Breadcrumbs to God – Saving Souls

[[VΩiD] SoKAftH]

The question of salvation is one that every denomination has something of an answer to. Generally they are mistaken in the belief that membership to a church, or maybe only their own special organization, is the only way to be saved by God, and, that salvation comes after death, and not in this life.

The answer that so few of us find in time is that God saves a people who are living in this world now to do good works.

People can live and die without knowing God truly and still be saved, being judged to be among the just. True inspiration in this life however is the only way to know of a surety.

"By their fruits you will know them."

Jesus teaches us perfect doctrine, and there is no benefit that comes from watering it down into meaninglessness.

"Be perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect."

That is to say, do not be perfect in your own eyes, or in accordance to some social standard, but, be perfect objectively. This conclusion is what sets the gospel apart; no other claim than the supernatural can refute all opposition to moral perfection.

Anyone can tell you to be perfect in accordance to human standard. Anyone as well can tell you from naught to be perfect unto God. Only a person who is truly as perfect as they say to be, one who follows their own doctrine, can show you how. That is why Jesus is the perfect mediator; he simply refused imperfection at all stops, earning imitable salvation for everyone who follows him.

"With what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."

That is the sound doctrine called the Golden Rule. A note: the Golden Rule is not "do unto others as you would have done unto you", that is merely an extrapolation of the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is this: the iron law of fact, that everyone is governed according to justice, according to their own agency.

"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you."

Worthy asking requires nothing short of moral perfection, and nothing personal besides. With faith exercised you can learn the government of the world is just, further still you will come to know the impartial and truly wise God and his influence will grow in your life. As difficult as it is that we are apportioned no less ill than is deserved, and often much more than that, it is no slavishness or perverse sacrificial mentality that could possibly draw us closer to any ideal state, rather we are enjoined to a liberty of conscience, both from sin and from burden, as well as a priority of self interest, to help define ourselves in our own hope of exaltation.

"As to the faithless, alike is it to them whether thou warn them or warn them not–they will not believe: Their hearts and their ears hath God sealed up; and over their eyes is a covering."

A just and perfect God will freely give us over to our own errors' repeating themselves back at us. It is an objective restraint upon the human condition, that if it were uplifted would only have to fall in another place. So, don't be superstitious, or, don't be afraid of shadows; concern yourself only with your own standards for your own intelligence in operating.

A fair warning: With the scriptures, you will not be granted a wisdom to comprehend the more intricate things, if you have not yet mastered the base essentials. So do try to get ahead with the practice of what you do know to be true from God, or objectivity, if you want to be capable to inherit the promise of better and better understanding.

 

[GGSurvivor]

The Golden Rule, or Mean, was a Rabbinical invention from Hillel. It is unchristian, and (some) Christians are of the Covenant. James 1:5...

Spoiler: Hear Him

"It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—'This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!'"

 

[[VΩiD] SoKAftH]

Hear Him

"He that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away."

 

[PP Police]

It is unchristian, and (some) Christians are of the Covenant.

No Christian denomination would say that Mormons are Christian.

 

[[VΩiD] SoKAftH]

No Christian denomination

National Council of Churches

 

[Skitarii]

If, at times, the dogmas of the Faith seem to be like solid food, first endeavor to fulfill the moral dogmas of Christianity, then the understanding of the dogmas of the Faith will be revealed to you. Inquisitive questioning of higher things without effort regarding the improvement of your life does not bring any benefit. At one time, the monks of Egypt reflected about Melchisedek and not being able to come to a clear understanding about the mysterious personality of this ancient king and high priest, invited Abba Copres to their assembly and asked him about Melchisedek. Upon hearing this, Copres struck himself three times on the mouth and said, "Woe to you Copres! You left that which God commanded you to do and you question that which God does not require of you." Hearing him, the monks were ashamed and dispersed. St. John Chrysostom writes, "And, if we adhere to the true dogmas and are not concerned about our behavior, we will not have any kind of benefit; and in the same way, if we concern ourselves about our behavior and neglect true dogmas, we will receive no benefit for our salvation. If we want to be delivered from Gehenna and to gain the kingdom, we need to be adorned on both sides: correctness of dogmas and honorable living."

Works and faith both.

 

[GGSurvivor]

"He that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away."

Was Paul going against this teaching when he went against Judaizers who said gentiles needed to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses?

No Christian denomination would say that Mormons are Christian.

Interesting argument. All of Jewry (even apostate atheists/troons/gays) would unite and say the same thing about Messianic Jews. I wonder if it's the sign of a dying or living faith to appeal to such an "authority" as the very many sects and creeds that produce ineffective fruit.

 

[[VΩiD] SoKAftH]

Was Paul going against this teaching

Are you?

 

[ChefBourgeoisie]

No Christian denomination would say that Mormons are Christian.

That started to change with Romney... all of the sudden, the right found itself in an awkward spot where they needed to instantly rehabiliate Mormons to be Christian or at least so Christian-adjacent that his magic underwear could be overlooked. Basically, at this point, there are no doctrinal principles left and no one cares anymore. Especially now that the jewish "Israel is God's chosen people!" thing is baked into the cake. It's pretty bizarre.

