Is the LDS church a Cult and What does it matter?

[master_mormon]

A comment comment I hear being LDS in chat rooms is that the LDS church is a cult. Is the LDS church a Cult? The answer is Yes. By definition it is. The next question that needs to be asked is "Does it really matter?" That answer depends on how the term is being used.

I hear many bizarre definitions of this word. Case in point is in the article "EVANGELICAL SEMINARY'S OUTREACH TO MORMONS DOES NOT BRIDGE THE GAP" By Rob Sivulka found at theology web, the following definition is claimed:

"A "cult" is simply a term Christians use to specify a group that does not bother retaining a traditional denominational title and claims to be Christian even though it denies one or
more of the essential doctrines of Christianity".

This is a sad definition considering it comes from a person who is said to be a PHD student in philosophy at the UofU. Here is a real definition of the word from the dictionary

cult: 1a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. b. The followers of such a religion or sect. 2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual. 3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual. 4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease. 5a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing. b. The object of such devotion. 6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000)

Notice Rob Sivulka's definition is really a part of the true definition of the word. Now looking at all of these definitions, its clear that any religion or church can be called a "cult". Christians are of a cult as they are followers of a religion or sect and express religious reverence and ceremony. Now it is clear that Anti-Mormons would use definition 1a as their reasoning why the LDS church is a "cult". Of course many of the logic fallacies that are
stated above are required to make this declaration. Especially when one uses popularity and what is generally accepted in the world. Such a view did not work in the days of Noah. Noah views were considered extremist or false among the world around him but that did not make Noah wrong. In fact, the world was wrong and the people were destroyed while Noah's small group was spared and blessed. Simply appealing to the masses does not cause something to be right or wrong. In fact, often whatever is seen as popular is in fact wrong.

The 1st century Christians were a religious sect that the Pharisess would have considered extremist or false by their standards and lived in unconventional manners under the guidance of a authorative, charismatic leader named JESUS CHRIST.

In Stephen E Robinson's book "Are Mormons Christians?, Chapter 3: "The Exclusion by Name Calling" he examines 10 criteria of a cult by Anti-Mormon Walter Martin from his book "Walter Martin, The New Cults, (Ventura, Calif.: Regal Books, 1980), pp. 17-21. All 10 defintions can apply to the Church that is described in the New Testament. A couple of examples will be listed to show this.



[b]4. "Cultists often become members of one cult after membership in one or more other cults."

[This part of the definition is circular, since you already have to know what a cult is before you can use the term. Even so, let us consider it briefly in an ancient context. From the viewpoint of the Jews and Romans both the movement of John the Baptist and that of Jesus were "cults." John 1:35-37 tells us that two of the disciples of John the Baptist later became disciples of Jesus, and it is likely that many others did as well. According to Martin's reasoning, this change of affiliation could indicate they were cultists.]


5. "The new cults are actively evangelistic and spend much of their time in proselytizing new converts."

[According to Matthew 28:19-20, after his resurrection Jesus told his disciples: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." The Apostle Paul certainly spent "much of [his] time in proselytizing new converts." Again the New Testament Church qualifies as a cult under this definition.]

6. "Often we find that the leaders or officials of the new cults are not professional clergymen."

[The Jewish high priests noticed this very thing about Peter and John, "that they were unlearned and ignorant men" (Acts 4:13). Jesus was a carpenter by trade; and Peter, James, and John were fishermen.]

So we see that its possible to use Walter Martin's phoney criteria to call the New Testament Saints and Church a cult.

Conclusion:
The LDS church is a Cult. All religions can be called Cults. Every Protestant denomination can be called Cults. Walter Martin was a cultist. James White is a cultist and in a cult. Being LDS I believe I am in a Cult, The Lord's True Cult. People may disagree with that view but the reality is using the "Cult" word does not score anyone points. It does detract from one's message however when they use the word improperly.

[Krusader]

A comment comment I hear being LDS in chat rooms is that the LDS church is a cult. Is the LDS church a Cult? The answer is Yes. By definition it is. The next question that needs to be asked is "Does it really matter?" That answer depends on how the term is being used.

I hear many bizarre definitions of this word. Case in point is in the article "EVANGELICAL SEMINARY'S OUTREACH TO MORMONS DOES NOT BRIDGE THE GAP" By Rob Sivulka found at theology web, the following definition is claimed:

"A "cult" is simply a term Christians use to specify a group that does not bother retaining a traditional denominational title and claims to be Christian even though it denies one or
more of the essential doctrines of Christianity".

This is a sad definition considering it comes from a person who is said to be a PHD student in philosophy at the UofU. Here is a real definition of the word from the dictionary

cult: 1a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. b. The followers of such a religion or sect. 2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual. 3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual. 4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease. 5a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing. b. The object of such devotion. 6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000)

Notice Rob Sivulka's definition is really a part of the true definition of the word. Now looking at all of these definitions, its clear that any religion or church can be called a "cult". Christians are of a cult as they are followers of a religion or sect and express religious reverence and ceremony. Now it is clear that Anti-Mormons would use definition 1a as their reasoning why the LDS church is a "cult". Of course many of the logic fallacies that are
stated above are required to make this declaration. Especially when one uses popularity and what is generally accepted in the world. Such a view did not work in the days of Noah. Noah views were considered extremist or false among the world around him but that did not make Noah wrong. In fact, the world was wrong and the people were destroyed while Noah's small group was spared and blessed. Simply appealing to the masses does not cause something to be right or wrong. In fact, often whatever is seen as popular is in fact wrong.

The 1st century Christians were a religious sect that the Pharisess would have considered extremist or false by their standards and lived in unconventional manners under the guidance of a authorative, charismatic leader named JESUS CHRIST.

In Stephen E Robinson's book "Are Mormons Christians?, Chapter 3: "The Exclusion by Name Calling" he examines 10 criteria of a cult by Anti-Mormon Walter Martin from his book "Walter Martin, The New Cults, (Ventura, Calif.: Regal Books, 1980), pp. 17-21. All 10 defintions can apply to the Church that is described in the New Testament. A couple of examples will be listed to show this.



[b]4. "Cultists often become members of one cult after membership in one or more other cults."

[This part of the definition is circular, since you already have to know what a cult is before you can use the term. Even so, let us consider it briefly in an ancient context. From the viewpoint of the Jews and Romans both the movement of John the Baptist and that of Jesus were "cults." John 1:35-37 tells us that two of the disciples of John the Baptist later became disciples of Jesus, and it is likely that many others did as well. According to Martin's reasoning, this change of affiliation could indicate they were cultists.]


5. "The new cults are actively evangelistic and spend much of their time in proselytizing new converts."

[According to Matthew 28:19-20, after his resurrection Jesus told his disciples: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." The Apostle Paul certainly spent "much of [his] time in proselytizing new converts." Again the New Testament Church qualifies as a cult under this definition.]

6. "Often we find that the leaders or officials of the new cults are not professional clergymen."

[The Jewish high priests noticed this very thing about Peter and John, "that they were unlearned and ignorant men" (Acts 4:13). Jesus was a carpenter by trade; and Peter, James, and John were fishermen.]

So we see that its possible to use Walter Martin's phoney criteria to call the New Testament Saints and Church a cult.

Conclusion:
The LDS church is a Cult. All religions can be called Cults. Every Protestant denomination can be called Cults. Walter Martin was a cultist. James White is a cultist and in a cult. Being LDS I believe I am in a Cult, The Lord's True Cult. People may disagree with that view but the reality is using the "Cult" word does not score anyone points. It does detract from one's message however when they use the word improperly.
Perhaps a better term for Mormonism is "pseudo-Christian sect." Mormons claim the title "Christian," but then go on to totally reject all traditional Christian belief. The have another god(s), another Jesus, and surely another spirit! They seek to mislead people into believing that they are the "real thing," but I think that 21st century science and archeology will verify what Christians have said all along - the Mormons aren't Christian!!!!

[master_mormon]

Perhaps a better term for Mormonism is "pseudo-Christian sect." Mormons claim the title "Christian," but then go on to totally reject all traditional Christian belief. The have another god(s), another Jesus, and surely another spirit! They seek to mislead people into believing that they are the "real thing," but I think that 21st century science and archeology will verify what Christians have said all along - the Mormons aren't Christian!!!!
1. Mormons don't seek to mislead people. You may not agree with a number of our views but our intent is not to mislead. We believe what we believe and simply ask people to search for themselves if its true or not.

