In The Religious Educator, Mark D. Woodbury, director of the Reno Nevada Institute of Religion, writes:
The good news is that there is repentance. Repentance is a great gift from God; indeed, the scriptures teach us that Christ “hath risen again from the dead, that he might bring all men unto him, on conditions of repentance. And how great is his joy in the soul that repenteth!” (D&C 18:12–13). But it is only through our entering into a covenant with God through baptism that repentance becomes truly effective. Many times in scripture the prophets and the Savior Himself use the phrase “baptized unto repentance. (See Matthew 3:11; Mosiah 26:22; Alma 5:62; 6:2; 7:14; 8:10; 9:27; 48:19; 49:30; Helaman 3:24; 5:17; 5:19; 3 Nephi 1:23; 7:24, 26; Moroni 8:11; D&C 35:5.) Alma, for example, taught, “Now I say unto you that ye must repent, and be born again; for the Spirit saith if ye are not born again ye cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore come and be baptized unto repentance, that ye may be washed from your sins, that ye may have faith on the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world, who is mighty to save and to cleanse from all unrighteousness” (Alma 7:14).
Alma makes two points clear, the first being that forgiveness of sins does not come simply through repentance alone but that baptism is also necessary. Second, he shows that it is not the waters of baptism that cleanse us but rather the Lamb of God. Nephi clarifies that the remission of sins comes “by fire and by the Holy Ghost” (2 Nephi 31:17). Thus, we are cleansed from our sins only when the Holy Ghost places the stamp of approval upon us.
President Brigham Young taught: “Has water, in itself, any virtue to wash away sin? Certainly not; but the Lord says, ‘If the sinner will repent of his sins, and go down into the waters of baptism, and there be buried in the likeness of being put into the earth and buried, and again be delivered from the water, in the likeness of being born—if in the sincerity of his heart he will do this, his sins shall be washed away.’ Will the water of itself wash them away? No; but keeping the commandments [p.72] of God will cleanse away the stain of sin.” (Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses (Liverpool: Latter-day Saints’ Book Depot, 1854–86), 2:4.)
Our sins, therefore, are remitted by the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost following our repentance and baptism by water. Continued repentance is then available only to those who have entered into a covenant with the Lord through the Aaronic Priesthood ordinance of baptism. Since the fruits of repentance (forgiveness and cleansing) are available only through the administration of the Aaronic Priesthood, the Aaronic Priesthood “holds the keys of . . . the gospel of repentance” (D&C 13:1; see also Joseph Smith—History 1:69).
If one agrees with Mr. Woodbury, some interesting implications arise. Non-Mormons have never had God forgive even one of their sins. Mormons are the only people on earth currently receiving forgiveness of sins. In other words, Christians are deluded in thinking they are right with God.
No one has the right to call themselves a Christian if they have not had all their sins forgiven, let alone if they have not had any sins forgiven. Instead of oozing the gushy sentiment of “we are both Christians who love Jesus and experience the grace of divine forgiveness”, Mormons should be forthrightly telling evangelicals the honest truth about our condition. We have never been forgiven by God. Not even once. Not ever.
I remember being at the first “National Student Dialogue Conference” in a discussion between Mormons and evangelicals at a round table. I told a sweet Mormon woman about my experience of receiving the total forgiveness of sins as a free gift, of embracing the realistic view of repentance that the Bible speaks of. I spoke of how this forgiveness liberated me to love people in a way I had never before done. She smiled and said she was happy for me. She said she was glad that I had experienced God’s grace and love and she thanked me for bearing my testimony of how God had forgive me for my sins.
Later, the Miracle of Forgiveness came up. I contrasted my view of repentance with Spencer W. Kimball’s overwhelming, burdening six-step process of the permanent, successful, comprehensive, perfect repentance which brings forgiveness. Since she sided with Kimball’s view, I informed her that I had not yet perfectly and permanently and comprehensively abandoned the sinful habits from the urges of my mind (which, according to Kimball, indicates you have not yet been forgiven). I asked her, “Since I have not yet fulfilled Mormonism’s absolutely prerequisite steps required for forgiveness, am I wrong to believe I have had all my sins forgiven?” She nodded. “Then why did you tell me you were happy for me?” She sheepishly smiled and shrugged her shoulders.
I find this very offensive. If you think I’m deluded and deceived into thinking all my sins have been forgiven, don’t patronize me by commending and celebrating my testimony of God having forgiven my sins. Tell me the truth. Tell me that while it is good that I seek forgiveness, I have yet to receive what I think I have already received.
Do Mormons really love evangelicals? If so, then why aren’t we hearing more of the clear truth about our true condition? If completing Spencer Kimball’s six-step prerequisite process for receiving forgiveness isn’t enough—if being properly baptized by the proper Mormon authorities is absolutely prerequisite to the forgiveness of sins before God—then shouldn’t a Mormon be a good doctor and tell me what real condition I’m in? If no non-Mormon has ever been forgiven by God for any sin (having not received proper baptism), then isn’t it unloving to lock hands with us and try to sing Kumbaya? If Mormons love evangelicals, then should they really be engaging evangelicals in quasi-ecumenical kissing contests, celebrating some superficial common ground of believing in a Jesus that has yet to even absolve us of one thing?
Remember, your best friends are the ones who tell you the most vital truth.
Depending on Romans 4:4-8 and the real blessedness of having been forgiven,
Aaron
To all LDS posters: very simple straightforward question: are we ‘christians’ DELUDED IN THINKING WE ARE RIGHT WITH GOD?? Please do not tone down or candy coat your answers , give the MC participants the unvarnished, non-PR, truth. You have heard out ‘salvation’ explanation explicitly for weeks, ARE WE RIGHT WITH GOD, OR NOT?? Thanks, Germit.
germit,
Thanks for an honest question. To be completely honest, if you were to ask this question to 10 Mormons you may get ten different answers. The argument that all Mormons aren’t always on the same page has some validity, and I’m not into arguments I can’t win.
But let me just answer your question for me personally. “are we ‘christians’ DELUDED IN THINKING WE ARE RIGHT WITH GOD??” My answer is no. For me the key is coming to know Christ as our Redeemer. Anyone who has come to know and cherish this is very much “right with God.” This knowledge is the keystone of Christianity whether it be Mormons are any other Christian. It has been my experience that there are sincere Christians in all of the Christian religions. It is my opinion that these arguments over salvation, exaltation and whatever else are very much the work of the devil. I believe these arguments have been one of Satan’s great successes in modern history by dividing true Christians over what I believe to be petty arguments.
The reality is that being “right with God” is very much a matter of the heart and can be difficult at times to measure by outward appearances whether they be confession or works. Outward acts can be motivated by any number of motives. 1 Samuel 16:7 – “For the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.”
Because being right with God is a matter of the heart, trying to put these outward judgments on who is “right with God” is a very complex issue- one which most of us on both sides tend to fail miserably at. In all actuality, a true judgment of who is right with God is humanly impossible. It is a right which God has reserved for himself, because he is the only one who truly knows our hearts.
