During the Priesthood meeting at the last General Conference, President Thomas S. Monson addressed the congregation. His talk was titled, To Learn, To Do, To Be. President Monson spoke of the size of the large assembly of LDS priesthood holders, their admirable desire to learn their duty, and their capacity to share the LDS gospel with others. To encourage his listeners in doing good, President Monson quoted a passage from the biblical book of Ezekiel and then followed up with a question:
“’A new heart…will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you…
“’And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
“’And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God’ [Ezekiel 36:26–28].
“How might we merit this promise? What will qualify us to receive this blessing? “
President Monson followed his question with an answer: “learn what we should learn…do what we should do…be what we should be.”
It’s really interesting that President Monson chose the scripture he did in order to support his teaching regarding personal worthiness and merit. The text he quoted, the revelation God gave through the prophet Ezekiel, pretty much teaches the opposite of what LDS Prophet and President Thomas Monson went on to instruct his audience.
If we look at the context of Ezekiel 36 we find that it follows on the pronouncement of God’s judgment against Israel’s false shepherds (chapter 34) and against Edom, the prototype of Israel’s enemies (chapter 35). In chapter 36 God promises Israel that He will restore His people to a place of profound blessing. In chapter 37 God illustrates and confirms the future fulfillment of His promise. What stands out in stark contrast to the way LDS President Monson used Ezekiel 36:26-28 is the fact that God makes it very clear in His Word that His promise to bless His people is dependent wholly on Himself, and not at all on what the people learn, do or be.
The house of Israel did not “merit” God’s blessings. In Ezekiel 36:16-19 God catalogs their sins:
“The word of the Lord came to me: ‘Son of man, when the house of Israel lived in their own land, they defiled it by their ways and their deeds. Their ways before me were like the uncleanness of a woman in her menstrual impurity. So I poured out my wrath upon them for the blood that they had shed in the land, for the idols with which they had defiled it. I scattered them among the nations, and they were dispersed through the countries. In accordance with their ways and their deeds I judged them. But when they came to the nations, wherever they came, they profaned my holy name…'”
Like us, these people did not “qualify” to receive anything good from God’s hand. But God told them,
“It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came.” (Ezekiel 36:22)
In the following words of God’s revelation through Ezekiel we see just what God proposed:
“And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Lord God, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes. I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God. And I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. And I will summon the grain and make it abundant and lay no famine upon you. I will make the fruit of the tree and the increase of the field abundant, that you may never again suffer the disgrace of famine among the nations. Then you will remember your evil ways, and your deeds that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves for your iniquities and your abominations. It is not for your sake that I will act, declares the Lord God; let that be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel.” (Ezekiel 36:23-32, emphasis mine)
Twelve times in these ten verses God says He will act to bless His people. He promises blessings beyond measure. He will deliver them. He will cleanse them. He will give them the gift of a new heart and a new spirit, and He will “cause” them to care about His rules, and to obey. What have the people done to “merit” these things? Absolutely nothing. But they do respond. They remember their sin and mourn their evil ways; they are deeply ashamed.
Amazingly, Thomas Monson took the clear and powerful Word of God — a revelation wherein God declared His divine initiative in blessing His people — and misapplied it to teach his followers that God’s blessings are bestowed according to human attainment. What a shame.
What is an even greater shame is that no one blinked when he said this. They just listened to what he said and assumed he was right. I was sitting in a meeting house during this session and not a person opened up their Scriptures to see if what he was saying was right. As soon as he said it I was scribbling notes frantically in the dark. Ezekiel 36: 26-28 is one of my favorite verses in the Bible and Monson totally misrepresented it.
Of course to be fair, there are plenty of people in Christian churches who also misrepresent those verses. The difference is that they are not self-proclaimed prophets.
Here we go- another thread on faith vs. works and what it means to “merit” or qualify for the Lord’s blessings.
fof
Pingback: OD Today: 19 January 2009 (early edition) « Online Discernment Today
fof, instead of being aggrieved try to read what Sharon wrote and look at the verses in context. there is no way to read that in a way that would imply that humans earn the blessings promised in Ezekiel 36. Monson flat out made up the interpretation of Eze 36 and no one noticed or cared inside of LDS land.
Thank you, Sharon, for this fine article. I believe you drew some clear contrasts here.
When one has grown up and been taught all their lives that they are worthy (that is, righteous), the idea that blessings are something other than wages to be merited is almost incomprehensible. To say nothing of grace.
If I were worthy, I could stand before the Great White Throne judgment, head held high. Confident in my acquittal, pleased to receive my just due. I would have no need to be saved from judgment. A savior? I would have no need. I would be in no danger.
If one does not see their unworthiness, they do not see their need.
This portion of Ezekial has to do with the gathering of Israel in the last days. She would be scattered after the Savior’s ministry and atonement in the meridian of time. After the Lord had “scattered them among the heathen, and they were dispersed through the countries,” He would once again gather them in the last days in preparation for the Second coming of the Messiah.
Israel, the bride of the Messiah had been unfaithful and scattered throughout the world. He would gather her and restore her again, not because of her righteousness, but for “His Name,” and the covenants made to Israel (Jacob) and Abraham.
“For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.”
In Chapter 37 we read of the stick of Joseph and the stick of Judah shall be “joined into one stick.” You know our interpretation of these things, right? A stick is a scroll or something on which they wrote. In the last days, concurrent with the gathering of Israel, the sacred writings of Judah and Joseph, through Ephraim, would be gathered into one.
President Monson has the perfect context and authority to say the things he did.
fof
fof made a fine reply above, but if I may, I’d like to lob my own unthinking comments from the safe bunkers of LDS land.
Arthur Sido, you said “there is no way to read that in a way that would imply that humans earn the blessings promised in Ezekiel 36.”
Lets examine the reason for the condemnation brought upon Israel. In order to be consistent that people don’t merit reward, we must also accept the opposite proposition, that men don’t merit punishment. Lets see how that theory holds, shall we?
In Ezekial 36:17, the Lord states that Israel defiled the land by their “ways” and “doings.” Okay, so it looks like the Lord is taking note of Israel’s actions. Hmmm, must be a fluke, lets read on…
Unfortunately, in the very next verse, Ezekial 36:18, the Lord states that their ways were “unclean” before him, and he poured out His wrath for “the blood they shed” and their worship of idols.
Then again in Ezekial 36:19, the Lord stated that He judged them in “accordance with their ways and their deeds.”
I think three examples should suffice. Based on these passages, clearly the Lord punishes individuals based on their actions, or to put it crudely, sometimes individuals merit (gasp) punishment. It stands to reason that the corollary principle would hold as well, or at least be implied, which is that God rewards good behavior.
Okay, but for the sake of argument, lets read the passages rigidly and assume its not implied, and that God will reward the people regardless of merit, for here we bump up against the ever-pleasant doctrine of predestination.
In Ezekial 36: 24, the Lord says “I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land.” My question is, what about those individuals who don’t want to go? Will God force them to come to their land? Will He teleport them, Star Trek style?
Ezekial 36:27 illustrates the point in even sharper terms, for there God says he will “put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.” So here He is forcing a new heart upon people. Again, what if they don’t want it? Do they have a choice? Can they abandon it soon after He gives it to them, or are they bound to keep it? In addition, Israel will be explicitly forced (“caused”) to walk in God’s statutes and obey His rules.
As is apparent from the above discussion, your rigid interpretation of the passages cited by President Monson creates problems for you that don’t exist when understood in the way the Prophet interpreted them. And to say God does it for His sake is not the same as saying He does it regardless of the decisions Israel makes.
Don’t know where else to post this.
I just noticed off to the right side of the page you have a link to the 2006 church handbook of instructions. I find this very disrespectful as it is copyrighted material and that website is clearly breaking those copyright laws.
fof
I have pulled a few quotes that stood out to me from the article / sermon by Monson:
Thomas Monson: “The purity of your souls brings heaven closer to you and your families.” What I notice about this comment is that according to Monson it is the missionaries that bring heaven closer by their purity.
Thomas Monson: “The old adage is ever true: ‘Do your duty, that is best; leave unto the Lord the rest.’ ” This reminds me of what a Mormon missionary said to me – salvation is earned when you do all that you can do, and then Jesus makes up the rest. In other words, work your way to heaven, and rely on God for that extra little push you need to get over the top. This is absolutely contrary to what God has revealed in his Word – that no one is saved by their own works, but is instead saved by the work of Christ upon the cross.
