Telemantros

Members
  • Posts

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Midwest USA
  • Interests
    Reading, raising my three children, and Ultimate Frisbee
  • Religion
    Christian

Recent Profile Visitors

603 profile views

Telemantros's Achievements

Member

Member (2/4)

9

Reputation

  1. No, that’s not what I mean. My point is that if one’s salvation is based off their effort in conjunction with Christ, then that’s a load I would say cannot be accomplished. As for the underwear comment, that’s not what I believe either. It would seem very much that he was, at least his launguage selection seems to indicate as such “you are not” is a prescriptive phrase. This, is not, again what the LDS missionaries have told me.
  2. That’s not what the LDS missionaries have told me when I ask them about my current status.
  3. I don’t know what I think about this summation. I disagree that I no longer think that the LDS view of salvation does not crush; rather, I think the if/then language is prevelant in your scriptures and remains existentially crushing based off one’s efforts.
  4. I see. The views that systematic theology is worthless (even that there can never be a systematic theology in principle)are beginning to make sense given your views of open canon and the prophet. I also believe that I know understand your views of salvation. I very much disagree (for another thread sometime), but at least I'm understanding your views, which is helpful. Thanks. Tele
  5. @Just_A_Guy Thats very helpful, I’m seeing where the disconnect is. Thanks, tele
  6. @Jane_Doe Hi! I don't think I'm making it any more complicated than it needs to be, I'm just engaging in theology. LDS do engage in systematic theology yes? These would simply be moments of the salvation process, each with some import. I thank you for your three steps. I also appreciate that for many, there just needs to be a functional understanding of how things work when it comes to salvation and repentance. But my mind does not work like that. I want to make sure I understand what is being taught; call it a flaw, or call it a virtue - but it is who I am. Cheers, Tele
  7. Thanks everyone. So is it accurate to say that on the LDS view, a believer is finally justified before God after being obedient, that is, after a process of transformation? Peace, tele
  8. Specifically regarding the order of salvation. For instance the typical Protestant view would be: election, gospel call, regeneration, conversion, justification, adoption, sanctification. Catholic as best as I understand it is: actual grace, gospel call, faith/conversion, baptism/regeneration, justification coupled with sanctification. Would the LDS view be premortal existence, gospel call, conversion (faith and repentance), baptism and the gift of the HS, and enduring to the end? Peace, Tele
  9. Greetings! A question for your lot! So in the last moment in history before we enjoy God forever is the judgment seat. The bible is pretty clear that all of us (e.g. Mt. 12:36, Rom. 14:10, 12; 2 Cor. 5:10; Heb. 4:13), believer and non-believer, face some sort of judgement for what we have done with our lives. But it also seems clear (to me anyway) that Christians will not be judged pertaining to our salvation (e.g. John 3:16, 18; 5:24; Romans 8:1). So it seems that our lives/actions are being judged here. If this is all correct so far, here's my question I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on: If we/Christians are judged according to our works, and this is not for salvation, then what is it for? Is it to determine rewards? Is it just to count the evidence that indicates we where believers in the first place? Is it to fulfill justice and balance the divine ledger officially? Assuming this question is making sense, what do you guys/gals think? Peace, Tele
  10. From what I have read, multiverse is an untestable theory ... meaning we cannot observe anything past our universe, and so cannot detect a multiverse if it did exist. From what I have read, multiverse is typically appealed too to get around the fine-tuning argument for the existence of God; an argument worth checking out! As far as making application to Ezekiel 37, this is about the new David bringing hope and a new heart to an otherwise stubborn and obstinate people. I don’t see a scientific interpretation possible here. What do you think? tele
  11. But highly recommended. In 2007, there was a church manual (which I previously cited) that was encouraged reading “Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Spencer W. Kimball,” wherein the editors for this manual referenced The Miracle of Forgiveness in the historical summary and cited the book 22 times in a chapter in forgiveness. So there is some precedent. At least you can say is that it is highly recommended as it was also recommended from the pulpit twice at your general conference (as I mentioned before). @Lost Boy I could see how this book would make you feel worse. This is the crushed spirit I was referencing earlier, one I think that is unfounded based off what salvation really entails, a precious gift.
  12. @zil A few points of clarification to my questions. My expression of exasperation "what is a seeker to do," is my general confusion as to how truth is achieved in LDS view; I'm very much trying to follow but I'm used to a more linear, point-by-point approach. I was expressing, perhaps not well enough, my confusion as to the impact of this book I just read. I asked if this book was trustworthy or not and how to know, and people say that it is in part. They say that the prophet wrote things about forgiveness that where perhaps "too harsh" or "true in part," and then point me to other writings of the same prophet. Ok I track, but then some have cited other statements from Kimball that seem to directly contradict what I just read in Miracle of Forgiveness. This is my point, how am I supposed to conclude? Some say they hate the book (e.g. @lostinwater), others don't' comment on what they think, and still others, you are correct, think its overall positive. The problem is I don't know which impression is true, I'm new to all of this. I get the sense that people are saying, listen to the prophet his words are true ... unless they aren't. You note salvation has always been taught as a process with God's help. But my problem, again as a newbie, is that I didn't see that in the Miracle of Forgiveness, which leads me back to the ambiguity of the above paragraph. You try to help me by asking me how to reconcile some biblical passages. Well, this is a great question. How does one reconcile them? I have no idea, this is why I'm asking questions! Lastly, you state nowhere does it say you cannot repent a second, third, fourth time. Well, Kimball says it in his book (I provided the page numbers) and he quotes scriptures to boot. Again, hence my confusion. i.e. True repentance does not allow for repeated sin but forsaking that sin; that is, if a sin must be forsaken again (a second, third, fourth time) then the sin by definition was never utterly forsaken in the first place. True repentance means not repeating the sin. Kimball quotes John 8:11, “… go, and sin no more,” D&C 82:7, “7 And now, verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, will not lay any sin to your charge; go your ways and sin no more; but unto that soul who sinneth shall the former sins return, saith the Lord your God,” and, D&C 58:43, “43 By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them.” Kimball notes, “In other words, it is not real repentance until one has abandoned the error of his way and started on a new path,” (p. 163). He continues, “Old sins return, says the Lord in his modern revelations. Many people either do not know this or they conveniently forget it … Each previously forgiven sin is added to the new one and the whole gets to be a heavy load. Thus when a man has made up his mind to change his life, there must be no turning back. Any reversal, even in a small degree, is greatly to his detriment,” (p. 169, 170). He insists, “Discontinuance of sin must be permanent. The will to do must be strong and kept strengthened,” (p. 176). Remember, “Being perfect means to triumph over sin. This is a mandate from the Lord. He is just and wise and kind. HE would never require anything from his children which was not fro their benefit and which was not attainable. Perfection therefore is an achievable goal,” (p. 209). Finally, “’Yes,’ I said, ‘but we are commanded to be supermen. Said the Lord, ‘Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.’ (Matt. 5:48) We are gods in embryo, and the Lord demands perfection of us,’” (p. 286). I want to emphasize, I am not trying to be combative, aggressive, or argumentative. I'm simply trying to understand what I just read. I am not an LDS. I want to understand LDS teaching but am having trouble. Tele
  13. I am glad, I hope/assume you worship God. But that isn’t what I’m asking, I’m wondering if Kimball’s is correct or not as I previously stated.