After 40 years of taking Christianity for granted, I have some really big questions.

[sagira]

You are not alone in thinking this way. I think there's plenty of "good advice" in Paul's epistles, but I don't put them on the same footing as the instructions.

 

:iagree:

[Dealea86]

Actually Judaism has always been for the Jew only (we don't seek out converts, but sincere converts are welcome; it's no easy process!). Any righteous gentile who follows the seven noahide laws can enter the gates of heaven; they don't have to be Jewish.

 

Oh, I never knew that... good to know. I knew gentiles could convert to Judaism (and that it was a difficult process), but I had never heard about the noahide laws.

 

I suppose my broader point still stands, that Biblical (whether Mosaic or New Testament) salvation has never been for everyone - it has always been for a certain subset of the world.

 

And for the part I didn't have time to post earlier, I wanted to point you to two passages where Paul himself makes the distinction on salvation (there are more, but I picked these two because they come before and after the passage in Romans 5 you mentioned):

 

Romans 2:5-10 - "But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath , when his righteous judgment will be revealed. God “will repay each person according to what they have done.†To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile."

 

Romans 8:5-10 - "Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.

 

You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness."

[happyhomey]

I am going to bypass commenting on Paul's letters, but do want to respond that since Jesus died for all men, doesn't that mean everyone will go the heaven. Since the OP mentioned that they espoused to Jesus's teaching the most, you need not go far into the gospels to realize that Jesus actually talked about hell more frequently than heaven. If you are consistent with what you said about Jesus's teaching it would be hard to reconcile that everyone will end up in heaven.

[ELITEANDLOVINGIT]

:lurk5:

I believe in universal salvation. You can learn more about it here.

 

I could go on and on about it :tongue_smilie: i believe that God cannot fail, and that to allow anY of his children to live in eternal torment would be to concede failure, that He cannot save certain people. There's more that i could say, but read the Wikipedia first. Another good book that i like is The Inescapable Love of God and Raising Hell (which you can get for 3 bucks on Amazon for kindle)

[Quiver0f10]

I really enjoyed a short (too short) book called Paul Among the People. Paul gets a reputation as Mr. Grumpy-Pants, but I think a lot of that is because we have little understanding of the issues he was dealing with and the cultures. When we come to an understanding of what he was trying to say, I find him easy to admire. But I also do not assume that his solutions for 1st-century cultures are what I have to do--women wearing veils in church had a certain meaning in his day that no longer holds in my culture. What is the intent behind his advice? (In that case, it was to make all women in the congregation equal and respected, so that none of them felt inferior and worldly social status was erased.)

 

I certainly believe that Jesus died to save all of us. I am not a Universalist, because some few people will say no and refuse to be saved, and they have to be free to make that choice. But of course Jesus died to save all of us, and he wants us all to choose Him. He gives us many, many chances to do so, even after this life, so that no one will be lost--unless they freely choose that.

 

Because people can indeed twist scripture to say anything they want it to, we must, in the end, rely on the Holy Spirit to confirm us in truth. The Spirit testifies of truth.

 

Can you please explain this? Do you have a scripture reference? Thanks!

[dangermom]

Can you please explain this? Do you have a scripture reference? Thanks!

 

Well, I am LDS, and it is an LDS belief, though it seems to me to be one that fits with the Bible and with more mainstream Christian thought as well. I cannot believe that God would allow billions of people--the vast majority of people who have ever lived--to live and die without ever having had the chance to hear of and accept Christ and salvation, and then say that was their only chance. God is a lot more just and merciful than that.

 

(LDS people do believe in the Bible as scripture, in case you've been informed otherwise.)

[Quiver0f10]

Well, I am LDS, and it is an LDS belief, though it seems to me to be one that fits with the Bible and with more mainstream Christian thought as well. I cannot believe that God would allow billions of people--the vast majority of people who have ever lived--to live and die without ever having had the chance to hear of and accept Christ and salvation, and then say that was their only chance. God is a lot more just and merciful than that.

 

(LDS people do believe in the Bible as scripture, in case you've been informed otherwise.)

 

Thank you for explaining.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Quiver0f10

[MamaSheep]

Can you please explain this? Do you have a scripture reference? Thanks!

 

Well, I am LDS, and it is an LDS belief, though it seems to me to be one that fits with the Bible and with more mainstream Christian thought as well. I cannot believe that God would allow billions of people--the vast majority of people who have ever lived--to live and die without ever having had the chance to hear of and accept Christ and salvation, and then say that was their only chance. God is a lot more just and merciful than that.

 

(LDS people do believe in the Bible as scripture, in case you've been informed otherwise.)

 

I hope I'm not stepping on toes here if I add a couple of thoughts here, but a few references came to mind that might be helpful, as I am also LDS and share this belief. :)

 

Two of them are from 1 Peter. First, chapter 3, verses 18-20 (I'm using a KJV):

 

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

 

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

 

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

 

We believe this to indicate that while Jesus was dead, he preached the gospel to the spirits of those who had previously died, including those who were disobedient, such as those who were drowned in Noah's flood.

 

Verse 6 in the next chapter reinforces this by stating:

 

6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

 

So the purpose of this preaching the gospel to those who were dead, as mentioned in chapter 3, was so that they might be judged based on the same standards as living men, even though their acceptance of Christ and "living" according to his teachings happens while they are disembodied spirits.

 

A third verse that comes to mind is 1 Corinthians 15, verse 29:

 

29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

 

Early Christians performed proxy baptisms for people who were dead; in context it's clear that Paul regards this as a legitimate Christian practice, because he uses it to support his thesis relating to resurrection--if the dead are just dead and that's it, then what's the point of being baptized for the dead? One thing this demonstrates is that the early Christians not only believed that the gospel was preached to the dead, but that the dead were able to accept baptisms that were performed on their behalf. This belief is shared by Latter-day Saints. It is spelled out in more detail in some of our other books of scripture, particularly the Doctrine and Covenants, but we believe the Bible also clearly supports this doctrine.

 

If you're into studying early church history, you might recognize the idea as similar to the early church's "Harrowing of Hell", or "Descensus Christi ad inferos", the descent into hell. It's referred to in the Apostles Creed, as well as other writings by early church fathers (I'm sorry, I don't have notes from when I read about that, and it's been a long time so I won't be much help with references).

 

Hope that helps. :)

[dangermom]

Oh thanks MamaSheep, I was too frazzled yesterday to do it properly! We're going on a trip. :001_smile: Excellent explanation.

[Juniper]

 

Early Christians performed proxy baptisms for people who were dead; in context it's clear that Paul regards this as a legitimate Christian practice, because he uses it to support his thesis relating to resurrection--if the dead are just dead and that's it, then what's the point of being baptized for the dead? One thing this demonstrates is that the early Christians not only believed that the gospel was preached to the dead, but that the dead were able to accept baptisms that were performed on their behalf. This belief is shared by Latter-day Saints. It is spelled out in more detail in some of our other books of scripture, particularly the Doctrine and Covenants, but we believe the Bible also clearly supports this doctrine.

 

If you're into studying early church history, you might recognize the idea as similar to the early church's "Harrowing of Hell", or "Descensus Christi ad inferos", the descent into hell. It's referred to in the Apostles Creed, as well as other writings by early church fathers (I'm sorry, I don't have notes from when I read about that, and it's been a long time so I won't be much help with references).

 

Hope that helps. :)

 

There is much commonality regarding the LDS and EO understanding of the

"Harrowing of Hell." As to the post-death practice of baptisim in the early church it is my understanding that it may have been practiced by some....and I would be curious where that originated from....but it was not the norm. In fact in 393 at the Synod of Hippo it was decided the both the Eucharist and Baptisim should not be performed on the dead. The decision was then upheld at the Council of Carthage in 397.

 

We would probably disagree on the "why" of these formal decisions ;), but I wanted to point out the church history timeline. Also, just a note on why councils are held. It is my understanding that councils are held only to deal with heretical practices that have come into existence. So for a season a practice might develop, but once it reaches a certain level a council would have been held to deal with the practice. (I am completely open to being corrected on this)

 

Please know, I am trying to be sensitive in how I phrase this. There is so much I admire about you LDS ladies and the faith you share, and i much prefer to focus on the things we have in common. Just trying to point out an alternate lens on viewing the past.

 

Hope that helps someone!

[Parrothead]

There is much commonality regarding the LDS and EO understanding of the

"Harrowing of Hell." As to the post-death practice of baptisim in the early church it is my understanding that it may have been practiced by some....and I would be curious where that originated from....but it was not the norm. In fact in 393 at the Synod of Hippo it was decided the both the Eucharist and Baptisim should not be performed on the dead. The decision was then upheld at the Council of Carthage in 397.

 

We would probably disagree on the "why" of these formal decisions ;), but I wanted to point out the church history timeline. Also, just a note on why councils are held. It is my understanding that councils are held only to deal with heretical practices that have come into existence. So for a season a practice might develop, but once it reaches a certain level a council would have been held to deal with the practice. (I am completely open to being corrected on this)

 

Please know, I am trying to be sensitive in how I phrase this. There is so much I admire about you LDS ladies and the faith you share, and i much prefer to focus on the things we have in common. Just trying to point out an alternate lens on viewing the past.

 

Hope that helps someone!

Yes, this is true. And like the pope it is believed that the teachings of these councils are infallible.

 

I believe the EO church believes the first 7 councils to be infallible. The RC recognizes 21. The Lutherans recognize the first 4.

[mommaduck]

Apparently, the practice was associated with early heretical sects.

 

I'll be honest:

On one hand, as far as my faith goes, a Mormon doing a proxy baptism has absolutely no bearing on what happens to me in the afterlife. It does nothing. Therefore, it's a non-issue spiritually.

 

On the other hand, I find the practice to be offensive towards those that did not share the Mormon faith in this life (yes, I know Mormons view it as a gracious act of kindness, etc). It is offensive in that it ignores the faith that the person held to (or that the person had no faith and wanted nothing to do with any faith). Yes, I know the rules are that it's supposed to happen so many years after death and the proxy person must be a family member. Well, that pretty much offends the other family members that are not Mormons. I have a Mormon cousin. Yes, I would be offended if any of her descendents ignored my faith and were baptised for me in their faith (ignoring my own Orthodox baptism). I am offended that they will ignore my great grandmother's faith and her baptism. I knew my great grandmother (this cousin did not) and she was dear to me. Even though the Mormons believe it is honouring, I believe it is dishonouring and disrespectful. Also, to think that I would need to rely on whether someone chooses to or not to be baptised for me as to whether or not I get a "second chance"...no thank you.

 

Sorry, rant over. Please note, I know some very nice Mormons, am related to more than a few, and they are nicer at solicitations than some other groups. This particular subject is just a beef of mine.

Edited July 3, 2012 by mommaduck

[MamaSheep]

Oh thanks MamaSheep, I was too frazzled yesterday to do it properly! We're going on a trip. :001_smile: Excellent explanation.

 

Oh I hope you're going someplace fun, and have a wonderful time!

