The Goal Of Our Faith

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Jason+Nov 3 2005, 06:27 PM-->

Originally posted by Please@Nov 3 2005, 06:04 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Jason@Nov 3 2005, 05:35 PM

LeGrand,

Please keep in mind that Ray's a convert.  Therefore he's more likely to be utterly devoted even when there's no call for it.

←

Well Shanstress was a convert.... do you want to retract your statement?

←

No. Ray's still a convert. He doesn't want to look like he made a mistake, so he's more likely to defend the dogma.

Shan realized the flaws and walked away. Big difference.

←

Pathetic.. your premise was the fact they were converts... then you change the whole premise to be your opinion of each according to your own bias... get real.

[prisonchaplain]

Poor Red He was mostly respectful in his post, but ultimately presented the "Plan of Salvation" as born-again Christians understand it. He also asked a most provocative question--does LDS soteriology drive adherents to a type of murder? Even people of understanding and good will might lose the respectful tone and story that Red shared, and be blind-sided by the antagonistic question.

Recently, one of the chat members gave me a one-hour session on the LDS plan of salvation. Granted, he was not an official leader, or missionary. However, his explanation seemed down-to-earth and intelligent. From that discussion, I conclude the following differences:

1. Born-again Christians believe that we are all sinners, separated from God (Romans 3:23). That God loved the world and so sent his one and only son, Jesus, so that whoever believes will not perish, but live forever (John 3:16). And finally, that reconcilation with God comes through confession of sins (1 John 1:9). Salvation, then, is being saved from sins and the resultant punishment--the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20:15). It is also be saved to an eternal existance with God's direct presence in the new heaven and earth. Here there will be only blessing, no more hardship (Revelation 21:1-4).

2. LDS salvation involves realizing the truth of our existence, our prexistant spiritual state, and walking in the truths revealed by the Holy Bible and the standard works. Salvation at its best means eternal life in the Celestial heaven, with the potential to eventually rule our own worlds. However, salvation is not so much from hell--or the outer darkness--but from ignorance. Those who do not receive LDS salvation in this life, or through baptism for the dead, are not necessarily damned--but are assigned eternal life in somewhat less attractive heavens (terrestial and telestial).

My question: Did I get it Is my summary, however simplistic, basically accurate?

[Ray]

Originally posted by Snow+Nov 3 2005, 10:03 PM-->

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 3 2005, 04:59 PM

Is it really so hard for you to see that I don't care what anyone else thinks?

And why on Earth would I care about anyone who thinks I am a fool?

Well I don't know why you should but you do in fact care... so much so that you repeated threaten to leave when things get dicey for you.

Heh, misinterpretation upon misinterpretation.

Yes, I do care something about what other people think, but not to the point where I would alter my life according to the opinions of other people, other than God.

Or in other words, I don’t think what I think because a certain number of people think a certain way, and I would think that should be obvious considering the fact that I do not care about what the majority of my family thinks about my membership in the Church, and I also do not care what the majority of people on Earth think about my membership in the Church. Or in other words, I am a member of the Church because of what I think, regardless of what other people think, other than God.

And btw, I have never “threatened” to leave this website because things got “dicey” for me.

The only reason I ever “stated my intention” to leave was because “I felt I was spending too much time on this board and that I should probably spend my time doing other things”. And with that now said, I will now leave you to think whatever you will, knowing that I have now stated what I know to be true, which is the only way in which I do care about how anyone thinks about what I think.

Or in other words, I simply want to be understood, as I try to help people understand what I think, and when I accept a new thought into the way I think, it is only because I think that thought is in agreement with what God thinks.

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow@Nov 3 2005, 10:03 PM

...but Ray, Ray, Ray, no one is saying that prophets aren't prophets and should be followed and listened to. They are and they should. What you said however about "officially declares" turns out to have been a mistake on your part.

How is what the “highest official in the Church” says not something the “Church” officially declares? Or in other words, if the highest official in the Church doesn’t officially speak for the Church, what on Earth does he officially speak for? And as I said, in addition to the Church, the President of the Church also speaks for the Lord, as His highest representative on Earth.

