Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Hi, Holly. So you're once again part of the Christian flock, huh. Welcome back.
Uh... Yes, we die once. Yes, we are judged after we die. No, your verse proves nothing aside from the two points I mentioned.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The lds doctrine of the gospel being taught to the dead
- Thread starter Clear
- Start date
Uh... Yes, we die once. Yes, we are judged after we die. No, your verse proves nothing aside from the two points I mentioned.
jabberwockybruno
Member
Yea I was talking to you. The doctrine of predestination is quite simple: in eternity past, God chose who he would save and take into heaven, and who he would not save and thus send to hell. Those who have or will become Christians do not do it because they chose God, but because God chose them, not because of anything the people do or will do but only because of God's will and his showing of grace.
Predestination is answer to your concerns that "it doesn't seem fair" that people would go to hell because they never heard the gospel. Predestination implies that it's possible for a person who never heard the gospel to get into heaven. S/he could get in if s/he was predestined to.
Mars Hill Church | Religion Saves | Predestination
Here is a link to a GREAT sermon about predestination. The pastor is great, and explains it really well. It's about an hour to watch but I highly recommend watching it because it will give you a very good understanding of the concept.
So you're a Calvinist?
jabberwockybruno
Member
I think that Calvinism, although intuitively more difficult to understand than Armenianism, is more Biblically supported and hence the preferable philosophy.
I don't know if I would call myself a Calvanist per se, but I agree with its philosophy more than Armenianism.
What do u think of that sermon?
I haven't checked it out yet - I'll let you know.
Jaberwockybruno said:
Though the minister in Jaberwockybruno's video mentions several protestant era theories regarding how predestination might work, Frank and simple Predestination does not answer the underlying concerns regarding “fairness”.
ANY theory where God arbitrarily punishes without sufficient cause is unjust. The theory where God makes the spirit of man out of nothing, and then God creates in that man the very desires and characteristics which God then punishes the man for having, is unjust. This has been "Augustines dilemma" for more than a millennia. I wish some later christianities had NEVER left the early doctrines and adopted this theory. It was NOT a better theory than the earlier doctrine was.
The usual Arguments in response to complaints of unfairness within the theory often simply claim that God is powerful enough that "God gets to do what he wants”. But such arguments regarding power still sidestep the concept of fairness. In this theory, God still creates and uses us as “chessmen”. He then “plays men like pawns” in a “game” where God arbitrarily designs certain pawns for bliss and certain other pawns are designed to suffer a torturous hell. In any description, it still remains unfair. In this theory, God’s “Good acts” of arbitrarily giving some pawns “bliss” are offset by his “evil acts” of arbitrarily giving some pawns an eternal torture.
This theory has no advantage over the earlier and ancient Judao-Christian teaching that the spirits of men have freewill and CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES what level of moral law they are willing to live and by their own choices, receive wages of both Good and Evil choices they, themselves, make.
The LDS restoration of the ancient Judao-Christian doctrine of creation from matter, rather than the later christian theory of creation from “nothing” complements the early doctrine that some matter (including the matter that makes up our spirits), has it’s own characteristics which are not arbitrarily placed into it by a God who created it from “nothing”.
The LDS restoration of the earliest Judao-Christian Doctrine of the pre-mortal existence of the spirits of men before they are sent to mortality is of profound importance. This ancient doctrine explained and did away with the problems of arbitrariness and unjustness created by the later adoption of the theory of pure predestination. In the early Judao-Christian teachings, the spirits of men have their OWN characteristics which God did NOT place into them arbitrarily. If this early Judao-Christian doctrine was correct, then these spirits developed in moral and intellectual directions and made many pre-mortal choices which allowed God to accurately predict what they would do, given similar moral choices in mortality. In that early doctrine, God did NOT arbitrarily “predestine” a soul to hell, but simply knew what that particular soul would choose.
At every turn, I am running into profoundly important examples of early Judao-Christian DOCTRINES which the LDS have restored and returned to, which alleviate almost two millennia of complaints of unjustness and unfairness by the Philosophers, the Agnostics and the Theists. Just as the LDS restoration of the early Judao-Christian doctrine that ALL men MUST have the adequate chance given them to understand and make informed moral choices regarding salvation, alleviates the legitimate claim of unfair punishment, the LDS restoration of the ancient doctrine of creation from matter and the pre-mortal existence of the spirits of men alleviates another entire category of very legitimate theological complaints regarding later Christian theories. Philosophers, Agnostics, and Theists have, in these ancient, but restored doctrines relief for 1700 years of specific frustrations put to rest on this specific issue of fairness as it relates to salvation.
Clear
dreieibb
Jaberwocky - I did enjoy the minister's unpretentious manners and his attempt to simplify fairly complex doctrines. I thought he was a better speaker with more data than most ministers relate to their congregations. I did not watch the entire hour.....
