What does it mean to you to be a Mormon?

[Cairbre]

How do you reconcile that statement with this?

You are begining to contradict yourself.

Reading books and learning of the church from the adherents of the faith are two separate things.

Likewise, reading the literature does not make me a believer in what I have read.

I have come here because I have read those books.

[erichard]

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

Hi cairbre,

I have not read the Koran, but I have read parts of it. My main issue with it, and with all sorts of claimed revelations, is that they are not "Zion oriented".

A book full of interesting or thoughtful ideas is of much less worth, to me, than a book that leads the reader to understand and prepare for the coming government called Zion. I see the Bible and the further Mormon scriptures as all being ultimately Zion oriented.

The Doctrine and Covenants, you might have noticed, has more in it concerning Zion than it does concerning the church. A purpose of the church is to prepare the hearts and minds of the people for the coming of Zion.

You must realize that Mormon Zionism is much different than today's Jewish Zionism. Many of us view Jewish Zionism as a counterfiet. Both are, none the less, tied into the Old and New Testament promises of the eventual return of the tribes of Israel, including the government of Israel as set up by God: Zion.

Since I have not read all of the Koran, I do not know all it teaches. Does the Koran ever teach of the coming a government set up under the inspiration of true prophets?

Richard

[Cairbre]

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?

If I could answer that question, perhaps you might call me a prophet. And even if I make an attempt neither half of the equation would probably accept it. That is why I am starting from a new formula, which is that if all good things come from God and there is only one God, then the words of the Koran and the Bible can be reconciled. That is my good hope which must also comes from God.

But if I obtain a resolution to such a dilemma I will share it with you.

[Cairbre]

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

And apparently he has received his just reward by being banned from participation in this discussion.

[Koneko]

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?

If I may continue the fruit analogy...More likely, I think God prefers Mangoes (aaah the perfect fruit, isn't it?). There is only one perfect fruit - Jesus Christ. Perhaps it would be more correct to say that Mormons as oranges are more like a mango since they are citrus.

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.

I do not believe this to be true. I think you may be referring to a few post where it was mentioned that we are a Chosen people. That means chosen to do a particular work that God has asked of us. Not chosen to be his favorites. We will all, regardless of religion or background, have the opportunity to choose to follow God and accept the ordinances of the Gospel in the afterlife. We believe that Mormons, having the gospel in their mortal lives are more prepared to fully accept what God asks of them. But it doesn't guarantee they will do so, and it doesn't preclude others from doing so.

[Cairbre]

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.

I find it interesting that more often than not when asked a question Mormons tend to present a reasonable answer.

Let me see if I understand it. You say we started as intelligences (or did intelligences always exist?), we then became spiritual and possessed a body (I assume in heaven because), we than were given physical bodies on earth, and eventually we will be resurrected into a perfect and immortal form.

I don't have a reply except to say I hope it is so because it sounds complete and plausible.

[Cairbre]

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?

Muslims believe we are the descendants of Abraham through Ishmael. That is our place in the Bible. If others could see it, they might see the Koran in a different light. Likewise, if the Mormon faith did not have its bases in the Bible it would be unbelievable and unsustainable. All viable religions must trace back to something in the Bible. Christians do that by claiming Jesus was the Messiah promised in the Old Testament.

[Deborah]

I was listening Truman Madsen's lectures on the prophet Joseph Smith this morning. One thing that Joseph believed is that we as faithful followers of God would fail if we did not incorporate truth from all sources. Certainly the Koran would be included in that as are all works which are inspired. There have been many inspired writers, including poets, who have caught glimpses of divine truth and written them down. These things we seek after.

William Wordsworth's beautiful poem Ode: Intimations of Immortality comes to mind:

Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:

The soul that rises with us, our life's Star,

Hath had elsewhere its setting,

And cometh from afar:

Not in entire forgetfulness,

and not in utter nakedness,

But trailing clouds of glory do we come

From God, who is our home:

Heaven lies about us in our infancy!

Wordsworth may not have been writing about what LDS know as pre-mortal existence but he certainly was inspired to write those words of truth. This is just an example of how we look for truth from all sources.

[Cairbre]

I was listening Truman Madsen's lectures on the prophet Joseph Smith this morning. One thing that Joseph believed is that we as faithful followers of God would fail if we did not incorporate truth from all sources. Certainly the Koran would be included in that as are all works which are inspired. There have been many inspired writers, including poets, who have caught glimpses of divine truth and written them down. These things we seek after.

