Mormons: What does it mean that Michael holds the keys of Salvation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CHESTERTONRULES
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
this one is pretty darned basic. 😉 You know, the part about us being, quite literally, God’s children? Puts a whole new spin on the whole reason thing, y’know.
Are you suggesting that, being literally God’s children we will one day grow up into literally gods ourselves, and therefore finally be worthy of his love?
 
SteveVH,
First, note from Revelation 12:7 that the Devil and his “angels” were “cast down to earth” where he makes war with the saints.

Note also Daniel 12:1 where Michael the prince becomes involved during the end times, during a time of great tribulation when “none of the wicked shall understand” (v. 10) the signs of the times.

Daniel 7, Daniel 12, and Genesis 2 are completely reliable and noteworthy with respect to both Michael and Adam. Adam kept the commandment he had received to “be with Eve” after Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit. He wasn’t rebelling against God, nor siding with Lucifer. He had a choice that was a quandary, and brought opposition into the world as a result of the choice he made to remain with Eve and be her helpmeet as well as she his.
Parker, to relate Michael to Adam is a huge stretch. I see nothing in these verses which would lead me to make that connection. Will Michael be involved in the final battle? Yes, but he remains an Archangel, not a human. Adam didn’t show up in the end times, but rather in the beginning. Jesus, is the second Adam. One led us into sin. The other saved us from that sin. Your view that Adam had no choice but to participate in sin with Eve is a conversation that we have already had some months back and I have no desire to rehash this with you. You are the only ones I know who believe that and I have never heard a plausible explanation. Adam’s explanation to God was basically that it was God’s fault that He had given Adam the woman. My first allegiance is to God. If my wife attempts to lead me into sin, I’m not off the hook because it is my wife. I still have a choice and so did Adam. My responsibility is to, instead, lead her away from sin, not follow her into sin. No. Adam sinned along with Eve and Scripture makes that very clear. Besides, as you know, for some time the LDS Church believed that Adam was God. Which is it? Michael or God? In fact it is neither. Adam was Adam and he, along with Eve, was responsible for the fall of mankind.

Neither Daniel nor Revelation can be read in a literal sense. They are both mystical visions, therefore, by the very nature of the writing, one must be very careful in making assumptions as to their meaning. Even so, I fail to understand the connection you are attempting to make.
 
Parker, to relate Michael to Adam is a huge stretch. I see nothing in these verses which would lead me to make that connection. Will Michael be involved in the final battle? Yes, but he remains an Archangel, not a human.
SteveVH,

Daniel said “the wise shall understand.”

The Bible is realiable. Daniel was receiving a reliable vision about the end times. “The wise shall understand.”
Adam didn’t show up in the end times, but rather in the beginning. Jesus, is the second Adam. One led us into sin. The other saved us from that sin. Your view that Adam had no choice but to participate in sin with Eve is a conversation that we have already had some months back and I have no desire to rehash this with you.
But yet recently you questioned whether LDS believe the reliability of the Bible, and Genesis is completely clear that Adam was not in rebellion against God and was keeping a commandment that he knew God had given him with the intent of having him keep it. The account is realiable.
Adam’s explanation to God was basically that it was God’s fault that He had given Adam the woman.
No–he explained that he decided to keep the commandment to remain with Eve so she could be his helpmeet, as he had been commanded.
My first allegiance is to God. If my wife attempts to lead me into sin, I’m not off the hook because it is my wife. I still have a choice and so did Adam.
Exactly. Adam’s allegiance was to God when he made the choice he made to keep God’s commandment.
My responsibility is to, instead, lead her away from sin, not follow her into sin.
Fine. If she was going to die and he wasn’t, then that would leave her in the difficult spot of not having him around to help her.
No. Adam sinned along with Eve and Scripture makes that very clear.
He did what he saw was necessary to keep the commandment he had received.
 
No, Rebecca, Mormonism does not teach ‘the opposite.’

My comments are not referring to what I believe, or to what MOrmonism teaches…and I’m sure you know that.

They were commenting on the perception I keep getting of what others tell me regarding what THEY think the reason is for creation…and just as those same Christians keep telling me how ‘illogical’ Mormonism is, I am telling you–the reasoning that I am being offered instead is really strange to me.
You’ve lost me.
 
Robert,
Of course it’s been your experience that the reasoning is going to fall apart (from your mind’s perspective) when the reasoning is based directly on the Bible itself plus revelation, whereas your reasoning is based on “reasoning” alone, apart from the Bible and apart from revelation.

