A couple months back I was reading the temple study blog and he had an excersize to find temple imagery in 2 Nephi chapter 4.
Recently I was reading in Hebrews as well as in Alma in the Book of Mormon and found some significant temple imagery as well. Here are some verses that stuck out to me:
These are very beautiful scriptures that are filled with temple imagery (garments washed white, the veil is represents Christ’s flesh, covenants, etc.). In addition scriptures such as Hebrews 9:5 talk about how there are certain things they can’t talk about regarding sacred things, just as LDS are told not to disclose certain sacred things about the temple. All throughout Hebrews is excellent temple imagery and is worth a good read.
In Hebrews chapters 6-10, Paul discusses the temple ordinances conducted in the Law of Moses and in chapter ten says that through the blood of Jesus we enter into the holiest and that the veil represents his flesh.
In Hebrews 9:12 it states that Jesus “entered into the holy place” and therefore obtained eternal redemption for us.
Having read this, one could argue that there isn’t a need for temple ordinances anymore because Jesus already died and this has replaced the need for a temple. Furthermore, if it is the blood of Jesus that saves us, what need is there for temple ordinances?
What are your thoughts on this?
Grace for Grace 
42 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 3, 2008 at 8:43 pm
thunderson
There IS no need for temple ordinances. The only ordinances established by Jesus are Baptism, Marriage, and The Lord’s Supper.
I not familiar at all with the Mormon temple ceremony or the Book of Mormon.
ts
LikeLike
May 3, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Bryce Haymond
Hi! Thanks for linking to my blog again. That is always appreciated. 🙂
The more I focus on looking for temple symbols and imagery in the Book of Mormon, and other scriptures, the more I find. It is incredible what is there if one is looking for it. It is quite incredible, really, just how much is there. I have thought that I might share more on Temple Study of the scriptures that I find with temple imagery in them as well.
As for whether the temple ordinances were done away with Christ, all we need to do is look at the end of the New Testament story. When Christ had already ascended the early Christians, disciples, and apostles were still worshiping at the temple (Luke 24:53 for example). The traditions that we find among the early Christians in other sources also witness to the fact of a liturgical belief and practice, indeed, rites that Christ himself was said to have given to the apostles in secret. As part of the atonement of Jesus Christ, the temple is absolutely necessary. In the temple we spiritually, mentally and physically become “at one” with God. The ordinances changed, to be sure, at the time of Christ. The Mosaic law was fulfilled and Christ instituted the higher law, higher priesthood, and higher ordinances. So there was a transition, which is what is so confusing to many in the Christian world.
LikeLike
May 4, 2008 at 4:09 am
Dom
This is a question that I’ve had many times with non-member friends. When my non-mormon friends say “I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ so I will be saved” I agree with them.
Salvation != Exaltation (Salvation does not equal Exaltation)
Jesus, grace, and the atonement for Salvation. Temple ordinances for Exaltation.
I think part of the problem is LDS members equate Exaltation with Salvation, when by our own doctrine we can all be saved (except those destined for outer darkness or hell), but not everyone will be exalted.
With that in mind I have no problems reconciling grace for salvation, and no problems reconciling works for exaltation.
Another way to think about it is grace and salvation gets you into the door to the Kingdom of Heaven. After that it depends on your works (temple and otherwise) that determines which floor your flat is on (telestrial, terrestrial, or celestial)
LikeLike
May 4, 2008 at 5:37 am
Eric Zacharias
Ama, you are EXACTLY right when you say,
“Having read this [Hebrews6-10], one could argue that there isn’t a need for temple ordinances anymore because Jesus already died and this has replaced the need for a temple. Furthermore, if it is the blood of Jesus that saves us, what need is there for temple ordinances?”
Amen and amen. The Book of Hebrews was written to assure the Hebrew people that the Law was set in place to point to Jesus. All the Old Testament Law, the commands and ordinances were “a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves” (10:1). The shadow is never greater than the One who casts it; all these things find fulfillment in the blood of Christ.
That Scripture meshes perfectly with what Paul wrote to the Colossians (2:16-18)
“Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions.”
Luke’s Book of Acts is very clear about why the disciples met daily at the temple. The ascended Lord Jesus told them to make disciples first in Jerusalem and then in Judea, Samaria, and the uttermost parts of the earth. The temple was of no use to them anymore. Jesus had passed through the temple at his death; the great curtain which separated the Most Holy Place from the Holy of Holies was the thickness of one’s own fist. When Jesus died, that curtain was torn top to bottom. The temple was rendered useless. It was Christ who passed through so that human priests would never have to fulfill what the eternal High Priest did once for all.
Regarding the Temple, Josephus (a Jewish and Non-Christian historian) reported what he had heard about the temple in the forty years preceding the destruction of the Temple (i.e., from AD 30-70) the mystical presence of God was not present in the way that it had been in former years. (In hindsight, the Jews note this period only as an omen of bad things to come. They seem oblivious to the crucifixion of Christ!)
But prior to this time, Josephus reports, it was common for the priests to marvel among themselves about four things in particular.
1) The lot piece selecting the Atonement goat always came up in the Priest’s right hand.
2) The westernmost of the seven candlesticks (Menorah) along the south wall of the Temple always outlasted the other six candles, even though all candles were filled to the same level with the oil and the western candle was lighted first, and the other six being lighted from it.
3) The crimson strap tied under the Scapegoat’s throat always turned white as snow when the goat reached the wilderness as Israel’s sins were forgiven on the Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur.
4) By the Law, only two logs could be placed on the Altar for each day’s sacrifices and those two always lasted for a full day of sacrifices. During certain rites, each priest received a morsel of the shewbread about the size of an olive. The priest ate it and always was satisfied as if he had enjoyed a full meal; sometimes even leaving a portion uneaten.
In the forty years prior to its final destruction by Rome in AD 70
* The lot piece never came up in the Priest’s right hand.
* The westernmost candle never outlasted the other candles.
* The crimson strap from the Scapegoat never turned white.
* The logs for the Altar never burned for a full day.
* The shewbread morsel never satisfied, seeming more “like a bean.”
The whole point of the Temple was the presence of God being there. Jesus WAS the presence of God–Immanuel, which means, “God is with us!” Jesus was the presence of God just as he was the same presence of God in the wilderness, the pillar of Cloud, the ark of the covenant.
Jesus gloried in being in the house of God from early on; this was the place where he would do his Father’s business. His Father’s business was all about redeeming the lives of his people, forgiving them their sins, bringing peace by way of his presence. Jesus loved the faith and devotion of the people who went there. He cast out those who had made this place the focus of business and who had implemented the Temple Tax! He overturned their tables and drove them away. He loved the woman who brought the mite in faith, preferring it to the wealthy whose pile of money was hardly a sacrifice of any kind.
