User:Trödel/Discussions

Tithing is optional? from Talk:CJC LDS

I must say that paying tithing is definately optional and voluntary in a secular sense. Of course if you believe that the Church represents the body of Christ and is being led by Him through His annointed prophet, then it is hard to see the commmandment of paying tithing as other than "required." But if you don't believe that how could it be seen as required.

Regardless of what I think(OR), in deciding if it is optional/voluntary for the encyclopedic article, we should apply the regular standards here - has someone who is noteworthy said that paying tithing is optional/voluntary. If so we included it as verifiable information and quote to it.

Finally, IMHO, it is totally voluntary since there are NO secular consequences for not paying. (Not being able to attend the temple is a spiritual consequence). There are only three (maybe four) people who know whether or not someone pays a full tithe: The Bishop, the Ward Financial Clerk, the Stake President (and maybe the Stake Financial Clerk). Of all the things that are dealt with in an administrative fashion by the Church - the annual tithing declaration is treated with the upmost in privacy. When I was clerk there were some actively attending (i.e. nearly every week) people who did not declare themselves as full-tithe payers at the end of the year. They were treated the same by everyone in the ward, including the other members of the Bishopric - I am sure most people, if asked, would say that the people in question were full-tithe payers - but it doesn't matter what they think.

Additionally, no one checks up on you - the Bishop asks the member for a declaration and the member then declares and the Bishop records it. There is no audit of your finances, no check to see what 10% of your increase should be and comparing that to how much was paid, etc. How to calculate 10%, whether it is true, etc are all left between the member and the Lord. Of course if the person declares full-tithe on a tithe of $100 for the year and is driving a new BMW the Bishop may ask a few more questions, but when it comes down to it, if the person declares full-tithe then it is a full-tithe regardless of the amount. In fact, people can pay tithing directly to the area office (especially if they are making an in-kind donation such as stock) which the Bishop/Ward Clerk/Stake President never know about - and still declare a full-tithe to the Bishop because it truly is between the member and the Lord - the Bishop doesn't even have to know about the donations. Trödel 18:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this discussion about semantics? Voluntary, Optional and Mandatory can have different meanings to each of us. Consider this. If a person is asked by a missionary 'Will you keep the word of wisdom?' a negative response means no baptism. If a missionary gets a negative to 'Will you pay a full tithe?' once again, no baptism. Even though only approx 35% of members say that they pay a full tithe, all converted members, born in the covenant or not, recognize that paying a full tithe is mandatory for full membership in the church. To argue otherwise is akin to arguing that eating is voluntary and driving the speed limit is voluntary. Sure they are voluntary in theory but one is necessary for survival and the other is required by law. I find phrasing such as members are required to pay a full tithe to enjoy full membership’ to be just as wrong as ‘tithing is voluntary’. Would something like, ‘members agree to pay tithes and offerings and to take upon themselves the name of Christ as part of their baptismal covenants’ suffice? Seriously, I don’t see the NPOV way to phrase this. How is this type of thing treated on the entries of other religions? Hoquiam72 08:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

In my mind this is more than just semantics. This is a free agency issue. We all have the agency to choose what we want to do in this life. However, there are consequences for our choices. To say that tithing is required because you can't attend the temple is confusing to people who are unfamiliar with The Church of Jesus Christ. For example, some will think that they can't attend a weekly worship (some religions call the meetinghouse a temple).

Secondly, you use the example that it is required for baptism. That is true, but again it is a consequence - if you want to be baptised, i.e. make a covenant with God that you will keep his commandments in return for him washing away your sins and accepting you into His church, then you have to make the covenant - to pay tithing, live the word of wisdom, etc. Those are the commandments. All members have sins, such as not paying tithing among many others, and the consequences of those sins vary as far as full fellowhip with the church goes. So, required means what - you can't come to church, you're not welcome at church, you can't take the sacrament, you can't have a calling, ... Those are all much different than saying that you are required to pay tithing. Same with at baptism - you are required to covenant to keep the commandment of tithing - but you don't have to pay 10% of your last year's paychecks, or the paychecks for the last 6 months, or whatever - that is why I object to using reuquired. Trödel 16:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

