Cometh Unto Me

[Jenda]

Ray posted this scripture in another thread, and I wanted to see what it means to everyone.

Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me [Jesus Christ], the same is my church [the church of Jesus Christ].D&C 10:67

Some of the people who have become restorationists have latched onto a phrase in this scripture and have made it more than it is. Or maybe they are right. I haven't given it much thought, but would like to hear how you feel about it.

They state that the "Come Unto Me" part of the phrase is a covenant that should have been emphasized by Joseph Smith in the early church, and it wasn't, and that therefore, the church has suffered all these years. It is something that has been "recognized" since the Restored Covenant Edition of the BoM has come out. Specifically, that the "Come Unto Me" covenant is the restored covenant that the BoM proclaims.

What are your thoughts on that scripture or phrase?

[Ray]

I think we should realize that Jesus was inviting all of us to come unto Him. As long as we are trying to do that, as sincerely and honestly as we know how, I am sure that Jesus will not turn any of us away from Him… despite the fact that we may disagree with one another on particular points of doctrine.

I would also add that part of “coming unto Christ” involves the learning of Him, and that we should be dependent on nobody else but Him to give us our knowledge. In other words, we shouldn’t take any man’s word concerning who Jesus is or what He wants from us.

To come unto Jesus and learn of Him requires a personal relationship with Him.

[Guest curvette]

It sounds like Christ accepts all Christians who earnestly strive to follow him as members of His "church." Maybe His church is broader than a particular denomination.

[Ray]

Originally posted by curvette@Oct 26 2004, 04:34 PM

It sounds like Christ accepts all Christians who earnestly strive to follow him as members of His "church." Maybe His church is broader than a particular denomination.

Yes, it is. And I hope you understand that this idea does not conflict with the idea that there are people on the Earth with the authority of God to act in the name of God.

[Jenda]

What would you say it's position is in relation to baptism? Would you say it is a part of the baptismal covenant we make, a predicessor to it, or not related at all? How about comparing it to the "being saved" thing that "Christians" believe in?

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Jenda@Oct 26 2004, 06:18 PM

What would you say it's position is in relation to baptism? Would you say it is a part of the baptismal covenant we make, a predicessor to it, or not related at all? How about comparing it to the "being saved" thing that "Christians" believe in?

I don't know. There are certainly other scriptures that teach that baptism is necessary for salvation. The Bible is a little ambiguous on the issue though. I didn't used to think so until I actually listened to a non denominational minister speak about it. They baptize people but don't necessarily believe that baptism is technically necessary, but only a symbol of faith. If it helps the person to partake of this external symbol, then they are welcome to be baptized. To them, being born of the water and spirit means being born physically (amniotic water), and spiritually. There are so many ways to view scriptures, and spirituality that it's hard for me to disapprove of what someone else may find edifying (as long as it doesn't infringe on other's rights.)

[Spencer]

Thanks for that scripture, something I needed this morning =)

I agree with Curvette and Ray. I believe all of those who follow the teachings of Christ, and are good people will be saved at the last day. But, I also believe that more is required to recieve certain priesthood keys and celestial glory.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by curvette+Oct 26 2004, 06:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Oct 26 2004, 06:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Oct 26 2004, 06:18 PM

What would you say it's position is in relation to baptism?  Would you say it is a part of the baptismal covenant we make, a predicessor to it, or not related at all?  How about comparing it to the "being saved" thing that "Christians" believe in?

I don't know. There are certainly other scriptures that teach that baptism is necessary for salvation. The Bible is a little ambiguous on the issue though. I didn't used to think so until I actually listened to a non denominational minister speak about it. They baptize people but don't necessarily believe that baptism is technically necessary, but only a symbol of faith. If it helps the person to partake of this external symbol, then they are welcome to be baptized. To them, being born of the water and spirit means being born physically (amniotic water), and spiritually. There are so many ways to view scriptures, and spirituality that it's hard for me to disapprove of what someone else may find edifying (as long as it doesn't infringe on other's rights.)