The disciples marveled at the massive stones that made up Herod’s temple. Jesus was not impressed. He spoke about this place being torn asunder, with not one stone left upon another. (As it would be, via the wrath of Rome in AD 70.) He doesn’t sound sorry about that either. The saddest thing imagineable is that anyone would look for a temple afterward or rejoice at the thought of a temple built with human hands (2 Corinthians 5:1). Do you not rejoice that God redeems our sin-stained lives with the blood of Jesus Christ, he forgives our sins and makes us a part of himself, the LIVING TEMPLE, and that we are worthy because the blessings of Christ is poured out abundantly in the water of Baptism–the Baptism that now saves you (1 Peter 1:3-9; 2:1-10; 3:20-21).
A point was made about the disciples being at the Temple continually after the ascension. Yes, they were there because they were obedient to Jesus, who told them to await the promised Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Jesus had told them to make disciples first in Jerusalem and then to go to Judea, Samaria and the uttermost parts of the world. They went to the temple, because Jerusalem and the Temple still stood as the “holy hill”; that is where the people of God were accustomed to gather. People still streamed in and out of Jerusalem. It makes perfect sense that the disciples would concentrate their efforts in Jerusalem and in the Temple: the people were still looking for their sins to be forgiven; many were ignorant that the Messiah had offered up the perfect sacrifice.
The Book of Acts tells how the disciples were known for their gathering to study Scripture, how they would preach, pray, and “break bread” together. This activity was an active proclamation of Christ, following the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which caused thousands to be baptized and to become disciples of Jesus the Messiah; even many priests left the Temple, having realized that the essence of their faith was found in Jesus, who had been crucified and who had risen from death.
It was said that the disciples were in Jerusalem and in the Temple performing “rites that Christ himself was said to have given to the apostles in secret.” Doesn’t that violate what Jesus said in his own trial? Look in John 18:20. Jesus is speaking to the High Priest: “Jesus answered him, I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues and in the temple where the Jews always meet and in secret I have said nothing.”
That is a very interesting text of Scripture to meditate upon. Jesus said, I have said NOTHING in secret . Everything that I have said, everything that I have done you can look at it, you can see it, you can observe it. It is a clear as sunlight. It is open. It is straightforward; there is nothing underhanded. There is nothing secretive in anything that I have done. You can just ask anybody what I have taught. It is public knowledge.
One could argue that Jesus did meet with his disciples in private. These things are recorded openly in the Gospels: he explained his teachings, he prayed, he ate, he slept, he celebrated the Passover and other feasts with them. Jesus had harsh condemnation of those who slinked around in private: “This is your hour, when darkness rules.”
No, recall that Jesus wanted NOTHING SECRET. As Jesus sent his disciples forth, he made it clear that there were no secrets about the kingdom of God. “Do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs” (Matthew 10:27).
In Summary: The ONLY transition the church makes is AWAY from the Laws which God ordained in the Old Testament, which focused on Moses and sacrifices and temples and priests to fully focus on the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Paul goes to great lengths urging people NOT to turn the Gospel of Jesus Christ into another set of LAWS. Jesus came to fulfill the LAW, to satisfy the requirements of the Law, and to bring peace and reconciliation to the world. (Study Romans and Galatians, in particular.)
If one REALLY loves the Book of Hebrews, he would notice that it ALWAYS is saying that Jesus is GREATER than what came before. Jesus replaces all things by his very self, as he stands before the Father as the atoning sacrifice for our sins, the mediator of the greater covenant, sealed with his blood. At the same time (as Paul explains to the Ephesians), Jesus’ ascension means that he fills all things in every possible way. He is able to be the Right Hand of God, for the right hand is the power and the authority to accomplish all things. The right hand is not a localized principality but is the presence of God among his people–as he demonstrated continually in the Old Testament. Now, as Christ brought the New Covenant of his blood, God is with his people wherever the Word of God is taught in its truth and purity.
I rejoice that you focus on Christ, he who was crucified for you!
Blessings in his name,
Eric Zacharias
Cologne, Minnesota
LikeLike
May 4, 2008 at 5:58 am
Eric Zacharias
I just noticed:
Dom says:
Salvation does not mean exaltation.
Enlighten me where scripture says that, Dom.
Ezekiel 21:26
this is what the Sovereign LORD says: Take off the turban, remove the crown. It will not be as it was: The lowly will be exalted and the exalted will be brought low.
Luke 14:11
For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
Luke 18:14
“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
Acts 2:33
[Jesus was] Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.
Acts 5:31
God exalted him [Jesus] to his own right hand as Prince and Savior THAT HE MIGHT GIVE REPENTANCE AND FORGIVENESS OF SINS TO ISRAEL.
Philippians 1:20
I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death.
Hebrews 7:26
Such a high priest [namely, Jesus] meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens.
Dom, As these Scriptures indicate, there is no salvation apart from Jesus (also Acts 4:12; 16:30); and without Jesus there is no exaltation.
LikeLike
May 4, 2008 at 6:15 am
ama49
#1
I agree with you that clearly baptism, the sacrament, and marriage are ordinances that are discussed and established by Jesus.
I’m glad to see you acknowledge those important ordinances. One question I have for you would be if the Lord established those ordinances, and if it is the blood of Jesus that saves us, what is the purpose of having those ordinances?
LikeLike
May 4, 2008 at 6:35 am
ama49
#4
Your argument is exactly what I’ve heard and I totally understand your point of view.
One scripture that goes along with your thoughts is found in Hebrews 10:11 where it says “sacrifices can never take away sins” and verse 12 says “this man (Jesus) offered one sacrifice for sins for ever.” when he died.
I think it is important to note that it is clearly Jesus that forgives us our sins and saves us.
However the scriptures contain instances of the necessity of certain ordinances. What would you say the purpose of ordinances (baptism, the Lord’s supper, marriage) is?
LikeLike
May 4, 2008 at 6:46 am
ama49
#2
Thanks for stopping by! I appreciate your thoughts on the temple and the ordinances.
I have a few responses and questions for you.
1. You mention Christ gave the apostles in secret rites about the temple ordinances. Where did you find this information? Do you have any refrences?
2. Being a very active participant in the temple, I feel the same way you do. The rites and ordinances we do in the temple all point towards Jesus’ atonement and bring me closer to Him. It is very clear that what happens in the temple today is a higher law than that of the Law of Moses. Rather than a physical law of sacrificing, etc. it is now a law and covenant that is put into our hearts and our minds (as stated in Hebrews 10:16).
Having said this, why do you think ordinances are necessary for salvation?