2. I don't understad how science or archaeology can verify someone as Christian or not. The word Christian in the dictionary simply means

1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b (1) : DISCIPLE 2 (2) : a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906 (3) : a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961 2 : the hero in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress (Merriam-Webster Online dictionary at Yahoo)

LDS profess belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. Hence we are by definition Christian. You may disagree with some of our views but those views are not part of the definition of the word.

3. "They have another god(s), another Jesus, and surely another spirit!" That is completely subjective.

4. "Mormons claim the title "Christian," but then go on to totally reject all traditional Christian belief" What exactly is the "traditional christian belief" It is Catholicism or Eastern Orthodox or one of the many different protestant views of Christianity? As a Mormon, I really don't care what the "traditional" or most popular view of the day is. I care about what I call "Original Christianity" taught. As David Waltz, a Catholic notes in his article at http://www.fairlds.org/apol/morm201/m20100b.html

"Attempts by Evangelicals, such as McKeever and Johnson, to exclude Mormonism as Christian, via the principles of "private judgment" and "sola scriptura," are simply naive and misinformed-appeals to the early Church Fathers make the matter even worse-for history teaches us, at the very least, that apart from the great Ecumenical Councils, and an accompanying Catholic principle of infallibility, there can be no consensus on what truly constitutes "historic" or "orthodox" Christian doctrine. If one truly adheres tothe Protestant principles of "private judgment" and "sola scriptura," one cannot, in all honesty, exclude Mormonism as Christian....There is so much more that could be said. For instance, the fact that Mormonism on the doctrine of faith and works is much closer to the early Church Fathers than Evangelicalism"

So if Mormonism is closer to the early church fathers on the doctrine of faith and works than the evangelical christians are on this rather important issue and Mormons are not christian. Should we conclude that the Evangelicals are really "not Christians" since they are not teaching "traditional Christianity" as taught by the early church fathers?

[dizzle]

Does anyone else find this royally hypocritical:

"The Exclusion by Name Calling" .......Anti-Mormon Walter Martin


Where is the shovel please?

[master_mormon]

Does anyone else find this royally hypocritical:

"The Exclusion by Name Calling" .......Anti-Mormon Walter Martin


Where is the shovel please?What is an Anti-Mormon?

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Anti: one that is opposed

Mormon: the ancient redactor and compiler of the Book of Mormon presented as divine revelation by Joseph Smith 2 : LATTER-DAY SAINT; especially : a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Put simply, and Anti-Mormon by simply one who is opposed to the the Latter Day Saints or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This obviously does not mean that those who are not Latter Day Saints are Anti-Mormons but its one who actively opposes the LDS faith or its members. If one writes or makes books, videos, pamphets, websites, gives presentations and so forth for the purpose of opposing the LDS faith, the are an Anti-Mormon. It also applies to those who use those sources and then attack the LDS faith as a result of them.

Disagreeing with the LDS faith does not make one an Anti-Mormon. It's how one uses this disagreement that makes a person an Anti-Mormon. A person can disagree with another faith while not actively attacking that faith.

So is Walter Martin a "Pro-Mormon" or an "Anti-Mormon" Its a descriptive term. I think the answer is obvious but one is free to disagree

[Jin-Roh]

Master M, It may shock you to find out that simply appealling to the dictionary isn't enough to refute someone. If you're really upset about the term Cult, we could just use the Term "heretical" istead:

Heretical
1. "Of or pertaining to heresy or heretics; of the nature of heresy."
Heresy
"Theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the ‘catholic’ or orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church, or, by extension, to that of any church, creed, or religious system, considered as orthodox. "
http://www.oed.com

Btw, when it comes to "Original Christianity" maybe you can tell me about the views of ECF's on things like the Trinity, Divinity of Christ, or questions like "does God have a body" or not.

[Sparko]

Master_Mormon,

I think it is heretical for someone to get their theology from a dictionary.

[fghtdir]

We do not use the term cult anymore as it has too many negative conatations. As we see from the definition above most relegions would (at one time or another) have been a cult. The perferred accedemic term is new religious movement. And according to scholars, the LDS church is past that point. We would now refer to the LDS church as a viable mainstream denomonation of the Christian Church.

Also in response to the definition given of Herecy. If it rejects Catholic / orthodox traditions that most protestant denomonations are guilty of herecy.

From a LDS point of view, they are stil monothiestic. They belive that the Godhead is made of God the Father, Jesus the Son and The Holy Ghost (Spirit). They belive that while they ae three distince personalities they are united on one purpose. It is a matter of semantics. Some inturperate that as being a belife in three distince people. Perhaps the difference in explanations betweem the LDS and other mainstream protestants is just a matter of trying a different tactic to explain how a being can have three different personalities. wills and acions. LDS and other Christians (yes Mormans are Christians) belive in the same God and the same Jesus.

I am sure that someone will point out the LDS President's comments that it is a different Christ that we worship. What he was asying is that the LDS members feel that they might have a better understanding, because of revelation, of Jesus Christ. Let me illustrate this. Bob has know John for a year or so. He likes him as John is a nice guy, but only know a little about him. John's roomate Rick knows John a lot better. Rick could tell Bob that he knows a different John than the John that Bob knows. That is only because Rick has seen more sides of the great person that John is.


Hope that is a help

[Krusader]

We do not use the term cult anymore as it has too many negative conatations. As we see from the definition above most relegions would (at one time or another) have been a cult. The perferred accedemic term is new religious movement. And according to scholars, the LDS church is past that point. We would now refer to the LDS church as a viable mainstream denomonation of the Christian Church.

Also in response to the definition given of Herecy. If it rejects Catholic / orthodox traditions that most protestant denomonations are guilty of herecy.

From a LDS point of view, they are stil monothiestic. They belive that the Godhead is made of God the Father, Jesus the Son and The Holy Ghost (Spirit). They belive that while they ae three distince personalities they are united on one purpose. It is a matter of semantics. Some inturperate that as being a belife in three distince people. Perhaps the difference in explanations betweem the LDS and other mainstream protestants is just a matter of trying a different tactic to explain how a being can have three different personalities. wills and acions. LDS and other Christians (yes Mormans are Christians) belive in the same God and the same Jesus.

I am sure that someone will point out the LDS President's comments that it is a different Christ that we worship. What he was asying is that the LDS members feel that they might have a better understanding, because of revelation, of Jesus Christ. Let me illustrate this. Bob has know John for a year or so. He likes him as John is a nice guy, but only know a little about him. John's roomate Rick knows John a lot better. Rick could tell Bob that he knows a different John than the John that Bob knows. That is only because Rick has seen more sides of the great person that John is.


Hope that is a help
That's about as helpful as a tooth ache. The Mormons do not - repeat, do not believe in the Trinity (One God Who exists in Three Persons of the Same Substance, Power and Glory). Mormons state they believe in One Godhead who is Three G-O-D-S! They also believe that God was once a man, who through obedience to the ordinances and laws of the gospel (Mormon, that is), eternally progressed to godhood. Likewise, they believe that all faithful Mormons can also become gods, create their own worlds and reproduce themselves by celestial sex throughout the universe!

It may not be politically correct these days to describe anybody as a cultist or any group as a cult. Too bad! If Mormonism is not a cult, then it surely is a non-Christian religious group posing as Christian.

[Jin-Roh]

fghtdir, have you ever compared the claims of Christianity and Mormonism?

[fghtdir]

I spent several years comparing the two. I was riased in a strongly protestant family. Church of God (Holiness) and Nazarene. Growing up I heard all of this. When I actully talked to LDS people as part of acedemic and personal research, I found that much of what Protestant Christians think about Mormons if false or exsagerated and vice versa that LDS have been taught falacies about Protestant Christians.

I know that there are many differences. You are correct that the LDS doctrine does belive in Eternal Progression and the by following all of the commandments, partaking in temple ordinances and living worthaly one will reach the celestial glroy and be with their families for eternity. As far as being a god over your own planet... I am not sure of that, My father-in-law is a bishop in the LDS church and that had never been mentioned. If you could show me a doctrinal source of this I would appriciate it and be happy to research and docuument it.

