411–420 of 537 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it isn't surprising, but that's also not the point of the comment. If what you're taking away is "anyone can be saved" then you're __REALLY__ missing the point.
Educate me? I'm trying to understand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment crosses into flamewar territory, especially the personal part ("people like you constantly come along and want to categorize me"). Please move in the opposite direction when commenting here. I know it's hard on topics like this where emotions are understandably high, but that's why the site guidelines include: " Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.…
I disagree with this categorization. Rephrasing to "people constantly come along..." could make that sentence less personal, sure, but is there anything else about the comment that you would say is not substantive or thoughtful?
I'm sure that wasn't your intent, but these effects are always much less obvious to the person making the comment than they are to many outside readers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I was very young I worked at a non-Church-owned bank for a while. Thomas Monson sat on its board, or at least showed up to a nice employee dinner/dance I attended. He had a business career before he was a Church General Authority, was brilliant, and for a time continued serving on various corporate boards, until GAs all stopped doing that. The GAs I know of personally who did not obtain wealth in their private c…
How do you know the bank wasn't church owned or controlled? The church isn't exactly upfront with their holdings. They have been found to use shell companies to obscure their holdings. The fact that he was on the board is actually a huge clue that suggests that the bank was actually owned by the church. He did that with lots of church owned businesses. https://mormonleaks.io/newsroom/2018/05/30/mormonleaks-compi...
Edit: actually, I could be wrong on that. The Church might have had stock in CSB for all I know. It certainly didn't seem church-owned at the time. Monson did work in the printing industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Educate me? I'm trying to understand.
The church (LDS) has 3 kingdoms of heaven (see link wiki I provided above). The lowest tier of heaven is where Hitler would go were he to accept Christ, in the afterlife. Presumably someone would do a baptism for him and he would have to accept it or not. The post is saying that those that leave the church would be placed into the same grouping as Hitler (tier 3). My actual understanding, having grown up in the churc…
I'm not trying to make the point that there isn't pressure on people to stay in the church. I know nothing whatsoever about the LDS church. People that say there's pressure, I believe them. I'm just making a nerdy theological point about "Hitler-salvation" as a threshold.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and also of a people preparing/amassing the relative wealth/supplies (Noah, Joseph, etc). Matthew 19:24, direct 'quote' from Jesus: "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." Seems pretty clear. > being to only have necessary debt (e.g. university or a house) I work for a Mormon owned company, this ideology even extends th…
> Matthew 19:24, direct 'quote' from Jesus: "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." Seems pretty clear. Organizations aren't people. Organizations don't enter the kingdom of God; people do. Wealth sitting around and growing in organizational coffers doesn't belong to any one person. Jesus praised the widow for paying a 10…
That's awfully spun. Organizations don't have brains either. They don't "decide" to do anything with that money, people do. Those people do so on the basis of some kind of self-interest. And in practice (I'm sure in this case too, though I don't have LDS-specific numbers to back it up) the people who make decisions for "organizations" tend themselves to be either very wealthy or live very wealthy lives based on that influence.
I mean... I'm an atheist. But if I weren't, and I were hanging my appraisal of my chances at eternal salvation on the fact that technically I run an LLC and that money isn't mine... Yeah, St. Peter doesn't seem likely to buy that excuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't there an aspect of Mormonism that intends for its saints to one day rule their own planets? I find that kinda cool, honestly.
They ascend to become Gods which is somehow not contradicting the monotheistic aspect of Christianity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They ascend to become Gods which is somehow not contradicting the monotheistic aspect of Christianity.
Christianity is only monotheistic in name, for "reasons." The Trinity would just be three separate gods in any other religion. Even classifying Father, Son and Holy Spirit as "separate divine aspects of a single God" is basically what Hinduism does, and no one argues that Hinduism is monotheistic that I'm aware of. Also, the way saints and angels have traditionally been regarded in Christian practice (particularly in…
I don't think adherence to a rigorous definition of "monotheism" is really necessarily a premise of Christian belief. Every mainstream Christian denomination has thought more carefully about this definitional issue than any of us here have. If it's important to you, there's a menu of mainline denominations to select from to calibrate your "monotheism" to your church's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder why this and those with similar comments were downvoted. I have spent some time studying both systems (at 2 universities) and observing over decades, and it looks accurate to me. The law of consecration, doctrinally, in all the source documents and major attempts to practice it, is voluntary, as is any true Christian behavior. I learned some things about communism, read a number of books about individuals' e…
As often happens in discussions of political and economic systems, you're comparing an idealized concept of one side to the history of the other side; of course the history side looks worse. ETA: it occurs to me that there's a parallel here to the fundamental attribution error: my favorite system has flaws because its fundamental principles haven't been fully realized, while other systems have flaws because their fun…
Found a link about the United Order in the early church. Sorta worked? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Order
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree with this categorization. Rephrasing to "people constantly come along..." could make that sentence less personal, sure, but is there anything else about the comment that you would say is not substantive or thoughtful?
Yes—the last paragraph, for example, which talks about an entire class of people in a belittling and ultimately ("used car dealer") pejorative way. I'm sure that wasn't your intent, but these effects are always much less obvious to the person making the comment than they are to many outside readers.
You are the moderator here, and so ultimately what you say is the law on this forum. I can respect that, and I like that you're active here. Moderation in a discussion community is invaluable. I'm disappointed that you have read into my comment antagonism and anger, and I cannot agree with the assessment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the Protestants focused on that last sentence, taking it to mean that you are saved by faith, but you can assess if someone does truly have faith by their works. So you are not saved by the works, but if you don't have works, your faith is questionable.
Ok, IAANAtheologian, but I do read a lot and believe this aligns with most Protestant doctrine (faith+grace yields salvation which yields faith which yields works), but not with LDS or Catholic doctrine which essentially teach that works yield salvation, and if you lack works, you will not be saved. This is confusing, because there are many different passages that highlight different things. It seems easiest to look…
Salvation requires Christ to atone for our sins, and that forgiveness and atonement is granted on the condition that our works be in line with what Christ taught. So:
Faith -> Repentance -> Baptism (+ continuing to repent and improve yourself daily through faith and good works) -> Salvation through grace.
The Book of Mormon clarifies this belief (which is consistent with the teachings of James):
"For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." [1]
[1] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-...