T
- Status
P
ParkerD
Guest
Telstar,
The belief in “oral tradition” allows any and every belief that the ECF or those who followed them wanted to substantiate. So it means nothing to me as far as demonstrating that the idea of “praying for souls” was part of what the apostles had taught. It is contrary to Jesus’ intercessory prayer to think there is a need for anyone to do that, since He is the One Intercessor and the One Advocate with the Father.
Jesus gives everlasting life through His suffering and resurrection, and eternal life through our repentance and His redemptive power and grace because of His atoning sacrifice, the great and last sacrifice.
See your next sentence to observe the difference in intent.
So this last sentence would make a person who does that an intercessor for someone else, and that is my major point–that Jesus is the One and only Perfect Intercessor, and others need not think they have such a role. It sounds to me like it shows a decrease in faith in Christ and in His perfect love for each and every person, individually, one to one.
Maybe there is “stuff” in one’s own life rather than have the perception that others are “living in sin” and have a “spiritual welfare” issue. My point is that Jesus wants to be the Good Shepherd of each person and help each person change through their own personal repentance. If a person is looking at other people’s faults, then there is “clutter” in the channel of communication with God.
Maybe it would be a better idea to let God’s timetable be His for others, so that the teaching to not judge others can be fully in place in one’s own heart.
Someone will no doubt accuse me of judging, but what I’m trying to express is that the teachings of Jesus were clear that He is the Intercessor, and the apostles upheld this teaching, that only He is the Intercessor for the souls of humankind and for their salvation.
P
ParkerD
Guest
He wasn’t being their intercessor, and he was aware that conversion leads to repentance which leads to accessing the full blessings of the atoning grace of Jesus Christ, who is the Intercessor.
Praying that someone may have the doors open or their heart open to receive the knowledge of Jesus Christ so that they can come unto Him and be saved through His atoning grace, is different than praying “for their salvation” as though the person doing the praying has special access to the throne of God.
Yes, that ties directly to what my earlier post had said regarding individual repentance and individual accountability.
OK. That sounds like individual accountability and praying to God to “help others”, which I agree is a good thing to do.
I’m not discussing a “payment due”, at all. We can have enough faith in Christ to know when He has accepted our efforts, just as Abraham knew he had been counted as a “friend of God.” (Isaiah 41:8) (See also Hebrews 11:4 about Abel, verse 5 about Enoch, and then see verse 6 that brings home the message to each of us.)
This is what I meant by clutter in the communication channel with God. Far better to pray individually, with faith and having repented of personal sins through personal prayer, to “know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” Such knowledge will be by the power of the Holy Spirit, and only through that power–through no other way.Actually, I pray that God will open your heart to the real truth, so you can finally discern the true promptings of the Holy Spirit. I wouldn’t expect that He would ever confirm you in your current beliefs. But, that will certainly be your own choice to make for yourself, when all is said and done. All I can do is try to ignite that little spark of faith and love that’s inside you.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Telstar,
As far as the concept in your later post about “doing penance”, I now see where this idea originated from, but it is contrary to what Paul taught in Hebrews 10:10-21, and in fact those verses show that Paul was teaching that any idea of the need for further sacrificial offerings for sin such as you have described, seem to have been an idea that had begun to be taught (probably by converted Pharisees) but that he pointedly refuted.
As far as the concept in your later post about “doing penance”, I now see where this idea originated from, but it is contrary to what Paul taught in Hebrews 10:10-21, and in fact those verses show that Paul was teaching that any idea of the need for further sacrificial offerings for sin such as you have described, seem to have been an idea that had begun to be taught (probably by converted Pharisees) but that he pointedly refuted.
1
1voice
Guest
Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved.
…Romans 10:1
According to Gods words in the Bible, through Paul …It is scriptural.
And again …
1 Timothy 2:1-5 exhorts us to pray for others: "I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone - for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."
P
Pepband_Mom
Guest
your “Father in Heaven” and Our Father in Heaven are not the same individuals. Neither is the LDS theory of the Father’s plan of Salvation - Jesus & Satan were “spirit” brothers.; Jesus had a good plan & Satan a bad plan…, that fable appears only on LDS letterhead, was, is and never will be a Christian doctrine.
LDS are really only spinning their wheels until they address the naked core of Mormonism & see it in all honesty for what it really is.
TexanKnight especially has the experience, insight to help you and other LDS posters out of this infinity loop. In all honesty please listen to him. He is there for you!
P
ParkerD
Guest
1voice,
The KJV translation for Romans 10:1 reads thus:
1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
One reads the entire passage and finds what Paul’s intent is in using the words that translated to “might be saved”, thus:
So those from Israel whom Paul is speaking about (the Jews), need to “call upon him” meaning Christ, believing that “God hath raised him from the dead”. It is a personal act each Jew would need to do, and Paul is not implying that he has taken on a role of interceding with God in their behalf.
