Replies

Let's look at your words more closely since they demonstrate what you do believe in accordance with LDS theology:

WM to O.P.: MORMON School -- CHRISTIAN. These people are SAVED by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

You are saying that they are ultimately saved by their works. This is why Protestants would say that LDS is similar to Romanism. Again and again, you and the Romanists deny salvation by works. And, again and agina, you refute salvation by grace and ultimately turn to works in the final matter of salvation. Really, there are times when I think the concept of salvation by the pure grace completely eludes both you and the Romanists. There is no papering over of the differences between these basic theological views. You and the LDS stand with Rome in one camp. Protestants and their modern descendants stand in another camp. You should simply acknowledge this most basic difference instead of pretending that it is all really the same thing. It isn't, White Mountain.

These Christians have the Gospel. That's the truth.

Yes, they do have the Gospel. Unfortunately, they have elected to add the writings of Joseph Smith, dictated to his assistants while he had his head bowed and placed into his hat in which he held his "magic stone". The authenticated descriptions of Smith's personal associates is questioned nowhere outside LDS circles. Sometimes, I think that you really don't understand exactly how important the authority of the established canon of scripture is to Protestants and their modern descendants and counterparts. Again, you look to Smith and his authority and modern revelation just as RCs look to Rome, their pope and their Tradition and Magisterium. And again, the LDS and Rome are simply not compatible with Protestantism, a religion of the Word as established in the ancient Church.

The attempted addition of the Book of Mormon to the canon of sacred Christian scripture which has, in essence, persevered through 1700 years makes the Mormon religion, at best, a sort of second Reformation, one in which Smith considered both the Roman and Protestant traditions to be in grave and fatal error. It would seem to me that Smith must be considered as infallible as a pope on these matters, maybe more so, since he established the Mormon canon of literature.

Romanists and Protestants affirm the sacred canon established shortly after the apostolic period, a canon endorsed by those who personally knew the authors who were themselves the personal disciples of Christ. The writings of Joseph Smith stand outside this ancient tradition to which both RCs and Protestants lay claim. I don't especially enjoy saying these because I have a real regard for you as a decent and caring human being who makes a personally sincere claim upon the moral teachings of Jesus Christ. But there really are three "camps" in modern Christianity, more or less. Rome, Protestants, and Mormonism. There are distinctions between these three camps which do not allow us to simply label them all Christian without doing violence to each of the three and their individual merits, history and tradition.

They're simply not the same. And if you have any real regard for LDS teachings, you should acknowledge it. Frankly, I've never been able to determine if Mormonism is closer to Rome or to Protestant belief but, given the LDS teaching on virtual universal salvation, I tend to see the LDS churches as more basically compatible with Rome. (I began to examine this matter in more detail after a recent article which said that the future of evangelical Christianity was in the hands of Baptists and Mormons. Naturally, I could not disagree more, given my views.)

WM to O.P: You need to apologize.

No, he does not need to apologize to you or anyone else. I don't know what the point of having a consitutional forum is if you don't allow free speech. If you want to post on aggressive religious discussion threads, there is a certain amount of tough language you'd better expect.

I think you need to re-examine whether you're being honest when you seem to represent Mormonism as just another variety of Protestant. It is not. If you wish to claim a compatibility with Rome's beliefs and canon and theology, I would grant you that. But the RCs around here might have a different take on it. In fact, I'm sure they will.

Three camps. Not one, White Mountain. Let's not be making ecumenical happy-talk to paper over truly incompatible differences in basic belief.

No, he does not need to apologize to you or anyone else. I don't know what the point of having a consitutional forum is if you don't allow free speech. If you want to post on aggressive religious discussion threads, there is a certain amount of tough language you'd better expect.

Thank you for the good words. Your tone with WM was conciliatory but frank, and I appreciate the favorable nod to my own position.

I've been too busy with work to FReep much of late (except to lurk a little here on my lunch hour), so several posts of WM's have thus gone unanswered (as the above). So I'm much obliged for your review of the debate.

Thanks for the flag GWB ,but I believe that WM hits the abuse button anytime you get a little too close. The light hurts his eyes..I will pass..

Your #1325: I have a real regard for you as a decent and caring human being who makes a personally sincere claim upon the moral teachings of Jesus Christ.

Thanks. I feel the same way about you.

You write: But there really are three "camps" in modern Christianity, more or less. Rome, Protestants, and Mormonism. ... They're simply not the same. And if you have any real regard for LDS teachings, you should acknowledge it.

I do. I am not sure what I said that led you to think otherwise. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is neither Roman Catholic, nor Eastern Orthodox, nor Protestant.

You write: There are distinctions between these three camps which do not allow us to simply label them all Christian without doing violence to each of the three and their individual merits, history and tradition.

