Why Do Christians Say Mormons Are Not Christian?

[Billy]

Billy asks,

In terms of salvation, what exactly does Christ's atonement do for you?

ttribe replies,

Washes away my sins. . .

Does the atonement allow you to wash your sins away through faith in Christ, or through your own efforts?

[ttribe]

Does the atonement allow you to wash your sins away through faith in Christ, or through your own efforts?

Through faith in Christ. Nevertheless, I believe Christ expects me to keep his commandments to the best of my ability.

Let's just be clear here so you can stop beating around the bush to the eventual "gotcha" you're trying to get to. Under no circumstances do I, or any member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that we can work our way into Heaven. There's no one to which the Atonement will not need to be applied. It is a REQUIREMENT to have our sins washed away by the Atoning Sacrifice of the Savior - Jesus the Christ.

[Billy]

Ok I asked if you thought that there was one person taht is not able to not be baptised?

AS to your question, If one did not accept baptism in this life or the next then they didnt enter in at the gate.

You are assuming that gate=baptism, but it does not say baptism. The verse is from Matthew 7. It is interesting that it does not mention baptism in any proximal verse, but in the verse below it speaks about false prophets.

14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

The biggest thing that I see here is that if someone were a believer they would get baptised.

If you are brought up with the belief that in order to go to heaven you HAVE to get baptized, then a believer would most likely get baptized. If you were brought up with the belief that baptism is not essential for salvation, then I can see how a person may not be baptized, but I agree with you, I would think that they would want to be baptized. On the other hand there are many people who HAVE been baptized who are NOT believers. So if a believer does not get baptized, and a non believer does get baptized, is God going to let the non believer into heaven because he was baptized and not let the believer into heaven because he is not?

So if you say then that it is a work and earning salvation,

I don't believe works get you into heaven

One is confess Jesus and the other did not, do you think that one should go to heaven and the other should go to hell, if all else is equal?"

Yes (If by equal they both had the opportunity to receive Christ)

[johnny]

ttribe

Through faith in Christ. Nevertheless, I believe Christ expects me to keep his commandments to the best of my ability.

You seem to differ with what the Mormon Church teaches. You say "through faith", the Mormon church teaches "by obedience". The Mormon Church teaches "Christ did his part to atone for our sins".

• Mormon Gospel Principles Chapter 12 "Christ did his part to atone for our sins. To make his atonement fully effective ... we will keep his terms, which are to repent and keep his commandments ...we may return to live with our Heavenly Father."
  
• -
  
• Mormon Articles of Faith "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.â?
  

[ttribe]

ttribe

You seem to differ with what the Mormon Church teaches. You say "through faith", the Mormon church teaches "by obedience". The Mormon Church teaches "Christ did his part to atone for our sins".

• Mormon Gospel Principles Chapter 12 "Christ did his part to atone for our sins. To make his atonement fully effective ... we will keep his terms, which are to repent and keep his commandments ...we may return to live with our Heavenly Father."
  
• -
  
• Mormon Articles of Faith "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.â?
  

No gotchas here Johnny. That article of Faith is after the first one which states - "We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost." Faith in Christ is a given in the quotes you brought up. Furthermore, it can reasonably be argued that "faith in Christ" is part of the law to which we are being obedient. Again, you are inferring disparity where there is none.

[Akboy]

ttribe, I'm not trying to hide something. There are a lot of people posting in this thread and it can be hard to keep track of all them, especially when I have other things to do.

Then tell me who I should and shouldn't be investigating based on the ones you do know (you're being cagey...time to be straightforward).

How am I being cagey?

In addition to the 10,000 EV groups, theres thousands of other religious groups that should be investigated in an effort to reach them with the gospel if they aren't following it. Which ones you end up investigating depends on multiple things. What is God calling you to do? What groups are in your area? What would an investigation entail?

Well obviously we have a difference of opinion here, especially since it is OBVIOUS and CLEARLY STATED that we believe Christ's atonement is 100% necessary for salvation. Are you going to start telling me what I believe now?

No, I'm not telling you what you believe. I've had multiple conversations with missionaries and people on boards like this one. We went into detail about our own beliefs. They explained their beliefs. It was clear we disagreed. We can't both be right.

The difference becomes clear when you compare how we each define 'grace.' What is the LDS definition?

