Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: “All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom; for I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.”
Doctrine & Covenants 137:7-9
Before I address this passage, there is a bit of a quandary:
This is in the Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, pg.403, and I’m guessing it was published in 1997 since it's of the same series as the one on Brigham Young, which shows 1997—I tossed the one on Smith’s teachings after I tore out the pages I wanted to address.
My 1968 D&C does not have this “prophecy,” having ended at D&C 136.
My 2002 “Triple Combination” (BOM, D&C, POGP) DOES have it, as does the current version on the LDS internet page.
SO what gives? Why was this not in the 1968 version? I don’t have a copy of any earlier publication, but I’d like to know when it was dropped.
Anyway, there is a real problem here. If a person has never heard the true, biblical Gospel then they cannot have “confess[ed] with [their] mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in [their] heart that God raised Him from the dead,” then they cannot be saved (Rom.10:9). Their chance of doing so was lost when they died (Heb.9:27).
If they didn’t hear the Mormon gospel it doesn’t matter because it’s a false gospel so they can’t be saved anyway.
On top of that, we are not save by our works; this is stated throughout the New Testament. (e.g., Eph.2:89)
13 comments:
I am not sure how you come to this conclusion - that there is a false hope in the message and teachings of the LDS Faith. Are you sure you are quoting Romans 10:9 correctly and that of Hebrews 9:27?
Maybe I am not seeing the connection with what you are saying about D&C137 and how it relates to salvation? It appears quite ambiguous to me.
By the way - I happened to notice someone publishing a response to your post and he goes into detail of explaining Romans 10:9 and Hebrews 9:27. That is how I came to this article and am merely curious what your thoughts and response are.
Anonymous,
YES I'm quoting those passages correctly. ROmans is just but one example in the N.T. which states we have to first place our faith in Jesus as the savior, confess him as such by our faith and fully believe in Him as God in the Flesh.
Hebrews is a perfect summation that you die and nothing you do after death can affect your salvation. Choices have to be made while living.
D&C 137 Says if a person would have accepted the Gospel if he lived longer, then he is saved because of what he might have done in the future. The Bible says your salvation is based on your choices before deat--period.
And I've seen no responses explaining the passages. If it comes from a Mormon, I know it will be eisegesis though.
Okay - so here is the link - [Removed by GC] that I came across. This person linked to your post. They also make the same claim that you are engaging in Eisegesis. They go into detail and cite different commentaries regarding Romans 10:9 where Paul is talking about salvation for the Jews. Hebrews 9 connects with Leviticus and the sacrificial law.
It is rather confusing for me at the moment, and I am attempting to understand.
Glenn E. Chatfield said...
Anonymous,
I removed the link because I won't send readers to Mormon apologists' pages so they do not get deceived by the teaching of cult members--and I didn't research the issue about D&C 137 because there was no real point--just wondering.
I was amused by the blog author's excuse as to why D&C 137 wasn't previously published:
Glenn E. Chatfield mentioned a quandary regarding Doctrine and Covenants 137 and the reason this was not in the 1968 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. Had he done any research into this, he'd realize that this section was not dropped in previous editions. According to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint's website and commentary on this - the section was not adopted as an official doctrine and teaching until April 1976 General Conference...
Apparently it was originally in the POGP, a book which I haven't read for a very, very long time, and it is also similar to D&C 76. But doesn't this revelation contradict the BOM at Alma 34:35? What about 2 Nephi 9:38? or Mosiah 2:38-39? At any rate, it is irrelevant to my discussion of the actual text.
For brevity's sake I didn't not include the full passages from which I cited; the context just strengthens the argument. All through scripture it says that one MUST make his choices for following Christ before he dies--death ends all choices. My citations were just summations of the teaching of the entire Bible. It is the site's apologist who is practicing eisegesis -- as is the only way Mormons can defend their false teachings. There is nothing he says which contradicts what I wrote.
The problem with the LDS apologist is that he limits Paul's teachings to the Jews, and yet his teaching about salvation (as I quoted) is an overal general statement of doctrine. None of his commentary citations refutes this notion.
When Christ said that the dead will hear his voice, he was talking about the spiritually dead. As the LDS apologist notes, Jn5:29 says those in the grave will hear Jesus' voice at the resurrection, but that is not a voice preaching salvation, but he's teaching judgment.
