What does it mean to you to be a Mormon?

[Cairbre]

There is a quote from President Hinckley (IIRC) that I cannot find, perhaps someone with a better recall of exactly how he said it, that invites all to come to learn of our Gospel by first bringing with them the good or truth that they already know.

We do not believe that only the LDS faith has the Gospel, rather we are the ones that have access to the full Gospel and its authority. Those truths that we share in common plus those truths that are not specific to the Gospel but still increase man's understanding of nature, of mankind and how we should relate to each other, of even God are truths we want to know, share and experience with all.

My question remains: Does the LDS church have the full Gospel if it excludes the Koran? Does Islam and her adherent Muslims have place in the Bible?

[Cairbre]

From the Book of Mormon:http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ether/4/11-12

Then according to those Mormon scriptures the Koran came from God.

[Joseph Antley]

Then according to those Mormon scriptures the Koran came from God.

While the Qur'an may have had some divine inspiration in its origin, the Lord has not seen fit to equate it in authority with the rest of the Standard Works (which consists of the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price). Nor would I ever expect Him to, since the Qur'an denies the divine sonship of Jesus of Nazareth.

[Markk]

I don't see how God would mistake pedophiles for being Christians. It seems to me God would know them only as sinners.

Are you sure the LDS church sees this sect as Christian? Could you provide some references in the form of LDS quotations to support such a claim?

I can't say for sure if "the LDS church does", but key members here say/said that it is. We debated this issue on this site awhile back I'll try to find a link, if you search this site under my name and pedophile then it would most likely come up. I have to go to a party in a few minutes so I'll find it for you later. remember the word Christian to a Mormon is a very generic term that really doesn't carry much weight.

Why don't you PM me on the question I asked you, I would love to discuss it with you.

Mark

[Cairbre]

Please excuse me, but I cannot keep up with all the posts. Although I have read everything written my replies will have to come at another time. I will try again tomorrow.

Thank you all for your participation.

[Hestia]

Just to help you out, Mormonism more or less demands that the term "Christian" is a very generic word, it can encompass a wide range of people and "churches". A example is the "Children of God", which is a sect that claims to be Christian and have the true church but teach and believe that it is okay to have sex with children and in some cases there own.

This is over the top even for you. Since there are actual Mormons who can tell others what we believe you are banned from this thread.

[Deborah]

Are you sure the LDS church sees this sect as Christian?

You can't believe anything Mark says about what we believe.

[Calm]

Thank you. This is the fourth time these articles have been provided. As I previously stated, I find them clear and descriptive.

One follow up question. About the first article you say that God the Father has two bodies, one physical and another spiritual, and likewise Christ has two bodies. When you say physical you cannot mean a mortal body. So what do you mean?

Along the same lines, I find it impossible to envision a God with two bodies. It seems a physical body would be confining of a God. I can better understand a spiritual God, then one limited to a physical space. And if these two bodies are indeed separate, how does the physical body survive without the spiritual body?

We would not say that God has two bodies, but rather the physical has been added onto the spiritual. We describe it to our young children as our spiritual bodies being a hand and our physical bodies being the glove that covers them. God's physical body is perfect, immortal and incorruptible of flesh and and bone (not blood).

LDS believe in the eternal nature of man where we began as intelligences and then God gave us spiritual bodies thus making us his literal children and then we come to earth to gain physical bodies. When we are resurrected we are given bodies that are the perfected form of our mortal bodies, immortal and incorruptible like the Father's.

LDS do not see physical bodies as limiting, but as additions to the spiritual bodies alone which cannot experience things such as emotions and physical sensations. While God's physical body may occupy a certain space, his power or influence and knowledge encompasses all of his creation.

[Calm]

My question remains: Does the LDS church have the full Gospel if it excludes the Koran? Does Islam and her adherent Muslims have place in the Bible?

I would suspect a Muslim's answer to that would be different from a LDS. According to LDS, the Koran contains truth in as far as it follows the revealed teachings of the LDS faith...where it differs, it is likely in error. We do not believe the Koran is "identical with the uncreated eternal Word of God" (quote from article comparing Islam and the LDS faith I linked to above).

I do not know what you mean by "have place in the Bible". Could you clarify please?

[volgadon]

I don't see how God would mistake pedophiles for being Christians. It seems to me God would know them only as sinners.