You are being more than a little patronizing here. Having served a mission in the U.S. South (TN and KY to be exact), I can tell you that I've had to do just that (except I don't believe EVs are going to hell in the sense you believe I am). Without going into a myriad of detail, I can tell you some things I've NEVER done - 1) never stood in front of their places of worship mocking things that are sacred to them; 2) I've never screamed at them about their beliefs (while TELLING them they're going to hell); 3) I've never gone onto one of their websites and tried to tear down their beliefs or mock them in any way; 4) I've never intentionally told a lie or half-truth about their beliefs in an effort to convince people of some church's "evil ways" (i.e. Godmakers). You get the point yet?

I'm not condoning those examples you listed. Yes, they were wrong for acting like that. But there are plenty of EVs who believe Mormons are going to hell, but they don't do 1, 2, 3 or 4.

The point is Mormons and EVs believe different things about hell. Try to put yourself in their shoes for a moment. If you believed a group of people is rejecting Christ's doctrine and going to a literal place of punishment forever, how would you reach out to them?

[ttribe]

ttribe, I'm not trying to hide something. There are a lot of people posting in this thread and it can be hard to keep track of all them, especially when I have other things to do.

How am I being cagey?

In addition to the 10,000 EV groups, theres thousands of other religious groups that should be investigated in an effort to reach them with the gospel if they aren't following it. Which ones you end up investigating depends on multiple things. What is God calling you to do? What groups are in your area? What would an investigation entail?

Holy Cow! Why is this so hard?! Which Christians are ACCURATELY following Christ's teachings? That's the essential element you have set up. If I am in error, then it is incumbant, as a Christian, to tell me where I can go to join up with people who are accurately following Christ's teachings.

No, I'm not telling you what you believe. I've had multiple conversations with missionaries and people on boards like this one. We went into detail about our own beliefs. They explained their beliefs. It was clear we disagreed. We can't both be right.

The difference becomes clear when you compare how we each define 'grace.' What is the LDS definition?

What part of Christ's atonement is necessary for salvation wasn't clear?

I'm not condoning those examples you listed. Yes, they were wrong for acting like that. But there are plenty of EVs who believe Mormons are going to hell, but they don't do 1, 2, 3 or 4.

The point is Mormons and EVs believe different things about hell. Try to put yourself in their shoes for a moment. If you believed a group of people is rejecting Christ's doctrine and going to a literal place of punishment forever, how would you reach out to them?

First, I don't believe non-Mormons are going to hell in the same sense you are defining this; so, we're already on uneven ground. However, again you tell me to put myself in "their shoes" and again I'm saying, I have. And in that process I simply went out with my message of the Gospel, not with the intent to "save them from their current beliefs" or church, but to expose them to the Gospel as I believe it to be and let that stand on its own. Nowhere did I even attempt to address their "erroneous" beliefs or tear down the teachings of their sect. I only presented that which we have and gave the opportunity to accept or reject. In other words, I didn't need to tear down their beliefs to build up my own. There's a difference here akboy...are you honest enough to acknowledge it?

[Billy]

Holy Cow! Why is this so hard?! Which Christians are ACCURATELY following Christ's teachings. . . However, again you tell me to put myself in "their shoes" and again I'm saying, I have. And in that process I simply went out with my message of the Gospel, not with the intent to "save them from their current beliefs" or church, but to expose them to the Gospel as I believe it to be and let that stand on its own.

"Which Christians are ACCURATELY following Christ's teachings" those who follow most closely the teaching in the Bible, not necessarily a specific denomination. I have given some examples below to start with that are important issues to more accurately follow Christ's teachings.

Do you believe that two conflicting ideas can both be right? Or do you believe that one is right, the other is wrong, or both or wrong?

How about the examples below (both can't be true)

1. One God vs Many Gods

2. Salvation by grace vs Salvation by works

3. Aaronic and Melcheziedek Priesthood required in NT church vs Not in NT church

4. Baptism required vs Not required

5. Mother in Heaven vs No Mother in heaven

6. Pre-earth existence vs No pre-existence

7. God was a man vs God has always been God

8. You can become a God vs You can't become a God

9. Tithing required vs Tithing not required

10. Temple work vs No Temple work required

[Tanyan]

Homework assignment - http://www.fairwiki.org/

[Akboy]

Holy Cow! Why is this so hard?! Which Christians are ACCURATELY following Christ's teachings? That's the essential element you have set up. If I am in error, then it is incumbant, as a Christian, to tell me where I can go to join up with people who are accurately following Christ's teachings.

