Peter walking on the water

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

No such thing. By definition, any Latter-day Saint holds membership in the kingdom of God, and thus is a "Mormon".

Sorry, but there are saints outside of the "Mormon" circle. You are incorrect, my friend. Mormon legalism fails here.

 

-Finrock

This is not "Mormon legalism". It's the meaning of the term "latter-day saint".

What the what?  Latter-day Saints who aren't Mormons? And legalisms fail here.

 

What on earth are you all talking about...and moreover, why?

Wow - I was not expecting THAT to be the most controversial thing I said.

"Latter-day Saint" refers to a "saint" who lives in the "latter days". Its use in the official name of the church is to indicate exactly that.

Using the term "Latter-day Saint" to refer strictly to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is convention and cultural. 

The word "saint" is not exclusive to Mormons. To say that there are "saints" who are not Mormon would be no big deal - you're just saying that there are people who are dedicated followers of Christ among other denominations. (I challenge anyone to tell me that Mother Theresa was not a saint. Or Gandhi for that matter. Or the Dalai Lama.) And since such good people are living in the latter days, the same as we are, how are they not "latter-day saints"?

 

Even if this were true (and I highly question the use of the word "cannot" here), these "outward" manifestations could be the changing of someone's heart, the peace (and behavior stemming therefrom) that comes into the soul, good health, spiritual strength, mental fitness, etc., none of which might others actually recognize for they miracles they are. In face, I would dare say that most outward manifestations of faith are just these. Because, really, what good does it do for most of us to move a mountain? But to move another person's (or our own) soul...?

You're talking about the gifts of the Spirit. You can call those gifts, and the change of heart that accompanies them, a miracle, and I'd agree with you. But that's totally not the point.

 

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

"They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

 

"Behold I say unto you, Nay; for it is by faith that miracles are wrought; and it is by faith that angels appear and minister unto men; wherefore, if these things have ceased wo be unto the children of men, for it is because of unbelief, and all is vain.

"For no man can be saved, according to the words of Christ, save they shall have faith in his name; wherefore, if these things have ceased, then has faith ceased also; and awful is the state of man, for they are as though there had been no redemption made."

"And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:

"Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,

"Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens."

 

But this one's my favorite: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father." (emphasis added)

 

I wonder - what is the purpose of these scriptures if God does not expect us to stop the mouths of lions or subdue kingdoms or quench the violence of fire? These scriptures illustrate that faith to move mountains is exactly the same faith that leads to salvation, there is no different kind of faith. Spiritual strength? Mental fitness? Why are your expectations so menial? If you haven't healed the sick or raised the dead lately, then you are living beneath your privileges.

 

"Wherefore, we search the prophets, and we have many revelations and the spirit of prophecy; and having all these witnesses we obtain a hope, and our faith becometh unshaken, insomuch that we truly can command in the name of Jesus and the very trees obey us, or the mountains, or the waves of the sea."

[The Folk Prophet]

An interesting interpretation of the scriptures there Puff, but I sure don't see anything that supports the idea faith "cannot exist" unless mountains are being moved. You're applying logic backwards (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent) and it doesn't work. The fact that miracles follow faith does not equate to or prove that faith cannot exist without miracles*.

 

1. If someone performs a (edit) fancy magic style miracle it was by faith

2. John didn't perform a (edit) fancy magic style miracles

3. John has no faith

 

 

*This, of course, depends on what one means by miracles, as salvation itself is a miracle, and comes by faith in Jesus Christ.

Edited July 23, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Vort]

 

"Latter-day Saint" refers to a "saint" who lives in the "latter days". Its use in the official name of the church is to indicate exactly that.

Using the term "Latter-day Saint" to refer strictly to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is convention and cultural. 

The word "saint" is not exclusive to Mormons. To say that there are "saints" who are not Mormon would be no big deal - you're just saying that there are people who are dedicated followers of Christ among other denominations. (I challenge anyone to tell me that Mother Theresa was not a saint. Or Gandhi for that matter. Or the Dalai Lama.) And since such good people are living in the latter days, the same as we are, how are they not "latter-day saints"?

 

All right, I will explain to you why you are wrong and why it matters.

 

WHY YOU ARE WRONG

 

Words do not intrinsically carry meaning. They have meaning only because we broadly agree on their meaning. Often, this meaning is context-specific.

 

Example

Let us suppose that I make the following statement to a group of Latter-day Saints:

 

"The moon is part of the celestial kingdom of God."

 

Is this statement true or false? Pretty much all Latter-day Saints would agree that it is false. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin did not visit the celestial kingdom in 1969. The celestial kingdom is the abode of God, and the promised destination of those who gain exaltation. It is not the present-day earth or moon or other planets in our solar system.

 

But wait!  I am right! After all, the word "celestial" merely means "heavenly", and the "heavens" means the sky, the planets, the stars, and so forth. If I talk about a "celestial body", I am not talking about angels or God. I'm talking about comets and planets and such. So obviously the moon is a "celestial body".

 

Moreover, when I say "kingdom", I am not talking about something headed by an actual king. How naive. When I talk about the Animal kingdom or the Plant kingdom, I don't mean that there is an actual king over the animals or plants! I just mean it is a division or a realm. The "kingdom" of the sky just means everything we see around us out in space.

 

And of course, God created everything, and he owns everything, so clearly it's all his.

 

So, you see, I am completely right. The moon is most definitely part of the "celestial kingdom of God". Ha! Ha! Look how smart I am! Burn on you! I guess Armstrong and Aldrin really DID visit the celestial kingdom in 1969!

 

Okay, so what is wrong with this picture? Does my argument hold up? The clear answer is no. I changed contexts, rather inelegantly, and then insisted that you accept my argument in an inappropriate context. Remember, I was addressing a group of Latter-day Saints, for whom (as I very well know) the term "celestial kingdom" has a specific connotation. I was intentionally violating that connotation, then bashing my new context over their heads to force them into submission.

