Spencer W. Kimball: Sadist, Self-Flagellator, Anti-Christ

[_stemelbow]

Stem,

Have you ever considered that you are the one who may be misunderstanding SWK? Maybe he meant exactly what he wrote, and you just don't want to accept that.

Taking a quote out of context and suggesting he meant something other than he said is not coming from the position of he meant what he wrote. With that said, i think its more complex than to just say he meant what he wrote, what one writes can be interpreted to mean different things to different people.

[_stemelbow]

Is that your way of saying, "No, Buffalo, I can't think of a single instance"?

Stephen E. Robinson was right. Mormons don't believe Christ.

No. Its my way of saying you come off as a CARMite when you pose these silly arguments and questions.

[Guest]

Hey stem, I read the second linked Ensign article you posted (the 1981, Lund). Did you read it? Do you believe that the atonement is conditional?

EDIT: It is a great article, by the way, and I think really says what LDS believe. Although, it does seem to say some conflicting things in it. Which is just like LDS believe, too.

[_Buffalo]

Stem,

Have you ever considered that you are the one who may be misunderstanding SWK? Maybe he meant exactly what he wrote, and you just don't want to accept that.

Taking a quote out of context and suggesting he meant something other than he said is not coming from the position of he meant what he wrote. With that said, i think its more complex than to just say he meant what he wrote, what one writes can be interpreted to mean different things to different people.

All quotes are technically out of context. If you feel the meaning is changed when presented with additional context, you need to make your case by providing it.

[_keithb]

Stem,

Have you ever considered that you are the one who may be misunderstanding SWK? Maybe he meant exactly what he wrote, and you just don't want to accept that.

Taking a quote out of context and suggesting he meant something other than he said is not coming from the position of he meant what he wrote. With that said, i think its more complex than to just say he meant what he wrote, what one writes can be interpreted to mean different things to different people.

Stem,

I have read that reply three times now and can't quite seem to make sense of it. I don't know whether it's the run-on sentence or simply the fact that the statement is somewhat incoherent, but could you please answer the question again?

Pep Pep

[_Buffalo]

Is that your way of saying, "No, Buffalo, I can't think of a single instance"?

Stephen E. Robinson was right. Mormons don't believe Christ.

No. Its my way of saying you come off as a CARMite when you pose these silly arguments and questions.

You're being evasive and dishonest, Stem. You're better than this.

[_just me]

From the Lund article:

The Conditional Atonement
But the sacrifice which pays the debt and frees us from the results of our own spiritual death, though it comes to us through the grace and goodness of God, is not unconditional.

He goes on to explain that faith is required as a starter to taking hold of the atonement. Then he explains that obedience, commitment and repentance are the works of faith. They are necessary to give power to the atonement in our lives.

We are saved by grace—saved by Christ’s love from physical and spiritual death; saved by Christ’s love from Adam’s fall and our own; saved from sin and transgression by the grace or gifts of God. The atoning power of God unto salvation is a freely available gift from him—but our works of righteousness are essential to bring the gift into power in our lives.

We are saved by grace.......but only if we earn it by works. LOL

[_Buffalo]

From the Lund article:

The Conditional Atonement
But the sacrifice which pays the debt and frees us from the results of our own spiritual death, though it comes to us through the grace and goodness of God, is not unconditional.

He goes on to explain that faith is required as a starter to taking hold of the atonement. Then he explains that obedience, commitment and repentance are the works of faith. They are necessary to give power to the atonement in our lives.

We are saved by grace—saved by Christ’s love from physical and spiritual death; saved by Christ’s love from Adam’s fall and our own; saved from sin and transgression by the grace or gifts of God. The atoning power of God unto salvation is a freely available gift from him—but our works of righteousness are essential to bring the gift into power in our lives.

We are saved by grace.......but only if we earn it by works. LOL

Hey, that's major progress. It wasn't that long ago that the "G" word was anathema.

[_stemelbow]

Hey stem, I read the second linked Ensign article you posted (the 1981, Lund). Did you read it? Do you believe that the atonement is conditional?

EDIT: It is a great article, by the way, and I think really says what LDS believe. Although, it does seem to say some conflicting things in it. Which is just like LDS believe, too.

I'm surprised this kind of stuff is of interest to people here, honestly. It catches me a little off-guard when someone asks something like this, because the norm is so much different here.

Anyway, give me a chance to explain myself a little first, if you would. The atonement, in my view, is for all of those who live and have ever lived. it is for humanitie's benefit. By it we find reconciliation. There is some condition to it, sure. For instance, the atonement is not for those who followed after Satan. It applies to only those who came or will come to this earth. For all those who come, i think the atonement applies no matter what. every man and woman will receive benefit because of it. For without it, hope, love, charity and all wouldn't be.

In this kind of nuanced sense there is no condition to atonement. But, that does not mean atonement itself, in this sense, is fully in effect (can't think of better words) for all. So in another sense there is condition. Not all will be exalted, afterall. There are conditions to how exaltation comes about. Those conditions are fairly simple in my estimation, but they do seem to become quite large and cumbersome as defined by the Church. The condition to me is learning to love, embrace the good in others, and do so to the point of finding unity.

Sorry for the drawn out explanation, which kind of feels I cut short, but I feel it fair I get to offer explanation lest someone confuses what I say.

[_stemelbow]

All quotes are technically out of context. If you feel the meaning is changed when presented with additional context, you need to make your case by providing it.

I think BCSpace's reply settled that already. Do you disagree with what he added?