 

There is much commonality regarding the LDS and EO understanding of the

"Harrowing of Hell." As to the post-death practice of baptisim in the early church it is my understanding that it may have been practiced by some....and I would be curious where that originated from....but it was not the norm. In fact in 393 at the Synod of Hippo it was decided the both the Eucharist and Baptisim should not be performed on the dead. The decision was then upheld at the Council of Carthage in 397.

 

We would probably disagree on the "why" of these formal decisions ;), but I wanted to point out the church history timeline. Also, just a note on why councils are held. It is my understanding that councils are held only to deal with heretical practices that have come into existence. So for a season a practice might develop, but once it reaches a certain level a council would have been held to deal with the practice. (I am completely open to being corrected on this)

 

Please know, I am trying to be sensitive in how I phrase this. There is so much I admire about you LDS ladies and the faith you share, and i much prefer to focus on the things we have in common. Just trying to point out an alternate lens on viewing the past.

 

Hope that helps someone!

 

Yes, this is true. And like the pope it is believed that the teachings of these councils are infallible.

 

I believe the EO church believes the first 7 councils to be infallible. The RC recognizes 21. The Lutherans recognize the first 4.

 

Thank you for your sensitivity toward our beliefs. There is much I respect and admire in the Catholic and Orthodox churches as well, and like you I prefer to focus on the things we have in common. Also, I have no desire to knock this thread off track into a discussion of Mormonism, which was not the original topic. Jean asked for an explanation of the belief, along with references, and I was merely trying to answer her questions. I am sorry if I offended in doing so.

 

I, too, wish to be sensitive to the beliefs of others, and am trying to phrase these things carefully. I do know that most other Christians view these things differently than we do, and I am aware of the councils having declared the practice heretical. The LDS position is that our doctrine is a restoration of first century Christianity, not a restoration of 4th century Christianity, which we believe had drifted from some authentic teachings and practices. I know this is an area in which we will just have to agree to disagree, as I don't think either of us would be able to convince the other. I'm glad we don't have to agree on everything in order to be friends.

[MamaSheep]

Apparently, the practice was associated with early heretical sects.

 

I'll be honest:

On one hand, as far as my faith goes, a Mormon doing a proxy baptism has absolutely no bearing on what happens to me in the afterlife. It does nothing. Therefore, it's a non-issue spiritually.

 

I don't disagree with that statement at all. In LDS belief, a proxy baptism has absolutely no bearing on what happens to the deceased person in the afterlife unless the deceased person wants it to. If the deceased person does not wish to accept the baptism, it does nothing, and is a non-issue spiritually. The persons who participated in the proxy baptism have wasted some of their time, and nobody else is affected in the least. So if, after you die, someone in your cousin's family were to be baptized on your behalf, and you still felt the same as you do now about it, it would have absolutely no bearing on your situation at all.

 

On the other hand, I find the practice to be offensive towards those that did not share the Mormon faith in this life (yes, I know Mormons view it as a gracious act of kindness, etc). It is offensive in that it ignores the faith that the person held to (or that the person had no faith and wanted nothing to do with any faith). Yes, I know the rules are that it's supposed to happen so many years after death and the proxy person must be a family member. Well, that pretty much offends the other family members that are not Mormons. I have a Mormon cousin. Yes, I would be offended if any of her descendents ignored my faith and were baptised for me in their faith (ignoring my own Orthodox baptism). I am offended that they will ignore my great grandmother's faith and her baptism. I knew my great grandmother (this cousin did not) and she was dear to me. Even though the Mormons believe it is honouring, I believe it is dishonouring and disrespectful...

 

It's my understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong, that Orthodox Christians also believe, as we do, that there is a time between death and Final Judgment, in which a person's condition may be affected by the actions of the living. For example, this is one explanation I find, taken from this Orthodox web site (I've bolded some parts to point them out):

 

Then, having successfully passed through the toll-houses and bowed down before God, the soul for the course of 37 more days visits the heavenly habitations and the abysses of hell, not knowing yet where it will remain, and only on the fortieth day is its place appointed until the resurrection of the dead. [5] Some souls find themselves (after the forty days) in a condition of foretasting eternal joy and blessedness, and others in fear of the eternal torments which will come in full after the Last Judgment.

Until then changes are possible in the condition of souls, especially through offering for them the Bloodless Sacrifice (commemoration at the Liturgy), and likewise by other prayers.

[6]....

 

...Therefore,

panikhidas (i.e., Trisagion Prayers for the Dead) and prayer at home for the dead are beneficial to them, as are good deeds done in their memory, such as alms or contributions to the church. But especially beneficial for them is commemoration at the Divine Liturgy.

There have been many appearances of the dead and other occurrences which confirm how beneficial is the commemoration of the dead. Many who died in repentance, but who were unable to manifest this while they were alive, have been freed from tortures and have obtained repose. In the Church prayers are ever offered for the repose of the dead, and on the day of the Descent of the Holy Spirit, in the kneeling prayers at vespers, t

here is even a special petition "for those in hell."

 

Every one of us who desires to manifest his love for the dead and

give them real help,

can do this best of all through prayer for them, and particularly by commemorating them at the Liturgy, when the particles which are cut out for the living and the dead are let fall into the Blood of the Lord with the words:

"Wash away, O Lord, the sins of those here commemorated by Thy Precious Blood and by the prayers of Thy saints."

 

We can do nothing better or greater for the dead than to pray for them, offering commemoration for them at the Liturgy.

Of this they are always in need, and especially during those forty days when the soul of the deceased is proceeding on its path to the eternal habitations. The body feels nothing then: it does not see its close ones who have assembled, does not smell the fragrance of the flowers, does not hear the funeral orations. But the soul senses the prayers offered for it and is grateful to those who make them and is spiritually close to them.

 

O relatives and close ones of the dead! Do for them what is needful for them and within your power.

Use your money not for outward adornment of the coffin and grave, but in order to help those in need, in memory of your close ones who have died, for churches, where prayers for them are offered.

Show mercy to the dead, take care of their souls.

[8]

 

Before us all stands the same path, and how we shall then wish that we would be remembered in prayer!

Let us therefore be ourselves merciful to the dead.

 

 

So, if I understand correctly, the EO teaching is that worshipers can petition the Lord to wash away the sins of their deceased loved ones by commemorating them during Divine Liturgy. Well, the LDS teaching is that that offering baptism on their behalf gives them the opportunity to have their sins washed away by the Lord, and to move closer to Him, if they choose to do so.

 

In fact, we would say that this care for the dead is what is meant in Hebrews 11:39-40 when, speaking of good people who lived before Christ, Paul stated that, " And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect." We feel that because we have been blessed with baptism, we have an obligation to make that blessing available to those who came before us. Perhaps, then, you might understand that we feel obligated to offer the gift, even if we know some people will regard it with contempt, and some people will reject it.

 

I am sorry, however, that our difference in belief is a cause for offense. It is truly not intended as such.

 

...Also, to think that I would need to rely on whether someone chooses to or not to be baptised for me as to whether or not I get a "second chance"...no thank you.

 

For the sake of clarity, in LDS belief, this is not so much a "second chance" as it is making sure everyone has a valid chance to make a fully informed decision to accept or reject Christ prior to judgment. We don't make a lot of distinction between the living and the dead, other than that dead people are temporarily separated from their bodies and unable to physically participate in ordinances, so some ordinances we perform for them, just in case they want them. If they don't, it's certainly within their rights and ability to reject them and carry on as they were.

 

Additionally, we recognize that not every deceased person who wants baptism will have a relative who will be able to perform that ordinance on their behalf. We also believe that after Christ's second coming there will be a 1000 year period when Christ reigns personally on the Earth. During that time we believe there will be greater communication between the living and the dead, and there will be an opportunity for everyone who wishes to receive baptism prior to resurrection and final judgment will have that opportunity either in person or by proxy. God is perfectly just, and although we are able to assist one another in some ways, ultimately our salvation is not dependent on anyone but Christ.

 

Sorry, rant over. Please note, I know some very nice Mormons, am related to more than a few, and they are nicer at solicitations than some other groups. This particular subject is just a beef of mine.

 

I am sorry to have touched upon a sore point. I do understand that many people disagree with our beliefs on this subject. As I said before, my only purpose here was to answer a question about our beliefs, not to "solicit" anyone to share those beliefs.

[Parrothead]

Well, the LDS teaching is that that offering baptism on their behalf gives them the opportunity to have their sins washed away by the Lord, and to move closer to Him, if they choose to do so.

 

In fact, we would say that this care for the dead is what is meant in Hebrews 11:39-40 when, speaking of good people who lived before Christ, Paul stated that, " And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect." We feel that because we have been blessed with baptism, we have an obligation to make that blessing available to those who came before us. Perhaps, then, you might understand that we feel obligated to offer the gift, even if we know some people will regard it with contempt, and some people will reject it.

 

 

For the sake of clarity, in LDS belief, this is not so much a "second chance" as it is making sure everyone has a valid chance to make a fully informed decision to accept or reject Christ prior to judgment. We don't make a lot of distinction between the living and the dead, other than that dead people are temporarily separated from their bodies and unable to physically participate in ordinances, so some ordinances we perform for them, just in case they want them. If they don't, it's certainly within their rights and ability to reject them and carry on as they were.

 

Additionally, we recognize that not every deceased person who wants baptism will have a relative who will be able to perform that ordinance on their behalf. We also believe that after Christ's second coming there will be a 1000 year period when Christ reigns personally on the Earth. During that time we believe there will be greater communication between the living and the dead, and there will be an opportunity for everyone who wishes to receive baptism prior to resurrection and final judgment will have that opportunity either in person or by proxy. God is perfectly just, and although we are able to assist one another in some ways, ultimately our salvation is not dependent on anyone but Christ.

 

 

 

This is all very interesting. It sounds similar to the Catholic belief in Purgatory. We often pray for the lost souls or poor souls in Purgatory who have no one to pray for them.

[Mynyel]

I'm open to all answers.

 

Okay, starting with a BIG presupposition that God created, man sinned, Jesus came, lived, died, rose again:

 

1. Is it my imagination, or does Paul say a lot of stuff that Jesus never said? It seems like all the big rules and all the organized church stuff came from Paul, not Jesus.

 

Read Pagan Christianity. We read this and it talks about where the church came from and such. It was a real eye opener for us.

 

2. Who decided that Paul's letters got to be on equal footing with the gospel? There were 10 commandments in the Old Testament; two commandments in the New Testament; and then a slew of rules and regulations, most establishing a completely male-dominated system of authority known as "the church" in Paul's letters. It works out very conveniently, giving a very small group of men a very large measure of control over a huge number of people. So, there had to be a specific point in time in which a specific group of people decided to make Paul's letters part of the canon of scripture. That specific group of people were . . . . church leaders? Is it my imagination, or is that kind of hinky?

 

I don't think anyone BUT God or Jesus could *really* tell us what should go in the Bible. It was the "church" that decided what went in and what didn't. So, to me, the Bible was censored. No one has the authority (which would have to have been given by Jesus himself) to say what *should* and shouldn't be in the Bible. I do still read the Bible but I also think that is is unfinished and incomplete.