LikeLike
May 4, 2008 at 6:55 am
ama49
#5
Exhaltation is a common LDS term used to describe the highest degree of Celestial Glory. It doesn’t mean that we believe in exalting ourselves above God, but that we can become “kings and priests” of God and like God. There are a few scriptures that talk about receiving a crown and inheriting the kingdom of God as well as becoming heirs of Christ. Here are a few refrences:
Crown scriptures:
2 Timothy 4:8; James 1:12; 1 Peter 5:4 (there are more, but you get the idea.)
Becoming heirs of Christ:
Galations 4:7; Romans 8:17
The main scriptures addressing this for LDS are found in Doctrine and Covenants section 76. You can read this by visiting this link:
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/76
LikeLike
May 4, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Dom
#5 – “Dom, As these Scriptures indicate, there is no salvation apart from Jesus (also Acts 4:12; 16:30); and without Jesus there is no exaltation.”
And that is correct. You cannot be exalted without first being saved, so salvation is required for exaltation. However you can be saved without reaching exaltation.
Salvation is a step in the line towards Exaltation, but just because you are saved does not mean you will be exalted.
As linking in #9 and in the area talking about the Terrestrial Kingdom:
D&C 76:
75 These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men.
76 These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness.
77 These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father.
In other Christian religions those who receive Jesus as their Savior are saved, they have not received his fulness. Their reward is the Terrestrial Kingdom, still a part of heaven but not the Greatest reward.
When receiving the Lord Jesus Christ and the Fulness of his Gospel and the fulness of the Father (Temple Ordinances) you inherit the Celestial Kingdom.
In that we can see that you can be Saved (Salvation) but not Exalted. We can also see that in order to be Exalted you first have to be Saved.
LikeLike
May 5, 2008 at 8:00 am
Steven B
It is interesting that we cast out from among us many of our saved brothers and sisters who do not measure up to the standards of the two highest kingdoms of glory. Is it the church of Jesus Christ or the church of the saints?
LikeLike
May 5, 2008 at 11:19 pm
ama49
#11
Steve,
Can you elaborate more on what you mean exactly?
LikeLike
May 6, 2008 at 3:30 am
Eliza-Anne
I understand Eric’s point of view. The Old Testament temple ordinances were for making offerings for the people’s sins. There obviously was no need for this function after Christ, who suffered and died for our sins, and taking his own body as a final sin offering to the most holy place “once, for all,” did away with any further need for blood sacrifice in a temple. (By the way, are you any relation to Robbie Zacharias-a great teacher ?)
But modern Mormon temple ordinances are not given for the same purpose as Old Testament temple sacrifices were. They are an endowment, or rich gift from God, to enable His children to advance along the road to sanctification and eventually exaltation. There is no “saving grace” in the things done in the temple themselves. But for those who have their eyes and ears and hearts open, they will be instructed there in what they have to do and what signs should be in their life and how they can tie their lives into the life of the Savior–thus drawing them along the path toward God. Or to use another metaphor, to draw them upward on “Jacob’s Ladder.” Remember when Jacob had to leave home and slept on the ground and dreamed of a ladder going up to heaven with angels ascending and descending. He awoke and said “This is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven!” (Genesis 28)
That is what the temple is for us. We go to the ladder and learn how to climb. We are given help and instruction for the long hard climb that is life. Mormons don’t just get saved and call it quits. We get saved by coming into a covenant relationship with Christ at baptism ( or whenever we wake up to what we did at baptism), and then we PROGRESS. Contrary to Dom’s kind of simplistic analysis, exaltation is not a matter of our own works. We may be working hard, but it is Christ’s power that works in us to allow these works. The latest church news has a great quote from a brand new Seventy–Elder Marcos Aidukaitis of Brazil said, “I recognize that I am an unprofitable servant…I know I can’t do much. He will have to do things through me. But if I decided not to do it, then I would be ungrateful. Whatever He asks me to do, I’ll do because after what He did for me, what else could I do?” The temple shows us what to do and where to get the strength. It leads us to give our lives completely to God, to stay faithful in our marriages, and to cling to the atonement for strength. The exaltation comes not from making these covenants, but from keeping them.
LikeLike
May 6, 2008 at 3:32 am
Eliza-Anne
Oops. I have no idea how that smiley got in my post. The reference is Genesis 28:17.
LikeLike
May 6, 2008 at 5:28 am
Steven B
Well, I guess the point is, Mormonism isn’t really about salvation by grace through the blood of Christ. Mormonism believes in a universal salvation, for the most part. Indeed, “These all shall bow the knee, and every tongue shall confess to him who sits upon the throne forever and ever.” (D&C 76:110)
Essentially everyone, ultimately, accepts the atoning sacrifice of Jesus and will be saved. Those who have accepted the testimony of Jesus, becoming saved, but yet flounder in their righteousness, and are liars, sorcerers and adulterers, etc. [verse 103], are they who discover “salvation” is not the real goal.
Exaltation as married couples and families is the whole thrust of the LDS paradigm. So for Mormons, temple ordinances are essential to receive exaltation.
It follows that the LDS church is not for sinners; the liars, adulterers, and of course the sorcerers [!!], even though these are saved by the grace of Christ. Similarly, gay people, who don’t fit the heterosexual exaltation paradigm, usually go elsewhere, where they can worship God and partake of the grace, love and salvation of Christ.
Does God refuse to save those who come to him in humility and who profess faith in Jesus Christ, yet who may err in doctrine? Does God turn his back on their prayers? I doubt it. So I think salvation through Christ is very much available outside of the LDS church.
If you want to be a saint and receive the fulness of what the Father has; in that case, you will need to belong to the church of the Firstborn [verse 54]. And that will require temple ordinances. At least, according to LDS doctrine. As I read it.
LikeLike
May 6, 2008 at 5:22 pm
ht
Ama it seems as if you are no longer giving your opinion about doctrine, but rather asking for ours. Has the format of your blog changed or is it just for the past few posts?
I also wanted to say that Eric Z is brilliant. I wish some of my Christian family would have told me those verses before I went through the temple. I would have never ever done it and then I wouldn’t be dealing with all the issues I have currently.
LikeLike
May 6, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Soy Yo
I think you can find symbolism in anything if you look hard enough. That however does not mean that the symbolism was intended by the writer, but rather something of your own creation to satisfy and bolster your beliefs. We are all susceptible to doing this so it is important not to look “beyond the mark.”
LikeLike
May 7, 2008 at 7:32 am
ama49
#13
I like what you said about the current temple not being about what the Old Testament temples were about. I also like what you talk about with progression. I think too many people (particularly LDS) think that perfection rather than progression is what it’s all about. I’ve found that by attending the temple my heart is softened and I progress closer to the Lord. There is a sweet feeling in the temple and I feel it is very important to remember the covenants made in the temple and therefore attend regularly.