[PostHoc]

From a LDS point of view, they are stil monothiestic. They belive that the Godhead is made of God the Father, Jesus the Son and The Holy Ghost (Spirit). They belive that while they ae three distince personalities they are united on one purpose. It is a matter of semantics. Some inturperate that as being a belife in three distince people. Perhaps the difference in explanations betweem the LDS and other mainstream protestants is just a matter of trying a different tactic to explain how a being can have three different personalities. wills and acions. LDS and other Christians (yes Mormans are Christians) belive in the same God and the same Jesus.



Isaiah 44: 6 "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." The Bible teaches that there is one God, Brigham Young said there was an infinite amount of gods. Mormon doctrine says that God his goddess wife (2 gods so far) gave birth to Jesus (3 gods). Mormonism is not a monotheistic religion.

[Krusader]

I spent several years comparing the two. I was riased in a strongly protestant family. Church of God (Holiness) and Nazarene. Growing up I heard all of this. When I actully talked to LDS people as part of acedemic and personal research, I found that much of what Protestant Christians think about Mormons if false or exsagerated and vice versa that LDS have been taught falacies about Protestant Christians.

I know that there are many differences. You are correct that the LDS doctrine does belive in Eternal Progression and the by following all of the commandments, partaking in temple ordinances and living worthaly one will reach the celestial glroy and be with their families for eternity. As far as being a god over your own planet... I am not sure of that, My father-in-law is a bishop in the LDS church and that had never been mentioned. If you could show me a doctrinal source of this I would appriciate it and be happy to research and docuument it.
See the King Follett discourse by Joseph Smith. Many Mormons are fairly embarassed when confronted with their first prophet's teachings, and try to downplay the progression to godhood taught by Smith. If you are married to a Mormon, the main aim of the LDS would be to bring you into the fold. The more esoteric doctrines would not be something they'd want to discuss with you.

However, you can find the root sources of LDS esoteric doctrines at the Utah Lighthouse Ministries website of the Tanners. Just do a search, it will come up. They have reprints of the LDS prophets' own words. Before you think about joining the LDS (if you were) you should fully research this group.

It is not Christian, although it makes every attempt to appear that way. The King Follett discourse is on inumerable sites on the web.

[Jin-Roh]

I know that there are many differences. You are correct that the LDS doctrine does belive in Eternal Progression and the by following all of the commandments, partaking in temple ordinances and living worthaly one will reach the celestial glroy and be with their families for eternity.

And you don't see this as a conflict with Christianity because...?

[John Powell]

Jin-Roh:
Master M, It may shock you to find out that simply appealling to the dictionary isn't enough to refute someone.


POWELL:
It may shock you to find out, Jin-Roh, that an appeal to authority usually does just that.

Jin-Roh:
If you're really upset about the term Cult, we could just use the Term "heretical" istead [instead]:


POWELL:
I suggest something like "unorthodox Christian" or "not mainstream Christian." Some Mormons might still complain, but it's more likely to be a designation that both sides can agree to.

Jin-Roh:

Heretical
1. "Of or pertaining to heresy or heretics; of the nature of heresy."
Heresy
"Theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the ‘catholic’ or orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church, or, by extension, to that of any church, creed, or religious system, considered as orthodox. "
http://www.oed.com


POWELL:
I thought that appeals to dictionary authority didn't refute anything, Jin-Roh? Why the apparent inconsistency?

Jin-Roh:
Btw, when it comes to "Original Christianity" maybe you can tell me about the views of ECF's on things like the Trinity, Divinity of Christ, or questions like "does God have a body" or not.


POWELL:
Good questions.

I'm happy to see some new Mormons participating here. I hope they are treated as respectfully as they should be. Let's welcome them as participants but refute their arguments.

John Powell
A former believer in Mormonism.
Now an agnostic strong atheist.

[John Powell]

PostHoc:
Isaiah 44: 6 "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."


POWELL:
Shouldn't that say "and beside US there is no God"? God is a three-person thing to you, yes? Although God is singular to you so it shouldn't say "there are no Gods," the person is plural to you, yes?

Post-Hoc:
The Bible teaches that there is one God, Brigham Young said there was an infinite amount of gods.


POWELL:
The Bible also teaches there is more than one god. Where did Brigham Young claim that the number of gods was infinite?

PostHoc:
Mormon doctrine says that God his goddess wife (2 gods so far) gave birth to Jesus (3 gods).


POWELL:
AFAIK from Mormonism, Jesus was not a god when He was first given a spirit body.

Post-Hoc:
Mormonism is not a monotheistic religion.


POWELL:
Isn't that nice? That suggests there's room for more. Maybe you can be a god too if you convert to Mormonism and obey Mormon doctrine. Don't you think there's enough opportunity out there to accommodate more gods, Post-Hoc? Mormonism seems to be a lot more like modern economic opportunism for all children rather than the ancient exclusive "right of the firstborn son."

You have to stretch things quite far to make Mormonism monotheistic. You have to claim there's one "Godhead" comprised of three Gods. I suppose Mormonism should be called "polytheism monogodheadism".

On the other hand, I suppose that Trinitarianism can be called monotheistic, but it should have a qualifier. I suppose it's fair to call trinitarianism: "monotheism tripersonism". The Jews and Arabs seem to be the true unqualified monotheists around.

John Powell

[Krusader]

POWELL:
Shouldn't that say "and beside US there is no God"? God is a three-person thing to you, yes? Although God is singular to you so it shouldn't say "there are no Gods," the person is plural to you, yes?



POWELL:
The Bible also teaches there is more than one god. Where did Brigham Young claim that the number of gods was infinite?



POWELL:
AFAIK from Mormonism, Jesus was not a god when He was first given a spirit body.



POWELL:
Isn't that nice? That suggests there's room for more. Maybe you can be a god too if you convert to Mormonism and obey Mormon doctrine. Don't you think there's enough opportunity out there to accommodate more gods, Post-Hoc? Mormonism seems to be a lot more like modern economic opportunism for all children rather than the ancient exclusive "right of the firstborn son."

You have to stretch things quite far to make Mormonism monotheistic. You have to claim there's one "Godhead" comprised of three Gods. I suppose Mormonism should be called "polytheism monogodheadism".

On the other hand, I suppose that Trinitarianism can be called monotheistic, but it should have a qualifier. I suppose it's fair to call trinitarianism: "monotheism tripersonism". The Jews and Arabs seem to be the true unqualified monotheists around.

John Powell
The bible does state that there is more than one "god," but these are false gods. Satan is also called "the god" of this world. The Bible also asserts that there is One True God.

[John Powell]

CRUSADER:
It is not Christian, although it makes every attempt to appear that way.

POWELL:
Mormons are Christians, Crusader. Maybe they aren't "true" Christians or orthodox Christians or mainstream Christians. They are Mormon Christians.

I suspect that you are using something like the following argument:

1. A Christian is someone who believes correctly about Jesus Christ.
2. Mormons do not believe correctly about Jesus Christ.
Therefore.
3. Mormons are not Christians.

The problem comes in that if such an argument is good then you should also conclude that Mormons aren't theists.

1. A theist is someone who believes correctly about God.
2. Mormons do not believe correctly about God.
Therefore.
3. Mormons are not theists.

I suggest that you revise your definition of "Christian" so it does not produce this kind of inconsistency.

If a theist is someone who believes in God then a Christian is someone who believes that Jesus is divine and that the New Testament (as well as the Old Testament) is God's word. A Jew is someone who believes that Yahweh is God and that the Tanakh is God's word. A Muslim is someone who believes that Allah is God and that the Quran is God's word. See how that works so nicely?

Designations like "Christian," "Jew", "Muslim" etc. are not God-given terms designating who will go to heaven and who will go to hell, but they are terms people in society use in order to classify beliefs. To tell a Muslim, Jew, or Hindu that a Mormon is not a Christian would tend to confuse them. They might think you're claiming that they don't believe Jesus is divine and don't believe in the New Testament.

John Powell

[John Powell]

CRUSADER:
The bible does state that there is more than one "god," but these are false gods. Satan is also called "the god" of this world. The Bible also asserts that there is One True God.


POWELL:
Did all the Bible writers believe those other gods did not exist or did some of them believe they existed but should not be worshipped?

If there's one true God, Crusader, then why does Genesis begin with a plurality of gods and persons: things like the plural "elohim" = "gods" and "let us. . ."?

If heaven-bound Christians are to be heirs with Christ then why can't they inherit what God and Jesus have, namely godhood?

Mormons seem to think God is able and willing to give more to His heirs than you think God is able and willing to do.

John Powell

[Krusader]

POWELL:
Did all the Bible writers believe those other gods did not exist or did some of them believe they existed but should not be worshipped?

