Earning Salvation

[Zakuska]

Yes. The missionary lessons have never taught that such-and-such professing Christians are not really Christians. Denying the actual Christianity of others has never been a part of LDS doctrine, plain and simple.

Contrasted by the raison-d'etre of Christian missionary work to Mormons.

Is Mormonism Christian?

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?catid=5

[Rob Bowman]

JDave,

There are several factors or issues that lead me to a different conclusion than you do.

1. The NT teaches us to contend earnestly for the faith and to oppose and expose false prophets (references on request if you need them).

2. LDS Church evangelistic efforts have always been aimed largely at converting Christians to the LDS religion. This can be seen from the missionary lessons, which quickly introduce the themes of apostasy and restoration in the first lesson.

3. The LDS Church need not invest effort specifically directed at any one denomination because it declares ALL of them apostate. This simplifies the "discernment" process immensely!

4. It is not accurate to say that Mormons merely claim that other churches fall short of the fullness of the gospel. They claim that members of all other churches are not validly baptized, are not part of God's covenant community today, are not authentic Christian churches at all, etc., etc.

5. I expect you to be offended by my saying this, and I mean no offense, but from my perspective the LDS Church actively engages in efforts to suppress the truth about itself. It does this in two ways. The first is spreading disinformation about its own teachings to make them sound more mainstream than they are. Its answers to "Fox's 21 Questions about the Mormon Church" back about three years ago was a rather clear example. The second is the suppression of documents damaging to the sanctified history of the LDS Church (which was a very big problem in the past; if not so much now because of the efforts largely of "anti-Mormons" to make such documents available). Such lack of full disclosure to the public about its own teachings and history makes it necessary for critics to make the facts known.

Finally, I should say that if you started a ministry like "Ex-Baptists for Joseph" or "Methodist Research Ministry" it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

I think the point is that for you to claim the LDS Church is incorrect is different from campaigning to debunk and discredit it. The LDS church does claim that all other churches fall short of the fulness of the gospel. The LDS church does not invest any effort in systematically showing that any of those individual churches is particularly apostate.

The Evangelicals are a bit more inclusive of some other perceived Mainstream Christian churches as being valid vehicles to teach salvation through Christ, whereas the LDS church does unequivocally state that no other church is a valid vehicle to obtain necessary ordinances. We preach that the fulness of the gospel may be found in the LDS church; we don't teach that Church XYZ is dangerous and show why that is so.

So it is perfectly valid for Evangelicals to draw a very bright line distinguishing what they perceive as valid Biblical churches and what are not. But leave it at that. Draw the line and then focus on shining light on all that is good and better on the 'Biblical' side of that line. Contrasts are helpful at times to highlight why it is better, but the good side of the contrast should be able to stand on its own.

Sorry for the tangent, and the soap box. I'll make up for it by making a substantive pertinent post to this thread a bit later.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

As I recall the Apostacy appeared in part of the 3rd of 6 discussion.

Incorrect. Apostasy is introduced in the first lesson ("Preach My Gospel", 33, 35-37, 43, 44).

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

I dont' ever remember telling other Christians that they didn't have Jesus. I do remember telling them that I beleive more about Jesus then they do. I also remember telling people that I wanted to share with them how the church has helped me out in life. If they saw no value in that, then I have no issue. I told several on occasion that if they are happy with what they believe I have really no interest in changing their minds.

Then for you Jesus cannot be the raison-d'etre of the LDS Church, because we already had Jesus before it came along.

I could easily, and truthfully, argue that I believe more about Jesus than you do. For example, I believe that we may pray to Jesus at any time. I believe that Jesus is the one Almighty God. I believe that Jesus has always been God, with no beginning of his deity. These are truths about Jesus that we orthodox Christians have and that the LDS Church does not.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Mola,

You wrote:

Incorrect. Apostasy is introduced in the first lesson ("Preach My Gospel", 33, 35-37, 43, 44).

Preach my gospel is a piecemeal approach. Elders can teach any lesson first. Oops.

[Storm Rider]

Mola,

You wrote:

Then for you Jesus cannot be the raison-d'etre of the LDS Church, because we already had Jesus before it came along.

I could easily, and truthfully, argue that I believe more about Jesus than you do. For example, I believe that we may pray to Jesus at any time. I believe that Jesus is the one Almighty God. I believe that Jesus has always been God, with no beginning of his deity. These are truths about Jesus that we orthodox Christians have and that the LDS Church does not.

That is interesting. I agree with most of what you have said, except that I don't pray to Jesus. Jesus was explicit in the NT about who we pray to and how. I don't know of a time when Jesus was not a member of the Godhead; he has always been God. How anyone believes "more" about Jesus simply is not possible.

[Vance]

The first is spreading disinformation about its own teachings to make them sound more mainstream than they are. Its answers to "Fox's 21 Questions about the Mormon Church" back about three years ago was a rather clear example.

Rob,

CFR!!!

[LifeOnaPlate]

Mola,

You wrote:

Then for you Jesus cannot be the raison-d'etre of the LDS Church, because we already had Jesus before it came along.

