Question about LDS Church after Smith's death.

[BENTLEY]

Basically it has been translated over and over and over and over....and as a result man has made mistakes and small changes add on small changes...

You get the general idea. But Mormons believe in the bible and use it constantly in their teachings.

This is the telephone game theory. As a mormon I was told this many times. Still perpetuated today (as well as the myths about the Council of Nicea - sigh). The telephone game theory makes sense because we've all played the telephone game where one whispers in someone's ear "Rubby baby buggie bumpers" and 5 persons later it comes out "Do you have any grey poupon." But that's not how it was translated. This is a vague theory though used by J.Smith as well as non-mormons, ex: Blavatsky and her new age minions (Did Mohammad also make this claim too? I can't remember). In the video I posted (13 min. so I'm not surprised you didn't watch it) it addresses this very theory - New Testament was translated from Greek to English, or Greek to Spanish, or Greek to German, etc. So that's only 1 direct step in the telephone game. If it had been translated from Greek to German to Spanish to English, then we would expect to see many translation errors but that, as I say, is not the case. There are more copies of the Bible than any other book in history. These copies agree with each other an astonishing amount - like 95%? or is it 99%? Regardless, it's impressive and validates Jesus Christ's words in Luke 21:33 "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away."

Oh, and then regarding the Old Testament there's the Dead Sea Scrolls which show what we have today is what they had back then. Wow.

If one makes the claim that the Bible is corrupted I would appreciate specifics on the subject (what parts are corrupted) rather than this vague and incorrect myth. I don't blame you for repeating it - I didn't have any reason to disbelieve it when it was told to me. But I'm glad I researched it for myself.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

a generality laced with what I consider to be a bit of humor will not read like a law of physics that has no exceptions, and there may be some more "politically correct" ways to phrase it, for sure. But you'd be disingenuous to deny that Mormons often resort to the pearls/swine notion and decide to just leave some bone of contention in the mud.

First of all, your original statement was worded to give the impression that all cases of a discussion with a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints that ends in silence is because the other person/people in the conversation are now viewed as swine they refuse to cast their pearls before.

Secondly, I won't attempt to speak for all members of my Faith, if some people do that I am not aware of it.

Thirdly, my view of the pearls before swine idea is different than the way you seem to be portraying it. My understanding of that scripture is the idea of having certain beliefs and experiences that are sacred so I don't go around telling people about them. "Pearls" in my opinion are not points of doctrine like my understanding of the apostasy.

Fourthly there are plenty of times I just get busy with life and don't respond to stuff. That's how it goes. Also refer to Bronco70's post, there are plenty of times I am 99% sure my efforts will be wasted so I don't bother. I almost didn't respond to you because you are so over the top you appear to be trolling. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt because of your history here but know you aren't above a troll or 50.

 

[BENTLEY]

Many opponents of the Bible would love to change the Bible but if they tried to do that we'd just compare their version with all the other versions and then we could see theirs isn't like the rest. Then we find out what was their earliest source - did they even have one or did they just themselves revise what we already have? Jehovah's Witnesses made the claim the Bible was corrupted and then had an unnamed committee come up with their own version "New World Translation" - Their source? I don't know that they had one. It was a committee so maybe they just asked each other?)

Anyway, any attempt to change the Bible would break down and not gain any traction.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

This is the telephone game theory. As a mormon I was told this many times. Still perpetuated today (as well as the myths about the Council of Nicea - sigh). The telephone game theory makes sense because we've all played the telephone game where one whispers in someone's ear "Rubby baby buggie bumpers" and 5 persons later it comes out "Do you have any grey poupon." But that's not how it was translated. This is a vague theory though used by J.Smith as well as non-mormons, ex: Blavatsky and her new age minions (Did Mohammad also make this claim too? I can't remember). In the video I posted (13 min. so I'm not surprised you didn't watch it) it addresses this very theory - New Testament was translated from Greek to English, or Greek to Spanish, or Greek to German, etc. So that's only 1 direct step in the telephone game. If it had been translated from Greek to German to Spanish to English, then we would expect to see many translation errors but that, as I say, is not the case. There are more copies of the Bible than any other book in history. These copies agree with each other an astonishing amount - like 95%? or is it 99%? Regardless, it's impressive and validates Jesus Christ's words in Luke 21:33 "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away."

Oh, and then regarding the Old Testament there's the Dead Sea Scrolls which show what we have today is what they had back then. Wow.