To be honest, this is one thing that is very offensive to me when other Christians tell me as a Mormon that I am not. In fairness, I admit that many Mormons are just as guilty of this offense as others.
germit,
The fundamental question for me is, has been and always will be when dealing with Mormons is “who is God”? So the point of who is right with God can’t be answered until we ask the God question. I’m not stating this to be provocative. It’s just fundamental to the question regarding who are we depending on for our salvation. Are Muslims, Hindus, Buddists right with God?
Shortest post I’ve ever made!
falcon,
For me, the particular description of God’s makeup is not important in the end. It may be an interesting topic, and one that makes for great debates. But ultimately, it is not a deciding factor. A person who believes in the Trinity and person who does not who both believe in the need for the Savior Jesus Christ in their lives can both be very much right with God. I don’t believe God is a bureaucrat who will send someone to hell because they missed a definition question.
As far as the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists question goes, it is a little different. There is no doubt that there is a need for a Redeemer and that that Redeemer is Jesus Christ. Religions which do not recognize the need of the Redeemer Jesus Christ are left with only what they can accomplish of themselves. This is insufficient.
One thing that I have learned, is that a lot of the things that are preached can’t and wont make scence to somebody that might be “blind” to the truth. The mormon theoligy has changed so much over the course of their time here, one might say that they are trying to fit in whith the Jones’s. When Smith stated, “When they can get rid of me, the devil will also go.”,he rang true what it takes for them to see their errors. We will truly be Blessed to see that day come for the sake of his followers. The heart truly cannot hide the imperfections and God knows them all. The beautiful side to that is the Blood of Christ covers them for our sake, and covers the stains on us. That is something that “garments” cannot hide. We truly have, Grace through Faith with salvation as the cherry on top of it all. We have a lot of “works to do”, though the message is clear that they will pour out of us as gifts from God. We cant get caught up in, that it is of ourselves. We are but messengers for the Boss. So give the Glory to the one that has sent you in the knowledge of his Word. If we take any credit for the good things in life, we take the Glory from Him. The baptism is a covenant with Him, though some might argue that it is a work, it is through the gift of the Holy Spirit that puts us there in the first place. Repenting, remembering your baptism, receiving the sacrament, good works, TRYING to keep the commandments, and love are all things that can be atributed to the gift of the Holy Ghost. We must earnestly pray for the people who have the “blind faith” in hopes that there eyes may see the truth through the clutter of mans IDEAS of what receives salvation. Let no one boast of it, for it is God at work. We have an obligation to warn others, which is simple, with the gifts we have been given.
FALCON: I’m not even one half yr into posting here, so I’m still new, but I’ll mildly disagree with you. Yes, who God is represents the core question and the core issue, no matter the discussion. No disagreement there, and Tozer said something like: what a man thinks about God is of the utmost importance in that man’s thoughts and life; as his thoughts about God go, so go’s his life….(germit paraphrase). Having said that, we should consider our audience and what THEY want to talk about, and in terms and in a package that they can appreciate. To me, that is part of what Paul is talking about in ‘becoming all things to all people’. If my audience does not want to talk about (for now) the nature of God, I do not have to find a way to work that into the conversation, even if it is the ultimate topic. I’ll have to wait until the appropriate time (which is God controlled, so I don’t have to tap my foot while waiting). Adjust your posts according to the topic , and your audience, but again, I feel like Tim Tebow telling Mr.Favre how to throw an ‘out route’. Blessings on the Green and Gold, and #4 (until he plays at Lambeau). GERMIT
Good, honest question.
Here is the difficulty in responding to this. It is based on the Lord’s concern expressed in the D&C 10:37
“But as you cannot always judge the righteous, or as you cannot always tell the wicked from the righteous, therefore I say unto you, hold your peace until I shall see fit to make all things known unto the world concerning the matter.”
People are precious. Be careful, seems to be the message. So I must “hold my peace”. Nevertheless, I also believe the D&C is very clear about what our message to the world is.
19:31 And we know that all men must repent and believe on the name of Jesus Christ, and worship the Father in his name, and endure in faith on his name to the end, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God.
29:17 And it shall come to pass, because of the wickedness of the world, that I will take vengeance upon the wicked, for they will not repent; for the cup of mine indignation is full; for behold, my blood shall not cleanse them IF THEY HEAR ME NOT
43:20 Lift up your voices and spare not. Call upon the nations to repent, both old and young, both abond and free, saying: Prepare yourselves for the great day of the Lord
84:76 ..that they shall repent of their former evil works; for they are to be upbraided for their evil hearts of UNBELIEF.
By the way, this does not only apply to “the world” but specifically to members
84:57 And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—
1:4 And the voice of warning shall be unto all people, by the mouths of my disciples, whom I have chosen in these last days.
1:7 Wherefore, fear and tremble, O ye people, for what I the Lord have decreed in them shall be fulfilled.
Germit, the Lord says NO!
Aaron, seems clear enough.
BornagainMormon, question for you. Paul warns us in Romans chapter one regarding those who would suppress the truth about the real nature of God. As he put it: (v.18) “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth” regarding (v. 19) “that which is known about God.” Specifically, Paul states that one form of that suppression of truth is that the men who engage in it, (v. 25) “worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.” LDS Jesus is a created being, one who was once a man, and who, it is taught, was the literal, physical offspring of Elohim and Mary. So here’s my question: If you are worshipping a created being, aren’t you one of those Paul warns us against becoming–“fools [who] exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man…”? Further, how can a created Mormon Jesus save you? How is this not a “deciding factor,” as you put it? Paul is clear that we MUST worship the real, eternal and uncreated God and not a created being.
Very civil conversation. I hope I don’t uncivil it. We can’t dance around the issue of “can the Mormon Jesus provide salvation”? That seems like an odd question, I know because isn’t it the same Jesus? I mean we all get baptized in the name of Jesus right? So if I get baptized in the name of a Jesus, who is the offspring of a father/mother god union, a created being, am I saved? Universalist would say it really doesn’t matter and Mormons fall clearly in that camp. The reason I make a big deal out of this is because I want people to be saved, not think they are saved. If it doesn’t matter and if the Mormon Jesus can provide salvation, then let’s close-up shop here because as far as I’m concerned then it really doesn’t make any difference. Right?
germit,
We don’t say the “F” word here in Wisconsin any more. It’s with a heavy heart that we Packer fans have had to move on. I think the boy has at least one more year in him but for some reason, the Pack decided to change horses. Our moderator, Sharon and our other friend from the Land of 10,000 Lakes Rick the Hammer, I’m sure are Vikings fans uggggggg from across the Mississppi from me. Purple is not worn in this house!
The core of the issue is really about a difference in interpretation for “repentance”. There are several different words in the original languages of the Bible that are translated as “repent” in English. Unfortunately, the word repentance alone doesn’t convey all the nuances of these various original words. For example, the Greek words of metanoew and metanoia convey the conversion, changing, changing of one’s mind and heart. The Greek word of epistrepho focuses more on not just changing but turning _toward_ something, and that is God.
With this understanding of the dominant thrust of New Test. teachings that have merely been translated as “repentance” we can find that the Book of Mormon and LDS scriptural teachings also offer a position for adaptability and nuance — that is we truly can’t be dead to our old life and raised to a new life in Christ through baptism without having undergone repentance, a change of heart and mind that is turned toward our God.