source

Monotheism

From Talk: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

This may have been discussed somewhere else, in which case feel free to direct me there, but do LDS members consider themselves to be a monotheistic religion? If they do, how is it squared with the statement that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are entirely separate and yet all God? DJ Clayworth 15:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a difficult question to answer because it depends often on definitions, and the Church itself has no "theology" in the traditional sense - only the scriptures and the statements/talks given by the prophets and apostles. Some members then try to develop a theology based on those statements but the theology itself has no endorsement of the Church. However, members, and I think the Church itself, feel it is monothestic - because there is only one being that should/could/is/needs to be worshipped. I also feel that, in general, members are even more strict in focusing their worship on Heavenly Father than others because they identify and focus on only Heavenly Father as the being to whom prayers are addressed and they look at the substitute of material goods/power/stature/etc. for God as a violation of the first commandment (and by extension a violation of monothesim). Indeed, the monothesim I believe where Christ intercedes on my behalf before the Father to save me from my sins is clear from the scriptures: "There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."1 Timothy 2:5 Or as Brigham Young said, "We believe in one God, one Mediator and one Holy Ghost." (Discourses of Brigham Young, p 23). So although they are seperate beings, I feel it is clearly a monotheistic religion since there is only one being that is worshipped.

Additionally, a search on the internet for some cites for you gave me plenty of links where others try to claim that I (Mormons) believe in a polythestic religion because of the King Follett Discourse (and related teachings); however, that imposes an interpretation that is not warranted as Members are strictly admonished to only worship the Father ("When we begin to learn this way, we begin to learn the only true God, and what kind of a being we have got to worship." from the King Follett Discourse). In other words, the view that there may be other gods doesn't change the fact that there is only one being, the Father, whom I worship, and to whom I owe all, and one Christ to whom I owe my salvation (and hopefully, to use LDS terminology, my exaltation). Trödel 18:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This is very interesting, but seems to be contradicted by my experience with LDS evangelists. It also seems to contradict the Wikipedia article on the subject. The Wikipedia article gives lots of doctrines of the LDS churches. The evangelists who came to my door gave a very definite theology - that the Trinity was wrong, and that there were two Gods, Yahweh and Elohim. Jesus seemed to be identified with Yahweh.

As I understand your statements though, if there is no definite theology then LDS members are free to believe in one God, three Gods, or as many as they feel like. If there are in fact many Gods, then what is the basis for not worshipping all of them. And how do members get round the very clear statements in scrupture that there is only one God (not just that we should only worship only one, but that there is only one)? DJ Clayworth 18:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is more a result my "failure to communicate" than a contradiction. Because of the influence of Bushman through a talk he gave theology has come to have a specific meaning(1) to me and I forget the general definition. Bushman argued that Latter-day Saints have shown little interest in what other Christian traditions call "systematic theology," but, instead, have focused on stories from the past that teach both doctrine and proper conduct. When I used the term theology, I meant a discovering of God, his nature, and truth in general through "reasoned discourse." In this sense the LDS Church doesn't have a "theology," however, we do have set doctrines that could also be called a theology, which are the primary teachings of the Church.

I think of things this way.(2) There are some key doctrines that describe the nature of god and truth - starting with the Articles of Faith. And as you suppose, there is much latitude in what individual members may believe - although there is a set of beliefs that are consdidered essential to membership, which (in my mind) is a subset of the essential things we must know and follow (the doctrines), and then there are beliefs that members in general believe that I would call the orthodoxy (belived by most to be doctrine but not necessarily doctrine), and then some that are consistent with the teachings and believed by some and not by others (not doctrine).

For example, the following are the minimum requirements to be baptized:

Believe that Heavenly Father exists
Believe that Jesus is the Savior and Christ
Covenant with God to 1) take upon oneself the name of Jesus, 2) always remember Him, and 2) keep His commandments in return for a forgiveness of one's sins and the companionship of His spirit
Repent of one's past sins(3)
Believe that Joseph Smith is a prophet
Believe that Gordon Hinckley (the current earthly leader of the Church) is a prophet

That is about it - so all of those things would be in my mind "doctrine". For example I know an active (temple going) member who does not believe that there was a flood - unorthodox belief - but he lives his life in harmony with the doctrines and strives to be a true follower of Christ - and doesn't teach(4) that belief to anyone. So his personal belief about the flood has no bearing on his membership.

