Kirby: Wrestling with doctrine no match for me

Fortunately, we are not saved by our theology, but by the blood of God’s own son.

OK. take ONLY this one statement of yours at face value, and then combine it with John 3:16.

What might we conclude?
(a) Jesus shed blood & died for the whole world (John 3:16)
(b) That blood saves
But then does that add up to meaning the whole world is saved?

Jesus didn't indicate that. In fact, He said at one point that wide is the road that leads to destruction.

So, we need to dig deeper as to what leads many to this wide-road destruction -- deeper than your cute statement that theology doesn't save, Jesus does.

So what's the hang-up, then?

Well, for starters, let's focus on what the apostle Paul stressed in 2 Cor. 5: 18-20: Reconciliation, which is, after all, a Relationship word.

But simultaneously, we can still realize, "Hey. Identity theft exists. People can still enter into false relationships...thinking they've encountered the genuine God or the genuine Christ." (Jesus discussed false messiahs in Matthew 24).

Consider some of the horror flicks strewn about by Hollywood...ones where the female victim has mistrusted the wrong guy...having misid'd him as her would-be knight in shining armor. As the flick script goes, the guy is originally billed as a supposed "good samaritan" who changed her tire or offered to give her ride from a broken-down vehicle.

The irony is...if Hollywood would ever finish these storylines to the end...these knights in shining armor who "saved" these women in distress...who as the movie progresses, winds up preying upon false trust...do at times indeed wind up "dying for" these women...as they are strapped into the electric chair for killing them, that is!!!

My point? All "theology" is -- is the "study of"...
...
...and if some lady starts relating to a guy online -- and "misid's" him...IOW, she failed to "study" who he really is, or if she fails to "study" who the potential "good samaritan" is...
...well, that has or can become a fatal fault.

So while it sounds great that theology doesn't save you, lack of knowing who God really is (which is the heart of theology) can still leave you in your sins.

If I don't know the true you, Newheart, inevitably if I try to describe you I will be off base. Even if I've heard some correct things about you, and relay that to others...if I don't you, and try to relay to others who you are...at some point, if I keep it up, I am going to be so off-base that I'm no longer describing YOU. At some point, I thereby flunk Newheartology. Well, so it is with God.

Jesus made it plain in John 17:3 that what moves us into that relationship with God and with Christ is "Knowing the ONLY TRUE God." If you misidentify who God is and who Jesus is, then your response to Him is going to be faulty. And while your point is that it's faulty already for all of us; my point is that at some point, people move away from responding to the true God as He is...and wind up responding to a charicature of Him.

Theology can be so poor that many people do indeed respond to a mere charicature -- a totally false ID of who God is.

You can't just say that all responding to conflicting attributes about God is still leads us all to the same relationship with Him.

It wasn't only a fairy tale where we learned about a wolf attempting to gobble up others.

The apostle Paul warned the Ephesian church for three years night & day about savage wolves who wouldn't spare the flock...and how did Paul say they would do that?

29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31 So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears. (Acts 20:29-31)

I'm sure much of the flock through the centuries that hasn't been spared knew that Jesus died for them. But knowing that cognitively -- and actually being in a relationship with the true Christ and the true God -- are two different things.

AMEN!

Ping for later read

And while your point is that it's faulty already for all of us; my point is that at some point, people move away from responding to the true God as He is...and wind up responding to a charicature of Him.

It is indeed faulty for all of us. Today we see as through a glass darkly, then we shall see face to face. It is our fallenness that prohibits us from having the clearest vision of Christ today and we must recognize that fact about ourselves with humility. But fortunately, our vision is also not what saves us—another 'cute' phrase, I suppose. Instead it is Christ's work on the cross, plus nothing. It is always that 'plus nothing' that leads us all into trouble. Mormons and Christians of all stripes alike.

Yet with Paul, "I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus." Phillipians 1:6

And I pray there are many who call themselves Mormon today who are in that category.

bttt

Isn’t that adorable how he calls the Holy Ghost “H.G.”?

the average Mormon congregant believes that Jesus Christ on the cross has provided for his salvation

Or more accurately, in the garden, sweating blood.

I've lived in Utah for 15 years and when asked why they don't wear crosses or have them on their church buildings, I've been told "we don't focus on that".

I've also heard from Mormons here on FR explaining that Jesus' method of death was unimportant, just a period at the end of a sentence. "If he had been shot to death", they'll say, "would you wear a tiny gold revolver on a chain around your neck?"

From the article: the First Presidency

Q: The Mormon church claims to be a "restoration" of the original Church Jesus Christ started.

Well, imagine that! Either George Washington, who came up with that word "president" to apply to himself, either knew by some hidden occultic source that Jesus Christ used that strictly English term in the Middle East and the supposed Book of Mormon Americas 2,000 years ago...or...