If there's one true God, Crusader, then why does Genesis begin with a plurality of gods and persons: things like the plural "elohim" = "gods" and "let us. . ."?

If heaven-bound Christians are to be heirs with Christ then why can't they inherit what God and Jesus have, namely godhood?

Mormons seem to think God is able and willing to give more to His heirs than you think God is able and willing to do.

John Powell
I would say that the use of the plural in Genesis points to the fact that God is tri-personal in nature. Of course, I know Christians who would disagree.

As Christians, we are joint-heirs with Christ and will rule alongside him in the Millenium. However, humans do not evolve into gods and goddesses, create worlds and people them by celestial sex.

I can think of no better way to spend eternity that worshipping the One who went to the cross for me, and for all who have received Him by faith.

[John Powell]

CRUSADER:
I would say that the use of the plural in Genesis points to the fact that God is tri-personal in nature. Of course, I know Christians who would disagree.

As Christians, we are joint-heirs with Christ and will rule alongside him in the Millenium. However, humans do not evolve into gods and goddesses, create worlds and people them by celestial sex.


POWELL:
I guess that won't happen for you, but you'll just be a celibate angel. Good Mormons, on the other hand, will be gods enjoying an eternal sexual relationship with their spouse/s and having eternal posterity.

CRUSADER:
I can think of no better way to spend eternity that worshipping the One who went to the cross for me, and for all who have received Him by faith.

POWELL:
Right. That's why you'll be an angel, a servant to the gods. That's all you aspire to.

However, just because you don't have higher aspirations than being on the celestial choir is no proof that higher achievement, like godhood, is impossible.

With God's help such things are possible. Don't you agree? Or do you think that's too hard for God?

John Powell

[Krusader]

POWELL:
I guess that won't happen for you, but you'll just be a celibate angel. Good Mormons, on the other hand, will be gods enjoying an eternal sexual relationship with their spouse/s and having eternal posterity.



POWELL:
Right. That's why you'll be an angel, a servant to the gods. That's all you aspire to.

However, just because you don't have higher aspirations than being on the celestial choir is no proof that higher achievement, like godhood, is impossible.

With God's help such things are possible. Don't you agree? Or do you think that's too hard for God?

John Powell
John, since the Lord, Our God, has stated in the Book of Is., that No God was formed before Him, and neither will any God be formed after Him - I'd say I'm on pretty solid ground when I state I will never be a God!

[John Powell]

CRUSADER:
John, since the Lord, Our God, has stated in the Book of Is., that No God was formed before Him, and neither will any God be formed after Him - I'd say I'm on pretty solid ground when I state I will never be a God!


POWELL:
Was that God, the Son or God, the Father who said that? The reason I ask is because wasn't the Father before the Son?

Perhaps you're thinking of scriptures denouncing graven images.

John Powell

[Bill the Cat]

POWELL:

Hi John. Please remember to stick with John Mormon in this area. Thanks. :thumb:

Was that God, the Son or God, the Father who said that? The reason I ask is because wasn't the Father before the Son?

From a Trinitarian position, there is no difference, and according to John Ch 1, the Word was in the beginning with God and was God. The Father and the Son co-exist eternally. Neither was before the other. No other position can reconcile successfully the Isaiah passage and John 1.

Perhaps you're thinking of scriptures denouncing graven images.

John Powell

The graven images represented other "gods" which the Almighty stated did not really exist, and in making such a sweeping statement, excluded all others but Himself. If Jesus were not the same essence as the Father, then John was mistaken in labeling the preincarnate Jesus a god.

PS. Good to talk to you again!!

[Jin-Roh]

POWELL:
It may shock you to find out, Jin-Roh, that an appeal to authority usually does just that.

Powell, MM was playing word games. He was using a different definition of Cult and was ignoring the central issue.

POWELL:
I thought that appeals to dictionary authority didn't refute anything, Jin-Roh? Why the apparent inconsistency?

I appealled to the OED so he could understand clearly what I might and didn't have room to try to equivocate a term.

POWELL:
Good questions.

I'm happy to see some new Mormons participating here. I hope they are treated as respectfully as they should be. Let's welcome them as participants but refute their arguments.

John Powell
A former believer in Mormonism.
Now an agnostic strong atheist.

Thanks again John. Its nice to see the real you as the mediator. :smile:

[John Powell]

Bill the Cat:
Hi John. Please remember to stick with John Mormon in this area. Thanks. :thumb:


POWELL:
Yea. I was thinking as John Mormon even if I didn't put the right tag. I'll do that here.

BILL THE CAT:
From a Trinitarian position, there is no difference, . . .


JOHN MORMON (sort of my former believing self):
Yes there is a difference, Bill. The Father is not the same person as the Son, right?

BILL THE CAT:
. . . and according to John Ch 1, the Word was in the beginning with God and was God.


JOHN MORMON:
And, when was "the beginning" to the writer of John, Bill? Was it about when the Earth was created or was it the very very very beginning when God first existed?

If it was the very very very beginning then why does John focus on the Earth and such things?

BILL THE CAT:
The Father and the Son co-exist eternally. Neither was before the other.


JOHN MORMON:
Mormons likewise believe that the Father and the Son have always existed as something, likewise for the rest of us. The question is whether the Son was always the Son. How could the Son BECOME the Son if He always was the Son?

BILL THE CAT:
No other position can reconcile successfully the Isaiah passage and John 1.


JOHN MORMON:
The Isaiah passage seems to be referring to idol gods for people on Earth. It's not at all clear that Isaiah is referring to all planets and universes and planes of existence.

BILL THE CAT:
The graven images represented other "gods" which the Almighty stated did not really exist, and in making such a sweeping statement, excluded all others but Himself.


JOHN MORMON:
In reference to idol gods of Earth.

BILL THE CAT:
If Jesus were not the same essence as the Father, then John was mistaken in labeling the preincarnate Jesus a god.


JOHN MORMON:
Jesus was the same KIND of essence, but if Jesus was the Father then you have a problem, don't you?

BILL THE CAT:
PS. Good to talk to you again!!


POWELL:
Likewise. I don't plan to stay long, but I wanted to jump in for a little bit. Apologetics 301 is where I belong.

John Powell

[John Powell]

Jin-Roh:
Powell, MM was playing word games. He was using a different definition of Cult and was ignoring the central issue.


JOHN MORMON:
Then that's what you should have said.

Jin-Roh:
I appealled to the OED so he could understand clearly what I might and didn't have room to try to equivocate a term.


JOHN MORMON:
His use of the dictionary would seem to have been for a similar reason.

Jin-Roh:
Thanks again John. Its nice to see the real you as the mediator. :smile:

POWELL:
I'll be gone soon enough. Play rough, but fair with the Mormons.

John Powell

[Krusader]

POWELL:
Was that God, the Son or God, the Father who said that? The reason I ask is because wasn't the Father before the Son?

Perhaps you're thinking of scriptures denouncing graven images.

John Powell

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are co-eternal. There never was a Father without the Son, nor was the Holy Spirit proceeding from them created after, but is likewise, co-eternal.See the Athanasian Creed for further details of Christian belief on the Trinity.

[John Powell]

Crusader:
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are co-eternal. There never was a Father without the Son, nor was the Holy Spirit proceeding from them created after, but is likewise, co-eternal.See the Athanasian Creed for further details of Christian belief on the Trinity.


JOHN MORMON:
Mormons agree they all three existed as SOMETHING eternally. So did all of us as something we call "intelligences." The question has to do with when this entity became God, the Father and that entity became the Son and that other entity became the Holy Ghost.

If Jesus was the Son the same instant that God became God then they picked a bad analogy. Everyone knows that fathers and mothers come first followed by their children.

If God were the trinitarian being you believe in then I think they should have neglected to tell us there were three "persons" until the after life and just speak of one thing, one divine person, serving different roles. For example, instead of speaking of the Father in the clouds, the Holy Spirit in the dove, and the Son in the waters, just speak of God being in each of those places. Dispense with any distinction between the Son and the Father and the Holy Spirit. Jesus, for example, should have encouraged prayer to Himself and when someone referred to Jesus as "good," Jesus should have encouraged them to believe that He, Jesus, was that good rather than implying that some other person was that good.

However, if God is like we Mormons believe then the rationale for the father-son analogy is obvious.