Are you sure the LDS church sees this sect as Christian? Could you provide some references in the form of LDS quotations to support such a claim?

There are bad Christians too. The term Christian is not a synonym for righteouss. The scriptures themselves say that not everyone who follows Christ (or is of Israel) is righteouss. The Lord hmself said depart from me ye workers of iniquity, I know ye not. So yes, God knows who is his and who isn't, but a Christian is one who claims to follow Christ, even if it is in word and not in deed.

[flameburns623]

I guess I would have to ask you what is so radically different in a Mormon baptism and what is "the normative Christian intent of the sacrament" as defined by the RCC?

Without going into a very long dissertation: the doctrine of the Trinity, and the eternal, unchanging nature of the One God in three Persons is expressly rejected by Mormons.

In rejecting this, there are a number of other things rejected by Mormons which are not rejected by most other Christian denominations, particularly with respect to the nature and mission of Jesus Christ.

If one delves the core theological assumptions of Mormonism and contrasts them with the core beliefs common to most other Christian denominations, one really can see how some one could say that Mormonism in many ways embraces "another Jesus" and "another Gospel". These are expressions taken directly from the New Testament, and frequently levied as an attack against the LDS teachings.

If one is dealing with those core theological issues, it probably isn't unfair IMHO to make such charges and discuss/debate them. Keep in mind, however, that once one has ventured onto such territory, one is struggling over exactly what the definition of Christianity is or should be. One is wrangling over the details of what it means to be Christian. A number of the better LDS minds on this board would argue that the doctrines of Mormonism are more historically representative of the teachings of Christ than are those which have generally been normative within the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and historic Protestant Churches. Obviously I and other disagree.

If however one is simply wanting to identify to what system or category Mormonism belongs, one can reasonably only classify it as a Christian entity. Mormons believe in the Jesus Christ of history. They believe in the details of His life and of His death as set forth in the New Testament in pretty much the same way as any other Christian group believes them. Christ's life and especially His death are of paramount importance to their teachings; and Jesus Christ and His teachings are at the center of their theology.

To answer your question specifically: Christians are baptised into the death of a Jesus Christ who is eternally the second Person of the Godhead, a Christ who is True God and True Man, and whose death on the Cross is eternally sufficient for the sins of the whole world. Mormon theology simply cannot assent to the same things in quite the same way and the same sense that Protestants can.

By the same token: Mormons, as someone else noted earlier, believe that baptism is an ordinance that can only be performed by someone with the proper authority and priesthood. In LDS understanding, other denominations of Christianity lost, or never possessed, the keys of the priesthood and so their baptism is not valid nor effectual.

One last thing: Catholicism teaches that there are several kinds of baptism: there is of course the baptism by water which we are all familiar with. There is also a baptism of the Holy Ghost, mentioned in the Scriptures but variously understood by Christians.

There is also, in Catholic understanding, a 'baptism by blood'--that is, if one is repentant of one's sins and intends to follow Jesus but is martyred for the name of Christ, even before one is able to receive the sacrament of baptism by water, one is saved by one's martyrdom.

Finally: there is a 'baptism by desire': one who sincerely wishes to follow God and do His will; and who conforms their life as closely to God's will as they are able, based on the best knowledge they have of Him, are saved through the mercy of Christ by virtue of that desire to obey. We don't know how this happens and we leave it to God to determine when and under what conditions it occurs. We do however, based upon this, hope that there will be many sincere Muslims and many sincere Mormons numbered among those whom Christ places on the right hand of God on the last day.

So, the rejection of Mormon baptism as valid is not of itself a judgement upon the state of the soul of any given LDS individual.

[volgadon]

If the prophet approved of your bishop then why disrespect them both by saying, "bye-bye to the bishop"?

Please reread my post. It was a hypothetical. IF I had to choose between my bishop and the prophet, I would choose the prophet. If you had to choose between the prophet Muhammad and an imam, which would it be?

How can you say I am ignoring your prophets when I am here just now learning of the church?

Seeing as none of their teachings are incorporated by Islam, I think it safe to say that they are being ignored.

Mohammad took nothing away from the prophets of the bible.

Except changing some of the accounts and assigning Jesus to the role of a mere prophet. It would be nice to see some evidence that Muhammad ever read the Bible, instead of basing his impressions on what Jews and monks he met told him.

