Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Which of the Articles of Faith are Necessary to be a Christian?


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Rivers said:

To many Christians, Mormons fall so far outside the mainstream that we are not part of the Christian family.  We are not Eastern Orthodox; Catholic, or Protestent. We are whole different kind of religion in their eyes.  To use your ice cream analogy, Mormons are not really ice cream.  We are more like gelatto, frozen yogurt, or sherbet.

I would suggest a different construct. I believe Mormons are indeed outside of the mainstream, but a. that doesn't make them not Christians. Obviously if a river has a mainstream there are still many rivulets and currents and streams flowing to and from it. They are still part of the river. I live within 30 feet of a river and I certainly see the effect of the arroyos on its flow. b. I would suggest that for some of us it is the LDS self-concept as exceptional that makes us hesitate. You claim to control our destiny in the eternal life. That is what gives me tremendous pause. No other Christian faith makes claims like the Saints do. That is what is exceptional and is most of all, outside the mainstream. That is what I am struggling with right now. I am surprised that it seems that the Saints have a blind spot to the seriousness of their claims for those of the rest of the Christian family. I have studied LDS history for years and years. I have written, spoken on it in many settings. I have not firmly yet come to the conclusion about LDS claims of onliness and otherness - that they have total control through their priesthood authority over the eternal destiny of the world, but I have firmly come to the conclusion that these claims are what is behind the years of persecution from New York, to Ohio, to Missouri, to Illinois, to Utah. It is what led to MMM, to the Mormon War, and to the need for the Mormons to leave Mexico in 1912, and on and on. In the Johari window sense it is the great Mormon blind spot.

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, Rivers said:

To many Christians, Mormons fall so far outside the mainstream that we are not part of the Christian family.  We are not Eastern Orthodox; Catholic, or Protestent. We are whole different kind of religion in their eyes.  To use your ice cream analogy, Mormons are not really ice cream.  We are more like gelatto, frozen yogurt, or sherbet.

Frozen yogurt and sherbert are healthier than ice cream. Is that what you are tying to say? We are the healthier option - at least for the soul...we are frozen yogurt for the soul, instead of chicken soup of course. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I would suggest a different construct. I believe Mormons are indeed outside of the mainstream, but a. that doesn't make them not Christians. Obviously if a river has a mainstream there are still many rivulets and currents and streams flowing to and from it. They are still part of the river. I live within 30 feet of a river and I certainly see the effect of the arroyos on its flow. b. I would suggest that for some of us it is the LDS self-concept as exceptional that makes us hesitate. You claim to control our destiny in the eternal life. That is what gives me tremendous pause. No other Christian faith makes claims like the Saints do. That is what is exceptional and is most of all, outside the mainstream. That is what I am struggling with right now. I am surprised that it seems that the Saints have a blind spot to the seriousness of their claims for those of the rest of the Christian family. I have studied LDS history for years and years. I have written, spoken on it in many settings. I have not firmly yet come to the conclusion about LDS claims of onliness and otherness - that they have total control through their priesthood authority over the eternal destiny of the world, but I have firmly come to the conclusion that these claims are what is behind the years of persecution from New York, to Ohio, to Missouri, to Illinois, to Utah. It is what led to MMM, to the Mormon War, and to the need for the Mormons to leave Mexico in 1912, and on and on. In the Johari window sense it is the great Mormon blind spot.

Phil, you just might have to rewrite that book of yours. I'm not sure how you could have studied the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS so long and come to these conclusions. We don't claim to control the destiny of anyone. We cannot control whether someone goes to hell or not. Nor can we control whether they stay in hell. The ordinance of baptism for the dead  can offer a chance to a spirit in hell to accept Christ fully and completely, and offer him a way out of hell - at least by the time of the last judgment when hell shall give up the dead for the final judgment. We don't control that though. It is up to the spirit of those individuals as to whether to accept the gospel or not - just like here on earth. Please don't go telling the world that we believe we control the eternal destinies of everybody. We just don't. Ultimately, Yeshua and they control their own destinies.

As for the claims of LDS priesthood authority being the cause of our past persecution, I would have to deny that as well. If one looks back through the historical material, one just doesn't find this issue to be of much, if any relevance. First of all, when in Kirtland, the Church was not doing baptisms for the dead nor sealings nor any vicarious work for the dead. Yet, the saints were still persecuted and driven out, and the Kirtland temple desecrated. It seems monetary losses occurring during a general banking failure were the last straw in that exodus. Nor were vicarious ordinances the cause of the unrest in Missouri from 1831 util its culmination in 1839, since no vicarious ordinances were practiced by the Church at that time either. The Church at that time was made up of New Englanders, and the people of Missouri had moved there to get away from New England life. They did not educate their children in schools, and Sunday rooster fights were popular. The saints often spoke of a sacred inheritance to the land, and were moving in in large numbers. They only traded amongst themselves, and began to vote in blocks. All these things became threats to the local way of life. Further, the saints were slavery abolutionists, and the locals began to fear they would vote out the right to hold slaves as well. Later in Nauvoo, it seems the printing press revealed the main cause of the unrest to be the practice of plural marriage, and the related destruction of a local printing press.

