Viewpoint on Mormonism Archives
Blogroll
- 365 Reasons
- Apologetics 315
- Ensign vs. The Bible
- Heart Issues for LDS
- Heart of the Matter
- I Love Mormons
- Keith Walker
- Latter-day Saint Woman
- Mark Cares
- Mormonism Investigated UK
- Mormonite Musings
- Mormons are Christians… aren't we?
- Musings on Mormonism
- Of First Importance
- Share the Son Ministries
- The Mormon Chapbook
- The Religious Researcher
- Utah Advance
Links
Subscribe
Join the Discussion
Check out our comment policy.Categories
Afterlife Authority and Doctrine Baptism for the Dead Bible Book of Mormon Brigham Young Christianity Coffee Beans D&C and Pearl of Great Price Early Christianity Early Mormonism Forgiveness Friendship, Interaction, and Evangelism General Conference God the Father Gospel Grace Great Apostasy Jesus Christ Joseph Smith King Follett Discourse LDS Church Marriage and Singlehood Misconceptions Mitt Romney Mormon Culture Mormon History Mormon Leaders Mormon Missionaries Mormon Scripture Mormon Temple Multimedia Nature of God Nature of Man Nauvoo Personal Stories Polygamy Priesthood Prophets Salvation Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry Uncategorized Viewpoint on Mormonism Virgin birth Worthiness
What if Evangelical Christians Called Themselves Mormons?
112 Responses to What if Evangelical Christians Called Themselves Mormons?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Don:
You asked me about the 3 in one thing? It is clearly taught in the Bible:
John 17
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us…
Does this mean that you and I should join hands now and become one in substance, or one in purpose? (Like God the Father is one in purpose with his son Jesus)
You won’t find anything as clear as this in the Book of Mormon. We need to use the Bible- but it is pretty clear to me. Christ was and is talking about complete unity, not about merging identities and convincing Christians to believe in a false God. The God of the Mormons is the TRUE God of the Bible.
falcon:
One man’s “inordinate demand” is anothers free exercise of faith- it depends on your perspective.
If you give of yourselve freely and your faith is rewarded with gifts from God and power from on High it is no sacrifice at all. That is the power of salvation and the path to happiness.
Those who give begrudgingly are those that take on the exercise WITHOUT the faith. The faith must come first. The reward is missing in that case- because the faith was missing in the first place. It doesn’t suprise me that such would leave the church for a less demanding path. I am not convinced that it is a better path.
GRCluff, it is not about a demanding path. Actually, following Christ as we Christians believe we should is a very difficult path to go down. Its not about following rules, though. Its simply about living righteously, and following Christ’s example.
I think you’d agree with me up to this point. But what is different is that I know, 100%, that even though I fail to live up to that standard, I will spend eternity with Christ in heaven.
You cannot say that.
Why is this? It is the difference in believing in a works based system, even one that puts faith first because works necessarilly follow, and one that believes in the full power of mercy and grace based on faith. See, if works are a part of the game, then you will never be sure you have done enough to warrant the prize. But if mercy and grace rules, then there is no question because all it takes faith.
Now, returning to my first sentence: don’t confuse the surety based on faith alone with an easy route. Taking that faith, and allowing Christ to live is in many ways a painful process. I say painful because there is so much you have to change and a higher standard to live by because Christ demands it.
But here’s the wonderful thing: when Christ enters your heart, you will want to work to reach that standard. You’ll never achieve it, but that does not matter because Christ has a real and personal relationship with you, and he has adopted you as his child, where you will remain for eternity.
What wonderful news!
So where is swede? Another mormon who tosses out a punch then runs away?
Anyway I ran my limit yesterday so here I am to continue.
Cont,
I\’m sorry but everlasting only lasting about 50 years, and God said this is for all but Mormons claim it was only for some, is confusion.
Who gave this new and everlasting covenant? The lord did. The lord said for all who have this law revealed unto them MUST obey it. Well if you read D and C or just read what I wrote, you fall under all who have it reveled unto them. Now you must obey it. Not only are Mormons not following D and C 1:14 but the concept of on going revelation now shows it\’s flaws. Ezra Taft Benson taught the prophet does not need to say thus saith the lord to give us scripture. But the lord was clear he gave us that scripture. But the counsel backed it up as I stated above.
Then Ezra Taft Benson also taught the prophet cannot lead the church astray. so which prophet is leading us astray? The prophets of old followed and taught it, but now deny it.
Hebrews 6:16 say it is impossible for God to lie, Titus 1:2 Enos 6, Ether 3:12 and D and C 62:6 all teach God cannot lie.
