Are Mormons Christian: Continue The Discussion

[Robert F. Smith]

jwhitlock,

My position on John 17:20-23 is simple. Jesus is praying that his disciples may be one just as he and the Father are one, so that the world may know and believe that the Father sent Jesus the Son. In context, then, Jesus is praying for the disciples to be one during their mortal lifetimes, since this is when the world may observe their "oneness" and learn from it that Jesus really is the Son sent by the Father. Furthermore, throughout this part of Jesus' prayer he repeatedly emphasizes the mutual love of the Father and the Son (the noun agape and the verb agapein occur five times in verses 23-26). Compare this text with John 13:34-35, which is toward the beginning of the Upper Room discourse of Jesus, where Jesus says that all people will know that the disciples are Jesus' disciples by their love for each other. That text and John 17:20-26 form "bookends" in this whole section of the Gospel of John and are clearly related thematically. Thus, in John 17 Jesus is praying that the disciples will have a unity of love that will so impress people in the world that they will be able to recognize that the disciples are representing Jesus, the Son sent from the Father. The text has nothing to do with what the disciples might be like after they die, and it certainly does not mean or imply that they will ever become beings of the same kind as God -- all-knowing, all-powerful beings.

Whether these texts have anything to do with apotheosis, you are quite right to see the thematic unity. Indeed, the entirety of the Final Discourses of Jesus are chiastic, Jn 13:31 - 17:26, according to Raymond Brown, John, II:597. A couple of other scholars, Mlakuzhyil and Zorilla, extend that from Jn 13:1 - 17:26, and the parallel passages are acceptable keys to good exegesis.

[wenglund]

Wade,

The Mormon interpretation of the First Vision account in Joseph Smith--History is reasonable, though quite literalistic. The interpretation of the passage to mean that none of the churches were acceptable to God, that there had been a great apostasy necessitating a restoration, and that Joseph was to be the instrument of that restoration, certainly seems reasonable on an exoteric, rationalistic reading of the text. That the passage means that the Father and the Son literally appeared to Joseph as two separately embodied beings is a charmingly naive, two-dimensional reading of the text that Mormons like you no doubt find appealing, illuminating, and empowering. I would not for the world want to deny you your right to read the text in this way and to find validation for your personal beliefs in such an approach to the scriptures.

But, I don't just interpret that passage literally. In fact, I tend to view it more figuratively, and on a personal basis in terms of my own beliefs and actions, some of which periodically require a "restoration", though I tend to use the word "repentance" instead.

I can understand, however, that when you look through your rudimentary lens at my unspoken comments about that passage, it would appear rudimentary in the way you suggested. One can only see what one is capable of seeing--though at times some people, like you, see and hear things that I haven't even said.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Robert F. Smith]

Thanks for responding. Could you clarify the following:

- What do you mean by "learn as much as you can from them about your own religious beliefs"?

When the anti-Mormons cite documents, provide quotes, and present a divergent point of view, take that opportunity to learn about your own history and tradition. If they raise what seem to be insuperable arguments, go to helpful books and websites for answers (www.fairlds.org has a lot of good answers and discussions), or ask on this board. By all means take your time. Knowledge, real knowledge is not acquired in a day. It may take the better part of a lifetime. Rob, for example, has been at this for decades, including formal academic training.

- Was your quote from Quinn mean that those who bear a great deal of antipathy for anti-Mormons aren't interested in examining their faith?

His quote is a paraphrase of Socrates: "the unexamined life is not worth living." It means that one should not go through life like a bump on a log, but to raise relevant questions about things. So plumbing the depths of one's religion can likewise make faith more meaningful.

[jwhitlock]

When the anti-Mormons cite documents, provide quotes, and present a divergent point of view, take that opportunity to learn about your own history and tradition. If they raise what seem to be insuperable arguments, go to helpful books and websites for answers (www.fairlds.org has a lot of good answers and discussions), or ask on this board. By all means take your time. Knowledge, real knowledge is not acquired in a day. It may take the better part of a lifetime. Rob, for example, has been at this for decades, including formal academic training.

His quote is a paraphrase of Socrates: "the unexamined life is not worth living." It means that one should not go through life like a bump on a log, but to raise relevant questions about things. So plumbing the depths of one's religion can likewise make faith more meaningful.

Thanks for the clarification. I agree with what you've written and have been attempting to do just that for most of my life.

[wenglund]

When the anti-Mormons cite documents, provide quotes, and present a divergent point of view, take that opportunity to learn about your own history and tradition. If they raise what seem to be insuperable arguments, go to helpful books and websites for answers (www.fairlds.org has a lot of good answers and discussions), or ask on this board. By all means take your time. Knowledge, real knowledge is not acquired in a day. It may take the better part of a lifetime. Rob, for example, has been at this for decades, including formal academic training.

