"anti" Propoganda

[CrimsonKairos]

In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. B)

[JcDean78]

I find it interesting on the whole "who is Christian" thing that LDS people call all followers of Christ "Christian" but that a lot of people who are outside of the LDS Church only call those who are in their denomination or one close to it Christian. I have even heard some say Catholics are not Christian as well.

The bottom line is that all followers of Christ are Christian. They might not all be right or believe in the exact same things and ways to worship but they are all followers of Christ!

[Snow]

BTW: My identity as a prison chaplain can be verified by the Federal Government, by the General Council of the Assemblies of God, and, most authoritatively, by praying to God and having Him confirm my calling (at least that last one worked for me).

Still - if I had an evangelical bent, I could say that it doesn't matter you call yourself or what the government thinks or what your own faith considers you. I and my faith tradition reserve the right to decide who really is or isn't a prison chaplain and no matter how sincerely you think yourself one, you aren't.

[prisonchaplain]

<div class='quotemain'>

B)

BTW: My identity as a prison chaplain can be verified by the Federal Government, by the General Council of the Assemblies of God, and, most authoritatively, by praying to God and having Him confirm my calling (at least that last one worked for me).

Still - if I had an evangelical bent, I could say that it doesn't matter you call yourself or what the government thinks or what your own faith considers you. I and my faith tradition reserve the right to decide who really is or isn't a prison chaplain and no matter how sincerely you think yourself one, you aren't.

I you sure you aren't one of my former chapel inmate-orderlies???

[LukeAir2006]

B)

[LukeAir2006]

[prisonchaplain]

It would appear the most important thing to Christ and his Father is whether or not we strive to do as he asks of us. Its interesting that as a teenager, when I became a born-again christian, (Luis Palau Crusade 1979) I was told that I didn't have to keep the commandments, indeed that I couldn't keep the commandments. A direct contradiction of the Bible. But now that I believe the admonition of Christ, I'm no longer a christian. I wonder who is behind this labelling?

First, I must note the irony. You intimate that obeying the commands of Christ is of greater importance--salvific importance--than correct teaching. And yet, you imply that Luis Palau taught you wrong. B)

Second, if I may speak on behalf of Bro. Palau, I'd suggest he was intimating that obeying commands is not what brings you to the place of God's mercy. If you think that mere human efforts to comply with the regulations will get you to heaven, then you will die "having fallen short of the glory of God." You can't earn God's mercy by being good enough. You must repent and call out to God for forgiveness, by the ransom that Christ paid, through his shed blood.

Bottom-line: Bro. Palau and President Hinckley would probably agree that Christians should be all about doing good works, loving God and neighbor, obeying Christ's commands. LDS see these as markers of a successful Christian life that will lead to ultimate salvation. Evangelicals see them as demonstrations of growth in the life of the already-saved Christian.

[LukeAir2006]

[CrimsonKairos]

Well said, Luke.

Too often all we hear about is how Christ's grace cleanses us from sins.

Too little do we hear about obeying the commandments so that we don't commit sins to be cleansed from.

Christ's grace does not allow men to live as they please.

Christ's grace allows men to live as Christ pleases.

[Dr T]

I'd say that is the role of the Holy Spirit-the helper to grow in obedience.

[prisonchaplain]

I'm not speaking on forgiveness of past sins; that of course is a free gift from Christ. There is nothing I can do to wipe out my past sins.

It might help to distinguish between salvation and sanctification. For evangelicals, salvation is the forgiveness of sins. Sanctification is the growing in the ways of Christ, learning to obey his commands, repenting of sins that we might not have even thought of as sins in the past, etc. My understanding is that LDS theology does not distinguish these two. Instead "salvation" is the end result of a successful Christian life. The saved person is forgiven and holy. For evangelicals the saved person is forgiven and BECOMING holy.

I'm talking about future sins. There is something I can do about future sins. I can not do them. Thats called obeying the commandments. I'm not trying to earn my way into Heaven. I can't do that. I'm coming unto Christ. I'm exercising faith in him. I'm taking upon myself His name. I'm repenting of my sins. I'm striving to be as best as I can inspite of my weaknesses. I'm trying to weld myself to Him. To hang on to his coat tails. To follow Him back to the Father. Its all about Him. If I oppose Him, he can't do that. If I defy him, I don't know Him. John says if I say that I know him and don't keep the commandments, I'm a liar (1 John 2:4) If I love Him and walk in the light I know his blood will cleanse me. (1 John 1:7) Coming unto Christ is leaving the world behind. If I love sin and darkness then I follow satan and my reward will be with him. I want to be with Christ and my Heavenly father, and I want to follow them and do what they want me to do. Is that ok with you real christians?

So PC, do or do I not, have to obey the commandments? Just a simple yes or no will suffice? Thanks.

YES.

Sanctification, for evangelicals, is like eating. In this "new life" I've been given, obeying the commandments is like eating. If I don't do them, if I resist the wooing of the HOly spirit in my daily decisions, I will harden my heart, and eventually cease to have communion with God. I will have committed the blasphemy of the HOly Spirit--a sin for which there is no forgiveness.