So did God lie? He states it is a new and everlasting covenant. Again since when is everlasting only 50 plus years. Also if God did not lie who did? Mormons teach that the plural wife teaching was for a select few men, God said it was for all that it was reveled unto. Again if you heard it, it was reveled unto you, why are you not obeying it?
Now lets look to the book of Mormon. In Jacob 1:15-19 and 2:21-25 it teaches David and Solomon did evil by having many wives. Then in Mosiah 11:2 it teaches many wives is a sin. Now here is a contradiction because in D and C 132:37-39 it says it was not a sin for David Solomon and others to have many wives. Now I thought God could not lie? But Gods word is both in the B.O.M and D and C. So either man wrote it and messed up or God lied.
More Later, Rick b
If the BOM is the fullness of the Gospel why then does it not support D and C 132 About the topic of Plural wives forever.
Then Again if the BOM is the fullness why do we read in Mosiah 11:2 and Ether 10:5 plural wives is a sin, this goes against D and C 132. Add to that Jacob 3:5, the Lamanites are called filthy yet at the same time they are more righteous in their actions because they don’t practice plural wives.
D and C 19:26 and 42:12 states both the Bible and BOM contain truth and are the word of God, yet they deny the teaching of plural wives as a good God ordained teaching.
Moroni 8:18 teach’s God is unchangble yet he changed his stance, saying plural wives is an abomation by allowing it to happen in D and C 132?. Now I know LDS will reply by saying Plural wives was practiced in the Bible. It was a sin even in the Bible, If God were to punish us with death every time we sinned there would only be plants and animals left on this planet. Now if you want to give your Bible scripture on plural wives please give a scripture(s) from the Bible as clear as D and C 132 Where God says here you go a gift of many wives or Hey you I commanded you to take wives and the more the better. It is not in there. Yes the people sinned and disobeyed the Lord by taking them but God never said this is what I want/commanded you to do.
Let me ask again. Who in Mormonism can we trust?
Now, Mormons claim they are christens also, Lets look at what the Prophets of old said about Christians and I quote:
Yet more later, rick b
Ralph,
How in the world did you ever make the jump to circumcision. You’re a pretty funny guy Ralph but I love your posts because it exposes that absoulte mangling Mormons do with Biblical interpretation. I guess we must have dazzled you with our posts and you decided to strike out on your own. But the falcon has taken Ralph on as a project to try and teach him how to read and interpret the Bible.
Do you really want me to go into covenant theology? It’s really one of my favorite topics and one I’ve studied quite intently. Just to help you out real quickly, go to the Book of Galatians that’s what it’s all about, in fact Paul talks about following “another Gospel” which is what Mormons do. But just to make it quick, there are a series of covenants in the Bible. We could start with the Abrahamic covenant. God promises Abraham three things: land, seed and a blessing. These three promises are than amplified and explained in the Palestinian covenant, the Davidic covenant and the New Heart covenant found in Jerimiah.
But just to summarize this because the falcon actually has to come out of retirement today and go do some training/consulting, Christ is the completion of the Law. It’s a new covenant that got had promised. God didn’t switch courses or change his mind. It was a completion of God’s promises.
TheSwedeMusic wrote “On a seperate note, would you call yourself Catholic? Do you subscribe to everything that Catholicism has taught over the years? No, you don’t. But you have no problem calling them “Christian.””
Do I call myself a catholic? Personally, yes, but with a small “c”. I’d venture to say that most Creedal Christians would also say the same thing. This might surprise you, but it says in our creed “I believe in one holy, apostolic, catholic church”, and those of us who are more habitually liturgical say it most weeks at Church (incidentally, the people I know who say it, say it because they believe it, not because its the kind of lip service needed to stay “in” with the club).
In the context of the creeds and Protestant (and Catholic) liturgy, the word “catholic” means that you don’t have to pre-qualify to enter the Church, and I am most concerned to keep it that way.
Do I subscribe to (Roman) Catholic teaching? Again, I can agree with more than I ever thought I would. When I read Cardinal Ratzenburger’s address, I thought “this guy really knows what he’s talking about”, especially the idea that you can’t build the Kingdom of God by using Ungodly means. Pity the Moslem world took this message all wrong and got prickly because a Byzantine Prince argued with a Moslem over this very issue in the 14th Century (if my memory serves me correctly).
I’d guess the major difference between me and Roman Catholic would be on the issue of ecclesiology.
No, I’m not embarrassed that Roman Catholics can be called Christians, though I’d wish they’d put more emphasis on grace and less on works.
GRCluff wrote ” The God of the Mormons is the TRUE God of the Bible.”