If one makes the claim that the Bible is corrupted I would appreciate specifics on the subject (what parts are corrupted) rather than this vague and incorrect myth. I don't blame you for repeating it - I didn't have any reason to disbelieve it when it was told to me. But I'm glad I researched it for myself.

You make it sound like the original writings were taken from Greek and then translated into English. Voila, the New Testament.

It's more like there are original writings that someone copies, and someone else copies that one, which probably happened multiple times... all in Greek.
There are other people out there trying to get rid of the writings and the copies, so they are hunted down.
A few of the copies of copies of copies of copies make it through to our day, the oldest copy of one of the books (partial) is estimated to have been written around 150 AD approx and the newest around 350 AD. Then at some point the translation from Greek to English was made.

While the "telephone game" is not a perfect example of things, it's closer than many other ways of describing it.

The telephone game does not allow for the ability to copy things word for word, but it does illustrate how even short sentences meanings can change even if a word or two is changed from the beginning to the end of the "game".

8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

Basically (my opinion), we believe the Bible to be the word of God, but understand there may be some mostly minor issues (1-5%) in it due to it's "translation"... whereas translation is a combination of the actual translation as well as the copying down of the ideas from the originals to copies to what we have today.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I consider your "conspiracy theory" comment an unfounded slur that totally discredits the rest of what you might have to say. My comment describes modern organizational practices that are commonly employed where- and when-ever there is good leadership trying to improve organizational policy.

Wirthlin would never be one to go out of the commonly understood path, and I can easily see him being allowed to speak about as freely as anyone, but make no mistake about it, the leaders are agreed on the plan to winnow out the loose cannons.

I find your "unfounded slur" comment to be an unfounded slur that totally discredits your conspiracy theory.

 

[Stoked]

This is the telephone game theory. As a mormon I was told this many times. Still perpetuated today (as well as the myths about the Council of Nicea - sigh). The telephone game theory makes sense because we've all played the telephone game where one whispers in someone's ear "Rubby baby buggie bumpers" and 5 persons later it comes out "Do you have any grey poupon." But that's not how it was translated. This is a vague theory though used by J.Smith as well as non-mormons, ex: Blavatsky and her new age minions (Did Mohammad also make this claim too? I can't remember). In the video I posted (13 min. so I'm not surprised you didn't watch it) it addresses this very theory - New Testament was translated from Greek to English, or Greek to Spanish, or Greek to German, etc. So that's only 1 direct step in the telephone game. If it had been translated from Greek to German to Spanish to English, then we would expect to see many translation errors but that, as I say, is not the case. There are more copies of the Bible than any other book in history. These copies agree with each other an astonishing amount - like 95%? or is it 99%? Regardless, it's impressive and validates Jesus Christ's words in Luke 21:33 "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away."

Oh, and then regarding the Old Testament there's the Dead Sea Scrolls which show what we have today is what they had back then. Wow.

If one makes the claim that the Bible is corrupted I would appreciate specifics on the subject (what parts are corrupted) rather than this vague and incorrect myth. I don't blame you for repeating it - I didn't have any reason to disbelieve it when it was told to me. But I'm glad I researched it for myself.

Then it would be what Mormons believe correct? Generally speaking of course.

 

[RandyForRubio]

So if Mormons believe parts of the Bible to be inaccurate, then why is it still considered a holy book? Also, how do you know which part is accurate and which isn't? Saying one part is inaccurate discredits the entire thing, IMO.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

So if Mormons believe parts of the Bible to be inaccurate, then why is it still considered a holy book? Also, how do you know which part is accurate and which isn't? Saying one part is inaccurate discredits the entire thing, IMO.

We also believe in revelation and that as you read scripture you can gain a witness from the Holy Spirit as to what is true and gain an understanding of things.
The bottom line is, even with scripture that has been translated 100% correct, you still need the Holy Spirit to understand things correctly and fully.

Also, the interesting thing about scripture, and I'm thinking of the Lords parables more than others... can mean more than one thing.
It can be understood in different ways and all ways can be right.

Even with possible translation issues, the Bible is the word of God. Yet, we still need the Holy Spirit as that is what actually does the teaching.

 

[BENTLEY]

You make it sound like the original writings were taken from Greek and then translated into English. Voila, the New Testament.

It's more like there are original writings that someone copies, and someone else copies that one, which probably happened multiple times... all in Greek.
There are other people out there trying to get rid of the writings and the copies, so they are hunted down.
A few of the copies of copies of copies of copies make it through to our day, the oldest copy of one of the books (partial) is estimated to have been written around 150 AD approx and the newest around 350 AD. Then at some point the translation from Greek to English was made.

