The Main Claim of Mormonism
Lee Benson at Mormon Times wrote about the “big image problem” Mormons are plagued with. According to LDS researcher Gary Lawrence, “We’re not as popular as we think we are.” Though Americans are very aware of the LDS Church (84 percent have been exposed to missionaries, members and/or Mormons in the media), people don’t really know what Mormonism is about. Lee Benson wrote,
“… of that 84 percent, just 14 percent could correctly answer the main claim of Mormonism: that it is Christ’s original gospel re-arranged on the Earth.”
I’m not entirely certain what is meant by that particular phraseology, but to me it makes perfect sense. To rearrange something is to change it, and if there is anything Mormonism has done, it has changed Christ’s original gospel.
Christ’s original Gospel teaches of the eternal God becoming a man; in Mormonism’s rearranged gospel an eternal intelligence was organized into a man who later became a God.
In the original Gospel the veil in the temple was torn asunder, signifying that we now have direct access to God in Christ; in Mormonism’s rearranged gospel people are required to approach a new veil hanging in a Mormon temple and practice secret key words, signs and tokens that will one day grant them access to God’s kingdom.
In the original Gospel Jesus created all things; in Mormonism’s rearranged gospel Jesus “organized” eternally pre-existent matter to make this earth; He wasn’t necessarily involved in the organization of the other worlds that exist under the dominion of other Saviors in other universes directed by other Gods.
In the original Gospel God so loved the world that He gave His only Son; in Mormonism’s rearranged gospel God gave one of His many begotten sons.
In the original Gospel Christ died to rescue unworthy sinners from God’s wrath unto eternal life in His presence; in Mormonism’s rearranged gospel Christ’s sacrificial death ultimately only rescues those who prove themselves worthy of eternal life.
Mormonism has definitely rearranged Christ’s Gospel. As for me, I’ll stick with the original.
Comments (167)
Paul warns us to beware of false gospels, ( Galatian 1:9) and Mormonism is definately a false gospel….. it is so very important for Christians to really know their Bibles, to know God's word so when missionaries of the LDS faith or Jehovah Witnesses or any other false church sends their representatives we may not only recognize the false message they present — but that we may be equipped to share with them the true message of salvation — of Christ crucified for our sins.
I pray for the lost who are in the Mormon church daily — that many many would come to know the real Jesus and come to know that what He did on Calvary ( not gethsamane) really truly did pay the *complete* price for our sins…. I have hope, great hope that God is leading many LDS to know Jesus…….the real Jesus, not the "jesus" of Joseph Smith, but Jesus – God made flesh…
Praising Him!
gloria
I am really surprised that Benson did not use the phrase "truth restored" instead of "gospel rearranged". Anyway, I think the powers that be in SLC have no one to blame but themselves for Mormonism's message being unclear. The obfuscations and practice of missionaries answering a question with a question instead of giving direct answers only muddles things further. When missionaries came to my house last year, I asked them about the LDS teaching of God having once been a man, and they emphatically assured me that God has always been God. I was really confused and called the missionary hotline after they left, and the nice guy on the other end told me with some embarrassement that yes, LDS do teach that God was once a man who progressed to godhood. Another reason why Mormonism's teachings/history is unclear to the general public is because some of its members are ignorant (through no fault of their own) of the facts. I was visited by other missionaries this year who insisted that Joseph had had no other wife but Emma. When the LDS church is cagey with the truth not only to the general public but also to its own members, facts are going to get lost along the way.
Yet again we witness Mormon Coffee misconstruing an obvious error in the media (the word should be "restored" not "re-arranged") to foment prejudice and create a gross caricature of the LDS Church, its doctrine, and people.
Good post Sharon; and I'm taking a wild guess that Sharon's views were/are not formed by Mr.Benson's use of the word 're-arranged' rather than restored. His was just an unintentional slip into fuller disclosure…..ooooops. My wish is that as the LDS give their audience a better, clearer, description of their 'gospel', I wish they would drop the 'milk befoer meat' baloney (pardon the pun) and give one and all the story straight up, even the 'hard to understand parts'. To the degree that do not (WILL not ???), I will do my amatuerish best to fill in the gaps. I wish that were'nt so necessary, but so far, the LDS seem loathe to give people the straight story the first time around. Call my description a 'gross caricature' if you want, but I think people need to know what they are saying 'YES' to, before they sign up. Is that asking too much ?? If, after knowing the facts, someone wants to 'go with Joe', then that's moral free agency at work. GERMIT
SteveH, if you think use of the word "re-arranged" is a deliberate misrepresentation of LDS doctrine for the purpose of creating a gross caricature of Mormonism, your are complaining at the wrong site. Please take it up with Lee Benson at Mormon Times (link supplied above) and use your comments here to discuss the distinctiveness of LDS doctrine.
No Sharon,
My complaint is not with the quote from Lee Benson, but rather with everything subsequent from that quote.
just wondering if anyone else was wondering "How did he, Mr. Benson , know that to the following:
"As Mormons, we think we're effectively communicating our message, but we're not," says Lawrence. "Our image is lousy largely because of so many falsehoods and distortions out there about who we are."
what I mean is: how does he know the unfavorable impression is NOT the fault of something else ?? I can't tell from the context of the article how he would know one way or the other. I applaud Mr. Benson's efforts at trying to understand what people are really thinking and feeling, but there could be more to this issue than just doctrinal (mis)understanding. Just thinking out loud……and for free……… GERMIT
PS to SteveH: well, malice toward what your church teaches, I'll own up to that; malice toward LDS as PEOPLE……..I hope not, it's always good for me to self-check.
PS to Gloria: your HOPE is contagious……you rock, HE rules.
Amen Germit. If only the LDS Church would give a straight history and explanation of doctrine to investigators instead of white washing, telling half truths, or outright lying to them. And, I would like this to come straight from the prophets mouth, not laymembers because even they dont agree on everything.
It would be nice if Mr. Monson would just say "This is our history, and this is our doctrine – what LDS believe, and if you don't believe all of this, then you aren't LDS, end of story." Granted, this would take quite a while because there are many doctrinal topics to cover (Who God is, where He came from, exactly what amount of works is needed to be exalted into the celestial kingdom). Lets be honest here, "doing our best" is rather ambiguous. No one on earth does "all they can do." You can be giving food to the homeless right now instead of arguing with evangelicals on this blog for instance.
Why hide/wash so much of Joseph Smith's history in the church authorized film. Show his other wives besides Emma Smith. Show him shooting the gun off in Carthage Jail. Show his first vision, and then explain the multiple first vision stories. Don't pull the Mr. Hinckley approach on if God was once a man. Man up Mr. Prophet!
It's sad and pathetic that Church authority leaves it up to lay members and sites like FAIR and FARMS to explain all of this. I feel bad for the members, honestly. Be the voice of God on earth as you claim to be and quit "leading us astray" even though you said you never would.
Granted, if Mr. Monson did this there would still be ignorant people saying ignorant things about Mormons, but there is a lot of rather simple things that would be nice if they even took a crack at it.
Steve, do you care to clarify or do you wish to leave your very general comment as is?
To me, I can see how you migh object to some of the characterizations because those things mean so much to you, like how Jesus is YOUR ONLY god and the others don't matter. But, taking that value out of the statements, can you say Sharon is wrong?
Germit, I'd agree. And when I agree, I try to think of how we as Christians approach the difficult subjects. Certainly, we try to encourage basic understandings first. However, we do not exclude or even discourage hard questions. Maybe this is a stereotype of Mormons, but I think we all have seen or heard the milk-before-meat argument at work from them. As to us and the hard questions, I think there is great value in teaching the hard questions sooner rather than later. People don't need building blocks, they need to understand God and what he did for us. That understanding includes the entire picture, and not just the meat.
Alas…
An "obvious error in the media"… This is not the New York Times or the Washington Post this is from the Mormon Times, part of Deseret News. The banner reads "For and about members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". The article opens, "Gary Lawrence is a card-carrying, tithe-paying, churchgoing Mormon."
What I see is a member of your church in a publication run by your church, not the media making mistakes about LDS doctrine.
Shall we look a little closer at one incorrect statement Sharon made? ”…in Mormonism’s rearranged gospel an eternal intelligence was organized into a man who later became a God” I have made this comment a number of times about how incorrect this is.
I will start by asking a question – How long have you been human? Was it just when you were a fully grown adult? Was it from when you were 10 yrs old? How about a neo-nate? Or was it when you were a foetus? Embryo? Zygote? Gamete? DNA? The answer is that you have always been and will always be classified as human by science regardless of which stage of development you are at. The same applies to us in an eternal sense. We have been and always will be gods, even when we were intelligences. Its just we are in a latent stage, as one GA said – we are gods in embryo. We have yet to realise our full potential, which is what this life is about. So the above statement is incorrect about our teachings on God, Jesus and their character. They have been and will always be gods, from eternity to eternity.
(Couldn't put this with my last comment it said that it was too long. How do I get it to accept longer comments as the character count was only 1400)
Now just a little ‘nit-picking’ (did my fair share this week as my kids got some from school) – ”In the original Gospel God so loved the world that He gave His only Son; in Mormonism’s rearranged gospel God gave one of His many begotten sons” you missed a bit Sharon, God so loved the world that He gave His only BEGOTTEN Son – NOT His only Son. Big difference in meaning and content between these two statements.
Ralph, this isn't what GRCLuff has said. He said that in fact we were 'organized' in the preexistence.
Its also not consistent with the idea that there is but one god, if we are all gods.
So, I'll repeat what I said to SteveH: these ideas by Sharon are accurate.
You can come in and say something different, but even as you present wha tyou say is a misconception still ends up with a different, re-arranged, gospel.
For some reason the commenting system gives more length-freedom to non-IE browsers like Firefox and Google Chrome and Safari. Try one of this. Also, reply to your own comment to maintain continuity.
I think it is clear that Mormonism teaches that we are all literal begotten spirit children, while Jesus is the "only begotten" simply in the sense of the Father directly contributing DNA to Mary's womb for Jesus' conception (and how that was done is a matter debate among Mormons). In other words, for us the Father is our literal spirit-father. But for Jesus the Father is also literally the father of his body.
This differentiation between different kinds of "begotten" sons is not biblical, as has been shown in the recent thread on "becoming sons".
For some reason the commenting system gives more length-freedom to non-IE browsers like Firefox and Google Chrome and Safari. Try one of those. Also, reply to your own comment to maintain continuity.
I think it is clear that Mormonism teaches that we are all literal begotten spirit children, while Jesus is the "only begotten" simply in the sense of the Father directly contributing DNA to Mary's womb for Jesus' conception (and how that was done is a matter debate among Mormons). In other words, for us the Father is our literal spirit-father. But for Jesus the Father is also literally the father of his body.
This differentiation between different kinds of "begotten" sons is not biblical, as has been shown in the recent thread on "becoming sons".
For some reason the commenting system gives more length-freedom to non-IE browsers like Firefox and Google Chrome and Safari. Try one of those. Also, reply to your own comment to maintain continuity if you have to.
I think it is clear that Mormonism teaches that we are all literal begotten spirit children, while Jesus is the "only begotten" simply in the sense of the Father directly contributing DNA to Mary's womb for Jesus' conception (and how that was done is a matter debate among Mormons). In other words, for us the Father is our literal spirit-father. But for Jesus the Father is also literally the father of his body.
This differentiation between different kinds of "begotten" sons is not biblical, as has been shown in the recent thread on "becoming sons".
Ralph,
Interesting, you seem to be taking a different position than <a href ="http://blog.mrm.org/2008/11/do-we-need-to-become-...target="_blank">GRCluff on this issu… If we are all "gods in embryo" were we "gods in zygote" as intelligences? Also how did the first "intelligences" evolve into a god without the help of a previous god? Also if God the Father and Jesus were always gods from eternity to eternity, are you and I also gods from eternity to eternity? If we believe there is no distinction between "intelligences," spirits, angels, men, gods, then wouldn't god simply be a divine abortionist? Think about it how do you stop a zygote from becoming an embryo? Isn't this what God did with Lucifer and Lucifer's followers when he denied them the right to become men, that is "gods in embryo?"
Lautensack
Ralph,
Interesting, you seem to be taking a different position than GRCluff on this issue. If we are all "gods in embryo" were we "gods in zygote" as intelligences? Also how did the first "intelligences" evolve into a god without the help of a previous god? Also if God the Father and Jesus were always gods from eternity to eternity, are you and I also gods from eternity to eternity? If we believe there is no distinction between "intelligences," spirits, angels, men, gods, then wouldn't god simply be a divine abortionist? Think about it how do you stop a zygote from becoming an embryo? Isn't this what God did with Lucifer and Lucifer's followers when he denied them the right to become men, that is "gods in embryo?"