 

3. Are there people who believe (as in, sincerely believe in Jesus as a redeeming Savior) who reject Paul's letters as inspired scripture? Or is that heresy?

 

Nah, I wouldn't reject them. I don't know anyone who does. Rather use them as a guideline as opposed to strict "rules".

 

4. Assuming Paul's writings are inspired: How does one read Romans 5 and come away with the understanding that Jesus only died to save some people, not all? Thinking especially of verses 18 and 19. "18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous."

 

How (and maybe more importantly, WHY) is it so important for "all men" to mean that ALL men are sinners, but somehow we have to explain "all men" to mean something altogether different when it comes to how many people Jesus saves? Why can't it mean that all people are sinners, and Jesus died for all people, and therefore all people are saved? This is when I wish I could read the original Greek. Is there anyone here who is a Universalist? Because I think that actually makes more sense than what I've been taught all my life.

 

Our family thinks the same way! It is the main reason we can't go to an average church. I can't sit in the church and listen to what they are saying about people going to "hell". *Shudder* No wonder there are so many people who want nothing to do with Christianity! I didn't either for a long time. I found my way back but I do not think along the main lines of others.

 

5. When pastors can take a verse of Scripture and pretty much make it say what they want it to say, and pretty much every denomination can take a verse and make it say something different, where is the credibility of religion? And I'm talking about sincere pastors, don't even get me started on the scary, cult-y, creepy ones.

 

Therein lies one of the issues with the "church". There are so many different sects and so many things they believe that it is hard for one to know the what to believe. Like I said above we quit going to church. We read the Bible ourselves and come to our own conclusions. I will *not* rely solely on someone else for all my biblical teachings. I just can't when so much that some I have listened to don't make sense!

 

That's all the questions I can put into words at the moment.

 

I believe in universal salvation. You can learn more about it here.

 

I could go on and on about it :tongue_smilie: i believe that God cannot fail, and that to allow anY of his children to live in eternal torment would be to concede failure, that He cannot save certain people. There's more that i could say, but read the Wikipedia first. Another good book that i like is The Inescapable Love of God and Raising Hell (which you can get for 3 bucks on Amazon for kindle)

 

I read this over and this is what we believe as well! I was trying to figure out what it was called but Unitarian universalism is what I kept finding and that wasn't it.

 

I am going to bypass commenting on Paul's letters, but do want to respond that since Jesus died for all men, doesn't that mean everyone will go the heaven. Since the OP mentioned that they espoused to Jesus's teaching the most, you need not go far into the gospels to realize that Jesus actually talked about hell more frequently than heaven. If you are consistent with what you said about Jesus's teaching it would be hard to reconcile that everyone will end up in heaven.

 

References please?

 

 

ETA: Take what I say for what it's worth. I am also one of those that believe there could be other sentient beings out in the universe besides us as well :)

[Melinda in VT]

On the other hand, I find the practice to be offensive towards those that did not share the Mormon faith in this life (yes, I know Mormons view it as a gracious act of kindness, etc). It is offensive in that it ignores the faith that the person held to (or that the person had no faith and wanted nothing to do with any faith).

 

During a recent internet discussion of a group of people who chose to all resign their membership in the LDS church on the same day, someone suggested that perhaps ex-Mormons should start doing proxy resignations to un-Mormon all the people who had been baptized by proxy.

 

I had to admit, it made me laugh.

[MamaSheep]

During a recent internet discussion of a group of people who chose to all resign their membership in the LDS church on the same day, someone suggested that perhaps ex-Mormons should start doing proxy resignations to un-Mormon all the people who had been baptized by proxy.

 

I had to admit, it made me laugh.

 

That is kind of funny.

 

However, it also demonstrates a common misunderstanding, in that it assumes that we view everyone for whom a proxy baptism has occurred as being automatically "Mormon-ed" (since we're making up terminology....lol), which isn't the case. In reality, we make no assumption one way or the other about whether the person chose to accept the baptism or not, and we don't include such people in church membership counts. (Presumably, if the deceased person should decide to join the church and accept the baptism, a record of that would be made in the church in the spirit world.) If a deceased person who had been offered a baptism by proxy didn't want the baptism, he could just not accept it. There would be no need for a "resignation" because the baptism would never have been effective, and there would be no membership to resign. Either way, it's the decision of the deceased person to make.

 

One thing I find ironic about this idea of proxy resignation of church memberships is that it incorporates not only an assumption that the baptism was valid and effective (which they claim to dispute), but also a rather presumptuous assumption that the baptism was accepted by the deceased person (because if it wasn't accepted, there would be no church membership for them to resign). Having decided, then, that the deceased person must have accepted the baptism and thereby obtained a church membership (an assumption not made by the LDS church), these people would then arrogantly assert that the deceased person's church membership should (and indeed COULD) be forcibly taken away from them without their consent (because again, if the baptism is not valid, or if the person had not voluntarily accepted the baptism, there would be no church membership to resign.) Which puts them in the position of doing exactly what they claim to object to. Ironic. IMO.

Edited July 3, 2012 by MamaSheep

[Quiver0f10]

 

 

I hope I'm not stepping on toes here if I add a couple of thoughts here, but a few references came to mind that might be helpful, as I am also LDS and share this belief. :)

 

Two of them are from 1 Peter. First, chapter 3, verses 18-20 (I'm using a KJV):

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

 

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

 

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

We believe this to indicate that while Jesus was dead, he preached the gospel to the spirits of those who had previously died, including those who were disobedient, such as those who were drowned in Noah's flood.

 

Verse 6 in the next chapter reinforces this by stating:

6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

So the purpose of this preaching the gospel to those who were dead, as mentioned in chapter 3, was so that they might be judged based on the same standards as living men, even though their acceptance of Christ and "living" according to his teachings happens while they are disembodied spirits.

 

A third verse that comes to mind is 1 Corinthians 15, verse 29:

29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Early Christians performed proxy baptisms for people who were dead; in context it's clear that Paul regards this as a legitimate Christian practice, because he uses it to support his thesis relating to resurrection--if the dead are just dead and that's it, then what's the point of being baptized for the dead? One thing this demonstrates is that the early Christians not only believed that the gospel was preached to the dead, but that the dead were able to accept baptisms that were performed on their behalf. This belief is shared by Latter-day Saints. It is spelled out in more detail in some of our other books of scripture, particularly the Doctrine and Covenants, but we believe the Bible also clearly supports this doctrine.

 

If you're into studying early church history, you might recognize the idea as similar to the early church's "Harrowing of Hell", or "Descensus Christi ad inferos", the descent into hell. It's referred to in the Apostles Creed, as well as other writings by early church fathers (I'm sorry, I don't have notes from when I read about that, and it's been a long time so I won't be much help with references).

 

Hope that helps. :)

 

Thanks for explaining and the scripture references. :)

[ma23peas]

Firmly I believe this statement..."believe in the Lord and you will be saved" and "verily, I say unto you except a man be born of the spirit...he will not enter the kingdom"

 

We have the responsibility of receiving Christ and be born again through the Holy Spirit...so, no...not everyone is saved...I am amazed at God's choosing of Paul...he was the communicator for the church at a time when it was greatly needed...God is mightily and supernaturally present..so much so that I am convinced the Word is God....I do not doubt it nor question it...but through my life experiences...sections that did not make sense to me..over time have had a profound illuminating effect on me...it is a gift that keeps on giving!

[MamaSheep]

Thanks for explaining and the scripture references. :)

 

You're welcome. :)

[mommaduck]

I don't disagree with that statement at all. In LDS belief, a proxy baptism has absolutely no bearing on what happens to the deceased person in the afterlife unless the deceased person wants it to. If the deceased person does not wish to accept the baptism, it does nothing, and is a non-issue spiritually. The persons who participated in the proxy baptism have wasted some of their time, and nobody else is affected in the least. So if, after you die, someone in your cousin's family were to be baptized on your behalf, and you still felt the same as you do now about it, it would have absolutely no bearing on your situation at all.

 

No, it has no bearing as in we can't accept or deny it. It does NOTHING. It offers us NOTHING. That is our belief.

 

 

It's my understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong, that Orthodox Christians also believe, as we do, that there is a time between death and Final Judgment, in which a person's condition may be affected by the actions of the living. For example, this is one explanation I find, taken from this Orthodox web site (I've bolded some parts to point them out):

 

Then, having successfully passed through the toll-houses and bowed down before God, the soul for the course of 37 more days visits the heavenly habitations and the abysses of hell, not knowing yet where it will remain, and only on the fortieth day is its place appointed until the resurrection of the dead. [5] Some souls find themselves (after the forty days) in a condition of foretasting eternal joy and blessedness, and others in fear of the eternal torments which will come in full after the Last Judgment.

Until then changes are possible in the condition of souls, especially through offering for them the Bloodless Sacrifice (commemoration at the Liturgy), and likewise by other prayers.

[6]....

 

 

 

...Therefore,

panikhidas (i.e., Trisagion Prayers for the Dead) and prayer at home for the dead are beneficial to them, as are good deeds done in their memory, such as alms or contributions to the church. But especially beneficial for them is commemoration at the Divine Liturgy.

There have been many appearances of the dead and other occurrences which confirm how beneficial is the commemoration of the dead. Many who died in repentance, but who were unable to manifest this while they were alive, have been freed from tortures and have obtained repose. In the Church prayers are ever offered for the repose of the dead, and on the day of the Descent of the Holy Spirit, in the kneeling prayers at vespers, t

here is even a special petition "for those in hell."

 

 

 

Every one of us who desires to manifest his love for the dead and

give them real help,

can do this best of all through prayer for them, and particularly by commemorating them at the Liturgy, when the particles which are cut out for the living and the dead are let fall into the Blood of the Lord with the words:

"Wash away, O Lord, the sins of those here commemorated by Thy Precious Blood and by the prayers of Thy saints."

 

 

 

We can do nothing better or greater for the dead than to pray for them, offering commemoration for them at the Liturgy.

Of this they are always in need, and especially during those forty days when the soul of the deceased is proceeding on its path to the eternal habitations. The body feels nothing then: it does not see its close ones who have assembled, does not smell the fragrance of the flowers, does not hear the funeral orations. But the soul senses the prayers offered for it and is grateful to those who make them and is spiritually close to them.

 

 

 

O relatives and close ones of the dead! Do for them what is needful for them and within your power.

Use your money not for outward adornment of the coffin and grave, but in order to help those in need, in memory of your close ones who have died, for churches, where prayers for them are offered.

Show mercy to the dead, take care of their souls.

[8]

 

 

 

Before us all stands the same path, and how we shall then wish that we would be remembered in prayer!

Let us therefore be ourselves merciful to the dead.

 

 

So, if I understand correctly, the EO teaching is that worshipers can petition the Lord to wash away the sins of their deceased loved ones by commemorating them during Divine Liturgy. Well, the LDS teaching is that that offering baptism on their behalf gives them the opportunity to have their sins washed away by the Lord, and to move closer to Him, if they choose to do so.

