New Thread for Runewell

[Vort]

39 minutes ago, runewell said:

Being born again and being baptized are not equivalent in the Christian church.

Oh, yes, they certainly are, at least in some contexts.

[anatess2]

Just now, runewell said:

Is repentance necessarily involved?

Repentance is necessary to enter into the Covenant.  Faith in Christ is also necessary.  There are many promises you make in that covenant.

[runewell]

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Repentance is necessary to enter into the Covenant.  Faith in Christ is also necessary.  There are many promises you make in that covenant.

I rummaged around (just now) and found this.  It doesn't say anything about repenting for your sins.  It's possible that it's a simplified version for a child to understand, but I would think a key component like that would not be omitted.

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/images/gospel-library/manual/34594/34594_000_014_02-covenants.pdf

[wenglund]

Doesn't the disagreement all come down to what-all one believes is entailed in "salvation."--not just in terms of the process, but also in terms of what one thinks one is being saved from?

If one believes that salvation includes a path rather than just a gate, then one will believe personal actions factor into the salvific equation (i.e. walking on the path, following Christ, etc.)

And, if one includes spiritual ignorance among the things from which we may be saved, then one again will believe personal actions factor into the salvific equation (study, prayer, repentance, etc.)

However, if one believes that salvation is just a gate that one doesn't have to step through, but one somehow enters solely because of Christ, then "works" or personal actions do not factor into the salvific equation.

And, if one only includes, in very rudimentary senses, the remission of sins and raising from the dead, as things to be saved from., then again "works" do not factor into the salvific equation. (By "rudimentary" I mean simply the remission of sins, and not "works" like faith unto repentence, and where raising from the dead is binary--heaven or hell--rather than varied degrees of resurrected glory.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Edited April 20, 2017 by wenglund

[Vort]

1 minute ago, runewell said:

I rummaged around (just now) and found this.  It doesn't say anything about repenting for your sins.  It's possible that it's a simplified version for a child to understand, but I would think a key component like that would not be omitted.

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/images/gospel-library/manual/34594/34594_000_014_02-covenants.pdf

Help for runewell, who is missing the fact that repentance is implicit in the covenant:

My Baptismal Covenants

(Renewed Each Time I Partake of the Sacrament)

At Baptism I Covenant with the Lord to:

1. Come into the fold of God (become a member of the Church of Jesus Christ). (i.e. repent)
2. Be called his son or daughter (take upon me the name of Christ).
3. Bear others’ burdens, that they may be light; mourn with those that mourn; and comfort those in need of comfort (help others).
4. Stand as a witness of God at all times and in all things and in all places (testify of Christ and set a good example at all times).
5. Serve God and keep his commandments. (i.e. repent)

[runewell]

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

Oh, yes, they certainly are, at least in some contexts.

Which or course implies that they are not equivalent in other contexts.  (You are right in that some believe this)

[runewell]

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

Help for runewell, who is missing the fact that repentance is implicit in the covenant:

My Baptismal Covenants

(Renewed Each Time I Partake of the Sacrament)

At Baptism I Covenant with the Lord to:

1. Come into the fold of God (become a member of the Church of Jesus Christ). (i.e. repent)
2. Be called his son or daughter (take upon me the name of Christ).
3. Bear others’ burdens, that they may be light; mourn with those that mourn; and comfort those in need of comfort (help others).
4. Stand as a witness of God at all times and in all things and in all places (testify of Christ and set a good example at all times).
5. Serve God and keep his commandments. (i.e. repent)

Again, if they had meant repent, they would have said repent.  You can't just attempt to attach the word.

Regarding points 1 & 5:

1) The focus is on becoming a member of the Church.  I'll need to unpack what exactly that entails - it is possible that repentance could occur here but it is worrisome to me that the focus is on the church rather than the relationship with God.  

5) Keeping God's commandments is not repentance.  

Repentance isn't something that should be implicit.  It should be explicit.  

Edited April 20, 2017 by runewell

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, runewell said:

Which or course implies that they are not equivalent in other contexts.  (You are right in that some believe this)

Yes, they're not equivalent, for example, in the Catholic Church.  Baptism is not all you need to be Born Again in Roman Catholicism.  Now, in Born Again Churches, they're not equivalent either.  Being Born Again is necessary, being Baptized (by water), not necessary.  In LDS, Born Again IS Baptism.

Edited April 20, 2017 by anatess2

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, runewell said:

Which or course implies that they are not equivalent in other contexts.  (You are right in that some believe this)

The two terms are not perfect synonyms, but yes, they can in fact refer to the same thing. The Christian Church (aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) most clearly teaches this.