The part about that belief that doesn't sit well with me, is that Christ told Nicodemus that he must be born again by water and the spirit. If real (human) birth is what Christ meant, then everyone had already been born by water (including Christ), so there would not have been any need for Christ to model it for us, or for Him to preach it as often as He did. And Paul talks about it in Hebrews 6, calling it a foundational principle.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Jenda@Oct 27 2004, 05:58 AM

The part about that belief that doesn't sit well with me, is that Christ told Nicodemus that he must be born again by water and the spirit. If real (human) birth is what Christ meant, then everyone had already been born by water (including Christ), so there would not have been any need for Christ to model it for us, or for Him to preach it as often as He did. And Paul talks about it in Hebrews 6, calling it a foundational principle.

Personally, I believe in baptism. After listening to various interpretations though, I can understand how other people may believe differently.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by curvette+Oct 27 2004, 08:12 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Oct 27 2004, 08:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Oct 27 2004, 05:58 AM

The part about that belief that doesn't sit well with me, is that Christ told Nicodemus that he must be born again by water and the spirit.  If real (human) birth is what Christ meant, then everyone had already been born by water (including Christ), so there would not have been any need for Christ to model it for us, or for Him to preach it as often as He did.  And Paul talks about it in Hebrews 6, calling it a foundational principle.

Personally, I believe in baptism. After listening to various interpretations though, I can understand how other people may believe differently.

But does how others prefer to believe actually change the commandments God wants us to follow? That is why I was trying to see if this is a separate issue from baptism, and more represents the "being saved" portion of our covenant with God.

[Ray]

I believe that all people who come unto Jesus Christ and learn of Him will eventually learn everything that Jesus would have them learn to enable them [us] to come unto Him.

The issue of baptism is simply one of the many issues we must learn about from Jesus. And as I said, I recommend that we all come unto Jesus and learn of Him to see what His will is on this issue. If we do not do that, and instead rely upon our own understanding of what His will is, there will be some people who say that Jesus does not consider baptism to be essential and some other people who say that Jesus considers baptism to be absolutely essential.

Get it now? We should all come unto Jesus and learn of Him from Him, instead of relying upon what some other people say about what Jesus wants us to learn.

Anyway, if it matters at all to anybody else, I believe and can even state that I know Jesus considers baptism to be absolutely essential for everyone. Those of us who don’t learn that during their life here on Earth will eventually have the opportunity to learn that later in the world of spirits and have the ordinance of baptism done for them by proxy.

And btw, my knowledge of this issue has not come simply by being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Rather, I have gained this belief through what I have learned of Jesus Christ.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Jenda@Oct 27 2004, 08:33 AM

But does how others prefer to believe actually change the commandments God wants us to follow? That is why I was trying to see if this is a separate issue from baptism, and more represents the "being saved" portion of our covenant with God.

Well, let's see. In order to "come" to Jesus literally we would have to enter His kingdom. Unless we are born of water and spirit, we cannot enter His Kingdom. So I'd say that if we believe this scripture refers to baptism then yes, we would have to be baptized in order to come to Him.

Here's a link to an interesting article on baptism. It discusses how the ordinance came to exist among the Jews and how John the Baptist's practice of it was unique at the time. It's somewhat at odds with the Book of Mormon version of Israelites practicing baptism in the name of Christ hundreds of years before his birth, but it's very interesting nontheless.

http://www.intouch.org/myintouch/exploring...ism_129441.html

[Jenda]

The Jews in Israel would have had the same teachings and practices as the Nephites, but they rejected the higher law, and were, therefore, given the lower law through Moses. Christ came to restore the higher law to the Jews. The Nephites did not reject the higher law when the Lord wanted to give it to them, so therefore, they had that law years before Christ. That explains why the Nephites were practicing something that the Jews in Israel had no knowledge of.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Jenda@Oct 27 2004, 09:55 AM

The Jews in Israel would have had the same teachings and practices as the Nephites, but they rejected the higher law, and were, therefore, given the lower law through Moses. Christ came to restore the higher law to the Jews. The Nephites did not reject the higher law when the Lord wanted to give it to them, so therefore, they had that law years before Christ. That explains why the Nephites were practicing something that the Jews in Israel had no knowledge of.