His quote is a paraphrase of Socrates: "the unexamined life is not worth living." It means that one should not go through life like a bump on a log, but to raise relevant questions about things. So plumbing the depths of one's religion can likewise make faith more meaningful.

There needs be opposition in all things.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 1, 2012 by wenglund

[The Grimace]

Yet you've definitely taken sides. In any debate, it's useful to know where people are coming from when responding.

I'm not sure which debate you are talking about - if it's the John 17 debate, I'm not really following it. If it's the "Are Mormon's Christian" debate, I haven't taken a side, I've asked some questions, made some points, but have yet argue for or against. If it's the "Rob Bowman is a nice guy" debate, I clearly have said I think he is. If it's the "Rob Bowman is an anti-mormon" debate, he says he isn't, and that is fine by me - I'm not interested in proving or disproving the hypothesis.

Have I missed any of the debates?

[Zakuska]

Have I missed any of the debates?

Yes, you have.

What is Ronalds favorite meal? BigMac combo or a Cheese burger and a strawberry shake?

[Rob Bowman]

Zerinus,

In response to my comments to jwhitlock about John 17:20-23, you commented:

That is an exercise in obscurantism and obfuscation. You try to befuddle the issue by introducing unrelated concepts in the hope that people will lose sight of the wood for the trees.

You will get absolutely nowhere with me (or anyone else for that matter) by accusing me of trying to befuddle an issue and of hoping that people will not see something. This sort of accusation of deliberate obfuscation should be reserved for clear-cut situations in which you have strong evidence supporting the accusation beyond the mere fact that my interpretation of a passage differs from yours.

You say:

Let’s have a closer look at the text of john 17.

If only that is what you had actually proceeded to do, everything would have been fine. Instead you completely ignored the specific exegetical observations about the text that I provided. That is, you went around the exegetical evidence I presented instead of actually addressing the points I made. That this is what you did will be demonstrated beyond reasonable dispute below.

Again in response to jwhitlock, I had written:

“I addressed John 17 in my response to Bill Hamblin, mentioned in the thread he started about Witherington's blog.”

Toward the end of your post, you quote the following comment you had made:

That is a dodge. John 17 gives the complete answer to your question. If you think that it doesn't, it is up to you to present your arguments here in a cogent fashion so it can be discussed, not sending people on a wild goose chase reading lengthy articles about something else which they may not have an interest in reading.

Apparently, it is okay for Bill Hamblin to refer people to a lengthy blog article he has written, but it is not okay for Rob Bowman to do exactly the same thing. I can only assume this is because he is Mormon and I am not. If you don’t have an interest in reading an article I wrote on John 17 (it’s not really that long), you obviously don’t have sufficient interest to engage in a discussion with me about John 17. So again, why should I take anything you say about this seriously?

There is a double-whammy here. You (1) accuse me in effect of dishonesty and (2) you ignore the evidence I presented for my view, both the brief summary I gave jwhitlock and the longer article I cited. If you’re going to accuse me of dishonesty and ignore what I say, why should I take anything you say seriously? Indeed, why should you even want me to respond to you?

You quote John 17:11, 17-24, in a very interesting fashion. You put in bold italics practically everything in these verses except the elements I cited in support of my position! You also omitted verses 25-26, which were important to my argument. Here is how you quoted verses 21-24:

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Notice that you did not place in bold italics the two places where Jesus says the result of the disciples’ being “one” will be that the world will be able to believe and know that the Father had sent Jesus (vv. 21b, 23b) and the two places where Jesus emphasizes the Father’s love as the basis of this oneness (vv. 23b, 24b). Yet these two aspects of the passage are the basis of my argument. In effect, you were drawing attention away from those parts of the passage.

Now let’s get into your attempt to refute my position on the passage (remembering that you have shown so far that you don’t care what I might say about the passage and that you consider my comments about it to be deliberate obfuscation!). Only by ignoring my actual argument could you make a statement like the following:

This doesn’t say that their “oneness” is confined to this world only, but goes beyond this world.

I never said that it would be confined to this world. I said that it would be attainable or realizable in this world. Obviously, I expect that Jesus’ disciples will continue to be united in love for eternity, not just in this life! All you are doing at this point is knocking down a straw man.

You wrote:

That they should be one as the Father and the Son are one. That speaks of an eternal state of oneness, because the Father and the Son are eternally one; and if they are to be one as the Father and the Son are one, that means that their oneness will also be eternal. It goes even further and says that they are not only to be one among themselves, but that they are to be one with the Father and the Son, as the Father and the Son are one. There is no possible way of understanding that except in an eternal sense. Their oneness is to extend to eternity, not just on earth.

