A sermon on forgiveness by our very own Martin_from_Brisbane.
Viewpoint on Mormonism Archives
Blogroll
- 365 Reasons
- Apologetics 315
- Ensign vs. The Bible
- Heart Issues for LDS
- Heart of the Matter
- I Love Mormons
- Keith Walker
- Latter-day Saint Woman
- Mark Cares
- Mormonism Investigated UK
- Mormonite Musings
- Mormons are Christians… aren't we?
- Musings on Mormonism
- Of First Importance
- Share the Son Ministries
- The Mormon Chapbook
- The Religious Researcher
- Utah Advance
Links
Subscribe
Join the Discussion
Check out our comment policy.Categories
Afterlife Authority and Doctrine Baptism for the Dead Bible Book of Mormon Brigham Young Christianity Coffee Beans D&C and Pearl of Great Price Early Christianity Early Mormonism Forgiveness Friendship, Interaction, and Evangelism General Conference God the Father Gospel Grace Great Apostasy Jesus Christ Joseph Smith King Follett Discourse LDS Church Marriage and Singlehood Misconceptions Mitt Romney Mormon Culture Mormon History Mormon Leaders Mormon Missionaries Mormon Scripture Mormon Temple Multimedia Nature of God Nature of Man Nauvoo Personal Stories Polygamy Priesthood Prophets Salvation Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry Uncategorized Viewpoint on Mormonism Virgin birth Worthiness
Sub,
I am glad you admit that you think we follow another gospel. This is a more honest and more historic Mormon position. Indeed the stakes are high as one or both of us have a false gospel but we both cannot be right. Paul uses the word “anathema” towards anyone who would preach a different gospel than his.
The Jews of Paul’s day were preaching a faith and works system. Indeed, many 1st and 2nd century “cults” did as well.
So what does “fallen from grace” mean in Galatians? What is the Galatian heresy if it is not returning to a faith and works system – a.k.a. “slavery”. As Martin pointed out, can we go to the text of the NT and derive our theology and not merely seek a verse here and verse there to substantiate our points? Can you give a walk through of key passages that Protestants cite for this “grace only” theology? Can you engage a hold chapter or even a whole book (like Galatians or Romans) and tell us how and where we got it wrong and your camp’s reading is the preferred one?
subgenius wrote The paralyzed man story is not a story of slvation, but of healing.
Sub,
I really cannot see how you can parse salvation/forgiveness/healing in the context of Mark 2:1-12.
The whole point of Mark’s passage (or, perhaps the least-forced inference) is that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins (Mark 2:10), which He demonstrates by healing the man. In other words, the story is about forgivenes, and forgiveness is a vital part of the package that we refer to as “salvation”.
Splitting this package apart into its constituent components appears to complicate things unnecessarily but, more importantly, there’s no Biblical precedent for doing so.
Was the man saved? Yes; immediately from his paralysis, but prominently from the legacy of his sins.
What did he do to merit Jesus’ intervention? Notably, Mark’s Gospel doesn’t mention anything at all. That’s because Mark wants us to see Jesus as the one who raises the dead, which means that our appeal to Him must be on the basis that we are incapable of accumulating merit through our works.
A bigger question, and one that Evs need to get to grips with is “what does it mean to be saved?”
I think most people here would have some sense that Jesus saves us from the coming judgement, but limiting salvation to this context limits the Gospel to a kind of life insurance policy. The Biblical view is far more expansive and it intersects with our present, not just our future (see Psalm 95 and Heb 3:12-15).
So, what does it mean to be saved in the present tense?
Surely the answer must involve the restoration of our relationship with God, in Christ, in whom there is healing, salvation, forgiveness, life, truth, justice (etc etc). Just as forgiveness resides in Christ, so do all these other things, so when we have Christ, we have the whole thing, the “total package” (see Psalm 130).
I agree whole-heartedly, Martin.
“I am come that they might have life, and that they might have [it] more abundantly.” (John 10:10)
HankSaint wrote
I’m not going to sit in judgment on the “deaf, handicapped and incapable people” – its God’s judgment that counts, not mine. I think you have more of a problem here because of the prequalifications that Mormonism requires of folks before they can “earn” forgiveness.
Regarding the paralyzed man, Mark’s Gospel is silent on what “works” he did (though the inference is that, since he was paralyzed, he couldn’t “do” any).
Regarding the issue of whether a person’s acknowledgment of sin, repentance and a re-orientation of attitude towards Christ constitute “works”, I think that the NT has a different perspective.
When we talk about “works”, we commonly mean doing good stuff and holding good attitudes in mind.
When the NT talks about “works” it means the religious system that revolves around the Temple. “Works” and “law” are closely associated. The “law”, I think, is short-hand for the commandments, the scriptures, the prophets, the traditions, and all the activities in and around the temple. In fact the “law” is what made a Jew a Jew, which is why the Gentiles didn’t have it (Rom 2:14).
Paul’s point was that the “works of the law” do not qualify a person to be part of God’s Kingdom (Rom 9:31-32). The Jews were relying on the fact that they has the Temple to secure their relationship with God. Paul confronts this, saying that its not the Temple, but faith in God that defines the identity of the people of God. Self-evidently, the Temple never got anyone to live rightly, but faith is evident in the good works that flow out of someone who is faithful.
Ctd…
Ctd…
The issue I have with Mormonism is that it attempts to reverse Jesus’ revolution by rebuilding the Temple.
Its a physical Temple, and a system of religion and religious works. In this respect, it is effectively the same as the Temple of the OT and NT.
Some of my fellow Evs might take issue with me on this, but I don’t think that the Temple building itself is inherently and intrinsically evil; heck, you can even find scriptural precedents for it. (PS, I’d prefer to see some of the Masonic and occultic imagery removed)
However, like the Jerusalem Temple, the over-arching message of Mormonism is that the community of the people of God is defined and constituted by the Temple, be it in their missionary efforts, scripture reading, private attitudes and public behavior. I defy LDS to say otherwise – the whole point of their movement is to get people into their Temple.
Its this ideology that Jesus and his followers opposed. Their message was that the community of the people of God is defined and constituted by faith in God in Christ. If you don’t have this faith, you’re not a citizen of the Kingdom.