 

In fact, we would say that this care for the dead is what is meant in Hebrews 11:39-40 when, speaking of good people who lived before Christ, Paul stated that, " And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect." We feel that because we have been blessed with baptism, we have an obligation to make that blessing available to those who came before us. Perhaps, then, you might understand that we feel obligated to offer the gift, even if we know some people will regard it with contempt, and some people will reject it.

 

I am sorry, however, that our difference in belief is a cause for offense. It is truly not intended as such.

 

 

 

For the sake of clarity, in LDS belief, this is not so much a "second chance" as it is making sure everyone has a valid chance to make a fully informed decision to accept or reject Christ prior to judgment. We don't make a lot of distinction between the living and the dead, other than that dead people are temporarily separated from their bodies and unable to physically participate in ordinances, so some ordinances we perform for them, just in case they want them. If they don't, it's certainly within their rights and ability to reject them and carry on as they were.

 

Additionally, we recognize that not every deceased person who wants baptism will have a relative who will be able to perform that ordinance on their behalf. We also believe that after Christ's second coming there will be a 1000 year period when Christ reigns personally on the Earth. During that time we believe there will be greater communication between the living and the dead, and there will be an opportunity for everyone who wishes to receive baptism prior to resurrection and final judgment will have that opportunity either in person or by proxy. God is perfectly just, and although we are able to assist one another in some ways, ultimately our salvation is not dependent on anyone but Christ.

 

 

 

I am sorry to have touched upon a sore point. I do understand that many people disagree with our beliefs on this subject. As I said before, my only purpose here was to answer a question about our beliefs, not to "solicit" anyone to share those beliefs.

 

Memorials are offered ONLY for those that were Orthodox. No one else. Ever. We don't go digging up names of Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Atheists, nor anyone else to offer memorials for. We don't presume upon any of them. We don't believe there is a second chance after death. This is a BIG difference between Mormons and Orthodox. (honestly, there are MORE differences than there are similarities. It's like you and I both going into a store and we both buy candles, we both buy rice, we both buy milk and then claim we have SOOOO much in common...uhm, no)

 

Prayers are entirely different than Baptism and Memorials. And no, we don't believe that prayers for the dead "wash away their sins" nor do we believe it will save them. It's a prayer that God remember them and have mercy on them. There's no tally system. We don't know what they need or don't need at that point. It's a simple prayer. We prayer for the dead just as we pray for others and ourselves (ex. Lord Jesus, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner). Our prayers don't get them in or out of anything. Our prayers don't give them a "second chance" at acceptance.

Edited July 3, 2012 by mommaduck

[MamaSheep]

No, it has no bearing as in we can't accept or deny it. It does NOTHING. It offers us NOTHING. That is our belief.

 

Yes, I understand that you believe this.

 

Memorials are offered ONLY for those that were Orthodox. No one else. Ever. We don't go digging up names of Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Atheists, nor anyone else to offer memorials for. We don't presume upon any of them. We don't believe there is a second chance after death. This is a BIG difference between Mormons and Orthodox. (honestly, there are MORE differences than there are similarities. It's like you and I both going into a store and we both buy candles, we both buy rice, we both buy milk and then claim we have SOOOO much in common...uhm, no)

 

Prayers are entirely different than Baptism and Memorials. And no, we don't believe that prayers for the dead "wash away their sins" nor do we believe it will save them. It's a prayer that God remember them and have mercy on them. There's no tally system. We don't know what they need or don't need at that point. It's a simple prayer. We prayer for the dead just as we pray for others and ourselves (ex. Lord Jesus, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner). Our prayers don't get them in or out of anything. Our prayers don't give them a "second chance" at acceptance.

 

I do understand that your beliefs are different from ours in significant ways, in spite of the things we do legitimately have in common. I am certainly not saying our beliefs are precisely identical in every way.

 

The description of Orthodox beliefs I posted was from an Orthodox web site. If you don't agree with it, perhaps you could link me to a site you feel describes your beliefs more accurately. I am not an expert on Orthodox belief, and I am certainly willing to learn.

 

My beliefs are what they are, and I can't un-believe them just to placate people who are not comfortable with them. I suspect you feel that way about your own beliefs. I don't see any purpose in arguing about it. I am sorry to have upset you.

Edited July 3, 2012 by MamaSheep

[mommaduck]

Yes, I understand that you believe this.

 

 

 

I do understand that your beliefs are different from ours in significant ways, in spite of the things we do legitimately have in common. I am certainly not saying our beliefs are precisely identical in every way.

 

The description of Orthodox beliefs I posted was from an Orthodox web site. If you don't agree with it, perhaps you could link me to a site you feel describes your beliefs more accurately. I am not an expert on Orthodox belief, and I am certainly willing to learn.

 

My beliefs are what they are, and I can't un-believe them just to placate people who are not comfortable with them. I suspect you feel that way about your own beliefs. I don't see any purpose in arguing about it. I am sorry to have upset you.

No, you posted from a website that was fine, but you have no understanding of what you are reading. Symantics. You are reading a different definition or understanding into them based upon your own background.

 

I'm not upset :) Just very, very firm in what I believe and what I don't believe ;)

 

Okay, take that back just a wee bit. I've noticed a trend. Many times, when the EO beliefs are brought up, you try to insist that there is this really close commonality between the LDS and the EO. There just isn't. Some of the same language may be used (so many faiths baptise, take a form of communion, etc), but the beliefs, they definitions, the thought processes, the customs, etc are different as apples and oranges. It's a bit like you are trying to insult our intelligence so as to try to convert us or as though you are trying to make the LDS faith seem more "legitimate" to others (since there is so much controversy with the LDS vs other Christians). So I have more of a, "stop trying to convert us and stand on your own two feet" mentality whenever I see these "we have sooo much in common" posts. (note: I have not had this experience with ANY other LDS on here, any of my LDS friends, nor any of my LDS family)

 

Again not mad, not judging, but this is how it comes across.

 

Also, just because an issue is spoken against in a formal setting in the fourth century, does not mean that it wasn't spoken against previously. There were heretics even in the beginning. I've yet to see where the Church as a whole practiced baptism for the dead as a norm, rather than simply a small heretical sect.

Edited July 4, 2012 by mommaduck

[8circles]

Yes, I understand that you believe this.

 

 

 

I do understand that your beliefs are different from ours in significant ways, in spite of the things we do legitimately have in common. I am certainly not saying our beliefs are precisely identical in every way.

 

The description of Orthodox beliefs I posted was from an Orthodox web site. If you don't agree with it, perhaps you could link me to a site you feel describes your beliefs more accurately. I am not an expert on Orthodox belief, and I am certainly willing to learn.

 

My beliefs are what they are, and I can't un-believe them just to placate people who are not comfortable with them. I suspect you feel that way about your own beliefs. I don't see any purpose in arguing about it. I am sorry to have upset you.

 

MamaSheep :grouphug::grouphug::grouphug:

 

I've never gotten any nepharious or conversionary (no, I don't think that's a real word) vibe from any of your posts. I think you explain yourself & your beliefs so well - you have greatly increased my understanding of LDS beliefs and I'm so appreciative. I'm not LDS nor do I want to be nor do I believe many of the things that you believe but I think you and I have enough things in common that I can consider us at least cousins in Christ if not sisters. Thank you for putting yourself out there so graciously. :grouphug:

[MamaSheep]

No, you posted from a website that was fine, but you have no understanding of what you are reading. Symantics. You are reading a different definition or understanding into them based upon your own background.

 

That is entirely possible, I suppose. (And based on your repeated use of the term "second chance" in regard to our beliefs, I get the impression that you still have no real understanding of our beliefs on the subject either, even after I attempted to explain, and are still reading a different understanding into them based upon YOUR own beliefs. I'm sorry I was not able to make it more clear.)

 

I'm afraid I am now rather confused about Orthodox beliefs. The web site I quoted from states that "changes are possible in the condition of souls" until the Final Judgment, and that "real help" can be offered through prayers and good deeds done in their memory, and that commemorating them in the Divine Liturgy is "especially beneficial for them". I also got the impression that one would pray during the Liturgy for the sins of those being commemorated to be washed away because it was believed that such a thing was possible by the blood of the Lord and the prayers of the Saints.

 

Now it seems that you are telling me that this doesn't really mean that the condition of the soul can be altered or affected after death, that the sins of the dead may be washed away through Christ, or that anything the living may do can benefit the dead. I am perfectly willing to accept that I may have misread the intent of the statements on the web site, but if that is the case, I am sincerely puzzled as to why a prayer for the sins of deceased people to be washed away would be included in the Liturgy if one didn't believe that it was even possible for their sins to be, in fact, washed away--but maybe I was mistaken about that quote being taken from the Liturgy, as I thought it seemed to be. I am also baffled as to why the website would encourage people to "do what is needful for them and within your power" if it is believed that it is not, in fact, in your power to do ANYTHING that will benefit them. I cannot understand the purpose of praying for God to be merciful toward someone if it is believed that no further mercy is, in fact, possible after death.

 

You do seem to be quite emphatic about Orthodox prayers and memorials (which are apparently not actually intended to accomplish anything anyway :confused:) being limited to those who were members of the Orthodox church when they passed away. I understand that you feel it is disrespectful to include people of other faiths, and that you refrain from asking God to be merciful on those of other faiths out of respect for them. My own hope is that God will be merciful to ALL His children, and I don't really understand why one would wish to withhold that mercy from someone else merely because they did not share my beliefs while they were alive.

 

I wonder now, do you only pray for LIVING people who are Orthodox as well? Or is it not considered offensive to pray for living people of other faiths, though it would be offensive to pray for deceased people of other faiths?

 

Maybe you could clear some of this up for me, since you think I didn't accurately understand the web site?

[MamaSheep]

No, you posted from a website that was fine, but you have no understanding of what you are reading. Symantics. You are reading a different definition or understanding into them based upon your own background.

 

I'm not upset :) Just very, very firm in what I believe and what I don't believe ;)

 

Okay, take that back just a wee bit. I've noticed a trend. Many times, when the EO beliefs are brought up, you try to insist that there is this really close commonality between the LDS and the EO. There just isn't. Some of the same language may be used (so many faiths baptise, take a form of communion, etc), but the beliefs, they definitions, the thought processes, the customs, etc are different as apples and oranges. It's a bit like you are trying to insult our intelligence so as to try to convert us or as though you are trying to make the LDS faith seem more "legitimate" to others (since there is so much controversy with the LDS vs other Christians). So I have more of a, "stop trying to convert us and stand on your own two feet" mentality whenever I see these "we have sooo much in common" posts. (note: I have not had this experience with ANY other LDS on here, any of my LDS friends, nor any of my LDS family)

 

Again not mad, not judging, but this is how it comes across.

 

Also, just because an issue is spoken against in a formal setting in the fourth century, does not mean that it wasn't spoken against previously. There were heretics even in the beginning. I've yet to see where the Church as a whole practiced baptism for the dead as a norm, rather than simply a small heretical sect.