Your argument at this point appears to be begging the question. That is, you are assuming that this text means that we are to be one in every sense that the Father and the Son are one. Since this is the very point at issue, you are assuming what you need to be showing from the text. Nothing in John 17:20-26 says or implies that human beings can or should become “eternally one” with each other and with God. Now again, I agree that the oneness that Jesus prays for is something that true disciples will have forever, not just here on earth. But the question remains what kind of oneness this is.

I should also point out that in my theology the Father and the Son really are “eternally one.” In fact, they were one before the creation of the world (cf. John 17:5; see also John 1:1-2, etc.). This is something we can never attain, because it is truly eternal, i.e., it truly transcends any temporal limitations. The Father and the Son are not simply going to be one for the rest of time; they are indeed eternally one. They always have been one, and they always will be one. Creatures cannot become one in this sense because if they aren’t already eternally transcendent beings then they never will be.

You wrote:

It says that in order to make them one, He has given them the glory that God the Father has given Him. There is no other way of interpreting this other than that this oneness is divine, eternal, and extends to eternity; and is identical to the oneness that the Father and the Son possess.

This is your strongest point, but it doesn’t prove what you claim. There are two “glories” in John 17. There is the glory that Jesus has always had, even before creation (John 17:5), and there is the glory that the Father gave Jesus in his humble incarnation to give to the disciples (v. 22). What Jesus says is that by giving his disciples this glory, they will become one as he and the Father are one, so that the world will know that the Father sent Jesus and that he loves them (vv. 22-23). Notice that Jesus says that he had already given the disciples this glory, yet they were not at the time deified beings; they were in fact still mortal. Therefore, whatever this “glory” is that the Father gave to Jesus to give to his disciples, it is not deification. Jesus does not pray that the disciples will have glory just as he and the Father have glory, which would come closer to what you are trying to find in this passage. He prays that as a result of this glory they will be one as he and the Father are one. And again, we must read this in context to determine what this being “one” means here.

You wrote:

Finally, He prays to the Father that His disciples should be where He will be in order that they may behold the glory that the Father had given him—after stating that He has given that same glory to them in order to make them one, as the Father and the Son are one. That nails it down as hard as it can be nailed down that their oneness was to be equal and identical to the oneness that the Father and the Son enjoy; and that it was to extend to eternity, and not just for time.

Again, I have never claimed that the oneness the disciples were to have would be limited to this mortal life. Rather, I have pointed out that according to Jesus this oneness is something the disciples could experience and realize in this mortal life. That proves it cannot be referring to deification, because even Mormon theology doesn’t think mortals can be deified while they are still mortals. Jesus prays both that the disciples will be one in loving unity in this mortal life and that eventually they will be reunited with Jesus and come to behold the Father’s glory. I certainly believe these things will happen for Jesus’ true followers.

You wrote:

The text of John 17 says "as we are [one]," which speaks for itself…. The text says "as we are [one]," which speaks for itself.

Your statements here are meaningless except as suggesting that the meaning of the text is so obvious that no argument is needed to see it. Clearly, the discussion in this thread shows that not to be the case.

You wrote:

Their one-ness is a separate issue from their forming a Godhead. We can be one with them in exactly the same way that they are one with each other, without at the same time forming a Godhead with them. In other words, their one-ness is an essential prerequisite to their forming a Godhead; but their forming a Godhead is not a prerequisite to their one-ness. They need to be one in order to form a Godhead; but they don't need to form a Godhead in order to be one.

I can actually agree with you here as long as the “oneness” is properly defined. We can be one with each other and with the Father and the Son just as they are one in the sense indicated by the context, which, as I have shown (with evidence you have simply ignored), is a oneness of love. We can be one in this way without becoming included in the Godhead. The Trinity would not be the Trinity without perfect love, but their Triunity is more than just a unity of love. In any case, what you are really admitting is that there is a sense in which the three persons of the Trinity are one that we are not and will not be: they are one Godhead; we are not and never will be one Godhead with them.

The fact is that nothing in John 17 suggests that believers can ever become “one” with the Father and the Son in the attributes that make them God. Nothing in the passage suggests that believers can become eternal beings whose existence transcends temporal limitations. (Again, if you’re not already such a being, you can never become one, by the simple law of noncontradiction.) Nothing in the passage suggests that believers can become all-powerful or all-knowing beings. This just isn’t what Jesus has in view here. If you want you can always appeal to your extrabiblical revelations to validate such a doctrine, but it just isn’t in John 17.