Lautensack
Ralph,
Interesting, you seem to be taking a different position than GRCluff on this issue. If we are all "gods in embryo" were we "gods in zygote" as "intelligences"? Also how did the first "intelligences" evolve into a god without the help of a previous god? Also if God the Father and Jesus were always gods from eternity to eternity, are you and I also gods from eternity to eternity? If we believe there is no distinction between "intelligences," spirits, angels, men, gods, then wouldn't god simply be a divine abortionist? Think about it how do you stop a zygote from becoming an embryo? Isn't this what God did with Lucifer and Lucifer's followers when he denied them the right to become men, that is "gods in embryo?"
Lautensack
As far as we know, "re-arranged" is Lee Benson's word.
And given that no evidence exists of early Christians believing in a multiplicity of supreme beings of the human species, nor of Heavenly Mother(s) to beget billions of spirit babies, nor of an ordained Aaronic priesthood for Gentiles, "re-arranged" is an ironically good word to describe Mormonism.
SteveH,
If you believe the quote to be a typo, why not ask Mr. Benson to post an update that he used the wrong term, I am sure if such were the case he would be willing to post an update to his article, which seems to be little more than a glorified ad for Gary Lawrence's new book "Americans View Mormonism: Seven Steps to Improve … Perhaps Mr. Benson is part of the 71% of ill informed people who could not accurately state the churches position he references in his article. However if you don't disagree with the quote and are not willing to ask Mr. Benson to correct it, then Sharon's usage of the quote is a fair usage, why should she suggest that a Mormon, writing for a Mormon newspaper, usage of "re-arranged gospel" is incorrect?
Lautensack
GRCluff, what exactly are you responding to? Seems like you're attacking a straw man. Sharon's post actually says,
"in Mormonism’s rearranged gospel Jesus “organized” eternally pre-existent matter to make this earth; He wasn’t necessarily involved in the organization of the other worlds that exist under the dominion of other Saviors in other universes directed by other Gods."
Take care,
Aaron
Good post, Lautensack; I too thought of the phrase "whole counsel of God" when reading DOF's post. If the prophet, and/or someone else "official" won't step forward to give ALL the listening world the whole counsel of God, then who will?? The answer seems to be someone more skilled, McConkie or Talmadge, who (because they are still viewed as 'unofficial') can be disavowed if necessary. How different than the spirit and intent that I see in the NT. Really, how different than the boldness and forthright speech we came to expect from JS and BY, among others.
Now they 'testify and warn….." hmmmm DOF, I'll say it clearly, some of my apologetic against your religion is precisely this: the way your group, particularly the leadership, does NOT reflect the ways and intentions of the NT, of Jesus Christ or His apostles. They have the titles, the robes, the 'pub'……but where's the beef ?? GERMIT
Aaron,
"If only Mormonism had a prophet to clear up this whole confusing mess. But thank goodness we have BYU professors and Mormon apologists to provide clarity when Mormon prophets and apostles only offer ambiguity and confusion… right?"
Basically, many want leaders of the Church to "clarify" doctrine, when in reality, they have no real interest in the answers. This has been the case since the First Vision. No wonder Joseph was reluctant to share his story. Nothing has changed, in our time and of old. If Pilate had one ounce of interest in the truth, would Jesus have maintained his silence? Prophets and apostles have no duty to expound doctrine to "nonbelievers". Their mission is to testify and warn. I applaud them for not yielding to constant onslaught of ridicule to a generation that would not receive the answer anyway. Missionaries, same call. They shouldn't even entertain such questions. If the people will repent then what they will see what is really "Biblical"
Right, so the GA's really do have the answers, but we (and you Mormon laymen included) aren't good enough to be let in on the secret knowledge. I wonder if a GA, when he is ordained, gets a top secret folder called, "Doctrinal Answers You Always Wanted but Weren't High Enough in the Hierarchy to Explicitly Receive".
A gnostic tip of the hat to you, sir.
We forget that the basis for belief in the Mormon gospel is the "testimony" of the believer or "the God told me it's true" approach. So Mormons are very comfortable with ambiguity, folk doctrine, and Mormon urban legends. Any evidence that contridicts the idea that God told the Mormon it's all true is dismissed. Those brave Mormon souls that venture out and question Mormonism despite the fear of ending up in outer darkness, soon find that there's no there there when it comes to the claims of Mormonism being the original real deal Christianity. But those Mormons who joyfully muddle along thinking that God gave them a special feeling that it's all true, it is true because they've created their own spiritual reality. Whoever said "ignorance is bliss" must have had TBMs in mind.
Ralph,
My logic would only take me to those positions in the Mormon Worldview. Since Christianity has a completely different doctrine of God, Man, Sin, Salvation, etc., such claims would not even make sense in Christianity because rather than being literal children of God, we are creatures created by Him. Your questions about still born children and people who die don't make sense in Mormonism or Christianity. These questions would be valid if we were discussing a naturalistic worldview where God was limited to nature and not a semi-naturalistic or super-naturalistic one. They also engage in equivocation, in Mormonism physical death doesn't necessarily end ones progression. Likewise to the Christian "to live is Christ and to die is gain."
Perhaps abortion wasn't the best analogy to use since you seem to like to deal in naturalistic views. If we were going to use a naturalistic human analogy a closer one a baby slapped his father and his father beat him until he was a vegetable.
Now the question about Jesus is indeed an interesting one, while he laid down his life, it was not suicide. Suicide is a selfish act, the cross of Calvary was a selfless act where Christ took on the sins and shame of his friends, where he lays down his life for his sheep. (John 15:13; John 10:11) One might think of it as a man taking a bullet for a friend, no one would accuse the man of suicide.
Lautensack
I do grow weary of responding to the inaccurate portrayals of Mormonism as typified by the foregoing quote from Sharon. It is clear that evangelicals are not interested in knowing or understanding LDS doctrine but rather they prefer to regurgitate the same old shop-worn arguments not caring in the least whether they are accurate or not. It is much easier to attack a gross caricature than it is to have an open and honest discussion.
Amen. It's important to point out that general authorities of the church are doing God's will, no the will of the "mormon coffee" blog. As Christians, we all know where to go to verify anything we hear preached at any pulpit anywhere–and that is prayer. But to those who are simply interested in their own pride and vindication (as was put by Elder Ballard this last conference, I believe)- truth is never the goal. Humble followers of Christ will hear His voice. This point I am making goes for LDS too- everyone must be wary of their intentions and constantly humble themselves before the Lord.
Another broad stroke with no substance, Steve.
If you'd like to correct something in Sharon's post, do so.
If you think something's hogwash, tell us what that is and why its wrong.
Lay your cards out on the table? I am not sure what that means, but the only cards I see showing are a belief that God has spoken all that He has or will "at least officially". Isn't the entire history of the Bible a record that shows the counsel of God will come from his chosen servants? Where is the imitation today? Where aren't the elders considering this is that is very foundation of Biblical teaching? If that is the doctrine of Christianity, it is not true.
It is also this belief that we are in "embryo" that we realize how weak we are and how dependent we are on a Heavenly Father to nurture us with the plan of salvation, and dependent on a Savior to pay the INFINITE price He paid on the cross and in Galilee. Evangelicals want to suggest that this belief somehow makes us arrogant and ridiculous- and it couldn't be further from the truth. We are completely and totally reliant upon a loving Father to provide the way for us…and though we are commanded to be obedient, and this is expedient for Grace, nothing we will ever do in this life will ever share the infinite burden that Christ carried, and the infinite price He paid. He saves, we are obedient to Him since He has asked us to be, and He is mighty to save.
Question: Our works are important because faith is dead without them…not because they save us…so why do evangelicals consistently beleaguer the point? Are they suggesting that because our works don't save us that we should abandon works? We perform works because Christ says he will not save us without faith in Him…and we cannot have faith without works. So in a roundabout way, works are important to our path back to our Heavenly Father but they aren't the saving agent. My father showed me a pretty cool calculus equation that sums this concept up quite nicely…if only i weren't a liberal arts major at times like this.
Germit,
"ways and intentions of the NT, of Jesus Christ or His apostles.."??
Oh, you mean like…
Acts 20:31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I CEASED NOT TO WARN EVERY ONE NIGHT AND DAY WITH TEARS.
I can see that the ancient apostles were anxiously engaged in posting "official statements" so that everyone would take them seriously. Someone help me!
REPENT is the beef! (that is still one of the best commercial of all time) All of the expounding of doctrine is for the edification of the saints. If this crowd is "bored" during Conference because the Elders are rehashing the necessity of Prayer (again), good luck obtaining the "ears that hear"
You can re-arrange something to its original- I'm not so sure this term means what Sharon wants it to mean. Go beyond the mark much?
Aaron, if there is no aaronic priesthood for gentiles, how is the Lord going to make good on His promise to the house of Israel, and the grafting of the olive branches?? Or is Isaiah just telling fun stories about olive trees? Once baptism occurs, the individual is adopted into the house of Israel. Oh, wait, my bad– I forgot: when we baptize for the dead, I guess that means we are adopting jews into the house of mormons– I get it now (note: sarcasm)
"Right, so the GA's really do have the answers"
This conversation reminds me of Luke 16 where the rich man finds himself in hell and in torment and Lazarus at rest. He tries to persuade Abraham to send Lazarus to his family to testify
Luke 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Amen to vs. 31. The test in every age has been whether men's hearts are sufficient humble to accept the servants of the Lord. …"That means I know more than all your LDS apostles and prophets combined." is a dangerous stance to take.
Thank you for the scripture in Ephesians- it is verifying even more what I said. In what way was I pitting paul against james? Don't you see that what I was saying in no way contradicts this passage in ephesians? There is a definite disconnect- no matter how much I try to explain, it seems as though I'm either doing a bad job or no one is paying attention.
Let's pick this apart phrase by phrase:
For grace you have been saved through faith:
Yes, Grace is what saves us THROUGH faith..and as I established through James, faith is inseparable from works. (as you stated, these two scriptures should not be pitted against each other, but work together since faith has been defined in James)
And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
what is "this" in the scripture? Well, grace. Grace is not our own doing…(which is why we cannot boast of ourselves because our faith and works is meaningless- only has worth to the extent that the Savior dictates its' worth-and He has by giving us commandments) w e know this because the ultimate price was paid by the Savior, not by us. Grace, as performed by the Savior on the cross, is what saves- I believe I agreed on this point entirely. This gift is given to us with ONE condition: Faith in Him who saves.
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them:
God prepared beforehand right? So before we came here, God intended that the Savior was to come (so the garden of Eden was set up for Adam and Eve to fall–because right here it says that God intended that Grace be necessary from the beginning)- New that we would fall, new that we would need a savior and intended to command us to have faith. Another important doctrinal point is that LDS believe that all of those who kept their first estate and came here to earth receives the free gift of grace, in that they will all be resurrected (with the exception of sons of perdition)- So we do believe that no matter what our works are here, Grace will still save us- but depending on our own faith, will determine how God will bless us in the hereafter based on HIS guidelines. But even in this scenario, it is still Christs grace that does the saving.
As for the second scripture you referenced, I would ask you how repentance plays a roll in the point you seem to be making- is repentance a work? does repentance save us? No, but we must repent to be cleansed:
Revelations 2:5
5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
Amanda, I think the best way to address my point is by asking a very direct question: can I be saved, in Mormon theology, unless I am baptized by a Mormon, regardless of my faith in the restored gospel as presented by Joseph Smith?
This is really the gist of it all, and all the rhetoric doesn't matter if you answer the above question in the affirmitive. This is simply because you require at least one work. If you want to split hairs about believing as a work, have at it, but if you require that one act to be saved in the Mormon church, then you require works, and not faith, to be saved.
As to the many turn away, it doesn't make sense because why would people who were chose in the pre-existence because of their faith turn away? On the surface, it is pretty obvious, but I am digging deeper, and it seems an empty and problematic view. I question it because it seems very "feel good' like. It seems to have the overwhelmingly positive view of man kind, and coupled with the idea of baptism of the dead, it just does not make logical sense, because the conclusion I reach is that EVERYONE will be 'saved'.
I guess God plays favorites with his spirit children. Jesus gets the Lamborghini right off the bat and we get nothing.
Aaron, I do not know if the GA's have all the answers. I do believe that they do know more than what they are telling us because they are on a higher spiritual level than we are. The same goes with any person on the same level as them, or more in tune with the spirit than we are.