I would describe our difference in journey terms. LDS obey the commands to stay on track and reach the destination (salvation). Evangelicals obey the commandments to fuel the salvation they are riding in. The destination, of course, is heaven.

[CrimsonKairos]

Interesting comments, PC. I'd contrast the LDS and Evangelical theologies as so:

LDS

Sanctification leads to eventual salvation.

Evangelical

Salvation leads to eventual sanctification.

An interesting contrast indeed. :)

[a-train]

It might help to distinguish between salvation and sanctification. For evangelicals, salvation is the forgiveness of sins. Sanctification is the growing in the ways of Christ, learning to obey his commands, repenting of sins that we might not have even thought of as sins in the past, etc. My understanding is that LDS theology does not distinguish these two. Instead "salvation" is the end result of a successful Christian life. The saved person is forgiven and holy. For evangelicals the saved person is forgiven and BECOMING holy.

Hey, thanks for that insight! I like that! You are correct for the most part in your understanding the difference. LDS see salvation as something that isn't fully obtained until the resurrection. A man is not saved from mortal death until he has put on immortality. However, LDS also believe that all will receive resurrection, so we are all good as saved from that type of death. So in that sense, we can say we are saved, even though we will yet pass through physical death and be resurrected later.

Now the second death is a different monster and a different matter entirely. The second death is separation from God, which is only predicated upon personal sin. A man must knowingly sin and go on without penitence in open rebellion against the LORD to obtain this death. Because each man's understanding and accountability varies, his individual responsibility varies accordingly also. However, all who have reached the age of accountability and are indeed accountable, have in some degree sinned in this way.

Virtually everyone has at least some level of accountability and yes, a man is accountable for knowingly keeping himself from advancing in knowledge in order to prevent himself from becoming further accountable. The LDS teenagers love that one....

With regard to salvation from the second death, a man who has faith in Christ, has repented of his sins, and received baptism and the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost by those so commissioned to administer such, and having received that Gift upon him with it's spiritual manifestation of the Holy Ghost, this man is saved from previous sin, but is not yet sealed unto salvation and can yet lose it if he falls away. For this reason, LDS are typically not prone to say 'I'm saved' because they do not want to indicate a 'once-saved-always-saved' status into which they do not believe they have entered.

Now the Book of Mormon does use language like: 'I have repented of my sins, and have been redeemed of the Lord; behold I am born of the Spirit.' (Mosiah 27:24) So, if 'saved' means that a man has accepted the salvation of Christ and is in the path whereby the Holy Ghost purifies the man and sanctifies him through edification and enlightenment of the whole soul, then LDS would have little problem saying they are saved. It is the seeming ambiguity of the statement that has brought about the reluctance in LDS.

I think the terms 'saved' and 'salvation' need more specific teaching among Christians everywhere to avoid such a semantic confusion. Your pointing this out is appreciated.

GOD BLESS

-a-train

[Guest mamacat]

With regard to salvation from the second death, a man who has faith in Christ, has repented of his sins, and received baptism and the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost by those so commissioned to administer such, and having received that Gift upon him with it's spiritual manifestation of the Holy Ghost, this man is saved from previous sin, but is not yet sealed unto salvation and can yet lose it if he falls away. For this reason, LDS are typically not prone to say 'I'm saved' because they do not want to indicate a 'once-saved-always-saved' status into which they do not believe they have entered.

[LukeAir2006]

[Dr T]

Hi LukeAir2006,

That is not the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Maybe PC will explain his understanding of that concept.

[prisonchaplain]

Interesting comments, PC. I'd contrast the LDS and Evangelical theologies as so:

LDS

Sanctification leads to eventual salvation.

Evangelical

Salvation leads to eventual sanctification.

An interesting contrast indeed. :)

I'll give you an A+ for apprehending my explication.

[so PC, if not obeying the commandments results in you committing blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, for which their is no forgiveness; doesnt that mean that your salvation is dependant upon keeping the commandments?

Dr. T is right. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is on-going resistence against the Spirit's wooing. Such could prevent conversion in the first place. Or, it could lead one to apostacy (a believer starts embracing set of teachings--the Spirit warns, but the believer ignores or rejects his voice). Then, of course, there are the commandments. The believer falls into sin, the Spirit woos, but the believer embraces his/her sin and repeatedly rejects the conviction of the Holy Spirit. In all such cases, over time, one can so harden the heart against the Spirit's voice, that blasphemy has occured.

Having said that, I remember the testimony of a church deacon. For 15 years he had struggled with a particular sin. Every day he sinned, and every day he repented in sincerity. Finally, God delivered him from the temptation, and he is now free.

So, put simply, to reject the commandments is to neglect salvation, and could ultimately lead to the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. However, blasphemy is very much a matter of one's spiritual communion with God, not a simple mathematical equation (i.e. I obeyed more than I disobeyed).

[Dr T]

When we read of it in Matt. 12 I read it as having to do with rejection the Holy Spirit's word about the truth of Jesus. When they speak against the H.S. saying that Jesus is not to be followed and therefore do not have a relationship with Him-ultimately it will not be forgiven because there is no forgiveness when apart from Jesus.

