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.
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.