2 minutes ago, runewell said:

Again, if they had meant repent, they would have said repent.  You can't just attempt to attach the word.

For someone here to ask questions about LDS beliefs, you certainly seem convinced of your own flawed knowledge. If you seek to learn, you would do better to keep quiet and learn, asking questions as needed, rather than lecture us on what you think our beliefs are.

3 minutes ago, runewell said:

Regarding points 1 & 5:

1) The focus is on becoming a member of the Church.  I'll need to unpack what exactly that entails - it is possible that repentance could occur here but it is worrisome to me that the focus is on the church rather than the relationship with God.  

5) Keeping God's commandments is not repentance.  

1. What is worrisome to you is irrelevant. "Repent" means "turn to God". This is what it is when you join God's kingdom, aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

5. Keeping God's commandments always involves turning to God. See the meaning of "repent" above.

[runewell]

20 minutes ago, Vort said:

The Christian Church (aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) 

Those two are not equivalent either.  Let's go to Wikipedia for a more broad consensus:

Quote

 

The Christian Church is a term generally used to refer to the whole group of people belonging to the Christian religious tradition throughout history. In this understanding, the "Christian Church" does not refer to a particular Christian denomination but to the body of all believers. Some Christians believe that the term "Christian Church" or "Church" applies only to a specific historic Christian body or institution (e.g., the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Non-Chalcedonian Churches of Oriental Orthodoxy, or the Assyrian Church of the East). The Four Marks of the Church first expressed in the Nicene Creed are unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity.^[1]

Thus, the majority of Christians globally (particularly of the apostolic churches listed above, as well as some Anglo-Catholics) consider the Christian Church as both a visible and invisible communion, while Protestants generally understand the Church to be an invisible reality not identifiable with any earthly institution, denomination, or network of affiliated churches.^{[citation needed]} Others equate the Church with particular groups that share certain essential elements of doctrine and practice, though divided on other points of doctrine and government (such as the branch theory as taught by some Anglicans).

 

There is a ton of information there.  Scanning the page quickly with my eyes, I need not see the LDS faith even mentioned.  Granted, tons of other denominations aren't listed, as that's not the point.  If LDS is different enough to not make this article, it probably should be referred to as LDS.  It did say that some denominations think of themselves as the true church and that's probably where you fit in, but if try to generalize you'll probably just generate confusion here.

 

 

 

Edited April 20, 2017 by runewell

[runewell]

24 minutes ago, Vort said:

For someone here to ask questions about LDS beliefs, you certainly seem convinced of your own flawed knowledge. If you seek to learn, you would do better to keep quiet and learn, asking questions as needed, rather than lecture us on what you think our beliefs are.

1. What is worrisome to you is irrelevant. "Repent" means "turn to God". This is what it is when you join God's kingdom, aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

5. Keeping God's commandments always involves turning to God. See the meaning of "repent" above.

I do not understand, so I ask questions.  Why shouldn't I be convinced of what I believe?  And why do you get so defensive?  While we are on the subject of flawed knowledge, should be examine some of the serious flaws in LDS scripture?

What is worrisome to me is completely relevant.  I am looking for the component of repentance in LDS practice, and I'm not finding much.  I am looking for it, giving you the benefit of the doubt.  In general joining a church is NOT equivalent to repentance.  Keeping God's commandments (do not commit adultery, steal, lie) is obedience which is not repentance.  Maybe you think repentance is something God commanded, fine.  Maybe repenting is a subset of keeping God's commandments.  But as I said before, if the word repent is not there, it's missing for a reason.

Having said that, I hope that repentance is important to the LDS faith.  I know the word exists within scriptures but what role does it play.  

[zil]

59 minutes ago, runewell said:

Again, if they had meant repent, they would have said repent.

How many scriptures commanding repentance do you need before you will believe that "repent" is actually one of God's commandments?  (Cuz there's no shortage of them.)

21 minutes ago, runewell said:

 I am looking for the component of repentance in LDS practice, and I'm not finding much.

Here ya go: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/repentance.html?lang=eng&letter=R

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/repent.html?lang=eng&letter=R

22 minutes ago, runewell said:

But as I said before, if the word repent is not there, it's missing for a reason.

Yeah, because it's understood and repeated over and over and over enough (see above) that it doesn't need to be in the one or few places you're looking.

[anatess2]

41 minutes ago, runewell said:

Those two are not equivalent either.  Let's go to Wikipedia for a more broad consensus:

There is a ton of information there.  Scanning the page quickly with my eyes, I need not see the LDS faith even mentioned.  Granted, tons of other denominations aren't listed, as that's not the point.  If LDS is different enough to not make this article, it probably should be referred to as LDS.  It did say that some denominations think of themselves as the true church and that's probably where you fit in, but if try to generalize you'll probably just generate confusion here.