While the "telephone game" is not a perfect example of things, it's closer than many other ways of describing it.

The telephone game does not allow for the ability to copy things word for word, but it does illustrate how even short sentences meanings can change even if a word or two is changed from the beginning to the end of the "game".



Basically (my opinion), we believe the Bible to be the word of God, but understand there may be some mostly minor issues (1-5%) in it due to it's "translation"... whereas translation is a combination of the actual translation as well as the copying down of the ideas from the originals to copies to what we have today.

You're right - copies were all made by hand (the printing press was yet to be invented). But these guys took their job incredibly seriously. If mistakes were made they threw the whole attempted copy out. Comparisons of the Massoretic text with earlier Latin and Greek versions reveal careful copying and little deviation during the thousand years from 100 B.C. to 900 A.D. We have an incredible amount of copies still today that agree with each other 99%.

Belief in the Bible requires less faith than many believe. We don't have any originals but we have so many copies that agree with each other. And this was the smallest of religions - a mustard seed, as it were. Deviated from Judaism with 1 - Jesus Christ, then 12 apostles, then missionary work eventually caused such major issues for Rome that they had to adapt to it and become "Holy Roman" in order to hold onto power. In spite of Nero feeding Christians to the lions, Christians would not recant their devotion to Jesus Christ, and this mustard seed continued to grow until Constantine stopped Christian persecution and decided he would embrace the Christians. I believe Constantine was merely being a politician and only embraced Christianity as far as it was politically beneficial to him. But I can imagine after a couple hundred years of abuse the Christians were probably fine (to some degree) with Constantine's membership. In spite of Rome's corrupting of Christianity (indulgences, the pope's ultimate power in spiritual as well as temporal matters), true Christianity remained unblemished as evidenced by Martin Luther's attempt to go back to it. In spite of Catholic corruption of the religion, true Christianity was preserved in the Bible. This movement has grown and grown and grown. And the evidence for it, other than improbable history, is the Bible. What the Bible said conflicted with what the Roman Catholic church was teaching (thank you Martin Luther). I have indescribable respect for the Bible's preservation that yes, my faith is strengthened, but it's not a blind leap of faith. It is supported by incredible evidence.

The "as far as it is translated correctly" line in the articles of faith is not specific to any translation errors, but is rather a subtle (though still vague) way to disregard the parts of the Bible that conflict with LDS teachings. I've quoted Paul to various Mormons and I consistently get an eyeroll "Oh, Paul said lots of crazy things." Well, Paul makes up the majority of the New Testament. Do they want to disregard the majority of the New Testament as translation errors? Some things Paul says conflict with mormon teachings (saved by grace alone and NOT after all we can do (NOT of works) lest any man should boast). Shrug. Any serious study of the Bible a mormon will come up against stuff that doesn't sit well with mormonism. So many just put it on the shelf and figure they'll understand the truth of it someday. But the Bible's accurate. And, if the mormon believes Jesus Christ is who He says He is, they might want to take these issues back off the shelf and find out what is true and what is not. If you only want to use LDS sources (instead of objective sources) - per LDS instruction - then just use those. When mormon apologists attempt to address controversial issues (Adam-God, people on the moon, Kinderhook plates, David Whitmer outing Joseph Smith's false prophesy about their selling the BoM rights in Canada, Book of Abraham papyri, differing versions of the first vision, B.K. Roberts' Studies of the Book of Mormon, Polyandry and polygamy, William Law's Nauvoo Expositor destroyed by J. Smith because he was blowing the whistle on Smith's polygamy) then these apologists will sometimes admit to some of the less than pleasant facts about mormon history. I love mormon history, but luckily I didn't throw out the baby Jesus with the bath water. I love Christian history too. My study of mormon history discredited mormonism, whereas my study of Christianity surprisingly strengthened my testimony of it.

You may not have researched this stuff (when can one find the time between church callings throughout the week and of course the necessary hours on Jazzfanz), but I think we can at least agree on one thing: Jesus is a stud.

 

[BENTLEY]

How can we know what is the Holy spirit and what isn't. When Joseph Smith revealed the the Lord wanted David Whitmer and co. to go to Canada to sell the rights to the BofM - something that no one would purchase so that Whitmer came back to Smith and asked what was up? Joseph Smith replied "Some revelations are from God, some from devils, and some from men." So even Smith didn't know what was the Holy Spirit and what wasn't.