Paul even argues that it was this way in the beginning, which is why he spends so much time talking about the faith of father Abraham. The people of God have always been identified by faith, and they always shall.
The LDS habituation to the works of the Temple undermines faith in Christ because they rely on their “works”, not on Christ’s “works”. Its the yeast of the pharisees, and you can see it worked through the whole dough when a person begins to take credit for their salvation, even in small and apparently innocuous ways (Matt 16:5-12).
Regarding the “restoration of the Gospel”, I think Mormonism has restored a NT religion. The trouble is, its the religion that Jesus and his followers opposed.
setfree,
Thanks for the reference to John 10:10.
Its verses like these that reinforce the fact that the Christian Gospel has relevance to the here and now; its not simply an insurance policy against some future eventuality.
The new life of Christ’s new creation starts today!
Quote Martin,
“I’m not going to sit in judgment on the “deaf, handicapped and incapable people” – its God’s judgment that counts, not mine. I think you have more of a problem here because of the prequalifications that Mormonism requires of folks before they can “earn” forgiveness”.
Oh please Martin, show me our doctrine that says we have to earn forgiveness, nice try but no bulls eye.
You advance the notion that “Mormons and Evangelicals” recognize that perfection is necessary to enter the kingdom of God. You then take some liberties with our beliefs—unwittingly, I’m sure—in claiming that Mormons must be perfectly obedient in this life to be worthy of exaltation.
So Martin, what was the Saviors words in the Sermon on the Mount? “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect”. Mormons believe that it start here on earth where were our foundation is laid. Then we are told we should continue from grace to grace, not only in this life, but also in the eternities to come. Perfection is impossible to achieve here and only by continuing from grace to grace will we ever achieve perfection. Please do show me the evidence where we teach perfection must be reached here in mortality, please do Martin.
So if you don’t mind, I’m sure you were not unaware of the following quotation by President Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine: For if a man keep all the law save [in] one point, and he offend in that, he is a transgressor of the law, and he is not entitled to the fulness of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ [James 2:10]. But when a man keeps all the laws that are revealed, according to his strength, his substance, and his ability, though what he does may be little, it is just as acceptable in the sight of God as if he were able to do a thousand times more.
Martin,
how about some Brigham Young:
“We . . . take all the laws, rules, ordinances and regulations contained in the Scriptures and practice them as far as possible, and then keep learning and improving until we can live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.
In conversation not long since with a visitor who was returning to the Eastern States, said he, “You, as a people consider that you are perfect?” “Oh, no;” said I, “not by any means. . . . The doctrine that we have embraced is perfect; but when we come to the people, we have just as many imperfections as you can ask for. We are not perfect; but the Gospel that we preach is calculated to perfect the people so that they can obtain a glorious resurrection and enter into the presence of the Father and the Son.
The people [cannot receive the laws] in their perfect fulness; but they can receive a little here and a little there, a little today and a little tomorrow, a little more next week, and a little more in advance of that next year, if they make a wise improvement upon every little they receive; if they do not, they are left in the shade, and the light which the Lord reveals will appear darkness to them, and the kingdom of heaven will travel on and leave them groping. Hence, if we wish to act upon the fulness of the knowledge that the Lord designs to reveal, little by little, to the inhabitants of the earth, we must improve upon every little as it is revealed”
I . . . feel to urge upon the Latter-day Saints the necessity of a close application of the principles of the Gospel in our lives, conduct and words and all that we do; and it requires the whole man, the whole life to be devoted to improvement in order to come to knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus Christ. Herein is the fulness of perfection. It was couched in the character of our Savior; although but a scanty portion of it was made manifest to the people, in consequence of their not being able to receive it. All they were prepared to receive he gave them. All we are prepared to receive the Lord gives us; all that the nations of the earth are prepared to receive he imparts unto them.
It is written of the Savior in the Bible that he descended below all things that he might ascend above all. Is it not so with every man? Certainly it is. It is fit, then, that we should descend below all things and come up gradually, and learn a little now and again, receive “line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little.” [see Isaiah 28:9—10; D&C 98:12]
Regards, Richard.
Hank said, “You advance the notion that “Mormons and Evangelicals” recognize that perfection is necessary to enter the kingdom of God. You then take some liberties with our beliefs—unwittingly, I’m sure—in claiming that Mormons must be perfectly obedient in this life to be worthy of exaltation.”
You better get to work Hank:
D&C 82:6,7 says,
You have a lifetime of sinnin’ to make up for, and don’t sin again or it’s back to the start for you. It’s going to be a long road to exaltation.
How about this little ray of sunshine?
And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment (Hebrews 9:27).
Also see Revelation 20:11-15.
Sorry for the Archy comic remark. I spent some time in the repentance corner. I think we just found some statements.
Sub, your use of 2 Corinthians 5:9-10 seems to have merit until one understands who is writing the text, and discovers the context in which it is used. This letter was written by Paul, the strongest proclaimer , other than the Lord Himself, of salvation by grace through faith. The salvation Paul speaks of is always referred to as an event fully accomplished by Christ on our behalf. In verse 5 Paul says, “Now He who has prepared us for this very thing (taking off the mortal body and putting on the immortal) is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.” In Paul’s letters this always means that salvation is secured by the sealing of the Holy Spirit, and since the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead, and co-equal with God, then nobody without power greater than God can take away our salvation. In this passage Paul is writing to those he already believes to possess salvation.
Knowing this we can understand, just like in 1 Corinthians 3:8-14, that this judgment is not for sin, but for the works that we will receive rewards for based upon the way we conducted ourselves as Christians, and what we did with the gospel. This is called the bema seat judgment because the bema seat was where athletic competitors received the rewards for their performance in competition. Remember that this is the same apostle who wrote Romans 3:19-26, Romans 4:1-4, Romans 8:1, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Ephesians 1:7, Colossians 2:11-15, Titus 3:4-7, etc. Paul taught that Christ’s death on the cross was the satisfaction for our sin debt, past, present, and future.