Of course there are more doctrines of the church than those listed above. I think the main difference is that, in general, members of the Church of Jesus Christ acquire knowledge about God/Truth not through theology (i.e. through reasoned discourse) but instead through prayerful study - by which I mean logical thinking while reading the scriptures (study) coupled with prayer and personal revelation (my definition of prayer includes a two way communication with God - i.e. a prayer to Heavenly Father and listening to the inspiration - that quickening of mind and thought - the inner peace that something is right).

Notes: (1) Terms like theology, salvation, exaltation - they mean something very specific to me that is compatible with some but not all of the dictionary definitions of the words

(2) I realize, ironically, that this view of things probably fits under the unorthodox or not doctrine baskets :)

(3) generally this is between the person and God through prayer, but certain more serious sins need to be confessed and discussed - for example a person on probation for a felony [in the US] can't be baptised by the missionaries because waiting out the time is considered part of the repentence process - there can be exceptions

(4) This is key - not teaching others - since those that believe unorthodox views and try to teach them to others claiming they are doctrine can be excommunicated - see September Six

Trödel 21:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I would agree with "logical thinking while reading the scriptures coupled with prayer and personal revelation", and I would include that as theology. In fact I would take in form of inquiry into the nature and character of God as theology. The only additional way to acquire knowledge of God that I would want to add would be to listen to the opinons and teachings of others and to weigh them. I presume that the LDS church has something similar, and the recognised teachers preach sermons and produce study aids in order to aid our own investigations. DJ Clayworth 22:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool - personal theology would be a great term for that. As for listening to opinions/teachings of others -of course that is part of LDS culture - a very big part since our relationships with others are a key part of our experience hre on earth. In LDS traditions there is a certain heirarchy to recognized teachers: General Authorities, Local Priesthood leaders, sunday school teachers, Seminary and Institute teachers, etc. The main difference being that doctrine is authoritatively explained /established/introduced by the First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the Quorums of the Seventy that make up the General Authorities. And of course there is always http://www.ldscatalog.com for official books and http://www.deseretbooks.com, http://www.seagullbooks.com, & http://farms.byu.edu/ for LDS themed books and professional papers Trödel 22:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

source

Do (some) members of the LDS church believe and pratice Christian Science? or they are aganiest?

I like to knew if members do so (and if there were ever recorded members that had done so.)Answer in time please.Thanks. unsigned comment left on Talk:Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by User:206.180.134.162 moved here (and answers as well) by User:Trodel

Trödel's response

Although I am not completely aware of all the Christian Science beliefs I taught several people on my mission (for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "CJC") that were interested in both, so my comments are based on that experience, and the clarification (reminding myself) of Christian Science beliefs on wikipedia.

The health code (Word of Wisdom) introduced by Joseph Smith shares some characteristics with that in Eddy's book. And as Visorstuff points out, Members of the CJC believe in faith healing. However, the philosophical reasoning that disease, etc are not "real" and by striving towards a spiritual essence one can rid oneself of all disease is generally not in harmony with the teachings of the CJC.

One of the basic tenants of the CJC is that our body is created by God and essential to our existence. Our experiences on earth are also necessary to our existence, and what Eddy would call imperfections (like disease, etc) that are not real but can be overcome by spiritual purity, are instead part of our experiences here on earth to understand the good and the evil2 Ne 2:11. We also know that the Lord does not spare the righteous from sufferingMatt 5:45 Job 2:3-6.

Finally, the concept of Heavenly Father is very different than the Christian Science conception of God - where God is referred to as "'Truth', 'Life', 'Principle'... and are 'intended to express the nature, essence, and wholeness of Deity.'" Although members of CJC believe that God has all Truth, and is Omnipotent, Omniscient, etc. They do not believe he is Omnipresent, nor is a concept, but rather He is a personal God that is a being seperate from his Son, Jesus Christ, and is not only a spirit.