The MMM was brought about by the desire of the Federal government to put an end to plural marriage. Congress passed a law against it, and sent agents to enforce the law. Then when it sent troops, the Utah territory became on edge. In the end the innocent passersby who fell victim in the MMM were the result of incorrect suspicions, and anger in the unjust murder of LDS missionaries in the same state from which the victims came. It had nothing to do with vicarious work for the dead. 

Edited by RevTestament
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Phil, you just might have to rewrite that book of yours. I'm not sure how you could have studied the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS so long and come to these conclusions. We don't claim to control the destiny of anyone. We cannot control whether someone goes to hell or not. Nor can we control whether they stay in hell. The ordinance of baptism for the dead  can offer a chance to a spirit in hell to accept Christ fully and completely, and offer him a way out of hell - at least by the time of the last judgment when hell shall give up the dead for the final judgment. We don't control that though. It is up to the spirit of those individuals as to whether to accept the gospel or not - just like here on earth. Please don't go telling the world that we believe we control the eternal destinies of everybody. We just don't. Ultimately, Yeshua and they control their own destinies.

As for the claims of LDS priesthood authority being the cause of our past persecution, I would have to deny that as well. If one looks back through the historical material, one just doesn't find this issue to be of much, if any relevance. First of all, when in Kirtland, the Church was not doing baptisms for the dead nor sealings nor any vicarious work for the dead. Yet, the saints were still persecuted and driven out, and the Kirtland temple desecrated. It seems monetary losses occurring during a general banking failure were the last straw in that exodus. Nor were vicarious ordinances the cause of the unrest in Missouri from 1831 util its culmination in 1839, since no vicarious ordinances were practiced by the Church at that time either. The Church at that time was made up of New Englanders, and the people of Missouri had moved there to get away from New England life. They did not educate their children in schools, and Sunday **** fights were popular. The saints often spoke of a sacred inheritance to the land, and were moving in in large numbers. They only traded amongst themselves, and began to vote in blocks. All these things became threats to the local way of life. Further, the saints were slavery abolutionists, and the locals began to fear they would vote out the right to hold slaves as well. Later in Nauvoo, it seems the printing press revealed the main cause of the unrest to be the practice of plural marriage, and the related destruction of a local printing press.

The MMM was brought about by the desire of the Federal government to put an end to plural marriage. Congress passed a law against it, and sent agents to enforce the law. Then when it sent troops, the Utah territory became on edge. In the end the innocent passersby who fell victim in the MMM were the result of incorrect suspicions, and anger in the unjust murder of LDS missionaries in the same state from which the victims came. It had nothing to do with vicarious work for the dead. 

As I read so often on this board, we will just have to agree to disagree about the persecutions. I respectfully believe your answer reveals a blind spot. I respect you a lot. So please answer just one question for me - Can a non-Mormon believer in Christ ascend to the third level of the celestial kingdom where God the Father and Christ will dwell for eternity, absent the acceptance of the signs, passwords, sealings, baptism, endowments, etc. of the LDS Church, either in this life or in the spirit world? If your answer is no, then the LDS controls the eternal life of everyone, regardless of how you protest it doesn't.  If yes, then the Church needs to stop teaching that the LDS baptism, ordinances, signs, sealings, etc. are essential for eternal life (in a Mormon sense) (I hear it every week in testimonies). I even, in Elders Quorum had some senior men explain the difference between immortality and eternal life. They were quite clear we all have the former, but only a faithful Mormon (in this life or the next) has the latter. Do you disagree?

 

 

Link to comment
16 hours ago, Navidad said:

...Many Mormons like to simply deny the existence of the trinity in the Bible, so therefore they force any such belief on a belief in Athanasius. They triumphantly state that the word trinity is nowhere in the Bible. Sigh!  I, in addition happen to believe that the trinity is present in the 1830 original translation of The Book of Mormon prior to the "son of God" edits. Certainly Sidney Rigdon was a trinitarian as might have been Joseph Smith in the beginning. I haven't brought any of that up on this forum because it is not my purpose for being here. I am a Trinitarian who recognizes that a belief in the Trinity comes in many forms. I am happy and capable of discourse with @Truth2Tell on that issue. Please don't take what she said and now say, Protestants say the trinity is a rule and a hoop. That is her opinion. ... Phil