Here is the Greek word encountered in 1 Timothy 2:1.
ἐντεύξεις ,
intercessions
It is not the same word as in Hebrews 7:25
entynchanein
ἐντυγχάνειν
or in Romans 8:26
entynchanei
ἐντυγχάνει
The Savior’s role is a much different sense of the English words “intercessor” and “intercession” than the word Paul used as translated in 1 Timothy 2:1.
1
1voice
Guest
I Have an appointment I have to get to and cant respond in depth right now … But The first thing that comes to mind … Mormons participate in the process of intercession in the form of baptism/ sealing for people that have died. They feel that they are providing a crucial link in the process of “salvation” for the person that cannot do it without the intercession of a faithful Mormon.
P
ParkerD
Guest
1voice,
Latter-day Saints don’t call it making “intercession”, and it means that they acknowledge that the spirits of the dead are alive, but that baptism for them was just as important as it is for anyone living who is accountable through their own choices. Baptism shows that the person is “burying” their old self and giving themselves to the Good Shepherd so that He can lead them into a newness of life. They can have a newness of life in the spirit world just as much as anyone living can have this.
I can see how one could call it “interceding in their behalf”, but it still acknowledges the centrality of the Savior’s intercession and does not place the person being baptized or the person doing the baptizing (who is representing the Savior because it is using His priesthood) in some role of interceding toward God on their behalf, but instead says they now have just as much opportunity for an efficacious baptism as anyone living.
The term used for the Savior’s intercession is a singular use that had to do with His being the Great High Priest who was able to make the Great and last sacrifice of Himself. This gives everyone personal, hope-filled, direct access to prepare to live in the presence of God through Him and Him alone as the Intercessor and personal Advocate.
T
Telstar
Guest
Parker,
The acceptance of “another gospel”, that was not preached by the Apostles but believed to have come from “an angel of light”, was vehemently warned against by Paul.
He said this: [Galatians 1:8] "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema."
and this: [2 Corinthians 11:] "[13] For such false apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. [14] And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light.".
Yet, LDS choose to follow “another gospel”, as well as many other strange doctrines that were never taught by Jesus Christ, but were given to them by Joseph Smith, a man who proclaimed himself to be a prophet that was visited by “an angel of light”, but showed no proof of it. There were no miracles wrought by him to support any of his claims. But, there were a great many miracles performed by all of the true Apostles of Jesus, when they preached the only true Gospel. If what Joseph Smith claimed was true, he should have performed hundreds of undeniable miracles in his lifetime, as a sure sign of his calling from God. God always put His stamp of truth on the prophets of old, by giving them the power to perform great miracles in His Name, so people would know that he was truly from God.
Who we choose to believe teaches us the real truth, will make the difference between our attaining salvation, or damnation. That’s why it’s so important for us to open our hearts and pray, then choose wisely.
In reference to “our daily bread”, it’s very clear what Jesus told us to pray for, and how we obtain everlasting life:
[John 6:] [51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [54] Then Jesus said to them:** Amen, amen **I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. [56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.
My intention is to pray for souls because God loves them, and so do I.
I agree that Jesus is the Mediator between man and God. That’s why Catholics pray to Him, directly. We know that He listens and will intercede for us to the Father. We believe all that He taught to His Apostles concerning prayer. There is nothing in the Bible that says we cannot intercede for others. In fact, it says the opposite:
[John 15:7] If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, you shall ask whatever you will, and it shall be done unto you.
[John 14:] [13] Because I go to the Father: and whatsoever you shall ask the Father in my name, that will I do: that the Father may be glorified in the Son. [14] If you shall ask me any thing in my name, that I will do.
[Mark 11:] [22] And Jesus answering, saith to them: Have the faith of God. [23] Amen I say to you, that whosoever shall say to this mountain, Be thou removed and be cast into the sea, and shall not stagger in his heart, but believe, that whatsoever he saith shall be done; it shall be done unto him. [24] Therefore I say unto you, all things, whatsoever you ask when ye pray, believe that you shall receive; and they shall come unto you.
[1 Timothy 2:] [1] I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men: [2] For kings, and for all that are in high station: that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all piety and chastity. [3] For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, [4] Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
It seems that Jesus and the Apostles would disagree with your claim that we shouldn’t pray for the salvation of others, or that there’s any good intention that we shouldn’t pray for, at all. Jesus taught us to pray for whatever good things we desired, and if we had enough faith that we’d receive them, we would. The only things we should never pray for, is anything evil. Praying for the destruction of a soul, to curse others, or praying that anything evil would happen to anyone, is a sure sign of evil intent that comes from the devil. Doing that will call the wrath of God down upon us, instead of the person that we ask God to curse.