Now, after your badgering me for an answer, I have fully responded to you. I have done so despite your offensive and false accusations against me and despite the fact that you have already demonstrated indifference toward what I actually say about the issue. Now it is up to you to make a good-faith effort to do better than you have done so far and to engage the issues with me in a respectful way, giving due consideration to my arguments and keeping the focus on the issues and not on your personal feelings about me. If you can make such an effort, we can move forward with an interesting discussion. If not, that would be too bad.

Edited September 2, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Chris4444]

ANYONE WANT TO TALK PRODUCTIVE? Not about this rob guys site?-no disrespect just dont know you or your site

I want to actually talk about Mormanism Vs christianity and what i see as a major difference between them. Are any Mormons up for the task?!

Im not a Mormon hater, in fact every Mormon i have meet seems great. I think mitt romney seems like a great family guy and just all around good human being. That being said I am worried, honestly concerned that Mormanism might be impeeding full christian developement. What i mean is, i think mormans can be christian but i think the religion might not be ideal. I would like to have a real convo with a mormon/s on here about my concerns.

I cant make my own forum yet so i have to use this one. However, the disscussion on this board on both sides has gotten disrespectful and i wont have a part in it.

Let me know if i can share my thoughts with someone on here that wants to elevate conversation above what this posting has turned into. Or if someone could be nice enough to make a forum for me...

God bless the mormons, christians and all others, i hope we all find the best way to be closest with our jesus!

[Tacenda]

ANYONE WANT TO TALK PRODUCTIVE? Not about this rob guys site?-no disrespect just dont know you or your site

I want to actually talk about Mormanism Vs christianity and what i see as a major difference between them. Are any Mormons up for the task?!

Im not a Mormon hater, in fact every Mormon i have meet seems great. I think mitt romney seems like a great family guy and just all around good human being. That being said I am worried, honestly concerned that Mormanism might be impeeding full christian developement. What i mean is, i think mormans can be christian but i think the religion might not be ideal. I would like to have a real convo with a mormon/s on here about my concerns.

I cant make my own forum yet so i have to use this one. However, the disscussion on this board on both sides has gotten disrespectful and i wont have a part in it.

Let me know if i can share my thoughts with someone on here that wants to elevate conversation above what this posting has turned into. Or if someone could be nice enough to make a forum for me...

God bless the mormons, christians and all others, i hope we all find the best way to be closest with our jesus!

I'm up for a conversation as I've been interested in what others believe. If you have a question I'll try to help but to be honest I've had some trial in my faith so probably need some back up.

[Rob Bowman]

jwhitlock,

I asked you (a CFR) to give me a specific example of a factual inaccuracy on IRR's website. You replied:

The example from your site, where you misrepresented Joseph Smith, will do just fine. You know just as well as I do - your attempt to misrepresent Hales notwithstanding - that claims of Joseph having affairs with teenage girls is one of pure speculation. Anti-Mormons such as yourself go to great lengths to try to "prove" that point, reading anything they can into any text they want. But in reality, there's no concrete evidence of anything as sexually promiscuous as you want to make it. Yet you represent it as fact. That is a factual inaccuracy. The conclusions you draw are factually inaccurate, based as they are, not to determine the truth about Joseph, but to tear him down and misrepresent him.

It is not "pure speculation" that Joseph had affairs with teenage girls. "Pure speculation" would be claims made without any testimonies or reports or evidence of any kind to back them up, such as "jwhitlock steals cookies from Girl Scouts." In the opinion of serious researchers into the life of Joseph Smith, there is good evidence to draw the conclusion stated. Can it be disputed? Of course. Does that make it factually inaccurate? Only if you can show that it is so.

Speaking for myself, I have no vested interest in whether Joseph Smith had any affairs whatsoever. From my perspective he would be a false prophet even if he had been a morally squeaky-clean person. I find it appalling that the evidence strongly leads to the conclusion that he was not. I take no pleasure in this conclusion. I wish it were otherwise. I like to think the best of people. But the evidence is awfully strong that Joseph had sexual relations with several women other than Emma. That is why Hales is fighting the battle not over whether Joseph had plural wives, or whether he had sex with any of them, but whether he was having sex with any of the married wives while they remained sexually active with their legal husbands! That is the topic of Hales's FAIR paper! It is what he defines "sexual polyandry" to mean. I'm sorry you find this offensive, but to be candid I do too! However, whereas I have no vested interest in arguing for Joseph's adultery, you clearly have a vested interest in arguing against it. My theological view of him would remain unchanged either way; apparently you cannot say the same.

You wrote:

Isn't that nice? You're willing only to admit that it "doesn't preclude the possibility" of some Mormons being Christian, and even having a relationship with Christ - although most of us (and by inference, probably all) have no hope of salvation. And in doing so, you term our religion a "heretical form of Christianity" as if it were also some kind of "fact" - which it isn't. So there's another inaccuracy for you. You've proven nothing.