John Powell

[Krusader]

JOHN MORMON:
Mormons agree they all three existed as SOMETHING eternally. So did all of us as something we call "intelligences." The question has to do with when this entity became God, the Father and that entity became the Son and that other entity became the Holy Ghost.

If Jesus was the Son the same instant that God became God then they picked a bad analogy. Everyone knows that fathers and mothers come first followed by their children.

If God were the trinitarian being you believe in then I think they should have neglected to tell us there were three "persons" until the after life and just speak of one thing, one divine person, serving different roles. For example, instead of speaking of the Father in the clouds, the Holy Spirit in the dove, and the Son in the waters, just speak of God being in each of those places. Dispense with any distinction between the Son and the Father and the Holy Spirit. Jesus, for example, should have encouraged prayer to Himself and when someone referred to Jesus as "good," Jesus should have encouraged them to believe that He, Jesus, was that good rather than implying that some other person was that good.

However, if God is like we Mormons believe then the rationale for the father-son analogy is obvious.

John PowellThe Trinity is taught throughout Scripture, from the Old Testament to the New Testament, progressively. I think you should do yourself a big favor and go the the Jews for Jesus website. At one of their presentations I attended, I was really impressed how they demonstrated the doctrine of the Trinity from the Old Testament.

As far as the LDS go, Smith originally was modalistic in his teaching - it later progressed to tri-theisitic, polytheistic, and at last to the deification of man as he evolved to godhood, created his own world, and through celestial sex, created spirit children to people his/her world. These teachings are alien to Christianity and the main bone of contention between Christians and Mormons.

If this is a "restoration" of the Gospel, then where do we find it in the history of the Church?

[ansbible]

Perhaps it is best to compare the doctrines of the organization to the doctrines of the bible.

Mormonism does NOT agree with the gospel of the bible.

Compare Eph 2:8-9 with the book of 2 Nephi

The first says it is not of anything man does except a moment of faith alone in Christ alone + nothing else - so does the rest of the Bible!! Nothing contradicts this if the bible is read honestly in accordance with the normative rules of language, context and logic.

The second says you are saved by grace after all you can do which the latter phrase 'after all you can do' contradicts and is mutually exclusive with grace.

Notice human doing is required. Notice that the word 'grace' is redefined to something it is not.

Hence it does not matter what you term as a cult or not - for it seems to be redefined any way and we end up in a circular tangential argument which ends up accomplishing nothing. On the other hand, it matters according to the bible who is going to be saved unto eternal life and who is not.

Since the Book of Mormon contradicts many of the theologies of a properly read bible we have a problem with Mormonism beginning with the gospel.

[John Powell]

ANSBIBLE:
Perhaps it is best to compare the doctrines of the organization to the doctrines of the bible.

Mormonism does NOT agree with the gospel of the bible.

Compare Eph 2:8-9 with the book of 2 Nephi

The first says it is not of anything man does except a moment of faith alone in Christ alone + nothing else - so does the rest of the Bible!! Nothing contradicts this if the bible is read honestly in accordance with the normative rules of language, context and logic.


JOHN MORMON (my former believing self):
Then you don't think God requires obedience to be saved in heaven? Do you think that people who say "Lord, Lord" get to go to heaven because of their faith regardless of their level of obedience?

ANSBIBLE:
The second says you are saved by grace after all you can do which the latter phrase 'after all you can do' contradicts and is mutually exclusive with grace.


JOHN MORMON:
Was God required to create the Earth or was Jesus required to die for our sins? No. That's part of God's grace. Without it we cannot be saved in the kingdom of heaven. Does God save us to heaven despite our level of obedience? No. That's works. People are judged based on their works. The obedient go to heaven.

If God provides the Earth and the atonement but we are disobedient then we don't get saved. However, even if we were obedient but Jesus had never fulfilled the atonement then we'd all go to hell despite our obedience.

That's basically how I was taught to understand grace and works.

ANSBIBLE:
Notice human doing is required.


JOHN MORMON:
If we humans don't have to do anything then why does God command us to obey?

ANSBIBLE:
Notice that the word 'grace' is redefined to something it is not.


JOHN MORMON:
If you're my friend or family member and I choose to bail you out of a financial problem then that's my grace. I'm not obligated to bail you out. However, if in bailing you out I require that you pay me back a portion of the loan according to a certain schedule then, if you accept my help, you're obligated to obey my instructions. This is how I was taught to understand grace and works where God is the one who has chosen to "bail us out" provided we are obedient to His commandments.

ANSBIBLE:
Hence it does not matter what you term as a cult or not - for it seems to be redefined any way and we end up in a circular tangential argument which ends up accomplishing nothing. On the other hand, it matters according to the bible who is going to be saved unto eternal life and who is not.


JOHN MORMON:
The righteous will be saved unto eternal life. The righteous are those who obey the commandments, including the commandment to believe.

ANSBIBLE:
Since the Book of Mormon contradicts many of the theologies of a properly read bible we have a problem with Mormonism beginning with the gospel.

JOHN MORMON:
Mormons don't think the Book of Mormon contradicts the correct teachings in the Bible.

John Powell
A former believer in Mormonism.
Now an agnostic strong atheist.

[just Johnna]

To Ansbible:

I'm LDS, and seeking continually to be in agreement with the Bible. So far I don't find myself in conflict. So let's talk about grace.

When you read Ephesians, why do you stop at verse 9?
consider verse 10:
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

even if this "created in Christ Jesus" you interpret to mean a point of regeneration and not the createdness of mankind, God is still ordaining that we should walk (do something). We are to trust in him and live. This new life implies action to me. It seems very odd to me that we would awaken to a new life and do nothing.

A moment of faith is a paucity of a Christian life. I would not participate here at TWeb, except that the salvation directions do direct one to join a community. Say a prayer and be done is not what we read in the Bible. And OSAS doesn't capture the entire reality. If it were really all about a binary thing, the Bible would be a lot shorter.

As you yourself know, for you post on the different kinds of salvation.
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=865877&postcount=1
On the other hand, you are quick to condemn requiring vocal confession of faith, considering that a work on your website.

To me, it's more legalistic to isolate the binary point of salvation than to preach faith, repentence, and baptism. What do you get out of this isolated point of regeneration--I trust you Lord, but I won't do what you say? I trust you Lord, but I won't even try? I read that Nephi passage which you are objecting to as "I trust you Lord, and I'll do my utmost."

perhaps you can expand on "contradicts and is mutually exclusive with grace." Is it an insult to God that we follow him? Is it not by reason of use and exercised senses that we discern good from evil? As the grace is irrespective of actions, how could exhortations to live righteously nullify it?

And when you say 2 Nephi, of course you mean not only "after all we can do" but also:
For, for this end was the law given; wherefore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith; yet we keep the law because of the commandments.

We who accept the Book of Mormon as scripture, read it and the Bible according to normative rules of language, context and logic. Your understanding of any verse in the Book of Mormon is enhanced by reading in light of all the others, and in light of the Bible.

And when you read all the Bible in accordance with normative rules of language, context, and logic, you include James. This passage seems much in dialogue with Hebrews 11, does it not? Luther would have liked to throw James out I hear, but James' epistle is still part of the New Testament.


14What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

15If a brother or asister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

16And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

17Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

18Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

19Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

20But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

23And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for brighteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

25Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

26For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also


One thing about being LDS which makes our grace and works situation unclear to you, and possibly at times to ourselves, is we say to understand or have faith in any commandment or aspect of the gospel, it is a good strategy to live it, and understanding or faith will be granted. Acts 17:27

they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us

Also, we believe that although Christ can and certainly does save and reach people in every situation, if we believe it to be appropriate that we work to feed and clothe those in need, or encourage them to live clean lives no matter what their faith state, not only because this is in keeping with the commandments, but also because clarity and freedom help people hear God's call more than when their situation is desperation and ignorance.

We love Christ because he first loved us. That's grace and our response to it. We obey God because his commandment instruct us on receiving him more fully. We seek to be clean so we will hear the guidance of the Holy Spirit, confirmed on us as a constant companion after baptism.

Perhaps it is best to compare the doctrines of the organization to the doctrines of the bible.

Mormonism does NOT agree with the gospel of the bible.

Compare Eph 2:8-9 with the book of 2 Nephi

The first says it is not of anything man does except a moment of faith alone in Christ alone + nothing else - so does the rest of the Bible!! Nothing contradicts this if the bible is read honestly in accordance with the normative rules of language, context and logic.

