Posted on 01/08/2008 4:09:13 PM PST by tantiboh
Mitt Romney is facing an unexpected challenge in Iowa from rival Mike Huckabee, who has enjoyed a groundswell of support from religious voters, particularly evangelical Christians wary of the clean-cut former Massachusetts governor because of his Mormon religion.
The common worry among evangelicals is that if Romney were to capture the White House, his presidency would give legitimacy to a religion they believe is a cult. Since the LDS church places heavy emphasis on proselytizing -- there are 53,000 LDS missionaries worldwide -- many mainstream Christians are afraid that Mormon recruiting efforts would increase and that LDS membership rolls would swell.
...
THE ONLY PROBLEM with those fears is that they don't add up. Evangelicals may be surprised to learn that the growth of church membership in Massachusetts slowed substantially during Romney's tenure as governor. In fact, one could make the absurdly simplistic argument that Romney was bad for Mormonism.
...
ONE WAY TO GAUGE what might happen under a President Romney would be to look at what happened during the period of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games. Held in Salt Lake City, they were dubbed the "Mormon Olympics."
...
Despite all the increased attention, worldwide the Church grew only slightly, and in fact in the year leading up to the games the total number of congregations fell. Overall, from 2000 to 2004, there was a 10.9 percent increase in memberships and a 3.6 percent increase in congregations.
...
The LDS church is likely to continue its current modest-but-impressive growth whether or not Romney wins the White House. Perhaps the only real worry for evangelicals is that, if elected, the former Massachusetts governor will demonstrate to Americans that Mormons don't have horns.
Carrie Sheffield, a member of the LDS Church, is a writer living in Washington, D.C.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, “Comparing LDS Beliefs with First-Century Christianity,” Ensign, Mar 1988, 7
Latter-day Saints reject the doctrines of the Trinity as taught by most Christian churches today. These creeds were canonized in the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. and do not reflect the thinking or beliefs of the New Testament church.
Since the inception of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, many critics have denied that it is Christian. Surprisingly, the basis for the claim has little to do with the standard definition of Christian: anyone or any group that believes in Jesus Christ as the Savior and Son of God. Rather, it has to do with Latter-day Saint doctrines that some feel are alien to “traditional Christianity,” where “traditional Christianity” means that body of beliefs held by most present-day Christian churches. The argument essentially goes that if the LDS church believes in certain doctrines not believed in by most present-day Christian churches, then the LDS church cannot be Christian.
The problem with this argument is that the major doctrines under attack are amazingly similar to Christian beliefs held during the New Testament period and the generations immediately following.
The Gospels lack any explicit treatment of the word Christian. Indeed, the word appears only three times in the New Testament, and never from the mouth of Christ himself. The word Christianity is entirely absent from the New Testament.
Acts 11:26 tells us that “the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” Here, the passive construction “were called Christians” suggests that the term was first used not by Christians, but by non-Christians. (Similarly, the names Yankee and Mormon were first used by outsiders.)
The term was probably modeled on such words as Herodian and Caesarian, already in circulation at that time, and meant nothing more complicated than Christ’s people or, perhaps, partisans of Christ. Note that the Christian congregation at Antioch represented a wide range of backgrounds, including Jews and non-Jews. These believers displayed the whole spectrum of attitudes toward the Jewish law—from continued adherence to the traditions of Judaism to rejection of all things Jewish.
The next mention of the term Christian is in Acts 26:28, where Agrippa makes his famous reply to Paul: “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” The Apostle had related to Agrippa and Festus the story of his conversion. The doctrinal content of Paul’s speech is simple and straightforward: Paul bears witness that Jesus had been foretold by the Jewish prophets, that he suffered and rose from the dead, and that forgiveness may be obtained through him. Paul described Christ’s mission as summoning people to “repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.” (Acts 26:20.) The scriptural account gives no indication that Paul had to correct Agrippa’s use of the word Christian to describe one who believes in these basic doctrines.
First Peter 4:16 is the last instance of the word’s appearance in the New Testament. This verse is virtually without doctrinal definition, merely assuring the believer that he need not be ashamed if he suffer as a “Christian.” Even here, the term may be one that persecuting outsiders were using. It may have derived from current Roman, that is, non-Christian, legal usage.
