Ed Decker

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray@May 21 2004, 04:56 PM

Consider this:

One man has access to all the scriptures that were available during his lifetime and eventually comes to accept Jesus as the Christ and Lord of his life.

Another man doesn’t have access to any scriptures and never hears anything about a person named Jesus.

Is God then a respecter of persons?  How so?

Now suppose that one man has access to the Bible, but not the Book of Mormon.  He has heard about all of the prophets mentioned in the Bible, but not about Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or any of the other latter-day prophets that lived after them.

Is God then a respecter of persons?  How so?

Everyone who has ever lived on this Earth will have the same opportunities to know and learn everything about the gospel, and nobody will be left out.  If they don’t come to know certain things here, during this mortal existence, they will come to know those things later.  They will then be judged based on their choices relative to the knowledge they have been given.  Did they accept it, or reject it.  If they didn’t accept it, was it because God arbitrarily decided that certain persons didn’t deserve to learn about certain things, or did certain people decide that they didn't want to accept certain things as being true.

What in your mind makes God a respecter of persons?

There is nothing in your post, per se, that would lead one to believe that you believe that God is a respecter of persons, however, I explained my beliefs in the post above to Starsky.

God's salvation does not require that you believe in the Book of Mormon. It requires you to believe in God and Christ, and that Christ is the only way to God. It requires you to be valiant in your testimony, and to accept the true gospel (the restored gospel). (The BoM is an added witness of Christ, and while it will help strengthen your testimony of Christ, or even give you a testimony of Christ, it is not required that you believe in it for salvation.) If one fully accepts Christ and accepts the true gospel and is valiant in his testimony, then, according to Section 76, he will be resurrected in the resurrection of the just and will enter into the Celestial Kingdom.

However, according to Section 76, if you have heard the gospel and reject it in this life, there is no hope of attaining the Celestial Kingdom. If you have not heard it in this life, you will be taught in the prisonhouse and given the opportunity there to accept it. If you do, you will be resurrected in the resurrection of the just and will enter the Terrestrial Kingdom.

If you rejected the gospel in this life, and/or in the prisonhouse, you will go to Telestial Glory. If you have experienced the witness of the Holy Spirit and rejected it, you will then go to Outer Darkness.

[Guest Starsky]

Jenda stated:These illustrations are an example between the times when laws were changed. In the first example, even though the law was changed due to wickedness, the people still had hope. In the second example, a new law was given to only a select few, and it was hoarded among themselves so others couldn't have the opportunity to avail themselves of it. This is an example of a God who would be a respecter of persons. Setting a new law for a small select group that he wouldn't offer to all.

I don't buy it. If it is a true law, it is for everyone of every age. If it was a true law, it would have been revealed to Adam, and again to Enoch, and again to Moses, and again to Peter, James and John. Every dispensation would have had access to this law. And they didn't. That is what causes me to believe that it is not true.

I don't think you understand that we are the deciding factor...not God...in who receives what and when. Do you agree there are those who just don't want anything to do with Godhood, religion, rules, etc? Do you believe that each dispensation was given what they were to have according to their pre-disposition (a disposition all to well known by the creator?)

Do you believe that you are not given the same body as someone who is crippled from birth...and is this a respector of you in contrast to the crippled child of God? Do you believe all things must be equal for everyone on every plain...or just on the a'doctrine' taught?

Why would that make sense? Nothing is equal on this earth...yet God is no respector of persons. Christ taught in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man...that what you don't get here...you will get in the here after. That the 'equalizing' comes after this life...not during it.

So why would a differing of laws and doctrines be out of order...or make God's works (which are far reaching into the next life) show Him to be a respector of persons...because it isn't equal for all at the same time and way?

[Jason]

"I don't think you understand that we are the deciding factor...not God...in who receives what and when."

That's about the most heretical statement I've seen in a long time.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 22 2004, 08:39 AM

"I don't think you understand that we are the deciding factor...not God...in who receives what and when."

That's about the most heretical statement I've seen in a long time.

and what do you know? Just by your statement you show you really don't comprehend the plan. The agency, the rules of the game.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Starsky@May 21 2004, 11:26 PM

Jenda stated:These illustrations are an example between the times when laws were changed. In the first example, even though the law was changed due to wickedness, the people still had hope. In the second example, a new law was given to only a select few, and it was hoarded among themselves so others couldn't have the opportunity to avail themselves of it. This is an example of a God who would be a respecter of persons. Setting a new law for a small select group that he wouldn't offer to all.