Thomas Monson: “President John Taylor warned us, ‘If you do not magnify your callings, God will hold you responsible for those whom you might have saved had you done your duty.’ ” This quote from Monson’s speech makes me think who’s in charge here, God or man. People that God wants to reach are not being reached because of your lack of work. Could not the all powerful God of universe find someone else to save those folks He wants to reach. Or is it really all about man?
Sharon, great blog thread, research…as always. Yes, it is a shame what our Mormon friends do with taking Bible verses out of context to make it fit their own theology. As Arthur Sido pointed out, what is even more of a shame is that the Mormon faithful sitting at conference and in the wards on Sunday’s never question, look at or blink when something is told to them by the leadership. How goes the saying?
“When the prophet speaks the discussion is over.”
Wasn’t it Monson that issued his first prophetic statement soon after becoming the prophet of the church advising the brethren to not open their scriptures when a talk is given because the noise of the page turning disturbs those sitting close by in the pews? I have read this in the Ensign I believe and I believe there was a blog topic about this last year. What I find amazing about this after being in ward services is that the children are basically allowed “free roam” to do whatever they want. I was constantly distracted by kids running around going up and down the aisles, playing and making noise and nobody seemed bothered, but somehow flipping through the pages of the scriptures is disturbing. The underlying problem that is serious here is that the Mormons are not checking and testing what they are hearing to see if it measures up to what the Word of God says (1 Thes 5:21; Acts 17:10-11).
Taking Bible texts out of context is what all false religions do. They must do it to justify their existence and their theology. The Mormon Church is no stranger to this. Dr. Walter Martin was correct when he stated:
“A text taken out of context becomes a pretext’
Sharon has done a fine job of analyzing Ezekial 36. When I think of other classic texts that our Mormon friends have done injustice to, all one has to do is flip over one page to Ezekial 37. How the Mormon Church butchers Ezekial 37:16-17 and puts Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon into this text is beyond belief and is laughable if it wasn’t so frightening the implications. Other Old Testament classics that come to mind that have been butchered and taken out of context are Amos 3:7 and Deuteronomy 19:15. Gordon Hinckley threw that Deuteronomy “zinger” on Mike Wallace when he was interviewed.
Paul himself had some thoughts on the New Covenant that Ezekiel is talking about, his fellow Exile prophet was speaking about the same thing in Jeremiah 31:31-34and before these men Isaiah wrote Isaiah 42:6; 59:21. Paul writes about this in 2 Corinthians 3:3; Romans 8:9; Galatians 5:5, 6 and elswhere.
These passages are critical to understanding the promise of the New Covenant or Covenant of Grace.
Berean,
What are the “stick of Joseph” and the “stick of Judah?”
What are your views regarding the gathering of Israel in the latter days? The Bible is filled with prophecy regarding this important topic. This portion of Ezekial contains prophecy concerning Israel’s future. Yes, this prophecy of Ezekial was recorded in an historical context, some of the details of which Sharon outlined in her article, but that does not necessarily mean the prophecy applies directly to the people of that time- it is dealing with the future.
If this prophecy is about the Israelites of Ezekial’s day, when was this fulfilled?
I suggest a person who does not understand the Book of Mormon cannot fully understand prophecies regarding Israel. This is what I have referred to before in other threads. The doctrine and prophecy of the BOM regarding Israel in unequalled.
Hard to see how President Monson telling people they need to work on having pure souls is so shocking and is considered heresy. We believe that if we keep God’s commandments He will bless us- do you really claim this is not biblical? I truly do not understand the blasphemy in encouraging people to do their best.
Thots?
fof
FoF,
There is nothing wrong with leaders telling people to do their best. Parents say that to their children all the time. Coaches sy that to their athletes. Teachers say that to their students. Thomas Monson is a spiritual leader. In some contexts Monson would be fine in telling church members to do their best. For example, raising money by having a bake sale and the profits going to the local orphanage. Monson could say, “Ladies do your very BEST in making the BEST tasting cakes and it would be BEST if you made as many of the cakes as you can so we have the BEST chances of raising the most money.” I know that’s getting out there, but I think you see my point. There is nothing blasphemous about that.
Where it gets blasphemous is when doing one’s BEST now comes into the picture of salvation and eternal life. Fact is, we are not nor will we ever do our BEST in these sinful bodies of wretchedness to ever gain one microcosm of approval from God Almighty by doing any form of our works to merit His favor. We are disgusting in His sight with our labors and works (Isaiah 64:6). When Monson or any of the other GA’s go into heresy is when they say things like this:
“Only in and through a family unit can we obtain eternal life.” (Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual Religion 430 & 431, page 78)
“Each of us has been sent to earth by our Heavenly Father to MERIT eternal life.” (Elder Robert D. Hales, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Ensign, p. 87, November 2007)
“This grace is an enabling power that allows men and women to lay hold on eternal life AFTER they have expended their OWN BEST EFFORTS.” (“grace”, Bible dictionary, p.697)
Spencer Kimball, 12th LDS President, chastised church members who “are doing nothing seriously wrong except in their failures to do the right things to EARTH THEIR SALVATION” (The Miracle of Forgiveness, pages 211-212)
“Every person will inherit a glory of SALVATION, which will be the one that he has EARNED.” (John A. Widstoe, Mormon apostle, Joseph Smith—Seeker of Truth, Prophet of God, page 170)
“Salvation grows automatically out of the resurrection, and the coming forth in the resurrection constitutes the receipt of whatever degree of SALVATION HAS BEEN EARNED.” [Emphasis mine] (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 1:196)
“SALVATION is free, but it MUST ALSO BE PURCHASED; and the price is obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.” [Emphasis mine] (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Vol.3, page 462)
“SALVATION is twofold: General – that which comes to all men irrespective of a belief (in this life) in Christ – and, Individual – that which MAN MERITS THROUGH HIS OWN ACTS through life and by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:134)
Well that is about as inaccurate an assessment as you could come up with. God doesn’t force people to change their hearts, he replaces their stony rebellious heart of stone with a heart of flesh, a heart that is receptive to the Gospel. Because mormonism has a false view of sin, these verses make little sense to Monson is free to “interpret” them however he sees fit to make his point. It is called regeneration and it is a vital and necessary part of salvation. The natural man, a child of wrath, dead in tresspasses and sins is unable and unwilling to respond to the Gospel. Dead sinners need to be quickened, born again in order to be saved. That is what Ezekiel is speaking of, that is what Jeremiah 31 is speaking of, that is what Christ is talking about when He spoke to Nicodemus.
You are missing the whole point of Sharon’s post and of Ezekiel 36, that God is the one who takes initiative to change hearts. We don’t follow God in obedience and in return He changes our hearts. We cannot follow God UNTIL He changes our hearts.
fof,
“I suggest a person who does not understand the Book of Mormon cannot fully understand prophecies regarding Israel.”
I understand the BoM and you don’t need to read it to understand the prophecies regarding Israel. You are looking for an Old Covenant fulfillment in a New Covenant context. That is why mormonism always appeals to the OT in seeking to restore the 12 tribes (that and the need for Samoans to play for BYU), restoring the human priesthood, restoring the prophetic office, restoring the temple. Those things are but types and shadows. I have argued again and again that mormonism is restoring something that is obsolete. It is the equivalent of GM and Ford trying to bring back the buggy whip.
You are missing the big picture, the promises made by God to Abraham are not fulfilled in the nation-state of Israel but in Christ. The Gospel is not fulfillied in land promises or ethnic Jewish tribes but in the Israel of God, His elect people. Look at Romans 9: 6-8 and Galatians 3: 7 and 3: 29. Those who are faith are the descendents of Abraham. You don’t need to search around for lost Jewish tribes or make up tribes for Gentiles in North America. If you want to see the people of God you need look no further than Christians, those who are born again, saved by grace and have faith in Jesus Christ. That is where the Old Covenant Abrahamic promises of God are fulfilled.
http://thesidos.blogspot.com/2009/01/israel-gaza-and-gospel.html
FoF,
In regards to your question regarding Ezekial 37 and the Mormon slant of that text, I ask you to open up the Bible and look at the verses as we go along. This is much better in a real conversation that way you can answer as we go along. Anyway, here it goes.
I have heard Mormons refer to this passage (verses 16-17) as proof texts for the Book of Mormon and prophesy regarding Joseph Smith himself being mentioned in the Old Testament! Verse 16 says, “Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it”. Okay, who is being referred to here? It’s Ezekial. Let’s move on through the verse…”then take another stick, and write upon it, for Joseph, the stick of Ephraim”. (D&C 27:5 points to this as a proof text). I know that the Mormons state that they are from the tribe of Ephraim and I’m sure it comes right from this text, no? Verse 17 goes on to say that these two sticks will become joined together into one stick and will become one in the land. Alright…good deal. May I ask you some questions?