Let's go back to the opening quote. I accept anyone as Christian who affirms that Jesus Christ is our Lord and God -- the Savior of the world, the Son of God the Eternal Father, who created this earth, was born of Mary, made Atonement for our sins on condition of repentance, died on the cruel Cross, rose again the third day from the grave, breaking the bands of death and opening the door to eternal life, showed the wounds in His hands and feet and side to His apostles, ascended into heaven, and promised that He would come again -- and who is sincerely trying to live as He taught us to live.

I accept such a person as a Christian and I say let God, who is merciful and just, be the Judge and decide that person's eternal destiny.

Acts 15:11
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Acts 16:31
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Romans 10:9
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

These verses say that such a person will be saved. There are other verses in the Bible, many of which give other requirements for salvation. We need to give heed to them all.

You write: You are saying that they are ultimately saved by their works [because you said we are saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel]. This is why Protestants would say that LDS is similar to Romanism. Again and again, you and the Romanists deny salvation by works. And, again and agina, you refute salvation by grace and ultimately turn to works in the final matter of salvation. Really, there are times when I think the concept of salvation by the pure grace completely eludes both you and the Romanists.

I think the so-called faith vs. works debate is incorrectly framed:

Galatians 2:16
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Let us not focus so much on this verse (and others like it that speak of "saved" rather than "justified") that we ignore the rest of the Bible. Luther and others seized upon these verses in order to justify the break with Rome and the extra-Biblical Roman requirements for salvation.

Paul is talking about the works of the law of Moses that do not save or justify. Both Paul and James talk in positive terms about good works, small acts of kindness, not that they save us, but that they show that we have faith in Christ and love for our neighbor. If we don't do them, we are unbelievers ("I was hungry and ye gave me no meat"). As Paul says to Titus:

Titus 3:1-8
1 Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,
2 To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.
4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.

There are also the Biblical requirements for salvation (faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism by immersion by one having authority for the remission of sins (followed by the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost), enduring to the end) (verse 5 above, Acts 2:37-38) that must not be dismissed as unacceptable because you choose to call them "works". They are Biblical requirements. This is what I mean by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. This is not salvation by works! This is paying attention to what the Bible says.

One might say, looking at the time of the Reformation, that the RCs had added to the Biblical requirements for salvation, while the Protestants, protesting this, and in overreaction, had taken away from the Biblical requirements for salvation. The Anglicans tried a middle ground, observing them all without adding to them, and claiming apostolic succession, although Henry VIII's motivation for breaking away from Rome was less than altruistic.

Now we come to Ephesians 2:19-20

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

The Keys of the Kingdom were not given by Jesus to Peter the devoted disciple, but Peter the Chief Apostle. For a time, vacancies among the Twelve Apostles were filled:

Acts 1:24-26
24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Perhaps because the flock kept straying -- we see many examples in the New Testament -- the Lord stopped filling vacancies in the Twelve, and when the last apostle was taken, the Keys of the Kingdom went with him. Without apostles and prophets, the foundation of the Church was not there, and a restoration would be needed at the proper time.

But the restoration of the Holy Apostleship and the Keys of the Kingdom does not come by the will of man. It comes in the Lord's own due time, and in the Lord's own way, and according to His own will. Why it was that the Christian world went through the Dark Ages, then a Renaissance, then the establishment of a free nation, built on religious principles, where the establishment of a state religion was prohibited and freedom of religion proclaimed, before the Lord restored His Church to the earth, is something known best to Him.

True it is that since the Flood, Biblical prophets and apostles have been on the earth only for fairly brief, intermittent periods, and their contemporary faithful followers few in number. Judging by the charges of apostasy so rampant at FR today -- are we all not witnesses that the Christian world in general has been sliding rapidly into apostasy -- there seems to be a consensus that apostasy is the rule, not the exception.

And yet the Lord still loves us, each and every one, and gives us the light we are willing to receive when we are ready for it. If we do not have the opportunity in this life to accept Christ and His Gospel, an opportunity will be provided, in His Providence, in the next.

1 Peter 4:6
6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

To summarize, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is neither Roman Catholic, nor Eastern Orthodox, nor Protestant. It is the Restored Church of Jesus Christ, built upon the foundation of true and living apostles and prophets.

Your #1325: No, he [OP] does not need to apologize to you or anyone else. I don't know what the point of having a consitutional forum is if you don't allow free speech. If you want to post on aggressive religious discussion threads, there is a certain amount of tough language you'd better expect.

Of course OPie needs to apologize. Just because the offense is so common among Protestants -- telling individuals and entire denominations that they are not Christian, even pagan, by which he means they are going to hell forever because they don't believe the "right" thing -- doesn't mean he can't be called on it. Having free speech doesn't mean you are incapable of giving offense. That is one of the worst things he could say to anybody. He is heedless of the risk of bearing false witness, which is a sin.

Besides, it violates the rules at FR. It is a personal attack as well as a denominational one, and JimRob has specifically forbidden this going-to-hell-because-of-your-beliefs stuff, which may be why OPie does not state it explicitly.