One thing to realise is that the scriptures and the prophets (and GA's) teach us the basics for exaltation/salvation. Everything that we need to know is in them. Anything else we do not need to know is available only to those who attain the right spiritual understanding/level for that information. So what do we need to know for exaltation/salvation – Faith in Jesus Christ as our Saviour and Redeemer, Repentance, baptism, gift of the Holy Ghost, endure to the end by keeping the commandments and the nature of God.
(Continued)
All else is unnecessary (eg what was God's life like on His earth, where did He come from, how spirit children come into being, when is the second coming etc) but still people like to speculate.
So in summary, we do not have these answers because they are not relevant to our salvation/exaltation. And if we are not correctly in tune with the Spirit then we would not understand it anyway and most likely reject it.
So, it is 100% sufficient to say that salvation is living with God for eternity in Mormonism, then. So what is it to reach godhood? Something seems to be missing from your definition, and thus from the rest of your explanation.
I mentioned to Amanda that Mormons seem to have some misrepresentations about us, too, and I think you hit on another when you say 'Forgiveness of sin is available to all who repent, not just evangelicals who accept Christ." See, its not just the evangelicals, and none would argue as much. But is the accepting of Christ as shown in the Bible, and not through any other Christ that might exist in people's minds. As you know, this is an entirely different topic, but who that Christ is is terribly important.
Your comment also brings up a question as to the mode of repenting. You make no mention of accepting Christ at all to reach salvation, even though Christ stated that those who believe in Him will be saved. See, its not just about the repenting of bad behavior, it is actually about accepting Christ.
But alas…
I took issue with the sequence of events–
1. intelligence
2. identity and spirit form
3. create the world
4. become a man
5. become a God
He became a God at 1 or 2 not 5. –"later became a God" is clearly not right.
Your restatement just introduces more issues. i.e. I have heard Mormons profess a belief that Christ may be the savior of more than one world, but other Saviors? Other Gods? Not to my knowledge. Possible, perhaps but never professed doctrine.
The question of whether such an issue is institutionally explicated is a red herring. It doesn't have to be institutionally explicated for it to be a meaningful part of Mormon tradition and part of the historical worldview of real, living Mormons. Also, that something isn't institutionally explicated in a modern fashion doesn't mean it isn't institutionally condoned.
GRCluff, you should talk to some of my Mormon friends here in UT. They are really explicit in not only allowing for but asserting the probable existence of others saviors and Gods over other worlds. As for whether one "becomes a God" at 1,2 or 5, GRCluff, I beseech you, just read some historic Mormon works on deification. The language of becoming a God is nearly always in the context of #5. Perhaps you are simply unfamiliar with this line of thinking. If so, I encourage you to read "The Doctrine of Deity" by Mormon B.H. Roberts.
"Can I be saved, in Mormon theology, unless I am baptized by a Mormon, regardless of my faith in the restored gospel as presented by Joseph Smith?"
Let's rephrase it…do you think you could be saved unless your are baptized with that "one baptism" that Paul speaks of? Ephesians 4:5
"Saved" is a loaded potato expression.
We will all be resurrected and live throughout the eternities with some degree of glory:
Luke 15:41
Those who kept their first estate (pre-existence) basically all who come to this earth, will receive some degree of glory -with the exception of sons of perdition
D&C 76:43 Who glorifies the Father, and saves all the works of his hands, except those sons of perdition who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him.
Those who keep their second estate will receive Celestial glory- meaning those who are baptized in this life or by proxy and receive other necessary ordinances in this life or by proxy that have been restored to the earth in these latter days. Now, just doing them is not what it means to receive these ordinances. You have to keep the covenants you make with the Lord that are the whole purpose of the ordinance, not just going through the motions. What are some examples of these covenants?
Alma teaches:
Mosiah 18:21-23
21 And he commanded them that there should be no contention one with another, but that they should look forward with bone eye, having one faith and one baptism, having their hearts knit together in unity and in love one towards another.
22 And thus he commanded them to preach. And thus they became the children of God.
23 And he commanded them that they should observe the sabbath day, and keep it holy, and also every day they should give thanks to the Lord their God.
The NECESSARY question is whether or not the restored gospel of Jesus Christ is really what it says it is. If it is, then it is His priesthood authority baptizing you, ONE baptism that Paul speaks of, not a "mormon" baptism. Or the church that Joseph Smith made up- it is CHRIST's church- the same Church Paul spoke of in the New Testament. This can only be determined by planting seeds of faith, relying on the Holy Ghost and humble prayer to our Father in Heaven.
sorry so long
Amanda,
In all due respect, you did not answer my question.
Please answer it with a direct answer, not by redefining the question. Yes, there is more to the discussion, but this other discussion will bring us back to this one point, and that is whether or not it is necessary to be baptized with the proper authority.
I'd like to get to the bottom line because it is indicative of the requirement of specific acts, and I stated that all is rhetoric.
A sidenote here, is that this discussion, and your changing the question is perhaps a good example of the issue of being forthright.
"There there, Aaron, [as the GA pats my head]. Stop asking such questions and start falling in line. Whether God was once a liar, thief, adulterer, coveter, idolater, serial divorcee, masturbater, unreliable conman, atheist, drunkard, and blasphemer at one point in his pre-godhood days is of no concern now."
"There there, Aaron [as the GA pats my head]. Stop asking such questions and start falling in line. Whether God was once a liar, thief, adulterer, coveter, idolater, serial divorcee, masturbater, unreliable conman, atheist, drunkard, and blasphemer at one point in his pre-godhood days is of no concern now."
"There there, Aaron [as the GA pats my head]. Stop asking such questions and start falling in line. Whether God was once a liar, thief, adulterer, coveter, idolater, serial divorcee, masturbater, unreliable conman, atheist, drunkard, and blasphemer at one point in his pre-godhood days is of no concern to us now."
I hate to say this Sharon, but my second gripe is more serious. You still don't have the Mormon concept of salvation right.
You said:
in Mormonism’s rearranged gospel Christ’s sacrificial death ultimately only rescues those who prove themselves worthy of eternal life.
Mormonism's application of Christ's sacrifical death is MORE liberal that that of evangelicals in that it will apply to EVERY person ever born, even if they never heard the name of Jesus.
I applies to every person who repents, and makes repentance possible for everyone. Is that a rescue? I think it is. Without that option we would be hoplessly lost on our first sin.
It means Christ's death will benefit those who don't merit eternal life– just not has much as those who repent more. That is why we still need judgement. Does your Bible speak of judgement day?
Evangelicals want to apply grace to people who DON'T repent, on the arbitrary condition of lip service. Accept Christ and be saved. NOT the right condition for the application of grace. The right condition is repentence, not lip service. He saves us FROM our sins not IN our sins.
The evangelical approach makes savation arbitrary and judgment day meaningless.
There is our real difference.
GRCluff, it isn't compelling to speak of "salvation" in terms of being resurrected unto eternal damnation (cessation of progression), torment of mind, everlasting regret, and suffering and anguish, forever distanced from the presence of God the Father and Jesus Christ, forever cut off from intimate fellowship from family who are in the presence of God the Father and Jesus Christ. That is not salvation, and even if it was, Sharon wasn't speaking of it in that sense. Notice her operative word, "ultimately".
"Evangelicals want to apply grace to people who DON'T repent, on the arbitrary condition of lip service."
I recommend reading into this, GRCluff, instead of stereotyping and even mis-generalizing. I personally believe one is most enabled to obey God and pursue holiness when he or she has freely received comprehensive forgiveness of sins and eternal life as a gift.
In him who justifies very ungodly people like me by faith apart from works (Romans 4:4-8),
Aaron
For some reason the commenting system gives more length-freedom to non-IE browsers like Firefox and Google Chrome and Safari. Try one of those. Also, reply to your own comment to maintain continuity if you have to. Please
I think it is clear that traditional Mormonism teaches that we are all literal begotten spirit children, while Jesus is the "only begotten" simply in the sense of the Father directly contributing DNA to Mary's womb for Jesus' conception (and how that was done is a matter of debate among Mormons, some arguing for sexual generation, others in vitro fertilization). In other words, for us the Father is our literal spirit-father. But for Jesus the Father is also literally the father of his earthly body.
This differentiation between different kinds of "begotten" sons is not biblical, as has been shown in the recent thread on "becoming sons". For Christians, Jesus is the "only begotten" Son of the Father, and in such a way that no other can be spoken of as begotten of the Father except in the spiritual metaphorical sense of being born again.
Grace and peace,
Aaron
I guess this is one of the main differences between Christianity and Mormonism, in Christianity the elders of a church are require to present the whole counsel of God, not just the politically correct portions. Evangelists are also to do this as they imitate Paul who imitated Christ. You may not like or believe the doctrines of Christianity, but you cannot deny that we at least lay our cards on the table especially with the important things like the doctrine of God.
Lautensack
GR, there are several aspects of this post that take huge assumptions. For example, that God will ask us to create a new world. See, some would say that being with God is enough, and that there are no other worlds we can become gods of. That whole idea of God himself saying there is but one God is telling.
The second point is too flawed to discuss much, but I think it is suffice to say that such an argument flies in the face of Jesus' own statement that the only way to enter the kngdom of heaven is through him. He puts the requirement of faith in him, and not a general repentance to reach heaven.
And if I understand your last point, you are sayin that repentance is what matters and not belief in Christ, and that beliving in Christ is just one way to get to repentance. Is that what you mean to say?
Right, so the GA's really do have the answers, but we (and you Mormon laymen included) aren't good enough to be let in on the secret explicit knowledge. I wonder if a GA, when he is ordained, gets a top secret folder called, "Doctrinal Answers You Always Wanted but Weren't High Enough in the Hierarchy to Explicitly Receive". Or maybe it's called, "Yes, I Know That We DO Teach That!" with Gordon B. Hinckley's smile on the front?
A gnostic tip of the hat to you, sir.
I personally know Jesus Christ, and can interact with him in prayer, and I know him as the God of all reality. That means I know more than all your LDS apostles and prophets combined. I wouldn't trade that personal relationship and free forgiveness for all the supposed institutional secrets and masonic hand grips and green aprons in the world.
Right, so the GA's really do have the answers, but we (and you Mormon laymen included) aren't good enough to be let in on the secret explicit knowledge. I wonder if a GA, when he is ordained, gets a top secret folder called, "Doctrinal Answers You Always Wanted but Weren't High Enough in the Hierarchy to Explicitly Receive". Or maybe it's called, "Yes, I Know That We DO Teach That!" with Gordon B. Hinckley's smile on the front?
A gnostic tip of the hat to you, sir.
I personally know Jesus Christ, and can interact with him in prayer, and I know him as the God of all reality. That means I know more than all your LDS apostles and prophets combined. I wouldn't trade that personal relationship and free forgiveness for all the supposed institutional secrets and masonic hand grips and green aprons in the world. There's no comparison!
Thank you Jesus, for your love, and for your response of grace to me when I call upon your name! I count everything else as rubbish!
So now you are accusing me of being deceitful? What kind of a conversation are you interested in having here? I took the very first question you posed, since you said that was at the meat of your point, and answered it the best I could. I honestly did not even read the rest of your post because I figured it was just reiterating your question- so perhaps I failed in that regard- but if your question was what you said it was, the main point- then perhaps you weren't being forthright…
Did you read all of mine? Doesn't seem like it since you ask if it is necessary to be baptized with the proper authority- and I thought that I referenced Paul on this point- One Lord, one faith, one baptism.
You asked a specific question and I gave you a very detailed answer based on what I thought you meant. After reading your original post entirely, I still have no idea how my response was not "forthright"- I didn't change your question, I answered it and gave insight by asking another question. You're response was just downright ridiculous.
I think my comments about faith and works were pretty clear cut. Faith cannot function without works. I also referenced scripture on this point. Read it again, cause I'm not going to waste more space on this thread addressing it- again and again.
Regarding your oversimplification of the gospel of Jesus Christ as it is restored by calling it "feel good" (heaven forbid the "gospel" meaning "good news" happens to "feel good")- Your belief that people who never had the opportunity to know who Christ was in this life, are going to hell, is not only illogical, it is not merciful OR just! And it certainly doesn't "feel good" or more importantly "feel RIGHT". Honestly, I really don't get where you are coming from in your post. It isn't very clear…why not try some specific examples or concepts so that I might be able to respond with more "forthrightness".
Amanda asked "Our works are important because faith is dead without them…not because they save us…so why do evangelicals consistently beleaguer the point?"