[zerinus]

Then according to those Mormon scriptures the Koran came from God.

I have just finished reading through this thread, which I had not done before, and I am getting a different picture from it now. It appears that you are a Muslim, but you are obviously taking an interest in Mormonism, and trying to find out more about it. So rather than going back and replying individually to each of your previous posts relating to Islam, I will just make some general observations about Islam based on what you have asked in your previous post. The LDS Church has not made any official statement affirming or denying that Mohammad was a true prophet, Islam was a revealed religion, and the Koran is a revelation and book of scripture. If you personally believe that it is, I don't think that that is incompatible with Mormonism, or would be a hindrance to your joining the Church, provided that you believe in and comply with everything else that the Church requires. That would be a personal and private belief for you, not something that you should try to preach or promote to the rest of the Church. It might interest you to know, however, that Mormonism shows more respect to Islam and the Prophet Mohammad than any other Christian church I know. Whereas other churches generally tend to demonize Islam and Mohammad, Mormons generally don't. Here is a quote from a First Presidency Message of the Church:

Why does the Church grow and flourish? It does so because of divine direction to the leaders and members. This began in our day when God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith early in the spring of 1820. However, we claim that God

[Mordecai]

The questions in the title speak for themselves.

We are Christians. But the biggest difference between us and traditional Christians is that we have priesthood authority, and they don't.

[Cairbre]

The Catholic Church does not accept the LDS baptism as it does accept some other Christian faiths' baptism. This is because they believe our understanding of the Trinity---three distinct beings, united in purpose but not in essence or form---is fundamentally different from what they believe is the true understanding (and a Catholic can correct me if I am wrong please). I have heard some claim this means we are not considered Christians in that we are not part of the body of Christ, even a heretical part, but other Catholics have said this does not prevent us from being Christians. I have not been able to find an official source that is clear on this point.

From all that has been presented on this thread I must conclude that a Christian is anyone who claims to be a Christian. The only common idea is faith in Christ. The manifestations of that faith vary according to the different doctrines of the many churches, even to the point of individual interpretation of the bible in which a follower of Christ needs no church.

It is as if Christ is the starting point and each takes his own path away from him.

I find it hard to believe that such a collection of people, churches, hierarchies, and doctrine was the goal of Jesus when he presented his religion to the world. And I don't see unity coming by the negotiated agreements of men.

You might find this comparison between Islam and the LDS faith helpful: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=9f4c307e3584b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Also:http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=20786528ef2eb010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Where does an Iman receive his authority to teach from?

This is not the LDS position. God has instructed mankind always. As far as completeness, while we have the full Gospel today, we still lack in complete knowledge of all that God wants us to learn; our instruction will continue past this mortal life: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=7eab7befabc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD

Thank you for your references. It is clear the LDS believe the Koran is inspired of God. It is less clear that they understand the inspiration.

An Imam is a community leader believed by the Islamic community around him that he is called of God to lead.

[Cairbre]

If your head is spinning I suppose that is a good thing if you choose to try to understand what Christian believe. In a nut shell this is called Grace, in term you may understand Grace is His mercy given freely to those who ask.

Let me give a great example...There was a man who hold his son that if he mowed the lawn and did a good job that he would take him to a baseball game, the son did, so he earned a trip to the ball park. This is an example of man reaching and trying to earn their salvation.

On the other hand... There was father who came home from work, grabbed his son and took him to the ball game simply because he loved his son and wanted too. The next day the father came home from work and the lawn was mowed and everything was in order, and when the father asked why he did it, the son said because I love you.

In other words both these contain works, but one is for a means to an end,the other out of love from the heart.

You answered your own question, saved from wrath and punishment! I must accept His free gift of Grace He offer to all who want it, but you have to want it and accept it. It is accepted through a receiving belief in Jesus Christ.

I disagree, I certainly agree that here is one God, but I disagree that every religion have the same God. I think I have a Koran somewhere, what cf could you give me to try to understand your view better.

Anyway you still haven't answered my question, give it a try?

Mark

Markk,

I see this morning that you have been banned for incorrectly representing the Mormon religion. Now I question your credibility in representing the Christian religion.

Never the less I will reply by saying all people should seek to do good works. Good works are important because we are judged in the end by our deeds (for good or evil) done on earth.