 

My argument is specious to any reasonable Latter-day Saint. In no relevant sense is the moon a part of the celestial kingdom, as that term has been defined and explained in the revelations of the Doctrine and Covenants, e.g. Section 76.

 

In the same sense, you have used a narrowly defined term: "Latter-day saint". In the context of this list (a group of Latter-day Saints and a few non-LDS friends), a "saint" is a member of the kingdom of God, which on today's earth is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and nothing else. A "latter-day saint" is therefore a member of the kingdom of God who lives now, in these (latter) days. Yet you are changing contexts and implicitly insisting that, in your usage, "saint" just means "nice person" (such as Gandhi or Mother Theresa). This inelegant sleight-of-hand violates the conventional meaning of terms, and moreso when your audience is a group of Latter-day Saints -- the real kind, not your redefined kind.

 

WHY IT MATTERS

 

Well, okay. So what? puf is playing around with terminology -- hardly a capital offense, more of a popular pastime around these parts. Why is it important?

 

Example

Let us suppose that there are some Saints, not a majority but a significant and vocal number, who insist that all of our doctrine about being "exalted" in the "celestial kingdom" is meaningless in one way or another. Part of that vocal group takes the following stance: We do not need to "achieve" the celestial kingdom, because we are already living in the celestial kingdom! That's right! Right now, we're already exalted! Don't worry about sin this or temptation that -- it's all irrelevant! God has created all men, and God will save all men! Already has, in fact! Eat, drink, and be merry!

 

So I teach my "the-moon-is-the-celestial-kingdom" doctrine, and someone says, "Hey, you know, that's actually a false doctrine. You shouldn't teach it." I give my previous spiel as to why I'm right and anyone who disagrees is a silly ignoramus, whereupon the silly ignoramus responds, "Look, your argument is a silly word game. It contradicts established doctrine, and moreover it gives ammunition to those who seek to do harm to the Church from within by denying some of its central doctrines. You really need to back off that particular claim."

 

What should I do? Should I poo-poo his claim, mock him for being a hidebound fool, and continue parading my erudition?

 

In the actual present case, there are many in the Church who call themselves Saints, but who work against the Church's efforts, sometimes secretly, sometimes openly. Many of these people are doubtlessly sincere (on some level or another) in considering themselves faithful and believing. One faction decries missionary work and denies even the need to do any such thing. I have heard more than one person say, "We do not need to do missionary work! When people die, we'll just do their temple work, and they can be converted in the spirit world! That way we don't have to go to the expense and trouble of missionary work and make enemies for ourselves."

 

Yet another faction claims that since Latter-day Saints have no monopoly on truth, therefore the LDS Church really is no better than, or different from, any other. Heck, EVERYONE is a "latter-day saint"! All that matters is that you live a good life and try to be nice! Baptism? Celestial marriage? Covenants? All mere formalities, easily taken care of now or later. Such churchy things Just Don't Matter. The term "latter-day saint" just means any decent person! See how fair that is?

 

But such an attitude is clearly in violation of the very raison d'être of the Church. It does matter. "Latter-day Saints" are not just any nice guy who tries to be a good soul. It has a different, specific, and very important meaning.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

An interesting interpretation of the scriptures there Puff, but I sure don't see anything that supports the idea faith "cannot exist" unless mountains are being moved. You're applying logic backwards (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent) and it doesn't work. The fact that miracles follow faith does not equate to or prove that faith cannot exist without miracles*.

 

1. If someone performs a (edit) fancy magic style miracle it was by faith

2. John didn't perform a (edit) fancy magic style miracles

3. John has no faith

 

 

*This, of course, depends on what one means by miracles, as salvation itself is a miracle, and comes by faith in Jesus Christ.

My prior quotation of Moroni 7:37-38 covers that.

"...wherefore, if these things have ceased wo be unto the children of men, for it is because of unbelief..."

"...wherefore, if these things have ceased, then has faith ceased also..."

You might say it's the reverse of a faulty generalization. I'll take that.

1. If there are no miracles (in general) then there is no faith (in general).

2. There are no miracles for John (specifically).

3. John (specifically) has no faith.

Not every general principle is universally applicable, and, as you've pointed out, the definition of miracle can be widely debated. My point is not to debate the semantics of doctrine, but to encourage believers to believe more. We need fewer fathers crying "help thou mine unbelief" and more Peters whose passing shadow heals the lame and the crippled. The revelations are clear that each of us has this potential, it's only up to us to achieve it.

 

[That was a very long post]

 

Wow. <insert sarcastic retort here>

• I intentionally left "latter-day saint" uncapitalized in my initial post to help differentiate between the two meanings. Yes, some people still pay attention to grammar. I suspect you are one, since you've carefully capitalized every instance of "Latter-day Saint" and "Saint" in your communications.
• Your insistence that the phrase "latter-day saint" can only ever have one meaning is preposterous.
• A good person without covenants will have a higher seat in the Kingdom of God than a bad person with covenants.
• If you really feel that the three words "latter", "day", and "saint" can only ever be used when talking about covenant making and covenant keeping members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then who am I to stop you?

The fact that you're arguing so vehemently over the meaning of a label indicates to me that you're more concerned about what you are called than by whose name you are called. Perhaps I'm judging you too harshly, but at the very least, if that word is more important to you than the doctrines of Christ we all came here to discuss, then I think your priorities are a bit mixed up. (Ad hominem? Maybe. My point is - I don't put THAT much importance on this argument to continue it any further, and if you do then that's your problem.)

 

Oh, and on that whole moon thing...

• This Earth shall become Christ's Celestial Kingdom (D&C 130:9)
• Christ is God (2 Nephi 26:12)
• Time does not exist for God (Alma 40:8)

Therefore, yes, the moon is part of the Celestial Kingdom of God.