The second says you are saved by grace after all you can do which the latter phrase 'after all you can do' contradicts and is mutually exclusive with grace.

Notice human doing is required. Notice that the word 'grace' is redefined to something it is not.

Hence it does not matter what you term as a cult or not - for it seems to be redefined any way and we end up in a circular tangential argument which ends up accomplishing nothing. On the other hand, it matters according to the bible who is going to be saved unto eternal life and who is not.

Since the Book of Mormon contradicts many of the theologies of a properly read bible we have a problem with Mormonism beginning with the gospel.

[ansbible]

When you read Ephesians, why do you stop at verse 9?
consider verse 10: For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.


[Basic flaw when reading something is to add all kinds of information from elsewhere. Each passage has it's own message and context and cannot be changed. The context is solely salvation unto eternal life as established, and nothing else re: the word 'saved'. So just because there are other kinds of salvation, does not change what Eph 2:8-9 is referring to.

Eph 2:8-9 says what is says, it cannot be changed.

'For' in v. 10 comes AFTERWARD and means because. It has nothing to do with being saved as a cause of salvation unto eternal life and views the afterward expectation of works, not to be saved but as the purpose of one that has already and permanently been saved. There is no getting around the message of Eph 2:8-9 without being dishonest.

Reading skills and rules must not be ignored or violated to support unwarranted conclusions.

So to repeat: salvation unto eternal life is stipulated clearly in Eph 2:8-9 as via a moment of faith alone in Christ alone + nothing else forever secured as explained. If another book or passage says differently, (and none actually does), this won't change what Eph 2:8-9 says.

--

All of your questions are in the face of what Eph 2:8-9 clearly stipulates as a moment of faith alone in Christ alone + nothing else and you are saved forever. That's what it says. If you have a problem with it, then take it up with the author, not me.

You may think other passages must be looked at in order to modify the stark reality that salvation is by a moment of faith alone in Christ alone, but that reality in Eph 2:8-9 cannot be changed.

Your misinterpretations cannot honestly be used to change what Eph 2:8-9 actually says.

Works have NO play in what it takes to be saved according to hundreds of passages in the Bible, beginning with Eph 2:8-9. Works are expected AFTER one is saved but not to be saved. And that is another subject. Grace means free, no strings, unmerited, via the total mercy of God and nothing of man expected. Case closed. So to say that one must do something to be saved is false via this passage alone. No other passage actually contradicts or adds to this, but that is another thread.

[ansbible]

Ansible, we don't allow back-to-back responses to a single post. You should allow the other person to respond before posting again. If you need to add info to your first post, an "edit" button is available for 45 minutes after you first post. Aftter that, please wait for the other person to respond before posting again.

I combined your second post with your first one above.

Thank you.

[just Johnna]

Basic flaw when reading something is to add all kinds of information from elsewhere. Each passage has it's own message and context and cannot be changed. The context is solely salvation unto eternal life as established, and nothing else re: the word 'saved'. So just because there are other kinds of salvation, does not change what Eph 2:8-9 is referring to.
Eph 2:8-9 says what is says, it cannot be changed.
I'm not changing verse 8 and 9 (could such a thing be possible?) Verse 10 is part of the same passage. NIV paragraphs together verses 1-10.

'For' in v. 10 comes AFTERWARD and means because. It has nothing to do with being saved as a cause of salvation unto eternal life and views the afterward expectation of works, not to be saved but as the purpose of one that has already and permanently been saved. There is no getting around the message of Eph 2:8-9 without being dishonest.

I believe we are saved by grace because of faith. I understand "it is the gift of God" to mean "grace is the gift of God." Is there a linguistic argument against this?

Reading skills and rules must not be ignored or violated to support unwarranted conclusions.agreed. I'm pretty much a direct and sincere person, or I think so anyway. You can form what opinion you will of me from your dealings here.

I don't understand this passage to mean works are irrelevant to salvation. I understand it to mean God grants grace, which saves, through our faith in Jesus Christ.

If we put our faith in Jesus Christ, we will do what he has asked of us in his scriptures. I understand that to mean faith is followed by repentance and baptism. But without the grace of Jesus Christ, there would be no baptism available--we cannot take credit for saving ourselves because we submitted to baptism. The only reason baptism would be effective is because Jesus Christ offers it. This letters to Ephesians clarifies this, if anyone could somehow think that baptism or good deeds means they saved themselves.

So to repeat: salvation unto eternal life is stipulated clearly in Eph 2:8-9 as via a moment of faith alone in Christ alone + nothing else forever secured as explained. If another book or passage says differently, (and none actually does), this won't change what Eph 2:8-9 says.I don't get a moment of faith alone out of this passage. And I also don't get that faith would have no further manifestation.

All of your questions are in the face of what Eph 2:8-9 clearly stipulates as a moment of faith alone in Christ alone + nothing else and you are saved forever. That's what it says. If you have a problem with it, then take it up with the author, not me. I do pray about this passage, but I have come to no different understanding than the one I have.

You may think other passages must be looked at in order to modify the stark reality that salvation is by a moment of faith alone in Christ alone, but that reality in Eph 2:8-9 cannot be changed.I'm not trying to modify Ephesians. Your interpretation seems to go beyond what it said in verse 8 or 9. There is nothing about "a moment."

Your misinterpretations cannot honestly be used to change what Eph 2:8-9 actually says.Ephesians 2:8-9 continues to say what it says, but you and I understand it differently.

Works have NO play in what it takes to be saved according to hundreds of passages in the Bible, beginning with Eph 2:8-9. Works are expected AFTER one is saved but not to be saved. And that is another subject. Grace means free, no strings, unmerited, via the total mercy of God and nothing of man expected. Case closed. So to say that one must do something to be saved is false via this passage alone. No other passage actually contradicts or adds to this, but that is another thread.When I look at the word "grace" I don't get "nothing of man expected." Primarily, faith is expected. My old Strong's may not be the best source, but it defines 5485 "charis" as "graciousness of manner or act...or spiritual; especially the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in life."

I don't understand positing faith in a vacuum. Faith is the beginning of a relationship with God where he saves us, but a relationship that begins and then has no relating is a sort of empty set to me.

[Bill the Cat]

Johnna,

You sound conspicuously not-Mormon to me. However, for we Orthodox Christians, salvation is the ultimate goal and our faith meeting the Grace of God is the target. There are no works to get higher into different levels of heaven, nor a hope of being independent of our Father and running our own world (or universe). Temple rituals are not necessary. Until that is settled, salvation means something entirely different to us

[Sheepdog]

What is an Anti-Mormon?

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Anti: one that is opposed

Mormon: the ancient redactor and compiler of the Book of Mormon presented as divine revelation by Joseph Smith 2 : LATTER-DAY SAINT; especially : a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Put simply, and Anti-Mormon by simply one who is opposed to the the Latter Day Saints or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This obviously does not mean that those who are not Latter Day Saints are Anti-Mormons but its one who actively opposes the LDS faith or its members. If one writes or makes books, videos, pamphets, websites, gives presentations and so forth for the purpose of opposing the LDS faith, the are an Anti-Mormon. It also applies to those who use those sources and then attack the LDS faith as a result of them.

Disagreeing with the LDS faith does not make one an Anti-Mormon. It's how one uses this disagreement that makes a person an Anti-Mormon. A person can disagree with another faith while not actively attacking that faith.

Does this mean i can call you guys antichristians? I know you think you are Christians, but in reality in your proselytizing you do attack many fundamentals of orthodox Christianity.

[just Johnna]

Johnna,
You sound conspicuously not-Mormon to me. Yes, someone here suggested this to me a while back, so I've been looking into why that would be, as I am most definitely a member of my church. Most of my talking to people on the internet is hanging out with other mormons. We have lots to argue about discuss among ourselves. People don't always agree with me, but I'm definitely one of us.

However, for we Orthodox Christians, salvation is the ultimate goal and our faith meeting the Grace of God is the target. There are no works to get higher into different levels of heaven, nor a hope of being independent of our Father and running our own world (or universe). Temple rituals are not necessary. Until that is settled, salvation means something entirely different to usThere is a difference in how we think of heaven, but what I know of what you think of heaven is pretty much rumors.

I have checked into whether my brothers and sisters think exaltation means independent of our Father and found many do, but I do not. If every blessing is to be restored to us in Heaven, that must include being restored to our relation to God as well.

And of course, I think the blessings of the Temple are well worth seeking.

There, do I sound more mormon now?