You have not made a clear distinction between the grace God grants you as a Christian and the mercy of God we as Muslims are afforded.

Perhaps we shall cross paths again on another topic. Good bye for now Markk.

[Cairbre]

I would not say "Mormons are the truest form" because not all Mormons are devout or righteous. The LDS faith is the fullest Gospel, the only one with the priesthood authority, yes...but LDS are also generally when looking at their fellowmen including fellowmembers more concerned with orthopraxy than orthodoxy. A truly good man no matter what his beliefs are will be seen by most LDS as more "Christian" (meaning more Christlike) and further on the road to exaltation than an LDS who is selfish or lacks in obedience.

I would say that the use of "degrees of understanding would be workable depending on how it's used though that would be hard to determine. However, since the sects vary so much in understanding (at least to LDS eyes) it would be hard to quantify this as some would be closer to understanding in one area than other sects while further away from the truth in other ways.

Degrees of commitment can vary too much by individual, one can have a very uncommitted LDS and a very committed Catholic for example.

Not sure about degrees of reward and punishment due to the LDS belief that all will be taught at some time whether in this life or the next so eternally speaking there is no difference in the opportunity to receive, just in what someone is willing to accept from the Lord (one must accept the responsibility for use of a blessing along with the blessing and not all care to do so).

PS: I have to go to work now, will be interested to see how the conversation has gone when I come back to it later.

I used the term "degrees of Christianity" to describe what appears to me as a fragmented system of belief practiced Christians. Below I have copied another reply made to Calmoriah on the same subject.

From all that has been presented on this thread I must conclude that a Christian is anyone who claims to be a Christian. The only common idea is faith in Christ. The manifestations of that faith vary according to the different doctrines of the many churches, even to the point of individual interpretation of the bible in which a follower of Christ needs no church.

It is as if Christ is the starting point and each takes his own path away from him.

I find it hard to believe that such a collection of people, churches, hierarchies, and doctrine was the goal of Jesus when he presented his religion to the world. And I don't see unity coming by the negotiated agreements of men.

[Cairbre]

I am LDS and agree fully that much good has been done in God's name because of the prophet Mohammad and those who have turned to God through Islam.

I believe that God leads us by his spirit to the best path we have available to us to bring us closer to him, and that all religions have truth, some more than others.

Much evil has also been done in the name of Christianity as well as Islam. Do you think any evil has been done by Islam? Is conversion by force a good thing?

Does evil come from any other source than the devil?

All religions are maligned by those claiming to be a part of it.

As God revealed to Mohammad, there should be no compulsion in religion.

[Cairbre]

And in my second post I explained to you what I had meant by that. I explained that what I meant was degree of commitment (obedience if you like) to Christ; not that there are "degrees of Christianity". Can you tell me what was unclear about that explanation? I will try to explain it better if I can.

And I clarified that by affirming that Mormonism is the only true Church of God in the world today, and explained why. Again, can you tell me what was unclear about what I had said?

I don't believe that I did. Perhaps you are not interested in a serious discussion, and that is your excuse.

Let me try one more time. I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's only true Church in the world today. Other Christian churches are incomplete because they don't have the fullness of the truth or the priesthood authority that the LDS Church has. But to the extent that their members have genuine commitment to Christ, and wish to live by His commandments, they are accepted by Him. Is that any clearer do you think?

And I think that if there is a 'hierarchy' of truth as you have described exists in the Mormon church having more of it than the other churches or individual Christians, then there also exists degrees of Christianity based on the knowledge and faith and truth that one has.

If you do not wish to accept my assignment in terms of the word 'degrees' that is up to you. But in my view that is what I see in Christianity today, different interpretations of the same message from God, different actions based on those interpretations, and different results due to those actions.

If I am not mistaken Mormons believe they will attain a higher glory than non-Mormons. You say, Christ will accept them (members of other churches) based on their genuine commitment to Christ, but you do not specify what they will be accepted as. If they are accepted to the same status as Mormons, what is the purpose of being Mormon? Do you see the disconnect that I see in your presentation?

[Cairbre]

They can pose a s messengers from God such as Gabriel.

I suspect your are not Muslim but an alter. Your writing style indicates such and I have yet to read any citations from the Koran. Heck even Daniel Peterson who is LDS uses the Koran for discussion in the defense of Islam. I know it's you redwave.