Hey, I had to get the sarcasm in there somewhere. 2 points if you can pinpoint the flaw in my logic. Shouldn't be hard, The Folk Prophet probably spotted it a mile away.

Cheers!

Edited July 23, 2015 by puf_the_majic_dragon

[Finrock]

 

 

 

All right, I will explain to you why you are wrong and why it matters.

 

WHY YOU ARE WRONG

 

Words do not intrinsically carry meaning. They have meaning only because we broadly agree on their meaning. Often, this meaning is context-specific.

 

Example

Let us suppose that I make the following statement to a group of Latter-day Saints:

 

"The moon is part of the celestial kingdom of God."

 

Is this statement true or false? Pretty much all Latter-day Saints would agree that it is false. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin did not visit the celestial kingdom in 1969. The celestial kingdom is the abode of God, and the promised destination of those who gain exaltation. It is not the present-day earth or moon or other planets in our solar system.

 

But wait!  I am right! After all, the word "celestial" merely means "heavenly", and the "heavens" means the sky, the planets, the stars, and so forth. If I talk about a "celestial body", I am not talking about angels or God. I'm talking about comets and planets and such. So obviously the moon is a "celestial body".

 

Moreover, when I say "kingdom", I am not talking about something headed by an actual king. How naive. When I talk about the Animal kingdom or the Plant kingdom, I don't mean that there is an actual king over the animals or plants! I just mean it is a division or a realm. The "kingdom" of the sky just means everything we see around us out in space.

 

And of course, God created everything, and he owns everything, so clearly it's all his.

 

So, you see, I am completely right. The moon is most definitely part of the "celestial kingdom of God". Ha! Ha! Look how smart I am! Burn on you! I guess Armstrong and Aldrin really DID visit the celestial kingdom in 1969!

 

Okay, so what is wrong with this picture? Does my argument hold up? The clear answer is no. I changed contexts, rather inelegantly, and then insisted that you accept my argument in an inappropriate context. Remember, I was addressing a group of Latter-day Saints, for whom (as I very well know) the term "celestial kingdom" has a specific connotation. I was intentionally violating that connotation, then bashing my new context over their heads to force them into submission.

 

My argument is specious to any reasonable Latter-day Saint. In no relevant sense is the moon a part of the celestial kingdom, as that term has been defined and explained in the revelations of the Doctrine and Covenants, e.g. Section 76.

 

In the same sense, you have used a narrowly defined term: "Latter-day saint". In the context of this list (a group of Latter-day Saints and a few non-LDS friends), a "saint" is a member of the kingdom of God, which on today's earth is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and nothing else. A "latter-day saint" is therefore a member of the kingdom of God who lives now, in these (latter) days. Yet you are changing contexts and implicitly insisting that, in your usage, "saint" just means "nice person" (such as Gandhi or Mother Theresa). This inelegant sleight-of-hand violates the conventional meaning of terms, and moreso when your audience is a group of Latter-day Saints -- the real kind, not your redefined kind.

 

WHY IT MATTERS

 

Well, okay. So what? puf is playing around with terminology -- hardly a capital offense, more of a popular pastime around these parts. Why is it important?

 

Example

Let us suppose that there are some Saints, not a majority but a significant and vocal number, who insist that all of our doctrine about being "exalted" in the "celestial kingdom" is meaningless in one way or another. Part of that vocal group takes the following stance: We do not need to "achieve" the celestial kingdom, because we are already living in the celestial kingdom! That's right! Right now, we're already exalted! Don't worry about sin this or temptation that -- it's all irrelevant! God has created all men, and God will save all men! Already has, in fact! Eat, drink, and be merry!

 

So I teach my "the-moon-is-the-celestial-kingdom" doctrine, and someone says, "Hey, you know, that's actually a false doctrine. You shouldn't teach it." I give my previous spiel as to why I'm right and anyone who disagrees is a silly ignoramus, whereupon the silly ignoramus responds, "Look, your argument is a silly word game. It contradicts established doctrine, and moreover it gives ammunition to those who seek to do harm to the Church from within by denying some of its central doctrines. You really need to back off that particular claim."

 

What should I do? Should I poo-poo his claim, mock him for being a hidebound fool, and continue parading my erudition?

 

In the actual present case, there are many in the Church who call themselves Saints, but who work against the Church's efforts, sometimes secretly, sometimes openly. Many of these people are doubtlessly sincere (on some level or another) in considering themselves faithful and believing. One faction decries missionary work and denies even the need to do any such thing. I have heard more than one person say, "We do not need to do missionary work! When people die, we'll just do their temple work, and they can be converted in the spirit world! That way we don't have to go to the expense and trouble of missionary work and make enemies for ourselves."

 

Yet another faction claims that since Latter-day Saints have no monopoly on truth, therefore the LDS Church really is no better than, or different from, any other. Heck, EVERYONE is a "latter-day saint"! All that matters is that you live a good life and try to be nice! Baptism? Celestial marriage? Covenants? All mere formalities, easily taken care of now or later. Such churchy things Just Don't Matter. The term "latter-day saint" just means any decent person! See how fair that is?

 

But such an attitude is clearly in violation of the very raison d'être of the Church. It does matter. "Latter-day Saints" are not just any nice guy who tries to be a good soul. It has a different, specific, and very important meaning.

 

 

Vort,

 

It is the difference between a brick and a stone hewn without hands.

 

You present a nice, neat, formulated, man-made brick. However, I like the stone hewn without hands that I possess. It feels better and is just more natural.

 

-Finrock

[Finrock]

Why do you guys think the Book of Mormon speaks so much about the Law of Moses and how it is dead? That Law has never been applicable to us as Latter-day Saints. Why do we need to know that it has become dead? Why does the Book of Mormon tell us, over and over, that "notwithstanding the law of Moses, they did look forward to the coming of Christ, considering that the law of Moses"?