Phil, the issue LDS Christians have with the trinity stem from its origins and usage. However, you will find some general authorities using the word with respect to the Godhead. Nevertheless, the word came about in Church theology mostly  after the development of the creeds, and so the creeds are associated with the word. I believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I also believe they are one Elohim. If you want to call that a trinity, I am OK with that. But, historically the creeds attached much more to that word, which became the Doctrine of the Trinity. That is why LDS shy from the word. Can you say scripturally that the Holy Spirit is YHWH? If so, please point that out to me. I can find where Yeshua is Elohim and YHWH as well, and I believe together the Father and Son are YWHW Elohim. But I don't think you will find anything conclusive about the Holy Spirit that way. There are several reasons I reject the creeds, and the creedal concept of the Trinity. I do not believe Yeshua was begotten before all aeon/ages/worlds. Further, I do not believe He will be the Son forevermore. I believe His inheritance is to be the Father. Frankly, the doctrine of the trinity denies this inheritance to Him. Lastly, I don't believe He is the same substance as the Father, whatever that means. In all of scripture, He is a separate personage with a separate will which He conforms to that of the Father. The problems LDS Christians have are not really with the word Trinity, but with the other creedal baggage the word carries with it. As you point out the Book of Mormon says the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one "God" which I would translate into one Elohim for scriptural purposes. That simply does not make LDS Trinitarians, because we don't believe all the other historical stuff generally associated with that name, so we generally do not use it. If we did, Protestants and Catholics would certainly claim that we are trying to mislead people. The simple truth is we simply do not share all the traditionally trinitarian beliefs about the nature of God. So although I consider myself Christian, I do not consider myself Trinitarian, and have no desire to present myself that way to those searching for truth. However, if individual LDS want to say they believe in the Trinity, I am not going to say we need to excommunicate them or anything like that.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Navidad said:

You claim to control our destiny in the eternal life. That is what gives me tremendous pause. No other Christian faith makes claims like the Saints do. That is what is exceptional and is most of all, outside the mainstream.

I don't think that belief is that far outside the mainstream at all.  For example, the Catholic church (about as mainstream as it gets) claims to hold the authority to dictate which baptisms are acceptable to God, and which are not.  So, in a very real sense, they claim to control my destiny by the authority they hold.  Anyone who believes/teaches contrary to the doctrine of the trinity is a heretic - such as Arianism.  The church has always had some control over qualifications for salvation, and hence our "destiny" (I don't like that word) in eternal life.  Jehovah's witness also makes this claim, so we are certainly not the only ones. 

In fact, I would argue that of all the Christian faiths, the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS is one of the most universalist out there, in terms of salvation.  We have absolutely zero control over who is saved and who is not.  One does not require the priesthood ordinances to be saved, and almost all will be saved (unlike most Christian faiths where only Christians will be saved - talk about controlling eternal life!).  The ordinances are only required for exaltation, but most Christian faiths don't believe in exaltation as we do, so you can't really parallel it to other faiths.  Heaven to other Christian faiths is probably most akin to the terrestrial kingdom - no ordinances required. 

Not to mention, the priesthood ordinances will be performed for all.  So, we don't really get a say in anything - we don't control anyone - but we do serve everyone. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Navidad said:

As I read so often on this board, we will just have to agree to disagree about the persecutions. I respectfully believe your answer reveals a blind spot. I respect you a lot. So please answer just one question for me - Can a non-Mormon believer in Christ ascend to the third level of the celestial kingdom where God the Father and Christ will dwell for eternity, absent the acceptance of the signs, passwords, sealings, baptism, endowments, etc. of the LDS Church, either in this life or in the spirit world? If your answer is no, then the LDS controls the eternal life of everyone, regardless of how you protest it doesn't.  If yes, then the Church needs to stop teaching that the LDS baptism, ordinances, signs, sealings, etc. are essential for eternal life (in a Mormon sense) (I hear it every week in testimonies). I even, in Elders Quorum had some senior men explain the difference between immortality and eternal life. They were quite clear we all have the former, but only a faithful Mormon (in this life or the next) has the latter. Do you disagree?

Yes. To be quite frank I do. I would say for the most part we will have immortality. I believe the sons of perdition will lose their bodies, their immortality and their eternal life, and will become subject to Satan at that time. This probably conflicts with some statement of some GA somewhere, but I believe is the most consistent with scriptures in D&C. As for your fist question: Will an LDS need the signs and passwords learned in the temple to reach the highest level of the celestial kingdom? I think not. I believe those to be symbolic for things of Revelation, much like the temple itself being symbolic for things of heaven. So they are quite holy in what they teach, but I don't believe them to be literal if that makes sense. Everything about the Hebrew temple was to teach them things like order of Heaven and the nature of God, yet, most do not get that. Our modern temples are similar. Because we covenant not to reveal certain things of the temple, I hesitate to discuss this further, however.  But to be frank with you, yes, in order to enter the highest level of the Celestial kingdom, one must accept the priesthood. In other words the two witnesses of Rev 11 still to come will be LDS Christians for YHWH will not speak through unholy vessels who do not accept His words. I do believe LDS baptism is essential for eternal life, but personally, I am not sure if those in the telestial kingdom for example have eternal life. They are saved. Meaning they will be saved from Hell after the time of their punishment is completed. I know of no scriptural promise of eternal life to them. I am not saying they won't have eternal life. I admit I am unsure. The scriptures teach baptism because the Lord wishes all who will to have eternal life. I also believe my answer is not the typical answer you will receive from LDS.