Unfortunately, as long as the dominant Mormon understanding of repentance takes a nuance of a more Kimball-like legal formula for ritual purity, holiness and fixing one’s mistakes often arbitrated by church leadership and hierarchy then the LDS interpretation of the same NT teachings will track a different course than that of much of Protestant Christianity. Add the claims to unique authority and ordinances like baptism being uniquely and salvationally necessary, then the divide grows even wider.
Hey, this is a funamental shift. A topic about what Mormons ACTUALLY believe instead of what people THINK we believe. A breath of fresh air.
Before we all pull our hair out, convinced that Mormons think our repentance is fake, we should consider the purpose of another important Mormon belief — Baptism for the Dead.
You are not limited to the terms of this life to be baptised by the proper authority– we can take care of that after you die. Your great, great granddaughter will join the Church and arrange for your baptism the proxy.
Before you have a knee jerk reaction, consider the possibilities here. WHEN you accept that ordinance, all the sins you repented of in the life will be washed clean. So your repentance IS NOT IN VAIN, it just can’t be finalized yet due to your closed mindedness.
Hey – a loophole in the authority problem!
Don’t forget you have the dominant thrust of both the New Test. (and the Book of Mormon) to contend with, which is that this life is the time to change one’s heart and mind for a life with God. The LDS Bap for Dead theology doesn’t solve this well, in my opinion.
Well baptism for the dead is an unbiblical doctrine, plucked out of context from a single reference. “And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,”(Heb 9:27) The Bible is replete with examples of the linear death then judgment. There is no Biblical provisions for repenting after we die, for a second chance for people to believe (except for fo-mo’s of course).
As we have seen before, mormons have the order all out of whack in believing that they are capable to repenting first to then be saved. We must be born again, regenerated by God before we can even begin to repent because without that gracious act by God we are unable to repent, because we are not aware of our own sin or need to repent. Being baptized before being regenerated doesn’t save anyone, it just makes a sinner a wet sinner.
What a thought provoking article for the LDS. I do believe that most LDS would not know how to answer a question like this if it was put in a simpler form as Germit phrased it because we are not taught anything at all about a direct answer for that question. We do know and are taught that the only people who will get to live with Heavenly Father for the eternities (ie CK) are LDS. The missionaries are also taught that we are to invite all to come unto Christ through repentance and baptism. So that is the grounding we have, but there is nothing explicit in these teachings which would have an LDS think of a direct answer. I would never have thought of things like this myself if I hadn’t read this today.
Now after going through all that in the first paragraph, there is in those teachings an implicit teaching that favours this article. So after thinking about things and going through what I know to be true I would say that I agree with the premise – If you are not a member of the LDS church then you have not been forgiven of your sins and you are not squared with either God or Jesus.
As far as being called ‘Christian’ meaning that we have been 100 per cent forgiven ,I do not find that teaching in the Bible. I only find that the Bible delineates Christians as those who accept Jesus as the Son of God and their Saviour. So even though you may believe wrongly about baptism/repentance/salvation/etc you can still be a Christian if you believe in Jesus Christ as your Saviour and the Son of God, you just have the rest wrong.
I was wondering about this baptism issue as I was reading “Preach My Gospel” because it seems the major emphasis is on getting the seeker to get baptized. The verses that are emphasized and the whole direction of the lessons is to bring a person to that point (without even showing a person they are a sinner and need Christ’s righteousness).
That’s partly what I was referring to on another thread where I said this is a different gospel. If baptism is so essential to the gospel, why did Paul say “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel”? (I Cor. 1:17)
Mormonism isn’t merely saying that Christians haven’t had 100% of their sins forgiven, it’s also saying that us Christians have never had any sin forgiven by God. Are you willing to say, Ralph, that one can be a Christian, and yet never have had one single sin forgiven by God?
That is a direct question, I look forward to the answer.
Also, a second question: can you find one example of a Christian in the New Testament who was described as not justified or forgiven by faith?
JessicaJoy,
We LDS believe that everyone has a certain calling/function in the church which changes at various times. The Prophet and Apostles have the calling to be witnesses of Christ and to call repentance to the world, they can, but usually do not, baptise as that is not really part of their calling. The missionaries calling is to invite all to come unto Christ through repentance and baptism, NOT to find the people who wish to learn – that calling is for the members, but usually doesn’t work that way. So the missionaries teach and baptise, while the members are supposed to find the people to be taught, as well as assist in teaching and baptising.
So in answer to your question about why Paul said he was sent to preach not to baptise, Paul was one of the apostles and thus had the major calling of testifying of Christ and crying repentance to the world. If you read further in the Bible Paul did actually baptise a few people. This is also why it states that Jesus did not baptise, it was not part of His calling, His was to teach the new covenant and to atone for our sins.
Arthur Sido,
Your comment “Well baptism for the dead is an unbiblical doctrine, plucked out of context from a single reference” is not entirely true. Baptism for the dead is mainly from modern-day revelation but that verse can support the LDS opinion which is why many members (and the church) use it. Going on with the rest of what you have written, did you know that there are 2 judgments refered to in the Bible? Which one is the final one? After death, or after resurrection? And what do they both mean? Of course I am asking for your opinion (or any other Christian) as I know what the LDS teach about this.
Hey peoples!
Just thought I would throw down some thoughts.. it seems everyone is going off on divergent topics.. again. If you look at baptism from an LDS perspective and take into account the large overview of how it plays into the human timeline.. it’s focus is really about readying the world for Christ’s second coming and for our judgement. “Every knee will bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ” when he returns. The LDS view of Baptism and all other ordinances is to prepare the world for His return. Looking at what the LDS perceive as the “millenium” will be a time of continual ordinances and Baptisms so that all may eventually enter into the judgement phase. If anyone is not washed clean of their sins.. they won’t be able to stand in God’s/Christ’s glory in order to be judged.
Authority is also a central belief that shouldn’t just casually be dismissed as something trivial. Much of what the LDS do regarding work for the dead, particularly baptism and ordinance work is to connected to this authority just as it was in olden days. Lineage, priesthood, authority and taking the name of Christ through baptism.. is all part of this “connecting” with the human race.. past present and future.
FInally, to the author of this post.. I think your offense that nice ladies aren’t being truthful and calling you out as a delusional Christian is quite a strange way to react. It sounds like you were trying to set her up, forcing her to “come clean”. It’s even more obvious since you know what the doctrine of the LDS Church is already regrading baptism. I am sure that the Nice lady was trying to be just that.. nice and respectful of what you BELIEVE. If that is offensive to you..fine, I can be blunt:
Sorry dude, your baptism didn’t count. Repent.. get baptised by someone with authority and you will be forgiven of your sins.
There.. is that more satisfying for you?
Now we can be friends 🙂
Missusslats, thanks for the question. It is my opinion that all of this debate about the true nature of God does as much to “suppress the truth about the real nature of God” as any thing else. It appears to me that quite often it is just an excuse to avoid talking about what is truly important, and that is the change of heart that occurs when one comes to truly know the Savior Jesus Christ. For one who has had this experience, all of this debate and contention seem very much a distraction from such a truly sacred experience.