And btw, this is now the third time that I have tried to explain this to you in this thread, and there have been other threads in which I have tried to explain or expound upon the same idea to you, so if you still don’t get it this time, I really won’t care what you think.

Originally posted by Snow+Nov 3 2005, 10:03 PM-->

Why is it so hard for you to correct yourself when you are obviously mistaken?

It isn’t so hard at all, and in case you haven’t noticed, I’ve done that several times while I have been a member of this board. But I will not correct myself only because you think I am mistaken, nor because Jason or Shanstress or anybody else thinks I am mistaken, because I really don’t care that much about what you guys think.

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 3 2005, 10:03 PM

Admitting you are wrong gains you respect, not ridicule.

Yeah, I’ve kinda noticed that too. Nice, huh. :)

And btw, the only respect I really care about is self-respect, and respect from God.

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow@Nov 3 2005, 10:03 PM

Acting as if you are still right when everybody clearly understands you are mistaken makes you look foolish and invites the kind of response you dislike so much.

You like to ham it up, don’t you, Snow. Who is this everybody you are talking about? Everybody who thinks I am wrong?

As I have just tried to explain, I really don’t care that much about what everybody thinks as long as I know I am right, and even if everybody on Earth decided to think I am wrong about what I think, if I know I am right, I will continue to know I am right, regardless of what anybody else thinks.

[Ray]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Nov 4 2005, 12:18 AM

Poor Red    He was mostly respectful in his post, but ultimately presented the "Plan of Salvation" as born-again Christians understand it.  He also asked a most provocative question--does LDS soteriology drive adherents to a type of murder?    Even people of understanding and good will might lose the respectful tone and story that Red shared, and be blind-sided by the antagonistic question.

Recently, one of the chat members gave me a one-hour session on the LDS plan of salvation.  Granted, he was not an official leader, or missionary.  However, his explanation seemed down-to-earth and intelligent.  From that discussion, I conclude the following differences:

1.  Born-again Christians believe that we are all sinners, separated from God (Romans 3:23).  That God loved the world and so sent his one and only son, Jesus, so that whoever believes will not perish, but live forever (John 3:16).  And finally, that reconcilation with God comes through confession of sins (1 John 1:9).  Salvation, then, is being saved from sins and the resultant punishment--the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20:15).  It is also be saved to an eternal existance with God's direct presence in the new heaven and earth.  Here there will be only blessing, no more hardship (Revelation 21:1-4). 

2.  LDS salvation involves realizing the truth of our existence, our prexistant spiritual state, and walking in the truths revealed by the Holy Bible and the standard works.  Salvation at its best means eternal life in the Celestial heaven, with the potential to eventually rule our own worlds.   However, salvation is not so much from hell--or the outer darkness--but from ignorance.  Those who do not receive LDS salvation in this life, or through baptism for the dead, are not necessarily damned--but are assigned eternal life in somewhat less attractive heavens (terrestial and telestial).

My question:  Did I get it    Is my summary, however simplistic, basically accurate?

←

I don’t think so, although you do have some true ideas mingled with your understanding.

I’ll share my thoughts of your thoughts so you can know what I think.

. Born-again Christians believe that we are all sinners, separated from God (Romans 3:23).

Those who are “born-again” are not “sinners”. Or in other words, those who are “born-again” do not continue to remain in sin. Those who were once “born-again” can fall from grace and be entangled in sin again, but those who are truly “born-again” have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually, and if or when they commit a sin again, they should immediately repent otherwise they will fall from grace and stand condemned.

That God loved the world and so sent his one and only son, Jesus, so that whoever believes will not perish, but live forever (John 3:16).

God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life. And btw, believing in Jesus Christ entails more than simply believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, because Satan and his followers also believe, and tremble, yet they will not have everlasting life, even though they will continue to live forever.

And finally, that reconciliation with God comes through confession of sins (1 John 1:9).