[just Johnna]

I appeal to the admonition of Paul, everything around:

1 Thessalonians 2:3 (KJV)
For our exhortation was not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile.

(NIV paraphrase)
For the appeal we make does not spring from error or impure motives, nor are we trying to trick you.

If you don't meet this standard, you are anti-Christian. Being anti-Mormon is a form of anti-Christian.

That's my take on it.

Does this mean i can call you guys antichristians? I know you think you are Christians, but in reality in your proselytizing you do attack many fundamentals of orthodox Christianity.

[{Tim}]

(NIV paraphrase)
For the appeal we make does not spring from error or impure motives, nor are we trying to trick you.You call the NIV a paraphrase? :ahem: This is a paraphrase:

1Th 2:3, The Message: "God tested us thoroughly to make sure we were qualified to be trusted with this Message."

And no, I don't really like paraphrases.

If you don't meet this standard, you are anti-Christian. Being anti-Mormon is a form of anti-Christian.

That's my take on it.FWIW, I reckon most -- though probably not all -- of "anti-mormon" apologists are not doing so out of impure motives, but rather a genuine belief that the LDS church is not truly Christian. Insofar as anyone's motivation is out of impure motives or trickery, I agree that it is wrong, but I would argue that "anti-christian" is an incorrect (or at best misleading) description.

.. and that's my take on it. :smile:

Tim

[just Johnna]

You call the NIV a paraphrase? :ahem: This is a paraphrase:

1Th 2:3, The Message: "God tested us thoroughly to make sure we were qualified to be trusted with this Message.":smile: you win.

I'm in a snit about the NIV yesterday, because of Thessalonians 4:1 and its translation on pleasing God.

KJV, which I'm more familiar with, says "...as you have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more." I read that "abound" a reference to two verses previous, "And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love." Notice how "walk" and "please God" are separated by an "and."

cf. NIV 1 Thess 4:1
Living to Please God
Finally, brothers, we instructed you how to live in order to please God, as in fact you are living. Now we ask you and urge you in the Lord Jesus to do this more and more.

"how to live" (walk) and "please God" now causally connected "in order to." Also, helpful addition to text of "Living to Please God."


All this, after my careful mastery of Hebrews 11:6 "without faith it is impossible to please him."

It seems like less of a big deal this morning, as no exhortation in Thessalonians 4 strikes me as aimed at offending God. the "and" word, kai2532, looks like it equates and sometimes narrows focus or emphasizes.

And no, I don't really like paraphrases.

FWIW, I reckon most -- though probably not all -- of "anti-mormon" apologists are not doing so out of impure motives, but rather a genuine belief that the LDS church is not truly Christian. Insofar as anyone's motivation is out of impure motives or trickery, I agree that it is wrong, but I would argue that "anti-christian" is an incorrect (or at best misleading) description.

.. and that's my take on it. :smile:

TimGenuine belief that the LDS do not provide legitimate worship of Jesus Christ could still violate 1 Thessalonians 2:3 and surrounding verses. It's not a license to deceive or trick, or seek glory (verse 6) or be hateful (verse 8). but I did leave you speaking the gospel of God with much contention (verse 2), and that boldly.

That's enough paraphrasing from me for now. :tongue:

[Bill the Cat]

Yes, someone here suggested this to me a while back, so I've been looking into why that would be, as I am most definitely a member of my church. Most of my talking to people on the internet is hanging out with other mormons. We have lots to argue about discuss among ourselves. People don't always agree with me, but I'm definitely one of us.

I think that you example the disparity in the LDS church now. Most members seem to be distancing themselves from the early teachings on salvation. Maybe something that merits investigation?

There is a difference in how we think of heaven, but what I know of what you think of heaven is pretty much rumors.

I'd be glad to discuss it with ya :wink:

I have checked into whether my brothers and sisters think exaltation means independent of our Father and found many do, but I do not. If every blessing is to be restored to us in Heaven, that must include being restored to our relation to God as well.

But that brings up an interesting sidebar. If we are not independent of our Father after we achieve Godhood, then He is not independent of His. This logic brings up some very disturbing conclusions about the nature of the Father.

And of course, I think the blessings of the Temple are well worth seeking.

Worth seeking, perhaps, but is it necessary for you to get higher in heaven or closer to the Father?

There, do I sound more mormon now?

Aw, shux I didn't mean that as an insult. You debate differently than the LDS guys I work with. It's actually refreshing to talk to someone who does more than just spew propaganda

[just Johnna]

I think that you example the disparity in the LDS church now. Most members seem to be distancing themselves from the early teachings on salvation. Maybe something that merits investigation?I would say the church is pluralistic rather than in disparity, and it has a long tradition of being so. And I hope we are always coming to a better understanding of salvation, which is a different way of thinking about it than distancing.

I'd be glad to discuss it with ya :wink:Actually, I would really enjoy that. I've been thinking how to frame a heaven OP in Intro to Theology. I really enjoyed discussing Melchezedek and his priesthood with you.

But that brings up an interesting sidebar. If we are not independent of our Father after we achieve Godhood, then He is not independent of His. This logic brings up some very disturbing conclusions about the nature of the Father.ah, mysteries.
Worth seeking, perhaps, but is it necessary for you to get higher in heaven or closer to the Father?"Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you." :tongue:
Aw, shux I didn't mean that as an insult.thanx, and I didn't take it as an insult, but as a request that I clarify to our unseen audience that I'm not an Evangelical. My interest in areas that overlap isn't meant to be camoflage.
You debate differently than the LDS guys I work with. It's actually refreshing to talk to someone who does more than just spew propagandayes, well I'm earnest and idealistic in a very impractical way, and interested in what people have to say. not counting the spew I've heard before. Will they kick me off T-Web for disavowing debate? :wink:

[Krusader]

To Ansbible:




I'm LDS, and seeking continually to be in agreement with the Bible. So far I don't find myself in conflict. So let's talk about grace.

When you read Ephesians, why do you stop at verse 9?


consider verse 10:For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

even if this "created in Christ Jesus" you interpret to mean a point of regeneration and not the createdness of mankind, God is still ordaining that we should walk (do something). We are to trust in him and live. This new life implies action to me. It seems very odd to me that we would awaken to a new life and do nothing.

A moment of faith is a paucity of a Christian life. I would not participate here at TWeb, except that the salvation directions do direct one to join a community. Say a prayer and be done is not what we read in the Bible. And OSAS doesn't capture the entire reality. If it were really all about a binary thing, the Bible would be a lot shorter.

As you yourself know, for you post on the different kinds of salvation.
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=865877&postcount=1
On the other hand, you are quick to condemn requiring vocal confession of faith, considering that a work on your website.

To me, it's more legalistic to isolate the binary point of salvation than to preach faith, repentence, and baptism. What do you get out of this isolated point of regeneration--I trust you Lord, but I won't do what you say? I trust you Lord, but I won't even try? I read that Nephi passage which you are objecting to as "I trust you Lord, and I'll do my utmost."

perhaps you can expand on "contradicts and is mutually exclusive with grace." Is it an insult to God that we follow him? Is it not by reason of use and exercised senses that we discern good from evil? As the grace is irrespective of actions, how could exhortations to live righteously nullify it?



And when you say 2 Nephi, of course you mean not only "after all we can do" but also:For, for this end was the law given; wherefore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith; yet we keep the law because of the commandments.

We who accept the Book of Mormon as scripture, read it and the Bible according to normative rules of language, context and logic. Your understanding of any verse in the Book of Mormon is enhanced by reading in light of all the others, and in light of the Bible.

And when you read all the Bible in accordance with normative rules of language, context, and logic, you include James. This passage seems much in dialogue with Hebrews 11, does it not? Luther would have liked to throw James out I hear, but James' epistle is still part of the New Testament.




14What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

15If a brother or asister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

16And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

17Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

18Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

19Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

20But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

23And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for brighteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

25Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

26For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also



One thing about being LDS which makes our grace and works situation unclear to you, and possibly at times to ourselves, is we say to understand or have faith in any commandment or aspect of the gospel, it is a good strategy to live it, and understanding or faith will be granted. Acts 17:27


they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us

Also, we believe that although Christ can and certainly does save and reach people in every situation, if we believe it to be appropriate that we work to feed and clothe those in need, or encourage them to live clean lives no matter what their faith state, not only because this is in keeping with the commandments, but also because clarity and freedom help people hear God's call more than when their situation is desperation and ignorance.