As to your question, “If you are worshipping a created being, aren’t you one of those Paul warns us against becoming–”fools [who] exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man…”? Further, how can a created Mormon Jesus save you? How is this not a “deciding factor,” as you put it?” I have been a Mormon long enough and am honest enough to admit that I understand why you may ask this question; furthermore, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that it is an honest question and not just an attempt to trap me in my words as the Pharisees tried to do to the Savior. But, even though I admit there is room for confusion about such things from my religion, assuming that all Mormons ““worship and serve the creature rather than the Creator” is a very naive statement. It is incorrect for you to assume that because you see things this way, it is true. I have been a Mormon for a long time and know that there are very many Mormons who worship the true Christ. It is simply unfair and incorrect for you to make a blanket statement like that about all Mormons. It is a generalization and an incorrect one at that. If you feel the need to debate the writings and teaching of certain people within the Mormon church, feel free. In many cases you may have reason to do so. But to make the leap from the problems you may have with what some people in the Mormon church have said to making a blanket statement is wrong.
AARON and others: this is an EXCELLENT post for one reason: we can now get a much clearer picture that our gospels and messages are OIL and WATER: not just because chrstians are cranky and ‘anti’, not because ONE side is unrelenting, but because the two gospels are miles apart. They cannot both be right. Christians calling mormon non-christian is nothing new, but now we have the LDS taken back to the grove, heels dragging perhaps, where JS had NO problem telling us that our creeds were an abomination . This amplifies that , I would say CLARIFIES that, so that both camps are saying the same thing: your gospel cannot save. That (as I understand it) is exactly what JS and BY taught unashamedly (I know they are quite dead, but they left a few things written down so as not to be misunderstood). Bob Millet and others are mumblers and less than helpful. DOF and friends, understanding our respective messages is great, but A LOT of my motivation (DJB asked, I think) is not only that I believe your message to be false, but that your group ACTIVELY PREACHES A MESSAGE THAT SAYS MY MESSAGE IS FALSE. We cannot both be right, and one of us is very misled. This thread shines a very needed bright light on the unpleasant truth of all this. I know this isn’t very PC and tolerant, but as cordial and polite as we try to remain, we are on opposite ends of a battle, a battle started by JS one hundred eighty eight yrs ago, give or take. I hope this helps you understand what ‘drives us’. GERMIT ps to DJB: if you’ve decided to go, your dialogue and careful posts will be missed; check in now and again: your leaders should be as forthright as you
Bmormon, thanks so much for responding! I agree that a regenerative relationship with Jesus Christ is the “truly important” issue. But if I say I have a relationship with my husband—that I love him and trust him—do I not need to be talking about the guy who lives at my house and not the guy by the same name who lives down the street? Jesus made this point clear when He said: “Unless you believe that I am he YOU WILL DIE IN YOUR SINS” (Jn 8:24). His identity is the crux of Christianity. That identity has been mutated by LDS doctrine from the eternal Creator, the one who “apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being” (Jn 1:3), the Great I AM, into someone very different. While it is possible that there can be true Christians in any “religion,” my point was that LDS doctrine does not lead a person to that true relationship of regeneration–it cannot because their relationship is with the wrong Jesus! He Himself said if we don’t have the right Jesus, we will die in our sins! The Jesus who is merely one in a long string of gods is not the Jesus described in the Bible, and the Jesus of the Bible is the only one who saves. There are only 2 kinds of beings: the created and the Creator. Mormon Jesus is a counterfeit because he falls into the former category, according to Jsmith (who I believe has more authority for the LDS than just “some people in the Mormon church.”) Germit is right: the two gospels are miles apart. We cannot both (the LDS and traditional Christians) be the same because our God/gods are different!
Part 2:
Bmormon, I don’t make the claim that my view is true simply because I see it that way. I claim it is true because I have good reason to, namely, an examination of the evidence—the comparison of LDS doctrine to the Bible. Paul wrote “If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, [then] he…understands nothing” (1Tim6: 3-4). As seems clear from the posts on this blog, Christianity and Mormonism are two entirely different things.
You wrote, “It is incorrect for you to assume that because you see things this way, it is true.” So then (using your rationale) isn’t it incorrect for you also to assume that because you see things your way that MY view is false? If I apply your logic to your own statement, then you cannot (or should not) properly hold to your view, either. Your logic self-destructs. That’s why I revert to evidence to draw my conclusions, not my biases, as you suggest I am doing.
johnnyboy, I am indeed offended. When someone looks me in the eye and tells me they are happy for me having received forgiveness, but all the while believes that my happiness is based on a lie, and that I never have received forgiveness, they are treating me like an old man with dementia, or a child who is celebrating Santa Claus.
I’m 26-years-old, I am an adult, and my mind is healthy. Treating me like I’m 6-years-old, in a psych ward, or in a home for the elderly, isn’t respectful, no matter how much lipstick there is on your smile. If you really want to be “nice” to me, tell me the truth. Anything else is glib and rude and unloving, doesn’t help me trust you, and doesn’t make me want to be close friends with you.
Missusslats……good posts. You can now join me in the broken record club.
The question is “Who am I placing my trust in for forgiveness and eternal life?” Many people put their trust in themselves thinking that if they are good enough they can obtain eternal life. See, Mormons do the Mitt Romney rap when he said something to the effect that he had “received Jesus Christ as his personal Savior” in response to a question regarding if he was a Christian. I’d say, “great answer, wrong Jesus”. I believe Mitt Romney believed what he said about being saved. But in reality, it is dishonest. Mormons know very well that the Jesus they claim as savior is not the same Jesus as Biblical Christians claim as the source of their forgiveness. So, to be charitable, Mormons are being disingenuous in as attempt to mainstream themselves. They know it’s a different god, a different Jesus, a different spirit and a different plan of salvation. So why not be upfront about it? Tell Christians that they’re wrong and that the Jesus we claim as Savior is not the Jesus they claim. Get it all out in the open and stop hiding the differences. Come at it straight on. And finally, Mormons do head to that little grove of trees while Christians head for the Cross.
Aaron-
I don’t mean to offend, but probably will due to the fact that you want us to shoot straight with you.
Why would you be offended that we don’t take the same tact as you. To be honest, your approach is less than loving from our standpoint. It’s blunt. Instead it comes off more as an attempt to win a debate… an intellectual debate about spiritual topics (with the reward also being intellectual, and not spiritual). That’s how your example came off to me, and that’s how most of your blog comes off to me. It seems very “Aaron-centered”. So you take offense that we choose not to do the same as you.
We prefer a different tact.
Maybe you are a child in a spiritual sense. It seems like a childish thing to say to everyone how grown up you are, and that everybody needs to act the way you want them too. It seems that the real entrance to adulthood is a point of self-realization that the answers that you were so sure of, were in fact wrong. You may have had that point of self realization, but you can’t convince others to have the same point. A wise person might patiently wait for others to come to the realization for themselves…. because inevitably it will. (In a gospel sense this will happen too when “every knee will bow”)
It seems to me that this girl was being respectful to you. So why take offense?
For the record… I believe that I am a child.