Reconciliation with God comes through Faith, Repentance, Baptism (as a symbolic gesture and in obedience to God’s commandments), receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end (by continuing to exercise Faith, Repentance, and obedience to the promptings that come through the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Salvation, then, is being saved from sins and the resultant punishment--the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20:15).

True, while it also involves becoming a new creature, or becoming more like God. Or in other words, the goal is not simply to be forgiven, but to become perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect, having no more disposition to do evil.

It is also be saved to an eternal existence with God's direct presence in the new heaven and earth. Here there will be only blessing, no more hardship (Revelation 21:1-4).

True, and we must be like Him or we will not be able to endure His presence. And God will not dwell among those who are not holy.

I could go on in giving you my understanding of the other things you wrote, but I think I’ve given you enough to think about for now. And if you choose not to believe what I think, that is your right, and I won’t say another word about what you think unless you sincerely want to know more, or I think you haven't correctly understood me. But I can and will only do so much.

[prisonchaplain]

I was a bit surprised to find that Ray commented on the Born Again Christian side of my description, rather than the LDS side. Fair enough, though. Most of Ray's comments did not necessarily disagree with my post. I was dealing with the initial moment of salvation. Those who espouse the term "born again" believe that salvation is an experience that happens at a moment in time, and then is lived out afterward. Ray's responses seemed to address what happens after salvation. Yes, born again Christians become "new creatures," and take on "the life of Christ." We are to obey Jesus' commands if we love him. Different Christian denominations disagree over whether water baptism is a requirement of salvation, but most Born Again Christians believe that the sacrament is a testimony to Jesus' forgiveness, and of our intention to "follow Jesus...no turning back!" Other than that, he corrected my statement that Jesus is the one and only Son of God, by quoting from the King James Version "only begotten." Okay...I used the New International Version verbage instead. Not sure what his point was there. Overall, I do not disagree with Ray's comments, nor do I think he actually disagreed with mine. The difference, again, is that I focused on the moment of salvation, and he focused on the life of salvation. Also, as I stated in the post, I was intentionally concise and simplistic. Not a bad post about Christian maturity and progressive sanctification, though, Ray.

[BenRaines]

I sure like the mature discussion I have read here by the PrisonChaplain and Ray. Wish more of the discussions could be like this without the subtle speaking down to one another.

Great viewpoint by all sides.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Nov 4 2005, 03:50 PM

The difference, again, is that I focused on the moment of salvation, and he focused on the life of salvation.  Also, as I stated in the post, I was intentionally concise and simplistic.

←

Welcome to the board, pc (don't mind if I call you that, do you? :) ). Your description, as you said, in a concise way was pretty accurate, except for the "rule over our own worlds part." Many LDS might believe that, or speculate on that, but it's not a teaching found in our official canon of scripture.

Since you're new, I know others besides myself would be interested in knowing a little about you. Would you mind telling us what denomination you belong to, if any? I take it you ARE a prison chaplain and so familiar with most faiths in a general sense, but which do you practice personally? Lutheran? Evangelical? Baptist? Thanks, look forward to hearing from you, and again, welcome.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 3 2005, 06:10 PM

I think it's interesting that you have found reasoning to support the idea that God was telling the truth when He said what He said, but you have failed to find reasoning to support the idea that Brigham Young was telling the truth when he said what he said.

I don't want to dwell on this long Ray. Let's look at it briefly. Snow's quote of Brigham had him saying the Lord's law was if a white person marries a black person they are to be killed on the spot. I know plenty of bi-racial couples who weren't smitten down, and in fact, go to the temple. So it's obvious that Brigham's statement was his interpretation of the scriptures in context of his cultural upbringing. He never said, "Thus saith the Lord," and gave it as a commandment to the church. The Journal of Discourses (not an official publication, mind you), is full of speeches where church leaders talked on a plethora of unofficial doctrines in conferences and smaller settings.