J
Jerusha
Guest
Thank you, Lori.
T
Telstar
Guest
My example of someone “living in sin” was meant as Paul says about our admonishing one another, when we see them doing something wrong.
“[Romans 15:14] And I myself also, my brethren, am assured of you, that you also are full of love, replenished with all knowledge, so that you are able to admonish one another.”
It was not meant to be a reference to anyone in particular, but only to give an example of a situation that might make us want to pray for their conversion, and the salvation of their souls. Most people that I know, understand the phrase “living in sin” to be a reference to an unmarried couple that are living together. Their spiritual welfare should certainly be a concern that we should have, and should cause us to want to pray for them. Don’t you agree?
We’re not “judging” anyone when we try to correct them, if they’re doing something wrong. We are only judging their actions, whether they are right or wrong, and certainly not judging the person’s soul. That’s up to God.
When your child does something wrong, should you let them continue to do it, because you don’t want to “judge” them? Or, do you correct them so they can learn to do the right thing, instead of doing something wrong? Are you judging them as a person, or just judging their actions? Do you love them any less when they do something wrong, and you find it necessary to correct them for their own good? Why would it be any different to try to correct someone else that you believe is following the wrong path? Or, to pray that God will send them His grace, and enlighten them to their mistakes? How is that wrong? It certainly doesn’t interfere with their choice to accept or reject our advice, or God’s offer of grace.
I think you misunderstood what I was saying due to a difference in our definitions of certain terms, and beliefs. I totally disagree that Jesus is the only intercessor, as Paul plainly stated otherwise. We should all pray without ceasing for the salvation of souls, in order for them to be given the grace to believe, love, and follow Jesus.
[Colossians 1:9] "Therefore we also, from the day that we heard it, cease not to pray for you, and to beg that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will, in all wisdom, and spiritual understanding"
T
Telstar
Guest
I was intending to respond to Parker’s post about the Missouri incident, including a quote from D&C by Joseph Smith, but I decided it was probably better if I didn’t get into it. But, the remarks that you quoted were made partly in response to his comments about it.
J
Jerusha
Guest
My issues are with the inter-generational resentments they hold from the Nauvoo era, but the bitterness is very consistent, something unusual in Mormonism. Consistency is unusual–bitterness is the usual song. I could even quote lyrics from some of their hymns.
T
Telstar
Guest
Are you saying that we shouldn’t do penance for our sins? Do you really think it’s unnecessary? I know for a fact that LDS fast, which is a form of penance. That’s why Catholics fast for 40 days during Lent, to do penance and prepare themselves for Easter, in remembrance of Jesus fasting in the desert for 40 days before His Passion.
In fact, a couple of years ago a bunch of online friends fasted for a particular family that was going through a rough time, and the one that came up with the idea to fast for them was LDS. She even PM’d me before she did it, to ask if I thought it would be acceptable for her to ask Christians and other people on the forum to join her in fasting for the family, who was also LDS. She was afraid some people might be offended because she and the target family were Mormon, or that they’d just think it was too weird for her to ask other people do it with her. Of course, I told her I thought it was a great idea. So, we all ended up fasting for a month, taking turns, and swapping days and times to fast. I think there were about 15-20 people that actually joined in to do it. It was a great experience for everyone that participated, as well as for that family, who also joined us in fasting.
1
1voice
Guest
B
batman1973
Guest
I can almost quote the “blessings” for the bread and water.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Telstar,
Not to start out with a negative comment, but it has been an interesting process for me to see the different translation and slight meaning changes such as in this verse. The word “admonish” (which is used in the KJV) could have been more closely translated from the Greek into the words “to appeal to the mind”, which has a different meaning entirely, especially when the words “so that you are able” are rendered into what the Greek words more closely mean, “being able also”:
Thus: “being able also to appeal to the mind” ties back to verse 13 and back to verses 2 and 5. So Paul encouraged them to abound in hope and to be full of goodness and be “like-minded” with each other, despite minor differences such as he noted as explained in Romans 14:1-5 and 14:10. There, he reminded “but why dost thou judge thy brother?”
I will add other comments as I get time, but this is a start. Peace and good day.
S
soren1
Guest
ParkerD,
I don’t perfectly remember the conversation we had about this text before, but you seem to remember none of it, since I responded to this way back when. I neither was nor am disputing that D&C 107 teaches a doctrine of unanimous voice. I am disputing whether unanimous voice is presented in the text as a standard for defining LDS doctrine. In particular, I say that all of the relevant passages deal only with decisions about the governance in the church rather than judgments about doctrine.
There is an important distinction to be made between “judgment” and “decision.” The difference is between the perception of truth and choices regarding the best means to attain an end. The first is an act of the intellect; the second is an act of the will guided by intellect. This distinction is largely lost on modern Americans, but it was well understood prior to the twentieth century. If you read old American writers like Irving, Hawthorn, Melville, Twain, you will see they never confuse their meanings. No one ever says, “I decided the water was too cold to swim, and judged not to dive in.” They say, “I judged the water was too cold to swim, and decided not to dive.”