Aaron,
You wrote in your article “No one has the right to call themselves a Christian if they have not had all their sins forgive (sic), let alone if they have not had any sins forgiven.”, which is why I made the comment ”As far as being called ‘Christian’ meaning that we have been 100 per cent forgiven, I do not find that teaching in the Bible.” I clarified what I meant in the sentences following that statement, that the Bible calls anyone who believes in Jesus as the Son of God and their Saviour (whether correctly or incorrectly) as Christian. So yes, someone can be Christian and never have one single sin forgiven by God because they do not have the correct belief about Jesus Christ. But this all comes down again to the definition of the word “Christian”. You Evangelicals have a very narrow definition of that word which excludes many religions including the Catholic Church which is seen by many as the original Christian church.
Your second question is a little more difficult to answer. I can show numerous people who had faith in Jesus and followed Him (or His apostles) for a time and then left. But then you would turn around and say that they did not have true faith so they were neither justified nor forgiven. But they can be categorised as Christian according to the Biblical definition which was the definition in those days, so they did have the faith. And then according to the parables of the prodigal son and the servants’ debts one can have faith and then fall away and lose their forgiveness from my understanding, but most likely not yours. So we are at an impasse on this answer. But to try and answer I will name Judas Iscariot and then others who stopped following Jesus in John 6:66 (I wonder if this reference is a coincidence?) – they would have been classed as Christian back then as they followed and believed in Jesus.
I guess in the spirit of shooting straight, I will respond to Missusslats as well who said:
I would completely agree. Now that that’s clarified, I question “What’s the big revelation there?” Do LDS people believe in a different Jesus? Sure we do. It’s a different subject altogether that we believe that our concept of Jesus actually came from Him rather than through creeds developed a longer time ago than any of us can actually get a grip on. But yes, it’s true that we believe in a different Jesus than modern Christianity. Any basic missionary discussion will tell you that. Not much of a mystery if you ask me.
Falcon says:
True and untrue. The problem comes in our definition of “Biblical Christians”, because the truth is that we believe that we are truly the only “Biblical Christians” and that the rest are “modern christians” (the difference is that there is an implied sense that modern christianity is an unintentional imposter of sorts… a natural result of time eroding away the pure gospel that was once taught). What I would call “modern christians” (EVs) believe that they are “biblical christians” simply because their beliefs are based on AN interpretation of Bible.
So I guess that what I’m saying is that I can’t see why the belief in the Bible alone makes one “Christian”. Shouldn’t you be called “Biblicans” or something like that?
dj1989…I would prefer the term “historic” Chrisitianity as opposed to “modern.” As you should be well aware the text of our Bible and the history of Christianity is well attested and can be checked out by anyone to verify that we still say the same things we have ALWAYS said.
If you really have the “pure gospel that was once taught” then why do we find no evidence that ANYONE ANYWHERE ever believed the things that your church teaches? Noone has yet to give me a satisfactory answer…
Please, the “pure gospel that was once taught” is totally bogus and is at the top of the Mormon urban legends. The Mormon gospel was never taught or observed in New Testament Christianity. We have the Gospel as it was delivered. If there is one thing that really irrates me is that flat out lie that comes out of the mouth of Mormons. I’ve asked more times then I care to count for Mormons to prove that the apostles practiced polygamy, Masonic temple rituals, believed that god was once a man, taught that men would become gods, wore safety underwear, and on and on. All I hear from Mormons is this nonsense regarding giant conspiracies that hid all of this and removed it from the Bible. Talk about intellectual dishonesty. The only way this stuff gets believed is because absent of any evidence, it’s true because you prayed about and god confirmed it by a spiritual feeling. Help them Lord!
dj1989,
I gave my usage of the child-metaphor some context, and you seem to have chosen to ignore it and transplant it into another context. Treating my claims of having received forgiveness like an excited mother who celebrates with a child who incorrectly claims to have received gifts from Santa Claus is not “loving”. It’s like a doctor celebrating with a deceived patient over his claims to have been healed through some obscure homeopathy, when the doctor really knows the patient was never healed to begin with and that the disease is still alive and well. It’s cruel.
I am quite literally an adult. I am not interested in your patronizing nods and smiles and commendations over my happiness when all the while you think the basis for my happiness is a big whoppin’ lie. If you want to treat people like that, fine, but it isn’t the mark of true friendship. As scripture says,
“Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy.” (Proverbs 27:6)
One’s defense of the kisses of patronization shows how unloving of an enemy they are. Be a faithful friend and “wound” someone you love. Being blunt doesn’t mean you can’t put your arm on someone’s shoulder.
Ralph,
You said, “the Bible calls anyone who believes in Jesus as the Son of God and their Saviour (whether correctly or incorrectly) as Christian.” Where does the Bible say this, especially the “correctly or incorrectly” part? The gnostics said they believed that Jesus was the Son of God, but they were classified as “of the devil”. Would you call such gnostics Christians?
Also, you give Judas as an example of someone who could be called a Christian but was not justified or forgiven by faith. But you then imply that he had real faith, justifying faith which brought forgiveness. So I’ll ask again: where is an example of a person in scripture who, in the very state of not having been forgiven or justified by God, is considered a true Christian?
What Mormonism is essentially saying is that a person can be a true Christian and yet:
– never have received the forgiveness of any sin from God. Ever.
– never have entered the kingdom of God.
– never have been justified.
– never have been spiritually adopted into the family of God.
– never have been born again.
– never have received the indwelling gift of the Holy Ghost
This is ri-dic-u-lous.
DJ: welcome back sir
your wrote “their (EVs) beliefs are base on AN interpretation of the bible”….and whose views are NOT?? everyone, you and all LDS included, have beliefs based on AN interpretation of the bible. Save me the REVELATION and AUTHORITY sermon, Susan and others have graciously given me that a few times, DJ you are still not in some ‘holy-other’ category. The only difference might be you have handed over (similar to some Roman Catholics) some of the interpretive responsibility to some of your leaders. That’s your perogative: we are still talking about human beings interpreting the bible (I realize you believe your group has an ‘God-nod’), so we are in the same boat. You can sniff at my interpretive abilities, I can sniff at JS and Brigham’s, and the current group in Utah. You only have a special status because you give that to yourselves. Also: I think you are nit picking AARON’s interchange with the lipstick lady. I have exactly the same complaint as AARON when I hear that my message is ‘good but incomplete’ or ‘has some truth to it, but is not the full restored gospel’. What baloney. My message is demonic and evil if the LDS message is true: all the more evil because I promote it as being able to save and if it can’t, what kind of messenger and man am I ?? What I need to hear is DOF’s statement “God says, NO (I am not right with God).” I can handle that , it is straightforward and without hidden agenda (and it might even be true, that is a possibility). Don’t make AAARON’s excellent post about AARON and avoid the issue. Thanks for your posts. GERMIT
Missusslats,
It is tue that there are Christins in all religions. You must remember that WORD is the means Faith, not the religion(church). There are many parts to the BODY and they all don’t come from one building. There are even people in the LDS that are Christian. I am sure that they go and here the word of God while being able to filter out the fluff that may be spoken by one who commits blasphemy. That is what the Holy Spirit allows one to do. They should however bring to light the errors that are presented to them, not just by the Spirit, but together with the Living Word. If the heart is repentant of the sin, and knows of the regeneration that Christ only provides, than that person is truly Christian. To say that just because someone attends a certain named building, doesn’t refute what is in their heart. Remember that God is OMNIPRESENT, there is nowhere one can hide from Him. The proof is in the pudding, He is able to reach even the ones sitting in the pews of a Mormon church while someone is giving their “testimony” and open ones eyes to the Truth. Even though it not like a mass exodus, doesn’t mean that it is not powerful. One must try to remember that one soul at a time, is enough to allow the LORD, to work His way into the hearts of many. We sometimes get too eager to try to win the hearts of many. We must remember that GOD, has the plan laid out. W/LOVE
dj1989,
You said, “The problem comes in our definition of “Biblical Christians”, because the truth is that we believe that we are truly the only “Biblical Christians”…”
I respect you for taking your stand with boldness. This is definitely the way Mormons believe. When I was a Mormon, I was taught that the New Testament wasn’t written for any other group other than the Mormons because Paul et al were writing to Church members, and only Mormons were the true Church members, today. To Mormons, all Christians are Gentiles because we are non-believers according to what you all believe to be the unadulterated truth as revealed to Joseph Smith and the following Church leaders. I appreciate the straight-shooting.