I agree with the LDS apologist that this has nothing to do with the false teaching of "easy believism."
My purpose of citing Hebrews 9:27 was to point out that judgment comes after death with no in-between possiblity of salvation and nothing this guy says contradict that Hebrews statement which is essentially a summation of teaching throughout the Scrpture that there is no chance of salvation after death.
There is no restored gospel and the apologist claims. Smith made up the whole thing beginning with his "First Vision," which I have proven to be 100% fraudlent. (e.g.,
http://watchmanvlds.blogspot.com/2020/09/first-vision-fraud.html )
I guess that may make some sense. Still a bit confused though. Thank you for clarifying the information. Question though: do you believe your readers are not able to think for themselves and determine whether something is being deceptive or true? I can see how someone has a difficult time because I know I am so can understand not wanting to mislead them.
Anonymous,
I have learned through 45 years of apologetics that the majority of Christans-- and the majority of people in general--lack discernment in important matters. Just look at the secular world where people easily allowed themselves to be controlled over the COVID thing, how easy they've been brainwashed into acceptinng man-caused "climate change," and how easy they've accepted the idea of the "green ideology." In fact, everyone who votes Democrat demonstrates a lack of discernment in politics.
But getting back to theology, lack of discernment with Christians is why there are so many cults, false teachings, and false teachers who gather thousands of people to their heresies. Look at Bethel Redding, Hillsong, Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, et al and how many followers they have to help them enrich themselves while living in mansions and flying corporate jets around the world.
In other words, you are saying that you are far more intellectually superior to many other people of Christianity.
Anonymous 5/27
Did you see anything where I even hinted at that? Of course not, but you are a troll trying to cause trouble. By the way, it doesn't take intellect to be discerning.
So you deny your previous statement where someone may interpret it as being far more intellectually superior? Are you that dishonest?
Here is what your previous comment says: "I have learned through 45 years of apologetics that the majority of Christans-- and the majority of people in general--lack discernment in important matters. Just look at the secular world where people easily allowed themselves to be controlled over the COVID thing, how easy they've been brainwashed into acceptinng man-caused "climate change," and how easy they've accepted the idea of the "green ideology." In fact, everyone who votes Democrat demonstrates a lack of discernment in politics."
This appears to be in response to someone's question. Are you not concerned that this comes across as boasting and implying a sense of intellectual superiority over others because of your own personal perception and thought?
And since when is it designated as being a troll calling out something that appears to come across a certain way?
Anonymous,
Trolls look for blogs to attack and argue on.
You citation of my post PROVES that intelligence was never mentioned. The comments are about discernment and, yes it was in response to the previous question.
I know a lot of very intelligent people who are lacking in discernment -- just look at Mormons, e.g.; a lot of them are very intelligent but have absolutely no discernment when it comes to truth about their cult.
So, you are feeling attacked when someone is questioning you? Superiority complex (I am better than anyone else because I am able to have better discernment than most Christians) and now persecution complex.
I thought being a Christian meant you are to be humble.
This is what makes you a troll; intentionally misrepresenting my positiong to make yourself superior.
I didn't say I felt attacked, I said trolls look for blogs to attack. Your reading comprehension is lacking.
I never even hinted that I felt superior to other people because of my discernment skills. I only pointed out that the vast majority of people, including Christians, lack discernment.
It takes a lot of experience and study to develop discernment and most people don't give a damn and would rather have other people tell them what to think. It has nothing to do with pride or arrogance, or what ever, rather it is expressing sorrow that the majority of people refuse to learn discernment. (you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink).
You're finished trolling here.
Anonymous, I decided to read you whining comment before deleting it but that it the last time it will happen. However, I do feel the need to respond.
You have shown yourself to be a typical Mormon troll when you supported the arguments of the other anonymous; assuming you aren’t the same one. Also, Mormons typically attack “anti-Mormons” by claiming we are arrogant, etc.
So if I claim I am better able to discern than most people due to 45 years of experience and study, that is arrogant. But if a test pilot says he is a better pilot than most due to his years of experience and training, would that be arrogance?
I’ve never known a humble Mormon, since they think they have the only way to God.
Nice ad hominem attack on my intellectual capacity. The last resort of someone with no argument.
Oh, and unlike Mormons who historically claim they have been persecuted, I feel no persecution from you at all.
Post a Comment