 

I see you have added some since I began typing my previous response. I don't want to come across as having ignored the rest of what you said, it's honestly just that the rest wasn't there yet.

 

I am sorry that the way I come across has been offensive to you. Before this board I have not known very much about Eastern Orthodox beliefs, except in very broad, general terms and a few specifics that convinced me that it was not for me. And the one EO person I knew IRL was not a very nice person, though I have always tried to assume that was his own problem, and not a function of his religion. I have certainly met some very nice EO ladies here. I know more about the beliefs of Catholics and various strands of Protestant and Evangelical Christianity than I do about Eastern Orthodox beliefs, so I have been interested to learn more about EO teachings. On occasion, I have been rather surprised at learning how much we do have in common in areas where I had thought there was more of a difference than there is, and I suppose I have perhaps been rather enthusiastic in saying, "Oh hey, there's another thing we have in common, I did not know that." I assure you I am not trying to insult anyone's intelligence, or to convert anyone (although I won't pretend I'm not delighted for anyone who does decide to join my church, as I think it's pretty special). And as far as legitimacy goes...well, I don't mean to be insulting, but you're right, we come at this from different directions, and honestly Eastern Orthodoxy is not my frame of reference for legitimacy, so discovering that some of our beliefs are more similar than I had previously imagined doesn't in any way affect my view of the legitimacy of the LDS church or its teachings. I consider it fully legitimate because of what it is, in itself, not because of how "close" it is to something else. If anything, the reverse is true, and knowing that Orthodox beliefs are closer to ours than I had understood makes me view Orthodoxy as less off-track than I had previously thought. I am still convinced it is not for me, but my opinion of it has improved in knowing that it is closer to what I believe is correct than I had thought.

 

I do appreciate your explanation, however, as it has helped me understand where your apparent hostility was coming from. I'm sorry if my manner is offensive to you, and I will totally understand if you want to put me on "ignore" or whatever so you don't have to read my posts.

 

And just because there were heretical practices from the beginning does not automatically mean that all practices in the beginning were heretical--or even that all practices from the beginning that were later abandoned were heretical. Paul refers to the practice in question in a favorable manner, not as a heresy to be abandoned; and we all know Paul was not shy about telling people to quit doing things he considered heretical. But yes, I understand you don't agree with us on this point, and as I said before, I think it's something about which we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Edited July 4, 2012 by MamaSheep

[MamaSheep]

MamaSheep :grouphug::grouphug::grouphug:

 

I've never gotten any nepharious or conversionary (no, I don't think that's a real word) vibe from any of your posts. I think you explain yourself & your beliefs so well - you have greatly increased my understanding of LDS beliefs and I'm so appreciative. I'm not LDS nor do I want to be nor do I believe many of the things that you believe but I think you and I have enough things in common that I can consider us at least cousins in Christ if not sisters. Thank you for putting yourself out there so graciously. :grouphug:

 

Thank you, you're very kind. :grouphug:

[PeacefulChaos]

Paul gets a reputation as Mr. Grumpy-Pants, but I think a lot of that is because we have little understanding of the issues he was dealing with and the cultures. When we come to an understanding of what he was trying to say, I find him easy to admire. But I also do not assume that his solutions for 1st-century cultures are what I have to do--women wearing veils in church had a certain meaning in his day that no longer holds in my culture. What is the intent behind his advice? (In that case, it was to make all women in the congregation equal and respected, so that none of them felt inferior and worldly social status was erased.)

 

I certainly believe that Jesus died to save all of us. I am not a Universalist, because some few people will say no and refuse to be saved, and they have to be free to make that choice. But of course Jesus died to save all of us, and he wants us all to choose Him. He gives us many, many chances to do so, even after this life, so that no one will be lost--unless they freely choose that.

Because people can indeed twist scripture to say anything they want it to, we must, in the end, rely on the Holy Spirit to confirm us in truth. The Spirit testifies of truth.

:iagree: with the bolded

My best advice (this is what I am trying to do for my own questions) is too seek answers in prayer and in direct reading of the scripture (as many versions as you find helpful). I also do some footnote type reading to make sure I understand the culture and intent of the writer and the original audience.

Paul was inspired but not infailable. The Gospel is the primary word, Paul's letters and the other letters are 'wisdom literature' they were also addressed to specific audiences who were facing specific situations.

 

The Bible must be taken in its entirety. It contains; history, laws, poetry, wisdom and 'morality play' type stories. It contains what we need to know in order to find salvation. However, literal application and cherry picking of verses are like following the letter of the law but ignoring the intent. (IMHO)

I am not reformed I believe salvation is available to all but not all will accept it. I do not believe in 'the elect'.

 

And this.

I don't think you're the first person to have doubts about Paul. Its very common for modern women to cringe a bit with Paul.

 

What's helped me:

 

*understanding society of the time

 

*reading Paul as what he was...an organizer. He can be inspired and also be writing to fight fires and promote unity within specific churches. Often he prefaces statements with the authority he is saying something with, things like "not I, but the Lord" or "I, not the Lord" (1 Corinthians 7:10-12), "concerning X I have no commandment of the Lord, yet I give my judgement" (1 Corinthians 7:25), "according to the Lord's word" (1 Thessalonians 4:15). This means Paul was aware of how seriously some people took his words, and also that he admits that some of his words are his...not on par with God's commandments.

 

*others realized that Paul's words could be misunderstood. When talking about Paul's teaching on the salvation and the end times Peter wrote: "His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:16).

 

Paul was the right man for the right time. He was inspired and driven for the job he needed to do. A gentler, modern man might not have gotten so much done. Was he a perfect man? By no means. Can I learn from him? Yes, I can, but I can do so and understand that some of his inspired words were his words for his time, and others were God's words for all time. There's a difference between a commandment and history. If I am not sure which is which, I look for context clues and agreement with his position with commandments from other scripture.

 

We don't quote Samuel (history) or Psalms (poetry) in the same way we do Paul (granted they are OT) because while we accept them as inspired we instinctively recognize that they are inspired for a specific purpose. The problem is Paul moved in and out of eternal questions and local concerns. He is not for the faint of heart, and frankly I don't trust any minister who simplifies him.

And this.

And FTR I'm pentecostal. :)

[mommaduck]

There is a "through the fire refinement" or Judgement from my understanding (one of the other EO ladies could probably explain it better. Prayers are just that, prayers, petitions, hope, etc. Prayers do not wash one's sin away. That is between them and God. Memorials are just that, memorials. Special time to remember the person, to pray for them, to recognise God. Again, the memorial doesn't wash away their sin. That is entirely between them and God. However, the refinement has to do with what has already taken place in THIS life, not decision making afterwards. Yes, we pray, we hope, we tell God that He is merciful. It's a humbleness. No, we aren't saying that either God or the person is in one state or of one decision and we're going to do something that might cause either to change their mind.

 

Yes, we will have to disagree on where we each believe Paul is coming from. I will speak with my priest as I'm sure he could fill me in more on the historical portion of why Paul brought it up. I do know that the Church had a good reason to call it heretical though. I'll go with the Church that Christ established over splinter groups that went and did their own thing though ;)

(btw, for the RC, there is a Catholic paper on this very issue)

 

Again, not mad at you, not blocking you (I've only done that a couple of times to two other people and then temporarily...more for my sake than because of them). I simply noticed that this happened a lot with you and wondered (admittedly suspicious of) where it was all coming from. I also don't want others that are looking into either LDS or EO to get the wrong impression and think something that is not true, simply because it appeared implied, kwim? Some things sound similar, we may do a couple of things similar, but the basis and theology beneath each is entirely different. The combine theologies of each are entirely different and lead to a different view of many things. However, I do see where you might be seeing what appears as similarities, but it just needs to be looked at further than the surface to see the differences as well. :) My apologies for sounding harsh earlier.

[Laurie4b]

double post

Edited July 4, 2012 by Laurie4b

[Laurie4b]

 

The thing about Paul that was and still is my main issue is that Paul's letters were written *before* the gospels were authored. "Paul" wrote around 40 CE/AD and the first gospel, Mark, came around 70 CE/AD.

 

 

Luke is broadly considered one of the later written gospels--it's disputed whether Matthew or Mark was first. Acts was written after Luke. Much of the action of Acts is set in Jerusalem, so given that Jerusalem fell in AD70, it makes no sense that Acts was written after that. Additionally, the persecution of Nero (AD 64) is not mentioned. Acts relates the martyrdom of James (bro of John) and Stephen, yet makes no mention of the martyrdom of James (62AD) Paul (64 AD) or Peter (65 AD) despite Paul and Peter being major figures in the book. So logic would argue that it was written before 62 AD, pushing Luke back earlier. If Luke is earlier, we're looking at late 50s, early 60s for Luke with Matthew and Mark being written earlier still.

 

As a pp has mentioned, Peter in one of his letters, mentions Paul's letters and calls them scripture. So Peter, who walked closely with Jesus, knew what Paul was writing and didn't dispute it. 2 Peter 3:15

 

Paul's first letter is widely considered to have been written around 50 AD, and the rest between 50-early 60s. So while some of Paul's letters may have predated the first circulating copies of one of the gospels, they were roughly contemporary, not 30 years apart--and Peter and other disciples were still alive when most of Paul's letters were circulated.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Laurie4b

[Juniper]

That is entirely possible, I suppose. (And based on your repeated use of the term "second chance" in regard to our beliefs, I get the impression that you still have no real understanding of our beliefs on the subject either, even after I attempted to explain, and are still reading a different understanding into them based upon YOUR own beliefs. I'm sorry I was not able to make it more clear.)

 

I'm afraid I am now rather confused about Orthodox beliefs. The web site I quoted from states that "changes are possible in the condition of souls" until the Final Judgment, and that "real help" can be offered through prayers and good deeds done in their memory, and that commemorating them in the Divine Liturgy is "especially beneficial for them". I also got the impression that one would pray during the Liturgy for the sins of those being commemorated to be washed away because it was believed that such a thing was possible by the blood of the Lord and the prayers of the Saints.

 

Now it seems that you are telling me that this doesn't really mean that the condition of the soul can be altered or affected after death, that the sins of the dead may be washed away through Christ, or that anything the living may do can benefit the dead. I am perfectly willing to accept that I may have misread the intent of the statements on the web site, but if that is the case, I am sincerely puzzled as to why a prayer for the sins of deceased people to be washed away would be included in the Liturgy if one didn't believe that it was even possible for their sins to be, in fact, washed away--but maybe I was mistaken about that quote being taken from the Liturgy, as I thought it seemed to be. I am also baffled as to why the website would encourage people to "do what is needful for them and within your power" if it is believed that it is not, in fact, in your power to do ANYTHING that will benefit them. I cannot understand the purpose of praying for God to be merciful toward someone if it is believed that no further mercy is, in fact, possible after death.

 

You do seem to be quite emphatic about Orthodox prayers and memorials (which are apparently not actually intended to accomplish anything anyway :confused:) being limited to those who were members of the Orthodox church when they passed away. I understand that you feel it is disrespectful to include people of other faiths, and that you refrain from asking God to be merciful on those of other faiths out of respect for them. My own hope is that God will be merciful to ALL His children, and I don't really understand why one would wish to withhold that mercy from someone else merely because they did not share my beliefs while they were alive.