Thus I think it would be difficult for a member of CJC to reconcile the two beliefs. However, since most members of CJC believe that there is truth that we are tasked to discover and understand as part of our probation, they may see truth in things taught by Eddy and even adopt part of her philosphy that is not in conflict with these ideals. Specifically about the power of faith healing. Trödeltalk 06:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

source

Child of record comment

Generally, a person isn't added as a child of record unless they are blessed. I'm not sure what happened in your situation, or if policies have changed, but a parent can have a child blessed and a record created for the child regardless of their gender, as long as the other parent says it is ok.

"When either of a child's parents is a nonmember, the bishop should obtain verbal permission from both parents before the child is blessed. He explains that a membership record will be prepared for the child after the blessing. He also should tell them (1) that ward members will contact them periodically and (2) that when the child turns eight the bishop or the stake missionaries will visit them and propose that the child be baptized."

If your wife refused to give permission then the full-time missionaries will teach/baptise them. However, this is not a gender issue - but a consent issue. The same is true of a mother - the father should give permission. Now, in practice, maybe something different can happen at times, especially with an out-of-wedlock birth; however the policy is pretty clear. Trödeltalk 22:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

source

I am confused by the test edits...

What is it for, for users to test out editing? (This is a serious question) Blueaster 05:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

It is meant for newbies to test out editing. It proves to them that, yesy, they can edit wikipedia. It also helps introduce wikipedia syntax. It's like a local sandbox. This link is Broken 05:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I personally feel that there shouldn't be a test edit place on such a high-profile page such as this. Just a thought. I think the current non-standard arrangement with Template:Please leave this line alone, is confusing for new and experienced users alike. If the page needs protecting - protect it and let users "view source", - perhaps put comments at the top of the page imploring new users not to vandalise and to go to the sandbox? Richard Taylor 01:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

You guys are missing the whole purpose of this page, i.e. 1) to let people edit, 2) to show the trust/welcoming nature of the community. Sure this page is vandalized frequently; however, if you review the history (the last time I counted was in April/May time frame), the number of inappropriate edits << (is much less than) the number of total edits. If you are concerned I would ask that you sign up at Cleaning Department - Dust Removal on Introduction and indicate what times you would help watch the page. I can no longer participate as frequently as I would like - but checking this page is about the only thing I do when I login and I am impressed at how rarely it is in an improper state (even though the bot that used to automatically revert the page stopped working in late June/early July). Finally, the use of the template makes vandalising this page permanently much more difficult and makes it much easier for the new users to try out editing without effecting the instructions on the page.

For me, this page is important to remain editable, because that says to new users of wikipedia: "Welcome, we trust you, join our community and help us build the a great encyclopedia." (in a way much better than words) Trödel|talk 01:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

source

Book of Mormon and The Bible

I heard a recording of Gordon Hinckley saying that the Bible is secondary to the Book of Mormon. If the teachings of Jesus Christ are put below the teachings of Mormonism, then naturally the focus is on something other than Christ's teachings; therefore, Christianity and Mormonism are seperate practices/religions. --MLSmateo 23:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Such comments are usually in relation to the which version of the Bible is correct disagreements among Christianity - see (King-James-Only Movement, Category:Bible versions and translations, etc.

Since the Book of Mormon contains Christ's teachings - and its very purpose is to proclaim the divinity of Christ, there is no contradiction. Here are some quotes from the Book of Mormon that explain what it's purpose is and how Mormons view The Book of Mormon.