William Wordsworth's beautiful poem Ode: Intimations of Immortality comes to mind:

Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:

The soul that rises with us, our life's Star,

Hath had elsewhere its setting,

And cometh from afar:

Not in entire forgetfulness,

and not in utter nakedness,

But trailing clouds of glory do we come

From God, who is our home:

Heaven lies about us in our infancy!

Wordsworth may not have been writing about what LDS know as pre-mortal existence but he certainly was inspired to write those words of truth. This is just an example of how we look for truth from all sources.

In its origin state the Koran is a poem/song (similar to Psalms).

[Cairbre]

...but a Christian is one who claims to follow Christ, even if it is in word and not in deed.

That seems to be the consensus.

[Cairbre]

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.

So if I read you correctly, Catholic baptism also has the requirement of belief in the Trinity.

The articles of Mormon faith posted here state that they believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. So I cannot reconcile your determination that they do not believe in a three-in-one God especially when you also add that "One God in three Persons is expressly rejected by Mormons". It seems a fine line to be divided along.

As far as which of the two (Mormon or Christian) has the true gospel and which has "another gospel", it seems that if you are Catholic you must deny the apostasy in order to believe that what the RCC has is consistent with what Christ first built. On the other hand, if you believe that the apostasy happened, you cannot believe that the Catholic church survived it and therefore a restoration was necessary.

Since the Koran professed an apostasy of both the Jew and the Christian even back in the 7th century, I am inclined to believe that one truly existed. And since the Catholic church has not fundamentally changed since Mohammad's time, and since it did not change in spite of a reform effort by the Protestants, I am inclined to believe that the RCC is still in a state of apostasy. One can draw no other conclusion.

More confusing is the statement made earlier that Catholics would honor some of the other Protestant baptisms. Where is the logic in accepting another churches baptism as one viable in the Catholic church? If I am not mistaken, Protestants were ruled heretics when they rebelled against an unchangeable church. When did they stop being heretics according to the RCC?

Christianity seems confused and divided. Surely God did not create this situation.

[Cairbre]

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?

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

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.

Yes, I would chose Mohammad if that were possible.

I took a walk today and happen to see into a backyard that contained a pool. You might say that I had been ignoring that pool, but I say I have just now seen it and so started to think about how nice it would be to know these people so that on a warm day they might remember me and invite me in.

It would also be nice if Mormons and Christians before commenting on the Koran would read what it has to say, put it in the context of the times it was written, and try to understand how what it says fits into their own belief system with the goal being a unity of thought and purpose. Because I believe God had a purpose in bringing people outside of Christianity and Judaism to a common place where they would be considered the descendants of Abraham. When you then add this concept of purpose to a world in apostasy, a world where Christians and Jews are outside of their doctrine, it seems clear to me that Islam is the place he created for those in an apostasy of the truth. Therefore, a fallen Jew or a fallen Christian still have a place in God.

[Joseph Antley]

I was under the impression that Muslims believed that the prophet Muhammad was the "seal of the prophets," interpreted to mean that he was the last prophet before the final judgment and return of Isa and and the Mahdi.

If that's the case, then that means that Joseph Smith cannot be a prophet, nor can the Book of Mormon or Doctrine & Covenants be the words of God to a prophet.

[zerinus]

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.

Maybe that is how it appears from the point of view of a non-Mormon, so we will have to agree to disagree in that one.

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?

I think that people are on different stages in their journey towards eternal life or salvation. You can compare it to a journey that a child takes from childhood to adulthood and to higher education. The most important thing is not where one is along that journey, but that he is moving in the right direction. A non-Mormon who is committed to the Christian ideal according to his or her own Christian tradition, and tries to live by it, will not be denied the highest glory that God offers provided that he or she does not turn away from the course that leads to it somewhere along the line, either in this life or in the next. That means accepting all the truth that God has revealed at some point in his journey, either in this life or in the next. So the statement that "Mormons believe they will attain a higher glory than non-Mormons" is not entirely accurate. Perhaps the correct way to put it is that if one rejected message of the restored gospel wholeheartedly after it had been preached to you by the power of the priesthood and the Holy Ghost, and persists in that course to the end of your life, then you are not likely to get a second chance.