So Brigham wasn't speaking for the Lord. If he was, when did a prophet officially reverse the law and say, "Any white person can marry any black person now, and we won't kill them." ??? It's a small point Ray, and as Snow said, I'm not saying we shouldn't follow the prophet. But you've really got to understand that a prophet is not always speaking as the prophet. When he orders lunch with the apostles and says he thinks porkchops are the best, does that mean it's God's favorite too? Now I don't know if Pres. Hinckley or Jesus are particularly fond of porkchops, but the point is a simple one and I hope we can let this rest now.

And btw, the next time you don't want to get into something, it might be better if you don't bring it up, otherwise I may exercise my right to say what I have to say in response to what you say.

Threats aside, Ray, when did I ever say I didn't want to "get into this?" The fact of my post showed I DID want to get into this discussion, because it's crucial and vital to understand. Follow the prophet, not the person. Respect the mantle, not the man. Is it ever okay for a prophet to share their opinion? Are they allowed to have opinions on doctrine?

And now I'll tell you a story.

The person in your story is an idiot. Unless...the prophet he was disagreeing with was sharing opinions, not speaking officially. Then, it'd be okay for him to think he should be quiet about issues that weren't official and might lead people on message boards to defend indefensible comments that history would bear out to be patently false. In that case, I think you penned a rather good story. :)

As I said in another thread, the question is simply whether to agree or not to agree, and right now I know enough to know that I can always agree with the Prophet.

←

Let's just get this out of the way, since it's the yolk of the argument. How was Brigham Young possibly right in saying white people should be killed on the spot if they "mix their seed" with black people? You said it's true if interpreted correctly. So how do you interpret that? I really want to know. And then I want to move on.

[BenRaines]

Prophets have often said that their writings are their own and not the word of the Lord.

President Kimball said that his book "The Miracle of Forgiveness", was written before he was a prophet. He said that it was his opinion. Said that after he was the prophet it was still his opinion and not the will of the Lord or the mind of the Lord.

Modern day prophets have said that if we want to know the mind of the Lord to pay attention to their conference addresses. It is there that they tell us what the Lord would say if he were standing there.

I believe it was David O. McKay who asked why are they so willing to listen to the dead prophets and not the living.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Originally posted by BenRaines@Nov 4 2005, 05:43 PM

Prophets have often said that their writings are their own and not the word of the Lord.

←

Well said.

[Ray]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Nov 4 2005, 01:50 PM

I was a bit surprised to find that Ray commented on the Born Again Christian side of my description, rather than the LDS side.  Fair enough, though.  Most of Ray's comments did not necessarily disagree with my post.  I was dealing with the initial moment of salvation.  Those who espouse the term "born again" believe that salvation is an experience that happens at a moment in time, and then is lived out afterward.  Ray's responses seemed to address what happens after salvation.  Yes, born again Christians become "new creatures," and take on "the life of Christ."  We are to obey Jesus' commands if we love him.  Different Christian denominations disagree over whether water baptism is a requirement of salvation, but most Born Again Christians believe that the sacrament is a testimony to Jesus' forgiveness, and of our intention to "follow Jesus...no turning back!"  Other than that, he corrected my statement that Jesus is the one and only Son of God, by quoting from the King James Version "only begotten."  Okay...I used the New International Version verbage instead.  Not sure what his point was there.  Overall, I do not disagree with Ray's comments, nor do I think he actually disagreed with mine.  The difference, again, is that I focused on the moment of salvation, and he focused on the life of salvation.  Also, as I stated in the post, I was intentionally concise and simplistic.  Not a bad post about Christian maturity and progressive sanctification, though, Ray.

←

Heh, LDS believe in the need of being "born-again" too, prisonchaplain. :)

Or in other words, "Born-again Christians" don't have exclusive rights on becoming "born again", since we can all become "born again" through Jesus Christ.

And btw, you will find this idea espoused throughout all of our scriptures.

[Jason]

Originally posted by Please+Nov 4 2005, 12:11 AM-->

Originally posted by Jason@Nov 3 2005, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by Please@Nov 3 2005, 06:04 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Jason@Nov 3 2005, 05:35 PM

LeGrand,

Please keep in mind that Ray's a convert.  Therefore he's more likely to be utterly devoted even when there's no call for it.

