He posed several questions, and I responded to each one and bore my testimony. After about a half-hour chat, he offered profound thanks and indicated that he felt he would be okay now. Such an experience is not uncommon. I guess what I am saying is that antagonistic materials are here to stay and are affecting adversely both Latter-day Saints and the attitudes of those of other faiths.
They do not need to create new material; they simply dig up and repackage what some of our own Church leaders have said in the past that would not be considered a part of the doctrine of the Church today. Latter-day Saints are eager to sustain and uphold their leaders.
Some time ago a colleague and I were in southern California speaking to a group of about five hundred people, both Latter-day Saints and Protestants. Do you, as many claim, worship a different Jesus?
I added that we also believe in the teachings of and about Christ found in the Book of Mormon and modern revelation. Have you ever heard the Brethren teach it in conference? Is it in the standard works, the curricular materials, or the handbooks of the Church? Is it a part of an official declaration or proclamation? The whole purpose of our presentation is to model the kind of relationships people with differing religious views can have.
This kind of presentation has proven, in my estimation, to be one of the most effective bridge-building exercises in which I have been involved. On this particular night, the first question asked by someone in the audience was on DNA and the Book of Mormon. I made a brief comment and indicated that a more detailed and informed response would be forthcoming in a journal article from a BYU biologist.
There were many hands in the air at this point. I called on a woman close to the front of the church. It gives me an opportunity to explain a principle early in our exchange that will lay the foundation for other things to be said.
What do we teach today? Do you hear what he is saying? This is important! The questions were not baiting or challenging ones but rather were efforts to clarify. This thrills my soul. I think this is what Jesus would do. Could you two make a few suggestions on how we can deepen and sweeten our relationships with our LDS neighbors?
At that point, I sensed that we had somehow gotten through to some of the audience. The difficulty comes when someone in the past has spoken on these matters, has put forward ideas that are out of harmony with what we know and teach today, and when those teachings are still available, either in print or among the everyday conversations of the members, and have never been corrected or clarified.
What are the teachings of the Church today? If presented properly, it need not weaken faith or create doubts. It could do much to focus the Saints more and more on the central, saving verities of the gospel.
We discussed earlier that one of the ways to keep our doctrine pure is to present the gospel message the way the prophets and apostles today present it. Let us take two illustrations. The first is an extremely sensitive matter, one that currently affects and will continue to affect the quantity and quality of convert baptisms in the Church.
I speak of the matter of the blacks and the priesthood. I was raised in the Church, just as many readers were, and was well aware of the priesthood restriction. In June of everything changed—not just the matter of who could or could not be ordained to the priesthood but also the nature of the explanation for why the restriction had been in place from the beginning. Elder Dallin H. Church members seemed to have less to go on to get a grasp of the issue. Can you address why this was the case, and what can be learned from it?
We can put reason to revelation. We can put reasons to commandments. There is a lesson in that. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking.
The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. Cannon or whosoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.
We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them.
It seems to me, therefore, that we as Latter-day Saints have two problems to solve in making the restored gospel available more extensively to people of color. First, we need to have our hearts and minds purified of all pride and prejudice. Second, we need to dismiss all previous explanations for the restriction and indicate that while we simply do not know why the restriction existed before, the fulness of the blessings of the restored gospel are now available to all who prepare themselves to receive them.
Elder M. Now to the second illustration. When I open the discussion to questions before a group of persons not of our faith, I am always asked about our doctrine of God and the Godhead, particularly concerning the teachings of Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow. I generally do not have too much difficulty explaining our view of how through the Atonement man can eventually become like God, become more and more Christlike. Robert L. Brother Millet explains that only prophets and apostles have authority to establish doctrine.
He also gives helpful guidelines to evaluate unexpected information based on scriptures, teachings of current prophets, and historical context. He addresses the points of keeping doctrine pure, establishing doctrinal parameters, remaining loyal to prophets while recognizing they are not infallible, and facing hard issues. In addition, Millet points out that we do not always know all the answers.
As we keep these parameters in mind, our discernment can increase. And rather than sowing doubts, our questions can increase our faith. Source: Religious Studies Center. See Bruce R. Oaks, CR, October , p. The real question is not whether I am saved by grace or by works but rather, In whom do I trust?
On whom do I rely? See 1 Nephi ; 2 Nephi , ; Moroni To be sure, we will need a full measure of divine assistance to become celestial material. But the grace of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord, is available to us every hour of every day of our lives. MacArthur, Jr. The grace of God is a precious gift, an enabling power to face life with quiet courage, to do things we could never do on our own. The Great Physician does more than forgive sins.
He ministers relief to the disconsolate, comfort to the bereaved, confidence to those who wrestle with infirmities and feelings of inadequacy, and strength and peace to those who have been battered and scarred by the ironies of this life see Isaiah —2, Alma — Few things would be more serious than encouraging lip service to God but discouraging obedience and faithful discipleship.
Understanding this sacred principle—the relationship between the grace of an infinite Being and the works of finite man—is not easy, but it is immensely rewarding. The more we learn to trust the Lord and rely upon his merits and mercy, the less anxious we become about life here and hereafter. True faith in Christ produces hope in Christ—not worldly wishing but expectation, anticipation, assurance. Salvation is a big and comprehensive word.
In fact salvation has three tenses, past, present and future. I am being saved in the present from the power of sin by a living Saviour. But no, in the sense that I still have a fallen nature and live in a fallen world and have a corruptible body, and I am longing for my salvation to be brought to its triumphant completion.
It is salvation here— here and now. It gives to every man the perfect life, here and now, as well as hereafter. See also Brigham Young, JD and — Too many of us wrestle with feelings of inadequacy, struggle with hopelessness, and in general are much too anxious about our standing before God. It is important to keep the ultimate goal of exaltation ever before us, but it seems so much more profitable to focus on fundamentals and on the here and now—staying in covenant, being dependable and true to our promises, cultivating the gift of the Holy Ghost.
President Brigham Young taught:. Our work is a work of the present. The salvation we are seeking is for the present, and, sought correctly, it can be obtained, and be continually enjoyed. If it continues to-day, it is upon the same principle that it will continue to-morrow, the next day, the next week, or the next year, and, we might say, the next eternity.
In short, salvation is in Christ, and our covenant with Christ, our trust in his power to redeem us, should be demonstrated in how we live. For us, the Jesus of history is indeed the Christ of faith. Although some may exclude us from the category of Christian for this or that doctrinal matter, our behavior must be consistent with our profession; those who claim new life in the Spirit are expected to walk in the Spirit see Galatians Of course we are!
No one can honestly deny that. We may be somewhat different from the traditional pattern of Christianity. But no one believes more literally in the redemption wrought by the Lord Jesus Christ. No one believes more fundamentally that He was the Son of God, that He died for the sins of mankind, that He rose from the grave, and that He is the living resurrected Son of the living Father. In the long run, all we can do is live what we preach and bear testimony of what we feel in our hearts and know in our minds.
Although we do not want to be misunderstood and we certainly would like for others to recognize the centrality of Christ in our lives, we do not require the imprimatur of the religious world to substantiate our claim. We are who we are and we know who we are, and if all the world should think otherwise, so be it. Our primary thrust in the religious world is not to court favor.
Our desire to build bridges of understanding does not excuse us from the obligation to maintain our distinctive position in the religious world. Our strength lies in our distinctiveness, for we have something to offer the world, something of great worth.
No one wants to be spurned, misunderstood, or misrepresented. But sometimes such is the cost of discipleship see Matthew — As to whether we worship a different Jesus, we say again: We accept and endorse the testimony of the New Testament writers: Jesus is the Promised Messiah, the resurrection and the life see John , literally the light of the world see John Everything that testifies of his divine birth, his goodness, his transforming power, and his godhood, we embrace enthusiastically.
He has broken the bands of death and lives today. All this we know. But we know much more about the Christ because of what has been made known through latter-day prophets. President Brigham Young thus declared:. We, the Latter-day Saints, take the liberty of believing more than our Christian brethren: we not only believe.
Do we differ from others who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ? No, only in believing more. Our conduct and our way of life cannot be separated from our doctrine, for what we believe empowers and directs what we do.
In a day when many are hesitant to claim that God has said anything definitive, the Mormons stand out in contrast, and many people are ready to listen to what the Mormons think the voice of God says. It is tragic that their message is false, but it is nonetheless a lesson to us that people are many times ready to hear a voice of authority.
The Savior taught of the importance of judging things—prophets, for example—by their fruits, by the product of their ministry and teachings see Matthew —20 , 1 John And for balance, one should also ask, What problems might these verses and concepts pose for the Mormon view of the Godhead?
First it must be noted that if these verses pose a problem for the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, the same problem is posed for the Mormon doctrine. Mormonism teaches that all the New Testament statements about the oneness of the Father and the Son speak not of their ontological nature as one Being, but of a oneness of purpose, intent, design, desire, etc.
Their unity in this sense is also supposed to be perfect. What One would do or say in a given circumstance, the Other would do or say exactly the same. If this is the case, then a variance between their wills, or the case of one being in subjection to the other, poses exactly the same questions for the Mormon view as for the Trinitarian view. The ontological basis on which Mormonism grounds the submission of the Son to the Father is a matter of chronology and bodily descent.
Ancestors have, and will always have-by right-priority and authority over their progeny. Submission by the progeny to the authority of their ancestor Gods is prerequisite to their exercising any authority over their own progeny.
The only alternative is to be cut out of the chain. Why this is so, when the progeny allegedly have matured and all become equals possessing the fullness of Deity, is not explained. The Christian view grounds the relationship of Father and Son, and the submission of the Son to the Father, in their own sovereign and mutual choice to relate to one another. This relationship is wholly appropriate since the second Person of the Godhead is eternally begotten of the first Person.
This begetting, however, is not a specific event in history or time, such that there was ever any time prior to it. There was never a time when the Son did not exist, or did not exist as God, and as the Son of the Father. The Son is eternally and perpetually begotten of the Father. Not one of the three exists apart from the others. Begetting and loving the Son is integral to the existence of the Father. Not to do so would be a change in the unchangeable God; it would mean the end of God.
To love and submit to the Father as a loving Son is integral to the existence of the begotten Son. To do otherwise would mean a change in the unchangeable God, and such a change is impossible for God's nature.
Understanding the Son's submission to the Father does not require the existence of two separate beings, much less one of them being chronologically antecedent to the other, as Millet and Mormonism would have the world believe. It requires only the existence of two distinct Persons each having His own will.
The doctrine of the Trinity affirms the existence of the Father and Son as distinct Persons just as certainly as does Mormonism's polytheism. Where two eternally existent and eternally perfect wills are concerned, and both agree that the One will always be in submission to the Other, there can be both submission and perfect unity.
The submission of the Son to the Father therefore forms no basis for any legitimate objection to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
0コメント