LikeLike
May 7, 2008 at 7:43 am
ama49
#15
I disagree with you on the following statement:
“It follows that the LDS church is not for sinners; the liars, adulterers, and of course the sorcerers [!!],”
What I love about LDS doctrine is the fact that God isn’t a respector of persons and that God is a just God. I can’t imagine a God who would condemn someone to hell simply because they weren’t taught about Jesus or perhaps never even heard about Jesus. The LDS church is for all people and welcomes all to attend and learn about God. Those who follow the teachings come closer to God. I’m not sure where you’re getting that the church isn’t for sinners because all come short of where we should be and we’re all sinners…
I agree with you on the following:
“Does God refuse to save those who come to him in humility and who profess faith in Jesus Christ, yet who may err in doctrine? Does God turn his back on their prayers? I doubt it. So I think salvation through Christ is very much available outside of the LDS church.”
If you read DC 76 it talks about all those who follow and accept Jesus will be with Jesus. Therefore, Christians are right that if you confess Jesus you’ll be saved and be with Jesus for eternity. So you’re definitely right…Salvation through Christ is indeed very much available outside the LDS church according to LDS theology.
LikeLike
May 7, 2008 at 7:57 am
ama49
#16
To be honest with you I can see both sides of the coin on this issue, which is exactly what i posted.
I understand how you feel about the temple because it was sure overwhelming for me when I went through the first time as well. Over the years though I’ve grown to really appreciate and love the closeness to the Lord and Spirit I feel in the temple. I feel a closeness to God that I don’t feel anywhere else and I’ve had some very spiritual personal experiences there.
I’m still learning about the temple though and forming my own opinions, which is why I don’t have a straight-forward answer on this one yet. Therefore I don’t have a firm answer about it other than I’ve definitely felt the Spirit there.
LikeLike
May 7, 2008 at 8:07 am
ama49
#17
You make a very great case for people of any religion. Some argue that religion in and of itself is man-made. We have the right to choose what we want to believe and nurture our faith in the way we choose to as well. Some people interpret things differently than others and that’s why there are 5.3 million Christian churches and even more religions throughout the world!
I can see though how a Christian would believe the Mormon temples to be “looking beyond the mark” by reading these scriptures in the Bible.
LikeLike
May 8, 2008 at 2:55 am
Eliza-Anne
Eric Z does not understand Mormon temple worship at all. Everything he says about the old system being done away in Christ is true (well, with the possible exception of the legendary stuff about the goats ribbon turning white and the priests’ bread miraculously increasing. This is the usual folk legend stuff that is impossible to verify.), but it is all beside the point when talking about Mormons and temples. Mormons do not go to the temple to have their sins forgiven. Christ’s sacrifice of His own body did that once and for all for all men. On this we fully agree. These are the points on which I think we do not agree:
1. Jesus told the Sanhedrin that he had done nothing in secret but had preached openly during his ministry. John 18:20. True. Most of Eric’s argument hangs on this statement made at his trial that he had preached openly so why were they trying him behind closed doors. (Caveat. He did tell Peter, James and John after the Mount of Transfiguration “Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.” Matt 17:9 That would seem to qualify as being asked to keep something secret.)
Eric seems to think that this statement of Jesus made in the contest of Jesus’ show trial before the Sanhedrin to reproach them for hiding what they were doing in the dark, is grounds on which to make sweeping statements that Jesus never taught anything other than what we have recorded in the four gospels. I think he oversteps the bounds of the meaning of this one scripture. But even if it were literally true that while Jesus lived he never taught anything other than what was in his public discourses, what about what he taught after his resurrection?
Any temple knowledge and instruction was not given during his earthly ministry. Perhaps you have heard of the Forty Day ministry. Acts 1: 3 says that Jesus was “seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:” In the last chapter of Mark and of Matthew we read that Jesus told the apostles to go to Galilee and wait for him there. Luke says Jesus told his disciples to stay in Jerusalem until they received power from on high—usually taken to mean the power of the Holy Spirit that came upon them at Pentecost. John ends his gospel with the appearance of Jesus to the disciples in Galilee. So obviously if you believe the Bible is true, Jesus came in person to see his apostles in Galilee after he was resurrected, and he sent the Holy Spirit to all his disciples on the day of Pentecost. We don’t have a record of the exact timing or which came first. However as Pentecost is fifty days after Passover, there was time for the Forty Day Ministry of Christ to have fit in before Pentecost. What do you suppose Jesus taught the apostles during this forty days? Did he just repeat the things he had said to them during his earthly ministry? Why would he do that? Now that the atonement and the resurrection had actually taken place, the apostles could look back on his teachings with new and added light. And it was time for more.
LikeLike
May 8, 2008 at 2:57 am
Eliza-Anne
Forgive me if this seems rude. But proponents of Historical, Creed-based Christianity seem always to be trying to keep Jesus from talking. “Please, no more revelations or new information!” I am reminded of the wonderful chapter from The Brothers Karamozov called The Grand Inquisitor. In this tale within a tale Jesus returns to earth during the Spanish Inquisition. This is most inconvenient for the church and they decide they must put him to death. The Grand Inquisitor tries to explain it to him. “We have everything under control. Everything’s working. We can’t have you come and mess up our system, our institution, our life.” I won’t give away the ending—worth a read. But why the constant insistence that we don’t need any more information?
The apostle Paul was very clear on the fact that new Christians needed milk but that there was meat for mature Christians. Look at 1st Corinthians 2:
4And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect (gr. teleios=mature, seasoned): yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.”
What are these “deep things of God,” this “hidden wisdom” that can only be spoken about to those who are mature in the faith? If you don’t know, don’t blame us for having a credible answer.
As a Mormon temple attending Christian for 35 years I can testify to the fact that what is taught in the temple is that which Paul referred to as “the deep things of God.” We don’t go to the temple to have our sins remitted. But we go to grow in our Christian walk and commitment and to give all that we are and have to God’s work. We are given an endowment there, a rich gift of knowledge and light and strength to continue working out in our lives the grace and goodness that came into our lives when we first covenanted with Christ to enter into a saving relationship with him, to regard Him as our Savior. Nothing in the temple takes away from that primary relationship. In fact everything in the temple revolves around it.
Your knowledge of the Bible is impressive. It made me wonder if you are related in any way to Robbie Zacharias, the wonderful Christian teacher? But your knowledge of Latter Day Saints temple going practice is lacking. We could hardly expect it to be otherwise if you get your information from the standard sources used by outsiders.
This was going to be a multi-point post but it’s too long already. Enough for now.
LikeLike
May 8, 2008 at 6:31 am
ama49
#23
“We are given an endowment there, a rich gift of knowledge and light and strength to continue working out in our lives the grace and goodness that came into our lives when we first covenanted with Christ to enter into a saving relationship with him, to regard Him as our Savior. Nothing in the temple takes away from that primary relationship. In fact everything in the temple revolves around it.”
All I can say is amen to that! Well said.
