avoid premarital no-no's that a prolonged engagement might give rise to. That doesn't mean to get engaged quickly, just that once you're confident in your choice of eternal companion why be engaged for a year if circumstances allow for marriage sooner? It's all a personal experience with variables and factors unique to each person. By the way Ben, congratulations on your long marriage, that's great.

Hey rosie, thanks for the concern. They can delete my account, but not me (don't ask me who "they" are, lol).

Why would He?

I have yet to see any good information from anti sources.

It was a clip on GoogleVideo. Same anti-Mormon claims: where are the steel swords and horse bones and huge cities? In the video, one of the key "Mormon archeologists" (read: ex-mormon with an axe to grind) was looking for skeletal evidence of the great "last battle" among the Jaredites and later, between the Nephites and Lamanites that the Book of Mormon describes as taking place near the Hill Cumorah. Only problem is, the guy was looking for this evidence of a massive slaughter near the New York Cumorah! Duh professor, that's the wrong Hill Cumorah. Several other errors and so forth left a bad taste in my mouth. Same tactic of misleading and misinterpreting LDS texts.

I'm still not sure I get how this applies to the atonement but that's my fault. I disagree that intercession necessarily involves payment. "Intercede" means: intervene on behalf of another. In D&C 45:3-5, Jesus intercedes for the repentant, but in so doing he doesn't offer to suffer the demands of justice...Jesus calls God's attention to his innocence and spilled blood as reasons for God to forgive us. I know the story you're talking about with David and Abigail and her interceding on her wicked husband's behalf, but that's just one type of intercession. I don't think that interceding has to mean suffering someone else's punishment so they won't have to. Agreed. Correct, but I was talking about sins that affect other people, not God. So in my example, sure smoking a cigarette defiles God's temple which is our body; but my point was that one person smoking doesn't decrease his neighbor's spiritual sensitivity...in that sense, it's a sin that affects only the person smoking.

Well Dr. T, the tapes I bought from the Nephi Project deal solely with Old World geography as described in the Book of Mormon. Lehi and his family left Jerusalem and wandered in the wilderness for years before arriving at a beach, building a boat, and sailing to the Americas. Nephi describes this Old World landscape and Lehi incorporates the geography into sermons to his sons (1 Nephi 8:9-10). The tapes in this series identify and explore possible locations that match the Book of Mormon's descriptions of locations prior to the New World arrival. In other words, this series doesn't talk about Mayan temples or Aztec legends or any other aspect of the Book of Mormon's American setting. It's solely about locations and events prior to Lehi and his family's sailing to the Americas. Check out the website for the Nephi Project as they provide photos and basic descriptions of their findings. Of course, you could buy one or two of the tapes and let them speak about their discoveries far better than I can from my memory of watching them. In particular, watch the excerpts on this page: http://www.nephiproject.com/project_film_clips.htm By themselves, they don't really get into the subject in depth, but they serve the purpose of excerpts, to wit, they give an idea of what the whole videos discuss.

I like how you break justice down into two parts. However, the notion that justice is concerned with protecting the innocent seems to me to be more of an earthly legal concept. For instance, many sins we commit affect only ourselves; no one else is harmed by them. If we break the word of wisdom, it is to our spiritual detriment alone. In other words, someone smoking a cigarette doesn't affect whether their neighbor can feel the Spirit as much. Having said that, I do agree that many of God's laws are meant to protect the innocent. Many of the ten commandments, for example, deal with our interactions with others (killing, stealing, adultery, lying). I'm not sure I'm understanding this right. What do you mean by punishment being able to "make an end to the suffering of the innocent in offences?" In other words, how does a thief being punished help end the suffering of he who was robbed? I'm not arguing this point, I really do want to make sure I understand what you're saying. This is where I differ from my previous understanding of the atonement. I no longer believe Jesus suffered the demands of justice. I believe Jesus suffered unjustly in that he was crucified for being righteous; it is that infinite injustice to perfect innocence that arouses pity capable of convincing justice to retract its demands against those those who sin, but then repent and worthily invoke Christ's name. This is how I see mercy overpowering justice. Maybe this delineation is semantic, I don't know. Does what I said in the above paragraph reflect your view, or do we believe two different things about what Christ suffered? Well said. I agree.