Last edited:
DavyCrocket2003
Well-Known Member
I'll watch the link sometime. An hour just feels like a big commitment especially since it's crunch time for my semester at school. But I will watch it. And thanks for the link.
idea
Question Everything
I like what the Catholic priest says in this vid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x_-TQivCx8
at time 1:30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x_-TQivCx8
at time 1:30
Idea;
Unless I am mistaken, the “Catholic Priest” that you are referring to is the somewhat famous Krister Stendahl. He was actually the Lutheran Bishop of Stockholm, Sweden, before he was the dean of divinity at Harvard University. I think his comments regarding Baptism for the Dead and mormons IS pretty amazing and insightful. I think he was able to make those comments because he was, himself, confident with his own faith..
Dr. Stendahl was not merely a Lutheran bishop, but was involved in a lot of interfaith discussions in europe and was very well respected by many faiths. He described three rules for interfaith discussions with Dr. T. Madsen :
Rule Number one : If you’re going to ask the question, “what do others believe”, “ask them – not their critics, not their enemies.” He came up with this rule as pre-eminent because, according to him : “...what one religious tradition says about another is usually a breach against the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness’.
Rule Number two: if you’re going to compare, don’t compare your bests with their worsts, but compare bests with bests.” I think Stendahl was correct in his assessment that “Most people think of their own tradition as it is at its best and they use caricatures of the others.” When they spend so much energy shooting down caricatures, it is often a form of self-deception that has little to do with the authentic religion they think they disagree with.
Rule Number three was insightful : he said : ‘Leave room for holy envy’ and then he said, ‘Let me give you an example of my holy envy for the Latter Day Saints: We Lutherans, when we lose our loved ones, we have funerals, we have cemeteries, but that ends our concern with those who have gone before. But the Latter-Day Saints care about their forebearers to the point that they want to bring the blessings of Christ’s atonement to them, so they build temples, and according to Paul’s instruction in First Corinthians, they perform baptisms for the dead,’ and then he smiled and said, ‘I have holy envy for that.”
I very much enjoyed the Comments of Professor Frank Moore Cross, who teaches Ancient History at Harvard. I do not know if you are aware of it, but this is the same Dr. Cross who was one of only two americans invited to be on the early Dead Sea Scroll team headed by De Vaux. He’s quite well known and quite steeped in history. The Dead Sea Scroll team were also allowed access to the Temple Scroll and that means that Cross’ words regarding Mormons and Temples has a different meaning to them than someone who has less historical background to them.
Clear
viacacneii
Unless I am mistaken, the “Catholic Priest” that you are referring to is the somewhat famous Krister Stendahl. He was actually the Lutheran Bishop of Stockholm, Sweden, before he was the dean of divinity at Harvard University. I think his comments regarding Baptism for the Dead and mormons IS pretty amazing and insightful. I think he was able to make those comments because he was, himself, confident with his own faith..
Dr. Stendahl was not merely a Lutheran bishop, but was involved in a lot of interfaith discussions in europe and was very well respected by many faiths. He described three rules for interfaith discussions with Dr. T. Madsen :
Rule Number one : If you’re going to ask the question, “what do others believe”, “ask them – not their critics, not their enemies.” He came up with this rule as pre-eminent because, according to him : “...what one religious tradition says about another is usually a breach against the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness’.
Rule Number two: if you’re going to compare, don’t compare your bests with their worsts, but compare bests with bests.” I think Stendahl was correct in his assessment that “Most people think of their own tradition as it is at its best and they use caricatures of the others.” When they spend so much energy shooting down caricatures, it is often a form of self-deception that has little to do with the authentic religion they think they disagree with.
Rule Number three was insightful : he said : ‘Leave room for holy envy’ and then he said, ‘Let me give you an example of my holy envy for the Latter Day Saints: We Lutherans, when we lose our loved ones, we have funerals, we have cemeteries, but that ends our concern with those who have gone before. But the Latter-Day Saints care about their forebearers to the point that they want to bring the blessings of Christ’s atonement to them, so they build temples, and according to Paul’s instruction in First Corinthians, they perform baptisms for the dead,’ and then he smiled and said, ‘I have holy envy for that.”
I very much enjoyed the Comments of Professor Frank Moore Cross, who teaches Ancient History at Harvard. I do not know if you are aware of it, but this is the same Dr. Cross who was one of only two americans invited to be on the early Dead Sea Scroll team headed by De Vaux. He’s quite well known and quite steeped in history. The Dead Sea Scroll team were also allowed access to the Temple Scroll and that means that Cross’ words regarding Mormons and Temples has a different meaning to them than someone who has less historical background to them.
Clear
viacacneii
Last edited: