truth dancer wrote:One of the critical aspects some LDS believers have toward mainstream Christians (from my observations which are few), is that they can make mistakes and still make it to heaven (faith not words). But, actually those who have had their CaEMS are similarly free to make whatever mistakes they want.... their actions do not matter at all. Hmmm...
Keep in mind they're not handing out CAEMS invites willy nilly. I'm betting that most of them are going to those old, faithful couples who have shown through long lives a very focused and high-level dedication and commitment to the church and generally being good people. It's not like you can just put your hand on the TV, write a check, and have your CAEMS. I do think there's a difference between CAEMS in the LDS church and the instant salvation of some parts of Christianity.
Only we tell them that if they don't repent then they'll spend a season in hell before getting their salvation.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
the road to hana wrote:What's your best guess on how many of the poorest, most humble members of the church have actually received this ordinance?
I think many of the humblest have received it. Why are you tying wealth to humility?
I think it was Jesus who did that.
Wealth can be a stumblingblock to the rich but with God all things are possible.
Funny, I don't remember reading that in the New Testament. I'm pretty sure Jesus tells the rich man to go out and sell all he has and give to the poor.
Poverty is another stumblingblock to accepting the gospel.
I don't remember reading that in the New Testament either. It seems to me that for those who profess to follow the words or teachings of Jesus Christ most of his words tended to put the poor above the rich.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
the road to hana wrote:What's your best guess on how many of the poorest, most humble members of the church have actually received this ordinance?
I think many of the humblest have received it. Why are you tying wealth to humility?
I think it was Jesus who did that.
Wealth can be a stumblingblock to the rich but with God all things are possible.
Funny, I don't remember reading that in the New Testament. I'm pretty sure Jesus tells the rich man to go out and sell all he has and give to the poor.
Poverty is another stumblingblock to accepting the gospel.
I don't remember reading that in the New Testament either. It seems to me that for those who profess to follow the words or teachings of Jesus Christ most of his words tended to put the poor above the rich.
He told the rich man to consecrate his property to God and he went away sorrowing. I hope that he spent some time in prayer and thought and came back willing to do as the Savior asked. Jesus put the humble before the proud. When people came to Jesus seeking forgiveness he always raised them up. When people came to him insisting they had no sin, he condemned them. Pride is the issue. Christ asked the people to aid the impoverished and for the wealthy to view them as their equals. I've met prideful rich and poor. I've also met arrogant rich and poor.
Poverty does have one advantage (spelled out in the Book of Mormon). Sometimes it compels people to humility. Wealth rarely does.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The Nehor wrote:He told the rich man to consecrate his property to God and he went away sorrowing.
Matthew 19:21 says nothing about "consecrating property to God."
Jesus specifically tells the man to sell all he has and give to the poor. Period. He doesn't ask for it personally, or suggest that it be turned over to him, or his apostles. He doesn't tell the man to "consecrate" his property at all.
Although that might fit in with your presuppositions from an LDS endowment promises point of view, it isn't in that particular scripture.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
The Nehor wrote:He told the rich man to consecrate his property to God and he went away sorrowing.
Matthew 19:21 says nothing about "consecrating property to God."
Jesus specifically tells the man to sell all he has and give to the poor. Period. He doesn't ask for it personally, or suggest that it be turned over to him, or his apostles. He doesn't tell the man to "consecrate" his property at all.
Although that might fit in with your presuppositions from an LDS endowment promises point of view, it isn't in that particular scripture.
In my vocabulary consecration means to take all I have and do what God tells me to do with it. God was right there and told him what to do with it. To me it is the perfect example.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The Nehor wrote:He told the rich man to consecrate his property to God and he went away sorrowing.
Matthew 19:21 says nothing about "consecrating property to God."
Jesus specifically tells the man to sell all he has and give to the poor. Period. He doesn't ask for it personally, or suggest that it be turned over to him, or his apostles. He doesn't tell the man to "consecrate" his property at all.
Although that might fit in with your presuppositions from an LDS endowment promises point of view, it isn't in that particular scripture.
In my vocabulary consecration means to take all I have and do what God tells me to do with it. God was right there and told him what to do with it. To me it is the perfect example.
The difference between that and the LDS example, however, is that in the story in Matthew, Jesus tells the man to go, sell what he has and give to the poor, and then come back.
Somehow I don't see that fitting into an LDS "consecration" scenario. The oath of consecration that faithful members take in LDS temples generally implies they'll personally turn over all they have to the Corporation of the President. I don't imagine a situation where church leadership would tell people to go get rid of their stuff and then come back.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
the road to hana wrote:The difference between that and the LDS example, however, is that in the story in Matthew, Jesus tells the man to go, sell what he has and give to the poor, and then come back.
Somehow I don't see that fitting into an LDS "consecration" scenario. The oath of consecration that faithful members take in LDS temples generally implies they'll personally turn over all they have to the Corporation of the President. I don't imagine a situation where church leadership would tell people to go get rid of their stuff and then come back.
Perhaps but they could and if God told them to ask that then the member should obey. I can't imagine my Bishop or God asking me to sacrifice my son either. Also until a more formalized system of Consecration is put into place I deal with that promise directly with God. He gets a say in my finances (and everything else).
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
the road to hana wrote:The difference between that and the LDS example, however, is that in the story in Matthew, Jesus tells the man to go, sell what he has and give to the poor, and then come back.
Somehow I don't see that fitting into an LDS "consecration" scenario. The oath of consecration that faithful members take in LDS temples generally implies they'll personally turn over all they have to the Corporation of the President. I don't imagine a situation where church leadership would tell people to go get rid of their stuff and then come back.
Perhaps but they could and if God told them to ask that then the member should obey. I can't imagine my Bishop or God asking me to sacrifice my son either. Also until a more formalized system of Consecration is put into place I deal with that promise directly with God. He gets a say in my finances (and everything else).
And when was the last time Jesus Christ stood before you bodily and asked you to sell all you have and give to the poor? (Noting that this thread is getting off the original track of Second Anointing, perhaps if you want to open up a new discussion on how the Law of Consecration relates to Matthew 19 it could be done on a separate thread.)
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
the road to hana wrote:And when was the last time Jesus Christ stood before you bodily and asked you to sell all you have and give to the poor? (Noting that this thread is getting off the original track of Second Anointing, perhaps if you want to open up a new discussion on how the Law of Consecration relates to Matthew 19 it could be done on a separate thread.)
He hasn't but he could. He doesn't even have to appear bodily. The Spirit once told me to give more money then I thought I should to a certain cause.
I think the discussion is mostly done though if you feel there is more to discuss I'd be happy.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
the road to hana wrote:And when was the last time Jesus Christ stood before you bodily and asked you to sell all you have and give to the poor? (Noting that this thread is getting off the original track of Second Anointing, perhaps if you want to open up a new discussion on how the Law of Consecration relates to Matthew 19 it could be done on a separate thread.)
He hasn't but he could. He doesn't even have to appear bodily. The Spirit once told me to give more money then I thought I should to a certain cause.
I think the discussion is mostly done though if you feel there is more to discuss I'd be happy.
No, it's all good.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.