LikeLike
June 4, 2008 at 10:43 pm
jack
First of all, I want to say to ama49 that I believe that you are truly committed to give correct information about the Mormon Church. You seem to be genuine in your desire to bring people together. I hope to be as respectful as you are. Because I respect the LDS view of the sacredness of the temple, I will not comment on anything particular. I used to be LDS, and understand your position.
With regard to your introductory comment about bridging the great divide, I have to say that Jesus did not use this tactic when confronting the Pharisees. He strongly pointed out the differences and even referred to them as sepulchres. Now, I’m not going to use this to say it gives me a right to bash you disrespectfully. I just want to point out that sometimes it is necessary to let the differences come to the surface and to allow for honest discussion.
I think we all know that you as an LDS would love to be an instrument in bringing souls to Christ because you believe that one needs to be LDS to reach the presence of God (I will not use salvation or exaltation because it is so confusing; Christ died so we could live eternity in God’s presence). I can respect that. I, too, desire to bring Mormons to the Christ of the Bible. Yes, the Christ of the Bible is not the same as the Christ of D&C.
What I would like for you to consider are the contradictions that Mormonism has within itself. We know that there will be differences between LDS and Christian perspectives. But, the contradictions within the LDS canon, which I will say includes the talks and articles by church leaders, is astounding. I will give one example: Was Adam made from the dust of this earth? Joseph Fielding Smith in “Doctrines of Salvation,” 1:90-91, 1954, states: “all declare (LDS canon) that Adam’s body was created from the dust of the ground, that is, from the dust of this ground, this earth…We hear a lot of people talk about Adam passing through mortality and the resurrection on another earth then coming here to live and die again…Adam had not passed through a resurrection when he was in the Garden of Eden…”
Here’s what Brigham Young had to say on the subject: “You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not, to my understanding” (Oct. 23, 1858, Journal of Discourses 2:6). More Brigham: “Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth” (Apr. 20, 1856, Journal of Discourses 3:319). More Brigham: “I tell you more, Adam is the father of our spirits. He had lived upon an earth…I reckon that Father Adam was a resurrected being…” (Brigham Young at General Conference, Oct. 8, 1854, Brigham Young Papers, Oct. 8, 1854, call number Ms.D 1234, Church Historian’s Office).
Does BY trump JFS because JFS was only an apostle when he made his comments? Obviously, what JFS said trumps BY because the Church does not hold to the BY teaching, which I know LDS will jump on to say that BY did not give official Church doctrine. But, he did. This is a man who stated that God would not teach anything to the Mormons that was wrong.
I know that every LDS will go into defense and persecution mode. Yes, I got the information from a book entitled “Mormonism: Changes, Contradictions, and Errors” by John R. Farkas and David A. Reed. There’s a reason LDS church leaders basically command members not to read such books. It’s not because such books open the road to apostasy; it’s because they lead the way to truth “and the truth shall set you free.”
I know that you will fall back on your “testimony” and how the Spirit has already borne witness that JS and all the other presidents of the church were true prophets. One final question: would the Spirit bear witness that BY was a prophet of God who preached such heresy? Looking forward the the comments.
LikeLike
June 6, 2008 at 2:30 am
adamf
Hey Jack I’ll comment here, even without falling back on my “testimony” if you wish. And I’ll try REALLY HARD not to go into “defense and persecution mode.” 😉
“the Christ of the Bible is not the same as the Christ of D&C.”
Fair enough, as your opinion, but who can say who “the Christ of the Bible” is? Now, if you said, “the Christ of the Evangelical interpretation (or whatever you label yourself) of the Bible is not the same as the Christ of the LDS interpretation,” I would agree. How can anyone claim to have the correct interpretation?
“I got the information from a book entitled “Mormonism: Changes, Contradictions, and Errors” by John R. Farkas and David A. Reed. There’s a reason LDS church leaders basically command members not to read such books.”
What about “The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy”? No, I haven’t read it because I like to form my own conclusions, but to claim that Mormonism is full of contradictions and that other religions, namely yours, is not, weakens your argument quite a bit. Yes, of course there are contradictions between various Mormon leaders. Mormons who think there are no contradictions are in for a hard road should they realize this. We can agree there. Any religious person who thinks there are no contradictions in their faith is ignoring quite a bit, imo.
Frankly I have no problem with contradictions because they are everywhere in religion, and in life. So it goes.
LikeLike
June 6, 2008 at 5:09 pm
jack
adamf, I just want to say that I respect the heck out of you. You make good points, and you don’t respond as if personally attacked.
It’s clear that you understand the different camps within evangelical Christianity. I want to put this out on the table right here and now: I am Wesleyan-Arminian in my theology.
I’m sure you know that within Christianity theology is divided into dogma, doctrine, and opinion. Dogma is what one absolutely needs to believe to be a Christian. Doctrine is what one needs to believe to belong to a certain denomination, such as the Church of the Nazarene. Opinion is just that. This usually pertains to subjects in which the Bible is not totally clear. With that said, I do not believe in the total inerrancy of the Bible. The books of Samuel and Chronicles differ greatly with regard to the story of King David. However, I believe the Bible is inerrant with regard to revealing to humanity what is necessary to enter God’s presence. I think it’s best if we stay away from the different languages we share; i.e. salvation, exaltation, celestial kingdom, heaven, etc. Fair enough? Because, we all want to come into God’s presence for eternity. Both you and I desire that for ourselves, each other, and for all humanity. We have that common goal.
Now, who can say who the Christ of the Bible is? The Bible. The main dogmatic difference is that we believe Christ is the new covenant, and that there is no need for a “new” new covenant that LDS call the covenant of marriage. We believe that only the work of Christ brings us into the presence of God the Father for eternity. I can’t bring you there. I can’t bring my children there. I can’t bring my grandparents there. And, they can’t get me there. Only Christ can–through His blood. Christ is God, and He is to be worshiped as such. But, now we’re getting into the discussion of the Trinity verses the Godhead, and what they mean. I think that’s for another day.
Now, you acknowledge that Mormon leaders conflict each other, and I admire you for that. However, the argument the LDS Church has against Christianity is the conflicts within Christianity itself. The other problem is Brigham Young stating that God would reveal anything for him to give to the saints that wasn’t true. Based on this premise, the Church would still be practicing Blood Atonement and espousing the Adam-God doctrine. But, now, the Church states that those teachings are not official Church doctrine. Making such a statement, I believe, renders Brigham Young unauthoritative as a prophet, which you believe him to be.
adamf, I understand the poition in which you find yourself as LDS. I love the LDS people. My children and their mother are still LDS. It’s not my goal to trash Mormons, but to bring them the truth about Christ and His grace, which is more than “after all we can do.”
Thanks for responding to me. I bet you’re a great guy!
LikeLike
June 7, 2008 at 10:56 pm
adamf
I appreciate your response Jack. You seem like a swell guy yourself… and I am understanding your view better now. I always appreciate it when people respond kindly rather than defensively, or not at all, which happens quite often, especially in discussions like this.