 

They considered the coming of Christ the law of Moses.

 

Of all the people in the world right now, which people are primarily reading the Book of Mormon? Who is the Book for? Just for non-members? For people who don't believe in our religion and will probably never pick up the Book?

 

Vort Wrote

 

Yet another faction claims that since Latter-day Saints have no monopoly on truth, therefore the LDS Church really is no better than, or different from, any other. Heck, EVERYONE is a "latter-day saint"! All that matters is that you live a good life and try to be nice! Baptism? Celestial marriage? Covenants? All mere formalities, easily taken care of now or later. Such churchy things Just Don't Matter. The term "latter-day saint" just means any decent person! See how fair that is?

 

 

2 Nephi 25

 

23 For we labor diligently to write, to ^apersuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by ^bgrace that we are saved, after all we can ^cdo.

24 And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we ^akeep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled.

25 For, for this end was the ^alaw given; wherefore the law hath become ^bdead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith; yet we keep the law because of the commandments (Emphasis Added).

 

 

-Finrock

[Finrock]

Further, in the Book of Mormon, they did not labor diligently to teach about the specifics of the law or how important the ordinances were. Of all the things that were written, what is the primary focus of the Book of Mormon? Is it the law and ordinances? The technicalities and straining at gnats? No!

 

What is the primary concern of a true saint? What is it that they will talk about, preach about, and teach about?

 

2 Nephi 25

 

 

And we ^atalk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we ^bprophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our ^cchildren may know to what source they may look for a ^dremission of their sins.

27 Wherefore, we speak concerning the law that our children may know the deadness of the law; and they, by knowing the deadness of the law, may look forward unto that life which is in Christ, and know for what end the law was given. And after the law is fulfilled in Christ, that they need not harden their hearts against him when the law ought to be done away.

28 And now behold, my people, ye are a ^astiffnecked people; wherefore, I have spoken plainly unto you, that ye cannot misunderstand. And the words which I have spoken shall stand as a ^btestimony against you; for they are sufficient to ^cteach any man the ^dright way; for the right way is to believe in Christ and deny him not; for by denying him ye also deny the prophets and the law.

29 And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and ^aworship him with all your ^bmight, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out.

30 And, inasmuch as it shall be expedient, ye must keep the ^aperformances and ^bordinances of God until the law shall be fulfilled which was given unto Moses (Emphasis added).

 

-Finrock

Edited July 24, 2015 by Finrock

[Finrock]

The right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not and if a person, I don't care who they are, where they come from, what membership they have, if they bow down before Christ and worship him with all their might, mind, and strength, and their whole soul, if they do this, the Father has promised, they shall in nowise be cast out.

 

That is pure doctrine and anyone who believes in Christ and denies Him not is a saint and will in nowise be cast out.

 

-Finrock

[Bycote]

askandanswer, thank you for this post!  What great questions you asked, hopefully you and others reading your topic will find answers, light, and knowledge here in a great discussion.

 

I am not sure what talks you have been reading about Peter, but I have never read one by a prophet or apostle who does not honor that valiant disciple of Christ.

 

In fact, I believe one fundamental problem leading to your questions is that Latter-day Saints simply do not read their scriptures or listen to living prophets and apostles like we should.  As you indicated, incorrect attitudes about Peter do exist, but I do not think they are taught us by our leaders.  Rather, they grow within us as we do not heed our leaders as we should.

 

I will demonstrate this below by showing very briefly what the scriptures and prophets say about Peter and provide parallel examples and sources of more information for anyone interested in learning more.

 

An attitude of harshness and judgment against Peter for falling in the water and for denying the Lord three times does exist in the world, including among the Latter-day Saints, as you observed.  Is this attitude justified by the scriptures and the prophets?  Or do we fail to understand the scriptures and the prophets when we pass such judgment on Peter?

 

You indicated that you felt Jesus was more praising of people who he healed than he was of Peter so I will briefly address this statement.  Though this mistake is understandable, it isn't true at all and it helps us get a key to understanding Peter.  One typical example of a healing account by Jesus in the New Testament is in Luke 18:42 and he simply says "Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee."  

 

Hardly a praise of the individual healed, this is rather a simple lesson to the healed person to know where the miraculous power which healed him sprang from.  Namely, that it sprang from Jesus, the Messiah and the Son of God who he had faith in.  The repetitious accounts in the New Testaments are Jesus’ assurance to the healed that, in essence, “I am who you believe I am, I am your Savior, I am the Son of God.”

 

Contrast such simple accounts with the words recorded of Peter in the New Testament.  Of all of Jesus' disciples, only Paul is mentioned more and NONE receives greater praise than Peter!  I will recommend an Ensign article you can review in your personal study as you seek to confirm this fact: 

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1975/02/simon-peter?lang=eng

 

Other prophets throughout this dispensation, including Joseph Smith and Jeffrey R. Holland, have praised Peter's faith.  Would we be so critical if we simply read the scriptures or listened to the prophets’ words?  Consider the following from Gene R. Cook:

 

"We all know the story of Peter walking on the water. He saw Jesus approaching them on the surface of the sea, and, in a great act of faith, said, 'Bid me come unto thee.' (Matthew 14:28.) Jesus bade him to come, and Peter stepped out of the boat. You can imagine his feelings as he put all his weight on his foot and started to step into the Sea of Galilee. Then all of a sudden he was walking, the second man in the history of the world (as far as we know) to walk on water! Then it appears the devil moved into the picture. The wind stirred up, and waves lifted higher, and Peter began to doubt; he was filled with fear; and down he went into that dark, frightening water."

 

Where is the criticism, the condescension, or the judgement?  Of course, Elder Cook avoids such nonsense and uses the true scriptural account of the valiant man Peter to teach an important lesson.  I will leave it to you to find further examples and I assure you there are plenty.