"...to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations." Introduction
"And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins." 2 Nephi 25:26
"But behold, I say unto you that ye must pray always, and not faint; that ye must not perform any thing unto the Lord save in the first place ye shall pray unto the Father in the name of Christ, that he will consecrate thy performance unto thee, that thy performance may be for the welfare of thy soul." 2 Nephi 32:9
"For, for this intent have we written these things, that they may know that we knew of Christ, and we had a hope of his glory many hundred years before his coming; and not only we ourselves had a hope of his glory, but also all the holy prophets which were before us. Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name. And for this intent we keep the law of Moses, it pointing our souls to him; and for this cause it is sanctified unto us for righteousness, even as it was accounted unto Abraham in the wilderness to be obedient unto the commands of God in offering up his son Isaac, which is a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son." Jacob 4:4-5
"And the Lord God hath sent his holy prophets among all the children of men, to declare these things to every kindred, nation, and tongue, that thereby whosoever should believe that Christ should come, the same might receive remission of their sins, and rejoice with exceedingly great joy, even as though he had already come among them." Mosiah 3:13
"And now behold, I say unto you, my brethren, if ye have experienced a change of heart, and if ye have felt to sing the song of redeeming love, I would ask, can ye feel so now? Have ye walked, keeping yourselves blameless before God? Could ye say, if ye were called to die at this time, within yourselves, that ye have been sufficiently humble? That your garments have been cleansed and made white through the blood of Christ, who will come to redeem his people from their sins?" Alma 5:26-27
"O remember, remember, my sons, the words which king Benjamin spake unto his people; yea, remember that there is no other way nor means whereby man can be saved, only through the atoning blood of JesusChrist, who shall come; yea, remember that he cometh to redeem the world. ...remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation; that when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty storm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless wo, because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall." Helaman 5:9,12
"And it came to pass, as they understood they cast their eyes up again towards heaven; and behold, they saw a Man descending out of heaven; and he was clothed in a white robe; and he came down and stood in the midst of them; and the eyes of the whole multitude were turned upon him, and they durst not open their mouths, even one to another, and wist not what it meant, for they thought it was an angel that had appeared unto them. And it came to pass that he stretched forth his hand and spake unto the people, saying: Behold, I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified shall come into the world." 3 Nephi 11:8-10
- Note that this part of The Book of Mormon records the visit of Jesus Christ to the people living in some part of the Americas - and records that He taught them the Gospel, organized His Church, explained that He had fullfilled the law of Moses, and then ascended into heaven.
"Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God. And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot." Moroni 10:32-33

Additionally, since The Book of Mormon was translated from the ancient text by a prophet, the problems that have beset the Bible and the warring versions re translations and what is the best source from which to translate are avoided. The Lord inspired His prophet on how to translate - and thus the translation keeps better to the spirit and purpose of the words. That is why we hold it in such esteem. "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." Articles of Faith:8

I challenge you to read a little of The Book of Mormon - you will find that it's testimony of the divinity of Christ and his central role in our own lives to be clear. Trödel 01:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response - you should know that I totally respect other's beliefs and even criticisms about the Mormon church (as taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS). I also think that you would gain so much from just reading The Book of Mormon - or even Gospel Prinicples. We do not hide our beliefs about God, Jesus Christ, our eternal exaltation, etc. By reading directly you will probably still find stuff that you don't agree with or object to (or even might find blasphemous) but you will at least understand Mormon beliefs and doctrine better and without the filter of others (and their inherent biases).

The claims re our beliefs about Christ touch a nerve with me - I grew up in the Church - and was taught of Christ since my birth and can not understand how anyone could make any claim other than Mormons follow Jesus Christ. Mormons clearly believe that "Jesus is God the Son" i.e. the Son of God. However we do not believe in the Trinity as described in the Nicene Creed (established by the First Council of Nicaea, the First Council of Constantinople, and affirmed by later ecumenical councils). Although considered blasphemy by some today, there was debate about and significat disagreement over the nature of God with the trinity folks winning and those that disagreed being slaughtered and labeled as heretics (like the gnostics, arians, followers of Meletius, etc.)

I point this out because the concept of the Godhead, in the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS, when placed in historical context is not so unusual. Just as the claims made by people who oppose the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS paint the view of Jesus as the Son of God and our potential to become like our Heavenly Father quite differently than what Mormons believe, you will note that the description of the oppositions arguments are similarly couched in arguments to which the followers may or may not subscribe.