First I want to say that I believe all of scripture is breathed out by God, yes even James 2. As to why we "beleaguer" the point is because the Prophets and Apostles "beleaguered" it. I hope you don't feel like I am coping out but I feel inclined to answer this with a question of my own. Have you ever done something totally for God, loving Him as you ought? Don't be brash and answer hastily, ponder your response. If even the tiniest amount of selfishness was in the deed then it poisoned the entire deed, Isaiah equates such a deed to a tampon. (Isaiah 64:6)
I really don't understand why people tend to pit Paul against James when Paul eloquently puts them on the same page:
He seems to be echoing Ezekiel when he wrote of the New Covenant:
It would appear that works are something that flow from God's regenerative work in a sinner, one that is already clean, already given a heart of flesh, already saved. They happen because of the Spirit of God dwelling within the regenerate man, causing them to walk in the good works prepared beforehand for them.
Lautensack
I'm not exactly sure why early Christians are relevant to you, Aaron, since you reject probably 65% of what they believed and practiced. Do we really want to open Pandora's box? As far as they are concerned, Calvinists are every bit as re-arranged as "Mormonism".
Amanda said "Your belief that people who never had the opportunity to know who Christ was in this life, are going to hell, is not only illogical, it is not merciful OR just!"
I for one, as a Christian, do not believe that those who never had the opportunity to hear the gospel go to hell.. You are right, that wouldn't be God being just and fair…
In Romans we read that no one is without excuse of not believing in a Supreme Creator.. So I think if you at least get that far, but your some pigmy, then you will bejudged upon what you do know, and not what you dont..
Just my opinion, I know some others share it, and some don't.
Doesn't God expect us to be obedient, Aaron? Why? because we couldn't possibly understand "why" on so many things–not even on doctrine, but future events and even understanding past events. So what else would you expect from His servants? They too are infinitely limited in knowledge.
Even still, it is not accurate to say that we are expected to just "fall in line".. we are counseled to verify doctrine that we are taught through prayer, and the Holy Ghost.
Aaron, if we accept the Lord Jesus Christ on your terms, we are forgiven for our sins right? though our sins be as scarlet they can be made white as snow right? Why? because the Savior makes them clean. So do you think that in heaven, a millennia from now, our sins will still be scarlet- and we'll be like "oh that Aaron, he was a ____ and a______- certainly not, that would be blasphemous. If you say that, you deny the power of the atonement right? Thus is the case with any being that sins and repents and believes in an atoning sacrifice. But more importantly, how is this anymore offensive to you than your own belief that God descended in human form, and was actually tempted by the devil-..God??? Why would God do that? How could God possibly be tempted?? Foolishness.
I don't consider Calvinism etc to be essential to the gospel or a basic view of the nature of God. The early Christians believed in the real God—the God who was always God. Their God never had to get a wife to become a God, never had to progress unto godhood. Rather, this eternal God (eternal in the traditional sense) became a man, Jesus Christ.
I have the same God as the early Christians. Do you?
Amanda, I don't believe that God has ever received grace, nor has he ever needed it. To allow for anything otherwise is to be an idolatrous heretic more fit for paganism than Christianity.
Now, the saints (saved Christians) will indeed enjoy eternal life with all sins forgiven, but that doesn't mean they won't sing Amazing Grace with reference to what God did in the past.
As John Piper writes in Life As a Vapor, p. 19-21:
Amanda, I don't believe that God has ever received grace, nor has he ever needed it. To allow for anything otherwise is to be an idolatrous heretic more fit for paganism than Christianity. I refuse to worship a God who was once forgiven for beating his wife, stealing money, disobeying his parents, lusting after a woman, or giving into road rage.
Now, the saints (saved Christians) will indeed enjoy eternal life with all sins forgiven, but that doesn't mean they won't sing Amazing Grace with reference to what God did in the past. Our sins will be remembered in the mental sense, but they won't be remembered in the punitive sense.
As John Piper writes in Life As a Vapor, p. 19-21:
DOF, register with IntenseDebate.com and your commenting experience should be smoother. Also, remember the 6-a-day limit.
Amanda, See, your complex answers do not really give a simple or answer to my simple question. I asked if it is possible to be saved outside of Mormon baptism, ie by one without the proper authority. You gve me an answer about God's baptism but never really addressed the findamental question without the excessive rhetoric. When I work my way through all of that, I see the answer is probably, no, and that such baptism by one of proper authority is required. But I want to confirm this assumption and interpretation, so am I right?
As to accusations of deceipt, you first said faith is what saves us, then you say that faith is only good if you do certain, specific things. At least this is the impression I am getting, so it is up to you, or any other Mormon here to correct the logic. And this first use of the word faith sounds very different than the second use saying you have to do certain things.
And really, my question was a simple one to get a simple answer. Oh, and your first answer started by asking a different question…
Alas…
Steve, would you like to have a friendly phone conversation or Skype conversation where you can discuss how exactly Sharon is being misrepresentative? We can turn it into an mp3 and blog post for all to hear. You can be the main speaker in an open and honest discussion.
What do you say?
Take care,
Aaron
Yes, many turn away…how is this confusing? I don't think I am understanding your counterpoint- please clarify because I would like to address it.
yes, LDS are not exempt from making incorrect statements about their fellow Christian neighbors. In this instance, however, I do not believe I said Christians do not believe in "work" as you put it. I was posing a rhetorical question because your answering, "no we shouldn't abandon works" therefore sets up my point quite nicely- which was what I was trying to accomplish.
I don't believe I said that works save us- this is a misleading claim often made by evangelicals. CHRIST SAVES on the condition that we have faith in Him, and faith is inseparable from works.
James 2: 18, 20, 26
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
• • •
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
• • •
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Works are a consequence of true faith. Paul teaches of one faith, one baptism– baptism is a work that follows our faith. Endowments, sealings and baptisms for the dead are consequences of our faith in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.
MichaelP,
Correct faith in the correct Jesus is what saves us. This is why you are fighting against the LDS church as you believe that we have the wrong Jesus. Our belief is the inverse – we believe that we have the correct Jesus, so yes, one must be a member of the LDS church to be 'saved'. As baptism follows faith then yes, one must be baptised into the LDS church to be saved.
But remember baptism FOLLOWS faith. When one has the correct faith in Jesus, they would want to be baptised. If one got baptised just to follow the crowd and did not believe in Jesus then that baptism means nothing. So FAITH is the operative word.
OK, so all humans see that they are weak and dependant on god before becoming humans, but yet so many still turn away? Something doesn't feel right with that logic.
To answer your question, I know of no Christian who would say we are not to work. I think this is a common misconception of Mormons to us (would you agree there are many of these, too?) But our faith is dead without works, but does that necessitate that works save us? By that, I mean to ask that is it absolutely 100% necessary that works save us, if we are saved by faith? Think about that for a second.
Do works save us, or are works evidence of faith? And if works are only evidence of faith, what saves us? Is it the work, or is it the faith?
Aaron,
One thing I have not done is "deny [a] notion of viviparous spirit birth". I always say that if you are really trying to represent the LDS church properly you should state that we believe that we are spirit children of our Father in Heaven and we also have a Heavenly Mother FULLSTOP. Then you can say that this suggests blah blah blah, but our doctrine has never taught, as far as I know, anything other than the intelligences were organised into spirits. How it happened has never been explained so anything about this is just conjecture whether its member or non-member saying it.
Once again, how this happens is not inportant to our salvation/exaltation at this point in time, so why should we worry about it?
Ralph, OK. This is a better response, I think. But I still think the question is unanswered that if one truly believes in the God Mormonism presents but does not get baptized by the church, will this person be saved?
I appreaciate that you say that Mormon baptism would be what matters, but what if a person were not baptized? Do you understand the question?
And then do you understand the logic that follows that if you must, the force of the belief is shown through the act, which suggests that faith is only valid if you act. And its not just any act, but a specific one.
Does this make sense?
Jeff, I agree. Paul does say that people will be without excuse because evidence of him is in his creation. Anyone who earnestly seeks him will find him.
This does not negate our need to ENSURE that people will know about him, though, because there are no second chances.
Why should you worry about it? Does that not directly relate to God's nature and consequently our nature? Perhaps this is an "Ah hah" moment for me to see another fundamental difference between your faith and mine. What matters most to you is an undying belief and subsequent obedience. What matters most to us is realizing the true nature of God and how we relate to him.
Would you say that you are concerned about the nature of God? Or is that not something you really consider much? Honest questions, here…
It's worth pointing out that, although Mormonism does seem to have a mainstream view, there are varying views on the issue of pre-mortal spirit birth within Mormonism.
If you peruse the Bloggernacle, you can find Mormons who deny the notion of viviparous spirit birth altogether, who instead argue that we became children of God in pre-mortality via a covenant relationship, not through a reproductive union between Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother.
The traditional view seems instead to be that we were intelligences and were born into a state of having a spirit-body. Some Mormons argue that intelligences and spirits were synonymous to Joseph Smith, and that we had personal identity and self-awareness before spirit-birth. Anyways, that's the best I know how to map out the various positions, I'm still trying to nail it down. Here is an essay by Van Hale that deals with the issue.
If only Mormonism had a prophet to clear up this whole confusing mess.
It's worth pointing out that, although Mormonism does seem to have a mainstream view, there are varying views on the issue of pre-mortal spirit birth within Mormonism.
If you peruse the Bloggernacle, you can find Mormons who deny the notion of viviparous spirit birth altogether, who instead argue that we became children of God in pre-mortality via a covenant relationship, not through a reproductive union between Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother.
The traditional view seems instead to be that we were intelligences and were born into a state of having a spirit-body and became children upon the event of begetting. Some Mormons argue that intelligences and spirits were synonymous to Joseph Smith, and that we had personal identity and self-awareness before spirit-birth. Anyways, that's the best I know how to map out the various positions, I'm still trying to nail it down. Here is an essay by Van Hale that deals with the issue.
If only Mormonism had a prophet to clear up this whole confusing mess.
You have good questions.
Some would say living with God for eternity without continuing progress would be eternal stagnation, and that is never what God has intended. What will you do when he asks you to create an new world. Say no? He does stuff- no sitting around and scratching Himself for my God.
Ok, so others can be saved too. Buddists? Muslims? Jews? How tolerant can you be. We all accepted Christ before we came to earth so it is a moot point. Those who did not followed Satan, and are NOT getting a physical body.
Faith on Christ leads to repentance, so no repentance, no faith in Christ. That is what believing on Christ really means.
Lautensack,
The term "gods in embryo" is basically a metaphor. It in no way describes the process similar to progression from zygote to embryo to foetus, etc. Its like saying we are in a pupal stage, but that in no way means that we are insects. God has the power and authority of life and death. If we were to take your logic and look at all the still-born babies can we then say that God is an abortionist? How about all the people that die – is He a murderer? The only person who had the same power was Jesus. When He voluntarily died on the cross, did He commit suicide? That is where your logic is taking you. Satan and his followers were judged by God and God terminated their eternal progression at that point. This in no way implies that He is a 'divine abortionist' to use your words.
I think we will agree on the definition of salvation as- "living with God for eternity". We will agree on the process of sanctification and on comprehensive forgiveness of sin through Christ.
The disconnect appears when you equate one-time comprehensive forgiveness of sin with the gift of eternal life as if they were the same event.
Forgiveness of sin is available to all who repent, not just evangelicals who accept Christ. It is an application of the law of mercy, made available through Christ to all who repent in this life.
Those who fail to repent before death must pay the price for their own sins, but must repent nonetheless. Complete repentance via payment for sin is required before judgment can start. (You know, fire, brimstone) This state is temporary.
Eternal life is given to those who meet the requirements of that gift. It is an application of the law of justice, made available through judgment, not mercy. Many who experience the one-time comprehensive forgiveness of sin may not merit eternal life. It makes a difference what you do AFTER that event, and how bad you were BEFORE that event.
We do not connect the two, so Sharon's statement "Christ’s sacrificial death ultimately only rescues those who prove themselves worthy of eternal life" attempts to make a connection we don't use, so it is not correct.
The question of whether such an issue is institutionally explicated is a red herring. It doesn't have to be institutionally explicated for it to be a meaningful part of Mormon tradition and part of the historical worldview of real, living Mormons. Also, that something isn't institutionally explicated in a modern fashion doesn't mean it isn't institutionally condoned.
You should talk to some of my Mormon friends here in UT, who are really clear in affirming not only the possibility but also the probability of Gods and Saviors over other worlds. Brigham Young also explicitly took this view.
As for whether Jesus became a God at 1,2 or 5, I think the debate here even among Mormons is over what sense Jesus was already God pre-mortality and in what sense he achieved perhaps a greater fullness of Godhood after mortality. There is no uniform LDS position on this. Even Mormons who say Jesus was already God pre-mortality often affirm a sense in which Jesus become more fully God through his mortal experience.