 

Now, let’s go back to the scripture account in Matt. 14:31 and remember what was Jesus’ criticism of Peter on this occasion?  “O thou of little faith wherefore did thou doubt?”

 

Is this a severe indictment of Peter’s character?  A far reaching reproach grasping at the roots of his faith?  I do not think so.  Sadly, nothing is preserved of the subsequent verbal exchange between Peter and the Lord, but verse 33 does record that all of the disciples had and proclaimed the same knowledge that those who were healed had: namely that Jesus was the Son of God. 

 

Since so little of the verbal exchange between Jesus and Peter is preserved here, I think it is good to look for parallel examples in the scriptures and try to see a big picture of what the Lord is trying to teach us. 

 

Consider sections 6, 8, and 9 of the Doctrine & Covenants.  Here we learn about Oliver Cowdery’s attempt to translate from the golden plates using the Urim and Thummim.  I will not go into great detail here, but rather focus on only one verse from section 9, verse 5 wherein the Lord states “it is because that you did not continue as you commenced…”

 

You see, Oliver like Peter commenced successfully!  Peter stepped out onto the water and stood upright as if he were on solid ground!  Oliver took the Urim and Thummim and began translating from an ancient record written in an unknown tongue!  Likewise, neither Oliver nor Peter continued as they commenced. 

 

We should not be critical of them, but we should acknowledge their partial failure and seek to learn from their experiences.  What caused their faith to falter after they had already begun successfully?  What lessons did the Lord teach Oliver in consequence of his failure?  (It is very fortunate that far more words of our Lord are recorded on this occasion in DC 9 than were recorded in Matt. 14!).  Also, consider do any other accounts exist wherein the tested did not falter?  What was different and what can I learn from comparing and contrasting the two?

 

As you consider that last question, I recommend reading the following old Ensign article from Elder Bruce Pinegar:

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1974/11/we-need-to-continue-in-righteousness?lang=eng

 

The following extract is especially relevant to our discussion:

 

“...one of my recently returned missionaries confided in me a dilemma at returning home. This fine young man had served well his entire mission. He had demonstrated faith and courage under difficult circumstances. Now he faces the challenge of maintaining his missionary zeal and spirit in the surroundings of home where more subtle opposition may exist...

The counsel I would give to my missionary, and to others who may be faced with the decision to continue or not to continue a righteous course, is to recall the experience of Oliver Cowdery. Oliver had begun his labors in the kingdom with a faithful and humble service. The Lord rewarded him by giving him the gift of translation. He told Oliver of marvelous contributions he could make toward enlightening the people if he would continue faithfully in his efforts. Later when Oliver attempted to translate, he failed. The Lord told Oliver it was "because that you did not continue as you commenced." (D&C 9:5.) Oliver had not continued in his righteous efforts, and the gift was taken from him.

Simply stated, the Lord's counsel to one who has "commenced" properly and faithfully is, "Continue as you have commenced." We could follow the example of Nephi, a son of Helaman, who after laboring diligently to teach and live righteously, had decided to give up and return home because the people refused to accept his counsel and to repent. As he approached his home, the voice of the Lord came to him. The Lord reminded Nephi of the blessings that would result from the unwearyingness with which he had labored and taught the people and with which he had kept the commandments of God. With renewed vigor and determination, Nephi turned from his home and returned to his labors to continue as he had commenced. (See Hel. 10:2-12.)

...To continue means more than to endure or to tolerate something. It means to maintain a steady course of action with unshaken faith in Christ. It means to be a true follower of Christ.”

 

I hope what I have shared here adds light to this subject.  I love Peter, that great leader brimming over with valor and zeal!  The one whom Jesus entrusted the keys of his kingdom upon completing his mortal mission!  One of the most valiant of the sons of God who have lived in any dispensation, one who will sit in judgment of the House of Israel in the resurrection and judgment of the just, and one who will be exalted with our Eternal Father and his Son in everlasting burnings, with kingdoms and glory without end.

 

To Zion!  To Zion!  Hurrah!  Hurrah for Israel!

[The Folk Prophet]

The right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not and if a person, I don't care who they are, where they come from, what membership they have, if they bow down before Christ and worship him with all their might, mind, and strength, and their whole soul, if they do this, the Father has promised, they shall in nowise be cast out.

 

That is pure doctrine and anyone who believes in Christ and denies Him not is a saint and will in nowise be cast out.

 

-Finrock

 

John 3:5

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

[Vort]

Sorry, Finrock. I have no idea what it is you're trying to say regarding what I wrote and the law of Moses. You are somehow comparing them, but I do not at all see what you're driving at.

[The Folk Prophet]

Apparently he's trying to convince everyone that ordinances are of little import in the scheme of salvation.

[The Folk Prophet]

Further, in the Book of Mormon, they did not labor diligently to teach about the specifics of the law or how important the ordinances were. Of all the things that were written, what is the primary focus of the Book of Mormon? Is it the law and ordinances? The technicalities and straining at gnats? No!

 

What is the primary concern of a true saint? What is it that they will talk about, preach about, and teach about?

 

2 Nephi 25

 

 

 

-Finrock

 

Hmm. Let's take a look and see what modern day scriptures have to say about ordinances and obedience to the law...now, this may take a bit or searching because it's pretty obscure but....wait....what?...you mean to tell me......

 

We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

 

Wow...imagine that! Right there in the Articles of Faith. But we don't really believe the things we say we believe...do we?

[Vort]

There is no room in the Celestial Kingdom for spiritual under-achievers.

 

I fear that this might be true. But I hope it is not.

[The Folk Prophet]

I fear that this might be true. But I hope it is not.