Edited by RevTestament
Link to comment
40 minutes ago, Navidad said:

As I read so often on this board, we will just have to agree to disagree about the persecutions. I respectfully believe your answer reveals a blind spot. I respect you a lot. So please answer just one question for me - Can a non-Mormon believer in Christ ascend to the third level of the celestial kingdom where God the Father and Christ will dwell for eternity, absent the acceptance of the signs, passwords, sealings, baptism, endowments, etc. of the LDS Church, either in this life or in the spirit world? If your answer is no, then the LDS controls the eternal life of everyone, regardless of how you protest it doesn't.  If yes, then the Church needs to stop teaching that the LDS baptism, ordinances, signs, sealings, etc. are essential for eternal life (in a Mormon sense) (I hear it every week in testimonies). I even, in Elders Quorum had some senior men explain the difference between immortality and eternal life. They were quite clear we all have the former, but only a faithful Mormon (in this life or the next) has the latter. Do you disagree?

As I mentioned in my last post, the rest of the Christian world doesn't believe in "eternal life/exaltation" like we do, so you can't really compare the two.  Their view of heaven is probably more akin to the terrestrial kingdom where no ordinances are required. Exaltation in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ is a step beyond what most Christians believe. 

In response to the bold section - I prefer the word "facilitate" over "control".  We don't claim to make the rules.  It is more accurate to say that we facilitate exaltation, rather than control it.  Control implies that we have a say one way or another if a person receives exaltation - we don't.  The ordinances do not guarantee exaltation.  

Here is a good analogy - imagine that there was a free concert that you really want to attend.  It is 100% percent free but there is a dress code that is required and you have to obtain tickets through a specific vendor.  So, it is entirely fee but a ticket is still required.  The thing is that there is room to accommodate everyone on earth in this concert, and a ticket is available for literally every person on earth, all you have to do is come pick it up.  If you don't want it, you don't have to go.  If you do want it, great, come pick it up, but you still have to meet the dress code requirements or you will be turned away, even with ticket in hand.   It is not the vendor who made the rules, it is the Maestro of the concert who made the rules and gave authority to this specific vendor to distribute the tickets.  This vendor literally goes door to door offering tickets to all who want one.  The Maestro insists that every person on earth is offered a ticket before doors open.  Would you protest and accuse this vendor who goes out of their way to make sure a ticket is offered to every person on earth of "controlling" entrance into this concert?  No, no, no, it is all in the hands of the Maestro.  The vendor was simply hired to facilitate the process.  You can complain, "well, if it is free, why do I need a ticket!?"  To which I can only reply, "take it up with the Maestro, not the vendor."

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Phil, the issue LDS Christians have with the trinity stem from its origins and usage. However, you will find some general authorities using the word with respect to the Godhead. Nevertheless, the word came about in Church theology mostly  after the development of the creeds, and so the creeds are associated with the word. I believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I also believe they are one Elohim. If you want to call that a trinity, I am OK with that. But, historically the creeds attached much more to that word, which became the Doctrine of the Trinity. That is why LDS shy from the word. Can you say scripturally that the Holy Spirit is YHWH? If so, please point that out to me. I can find where Yeshua is Elohim and YHWH as well, and I believe together the Father and Son are YWHW Elohim. But I don't think you will find anything conclusive about the Holy Spirit that way. There are several reasons I reject the creeds, and the creedal concept of the Trinity. I do not believe Yeshua was begotten before all aeon/ages/worlds. Further, I do not believe He will be the Son forevermore. I believe His inheritance is to be the Father. Frankly, the doctrine of the trinity denies this inheritance to Him. Lastly, I don't believe He is the same substance as the Father, whatever that means. In all of scripture, He is a separate personage with a separate will which He conforms to that of the Father. The problems LDS Christians have are not really with the word Trinity, but with the other creedal baggage the word carries with it. As you point out the Book of Mormon says the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one "God" which I would translate into one Elohim for scriptural purposes. That simply does not make LDS Trinitarians, because we don't believe all the other historical stuff generally associated with that name, so we generally do not use it. If we did, Protestants and Catholics would certainly claim that we are trying to mislead people. The simple truth is we simply do not share all the traditionally trinitarian beliefs about the nature of God. So although I consider myself Christian, I do not consider myself Trinitarian, and have no desire to present myself that way to those searching for truth. However, if individual LDS want to say they believe in the Trinity, I am not going to say we need to excommunicate them or anything like that.