I don't buy it. If it is a true law, it is for everyone of every age. If it was a true law, it would have been revealed to Adam, and again to Enoch, and again to Moses, and again to Peter, James and John. Every dispensation would have had access to this law. And they didn't. That is what causes me to believe that it is not true.

I don't think you understand that we are the deciding factor...not God...in who receives what and when. Do you agree there are those who just don't want anything to do with Godhood, religion, rules, etc? Do you believe that each dispensation was given what they were to have according to their pre-disposition (a disposition all to well known by the creator?)

I believe that the fullness of the gospel was revealed in each dispensation of time, and that everyone had access and the agency to choose to follow it. No, I don't believe that some dispensations were given different laws and requirements. That is exactly what would make God a respecter of persons. If God requires more of you than he did of the grandmother of Luke (the disciple), and judges you with the same judgment, would it be fair?

And I don't believe in the same type of pre-existent life as you, if that is what you are asking/suggesting.

Do you believe that you are not given the same body as someone who is crippled from birth...and is this a respector of you in contrast to the crippled child of God? Do you believe all things must be equal for everyone on every plain...or just on the a'doctrine' taught?

What happens to our physical bodies is not determined by God. It is a result of the genetic code that God set in motion when He created man. We had no choice in the type of body we inherit, we do have a choice in what we do with our life once we have our body.

Why would that make sense? Nothing is equal on this earth...yet God is no respector of persons. Christ taught in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man...that what you don't get here...you will get in the here after. That the 'equalizing' comes after this life...not during it.

So why would a differing of laws and doctrines be out of order...or make God's works (which are far reaching into the next life) show Him to be a respector of persons...because it isn't equal for all at the same time and way?

It has nothing to do with what we get in the hereafter, it has to do with the availability of the laws (requirements) when something is required to get into a "higher" glory.

If celestial marriage is required to get into the highest level of the highest glory (which is something I don't believe in, but for the sake of discussion I will go there), then, for God to not be a respecter of persons, it has to be a revealed concept to everyone who has ever lived. If God only revealed it for a few exclusive individuals, then He is definitely respecting certain persons more than others. And God does not do that.

[Guest Starsky]

Well Jenda, we will just have to agree to disagree...which is fine.. :)

[Jason]

Starsky,

So why is it that whenever I post something that you don't personally like, you delete it? Im starting to feel like you've got a complex of some sort.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Starsky@May 22 2004, 10:09 PM

Well Jenda, we will just have to agree to disagree...which is fine.. :)

I figured we'd have to since you base your position on writings that I do not accept as scripture. :)

[Guest Chell]

Have a great Sabath.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 22 2004, 10:39 PM

Starsky,

So why is it that whenever I post something that you don't personally like, you delete it?  Im starting to feel like you've got a complex of some sort.

You are getting nasty and you are not contributing to anything updating or insightful response...telling someong that every statement they make is hereitical isn't doing anything but harrassing. I don't feel harrassing is something I or anyone should allow....and that small post was the first I deleted of yours...and I was going to e-mail you after I did, but I was called away from my computer last night on an urgent family thing...and forgot to get back to it. Don't get your panyhose in twist because I only deleted one of your many 'intelligent' heretical posts...

So...sorry I didn't allow you to harrass anylonger...and sorry I didn't tell you why your harrassing post was deleted...I did warn you back a post or two on another thread....

[Ray]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 22 2004, 08:39 AM

"I don't think you understand that we are the deciding factor...not God...in who receives what and when."

That's about the most heretical statement I've seen in a long time.

Some people consider heresy to be anything that goes against what they believe to be true, which is basically the attitude that the Pharisees and Saducees had while listening to Jesus. The Pharisees and Saducees didn't have what we call the 'New Testament', so they were basing their opinions and beliefs mainly on what they had learned from studying the Old Testament.

Some people don't realize that God (Jesus) can reveal something to Man at any time He chooses, and that God (Jesus) isn't limited to what HE has already said. I think everyone should try to realize that we should live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, and that God isn't the only person that we need to listen to. God (Jesus) appointed prophets and apostles to teach and declare His word to people in the past, and HE still does that today.