[prisonchaplain]

When we read of it in Matt. 12 I read it as having to do with rejection the Holy Spirit's word about the truth of Jesus. When they speak against the H.S. saying that Jesus is not to be followed and therefore do not have a relationship with Him-ultimately it will not be forgiven because there is no forgiveness when apart from Jesus.

In rejecting Jesus, they were rejecting the clear voice of the Holy Spirit. Nicodemus intimated that the leadership knew that Jesus was from God in John 3. Nevertheless, they did not like his message and the implications of it, so the resisted the Holy Spirit.

Rejecting Jesus is the most obvious way of rejecting the voice of the Spirit, but turning away from the Spirit's clear directions willfully and repeatedly would also be perilous decisions, imho.

[Dr T]

Right. That is different though from being led to not sin on a particular issue and then failing. It is the rejection of Jesus, not just making a mistake.

[Brother Dorsey]

Dr. T is right. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is on-going resistence against the Spirit's wooing. Such could prevent conversion in the first place. Or, it could lead one to apostacy (a believer starts embracing set of teachings--the Spirit warns, but the believer ignores or rejects his voice). Then, of course, there are the commandments. The believer falls into sin, the Spirit woos, but the believer embraces his/her sin and repeatedly rejects the conviction of the Holy Spirit. In all such cases, over time, one can so harden the heart against the Spirit's voice, that blasphemy has occured.

As LDS we believe that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a little more difficult to do...to commit blasphemy is to reject something that you absolutely know is true...something you have been given proof of as in a sign, vision etc.. For instance if Joseph Smith had rejected the Spirit after he received all those wondrous visions and spoke face to face with God the Father and His son Jesus Christ...this would have been blasphemy against the Spirit. The Spirit testifies of the truth, He testifies of Jesus Christ...if you have been given absolute proof through the Spirit and reject it...that's blasphemy. To become inactive in the church or even leave the church and to loose the Spirit or become desensitized to the Spirit is not blasphemy. Blasphemy of the Spirit is the only sin that cannot be repented or forgiven.

[Guest Username-Removed]

PC,

Here are a few interesting scriptures ....

1) "Angles speak by the power fo the Holy Ghost: Wherefore they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ, for behold the words of Christ will tell you all things what you should do"

2) "Wherefore ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope and love of God and of all men. Wherefore if ye shall press forward feasting upon the word of Christ and endure to the end, Behold thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.

The really interesting part of these scriptures is that they are telling us that the love of Christ will tell us "all things" what we should do.

Further, I would interpret the second scripture in the phrase, "having a perfect brightness of hope" as not being concerned about the "negatives" in the world, because we actually should have a "love of all men". While we all dont follow this concept, I believe it would be incorrect to say that the LDS people dont do that ... Especially when these two scriptures came from the Book of Mormon.

Lastly, feasting on the words of Christ does mean feasting on what I know to be true. Feasting on that which I know to NOT be true, detracts from the Holy Spirit.

[Outshined]

As LDS we believe that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a little more difficult to do...to commit blasphemy is to reject something that you absolutely know is true...something you have been given proof of as in a sign, vision etc.. For instance if Joseph Smith had rejected the Spirit after he received all those wondrous visions and spoke face to face with God the Father and His son Jesus Christ...this would have been blasphemy against the Spirit. The Spirit testifies of the truth, He testifies of Jesus Christ...if you have been given absolute proof through the Spirit and reject it...that's blasphemy. To become inactive in the church or even leave the church and to loose the Spirit or become desensitized to the Spirit is not blasphemy. Blasphemy of the Spirit is the only sin that cannot be repented or forgiven.

Well said. B)

[prisonchaplain]

As LDS we believe that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a little more difficult to do...to commit blasphemy is to reject something that you absolutely know is true...something you have been given proof of as in a sign, vision etc.. For instance if Joseph Smith had rejected the Spirit after he received all those wondrous visions and spoke face to face with God the Father and His son Jesus Christ...this would have been blasphemy against the Spirit. The Spirit testifies of the truth, He testifies of Jesus Christ...if you have been given absolute proof through the Spirit and reject it...that's blasphemy. To become inactive in the church or even leave the church and to loose the Spirit or become desensitized to the Spirit is not blasphemy. Blasphemy of the Spirit is the only sin that cannot be repented or forgiven.

I understand, and I thank you for clarifying. The LDS teaching of three levels of heaven, combined with the belief that even after death, all will have an unambiguous presentation of the gospel, results in a much smaller "outer darkness" (hell).

While my explanation might make it "easier to blaspheme," for believers, I would argue that the road away from communion towards blasphemy is wrought with repeated opportunities to turn back to God, and that the loss of salvation is accomplished only after repeated and willful resistance to God.

[Outshined]

While my explanation might make it "easier to blaspheme," for believers, I would argue that the road away from communion towards blasphemy is wrought with repeated opportunities to turn back to God, and that the loss of salvation is accomplished only after repeated and willful resistance to God.

Without a doubt. It is a very conscious process; one cannot do so by accident.