 

I wonder now, do you only pray for LIVING people who are Orthodox as well? Or is it not considered offensive to pray for living people of other faiths, though it would be offensive to pray for deceased people of other faiths?

 

Maybe you could clear some of this up for me, since you think I didn't accurately understand the web site?

 

I have been thinking about this off and on throughout the day. It is a difficult subject for an Orthodox person to speak on with to much detail, because that is not how Orthodoxy is wired. We know to pray for the dead, because Elijah, Elisha, Jesus, Peter and Paul did. We know that our prayers can bring about change in the circumstance or help the soul, in the same way we would pray for a person who has not passed. Here is a great illustration of this:In this life a young man was approached by his mother who suffered from extreme anxiety. 'Pray for me', she would ask him, and he did. His prayer offered to God was for her peace and the closer union with Christ that it might bring. The mother saw her son each month for a year, and always made the same request, 'Pray for me', and always he did. At the year's end, the mother died. That night, the young man stood and prayed the same prayer he had for the past months -- for her peace, and for the union with Christ it would bring. His mother had been taken from this life, but not from life itself. Still she lived in Christ, and still did love compel him to pray for the living one he loved, separated from him by death but still a human soul in the communion of love with others.

 

But, there is a whole lot more we do not know. ;) ....and that is okay. There might be theories or speculations, but they are not Dogmas. I would say praying for the dead is pretty high up there in the Tradition dept, but not in the way of directly affecting the person's sin. More in regards to asking God to help them or asking for the specific circumstances they find themselves in to be more conducive to the continued deification of the soul.

 

The above example I found while reading this discussion. http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?1614-Remembering-the-departed-Prayers-for-the-dead

Quite a few Orthodox clergy participated in this discussion and I found it very interesting. Of particular note is post #51.

 

I sincerely hope I have not muddied the waters even more. If so please forgive me. :001_smile:

[Joanne]

OP, Paul, his attitude, words, behavior, and tone were a part of what wrenched me away from Christianity.

 

It seems to me that many Christians who defend Paul use "revolutionary" and "context" and "culture" to explain his arrogant misogyny and patriarchy. Often, these same people want to remove the context and culture when issues of parenting, creation, or women in church leadership are discussed.

 

I find Paul to be the opposite of a gentle spirit, and to be full of opinion - none of it terribly inspired.

[MamaSheep]

There is a "through the fire refinement" or Judgement from my understanding (one of the other EO ladies could probably explain it better. Prayers are just that, prayers, petitions, hope, etc. Prayers do not wash one's sin away. That is between them and God. Memorials are just that, memorials. Special time to remember the person, to pray for them, to recognise God. Again, the memorial doesn't wash away their sin. That is entirely between them and God. However, the refinement has to do with what has already taken place in THIS life, not decision making afterwards. Yes, we pray, we hope, we tell God that He is merciful. It's a humbleness. No, we aren't saying that either God or the person is in one state or of one decision and we're going to do something that might cause either to change their mind.

 

Thank you for your further explanation. I'm not sure I understand any better, as you and Juniper seem to be saying different things. But that's okay, it's not really important for me to understand TODAY, it's something I can keep chipping away at over time. I appreciate you sharing your perspective.

 

For the record we don't believe that what we do here will change either God's mind or the deceased person's mind either. We do, however, believe that the gospel is preached to the dead in the spirit world, and that people there have the opportunity to accept it or reject it (although that is not the case once the Last Judgment takes place, it is only the time between death and final judgment that we view as similar to mortal life in this way). We don't believe that baptisms for the dead change anyone's mind. Nor do we believe that the baptism, in and of itself, washes away a person's sin; we do believe that Christ taught that submitting to baptism is a required PART of having one's sins remitted, and we wish everyone who desires it to have that opportunity. Performing a baptism on behalf of a deceased person does not "make" a person "Mormon". Whether a person accepts the gospel and desires baptism is entirely between them and God, whether living or dead. Baptisms for the dead are never done in a spirit of compulsion--compulsion is highly antithetical to our whole belief system. We don't pretend to know the state of a deceased person's soul. And we don't think we can push them or God into changing their minds. We do believe that the state of the dead before final judgment is such that they are able to choose, if THEY desire to, to "live according to God in the Spirit", even if they did not make that choice while living in the flesh; but we do not believe that anything we can do here will cause them to do so. We can only hope, and trust in the justice and mercy of God. But because we hope and trust God's mercy, AND we believe that Christ taught that baptism is necessary, we perform baptisms on behalf of those who have died, in the HOPE that they will accept them. It is in no way viewed by us as compulsion exercised on those who have passed beyond the veil. It is much closer to an invitation, and may certainly be rejected--which is also between that individual and God.

 

Yes, I know that your beliefs on the subject are very different in important ways from ours. In comparing the two belief systems I was not intending to suggest that our beliefs and practices are IDENTICAL, only to point out that your faith has its own practices relating to the welfare of the souls of the dead, just as we do, and that although the specific doctrines and practices are DIFFERENT, between our two faiths, I believe that the underlying trust in the mercy of God and hope of salvation for deceased loved ones that motivates you to perform prayers and memorials for the dead, or to offer alms in their memory in your way, is also what motivates us to perform ordinances on behalf of the dead in our way--even though our practices are quite different. It is done in humility and hope and because we love those who have gone before us, and feel connected with them, each in our own way.

 

Yes, we will have to disagree on where we each believe Paul is coming from. I will speak with my priest as I'm sure he could fill me in more on the historical portion of why Paul brought it up. I do know that the Church had a good reason to call it heretical though. I'll go with the Church that Christ established over splinter groups that went and did their own thing though ;)

(btw, for the RC, there is a Catholic paper on this very issue)

 

I'm sure your priest could fill you in on the EASTERN ORTHODOX view regarding these things. If that helps you sort things out for yourself, that's great. I don't think I would agree with your priest, however, as I am quite thoroughly convinced of the rightness of performing ordinances on behalf of the dead, regardless of which other faiths call it heresy, or how long ago they decided to attach that label to the practice. I am convinced that the practice was sanctioned in the earliest days of the church Christ established, and that it is the churches who have condemned it that are in the wrong. I have participated in such ordinances myself, and have many times (though not every time) felt an overwhelming sense of gratitude flood through me that I know did not originate inside of me, but which took my breath away and brought tears to my eyes. Really, there are no words. I have also rarely felt the presence of the Holy Spirit quite so strongly and purely as I do when I am in the temple, where such ordinances are performed. It really is quite an experience. It makes me feel so close to God, and to my loved ones, and it helps ME to feel grateful to God on my own behalf for His great love and mercy, and it brings great peace to my soul. It's not something I'm willing to give up.

 

And I believe that the LDS church IS, in fact, the church that Christ established, and not a splinter group, and I will go with the church Christ established, over one that broke off and has been drifting away for many centuries in spite of its insistence to the contrary. This is something else upon which we will have to agree to disagree, however, and let God be the judge, as I do not think either of us will change the other's mind on this point either. I do find it interesting, however, that both of us insist on being part of Christ's authentic church, even though we disagree as to which one that is. But again, it is the similarities that intrigue me, whereas I understand that you prefer to focus on the differences.

 

Again, not mad at you, not blocking you (I've only done that a couple of times to two other people and then temporarily...more for my sake than because of them). I simply noticed that this happened a lot with you and wondered (admittedly suspicious of) where it was all coming from. I also don't want others that are looking into either LDS or EO to get the wrong impression and think something that is not true, simply because it appeared implied, kwim? Some things sound similar, we may do a couple of things similar, but the basis and theology beneath each is entirely different. The combine theologies of each are entirely different and lead to a different view of many things. However, I do see where you might be seeing what appears as similarities, but it just needs to be looked at further than the surface to see the differences as well. :) My apologies for sounding harsh earlier.

 

I am not mad at you, or blocking you either. I would hope that anyone looking seriously into either the LDS church or the EO church would research the beliefs of that church before converting and not rely on part of one conversation on an internet forum as their sole source of information. As I say, I am certainly not unaware of the differences, and do not mean to gloss them over. The differences are important to me, and are why I do not ever see myself becoming EO. I am happy to explain my beliefs in more detail, when asked including areas where I think we differ from other faiths. But I am still intrigued by the similarities between my faith and EO, as I am with similarities between my faith and others, and will probably go on remarking upon them when I see them, because that's just who I am and how I think. If you think you can tolerate that, great. If not, as I said, I will understand. In some ways I think I can be somewhat of an "acquired taste", and I get that.

 

 

And I appreciate and accept your apologies, and hope we can be friends.

[MamaSheep]

I have been thinking about this off and on throughout the day. It is a difficult subject for an Orthodox person to speak on with to much detail, because that is not how Orthodoxy is wired. We know to pray for the dead, because Elijah, Elisha, Jesus, Peter and Paul did. We know that our prayers can bring about change in the circumstance or help the soul, in the same way we would pray for a person who has not passed. Here is a great illustration of this:In this life a young man was approached by his mother who suffered from extreme anxiety. 'Pray for me', she would ask him, and he did. His prayer offered to God was for her peace and the closer union with Christ that it might bring. The mother saw her son each month for a year, and always made the same request, 'Pray for me', and always he did. At the year's end, the mother died. That night, the young man stood and prayed the same prayer he had for the past months -- for her peace, and for the union with Christ it would bring. His mother had been taken from this life, but not from life itself. Still she lived in Christ, and still did love compel him to pray for the living one he loved, separated from him by death but still a human soul in the communion of love with others.

 

But, there is a whole lot more we do not know. ;) ....and that is okay. There might be theories or speculations, but they are not Dogmas. I would say praying for the dead is pretty high up there in the Tradition dept, but not in the way of directly affecting the person's sin. More in regards to asking God to help them or asking for the specific circumstances they find themselves in to be more conducive to the continued deification of the soul.

 

The above example I found while reading this discussion. http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?1614-Remembering-the-departed-Prayers-for-the-dead

Quite a few Orthodox clergy participated in this discussion and I found it very interesting. Of particular note is post #51.

 

I sincerely hope I have not muddied the waters even more. If so please forgive me. :001_smile:

 

Thank you for adding your two cents. The parts I bolded seem to me to contradict mommaduck's seeming insistence that the condition of the soul after death cannot change (as in, "continued deification"), and cannot be affected or helped in any way by the living--though maybe I'm misunderstanding her somewhere. Your explanation seems to line up well with what I thought I read on that Orthodox web site.

 

I think I might have been unclear in what I said about the sin part earlier, because you both mentioned that. My impression was that EO practice was to pray to God that GOD would wash away the person's sin, not that you believed that what human beings do DIRECTLY washes away a person's sin. If the way I said it before made it seem otherwise, it was because I was not expressing myself clearly. It's sometimes hard to put things into words that say what I mean the way I mean it.