Oh, I misunderstood your question. When I said I haven't investigated all of the 10,000 groups, I meant I haven't investigated the groups to find which isn't Christian. So when you asked which group you should investigate, I thought you were asking which group wasn't accurately following Christ's teaching. It was a misunderstanding, I'm not being cagey.

Now to your real question. You should look for a conservative church. One that uses well-developed interpretation methods and teaches from the Bible. I went to Grace Brethren church for a while, and it was good. Baptist and Non-denominational churches. I don't like some of their organizational ideas, but the Souther Baptist Convention is also one to try out. But ultimately, you have to look at each church individually. The beliefs of the pastor often has a bigger impact than the name on the front of the church.

What part of Christ's atonement is necessary for salvation wasn't clear?

It's not clear because it's too vague. It leaves to many questions unanswered. Compare our definitions of 'grace.' What is the LDS definition of 'grace?'

First, I don't believe non-Mormons are going to hell in the same sense you are defining this; so, we're already on uneven ground. However, again you tell me to put myself in "their shoes" and again I'm saying, I have. And in that process I simply went out with my message of the Gospel, not with the intent to "save them from their current beliefs" or church, but to expose them to the Gospel as I believe it to be and let that stand on its own. Nowhere did I even attempt to address their "erroneous" beliefs or tear down the teachings of their sect. I only presented that which we have and gave the opportunity to accept or reject. In other words, I didn't need to tear down their beliefs to build up my own. There's a difference here akboy...are you honest enough to acknowledge it?

I'd like to keep talking about this, but it doesn't really fit in this thread. When I have time, I'll start another thread that will address this issue.

[urroner]

"Which Christians are ACCURATELY following Christ's teachings" those who follow most closely the teaching in the Bible, not necessarily a specific denomination. I have given some examples below to start with that are important issues to more accurately follow Christ's teachings.

Do you believe that two conflicting ideas can both be right? Or do you believe that one is right, the other is wrong, or both or wrong?

How about the examples below (both can't be true)

1. One God vs Many Gods

Didn't Paul say something about "gods many" but only worshipping one?

2. Salvation by grace vs Salvation by works

How about both?

3. Aaronic and Melcheziedek Priesthood required in NT church vs Not in NT church

Required. Romans talks about it.

4. Baptism required vs Not required

It seems all the ECFs and almost all of Christianity required it until modern times. Why the change now? Does God change?

5. Mother in Heaven vs No Mother in heaven

Mother in Heaven, ask Margaret Barker.

6. Pre-earth existence vs No pre-existence

Pre-earth. Pre-existence logically can't happen. Can anything exist before God?

7. God was a man vs God has always been God

We don't know. No official doctrine.

8. You can become a God vs You can't become a God

Theosis or deification

9. Tithing required vs Tithing not required

Commandments are required unless you don't believe they are and it seems that too many Christians believe that. I even heard some evangelical preacher the other day say that it's really no sin for a boy and a girl to shack up as long as they weren't married. He even taught that if one was saved and married, a little tryst wouldn't mean anything in the long run.

10. Temple work vs No Temple work required

Required.

Amy more questions?

[Billy]

Commandments are required unless you don't believe they are and it seems that too many Christians believe that. I even heard some evangelical preacher the other day say that it's really no sin for a boy and a girl to shack up as long as they weren't married. He even taught that if one was saved and married, a little tryst wouldn't mean anything in the long run.

Amy more questions?

Romans 9

30What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

31But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

32Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

33As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

[urroner]

Romans 9

30What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

31But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

32Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

33As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

He was talking about the law of Moses. The law of Moses didn't create perfection within somebody, it was to lead people to Christ, but the people distorted the meaning of the Law of Moses and thus it became a stumbling block. Even the scriptures have become a stumbling block and a rock of offense.

But Billy, are you saying that committing sexual sins is okay and God will wink at those sins?

[Billy]

He was talking about the law of Moses.

I didn't know that the Gentiles were under the law.

The law of Moses didn't create perfection within somebody, it was to lead people to Christ. . .

You almost quoted Galatians 3:24

"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

But Ephesians 2:8-9 is good also

8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9Not of works, lest any man should boast.