Paul is the apostle that was moved by the Holy Spirit to write Ephesians 2:8-10. I know that you hate this doctrine because you want to have a hand in your salvation. You have no standing whatsoever, and this is why. All men are born with a corrupt nature and they sin. All men are guilty before God (Romans 3:19) and are dead in their trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1-2). All men would be condemned to Hell based upon their works. The result of this deadness is that nobody can come to faith unless there is a working of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 11:25-30, John 1:12-13, 3:5-8, 6:35—44, 8:47, 10:24-29, Acts 13:48, Romans 8:29-30, 9:10-18, Ephesians 1:5-6, and many more). So naturally you will say that God is unrighteous to condemn anyone if they don’t have a “choice” to accept Christ. But look at the other side of the coin. Men hate God and will choose evil over good, so without God’s grace nobody would have faith in Him, which is exactly what Ephesians 2:8-9 says. The faith that we think we have by our choice is itself a gift of God, and not of works. Besides, Paul answers that very argument in Romans 9:19-24. Salvation isn’t about you. It’s about God getting glory for saving some out of the multitude of men who otherwise deserve Hell. These are God’s elect, predestined before the beginning of time.
To cut you off at the pass, we do make a choice, but it is only after God has opened our eyes to see Him by His grace and mercy. There will be no one in Hell who desires to be with God. He will give them everything they wanted in this world, which is that He would leave them alone to live apart from Him. Men want nothing to do with the God of the Bible, although many men profess to love a “god” of their making.
You said that it is arrogant to try to tally your good works to know if you have done enough to merit salvation. That is what Muslims and Catholics also believe. You will never know until the Day of Judgment if you will merit salvation. So I’ll save you the wait and tell you, “You will not merit salvation Sub. You are a sinner set apart from God for condemnation unless you repent and believe that Christ died for all of your sins. Renounce the false teachings of the BoM and JS.”
On the other hand, I know that I cannot do enough, but Christ did it for me. All of it. It is illogical to believe that Christ is interceding for a whole mass of humanity that God will eventually send to Hell. Is God divided? Will God deny Christ’s plea for those He died for? What does Romans 8:26-27 say?
The Spirit dwells in us and offers up prayers on our behalf. He who searches the hearts (Jesus) then makes intercession for the saints according to God’s will. Again, will God deny Christ his request on our behalf? No. This is why there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1).
Interesting, what does that have to do with Faith, Repentance, Baptism and the Holy Ghost.
The first is true, EVANGELICALS will claim a act of Faith is all that is required and then go out and continue to sin, for once one confesses his FAITH all else is immaterial. Not so with the true Gospel of Christ as found in the Bible.
The second verse is about those who have not yet been baptized.
Hence the sentence, “I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end;”, Hmmm, Faith, Repentance, Baptism and the Holy Ghost. The gate to Gods Kingdom here on earth. Nice try.
I suggest you understand the scriptures and doctrine of Mormonism before you blunder even more.
R.
Hanksaint said “The first is true, EVANGELICALS will claim a act of Faith is all that is required and then go out and continue to sin, for once one confesses his FAITH all else is immaterial. Not so with the true Gospel of Christ as found in the Bible.”
Most LDS on here seem to hold that view of Evangelicals and it couldn’t be any further from the truth that true orthodox Christians hold on that subject. You guys constantly complain we misrepresent the doctrine of Mormonism yet you are too self-righteous to look in the mirror.
We will all “go out and continue to sin” no matter what. We all have our times of weakness and we all are broken vehicles, its just a matter of time that we break down on the side of the road. You can try and mcguyver yourselves all you want but you do not have the knowledge or expertise the true mechanic (Jesus) has to “fix” your problem or be “good enough to get you where you want to go”. There is no humility found in the god-maker program.
Dare I repeat what many other evangelicals have said and once again have the words brushed off instead of actually listened to? I shall, because maybe this time you will get it, Hank.
If a Christian thinks saying “I believe in you God and in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ” and then is totally fine with committing sins left and right without feeling sorrow or asking for forgiveness, crying out for help, then he is NOT Christian.
See, a true Christian relies upon Christ completely and forgiveness is given to those who have humility and broken heartedness. They take their broken selves to the only person with the ability to fix whats broken. I know Mormons like to be the jack of all trades (my father in law who is a Mormon bishop has tons of knowledge on home improvement and other things that I am impressed with) but when it comes to redemption, no one has any power besides the Lord Jesus Christ!
Chances are you and other Mormons will continue to say we think its cool to give lip service to God and sin.
Hank commented
I was merely repeating what subgenius wrote above. Here it is again
Would you like to tell sub he’s got it wrong, or shall I? It looks like at least one of you hasn’t been listening to the Holy Ghost.
jeffrey b commented
Jeffrey, thanks for this; it was what I had in mind when I talked about the half-Gospel of faith in Jesus as the garbage collector.
I’d demur in deciding whether a person was, or was not a Christian on this basis, though. Fundamentally its because if Christ required us to achieve a “perfectly right attitude” before saving us, we’d all be in big trouble. However, I’d be really concerned if someone was abusing Christ in this way (and I’d check the mirror first before tackling anyone else on the subject, too).
Hank’s objection to the Gospel of Grace does give us hope, strangely. It means he’s heard it correctly, which means we’ve preached it intelligibly. How do we know this? Because Paul engages the same objections to his Gospel of Grace in Romans 6.
Quote Martin, Hank’s objection to the Gospel of Grace does give us hope, strangely. It means he’s heard it correctly, which means we’ve preached it intelligibly.
Quote Jeffery, “If a Christian thinks saying “I believe in you God and in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ” and then is totally fine with committing sins left and right without feeling sorrow or asking for forgiveness, crying out for help, then he is NOT Christian”
Christian thought, It is grace alone that saves, and the means to this grace is faith that works.
Please, where does repentance fit into this?
R.
Earn? To acquire or deserve as a result of effort or action.
Oh please Martin, show me our doctrine that says we have to earn forgiveness, nice try but no bulls eye.
No where in our Doctrine does it say we have to earn anything, but we do deserve through our agency and personal efforts, (sincere repentance), the gift of membership into God’s kingdom here on earth. Works or continued efforts to be obedient, keep the commandments and seek often repentance, is ongoing even until death.
R.
Quote Jeffery, “Chances are you and other Mormons will continue to say we think its cool to give lip service to God and sin.”
How do you separate, “It is grace alone that saves”, and repentance that comes afterwards.