 

[PP Police]

National Council of Churches

Interesting argument. All of Jewry (even apostate atheists/troons/gays) would unite and say the same thing about Messianic Jews. I wonder if it's the sign of a dying or living faith to appeal to such an "authority" as the very many sects and creeds that produce ineffective fruit.

Allow me to rephrase my argument: Not all faiths who label themselves as Christian are Christian.

 

[[VΩiD] SoKAftH]

Allow me to rephrase my argument

What is your point?

 

[GGSurvivor]

Are you?

no, because Jesus Christ expressly states in the Book of Mormon what contention is:

"And according as I have commanded you thus shall ye baptize. And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been." (3 Nephi 11:28)

What are his doctrines?

"Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine.

And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.

And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God." (3 Nephi 11:31-33)

If we to follow Christ, we must seek TRUTH under every ROCK it may be found! Man and Superman!

That started to change with Romney... all of the sudden, the right found itself in an awkward spot where they needed to instantly rehabiliate Mormons to be Christian or at least so Christian-adjacent that his magic underwear could be overlooked. Basically, at this point, there are no doctrinal principles left and no one cares anymore. Especially now that the jewish "Israel is God's chosen people!" thing is baked into the cake. It's pretty bizarre.

We are basically the English Puritans & all of you gentiles are Amorites, Amalekites, etc... You will all be washed away in the flood of American hubris as this continent is cleansed for the righteous to inhabit it once again...

"We need men with fire in their bowels who fear THE LORD but not the enemy!" - Cromwell, 1970

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Lots of Christians in the thread, but you explicitly invoke objectivity, so it should be fair game for non-Christians on epistemic grounds

When you use terms like "objective", "just", "perfect", or "worthy", it seems to me that these terms are ambiguous. On one hand, they can be read as divinely grounded but epistemically opaque (true regardless of human access), but on the other hand, they can be read as epistemically accessible (true in a way that humans can, at least in principle, reliably distinguish from error)
I think you'll agree that only the second one can truly function as a guide to action. From a sane perspective, the first is indistinguishable from sincere conviction sprinkled with rhetoric.
So my question for you is: by what method can a human tell that they are aligned with this alleged objectivity, rather than merely convinced of it? Like, what here is "objective" beyond a declaration of confidence?

Even Christians who appeal to scripture and faith regularly come to incompatible conclusions about salvation, justice, and judgment. So if objectivity is real in a way that bears on human action, then there must be criteria to distinguish between genuine alignment and sincere error. Otherwise all the word "objective" does is explain away disagreement rather than resolve it.

 

[[VΩiD] SoKAftH]

by what method can a human tell that they are aligned with this alleged objectivity, rather than merely convinced of it? Like, what here is "objective" beyond a declaration of confidence?

If something is true, then it can be demonstrated.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

If something is true, then it can be demonstrated.

That doesn't resolve the issue, it just kicks the can down the road
Say, what counts as a demonstration? By what criteria does the demonstration count as evidence rather than just conviction or rhetorical force?
Like, mathematical proof, logical entailment, empirical testability, revelation etc., these demonstrations are wildly different and not all of them correspond to truth in the same way

 

[[VΩiD] SoKAftH]

mathematical proof, logical entailment, empirical testability, revelation

Whatever works for you.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Whatever works for you.

It's unclear to me how that is supposed to distinguish an objectively true claim from one that merely feels compelling to a given person. Like, what convinces one person may not convince another. But earlier you appealed to objectivity, which means something that holds regardless of who is evaluating it.
Like, two incompatible claims could both be "demonstrated", provided that each demonstration works for its respective audience. Am I misunderstanding you or are you using "objective" in a looser non-epistemic sense?

 

[[VΩiD] SoKAftH]

It's unclear to me how that is supposed to distinguish an objectively true claim from one that merely feels compelling to a given person. Like, what convinces one person may not convince another.

There are better and there are worse standards; judge the standards by their fruits.

But earlier you appealed to objectivity, which means something that holds regardless of who is evaluating it.

More, the better one is able to derive at truth, the better they are able to prove that which is true to themselves.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

There are better and there are worse standards; judge the standards by their fruits.

More, the better one is able to derive at truth, the better they are able to prove that which is true to themselves.

I genuinely think we're talking past each other now
If I take your claims at face value - that is, standards are judged by their fruits, and proving truth is ultimately something someone does to themselves - then truth correspondence becomes audience-relative and inward-facing. Like, incompatible beliefs can both count as well-grounded as long as they work and feel coherent to the people who hold them
Which is a perfectly coherent position to hold, but it's no longer an epistemic notion of objectivity
So, what claim are you defending? Is "objective" mind-independent but epistemically private (true regardless of us, but can only be assessed internally) or is it mind-independent and epistemically public (true in a way that constrains belief across persons)?

 

[[VΩiD] SoKAftH]

Is "objective" mind-independent but epistemically private (true regardless of us, but can only be assessed internally) or is it mind-independent and epistemically public (true in a way that constrains belief across persons)?

Sort of a union of both, I think.

That doesn't resolve the issue, it just kicks the can down the road

I can sometimes only risk short but complete responses for the sake of the thread. Better than to waste space replying in the wrong direction and getting at nothing.

So, what claim are you defending?

>God saves a people who are living in this world now to do good works.
>True inspiration in this life however is the only way to know of a surety.
That this can be experienced.