As I noted before, Adam had more than one commandment in the situation he was in in the Garden of Eden. He didn’t “choose sin over the will of God.” The “will of God” was expressed directly in what he said he did–he chose to remain with Eve. It says so right there in Genesis, for all to see who care to read the words.

Peace, yes.
Parker, the Bible IS revelation. To say that we need the Bible and revelation is saying that we need revelation and revelation. No one is reasoning apart from revelation.

Adam’s sin was not that he remained with Eve. He, having the gift of free will, “ate of the fruit” in direct contradiction to God’s command not to eat of the fruit. "It says so right there in Genesis, for all to see who care to read the words."
 
Diana and ParkerD,

We’ve had this conversation before.

Mormon teaching is that you have to be worthy of God’s love. Christian teaching is that it is never possible to worthy of something so great.
 
Parker, the Bible IS revelation. To say that we need the Bible and revelation is saying that we need revelation and revelation. No one is reasoning apart from revelation.

Adam’s sin was not that he remained with Eve. He, having the gift of free will, “ate of the fruit” in direct contradiction to God’s command not to eat of the fruit. "It says so right there in Genesis, for all to see who care to read the words."
SteveVH,

Here were the other commandments Adam received besides not to eat the forbidden fruit:

Genesis 2:18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Are you saying Adam needed to break those commandments by the choice of not breaking the other commandment, and thus sin by breaking those commandments? He kept at least two by breaking one. It was a quandary–which one(s) to break.

It was “not good that the man should be alone.” God’s wisdom was clear about what was “good”.
 
SteveVH,

Daniel said “the wise shall understand.”

The Bible is realiable. Daniel was receiving a reliable vision about the end times. “The wise shall understand.”
I don’t appreciate the implication, Parker.

“Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you considers himself wise in this age, let him become a fool, so as to become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in the eyes of God, for it is written: ‘He catches the wise in their own ruses’, and again, ‘The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.’” (1 Cor 18:20)
But yet recently you questioned whether LDS believe the reliability of the Bible, and Genesis is completely clear that Adam was not in rebellion against God and was keeping a commandment that he knew God had given him with the intent of having him keep it. The account is realiable.
All of Scripture is reliable, but the interpretation of man without an authoritative and infallible guide is certainly not. I agree that Genesis is completely clear which is why I am amazed that you can arrive at such a conclusion.
No–he explained that he decided to keep the commandment to remain with Eve so she could be his helpmeet, as he had been commanded.

Exactly. Adam’s allegiance was to God when he made the choice he made to keep God’s commandment.
The entire thrust of this portion of Genesis was that he sinned, not that he kept God’s commandments. READ THE WORDS. "You have eaten, then, from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat." (Gen 3:11)

This notion that God had placed Adam in an impossible situation to where he had to choose between which sin to commit is telling as to your understanding of God. God never causes one to sin. He cannot. Your scenario does exactly that. God gave two commands to Adam and forced him to break one of them in order to keep the other. This is absolutely an impossible and completely implausible explanation.
Fine. If she was going to die and he wasn’t, then that would leave her in the difficult spot of not having him around to help her.

He did what he saw was necessary to keep the commandment he had received.
Please tell me you are kidding.
 
Diana and ParkerD,

We’ve had this conversation before.

Mormon teaching is that you have to be worthy of God’s love. Christian teaching is that it is never possible to worthy of something so great.
Rebecca, sorry for missing the prior conversation. I never knew Catholic teaching was the above?

Remindes me of a sunday school teacher who told students
  1. Parents love good children more than their “less good” children.
  2. God loves righteous children more than He loves the unrighteous ones.
  3. God knows children who pray better than children who don’t pray
  4. The reason you should pray regularly is so when you really need something, God will listen to you quicker (If you haven’t been praying, He “lets the phone ring longer”)
I thought this teacher had it wrong and God loved us completely, despite our failings. I always thought his love was unconditional and not about ‘being worthy’
 
God’s grace makes us worthy. Do you understand forgiveness? God forgives us. All we need to do, is ask, and decide to avoid that sin form that time on. By ourselves, we are nothing, and do not have the strength to do what we ought.

It seems that you have a tendency to almost intentionally misunderstand Catholic teachings.
 
Jesus did indeed give the “keys of the Kingdom” to Peter, but there was a whole lot of history of the world before that point in time, of course. Adam had a stewardship over the whole human family, his posterity. Peter had a major stewardship as the chief apostle, and certainly filled his role very well. But he did not have the same role as Michael the Archangel, who became Adam on the earth and has a role during the end times as noted in Daniel’s vision.
That would make the Archangel a sinner and collaborator with Lucifer, and also make man totally guiltless of any and all sin and their consequences, as it was an angel - not man - who sinned, according to your account.