…which of the gods of the Mormons is the true God of the Bible?
…and which Mormonism are you referring to? The Trinitarian-like Mormonism of the preparatory Gospel, or the full-fledged paganism of the full Gospel?
You’re a lucky man to have so many options to choose from. Poor me, I’m stuck with just one “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…” (John 1:1 etc etc etc)
then we can add the first vision by Joseph Smith. If God really did speak to him then he said all the Christian creeds are an abomtion in his sight.
If this is the case how can you say you are Christians. Along this lines I would like to ask also, if you are Christians then why do you try and convert Christians to the Mormon faith if we all are Christians?
OK, Now I will just post problems in general otherwise known as contradictions. But the problem with these is, either The Prophet Joseph Smith claims God told him or God himself said this stuff, Again, who in Mormonism can we trust?.
Over in D and C 7 it teaches John the apostle was to live and preach till the lord returns. Read 3 NEPHI 28:6-7 It teaches the apostle John, Who walked with Jesus, Was told he will never die. Then over in ETHER 12:17 3 more disciples were also told they would never see death. Then read D and C 7:1-8 Ok now if this stuff is true there could never have been a total apostasy of the church, Because there were people who were living that had the gospel truth.
1 NEPHI 1:8 It says ” I THOUGHT I SAW GOD” You either did see God or you did not, You cannot say I thought I saw God. Not only that but the Bible teaches no man can see God and live, Also over in D and C 84:19-22 Says if you do not have the priesthood you cannot see God and live. Here is another problem, When this guy said I thought I saw God, There is no mention of him having the priesthood. Also when Joseph Smith first had his vision and said he saw God, Then later said God came and baptized him he did not have the priesthood. So if Joseph Smith could see and talk with God then receive the priesthood, That means D and C 84 is wrong other wise the only other option is Joseph Smith lied. Either way someone lied.
Now here is the subject of Negros and them not being able to receive the same rights as white people according to the Prophet B Young and Bruce Mc. But even this has since changed and has been tried to be buried.
Swede This is why I say what I do.
Read pg 188 of Doct of Salvation vol 1.
I am just trying to look at Mormonism in a logical way and point out what I believe are problems. I find it interesting that Mormons of old were willing to tell others they were wrong or be open to talks. but it does not appear to be that way today. I hope this really makes you examine your faith. If you would like to talk privately off line you are more than welcome. Rick B
The speaker makes five claims:
1) LdS “doctrine classifies us [whoever “us” is] as enemies of Christ.” Arguable, but the speaker’s own doctrine obviously classifies LdS as “enemies of Christ” in the same way that ours is argued to classify him as such.
2) “[The Church of Jesus Christ] is lead [sic] by mean who [sic] do not biblically [sic] qualify as true prophets and apostles of Christ.” Um… huh? When did this happen?
3) “[The Church’s] view of the godhead [sic] is not shared by any Christian tradition.” True, depending on what one means by “Christian tradition.” I’d argue that it’s shared by all members of Christ’s Church—including the Biblical prophets and Christ Himself! If “Christian tradition” differs from Christ’s teachings, then the speaker is absolutely correct.
4a) “[The Church’s] scriptures speak of fictional characters….” Which fictional characters would those be? Billions of people believe that Adam, Moses, and even Jesus Christ are “fictional characters.” If the speaker would care to prove his charges, perhaps we could continue this discussion.
4b) “[The Church’s] scriptures… [include] teachings (and revelations) that often contradict what God has already revealed in His Word.” Funny…. Some of the greatest doctrinal minds of the last 180 years have tried to point out these contradictions, yet none has ever managed to find one. Has the speaker found something that they all missed? If so, he might point it out, that we all might be likewise enlightened.
5) “[The Church’s] soteriology continues to undermine the biblical [sic] understanding of mercy and grace.” So what problem does he have with the soteriology? LdS teach that grace is a free gift, given by Christ to those that accept Him as Lord and Savior. If the speaker’s “Biblical understanding” differs from this, I would be happy to discuss it with him.
What’s really sad is that people just blindly believe stuff—both pro- and anti-LdS—instead of learning the truth for themselves. 🙁
My 2¢.
theOtter, we do think that, religiously speaking, Mormons who preach a false gospel are enemies of Christ (to use the NT language). Our complaint against Mormonism isn’t that they classify us as enemies of Christ in some sense. It’s rather that they want to have their cake and eat it too, etc., to consider us “fellow Christians”, classify us as enemies and apostates, and yet get upset when evangelicals say Mormonism isn’t theologically a truly Christian religion.
See Thomas G. Alexander’s paper here.
See this and this.
Take care,
Aaron