Where did Sharon claim Jesus became God at #5 for Mormons? If you read what she wrote closely, she was contrasting the notion of becoming a God vs. the eternal (eternal in the traditional not Mormon sense) God becoming a man. So I can see how you're extrapolating the issue of your complaint but you're missing her point.
And by the way, the Mormon Jesus certainly is the paradigm-breaker for Mormonism itself. If he didn't need a mortal probation to become a God, why did we?
Oh, I get it, that's not important, says the GA who condescendingly pats my head, just be quiet and bear your testimony and learn what the LDS hierarchy tells you what's relevant to know. How many ex-Mormon Christian testimonies have I heard that started out with, "I asked too many questions in Sunday school"?
Amanda, I don't believe that God has ever received atoning grace, nor has he ever needed it. To allow for anything otherwise is to be an idolatrous, reprobate, vile heretic more fit for paganism than Christianity. I refuse to worship a God who was once forgiven for beating his wife, stealing money, disobeying his parents, lusting after a woman, or giving into road rage.
Now, the saints (saved Christians) will indeed enjoy eternal life with all sins forgiven, but that doesn't mean they won't sing Amazing Grace with reference to what God did in the past. Our sins will be remembered in the mental sense, but they won't be remembered in the punitive sense.
As John Piper writes in Life As a Vapor, p. 19-21:
I know that is the mainstream Mormon position, but that is not the only position among Mormons. The variants especially arise when one takes a more strict canonical view of Mormonism. Some Mormons would argue that the notion of "viviparous spirit birth" seems largely borne out of the extrapolations of Brigham Young, not the Mormon canon or Joseph Smith's quasi-canonical statements. You can read discussion between those of varying LDS viewpoints on this here.
Taking a minimalist canonical or prima scriptura view of Mormonism has its theological implications. After the recent debate LDS apologist Martin Tanner admitted to me that the notion of viviparous spirit birth / literal offspring is not official doctrine (in a strict sense). If that is the case then Mormons shouldn't be promoting it as though it is official.
And believe me, if I'm ever in a room of ten Mormons knowing that one denies the officiality of the traditional spirit birth notion then I am going to put the burden on the Mormons to hash it out before using it against traditional theism. You guys really need to clean up the whole "what is official doctrine?" mess to make everyone's life easier. I'm only 26 and I've lost hair over trying to nail the jello the wall.
Sincerely,
Aaron
It's worth pointing out that, although Mormonism does seem to have a mainstream view, there are varying views on the issue of pre-mortal spirit birth within Mormonism.
If you peruse the Bloggernacle, you can find Mormons who deny the notion of viviparous spirit birth altogether, who instead argue that we became children of God in pre-mortality via a covenant relationship, not through a reproductive union between Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother.
The traditional view seems instead to be that we were intelligences and were born into a state of having a spirit-body and became children upon the event of begetting. Some Mormons argue that intelligences and spirits were synonymous to Joseph Smith, and that we had personal identity and self-awareness before spirit-birth. Others do not. Anyways, that's the best I know how to map out the various positions, I'm still trying to understand it all. Here is an essay by Van Hale that deals with the issue.
If only Mormonism had a prophet to clear up this whole confusing mess.
It's worth pointing out that, although Mormonism does seem to have a mainstream view, there are varying views on the issue of pre-mortal spirit birth within Mormonism.
If you peruse the Bloggernacle, you can find Mormons who deny the notion of viviparous spirit birth altogether, who instead argue that we became children of God in pre-mortality via a covenant relationship, not through a reproductive union between Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother.
The traditional view seems instead to be that we were intelligences and were born into a state of having a spirit-body and became children upon the event of begetting. Some Mormons argue that intelligences and spirits were synonymous to Joseph Smith, and that we had personal identity and self-awareness before spirit-birth. Others do not. Anyways, that's the best I know how to map out the various positions, I'm still trying to understand it all. Here is an essay by Van Hale that deals with the issue.
If only Mormonism had a prophet to clear up this whole confusing mess. But thank goodness we have BYU professors and Mormon apologists to provide clarity when Moron prophets and apostles only offer ambiguity and confusion… right?
Even Mormons talk about "becoming gods" or becoming spirit children via an event of begetting, and it is that sense which Sharon obviously refers to. You are conflating the sense of species with the sense of developmental progress. For traditional theists, of course, these are not two distinct things to talk about concerning God, since the fullness of perfections God has in all respects are not accidental properties but essential attributes. And I use the term "accidental" there in the philosophical sense.
As LDS Blake Ostler has argued, God is not loving by essential nature, lest, he argues, the love be not borne of God's libertarian free will. But even non-Mormon open theists believe God is loving by essential nature.
Anyways, I don't find the complaint against Sharon compelling given that Mormons are the ones to often speak of "becoming a God" or "becoming gods" or having at one point become "literal children".
Sorry Sharon, but I am the detail oriented type. I can't let a couple comments here go unchallenged. You are getting much closer to our real differences though.
Just a minor detail, but Christ became a God AND created the earth BEFORE he became a man. He was the God of this world before he created it (or organized it if you prefer), while still in spirit form. In that regard the statement "an eternal intelligence was organized into a man who later became a God." is not entirely right. I will offer my sincere contratulations that you finally got the idea right on Him not being a created being.
It is possible in my mind that he was a God even before he took on spirit form. The big difference here is really the trinity concept. When Christ took on spirit form, He became more like God the Father. When he took on flesh, once again, He became more like God the Father. They are one in purpose not one in substance. In the beginning the plural "God" created the world. More that one being working in unison. Maybe one working under the direction or assignment of the other. There is our real difference.
DOF,
While you and I may disagree on what constitutes a Biblical view of revelation, which I would be happy to discuss with you, what I meant by "laying your cards out on the table" is that anyone can see what the church believes regarding God, Man, Sin, and if you ask a difficult question, the church doesn't run and hide, rather we give a defense for the hope that is within us, destroying arguments and any high thing raised against the knowledge of God. We are clear about ever important issue, the doctrine of God being one of them, the one that Ralph and GRCluff seem to be in disagreement on.
Lautensack
Falcon,
How could anyone "forget" that testimony is the basis for Mormon belief? It is under constant attack here. No worry. We find ourselves in good company.
Revelation 12: 10
Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, AND BY THE WORD OF THEIR TESTIMONY; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
Questioning with ones own intellect is stupidity not bravery. If I receive revelation concerning the nature of God, should I then go "searching" the scriptures to prove I got it wrong somehow? Or maybe Peter should have shown some bravery and consulted the Pharisees after he received his testimony from the Father that Jesus was the Christ. Surely they would have shown him that the "real deal" was Judaism. Isn't that what you are offering me? If knowledge from God himself is ignorance, I will blissfully go on my way.
Ralph,
Is the nature of God a doctrine or a "notional idea?"
Lautensack
thanks Mr.L; add to this the obvious situation that there were extended periods of time when there was not A specific prophet, but i don't think the Jews freaked out about that, God was still making His mind known to His people thru what they DID have: Moses (thePentateuch) and the prophets(writings). thanks for the post(s)
Could you, or someone, then clarify the difference between agency and will? Are the two splitting hairs or are there substanative differences between the two concepts? I've always viewed agency as the equivalent to will, and if that is wrong, I'd like to know.
Thanks.
DOF wrote "If Pilate had one ounce of interest in the truth, would Jesus have maintained his silence"
John 8:37-38 "Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all."
This is the only example I can think of in which Jesus does not appear to answer a direct question. It’s odd because he seems to have spent his earthly ministry answering the various queries of obscure nobodies. Contrary to the Gnostic point of view, Jesus made himself publicly accountable and open to scrutiny by all and sundry. So should we.
…I say 'apparently' because we could say that Jesus did, in fact, answer the question. It's not verbal answer, but doesn't his journey to the cross tell us the truth of the situation? Even though the Jews professed to have God as their King, they were all too willing to kill him when he actually turned up.
What do you need an "Aaronic priesthood for the Gentiles" for?
We already have a great high priest, who has gone into the heavens (Heb 4:14). He has done all that is needed to be done to mediate and implement the New Covenant (Heb 9:15). We need to put our trust in him, and not in our attempts to copy this reality by instituting priesthoods and building temples (unless I've read Hebrews incorrectly).
Does the fact that LDS support and promote the notion of temple and priesthood actually undermine and undo the work of Christ? I think so.
GRCluff wrote "Those who fail to repent before death must pay the price for their own sins, but must repent nonetheless."
I'm wondering if Joseph Smith ever repented of his gold-seeking scrying days? And not just in the "Oh, he must have done it in private" sense, but actually publicy and unequivocably saying "I was wrong to do those things".
MichaelP,
First let me state that I am not sure if the LDS do make a distinction between the two, however historically there has been a difference.
In layman's terms free agency means that man is capable of making choices and implementing those choices in the world. Free will would mean that a person not only makes choices, but those choices are not caused outside influences or causes. Or perhaps in even simpler terms free agency is the affirmation that men do make choices, where the question of free will involves how men make those choices. This is why even a hard determinist can affirm the free agency of man, though not the freedom of the will.
For a fuller understanding I suggest "Bondage of the Will" by Luther and "On Free Choice of the Will" by St. Augustine.
Lautensack
In defense of our Mormon friends (though certainly not their beliefs), and to restate the ideas of C.S. Lewis concerning historical Christian theology, we as Christians have the benefit of almost two millenia in developing theology concerning God's nature and His relation to human beings. Now note, I am not saying that Christians changed their theology concerning God. They developed it. There's a chasm of difference. For example, the apostles didn't need to formulate theology concerning original sin, etc.: they witnessed "what they had seen and heard". For example, the apostles didn't need theology to tell them Jesus was divine; they had met Him personally. It wasn't until Christ's divinity was challenged that theology had to be developed about Christ. As heresies crept in (Gnosticism, Pelagianism, Arianism, etc.) the church saw more and more need to specify exactly what they believed so that error would not continue. Hence the councils and creeds and numerous volumes of precise theology.
The LDS Church has not had this benefit of time and massive "heresy" from their doctrine to specifically formulate what they do and do not believe. I don't think the GA's will formulate theology (beyond the Gospel Principles manual, I mean) just because some "insert that label we all know" are demanding it. They need time and a distinct threat to their church.
However, let's look at it another way. Hinduism, for example, has existed longer than Christianity, and has had centuries upon centuries to formulate theology. However, when one looks at their theology, they find (as many philosophers, even Hindu ones, say) that Hindu theology is logically impossible. So maybe it will be better if/when the LDS Church develops their doctrine clearly; then evangelicals won't have to deal with all this confusion about Mormon doctrine. Certainly McConkie's book was a step in the right direction, but from what I've heard, it isn't entirely accurate, either.
Thank you sir.
That is helpful.
MichaelP,
All I need to know about God and His nature is that I am a child of God and that He has an immortal, glorified physical body. The reason I say this is because that is all we can find in the scriptures. This is also what describes the nature of the true God (according to LDS so do not argue this point as I know you think differently). As you can see, this is realising the true nature of God and our relationship to Him. This is one of the things we are concerned with as LDS as it is only the one true God who is ultimately the being we should worship.
As for 'undying belief and subsequent obedience' to God, isn't that what you as a Christian believe as well? I mean do you question the Bible and Jesus when they tell you about how to obtain your salvation? Or do you take it on faith and follow what they say?
Me and GRCluff in disagreement about what? And is it really doctrine that we disagree on or is it a 'notional idea' that has permeated through the LDS church?
I won't argue that you belive that, but I will point out some troubling consequnces of your belief. If the Bible says that God has eternally been God, which I think it does, then he has always, always, always been greater than us. But you diminish his nature, it seems, by stating that he may not have been. And as to the discussion of his nature, if he was once just like you and me, then that really diminishes who he is now. It also elevates us to a place where we can be equals to him…. To be continued.
The continuation…
I think this is dangerous, and this comes from the assumption, which I know is different from your assumption because it amounts to worshipping idols. If we can worship ourselves possible as we worship God, or think that we will be worshipped as he is worshipped, then we are not putting him first. Now, I am willing to bet that the response will essentially be that you do worship him and him alone, but I see the mere acknowledgement of the possibility that you can be a god distracts from the one true God.
And all of this starts from the assumption regarding God's past. If he has always been God, and is the only God, then his nature in relation to us is that he is always above us. This opposes what it is you say, and they are not compatible.
The continuation…
I think this is dangerous, and this comes from the assumption, which I know is different from your assumption, because it amounts to worshipping idols. If we can worship ourselves possible as we worship God, or think that we will be worshipped as he is worshipped, then we are not putting him first. Now, I am willing to bet that the response will essentially be that you do worship him and him alone, but I see the mere acknowledgement of the possibility that you can be a god distracts from the one true God.