 

 

 

The entry in Wikipedia, like any other secular text, is of course a  worldly use of the word "church".

The word Church in spiritual usage does not just mean any church that professes they're one.  The word Church in spiritual usage is what God calls his Church.  Now, of course, to an LDS, this is not the Catholic Church or the Baptist Church or the Presbyterian Church... it's the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Church.

The LDS believe they are the true Church because of the authority granted by God to the prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. to organize the Church.

One of the Articles of Faith in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that the first principles and ordinances of the gospel are:  Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, Repentance, Baptism by Immersion for the Remission of Sins, and Laying of the Hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost.  These are the principles and ordinances that qualifies you for salvation.  Of course, it is not possible to Repent if one does not have Faith in Christ.  It is also impossible to enter into the covenant of baptism without first having gone through Repentance.  And lastly, the Gift of the Holy Ghost as one's constant companion is afforded those who are keeping their baptismal covenants.

 

Edited April 20, 2017 by anatess2

[runewell]

Quote

 

1 We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

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

4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

 

 

OK I did actually find the word repentance.

Could anyone please expound on #3.  Again it sounds like Christ did something, just not enough.

As far #8 goes, I only believe the Book of Mormon to be word of God as far as it is translated correctly.  

[anatess2]

18 minutes ago, runewell said:

 

 

OK I did actually find the word repentance.

Could anyone please expound on #3.  Again it sounds like Christ did something, just not enough.

As far #8 goes, I only believe the Book of Mormon to be word of God as far as it is translated correctly.  

#8 is easier so I'll start with that.  The Book of Mormon, unlike the Bible, has not gone through a period of apostasy.  So all the translations of the Book of Mormon (the Book of Mormon has been translated into 110 languages last I checked) is done under the authority of the LDS Church, so there's no Book of Mormon translation done by somebody outside of this authority.

Okay, #3:

There's nothing confusing about that.  It's like saying - Christ's Atonement will only work if you accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior... which you believe, right?  So, in the LDS Church that acceptance is signified by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel (see #4).

The thing is, Christ does not force salvation on anybody.  You have to CHOOSE to be saved.  So, Christ atoned for all our sins, yes.  But, you have to do something - choose to accept Christ's atonement - for the atonement to have an effect on your life.

Edited April 20, 2017 by anatess2

[runewell]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

#8 is easier so I'll start with that.  The Book of Mormon, unlike the Bible, has not gone through a period of apostasy.  So all the translations of the Book of Mormon (the Book of Mormon has been translated into 110 languages last I checked) is done under the authority of the LDS Church, so there's no Book of Mormon translation done by somebody outside of this authority.

Yes, but that doesn't mean the translations were done correctly.  In fact, one of the books is known to be translated incorrectly.

[anatess2]

Just now, runewell said:

Yes, but that doesn't mean the translations were done correctly.  In fact, one of the books is known to be translated incorrectly.

Which one?

[runewell]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

Which one?

Sorry technically it's from the Pearl of Great Price, not the Book of Mormon.  My bad.

[Anddenex]

3 hours ago, runewell said:

I don't see how they can say the Bible rendering is incorrect.  

The reasoning is the thief was not ready for paradise.  How can anyone aside from Jesus even make this judgment?  This commentary seems to simply twist the scripture to fit into some other writings some 1800 years later. 

Original Word: παράδεισος

among the Persians a grand enclosure or preserve, hunting-ground, park, shady and well-watered, in which wild animals were kept for the hunt

universally, a garden, pleasure-ground; grove, park

the abode of the souls of the pious until the resurrection

an upper region in the heavens

1. The Bible isn't perfect in its translation from the original source. So yes, Bible rendering is able to be incorrect, as is human interpretation without the aid of God's spirit and called/chosen leaders who have been given authority to clarify or to correct. So, it is quite easy to see how the Bible rendering could be incorrect.

2. No judgement is being made, so this point, "How can anyone aside from Jesus even make this judgment," becomes moot. The explanation is specifying that this may have been recorded, written, or translated incorrectly and what Christ actually said is not written. The given quote is a possible interpretation. You can read multiple corrected translations of the Bible given by Joseph Smith within Joseph Smith's Translations.

3. Nothing twisted, an attempt to understand what Christ actually said, and what he was actually meaning. And you know the "original word" written how?

[person0]

30 minutes ago, runewell said:

Could anyone please expound on #3.  Again it sounds like Christ did something, just not enough.