Ridiculous. By rhetorical sleight-of-hand you want to twist my words to make them say what I explicitly deny. And look, describing Mormonism as heretical is not a "factual inaccuracy." It is a different interpretation of the significance of the facts than what you accept, and you are certainly entitled to disagree with it, but a "factual inaccuracy" is a different sort of problem. For example, if our website said that Joseph claimed his translations of ancient writings to be inerrant, that would be a factually inaccurate statement, since Joseph not only never said any such thing but he explicitly denied that his work was inerrant. If we claimed that Joseph had ninety wives and fathered a hundred children by them such a claim would be an egregious example of something factually inaccurate. But debatable interpretations of the significance of facts are not themselves factually inaccurate merely because you disagree with them.

You wrote:

Your response has been revealing in that you refuse to address my premise directly. If faithful Latter-day Saints can be Christian, have relationships with Christ, and be heirs of salvation, then you have no leg to stand on when you try to destroy Mormonism. You are, in effect, leading people away from Christ. Your only honest option as an anti-Mormon, in order to justify what you do, is to admit that you do indeed believe that faithful Latter-day Saints cannot be saved, that they cannot know Christ, and that this applies to all of them, with no exceptions. Yet in doing so, you would be demonstrably wrong, as even many of your fellow EVs would deplore such a judgmental attitude.

This attempt to catch me in a dilemma fails because it forces an all-or-nothing choice where other options exist. Mormonism could be a theologically heretical form of Christianity teaching a false gospel and at the same time there could be many thousands of people in the LDS Church who have a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. Your argument is akin to claiming that physicians should never recommend radiation treatment for cancer since not everyone who gets cancer dies from it. My position is that Mormonism is unsound and detrimental to salvation, not that Mormonism is fatal to absolutely everyone who is touched by it. I understand you find my view offensive, but my motivation is concern for people's spiritual welfare. I utterly reject as false many of the things that Mormons, including Mormon prophets and apostles, have said about my evangelical Christian faith, but I don't take it personally. If you really believe that evangelicalism is part of the great apostasy, you should stick to your guns and oppose evangelicalism. What is needed for discussions like these to be worthwhile is for the participants to agree to focus on the substantive issues and not take personal offense at views they don't like.

[Chris4444]

I'm here for an honest discussion/debate in reference to the differences between Mormon beliefs and the general christian population, consisting of Protestant denominations and Catholics. I will ask hard questions, but i think anyone of of faith should be able to defend their faith. I have certainly defended mine against particularly the Islamic faith. We are all children of god and although i might disagree with your beliefs I do love all Mormons and Islamic people, and pray for them to find the peace that i have only experienced through my relationship with Jesus. That is the only reason I'm posting anywhere.

I am new to the beliefs of Mormons, but with all respect and out of loving concern. I feel compelled to talk about some key differences.

In future posting i want to also discuses whether the seemingly small differences are important or not? Also, how they compare to the differences in other denominations and ever between other religions?-(Talking note for later)

I see some major concerns in the Mormon (CLDS) faith, coming from a Christian perspective. i would like to talk about all of these but for the sake of time and to avoid confusion lets talk about one for now. However, I believe this one seemingly small belief difference is actually the BIGGEST most spiritually impactful difference between the religions:

The BIG Issue:

The Grace of Jesus Christ Vs. the acts of a follower of Christ. The true power of the sacrifice of Jesus on for mankind.

Or

HOW ARE WE SAVED??!

Mormon belief to the extent of my knowledge SUMMED UP- Jesus Christs grace and the holy spirit come come from ordinances through the Mormon church. You then have a supernatural force on your side that no other Christians have, which you call the holy ghost. Now the big question for a Mormon. HOW ARE WE SAVED- You are ultimately judged on your actions.

Christian Belief- We receive grace through Jesus not ordinances or acts, "the truth will set you free". IMPORTANT!!! Through the spirit of Jesus we are compelled to do acts. And in our relationship with him we repent when we stray from his GRACE. HOW ARE WE SAVED? By accepting and knowing Jesus

So i see it like which came first the chicken or the egg. In our case, is it grace or good acts. Dose obedience lead to god's love or does god's love lead to his obedience. Is it our salvation that leads to our purity or our purity that leads to our salvation... you get it, tell me what you think guys?!....I won't be nasty, I'm not here for a fight only a real conversation about the beliefs of both faiths that we hold dearly.

This idea is discussed SO much in the new testaments.

“And if by grace, then is it no more of works otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace otherwise work is no more work.” Romans 11:6

"Knowing that a man is NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE WORKS OF THE LAW, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and NOT BY THE WORKS OF THE LAW: for BY THE WORKS OF THE LAW SHALL NO FLESH BE JUSTIFIED"- Galatians 2:16

“I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, THEN CHRIST IS DEAD IN VAIN” (Galatians 2:21).