 

And I hope mommaduck will forgive me, but another similarity I see is that we both seem to believe that there is a great deal more that we don't know than that we do know about what happens in the spirit world after death, and we both feel that that's okay. :)

[mommaduck]

Thank you for your further explanation. I'm not sure I understand any better, as you and Juniper seem to be saying different things.

 

 

But, there is a whole lot more we do not know. ;) ....and that is okay. There might be theories or speculations, but they are not Dogmas. I would say praying for the dead is pretty high up there in the Tradition dept, but not in the way of directly affecting the person's sin. More in regards to asking God to help them or asking for the specific circumstances they find themselves in to be more conducive to the continued deification of the soul.

 

 

Nope, Juniper is saying the same thing, just worded better ;)

[Juniper]

Thank you for adding your two cents. The parts I bolded seem to me to contradict mommaduck's seeming insistence that the condition of the soul after death cannot change (as in, "continued deification"), and cannot be affected or helped in any way by the living--though maybe I'm misunderstanding her somewhere. Your explanation seems to line up well with what I thought I read on that Orthodox web site.

 

I think I might have been unclear in what I said about the sin part earlier, because you both mentioned that. My impression was that EO practice was to pray to God that GOD would wash away the person's sin, not that you believed that what human beings do DIRECTLY washes away a person's sin. If the way I said it before made it seem otherwise, it was because I was not expressing myself clearly. It's sometimes hard to put things into words that say what I mean the way I mean it.

 

And I hope mommaduck will forgive me, but another similarity I see is that we both seem to believe that there is a great deal more that we don't know than that we do know about what happens in the spirit world after death, and we both feel that that's okay. :)

 

I am not sure if it really matters if I try to clarify, but I will do so in case there is anyone reading who is confused or interested. I think you do have a decent grasp and I could not tell you if it is the same or different in the LDS. I just do not know the nuances of your beliefs on this issue, but I do think there is a core difference.

 

One of which is that we cannot perform any Sacrament after death. In Orthodoxy the person is whole....body and soul. Their body and soul. So a sacrament can only be performed on a living human. In the time between death and the last judgement/resurrected bodies the soul is at a bit of a disadvantage, because it is separated from a major part of what it is. The body has such an amazing role in the whole person being able to repent of sins and various other things. We feel things in our flesh that the soul during this time does not have. (I want to insert here again a warning: One of the things that was instrumental in my choosing to convert is that not all traditions are on the same footing. This is one of those area's that can be grown into...or not, as a person grows in their faith. To put it in different terms...it is not a "salvation" issue. ;))

 

Here is my understanding of the subtle difference. In Luke 16:19-31 we have the story of Lazarus and rich man. Lets imagine this scenario, but I am the family member of the rich man. I can pray for God to ease the circumstances in which my family member finds himself, during his time in what my Jewish friend calls the "washing machine of the soul."

 

I would be disingenuous if I did not acknowledge that we may ask God to forgive their sins. This would be one of the areas that it would seem very similar I am guessing. But, there is a foundational knowledge that the soul does not repent....as it cannot when separated from its body. So why do we pray this way? Well, we do not know what was in the secret places of this persons heart before death. We do not know the entire reach of God. We allow for a lot of mystery, which in turn, allows us a lot of hope in the mercy of God.

 

It is my understanding that there is so much Mystery in regards to this time....that we do not even officially name it. Yes, it is similar to purgatory or Gehenna, but we do not have an actual vocabulary.

 

Edited: I do humbly ask that if I have spread any further confusion you place the blame for that on me and my ignorance. There are much more eloquent writers, better theologians, and wiser clergy out there.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Juniper

[mommaduck]

I am not sure if it really matters if I try to clarify, but I will do so in case there is anyone reading who is confused or interested. I think you do have a decent grasp and I could not tell you if it is the same or different in the LDS. I just do not know the nuances of your beliefs on this issue, but I do think there is a core difference.

 

One of which is that we cannot perform any Sacrament after death. In Orthodoxy the person is whole....body and soul. Their body and soul. So a sacrament can only be performed on a living human. In the time between death and the last judgement/resurrected bodies the soul is at a bit of a disadvantage, because it is separated from a major part of what it is. The body has such an amazing role in the whole person being able to repent of sins and various other things. We feel things in our flesh that the soul during this time does not have. (I want to insert here again a warning: One of the things that was instrumental in my choosing to convert is that not all traditions are on the same footing. This is one of those area's that can be grown into...or not, as a person grows in their faith. To put it in different terms...it is not a "salvation" issue. ;))

 

Here is my understanding of the subtle difference. In Luke 16:19-31 we have the story of Lazarus and rich man. Lets imagine this scenario, but I am the family member of the rich man. I can pray for God to easy the circumstances in which my family member finds himself, during his time in what my Jewish friend calls the "washing machine of the soul."

 

(is this our mutual friend? Sounds like a phrase she would use :D )

 

I would be disingenuous if I did not acknowledge that we may ask God to forgive their sins. This would be one of the areas that it would seem very similar I am guessing. But, there is a foundational knowledge that the soul does not repent....as it cannot when separated from its body. So why do we pray this way? Well, we do not know what was in the secret places of this persons heart before death. We do not know the entire reach of God. We allow for a lot of mystery, which in turn, allows us a lot of hope in the mercy of God.

 

It is my understanding that their is so much Mystery in regards to this time....that we do not even officially name it. Yes, it is similar to purgatory or Gehenna, but we do not have an actual vocabulary.

 

Edited: I do humbly ask that if I have spread any further confusion you place the blame for that on me and my ignorance. There are much more eloquent writers, better theologians, and wiser clergy out there.

Wonderfully worded.

[dangermom]

One of which is that we cannot perform any Sacrament after death. In Orthodoxy the person is whole....body and soul. Their body and soul. So a sacrament can only be performed on a living human. In the time between death and the last judgement/resurrected bodies the soul is at a bit of a disadvantage, because it is separated from a major part of what it is. The body has such an amazing role in the whole person being able to repent of sins and various other things. We feel things in our flesh that the soul during this time does not have.

 

That is very interesting, thank you. LDS would agree that body and spirit together make a whole person, and that the dead are at a disadvantage in this respect. We tend to think (although this is somewhat fuzzy, we don't know a whole lot about the afterlife) that repentance and change may be more difficult, but they are not impossible. Indeed sacraments need a living body--you can't perform a baptism on a spirit, nor a marriage--but as you know, we accept sacraments by proxy, which allows a way around that.

 

I always watch EO discussions with interest; my brother is EO, though I think he has largely stopped practicing these days. His is an odd story, since he joined a Russian Orthodox community years ago, and then happened to marry a Russian girl (who grew up Soviet and is not particularly religious). They married in Russia, and the priest re-baptized my brother at that point, although he had already been baptized as Orthodox. My LDS family did not find this all that surprising, and it was only a few years later that I found out how very shocking that is to other Orthodox or anybody else. But apparently he had joined some sort of odd sub-sect in the first place? I don't even know, they had a bookshop and nuns here in town but they seem to be gone now, and I wouldn't even know how to find out. They were the only Orthodox we knew, so how would we know?

 

Anyway. EO is interesting, but mysterious to me. :001_smile:

[MamaSheep]

I am not sure if it really matters if I try to clarify, but I will do so in case there is anyone reading who is confused or interested. I think you do have a decent grasp and I could not tell you if it is the same or different in the LDS. I just do not know the nuances of your beliefs on this issue, but I do think there is a core difference.

 

...

 

Thank you for the clarification. I am finding this quite interesting. I agree with you that there are core differences, in addition to what I see as striking similarities.

 

For example, in LDS belief, a person is whole and complete only when body and spirit are joined together (though it's probable that if we dig deeper we will discover differences in exactly how we view the relationship between the spirit and the body and their differing functions). This is one reason we insist upon a literal resurrection of the physical body as part of the redemption of the soul, rather than just the rising of the spirit into heaven as a "spiritual body" that I have seen defined as resurrection in some other faiths. (It's also one reason we find it significant that Jesus made sure observers witnessed that He ascended into heaven as a physical/spiritual, resurrected being, and not just as a disembodied spirit.) In fact, even among faiths that believe in a physical resurrection I have not seen quite the same emphasis that I find in LDS belief on the necessity of the union between physical and spiritual components in order for a person to be complete, and whole. This is one reason I find that particular similarity between LDS and EO so interesting. To me, it seems like a relic from the original church that was preserved in EO, but was lost in many other Christian traditions. (Though I fully acknowledge that others would not see it that way.) The idea of a time between death and resurrection, and that the ultimate fate of the soul is not determined until a later Final Judgement is another, but I find it to be more common than the other. Also, it seems we share a belief (with at least some Orthodox traditions?) that a disembodied spirit, in the time between death and resurrection, is at a disadvantage in some ways because of the separation from the physical aspect of its being, since there are things one can do with a body that one cannot do without one.

 

However, you are correct that there are also core differences in belief interwoven with the similarities.

 

We tend to view ordinances (sacraments) as having both a physical aspect and a spiritual aspect (which seems appropriate to me since we are both physical and spiritual beings), whether the person receiving the ordinance is living or dead. The physical act associated with the ordinance, such as immersion for baptism, or the exchange of vows across the altar for marriage, is an important component of the commitment being made --but it is not the ONLY component. A spiritual commitment/change is necessary in order to complete the ordinance and make it truly binding on Earth and in heaven. Also, we don't believe that an ordinance is not "just a ceremony", we believe it has an actual function. Baptism (accompanied by faith and repentance), for example, is the way Christ designated for us to enter into a covenant relationship with Him, and thereby gain access to the promised remission of our sins.