Only if you believe good can come out of the devil can you claim the angel Mohammad spoke with was a false messenger.

Only if you lack knowledge of what the world was like in 600 AD can you say that no good came out of God's interaction with Mohammad.

I generally do not quote from the Koran because it is frowned upon to give snippets outside of the whole context. If the person you mention wishes to quote from the Koran in defense of it that is up to him. I believe the Koran needs no defense or excuse for what it says because it comes from God. Those who reject it or try to prove it wrong will be judged by God accordingly.

Then you say, "I know it's you redwave." To which I say, I will leave you with your own imaginations of reality.

[Cairbre]

Hi Cairbre,

First let me tell you, I have enjoyed this thread, and the respectful tone you have brought with you in discussing the differences and similarities between Christian faiths, as well as Islamic. I am a Mormon convert myself, but I agree with you that much good has been done in God's name because of Mohammad and Islam. We are taught that there is truth in many religions and many texts (perhaps you can consider that one major difference between Mormon's and other Christians). Is there anything precluding Mohammad from being a Prophet of God? Frankly, I believe we just don't have a certain answer for that. Although, I understand that you believe to have knowledge of that matter. It is not a knowledge that I share or personally agree with your findings on. That's not to say it couldn't be truthful, but I have had no confirmation or denial from the Holy Spirit on that matter myself. Then again, I do not know that I have really inquired directly on it, although I have wondered it before. I will say that Joseph Smith was a very good and holy person even before the Gospel was restored to the earth. Was he considered a Prophet before the authority and priesthood were restored? Perhaps another more knowledgeable Mormon can answer that for me. I guess what I am getting at, is that there are many people who have had personal revelations, and even been strong spiritual leaders and who have a personal relationship with God. Do you believe that one must be a Prophet in order for his teaching to have value? I don't. I witness the strong examples of many "spiritual leaders" in my ward and community continually. Prophets have the authority to speak for God...that does not mean they have a monopoly on receiving personal revelation, instruction and guidance from our Heavenly Father. I am certain that someone like yourself or like Mohammad will accept the truth and act obediently to whatever God desires of him, and will be rewarded in kind. For that reason, I do not worry overly much for your eternal salvation. Rather I believe your mortal and eternal life would be improved by a knowledge of Gospel - or in other words, what we as Mormons know to be true.

As to what is Christian - it depends much on who is defining it. Personally I could care less what other faiths consider us, it matters more what I consider myself. Christian to me means to understand and accept the atonement of Jesus Christ and to strive to live by the teaching and examples he put forth in as much as they understand them. I think there are many that fit under that umbrella. The label matters much less than the fruits and actions. There are some who consider themselves Catholic, or Mormon, etc. who do not act as such. An orange and an apple are both fruit, even though an orange isn't an apple and an apple isn't an orange.

It is very pleasant to hear your views spoken in such confident and subtle tones. Your example of apples and oranges both being fruit make clear the many different forms of Christianity. The question that remains to be answered is: Does God prefer apples or oranges?

Other Mormons have stated he prefers them over Christians. I am not here to debate God's preferences so I will leave it at that.

[Cairbre]

What have you studied about the LDS.

I have read the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine & Covenants. I have read Joseph Smith's testimony.

[volgadon]

I have read the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine & Covenants. I have read Joseph Smith's testimony.

How do you reconcile that statement with this?

How can you say I am ignoring your prophets when I am here just now learning of the church?

You are begining to contradict yourself.

[Cairbre]

While the Qur'an may have had some divine inspiration in its origin, the Lord has not seen fit to equate it in authority with the rest of the Standard Works (which consists of the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price). Nor would I ever expect Him to, since the Qur'an denies the divine sonship of Jesus of Nazareth.

A lack of understanding and reconciliation between the documents does not demonstrate that the two are from different sources. It only demonstrates that we in each religion lack understanding of the other and of God's overall plan and so too lack the ability to reconcile the texts.

Since we both believe in one God and only have different visions of his nature, and since we both agree that good can only come from God, it seems futile to argue that the Koran is not of our common God.

[volgadon]

So how does one reconcile one document which states that Christ is our Saviour and that there is no other name given by which we can be saved, with another that denies it?