In each of these instances, the term appears to originate from someone outside the community of believers themselves. In neither of the two passages from Acts does Paul use the word himself; it is non-Christians who use it. Where the term is used, the stated and implied beliefs of the Christians are far different from the present-day beliefs used to deny that Latter-day Saints are Christians, as can be clearly shown.
The Church’s first Article of Faith is “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” This is a straightforward statement of belief that there are three members in the Godhead. However, Latter-day Saints do reject the doctrines of the Trinity as taught by most Christian churches today. For the most part, these creeds—the most famous of which is the Nicene Creed—were canonized in the fourth and fifth centuries a.d. following centuries of debate about the nature of the Godhead. Consequently, it is highly questionable whether these creeds reflect the thinking or beliefs of the New Testament church.
“The exact theological definition of the doctrine of the Trinity,” notes J. R. Dummelow, “was the result of a long process of development, which was not complete until the fifth century, or maybe even later.” 1 As Bill Forrest remarks, “To insist that a belief in the Trinity is requisite to being Christian, is to acknowledge that for centuries after the New Testament was completed thousands of Jesus’ followers were in fact not really ‘Christian.’ ” 2 Certainly the revelatory manner by which Joseph Smith learned of the doctrine of the Godhead pierces through the centuries-old debate on the subject.
As even a cursory glance at early Christian thought reveals, the idea that man might become as God—known in Greek as theosis or theopoiesis—may be found virtually everywhere, from the New Testament through the writings of the first four centuries. Church members take seriously such passages as Psalm 82:6 [Ps. 82:6], John 10:33–36, and Philippians 2:5–6 [Philip. 2:5–6], in which a plurality of gods and the idea of becoming like God are mentioned.
The notion of theosis is characteristic of church fathers Irenaeus (second century a.d.), Clement of Alexandria (third century a.d.), and Athanasius (fourth century a.d.). Indeed, so pervasive was the doctrine in the fourth century that Athanasius’s archenemies, the Arians, also held the belief 3 and the Origenist monks at Jerusalem heatedly debated “whether all men would finally become like Christ or whether Christ was really a different creature.” 4
According to an ancient formula, “God became man that man might become God.” Early Christians “were invited to ‘study’ to become gods” (note the plural). 5
Though the idea of human deification waned in the Western church in the Middle Ages, it remained very much alive in the Eastern Orthodox faith, which includes such Christian sects today as the Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox churches. 6 Jaroslav Pelikan notes, “The chief idea of St. Maximus, as of all Eastern theology, [was] the idea of deification.” 7
Is the subject of deification truly a closed question? After all, echoes of man becoming like God are still found in the work of later and modern writers in the West. For instance, C. S. Lewis’s writings are full of the language of human deification. 8 Even Martin Luther was capable of speaking of the “deification of human nature,” although in what sense it is not clear. 9
Related to the claim that Latter-day Saints are not Christians because of their belief in deification is the assertion that if they hold to some kind of belief in deification then it must be that Church members do not view Jesus as uniquely divine. Such an assertion is totally erroneous. The phrase “Only Begotten Son” occurs with its variants at least ten times in the Book of Mormon, fourteen times in the Doctrine and Covenants, and nineteen times in the Pearl of Great Price. Basic to Latter-day Saint theology is the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the Only Begotten Son of the Father in the flesh.
The argument that Latter-day Saints cannot be Christians because they practice baptism for the dead presumes that it has been definitely established that 1 Corinthians 15:29 [1 Cor. 15:29] has nothing to do with an early Christian practice of baptism for the dead. The argument ignores the fact that such second-century groups as the Montanists and Marcionites—who are invariably referred to as Christians—practiced a similar rite. The practice was condemned in a.d. 393 by the Council of Hippo, which certainly implies that it was still a vital issue. 10 As Hugh Nibley has shown in great detail, many of the Church Fathers understood this verse literally, even when they did not always know what to make of it. 11
Mormon temple ritual in general is another source of controversy, largely because many think that the reticence to talk about it is not Christian. But the New Testament scholar Joachim Jeremias has shown that “the desire to keep the most sacred things from profanation”—a concern shared by the Latter-day Saints—is widely found in the New Testament and in the early Christian community. 12
The second-century church father Ignatius of Antioch was known to have held “secret” doctrines. The historian Tertullian (second century a.d.) even takes the heretics to task because they provide access to their services to everyone without distinction. As a result, the demeanor of these heretics becomes frivolous, merely human, without seriousness and without authority. 13
The pagan critic Celsus (second century a.d.) probably referred to Christianity as a “secret system of belief” because access to the various ordinances of the church—baptism and the sacrament—was available only to the initiated. In his response to Celsus, Origen (third century a.d.) readily admitted that many practices and doctrines were not available to everyone, but he argues that this was not unique to Christianity. 14 As late as the fourth century, some groups were making efforts to return to an earlier Christian tradition of preserving certain doctrines and practices for the initiated only. 15
Latter-day Saints accept the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price as scriptural, in addition to the Bible. But the whole question of canon—which writings are sacred, inspired, and binding on disciples—has always been a complicated one in the history of traditional Christianity.
