Christians: What in this Book do you Disagree With?

[Sola'lor]

I'm really confused. Perhaps I just don't understand the idea of progression. Can you explain it to me using actual quotes from the Bible. Why would anyone accept anything LESS than the whole gospel?

I don'ty have scriptures with me right now. Hopefully this explaination will help. For example we have two people. One person believes in Christ but doesn't really go to church or follow any commandments. This person is happy with doing whatever s/he want even if it doesn't agree with Christ's teachings. The other person Believes in Christ and does his/her best to follow the commandments. I believe Person A will recieve a level of exaltation suitable to his/her desires. Person A probably wouldn't be comfortable stepping into a Church or someplace higher class. THey would be outside their comfort zone. So person A probably wouldn't be comfortable recieving a higher level of exaltation. It would be outside of their nature. Person B would be more comfortable in a church because this is how they have lead their life. They would be more comfortable recieving a higher level of exaltation.

I'm not saying our exaltation isdetermined by our comfort level. I was just pointing out some examples of how not everyone will want the highest level of exaltation.

Besides I thought acceptance of Christ was (according to LDS) only a means for salvation. And if I'm reading Sola'lor's words right, it DOES sound like Christ decides exultation BASED ON WORKS.

You can't simply accept Christ. You have to follow the commandments to the best you can. What we do is an indicator of the level of devotion we have to Christ. But no matter what we do CHrist will still decide who will gain exaltation. Even if I do every thing and follow every commandment Christ could still deny me. The only thing I can do is trust in Christ and trust His promises.

 

[DeepShadow]

Sticking to the scriptures, King Benjamin had a great speech that covered how to reconcile works with grace, showing that we are earning nothing:

20 I say unto you, my brethren, that if you should render all the thanks and praise which your whole soul has power to possess, to that God who has created you, and has kept and preserved you, and has caused that ye should rejoice, and has granted that ye should live in peace one with another—
21 I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another—I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants.
22 And behold, all that he requires of you is to keep his commandments; and he has promised you that if ye would keep his commandments ye should prosper in the land; and he never doth vary from that which he hath said; therefore, if ye do keep his commandments he doth bless you and prosper you.
23 And now, in the first place, he hath created you, and granted unto you your lives, for which ye are indebted unto him.
24 And secondly, he doth require that ye should do as he hath commanded you; for which if ye do, he doth immediately bless you; and therefore he hath paid you. And ye are still indebted unto him, and are, and will be, forever and ever; therefore, of what have ye to boast?

 

[tomspug]

22 And behold, all that he requires of you is to keep his commandments;

This is old law. The old law is only applicable to our daily lives, not to eternity. All that the law does is condemn us to death, which is the penalty that Christ freed us from. This is why I keep pointing to Romans, because the idea of progression just doesn't make sense! Why would we follow the law as if we will be rewarded when Paul tells us not to cling to it?

There seems to be two differing thoughts here: Is progression rewarded by works or not? If so, how do you apologize for the differences between Paul's view of the law and the LDS's view of the law?

 

[Francine]

There seems to be two differing thoughts here: Is progression rewarded by works or not? If so, how do you apologize for the differences between Paul's view of the law and the LDS's view of the law?

To be fair, King Benjamin was speaking to people who lived in BC, not AD.

 

[tomspug]

To be fair, King Benjamin was speaking to people who lived in BC, not AD.

Thus the reason I said it was 'old law'.

 

[Francine]

Thus the reason I said it was 'old law'.

If you criticize King Benjamin for preaching law-keeping to people who were living in anticipation of the cross, why stop there? Why not offer condemnation of Moses, Ezekiel, Isaiah, etc?

 

[DeepShadow]

There seems to be two differing thoughts here: Is progression rewarded by works or not? If so, how do you apologize for the differences between Paul's view of the law and the LDS's view of the law?

We seem to be getting ahead of ourselves. At the bottom of the previous page, I asked you if you thought good health was a "reward" for eating healthy and exercising. Please answer this question before we proceed.

 

[Sola'lor]

This is old law. The old law is only applicable to our daily lives, not to eternity. All that the law does is condemn us to death, which is the penalty that Christ freed us from. This is why I keep pointing to Romans, because the idea of progression just doesn't make sense! Why would we follow the law as if we will be rewarded when Paul tells us not to cling to it?

There seems to be two differing thoughts here: Is progression rewarded by works or not? If so, how do you apologize for the differences between Paul's view of the law and the LDS's view of the law?

So you are saying it doesn't matter what we do in this life? We can disobey whatever commandment we want and it's ok?

 

[sojourner]

So you are saying it doesn't matter what we do in this life? We can disobey whatever commandment we want and it's ok?

Why would we believers want to disobey?

 

[sojourner]

We seem to be getting ahead of ourselves. At the bottom of the previous page, I asked you if you thought good health was a "reward" for eating healthy and exercising. Please answer this question before we proceed.

Good health is a product (in part) of healthy eating.

 

[nutshell]

Why would we believers want to disobey?

You didn't answer his question.

 

[tomspug]

First: Tomspug, do you consider good health a "reward" for eating well and exercising?

DeepShadow, you seem to love metaphors. But here's the problem: good health is a reward for exercise 'in life'. So, I agree with you, but not the way you want me to. Being obedient to God affects our present life positively, in the same way as exercise, but the analogy does not follow from 'life' to 'after-life'.

Besides, even if it did, it doesn't make the doctrine of 'progression' from humanity to godhood more believable. Do I believe that there are rewards in heaven? I think so, but it's quite a stretch to say that we can become MORE than human because of it.

