Robert,
What surprises me most about what you are saying is nothing that is taught in your temples or what you have said above is unique or complicated. It is the essence of discipleship of Christ.
Yes, I understand your point. But, for example, the Catholic Church, unlike the Mormon church, does not hide anything from prospective converts for fear they will reject the teachings. Who are they to judge when someone is ready to hear the “whole truth”? There are those who could possibly agree with them before converting to Mormonism, and were needing to hear that “truth” to make the conversion. So the Mormons could be missing on an opportunity to convert someone. My opinion is that they know how far out their “truths” are, and because of this, they expect for prospective converts to reject their teachings, so they hold back, or hide, the “meat” until they have converted and, hopefully, then, believe the rest of their teachings.
While I realize that I am on the “do not respond list”, I must say that I do agree with one statement you made and that is: “We have profoundly different views of God’s purposes in His having created this world for us.”
I keep trying to find out these “truths” that are being withheld from the world; do you know what they are? What is the whole truth that you are talking about?
Hi Parker - I guess I don’t know everything. “Lying for the Lord” is a new one for even me! Even though I have personally witnessed it in action, I didn’t know “it” had a name.
Then why does John 6:66 tell us “As a result of this,many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer acommpanied him.”
How can one become baptized into a religion/faith without a full understanding of what it takes to be a full-fledged member?
What happens if they don’t keep the commandments, acting lovingly, aren’t happy, don’t study scripture and pray…What then?
Would the missionaries be able to discuss these topics with potential/new converts?
Why are members prohibited from reading non-LDS sources regarding archaeology?
I think it’s clear from the Biblical record that LDS follow what is done in the Bible, where one is baptized when they receive a witness from the Holy Ghost (after faith and repentance), and not after a year of teaching.
Members of the restored Church of Jesus Christ believe that one receives eternal life by having faith in Jesus Christ, repenting, being baptized, receiving the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end. Enduring to the end means that we also follow the commandments of the Lord, which includes various temple ordinances. If, for some reason, a person is not able to participate in these ordinances in this life, we believe that they will have the opportunity to accept them in the afterlife (before the resurrection). All of this is made possible through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
Of course. I did so many times before I converted.
Members are not prohibited from reading non-LDS sources regarding archaeology. I do all the time. If we are, then please cite a source.
No, we all don’t know that. There is no definitive statement from the Church of Jesus Christ stating where the Book of Mormon took place.
So, salvation is dependant upon various temple ordinances. If so, it seems this all important detail was overlooked by the New Testament writers. How do you suppose that happened?
I was not aware that all doctrines must be found in the Bible, since the Bible does not teach that belief.
Are you trying to say that temple ordinances were in effect, but just not mentioned?
CONTINUED:
Hello BYU - please show where LDS temple ordinances are in the bible. Like I have said a zillion times, unless you are offering animal sacrifices you are not following what is done in the bible.
Does one need to believe in Joseph Smith and that all other churches are apostate?
Did you ask questions of the bishop because the missionaries would not answer them for you?
Because you have just jumped into my discussion with Parker, I am assuming you have read our previous posts regarding this matter?
So, now because you cannot face the issue you are attacking my understanding of my relationship with God, and by falsely declaring what it is I believe. This does not become you Parker.
Parker, you’re changing the subject. My point was not that your doctrines concerning the afterlife don’t make sense, although I think you have some real disconnects from Scripture there. My point was that your “lying for the Lord” - i.e. withholding some of the fundamental doctrines of mormonism from those you are seeking to convert is entirely inconsistent with a search for truth. Your point about “milk before meat” does not make sense, because we’re not talking about physics or calculus, but about a very non-complicated explanation of how mormonism differs from traditional christian and Catholic doctrine. It does not take special insight or experiential knowledge to hear that Mormons believe that God was once a man and that men can become like God, and decide whether that teaching is consistent with Scripture. It does not take experiential knowledge to hear that mormons believe differently concerning the nature of marriage. It does not take experiential knowledge to tell someone - in a way they can understand - that mormons differ fundamentally from other christians in their conception of the Trinity. In short, I’m saying that you really have no good excuse for the practice of “lying for the Lord” - and you seem unwilling to engage truthfully about this topic. Instead, you keep changing the subject or attacking my understanding. (And BTW, not in a very honest way).
Interesting, but not responsive.
Really, I have no interest in alienating you or making you feel bad about yourself. What I’m trying to say is that you really haven’t - despite your trying - explained your earlier comments which seemed to be saying it’s okay for mormons to omit material facts from a discussion with others about what they really believe. Can’t you see how such a comment makes communications with mormons about what they really believe inherently problematic?