Thoughts regarding God's Grace

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Well the subject of the thread is grace, clearly a Biblical principle and subject whereas those ordinances peculiar to Mormonism are not.

Not quite. The subject of the thread (or at least of the OP) is one person's thoughts on grace.

Does that still bother you?

[_Albion]

No sure what you are asking me. No matter the opening thread being an opinion or viewpoint the subject is still grace...it is, perhaps, the subject if ordinances, Mormon or otherwise, that doesn't fit so I found it odd that it was suggested I start my own thread on the very subject of this one. Confusing, isn't it.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

No sure what you are asking me.

And I'm not sure what your problem is.

No matter the opening thread being an opinion or viewpoint the subject is still grace...

Uh, no. The subject is clearly one person's thoughts on grace. Hence the title: Thoughts regarding God's Grace.

...it is, perhaps, the subject if ordinances, Mormon or otherwise, that doesn't fit...

The author of the OP is clearly of the opinion that it does fit.

...so I found it odd that it was suggested I start my own thread on the very subject of this one.

I find it odd that you think moksha is not entitled to his own beliefs and opinions, hence your request that he change the title of his (i.e. not yours) opening post .

Confusing, isn't it.

No, I don't find it confusing at all.

[_Albion]

Not sure what your motivation is here but nowhere have I suggested that the opening post be changed in any way. I have responded with two posts on the discussion and added one cryptic comment suggesting that there is from my perspective a real debate between the Mormon gospel and its ordinances and those that are supported by Biblical writ. Do you have some thoughts to offer on grace or is your motive just to highlight me in some way?

[_subgenius]

there is no evidence that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that God is an abuser.

Expand your mind.

again...not evidence, but speculation.
nevertheless, your consideration of this book's sensationalism and out-of-context pontifications is simply another example of putting forth a "false" nature/character of God.
I find it most interesting that persons often proclaim a disbelief in God - based solely on an invalid, incorrect, inaccurate, or outlandish characterization of God - and as such deny God rather than their own false construct of God....talk about narrow minded.
Thanks for the book reference but it is but another tabloid with little merit beyond serving as an example of how to "misconstrue".
Ironically, you have no reason to abhor, condemn, or disagree with the above referenced God's actions.
I mean
LaVey's satanism requires one to respect and have "faith" in individualism and "eye for an eye" morality...that somehow man's inherent nature is the pinnacle...that inherent nature being one that is violent and bloody - your self-proclaimed atomic materialism denies you the ability to criticize the workings of God.

Nope, faith has nothing to do with it.

sure it does - LaVeyan Satanism is a "faith" - pure and simple...undeniable.

and that is what, ironically, you do not "get"
Got it?

Nope, faith still doesn't have anything to do with it.

So, you don't get it.
"When all religious faith in lies has waned, it is because man has become closer to himself and farther from 'God'; closer to the 'Devil"
A simple faith statement...faith in narcissism.
Your own avatar professes that "God" is merely a projection of the self. Ironic...you are the "abuser" here, there, and everywhere.

Are you sure this reply wasn't intended for someone else?

i suppose it is possible given your posts.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Not sure what your motivation is here...

My aim is to spotlight people who treat holy writ as if it were the US Tax Code, and whose thinking revolves around dogmatic checklists.

So...is that a dogmatic checklist in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

...but nowhere have I suggested that the opening post be changed in any way.

Baloney. Your desire for a title change is quite obvious in the following exchange...

Albion: Please amend to read Mormon gospel ordinances.
Natsunekko: You're free to start your own thread on the subject of grace and give it whatever title you think best.
Albion: Well the subject of the thread is grace, clearly a Biblical principle and subject whereas those ordinances peculiar to Mormonism are not.

I have responded with two posts on the discussion and added one cryptic comment suggesting that there is from my perspective a real debate between the Mormon gospel and its ordinances and those that are supported by Biblical writ.

Uh, no. Your "cryptic comment" was an attempt to have your cake and eat it, too.

Do you have some thoughts to offer on grace or is your motive just to highlight me in some way?

Please see above.

[_Albion]

I make no excuse for using the Bible in a discussion on scriptural issues such as grace. I may not agree with those who have differing ideas on the subject but presumably we have common ground in the Bible as the source for our opinions. That you find it objectionable matters little to me but now that you have made your motives clear, I can treat your posts with better discernment. Thank you for the clarification.

[_huckelberry]

Is it not correct,I can't swear to it, that in LDS view Gods giving people ordinances is an act of grace flowing from his love and concern and people doing the ordinances is a reception of that grace? As in the Methodist or Armenian constructions people are seen as having free choice in how they react to the grace sent their way from God. Doing the ordinance is not understood as earning salvation or grace but is part of the reception of Gods proffered grace.

I think it is pretty clear in Romans that peoples reception of Gods grace does involve events and actions for the people. I do not see any indications that anything like temple ordinances are involved however. I do not think Romans contains anything proving there could not be. If a person has a lot of confidence in Joseph Smith that is adequate to avoid a sense of contradiction.

[_Albion]

If I am understanding you correctly, I would agree that ordinances such as baptism are the public or outward demonstration of God's grace in the life of the repentant sinner. The outpouring of God's grace to forgiveness of sin comes through faith...sin is forgiven through grace and not by some magical quality in baptismal water. Submission to baptism is the demonstration of the saving grace that has already taken place.

[Guest]

I make no excuse for using the Bible in a discussion on scriptural issues such as grace.

Then why the need for "cryptic" comments? What are you trying to hide?

I may not agree with those who have differing ideas on the subject but presumably we have common ground in the Bible as the source for our opinions.

Your problem has nothing to do with people whose opinions differ from your own. Your problem is that you want to be the sole arbiter of what is and is not "common ground," hence your request that the title of this thread be changed.

That you find it objectionable matters little to me but now that you have made your motives clear, I can treat your posts with better discernment. Thank you for the clarification.

One hopes your future posts will display an equal degree of clarity. Perhaps someday you'll find the courage of your convictions and will no longer need to camouflage your true intent with "cryptic" comments.