What you assert for belief is that Michael the Archangel abandoned his God and King in Heaven and sided with God’s enemy, Satan, and for this God promoted or restored him to be the Prince of the Heavenly Hosts, the Angels in Heaven.

Angels are pure, spiritual beings and enjoy the beatific vision of God before them constantly. For an angel to sin is to permanently deny and denounce God at once ; hence, they cannot be saved once fallen, and hence Lucifer - along with all his followers - are together cast down from Heaven to Hell, and this fact is certain and unchangeable : there is no repentance for the fallen angels, who - by their act of betrayal - became, properly speaking, devils and demons ; furthermore, the spiritual nature of angels is such that their decision to sin is a permanent one - even the desire to repent is lost from them. Angels are not encumbered by flesh and temptation as we are - they possess pure and perfect will, hence the gravity of the fallen angels’ crimes are irrevocably damning. Angels cannot be “deceived” or even “tempted,” Satan’s decision was purely the acting of his own will and free choice, which God grants to all His sentient creatures from His loving goodness.

Parker,
Your literature makes who you call “Michael,” to be no different than Satan or, at a minimum, one of his demons. How can you possibly believe an angel of God would sin, and still be an angel of God ? Lastly, the prerogative is man’s to enjoy both a spiritual and corporeal nature ; that is, to be corporeal body and spirit at once - angels have soul and spirit, but not corporeal bodies. The angels can impress upon us the appearance of such a body, but they are not bound to it or limited by it : even if they were to appear to us in a “corporeal” state, they would still possess totally and perfectly their purely “spiritual” nature, and so be able to “appear” and “disappear” at their pleasure, from our perspective at least. It belongs to man to have the peculiar nature we possess - not and never the Angels.
Christ holds the key of David, always. He does not delegate that key.
This is your own fallible opinion as Scripture mentions the keys in the Gospel being granted to Peter, as you yourself attested when you wrote,

“Jesus did indeed give the “keys of the Kingdom” to Peter.”

Please cite in Scripture when those keys were ever revoked. To even have a chance of making your statement legitimate, you need to cite where or when the keys given to Peter were withdrawn from him in any way whatsoever - I don’t care if you have to make a date up, or cite your own Mormonic literature, but basic reason demands you give us a reason to believe that at any point these keys given to Peter were ever taken away from him.

Pax,
Tim
 
Originally Posted by SteveVH
Parker, to relate Michael to Adam is a huge stretch. I see nothing in these verses which would lead me to make that connection. Will Michael be involved in the final battle? Yes, but he remains an Archangel, not a human.
Daniel said “the wise shall understand.”
The Bible is realiable. Daniel was receiving a reliable vision about the end times. “The wise shall understand.”
To imply that one does not agree with illogical reasoning in the dogma because they are too stupid or not enlightened enough to understand is a classic tactic of cults.

It is amazing how deeply one can be sucked into something. :hypno:
 
God’s grace makes us worthy. Do you understand forgiveness? God forgives us. All we need to do, is ask, and decide to avoid that sin form that time on. By ourselves, we are nothing, and do not have the strength to do what we ought.

It seems that you have a tendency to almost intentionally misunderstand Catholic teachings.
LJ,
I believe that God’s grace, or seeking God’s forgiveness, opens us up to receiving his love.
The love is there, wether or not we are able to receive it. This is the opposite of what Rebecca said.
I felt a parent not really loving their ‘bad’ child reflected what Rebecca said
 
LJ,
I believe that God’s grace, or seeking God’s forgiveness, opens us up to receiving his love.
The love is there, wether or not we are able to receive it. This is the opposite of what Rebecca said.
I felt a parent not really loving their ‘bad’ child reflected what Rebecca said
Dear Todd,

You are correct in connecting God’s Grace to the seeking of God’s forgiveness, for it is He that compels us, by Grace, to seek His forgiveness. Sometimes this is called the prompting of the Holy Spirit ; however, I stray from such language because secular man imagines by this saying some grandiose or bizzare happening, perhaps preter- or supernatural in character, as in somehow being utterly miraculous ; whereas, Catholics know of God’s gentleness, His sublime ways and motions, and His mysteriousness, wherein He is known as being “gentle,” “loving,” “kind,” etc., and not “grandiose,” as in sensational, so as to make us all expect a kind of Mt. Sinai event being required to sense God’s own seeking or calling of us to Himself ; no, we find this seeking and calling to God within us constantly, acting upon us, though we know not from whence it comes or why it comes, except from the teaching of Holy Mother Church, wherein we come to understand and realize God’s calling us to communion with Himself.