Question, does one first have to REPENT before Grace is sufficient, or does Grace come from Faith First.
R.
Another terrific verse:
Romans 4:13
For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
liv4jc
thanks for making the point about the importance of “works”. However “bema seat” is not in the Bible, and i dare say the blatant use of good and evil merit a slightly different meaning than the one you are selling.
Circular arguments are now tedious and more concerned with the “argument” than the truth that has already pricked your heart.
still not sure how effective 4-post long diatribes are, i just dont have the patience to read a large volume post, perhaps if it were more discussion and less lecture.
Larry
born and raised a protestant, had the methodist, baptist, and presbyterian experiences and saw similarities but saw a glaring dilution and cultural modification to what was an obvious “core” Gospel. Converted to LDS, not because of a failure in the Gospel but by a failure in the Ev church. Now the cynic will speculate to what that failure was, but i can tell you it was a failure of message delivery and implementation, pure and simple.
To be frank, many Ev invoke the name and teachings of “Paul” in the same manner by which they in turn criticize Mormons about Joseph Smith.
This “Pauline Christianity” wears thin, especially if you bring Peter into the mix.
As many know there is an apostasy associated with what some argue began with Paul’s corruption of the Gospel. It is obvious that Paul’s views are dramatically different than the rest of the NT.
Forgiveness
the covenant of Forgiveness is not an exclusive “Mormon” doctrine, it has already been explained way above that God has clearly stated this covenant, it is clear in the Lord’s prayer, it is clear in the commandments we are given in multiple chapter and verse.
EV
yes, if you do not repent and accept JC you will not receive salvation, however if you do repent and accept you can still blow it and at the end of your days JC sends you away. I thought this was clear when during the judgement JC will either “know you” or not. So your works…
Sub, 2 Corinthians 5:10 in Greek says, “tous gar pantas emas phanerothenai dei emprosthen tou Bematos tou Xristou, ina komisetai ekastos ta dia tou somatos pros a eprazen, eite agathon eite phaulon” The word in bold face type is Bema, translated “judgment seat” (tou Xristos: of Christ).
It is Strong’s number 968 defined as:
The New English Translation includes this footnote for the word:
It is also used in Matthew 27:19, John 19:13, Acts 12:21 as Herod’s throne, Acts 18:12,16, 17, Acts 25:6,10,17, Romans 14:10.
Like you have pointed out, this passage is meant to spur us on to obedience so that we may be comfortable, not living in fear of Christ’s coming by failing to observe His commandments, but since we are covered by Christ it will not involve judgment for sin.
I honestly admire your commitment to obey God. The message of obedience is missing in many churches, and it was the subject of my Pastor’s message today. It is something all should strive for, and we are commanded to do so. The rest of chapter tells us that by living this way we are ambassadors for Christ and are to compel everyone to be reconciled to God (repent).
Do you understand what you are claiming when you assert that the message Paul preaches in the Bible is evidence of his apostasy, and along with Peter he teaches false doctrine? I am well aware of the Smithian view on the authority of the Bible. It is in third place behind the BoM and the D&C, and then behind any other new revelation. You are asserting that the Bible contains lies. Comparing Paul and Peter to our view of JS, means you view them as false prophets. So you become the judge of scripture, and do not let scripture judge you. This is a very dangerous position to take. In doing so you remove the standard by which we discern truth from lies, and therefore discern the nature of JS’s teachings. Because they contradict scripture, they are not scripture. Is God divided?
2 Timothy 3:16 says in part, “pasa graphe Theopneustos”, “Every scripture is God-breathed, and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work.”
2 Peter 1:19-21 says, “Moreover, we possess the prophetic word as an altogether reliable thing. You do well if you pay attention to this as you would to a light shining in a murky place, until the day dawns and the mrorning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you do well if you recognize this: No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination, for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”
Why not be done with the Bible altogether. Doesn’t the BoM contain the fulness of the everlasting gospel? It certainly is the most perfect book ever written. Why rely on a second rate Hellenistic corruption. Why, it can hardly be trusted at all without input from the Smithian Popes.
A right relationship with God.
A few comments on being forgiven,and repentance
in Mormonism: “To be forgiven one must repent.”[1]
“We can hardly be too forceful in reminding peo-
ple that they cannot sin and be forgiven and
then sin again and again and expect repeated
forgiveness…”[2]
“…the forsaking of sin must be a permanent one.
True repentance does not permit making the same
mistake again…”[3]
“We must keep the commandments of God.To make our
repentance complete we must keep the commandments
of the Lord(seeD&C 1:32). We are not fully repent-
ant if we do not pay tithes or keep the Sabbath
day holy or obey the Word of Wisdom. We are not
repentant if we do not sustain the authorities
of the Church and do not love the lord and our
fellowmen.If we do not pray and are unkind to
others,we are surely not repentant…”[4]
“Requirements for Exaltation”
The time to fullfill the requirements for exalt-
ation is now…Pres.Joseph Fielding Smith said,
‘In order to obtain the exaltation we must accept
the gospel and all its covenants;and take upon
us the obligations which the Lord has offered…
To be exalted, we first must place our faith in
Jesus Christ and then endure in that faith to the
end of our lives.Our faith in Him must be such
that we repent of our sins and obey His command-
ments.He commands us all to receive certain
ordinances:”
After listing must be baptized,also receive
laying on of hands, and then receiving Temple
endowments, and fourth, being married, this
LDS curriculum states:
“IN ADDITION to receiving the required ordinances
the Lord COMMANDS all of us to:
1.Love and worship God
2.Love your neighbor.
3.Repent of wrong doing.
4.Live the law of chastity.
5.Pay honest tithes and offerings.
6.Be honest in our dealings with others and the
Lord
7.Speak the truth always.
8.Obey the Word of Wisdom
9.Search out you kindred dead and perform the
saving ordinances of the gospel for them
cont.
10.Keep the sabbath day holy
11.Attend church meetings as regularly as
possible…
12.Love our family members….
13.Have family and individual prayers every day.
14.Honor our parents.
15.Teach the gospel to others by word and example.
16.Study the scriptures.