1. Did Ezekial write all the entire scriptures of the Bible (first “stick”)? (No)
2. Did Ezekial write the gold plates of the Book of Mormon? (No)
Already you can see where this is not making sense and not fitting in with Mormon reasoning of this text when it comes to the sticks. Let’s now move on to verse 18 where the question you asked is ironically asked in the text: “Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these?” In verse 19 we start getting our answer: the tribes of Israel are to be brought together.
What are those sticks? We get our answer in verse 22: “And I will make them ONE NATION…and they shall be no more TWO NATIONS, neither shall they be divided into TWO KINGDOMS any more at all” The two sticks are not the books, but are rather two kingdoms. The uniting of these “sticks” pictures God’s restoring His people, the children of Israel into a single nation again.
How is it possible to get the Book of Mormon from this text or imply that the stick of Joseph is actually prophesy foretelling of Joseph Smith? It’s impossible and a grossly abused text taken out of context.
In regards to Isreal and the Book of Mormon prophecies, one need look no further than the false prophecy recorded in 2 Nephi 10:7 – “But behold, thus saith the Lord God: When the day cometh that they shall believe in me, that I am Christ, then have I covenanted with their fathers that they shall be restored in the flesh, upon the earth, unto the lands of their inheritance.”
The Jews are back in Israel (as of 1947), but they don’t believe in Christ. The Book of Mormon regarding this prophecy falls flat. Also, Joseph Smith should have been given this information through revelation I would think somewhere in the D&C much like he was regarding other events (Civil War – another false prophecy). If the LDS Church wants to abuse the text of Amos 3:7, then this all falls under it because God would have revealed to the LDS leadership I would think somewhere at least by the year 1946 what was getting ready to take place in Israel if it was going to play a part in confirming this text in 2 Nephi 10:7.
Berean,
It was not Pres. Monson that made that statement – he re-itereated it. I can remember a letter asking for the person giving the talk not to ask all to follow along in the scriptures as far back as about 8 years ago. It does not mean that the congregation cannot open the scriptures and follow – it just means that the speaker cannot ask them to do it. There is a difference there.
As for the little children, this is a family church so there will be the noise from children in the meeting. Parents are asked in most wards to teach their children reverence during sacrament meeting. Some try, some do not. its a simple thing as human weaknesses. I always took my children out of the meeting into the cry room if they were noisy or needed to run around a bit. I have been in wards where even though there were many little children, it was quite and reverent. It all depends on the bishop and the members of the ward.
But remember what Jesus said – suffer the little children to come unto Me.
FoF,
Joseph in the Bible is one of the fathers of the tribes of Israel (Gen. 49:22-26). The tribe of Joseph divided into Ephraim and Manasseh when, in the history of the tribal league, Levi left the tribal structure (Gen. 48:8-22). For a parallel consult Zechariah 10:6, both passages refer to the the unification of Gods Kingdom.
The Prophets of the Old Testament were writing in the premessianic age. Much of their prophesy, as the New Testament writers and Christ Himself taught us, must be seen as pointing to the Glory of the coming of the messiah (Jesus Christ) when they refer to the national Israel, the Temple, Throne of David they are using the language and the culture of the people who originally received these prophesies. The New Testament writers tell us that Jesus Christ is the realization of many of these passages, without trying to oversimplify this Christ is the New Israel, the true Temple, Jesus Christ is the Heir to David’s Throne and reigns today over His Kingdom.
We stand in the age between the two advents of out LORD Jesus Christ, the incarnation and the second coming. Christ and the New Testament writers must be allowed to interpret the Old Testament for us.
Ralph,
Thanks for clearing that up about Thomas Monson. I only remember reading about this last year so I thought it was new after he took control of the leadership last February.
In regards to the distractions of the children, I can see where it would be up to the ward bishops and what they prefer or allow to go on during sacrament. I have been in some wards where it was pretty well under control and I have been in some where it seemed to me that kids were doing whatever they wanted. I recall one time where the kids were just running around the pews and then going up and down the side of the stage while people were giving their testimony during “fast & testimony” Sunday while the bishop and his counselors just looked at them with a smile on their face. At our church we have a special time set aside before the offering where the kids actually come onto the stage for the “children’s sermon”. The youth pastor has all the kids huddle around while he gives a “talk” that is on their level. Sometimes this involves a puppet show. After that is concluded the kids all leave and go to children’s church in another building so they can learn about the Bible and have fun at the same time. If they were to remain in the sanctuary with us they wouldn’t have a clue on what the pastor was saying and would either sleep or throw crayons at one another.
Arthur, you said “well that is about as inaccurate an assessment as you could come up with.” Problem is, you didn’t really address any of my points to show how my assessment was inaccurate, but simply danced around them. That reeks of intellectual dishonesty. But I’ll raise the same points in response to your last reply, and lets see if we can’t do a better job of staying on task this time.
You said “God doesn’t force people to change their hearts, he replaces their stony rebellious heart of stone with a heart of flesh, a heart that is receptive to the Gospel.”
All you did here was substitute the word “replace” for “force,” but this does nothing to overcome the predestination problem. How does God replace their stony rebellious heart if they do not choose to accept a new heart or if He does not force them to take one? Is there a third way I’m not seeing? (and please, if you think there is a third way, don’t just say there is and move on, try to explain how that third way works). If they choose to accept the new heart, then they have done a “work.” If he forces them to take it, then they have no free will.
You said “it is called regeneration and it is a vital and necessary part of salvation. The natural man, a child of wrath, dead in tresspasses and sins is unable and unwilling to respond to the Gospel.”
This seems to be the closest you come to addressing the issue. So the natural man is unable and unwilling to respond to the Gospel (and I’m assuming by natural man, you mean all people). You seem to be acknowledging here that man has no free will, that no matter how he tries, he cannot accept the Gospel, unless God forces it upon him. If this is the case, those who are saved and those who are dammed are determined by who God decides to force a new heart upon. Am I to assume then, that you favor predestination?
You said: “[I am] missing the whole point of Sharon’s post and of Ezekiel 36, that God is the one who takes initiative to change hearts.”
Here you misrepresent the passages (oh, the irony). Ezekiel 36:27 explicitly states that God will cause (not initiate, but cause) the people to walk in his statutes. Do you read this differently?
Finally, you said: “we don’t follow God in obedience and in return He changes our hearts. We cannot follow God UNTIL He changes our hearts.”
Am I to understand then that, in your opinion, there is nothing man can do to follow God until He first gives them permission? So it is feasible then, that people might be trying to find God, whilst He stands back with His arms folded across his chest (that is, if you believe He has arms and a chest and is not merely a vapor), and says no, you cannot come, for I have not yet caused you to Come unto Me? You seem to be limiting God a great deal, a God who, to me, would welcome all who want to come unto Him, and would not limit salvation to only those He first gave permission.
In addition, I’d be interested to hear your explanation as to why God punished Israel as I noted in my previous post. Did they not merit punishment by their bad deeds?
Pingback: Covenant of Promise… « GUNDECK
Berean, I believe the phrase is “When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done.”
Berean and Gundeck,
[Note to all commenters: Please remember our comment policy regarding long comments. While the Mormon Coffee comment length is currently managed by the honor system, comments should still stay somewhere in the neighborhood of not exceeding the previously enforced 2,000 character length. Your mods have been very lenient on this across the board, but this comment is well over 6,000 characters, and others have also pushed the limit. Please be mindful of this and break up your thoughts into multiple comments in the future. Thanks.]
Thanks for your responses. I do not see these verses in Ezekial 37 referring directly to Joseph Smith. This referene to Joseph and the stick of Joseph refers to the writing of the tribe of Joseph. I understand the history of Joseph, son of Israel (Jacob). He was given very special promises and blessings by his father as seen in Genesis 49:
“Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well; whose branches run over the wall:
The archers have sorely grieved him, and shot at him, and hated him:
But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel:)
Even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee; and by the Almighty, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb:
The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting chills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren.”
(Interesting Inauguration day note: George Washington was very particular that this was the scripture to which the Bible was opened when he took the oath of office as the first president of the USA- extremely significant and symbolic in my opinion).