But Billy, are you saying that committing sexual sins is okay and God will wink at those sins?

Now did I say that?

[urroner]

I didn't know that the Gentiles were under the law.

They weren't under the Law of Moses.

But Ephesians 2:8-9 is good also

8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Works don't save. Did I say they did?

Now did I say that?

So, should I assume that committing sins will stop one from getting to heaven, that keeping the commandments is important for our salvation, and that what the preacher said about committing adultery or having pre-marital sex was wrong?

[Billy]

So, should I assume that committing sins will stop one from getting to heaven, that keeping the commandments is important for our salvation, and that what the preacher said about committing adultery or having pre-marital sex was wrong?

One thing about works righteousness churches, they often times get pride about how good they are compared to others. And we know that God hates pride.

How about the verse in Matthew, ever done this?

Matthew 5: 27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

1 John 1:8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.

[soren]

soren

Could you provide a link or some actual Mormon theology that supports the view you expressed above .. thanks.

A 1992 official LDS publication entitled Achieving a Celestial Marriage: A Student Maunal says it more explicitly than anywhere else I have found: â??God himself has declared his own reasons for existing. Remember he said, â??for this is my work and my glory.â?? â?¦ [H]is purpose is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.â?

This is completely logical in light of the whole scheme of eternal progresson. If man and God have the same nature, they also have the same purpose. If manâ??s purpose is eternal life, and the activity of eternal life is the generation of offspring to be prepared for their own exhaltation, then that is Godâ??s purpose as well. Since this situation is determined by eternal laws to which God and man are obedient and which define existence in its teleological aspect, then the â??purposeâ? that LDS theolgoy attributes to God implies an ontological as well as volitional disposition.

[soren]

I didn't know that the Gentiles were under the law.

The Gentiles were not, but in Galatians, Paul is writing to Gentile converts who had been persuaded by others that they needed to follow the law. For this reason, Paul's arguments agaisnt the necessity of the law are directed towards Gentiles just as well as Jews.

You almost quoted Galatians 3:24

"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

Here the "our" as "we" refers to "us Jews." There is a common Protestant tendency to interpret this verse in the sense that the law showed man his sin, so that he would turn to Christ after recognizing his need for a deliverer. In reality, the word translated as "schoolmaster" is "pedagogon," and refers to a slave who would escort a child from home to school and who also had the task of keeping him out or mischief. So Paul is not here speaking of the conviction of sin that comes from the law but rather the fact that the law is a preparatory phase for a different covenant whose distinguishing mark is faith. It is also important to consider that "justified" or "made righteous" does not indicate personal salvation, but rather is a covenantal term indicating the sign by which one is known as a member of God's covenant family.

The argument then that Paul is making is that the Law has served its purpose becasue the Jews themselves are made members of God's covenant family by the new sign of faith, and so the Gentiles have no reason to resort to the Mosaic law for their own justification.

But Ephesians 2:8-9 is good also

8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9Not of works, lest any man should boast.

The boasting that Paul is warning against is not works-righteousness (since Judaism was not a legalistic religion anyway) but the assumption that one could be saved by being a descendant of Abraham. This geneaological boasting tended to the exclusion of Gentiles from the covenant.

[ttribe]

"Which Christians are ACCURATELY following Christ's teachings" those who follow most closely the teaching in the Bible, not necessarily a specific denomination. I have given some examples below to start with that are important issues to more accurately follow Christ's teachings.

Do you believe that two conflicting ideas can both be right? Or do you believe that one is right, the other is wrong, or both or wrong?

How about the examples below (both can't be true)

1. One God vs Many Gods

2. Salvation by grace vs Salvation by works

3. Aaronic and Melcheziedek Priesthood required in NT church vs Not in NT church

4. Baptism required vs Not required

5. Mother in Heaven vs No Mother in heaven

6. Pre-earth existence vs No pre-existence

7. God was a man vs God has always been God

8. You can become a God vs You can't become a God

9. Tithing required vs Tithing not required

10. Temple work vs No Temple work required

Billy, you just don't seem to get it do you? Let me spell this out for you - I am not asking questions in an attempt to compare anything to LDS teachings. I'm trying to get straight answers from EVs (which seems to be difficult) about what they believe constitutes following Christ accurately ,exclusive of LDS beliefs. Leave the compare and contrast to my professed faith out of it and tell me what you think is essential, then tell me where that is supposed to be found (i.e. what church or churches). That's your assignment; do you think you can stick to that and cease playing words games with LDS beliefs (at least temporarily)?