←

Well Shanstress was a convert.... do you want to retract your statement?

←

No. Ray's still a convert. He doesn't want to look like he made a mistake, so he's more likely to defend the dogma.

Shan realized the flaws and walked away. Big difference.

←

Pathetic.. your premise was the fact they were converts... then you change the whole premise to be your opinion of each according to your own bias... get real.

←

Premise has not changed. Most converts do not leave the LDS church. Most people who leave were raised LDS. That's been my experience in speaking with ex-mormons.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Jason+Nov 4 2005, 05:44 PM-->

Originally posted by Please@Nov 4 2005, 12:11 AM

Originally posted by Jason@Nov 3 2005, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by Please@Nov 3 2005, 06:04 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Jason@Nov 3 2005, 05:35 PM

LeGrand,

Please keep in mind that Ray's a convert.  Therefore he's more likely to be utterly devoted even when there's no call for it.

←

Well Shanstress was a convert.... do you want to retract your statement?

←

No. Ray's still a convert. He doesn't want to look like he made a mistake, so he's more likely to defend the dogma.

Shan realized the flaws and walked away. Big difference.

←

Pathetic.. your premise was the fact they were converts... then you change the whole premise to be your opinion of each according to your own bias... get real.

←

Premise has not changed. Most converts do not leave the LDS church. Most people who leave were raised LDS. That's been my experience in speaking with ex-mormons.

←

You are so hung up on your own leaving the church that you are not even seeing what I have said. You responded to MY comment... and MY comment was only referring to the word convert... and I demonstrated how being a convert wasn't the premise for being more likely to be utterly devoted even when there's no call for it.

Jason you are absolutely getting all messed up...

[Ray]

Originally posted by ApostleKnight@Nov 4 2005, 02:47 PM

How was Brigham Young possibly right in saying white people should be killed on the spot if they "mix their seed" with black people? You said it's true if interpreted correctly. So how do you interpret that? I really want to know. And then I want to move on.

You want me to give you other possible interpretations. Okay, no problem.

Brigham Young said:

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 10:110)

Notice that Brigham Young said the penalty, under the law of God, was death on the spot. Do you know the penalty for committing any other sin? Does the phrase “the wages of sin is death”, ring a bell? Why do you believe Brigham Young meant "the spirit of the white man who belongs to the chosen seed will separate from his mortal body at the very moment he mixes his blood with the seed of Cain", even though that seldom happens at the very moment we commit any other sin?

And btw, that was only one possible interpretation, while focusing on the idea of receiving a penalty under the law of God. Other possible interpretations could be deduced by understanding the references to “death”, the “white man who belongs to the chosen seed”, the “mixing of blood”, and the “seed of Cain”.

Oh, and on that other thing? I was saying that the President of the Church is the Church’s highest official on Earth and that when the President of the Church is speaking in his offical capacity, he is speaking for the Church. And this is in addition to the idea that when the President of the Church is speaking for the Lord, he is speaking as His Prophet.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by ApostleKnight+Nov 4 2005, 02:10 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-prisonchaplain@Nov 4 2005, 03:50 PM

The difference, again, is that I focused on the moment of salvation, and he focused on the life of salvation.  Also, as I stated in the post, I was intentionally concise and simplistic.

←

Welcome to the board, pc (don't mind if I call you that, do you? :) ).

Not at all--so long as nobody accuses me of being politically correct!

Your description, as you said, in a concise way was pretty accurate, except for the "rule over our own worlds part." Many LDS might believe that, or speculate on that, but it's not a teaching found in our official canon of scripture.

Point taken. Much is made of this fact in non-LDS literature about Mormons. I suppose that's why the notion gets so much attention.

Since you're new, I know others besides myself would be interested in knowing a little about you. Would you mind telling us what denomination you belong to, if any? I take it you ARE a prison chaplain and so familiar with most faiths in a general sense, but which do you practice personally? Lutheran? Evangelical? Baptist? Thanks, look forward to hearing from you, and again, welcome.