The problem I have with such a statement is that Mormon beliefs are often at odds with biblical Christianity. The priesthood that Mormons claim to be their authority does not look like the priesthood in the NT. 1 Timothy clearly reveals the contradictions between Mormon priesthood and NT priesthood. Your deacons are 12-years-old; this doesn’t look like what Paul is talking about. From Peter we come to understand that the priesthood is a priesthood of believers with the authority to minister to each other, and our sacrifices are spiritual sacrifices and not animal sacrifices (refer to 1 Peter 2:4-10). We as Christians believe that Mormonism is heretical in its teachings because it works from outside the parameters of the Bible and teaches a different gospel. But, we’re going around in circles here and rehashing nearly every thread on this blog.
Getting back to baptism, I understand how difficult it is to realize that baptism is not regenerative–it does not save anyone. It is an outward sign of an inward grace. Is it important? Absolutely! Will we come into God’s presence if we have a relationship with Him but for some reason never get baptized? Absolutely! It’s our faith in Jesus Christ that saves us–that’s it!
Missusslats,
Thank you for your response. I am convinced by he honesty of your response that you genuinely believe in what you are doing and are not just trying to trap me in my words. Thank you.
Also, thank you for your statement “I agree that a regenerative relationship with Jesus Christ is the “truly important” issue.” I was almost ready to give up on my belief that other Christians really believe this as well. I have debated with people of my own religion about this topic, but it was always one thing that I respected about other Christians that they whole heartedly agreed with this point. The thought that I had given them to much credit was getting a little depressing.
As far as your statement “While it is possible that there can be true Christians in any “religion,” my point was that LDS doctrine does not lead a person to that true relationship of regeneration–it cannot because their relationship is with the wrong Jesus!,” thank you for at least recognizing that it is “possible” for there to be true Christians in any religion- I am assuming that you include a Mormon in there. I realize that you believe it is unlikely for this to happen in the Mormon church because of your view of the doctrine, but it is refreshing to know that you are open to the possibility.
Now to get to your follow up point, “my point was that LDS doctrine does not lead a person to that true relationship of regeneration–it cannot because their relationship is with the wrong Jesus!.” Since my last post, I happen to read one of your other posts and learned that you were a Mormon for twenty years. This was interesting to me because I know that you are speaking from first hand experience and not just regurgitating something that someone else has told you. My response to this is that it is not uncommon for Mormons to not understand the doctrine very well. It is not hard for me to see someone who has been a member for 20 years or even a lifetime not understand basic concepts- cont.
I have seen it happen. This is the argument that church leaders may not have done a good job of disseminating information. I don’t have a problem conceding that- there may be some truth to it, but I will deal with that at another time.
As far as your concluding statement, “isn’t it incorrect for you also to assume that because you see things your way that MY view is false? If I apply your logic to your own statement, then you cannot (or should not) properly hold to your view, either. Your logic self-destructs.” This statement is simply incorrect. It is incorrect for me to assume that because I see things my way your view is false. I don’t. If I were to do that, it would be very arrogant. This, quite frankly, is the problem with so many of the posts.
Born, you rightly state, “it is not uncommon for Mormons to not understand the doctrine very well.” I meet LDS like this daily, and they are the toughest to witness to. This, however, does NOT describe me. As a convert to LDS, I devoured, read, studied every church-approved source I could get my hands on. (Ironically, the only thing I didn’t read is the Holy Bible—the one standard work that didn’t originate with JS. Why? Because it made my head hurt—it made no sense. I didn’t understand the reasons for that at the time, but I sure do now.) I am not one who doesn’t know the doctrine. I even knew about Adam/God, but of course was told it was only a theory, we don’t know much about it, some weirdo taught it from long ago, it was never doctrine, etc. It wasn’t until I was out that I learned the identity of that weirdo—BY!! I was in when GBH decided to mainstream the church and I see the results of his successful efforts, esp. on the new converts or those not paying attention in FHE. Its not that the leaders don’t do a good job—they do exactly what they intend to do: appear more Christian. This is an insidious effort of theirs, but if they were to openly teach the “meat” of mormonism, people would get out in even greater numbers. I love meeting people who get “out” just from reading the NT!!
Question for you: How do you know that the “very many Mormons” that you know actually DO “worship the true Christ”? We’ve already agreed that LDS JC is not the same as Christian JC—do they worship the Christ of the Bible or the Christ of Mormonism? If it’s the true Christ of the Bible, then why don’t they leave their false church? If they are following the true Christ then why has he not led them out of the darkness of their false beliefs? 1Jn 2:21 No lie is of the truth. If there is one lie in Mormonism, it is all false. Why have they not come to worship Immanuel, “God with us” (Mat1:23) the One who says He IS the Truth (Jn14:6)?
Aaron,
The word “Christian” is used 3 times in the NT. The first time is when it says that they were first called Christian in Antioch (Acts 11:26). Who were the ones that coined the word? Non-believers. The second time was King Agrippa who again was a non-believer (Acts 26:28). The last was from Peter, who most likely used the commonality of the word by then, probably in reference to those who were being martyred in the circus by non-believers under the name of Christian.
Now are you going to tell me that these non-believersa re going to stop everyone who professes to believe in and follow Jesus Christ and ask them – do they believe in One God in substance but 3 entities; or do they believe in 3 seperate beings; or do they believe in On God with 3 manifestations? I don’t think so. They would most likely just take them and put them in the Christian category despite which one of the descriptions of God they believe in. So I stand by my comment, the Bible does not teach that for someone to be called Christian they need to believe in Jesus in the correct manner – which then logically concludes that not all that believed in Jesus or professed to follow Him in the Biblical times and were branded as Christian, were forgiven for any of their sins. And yes these are ‘true Christians’ according to the Bible terminology.
Like I said, it all depends on your definition of Christian. I am using the Bible definition, you are using your own.