And in a sense, you are right, Jenda. We really don't need the "Book of Mormon", or the "Bible", or anything else that God (Jesus) has revealed to Man through the scriptures, as long as we can all get that information from "somewhere". After all, the scriptures contain second-hand information, declaring the word of God from other people. I realize and acknowledge that most of what we have in scripture is truly the word of God, as much as what was declared was inspired by God, but until each one of us realizes that truth for ourselves, individually, we're all liable to consider heresy to be anything that goes against what we believe to be true.

[Jason]

"You are getting nasty and you are not contributing to anything updating or insightful response...telling someong that every statement they make is hereitical isn't doing anything but harrassing."

Oh, and I suppose that YOUR condescending posts are insightful? (I know things that you couldn't possibly comprehend....blah blah blah....) You sound awful holier than thou' to every argument.

Let's face it, whenever you're backed into a corner, you pull your "I've seen things too holy to talk about" card. A weak approach at best.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 23 2004, 11:46 AM

"You are getting nasty and you are not contributing to anything updating or insightful response...telling someong that every statement they make is hereitical isn't doing anything but harrassing."

Oh, and I suppose that YOUR condescending posts are insightful? (I know things that you couldn't possibly comprehend....blah blah blah....) You sound an awful lot like "Peace" in her 'holier than thou' approach to every argument.

Let's face it, whenever you're backed into a corner, you pull your "I've seen things too holy to talk about" card. A weak approach at best.

You know what....whenever you are backed into a corner you just throw out.. 'heritic'....so just get off it...or I will ask Spencer to put you on mod status.

Warning two....

[Tr2]

Warning two....

It always amazes me at the people who become moderators in this place.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Starsky+May 23 2004, 02:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Starsky @ May 23 2004, 02:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--ExMormon-Jason@May 23 2004, 11:46 AM

"You are getting nasty and you are not contributing to anything updating or insightful response...telling someong that every statement they make is hereitical isn't doing anything but harrassing."

Oh, and I suppose that YOUR condescending posts are insightful?  (I know things that you couldn't possibly comprehend....blah blah blah....)  You sound an awful lot like "Peace" in her 'holier than thou' approach to every argument. 

Let's face it, whenever you're backed into a corner, you pull your "I've seen things too holy to talk about" card.  A weak approach at best.

You know what....whenever you are backed into a corner you just throw out.. 'heritic'....so just get off it...or I will ask Spencer to put you on mod status.

Warning two....

I think this is getting to be a personal issue between you two, and you should both reconsider posting to each other's posts from now on.

[Jason]

This began with the "I know more than you could possibly understand" comment.

I resorted to the "heresy" generalizations.

I'll play nice if she'll engage in dialogue instead of pretending to have a special understanding that the rest of us couldn't possibly comprehend.

Deal?

[srm]

"Jesus commanded his Apostles not to go to the Gentiles...then later they were sent to the Gentiles."

The Gospel didn't change for this.  It was a directive on who was to receive the message first.  It didn't change....

Exactly Jason. The gospel didn't change but how it was carried out did change. First to the jews then to the gentiles. For the sake of our discussion, the change that a priest could bless the sacrament w/ an Elder present (which I'm not conceding is the case) but again, for the sake of the discussion..it seems to be the same. How the gospel is carried out. first it was priests only if no elder was present...then, a priest could even w/ an elder present.

"anciently every male was circumcised...in NT times is was not required."

As Jesus said: He came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill.

Again, it is just how things are done that has changed. In fulfilling the law...Christ did allow a change in the circumcision requirement.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 23 2004, 07:05 PM

This began with the "I know more than you could possibly understand" comment. 

I resorted to the "heresy" generalizations. 

I'll play nice if she'll engage in dialogue instead of pretending to have a special understanding that the rest of us couldn't possibly comprehend. 

Deal?

So who died and made you the rule maker? I will post my feelings and things the way I seem them...not to make you happy.

Or maybe you can post to make me happy.... You can start behaving like a man...and not get your pantyhose all in a twist because I say I know more than you.....DEAL?

[srm]

God's salvation does not require that you believe in the Book of Mormon. It requires you to believe in God and Christ, and that Christ is the only way to God. It requires you to be valiant in your testimony, and to accept the true gospel (the restored gospel).