“He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also FREELY GIVE US ALL THINGS?” (Romans 8:32).

“But by THE GRACE OF GOD I am what I am” (1st Corinthians 15:10)

“He paid it all. He offers freely.”

There is much more where this came from guys. Ultimately this belief is what sets christian denominations apart from all other religions. Mormonism is alot like Jewish belief regarding Jesus in that they both believe good works lead to gods grace. Guys this is what is really so amazing about Christianity and is what your church is keeping from you. Because of Christ, grace and love and forgiveness are given to us....his sacrifice is beauty and love at its fullest. This is why there is no cross in Mormon churches. The most important idea in the history of the world is being ignored by your church.

I'm no prophet, no priest,I'm really nothing spacial at all. I am a 23 year old christian, who is in relationship with Jesus, i sin probably every day but i am getting better with Jesus by my side. What i know is the truth, and truly, the truth will set you free. God bless every Mormon, I pray you all know the truth about Jesus and you will find peace and joy and love you never knew.

Share your thoughts, rebuttals, feelings, concerns, questions or whatever is on your mind.

[Calm]

To better understand the LDS POV so you can submit more effective questions if you feel the need, read the below:

http://www.lds.org/topics/atonement-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng

http://www.lds.org/topics/salvation?lang=eng

http://www.lds.org/topics/eternal-life?lang=eng

http://www.lds.org/topics/ordinances?lang=eng

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/04/salvation-by-grace-or-by-works?lang=eng

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/05/have-you-been-saved

[Calm]

This is why there is no cross in Mormon churches. The most important idea in the history of the world is being ignored by your church.

Not exactly: http://en.fairmormon.org/Jesus_Christ/Atonement/Use_of_the_cross

[thesometimesaint]

Chris444:

1. IF you want to have a substantive discussion on Mormonism it would be best if you learn the name of the Church. It is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We have taken the slur Mormon's(Not mormans) and turned it into a compliment. In much the same way the 1st Century Saints were called Christians by their detractors. Notice the third and fourth word in our name Jesus Christ.

Here is what our Apostles say about Jesus Christ.

As we commemorate the birth of Jesus Christ two millennia ago, we offer our testimony of the reality of His matchless life and the infinite virtue of His great atoning sacrifice. None other has had so profound an influence upon all who have lived and will yet live upon the earth.

He was the Great Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Messiah of the New. Under the direction of His Father, He was the creator of the earth. “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3). Though sinless, He was baptized to fulfill all righteousness. He “went about doing good” (Acts 10:38), yet was despised for it. His gospel was a message of peace and goodwill. He entreated all to follow His example. He walked the roads of Palestine, healing the sick, causing the blind to see, and raising the dead. He taught the truths of eternity, the reality of our premortal existence, the purpose of our life on earth, and the potential for the sons and daughters of God in the life to come.

He instituted the sacrament as a reminder of His great atoning sacrifice. He was arrested and condemned on spurious charges, convicted to satisfy a mob, and sentenced to die on Calvary’s cross. He gave His life to atone for the sins of all mankind. His was a great vicarious gift in behalf of all who would ever live upon the earth.

We solemnly testify that His life, which is central to all human history, neither began in Bethlehem nor concluded on Calvary. He was the Firstborn of the Father, the Only Begotten Son in the flesh, the Redeemer of the world.

He rose from the grave to “become the firstfruits of them that slept” (1 Corinthians 15:20). As Risen Lord, He visited among those He had loved in life. He also ministered among His “other sheep” (John 10:16) in ancient America. In the modern world, He and His Father appeared to the boy Joseph Smith, ushering in the long-promised “dispensation of the fulness of times” (Ephesians 1:10).

Of the Living Christ, the Prophet Joseph wrote: “His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying:

“I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father” (D&C 110:3–4).

Of Him the Prophet also declared: “And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!

“For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—

“That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God” (D&C 76:22–24).

We declare in words of solemnity that His priesthood and His Church have been restored upon the earth—“built upon the foundation of . . . apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Ephesians 2:20).

We testify that He will someday return to earth. “And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together” (Isaiah 40:5). He will rule as King of Kings and reign as Lord of Lords, and every knee shall bend and every tongue shall speak in worship before Him. Each of us will stand to be judged of Him according to our works and the desires of our hearts.

We bear testimony, as His duly ordained Apostles—that Jesus is the Living Christ, the immortal Son of God. He is the great King Immanuel, who stands today on the right hand of His Father. He is the light, the life, and the hope of the world. His way is the path that leads to happiness in this life and eternal life in the world to come. God be thanked for the matchless gift of His divine Son.