I went back and looked at some of your earlier posts, and again would like to comment on these:

What do Mormons believe about the prophet Mohammad? Did he speak for God?

I previously asked if Mormons recognize the prophet Mohammad as a true prophet. Could you answer that? What has the LDS church said on this matter?

It appears that these are important questions to you. In answer I would again refer you to my post #138. In addition you might like to note the following interesting quote form the Book of Mormon:

• Alma 29:8 "For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true."

This I believe the light in which Latter-day Saints view the teachings of the Prophet Mohammad; and the statements form the First Presidency generally reflect this sentiment. Beyond that the Church is not prepared to go at the present time.

[zerinus]

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

I agree that good has come out of Islam and the teachings of the Prophet Mohammad.

[zerinus]

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.

We believe that Mormonism is God's only true Church, therefore it is not a question of "choosing between apples and oranges". The choice is between Mormonism or nothing.

[zerinus]

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

Nice work! Keep it up!

How do you reconcile that statement with this?

You are begining to contradict yourself.

I disagree. Reading the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants does not mean that he has learned everything that he needs to know about Mormonism.

[zerinus]

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.

If I could answer that question, perhaps you might call me a prophet. And even if I make an attempt neither half of the equation would probably accept it. That is why I am starting from a new formula, which is that if all good things come from God and there is only one God, then the words of the Koran and the Bible can be reconciled. That is my good hope which must also comes from God.

But if I obtain a resolution to such a dilemma I will share it with you.

Maybe the explanation is that the Koran has been changed!

[zerinus]

Reading books and learning of the church from the adherents of the faith are two separate things.

Likewise, reading the literature does not make me a believer in what I have read.

I have come here because I have read those books.

Good answer, thank you.

[zerinus]

So if I read you correctly, Catholic baptism also has the requirement of belief in the Trinity.

The articles of Mormon faith posted here state that they believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. So I cannot reconcile your determination that they do not believe in a three-in-one God especially when you also add that "One God in three Persons is expressly rejected by Mormons". It seems a fine line to be divided along.

As far as which of the two (Mormon or Christian) has the true gospel and which has "another gospel", it seems that if you are Catholic you must deny the apostasy in order to believe that what the RCC has is consistent with what Christ first built. On the other hand, if you believe that the apostasy happened, you cannot believe that the Catholic church survived it and therefore a restoration was necessary.

Since the Koran professed an apostasy of both the Jew and the Christian even back in the 7th century, I am inclined to believe that one truly existed. And since the Catholic church has not fundamentally changed since Mohammad's time, and since it did not change in spite of a reform effort by the Protestants, I am inclined to believe that the RCC is still in a state of apostasy. One can draw no other conclusion.

More confusing is the statement made earlier that Catholics would honor some of the other Protestant baptisms. Where is the logic in accepting another churches baptism as one viable in the Catholic church? If I am not mistaken, Protestants were ruled heretics when they rebelled against an unchangeable church. When did they stop being heretics according to the RCC?

Christianity seems confused and divided. Surely God did not create this situation.

Another great answer, Thank you.

[SlackTime]

I appreciate your topical based review, but I count only 12 in your list.

What is TULIP?

Sorry, I've been busy having a real life. There were only 12 because two articles of faith were combined in one response. The 6th talks about the scriptures, and the 9th talks about revelation, I combined those in my discussion. If you need a reference to the actual articles of faith, they are HERE

Remember that I was modifying them based upon the premise of how we differed from other Christian religions.

TULIP - Is the 5 points of Calvinism:

Total depravity

Unconditional election

Limited atonement

Irresistible grace

Perseverance of the saints

I refer you to a Calvinist and to this Wikipedia article for more info.

- SlackTime

[zerinus]

I was under the impression that Muslims believed that the prophet Muhammad was the "seal of the prophets," interpreted to mean that he was the last prophet before the final judgment and return of Isa and and the Mahdi.

If that's the case, then that means that Joseph Smith cannot be a prophet, nor can the Book of Mormon or Doctrine & Covenants be the words of God to a prophet.

That is a valid point. That would be another one of those "irreconcilables" between Mormonism and Islam---unless of course the word "seal" has been incorrectly interpreted! "Seal" need not necessarily mean "the last one". It could be interpreted in other ways, such as in "seal of approval" for example---meaning that Mohammad came to testify of, approve, or confirm the truth of all previous prophets.