Hi Rev: I understand and agree with everything you say except that the Trinity is mostly wrapped up in the creeds. Once again, without malice aforethought it is beyond me where the Saints got such an obsession with the creeds. I guess it goes back to the first vision. I, for one, have never thought or taught (hey, now I'm a poet) of the trinity in connection with a creed. In all my years of teaching the psychology and theology, I don't believe I have ever once referred to a creedal. My very rough guesstimate is that 90% of evangelicals are non-Creedal, and certainly a majority of Protestants are not. I guess to be honest, I don't reject the creeds; they are just completely irrelevant to me. Both Mennonites and Baptists have statements of faith, sometimes called "Confessions" but they are far from creeds as I understand them. If I implied that Saints were trinitarian in the sense you are using, I didn't mean to. However, Robinson does strongly refute LDS critics by stating unequivocally that Mormons believe in one God in three persons with three different purposes. Except for the old oousias question, that sounds pretty Trinitarian; I think that was his point.

 

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't think that belief is that far outside the mainstream at all.  For example, the Catholic church (about as mainstream as it gets) claims to hold the authority to dictate which baptisms are acceptable to God, and which are not.  So, in a very real sense, they claim to control my destiny by the authority they hold.  Anyone who believes/teaches contrary to the doctrine of the trinity is a heretic - such as Arianism.  The church has always had some control over qualifications for salvation, and hence our "destiny" (I don't like that word) in eternal life.  Jehovah's witness also makes this claim, so we are certainly not the only ones. 

In fact, I would argue that of all the Christian faiths, the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS is one of the most universalist out there, in terms of salvation.  We have absolutely zero control over who is saved and who is not.  One does not require the priesthood ordinances to be saved, and almost all will be saved (unlike most Christian faiths where only Christians will be saved - talk about controlling eternal life!).  The ordinances are only required for exaltation, but most Christian faiths don't believe in exaltation as we do, so you can't really parallel it to other faiths.  Heaven to other Christian faiths is probably most akin to the terrestrial kingdom - no ordinances required. 

Not to mention, the priesthood ordinances will be performed for all.  So, we don't really get a say in anything - we don't control anyone - but we do serve everyone. 

I don't quite agree (not that it matters). The Catholics do not say which baptisms are acceptable to God; they say which are acceptable to the Church. Big difference. Our village Catholic priest comes to our home regularly. He accepts us as equally fellow Christians knowing we haven't been baptized Catholic. There are many trinitarian concepts out there. The Protestant Church does have some qualifications for eternal life; but they are not the form or manner or agent of baptism. The LDS make a distinction between immortality and eternal life. That is unique. In terms of salvation, I agree that the saints are very generous. I agree you don't control who is saved. You control who goes where and who lives forever in eternal life - with God the Father and the Son. That is unique to Mormons and in effect controls the most important aspect of salvation. So, you are right again, as long as I stick with my faith's concept of heaven, I will dwell with the Father and the Son. But you believe, that is an incorrect belief, don't you? You believe that is wrong. If you are correct in that, that is a huge deal.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Navidad said:

As I read so often on this board, we will just have to agree to disagree about the persecutions. I respectfully believe your answer reveals a blind spot. I respect you a lot. So please answer just one question for me - Can a non-Mormon believer in Christ ascend to the third level of the celestial kingdom where God the Father and Christ will dwell for eternity, absent the acceptance of the signs, passwords, sealings, baptism, endowments, etc. of the LDS Church, either in this life or in the spirit world? If your answer is no, then the LDS controls the eternal life of everyone, regardless of how you protest it doesn't.  If yes, then the Church needs to stop teaching that the LDS baptism, ordinances, signs, sealings, etc. are essential for eternal life (in a Mormon sense) (I hear it every week in testimonies). I even, in Elders Quorum had some senior men explain the difference between immortality and eternal life. They were quite clear we all have the former, but only a faithful Mormon (in this life or the next) has the latter. Do you disagree?

 

 

It is Christ, not the Church who determines what is required in our belief. The Church acts on his Authority, which he can remove or give as he wishes.

And in the next life, all who have been taught the Gospel and fully accepted in the past, present, and future will become part of God's Church of the Firstborn.  Christ's vehicle for authorized ordinances in the day is merely a subset of a much larger organization.

In the Millenium when most ordinances are likely to be performed given records are lacking for so many, Christ will be present directing his work.

Any exclusivity or exceptionalism comes through our belief that it is Christ at the helm, not our prophets.  They and us are only Christ's servants.

