Non-lds Input Wanted

[jms.mills]

I find many of the teachings of non-LDS christians somewhat baffling... this includes the times growing up in Pentecostal churches. Once such example is the teaching that the path to heaven/salvation is narrow. It seems to me that part of the "narrow path" analogy should include doctrinal issues.

I think we can all agree that Christ is the only way to salvation. I think we can also believe that Jesus Christ and his apostles taught the same "doctrine." If we do not, we cannot believe the New Testament is true.

So, here are a few questions/statements... similar to the one that Joseph Smith asked:

1) If various denominations and individual Christians disagree on seemingly simple truths in the New

Testament, then it seems the path is no longer narrow, but wide. What is the narrow path (doctrinal) on

which we must walk?

2) If there are no living apostles today, then we must believe the New Testament apostles know more

about the gospel than any human living today. Who are we (as members of congregations or individuals)

to contradict or seemingly ignore many of their teachings?

3) The path analogy implies that salvation is journey. What steps do you believe are involved on this

journey to salvation? Does it end with a confession of faith? At baptism? Or is this journey the "endure

to the end" concept LDS christians believe? (I think of Paul Bunyan's famous book Pilgrim's Progress)

Once again, I am not trying to offend anyone. These are legitimate questions. It seems to me that Jesus Christ taught only one message. If we ignore parts of that message, are we not widening the path?

James

[prisonchaplain]

So, here are a few questions/statements... similar to the one that Joseph Smith asked:

1) If various denominations and individual Christians disagree on seemingly simple truths in the New

Testament, then it seems the path is no longer narrow, but wide. What is the narrow path (doctrinal) on

which we must walk?

The path is narrow because there is only one way--Jesus Christ. However, it is just wide enough that "Whosoever will may come."

2) If there are no living apostles today, then we must believe the New Testament apostles know more about the gospel than any human living today. Who are we (as members of congregations or individuals) to contradict or seemingly ignore many of their teachings?

You'll have to show me more of where you are going with this one. Christians churches believe we are apostolic--that we are following the Apostles' teachings.

3) The path analogy implies that salvation is journey. What steps do you believe are involved on this journey to salvation? Does it end with a confession of faith? At baptism? Or is this journey the "endure

to the end" concept LDS christians believe? (I think of Paul Bunyan's famous book Pilgrim's Progress)

The journey begins with salvation--at the confession of faith. The journey is towards maturity(holiness, sanctification) and reunion with the Creator.

Once again, I am not trying to offend anyone. These are legitimate questions. It seems to me that Jesus Christ taught only one message. If we ignore parts of that message, are we not widening the path?

James

Are you suggesting that the "narrow path" Jesus referred to is a singular church institution, or do you have something else in mind?

[kjf512]

as a Catholic, I believe that the Catholic Church is the True, Holy, and Apostolic Church. why? because it is based off of Scripture and Tradition.

Tradition is very important in the Church, because it's how the early Christians did things, from as early as the time of Peter! Since people couldn't always write and read, they relied on Tradition to know what to do. which is why We(Catholics) still use it.

in terms of the apostasy.. ever heard of PROTESTANTS!!

Paul talked about how THE Church would be split. he talked singular, as in ONE Church.. because He had intended there to be ONE Denomination of Christianity. but of course, people who wish to adhere to their own beliefs and who corrupt things to fit into their beliefs have left the Catholic Church, hence, caused so much disagreement in Christianity.so personally, i think the apostacy is going on right now, and has ever since martin luther came and messed things up!! (no offense lutherans.)

[rehunter]

a-train

“So if I understand this right, you believe the Apostles had authority to preach the Gospel and build the fold of Christ, but had no authority to continue the direction of the church body after it was organized, or to direct church members in their Godly walk once they had come into the fold. This authority was left to the writings of the Apostles, not the Apostles themselves. The faithful converts could read those writings and would receive revelation from the Holy Ghost, but would NOT feel any burning in the bosom or in the heart from the Holy Ghost. Is all this right? If this is so, do we see all this in the scriptures?”

That is correct in so much as I believe that the apostles’ writings were divinely inspired. That does not mean the apostles’ were finished with their job once they preached salvation, of course. Jesus instructed Peter to “tend My sheep” no less than three times in John chapter 21. I do not believe this tending included building an organization to pen in the sheep, but rather to look after the believers’ spiritual needs. So, yes, the apostles had a part in the body of Christ, but they themselves were under the authority of the Scriptures (by these I mean the Old Testament) and under the authority of Jesus to do that which He commanded them.

As far as the “burning in the bosom” is concerned, it occurs only one instance in the Bible as far as I know, when Christ appeared to the disciples walking on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24. As this is the only appearance of something like this in the Bible I would have to really stretch it to apply to everybody who has ever read the Bible with the Holy Spirit guiding them. This same line of thinking is what leads modern religionists to speak in tongues inappropriately, to dance with snakes, etc. One could go so far as to say that since Balaam’s ###### spoke to him that God will allow all asses to speak so we should speak to them to hear the words of the LORD. When I first met Jesus, I attended a church that did a lot of strange things and used small bits of the Bible to explain their actions. When I matured in the faith, I started to question those acts and eventually left that church because of them.