←

So, I should remove my veil. Sure. I am a federal prison chaplain in Seattle, WA. As such, I am expected to have a working knowledge of the faiths I work with, and be a master of my own. My ordination and chaplaincy endorsement is with the Assemblies of God, which has been described as Pentecostal, Evangelical, and Missionary. I spent six years doing university mission work in South Korea, and co-pastored a Vietnamese church in Springfield, MO for three years. I've been with the Bureau of Prisons for nearly eight years, and at my current location (which happens to be my home town ) for nearly four years. We generally have about a half dozen Mormon inmates, and one LDS volunteer that ministers to them. We may be getting a second volunteer, and I figured it was time for me to enhance my knowledge. So, here I am. B)

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 4 2005, 07:28 PM

Why do you believe Brigham Young meant "the spirit of the white man who belongs to the chosen seed will separate from his mortal body at the very moment he mixes his blood with the seed of Cain", even though that doesn’t happen at the very moment we commit any other sin?

I don't. The problem with the statement is that it's too ambiguous. Even a cursory glance at the Journal of Discourses shows views as varied as blood atonement (and they weren't talking about Jesus' blood), etc... So to say, "That's doctrine," when the prophet never gave instructions on how to implement the teaching (were the Elders to execute the white man who mixed his seed?), or even clarified the teaching, is less than advisable.

And btw, that was only one possible interpretation, while focusing on the idea of receiving a penalty under the law of God.  Other possible interpretations could be deduced by understanding the references to “death”, the “white man who belongs to the chosen seed”,  the “mixing of blood”, and the “seed of Cain”.

And unless the prophet deduces those things for us, gives us a bottom-line, no-nonsense, clear definition of what he means by such statements, people like you and me and others will debate it. How is that official? It's officially confusing, for one thing! The problem is anti-mormons take such statements and read into them whatever they want, and there's no way to "prove" what the prophet meant in most cases, because he doesn't expand on his statement.

But to be clear...the Journal of Discourses is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it's teachings are not canonized, were not presented to the general church membership for a sustaining vote as canon, and are not accurate examples of LDS official doctrine. Thank heavens, too.

I was saying that the President of the Church is the Church’s highest official and that when the President of the Church is speaking in his offical capacity, he is speaking for the Church.

I agree. I was just confused. I thought you were saying that teachings of prophets in the Journal of Discourses were spoken in official capacity as prophets. And they weren't. Again, thank heavens.

[Ray]

The word "scripture" refers to anything written by inspiration from God.

Or in other words, the scriptures do not need to be "canonized" to be scripture.

Btw, do you know why we refer to our quad as our "standard" works?

I believe in living by "every" word of God, as well as by what is "standard".

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 4 2005, 07:53 PM

The word "scripture" refers to anything written by inspiration from God.

In one sense.

Or in other words, the scriptures do not need to be "canonized" to be scripture.

Ray, our canon (standard works) is the only official scripture binding on the LDS church. They are the only teachings we must follow or accept as true. The temple recommend interview doesn't ask, "Do you accept as official scripture every word uttered by anyone who was a prophet?" Because we don't have to. If any teaching or scripture is going to be official LDS doctrine, binding on the church, it must be presented to the church membership for a sustaining vote. Of course, if it is submitted, it most likely is official and I'd sustain it. But if any teaching or doctrine, even general conference address, contradicts our canon, official canon, it is not binding on the saints (unless we're talking about the Manifesto on Polygamy or the 1978 manifesto, which were sustained).

But the LDS church has never sustained the JoD as official canon. It may be scripture to you (if inspired...some was, some wasn't), but it is not LDS official canon. It does not portray official LDS doctrine.

So I would never quote from the JoD to explain to a non-member what LDS teachings are. Maybe read it as a curiousity, for historical or background info only. But I would not expect anyone to conform to it's teachings if those teachings contradict our canon. And if they are in harmony with our canon, they're already in our canon so why turn to the JoD at all? That's my point, the JoD is not official scripture of the LDS church.

Does anyone disagree?

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by ApostleKnight+Nov 4 2005, 07:03 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Ray@Nov 4 2005, 07:53 PM

The word "scripture" refers to anything written by inspiration from God.