I believe that I have presented plenty of evidence that contradicts the idea of progression. How about if someone tries to refute my specific points instead of using metaphors and other distracting rhetoric.

 

[nutshell]

DeepShadow, you seem to love metaphors. But here's the problem: good health is a reward for exercise 'in life'. So, I agree with you, but not the way you want me to. Being obedient to God affects our present life positively, in the same way as exercise, but the analogy does not follow from 'life' to 'after-life'.

Besides, even if it did, it doesn't make the doctrine of 'progression' from humanity to godhood more believable. Do I believe that there are rewards in heaven? I think so, but it's quite a stretch to say that we can become MORE than human because of it.

I believe that I have presented plenty of evidence that contradicts the idea of progression. How about if someone tries to refute my specific points instead of using metaphors and other distracting rhetoric.

But we are more than humans. We are spirits - the children of God. This isn't about reward. Good health isn't a prize to be claimed by doing certain things - it's the natural result of living a healthy life. In the exact same way, we progress spiritually be living a spiritually healthy life. Why is this possible? Because we are more than mere humans.

As for your specific points, I've failed to see any on your part. Would you like to give me one or two now that I can take a shot at?

 

[Katzpur]

As for your specific points, I've failed to see any on your part. Would you like to give me one or two now that I can take a shot at?

I didn't see any specific points, either, and I'm certainly willing to try to address them.

 

[DeepShadow]

Why would we believers want to disobey?

Of course, I've heard the argument that a true believer will obey...but that simply correlates the two in the other direction. Either way, obedience is correlated to belief, and we're trying to argue about whether A causes B or B causes A.

 

[sojourner]

Of course, I've heard the argument that a true believer will obey...but that simply correlates the two in the other direction. Either way, obedience is correlated to belief, and we're trying to argue about whether A causes B or B causes A.

Here's the post to which I responded:

So you are saying it doesn't matter what we do in this life? We can disobey whatever commandment we want and it's ok?

This is a moot question. The post assumes a false legalism. This is the same type of question that the lawyer in Luke 10 tries to trip up Jesus with: "Who is my neighbor (who do I have to love, in order to live eternally)?" Jesus' answer (and mine) disables the false legalism that puts up a straw man argument.

It isn't the legalistic act of obedience that's important. It's the desire to do good, no matter what, that counts. The post, being a straw man, deserved no other answer.

 

[sojourner]

You didn't answer his question.

Yes I did. See Post #216.

 

[tomspug]

Good grief. I'm getting really tired of my points being ignored... I think some of you have selective reading.

Point #1: The Adam & Eve story establishes sin as being based in the desire to be like God.
Point #2: Paul's explanation of salvation in Romans contradicts the idea of progression.
Point #3: There is no 'substantial' Biblical evidence for the concept of progression.
Point #4: The denial of the Trinity.

I'd like to change the subject, honestly, because I think the previous four points have been exhausted.

I brought this up before, but I'd like to focus on it. A huge amount of LDS doctrine effectively borrows Biblical concepts and attributes them not to their 'original' source (the Bible) but the three Mormon texts. What I mean to imply is that Mormon doctrine does not appear to add to the truths already in place in the Bible to a substantial degree. It either repeats what is already in the Bible, or alters it.

So, instead of just disagreeing with me, you know the books better than I do. Give some good examples from Mormon books that bring new light to the truths of the Bible, not regurgitate what is already there. I'm curious whether or not you can find something that not only doesn't contradict my beliefs but even enlightens me.

 

[Katzpur]

Good grief. I'm getting really tired of my points being ignored... I think some of you have selective reading.

I think we just disagree with the conclusions you've come to.

Point #1: The Adam & Eve story establishes sin as being based in the desire to be like God.

I don't think it establishes that at all! Why would Jesus command us to be perfect, just as God is, if it were a sin? The sin (more accurately, the trangression) was in disobeying God, not in wanting to be like Him.

Point #2: Paul's explanation of salvation in Romans contradicts the idea of progression.

I don't have time right now to re-read Romans. Are you thinking of any specific verses?

Point #3: There is no 'substantial' Biblical evidence for the concept of progression.

There are passages, though, that imply that we may someday become as God. I believe I already mentioned these at some point, though, but that you told me you didn't believe they supported our argument. If you can show me where the Bible says we cannot progress once we are in Heaven, I will consider your point of view.

Point #4: The denial of the Trinity.

There is no "substantial" Biblical evidence for the concept of the Trinity.

I'd like to change the subject, honestly, because I think the previous four points have been exhausted.

I'm fine with that. I think we're beating a dead horse already.

I brought this up before, but I'd like to focus on it. A huge amount of LDS doctrine effectively borrows Biblical concepts and attributes them not to their 'original' source (the Bible) but the three Mormon texts. What I mean to imply is that Mormon doctrine does not appear to add to the truths already in place in the Bible to a substantial degree. It either repeats what is already in the Bible, or alters it.

Would you give an example of an LDS teaching that actually "alters" what the Bible teaches, as opposed to merely expounding upon what the Bible teaches?

So, instead of just disagreeing with me, you know the books better than I do. Give some good examples from Mormon books that bring new light to the truths of the Bible, not regurgitate what is already there. I'm curious whether or not you can find something that not only doesn't contradict my beliefs but even enlightens me.

How about the concept of the Pre-mortal existance of man?

 

[nutshell]

Yes I did. See Post #216.

You hadn't answered his question when I posted to you (my post was before your post 216).