Again with these weird either/or assertions that frankly demonstrate a lack of charitable imagination in dialog. Christ promised life, and that more abundantly. If LDS believe we offer more of that abundance it doesn't mean we aren't chiefly built on Christ.

[LifeOnaPlate]

4. It is not accurate to say that Mormons merely claim that other churches fall short of the fullness of the gospel. They claim that members of all other churches are not validly baptized, are not part of God's covenant community today, are not authentic Christian churches at all, etc., etc.

Unlke you, though, we don't add the little proviso, "and thus they are all damned to eternal burning fires of hell." And praise be to the Lord for that!

Finally, I should say that if you started a ministry like "Ex-Baptists for Joseph" or "Methodist Research Ministry" it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

Exactly. Hence, my signature dedicated to you.

[Rob Bowman]

LifeonaPlate,

While some allowance is made for varying from the published order when appropriate, the fact remains that the lessons were written in the order they were, and begin with the issue of apostasy and restoration, because that is central to the LDS message. Don't take my word for it. "No matter where you serve or whom you teach, center your teaching on the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ' ("Preach My Gospel", 6). This statement appears under the heading, "The Message of the Restoration: The Foundation of Faith." Obviously, the concept of the Restoration can only be presented in the context of the concept of the Great Apostasy.

Oops indeed.

Preach my gospel is a piecemeal approach. Elders can teach any lesson first. Oops.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

You wrote:

Incorrect. Apostasy is introduced in the first lesson ("Preach My Gospel", 33, 35-37, 43, 44).

Rob I am talking about when I was on my mission. THat was in 1997-1999 I have no idea were it is taught now.

I just know that it was a small part of the lessons and that it was talked about on part of the 3rd discssuion. . And we never talked how people were unsaved and not Christian during the apostasy. We didn't spend huge amounts of time telling them how wrong they were and that they had a false gospel and that they worshipp the wrong Jesus. And that they are really not saved because they think that Baptisim wasn't necessary. And on and on and on.

Almost all of the discussions focused on our church. Were it seems most of what you and your organization write about is how wrong the LDS church is. It is as if your organization is all about tearing my/ and others faith down.

Now, I think you go to great lengths to not mis-represent our beliefs and you are respectful and you manage to share more about your beliefs in your papers that you write then what I typically find from other EV groups. Any way I think we have derailed your thread.

What were we talking about before?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

You wrote:

Then for you Jesus cannot be the raison-d'etre of the LDS Church, because we already had Jesus before it came along.

I could easily, and truthfully, argue that I believe more about Jesus than you do. For example, I believe that we may pray to Jesus at any time. I believe that Jesus is the one Almighty God. I believe that Jesus has always been God, with no beginning of his deity. These are truths about Jesus that we orthodox Christians have and that the LDS Church does not.

Rob, you are doing it. Thanks.

For the record I have said that you can pray to Jesus. No one in the church would have a cow if you prayed to Jesus. No one would claim your prayer was not being heard. And Jesus is the almighty God of Abrahama, Isaac, and Jacob. I believe he has always been divine. Either way I am not going to get into a "My God is older than your God" debate. It is pointless.

[Vance]

4. It is not accurate to say that Mormons merely claim that other churches fall short of the fullness of the gospel.

True, they also lack authority.

They claim that members of all other churches are not validly baptized,

True, but we can take care of that for them, either now or after they are dead.

. . . . are not part of God's covenant community today,

Covenant? What covenants do you guys believe in?

. . . are not authentic Christian churches at all, etc., etc.

Well, when you specify "authentic" then that is correct. But we still don't exempt their members from being Christian and don't claim that they don't believe in the "right" Jesus.

[Rob Bowman]

Rob,

CFR!!!

Okay, you asked for it. What appears below are the first several questions, the LDS Church's answers, and my comments.

Q: Why do some call the Church a cult?

A: For the most part, this seems to stem from a lack of understanding about the Church and its core doctrines and beliefs. Under those circumstances it is too easy to label a religion or other organization that is not well-known with an inflammatory term like

[Vance]

I believe that Jesus has always been God, with no beginning of his deity. These are truths about Jesus that we orthodox Christians have and that the LDS Church does not.

CFR on that one too. Show me where we say that Jesus hasn't always been divine.

[LifeOnaPlate]

LifeonaPlate,

While some allowance is made for varying from the published order when appropriate, the fact remains that the lessons were written in the order they were, and begin with the issue of apostasy and restoration, because that is central to the LDS message. Don't take my word for it. "No matter where you serve or whom you teach, center your teaching on the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ' ("Preach My Gospel", 6). This statement appears under the heading, "The Message of the Restoration: The Foundation of Faith." Obviously, the concept of the Restoration can only be presented in the context of the concept of the Great Apostasy.

Oops indeed.

Yes, oops indeed. It doesn't say the "Apostasy and Restoration." Further, it specifically tells the elders to follow the inspiration of the Holy Ghost in deciding what lessons to teach when. Placement is irrelevant. But why am I even trying to discuss it with you? You are bent on interpreting my religion through your warped lens of anti-Mormonism. Sad religion, that.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Either way I am not going to get into a "My God is older than your God" debate. It is pointless.