In the earliest period of the Christian church, it is difficult to see a distinction being made between canonical writings and some books not in the present Protestant canon. For example, the Epistle of Jude draws heavily on noncanonical books such as 1 Enoch and The Assumption of Moses. As E. Isaac says of 1 Enoch, “It influenced Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Hebrews, 1 John, Jude (which quotes it directly) and Revelation (with numerous points of contact) … in molding New Testament doctrines concerning the nature of the Messiah, the Son of Man, the messianic kingdom, demonology, the future, resurrection, the final judgment, the whole eschatological theater, and symbolism.” 16
The so-called Muratorian Fragment, dating from the late second century a.d., shows that some Christians of the period accepted the Apocalypse of Peter as scripture. Clement of Alexandria, writing around a.d. 200, seems to admit a New Testament canon of thirty books, including the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle of Clement, and the Preaching of Peter. Origen recognized the Epistle of Barnabas and the letter from the Shepherd of Hermas. 17
Even in more recent times, the question of canon has not been unanimously resolved. Martin Luther characterized the Epistle of James as “an epistle of straw”—largely because it seemed to disagree with his teaching of justification by faith alone—and mistrusted the book of Revelation. 18 Roman Catholics and the Orthodox churches tend to accept the Apocrypha as canonical—books included in their Bibles but left out of most Protestant Bibles, including the current King James Version. In fact, Eastern Orthodox churches have never settled the question of canon. A number of scholars have pointed out that the church has priority, both logically and historically, over the Bible—that is, a group of believers existed before a certain body of texts, such as the books of the Old and New Testament, were declared canonical. 19
The notion of original sin as it is usually understood today in traditional Christianity is a distinctly late invention that evolved from the controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries. Tertullian (second century a.d.), who was very concerned with the idea of sin, says nothing of the doctrine of original sin. Indeed, very few of the Church Fathers up to the fourth century show any interest in it at all. It was not clearly enunciated until Augustine (fourth/fifth century) needed it in his battle with the Christian Pelagians, who denied the doctrine, and it came to be associated with the Council of Carthage in a.d. 418. 20
As Norbert Brox points out, “Pelagian theology was the traditional one, especially in Rome. But the Africans, under the theological leadership of Augustine, managed to make their charge of heresy stick within the church, thereby establishing the Augustinian theology of grace as the basis of the Western tradition.” 21 Some modern scholars now raise the issue that Augustine, and not Pelagius, was the real heretic. 22
Perhaps the most famous statement of the Latter-day Saint understanding of the relation between grace and works is in 2 Nephi 25:23: “It is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.” [2 Ne. 25:23] This idea is sometimes called synergism—a term Van A. Harvey has used to describe Roman Catholicism. 23
The doctrine that salvation depends both on God’s grace and man’s good works is very old in Catholic theology. One of the canons at the Council of Trent specifically repudiates the notion of grace alone: “If anyone saith that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sin for Christ’s sake alone; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified, let him be anathema.” 24 Are we to say, then, that Roman Catholicism is not Christian because it does not subscribe to the doctrine of salvation by grace alone?