Jesus is the Son of God and is our Savior - and there is no heirarchy between them other than Heavenly Father is his Father. They are one in purpose and in thought, deed - that which the Son (Jesus) chooses to do is the same thing that the Father would choose to do - thus there is no conflict that would need to be addressed that would not be addressed the same by both. Jesus sits on the right hand of God, and he is the Christ - the promised Messiah that paid the atonement for our sins, and pleads to the Father on our behalf. There is a huge difference between being a prophet - a mouthpiece for God (and the Lord - Jesus Christ) and the Messiah.

As to your other concerns - as you point out this is a matter of faith, the "evidence of things not seen."Hebrews 11:1, however I also find abundant evidence to support my faith. Some links 1 Corinthians 15:40-42, 2 Corinthians 12:2, Matthew 25:23, Book of Mormon resarch papers, Horses in the Book of Mormon. In my time as a member, I have seen many pamphlets "proving" the BoM false, but when examined the ideas just don't meet a proof standard for me - and some of the "proofs" are gone because new evidence shows the opposite. I patiently wait for more information to come out - and whatever way it takes me I know that the Lord will bless my life as I seek after truth.

I'm glad you recognize the Bible has "MANY translational errors and biases in it," thus it seems reasonable, to me, that Hinckley could then refer to the Book of Mormon as having the doctrine of Christ with fewer of those issues.

Fortunately, Wikipedia is doing well when it comes to eliminating bias - because of the NPOV and verifiability policies - and I think you can see that in the articles related to Mormonism - they certainly are not the flattering articles you would find on lds.org; and neither are they the polemic diatribes found on anti-mormon websites. Instead, in general, they are carefully written scholarly descriptions of the events and beliefs.

Even if you don't believe that the Nephites and other tribes existed in America, I still challenge you to read the Book of Mormon for its doctrine - and its testimony of Christ. Not everyone believes that the BoM is a literal history; however, if you will read it you will find that it has a testimony of the divinity of Christ that is incredible and powerful to read.

You ask, "Are Catholics Christian?" - My answer would be yes - they profess to follow Christ. Now, like you (I am guessing) I may not agree with their use of intercessories between them and God (other than the Savior, Jesus Christ - who is our sole advocate before the Father), but I respect them enough to think of them as Christian. I see my responsibility on earth to learn God's will and live my life according to it - and He has led me to The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS.

You also ask, "Is Mormonism a particular way of practicing Christianity or is it THE Christian religion?" I feel that it is THE Christian religion i.e. it is led by Jesus Christ himself through his eathly servants the Prophet and the apostles. However, I also think that other people can live a christian life, and can practice christianity. It does mean, however, that I have a hope in Christ that I want to share with others!!!! Trödel 19:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for assuming you were not catholic. As a catholic, which includes the apocrypha as part of the canon - I hope the above makes sense to you as far as how Mormons can believe in additional books of scripture. Thx again for the opportunity to explain in more detail our beliefs - I found your analogy re Mary to be excellent. I still hope that you will read a little in The Book of Mormon itself. Such as: [Nephi's vision of Christ, Benjamin's prophecy of Christ, Alma's teachings of Christ, or Abinidi's explanation of how Christ is the Father and the Son. Trödel 19:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

source

Salvation

ONCE again Storm Rider REFUSES to address my questions. You simply resort to name-calling of my position and continue your own propaganda agenda for the Mormon page, and then you really take off by claiming that I have an axe to grind, I have "no knowledge or understanding" and we enter the Kindergarten playground.

Again, I will ask you, IF the Book of Mormon is simply "...to testify to Jew and gentile that Jesus is the Christ" then WHY can't Christians attain salvations apart from the Mormon Church? Can you not answer that? Are you so blinded by your own prejudices that you can NOT answer that question? ANSWER THE QUESTION!

I also have been overruled by consensus, the small, prejudiced minority that very obviously are dead set on propagating the whitewash on the Mormon page will NOT address the simple question that I have. I'll repeat it:

"IF the Book of Mormon is simply "...to testify to Jew and gentile that Jesus is the Christ" then WHY can't Christians attain salvations apart from the Mormon Church?"

Answer that. Only that. No more spinning, dancing, name-calling, and ducking the very real question that is before you. *Answer* the question. Supertheman 05:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The LDS church teaches that salvation is provided through Jesus Christ. Of course we believe other Christians may achieve salvation. More importantly, we also believe that a way has been provided that other Christains may be exalted. Is that a simple enough answer for you?