This is something that I've never really been able to grasp. Wasn't one of Christ's purposes in coming to the earth to teach the higher law? I know that there were vague shadows and types of old, but it's hard to understand how humans could be ready to embrace the new covenant that Jesus taught without Him there to teach it and model it. If the Israelites had accepted the higher law, would Jesus have come at that time? Jesus' sacrifice, combined with his exemplary life and spiritual teachings was really what made it all worthwhile. Until then, the carnal law was so much more practical--something the people could understand and grasp, and build their lives upon.

[Ray]

Do you believe the Book of Mormon or not? There were tons of people who lived before Christ came to offer the atonement who didn’t have any trouble knowing how to live their lives. The Bible also mentions some other people who were righteous. Not as righteous as Jesus, of course, but they were still righteous people who knew and understand “higher law”.

So no, Jesus did not need to come to Earth simply to teach higher law, and that is not why He came. True, He was the perfect example, and we can all benefit by what we know of His life here, but He could have taught us those things in the same way we are learning those things now. All anyone needs to do to be able to learn higher law is to come unto Christ and learn of Him, and that option is available to anybody and everybody who seeks to have a personal relationship with Him.

[Jenda]

The church was established right from the very beginning with Adam. Enoch's city was so righteous that it was taken off the earth to live with God until conditions are right on the earth for it to dwell here again. In the JST, it is all spelled out.

Of course, you have to believe in the JST.

[Guest curvette]

I know that the church teaches this cycle of apostasy since the beginning of time. ie: Adam received the law from God, the people rejected it. Noah received the law, the people rejected it. Abraham received the law, the people rejected it. Moses received the law, Israel rejected it. Nephi received the law, accepted it and the cycle started in the New world. I'm just trying to make sense of it. A strictly Biblical reading paints a picture of mankind progressing to the point where they were ready to receive a new, higher covenant from Jesus.

You said: "Christ came to restore the higher law to the Jews." (which he did.) What I am wondering is if Israel had accepted the higher law from Moses, do you think that Christ would have come to earth at that time instead of later?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by curvette@Oct 27 2004, 03:58 PM

I know that the church teaches this cycle of apostasy since the beginning of time. ie: Adam received the law from God, the people rejected it. Noah received the law, the people rejected it. Abraham received the law, the people rejected it. Moses received the law, Israel rejected it. Nephi received the law, accepted it and the cycle started in the New world. I'm just trying to make sense of it. A strictly Biblical reading paints a picture of mankind progressing to the point where they were ready to receive a new, higher covenant from Jesus.

You said: "Christ came to restore the higher law to the Jews." (which he did.) What I am wondering is if Israel had accepted the higher law from Moses, do you think that Christ would have come to earth at that time instead of later?

That is an interesting question, because, IMO, that wasn't the reason He came, specifically. It was one of his purposes, at that time, but the reason He came was to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and He could have done that at any time.

I suppose that we could look at it from the standpoint that even though the law had been established/restored several times through history, that even if the Jews had accepted it at the time of Moses, that they would have been in a state of rejection again by the time Christ came, and He would have had to do it again, anyway. It is hard to look back and say, What if? We could come up with hundreds of scenarios/answers.

Sorry I couldn't give a more educated guess.

[Ray]

Originally posted by curvette@ Oct 27 2004, 03:58 PM

What I am wondering is if Israel had accepted the higher law from Moses, do you think that Christ would have come to earth at that time instead of later?

I think you’re asking someone to explain why God did things and does things the way He does, and while I can somewhat understand the idea that certain things needed and need to be in order to bring about God’s purposes, I really don’t understand the mind of God well enough to know why things are the way they are, or were, or will be. All I know is that God wants us to live by Faith in Him and that if things are too easy to figure out we won’t be tested as we are meant to be.