Not sure what there is to fear about it. Clearly it is the case (I refer you to the quote of mine in your signature) but puf's application doesn't strike me as in tune with what's been asked of us by God -- Which is to repent throughout or lives. We all fall short and all spiritually under achieve. That is why the Savior provided the atonement, which truly gives us no cause to fear. The true fruits of faith are repentance and obedience, not parting seas and moving mountains.

[Vort]

Not sure what there is to fear about it. Clearly it is the case (I refer you to the quote of mine in your signature) but puf's application doesn't strike me as in tune with what's been asked of us by God -- Which is to repent throughout or lives. We all fall short and all spiritually under achieve. That is why the Savior provided the atonement, which truly gives us no cause to fear. The true fruits of faith are repentance and obedience, not parting seas and moving mountains.

 

That is my hope.

[NightSG]

Peter had enough faith to walk on water, but might not had enough faith to walk across the plains to Utah.  We just don't know, but the Savior does.  That is why Jesus gives such personal and powerful counsel. 

 

Galilee to Utah is a heck of a hike.  Better bring a boat to sleep in at least.

[askandanswer]

By way of information

 

Talmage and McConkie on Peter walking on the water:

 

Talmage

"Over the vessel's side into the troubled waves he sprang, and while his eye was fixed on his Lord, the wind might toss his hair, and the spray might drench his robes, but all was well: but when, with wavering faith, he glanced from Him to the furious waves, and to the gulfy blackness underneath, then he began to sink, and in an accent of despair—how unlike his former confidence!—he faintly cried, 'Lord, save me!' Nor did Jesus fail. Instantly, with a smile of pity, He stretched out His hand, and grasped the hand of His drowning disciple, with the gentle rebuke, 'O thou of little faith, why didst thou doubt?' And so, his love satisfied, but His over-confidence rebuked, they climb—the Lord and His abashed Apostle—into the boat; and the wind lulled, and amid the ripple of the waves upon a moonlit shore, they were at the haven where they would be; and all—the crew as well as His disciples—were filled with deeper and deeper amazement, and some of them, addressing Him by a title which Nathanael alone [as far as the written record shows] had applied to Him before, exclaimed, 'Truly Thou art the Son of God.'" (Farrar, p. 313.)

Continuing, Farrar gives this aptly expressed application of the miracle here recounted: "So then if, like Peter, we fix our eyes on Jesus, we too may walk triumphantly over the swelling waves of disbelief, and unterrified amid the rising winds of doubt; but if we turn away our eyes from Him in whom we have believed—if, as it is so easy to do, and as we are so much tempted to do, we look rather at the power and fury of those terrible and destructive elements than at Him who can help and save—then we too shall inevitably sink. Oh, if we feel, often and often, that the water-floods threaten to drown us, and the deep to swallow up the tossed vessel of our Church and Faith, may it again and again be granted us to hear amid the storm and the darkness, the voices prophesying war, those two sweetest of the Savior's utterances. 'Fear not. Only believe.' 'It is I. Be not afraid.'"

 

McConkie

 

Relieved by these assuring words, Peter, impetuous and impulsive as usual, cried out: "Lord, if 25 it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water." Jesus assenting, Peter descended from the ship and walked toward his Master; but as the wind smote him and the waves rose about him, his confidence wavered and he began to sink. Strong swimmer though he was, 26 he gave way to fright, and cried, "Lord, save me." Jesus caught him by the hand, saying: "O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?"

 

From Peter's remarkable experience, we learn that the power by which Christ was able to walk the waves could be made operative in others, provided only their faith was enduring. It was on Peter's own request that he was permitted to attempt the feat. Had Jesus forbidden him, the man's faith might have suffered a check; his attempt, though attended by partial failure, was a demonstration of the efficacy of faith in the Lord, such as no verbal teaching could ever have conveyed. Jesus and Peter entered the vessel; immediately the wind ceased, and the boat soon reached the shore. The amazement of the apostles, at this latest manifestation of the Lord's control over the forces of nature, would have been more akin to worship and less like terrified consternation had they remembered the earlier wonders they had witnessed; but they had forgotten even the miracle of the loaves, and their hearts had hardened. 27 Marveling at the power of One to whom the wind-lashed sea was a sustaining floor, the apostles bowed before the Lord in reverent worship, saying: "Of a truth thou art the Son of God." 28

 

Aside from the marvelous circumstances of its literal occurrence, the miracle is rich in symbolism and suggestion. By what law or principle the effect of gravitation was superseded, so that a human body could be supported upon the watery surface, man is unable to affirm. The phenomenon is a concrete demonstration of the great truth that faith is a principle of power, whereby natural forces may be conditioned and controlled. 29 Into every adult human life come experiences like unto the battling of the storm-tossed voyagers with contrary winds and threatening seas; ofttimes the night of struggle and danger is far advanced before succor appears; and then, too frequently the saving aid is mistaken for a greater terror. As came unto Peter and his terrified companions in the midst of the turbulent waters, so comes to all who toil in faith, the voice of the Deliverer—"It is I; be not afraid."

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

I fear that this might be true. But I hope it is not.

Not sure what there is to fear about it. Clearly it is the case (I refer you to the quote of mine in your signature) but puf's application doesn't strike me as in tune with what's been asked of us by God -- Which is to repent throughout or lives. We all fall short and all spiritually under achieve. That is why the Savior provided the atonement, which truly gives us no cause to fear. The true fruits of faith are repentance and obedience, not parting seas and moving mountains.

That is my hope.

 

D&C 76:79 "These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God."

Granted, it's just my opinion, but I am of the opinion that we very frequently underestimate what it means to be "valiant in the Testimony of Jesus". I do not exclude myself from this assertion.

 

We see faith as a means to accomplishing the ends of this life:

"The Lord will sustain me through a hard day of work."

"Jesus will help me have patience with my kids."

"The Spirit will help me to know whether I should move to a new city or not."

These are all true and are excellent Sunday School examples of the application of faith. But if that is all that we expect our faith to accomplish, we are seriously and woefully misled. 