Re: “after all we can do” – I actually wrote on this topic a few weeks ago… check it out if you are curious. I would love to discuss that issue more there, if you want.
Re: “unauthoritative as a prophet” – This idea rests on whether or not prophets have to always be correct in order to be prophets. I’m assuming by your comment that they do have to be. In fact, I’ll bet there are plenty of LDS out there who feel this way too. They may give lip service to the “leaders are not perfect” idea, but in reality they really do view everything that is said by a prophet or apostle as “the word,” which I do not.
LikeLike
June 9, 2008 at 6:10 pm
jack
adamf,
I read your article and some of the responses. I can see that we differ in the meaning of “saved.” For the LDS, saved is a free gift that everyone will receive because even the telestial kingdom will be better than our current existence. I believe that works for the LDS is tied into celestial glory. So, it’s easy to say, “Sure, we’re saved by grace,” but then add, “works will determine whether or not we attain to celestial glory and godhood.” My problem is that being saved does not mean just getting to a place better than earth, but that it connotes coming into God’s presence, which is what LDS call the celestial kingdom.
Here’s something for you to think about: how can you impose what you think the 2 Nephi passage means? One can’t ask: what does this passage mean to you? The question that needs to be posed is: what is God saying in this passage? Before the response can be contextualized to today, one must be able to understand what the original author was saying to the original hearer.
Also, please consider how you need to tweak the response so that it’s more palitable when you speak to Christians.
I do like that you point out that hometeaching would definitely be a stumbling block for most men in the church because it’s rare that 100% hometeaching is achieved. But, a person should do 100% hometeaching because he is responding to God’s grace in his life and he wants to share it with others. It should not be done simply because “I have to do my hometeaching.” Such a statement reveals the sense of works righteousness that denies God’s grace in our lives. I know that I have a responsibity in my life to do good works. I agree that James clearly states that faith without works is dead. Works are a response to God’s grace and an evidence of our faith in Christ.
Now, I know there are members who perform their duties because of their love for Christ and humanity, not because it will earn them something; however, I still believe it’s a prevalent undertone that our works will keep us from the wrath of God and earn us “something.”
Regarding Oskar Schindler, he can only be saved if he believed in Jesus Christ. Mere philanthropy does not equal faith in Christ.
With regard to prophets, it’s not merely a matter of whether everything they say is correct. The issue is that Brigham Young is the one who made such a bold statement about himself. I didn’t say it. Also, I don’t believe the current “prophet” would be able to trump what another prophet said. God would not give the doctrines of blood atonement and Adam/God to BY only to reverse it through another “prophet.” The blessings of celestial marriage, which includes polygamy, would not be revealed by God to one “prophet,” then reversed by another. So, in essence, the LDS Church de-authorized JS and BY on these issues so that LDS teachings will be more palitable to non-LDS and as a means of bringing converts into the church without revealing the truth of LDS doctrine. It’s easy to respond to such allegations by saying, “It’s not official church doctrine.” The fact is that such doctrines were official and, as most LDS believe, will again be official doctrines of the church.
One last thing, this dialog was prompted by the article regarding temple ordinances or Jesus for salvation. Temple work is based on the premise that one needs to be baptized to be saved, as well as enter into celestial marriage. These acts are then considered works, and they are much different from the works that James talks about. Think about this: we are not saved by any human act other than confessing Christ and accepting His grace. Baptism is not regenerative. It is the sign of the new covenant just as circumcision was the sign of the old covenant. So, my response to the article is that Jesus over temple ordinances to be saved.
LikeLike
June 9, 2008 at 7:25 pm
adamf
Jack-there’s a lot here to respond to, but I’ll try to respond to some of it.
“One can’t ask: what does this passage mean to you? The question that needs to be posed is: what is God saying in this passage?”
Fair enough. I suppose we may disagree here. While I do consider context as being quite important, I don’t think anyone can know exactly what God is saying in any passage.
“It should not be done simply because ‘I have to do my hometeaching.’”
I agree, in a sense. I would add, however, that from my perspective, works (in this case hometeaching) shape us, they help us grow. I don’t just do them because I feel grace, but perhaps for a more selfish reason of wanting to progress. As you pointed out, we both want to return to God’s presence, but I want to become like him as well. “Own my own world” as I have been told by evangelicals, lol.
“he can only be saved if he believed in Jesus Christ”
Perhaps we disagree here as well. I do not think it is necessary for someone to believe in Christ—in this life—to be saved. I do think eventually they need to accept Christ, and I someone like Oskar Schindler would because he had a change of heart. I cannot believe in a God who would damn his own children for being born in the wrong place with the wrong set of beliefs, or with a brain that doesn’t believe just because someone told them.
“It’s easy to respond to such allegations by saying, ‘It’s not official church doctrine.’”
Frankly, what is, and what is not doctrine is not much of a concern to me. I follow my own conscience in regards to spiritual things, and that just happens to line up in a lot of areas with Mormonism.
In regards to Brigham Young, I’m sure he made bold statements about himself that contradicted himself. He was a bold man. It actually bothers me more that he was racist than any of the stuff with Adam/God doctrine. I’m sure there is stuff being taught now that will be incorrect or incomplete in the future. I believe there is a ton of stuff we don’t know now. We see through a glass darkly.
“the LDS Church de-authorized JS and BY on these issues”
Who is the church? This is actually another huge tangent for me, lol. I wrote about that on mormon matters as well…
“without revealing the truth of LDS doctrine”
This is subjective, I think. What really is the truth of LDS doctrine? I personally feel that there is very little “Doctrine” in the church, (just my opinion though).
Thanks for the continuing discussion! And I realize it’s getting a little off track from the post (though you tried to bring it back), I’m really enjoying it.
LikeLike
June 9, 2008 at 7:57 pm
adamf
Hah! I just realized my last comment was #666! I must be going to hell for my heretical beliefs!
Also, I was thinking about the nature of these types of debates/discussions. They are very interesting intellectually, and sometimes provide additional understanding or enlightenment about things spiritual, but when we move past sharing our beliefs, and into debating the validity of them, I think they are pointless and unproductive.
As for the post, I think Temple Ordinances ARE Jesus, and Jesus IS salvation.
LikeLike
June 9, 2008 at 10:05 pm
jack
adamf,
There’s a difference between becoming like God, which is what Christians believe Christ-likeness is about, and becoming a god, which is the focus of Mormon doctrine.
God’s purpose is to restore us to His image. This entails God’s character. God’s character is rooted in love, which permeates His holiness. God tells us to be holy as He is holy. Through the Person of Christ, God shows us how to be holy: believe in Christ, love God with all our heart, might, mind, and strength, and love our neighbors as ourselves. There is nothing that references any temple ordinances as you believe them to be. Ordinances don’t do anything, really. Faith in Christ Jesus saves, brings us into a new relationship with God because we are a new creation, and through this faith God makes us holy.