Question is- how were these blessings fulfilled? We submit that the tribe of Joseph has been very blessed as promised. In fact, the temporal savlation of Jacob(Israel) from the famine anciently was a type for what would occur in the latter days. Anciently, Joseph, as a high ranking official in Egypt, prepared for the famine and saved his fathers house from the famine, by providing food for them and all Egypt.
In latter days, the tribe of Joseph would be the recipients of the restored gospel and be the means of gathering all of Israel and providing the saving ordinances and priesthood, thereby saving them from the spiritual famine (apostasy).
And just as Joseph was separated from his brethren anciently (they sold him as a slave), Joseph, or the tribe of Joseph was be separated much later when Lehi and Mulek (from Menassah and Ephraim respectively, sons of Joseph) traveled to the Americas and built civilizations there.
Now of course Lehi and Mulek were not the only ones from the tribe of Joseph. But they had great blessings from the Lord, and we believe the record of their people became the stick of Joseph.
You bring up the modern nation of Israel. I fully take the BOM prophecy as it is stated. But there are many issues in understanding fully what this means. First of all, the text gets it right that Israel would again become a nation, right? And it says, that the descendents of those who crucified Christ would be restored to their lands of inheritence.
Now, one question is if those who now inhabit Israel are those descendents? Some are, some aren’t. A significant portion of the “Jews” who are now citizens of Israel, the nation, are descendents of families in eastern Europe who converted to Judaism centuries ago. So this is not so clear.
Second, is there a clear statement regarding sequence in theses verses that they will first believe, and then be restored? It seems that way on the surface. But this is not necessarily true. It says “in that day.” And what is a day? Of course not 24 hours. How about a year? A generation? Not exactly sure, maybe not until Christ returns and saves them from their enemies. But I fully believe this will happen as the BOM prophecy proclaims. In the same era as they are returned to their lands, they will also believe in Christ.
Arthur- If I were a BYU fan, I certainly would be grateful the Somoans play on their football team!
You are correct that a person does not need to be directly descended from Abraham to share the blessings of the covenent. They are received in the family of Abraham by adoption. And those of Abraham are not necessarily saved- like Jesus said. The BOM teaches this very clearly.
I must make a point here. From my point of view, it seems that those non-LDS here view the nature of God changing drastically after the atonement. I fully believe that Christ fullfilled the law of Moses and other great prophecies. He is the culmination of the entire plan of salvation and every hope of man. But it seems ya’ll see God completely changing 100% of the way he interracts with His children. Before the atonement, He utilized prophets, covenants, Law of Moses, a structured kingdom, priesthood, commandments, etc. After the atonement, all that was done away with? People merely have to believe in Christ and have no structure, revelation, prophets- in essence no structure whatsoever.
I have a very hard time with that. I absolutely believe Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses. Blood sacrifices were discontinued because Christ was the “great and last sacrifice” as the BOM says. I agree He changed everything. But man’s nature is the same. God still utilizes a structure and commandments and all the other stuff to bring people to Christ. To claim otherwise seems naive to man’s natural tendancies, in my opinion. To go from a very structured system (which was done because man’s nature to not “get it” and go astray), to a very unstrcutured amorphous “just believe” system seems over-simplified. Does that make sense. Yes, I know God can do anything, but He is dealing with man here, who needs every help and encouragement possible- at least I do!
Another topic for Arthur- What of the prophesy:
“it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the flaw, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”
Seems pretty clear the “House of the God of Jacob” would be built on the top of the mountains and be a center of God’s Kingdom on earth. Can you see that a temple would play a role in the Lord’s kingdom in the last days?
Another note on this article from Sharon. The Lord is speaking to Israel. This doesn’t necessarily translate into a faith and works discussion nicely because we are talking about a large group of people, the bride of the Messiah. The Lord intervened to gather Israel to Him. He is speaking about future events in this passage.
fof
Concerning the complaining over the CHI linkage: When I said,”it is off-topic on this thread”, I meant it. Go discuss it on a thread or discussion board post more pertinent.
If you guys want to complain about the link, send an e-mail or discuss it on the pertinent discussion board thread.
By the way, the link is now:
A link which redirects to a Google search which just happens to link to Wikileaks which may happen to link to the 2006 Church Handbook of Instructions
What a gross and deliberate misrepresentation of his words. To think that the implication behind all of this is the fact that God picks and chooses who He wants to “save” is nothing short of elitism and totally unbiblical.
The Bible along with the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price make it clear that an individual can be reconciled to Jesus Christ through faith in His name, repentence of one’s sins, entering into a covenant at baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Blog posts like these spin these simple and precious declarations to read that an individual just checks these off, as if they are a shopping list at a grocery store, and in the end they are saved simply for the very fact that these “shopping items” were checked off. This is untrue and contrary to the scriptures.
These people want to paint the picture that they are separate, that grace vs. works must be two separate individual concepts when in fact, they are two ends of the same rope. You cannot separate them.
Being “saved” relies on both of these concepts interwoven together as one, for as the individual follows the Master, it is ultimately the Master who saves.
To think that a God would selectively pick and choose people and automatically save them without any action on any part of the individual is ridiculous.
Those who follow the Savior and live His teachings will be saved through His grace.
Thus, we learn of our Savior, we apply our learning to actually do the things He has taught, and we try to be perfect, even as are Father in Heaven is perfect. We know we are not going to get there without help, but the point is to be moving forward. In the end, we will give back the talents we were given and while we could have done better, we will be reconciled to Him, and He will make up the rest. That’s the whole point of the Atonement.
And how do we interpret the New Testiment?
This is an old topic frequently discussed, but with little understanding shown the “grace” side, and not a whole lot more on the “works” side. While I have no doubt that member of the LDS church understand the doctrine of the church, they don’t seem to explain it very well, while none members don’t seem to understand at all.
In simple terms, Grace it what saves us as we can never do enough to repay all that God has done for us. However, if we do not do all we can God will not extend his grace.
A good illustration is the story of three young girls who each wanted a bicycle. Their father told them that he would pay $100 each if they would earn the the rest of the money to buy them. The first thought, “Well Dad will buy me a bike, as he has already promised to do, so I do not need to do much myself.” She earned only a few dollars. The second went and did chores around the house for money, thinking “If I help dad I will get a good bike.” She earned $400. The third said to herself “Even though dad will pay part of the cost I will do all I can and pay as much as I can myself.” She did her chores around the house, but also started babysitting, helping the neighbors with their yards, and doing everything she could to earn money. She earned $900 dollars.
When the three girls go to get their bikes, who will get the best bike? The first earned only a few dollars, so she must settle for a simple bike, bought at a cheap store. The second earned a $150, so she could get a descent bike, one of high quality. The third, who worked so hard and earned $500 dollars can go to the most expensive store and buy the highest quality of bike. All three received the hundred from their father (or the Grace) but not all did the work that would earn them the greater reward (Rev 22. 12)
I would also direct you to Matthew chapter 25. In it are the Parables of the Ten Virgins, the Talents, and the Sheep and Goats, all of which show a great emphasis on Meriting salvation through works.
while others have said things of this nature, and in very clear terms, I just wnated to say it myself, to point out the LDS church does not teach that we are saved by our works alone, as so many seem to think, but that it is the combination of our works and the grace of God that saves us, both being necessary.
Thank you
shematwater,
I appreciate your post. But I will disagree in one thing- sort of a big thing, in my opinion. Christ does for us what we cannot do for ourselves. It is not just that we cannot come up with the needed “quantity” of work. He is able to provide a type of work for us which we cannot perform any of- a “quality” of work if you will. Does that make sense?
The thing you correctly point out and what is often lost here is that He requires us to do certain things in order to qualify for His grace. But fulfilling what He asks does not actually do the work of saving. Even if we sinned just once in our lives, we could not be saved without the “type” of work He provides.
I agree with you that people will receive variable degrees of reward, based on their faithfulness. This is the old law of the harvest used so often by the Savior to explain the gospel. Bottom line- the more faithful, humble, and obedient a person is, the more He is able to bless us!
Thanks for your post.
fof
MDavis,
Do you believe God chose Israel, the Jewish people, because they were more righteous than everyone else? This seems false on the face, because it can be seen throughout the Bible that the Jewish people were no more righteous than anyone else. Besides this, it goes contrary to the very idea of a “chosen people.” Who did the choosing? Man or God? From the Bible, it is obviously God. The concept of salvation being entirely a work of God is foundational to the Bible.