(The BoM is an added witness of Christ, and while it will help strengthen your testimony of Christ, or even give you a testimony of Christ, it is not required that you believe in it for salvation.) If one fully accepts Christ and accepts the true gospel and is valiant in his testimony, then, according to Section 76, he will be resurrected in the resurrection of the just and will enter into the Celestial Kingdom.

What does it mean to accept Christ? What does it mean to be valient in your testimony? What does it mean to accept the restored gospel?

However, according to Section 76, if you have heard the gospel and reject it in this life, there is no hope of attaining the Celestial Kingdom. If you have not heard it in this life, you will be taught in the prisonhouse and given the opportunity there to accept it. If you do, you will be resurrected in the resurrection of the just and will enter the Terrestrial Kingdom.

This is an interesting take. How then, can you say that God is no respecter of persons. If a person is relegated to the terresrial kingdom just because you were not given an opportunity to hear the Gospel in this life?

If you rejected the gospel in this life, and/or in the prisonhouse, you will go to Telestial Glory. If you have experienced the witness of the Holy Spirit and rejected it, you will then go to Outer Darkness.

What does it mean to experience a witness of the Holy Spirit?

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Tr2@May 23 2004, 05:41 PM

Warning two....

It always amazes me at the people who become moderators in this place.

Yes well, look out...you may be next... (to become a moderator)

[Jenda]

Originally posted by srm@May 24 2004, 08:57 AM

God's salvation does not require that you believe in the Book of Mormon. It requires you to believe in God and Christ, and that Christ is the only way to God. It requires you to be valiant in your testimony, and to accept the true gospel (the restored gospel).

(The BoM is an added witness of Christ, and while it will help strengthen your testimony of Christ, or even give you a testimony of Christ, it is not required that you believe in it for salvation.) If one fully accepts Christ and accepts the true gospel and is valiant in his testimony, then, according to Section 76, he will be resurrected in the resurrection of the just and will enter into the Celestial Kingdom.

What does it mean to accept Christ? What does it mean to be valient in your testimony? What does it mean to accept the restored gospel?

Believe that He is the Way, the Truth and the Light, and recognize that it is only by His death on the cross that we can receive salvation, and by His resurrection that we can hope to live again.

However, according to Section 76, if you have heard the gospel and reject it in this life, there is no hope of attaining the Celestial Kingdom. If you have not heard it in this life, you will be taught in the prisonhouse and given the opportunity there to accept it. If you do, you will be resurrected in the resurrection of the just and will enter the Terrestrial Kingdom.

This is an interesting take. How then, can you say that God is no respecter of persons. If a person is relegated to the terresrial kingdom just because you were not given an opportunity to hear the Gospel in this life?

Take that up with Section 76. That is where I got it.

If you rejected the gospel in this life, and/or in the prisonhouse, you will go to Telestial Glory. If you have experienced the witness of the Holy Spirit and rejected it, you will then go to Outer Darkness.

What does it mean to experience a witness of the Holy Spirit?

It is through the witness of the Holy Spirit that we know Jesus Christ. It is the Holy Spirit that confirms our testimonies and our knowledge of the truth. Without the Holy Spirit, we would not know of assurity that Jesus is the Christ, the means whereby we are saved.

One can deny the Father and one can deny Jesus Christ, but we can't deny the Holy Spirit without it affecting our salvation because it is through the Holy Spirit that we can know Jesus and/or God.

[srm]

Thank you for the responses Jenda. Please see below

srm asked, What does it mean to accept Christ?  What does it mean to be valient in your testimony?  What does it mean to accept the restored gospel?

jenda said, Believe that He is the Way, the Truth and the Light, and recognize that it is only by His death on the cross that we can receive salvation, and by His resurrection that we can hope to live again.

That answered the first question. But what about the second...and especially the third?

srm asked This is an interesting take.  How then, can  you say that God is no respecter of persons.  If a person is relegated to the terresrial kingdom just because you were not given an opportunity to hear the Gospel in this life?

Jenda said, Take that up with Section 76.  That is where I got it.

I want to know your take. because this seems at odd with the God is not respecter of persons that you claimed before. how do you reconcile these two views?

srm asked What does it mean to experience a witness of the Holy Spirit?

