runewell

Go on... I seem to understand that some of the works-based striving seems to be centered on the exaltation component (I doubt you guys use the word component, what can I say I'm a Christian mathematician)

I do not understand, so I ask questions. Why shouldn't I be convinced of what I believe? And why do you get so defensive? While we are on the subject of flawed knowledge, should be examine some of the serious flaws in LDS scripture? What is worrisome to me is completely relevant. I am looking for the component of repentance in LDS practice, and I'm not finding much. I am looking for it, giving you the benefit of the doubt. In general joining a church is NOT equivalent to repentance. Keeping God's commandments (do not commit adultery, steal, lie) is obedience which is not repentance. Maybe you think repentance is something God commanded, fine. Maybe repenting is a subset of keeping God's commandments. But as I said before, if the word repent is not there, it's missing for a reason. Having said that, I hope that repentance is important to the LDS faith. I know the word exists within scriptures but what role does it play.

Those two are not equivalent either. Let's go to Wikipedia for a more broad consensus: There is a ton of information there. Scanning the page quickly with my eyes, I need not see the LDS faith even mentioned. Granted, tons of other denominations aren't listed, as that's not the point. If LDS is different enough to not make this article, it probably should be referred to as LDS. It did say that some denominations think of themselves as the true church and that's probably where you fit in, but if try to generalize you'll probably just generate confusion here.

Again, if they had meant repent, they would have said repent. You can't just attempt to attach the word. Regarding points 1 & 5: 1) The focus is on becoming a member of the Church. I'll need to unpack what exactly that entails - it is possible that repentance could occur here but it is worrisome to me that the focus is on the church rather than the relationship with God. 5) Keeping God's commandments is not repentance. Repentance isn't something that should be implicit. It should be explicit.

Which or course implies that they are not equivalent in other contexts. (You are right in that some believe this)

I rummaged around (just now) and found this. It doesn't say anything about repenting for your sins. It's possible that it's a simplified version for a child to understand, but I would think a key component like that would not be omitted. https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/images/gospel-library/manual/34594/34594_000_014_02-covenants.pdf

Is repentance necessarily involved?

Feelings are no guarantee of truth, so tread carefully.

I haven't figured how to get multiple quotes on here easily enough, so I'll try numbering your thoughts. [1] Agree [2] I think I disagree here. What contribution can we possibly make (apart from confessing our sins and accepting the free gift). Psalm 14 says: [3] I never thought of the Eden incident as a covenant per se. But it is true that we were only promised the knowledge of good and evil - if only as a result of sin.

Being born again and being baptized are not equivalent in the Christian church. Born again means that you have been forgiven of your sins, regenerated spiritually, a "new creature". It would be equivalent to salvation. Baptism is an outward declaration of faith, symbolic of being washed clean. (Of course there are various denominational takes on this) It sounds like baptism at 8 is a common practice among LDS. What exactly goes on - is there repentance of sin? Does the child know what is going on? With all this terminology, I think there is a good chance that some of our beliefs and practices sound similar but I think that the more we discuss the more differences we will find.

Back to the topic of paradise, I was quite surprised at the definition I found. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/paradise.html?lang=eng&letter=P I don't see how they can say the Bible rendering is incorrect. The reasoning is the thief was not ready for paradise. How can anyone aside from Jesus even make this judgment? This commentary seems to simply twist the scripture to fit into some other writings some 1800 years later. Original Word: παράδεισος among the Persians a grand enclosure or preserve, hunting-ground, park, shady and well-watered, in which wild animals were kept for the hunt universally, a garden, pleasure-ground; grove, park the abode of the souls of the pious until the resurrection an upper region in the heavens

That is a difference between LDS/Catholicism/Christianity. Hebrews 9 is the best example I can think of which supports the final judgment:

I actually do not subscribe to a "once saved always saved" philosophy. Some Christians do, but certainly not all of them. I would certainly have my doubts about the aforementioned bank robber, but again it's hardly my decision. Salvation is a prerequisite. Out of that experience which changes a person from being spiritually dead to alive, they will want to do good works. And the are rewards for good works, but no measure of "good enough". I think one's relationship with God [at life's end] is the best barometer. The criminal alongside Jesus on the cross more or less repented in his dying hour, and that was enough (Luke 23:32-43). However there are enough warnings in the Bible that I think should make people take this issue seriously. I think the parable of the ten virgins (Matthew 25:1-13) may be relevant. Ten virgins waited a long time for their bridegroom (Jesus). When he finally came only half of them were ready. The other five weren't. When they knock and try to get in, the response is Truly I tell you, I don’t know you. I absolutely agree with this. So how does a sense of "Am I Good Enough? Will I Make It?" linger? (I realize JohnsonJones that those weren't your words)

Wow that is quite a doctrinal difference. Any chance to can direct me to the scriptures or teachings that discuss this? By the way, I am going to continue most of my discussions back in the original thread. I'll try to check out what's going on in here too.