And all of this starts from the assumption regarding God's past. If he has always been God, and is the only God, then his nature in relation to us is that he is always above us. This opposes what it is you say, and they are not compatible.
I think I understand where you are coming from.
"you cannot separate your faith from your works like we can"
Well, James doesn't seem to think you should separate faith from works:
James 2:17, 20-24 says,
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone."
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him forrighteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
I don't see after reading these passages that you can comfortably take the position that faith can be separated from works AND still believe the bible to be the word of God. The concept of faith seems to be so watered down in Christian circles that it has almost completely lost its meaning. Faith is more than just religious affiliation, more than just believing really really hard- it's a walk (walk the talk). A walk we take as we follow our Saviors example. Its perseverance through life's trials- it's repentance and godly sorrow for our sins- everything that we do that brings us closer to God and keeps us on the path back to live with Him again. And faith ultimately gives us hope that our sins cannot keep us from the blessings of heaven when we trust in the Lord's almighty power. THAT is faith. Faith in our footsteps.
I can only do short posts on this system, so here goes. TEX, I don't think the absence of explained doctrine is so much a function of time or threat. The threat is already there, rival 'mormon' groups in the dozens, but the LDS feel no compulsion to explain the differences. WHY? The LDS faith seems to be built on the alleged authority of special servants and personal testimony/witness to the truth of the BOM and the prophets(s).
I think your comment about faith being a work (yeah, i know) is really just going in circles. What the Lord has asked of us is pretty clear. I won't delve into this more since I have talked relentlessly regarding the matter.
Here's food for thought (not in any way a statement of the church's position):
Can God take away my agency, and still be God? Lautensack, I submit that it is still our choice to repent, because God cannot/will not take away our agency- because if He did, he would no longer be God…and we know that won't happen…If it seems I'm talking in circles, it's true…but to understand any concept of God, you have to understand circles
FORGIVENESS is a gift from God- our repentance is a choice that only we can make- it's called submitting our will to Him..do you believe in free agency? WE have to humble ourselves. In the scriptures there are countless tales where God has compelled His children through circumstances to repent, and some do…some don't. God cannot/will not take away our agency.
This kind of 'foundation' is NOT friendly to the kind of explanation and teaching that orthodoxy went thru. The LDS say 'Monson' is God's guy….the Flds say "Jeffs is God's guy"…..BOTH groups claim the BofM as true, and their interpretation as the anointed one. Do you see where this is hea
ded ?? I'm the rookie in this MC crowd , but I for one do NOT expect this situation to clear up over the years, rather it will multiply as various "prophets" and versions of 'the true mormonism" pop up with really an irrefutable type of position: if you pray with sincerety and faith, have a humble heart, etc, OUR gospel and prophet will make sense to you…..how can these not be SEEN as 'equal' claims, whose to say THIS prophet or that is right or wrong ??
More to the point: Mormons, esp Mormon LEADERSHIP are not at all expected to or interested in the kinds of explanation that I THINK you are talking about. They consider such to be the 'wisdom of men", "evidence of contention", "denying the witness of the Spirit", and I could go on.
These are just GERMIT's musings, but the kind of careful, REASONED, thought out positions you hear and read from DOF and others are, I find, anamolous to most LDS, esp as any given apologetic converstion goes deeper.
Feedback welcome.
I see your point and concern.
If the restored gospel, Martin, is a farse, then yes, it would be undermining Christ. The restored gospel claims Christ as the high priest and at the helm of its' organization. If the restored gospel is HIS gospel, then how could it possibly undermine the One who has organized it? One important concept to apply when thinking of the priesthood- is that it is God's priesthood that is used to organize and bring about the gathering of Zion. In conference, priesthood leaders are taught that unless they are worthy (meaning they are submitting their will to the Lord), their priesthood is essentially not valid. So in order for the priesthood to work, the will of the Lord must be implemented- how is this teaching undermining Christ? It isn't.
I see your point and concern.
If the restored gospel, Martin, is a farse, then yes, it would be undermining Christ. The restored gospel claims Christ as the high priest and at the helm of its' organization. If the restored gospel is HIS gospel, then how could it possibly undermine the One who has organized it? One important concept to apply when thinking of the priesthood- is that it is God's priesthood that is used to organize and bring about the gathering of Zion. In conference, priesthood leaders are taught that unless they are worthy (meaning they are submitting their will to the Lord), their priesthood is essentially not valid. So in order for the priesthood to work, the will of the Lord must be implemented- how is this teaching undermining Christ? I think not
If you want "exhibit A", or should I say "exhibit DOF", read his post carefully; in the 3rd paragraph you can find what I'm talking about….and remember DOF is actually INCLINED towards reasoned, thot out discussion. Consider the crowd and mindset of SLC and reconfigure as needed.
Well, Amanda, I am glad you better understand my position, and I really do not like having to go through the contention to get there, but at least with a common understanding of that we can move forward.
While James does say that, we see Paul saying, in multiple places, that our salvation is by faith, and not by works. So what do we do these apparent discrepencies? Do we ignore one over the other? Of course not, but we do need to look at the context of the rest of the Bible. (I'll arguably be too simple in this, for the purpose of brevity) A goodplace to start is Romans where Paul essentially does away with the requirements of the law. Most Mormons have stated he got rid of Mosaic law, though there is little evidence to prove this contention.
I always like to look at what Christ said to so many who he healed: "Your faith made you well." It has been countered with his telling them to do something, but it was not the something after that made them well. It was the faith.
Sorry, got too long… This actually is part of the prior post by me…
So, when I say that we separate faith from works, this is why. Works get us nothing. When we believe, we have already been healed, just like those he healed in the streets of Israel.
You, on the other hand, do not make this distinction, even though you use the same words we do in that it is the faith that saves us. The problem is that you attach works that prove the faith, and that faith without the works is non-existant.
Amanda, as to agency and God's soveriegnty, what did God due to Pharoah's heart? Did God take away his agency?
someone with a better knowledge of biblical history can clean this up, but my understanding of 'they have Moses and the prophets' is a direct reference to the Scriptures, such as they had them at the time, NOT a reference to a particular person or office at THAT time. Again, pipe in and correct this one and all if I'm off on this. My point is the WRITTEN account of what God had said and done was given great weight, obviously by both Jesus and the Jews.
If in fact he were a real servant of God, I would concede the point about the humility necessary to receive him; if in fact he was a FALSE prophet , then maybe it's DISCERNMENT that characterizes this same group of doubters.
the 'servant of God', true or false , I referred to above was Joseph Smith, I didn't make that too clear…..sorry about that.
PS to Ralph: the statement 'bob or bill or susan is ON A DIFFERENT SPIRITUAL PLANE/LEVEL" just gjives me the willies. I've heard such stuff from many circles and groups and have found it to be a certain red flag of something WAY wrong: JESUS is on a different level; some of us know HIS embrace and voice with stronger familiarity, I'll admit, but you are wandering into gnostic waters.
Amanda,
Please point me to where I said that men do not choose God, or that it is not the man who repents? God doesn't need to do these things. Now I agree with Paul that a man who's mind is set upon the flesh cannot please God and with Jesus who said that all who sin are slaves to sin. This is the moral choice every men makes prior to regeneration. I absolutely affirm the free agency of man, insomuch that every man chooses to reject the creator and worship and serve creatures instead. This was in no way God forcing men to sin. The difference in your view and mine is not that of agency but the bondage of the sinful will. When a man sins he is a slave to sin and cannot free himself rather all he can and wants to do is sin. Do men seek God? Scripture tells us that none do, rather Christ is the seeker saving the lost. I tell you the truth since Adam there has not been one man who sought God prior to God seeking him. It takes the efficacious work of God to free the man from sins slavery, remove the sinners heart of stone and give him a heart of flesh, raise him from being spiritually dead to spiritual life. Now when a man is regenerated, that is made spiritually alive can he still choose evil, yes, but now he has the capacity to choose God. Also not only does he have the capacity to choose God, but put his trust in God, and God will continue to work in him.
A question for you, if God cannot efficaciously work in the lives of men, If he cannot actually convert men, do you pray that God might convert men?
Or are your prayers more along the lines of the following:
Lautensack
Germit,
You are correct the short hand for the Pentateuch was Moses, and the Prophets well the prophets in the Jewish Bible. Thus according to Jesus about 2/3 of the OT is enough to warrant repentance unto salvation. This passage is not speaking to a continued line of prophets as though there were something that looked like the LDS Church in the ancient world.
Lautensack
MichaelP,
Anyone who denies that man is a free agent is irrational, however free agency is a different thing from free will. Pharoah still had and made a choice, he acted on his agency, his will however was enslaved to sin.
Lautensack
Amanda wrote: what is "this" in the scripture? Well, grace. Grace is not our own doing…(which is why we cannot boast of ourselves because our faith and works is meaningless- only has worth to the extent that the Savior dictates its' worth-and He has by giving us commandments) w e know this because the ultimate price was paid by the Savior, not by us. Grace, as performed by the Savior on the cross, is what saves- I believe I agreed on this point entirely. This gift is given to us with ONE condition: Faith in Him who saves.
This is the first major disconnect I think we have, here you are turning faith into the one necessary work which will produce more works. This allows one to boast in their one work, mainly faith. Rather it seems that the "this" is referring to "been saved" if we follow Paul's argument. If we have been raised from death to life, (2:5) what is it that we did in this process? You say the one condition is faith, now I must ask where does faith come from? Is it something intrinsic, that men who are slaves to sin (John 8:34) and have their mind set upon the flesh (Romans 8:7-8) can exhibit?
You continue with a discussion where you seem to qualify saved in this sense to simply the resurrection. Christians believe in the resurrection of all men, both the just and the unjust. (Acts 24:15) Thus while Christians believe that God's grace saves to the uttermost ((Hebrews 7:25), perfecting forever those who are being sanctified (Hebrews 10:14), "for those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified." (Romans 8:29-30) such does not seem to be the case in Mormonism, rather Jesus gets yo in the door (salvation) and you do the rest (exaltation/glorification). Biblically the two are inseparable, those who are saved are also glorified. (Romans 8; Ephesians 2:5-6; Colossians 3:1-4; Hebrews 10:14)
As for Ezekiel 36:25-27 and repentance, how can a man who has his mind set upon the flesh repent? (Romans 8:8 cf. 2 Peter 3:9) Repentance is a gift from God (2 Timothy 2:25-26), rather it is because the new heart has been given, the man has been born again, that repentance can even happen. (John 3:3-8 cf. Romans 8:7-8) This in now way means that God cannot command all men everywhere to repent. (Acts 17:30)
Also you cite a verse addressed to the Church not unbelievers. John is exhorting the believers at Ephesus to return to their zeal in opposition to falsehood. (Revelation 2:2-4) This has about as much to do with the unregenerate man as Revelation 3:20 does, which is nada.
Lautensack
P.S. For more on the Paul James, faith/works conflict I posted a blog a while back. Here's the Link.
No- When God changes our hearts, we have to initially submit and humble ourselves first- then God can change us.
I had this interesting discussion with my husband last night where we found ourselves going in circles. It was kind of fun. Sometimes I wish we all lived closer and we could meet at a local Postum/Coffee house and just talk about this stuff.
Just to clarify– in your view, we have to initially submit our hearts before God can change us, or does God change our hearts, we submit, then God seals the deal?
Also, do you have a response to God's hardening of Pharoah's heart?
Hope your day is going great!
Of course God is the miracle worker– but he cannot do that unless we submit our will- make ourselves willing to do all that He asks. God cannot take away our agency- or He would cease to be God- so to suggest that we don't play a part in our salvation is to say that we have no agency and that God has not asked us to submit our will. Mormons are going to hell…so why can't God just change us? Clearly you think there is something else that I should be doing, or something different in order to secure my salvation.
I do pray that God will soften the hearts of men- sure. That is an expression to ask God to give men every opportunity to chose Him. Sometimes that means we need trials, humbling experiences before we will choose Him. We still have to choose.
I have never prayed a prayer like that. Not even close.
Amanda, I am grafted into God's people by faith in Jesus, not by priesthood. And your question is puzzling, but even in Israel only the sons of Aaron were Aaronic priests. In other words, those of the tribe of Judah, etc. were God's people but they weren't Aaronic priests. Hebrews 7:13-14 even makes it a point to say that Jesus was not an Aaronic priest:
"For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests."