BornagainMormon said
“My response to (Missusslats) is that it is not uncommon for Mormons to not understand the doctrine very well.” This breaks my heart -why does it have to be so difficult? Why do you want to be in a theology/religion that is so difficult to understand? One that a person must be in for a while to really know what it is they believe and worship? As a Christian the only doctrine I need to understand is that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Him. (John 14:6)
I know Mormons see Christianity as the “easy way out” because we don’t have 200 rules and ordinances to follow -believe me it’s no easy way out. Might be hard/might be easy depending on the person: accepting our lives are broken, we cannot fix it ourselves, and letting Christ into your heart. Easy part: faith in Christ after that. Hard part: living every moment as an example for Christ. But it’s frustrating that Mormonism makes it so difficult by adding all these extra doctrines.
Missusslats, I liked your last post, by the way.
Ralph, what you are saying then is that they were called Christian because they followed Christ? The Christ that is talked of in the Bible? Well, that is what Christians nowadays do -we follow the Christ in the Bible. Mormons follow a different “Christ” – the one that is in the BoM, the one that spoke to JS, the one that is a spirit brother of Lucifer. We all call them by the same word, but they are not the same person, this we know. I find it interesting that you make a point to say that “Christian” was defined by non-believers and then say that definition describes “true Christians”. LDS chide this website saying that it tells Mormons what they believe -how apt are non-believers to define who the “true” Christians are?
Hey Aaron,
I am not saying you shouldn’t be offended.. I just think your reaction could be tempered more or less. Like I said before, it seems by the way you have written the post that you were setting the lady up.. which is why it’s strange that you should be so offended if you knew how she was going to react. If it was something that you didn’t expect or not see coming then that would be different. If she had been honest, it seems like you would have been just as offended by a truthful answer.
I (unlike many mormons) agree with Germit. I am not down with the PC let’s hold hands garbage. I do however respectfully disagree with many of my Christian brethren, even if they don’t think I am a Christian. That’s fine.. they can think that. It’s their right to do so.
I wish JS was around to tell it like it is. I enjoy reading his teachings because he didn’t mince words. My point to your post is to say “let’s have a bit of empathy” and try to understand why someone would say or do the things they do. It might start to change your impulse reaction of being offended. Then you can agree to just disagree.
The lady you mentioned just sounded like she probably wasn’t as courageous or steadfast in her belief as you would have liked her to be. Not everyone is.
That’s all..
And to Germit… I have a sense I would enjoy hanging out with you, even if we were on opposite sides of the battlefield 🙂
johnnyboy, I was above anything else trying to get this young lady to see what Biblical grace looks like in the personal testimony of a believer. She set herself up.
In other contexts, I am quite intent on leading someone down a path, and even then, when people patronize me it doesn’t sit well. It shouldn’t.
If you knew me personally, you would know that I am far less offended by an honest answer. I gravitate toward people who are forthright. I will strive for empathy with people’s struggles to find peace with God and man, but passive-aggressiveness and dishonesty are among my pet peeves and will always be. I prefer it that way.
If you can find me an example of Jesus empathizing with dishonesty and deception, I will listen. I am not interested in conforming to over-the-top, unbiblical expectations of irenicism shaped by Mormonism and/or academia and/or postmodernism.
“A lying tongue hates its victims, and a flattering mouth works ruin.” (Proverbs 26:28)
“Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good.” (Romans 12:9)
Ralph, rather than arguing from an actual Biblical definition of a true saint / follower of Jesus Christ / Christian, you seem to be arguing from silence.
It looks like I need to ask some of my questions again:
In 1st John, the gnostics, who would claim they believed Jesus is the Son of God, were classified as of the spirit of anti-Christ for not believing that Jesus literally came in the physical flesh. Would you specifically call such gnostics Christians since they claim to believe in the Son of God? Do you believe such gnostics, even though of the spirit of the anti-Christ, should be called true Christians?
Where is a specific example of a person in scripture who, in the very state of not having been forgiven or justified by God, is considered a true Christian?
Are you willing to unequivocally affirm that one can believe absolutely whatever they want about Jesus Christ and still be a true Christian?
BornAgain: I haven’t jumped into many of your posts because DOF has me trying to explain the Trinity and bring world peace before the summer closes. I’ve enjoyed your insights, and appreciate your efforts at peace keeping. I’m all for that on a relational level. On a truth and idea level, this is just flat impossible, if truth is what we have thought it to be (and who knows, maybe the post-mods are right, and truth is more like silly-putty: but I’m not betting the ranch on that) What I mean is: who God is, what HE has done, and what HE wants, His purposes and plans, CANNOT BOTH BE WHAT THE LDS CLAIM AND WHAT THE ORTHODOX CLAIM. This is just impossible. It is possible that we BOTH are wrong, and maybe Eckhart Tolle is right. God in heaven, I hope this isn’t the case: I can hardly imagine something worse than reading “Power of NOT” or his “New Earth” for an eternity. Give me purgatory,, PLEASE (ask a Catholic friend about the ‘p’ word). BrnAgain: watch the ‘Adam’s Road’ video again and then compare to Cluff’s posts: WHO IS GETTING THE GLORY IN EACH?? Ask yourself, how many times have the christian posters here given glory or recogition (equal to an LDS regard for JS) to their pastor, leader, or specific denomination?? WHY IS THAT?? Where is our focus, and the focus of these young men from Adam’s Road, if not our specific groups and men?? Why is it that one of the young mishies in; the video was sure he’d be in trouble when a contact got saved, radically born again, but NOT IN THE LDS CHURCH? Why was that young man sure his leaders would not be pleased ?? You seem like a very Christ centered person, but you have some tough choices ahead of you. Don’t let the occaisional harsh tone of MC throw you off: make truth, NO MATTER THE COST, your friend. Your friend, GERMIT
Missusslats,
Once again, thank you for your genuine response. In response to your “knowing the doctrine” because of all the reading you have done, I would just say that I am not surprised that you don’t understand the doctrine. This is one of the most common mistakes by people who investigate the Mormon faith. They spend more time reading “Mormon Books” than they do reading the standard works. It is my opinion that many of these unofficial publications do more harm than good. As for me personally, my belief in the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-Day Saints came from the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. It has been my experience that people who base their faith on the unofficial publications rather than the standard works struggle.
As for your question, “How do you know that the “very many Mormons” that you know actually DO “worship the true Christ”?,” I believe the worship the true Christ because I believe they have come to know that they are dependent upon him for salvation. I believe this is at the heart of the Christian experience.
In your last two posts you have used the statement, “We’ve already agreed that LDS JC is not the same as Christian JC.” I do not agree with that statement. I realize that many in this post and elsewhere on both sides do. I personally believe that this unwillingness to accept sincere Christianity simply because a person is a member of a particular faith is the work of the devil. I believe both Mormons and other Christians can be guilty of this at times.
Andrea,
Thank you for your response. As to this issue of confusion in the Mormon church. I realize that many people have a problem with the fact that many Mormons don’t know their own doctrine, and I admit that ideally this wouldn’t be the case. For me, it is not a faith wrecking issue. If you read the New Testament, the apostles had a really hard time keeping all the saints on one page. It was and is a continual cont.
process.
Also, I do not see Christianity as the easy way out. True Christianity involves a change of heart by being born again in Christ.
germit,
Your ending statement touched me deeply. “make truth, NO MATTER THE COST.” This is something I believe very much. Too often we sacrifice the truth to benefit whatever group we may be affiliated with. I can assure you that I am willing to follow the truth wherever it leads.