[Calm]

No gotchas here Johnny. That article of Faith is after the first one which states - "We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost." Faith in Christ is a given in the quotes you brought up. Furthermore, it can reasonably be argued that "faith in Christ" is part of the law to which we are being obedient. Again, you are inferring disparity where there is none.

And let's not forget #4: " 4 We believe that the first principles.....of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ....."

[ttribe]

Oh, I misunderstood your question. When I said I haven't investigated all of the 10,000 groups, I meant I haven't investigated the groups to find which isn't Christian. So when you asked which group you should investigate, I thought you were asking which group wasn't accurately following Christ's teaching. It was a misunderstanding, I'm not being cagey.Now to your real question. You should look for a conservative church.

Vague; what qualifies as "conservative" in your perception.

One that uses well-developed interpretation methods and teaches from the Bible.

Vague; how do you measure "well-developed" and "teaches from the Bible" (especially since there are innumerable interpretations of the Bible's teachings).

I went to Grace Brethren church for a while, and it was good. Baptist and Non-denominational churches. I don't like some of their organizational ideas, but the Souther Baptist Convention is also one to try out.

What if I told you I had been to the types of churches you are referring to at various points in my life, invistigated their claims, and based on the promptings of the Holy Spirit, rejected the accuracy of their teachings? Now what? If I have made a good faith effort and confessed Christ as my Savior, am I still doomed to hell just because I go to the Mormon Church on Sunday and not a Baptist one?

But ultimately, you have to look at each church individually. The beliefs of the pastor often has a bigger impact than the name on the front of the church.

And you see any kind of problem here with this scenario?

It's not clear because it's too vague. It leaves to many questions unanswered. Compare our definitions of 'grace.' What is the LDS definition of 'grace?'I'd like to keep talking about this, but it doesn't really fit in this thread. When I have time, I'll start another thread that will address this issue.

"Grace" defined (from the Bible Dictionary of the LDS edition of the KJV Bible): "A word that occurs frequently in the New Testament, especially in the writings of Paul. The main idea of the word is divine means of help or strength, given through the bounteous mercy and love of Jesus Christ.

"It is through the grace of the Lord Jesus, made possible by his atoning sacrifice, that mankind will be raised in immortality, every person receiving his body from the grave in a condition of everlasting life. It is likewise through the grace of the Lord that individuals, through faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ and repentance of their sins, receive strength and assistance to do good works that they otherwise would not be able to maintain if left to their own means. This grace is an enabling power that allows men and women to lay hold on eternal life and exaltation after they have expended their own best efforts.

"Divine grace is needed by every soul in consequence of the fall of Adam and also because of man’s weaknesses and shortcomings."

Now here's the part that you're going to object to, but it's also where modern revelation steps in:"However, grace cannot suffice without total effort on the part of the recipient. Hence the explanation, “It is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Ne. 25: 23). It is truly the grace of Jesus Christ that makes salvation possible. This principle is expressed in Jesus’ parable of the vine and the branches (John 15: 1-11). See also John 1: 12-17; Eph. 2: 8-9; Philip. 4: 13; D&C 93: 11-14."

There you go. "Grace" defined by the LDS.

[ttribe]

And let's not forget #4: " 4 We believe that the first principles.....of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ....."

Right! Thanks for adding that on...I was in a bit of a hurry when I typed up that other response.

[MatthewG]

This is so boring, just shut the topic down. No one is going to "win" this.

[Akboy]

Vague; what qualifies as "conservative" in your perception.

Believing in absolute, universal truth and morals. Sticking with God's truth rather than conforming to new trends.

Vague; how do measure "well-developed" and "teaches from the Bible" (especially since there are innumerable interpretations of the Bible's teachings).

Teaches from the Bible means the messages they teach are based on Bible passages. This means avoiding sermons that are basically anecdote filled, self-help messages.

Well-developed messages use a wide range interpretation tools and methods. Literary context, historical context, original language meaning, greek/hebrew sentence structure, the context of the book, other passages on the same topic and more. If people will use these tools correctly, they usually come up with the same interpretation of the major topics.