The doctrine of salvation through faith alone, sometimes called solafidianism, is not a biblical doctrine: there are no instances in the New Testament of the phrases “grace alone” or “faith alone.” The philosopher-theologian Frederick Sontag argues that Jesus himself was interested not in words, and not even in theological dogma, but in action: For the Jesus in Matthew, he says, “Action is more important than definition.” 25 Richard Lloyd Anderson shows that even in Paul’s major treatments of the doctrine of grace, particularly in Romans and Ephesians, there is a balancing element of works as well. 26 Other New Testament writers, most notably James, make it clear that saving faith can only be recognized through works: “Faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” (James 2:17.)
The generations immediately following the New Testament period also recognized the need for both grace and works for salvation. The famous Didache—The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles—which dates back to before a.d. 70, is conspicuous for its moralism and legalism. 27 It is also significant that “the oldest datable literary document of Christian religion soon after the time of the Apostles”—the letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, written in the last decade of the first century—emphasizes “good works, as it is in the Epistle of James, which may belong to the same time.” 28 The second-century document Shepherd of Hermas contains twelve commandments. J. L. Gonzales writes that they “are a summary of the duties of a Christian, and Hermas affirms that in obeying them there is eternal life.” 29
Even F. F. Bruce, who contends that Paul taught a doctrine of salvation by grace alone, concurs sadly that the doctrine was not a part of the early Christian church: “The Biblical doctrine of divine grace, God’s favour shown to sinful humanity, … seems almost, in the post-apostolic age, to reappear only with Augustine. Certainly the majority of Christian writers who flourished between the apostles and Augustine do not seem to have grasped what Paul was really getting at. … Marcion has been called the only one of these writers who understood Paul.” 30
Marcion, incidentally, was a second-century gnostic Christian who distinguished between the gods of the Old and New Testament. He felt that the Old Testament deity was a lesser deity than the God of the New Testament and rejected the Old Testament entirely, as well as any New Testament writing “tainted” with Old Testament ideas. Marcion produced a canon of scripture that recognized no Apostle of Jesus except Paul. He considered the other Apostles falsifiers of God.
By contrast, in the fourth century, one prominent Christian bishop was teaching the necessity of rituals. “If any man receive not Baptism,” wrote Cyril of Jerusalem, “he hath not salvation.” He also wrote about an ordinance of anointing, which he called “chrism”: “Having been counted worthy of this Holy Chrism, ye are called Christians. … For before you were deemed worthy of this grace, ye had no proper claim to that title.” 31
The Eastern Orthodox churches also do not accept solafidianism, the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. “Eastern Orthodox Christians emphasize a unity of faith and works. For the Orthodox, being conformed to the image of Christ … includes a response of our faith and works.” 32 Sensing the danger that a “grace alone” position could become “cheap grace” (to borrow an expression from the theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer) or “a theologically thin, no-sweat Christianity,” some modern Protestant writers have adopted a similar position, recognizing that works also play a vital role in salvation. 33
With so many other past and present Christians rejecting the position that grace alone brings salvation, excluding the Latter-day Saints from “Christianity” for their belief in faith and works is not justified.
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints easily meet the definition of a Christian as implicitly defined in the New Testament: they believe that ancient prophets foretold ChristÂ’s coming, that Jesus Christ suffered for our transgressions, that he was put to death but rose from the dead, that through him we may obtain forgiveness of our sins, and that he will come again in glory.
The doctrinal reasons some Christians give for excluding the Latter-day Saints from Christianity make little sense, because many of the doctrines used by traditional Christianity are late developments, reflective of creeds formulated in the fourth and fifth century or developed during the Reformation.
Given the wide variety of beliefs among the various Christian churches, it is better to take persons claiming to be Christians at their word and to let the Lord be the judge.
[illustrations] Illustrated by Paul Mann
1. Cited by Bill Forrest, “Are Mormons Christians?” Mormon Miscellaneous Response Series (Salt Lake City: Mormon Miscellaneous, n.d.).
3. See appropriate index entries in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100–600): The Christian Tradition (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971) and the index entry “Salvation—defined as deification,” in The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600–1700): The Christian Tradition (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1974). See also K. E. Norman, Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology, Ph.D. dissertation, Duke Univ., 1980.
4. Clyde L. Manschreck, A History of Christianity in the World, 2d. ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1985), p. 52.