Others may be Christ's servants in ways we are not able to be, imo.  It is possible other faiths have been appointed other work in my view, but that does not remove the current obligation Christ has put on our current Church to see that ordinances he requires are performed correctly.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi Rev: I understand and agree with everything you say except that the Trinity is mostly wrapped up in the creeds. Once again, without malice aforethought it is beyond me where the Saints got such an obsession with the creeds. I guess it goes back to the first vision. I, for one, have never thought or taught (hey, now I'm a poet) of the trinity in connection with a creed. In all my years of teaching the psychology and theology, I don't believe I have ever once referred to a creedal. My very rough guesstimate is that 90% of evangelicals are non-Creedal, and certainly a majority of Protestants are not. I guess to be honest, I don't reject the creeds; they are just completely irrelevant to me. Both Mennonites and Baptists have statements of faith, sometimes called "Confessions" but they are far from creeds as I understand them. If I implied that Saints were trinitarian in the sense you are using, I didn't mean to. However, Robinson does strongly refute LDS critics by stating unequivocally that Mormons believe in one God in three persons with three different purposes. Except for the old oousias question, that sounds pretty Trinitarian; I think that was his point.

Well, obviously times have changed. As a baptist I think we read a creed once or twice a year when taking grape juice and bread - but that probably depended on the pastor. I know Presbyterians, Methodists and Lutherans still recite creeds. Before the reformation you would have found the creeds an essential part of the service in almost all remaining churches. So, again I am speaking from an historical perspective and where the use of the word "Trinity" came from and how it was used. However, if you wish to use it, I certainly will not begrudge you.  As I have said, I have no desire to use it, because I prefer scriptural concepts about the nature of God, and that word nor many concepts attached to it are scriptural. I feel it is misleading. 

Edited by RevTestament
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Navidad said:

The Catholics do not say which baptisms are acceptable to God; they say which are acceptable to the Church. Big difference

Actually, the Catholic Church says which are acceptable to God, because the Catholic Church claims the authority to speak for God. Now, people can and do dispute whether or not the Catholic Church actually has the authority, but the Catholic Church certainly claims it.

Link to comment
Quote

e Trinity is mostly wrapped up in the creeds. Once again, without malice aforethought it is beyond me where the Saints got such an obsession with the creeds

The vast majority of Christian critics I have encountered have centered their criticism and rejection of us as Christians around our rejection of the Creeds.  If other Saints encounter the same type of criticism, it is possible this is why so many focus on the creeds as the primary issue.

My perception is that it is our belief that we are literally part of God's eternal family, removing the gap between creator and creature that is the fundamental difference, which is viewed by many as blasphemy.  

The creeds have become the tool of many in my experience to demonstrate this, to perhaps easily give a sense of authority to their reasoning, perhaps because they hear or read others using that approach.

Most Saints would probably understand a "confession of faith" (defined as "a statement setting out essential religious doctrine") as a creed (definition of creed:  "a formal statement of Christian beliefs, especially the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed") and when they hear of Saints being refused participation in Christian groups because there are disagreements with the group's confession of faith, they interpret that as a creed being used to draw boundaries.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
32 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Yes. To be quite frank I do. I would say for the most part we will have immortality. I believe the sons of perdition will lose their bodies, their immortality and their eternal life, and will become subject to Satan at that time. This probably conflicts with some statement of some GA somewhere, but I believe is the most consistent with scriptures in D&C. As for your fist question: Will an LDS need the signs and passwords learned in the temple to reach the highest level of the celestial kingdom? I think not. I believe those to be symbolic for things of Revelation, much like the temple itself being symbolic for things of heaven. So they are quite holy in what they teach, but I don't believe them to be literal if that makes sense. Everything about the Hebrew temple was to teach them things like order of Heaven and the nature of God, yet, most do not get that. Our modern temples are similar. Because we covenant not to reveal certain things of the temple, I hesitate to discuss this further, however.  But to be frank with you, yes, in order to enter the highest level of the Celestial kingdom, one must accept the priesthood. In other words the two witnesses of Rev 11 still to come will be LDS Christians for YHWH will not speak through unholy vessels who do not accept His words. I do believe LDS baptism is essential for eternal life, but personally, I am not sure if so those in the telestial kingdom for example have eternal life. They are saved. Meaning they will be saved from Hell after the time of their punishment is completed. I know of no scriptural promise of eternal life to them. I am not saying they won't have eternal life. I admit I am unsure. The scriptures teach baptism because the Lord wishes all who will to have eternal life. I also believe my answer is not the typical answer you will receive from LDS.

Thanks for your answer. I have to mull on that for a while. I have never heard a metaphorical interpretation before. Eternal life is one of those concepts where you need someone who is bilingual. I have learned that eternal life to a Saint is very different than it is to an evangelical. It is all confusing. Mormons represent about one half of one percent of the Christian population of the world. It is staggering to me that God would reveal special things to that one half of one percent and ignore the other 99.4% of those who call him Abba. I appreciate your answer; it is helpful and affirms once again that Mormonism is not a monolithic group. Oh and a recent Pew data point is: While nearly all Mormons consider themselves Christian (97%), only about half (51%) of U.S. adults say Mormonism is a Christian religion, according to a 2012 Pew Research Center report. At least now more than half of the US population consider Mormonism to be a Christian religion. That number is rising! Add me to that number!