If salvation is not of God, and really depends on man, then what is it that makes a person obey and trust God, and do the temple works etc.? Are they just morally better? Are they just plain better people? Are they smarter? What makes the difference between a true believing Mormon and myself? I am someone who knows he is a wretched sinner saved only by the grace and mercy of God, the completed work of Christ on the cross. I could never see myself meriting or worthy of any ability to bring heaven down to earth by my purity. My purity is as filthy rags before the Lord. Is the Mormon simply more intelligent?, more morally attuned to God? If man’s own works carry man to heaven with a little push given by Jesus to make up for some unfortunate moral failings, then surely it must be either intelligence, moral character, or some other characteristic of personal worth which makes the difference between the Mormon and myself.
On the other hand, when God reaches down and calls those which are his own unto himself, then the followers of God have NO claim to merit God’s favor, for while I was yet a sinner Christ died for me. Jesus said, my sheep know my voice – the Holy Spirit draws us and convicts us, and yes, even gives us the ability to respond to God’s calling in repentance and faith (John 6:65, Romans 11:7, 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14, ). Futhermore, He then provides the ability to walk in faith and live according to His moral law. Even then we fail to live righteously consistently and are forever indebted to Jesus for His sacrifice on our behalf. We are saved apart from any works that we do, our trusting in faith and transformation is completely dependent upon God (2 Timothy 1:9, Ephesians 2:4-5, Ephesians 2:8-9). It’s not because believers are smarter, or more moral, or better people – it’s because of God’s great mercy that He has called us to Himself. I am no better than anyone else.
FoF,
I will try to keep this short, because my responses are notoriously long. You wrote, “I must make a point here. From my point of view, it seems that those non-LDS here view the nature of God changing drastically after the atonement.” The nature of God has not changed nor has the Law been abrogated. There are simply 2 covenant types, the first “covenant of law”, requires perfect obedience (Mount Sinai). The second, “covenant of promise” is a gift. These covenant types are seen from the beginning of the Bible, Genesis 2:16, 17 is a covenant of law. Eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and die, perfect obedience is required. Genesis 3:15 (the Protoevangelium) is a covenant of promise. God will “put enmity between you and the woman…” Ezekiel 36:26–28 is a covenant of promise.
You comment “Before the atonement, He utilized prophets, covenants, Law of Moses, a structured kingdom, priesthood, commandments, etc. After the atonement, all that was done away with?” The entire Levitical priesthood and Temple worship system was based on the sacrificial system for atonement. While you seem to acknowledge that Christ is the ultimate atoning sacrifice you are still looking for something that you can do to save yourself. Christ is our High Priest, and he has instituted the Church and his means of Grace are the Word, Sacraments, and prayer.
Man’s nature is not to “not get it” man’s natural state is sinful rebellion against God; no amount of structure is going to help that. What we need is the new heart and Spirit promised in Ezekiel 36:26-28.
WJ; ;you wrote
Lets examine the reason for the condemnation brought upon Israel. In order to be consistent that people don’t merit reward, we must also accept the opposite proposition, that men don’t merit punishment. Lets see how that theory holds, shall we?
and then
In addition, I’d be interested to hear your explanation as to why God punished Israel as I noted in my previous post. Did they not merit punishment by their bad deeds?
Your two thots do not fit together: we can indeed (GERMIT DOES indeed) merit all kinds of punishment……..that does NOT mean that the kindness that comes my way is totally unmerited…….I think you are stumbling on this point. If you want to see it explained, I think beautifully, from the New Testament, read slowly and carefully the account of the Prodigal Son……more aptly called the Merciful FAther (if you ask me) to be found in Luke 15.
can we agree that this son, who has squandered EVERYTHING that his father worked hard for on parties and whores is in BIG TROUBLE ?? and yet what does he, the son, get , upon his return ???? I think THAT is the direction of these chapters in Ezekiel, and I’ll have to agree with Sharon…..don’;t know what your big guy was thinking when he worked up his sermon notes, but I’d have to call this a swing and a big miss.
PS to FoF: the “gathering together at the end times” take on theses scriptures , to me, seems very forced and unreal. A more direct and honest interpretation seems to be that this is all about the NEW COVENANT of grace, God is telling HIS people about the NEW agreement wonderfully summarized by Arthur in his earlier post: hearts of STONE made into hearts of FLESH. thanks for your posts.
SHARON: your topic and content are on the money…..your style and approach is gracious……great job per usual. the default setting of the LDS seems to be “work harder….work harder”……sounds a little like “ANIMAL FARM’ to me. Keep up the great work…..GERMIT
woooops……I wrote:
Your two thots do not fit together: we can indeed (GERMIT DOES indeed) merit all kinds of punishment……..that does NOT mean that the kindness that comes my way is totally unmerited…….I think you are stumbling on this point.
TOOOOO many negatives in the second sentence…..sorry….
let’s just restate for clarity:
merited PUNISHMENT does NOT necessarily mean merited BLESSING….these are not equal sides of some coin……God can grant FAVOR and MERCY to those (like myself) who deserve the exact OPPOSITE…..seems like that is the general tenor of the chapters (Exekiel 36,37) that Sharon and Mr.Monson were talking about.
sorry for the blurriness……not enough coffee……. GERMIT
Mrgermit,
Upon his (the son’s) return (REPENTANCE), the son gets a great celebration and is welcomed back into the family.
Repentance is the turning away from unrighteousness/sin and turning to righteousness/good works.
Repentance is a work.
Does God save the sinner that refuses to repent?
GB: hope you find this (no “reply ” option on your post……)
we agree on REPENTANCE; I think it is a work as well…..the son is not helped at all if he just moans about his bad self esteem, and continues to eat with the pigs…..
BUT: do the words “merit” or “worthiness” deserve to be connected to the son’s actions in returning to his father ???? Does the son GET WHAT HE DESERVED ?? similar thot would be: “did Israel get what THEY deserved , or were promised, in EZ. 36 ???
I think the nature of GRACE, real GRACE, might be offensive to you……..nothing seems to work like this in our man-made system of things…..that’s the scandal of GRACE……
PS; this will sound harsh, but I think the elder son in theLUKE 15 parable had many of the same concerns as you do…..the younger son seems to get off WAY TOO EASY……..I mean….a party, for WHAT ???? GERMIT
I get slightly annoyed when people use the Bible to explain their point with the assumption that the Bible is all that there is. Just venting frustration there. Yes, the Bible does chronicle the people of Israel and I suppose, if you view it from this faulty assumption, that it does sound like God only favored Israel. However, I do not believe the Bible to be the only work of God.
With an expanded view of scripture and the workings of God, I believe there were many dealings between God and man throughout the ages. Even the Book of Mormon shows this to be so.
And to my knowledge, the Bible does not allude to the fact that Israel were the ONLY chosen people. So I do not believe that argument you present.
Second, I never said that salvation is not of God. So I do not know where you are going here. I cannot argue with what Christ said. He said to follow Him. That means to follow His teachings and counsel. In my opinion, any honest observer should readily see that the Bible is incomplete. I believe God lead’s people to His Church who are willing to learn. You should know the difference between those who are willing to follow and those who are not. It’s a Saint vs. a Pharisee.
So many people are indoctrinated with this whole Bible “only” garbage that their judgement is clouded. It literally is a modern day version of the Pharisees holding onto what they had (oh the irony). But it could easily be dispelled with a willing heart and an openness to the Spirit.
So no, I look at the Christian world as being the ones deciding their own salvation and not God. They have limited God’s revelation to a book which is worshipped like the golden cafe and they have splintered into thousands of denominations each teaching their own flavor of the day mixed with politics and things of the world.
But no, the Mormons are weirdos because they believe in a God that is not “dead,” but still loves mankind and will actually speak to them like old times. We are a cult despite the fact that the majority of the Christian world clergy of multiple denominations dress up in strange costumes with icons and incense galore in broad daylight. We must be a cult because our members do not chant and throw up our hands during a rock Christian concert or throw ourselves on the floor after babbling some gobladegook…yes cult indeed!
No, when you really look at it, Mormons open themselves up more to God than anyone else. In my opinion, people stuff themselves into a small box, thinking it is a mansion. I will just read my incomplete book here, worship it, spin my belief however I want, maybe start my own mission and Church and then say God told me so. Truly, the Christian world believes in human attainment, not Mormons.
Mrgermit,
I DO believe in grace. I just don’t believe in CHEAP grace.
The grace of God is not extended in a one time event or in a single measure. God extends His grace to save us FROM our sins, not to save us IN our sins.
Repentance and obedience are requirements that GOD has set for the reception of His grace.
It is His grace and He will deal it out as He has said.
Too many think that they only have to provide a profession of belief, to be in a position to DEMAND that God extend His grace to them.