When you talk about doing home teaching for the “selfish” reason of wanting to progress, the perspective from which you make this comment is that service is for the good of perfecting the saints. However, service doesn’t perfect believers, God does through the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit. Works are the natural outcome of our faith in Christ. They are our response to what Christ has done in our lives. The first thing I learned when I converted from Mormonism to Christianity is that the only thing I could ever merit for myself is death. I’m all for spiritual formation; however, it’s the Spirit that accomplishes this task and not anything we do. Fruits follow the indwelling of the Spirit; fruits don’t cause the Spirit to indwell us.
I am confused that you don’t think anyone could know what God is saying in any passage. Why would God give us His word if we’re not supposed to know what it means? The word “study” is not a bad word. Theology is what we do as human beings; it faith seeking understanding. We are all theologians, and studying God’s word requires that we understand the biblical text through historical context. Learning is a hallmark of the LDS people. Why would not be as important with regard to theology?
I think you ought to be concerned with church doctrine, especially when it espouses beliefs contrary to the biblical text. As far as not much doctrine in the LDS Church, everything you believe is based on church doctrine. LDS church doctrine is all around you.
Regarding BY, I’m just glad I no longer have to struggle to defend his erroneous teachings. What “stuff” are you referring to that is being taught, today, that just might not be correct or incomplete in the future? This line of thinking begs the question: what’s the purpose of modern-day revelation if it’s not going to be correct or complete tomorrow? A “prophet” today can’t trump a “prophet” of yesterday. Is this the kind of stuff that just happens to line up with your own thinking and personal beliefs?
“Who is the church?” For the LDS, the Church is an organization–an entity– through which God saves people, i.e. baptism, temple endowment, marriages performed in the temple, etc. For Christians, saved people make up the Church and become the body of Christ.
There is nothing biblical that teaches we will have opportunity in the after-life to accept Christ. In fact, the BOM doesn’t teach this, either. Read 2 Nephi 9:38, Mosiah 16: 5 &11, and Alma 34. The view you express comes straight from D&C 137: 1-5.
adamf, I alert you to these things so that you can ponder them, study them, and ask the Spirit to guide you. He is calling you to the truth even as you read this. God’s grace is calling out to you. Talk to you, later!
LikeLike
June 9, 2008 at 10:32 pm
adamf
Jack–once again I appreciate you response. You really lay down a the kitchen sink–more than I can respond to without slowing down and going over everything one by one.
I will think more about some of your comments and respond later, but for now just a little:
“I am confused that you don’t think anyone could know what God is saying in any passage.”
Yeah, I think I need to be more clear. I think one can know (as much as they can know anything in this life) what “God is saying,” but only for themselves. I don’t think one can know for someone else, AND THEN try to use it in an intellectual debate.
For you to suggest to me that you are “alerting” me, and that you have “the truth” holds no water in an intellectual debate. I AM interested in sharing beliefs, and I appreciate your desire to convert me to “the Christ of the Bible,” as you believe Him, but I don’t believe people are converted by debates, and I don’t think people can appeal to any authority–God, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, prophets, etc. in a debate. It’s like my Catholic friend telling me the Book of Mormon isn’t true because God said it wasn’t, or a Muslim friend telling me there is only Allah. What purpose does that serve? None in a discussion, and probably ineffective in proselyting.
LikeLike
June 9, 2008 at 10:56 pm
adamf
“There is nothing that references any temple ordinances as you believe them to be.”
Nothing in the Bible? We could argue that as well, but I don’t care either way—I’m okay that we see it differently. But as you well know, Mormons do not limit themselves to the Bible. And just speaking for myself, I believe there is “doctrine” to be found in religions and science and philosophy etc. all over the place. So obviously, I do not need a “Christian” interpretation of the Bible to solely base my beliefs on.
“Ordinances don’t do anything, really.”
I already assumed you thought that, lol.
“Service doesn’t perfect believers”
I agree. That’s not what I meant. For an example, if I accept God’s grace and then don’t do anything, I don’t progress. If I do take action (as you pointed out from James), then I will progress, because of grace.
“Works are the natural outcome of our faith in Christ. They are our response to what Christ has done in our lives.”
I believe that is the highest motive for works, but it is not the case with everyone.
“The first thing I learned when I converted from Mormonism to Christianity is that the only thing I could ever merit for myself is death.”
I agree that we can do nothing on our own. Works without faith are dead?
“It’s the Spirit that accomplishes this task and not anything we do.”
I agree with this too, and I think you agree that while the Spirit accomplishes the work, if we don’t do anything we’ll lose it. Maybe you don’t.
“I think you ought to be concerned with church doctrine, especially when it espouses beliefs contrary to the biblical text.”
This is an old argument now, as we both know the bible contains contradictions of itself. Perhaps we have different views on what exactly “the Bible” is. If that is the case I think we can agree to disagree and move on.
“As far as not much doctrine in the LDS Church, everything you believe is based on church doctrine. LDS church doctrine is all around you.”
Then we have to get into the “what is doctrine” argument, which is, again, subjective. For me anyway. My beliefs are not limited by what BY or GBH or St. Augistine or Buddha or St. Paul or anyone else.
“Regarding BY, I’m just glad I no longer have to struggle to defend his erroneous teachings.”
I was fortunate to have a father who taught me that I never had to defend erroneous teachings, and I realize that many struggle with this.
“What “stuff” are you referring to that is being taught, today, that just might not be correct or incomplete in the future?”
Anything could be incomplete, of course. I don’t believe we have a complete understanding of anything.
“This line of thinking begs the question: what’s the purpose of modern-day revelation if it’s not going to be correct or complete tomorrow?”
Good question. What’s the purpose of revelation at all if we have all the truth? Now were getting into stuff I like thinking about…
“A “prophet” today can’t trump a “prophet” of yesterday. Is this the kind of stuff that just happens to line up with your own thinking and personal beliefs?”
The can’t? Says who? A prophet? Perhaps I have a different view of prophets. Really, Moses killed a man. Abraham and Joseph (Smith) were polygamists. BY was racist. So it goes. They’re all far from perfect, and not everything they taught was true, regardless of who says what “doctrine” is.
“For the LDS, the Church is an organization–an entity– through which God saves people, i.e. baptism, temple endowment, marriages performed in the temple, etc. For Christians, saved people make up the Church and become the body of Christ.”
I disagree with the former, and agree with the latter. The “church” is many things to me, although according to you, many LDS see the church as an organization.
“There is nothing biblical that teaches we will have opportunity in the after-life to accept Christ.”
Okay. But you are limiting yourself to the Bible, which is totally fine, according to your beliefs. I do not, which is fine for me.