But mormons generally agree that the Holy Spirit is something you feel. But the Bible says "the heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9). Our ultimate source of truth cannot just be what we feel. Paul H. Dunn gave great talks that felt true - but they were fabrications. There is an ultimate source of truth given to us. It is the Bible. I'm not against good feelings/spiritual feelings but we must be wise about these things. Jesus said many would come in His name - be not deceived. Anyway, carry on - I gotta go.

 

[BENTLEY]

We also believe in revelation and that as you read scripture you can gain a witness from the Holy Spirit as to what is true and gain an understanding of things.
The bottom line is, even with scripture that has been translated 100% correct, you still need the Holy Spirit to understand things correctly and fully.

And the Qur'an is revelation to Mohammad.

 

[sgjazzfan]

/thread


#shotsfired

No, thats what caused the death of JS, silly.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

You're right - copies were all made by hand (the printing press was yet to be invented). But these guys took their job incredibly seriously. If mistakes were made they threw the whole attempted copy out. Comparisons of the Massoretic text with earlier Latin and Greek versions reveal careful copying and little deviation during the thousand years from 100 B.C. to 900 A.D. We have an incredible amount of copies still today that agree with each other 99%.

Belief in the Bible requires less faith than many believe. We don't have any originals but we have so many copies that agree with each other. And this was the smallest of religions - a mustard seed, as it were. Deviated from Judaism with 1 - Jesus Christ, then 12 apostles, then missionary work eventually caused such major issues for Rome that they had to adapt to it and become "Holy Roman" in order to hold onto power. In spite of Nero feeding Christians to the lions, Christians would not recant their devotion to Jesus Christ, and this mustard seed continued to grow until Constantine stopped Christian persecution and decided he would embrace the Christians. I believe Constantine was merely being a politician and only embraced Christianity as far as it was politically beneficial to him. But I can imagine after a couple hundred years of abuse the Christians were probably fine (to some degree) with Constantine's membership. In spite of Rome's corrupting of Christianity (indulgences, the pope's ultimate power in spiritual as well as temporal matters), true Christianity remained unblemished as evidenced by Martin Luther's attempt to go back to it. In spite of Catholic corruption of the religion, true Christianity was preserved in the Bible. This movement has grown and grown and grown. And the evidence for it, other than improbable history, is the Bible. What the Bible said conflicted with what the Roman Catholic church was teaching (thank you Martin Luther). I have indescribable respect for the Bible's preservation that yes, my faith is strengthened, but it's not a blind leap of faith. It is supported by incredible evidence.

The "as far as it is translated correctly" line in the articles of faith is not specific to any translation errors, but is rather a subtle (though still vague) way to disregard the parts of the Bible that conflict with LDS teachings. I've quoted Paul to various Mormons and I consistently get an eyeroll "Oh, Paul said lots of crazy things." Well, Paul makes up the majority of the New Testament. Do they want to disregard the majority of the New Testament as translation errors? Some things Paul says conflict with mormon teachings (saved by grace alone and NOT after all we can do (NOT of works) lest any man should boast). Shrug. Any serious study of the Bible a mormon will come up against stuff that doesn't sit well with mormonism. So many just put it on the shelf and figure they'll understand the truth of it someday. But the Bible's accurate. And, if the mormon believes Jesus Christ is who He says He is, they might want to take these issues back off the shelf and find out what is true and what is not. If you only want to use LDS sources (instead of objective sources) - per LDS instruction - then just use those. When mormon apologists attempt to address controversial issues (Adam-God, people on the moon, Kinderhook plates, David Whitmer outing Joseph Smith's false prophesy about their selling the BoM rights in Canada, Book of Abraham papyri, differing versions of the first vision, B.K. Roberts' Studies of the Book of Mormon, Polyandry and polygamy, William Law's Nauvoo Expositor destroyed by J. Smith because he was blowing the whistle on Smith's polygamy) then these apologists will sometimes admit to some of the less than pleasant facts about mormon history. I love mormon history, but luckily I didn't throw out the baby Jesus with the bath water. I love Christian history too. My study of mormon history discredited mormonism, whereas my study of Christianity surprisingly strengthened my testimony of it.

You may not have researched this stuff (when can one find the time between church callings throughout the week and of course the necessary hours on Jazzfanz), but I think we can at least agree on one thing: Jesus is a stud.