8:4-5 even says, "Now if he[Jesus] were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things…"
Michael,
Our definitions of "saved" are different. We understand life after death differently, so the term "saved" means something different to me than it does to you. Our doctrines are so vastly different on many levels- so it is very difficult for you to require me to define the restored gospel with the same cultural meanings mainstream Christianity has adopted…they just don't mean the same thing. I tried to help you understand, if you are truly interested in these differences, read D&C 76 http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/76/37-38,43#37
You completely misunderstand me. What I said was CHRIST SAVES and sets the parameters of our relationship with Him. HE has said to have faith in Him…and FAITH can only be verified through works. Faith is not just belief it is belief followed by action. And I believe that I referenced plenty of scriptures to this effect. So works don't save us, but they are necessary in order for us to have real faith in Christ. I'm not sure how much more simply I can state this. ANY LDS OUT THERE want to help me explain the relationship between works and faith because apparently I am unable to get through.
Many in your faith do not share your belief and often preach otherwise. Since we are commanded to be baptized- how do those who don't have a chance here on earth get the chance to do the same the Savior did, when He showed us all the way?
Thank you for your comment
You are unable to get through because you cannot separate your faith from your works like we can.
Faith, to you, seems to be too closely tied to the works to separate. See, this differs from our faith which sets the saving at the moment of faith and while our faith will produce works, the works add nothing. Contrasting this to your faith, the works seem to be required to show the faith, so faith is not valid until the works are done.
You are right that our faiths are so radically different, which is why I continue to push the point, because when you speak to most people, they do not know of the differences, and that leads to the impression you (Mormons) are pulling the wool over people's eyes when you use our language to describe something that is so very different.
I hate to cause such frustration, but it is necessary to get to the point sometimes. Did this help?
Amanda,
I like your style.
The Priesthood of Christ is one of those big-ticket themes of the Bible that’s easy to miss if we’re not careful to read scripture from the viewpoint of those who wrote it. Releasing the Bible back into its native environment is hard work for us, not least because we don’t see Priest and Temple operating as they did in Biblical Times. We’d rather keep the Bible as a domesticated pet. But its rather like keeping a Cheetah on a chain in the back yard; we’ll never really appreciate what it truly is until we see it sprinting after Springbok on an African plain.
The writer of Hebrews tackles this particular subject head-on. His principal concern is to persuade Jewish believers not to lose confidence in Christ by reverting to a reliance on the law. He argues that the law points to Christ because his audience was in danger of getting it the wrong way round.
The term ‘the law’ is the subject of some debate among theologians. My conviction is that it is short-hand for ‘the law and the prophets’, or the system of religion including scripture, priest and temple. To the NT Jews like Paul, ‘the law’ was both something that they did and it was something that was done to them. For example, Paul claims that he was a product of the law and he supported and promoted it, as did all the good Pharisees of his day (ctd…)
The problem was that the law didn’t deliver. It wasn’t a case of optimizing the people’s observance of the law – the Temple that Jesus visited was a well-oiled machine that was the product of generation upon generation of devoted effort. The Gospels record Jesus’ acknowledgement of the success of the Pharisees in applying the law to the tiniest detail (Matt 23:23). Despite this fantastic enterprise, and despite the fact that it was ordained by God, its failure was apparent in several outcomes; there was no Davidic King (1 Kings 9:5), Israel was under occupation and still in a kind of exile (Ex 6:6-8), the land was not healed because it was full of demons (2 Chron 7:14), the physical cloud of God’s glory was not present in the temple (2 Chron 7:1), the corrupt behavior of the priesthood demonstrated that God’s law was not written on their hearts (Jer 31:33). All of these were promises derived from God’s covenant with Abraham, but none were a reality in NT times. In short, God was not present among his people as promised (2 Sam 7:25-26).
So, the question behind the NT was this; if the system had failed, what was it all about? The answer, according to the NT was that law was not an end in itself, but it foreshadowed the real deal (Heb 10:1), the mission of Christ. Thus Paul writes that the law testifies about Christ (Romans 3:23), it brings us (specifically the believing Jews) to Christ (Gal 3:24) and that Christ is the end of the law (Romans 10:4). In other words, the purposes and intents of scripture, priest and temple are brought to a climactic conclusion in the life and ministry of Christ himself. (ctd…)
This idea was sealed upon the minds of the early Christians by the sacking of Jerusalem and its temple in 70AD. To them, God had rolled up the former things like an old cloak that had served its purpose. The old system of priest and temple was spent; its job was finished, like an old wineskin (Matt 9:17).
The priestly ministry of Christ is worked out at Calvary, in which he had taken the blood of the new Covenant into the true Holy of Holies and “obtained an eternal redemption for us” (Heb 9:12). If the OT priests and temple were a kind of ‘dress rehearsal’, then this was the real deal. There’s no longer any need to repeat the rehearsals, which is why Christians no longer practice animal sacrifice.
Prior to getting married, you’d probably do a wedding rehearsal. Having done the wedding proper, you don’t go back to the rehearsals again and again. If you did, people might think that you’re constantly getting out of the covenant you’ve made with your spouse and they would quite rightly question whether your arrangements had anything to do with marriage at all.
(ctd…)
By his work at the cross, Christ has done all that was needed to inaugurate the New Covenant and he has done all that us needed to implement or apply it. He has done it when the best of us failed. He is the Great High Priest who has gone into the heavens, and when we are in him we enter with him into the presence of God himself. The curtain is now torn, the way is now open, we are now fully and perfectly reconciled to God. What’s more is that in Christ, God’s people truly fulfil their vocation as a royal priesthood and a holy nation (1 Peter 2:9). Our mission differs from Christ’s only in this respect; he brings mercy and we benefit by receiving it. Too often, the idea of priesthood has been used to claim that only one ‘ordained’ or anointed class has the right to mediate between man and God, whereas the NT view is that priesthood is all about being a living demonstration of God’s mercy.
The LDS view does in fact run contrary to this notion. Given that so much LDS theology is garnished from orthodox sources (albeit by a ‘pick and mix’ method), the only distinctive of the “restoration” was the restoration of the priesthood. Fundamentally, this says that the Gospel cannot function without an earthly priesthood and the earthly priesthood does not exist unless it can trace its mandate to Joseph Smith jnr. The explicit LDS position is that there is no access to God other than through this “restored” priesthood; we cannot enter into an LDS temple without the intervention of the LDS priesthood. If we can’t get into the temple, we can’t get to God.
Its as if the curtain were sewn up again.
To re-introduce priest and temple in the sense of the LDS restoration is to undo Christ’s unique mission. It is to fall into the error that the writer to the Hebrews warned his audience against.
(End … finally)
very good posts, Martin. Understanding what came BEFORE the New Covenant helps us understand how NEW it really is. Seems to me that there is no way to rry and 'restore' the old without making light of (even unintentionally) God's real plan of REPLACING the old with the new. Every attempt at a 'restored' Old Covenant is really saying "God, your New Covenant, summed up in Christ, just doesn't quite do it". Needless to say, I'm sure my LDS audience sees this very differently. Good work Martin.
Martin has already asked this in so many words, but I'll give it a shot as well. Amanda , what biblical reason does anyone have to believe that HIS gospel would include an "AARONIC priesthood" for all believers ?? It seems to me that using some kind of backwards logic like "we must have authority to accomplish God's work, the AARONIC priesthood authority gives us authority, therefore.. is not really looking at scripture with a fair appraisal. What does the Book say ??
I still don't understand what you say GRCluff and I are at odds about. We both agree that He has a physical, immortal, glorified body, which is doctrine. So please explain what your point is as I don't understand what you're saying.
I stand corrected, and I thank you. I forget that the apostles were laying out theology as they were writing their letters (just look at Romans or Colossians, for example). You're right: unlike Christianity, Mormonism is not theology-driven. It requires essentially a testimony of the Church, of the Jesus as revealed by their latter-day prophets, of Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, and of the Book of Mormon. Then follows a program of works, all other doctrine being secondary. Mormons say faith is their basic, and I have no reason to doubt them — but their faith is very vague. Listening to the General Conferences, one hears little but platitudes in there, little philosophy or theology at all. To end with a quote from C.F.W. Walther: "To perceive as clearly as possible everything that God has revealed, that is something in which a non-Christian has no interest. However, the moment a person becomes a Christian, there arises in him a keen desire for the doctrine of Christ."
Ralph, yes however you disagree on how he evolved to this state, something rather important.
Lautensack
Amanda wrote: Of course God is the miracle worker– but he cannot do that unless we submit our will- make ourselves willing to do all that He asks.
Did Jesus ask Lazarus if it was okay to raised him from the dead?
Also it seems we are using different terms for agency, you seem to have redefined agency into a form of libertarian freewill, rather than simply meaning men actually make choices, not diverging into a discussion of how. I absolutely affirm that men make choices that affect the world. I also believe that men actually have reasons for making those choices. I thought we were discussing the latter however it seems that you insist I do not believe the former.
Amanda wrote: why can't God just change us?
He does change some of you, such as RickB.
Amanda wrote: Clearly you think there is something else that I should be doing, or something different in order to secure my salvation.
Indeed you are exchanging the truth about God for the lie, worshiping and serving the creature rather than the creator who is blessed forever, Amen. As for you doing something differently God commands all men everywhere to repent. He also ordains that men should come to him through the preaching of the cross which is foolishness to the world but to those who are being saved it is the power of God.
Now you say you have never prayed a prayer like that, however can you see anything in that prayer that disagrees with your theology?
Lautensack
Germit,
Thanks for going to the trouble of reading my incredibly long post. Its kind of embarrassing to put down so many words, but where there has been so much mindless vandalism done to the Gospel, much needs to be done to restore it.
In hindsight, I might need to correct myself though; don't Cheetah hunt Thompson Gazelle, not Springbok?
Actually, that is not important. There is no official doctrine about 'how He evolved to that state' at all, so we can disagree with our ideas, if we have any (I don't). But I still don't see why you say we disagree because I have said nothing about what I believe in this manner.
If you want to know, I believe that there was intelliegences that were organised somehow (we do not know how) into spirits. These spirits then came to this earth to gain a physical body. After death and resurrection those who enter the Celestial Kingdom will become exalted and will be given their inheritence as Jesus was – being all power and authority. Again I have said nothing about God. So where do we disagree?
DOF: reread Lautensack's comment below this one and add "Amen" for Germit. In your church, the tough questions, when they are answered at all seem to be answered by 1)hard working guys like yourself on blogs or BYU or something like that. Your leadership does a very good job of "laying low", that's as nicely as I can put it. There were a FEW times when Jesus flat would not reply to someone (Pilate, the Pharisees), MOST of the time HE fielded alll kinds of questions from all kinds of people, NOT just from HIS inner circle. That's what I meant by the 'intentions of the NT'. I just don't see that in your upper levels. They should be taking YOUR classes and videos.
DOF: you have a reply about 4 or 5 entries below, the system shuffled it down a bit. THAnKS
Here's another point I look forward to a response on. Great questions, Lautensack. I don't see many differences, but I would think there is probably a Mormon response. I'd sincerely like to see it.
Martin,
We can debate about the response to Pilate. But for sure Jesus would not answer the chief priests as in Mark 15. Why? Because they should have known better. The point is He didn't need to somehow prove who He was. As you state, His journey to the cross tells volumes. He was not obligated to give a OT sermon about the Messiah, just as the prophets today have not duty to try to prove to unbelievers who they are. A matter of fact statement should be enough for us who claim God as our King.
Germit,
I agree with you about the spritual plane thing. And I am confident that the GA's would never make such a claim.
You wrote: "Mormonism is not theology driven…." that, as far as I can tell , is the understatement of the century. Look closely at their history, and I THINK you'll find pricious few theologians, I would even say that they discount the exercise as working AGAINST faith: the more we KNOW, the less we trust…..not that I've ever seen that WRITTEN anywhere official, but I catch that from those who post here; even apologetics is kind of love/hate, the farther something is from PERSONAL testimony and subjective experience, the more it seems to be held with suspicion. That's why the will QUOTE C.S. Lewis, but they are not likely to PRODUCE a C.S. Lewis. Blessings, GERMIT
Lautensack,
What disagrees with our theology in the prayer you wrote? Let’s see –
We are taught to give all thanks, glory and praise to Heavenly Father, not take it upon ourselves as this prayer has done.
We are taught to pray for God to soften others hearts so they can receive the truth about Him and His Son, not to boast that we have it and all else do not.
That’s 2 things to start off with, but there are others. This prayer is boastful and critical, much like a group of people in the BoM who we teach were in the wrong in the sight of God.
If you go into the Bible dictionary on the LDS website and look up prayer, then you will find more wrong with what you have written that disagrees with our doctrine.