Or that God will be throwing around lots of cheap grace to any and all (except Mormons of course) that profess a belief.
Rather than gamble with my soul, I think I will do my best to OBEY him in all things, and let Him Who is Just decide how, when and how much grace He will extend.
I have noticed a few amusing things about your post.
You said: “What I notice about this comment is that according to Monson it is the missionaries that bring heaven closer by their purity.”
This seems to imply that President Monson was speaking only to missionaries, when he was, in fact, speaking to all the brethren.
You said: “This is absolutely contrary to what God has revealed in his Word – that no one is saved by their own works, but is instead saved by the work of Christ upon the cross.”
I offer these references from the Bible:
Acts 10: 34-35 “Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no arespecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and WORKETH RIGHTEOUSNESS, is eaccepted with him.” (emphasis added),
Philippians 2: 12 “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, WORK OUT YOUR OWN SALVATION with fear and trembling.” (emphasis added)
1 Peter 1: 17 And if ye call on the father, who without respect of persons JUDGETH ACCORDING TO EVERY MAN’S WORK, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: (emphasis added)
Revelation 22: 12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man ACCORDING AS HIS WORK SHALL BE.
From these few references we can see that our own works will evect our salvation.
You said: “This quote from Monson’s speech makes me think who’s in charge here, God or man. People that God wants to reach are not being reached because of your lack of work. Could not the all powerful God of universe find someone else to save those folks He wants to reach. Or is it really all about man?”
I would refer you to the book of Ezekial. In chapter 3, verse 18 we read “When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; BUT HIS BLOOD WILL I REQUIRE AT THINE HAND. (emphasis added) This is again stated in chapter 33, verse 8; When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; BUT HIS BLOOD WILL I REQUIRE AT THINE HAND. (emphasis added)
From this the idea of being held accountable for the crimes of one you were supposed to warn is perfectly Biblical.
So, what President Monson said can be supported through the Bible, thus it is not contradictory with it.
I get slightly annoyed with people who claim because Protestants take the word of God seriously and use the Bible as a rule for “all things necessary for His [God] own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life” that they are acting like the Pharisees or worse practising idolatry.
Berkhof in his systematic theology says that “we start the study of theology with two presuppositions namely (1) that God exists and (2) that he has revealed himself in his divine Word.” We are not worshiping the Bible. We have read the bible and believe it’s claims to be true. These claims force us to worship something outside the Bible, God.
Far from worshiping a dead deity as you claim, the Christian believes that we are given Faith by the Grace of God, we are sustained by the Grace of God, we mature and grow to love by the Grace of God, we are sanctified and made holy by the Grace of God, our salvation will come by the Grace of God. We believe in the intimate, vital, spiritual union with Christ giving us life, strength, holiness, our salvation, and in His time our glory. All of this we believe because of promises like the one made in Ezekiel 36:26-28. We stand convicted by His law and saved by His grace. Does a God who willing does all of this sound dead to you?
You have ignored that we are the creatures of God, made in his image, and have re-maid Him in your own image. You worship at the foot of a deity that is incapable of saving with out your own works, ceremonies, and temples. You ignore and distort the promises of God given by Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Paul etc. Your claim for the need for more revelation is striking considering how well your Church has handled the words of the Bible, (the subject of this post).
I could go on about your comments of splintering denominations (sort of like yours has), political activities (sort of like yours does) and worship practises (do I need to go there) but I am just venting frustration there.
MDavis wrote
“In my opinion, any honest observer should readily see that the Bible is incomplete…So many people are indoctrinated with this whole Bible “only” garbage that their judgement is clouded. It literally is a modern day version of the Pharisees holding onto what they had (oh the irony).”
If I understand you correctly, you don’t trust the Bible, you don’t like what it says and you don’t think it covers the most important aspects of God’s communications to humanity.
I have no idea how you can reconcile these sentiments with your article of faith “We believe the Bible to be the Word of God…”. Perhaps you think God is liar or a poor communicator. Perhaps he doesn’t really know what he wants to say to us. Perhaps you really mean “We believe the Bible only as far as it agrees with our doctrines”, or “We believe in what the Bible should have said if it had not been bastardized”, or, more technically “We can’t trust ourselves to allow the Bible to formulate our views of God, the state of humanity and how we need to respond to both”.
If you want to remove the Bible from your religion, go ahead! Only please also remove the misleading and dishonest statement from your articles of faith.
M Davis,
Aren’t there problems with some translations of the Bible? For example the word ‘Easter’ appears in the King James Bible, the correct translation should be passover. There are also some problems with the name “Lucifer” used in Isaiah 14:12.
Any time you translate there could potentially be problems. One is interpretation, which could make a distinction in understanding. For example slave vs. servant. Another is the meter and other qualities change from one language to another, as each language has its own word associations and properties.
Another potential problem is the intended audience which is reading a translated text. Early Inuit translations of the bible translate ‘sheep’, and ‘lamb’ into ‘seals’ and ‘seal pups’. I have no idea of how ‘bread’, ‘grain’ and framing activitivities were translated. These could be potential problems for people who were not agriculturally based. So many teachings of the Bible include activities around agriculture, it would have been difficult for christian missionaries to rely entirely on the Bible for teaching.
fof,
“I must make a point here. From my point of view, it seems that those non-LDS here view the nature of God changing drastically after the atonement. I fully believe that Christ fullfilled the law of Moses and other great prophecies. He is the culmination of the entire plan of salvation and every hope of man. But it seems ya’ll see God completely changing 100% of the way he interracts with His children. Before the atonement, He utilized prophets, covenants, Law of Moses, a structured kingdom, priesthood, commandments, etc. After the atonement, all that was done away with? People merely have to believe in Christ and have no structure, revelation, prophets- in essence no structure whatsoever.”
Let me address that piece by piece. Does God utilize prophets? Not ongoing prophecy that counteracts the Gospel, not new revelation. We hardly need new revelation when Christ has revealed all that men need to be saved. Hebrews 1: 1-2 is clear as crystal on that. The idea that we are saying that God has done away with covenants makes no sense at all. We are a people under the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31) that is not like the old covenant that Israel broke. We don’t swear unbiblical oaths in temples and call those covenants, that is true but all Christians recognize that we still are in a covenantal relationship with God. What has changed are the nature, the recipients and the mediator of the covenant. The Law of Moses has been done away with? Hardly. The Law convicts men of their sin, that really hasn’t changed. The earthly structured kingdom has been replaced with the heavenly kingdom, the new heavens and earth that we are promised in Christ. The priesthood of men has been done away with and replaced with Christ as our High Priest, who acts as intercessor for us. We still have commandments; I am not sure where you think we have done away with those. We are not saved by our obedience to the commandments or the law, we are saved by Christ who fulfilled all righteousness for His sheep. It is not our obedience that saves us, it is His. Those of us who are His obey His commandments because we love Him, and we love Him because He first loved us, (while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us). Christ didn’t save us after we became obedient, He saved us in spite of our rebellion and disobedience. The church is not a structure or an organization, it is the people of God, ecclesia, those who are called out. I categorically reject your assertion that: “God still utilizes a structure and commandments and all the other stuff to bring people to Christ”. Men are saved by the preaching of the Gospel in conjunction with the regeneration of the heart by the Holy Spirit and no other way. What structure were people saved by on the day of Pentecost? What about the Ethiopian eunich? All of the people saved in the NT are saved the same way people are saved today: by the power of the Holy Spirit and the preaching of the Word of God.
This doesn’t mean that God changed His mind about how to deal with His people, this was the plan all along. The Old Testament prophesies of the coming of Christ and is full of both promises and types and shadows. We are not looking for a new temple or an earthly kingdom because the promises of God are fulfilled in an infinitely more glorious way in Christ. Why would we want to reject that?
fof,
The other question you asked…
““it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the flaw, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”
Seems pretty clear the “House of the God of Jacob” would be built on the top of the mountains and be a center of God’s Kingdom on earth. Can you see that a temple would play a role in the Lord’s kingdom in the last days?”
We still have the old LDS video “The Mountain of the Lord” that implies that the Salt Lake temple fulfills this because it has the name “temple” and is in mountains. It made sense to me until I started reading the Bible and recognizing that the temple was but a shadow of Christ.
You are assuming that this prophecy is fulfilled in an earthly building when it is clear in the New Testament that the fulfillment is in Christ.