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Actually, the Catholic Church says which are acceptable to God, because the Catholic Church claims the authority to speak for God. Now, people can and do dispute whether or not the Catholic Church actually has the authority, but the Catholic Church certainly claims it.

Hi: Let me clarify. Does the Catholic Church deny dwelling forever in the presence of God to everyone who has not been baptized Catholic?

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Navidad said:

The Catholics do not say which baptisms are acceptable to God; they say which are acceptable to the Church. Big difference. 

It really is not that big of a difference as far as I can tell.

"Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus."

"Outside the Church there is no salvation."

Quote

"Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.

Our beliefs are really not that different.  

Quote

Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12)

This could be said in any sacrament meeting in any Church of Jesus Christ of LDS, and no one would blink an eye.  It is identical to what we believe.  The only difference is that we can say how other's are (or can become) members of the church - the key is in ordinances for the dead.  You see, the catholic church does claim to control salvation, they just can't explain how - it is a mystery to them, but they still claim control.  It is not a mystery to us, due to modern revelation. 

32 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You control who goes where and who lives forever in eternal life - with God the Father and the Son. That is unique to Mormons and in effect controls the most important aspect of salvation.

We do not "control" who goes where and who lives forever in eternal life.  That is up to the final judge. We simply administer the ordinances.  To say that we administer the ordinances of salvation is very different from saying that we control who goes where.  You have your agency, and God is the final judge.  We simply hand out the tickets for entry - we have no control in anything.   

Link to comment

You see, the catholic church does claim to control salvation, they just can't explain how - it is a mystery to them, but they still claim control.“

What do you mean by mystery?  Seems pretty clear to me that the belief is God gave Peter the authority and through him the Church (MN, if I have explained that incorrectly, please correct me)

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Calm said:

The vast majority of Christian critics I have encountered have centered their criticism and rejection of us as Christians around our rejection of the Creeds.  If other Saints encounter the same type of criticism, it is possible this is why so many focus on the creeds as the primary issue.

My perception is that it is our belief that we are literally part of God's eternal family, removing the gap between creator and creature that is the fundamental difference, which is viewed by many as blasphemy.  

The creeds have become the tool of many in my experience to demonstrate this, to perhaps easily give a sense of authority to their reasoning, perhaps because they hear or read others using that approach.

Most Saints would probably understand a "confession of faith" (defined as "a statement setting out essential religious doctrine") as a creed (definition of creed:  "a formal statement of Christian beliefs, especially the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed") and when they hear of Saints being refused participation in Christian groups because there are disagreements with the group's confession of faith, they interpret that as a creed being used to draw boundaries.

I certainly will not dispute your experience. I am just wondering if that might be your interpretation of their criticism? This is what confuses me -- The vast vast majority of those Christians who would reject Mormonism out of hand are those Christians who are not creedal. The mainstream Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Reformed, etc. are a shrinking percentage of Protestantism. Only they are the creedalist and for the most part I have not seen any anti-Mormon literature or thought coming from any of them. There are ten times more Southern Baptists (not all Baptists, just Southern) than there are all those groups I mentioned. I don't think there are many mainstream Catholics and Orthodox folks standing outside LDS pageants protesting. I may be wrong . . . I have never been out there protesting. 😊 All the fastest growing Protestant groups are not creedal, but are conservative. I am simply trying to put all that together in my mind.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Calm said:

You see, the catholic church does claim to control salvation, they just can't explain how - it is a mystery to them, but they still claim control.“

What do you mean by mystery?  Seems pretty clear to me that the belief is God gave Peter the authority and through him the Church (MN, if I have explained that incorrectly, please correct me)

I could have better explained myself.  Hopefully this helps - It is a mystery in this sense:

Quote

If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.

Membership is required for salvation in Catholicism, but in what sense a person can be a member of the Church is a mystery to them.  There is no such mystery in our church due to the doctrine and practice of proxy ordinances.  

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, pogi said:

It really is not that big of a difference as far as I can tell.

"Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus."

"Outside the Church there is no salvation."

Our beliefs are really not that different.  

This could be said in any sacrament meeting in any Church of Jesus Christ of LDS, and no one would blink an eye.  It is identical to what we believe.  The only difference is that we can say how other's are (or can become) members of the church - the key is in ordinances for the dead.  You see, the catholic church does claim to control salvation, they just can't explain how - it is a mystery to them, but they still claim control.  It is not a mystery to us, due to modern revelation. 

We do not "control" who goes where and who lives forever in eternal life.  That is up to the final judge. We simply administer the ordinances.  To say that we administer the ordinances of salvation is very different from saying that we control who goes where.  You have your agency, and God is the final judge.  We simply hand out the tickets for entry - we have no control in anything.   

