Ed Decker

[srm]

Originally posted by Jenda+May 24 2004, 08:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ May 24 2004, 08:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

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.

<!--QuoteBegin--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.

So in your view, there is no salvation outside the CofC (RLDS) Church? you say that you don't have to accept the Book of Mormon, but, does one have to accept Joseph as a prophet?

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.

It does seem tricky.

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.

Thank you for your answer.

Now back to the original question. If God does not change, why don't we still offer blood sacrifies? Why aren't we still circumsised? Why aren't...well you get the idea.

[Jenda]

So in your view, there is no salvation outside the CofC (RLDS) Church? you say that you don't have to accept the Book of Mormon, but, does one have to accept Joseph as a prophet?

That is a tricky question.

Tricky because the CoC has split, and I no longer feel that the priesthood authority is contained in it's fullest within the church. The true authority of the priesthood lies, IMO, with the restoration branches that split off from the CoC when they started changing and diluting the gospel. However, these men are still members of the CoC, so, I could still answer the question yes, but a very qualified yes.

Does that help muddy the waters a bit?

Does one have to accept Joseph as a prophet? One would have to accept the words of God that Joseph spoke, so, yes, one would need to accept Joseph as a prophet.

Now back to the original question. If God does not change, why don't we still offer blood sacrifies? Why aren't we still circumsised? Why aren't...well you get the idea.

God does not change. God has restored His church several times through the course of history. When Moses went up Mt. Sinai to receive the law, God gave him the Celestial law, but when he came down from the mountain and saw what the Israelites were doing, he smashed the tablets bearing the law, so had to approach the Lord again to receive the law. But because of the wickedness of the people, God gave them a different law (a lesser law). The people had showed God that they couldn't handle the Celestial law, so he gave them a law that was much less spiritual in nature. One that was full of rules because they needed to be led like children. Yet a law that could still get them where they needed to go if they were diligent. When Christ came, he fulfilled that law, and again restored the Celestial law to the earth. Because the Celestial law was restored, the requirements of the temporal law were lifted.

For instance: When Moses tried to free the Israelites from Egypt, God instructed the people to rub the blood of a perfect lamb on the lintel of the door so the angel of death would pass by them. The blood of the lamb was a type and shadow of the blood that Christ would shed for our salvation, the physical rubbing of the blood of the lamb represented their faith that God would keep His word. When Christ came and shed that blood and gave His life for us, we need to profess faith in Him, which binds Him in His promises.

The first were physical acts that they were commanded to do (representing the temporal law), the second represents the spiritual aspects that override (or underlie) the physical act. That is how the temporal law was fulfilled. We are not required to "act out" our faith in terms of laws anymore, but we are required to express our faith in spiritual terms.

(I'm sorry, it is really hard to put down in words a spiritual interpretation for something. I hope this was understandable.)

[Jason]

"If God does not change, why don't we still offer blood sacrifies?"

Because Christ fulfilled the law.

"Why aren't we still circumsised?"

I was. You werent?

"Why aren't...well you get the idea."

Jesus Christ fulfilled the old testament prophecies and the laws regarding sacrifice. This wasn't a change, it was fulfillment. There is a difference.

[srm]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 26 2004, 01:09 PM

"If God does not change, why don't we still offer blood sacrifies?"

Because Christ fulfilled the law.

"Why aren't we still circumsised?"

I was. You werent?

"Why aren't...well you get the idea."

Jesus Christ fulfilled the old testament prophecies and the laws regarding sacrifice. This wasn't a change, it was fulfillment. There is a difference.

Jason, I already answered you.

QUOTE

"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.

QUOTE

"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.

Now w/ blood sacrifice, I agree it was a fulfillment. Because Jesus fulfilled the law, he allowed a change in procedure. Why can't Jesus allow a change in who blesses the sacrament?

[Jenda]

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

Now w/ blood sacrifice, I agree it was a fulfillment. Because Jesus fulfilled the law, he allowed a change in procedure. Why can't Jesus allow a change in who blesses the sacrament?

Changing and fulfilling are not the same thing.

If you can demonstrate how a law was fulfilled between the time Joseph Smith received that revelation and the present, I would consider the matter, but when a direct commandment is given via revelation, I would expect that God would expect it to be fulfilled in order for Him to consider fulfilling His side of the covenant.

[Jason]

"Jason, I already answered you."

C'mon man. It's not change, it's fulfillment. Christ was the reason for the law. It was designed for His purpose. I don't understand why you cannot see that?

[Guest Starsky]

God doesn't change, laws do, people do, needs do, but God doesn't.

[srm]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 26 2004, 03:14 PM

"Jason, I already answered you."

C'mon man. It's not change, it's fulfillment. Christ was the reason for the law. It was designed for His purpose. I don't understand why you cannot see that?

I do see it jason, but the fulfillment resulted in a change in procedure. I can't understand how you (and jenda) can't see that. here's another...During Old testament and during Jesus' time 'saturday' was the day of rest. After Jesus' time it was on 'Sunday' again, a change in procedure.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by srm+May 26 2004, 09:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (srm @ May 26 2004, 09:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--ExMormon-Jason@May 26 2004, 03:14 PM

"Jason, I already answered you."

C'mon man.  It's not change, it's fulfillment.  Christ was the reason for the law.  It was designed for His purpose.  I don't understand why you cannot see that?

I do see it jason, but the fulfillment resulted in a change in procedure. I can't understand how you (and jenda) can't see that. here's another...During Old testament and during Jesus' time 'saturday' was the day of rest. After Jesus' time it was on 'Sunday' again, a change in procedure.

SRM, if you believe in the BoM (and I assume you do), maybe understanding a few concepts could help out in this gospel being taught to the gentiles thing.

In the Bible, in John 1:10,11 it states

10 Even the Son of God. He who was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

In the BoM, in 1 Nephi 3:15 RLDS (1 Nephi 10:11 LDS)

And after they had slain the Messiah who should come, and after he had been slain, he should rise from the dead, and should make himself manifest by the Holy Ghost unto the Gentiles.

While Christ was alive, he did not allow the gospel to be preached to the Gentiles because He came unto His own. After He was crucified, it was the responsibility of the Holy Ghost to minister to the Gentiles. Christ fulfilled the law (His reason for becoming human), and when he was crucified, the apostles were set free to minister to the Gentiles by way of the Holy Ghost.

What you said is true. That with the fulfillment of the law, there was a change in procedure. It is what I have been stating all along. My question for you, which indicated as much, though, went unanswered. God gave a law to the church when it was restored concerning the administration of communion. It was based on the law as fulfilled in Jesus Christ's death and resurrection. The LDS changed from the procedure set forth in that law without a reason. There needs to be a reason to change the proceedure. What law was fulfilled between the time Joseph received that revelation and the time the procedure was changed?

God doesn't just change things for the sake of changing things. There has to be a reason. Or else His word isn't good from one generation to the next.

[Jason]

"My question for you, which indicated as much, though, went unanswered. God gave a law to the church when it was restored concerning the administration of communion. It was based on the law as fulfilled in Jesus Christ's death and resurrection. The LDS changed from the procedure set forth in that law without a reason. There needs to be a reason to change the proceedure. What law was fulfilled between the time Joseph received that revelation and the time the procedure was changed? God doesn't just change things for the sake of changing things. There has to be a reason. Or else His word isn't good from one generation to the next." (Jenda)

Again, well said.