5. P. Barlow, “Unorthodox Orthodoxy: The Idea of Deification in Christian History,” Sunstone 8 (Sep./Oct. 1983):16–17.
6. See G. I. Mantzarides, The Deification of Man: Saint Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Tradition, trans. Liadain Sherrard (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. VladimirÂ’s Seminary Press, 1984).
8. A Grief Observed (New York: Bantam Books, 1963), pp. 84–85; Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1960), pp. 138–40, 174, 187.
9. Jack R. Pressau, IÂ’m Saved, YouÂ’re Saved Â… Maybe (Atlanta: John Knox, 1977), p. 57; A. Nygren, Agape and Eros, trans. Philip S. Watson (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1982), p. 734.
10. Samuel M. Gilimour, “Baptism for the Dead,” in An Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. V. Ferm (New York: The Philosophical Library, 1945), p. 54.
11. “Baptism for the Dead in Ancient Times,” Improvement Era, Dec. 1948, pp. 786–88, 836; Jan. 1949, pp. 24–26, 60; Feb. 1949, pp. 90–91, 109–10, 112; Mar. 1949, pp. 146–48, 180–83; Apr. 1949, pp. 212–14.
15. Norbert Brox, Kirchengeschichte des Altertums (Düsseldorf, West Germany: Patmos Verlag, 1983), p. 134.
16. E. Isaac, “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. J. H. Charlesworth, 2 vols. (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983), 1:10. See also “Apocrypha,” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. G. A. Buttrick (Nashville: Abingdon, 1953), 1:161–69.
18. R. Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1950), pp. 177, 331–32; Max Lackmann, Sola Fide: Eine exegetische Studie über Jakobus 2 zur reformatorischen Rechtfertigungslehre (Gütersloh, West Germany: C. Bertelsmann Verlag, 1949).
19. H. Holzapfel, Die Sekten in Deutschland (Regensburg, West Germany: Verlag Josef Koesel & Friedrich Pustet A. G., 1925), pp. 20, 23–27; P. Johnson, A History of Christianity (New York: Atheneum, 1983), p. 22.
20. K. Rahner, “Original Sin,” in Sacramentum Mundi: An Encyclopedia of Theology, ed. Rahner et al., 6 vols. (London: Burns and Oates, 1969), 4:329.
22. W. E. Phipps, “The Heresiarch: Pelagius or Augustine?” Anglican Theological Review 62 (1980):124–33.
24. Session VI, Canon 12, cited in L. Boettner, Roman Catholicism (Phillipsburg, N.J.: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1986), p. 261.
25. “The Once and Future Christian,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 19 (1986):116–18.
27. Justo L. Gonzales, A History of Christian Thought, 3 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1970), 1:69, 94–96.
28. Werner Jaeger, Early Christianity and Greek Paideia (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1961), pp. 12, 15–16.
Daniel C. Peterson, an instructor of Arabic at Brigham Young University, serves on the Church Curriculum Gospel Doctrine Writing Committee.
Ah, good. True/False time. I suspect you’ve copy/pasted these from someplace, as the false statements are long-debunked canards.
~”The Mormons believe in many gods - these gods procreate spirit children.”~
True, though we worship only God the Father and Jesus Christ.
~”Latter day Saints believe that God the Father was and is a man of flesh and bone who once lived on another planet and who progressed to become the God of this world.”~
Well, the God of the universe, but otherwise true.
~”Mormons say Jesus was not begotten by the Holy Spirit, they say that Father God had physical sex with Mary to produce Jesus (early teaching).”~
False. This is derived from a couple of quotes taken out of context. We believe in the virgin birth.
~”The Mormon god is eternally progressing and learning new things.”~
If you’re referring to God the Father, false. He is omniscient.
~”The Mormon Jesus is progressing and may become god of another planet.”~
False. Jesus is perfect.
~”Brigham Young (who cannot error according to their doctrine) said that, “Adam is our father and God. Adam is the Ancient of Days and also Michael the Archangel” (Later other prophets of the Mormon Church claimed that this inerrant doctrine of Brigham Young is false)”~
Records indicate that he said this. It flies in the face of things he said at other times. It is logical to conclude, therefore, that he either misspoke or was mistranscribed.
Prophets are not inerrant. That’s why we have the right to confirm their teachings with God.
The Adam-God theory is not LDS doctrine. The spirit of your assertion is false.