“The BOM doesn’t teach this, either. Read 2 Nephi 9:38, Mosiah 16: 5 &11, and Alma 34. The view you express comes straight from D&C 137: 1-5.”
And I don’t limit myself to the BoM, nor the D&C. And as far as I’m aware, LDS prophets do not tell us to limit ourselves either.
Jack—thanks again for the conversation. I am worrying a little that you are engaging in this with the purpose of bringing me to your Christ (which in and of itself I have no problem with—I even have a great respect for your motives), but intellectual argument is not going to do it. That being said, I do enjoy the discussions.
LikeLike
June 9, 2008 at 10:58 pm
adamf
I said “later’ and I wrote another response in 20 min… lol. I am enjoying this too much. 🙂
LikeLike
June 9, 2008 at 11:06 pm
adamf
Re: 2 Nephi 9:38 and etc: Those scriptures (imo) are not referring to “believing in Christ” but rather to one’s character. They are suggesting that we will not magically change in character once we die.
LikeLike
June 9, 2008 at 11:42 pm
jack
adamf,
I happily limit myself to the Bible. Believing the Bible is insufficient works from the premise that God is not sovereign enough to protect His word. Everything needed to know to enter God’s presence is found in the biblical text.
As for being motivated to bring you to “my” Christ seems to state that you believe there are different Christs. There is only one Christ, and one learns about Him in the Bible. As for my true motives, absolutely, I pray the Spirit will work in your heart and mind to bring you the the true Christ of the Bible.
As for intellectual argument, what other kind of argument is there? Everything we do is intellectual to a degree, especially when talking about God’s word. Do you think we come to a knowledge of God without intellectual and spiritual discernment?
I’m not trying to be facetious with my next comments, adamf, but at times it sounds like you’re not LDS at all. Is there such a thing as a liberal Mormon? I think traditional members might fear that you were beginning to apostatize, especially when you say that you don’t limit yourself to the LDS canon. Again, I’m not being facetious but merely making an observation, right or wrong. As for LDS prophets not limiting you on what you can read and study, if I remember correctly, reading anything outside the LDS canon and Church publications is dangerous because it leads to apostasy.
Anyway, this is my last post for the day. Have a blessed evening!
LikeLike
June 10, 2008 at 3:17 am
adamf
Jack-thanks again for the quick response. I’m sorry about taking so much time on this today.
“I pray the Spirit will work in your heart and mind to bring you the true Christ of the Bible.” – Once again, I appreciate your prayer here. In fact, considering you believe that I won’t enter God’s presence if I don’t accept what you believe, then I would be offended if you didn’t pray for me.
Re: “intellectual argument” – My point here was that it is impossible to prove the truth of anyone’s beliefs. One cannot “prove” that the Bible is “God’s word,” nor can I prove anything to you. You state that everything you need to know to enter God’s presence is found in the biblical text, but you cannot prove it, nor can I. You continue appealing to the Bible, and saying that your beliefs are correct, but there is no proof outside of subjective spiritual experience, which cannot be proven to another. That is why I love to “intellectually” discuss and share beliefs, but get tired of debating. I’m beginning to think the “divide” really is too wide. 😉
Re: “apostasy” and “I’m not being facetious but merely making an observation, right or wrong.” I would say wrong, lol. Jack, I think you are putting your stuff on me here (i.e. your view of Mormons and your own experience with it). Obviously we don’t know each other, and there are severe limits to these types of discussions. And if I remember correctly, Joseph Smith said to gather up all the good in the world in order to become a true Mormon, and David McKay quoted literature more often than the scriptures…
Re: “liberal” I really don’t like labels… here is some of what I believe: In God who is our father and a perfect man, I believe Christ is literally God’s son and the Savior of all, in continuing revelation, that the Book of Mormon and the Bible contain much of God’s teachings (but certainly not all—and I have had spiritual experiences with both books), that the Holy Spirit inspires people inside and outside of the Mormon faith, including you, and Buddha, and Muhammad, and all types of other people. I don’t believe God limits His influence to just the LDS church. And no, I have never heard any leader say that reading anything outside of LDS canon/publications will lead to apostasy, nor has the Spirit confirmed the truth of that idea to me.
I don’t mind continuing this, but I really don’t think it’s going to go anywhere fruitful. You are still going to believe what you believe, and I’m still going to believe what I believe, and neither of us will be very enlightened. Have a nice evening yourself. 🙂
LikeLike
June 10, 2008 at 5:22 pm
jack
adamf,
I appreciate your candor. But, really, you are not the typical Mormon. I have just about had it with this blog, anyway. The reason the divide is too big is because, as you state, LDS believe in a God that is a perfect man. I believe in a God who has always been God. The goal of bringing people closer to God as some sort of joint effort is truly unrealistic because of the differences we have regarding the nature of God. I just want to close our dialog with this, because I believe it accurately describes my feelings about Mormons:
“Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Mormons is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they do not know the righteousness that comes from God and seek to establish their own, the do not submit to God’s righteousness. Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes” (Romans 10:1-4).
God bless you, adamf. It has indeed been a pleasure dialoging with you. You have been very respectful, honest, and cheerful. I wish there were a way to give you my email address without it being accessible to everyone. It would be great to talk to you about other things besides this great divide. I have come to like you, and I do respect your views. I respect the LDS people; that’s why I left the temple ceremony out of the discussion. It’s sacred to you, and I don’t want to be as other former members who want to tear down everything sacred. But, I cannot refrain from pointing out LDS doctrine that goes against sound biblical teaching. I know, that’s my opinion. Again, thank you for dialoging with me.
LikeLike
June 10, 2008 at 10:23 pm
RonL
Jack and Adam,
I have enjoyed reading your dialogue – you both sound sincere in your faith in God. Several issues that have been discussed have sparked honest questions in my mind, which I would like to discuss with Jack:
1. What is a typical Mormon?
2. How can the Bible be free from private interpretation without church authority?
3. Paul talks about earning crowns in Heaven – what are these crowns? Do they bring us closer to God?
4. What role does doctrine play in our salvation?
blessings
LikeLike
June 11, 2008 at 11:15 pm
adamf
ama49 – A friend of mine tried to leave a comment on this thread but it has not appeared yet… Is this thread closed now? Or was it because Jack is not commenting here anymore?
LikeLike
June 14, 2008 at 4:14 pm
adamf
Okay–it’s up now. 🙂
RonL, I don’t know if Jack is here anymore, but if there are others with his type of beliefs perhaps they could answer. From my view:
1. I don’t think there is one. Jack was obviously basing his view of a “typical Mormon” off of his own experience (which we all do). Perhaps some research is in order, lol.
2. It cannot, imo.
3. The crowns sound like rewards to me… oops, did I just suggest that we can earn anything? Sorry about that. 🙂
4. I personally believe that doctrines play very little (they are probably not central, imo) in our salvation.
LikeLike