In one sense.

Or in other words, the scriptures do not need to be "canonized" to be scripture.

Ray, our canon (standard works) is the only official scripture binding on the LDS church. They are the only teachings we must follow or accept as true. The temple recommend interview doesn't ask, "Do you accept as official scripture every word uttered by anyone who was a prophet?" Because we don't have to. If any teaching or scripture is going to be official LDS doctrine, binding on the church, it must be presented to the church membership for a sustaining vote. Of course, if it is submitted, it most likely is official and I'd sustain it. But if any teaching or doctrine, even general conference address, contradicts our canon, official canon, it is not binding on the saints (unless we're talking about the Manifesto on Polygamy or the 1978 manifesto, which were sustained).

But the LDS church has never sustained the JoD as official canon. It may be scripture to you (if inspired...some was, some wasn't), but it is not LDS official canon. It does not portray official LDS doctrine.

So I would never quote from the JoD to explain to a non-member what LDS teachings are. Maybe read it as a curiousity, for historical or background info only. But I would not expect anyone to conform to it's teachings if those teachings contradict our canon. And if they are in harmony with our canon, they're already in our canon so why turn to the JoD at all? That's my point, the JoD is not official scripture of the LDS church.

Does anyone disagree?

←

You aren't saying that the conference talks we have been told are to be considered the same as scripture... aren't scripture... are you?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 4 2005, 09:27 AM

How is what the “highest official in the Church” says not something the “Church” officially declares?  Or in other words, if the highest official in the Church doesn’t officially speak for the Church, what on Earth does he officially speak for?  And as I said, in addition to the Church, the President of the Church also speaks for the Lord, as His highest representative on Earth.

And btw, this is now the third time that I have tried to explain this to you in this thread, and there have been other threads in which I have tried to explain or expound upon the same idea to you, so if you still don’t get it this time, I really won’t care what you think.

Sometimes I wonder how you can get by in life with the type of thinking skills you demonstrate. I am not asking for an explanation of the significance of the words of prophet speaks. You said "officially declares." If an entity has officially declared something, then there is a declaration. If there is an official declaration, post it and be done with it, else just admit error and be quiet.

And btw, the only respect I really care about is self-respect, and respect from God.

Sorry - not buying it. Most everybody except those with severe and clinical character defects care about what other people think. Why pretend otherwise Ray?

You like to ham it up, don’t you, Snow.  Who is this everybody you are talking about?  Everybody who thinks I am wrong?

While it is true that I don't know what 'everybody' thinks I am completely certain that anybody with a mild amount of intelligence understands that when you say that there is an "official declaration" and then you cannot produce the "official declaration," then you are just blowing smoke... and you, Ray, are just blowing smoke.

As I have just tried to explain, I really don’t care that much about what everybody thinks as long as I know I am right, and even if everybody on Earth decided to think I am wrong about what I think, if I know I am right, I will continue to know I am right, regardless of what anybody else thinks.

←

There you go again... falling back on the old "God revealed it to me." Okay Ray, here's your last chance to PUT UP or SHUT UP. If God revealed to you that the Church "offiicially declares," where did God tell you that you could find the "official declaration?

[john doe]

Btw, do you know why we refer to our quad as our "standard" works?

Uh, maybe because if they weren't officially canonized by the church they would be referred to as substandard works? The other stuff would be considered by me to be supplemental to the standard works, and when they agree with the standard works, doctrinal. But when a person talks, or writes an idea which is not supported by the scriptures which have been canonized by the church, I would consider that to not be doctrinal or binding on the church. I would consider that to be his personal opinion unless the Prophet or Quorum of the 12 Apostles declares it to be doctrine before the body of the church. I grew up with the JoD in my home, and it was always used by my father to aid in his understanding the gospel, not a means to introduce additional new doctrines to the church. In my opinion, if someone uses the JoD as a sole source to declare doctrine of the church with no support from the scriptures, they are on the wrong track and wandering in the realm of personally held ideas taken from isolated sermons which in many cases may not have even been accurately recorded in the first place.