Consider the important question God put to fallen Man,

“Where art thou, Adam ?”

Certainly God knows where we are - this question was put to Adam for his own edification, for his own reflection, realization, enlightenment even : God Himself prompts Adam to consider his present state and being, to reckon where he is, and perhaps realize he knows now not, but knows that once he did. He realized a loss to himself, a lacking.

This is why any salvation of works philosophy, like the one the Masons imply to their poor followers, is folly, for they imply that man himself seeks or desires God’s grace and forgiveness, and himself then acts to acquire and accomplish it, and - from that observation, which is the fault known as "after this ; therefore, because of this " - they conclude that man “saves himself,” which belief destroys, ultimately, in all God’s supremacy and righteousness as He is, for man has made himself God in that perverse formula : man has made himself his own saviour. How so does this error accomplish this ? Because the original flaw in the thinking was that man, of and by himself, felt compelled to save himself, whereas this is not so - for without God we would be as we are, which is, ultimately, nothing, for God created all things and beings out of nothing (that is, He required no outside “material, support, or aid”), and made us something, as it were. It is not “of man” that we in any way seek or desire good, salvation, mercy, forgiveness, etc., especially from God Himself, but it is God in us ; namely, the acting of the Holy Spirit, seeking through us and in us to be re-united, both Him and us to that perfect Good and Blessedness of Being and State ; that is, communion with and in the Holy Trinity, which is of all being the only Being to have True Life and Blessedness in and of its own Being. This is why the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is so important, and so quintessential to orthodoxy in Christianity, for God can in no wise be divided from Himself, or seek division in and of Himself, but desires all things to be in and of Himself, and joined to Himself, so that - as the Apostle says,

“God may be all in all.”

Without the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, we lack the knowledge of what may be called God’s Character, and without it we could never understand how God has True Life in and of Himself ; that is, true communion, which we humans taste in the communion of persons, as in relationships, though this example is imperfect, as our human relationships are i) ravaged by sin, and can in no wise compare or constrast to the blessedness of perfect communion with God in the Life of Himself, and ii) finite, which in no wise can be compared to the infinite, and hence the saying,

‘No eye has seen nor ear has heard what God has in store for His Saints,’

(Quoted from my memory).

Pax,
Tim
 
LJ,
I believe that God’s grace, or seeking God’s forgiveness, opens us up to receiving his love.
The love is there, wether or not we are able to receive it. This is the opposite of what Rebecca said.
I felt a parent not really loving their ‘bad’ child reflected what Rebecca said
What makes a Mormon able to receive forgiveness?
 
What makes a Mormon able to receive forgiveness?
Rebecca, Is this a trick question?
  • Christ’s atonement makes it possible
  • repentance, prayer, and forgiving those who sin against us make it happen
 
Rebecca, Is this a trick question?
  • repentance, prayer, and forgiving those who sin against us make it happen
But how does one know they have done this in satisfaction ? By repentance, do you mean like a perfect Act of Contrition, wherein one demonstrates sorrow for their sins and resolves to abstain from all sin ? If so, then does this constitute also the second condition you provided, prayer, seeing as all repentance is prayerful ? Or, would it require only a resolution on the part of the person to denounce his or her own sins, and resolve never to commit them again ? In the latter instance, God does not at once even seem to be recognized to be involved, and further no prayer is required - much like a person’s New Year’s Eve resolutions, wherein they determine to change their ways for their own sakes. And as to your third condition, forgiving those who sin against us, should we not, as Christians, do this simply because we are Christians ? Would I be dissolved from needing to forgive my neighbours if I myself am in a state of grace, or not conscience of any mortal or even venial sins ?

Mostly though, I am wondering how you can be assured of satisfaction : that is, that your sins have been certainly forgiven you - further, though, does God not forgive you until you complete the conditions you stated, or does he at once forgive you, but command you make satisfaction ?

Pax,
Tim
 
Rebecca, Is this a trick question?
  • Christ’s atonement makes it possible
  • repentance, prayer, and forgiving those who sin against us make it happen
And now, verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, will not lay any sin to your charge; go your ways and sin no more; but unto that soul who sinneth shall the former sins return, saith the Lord your God.
There is not a belief that God really forgives and forgets. He is keeping some sort of tally and putting our sins back on us when we fail.

This is a foreign idea to Christianity, and impossible to comprehend.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top