2. We are Christians. Sure we have theological differences with other Christian churches but we do not deny and readily affirm their Christianity. With over 40,000 Christian churches in the US alone one would expect differences in theology..

3. You claim not to hate Mormons. OK. Yet you are willing to consign me and millions of other Latter-day Saints to your Protestant Hell. You have no right or authority to rule on my Christianity. We have the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. We are quite happy with the house of our faith, as opposed to the card board box in a dark cold alley that is Protestant Christianity. We actually want to be with our family and friends in Heaven, and believe we can maintain those relationships in the here after. That it is literally Happily Ever After, Not Till Death Do we Part.

4. Mormons are Christians, but I do thank you for the thought.

4. I'm all for respect. Ask a question and I'll answer it to the best of my ability. But please don't make statements about your belief that we are not Christians

[volgadon]

There is much more where this came from guys. Ultimately this belief is what sets christian denominations apart from all other religions. Mormonism is alot like Jewish belief regarding Jesus in that they both believe good works lead to gods grace. Guys this is what is really so amazing about Christianity and is what your church is keeping from you. Because of Christ, grace and love and forgiveness are given to us....his sacrifice is beauty and love at its fullest. This is why there is no cross in Mormon churches. The most important idea in the history of the world is being ignored by your church.

Is it too much to ask for you to acquire even a basic knowledge of our beliefs before lecturing us? Also, to help you in your next reading of the Pauline epistles, E. P. Sanders wrote an important little book on covenant nomism, "Paul and Palestinian Judaism." This should serve as an introduction, before moving on to the likes of Wright, Dunn, Murphy O'Connor, and Segal.

[zerinus]

ANYONE WANT TO TALK PRODUCTIVE? Not about this rob guys site?-no disrespect just dont know you or your site

I want to actually talk about Mormanism Vs christianity and what i see as a major difference between them. Are any Mormons up for the task?!

Im not a Mormon hater, in fact every Mormon i have meet seems great. I think mitt romney seems like a great family guy and just all around good human being. That being said I am worried, honestly concerned that Mormanism might be impeeding full christian developement. What i mean is, i think mormans can be christian but i think the religion might not be ideal. I would like to have a real convo with a mormon/s on here about my concerns.

I cant make my own forum yet so i have to use this one. However, the disscussion on this board on both sides has gotten disrespectful and i wont have a part in it.

Let me know if i can share my thoughts with someone on here that wants to elevate conversation above what this posting has turned into. Or if someone could be nice enough to make a forum for me...

God bless the mormons, christians and all others, i hope we all find the best way to be closest with our jesus!

If you have something new to bring to the table, or want to have a fresh discussion, your best bet will be to start a new thread. If the system will not allow you to do that because you are a new member, tell me what the title of your new thread should be, and I (or someone else) will start a new thread for you with that title, and you can take it from there.

[Tacenda]

I like the Grace without works philosophy. How can it be a gift if first you must work for it.

But I understand how the

LDS wouldn't like it if someone feels they can sin and then become born again willy nilly.

Thereagain I understand that once you are "truly" born again you would have no desire to sin.

[Chris4444]

Chris444:

2. We are Christians. Sure we have theological differences with other Christian churches but we do not deny and readily affirm their Christianity. With over 40,000 Christian churches in the US alone one would expect differences in theology..

3. You claim not to hate Mormons. OK. Yet you are willing to consign me and millions of other Latter-day Saints to your Protestant Hell. You have no right or authority to rule on my Christianity. We have the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. We are quite happy with the house of our faith, as opposed to the card board box in a dark cold alley that is Protestant Christianity. We actually want to be with our family and friends in Heaven, and believe we can maintain those relationships in the here after. That it is literally Happily Ever After, Not Till Death Do we Part.

4. Mormons are Christians, but I do thank you for the thought.

4. I'm all for respect. Ask a question and I'll answer it to the best of my ability. But please don't make statements about your belief that we are not Christians

I really wanted to have a respectful tone in my post, and im sorry it upset you and other people. But I'm here to have a healthy convo about all this and it seems like you are too. Let me try to respond to the points you made as best as i can.

1) Like i said I am very new to the church of Jesus Christ and later day saints and i just chose to use Mormon instead of the large title. And my bad on the typoes. Thanks for sharing the info on your faith.