Will respond later when I get the time. You blew by a bunch of stuff in there that I want to get to, but it's interesting that we can look into many of the same things and I feel in no way that "Mormonism" is discredited, and yet my study of Christianity has strengthened my testimony of Christ as well. I also view what you call "mormonism" as Christianity.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Not to speak for Bentley, but I feel one of the most significant differences between Mormonism and Christianity is the doctrine of grace vs works.

 

[framer]

You're right - copies were all made by hand (the printing press was yet to be invented). But these guys took their job incredibly seriously. If mistakes were made they threw the whole attempted copy out. Comparisons of the Massoretic text with earlier Latin and Greek versions reveal careful copying and little deviation during the thousand years from 100 B.C. to 900 A.D. We have an incredible amount of copies still today that agree with each other 99%.

Belief in the Bible requires less faith than many believe. We don't have any originals but we have so many copies that agree with each other. And this was the smallest of religions - a mustard seed, as it were. Deviated from Judaism with 1 - Jesus Christ, then 12 apostles, then missionary work eventually caused such major issues for Rome that they had to adapt to it and become "Holy Roman" in order to hold onto power. In spite of Nero feeding Christians to the lions, Christians would not recant their devotion to Jesus Christ, and this mustard seed continued to grow until Constantine stopped Christian persecution and decided he would embrace the Christians. I believe Constantine was merely being a politician and only embraced Christianity as far as it was politically beneficial to him. But I can imagine after a couple hundred years of abuse the Christians were probably fine (to some degree) with Constantine's membership. In spite of Rome's corrupting of Christianity (indulgences, the pope's ultimate power in spiritual as well as temporal matters), true Christianity remained unblemished as evidenced by Martin Luther's attempt to go back to it. In spite of Catholic corruption of the religion, true Christianity was preserved in the Bible. This movement has grown and grown and grown. And the evidence for it, other than improbable history, is the Bible. What the Bible said conflicted with what the Roman Catholic church was teaching (thank you Martin Luther). I have indescribable respect for the Bible's preservation that yes, my faith is strengthened, but it's not a blind leap of faith. It is supported by incredible evidence.

The "as far as it is translated correctly" line in the articles of faith is not specific to any translation errors, but is rather a subtle (though still vague) way to disregard the parts of the Bible that conflict with LDS teachings. I've quoted Paul to various Mormons and I consistently get an eyeroll "Oh, Paul said lots of crazy things." Well, Paul makes up the majority of the New Testament. Do they want to disregard the majority of the New Testament as translation errors? Some things Paul says conflict with mormon teachings (saved by grace alone and NOT after all we can do (NOT of works) lest any man should boast). Shrug. Any serious study of the Bible a mormon will come up against stuff that doesn't sit well with mormonism. So many just put it on the shelf and figure they'll understand the truth of it someday. But the Bible's accurate. And, if the mormon believes Jesus Christ is who He says He is, they might want to take these issues back off the shelf and find out what is true and what is not. If you only want to use LDS sources (instead of objective sources) - per LDS instruction - then just use those. When mormon apologists attempt to address controversial issues (Adam-God, people on the moon, Kinderhook plates, David Whitmer outing Joseph Smith's false prophesy about their selling the BoM rights in Canada, Book of Abraham papyri, differing versions of the first vision, B.K. Roberts' Studies of the Book of Mormon, Polyandry and polygamy, William Law's Nauvoo Expositor destroyed by J. Smith because he was blowing the whistle on Smith's polygamy) then these apologists will sometimes admit to some of the less than pleasant facts about mormon history. I love mormon history, but luckily I didn't throw out the baby Jesus with the bath water. I love Christian history too. My study of mormon history discredited mormonism, whereas my study of Christianity surprisingly strengthened my testimony of it.

You may not have researched this stuff (when can one find the time between church callings throughout the week and of course the necessary hours on Jazzfanz), but I think we can at least agree on one thing: Jesus is a stud.

Eyeroll- Take out your King James Bible read through it. If it is a quality version, there will be italicized words among the verses. These are places where a direct translation cannot apply and make sense, so the writers did their best to "spackle the joints" with language that would make sense to an English reader. in a few cases, not many, these can have a small effect on the outcome of the text. Certainly not to any great doctrinal length. I can't think of any large doctrinal parts of the Bible that Mormons "throw out." Additionally, there are parts of the Bible that contradict other parts of the Bible, so you can either put the blame on "translation" or that God is confused. What are you going to go with?

 

[sgjazzfan]

Not to speak for Bentley, but I feel one of the most significant differences between Mormonism and Christianity is the doctrine of grace vs works.