16 Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? 17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple. 1 Cor 3: 16-17
19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. 1 Cor 6: 19-20
14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, 2 Cor 6: 14-16
19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit. Ephesians 2: 19-22
What these Scriptures demonstrate is that the communion between the Christian and God is not bound by a physical location. The Spirit dwells in us, making us a dwelling place of God. The glory of God no longer rests in the temple, because Christ became flesh and tabernacled among men and sent the Spirit to indwell the believer, regenerating our hearts and sanctifying us.
We abide in Him and He in us. We don’t go to a physical building to commune with God, but where two or three are gathered in His name He is among us. We no longer need a human priest to go before the Lord with the blood of beasts to make intercession for us because Christ has made that intercession on our behalf. The whole reason for the earthly temple has been eliminated at the cross. We don’t go to a building to commune with God, because we don’t need to. I would argue that adding human structures and organizations into the mix in many ways separates us from communion with God, it doesn’t enable or enhance it.
Arthur,
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
I only have two posts per day, so bare with me!
In answer to how the saints at the day of pentecost were saved- they listened to apostles who were commissioned by Jesus Christ in an organized fashion. He had placed His hands upon them and ordained them. This is clear. He sent them out in an organized fashion and instructed them. They were a “foundational” part of His organization. That is clear. So to say those saints were saved without any relationship to an organized structure is simply not true. The same thing happens today- commissioned individuals, who have received the Priesthood authority travel the world and preach His gospel. Those who believe, repent, and follow are received into the household of God through baptism and covenent. Nothing has changed there.
As far as the quotation from Isaiah- you cannot dismiss that so quickly. “The mountain of the Lord shall be established in the top of the mountains.” “Let us go up to the Mountain of the Lord, to the House of the God of Jacob, and He will teach us of His way and we will walk in His paths.”
If a person studies the concept of the “Mountain of the Lord” or “Mount Zion,” the synonomous relationship between those phrases and the temple become quite clear. Isaiah says in a straight forward way that something would be “established” in the last days in the top of the mountains. Are you really saying it was the amorphous, global church? Explain what is meant by “the last days.” If the church has been with us for 2000 years, what then would be established in the last days? What would change that people would say “let us go up…”- what was to be learned? Why the reference to the “top of the mountains? What of Obadiah’s statement that “upon Mount Zion shall be deliverance?” He was of course too referring to the last days as well. How about his statement that “saviours shall come upon Mount Zion?”
I belive that too many important, specific, and profound prophecies from the Old Testament are being dismissed by the claim that they all refer to the new covenent through Christ’s sacrifice? There are clearly things that were prophesied regarding the period of the last days, before the second coming of Christ. They are actual events of significance. This takes nothing away from the atonement of Christ. It again shows that He keeps his covenents and fulfills all His words and prophesies.
The main point of my post above was that, from your point of view (and others), the Kingdom of God changed from a very organized, structured thing to one that has essentially no structure. And I believe, if you think about this, it makes no sense. If Israel of old was so quick to fall away, so quick to forget the Lord, why would modern mad- or man after Christ’s ministry and atonement be any different? Truth is, we are not different. We still need a structure- yes an actual organization to instruct, teach, help, and guide us in the correct doctrine and ordinances.
This of course is all logic-based. But I believe this is also supported by scripture.
fof
Fof,
I promise not to take advantage of the fact that you are in the comment penalty box!
I think you are making an enormous leap here between Christ ordaining and commissioning the apostles to go out preaching the Word and the institution of a church organization that is the means of grace. That was one of the big mistakes of Rome. It is something I run into constantly. We see Christ ordaining His apostles and mormons ordain men too, so therefore they are one and the same? What is missing is the linkage in the message the apostles preached and the message mormon missionaries preach, between the planting of churches in the New Testament and the hierarchy driven structure of mormonism, between calling and ordaining men to the Gospel ministry based on the qualities we see in the pastoral epistles and the extra-Biblical notion of the mormon “restored” priesthood.
As far as the second half of your reply. What I am saying is that the fulfillment of the covenant promises found throughout the Old Testament are not found in buildings, or nations, or organizations but are found in Christ. The temple as it existed in the Old Testament, what it represented and how it functioned in the Old Testament are nothing at all like what happens in the mormon temple (note of reference to readers that I have personally been through the mormon temple so I am not basing this on second-hand accounts). What is also absent is any mention of the temple worship or the “covenant” making that is practiced in mormonism anywhere in the New Testament. The mormon temple ceremony is a thoroughly recent invention. You can defend it as a modern revelation if you buy into the idea that Joseph Smith through Thomas Monson are “prophets” in spite of Hebrews 1: 1-2 but it cannot be equated to or be representative of a fulfillment of an Old Testament prophecy that finds its culmination in Jesus Christ.
MDavis,
You originally stated that God calling His own, choosing people “is nothing short of elitism and totally unbiblical.” My response was to show from the Bible how God has revealed Himself and how He calls people to Himself – thus demonstrating that God’s election is a completely Biblical doctrine. If you now want to discount the Bible as a source of truth about God’s nature, that’s a different argument. I do not accept the Book of Mormon, D&C, or POGP as authoritative in any way – these books are modern day creations in my assessment, some posing as ancient literature, basically fraudulent on many levels. Perhaps if you believe these works are authentic and authoritative you can find your beliefs in them, however, if they contradict the Bible, you must either throw out the Bible (which you seem to have done), or throw out these new revelations. Given all the evidence of which I am aware, I will stand with the Bible. Indeed, I feel God has called me to His truth and put His spirit in me, revealing truth (in the Bible) which not only aligns with my spirit, but with creation and the evidence of God’s work in this world.
In reply to Arthur Sido’s post of 1/29/09.
He said: “I think you are making an enormous leap here between Christ ordaining and commissioning the apostles to go out preaching the Word and the institution of a church organization that is the means of grace…between the planting of churches in the New Testament and the hierarchy driven structure of mormonism, between calling and ordaining men to the Gospel ministry based on the qualities we see in the pastoral epistles and the extra-Biblical notion of the mormon “restored” priesthood.”
This is not so great a leap. Why is it that after the assention of Christ the Eleven that were left selected, by divine guidance, a man to replace Judas? Why was this neccessary if the organization was not necessary? (Acts 1) Why is it that in Luke 10: 1 we read about Christ ordaining seventy others to minister, who obviously were under the apostles? Again, in Acts chapter 6 we read about seven being called to handle the local matters, but still under the authority of the Apostles. When the question of circumcision came up, it was taken to the Apostles who had the final word (in Acts 15). All this seems to indicate a “higherarcy of authority” within the early church.
“What I am saying is that the fulfillment of the covenant promises found throughout the Old Testament are not found in buildings, or nations, or organizations but are found in Christ.
The Abrahamic Covenant was in three parts.
First, that the line of Priesthood Authority would continue through him as it had done through his ancestors, the ancient Patriarchs.
Second, that the land of Canaan would be given to his seed as an inheritance. This is given in the 175th chapter of Genesis. In this chapter it says the land will be an “everlasting possession” of Abraham’s seed. It is a literal blessing, given to Abraham the man, that his children would live in the land of Canaan. The great gathering of Isreal spoken of in Ezekial is made regardless of the house of Isreal because Abraham was promised this and was a righteous man.
Third, that through his seed all the Earth would be blessed. It is this part of the covenant that was fulfilled in Christ, and only this part.
You said: “The temple as it existed in the Old Testament, what it represented and how it functioned in the Old Testament are nothing at all like what happens in the mormon temple…What is also absent is any mention of the temple worship or the “covenant” making that is practiced in mormonism anywhere in the New Testament. ”
How do you know what happened in the ancient Temples. All we have are the ordinances of sacrifices, but most of these were added at the Time of Moses, thus they are the Law of Moses. No where does it say that these were all the ordinances performed in the Temple. Before Moses we really have no record of what ordinances were performed, but as the sacrifices were performed in the Temple (or tabernacle) it seems logical that the old ordinances would be practiced there as well.
Now, as regards the New Testiment, it is not logical to think that all that was practiced is included in these epistle. These were used to correct current problems of that day, or as missionary tools. None of them give a full account of what happened in the church. They were not meant to. Just as Paul says to give milk before meat, these epistles are the milk, and meat must wait until one is sufficient strong in the church, thus it is not given in these epistles. To simply say that because it is not recorded in the New Testiment it could not have been is simply not Logical.
“You can defend it as a modern revelation if you buy into the idea that Joseph Smith through Thomas Monson are “prophets” in spite of Hebrews 1: 1-2 but it cannot be equated to or be representative of a fulfillment of an Old Testament prophecy that finds its culmination in Jesus Christ.”