I would also caution you that no one was spinning anything but you. I have seldom ever seen anything so preposterous as what you were proposing above! There is nothing in common with what LDS doctrine or even the doctrine of any of the other Latter Day Saint groups and the misinformation you were attempting to foist off on those ignorant of LDS beliefs and doctrine.

Sign your contributions, ok? Hmmm... "The LDS church teaches that salvation is provided through Jesus Christ. Of course we believe other Christians may achieve salvation." Really? Well... ah... how do you reconcile this?

"...there is no salvation outside the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (Mormon Doctrine, p. 670.)

And the Mormonism page doesn't support your assertion as well, which is what this debate is all about. Consider:

"3. Only the church restored by Joseph Smith has divine priesthood authority to perform ordinances necessary for salvation. Nevertheless, many other sects and faiths (even non-Christian religions) are valuable and teach some good morals."

How is it that we achieve salvation apart from "...the church restored by Joseph Smith..."? If we don't go there to receive "...ordinances necessary for salvation", how are we achieving salvation?

Now, one of three things is true... either the Mormonism page is wrong, or you are wrong, or Mormonism is wrong. Which is it there my friend? <waiting for the spin>

No offense, but are you even *aware* of what this debate is about? You are making my points FOR me. My PRIMARY argument has been that what is DESPERATELY needed on the Mormonism page is a CLEAR distinction between SALVATION and EXALTATION, because they are used fast and loose by the Mormonism page. What is "salvation" to the Christians, is NOT "salvation" to the Mormons, because often "salvation" is used in PLACE of "exaltation". There is a difference between being "saved" (escaping annihilation) and "attaining salvation" (exaltation). Why the big deal about that SIMPLE REQUEST? All I am asking is this; please make a CLEAR distinction between "salvation" and "exaltation" on the Mormonism page.

I'll just say this, if you were reading the Mormonism page for the first time and you read: "Only the church restored by Joseph Smith has divine priesthood authority to perform ordinances necessary for salvation", would that not lead you to believe that Mormons believe that there is NO "salvation" apart from the Mormon church? Be honest in your answer, please. Supertheman 05:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually - what salvation is for Mormons is exactly what salvation is to Christians - being saved in Heaven, escaping annilation as you say. All of the descriptions of what salvation is and what Heaven is apply to Heaven for those denominations that do not accept D&C 76, and is equally applicable for all the "degrees of glory" for those that do accept D&C. Being angels, serving God, being at peace, living in happiness, etc. All the terms that are used apply to Heaven.

Exhaltation may be something completely different but the definition varies widely within the Latter Day Saint movement. and it is one topc about which very little is known - and which there has been much conjecture by so-called "experts" and theologians both within the movement and without. As to the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS, there is also very little doctrine about this concept but there are plenty of writings about it - most of which is pure conjecture - based on the limited comments made by JS and BY.

The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS teaches that it IS Christ's Church, and it (the oranization of the Church) is part of His plan to bring to pass the salvation of all people, the Church does not exist to benefit the members, but for the benefit of all His children. The priesthood authoritity is used to make sure that ordinances are performed for those who need them either directly or through Proxy temple work.

As you seem to know so much about the terminology, I have assumed that you know the teachings of the Church fairly well; thus I am not sure how you can claim make the claim in your last paragraph. Clearly, the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ make it clear that the Church is a necessary part of salvation, essential - in fact - to the helping our Father bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man (as it has the priesthood authority necessary to perform the ordinances). However, the Church's mission is to make sure that all can partake in the blessings of the gosepl and be healed by the atonement of Jesus Christ. Paraphrasing BY, even the heathens will be able to partake in the fruits of salvation. And, I might add, the atonement of Jesus Christ - for Christ and the Father truly are no respecter of persons - regardless of the circumstances in which they were born, to a Christian family or not. Many believe that vast populations of humanity, all children of a loving God, will not reach heaven simply because they were not born in a christian country or did not convert. Yet, The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS teaches that all will have the opportunity to be saved. --Trödel 22:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)