[Calm]

I do not know how most mormons feel about using the term "prefer" when talking about God's relationship with those of our faith, but I find it to be too laden with connotations that lead to wrong conclusions and thus it would be better to avoid its use.

First and foremost I think one needs to make a division between the faith and those who practice it. One is not the other. Our faith is the Gospel as it has been revealed to us, in its fullest and purest form on the earth. As I have mentioned before and as stated in the Articles of Faith there is more to be revealed to us, but if one understand the Gospel to be the "good news" the Lord has given the world in order that those who desire it may enter back into his presence and live with him eternally, then one can state that the LDS is the full Gospel, not just the fullest. We have all the knowledge we need to get to the next step the Lord requires of us on the way to exaltation. We also believe that others do not have the full knowledge and so like zerinus said, it is not a matter of degree between the LDS faith and any other religious faith but rather choosing between accepting the Gospel as taught by the LDS Church and damnation.

Other faiths do have many truths, but salvation---like pregnancy---does not happen in degrees. One is not "mostly saved". One's actions will be judged in the context of the truths and laws they have been given at that time, but eventually they will be given all truth and at that point will make a decision whether to accept the Lord completely into their lives or choose a lesser degree of glory.

At first glance this is not unlike many other Christian faiths who teach theirs is the only way. One big difference is that we also teach an explicit mechanism (as opposed to relying on the mercy of God to take care of the lacks) whereby those who did not have a full opportunity to accept the Gospel in their mortal life will be able to receive it in the next life (the mechanism is well explained in the Gospel Principles manual so I won't go into it in detail here).

So to speak of God "preferring" Mormons as a group does not really fit into the LDS paradigm imo as all will have the same opportunities to experience God's love in its fullest form, just at different times in their lives.

One could say that those who have the opportunity first--either through being born in the faith or encountering it in their mortal lives and accepting it---would seem to be preferred simply because they got there first, but I would point to the parable of the labourers in the vineyard that demonstrates it's not when one arrives at the truth that matters, but simply that one arrives and stays. This mortal life is short, if not sweet and in my view when compared to eternity, the differences of 'when one arrives' are too insignificant to even be considered.

I would also use the idea of a "chosen people" presented in the Old Testament of the Hebrews. Simply because God chose them to do the work did not give them an automatic pass to eternal salvation. And there were times that God's 'preference'---because of their rejection of the truths and laws he had given them---was expressed in allowing them to suffer the full consequences of their sins including their nations being destroyed, enduring slavery and being scattered. There are some that would prefer not to be chosen if those are the things one can look forward to if one is less than obedient to the Lord's Will or gives one's love more to another than to God.

LDS are "chosen" in that way. We and all of those who join us through conversion have been given an assignment by the Lord to help in bringing the full truth of the Gospel to the World and to provide the ordinances of mortality necessary for eternal life. That does not mean we are automatically "better" or more loved by the Lord, it just means that for some reason he found us suited to this work and gave it to us. If we accept this calling and fulfill it to the best of our abilities through God's guidance and blessings, then we can expect to join with him through eternity. If we do not, if we reject this blessing of serving others in this way, then we will not be able to look forward to being one with the Lord.

[Joseph Antley]

That is a valid point. That would be another one of those "irreconcilables" between Mormonism and Islam---unless of course the word "seal" has been incorrectly interpreted! "Seal" need not necessarily mean "the last one". It could be interpreted in other ways, such as in "seal of approval" for example---meaning that Mohammad came to testify of, approve, or confirm the truth of all previous prophets.

Of course you and I can claim all day that Muslims are misinterpreting their own scripture, but I've never heard of a Muslim -- mainstream, heterodox, fundamentalist, or radical -- claim that.

[zerinus]

Of course you and I can claim all day that Muslims are misinterpreting their own scripture, but I've never heard of a Muslim -- mainstream, heterodox, fundamentalist, or radical -- claim that.

I didn't say that they would. But you can't deny that that is one way of interpreting it. If he wanted to reconcile this teaching of Islam with Mormonism, that would be one way of doing it. It might not satisfy the Muslim groups you have mentioned; but if it satisfies him, who cares? Who is to say that their interpretations are better than his?