 

Of course, the greatest consequent of faith is salvation in the Celestial Kingdom of our God. But what a chasm between getting through a hard day at work and standing before the throne of God! A chasm that can only be crossed - dare I say it? - by having enough faith in Christ to walk on water.

 

(The real secret is when you discover that it's no chasm at all - the faith in Christ is the same, only how we understand and use our faith is different. Imagine how this world could change if every member of the LDS church finally understood that they did not have to have a job at all - that with a word they can turn stones into bread and trees into clothes! If all 15 million of us quit our jobs today and went out as the Savior instructed - Mathew 6:30-33 - and taught as Philip and as Nephi! But most will read that and think how absurd or irrational the idea is. Oh, we of little faith.)

Edited July 25, 2015 by puf_the_majic_dragon

[Traveler]

Some observations:  In religious culture whenever there are discussions about faith, repentance, ordinances, commandments and so on – in general it seems to me that most argue from the viewpoint and assumption that whatever the discussion is about that those arguing seem to put forth that they have enough and sufficient whatever to qualify themselves without having to change for whatever heaven they think G-d offers to mankind and it also appears that they think those that disagree with them somehow do not quite possess enough to be so favored of G-d and better soon change their thinking.  And if someone should call them out or suggest they broaden their thinking; that they seem to get rather “judgmental” and accusative.

 

For the record – I have seriously tested my own faith.  I discovered long ago that I do not possess enough faith to walk on water – or any number of other things.  Some may have already in their hearts accused me of “tempting” G-d.  But for me I can only judge myself because I am the only person I know much about.  I know I do not have enough faith to qualify for the Celestial kingdom.  I know I do not have enough knowledge to qualify as well.  I also know I have not been so loyal to my covenants that I qualify.  I have long decided that my only option at that Day of Judgment is to humble myself and plead with all my heart for forgiveness and mercy – with every hope that my faith, knowledge, loyalty and whatever will be set aside and that G-d will just have mercy on me that I may stay with him in whatever capacity, even as the prodigal son.

 

Often I see others argue as though their faith, knowledge or loyalty has already qualified them.  So I often ask questions to see what they have discovered for themselves that I have missed.  Often I discover that they do not have (especially knowledge) qualify any more than I do.  When I ask questions rather than consider what I have asked they become defensive and quote scripture and prophets thinking such will convince me they have the knowledge to believe they already qualify without any more considerations.    I try very hard to understand why they think such things but it would seem there is no way I can reconcile such thinking.

 

I believe I have a Celestial chance at least I hope I do – and I believe I can serve in some capacity – But I have also learned I am not the presidential type.  I am not a very good in charge guy.  But for those of you that are – I make an excellent councilor and servant.  I have some skills you may find useful.  Keep me in mind and put in a good word for me – I will be forever grateful.

[The Folk Prophet]

Imagine how this world could change if every member of the LDS church finally understood that they did not have to have a job at all - that with a word they can turn stones into bread and trees into clothes! If all 15 million of us quit our jobs today and went out as the Savior instructed - Mathew 6:30-33 - and taught as Philip and as Nephi! But most will read that and think how absurd or irrational the idea is. Oh, we of little faith.

 

Yeah...that sounds just like what the prophets and apostles have been advising us. 

 

You seem to be under the delusion that faith is magic. We could all live like wizards and witches if only we had enough faith! Harry Potter could be a reality!!

 

But oh we of little faith. 

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Some observations:  In religious culture whenever there are discussions about faith, repentance, ordinances, commandments and so on – in general it seems to me that most argue from the viewpoint and assumption that whatever the discussion is about that those arguing seem to put forth that they have enough and sufficient whatever to qualify themselves without having to change for whatever heaven they think G-d offers to mankind and it also appears that they think those that disagree with them somehow do not quite possess enough to be so favored of G-d and better soon change their thinking.  And if someone should call them out or suggest they broaden their thinking; that they seem to get rather “judgmental” and accusative.

 

For the record – I have seriously tested my own faith.  I discovered long ago that I do not possess enough faith to walk on water – or any number of other things.  Some may have already in their hearts accused me of “tempting” G-d.  But for me I can only judge myself because I am the only person I know much about.  I know I do not have enough faith to qualify for the Celestial kingdom.  I know I do not have enough knowledge to qualify as well.  I also know I have not been so loyal to my covenants that I qualify.  I have long decided that my only option at that Day of Judgment is to humble myself and plead with all my heart for forgiveness and mercy – with every hope that my faith, knowledge, loyalty and whatever will be set aside and that G-d will just have mercy on me that I may stay with him in whatever capacity, even as the prodigal son.

 

Often I see others argue as though their faith, knowledge or loyalty has already qualified them.  So I often ask questions to see what they have discovered for themselves that I have missed.  Often I discover that they do not have (especially knowledge) qualify any more than I do.  When I ask questions rather than consider what I have asked they become defensive and quote scripture and prophets thinking such will convince me they have the knowledge to believe they already qualify without any more considerations.    I try very hard to understand why they think such things but it would seem there is no way I can reconcile such thinking.

 

I believe I have a Celestial chance at least I hope I do – and I believe I can serve in some capacity – But I have also learned I am not the presidential type.  I am not a very good in charge guy.  But for those of you that are – I make an excellent councilor and servant.  I have some skills you may find useful.  Keep me in mind and put in a good word for me – I will be forever grateful.

I like this. You make a lot of really good points. Sure, it sounds humble, but I don't think it's a false humility.

As for those people who seem to argue that they have sufficient and others do not - if you're referring to me, I desperately want to emphasize what I've already said: I am no exception. Yes, I believe if we all had sufficient faith that we could all quit our jobs and live on faith and be powerful miracle-wielding missionaries - that each of us has the potential to be as great an apostle as Peter. But I typed those words from work, and you will still go to work on Monday and so will I. Believing that such faith, and its consequence, is possible is not the same as having such faith. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

Yeah...that sounds just like what the prophets and apostles have been advising us. 