~”The Latter Day Saints doctrine of the trinity is perverted and is nothing like the trinity of orthodox Christianity.”~
We do not ascribe to the so-called Doctrine of the Trinity. We believe in the Godhead. We also believe that this is the correct, original Christian doctrine, and that this doctrine was, indeed, perverted over the centuries as mainstream Christianity evolved. Therefore, your assertion is partly true.
~”They teach that they are three Gods (or four - some say the Holy Ghost is different from the Holy Spirit).”~
True. God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost each have attributes of divinity. It is not Church doctrine that the Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit are different entities.
~”Mormons believe that we were preexistent souls before we were born in the flesh.”~
True.
~”The Latter Day Saints have corrected obvious errors in books that they say are inspired inerrant holy books. There have been 4000 documented word changes in the book of Mormon alone since 1830.”~
Partly true. There have been corrections to the Book of Mormon. The vast majority of the 4000 changes you cite have been typographical, punctuational, or obvious grammatical changes. There were a few actual word changes between the first and second editions. I’m unaware of further substantive alterations beyond that.
~”The Latter Day Saints rewrote their history to be more credible.”~
False.
~”Mormons believe that Jesus and Lucifer are spirit brothers”~
True, in the same sense that you and I are brothers to, say, Hitler. The relationship, however, ends there.
~”The Latter Day Saints teach the doctrine of universal salvation and that there is no eternal hell except for those who will not progress.”~
True.
~”Hell only applies to those who leave Mormonism or will not become Mormon in the next life”~
False.
~”Mormons have conflicting theology about the Holy Spirit in their own writings and some refer to the Holy Spirit as an “It””~
I would need more clarification to declare veracity.
~”Much of the original book of Mormon that they say was given to their founder by an angel - letter by letter - was plagiarized from the King James Bible errors and all.”~
False.
~”Since much of the book of Mormon is quoted from the King James Bible, the book of Mormon itself can be used to refute most of the practices and beliefs of Mormonism today.”~
False.
~”The Latter Day Saints say that their church prophets are on the same level as the old testament prophets and that their doctrine cannot be in error.”~
True. Note that doctrine and opinion are not the same thing.
~”The Latter Day Saints believe that each head of the Mormon Church wears the mantle of a prophet and that their church doctrine cannot be in error.”~
I believe we’ve covered this.
~”The Latter Day Saints doctrine of salvation is not by faith in Jesus alone. To be saved one must have faith, be baptized by immersion, keep the teachings of the Mormon Church, do good works and keep the commandments.”~
True, or at least, strive to keep the commandments, and repent when we fail to do so.
~”The Latter Day Saints have said that God was predestined to sin which they equate with the fall into mortality.”~
I’m not sure exactly what you’re saying here.
~”The fall happened so that more potential gods could come into being and reach god hood.”~
Adam fell that men might be. Some of those men will eventually progress to godhood. Technically true, but misleading.
~”Mormons have said that Jesus married both Mary and Martha and had children.”~
Mormons may have said this. It is not LDS doctrine. False.
~”LDS teaches a limited atonement; Brigham Young said “the blood of Jesus was ineffective for the cleansing of some sins. Those that believe it will lose their salvation””~
False, with a caveat: there is in LDS theology what is known as committing the “unpardonable sin.” This consists of blaspheming against the Holy Ghost. It is a rare thing; you must be on the level of Judas to be capable of committing this sin. Such a person becomes what we call a “son of perdition” and is not granted any degree of salvation.
~”The Latter Day Saints idea of needing God’s grace is that grace is needed so we may have power to progress and become like God. All Mormons must strive for perfection, sanctification and god hood.”~
True, more or less.
~”Mormons believe that the family unit will endure unto eternity and some go through baptism rituals in the temple to save unbaptised dead.”~
True.
~”They say when Jesus returns that the Mormons will be gathered together in new Jerusalem in Missouri before the judgment.”~
Some Mormons, some who are not Mormons. It will be the literal gathering of the tribes of Israel. Partly true.
~”The Latter Day Saints have three heavens - one for the heathen, one for the Christians and one for good Mormons.”~
Partly true. Three kingdoms - the Celestial Kingdom for those who have accepted the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This group is not limited to Mormons. The Terrestrial Kingdom for good people who have been given the opportunity to accept the fullness of the Gospel and have chosen against it. And the Telestial Kingdom for the wicked. Mormons will be found in all three of these kingdoms.