 

We do believe it is possible for a person to repent as a disembodied spirit--to turn away from sin, and toward God (though we would say that it is not possible for the body without the spirit to repent--the "life" of a person resides in the spirit, which continues living even without the body, whereas without the spirit, the body has no life). However, even if he repents, he cannot have forgiveness of his sins without accepting Christ's gift of salvation by entering into that covenant relationship with Christ--which, as I have already mentioned, we believe is done through the ordinance of baptism, as Jesus specified. So a person who has access to Christ's atonement through their covenantal connection with Him can continue to move further "toward" Him, so to speak (in the sense of becoming more like He is, not in the spatial sense. Necessarily. We do have our own mysteries, one of which has to do with whether the joy or suffering of spirits in the post-mortal spirit world is a matter of "location" or just of "state". But as you say, it's not a "salvation issue".) But even if a deceased person who does not have access to Christ's atonement (not having entered into covenant relationship with Him through baptism) desires to turn toward God and be forgiven, there is a limit to how "far" he can get because to move toward God he needs to leave his sins behind, and without Christ's atonement he can't. Figuratively speaking, there is a "chasm" that he cannot cross for himself, and that no other mere human being can boost him across. However, we do believe that Christ bridges the chasm. He is the ONLY means by which this "gap" can be crossed, whether a person is a fully living human being, or a disembodied post-mortal spirit. And if one has not crossed the gap before his Final Judgment, then it is everlastingly too late. But that's a whole different conversation. :)

 

In the parable of Lazarus (the beggar) and the rich man, Lazarus cannot cross to help the rich man, who is in torment, and the rich man is unable to cross to where Lazarus is, in the bosom of Abraham (NOT the bosom of Christ) which as I understand it, signifies that this situation is how things stood for the dead prior to the fulfillment of the law (which was being discussed just prior to the parable in Luke). However, Peter tells us that Jesus went to the "spirits in prison", as mentioned in 1 Peter 3:19, which I quoted earlier. This demonstrates that Christ was able to cross over that barrier (whether you envision it as a "gap" or the gates of a prison, it's the same idea--it prevents progress), and preach the gospel to those who were dead (as in 1 Peter 4:6, which I also quoted in a previous post). The "gospel" is the good news of salvation through Christ. So in bringing them the gospel, or salvation, Christ enabled the people who accepted that gift to be able to cross over the "gap" from the "prison" where the "rich man" in the parable was, to the more pleasant place where Lazarus rested. With the gap bridged, we believe that compassionate spirits from the other side of the gap, where "Lazarus" was, were also able to cross over to give aid to the "spirits in prison", continuing to preach the gospel to them. In fact, it is my belief that this is the sort of thing meant when Jesus tells Peter that the "gates of hell will not prevail against" His church (in Matthew 16:18). I know that many people understand this to mean that no attack of Satan against the church will succeed. However, the word translated here as "hell" in English is "Hades", which was often used to indicate the place where the spirits of the dead reside, as distinct from the hell of eternal torment where Satan rules, for which a different word, "Gehenna," was generally used. (Incidentally, the "hell" in which the rich man in the parable found himself was also "Hades".) Also, the function of a "gate" is not to attack, but to prevent people from going in and out. When a gate "prevails", it keeps people from crossing from one side to the other. When it does not prevail, people can move through the gap. It seems to me that if Christ were intending to discuss attacks by Satan's minions, he'd have said something involving the armies of Gehenna, not the gates of Hades, and I find his choice of words meaningful. I also find the next verse significant in this regard. After stating that the "gates of Hades" would not prevail against the church, Jesus says, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven..."So Christ's says that hell (Hades) can't prevent his church crossing from one side to the other, and his church has free access to the kingdom of heaven. Which, to me, says that those who are bound to Christ by covenant (His church) can cross that "gap" or those "gates" to the "spirits in prison" in "Hades"--like the rich man in the parable. AND, members of Christ's church can also enter heaven at will. The gap, or gate, can't prevail against Christ's church. Next, Jesus says, "...and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." I believe this to mean that covenants entered into (bound) in Christ's church are recognized as binding in heaven, and that the ordinances by which those covenants are entered into may be performed on earth, apply in heaven.

 

(to be continued)

[MamaSheep]

(continuing)

Anyway, in LDS thought, one of the great disadvantages experienced by spirits that are separated from their bodies, is that they have no way to perform the physical aspect of the ordinance for themselves, even if they desperately want to. But because Christ gave his church power to perform ordinances on earth that are valid in heaven, a living person can perform the physical part of it FOR them, and that will be recognized as binding in heaven, as facilitated by Christ. The spiritual part that finalizes the ordinance and seals the covenant is something the spirit-person has to work out with Christ themselves. When a proxy baptism is performed by a living person, and accepted and finalized by a deceased person, we believe that covenant is just as binding for the deceased person as if it had been entered into in life; therefore, the person is bound by covenant to Christ, becomes part of Christ's church, and can no longer be "prevailed against" by the "gates of hell". So we would say that after death a person cannot PERFORM an ordinance, but if one is performed on his behalf, he may accept it and the covenant that goes with it, and may thereby progress closer to God. So yes, there are significant differences in our views. However I still think that both your tradition and mine are motivated by trust in God's mercy, and hope for better things for our deceased loved ones. And I like knowing that other people feel that way about their loved ones too, even if we express it differently.

 

Ok...well, this has been up on my computer screen since before breakfast, and I've been sneaking in and adding a little at a time between other things today. At this point I'm not sure if it's really even coherent, or if the discussion has long ago moved on to other things, but I'm going to fling caution to the wind, hit submit and let the chips fall where they may.

 

----

 

Darn it, AND it's too long, and I don't have time to go back and edit. I'm splitting the darn thing into two posts, and I hope you'll forgive me for being so sloppy. :(

[Lovedtodeath]

I didn't get to this right away and didn't read other replies.

 

<<<<I'm open to all answers.

 

Okay, starting with a BIG presupposition that God created, man sinned, Jesus came, lived, died, rose again:

 

1. Is it my imagination, or does Paul say a lot of stuff that Jesus never said? It seems like all the big rules and all the organized church stuff came from Paul, not Jesus. “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come." -- John 16:12-13

 

2. Who decided that Paul's letters got to be on equal footing with the gospel? There were 10 commandments in the Old Testament; two commandments in the New Testament; and then a slew of rules and regulations, most establishing a completely male-dominated system of authority known as "the church" in Paul's letters. It works out very conveniently, giving a very small group of men a very large measure of control over a huge number of people. So, there had to be a specific point in time in which a specific group of people decided to make Paul's letters part of the canon of scripture. That specific group of people were . . . . church leaders? Is it my imagination, or is that kind of hinky? Rules and regulations are not the gospel. At all. And imposing rules and regulations flies in the face of Galatians 2-5, Romans 6-7, Matthew 5 and John 4-7. Jesus sets us free, and Christians have the Spirit to teach them. (1 John 2:23) In addition, most of the things used as rules and regulations were written because the churches Paul was writing to had specific questions or situations and asked for his opinion.

 

 

Please see http://www.worldvieweverlasting.com/?s=law

and

 

http://pastorbrendan.blogspot.com/2012/04/quit-sticking-your-morality-into-my.html

 

3. Are there people who believe (as in, sincerely believe in Jesus as a redeeming Savior) who reject Paul's letters as inspired scripture? Or is that heresy? I believe that if you go through Paul's letters and compare them to the 4 gospels, the letters written by Peter, John, James, etc... you will find that they do not disagree.

 

4. Assuming Paul's writings are inspired: How does one read Romans 5 and come away with the understanding that Jesus only died to save some people, not all? Thinking especially of verses 18 and 19. "18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous."

 

This is my understanding:

 

We are forgiven of sins, saved from judgment, and declared righteous due to faith in Jesus Christ alone, and not by works or obeying laws. (Romans 3:20; 4:5; Galatians 3:3,12,21; 5:1,4; Hebrews 10:12-14; 2:14,15)

 

This salvation is available to all. (1 John 2:2; John 1:12; 7:37; Revelation 22:17; Acts 3:19; 2 Peter 3:9)

 

Not everyone attains salvation. There will be a judgment of condemnation. (Luke 12:46; Matthew 25:41; Revelation 21:8)

 

 

There is no condemnation for those with Christ's Spirit. (Romans 8) But if they do not receive Christ, then they do not have His Spirit. (John 1:12; Romans 8:9)

 

5. When pastors can take a verse of Scripture and pretty much make it say what they want it to say, and pretty much every denomination can take a verse and make it say something different, where is the credibility of religion? And I'm talking about sincere pastors, don't even get me started on the scary, cult-y, creepy ones. What is the credibility of religion? Religion does not save anyone.

 

The church is for meeting together to encourage (for example, singing hymns adds to my joy of the Lord and that joy is my strength) and share (I am thinking of talent and material things). You can do that without a "church". ;)

[Liz CA]

I have thought for a long time that we impose more rules on ourselves than Jesus had in mind, however, we may tend to ignore the rules Jesus deemed important because it is a tall order...

[Lovedtodeath]

I started reading the replies on the first page. Wonderful.

 

Two more things:

 

I just cannot do organized religion at all right now, I have never been to an Eastern Orthodox church, and I am not sure I agree with them on everything... but I just want to tell you how much Eastern Orthodox Christians have helped me. and I think that they are in the best position to help you with these questions and others like them that you may have. It would be good for you to see how the early church did things/ answered these questions.

 

 

Jesus said that all of the law was summed up in two commandments. Look at those two and ask yourself if some of the laws and regulations you are thinking of really meet these. I am going to quote a facebook message about this to give you an idea of where I am going with this:

 

The Law and the Commandments are Summed Up in Love

 

You have heard, of course, the commandment "Thou shalt not lie," but sometimes, in order to truly love one another, sometimes lying is necessary, albeit still a sin. I am not merely talking about the kinds of lies of vanity, e.g. a husband tells his wife "no" when she asks if she looks fat, or that she looks beautiful in a dress he thinks looks like a piece of drek (****) on her, a schmatte (rag). I am also talking about those lies that we tell out of real love for one another.

 

If the entire law is summed up in love (Galatians 5:14, NIV--"The entire law is summed up in a single command: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' "), and love, being the fulfillment of the law, does not harm its neighbor (Romans 13:10, NIV--"Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."), then wouldn't it stand to reason that we would try to protect others, even if it means lying to do so? I mean, if an abused woman, or child, or whoever comes over wishing sanctuary within my home, and their abuser (be it boyfriend, husband, father, whoever) calls and asks whether I've seen them or know where they are, I am going to answer an emphatic "no," even if they are right under my very nose at the time. To do otherwise would not be a loving response, and I don't believe that a truly loving God would ever expect otherwise from me, lie or no lie. And I hope all others I know would do the same. And, I believe that God is a righteous judge, looking over and judging everything accordingly; thus, He must surely see and judge the circumstances as well. He would not be the just and loving God he truly is if He did otherwise, and we would not be just and loving if we behaved otherwise. (1 John 4:8, KJV--"He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.") And, aren't we striving to follow His example in our lives? WWJD?

In addition was Jesus' conversation with teachers of Jewish law meant to be applied as "divorce is the same as adultery" in every case? Does Jesus want someone who is married to an abuser to either continue suffering abuse or remain alone for the rest of their lives? I think not. Edited July 5, 2012 by Lovedtodeath

[milovany]

I just cannot do organized religion at all right now, I have never been to an Eastern Orthodox church, and I am not sure I agree with them on everything... but I just want to tell you how much Eastern Orthodox Christians have helped me. and I think that they are in the best position to help you with these questions and others like them that you may have.

 

LTD, I know you've been through quite a lot, and I know you are pursuing God and that you adore Him and He, you. He is so loving and merciful. These were very kind words and I'm glad some of our faith has been helpful to you in some way.

[Lovedtodeath]

I certainly believe that Jesus died to save all of us. I am not a Universalist, because some few people will say no and refuse to be saved, and they have to be free to make that choice. But of course Jesus died to save all of us, and he wants us all to choose Him. He gives us many, many chances to do so, even after this life, so that no one will be lost--unless they freely choose that.

Can you please explain this? Do you have a scripture reference? Thanks!

 

I think that Jesus touches on an idea similar to this in Luke chapter 12:

 

42 The Lord answered, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? 43 It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. 44 Truly I tell you, Judgment #1: he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45 But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. Judgment #2: He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.

47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants Judgment #3:will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment Judgment #4: will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."