17.Listen to and obey the inspired words of the
prophets…”[5]
The Mormon plan of salvation, the “obeying ALL the laws and ordinances” of the Mormon gospel
is not the good news of the true gospel, it is
in reality bad news,a mission impossible.
Rom.4:4-5
Verse 4 is describing the sincere hard working
LDS
verse 5 is describing the person complying with
God’s way
references: 1 The Miracle of forgiveness,p.200
by Spencer Kimball
2.ibid, p.360
3 LDS booklet,Repentance Brings For-
giveness,p.7
4.Gospel Principles,p.125
5 ibid,p.303
Hey Sub, thanks for letting me know about your prior church upbringing. I’m sorry it wasn’t what you were seeking. Hope everything is going well for you – take care, Larry
Martin,
Great accent, for a Pom. It’s got that little bit of an Aussie twang to it so it’s not as harsh on the ears. But you missed out – apparently in the news last week some group did a study and found that most people thought the Kiwi accent was the sexiest English accent in the world. I hate to disagree with the majority, but I can’t see how this one could be true.
What did the paralysed man do? He showed his faith by getting his friends to break through the roof to get to Jesus – that is work is it not? Yes he could have stayed outside and called out to Jesus as He left, but would Jesus have healed him then or would He have walked on not hearing it because of all the people calling out His name? Who knows? So faith and works came into play here as James intimates.
Yes his sins were also forgiven for the previous ones – but not the forth coming ones. Many times in the NT when Jesus healed people, and when the adulteress was brought before Him, He told them to go their way and sin no more. If they were saved by faith despite their works, why add this to the conversation? Is this not asking for perfection (Matt 5:48) and not ‘being whole’ as most here describe that verse to mean?
Jesus paid the debt for us – He bought us from Heavenly Father. So when we have true faith in Jesus we do not need to live to The Father’s Law of perfection. We do not answer to The Father at all, we answer to Jesus. Those who do not believe in Jesus will have to answer to both. But what does this mean? We still have to do/live by something, but it is what Jesus has commanded, not Heavenly Father. Some examples are – forgive everyone (this is a work from us not God), Love everyone (John 13:34 – Note ‘commandment’). Matt 11:28-30 teaches all this. The heavy burden is Heavenly Father’s commands/perfection. Jesus says that He still has a yoke and burden for us to carry but it is lighter than God’s. He can let is off with a little bit, hence mercy vs justice.
Larry
thank you for the kind words. Things are going well, and though the discussions here are often spirited and passionate i hope peace and safety are abundant in your life. The challenge that “anonymous” people here provide is, for me, a valuable source of both introspection and self-criticism, not to mention the intangible experience from an honest point of view about my church. Thank you
liv4jc
the suggestion that Paul was a potential detrimental influence on the Gospel is not a new idea. Many Chrisitian groups have discussed Pauline Christianity in that vein, especially the conflict between Paul and Peter. I am not discounting Paul’s intellectual prowness or even perhaps his contriubtion, but one can not deny the dramatic difference of Paul’s writings and the rest of the NT.
otherwise, it seems that you exaggerate my points to say things that i did not say.
Can we all get back on the topic of Forgiveness?
Sub, we are on the topic of forgiveness, because instead of believing the clearly defined doctrine of salvation by grace through faith you choose instead to attack the writer of that doctrine, namely the Apostles Paul.
Paul was met on the road to Damascus by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself (Acts 9). In Galatians 1:1 Paul proclaims, “Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through men, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead)..” and Galatians 1:11-12, “But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.”
Paul went to the apostles and leaders of the church in Jerusalem on two occasions as recorded in Galatians 1:18-20 and Acts 9:26-30, and Galatians 2:1-5 and Acts 15:1-22. On the second occasion Paul went to make sure that the gospel he was preaching was correct. He was given assurance by the leaders of the church in Jerusalem when they offered him the right hand of fellowship.
As for difficulties with Peter, this stems from the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:7-29) where it was decided that all food except that which was strangled or still contained blood was clean. Peter had already been given a commandment from the Lord in Acts 10:9-22 that all food was now clean, and he could eat with the Centurion Cornelius. When Paul comes to Antioch he finds Peter and Barnabus abstaining from eating with Gentiles. Paul rebukes him as a hypocrite for being afraid and giving up his freedom from the Law in Christ by living in submission to the Judaizers.
In 2 Peter 3:14-16 Peter calls Paul beloved and commends his teaching, saying that some things are hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction.
Please reveal the contradictions you speak of.
As Christians we believe that the Bible is a progressive revelation. That is why, unlike the BoM, we don’t find anachronisms like the name “Jesus Christ” in the OT. Because we believe the scriptures are inspired by God and men were moved to write by the Holy Spirit, there are no contradictions in scripture. James does not contradict Paul, and Paul doesn’t contradict Peter, etc. What I wrote to you above was not an exageration, but I’m glad it pricked your heart and made you take a step back. The results of your comments carried to their logical conclusion is that Paul’s gospel is a lie, therefore the Holy Spirit either did not control him, or God is not omniscient enough to preserve His Word.
Paul’s gospel is the same message preached from Genesis to Revelation by every servant of God. Paul proves this in his writings if you will just read the Bible, stop importing your own ideas into it, and stop believing the Smithian talking points regarding its authority. The doctrine of grace cannot be denied if you read the Bible with proper hermaneutics, and the proper view of its authority. The thing you lack is a high view of God and a high view of scripture.
You wouldn’t discount a BoM prophet or LDS prophet the way you discount Paul and the teachings of the Bible, although there is far less reason to trust either one over the Bible. Your belief in them is based upon the teachings of one man, Joseph Smith, who claimed to find a book, of which there is no evidence but heresay, and claimed to have revelations that contradict the multitude of witnesses in the whole of the Bible as to the nature of Creation, God, The Son, The Holy Spirit, and salvation.
I’m still waiting for some Smithian to deliver some contradictory verses. It’s the same thing I always hear the atheists say, “The Bible is full of contradictions.” Name one. “Ummm, I don’t know the Bible well enough to do that, but other people do.”
liv4jc
read for comprehension and understand the origins of your own faith.
I am not claiming that Paul was a liar, that is an absurd accusation. Many here would insist that LDS memebrs look upon the conflict and controversy of their own church as a sign that the church is false or heretic. Yet history shows much larger conflicts occur in the roots of the modern Ev church. There are volumes of works, both secular and theological, on the subject of what Paul’s influence was on modern Christianity. To assume otherwise is intellectually naive.