The Bible is clear that the words it contains are sufficient for the truths of salvation to first be understood and then believed. John 20:31 says, “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” There is no mention of a “burning in the bosom” here, only that one must understand and then believe. It is my personal belief that if a person had just the Bible alone, they would be able to understand who God is, who we are as fallen men, what God did to save us, and what we have to do in response to be saved.

As far as revelation by the Holy Spirit, I believe He can urge a person toward faith in God, perhaps by placing individuals in their lives to guide them, or perhaps by luring them to read God’s Word. The Holy Spirit is mainly involved in a person’s life once they are a believer, however. The Holy Spirit came to be a “helper” and to empower the believer with the ability to triumph over sin. As He indwells a believer, He seeks to point out areas that need improvement, to steer us from evil, and to rejoice within us in the good.

“Do you realize this is a circular system? You believe the OT because the NT says Jesus quoted it, and since the NT (Heb 6:18) says that God cannot lie, then His statement must be true. Plus, both Testaments declare themselves to be true so you believe it. The Book of Mormon contains the words or Christ quoting the Old Testament and also declares itself to be true, is it therefore true also? Is there any other reason why you believe the Old and New Testament to be true?”

Yes, I realize that it is a circular argument. Faith cannot be proven. Faith can be logical, which my argument was, but if one could prove faith, it would not be faith any longer. Thomas, for example, did not have to have faith in Christ’s resurrected body since he knew it to be true. The same could be said of those in the Book of Mormon who did likewise. Their faith was little, perhaps even nonexistent at that point. I do not base my belief in the Bible on an experience I had with it, as that is subjective in the extreme. I simply choose to believe it is true and have not been shown otherwise to date.

While I view the Bible as true, I also have indications that it is not false. This relates to the historically accurate portrayals of events down to the smallest detail. I would never be able to believe the Book of Mormon is an accurate portrayal of events due to its issues with historical and geographical accuracy. As far as theology goes, the Book of Mormon does not differ radically from the Bible, although it does differ quite a bit from other LDS texts. In it, for example, we can learn that God is one God, that there are no other gods, and that the Father and the Son are one God. Biblically speaking, that is right on.

“I thought you were here saying that the manifestation of the Holy Ghost with regard to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon cannot be trusted. Isn't that correct?"

I am saying that I do not believe the source of that statement and find fault with the argument. If the proof of scriptural inspiration is related, either directly or indirectly, to an experience such as a bodily feeling like “burning in the bosom” then it becomes subjective. I believe that God is objective, and that His truths are self-evident and do not need a subjective experience to confirm their truthfulness. Any person with a desire to truly believe something hard enough will eventually come into some kind of physical duress over the issue, especially when that something is very important. This becomes important when the person is praying as to “whether these words are true” rather than by praying “if these words are false.” Just by placing a positive aspect in the prayer, one would be more inclined to want to believe the Book of Mormon is true, thus more likely to have a physical experience in relation to the truthfulness of it rather than the untruthfulness of it.

[jms.mills]

---The path is narrow because there is only one way--Jesus Christ. However, it is just wide enough that "Whosoever will may come."---

I agree, Heavenly Father wants all of his children to return to him... that is not my question. Let me clarify. Should a Christian exhibit certain characteristics throughout his/her lifetime in order to be saved? Or, do you believe that a mere confession of faith is good enough (i.e. lip service)? My first question deals with the squabbles between denominational creeds concerning salvation. I have heard some ministers preach that "once saved always saved" no matter how you live after the confession of faith. It seems to me that Christ has one way to return to him. I do not believe this matter can be settled through "individual revelation" or personal study.

---You'll have to show me more of where you are going with this one. Christians churches believe we are apostolic--that we are following the Apostles' teachings.---

OK... There are some denominations who seemingly deny the need for tounges, while others deny the need for baptism in water and/or the spirit. Basically what I am saying is that many denominations overemphasize certain teachings while seemingly ignore other instruction. This "picking and choosing" seems to indicate that we believe that we somehow know more of God's will for his church than the apostles who walked and talked with Jesus Christ. I hope that helps explain where I was going.

---The journey begins with salvation--at the confession of faith. The journey is towards maturity(holiness, sanctification) and reunion with the Creator---

I agree whole-heartedly. I takes a progression to return to live with Heavenly Father. I am sure there are other Christians who would disagree. They would say that their acceptance of Christ as their Savior is all they need, and then continue to commit acts contrary to God's will. I am not trying to judge anyone, merely pointing out that there can be only one way to return to Heavenly Father.

---Are you suggesting that the "narrow path" Jesus referred to is a singular church institution, or do you have something else in mind?---

Not entirely. Yes, I believe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the one and only true church on the earth. I place my faith in Jesus Christ who leads the church through the prophets and apostles on the earth today. I am trying to say that Christ taught one message, a message of unity. I have seen many denominations refuse to work with one another because of the tension caused by differences in doctrine (I grew up in Pentecostal churches). This unity should include a unity of doctrine.