 

Jenda replied, It is through the witness of the Holy Spirit that we know Jesus Christ.  It is the Holy Spirit that confirms our testimonies and our knowledge of the truth.  Without the Holy Spirit, we would not know of assurity that Jesus is the Christ, the means whereby we are saved.

One can deny the Father and one can deny Jesus Christ, but we can't deny the Holy Spirit without it affecting our salvation because it is through the Holy Spirit that we can know Jesus and/or God.

So if I feel the spirit in a meeting then I deny that I did...I'm destined to outer darkness? Or, is it something more?

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint+May 24 2004, 02:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Taoist_Saint @ May 24 2004, 02:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--ExMormon-Jason@May 23 2004, 07:05 PM

This began with the "I know more than you could possibly understand" comment. 

I resorted to the "heresy" generalizations. 

I'll play nice if she'll engage in dialogue instead of pretending to have a special understanding that the rest of us couldn't possibly comprehend. 

Deal?

I understand things you guys can't possibly comprehend.

Well, maybe you could comprehend them, but I'm not going to share them with any of you because you wouldn't agree with them

ROLF! touche!

[Jenda]

Originally posted by srm@May 24 2004, 11:10 AM

Thank you for the responses Jenda.  Please see below

srm asked, What does it mean to accept Christ?  What does it mean to be valient in your testimony?  What does it mean to accept the restored gospel?

jenda said, Believe that He is the Way, the Truth and the Light, and recognize that it is only by His death on the cross that we can receive salvation, and by His resurrection that we can hope to live again.

That answered the first question. But what about the second...and especially the third?

Sorry, those other questions just seemed to disappear, I guess. LOL

IMO, being valiant in your testimony means never denying those things you know to be true, repenting, repenting, repenting, enduring to the end. Those kinds of things. :)

The restored gospel, IMO, is the NT church that was restored in 1830. Priesthood with authority, an ever-present God, manifestations of the Spirit, principle of Zion (Kingdom), the principles of the gospel -- faith, repentance, baptism, laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit.

srm asked This is an interesting take.  How then, can  you say that God is no respecter of persons.  If a person is relegated to the terresrial kingdom just because you were not given an opportunity to hear the Gospel in this life?

Jenda said, Take that up with Section 76.  That is where I got it.

I want to know your take. because this seems at odd with the God is not respecter of persons that you claimed before. how do you reconcile these two views?

I understand what you are saying, and I went back and re-read the scriptures to try to understand why those two groups are differentiated, and the only thing I can come up with is that the group going to the Terrestrial Glory who accepted Christ in the prisonhouse was not baptized. But the time-line doesn't make sense. If those in the Terrestrial Glory are resurrected in the resurrection of the just, they would have the opportunity to be baptized during the millenium. So, maybe there is something I can't see right now.

I posted this question on another board to see what others thought about it.

srm asked What does it mean to experience a witness of the Holy Spirit?

 

Jenda replied, It is through the witness of the Holy Spirit that we know Jesus Christ.  It is the Holy Spirit that confirms our testimonies and our knowledge of the truth.  Without the Holy Spirit, we would not know of assurity that Jesus is the Christ, the means whereby we are saved.

One can deny the Father and one can deny Jesus Christ, but we can't deny the Holy Spirit without it affecting our salvation because it is through the Holy Spirit that we can know Jesus and/or God.

So if I feel the spirit in a meeting then I deny that I did...I'm destined to outer darkness? Or, is it something more?

Denying the Spirit is more like an attitude rather than words. It is the deliberate putting off of that which is holy that you have received through the power of the Holy Spirit.

I have a friend who was, at one time, very spiritual. It was through him that I came to know the Lord. During a retreat, he spoke to me under the influence of the Spirit, and it was such a powerful experience that my life changed 180 degrees. Over the years since then, he liberalized himself right out of, not just the church, but belief in Christ as the Son of God. He has, as of yet, however, refused to deny his testimony, but the last time we talked about the subject, he was looking for other ways to explain those experiences.

I do not believe that, as of yet, he has denied the Spirit, but from his remarks, I feel he would like to. What holds him back, I don't know. But God knows. And it is only God who can make that judgment. Maybe before he has a chance to find an alternate explanation for his testimonies, he will find hope again in Christ. I do pray for him, though.

So, back to the answer, IMO, it is the intentional putting off of that which is holy, which can only be realized through the witness of the Holy Spirit.