You challenge everyone to “study” the scriptures, and i assume that same challenge is for you, but i would expand that challenge to not only study chapter and verse, but also to understand.
You say the Bible is a progressive revelation but it was Paul that is responsible for the wholesale replacement of the Mosaic Law with Jesus.
Which Word of God do you subscribe to? the Book of Acts or Paul’s letters? How can you possible reconcile Paul’s letters with the Book of Acts considering what you have stated on this board?
falcon
lather…rinse…repeat
Sub, a contradiction is the basis for a lie. When you say Paul’s teaching is at odds with the rest of the NT and the book of Acts, one teaching is true, the other teaching is false. I believe that the Bible is a book with supernatural origins. Men were moved by the Holy Spirit (who is also fully God) to write God’s truth. Since God cannot lie, whatever Paul was moved to write cannot contradict what other prophets and apostles were moved to write in God’s Word.
Your posistion by necessity must be that the Bible was written by men without influence by the Holy Spirit, hence contradictory anthropology, theology and soteriology. You will deny this, I’m sure, but to say that God preserved some portions of the Bible, but not others, leaves us asking ourselves, “Then which portion is true? How do we know that Paul was not correct and James and Peter were not incorrect and trying to retain a form of Judaism?” I can show you from scripture that there is no contradiction. James tended to observe many Mosaic teachings, but did not require those things as necessary for salvation (Acts 15 and 21 councils) for Gentile converts. The issue of conscience in observig rituals, sabbaths, and eating of food is covered in Romans 14. If you are convicted in conscience, participate or obstain, but do not demand that your brother follow you and vice-versa.
Second, since the book of Acts was written by Luke, a close companion of Paul on his missionary journeys, and a dead-on historian moved by the Holy Spirit. Tell me where Acts contradicts Pauline teachings. Please cite references. No more talking points.
Third, in Matthew 5:17 Jesus declares that He did not come to destroy the Law and Prophets, but to fulfill. Not the smallest stroke of the Law will pass away until it fulfilled. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law as it is the shadow of Him and His sacrifice. Jesus goes on to explain the true meaning of the Law. Men cannot fulfill it. Hold yourself to the teachins of Matthew 5-7
Interestingly I had a person on twitter follow me called LDS Missionary. So, I followed him back. Not sure why he followed me as I have never posted anything regarding Mormonism on twitter. I do post frequently regarding the finished work of Christ on the cross for forgiveness. I am hoping this has some impact on him.
If Mormonism is not all about works, someone needs to tell LDS Missionary. The gospel is conspicuously completely absent from his posts. It’s all about you and what you do to merit the Celestial Kingdom or heaven or self-depemption or eternal families. Here are his posts- http://twitter.com/LDS_Missionary
liv4jc
for example….
The most glaring notion between the letters and Acts is wherein the letters Paul claims that he is the “appointed apostle” to the gentiles, but yet the Book of Acts it is Peter that opens the Way to the gentiles and it is Peter that speaks out so strongly against the Law of Moses…afterall Paul seems to still adhere to the Law as seen by hisperforming a circumcision and even taking a vow at the Temple. The Book of Acts clearly shows Paul with a different attitude towrads the Law than does his letters.Also compare Galatians 1-2 and Acts 15.
Luke all but ignores the Antioch incident and the collection…and it is obvious that Luke is mainly concerned with the Gospel being taken “to the ends of the earth”.
Don’t forget that Luke was a historian and the bias nature of his writings in that vein is unclear with some respects ( a “dead-on” historian?, please). Luke has a very limited description of Paul, right? I mean Luke paints Paul as more Jewish than radical, does he not? So if Luke is “dead-on” how do yuo explain the difference between Luke and the letters?
my position is not the “Bible is at odds with”, etc…i simply pointed out the issue with Paul and Pauline Chrisitianity that is so pervasive with Evs.An issue familiar to Biblical scholars and amateur “studiers”. Please, refrain from putting words in my mouth…concentrate on yours.
Sub, just because Luke reports that in Acts 10 and 15 Peter announces that the Lord has granted salvation to the gentiles does not mean that he was the appointed apostle to them. In Acts 9:15 we read regarding Paul, “But the Lord said to him (Ananias) ‘Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel.”
As for Paul circumcising Timothy in Acts 16 this was because Paul’s custom was to preach the gospel in synogogues first, then when rejected go to the gentiles. Timothy’s mother was Jewish, his father Greek. If Timothy had not been circumcised it would have hampered Paul and Silus’ ministry in the synogogues because the Jews in the region knew Timothy’s father was Greek (verse 3). Timothy would not have been allowed into the synogogues without being circumcised because the Jews would have seen him as rejecting his Jewish heritage.
As for Paul’s Nazarite vow in Acts 18, Paul is still a Jew, and the issue is not whether Paul should adhere to some OT teachings as his conscience dictates, but if he requires following the Mosaic Law for gentile converts, which he does not. It is obvious from Paul’s teaching that the Nazarite vow was similar to a fast. It was done out of dedication to God, not out of legalistic necessity for salvation. In Acts 21 Paul goes to the temple as an act of compromise to keep peace because there was beginning to be deep division between the Jewish and Gentile sects of the Christian converts.
Paul was right to confront Peter as recorded in Galatians 2 after his speech before the council in Acts 15. As for “Pauline Christianity” it is what the Bible teaches: Salvation by grace through faith apart from works of the Law. If you choose to live by the Law instead of grace, you will be judged for every offense against the Law. Don’t forget you will also be judged for taking upon yourself the title of Aaronic Priest, and Melchizideck Priest, both of which are offices that you have no right to
subgenius wrote
sub,
That’s going in my book of quotes (I could hardly believe my eyes when I read it).
So, Paul was an apostate?
So, why do you persist in the myth that you believe the Bible is (not was) the Word of God.
Some of it was written by Paul the Apostate, in case you didn’t notice.
Ralph commented
Ralph,
Thanks for the time to listen to me. And, I’m flattered – I always thought I had the right face for radio and the right voice for silent movies (LOL).