[Snow]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Nov 4 2005, 04:43 PM

... and I figured it was time for me to enhance my knowledge.  So, here I am. B)

←

This may or may not be the place for that. Among the other things we do here is argue, for the sake of arguing... sometimes making points that are pointless.

Some or much of what you read here may not be orthodox Church practice and belief and may not be an accurate cross-section of Mormonism.

[prisonchaplain]

Heh, LDS believe in the need of being "born-again" too, prisonchaplain. :)

Or in other words, "Born-again Christians" don't have exclusive rights on becoming "born again", since we can all become "born again" through Jesus Christ.

And btw, you will find this idea espoused throughout all of our scriptures.

←

You make a valid point. I did not realize part of the LDS plan of salvation included a "moment of decision." I suppose the notion of reading the Book of Mormon, praying to God as to whether it is true or not, and, then feeling the "burning in the bosom," would be a prelude to the moment of conversion. Much as Evangelicals speak of sinners feeling the conviction of the Holy Spirit, combined with the sense that God really loves them, and all of this spiritual drawing leading to the "decision to follow Christ."

Ironically, my grandmother is Lutheran, and gets angry when people ask her if she's born again. Frankly, I believe she is. However, the term has come to mean something different for her...perhaps what you said--that Christians should not be considered sinners.

Now that I understand that your response was an explanation of LDS teaching on the born again experience, you seem to have brought out a few differences. Once again, correct me if I have misunderstood.

1. LDS salvation comes with confession, water baptism, receiving the Holy Ghost, and successful godly living that progresses to perfection. It's all wrapped up together. If so, is there a point of assurance, when you can say, "I'm saved...I'm successfully born again...my future in the Celestial heaven is assured?"

2. Instead of born again, I will use the term evangelical. Evangelical salvation happens at the point of belief, repentance and confession of sins. Water baptism is a testimony to the salvation that has already happened. The gift of the Holy Ghost is an issue of discussion, but for Pentecostals like myself, it is indeed a gift--not a requirement of salvation. It is "a second work of grace," that brings an added spiritual power and fullness--especially useful for witnessing. Sanctification (becoming holy unto perfection) is generally understood as progressive. The Holiness branch of our faith believes it is another work of grace, given by the Holy Ghost, that empowers the believer to live righteously.

3. Evangelicals believe we can say, "I'm saved, I'm heaven bound" from the moment of salvation--after belief, repentance and confession. The learning to obey Christ's teachings, the seeking after gifts from the Holy Spirit, even water baptism are the fruit of our salvation--not prerequisites.

I hope I have clarified that my born again salvation explanation was an evangelical one. Furthermore, I am hoping for follow up to further refine my understanding of the LDS salvation experience.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

PRISON CHAPLAIN,

Have you read the Book of Mormon? There are several places where these things are discussed. It might help you better understand than all of us trying to give you this and that.

I believe to be born again... is to be completely filled with the pure love of Christ.. or charity.

I also believe it is a perfection through Christ and the atonement's power is charity which covereth a multitude of sins and casteth out all fear. NT and Moroni 10:32-33.

But keeping that love with in requires constant vigilence on our part... explained in Mosiah 4 and Matthew 5, 1 Cor. 13-14 and Moroni 7.

It is essential.

The Holy Ghost does give us an added gift of power as you explained.

[Jason]

Originally posted by ApostleKnight@Nov 4 2005, 06:46 PM

But to be clear...the Journal of Discourses is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints...

Why is it that mainstream LDS always make this claim? Of course it was an official publication. We're not talking about Orson Pratts "The Seer" here. If there was an official publication of the LDS church from the early 1850's to the end of the 19th century, that was it. It was published simultaneously in England as the JoD and also the talks were published in the Deseret News. I know, I looked them up at Weber State University's library archives.

If you worry about them not being "corrected" sermons, then compare the publications in the Deseret News with the JoD. Guess what? They're identical. No mis-representation there.

Those nut-jobs were really that stupid back then. It's a reality. Move on. Sorry.