We love Christ because he first loved us. That's grace and our response to it. We obey God because his commandment instruct us on receiving him more fully. We seek to be clean so we will hear the guidance of the Holy Spirit, confirmed on us as a constant companion after baptism.

Mormons have no concept of being freely justified by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ apart from any works. Just look at what the Book of Mormon says:

2 Nephi 25:23 states that one is saved by grace after all you can do.

Okay, which Mormon here has actually done ALL they can do? If you're trusting in your own obedience, secret temple rituals, sealings, etc., you have missed the whole point of Christ's death on the cross!

You can bad mouth Luther all you want, but the scales fell from his eyes when he read, "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him." Roman 5:8-9.

Mormons are justified by their works - and this is just plain arrogance on their part (to somehow believe they can perform enough righteous acts to get into some higher heaven - the celestial kingdom).

Remember, for Mormons "salvation" pertains simply to the general resurrection. "Eternal Lives" is reserved for Mormons who, through works of righteousness and secret temple ceremonies, will eventually get to go to the highest heaven (from which we poor evangelicals will be excluded), and begin their evolution toward godhood.)

When discussing anything with Mormons, remember that their vocabulary is tainted by Mormonism: terms such as salvation, eternal life (lives), God, Trinity, etc., have all been redefined according to Smith's teachings.

[ansbible]

[Johanna]
I believe we are saved by grace because of faith. I understand "it is the gift of God" to mean "grace is the gift of God." Is there a linguistic argument against this?

[ansbible]
The passage says the following in accordance with the normative rules of language, context and logic - there can be no deviation from this:

By grace, unmerited favor, God's mercy, no human doing allowed, good or bad, (cf Ro 11:6); you have been completely saved in a moment forever per the perfect participle + present tense, through a moment of faith (feminine) and that (neuter) salvation is NOT OF YOURSELVES (all human activity excluded), salvation is the gift of God, (free, all human activity excluded), not by works (all human activity excluded), even acts of righteousness are excluded, cf. Titus 3:5); lest anyone should baost (absence of any human doing eliminates the possibility of boasting).
For (because of having already been saved forever by faith alone + nothing else stipulated and all human doing excluded) we are NOW God's workmanship set apart to do works - but NOT to be saved or verify salvation because one is already and forever saved as vv. 8-9 so clearly stipulate by a moment of faith alone + nothing else.


[Johanna]
I don't understand this passage to mean works are irrelevant to salvation. I understand it to mean God grants grace, which saves, through our faith in Jesus Christ.

[ansbible]
Works are totally excluded from salvation unto eternal life as clearly shown above. Certainly already saved individuals are required to do good works once they are saved but not to verify or keep their salvation. Other passages deal with the rewards/consequences for being faithful/unfaithful in this requirement - but none indicate that ones salvation is in jeopardy or question if one fails in being faithful. There are severe consequences on the other hand if one does fail to be faithful to the degree of that unfaithfulness. But that is not in view in this passage.

[Johanna]
If we put our faith in Jesus Christ, we will do what he has asked of us in his scriptures.

[ansbible]
There is no passage in Scripture that says that there will be a guaranteed faithfulness of the once saved individual. As a matter of fact, just the opposite is portrayed. But this is not in view in this particular passage and cannot be read into it to promote works in order to be saved. For that is totally excluded, before, during and after one is saved.

[Johanna]
I understand that to mean faith is followed by repentance and baptism. But without the grace of Jesus Christ, there would be no baptism available--we cannot take credit for saving ourselves because we submitted to baptism. The only reason baptism would be effective is because Jesus Christ offers it. This letters to Ephesians clarifies this, if anyone could somehow think that baptism or good deeds means they saved themselves.

[ansbible]
Baptism or any human action whatsover is totally excluded and banned by what Eph 2:8-9 stipulates and many other passages exclude also and even prohibit. Repentant behavior and water baptism is commanded by every new believer, BUT AGAIN, NOT TO BE SAVED. If it is not performed, ones salvation is never in question, but there will be severe consequences however. This is NOT addressed in Eph 2:8-10 however.

[Johanna]
I don't get a moment of faith alone out of this passage. And I also don't get that faith would have no further manifestation.

[ansbible]
The Greek verb tenses Paul used demand it. Faith is the only acceptable stipulation in the passage and it results in being forever saved, hence 'faith alone' is a must if one reads the passage honestly and correctly. There can be no questionning this because that's what the words say.

[Johanna]
I do pray about this passage, but I have come to no different understanding than the one I have.

[ansbible]
I've prayed many times about the passage too and my understanding correctly reflects the words themselves in accordance with the normative rules of language, context and logic. Hence my interpretation stands.

[Johanna]
I'm not trying to modify Ephesians. Your interpretation seems to go beyond what it said in verse 8 or 9. There is nothing about "a moment."

[ansbible]
Perfect tense is all about a moment secured in past time with ongoing results through present moments, i.e., forever.

[Johanna]
When I look at the word "grace" I don't get "nothing of man expected."


[ansbible]
grace is defined as unmerited favor which must of necessity exclude all human effort bad or good, evil or righteous because any of it is meritable.

[Johanna]
Primarily, faith is expected.

[ansbible]
Faith = an acceptance of what is presented as true, that Christ paid the price for ones sins, (chapter 1), is stipulated not just expected. And it is the ONLY thing stipulated in order to be saved, all else EXCLUDED. And it is in a moment's time = perfect participle + present tense. Hence a moment of faith alone in Christ alone + nothing else.

[Johanna]
My old Strong's may not be the best source, but it defines 5485 "charis" as "graciousness of manner or act...or spiritual; especially the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in life."

[ansbible]
Do a search on the internet or any dictionary and you will find grace = charis as unmerited favor. That's easy to understand: unmerited means you cannot do anything in order to receive some kind of merit such as salvation. Hence no human doing can be in view because it will be meritable. God cannot take what you do in account in order to provide salvation to you because He declared it to be given as a free gift by grace. Are you obligated to do something as a result of someone giving you a free gift? Ans. No.

[Johanna]
I don't understand positing faith in a vacuum.

[ansbible]
That's what Eph 2:8-9 stipulates: faith alone + nothing else relative to the reception of salvation unto eternal life. Works are excluded. Works on the other hand are a command of the once saved always saved individual but never in order to verify or keep ones salvation. The consequences of not being faithful in the Christian life are not dealt with here in Eph 2:8-9 but are quite severe, but never jeopardize ones eternal destiny only the quality of it. Other passages can be consulted on that issue:

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/indxr.htm#rewards


[Johanna]
Faith is the beginning of a relationship with God where he saves us, but a relationship that begins and then has no relating is a sort of empty set to me.

[ansbible]
Yes and to me too. But God will have His way with His eternally secure but wayward child.

[Krusader]

I believe the greatest problem in communicating with Mormons is semantics. In LDS theology, ALL are saved by grace, because they are resurrected. This is made possible by Christ's atonement, and no faith is even involved. Resurrection=salvation by grace.

Regeneration is through repentance, faith and baptism by a duly constitued priesthood authority, followed by the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Ghost. When you ask a Mormon about their "born-again" experience, this is what they point to. Most Mormons are baptized at age 8 (for a Christian, this is infant baptism, since most 8 year old children are below the age of accountability), and is a mechanical process, much like what is found in sacramental churches. In this sacramental form of regeneration, there is an aknowledgement that the LDS church is God's instrument on earth.

Exaltation is "eternal lives." This means, that a devout Mormon who has followed all the laws and ordiances of the LDS gospel, kept the Word of Wisdom, been sealed to one's mate in the temple, can be exalted to godhood, and enjoy eternal procreation (of spirit children) through-out eternity. D&C 132 once linked this to plural marriage, but this has since been changed by the Manifesto.

When speaking to Mormons, it is important to understand the distinctive definitions given to Christian terms by LDS theology.

I can sympathize with Mormons who fail to grasp the Christian view of salvation by grace alone, apart from works. When I was in the Episcopal Church, I didn't have a clue how one was "saved," and I didn't even like that term. I must have read Eph. 2:8-9 a million times, and still didn't get it.

However, one evening as I read the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit just opened the meaning of those verses to me - and it was wonderful. I wondered how I had missed it before. But, ultimately, our salvation is in God's Hands, and in His timing. It is the Holy Spirit Who draws us - and looking back, we can see how His "still small voice," worked in our lives over many years, to bring us to a saving knowledge of Christ.