Really isn't this whole discussion rather pointless? Rob has made it his mission in life to criticize another religion instead of preaching Jesus Christ. Perhaps it's best if we simply ignore him.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Okay, you asked for it. What appears below are the first several questions, the LDS Church's answers, and my comments.

I think you are so straining at nats here. You are totally whining becuase they did not give pages and pages of explinations and every detail and trivial thing on the doctrine. The main thrust of what is said is true and I cannot see how it is misleading. Particually the parts about Kolob. And the Virgin Mary stuff you say is flat out false.

"that the conception took place through a sexual union." I have not read a single church leaders quote were they said it took place by a sexual union. The thing that they stress is that Jesus has a Father just as you and I. Talk about a mis-representation. It is church doctrine that Mary is a Virgin. There could not have been a "sexual union" and she remain a virgin.

[David T]

Apostasy is introduced in the first lesson ("Preach My Gospel", 33, 35-37, 43, 44).

This is correct - it is taught as part of a historical overview of the Biblical pattern of obedience of a people to prophets, followed by period of apostasy through disobedience, followed again by prophetic message, etc. Its purpose is to show the continuity and consistency of God sending prophets after periods of falling away, and to place the modern-day Restoration into the context of sacred history.

Preach My Gospel also points out this is specifically to be taught to those with a non-Christian background as well. It even gives the purpose for it:

"You might wonder how gospel dispensations are relevant when teaching people who do not have a Christian background or culture. But you will find that by briefly relating the history of gospel dispensations, you can help people understand that God loves His children and that He is the same yesterday, today, and forever."

So the stated reason for teaching this is to express the consistency and love of God. The focus is on prophetic restorations. The period of the Apostasy is presented for important context, and in fact the manual speaks favorably of the reformers.

While there certainly has been unflattering rhetoric used against protestants (and especially Catholics) in the past, it is not something I'm aware that has been done for many years now in the Church - especially not in the missionary program. When emphasis is given to the pre-Restoration period, reformers are spoken of as being inspired by God, and the followers thereof (and this is applied to such today as well) as being generally innocently misled due only to a lack of proper information and experience - yet still earnestly striving for God, and being blessed according to the light and knowledge they have.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Particually the parts about Kolob.

Don't you also miss Kolob Sunday?

[LifeOnaPlate]

So the stated reason for teaching this is to express the consistency and love of God. The focus is on prophetic restorations. The period of the Apostasy is presented for important context, and in fact the manual speaks favorably of the reformers.

Moreover, you could start the lessons with a different topic should you decide.

[JDave]

Okay, you asked for it. What appears below are the first several questions, the LDS Church's answers, and my comments.

Wasn't the CFR against your claim that the church was making statements that made it sound mainstream? Your complaints seem to be that the churches answers describe a doctrine that isn't mainstream. You may wish for some more details about minutiae that would sound even more non-mainstream, but I see no indication (or complaint from you) that the answers are misleadingly mainstream sounding.

[JDave]

1. The NT teaches us to contend earnestly for the faith and to oppose and expose false prophets (references on request if you need them).

So expose the false prophets, draw that bright line, and then leave it alone. Does the New Testament teach us to obsess over the false teachings of others?

2. LDS Church evangelistic efforts have always been aimed largely at converting Christians to the LDS religion. This can be seen from the missionary lessons, which quickly introduce the themes of apostasy and restoration in the first lesson.

You're not evangelizing Mormons, you are attacking them. Evangelizing them would be to counter the claims of Apostasy and showing how the greater truth lies within Evangelicalism. That would be the foil to what LDS missionaries are engaged in.

3. The LDS Church need not invest effort specifically directed at any one denomination because it declares ALL of them apostate. This simplifies the "discernment" process immensely!

Yes, it declares it. And then it leaves it alone and talks about the beautiful truths of the restored gospel.

4. It is not accurate to say that Mormons merely claim that other churches fall short of the fullness of the gospel. They claim that members of all other churches are not validly baptized, are not part of God's covenant community today, are not authentic Christian churches at all, etc., etc.

I also stated that they would be lacking necessary ordinances, so don't nitpick too much. But it is accurate to state that our evangelizing effort focuses on the additional light provided by the fulness of the gospel, and it emphasizes building on common beliefs. In our missionary efforts we focus more on what is right in other religions than what is wrong in them.

5. I expect you to be offended by my saying this, and I mean no offense, but from my perspective the LDS Church actively engages in efforts to suppress the truth about itself.

This sounds like it would be of great interest to the journalistic community, as opposed to a community charged with helping mankind reconcile themselves to Christ.

Finally, I should say that if you started a ministry like "Ex-Baptists for Joseph" or "Methodist Research Ministry" it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

As LoaP already intimated, I don't know if this statement helps you any. I daresay a lot of Mormons would be bothered if I started such a ministry.

[LifeOnaPlate]

As LoaP already intimated, I don't know if this statement helps you any. I daresay a lot of Mormons would be bothered if I started such a ministry.

I would vocally oppose it. But it wouldn't become anything near the main subject of my walk and conversation. You make good points.

[Zakuska]

One question Evangelical doctrine has never been able to answer for me...

Romans 11

6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God