I hope this clarified what I was trying to say.

James

[Dr T]

Uh oh. Someone hold M back.

[Palerider]

Uh oh. Someone hold M back.

thats good Doc.......you know.....so many come here and it turns into the same thing...its hard to get involved in these discussions anymore.....

[CrimsonKairos]

If the proof of scriptural inspiration is related, either directly or indirectly, to an experience such as a bodily feeling like “burning in the bosom” then it becomes subjective.

You're either confusing emotion with sensation, or you're simply unable to trust that God would manifest truth to us through the physical bodies with which He has gifted us.

The burning in the bosom is not the witness...it's a side-effect of the witness. When the Holy Ghost--who is a being of spirit--communicates directly with our spirit, it produces an effect which we can discern physically. Joy, peace, calm...fruits of the Spirit, wonderfully subjective, wonderfully personal.

Mortality is a two-way street. The condition of our spirit affects our body, and the condition of our body affects our spirit. Someone can be troubled, sin-sick, or just depressed and it is often reflected in their health or physical strength. Likewise, someone who is terribly ill or injured physically may experience a weakening of the spirit (though some of our spirits are strengthened through physical trials).

If you're afraid to trust your experiences, your sensations, things which you cannot prove to anyone else that you felt, then just say so. You've hardly proven that the rest of us can't trust our witnesses from God. Subjective witnesses. Because we experienced them. No one else did.

The wonderful irony of your position is that without an external witness from the Spirit, you're simply deciding to believe the Bible is inspired, because you choose to. What prompts you to believe? You want to. Doesn't get more subjective than that my friend, since subjective means: "dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence."

Best of luck to you in life. Me? I'll keep my subjective witness and eternal blessings. B)

[a-train]

SOLD: 'This becomes important when the person is praying as to “whether these words are true” rather than by praying “if these words are false.” Just by placing a positive aspect in the prayer, one would be more inclined to want to believe the Book of Mormon is true, thus more likely to have a physical experience in relation to the truthfulness of it rather than the untruthfulness of it.'

First of all I can herein tell that you are not quite acquainted with Moroni's words about asking about the truthfulness of the Scriptures. He says:

'And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.' (Moroni 10:4)

There is your negative write there in the verse.

Furthermore, notice also that the 'these things' Moroni is talking about is NOT just the Book of Mormon. But also the Bible and the whole of scripture. This is manifested in the preceding verse: 'Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.' (Moroni 10:3)

The Book of Mormon gives no account of 'how merciful the LORD hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time' that we receive all this. It only contains a portion of that. The rest must come from the Bible. The 'these things' Moroni is talking about is the whole of scripture from both the Jews and the Nephites.

I am beginning to wonder what qualifications you possess that would entitle you to teach a class on the LDS faith when you seem to lack a full understanding of the things presented in the very first lesson delivered by the missionaries to people completely unacquainted with the message. I can only imagine how difficult a task it will be to deliver accurate information on more complicated precepts.

This is the very reason there are so many distortions and outright incorrect assertions about the LDS faith, because people who know nothing about it are giving classes on it and those who take them consider what they learn in such a misinforming institution to be correct.

SOLD 'That is correct...'

So I want to make certain that I understand you correctly. You believe that the Apostles had no 'authority' to direct the followers of the LORD who had come into the church, nor to direct the church body as a whole? I know I already asked this, and you answered 'That is correct', but I am double checking here.

-a-train

[Maureen]

1) If various denominations and individual Christians disagree on seemingly simple truths in the New Testament, then it seems the path is no longer narrow, but wide. What is the narrow path (doctrinal) on which we must walk?

I’m curious as to what these simple truths are. If they are so simple, maybe they could be considered a gray area of doctrine that really has no bearing on salvation. Remember even LDS disagree on very simple principles such as tithing and WofW, but these type of disagreements have no effect on one’s salvation.

I would say that the majority if not all mainstream Christian denominations agree that:

*Jesus is God and our Saviour

*That through Christ’s sacrifice and resurrection and God’s grace we have salvation and eternal life with God

*God is a Trinity (God’s nature) – (part of Jesus’ ministry was also introducing mankind to who God truly was and is)

*The Bible is God’s word (our main connection to God’s thoughts)

Anything else would not necessarily be essential for our salvation.

2) If there are no living apostles today, then we must believe the New Testament apostles know more about the gospel than any human living today. Who are we (as members of congregations or individuals) to contradict or seemingly ignore many of their teachings?

What do you believe is contained in the NT that other Christian churches ignore? Maybe it is more to do with how we interpret those teachings.

3) The path analogy implies that salvation is journey. What steps do you believe are involved on this journey to salvation? Does it end with a confession of faith? At baptism? Or is this journey the "endure to the end" concept LDS christians believe? (I think of Paul Bunyan's famous book Pilgrim's Progress)

A person who confesses genuine faith in God will always be part of the journey that a Christian life offers. If the person’s confession is actually just lip service, then it is not true faith.

M. :)

[Dr T]

Great. Nobody had to hold M back :)