~”When Mormons progress enough to be gods they will get a planet of their own to rule.”~
Do not underestimate human potential. Why stop with a planet? False.
~”The Mormons have added to the word of God by adding to the canon their Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon.”~
True. We believe in an open canon of scripture.
~”The books have contradictions with each other and with the Bible.”~
False. These books do, however, contain a great deal of additional context that shows us that traditional Christian interpretations of the Bible are incorrect.
~”There is no archeological evidence to support the claims of the book of Mormon and there is much to refute it.”~
False on both accounts. I suggest you ask DelphiUser if you are interested in further detail.
~”The book of Mormon shows lack of knowledge about world history.”~
False.
~”The book of Mormon contains words that were not in existence at the time it was said to have been written (500 - 600 BC) - words such as Church, Christ, BIBLE etc.”~
The Book of Mormon is written in a language that did not exist at the time it was originally compiled. EVERY word in the Book of Mormon did not exist when it was first written. Therefore, true. (Please, this is the most intellectually vapid attack out there. This angle alone demonstrates that you haven’t thought about this very much.)
~”Some of the book of Mormon may have come from a work of fiction on the American Indians by Solomon Spaulding but the theology seems to be that of Sidney Rigdon.”~
False.
~”The book of Mormon contains a quote from Shakespeare - 1 Nephi 1:14b”~
False. You cannot attribute coincidental similarities in phrasing to quoting.
~”The Latter Day Saints teach as man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.”~
True.
~”The prophet Joseph Smith of Mormonism has documented false prophecies.”~
False. This is derived by a propensity of our opponents to take quotes out of context.
~”The Latter Day Saints say that all Christian sects are wrong and that all their creeds are an abomination.”~
True. This is not to say that truth does not exist in them; but the fullness of the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ exists in only one place. To the extent that the degree of falseness that exists in other denominations prevents people from learning the truth and embracing Christ as He taught, those creeds are abominable.
~”LDS claims to be the priesthood of Aaron and Melchizedek.”~
Despite the grammatical flaw, we do claim that those priesthoods have been restored and now exist with the LDS Church. True.
~”The Latter Day Saints have had a history of white supremacy and until recently did not let blacks into the priesthood.”~
True. I suggest you include the racial practices of other contemporary denominations in your analysis. It is also true, however, that the LDS Church has long been on the forefront of civil rights; one reason that the early Church was blasted from Missouri was its staunch abolitionism.
~”The Mormons teach that the American Indian is a decedent of Israel and Semitic, yet scientific genetics teaches that the American Indian is of the Mongoloid race and from Asia.”~
True. This is a substantial conversation in and of itself. I will boil it down to this: Geology teaches that the earth is billions of years old. Yet mainstream Christianity teaches otherwise. It’s a slippery slope to place selective trust in science.
~”Mormons are told to wear holy underwear with mystical Masonic markings to protect them from harm.”~
Partly true. Members of the LDS Church who undergo the temple ordinance known as the “Endowment” are expected to wear the “garment,” as it is known, as a constant reminder of the covenants made with God in the course of that ordinance. There are some similarities to Masonic symbols involved; but, then, Masonic traditions are many centuries old, and we claim to be a restoration of Christianity, not a reinvention of it. There is the promise that the garment will protect the righteous Latter-Day Saint from physical harm, subject to God’s will. There are many documented instances of this phenomenon. As for the garment itself, it’s not remarkable - it essentially consists of a white set of boxer shorts and a white t-shirt. Nothing too exciting, unless you’re into that sort of thing.
Good, we’ve gone through the list. While I have no problem with being beaten over the head with things that I actually believe, I request that you now stop spreading those parts of your assertions that are false, and I request that you refrain from the temptation to tell me what I believe.
Thank you.
A few secrets didn’t hurt the Free Mason presidents including Washington. Of course they weren’t running against a classless bigot.
~”They are over-looking that it is a personal relationship with Christ, and not which church you go to.”~
Woot-woot!
~”Why is the word “LORD” in all caps? Do you know?”~
My understanding is that it’s how the translators of the King James version chose to represent “Jehovah.” I do not know the origins of the term “the God” in the verse in question.