While it cannot be the fulfillment of a prophecy that ended with the atonement, let look at the prophecy in question. As pointed out, the prophecy of the Temple being built in the mountains mentions the last days. As Christ hardly lived in the last days this prophecy could not have been fulfilled during his first time on this Earth. Thus the claim it not concerning a prophecy fullfilled in Christ, but one that would be fulfilled after Christ.
Now, how does Hebrews 1: 1-2 prove that Joseph Smith and Thomas S. Monson cannot be prophets. It simply says that the people of that time were blessed to be taught by Christ personally, an honor they should charish. No where does it say that there will no longer be any prophets. In fact, there are several references to prophets living at the time of the Apostles, and the Apostles themselves are alluded to as prophets. You can get this in Acts 15: 32 where Judas and Silas are called prophets. In 1 Corinthians 12: 28 we read that God himself set prophets in the church. Ephesians 2: 20 states that Prophets are part of the foundation of the church (also working with the organization argument). Ephesians 3: 5 talks of the prophets during Paul’s life receiving new revelation from God. Among other callings Ephesians 4: 11 lists prophets as a necessity until we all (the world) come to a unity of faith, which has not yet happened. All of these scriptures show us that prophets were very much needed and lived in the church in the early years. No where does it say that prophets are no longer needed. So there is no contradiction between the scriptures and a belief in modern prophets.
Lastly, if you would, explain to me how this prophecy from Isaiah was fulfilled in Christ. Here it is again: And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
Explain how this was fulfilled, each part of it. After you give your explanation, allow me to give mine.
shematwater: you wrote
Before Moses we really have no record of what ordinances were performed, but as the sacrifices were performed in the Temple (or tabernacle) it seems logical that the old ordinances would be practiced there as well.
so you are asking us to believe that the same GOD who explains, in some glorious detail, the Levitical sacrificial system and who is to do what to whom and when and what will happen (shudder) if you screw this up……..and then goes strangely silent of all that OTHER stuff…..the “old ordinances”………too holy or sacred to even merit a mention, a hint , a whisper ??? not even once throughout the entire 900 plus pages of the Old Testament ?? this may be “logical” to you….but I’m needing something wet to wash that down…..
then you go to the New testament:
Now, as regards the New Testiment, it is not logical to think that all that was practiced is included in these epistle. These were used to correct current problems of that day, or as missionary tools. None of them give a full account of what happened in the church. They were not meant to.
Just as Paul says to give milk before meat, these epistles are the milk, and meat must wait until one is sufficient strong in the church, thus it is not given in these epistles. To simply say that because it is not recorded in the New Testiment it could not have been is simply not Logical
So AGAIN, GOD, who doesn’t mind describing a very LONG list of other stuff, comes to temple ordinances and says….”Well, I wish I could tell you guys, but you just aren’t ready…..but chill……you’ll be ready in about 1830 yrs, ……not to worry…..” I don’t have a problem with God having people wait for important stuff, look at how long we had to wait for Christ’s 1st appearance…..we are STILL waiting for HIS 2cd, or so most people believe……but you have on your hands a “hard sell”, shemmy, to say that NONE of the believers , or at least none of the reading audience of the NT, were READY FOR MEAT…… and what do you call ROMANS ?? That’s not meat ??
I’ll let Arthur reply on the rest, and add what he wants to the above (mine and yours)
I realize that God’s ways are indeed not ours, but you have some seriously twisted logic, sir/madam. GERMIT
PS: I’ve asked other LDS this question before, I’ll ask you as wwell: did these “old ordinances” go ALL THE WAY BAcK TO ADAM ?? did ADAM and his heirs practice the temple stuff as you have it today ??
Hey Shematwater,
Glad to give you a laugh!
You are right, I realized after I wrote it that Monson was not talking to only LDS missionaries. But, what about my larger contention – that what Monson said regarding the brethren – “The purity of your souls brings heaven closer to you and your families.” Do you really believe Monson – that the Mormon men bring heaven closer by their own purity? Sounds like their works are what God is looking at and what they are relying on.
On the judgment of God, I never said we would not be judged for our works – of course we will! God will judge all of our works and anything that is not of God will be burned up. Does it determine whether we are saved or not? Absolutely not, as God has been very clear in the scriptures that salvation is by faith alone, through grace alone, in Christ alone. We cannot do ONE thing to bring heaven closer, Christ already completed all the works of righteousness fulfilling the law and dying on the cross on our behalf. His righteousness is IMPUTED to us, and our sin is given to Him. He paid in full for our sin. To say any less of Christ is to not give Him the glory He deserves.
Shematwater,
I wanted to reply further regarding the specific scriptures you quoted –
Acts 10:34 – 35 God is no respecter of persons – meaning, we are all equal before God, we must all come to God through Christ alone, repentant, and accept God’s salvation. No one is more righteous or pure than anyone else, no one merits God’s favor more than anyone else. We must come to Christ. Anyone who does right will be accepted by God. Who does right? The Bible says EVERYONE is sinful and falls short of God (Romans 3:10 – 12). Ultimately, only Christ is truly righteous, and we stand before God as righteous when we trust in Christ alone for our salvation.
1Peter 1:17 Our works will be judged. God is the righteous judge who will have every right to condemn us for our sins unless we are covered by the blood of Christ. However, our works will be judged and will be revealed as to whether we truly did them for God, or for our own selfish profit. Our salvation depends upon the forgiveness of Christ, and this is the only way we will gain heaven – otherwise, when we are judged by God we will be forever separated from Him if we are apart from Christ.
Revelation 22:12 Believers will be rewarded and receive judgment for what we have done. Our salvation does not hang in the balance, that work has already been completed by Christ. Everything we have done will be judged, and Christ makes intercession for the believer, saying, “this one is mine, they are forgiven.”
Ezekiel 3:16 – 19 It is a sin not to tell others about God, and specifically about the Lord Jesus Christ and the free gift of salvation. However, in these verses, Ezekiel was given a specific task as a watchman for Israel. If Ezekiel did not fulfill this task, that would be a sin and it would be upon his head. Ezekiel was specifically tasked with this in verses 16 & 17, and along with this special tasking comes the responsibility. Does this apply to all believers, do all believers have the same responsibilities as this specifically tasked prophet of God? Here is a verse that shows a prophet with a specific task that we know is not for all believer through all time – Jeremiah 16:1 – 4 – if everyone followed these verses, well, there would be no one left to follow God! I believe that if God wants to reach a person or people group, He will find a believer who will go where He leads, God’s will cannot be thwarted. If we will not go and share Christ, the very stones will cry out (Luke 19:40).
Hey
You said “Do you really believe Monson – that the Mormon men bring heaven closer by their own purity? Sounds like their works are what God is looking at and what they are relying on.”
First, this is not a new idea in the church, it is simply stated in the Priesthood session because it is the father’s responsibility to teach the family and preside in the home. However, the doctrine applies equally to all people. Yes I do believe that the purer you live your life the closer you will be to God. I find it all through the Bible. In Acts 5: 32 it states “And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that OBEY him.” This would indicate that we must keep his commandment, thus living a pure life, to have the Holy Ghost witness to us. It is a simple idea. God cannot dwell in Unholy Temples, so we must do what we can to clense ourselves, thus inviting God to dwell in us. While we can never live a completely perfect life, we can do all we can.
Concerning works, I think you misunderstand our beliefs. If you take the belief that there is heaven and hell, and that is it than what you are saying is perfectly logical and the only way to interpret these verses. However, if we are to be judged for and rewarded according to our works, what is the reward and how are we judged? With this there follows the logical conclusion that in Heaven each will receive different rewards which are determined by their works.
Put this way, all receive salvation, through Christ in heaven (except those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit: Matt 12: 31, Mark 3: 29, Luke 12: 10). However, as determined by our works, we will receive different rewards in heaven. So, Faith and Grace are what get us to heaven, and works determines what we do there.
This brings in the LDS doctrine of the Three Degrees of Glory. I believe that Chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians talks about this. It is also reference in 2 Corinthians 12: 2 when Paul speaks of going to the Third Heaven.
One last not, Philipians 2: 12 tells us to “Work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.” Here is a direct relation between our works and salvation. Paul is telling us that the level, or degree to which we receive salvation is dependant on our works. (See my post down a ways in these threads. I give a good analogy.)
shematwater,
Why are you adding a, “line of Priesthood Authority” to the covenant that God made with Abraham. It is not in the text. How can you base a priesthood system on something that is not in the text implicitly or explicitly?