...George Washington invented that term in the 1700s and Jesus was prophetically using that term 2,000 years ago...only for some reason, saw fit to have it stricken from the Bible...and the Book of Mormon.

All, what do you think as to which, if any, answer fits the bill here? [Of course, Option #3 is that the Mormon church isn't a "restoration" of anything remotely Christian]

From the article: the First Presidency

Oh, and for you non-Mormons, allow me to define "the First Presidency" as Mormons have defined it: It's who they regard as their "prophet" in conjunction with two general authority "counselors" -- often men who have served the Lds church as "apostles."

I mean...just think of all those letters the apostle Paul rec'd from New Testament churches at Ephesus, Corinth, Thessalonica, Rome, Philippi, the Galatians and the Colossians! Now imagine that instead of over 1/3rd of the New Testament being filled with Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, Galatians, Ephesians, and Philippians, we have repetitive "form letters" from Paul reading:

Dear Insert Here,

In response to your letter, hey, stop pestering me for clarification of church doctrine. Besides, I'm on a mission, anyway. And you should know missionary rules mandate that I'm to write "less frequently to...acquaintances" [Literal missionary rule #32] than I am to my parents [Literal rule #31] Source: see Lds Missionary rules @ Post #24

However, if you’re asking these questions with sincerity and real intent, and if you’re a member that has real doctrinal concerns, please seek the counsel of your bishop or stake president.

(I know I haven't mentioned anything about these "stake presidents" in my communications with you...and I know Jesus didn't, either...but if you don't like that, take it up with the "First Presidency")

Uh. On second thought, don't. We're overwhelmed as is.

And, of course, I'll understand if you don't know what a "president" is...We'll explain that later...like almost 1,800 years later.

Signed,

The apostle Paul, Missionary and Missionary President-at-large
First Presidency with Peter and James

Proceedings before the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the United States Senate : in the matter of the protests against the right of Hon. Reed Smoot, a senator from the state of Utah, to hold his seat [Jan. 16, 1904-April 13, 1906] (1906)

http://www.archive.org/details/proceedingsbefor01unitrich
(page 91)
Senator McCoMAS. I should like to ask one question. You say that the councilors are appointed by the president of the church.
How are the apostles selected?
Mr. SMITH. In Ihe first place they were chosen by revelation. The council of the apostles have had a voice ever since in the selection of their successors.
Senator McCoMAS. Had a voice?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
Senator McCoMAS. Have they had the election of their successors to perpetuate the body of apostles since the first revelation?
Mr. SMITH. I do not know that I understand your question.
Senator McCoMAS. You say the first apostles were selected in accordance with revelations.
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
Senator McCoMAS. Revelations to whom?
Mr. SMITH. To Joseph Smith.

(page 92)
Senator McCoMAS. And the twelve apostles were then first named?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
Senator McCoMAS. When vacancies occurred thereafter, by what body were the vacancies in the twelve apostles filled?
Mr. SMITH. Perhaps I may say in this way: Chosen by the body, the twelve themselves, by and with the consent and approval of the first presidency.
Senator HOAB. Was there a revelation in regard to each of them?
Mr. SMITH. No, sir; not in regard to each of them. Do you mean in the beginning?
Senator HOAR. I understand you to say that the original twelve apostles were selected by revelation?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
Senator HOAR. Through Joseph Smith ?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that is right.
Senator HOAR. Is there any revelation in regard to the subsequent ones?
Mr. SMITH. No, sir; it has been the choice of the body.
Senator McCoMAS. Then the apostles are perpetuated in succession by their own act and the approval of the first presidency?
Mr. SMITH. That is right.

Senator BAILEY, who selects the first president?
Mr. SMITH. The first presidency was chosen in the same way. They
are elected--
Senator BAILEY. I believe the presidency consists of the president and two councilors.
Mr. SMITH. That is right.
Senator BAILEY. I do not refer to the councilors. You have already said that the president chooses or designates them. Who chooses or elects the president? For instance, who elected you to your present position?
Mr. SMITH. 1 was nominated by the twelve apostles and submitted to the whole church and sustained by the whole church.
Mr. WORTHINGTON. Explain what you mean by the word "sustained" in that technical sense.
Mr. SMITH. That is, voted upon.
Senator BAILEY. I understand that. As a matter of fact, the apostles nominate the president and the church elects him.
Do I understand that to be the case?
Mr. SMITH. Well, yes, sir; that has been the case. And then, again, the senior apostle, through custom of the church since the death of Joseph Smith, has been recognized on the death of the president as the legitimate successor to the president.
Senator BAILEY. It is a question of succession rather than of election?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Where's the wonder of "present-day revelation" in the most important act of choosing the Prophet, Seer and Revelator? You'd think the previous prez would have had a revelation before he was transported directly to the Celestial Kingdom. Or, one of the Twelve, since they are all prophets would have...oh wait...how convenient would that have been? "I had a revelation that I'm to be the new Prophet."