Also, I was touched by your statement, “You seem like a very Christ centered person.” This is very meaningful to me because many do not seem to believe it is possible for a Mormon to be a Christ centered person. I believe Christians know other Christians because they know Him.
As to your statement that we both can’t be right. I agree. But your more powerful statement was “It is possible that we BOTH are wrong.” I realize that this is a dreadful thought to you, but I believe there is an element of truth to this statement. The fact that we are human makes us susceptible to error. This fact is at the heart of the debate between Mormons and other Christians. Many Mormons can be unwilling to accept that other Christians can have a true relationship with Christ without being Mormon while other Christians can be unwilling to accept that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints could have something to offer. It is these preconceived opinions that prevent many people from “making truth, no matter the cost.”
It is my opinion that a person must be willing to accept truth no matter where they find it. This was true of my experience.
As many of you know my spiritual journey required me to take an honest look at other religions than my own. This was an honest look. I was ready to leave the religion of my youth if I could find greater truth elsewhere. I believe that it was this willingness that allowed me to eventually come to peace about my own religion. I know that I am here because this is where the truth led- not because I was afraid cont
to leave. I believe this is a big problem with many people. We want to follow the truth, but we back away when it leads somewhere we didn’t expect.
I believe this would be an appropriate moment talk a little more about my personal journey.
As I have mentioned in a previous post, at one point in my journey I took a serious look at the other Christian religions. One of the concerns that came up in this search was the inconsistent doctrine relative to baptism. I discovered that there were two basic theories about baptism. One theory was that baptism was no longer necessary. The other theory seemed to be that it was necessary and that anyone who did not accept Christ and get baptized were going to hell no matter what the circumstances- even if they lived in the jungle three hundred years ago and had never even heard of Christ.
Both of these had serious flaws in my opinion. I could not accept that baptism was no longer necessary both because it is so clearly required in the New Testament as well as a personal experience which cemented its importance in my soul.
I could not accept the second theory because it was inconsistent with the most powerful scripture of all time- John 3:16-17, “For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved.” I could not believe that God would send someone to hell without even giving him the chance to accept Him.
It was at this point that I took a deeper look at the religion of my youth and found what I was looking for.
Although baptism for the dead often gets a knee jerk reaction- and rightfully so (who in their right mind would baptize dead people) it was the answer to my questions. It didn’t deny that baptism was essential, but it accounted for those “what if” questions like the jungle one I mentioned earlier. cont.
BOM,
My hats off to you for being so honest and forthright with your situation and faith. I can only imagine how you might feel in limbo like that. You are truly blessed to be able to still find the TRUTH, in the jumbled mess. Praise God! I think that you do have the True Christ upon your heart. I’m not so sure that it compares to what the LDS teach in their doctrines. I do believe that fear is more of a factor for where you have returned to. Baptism has always been of major importance where I have attended. The second theory you spoke of also speaks that baptism is important, though it is kinda staunch. Some try to use that “fear of God” approach, which has got the job done most of the time, but it probably doesn’t hit that “feels right” for some. Keep looking for your place, don’t give up on finding one. The most important things to look for are (in my opinion), that the sacraments are administered correctly, and the Law(OT) is preached with the Gospel(NT) batting clean-up. A lot of “new wave” churches seem to leave the Law out because it makes people feel bad, but that is what the Gospel brings to the plate. I was always under the impression that we go to remember our sins, and recieve remission with the Gospel and a booster shot of sacrament. Oh, I almost forgot, PRAISE GOD! W/LOVE
Was thinking about this thread last couple of days and couldn’t help but remember the power of the Atonement as described by King Benjamin.
“For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned.”
Doctrine:
Forgiveness of sin is based on level of knowledge. What a merciful God! Sin is sin. The penalty must be paid. But what if I didn’t know. Covered by the atonement. But woe unto him that knoweth the will of God and turneth away. Completely different categories that makes this a tricky area.
Why is this important? Let’s say I am the one listening to Aaron’s heart felt expression. How do I know what the Lord has revealed to him and what He has not? (2 concepts here: a) we believe revelation does come to nonLDS, especially pertaining to Christ b) our discernment is limited by our sins.)
So I cannot always tell. That is why the Lord commands us to hold our peace (don’t condemn). As a missh, I had that gift (fairly constant), so it was much easier. If I knew someone knew the will of God but was rebellious, the warnings would fly. But if I felt he did not know, a gentle encouragement to seek, search, etc. would suffice. Both message are REPENT, but a different tone.
Germit had me laughing about the world peace comment. I’m glad to hear some good will.
And I can’t agree with him more on “We cannot both be right”. That is the whole point of the first vision (FV). We (LDS) do not need feel like this is something offensive. The Lord said it, not JS. So we don’t need to sugar coat it. I would also add that it is technically not correct to say that JS started all this by the “abomination” phrase. He is quoting the Lord here. I don’t know that I recall him ever saying this himself without referencing this comment from the FV.
Germit,
comments on the Glory issue:
I admire “Christians” for the praise they give Jesus (an example to us all).
Problem #1: Mormons give the glory to JS
If someone were to ask you if you “sustained” or supported the words of Paul or John, I’m sure the answer would be yes. Do you worship or give glory to them? No. But you give them due status (in a righteous way).
For us JS is no different. We sustain him for his calling, but glory be to God. JS (technically BoM) is the SIGN that the gathering has begun and that God is fulfilling His covenants made to our fathers.
Besides the Lord has said “…for he that receiveth my servants receiveth me; And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father.” D&C 84
Fairly compelling wording and thus, I suppose, our sustaining voice.
Its not a matter of being “not forgiven”. Heavenly Father is a loving being. To attempt to say that “Mormons” simply believe that God doesn’t watch over or love or forgive those who ask for forgivness is simply untrue.
The doctrine taught by the LDS faith is simple. All can ask to be forgiven, (God does hear and answer all prayers, he doesn’t care who we are, when we address him, he answers)and we can be, to an extent. What LDS doctrine teaches is like that of Paul. In Romans Paul describes all of us needing to “enter the grave with Christ… and rise again.” That being symbolic of the death and ressurection of our Savior.
When our Lord and Savior was baptized he went to John. Why? #1 it was to “Fulfill all righteousness”, #2 John was ordained of God, and #3 to show us the way.
It needs to be known that Jews, Gentile and all alike had gone through any exercise that they believed to be in accordance with Diety. Its a simple fact, however, Jesus, John and whom ever they found worthy and ordained were the only sanctioned people on the earth at the time to baptize for remission of sin.
To say that Mormonism believes that simply baptism is the only way to repent is shallow and not complete. Baptism is an action taken by one who has repented and enters into a covenant with God and our Christ to do all they can do to keep that covenant.
Will we all make mistakes? Most certainly. Is repentance a one time thing? Nope, its a continual practice. To try to manipulate the words of LDS Prophets and spin them once again is a sign of ignorance and deception. What Pres. Kimball said was simply, that true repentance is completely forsaking the sin. That can be a life-long journey of attempting to forsake a certain sin.
What he is saying is that it is not enough for us to believe that simply asking for forgivness and going through the proper stages and believing all is done is not complete. It is a life long attempt to get it right.