Ralph also commented
That’s an interesting spin. I’ll acknowledge that there is a limit with the “redemption” metaphor; namely that if God “bought” us, whom did he buy us “from”?
Perhaps a review of the redemption passages would be useful. I’m thinking of Ex 19:4-6, Matt 13:44-46, Rev 5:9, Rev 14:4. The inference that I pick up is that the “price” was what was necessary to bring God’s people out of sin (Egypt being the metaphor for sin). The price is nothing less than “everything” (Matt 13:44-46 again), so how can God give “everything”, and to whom does He give it?
The answer, I think, is that God did give “everything” when He poured out the life of His Son on the cross. (We’ve exchanged ideas on this before). So who received it? Us? The World? Arguably, the Father, as you suggest.
Does the Father still expect us to live up to a perfect standard? Yes, but its not me who attains that standard, it is Christ, whom I follow.
I still think you’re suggestions need work, though. For example, you’re suggesting that we answer to Christ (I agree), yet in other posts you suggest we should worship the Father alone. You know I’ve got an answer to this apparent dichotomy, but its better if you work it out for yourself.
Martin,
Just remember that we believe that Heavenly Father and Jesus are 2 seperate beings, thus God (The Father) did not pay for us, but Jesus did. And Jesus paid The Father. Yes, Heavenly Father still wants us to live up to the perfect standard, but all who cannot live to this standard will not make it to heaven/CK – that is justice. A law broken needs a payment/punishment.
But Heavenly Father is also merciful, which is where Jesus comes in. Jesus paid to The Father the price of our sins, thus fulfilling justice. All Heavenly Father wants us to do now is to have faith in and follow His Son Jesus. For those who do not do this, they will answer to both Jesus and Heavenly Father. For those who do, they will answer only to Jesus.
As I said, Jesus has a yoke and burden (Matt 11:28-30), but it is lighter than The Father’s requirements/load. Jesus still wants us to live according to some rules that He has put in place. Since His yoke and burden are lighter, He can allow leniency to imperfections, thus we can attain heaven/CK through Jesus and His atonement. This is mercy.
There is no dichotomy in answering in judgement to Jesus but worshiping Heavenly Father, that is how it is set up. Heavenly Father gave the judgement of the faithful to Jesus, and Jesus has told us to give all glory to Heavenly Father as it is all His plan and work.
Martin, although I doubt Sub read my entire first post, (they’re just too tedious to teach a person who already knows everything) did you notice that instead of denying the doctrine of grace that is so explicitly taught throughout the Bible he instead attacks the person who he believes is solely responsible for the doctrine, namely Paul? When he is shown that the other leaders of the church approved of Paul’s teaching he changes tactics and tries to assert that Paul is a liar for saying he was appointed to preach to the Gentiles, which of course has no bearing whatsoever on the doctrine that Paul taught. He then asserts that Paul was the stickler for keeping the Mosaic Law, while Peter was the apostle to the Gentiles and the one who taught against following the Mosaic law based upon Acts 15. Is it just me or is he once again accusing Paul of lying in Galatians 1 and 2? I honestly need a second opinion, because like you I could hardly believe my eyes when I read the Paul the apostate quote.
I can’t count how many times I’ve heard atheists use the same kinds of arguments to attack the inerrancy of the Bible, and they all fall flat on their face when exposed to proper exegesis. Why do you suppose they don’t hold their own scriptures to the same standard? You would never hear a follower of Smith saying Nephi or Moroni or Smith or Young, etc. were apostates even though the first two are obviously fictional and the other two are documented liars.
I’m still recoiling from sub’s earth-shattering revelation, in which he stated
If Paul was diverging from the Gospel of Christ, what does that make of the LDS practice of Baptism for the Dead.
After all, its based solely on Paul’s statement in 1 Cor 15:29.
It seems a bit flimsy (to say the least) to base an entire religious practise on a spurious statement by someone who might have been an apostate.
I’m revisiting some of Ralph’s comments, for example
and
The second idea comes from the “official” version of Joseph Smith’s “first” vision (though the number of “beings” does vary according to Joseph’s other versions). Given that it comes from an utterly unreliable source, and its not supported by the Bible (remember Isaiah 43:10 etc), I won’t give it any credence. Remember, Ralph, there is One God; there may be three separate persons in the Trinity, but that’s different from three separate people.
The first idea doesn’t fit the Biblical idea of redemption in any way. What it seems to say is that Jesus paid off part of our debt, and its up to us to pay off the rest. No, Ralph, He paid it all (see Heb 10:12).
Ralph’s also concerned that the Gospel of Grace is a license to sin. Its not, of course. Ironically, the use of religion to write a license to sin was a skill mastered by Joseph Smith. Remember D&C 132, the polygamy thing, and the women who were simultaneously married to other living husbands? When are LDS going to start practicing what they preach and start judging the tree by its fruit?
The Gospel of Grace does not say “thou shall not follow the commandments”; it says “following the commandments doesn’t work”. If you want to restore communications with God, you’re going to have to rely on Christ’s complete and finished work on the cross, because nothing else is good enough.
If you’re concerned that Evs use the Gospel of Grace to excuse their bad behavior, so am I, which is why I confronted the half-Gospel of Jesus the Garbage Collector.
The whole point of forgiveness is to restore your relationship with the Forgiver. You don’t need JS for that.
What is the Mormon understanding of why our lives change after conversion and why we begin to live according to God? Because the Ev understanding is that after truly putting your faith in Jesus Christ and being filled with the Holy Spirit you almost can’t help yourself. Your life changes so that others can see that there is something different about you and come to know God themselves and receive the *complete salvation* that you have. Nothing I do after receiving Christ saves me anymore. The rest of my life I surrender so that God’s will and purpose will be done. And at the end of my life ‘I’ am no more righteous (in fact I’m more aware of my sinful human nature because I am more aware of God’s Holiness) I never have righteousness…God’s righteousness works thru me if I’ll give up my own agenda (and that includes proving myself worthy) but it’s to His glory not mine.
rvales
then why does Christ judge you at the time. If you are saved that is simply the gate, you must still walk down the path. Yes, “ideally” you would surrender to God’s will, thus becoming infallible, but is that actually the case? Do you not continue to make mistakes, sin, transgress? Then what? a simple return to the baptismal font to clean it all away again? Or are you bound by that original baptismal covenant to “perform” in a certain manner.