~”I have still not decided what to do, I am still pining for Fred.”~
You’re still welcome over here in the Romney camp. Plenty of room for all!
~”If Biblical teaching (Scripture) isn’t your baseline for truth,
instruction and the meaning of life, I’m afraid you are without
a substantive argument for ANY religion be it false or true.”~
I agree. I’m glad that I believe and follow the scriptures.
The challenge we face is that you don’t accept everything that is true as the truth. Hence, the disconnect.
The difference between us is that I’m perfectly happy to let you be.
Once again, please explain how this thread makes that apparent.
Or is this another case of “Let’s throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks?”
You're not trying to claim Mormonism is Christian are you?
I follow your thinking, but I have a real hard time supporting someone who believes he will evolve into a God and have a planet to rule.
There has been a lot written about that.
A lot of it is speculation because those who wrote about it used their own opinions as gospel.
One of the speculations is that there were a lot more female members than male. When the group started west, and after they arrived, there was an imbalance.
There have been other speculations. You can find out what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young said in their writings and discourses.
The practice had long been discontinued before my Great Grandfather joined the church. (in the 1880s) So it was never a practice or an issue in our family.
One of the articles of faith is that men will be held accountable for their own sins, so I have always figured that I do not have to keep track of what others do. I have enough to keep track of myself.
I figure that Christ will sort it out in the end.
I am sure you would not want to have to be held accountable for those who were selling indulgences.
~”Tant, tell me, when in your opinion did the Catholic church fall away from enough of the Gospel that they were apostate?
For me, having done the research about Arianism, and the works of Hippolytus, I think they still had some authority all the way up until the First council of Nicea in 325 AD.”~
I think it was somewhat sooner. Remember, to have authority, the Church must have a leader who holds the office of Apostle in the Priesthood. When the last Apostle was killed, that signaled the end of the authority of the Church, and the beginning of its evolution into total apostasy.
Now, the Aaronic Priesthood may have legitimately existed in the Church for quite some time after that; it’s impossible to say exactly when it fully faded. Still, that priesthood does not have authority to minister in the affairs of Christ’s kingdom.
You have God speaking of Himself in the plural in Genesis: "Behold, the man has become as one of us, able to discern good and evil."
You have Jesus, who proclaimed himself the son of God, and therefore God (just as I am the son of a man, and therefore a man), crying out, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken men?"
There is too much in Scripture to suggest the doctrine of the Trinity, with each member having a role in individual salvation: The Father decrees who will be saved, the Son comes to purchase that salvation, the Holy Spirit comes to apply that purchased salvation to those the Father decreed would be saved.
Regarding the “mansion” that is being prepared for you in the hereafter, would you be highly offended if yours came with its own planet?
DV said ...Save your breath. You are going to need it for the onslaught which is to come.
DU said I live at almost 5,000 Feet above sea level, go ahead, make my day. While your “Troops” are trying to catch any stray oxygen molecules they can find, I’ll push them back down the Foothills, then I’ll climb up to 6,000 feet. Bring oxygen in cylinders when you come, they make really funny clanging noises when you guys fall down.
____________________________________________________
Why do you persist in being a fool ????
Darth never meant an onslaugfht of flesh but a spiritual onslaught from hell..
“For we wrestle not againstflesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places ...Ephesians 6:10-18
The Christians in these threads have poured their hearts out to you and given you much info about Jesus and His saving power, because they dont want you to go to Hell...
I am learning that it is considered a sport for mormons to spew venom and ridicule on Christians and others who do not accept the aposacy of Joseph Smith...
Maybe that is why it takes 19 year old mormon missionaries two whole years to make only four convicts..
Jesus said to draw people to the love of God..
Who would want to join a group who constantly beat them up and mocked them ???
I’m not your enemy and have harmed no mormons in these threads noe elsewhere...in fact I have helped mormons and given of my substance to them ...but I have been accused and maligned and called a range of foul names ...
What ewas there among such unbecoming behavior that would e ver begin to suggest that mormons arfe “Christians” or Christlike ..
In the 50 years i have known Jesus as my Lord and Savior He has never abused me or beaten me up verbal...and calls me nothing but His own...
Where is this in Scripture?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.