Could you Pliess outline how you see those differences roughly? I am only barely beginning to understand Grace vs works myself and don't believe many LDS members accurately understand it. I'm just curious to know how you see "Mormons" view as different from other Christians?

 

[Dr. Jones]

Could you Pliess outline how you see those differences roughly? I am only barely beginning to understand Grace vs works myself and don't believe many LDS members accurately understand it. I'm just curious to know how you see "Mormons" view as different from other Christians?

Not addressed to me, but I think Christians think Mormons believe "it's all about works" and Mormons think Christians believe, "it's all about us grace."

Obviously neither is true.

Works is evidence of faith. So it would stand to reason that you don't make it into the Kingdom without works.

The biggest difference between the two (in this regard) as I have observed, is Mormons apply their worthiness to works whereas Christians speak to nothing can be worthy (because we're all sinners and God's grace as the only reason we have a chance).

There's a slight difference between the two. Emphasis.

This isn't a slight (really), but I believe Christians show a more God-centric view as they are thankful for his grace and emphasize grace. Mormons have a more ego-centric view about what "I" have done.

Honestly, Christians are unfair in their portrayal of Mormon making it ALL ABOUT WORKS as if they simply discount grace.
And the exact opposite is true as far as how Mormons view Christians as LIVE HOWEVER YOU WANT BECAUSE GOD's grace is enough.

Each are equally offensive to the other.

*i do not mean to offend when I say Christian vs. Mormon. I think it's just a lazy way of communicating.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Could you Pliess outline how you see those differences roughly? I am only barely beginning to understand Grace vs works myself and don't believe many LDS members accurately understand it. I'm just curious to know how you see "Mormons" view as different from other Christians?

I'll do my best.

This is from religion facts, just a site with the basic outlines of all religions:

Mormons believe salvation is attained through a combination of faith in the Atonement of Christ and good works, with emphasis on the good works

That's saying that through our works, our deeds, we can earn our salvation.

Here's the 3rd Article of Faith:

We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

These seem to contradict what Paul wrote when he said that we are saved by grace alone, so that no man may boast of his works. Now I'm not saying works are bad, they certainly are necessary. James says that our faith is dead if we have no works, but that does not mean that our works lead to salvation, but that grace leads to salvation which leads to works.

Now I'm reading a Mormon article from one of the leaders in 1981 on this subject, and I see more that contradicts the Bible. Apparently there is the belief that children cannot sin. This would contradict Romans 3:23, "For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Emphasis is mine). Our sinful, carnal nature does not allow us to earn our salvation through works, for the only way to earn it would to be perfect, and that is impossible.

Salvation is a wonderful gift that we have been given, don't folly and think that it's something you can earn. Take, accept the gift from Jesus Christ and follow his commandments, for He said, "If you love me you will obey me." (Jesus was kinda legalistic like that).

 

[RandyForRubio]

Another thing I don't understand...Mormon teaching says that we were spirits residing with God before time, but He sent us down so that we could progress. Now as I understand it, to be in God's presence you have to be sanctified, which is to be made holy, or perfect. God does not allow imperfection around Him. So how could we be these perfect spirits, yet need to progress? And how could we be perfect and then once in Earth become sinners?

 

[RandyForRubio]

Not addressed to me, but I think Christians think Mormons believe "it's all about works" and Mormons think Christians believe, "it's all about us grace."

Obviously neither is true.

Works is evidence of faith. So it would stand to reason that you don't make it into the Kingdom without works.

The biggest difference between the two (in this regard) as I have observed, is Mormons apply their worthiness to works whereas Christians speak to nothing can be worthy (because we're all sinners and God's grace as the only reason we have a chance).

There's a slight difference between the two. Emphasis.

This isn't a slight (really), but I believe Christians show a more God-centric view as they are thankful for his grace and emphasize grace. Mormons have a more ego-centric view about what "I" have done.

Honestly, Christians are unfair in their portrayal of Mormon making it ALL ABOUT WORKS as if they simply discount grace.
And the exact opposite is true as far as how Mormons view Christians as LIVE HOWEVER YOU WANT BECAUSE GOD's grace is enough.

Each are equally offensive to the other.

*i do not mean to offend when I say Christian vs. Mormon. I think it's just a lazy way of communicating.

I disagree in parts, because when it comes to salvation, it is all about grace. It says it right in the Bible. Works show that we are saved, but are not how we become saved. That is a very important distinction.