DOF wrote "The point is He didn't need to somehow prove who He was."
Yup, they should have known better. But Jesus took everyone by surprise. Who would have thought that his coronation would involve a crown of thorns, and his enthronement would involve getting nailed to a cross?
Even so, his patience in explaining himself to his critics is one of the distinctives of his mission. For example, in Luke 7:19-23, you'll notice that Jesus takes no offense at the challenge of John's disciples but he seems to welcome the opportunity to point them to the evidence.
When I read the Gospels, I see the notion of public scrutiny indelibly stamped into the life of the Kingdom. The most confronting image is of a God who gets nailed, spreadeagled and naked to a cross in full view of his critics.
When I look at the LDS movement, I see secret (quasi-masonic) rituals, the privatization of religion and the shirking of any responsibility to explain anything to anyone.
What happened to Peter's commendation to "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15)?
Hey, this Bible stuff is hard work, but its fun isn't it? Lets talk about it some more.
Ralph,
Um… the prayer does give thanks to God, or did you not read the first line?
You wrote: "We are taught to give all thanks, glory and praise to Heavenly Father, not take it upon ourselves as this prayer has done."
Who's taking glory for them self? The prayer is all about God's grace. If you are to be consistent with what Amanda has presented about the human will and agency, then the difference between the converted and the unconverted cannot be that God supernaturally converts sinners but that sinners convert themselves. While you may never pray this way, theologically the prayer is consistent with the view presented by man's agency, because to ask "God to soften others hearts so they can receive the truth about Him and His Son, not to boast that we have it and all else do not." Would mean that man's agency, I use the term here as Amanda describes it, has been taken away, something Amanda asserts God cannot do. I believe her position is constant with the LDS view.
Lautensack
You may not have used the term "God" however you have described the progression/evolution to godhood. As such you indirectly are making statements about "God," statements about His nature that are inconsistent with GRCluff.
Lautensack
DOF,
Was God the Father once a man? Clearly a teaching of Joseph Smith and of great importance to him. Gordon B. Hinckley supposedly didn't know very much about it when speaking in the public sector however when speaking to LDS he uses quite different rhetoric, that would make those who hear him believe He has authority on such things.
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith , 357. (2002 Covenant Edition)
Sunday Interview – Musings of the Main Mormon
Gordon B. Hinckley, April 13,1997 San Francisco Chronicle – http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/...
Don’t Drop the Ball General Conference Address Oct 1994, as quoted in an article by the same name in Ensign, Nov 1994. http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354f...
If hiding the truth from people is what you mean by clear, or laying your cards on the table then sure, your prophets do that however if actual honesty is required I am not so sure they do this in the public sector.
Lautensack
DOF,
Was God the Father once a man? Clearly a teaching of Joseph Smith and of great importance to him. Gordon B. Hinckley supposedly didn't know very much about it when speaking in the public sector however when speaking to LDS he uses quite different rhetoric, that would make those who hear him believe He has authority on such things.
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith , 357. (2002 Covenant Edition)
SUNDAY INTERVIEW – Musings of the Main Mormon
Gordon B. Hinckley – San Francisco Chronicler – http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/...
"Don't Drop the Ball," General Conference Oct 1994, quoted in Ensign, November 1994 – http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354f...
If hiding the truth from people is what you mean by clear, or laying your cards on the table then sure, your prophets do that however if actual honesty is required I am not so sure they do this in the public sector.
Lautensack
Germit and Laut
I just don't see them running and hiding. "laying low"? I guess I just don't agree. The Church is ridiculously diligent about record keeping. Anyone can see what they want….this blog is ample evidence of that.
Germit,
While I appreciate the complement, one might ask where does this reasoning (which I try to cultivate) come from. Of course the scriptures and seeking wisdom through the Spirit. But who pointed me there? The very leadership you are ferring to . I firmly believe the leaders of teh Church are there to point the way to the Savior. Nothing more nothing less. And all that leads to learning by study(reason) and also by faith. D&C reference
DOF,
Was God the Father once a man? Clearly a teaching of Joseph Smith and of great importance to him. Gordon B. Hinckley supposedly didn't know very much about it when speaking in the public sector however when speaking to LDS he uses quite different rhetoric, that would make those who hear him believe He has authority on such things.
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith , 357. (2002 Covenant Edition)
SUNDAY INTERVIEW – Musings of the Main Mormon
Gordon B. Hinckley – San Francisco Chronicler – <a href=”http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg… ” target=”_blank”>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/…
"Don't Drop the Ball," General Conference Oct 1994, quoted in Ensign, November 1994 – <a href=”http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnext… ” target=”_blank”>http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354f…
If hiding the truth from people in general (non-members) is what you mean by clear, or laying your cards on the table then sure, your prophets do that however if actual honesty is required I am not so sure they do this in the public sector.
Lautensack
“Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it?
Ye are even My witnesses.
Is there a God beside Me?
yea, there is no God; I KNOW NOT ANY.”
Text found in Isaiah 44: 5, King James Version
God asks us “Is there a God beside Me?”
He gives us the question to the test, and then He answers it for us.
I have not been following this thread and so I am jumping in mid-stream.
A few thoughts on Sharon’s article. It is your opinion that we have rearranged Christ’s Gospel. You were not present, nor were any of us when he arranged His church in ancient times. In the New Testament we have a few writings from some who were there, and other writings from some who followed after those events. We interpret those writings differently. You say we are “rearranging” things, we say you have an incomplete picture.
The last verse in St. John states “there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.” Jesus spent forty days with the disciples after His resurrection, teaching, and revealing the secrets of His kingdom to them. We have no record of any of those forty days. I don’t think the LDS view is unreasonable, you disagree.
You mention the veil of the temple. That veil has deep symbolism, and its being rent represented more than one thing. In the ancient (and modern) temple, the veil represents the barrier or separation between God and man, between this world and the next. The veil of the Jerusalem temple was very appropriately rent at Christ’s death as He entered the spirit world. There, He preached His gospel as mentioned in the New Testament. Isaiah said, “they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.” He broke the bands of death and brought many out of that prison through the resurrection (ultimately all of us).
Your statement concerning the symbolism of the veil I believe is overstated and oversimplified. Again, we differ on opinion and interpretation. It being rent symbolized His entering the spirit world to break those bands.
You also mislead in your saying “in Mormonism’s rearranged gospel God gave one of His many begotten sons.” I have a hard time believing you don’t know our doctrine better than this. In our doctrine, GOD HAS ONLY ONE BEGOTTEN SON, hence the phrase, ONLY BEGOTTEN. Yes God has many sons. Do you disagree? What then of Job 38:7 “all the sons of God shouted for Joy” (at the creation). But He has only ONE BEGOTTEN SON. This means there is only one son of God on earth of whom He is the physical Father. Your statement is inaccurate and misleading.
Your last paragraph is also problematic: “In the original Gospel Christ died to rescue unworthy sinners from God’s wrath unto eternal life in His presence; in Mormonism’s rearranged gospel Christ’s sacrificial death ultimately only rescues those who prove themselves worthy of eternal life.”
First of all, the first part or your sentence is perfectly consistent with LDS belief. The most righteous person to make it to the celestial kingdom is unworthy of the reward (i.e. does not earn it). You say our doctrine is incorrect because we believe Christ “only rescues those who prove themselves worthy….” So how is your belief different? Are you saying you believe He saves everybody? If not, then whom does He save? What makes those who are not saved different from those who are? Don’t they do something that distinguishes them from those who are not saved? Of course. But we disagree on what that something is. This could easily lapse into faith vs. works again, but you get my drift.
Oh?
FoF, would you join us in publicly denouncing such statements made by your leaders?
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either people have to prove themselves worthy and meritorious of the earned reward of eternal life and Celestial exaltation, or they receive it as a free gift. Which is it?
DOF: you wrote
While I appreciate the complement, one might ask where does this reasoning (which I try to cultivate) come from. Of course the scriptures and seeking wisdom through the Spirit. But who pointed me there? The very leadership you are ferring to .
the nicest thing I could say in response to that is “they (your leaders) are VERY selective about that , about directing you or anyone else toward using their God given reasoning and brain power. This topic could, and perhaps will, become a thread all its own one day. I think just as often, Mormons are taught, if only by the EXAMPLE of your leaders, that history is suspect. scholarship is to be kept on a short leash, and reasoning is more often than not, the tool of the devil. I’m at work and can only do a short post due to the op.sys. , but perhaps this will get amplified in the future. I DO appreciate your efforts to defend yourself and your church with all God has given you. GERMIT
PS: the “our leaders are called to teach the basics of repentance and salvation” is the lamest of lines. Christian leaders/teachers of every stripe and color step up to the bar daily and TRY and answer the tough questions that range across the board…. and so does FAIR and FARMS……but WHERE are your GA;s in all of this ????
FOF,
In light of your statement, “You also mislead in your saying “in Mormonism’s rearranged gospel God gave one of His many begotten sons.” I have a hard time believing you don’t know our doctrine better than this. In our doctrine, GOD HAS ONLY ONE BEGOTTEN SON, hence the phrase, ONLY BEGOTTEN.”, can you please explain this statement by one of your prophets and quoted in chapter 2 of the Gospel Principles published by the LDS Church?
God is not only our ruler and creator; he is also our Heavenly Father. “All men and women are . . . literally the sons and daughters of Deity. . . . Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body” (Joseph F. Smith, “The Origin of Man,” Improvement Era, Nov. 1909, pp. 78, 80).”
Gundeck,
To clarify the matter, in LDS doctrine all of the human race are spiritual sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father. However, ONLY Jesus Christ is physically begotten by our Heavenly Father hence the term ONLY BEGOTTEN. Mary was the mother of Jesus and God the Father was the father. We do not know of the precise manner in which the immaculate conception was brought about (notwithstanding BY’s speculative musings).
Germit,
Maybe it is lame to say that the GA’s are to teach repentance, but that is what the Lord has said and I will take him at His word. That is not to say that GA’s don’t comment on the so-called “tough questions”. They do, as this thread has quoted from them daily. Nevertheless, their calling is not to answer every question for every inquisitive or should I say accusative mind. Should I try to answer my kids questions about the theory of relativity before he learns about his 4th grade physics lesson? What good will it do him, except to firmly secure in his mind that Relativity is a bunch of junk?
Food for thought!
SteveH,
Thank you for the clarification, I often find it difficult to follow LDS beliefs because of different language used between us. For instance your use of the phrase, “immaculate conception” has thrown me for a loop. I was unaware that Mormons believed in immaculate conception. I can only assume that there is a specific LDS definition for immaculate conception separate from the Roman Catholic belief that Mary was without the stain of original sin. I have always been under the impression that you rejected original sin?
Gundeck,
You are correct in that the term “Immaculate Conception” is a specific Roman Catholic dogma as you described. So as to avoid confusion, it would be more accurate to say that the conception of Christ was by divine means of which we do not have a full understanding.
Again, this is a perfect example of LDS critics making claims they know are false. Yes, Aaron, I know it is possible to look up statements that include language you can interpret to mean we completely earn our way to Heaven. You win!
Do you honestly think the men who made those statements are saying we earn our way to heaven? Yes I know the statements. They are saying we must meet the requirements set by the Lord, and in that sense you might say earn, or merit in the Lord’s system. Those men would cringe if they thought people would interpret their statements to mean they deserved or earned heaven in the way you are saying.
So for the 57th time on this site, I will say that we must qualify by obedience and faith and doing what Christ commands to receive salvation and His grace. We do not do the saving. We do not do the saving. We do not do the saving. Without Christ, we could not arrive at any degree of salvation.
Just what is the “Gospel” of Jesus Christ. That word gospel is thrown around like everyone has the same idea what it is. Ask 10 people what the Gospel is.. and you will get 10 different answers. That is becasue everyone has to “add” what they believe belongs. Jesus Christ gave a specific definition of “the gospel”:
Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.
And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—
And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.
And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world.
And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father.
And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men. And for this cause he fulfilleth the words which he hath given, and he lieth not, but fulfilleth all his words.
And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end.
Lautensack,
“Anyone who denies that man is a free agent is irrational, however free agency is a different thing from free will.”
There must be millions of people who are irrational. Its my understanding that Buddhists believe in Dependent origination.
“…any teaching or school of thought which shows a world originating from a First Cause is contrary to the principle of conditionality, or Dependent Origination, which clearly states that all things are interdependent, arising continually through the influences of causes and conditions. Any First Cause, be it a Creator God or anything else, is impossible.”
P. A. Payutto
http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/coarise2.htm
Its interesting that the statement about dependent Origination also denies a first cause. So, there must be some essential connection between first cause belief and that of free will or free agency.