 

You seem to be under the delusion that faith is magic. We could all live like wizards and witches if only we had enough faith! Harry Potter could be a reality!!

 

But oh we of little faith. 

Actually, yes. That is exactly how I understand what the prophets and apostles have been advising us from the beginning of time. Faith is nothing like magic - magic has limits. 

But why do you call it a delusion? Do you believe that Peter walked on water? Do you believe that Jacob commanded the trees? Do you believe that Enoch commanded the rivers to be moved out of their place? Do you believe that Moses parted the Red Sea? MY question to you is - if you do believe that these men did these things, WHY don't you believe that you can do them?

1 Nephi 4:2-3. Wherefore can ye doubt?

Like I've said. I'm no exception. I haven't moved any mountains or rivers lately. I suppose what makes me different is that I know I haven't moved any mountains and I read these scriptures and I ask myself "Why?". Why haven't I moved any mountains? Why haven't I walked on water? I keep searching for answers and the only answer that keeps coming back to me is that I am holding myself back. I'm no prophet, I have no authority for you to respect, so feel free to disagree with me. But I ask that you consider the possibility that maybe I am not delusional.

[The Folk Prophet]

Actually, yes. That is exactly how I understand what the prophets and apostles have been advising us from the beginning of time. Faith is nothing like magic - magic has limits. 

But why do you call it a delusion? Do you believe that Peter walked on water? Do you believe that Jacob commanded the trees? Do you believe that Enoch commanded the rivers to be moved out of their place? Do you believe that Moses parted the Red Sea? MY question to you is - if you do believe that these men did these things, WHY don't you believe that you can do them?

1 Nephi 4:2-3. Wherefore can ye doubt?

Like I've said. I'm no exception. I haven't moved any mountains or rivers lately. I suppose what makes me different is that I know I haven't moved any mountains and I read these scriptures and I ask myself "Why?". Why haven't I moved any mountains? Why haven't I walked on water? I keep searching for answers and the only answer that keeps coming back to me is that I am holding myself back. I'm no prophet, I have no authority for you to respect, so feel free to disagree with me. But I ask that you consider the possibility that maybe I am not delusional.

 

Because, Puf, there is no doing of our own will when it comes to these things, ever. The will of God will be done. The works of God will be done. As God wills, so it will be. And that is the exercising of faith -- not turning stones into bread so we don't have to work anymore, particularly when it is, plainly, and scripturally, and taught by the prophets through the ages, the will of God that we earn our keep by the sweat of our brow.

 

Miracles by faith cannot rightly be described as being the accomplishment of anything we want by some magical power of belief. That has no relationship to the truth of faith and miracles whatsoever. Faith is commitment to doing the will of the Father, and miracles come by His hand, not our, according to His will, not ours.

 

We cannot "faith" something into being against God's will.

 

This concept is clearly taught in Helaman 10 where Nephi is given "power".

 

4 Blessed art thou, Nephi, for those things which thou hast done; for I have beheld how thou hast with unwearyingness declared the word, which I have given unto thee, unto this people. And thou hast not feared them, and hast not sought thine own life, but hast sought my will, and to keep my commandments.

 

5 And now, because thou hast done this with such unwearyingness, behold, I will bless thee forever; and I will make thee mighty in word and in deed, in faith and in works; yea, even that all things shall be done unto thee according to thy word, for thou shalt not ask that which is contrary to my will.

 

6 Behold, thou art Nephi, and I am God. Behold, I declare it unto thee in the presence of mine angels, that ye shall have power over this people, and shall smite the earth with famine, and with pestilence, and destruction, according to the wickedness of this people.

 

7 Behold, I give unto you power, that whatsoever ye shall seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; and thus shall ye have power among this people.

 

8 And thus, if ye shall say unto this temple it shall be rent in twain, it shall be done.

 

9 And if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou cast down and become smooth, it shall be done.

 

10 And behold, if ye shall say that God shall smite this people, it shall come to pass.

 

(emphasis mine)

 

The takeaway points: Nephi is given power because of obedience and because the Lord knows that Nephi will do nothing against His will.

 

So I repeat the question again: Why haven't you moved mountains or walked on water? Maybe...just perhaps...it isn't the Lord's will that you do so.

 

You see, to me, once more, your logic is failing. You're taking the evidence you see as proof of lack of faith instead of proof of God's will. And that does not follow. There is no reason to presume that righteous men (note, once more, that Nephi's power is granted him because of obedience) who aren't moving mountains don't have enough faith. There is, rather, according to the scriptural evidence given, a great deal of reason to presume that righteous men who aren't moving mountains aren't doing so because God does not will it to be.

 

And going out and quitting our jobs on "faith" would be directly going against God's will who has proclaimed through His prophets that we are to gain an education, earn our ways, provide for our families, etc., and going against God's will is pretty much the surest way to fail in regards to faith. And that is wherein I find delusion. I believe that anyone, through faith and obedience, can accomplish the will of the Lord, including the moving of mountains. But I know it's delusional to think that we can move a mountain against God's will simply by believing hard enough.

Edited July 26, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[james12]

Crtainly God's will must be present. However, sometimes it feels to me as if we use this belief to justify our lack of faith. For instance we might begin to doubt and because of our doubts we see no miracle. But we dont want to face that reality so we assume it wasn't the Lord's will.

In the opposite vein, take Peter's example. There is no earth shattering reason why he walked on water. He simply asked the Lord and the Jesus said, "come". Let's be careful about placing limits on what the Lord is willing to grant us.

[The Folk Prophet]

Let's be careful about placing limits on what the Lord is willing to grant us.

Well this misses my point entirely.