Baptism and conversion makes you clean but you must still “endure” till the end. You must still “walk” the path….you must still put forth “evidence” of your Faith and that evidence is manifested before man and God through the “work” of every day.
“As many know there is an apostasy associated with what some argue began with Paul’s corruption of the Gospel. It is obvious that Paul’s views are dramatically different than the rest of the NT.”
hence the 8th Article of Faith, again.
If the Bible is true, Mormonism is false. Thus, the Bible must not be true.
Do you guys get this, LDS?
What if, however, the Bible IS TRUE?
setfree
unfortunately for you, the Bible is true and the BoM is true.
So now we have the Ev finally admitting that the Bible is Paul, That Paul is infallible, That in fact it is Paul that is the Gospel. Dare to question the word of Paul and feel the wrath. The other Books of the Bible are merely in support of all things Paul.
Wow, the Pauline Christian surely wears Paul well.
Sub,
All the seeming contradictions are resolved when law and gospel are understood. Martin Luther hated God when he thought the law was how you worked for God’s approval, and earned your salvation and merited God’s favor. He said he would have killed God if he met Him because God had given him such impossible standards to meet. When Luther’s eyes were opened by the Holy Spirit and he understood scripture and the amazing free gift of salvation given by Jesus through His death on the cross his life was transformed. The despair and depression lifted and the amazing beauty of God’s grace busted into his life. God’s law leads to despair – it crushes us beneath God’s holy standard of perfection. Jesus has opened the way to heaven in his COMPLETED work on the cross – there is NO OTHER NAME under heaven whereby we may be saved (not even our own name). The law is a mirror revealing our sinful state – and our need for grace. Not one thing can be added to Jesus’ work on the cross – He perfectly fulfilled God’s law and carried the burden of man’s sin to the cross.
As God works in the Christian’s life, He also uses His law to guide us. God gives us a love for Him and His way through the Holy Spirit. It’s not a check list for completion for the Celestial Kingdom, it’s a love for God the Father that God has planted in our heart and a desire to help our neighbors given by the mercy of Christ. I pray that you will come to the freedom of Jesus – His death is enough to cover all your sin and give you unearned forgiveness and entrance in eternity into the presence of God. God loves us that much.
That’s a riduculous statement Sub, and you know it. The entirety of the Bible is supported by Paul’s teachings, and Paul’s teachings are echoed and supported by every other historian, prophet, and apostle in the Bible because it is a progressive historical narrative inspired by God Himself through the working of the Holy Spirit. Paul however, did author the majority of the NT letters so much of the doctrinal teaching we rely upon has to come from Paul by necessity.
If you want to continue to call Paul a liar then you must also call Christ a liar for He is the one who revealed the gospel to Paul and Paul’s teachings support the teachings of Jesus in the gospels.
I’ll say it once again. When faced with the overwhelming evidence (which is supported by the overwhelming lack of evidence) against the BoJosephSmith, the Smithian fights tooth and nail to find any shred of evidence or similarity from any source to declare the BoJosephSmith absolutely true. This same person fights tooth and nail to deny the doctrine of predestination, election, and grace explicitly taught by Jesus Christ in Matthew 11:25-27,20:15-16,22:13-14, John 1:12-13,3:3-8,6:37-44,6:70,10:25-30,17:9,20, which is also taught by every apostle, including Paul.
This is why they must declare the Bible fallacious unless “interpreted” correctly: it teaches against their radical universalist/Arminian doctrine. Christ’s death did not actually accomplish our salvation, only universal resurrection. It is up to men to activate the saving power that brings them up to a zero point like Adam by making a declaration of “faith”, and then “merit” salvation from there.
This is why salvation can be lost. If one can choose Christ, then one can also deny Christ.
Where does the Bible teach that man chooses salvation and perfects himself? Salvation is entirely a work of God from beginning to end (Romans 8:28-30, Ephesians 1:7-14, 1 Peter 1:3-5), and this includes good works through sanctification.
Martin,
Can you show me where I said that Jesus paid part of the debt, not the whole? I said that Jesus paid The Father for us. This was in full, thus we are not subject to The Father’s laws any more, if we believe in Jesus.
However, as Matt 11:28-30 says, Jesus tells us to take up His yoke and burden as it is lighter than the old one we were carrying. Why does He have a yoke and burden – what is it? Does it not connotate ‘work’? Why does He give a new commandment in John 13:34? Why does He say that He will not forgive us if we do not forgive our fellow men? Note, us forgiving our fellow men is an act/work from us. What happens if we do not forgive, can we make it to heaven? For an answer to this look at the parable about the 2 servants in debt, one to the master the other to the first servant. Jesus’ yoke and burden (ie commandments and requirements) are lighter than Heavenly Father’s commandments and requirements as His is total perfection. So we can live up to Jesus’ requirements and through Him make it to heaven/CK.
So Jesus paid The Father in whole for us, nothing at all left for us to pay to The Father. But Jesus has asked and commanded us to do things for Him (ie Jesus), which is what I am doing. This is faith and works together – we show our faith in Jesus by taking His yoke and burden and performing the works He wants us to do. If we don’t do these works we are going contrary to Jesus and not showing faith and ultimately not be saved.
liv4jc
you say
“…so much of the doctrinal teaching we rely upon has to come from Paul by necessity. ” – this is a unique aspect of Pauline Christians, and is required to be accepted before Evangelical status is granted. However, it is not an inherent truth to being a Christian. Paul is a source of many discussions, both pro and con, among “scholars” (of which none are present here), numerous works on this subject are available.
And in typical Ev fashion the assumption that i ever called Paul a “liar”, is unfounded and untrue. I never called Paul a liar….your excalamtion that i did such a thing supports the notion in my neighborhood that “a hit dawg hollers!”.
p.s. LDS does not need the Bible to be false. On the contrary thr BoM gains its strength as a continuation of the scriptures. Yes. so far as it is translated correctly, but i ascertain that you have no preference of source or translation? really?
mobaby
mormons dont have a checklist or a scale to things. its a way for us as well. saying otherwise means you read too much falcon.