In modern times, the difference in meaning between these words is almost totally eroded, and there is quite a history as to why. It is mainly because of the influence of nihilist and existentialist philosophy. In classical terms, knowledge of the good was a matter of judgment. Value was known to have a certain objectivity, but Hume and Kant both denied that there is objective value, and concluded that goodness was defined subjectively. On that theory, if I state my judgment that “My daughter has value,” this is really a statement about myself rather than her: she has value because I value her. This subjectivization of judgment paved the way for Nietzsche, who went further to say that the will over and above the intellect was the source of human vitality. The goodness of a person’s desire was not measured by truth; rather desire had ultimately primacy, and the greatest experience in life was to bring truth into conformity with desire through power. By making the will the source of value, Nietzsche gave to decision a role that was previously reserved for judgment. Considerations of both fact and value became in his philosophy matters of decision, simply. As man-centered philosophies based on radical self-determination grew in the Western world, the distinction between judgment and decision fell into eclipse, and is now almost globally ignored. The words are used almost interchangeably as, for example, when Fox News says “We report; you decide,” when it ought to say “You judge.”
Why have I rehearsed this whole history? It is not to show that you, Fox News, or anybody else who confuses judgment with decision is a nihilist. The change in meaning is just a common cultural effect. But the fact that this cultural effect is the product of a significant shift in the Western worldview, away from Christianity in the direction of nihilism and hedonism, shows that I am not making a nitty distinction. Nietzsche was born in the same year Joseph Smith died, and before then, people know what the difference between judgment and decision was. It is, therefore, anachronistic to read the following passage as a text about judgment of truth:
And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other—A majority may form a quorum when circumstances render it impossible to be otherwise—Unless this is the case, their decisions are not entitled to the same blessings which the decisions of a quorum of three presidents were anciently, who were ordained after the order of Melchizedek, and were righteous and holy men. (D&C 107 27-29)
Truth is not subject to decision. Rather, valid decisions presuppose some orientation to the truth, which is not determined by decision but by judgment. No one decides what God has revealed. We judge that he has revealed and then decide what we are going to do about it. When our decisions accord with good judgment, they bring the fruit of good works. Consequently, the teaching in this passage is about decisions to act based upon prior judgments of truth, which are presupposed in deliberation and decision and not determined by them. Hence, this is not a text about doctrine, though it presupposes it.
S
soren1
Guest
More, yes, but more of the same. You are talking about government and counsel. Those things are matters of decision, because that are about determining right action in light of good judgment, not about acquiring the original judgment. These are fresh examples of the same conceptual error that causes you to misread D&C 107.
That is why, when I talk about disputed LDS teachings, I never put it that way. I distinguish after all between what is taught and what is believed. If you went through every post I have ever put up on this forum or at MADB and did a word search for the phrase “Mormons believe” you will probably not find it once, or if you do, it will be in an innocuous, noncontroversial context. Rather, if I am talking about something controversial, you will always find me saying, “Mormon General Authorities have taught as a doctrine that…” or “Every General Authority who has commented on X has said…” or “Prophet X said God had revealed to him that…”. I stick to objective facts like that because what Mormons currently believe or what the church “teaches” in the sense of actively promulgating it now may not necessarily reflect the teaching I am discussing. That way, I don’t impute to you beliefs and teachings that you might not share. Instead, in the event that you don’t, I at least make clear what it is that you don’t believe and teach: the authoritative words and often revelatory claims of your own highest authorities.
I am familiar with this type of answer and might argue against it depending on what theory of BOM geography you hold, but that would take us off topic. I am making a different point, which you have missed. My point was not to promote any particular position about Zelph, but merely to give an example of a prophetic claim, often discussed in controversial literature, that we can all agree is far, far outside the Standard Works, but which it is nevertheless unreasonable for a Mormon to disbelieve. I mentioned Joseph Fielding Smith agreed with me on this. Of course, I don’t know if he was aware that the Zelph account in the History of the Church was not written by Smith, but in any case, the event is well-attested historically even if Smith’s own words are lost. If we want to know if Smith was a prophet, then the Zelph story is the kind of evidence than can in principle be brought to bear on the question, independent of any “unanimous voice” about its veracity. The fact that you have attempted to give an account of it reinforces my point. Why hasten to defend the Zelph story unless you realize you need to, even though it is not close to being official doctrine by your own definition?
[NOTE: When I say it is unreasonable for a Mormon to disbelieve the Zelph story, I do not exclude critical evaluations of the different testimonies. I just mean that the undisputed points of the story clearly have to be true.]
- Status