I find your answers confusing, but that probably is my problem, not yours! Let me ask a simple question - Is it possible in your view for non-Mormons to dwell in eternal life forever with God the Heavenly Father and the Son with no assistance whatsoever from any Mormon endowment, baptism, sealing, or ordinance in this or the spirit world? If the answer is no, I believe you are saying those are God's rules not yours. You just administer them, you didn't create them, right? God has picked Mormons to be his gatekeepers and ticket agents for all of Christianity, is that correct? Not one single Mennonite will sneak in without a Mormon punching his ticket? Have I correctly understood your posts. I don't mean the punching the ticket thing to be snarky; I am trying to pin you down, because this is important to me.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you talking about Baptism of Desire?

Sorry, I guess I don't know the difference. If I walk down the street right now to Padre Arnulfo, is he going to say I have no shot at heaven until I accept a Roman Catholic ordinance of baptism? From my discussions with him I do not think that is the case. Am I wrong?

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I find your answers confusing, but that probably is my problem, not yours! Let me ask a simple question - Is it possible in your view for non-Mormons to dwell in eternal life forever with God the Heavenly Father and the Son with no assistance whatsoever from any Mormon endowment, baptism, sealing, or ordinance in this or the spirit world? If the answer is no, I believe you are saying those are God's rules not yours. You just administer them, you didn't create them, right? God has picked Mormons to be his gatekeepers and ticket agents for all of Christianity, is that correct? Not one single Mennonite will sneak in without a Mormon punching his ticket? Have I correctly understood your posts. I don't mean the punching the ticket thing to be snarky; I am trying to pin you down, because this is important to me.

It is more accurate to say that it is required to receive the ordinances from one who has been given authority to administer those ordinances.  John the Baptist was not a Mormon.  Baptisms for the dead is a biblical practice not performed by Mormons.  But yes, the priesthood authority of administration has always been required.  No person can be exalted without having the ordinances administered to them by one who holds authority.  It must be noted that the ordinances will be performed for everyone who has ever lived and died on earth.  We don't pick and choose.  We therefore don't "control" who is administered to and who is not. We simply administer to all.  We don't "control" who is accepted into His kingdom and who doesn't.  When the ordinances have been performed for all by proxy by the administrators of the priesthood, agency will be the determining factor - thereby eliminating any sense of "control" that you seem to imply.  We hold the priesthood, we don't "control" it.  We administer the ordinances, we don't administer salvation.  

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for your answer. I have to mull on that for a while. I have never heard a metaphorical interpretation before. Eternal life is one of those concepts where you need someone who is bilingual. I have learned that eternal life to a Saint is very different than it is to an evangelical. It is all confusing. Mormons represent about one half of one percent of the Christian population of the world. It is staggering to me that God would reveal special things to that one half of one percent and ignore the other 99.4% of those who call him Abba. I appreciate your answer; it is helpful and affirms once again that Mormonism is not a monolithic group. Oh and a recent Pew data point is: While nearly all Mormons consider themselves Christian (97%), only about half (51%) of U.S. adults say Mormonism is a Christian religion, according to a 2012 Pew Research Center report. At least now more than half of the US population consider Mormonism to be a Christian religion. That number is rising! Add me to that number!

My concept of eternal life has evolved recently ie the last few years. I believe it to be connected to promises of the Lord. In other words those who enter His covenants and keep their promises also receive promises. One is eternal life. I believe that to be "shorthand" for other promises connected with it. Those who follow the Lord and enter the covenant of baptism are entering the first stage of the promise of eternal life - that they will be resurrected out of the sea of the world through HIm. Yet, we know the wicked are resurrected as well. See Matt 24-25 and Rev 20-22. This is a gift to them not by way of promise. I believe a last ditch effort, if you will, to win all over to Christ, which most will accept in the end. So even those who have gone to spirit prison or hell, because they did not learn of Christ or did not accept him on Earth, can accept him, and have a chance to be saved or perhaps gain eternal life. Those who would have accepted the gospel had they known of it, will be given the chance to accept baptism and gain eternal life. These are they who accept the gospel in the spirit world. My interpretation, however, is that some do not accept the gospel even in the spirit world, and go to final judgment without having accepted their Savior. These are they who therefore have not received the promises. If they accept their Savior and repent at Final Judgment, I believe they are saved to the telestial kingdom. If not, they become sons of perdition. I find the scriptures murky on whether they have eternal life or perhaps I should say the promises thereof, and I have not prayed about this topic yet. But, presently my feeling is they do not have eternal life or the promises connected therewith in the world to come - having made no commitments to the Lord in this world nor the spirit world. I know that is probably a lot to digest for a non-LDS person, but thanks for your friendly inquiry. Hopefully, I have at least helped to unconfuse what I am talking about.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...