Thanks JohnsonJones. Even though my general position is not aligned with LDS doctrine, I want to understand the differences. Other posters seemed very hostile to a comparison between LDS doctrine and Christianity for whatever reason. But I think My questions were directly related to the issue of Am I Good Enough? Will I Make It? And, if someone has titled the thread Am I Good Enough? that tells me that works and worthiness definitely play into this. It sounds to me like there is a little agreement about the impact of Christ, but In Christianity that is pretty much 100% of the story while with the LDS it sounds like that is only the beginning. My answer to those questions: Am I Good Enough. NO. NOT EVEN CLOSE. WILL NEVER BE ANYWHERE CLOSE. DESERVE PUNISHMENT IN HELL FOR MY SINS. Will I Make It? YES (not to hell )

Thanks JohnsonJones for your input. I'll comment here, although others wish us to use a runewell thread created in the Christian beliefs section. So there are some fundamental differences still between your account and mine, though I dearly appreciate your attempt to clear things up. I would disagree with the statement that you do not have to repent. From I John 1 in the New Testament: I get the impression that LDS prefer to view the eyes through the lens of eternal progression through works. You don't have to repent of anything, if you have to try really hard (from an earlier section of this thread). Indeed in your story the debtor is released from his prison but is now in debt to someone else. He is still expected to pay back his debt. Contrast this with a Biblical viewpoint: Repentance of sins is necessary. But once you are forgiven, you do not have to pay back the debt. Which is good, because it is a debt that nobody can pay. We are still indebted to God in a sense, Him having purchased our forgiveness with His death. From Matthew 18: (later in the story the guy ends up back in jail, but only because he wouldn't forgive someone else just as he had been forgiven. But note that the debt was CANCELED:

Thanks Maureen. Jesus said He would be with this criminal in paradise. Is the place you described a place you would expect Jesus to end up as well? 43Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

I actually responded to the two questions long ago in the other thread, that response didn't make it over here: Regarding the first question, salvation is a gift that cannot be earned. You have repent of your sin and accept this gift. There is nothing you can do to earn or deserve it. Just like getting a gift at Christmas, you unwrap the gift and enjoy it. Nobody puts conditions on it. Nobody asks you to pay your fair share. Unwrapping the gift isn't "work". You can die one minute later with a life devoid of works and live with Him in Heaven. Acts of love and gratitude towards God are things we choose to do after salvation. But nothing we can do will earn salvation because All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6) I must confess I still don't understand the double-dipping concept in the second question. :shrug: The third question I am just noticing now. Romans 10:9 says: If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. His sacrifice on the cross made that possible.

Or could it be that I am a busy family man and can't spend every second on this forum? Of course I don't know your faith as well as I'd like to, why do you think I am asking questions.

Ok so what did Jesus accomplish and what does baptism accomplish? On p.62 it says: When men truly and heartily repent, and make manifest to the heavens that their repentance is genuine by obedience to the requirements made known to them through the laws of the Gospel, then are they entitled to the administration of salvation . Later it says: We, the Latter-day Saints, believe in being baptized by immersion for the remission of sins Although there is no account of the criminal on the cross next to Jesus being baptized, nevertheless Jesus told him he would enter paradise. Brigham Young goes on to say, Some of our old traditions teach us that a man guilty of atrocious and murderous acts may savingly repent when on the scaffold; and upon his execution will hear the expression, “Bless God! he has gone to heaven, to be crowned in glory, through the all-redeeming merits of Christ the Lord.” This is all nonsense. Such a character never will see heaven. So He would seem to contradict Jesus. Sorry that's a lot to put together at once, but it is somewhat related.

I would think a covenant would be bound by time. For instance, God made a covenant with Noah that He would never destroy the earth again by flood. It doesn't seen that a covenant can't very well apply to the past, since God already flooded the earth.

You have to understand, our faiths are much more obvious to us than to the other. OK, but Brigham Young's quote is in the past tense. The requirement of a saint is for wrong influences to be subdued and every evil desire eradicated. That doesn't agree with some covenant committing to some future state. Maybe someone could be a saint someday (maybe in the latter days? but not now)

OK, so the majority of the works is more the exaltation phase than the salvation moment?

OK here goes: In order to be a saint (non-biblical definition) requires every evil desire to be eradicated. If we could get rid of all the sin in us, we wouldn't need Christ's atonement. Therefore we cannot get rid of all the sin in us. If we could, Christ was wasting his time on the cross since it would just be a waiting game until we were perfect.