Lego's argument always struck me as absurd. Imagine Ford doing the same thing: "Please refer to our vehicles as 'Ford vehicles' or 'cars', and not 'Fords'. By doing so..."
I think the temptation to start a car company that markets "Ford" cars is probably less than the temptation to put on your box of bricks that they are compatible with Lego bricks.
If the company doesn't take reasonable actions to protect the mark, they lose control of it.
The only risk I can see is becoming a generic term for "construction bricks". I don't see how me calling my genuine Lego bricks Legos contribute to that.
The church does have extrabiblical volumes of scripture, which also testify of Christ and go into more depth, but every doctrine of the church is in harmony with the Old and New Testaments. Members believe it is only by faith in Christ and by good works that they can be saved.
IANATheologian but I think many if not most Christian denominations teach that people are saved exclusively by faith. Works are interpreted as a sign of faith in some Protestant denominations, which lead to the concept of the Protestant work ethic.
IAANATheologian (I am also not a theologian), but I suppose those other Christian denominations conveniently skipped chapter 2 of James, where it says:
"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."
I think the Protestants focused on that last sentence, taking it to mean that you are saved by faith, but you can assess if someone does truly have faith by their works. So you are not saved by the works, but if you don't have works, your faith is questionable.
Ok, IAANAtheologian, but I do read a lot and believe this aligns with most Protestant doctrine (faith+grace yields salvation which yields faith which yields works), but not with LDS or Catholic doctrine which essentially teach that works yield salvation, and if you lack works, you will not be saved.
This is confusing, because there are many different passages that highlight different things. It seems easiest to look at it as a process that begins with salvation through grace and continues as you grow in faith.
You're not saved by faith alone. You do need a small amount of faith to believe in the first place, but then it is grace (the unwarranted forgiveness of your sins) that saves you, but only if you accept it and repent (reject/renounce/turn away) from your sins:
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God" (Eph 2:8)
As you grow in faith, you will produce works, and if you do not, then your faith is dead. (the aforementioned James 2, which was really aimed at believers, not those who hadn't yet accepted Christ.)
So, it goes like this:
(little) faith -> salvation by grace -> more faith -> works
"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (I John 1:9)
But if you die after salvation and true acceptance of your guilt and sin and repentance, you still go to Heaven, even if you are the most vile murderer on death row, because that's what grace is: completely unwarranted forgiveness.
But, if you stay alive and truly have faith, you will naturally produce works (that is, doing good things). If you don't do that, your faith is dead.
Interesting. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' perspective is similar, but (in my opinion) a little more straightforward. Faith leads a person to do good works (because faith helps one understand God's love for us, and we in turn want to share that), but neither faith nor good works alone will give us salvation (we can't save ourselves, which is why Jesus Christ is the key).
Salvation requires Christ to atone for our sins, and that forgiveness and atonement is granted on the condition that our works be in line with what Christ taught. So:
Faith -> Repentance -> Baptism (+ continuing to repent and improve yourself daily through faith and good works) -> Salvation through grace.
The Book of Mormon clarifies this belief (which is consistent with the teachings of James):
"For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." [1]
Both Mormons and Protestants get this passage wrong most of the time. I don’t know about Catholics.
Entry into the earthly Kingdom of God is based on the ancient suzerainty covenant, the covenant you as a citizen of a kingdom make with the ruler. You are accepted into the kingdom by swearing “faith” (eg fealty) to the suzerain. In return you are promised the protection of the suzerain; you receive the rights of a citizen in the kingdom.
The key insight here is that the meaning of the word “faith” has changed from “to have loyalty to” to “to have belief in”.
From the moment you swear fealty (“faith”) you are a full member of the kingdom. However, if you do not fulfill the obligations of a member of the kingdom (“works”) you can absolutely get yourself kicked back out.
So:
1) you are “saved” from the moment you enter the covenant, eg express loyalty to God; and you remain saved as long as you remain in the covenant.
2) works are not optional. They are the wages required to remain in the covenant.
Thanks for the insight. A lot of the difference seems to arise from a different interpretation of the word salvation. In some contexts, that does (as you mention) refer to a covenant relationship with Christ. In other contexts, salvation (as understood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) may refer to our desired state after this life, also known as exaltation or eternal life, which is to know Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and dwell with Them forever.
Or as John put it:
"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3)
We have no way of knowing that, because the church keeps their finances shrouded from public view. Not even members that have paid 10% for their entire lives have a view into how the money is spent.
What we do have is a few leaked pay stubs showing actual amounts, and leaked memos acknowledging the existence of, but not quantifying, other forms of compensation. We also have some tangible evidence of the large net worth of various leaders of the church. The typical excuse is that they made lots of money before they were general authorities...but we also have proof of large (8-figure) net worths of people like Thomas Monson, who was a church employee (notorious for lower than market pay) for his entire career.
So what we really have is some leaked proof of a decently sized lower bound on compensation and knowledge that it goes higher than that, with the possibility that it could go much higher. How much higher, we don't know. And we won't until the church decides to actually share their finances.
I know that unapproved critical thinking is looked down on in the mormon church, but if I were a believing member, I would probably be asking why they won't do just that. If they really are responsible and meagerly paid stewards of god's money, they have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, by being transparent about it. Occam's razor tells me that they're a bunch of liars and secrecy suits them far better than transparency does.
To me, Occam's Razor suggests not that there is a massive conspiracy in the upper echelons of the LDS church where general authorities are glutting themselves on tithes, but rather that Thomas S. Monson had private sources of income outside of his church employment that account for his wealth.
And if it weren't for the fact that there are several thousand known and published leaks of information that the church has tried to cover up and whitewash through "official" media, then that might be a reasonable assumption.
It's not a massive conspiracy. It's a very simple conspiracy: don't tell people what you do with the money they give you, and then they don't have any way to criticize you about how you use it. In fact, the very culture that they've fostered to enable this freedom from criticism (just trust me, I'm a mormon bishop!) has become a problem that others have begun to exploit.
As I have noted elsewhere, I have personally known one where I know for certain his family (also not rich, visited their homes for years) was worried about his old car tires' safety for a long drive home, and two others tangentially who I'm somewhat confident were not rich. Another, Bassett, I knew when young, then he made good as a founder/owner in the auto-auction business (where I have a little grunt-level experience). Elder Gay was founder/executive in a private equity firm (quick wikipedia search). The prior careers are available on-line, I'm pretty sure, because there is always some blurb about their prior bios when they are called. Another I knew of in another state who started and ran a locally successful accounting firm. Nelson is widely known to have been a heart surgeon, and it goes on & on.
"The computer name WOPR used in the movie was a joke based on a real computer once used to predict war strategies at NORAD which was called "BRGR". The Burger King "Whopper" is a "Burger"."