As far #8 goes, I only believe the Book of Mormon to be word of God as far as it is translated correctly.  

In regard to number 3, without expounding at super great length, let us consider the implications of Romans 14:11:

Quote

For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

This sentiment is repeated in the Old Testament here, the Book of Mormon here, and the Doctrine and Covenants here.

The immediate implication of the word saved in the third article of faith is that of exaltation, as opposed to salvation in the normal concept of heaven as has been previously discussed.  However, even if we take in the more general sense, members of the Church believe in a liberal salvation of mankind.  Meaning, that because we believe there are three different kingdoms of glory.  Eventually, even the most wicked of men will be rewarded with the lowest level of glory, but not until after they bow and confess and experience hell during Christ's reign upon the earth.

The fourth article of faith answers the third in terms of what the principles and ordinances are.  Faith, repentance, baptism, etc.  Every single person will receive and accept these before judgement day occurs, whether they receive them in this life or the next (baptism for the dead), at the first opportunity or later on will be a factor in God's judgement and where they ultimately end up.  The only individuals who will not be 'saved' to any sort of glory are the sons of perdition who deny the Holy Ghost.

6 minutes ago, runewell said:

Sorry technically it's from the Pearl of Great Price, not the Book of Mormon.  My bad.

I knew that's where you were going, however, the translated manuscripts are actually highly incomplete as to what the Church originally had in its possession at the time of translation.  There is insufficient evidence based on that to determine whether the translation is exact or not.  There is an article regarding this here.

We also agree that we only believe the Book of Mormon to be true as far as it is translated correctly, but we believe it to be translated correctly as @anatess2 clearly explained.

Edited April 20, 2017 by person0

[runewell]

2 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

2. No judgement is being made

The judgment i was referring to was:

since the thief was not ready for paradise 

[Anddenex]

Just now, runewell said:

The judgment i was referring to was:

since the thief was not ready for paradise 

I understood what you referring to, which is why I provided the following, "The given quote is a possible interpretation." This is a leaders attempt to understand what Christ said (as we have written) to doctrine that has been revealed once again. The individual makes a solid point as paradise, according to what we know now, are for people who accepted Christ, not just lip service. As God knows the hearts of all men, God can make the judgement that he is in paradise. The quote is a possible explanation that this may not have been what Christ actually said and is a Biblical translation error.

[runewell]

9 minutes ago, person0 said:

There is insufficient evidence based on that to determine whether the translation is exact or not.  There is an article regarding this here.

Have you actually read the criticism?  it's right there on Wikipedia.

Jospeh Smith translates

Quote

"O noble god from the beginning of time, great god, lord of heaven, earth, underworld, waters [and mountains], cause the ba-spirit of the Osiris Sheshonq to live. " 

into

Quote

"Contains writings that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God.  Ought not to be revealed at the present time. Also. If the world can find out these numbers, so let it be. Amen."

If he was capable of that, what else was he capable of?

[person0]

6 minutes ago, runewell said:

Have you actually read the criticism?  it's right there on Wikipedia.

If he was capable of that, what else was he capable of?

 I am aware of, and have read the criticisms.  You need to read the apologetic material in order to form a full opinion.  One small sliver before you read is to understand that there is translation and there is translation.  When Joseph Smith translated the Bible, he did not do so from a manuscript, he received revelation as to the missing portions, yet it is still known as the Joseph Smith Translation.  You say translate in the literal sense, but Joseph could have received revelation of additional information not clearly present, that cannot or ought not be revealed.  This would still qualify as translation in the same sense as the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.

In reality there is no point in quibbling over such an issue, because, while we can converse of doctrinal differences and help you to understand the LDS perspective, there are certain things one would never be able to accept until they read the Book of Mormon, and followed the counsel of Moroni to pray with a sincere heart to know if it is the truth.  Once you know the Book of Mormon is true by the power of the Holy Ghost, as I do, then it does not matter if the Pearl of Great Price is a literal translation or a revealed translation, and many other issues become irrelevant.  If you are not willing to research the apologetics along with the criticisms then there is no sense in discussing the matter.

[runewell]

46 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The Book of Mormon, unlike the Bible, has not gone through a period of apostasy.  So all the translations of the Book of Mormon (the Book of Mormon has been translated into 110 languages last I checked) is done under the authority of the LDS Church, so there's no Book of Mormon translation done by somebody outside of this authority.

The Book of Mormon (or one of the associated volumes) has undergone multiple changes (at least 3,913!) over the years.  From that standpoint you argue that it was not translated correctly.

 

Edited April 20, 2017 by runewell