What if I told you I had been to the types of churches you are referring to at various points in my life, invistigated their claims, and based on the promptings of the Holy Spirit, rejected the accuracy of their teachings? Now what? If I have made a good faith effort and confessed Christ as my Savior, am I still doomed to hell just because I go to the Mormon Church on Sunday and not a Baptist one?

I have been to multiple Mormon services and multiple churches. I've talked with missionaries and taken the challenge of reading passages in the Book of Mormon and praying about it. The promptings of the Holy Spirit rejected the accuracy the LDS church.

No, your not going to hell because you go to a Mormon Church. EVs believe salvation is based on belief, not the church you go to. You could be going to the Mormon Church and be saved if your beliefs about salvation are following God. But EVs believe you would be headed for hell if you're following LDS doctrine.

And you see any kind of problem here with this scenario?

It's a precaution. Most Baptist and Southern Baptist pastors follow the doctrine of their denomination, but you should still check them out and make sure they are.

"Grace" defined (from the Bible Dictionary of the LDS edition of the KJV Bible): "A word that occurs frequently in the New Testament, especially in the writings of Paul. The main idea of the word is divine means of help or strength, given through the bounteous mercy and love of Jesus Christ."It is through the grace of the Lord Jesus, made possible by his atoning sacrifice, that mankind will be raised in immortality, every person receiving his body from the grave in a condition of everlasting life. It is likewise through the grace of the Lord that individuals, through faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ and repentance of their sins, receive strength and assistance to do good works that they otherwise would not be able to maintain if left to their own means. This grace is an enabling power that allows men and women to lay hold on eternal life and exaltation after they have expended their own best efforts."Divine grace is needed by every soul in consequence of the fall of Adam and also because of manâ??s weaknesses and shortcomings."Now here's the part that you're going to object to, but it's also where modern revelation steps in:"However, grace cannot suffice without total effort on the part of the recipient. Hence the explanation, â??It is by grace that we are saved, after all we can doâ? (2 Ne. 25: 23). It is truly the grace of Jesus Christ that makes salvation possible. This principle is expressed in Jesusâ?? parable of the vine and the branches (John 15: 1-11). See also John 1: 12-17; Eph. 2: 8-9; Philip. 4: 13; D&C 93: 11-14."There you go. "Grace" defined by the LDS.

First of all, EVs don't think grace or the atonement has anything to do with "mankind" being raised. Yes, those who are following Christ's teachings will be raise because of grace. But EVs believe the rest of mankind has rejected Christ's grace and won't be resurrected. They will probably be aware of what's happening when they're being judged before going to hell, but that wouldn't be salvation.

Secondly, EVs don't think grace is an enabling power. They don't think grace requires total effort on the part of the person.

EVs believe grace means Christ does 100% of the work and effort. They believe trying to add our own works or effort to grace is rejecting the grace. So they believe saying 'grace saves us after all we can do' and 'grace is not enough without our total effort' is rejecting Christ's grace.

Before you say it, yes, EVs do read and follow James 2. They believe James 2 isn't teaching faith + works, but rather a faith that produces works. Faith is what saves us, but that faith must be genuine. It must be the kind of faith that changes how a person behaves. We do works out of a love and devotion to God, not an obligation to do all we can do.

We both believe Christ's atonement is 100% necessary for salvation, but our beliefs are still very different.

[soren]

soren

Could you please provide your description of "one in being" and provide some scriptures to support "one in being" ... thanks

I don't know no how to describe "being." It's to primal a concept. "One in being means that only one act of existence occurs among the person.

The most obvious biblical evidence for this are NT citations or allusions to OT texts that indicate that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all Yahweh. Since "I am" is shared by all of them as a proper name, and since a non-unique being cannot be appropriately named as an individual by a mere assertion of being. This by itself is an exponentially stronger w arrant than any evidence Mormons present for "one in purpose." They way they use John 17:21 over and over without explanatory context or other supporting texts is a sign of just how desperate their case is.

The deeper argument for "one in being" is the simple fact that Jesus is fully God, although one has to understand monotheism to see the force of this argument. As long as Mormons think that only worshipping one God is some kind of answer to the charge of polytheism, it cannot persuade them.

Do you think 1Cor 6:16 captures John 17:21, it says "he that is joined unot the Lord is one spirit"?

1Cor.6 ([15] Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. [17] But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.[19] What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?)

Yes.