2-4)I know you and alot of other people on here are going to want to beat me, but i have to say that based on what i know so far about CJCLS I see major differences in the theology your church teaches Vs other christian sects.I want to be clear: I am not Judging anyone here, Jesus said we have no ability or authority to judge people, I am simply pointing out discrepancies in your theology when refrenced with the bible.there is a big difference. Mainly being in the nature of out salvation. This is purely theological, and hard to explain. I did my best in my posting. I do not by any means think people in the church are condemned to hell as you put it. I am just concerned the doctrines specifically unique to your religion take away emphis from your relationship with Christ and place more focus on things like ritual and obedience to the law. The two things that are important but only a healthy relationship with Christ will truly set you free. Which i have seen members of CJSLS have! It just worries me that people will think they can do good and be saved. We both know you have to accept Jesus and have a relationship with him to be saved bottom line.

I backed this up with biblical quotes.

Satin is a great deceiver, and Jesus said there would be many false profits I'm trying to be responsible in my investigation of phrophetic claim. Jesus also talked about wolves in sheep's clothing. I'll get bashed for this I'm sure and probably called an idiot but this is how i see it.

Question for you:

could you answer in your own words again like you did before.

Would I make it in to heaven with out CJCLD rituals/ordinances?

Spiritually what is more importantant to a mormon- Your action on earth, your relationship with jesus, or your ordinances?

sorry if this upsets you, I am just genuenly concerned. Im truely fearful for my brothers in the CJCLS.

Thanks for the respose bro and god bless you!

Not exactly: http://en.fairmormon.org/Jesus_Christ/Atonement/Use_of_the_cross

Did not know that thanks for the info, How do you use that symbol in your faith? Do you pray with it or what?

[Chris4444]

I like the Grace without works philosophy. How can it be a gift if first you must work for it.

But I understand how the

LDS wouldn't like it if someone feels they can sin and then become born again willy nilly.

Thereagain I understand that once you are "truly" born again you would have no desire to sin.

thanks for the constructive response Tecenda. Well to answer your first concern how can it be a gift if you must first work for it. I believe, like many christitians from many denominations, grace/holyspirt/forgiveness (many words for it) is available it those who understand that Jesus died to free us our sins with repentance.

This is hard to wrap you head around but is important for understanding how we receive grace: you have to understand we dont have to work for it to truly have it. (at least understand in your heart) Think about this, if we think we have to earn grace (by anything other than repenting) then we are ultimately saying that Jesus didn't pay for grace solely with his death.

You're spot on with your last statement about then not wanting to sin once you are born again. Keep in mind that we can't expect to be born again and never sin again. we will probably sin a lot still, but we will have a new desire to truly do good acts and will have a instinctive desire to repent when we slip up and do sin. this leads into a ongoing conversation with him and mutual love. We love him for his grace and promise he gave us through his sacrifice and he loves us for loving him for it. Good acts and repentance is just what is inevitable born out though this love.

This whole concept was really hard for me to wrap my head around but It is the heart of what it mean to be christian, and it really sheds light on all of the christian saying that are repeated so much they lose meaning.

Hope you see I'm not bashing CJCLDS, It is likely that

That's how I see it at least, thanks for your response, and god bless you!

[Tacenda]

thanks for the constructive response Tecenda. Well to answer your first concern how can it be a gift if you must first work for it. I believe, like many christitians from many denominations, grace/holyspirt/forgiveness (many words for it) is available it those who understand that Jesus died to free us our sins with repentance.

This is hard to wrap you head around but is important for understanding how we receive grace: you have to understand we dont have to work for it to truly have it. (at least understand in your heart) Think about this, if we think we have to earn grace (by anything other than repenting) then we are ultimately saying that Jesus didn't pay for grace solely with his death.

You're spot on with your last statement about then not wanting to sin once you are born again. Keep in mind that we can't expect to be born again and never sin again. we will probably sin a lot still, but we will have a new desire to truly do good acts and will have a instinctive desire to repent when we slip up and do sin. this leads into a ongoing conversation with him and mutual love. We love him for his grace and promise he gave us through his sacrifice and he loves us for loving him for it. Good acts and repentance is just what is inevitable born out though this love.

This whole concept was really hard for me to wrap my head around but It is the heart of what it mean to be christian, and it really sheds light on all of the christian saying that are repeated so much they lose meaning.

Hope you see I'm not bashing CJCLDS, It is likely that

That's how I see it at least, thanks for your response, and god bless you!

Many in the LDS church believe we are to become "like" God, ever learning and progressing. What is your idea on this and what do you think you will do in the eternities?

[Storm Rider]

thanks for the constructive response Tecenda. Well to answer your first concern how can it be a gift if you must first work for it. I believe, like many Christians from many denominations, grace/Holy Spirit/forgiveness (many words for it) is available it those who understand that Jesus died to free us our sins with repentance.

This is hard to wrap you head around but is important for understanding how we receive grace: you have to understand we don't have to work for it to truly have it. (at least understand in your heart) Think about this, if we think we have to earn grace (by anything other than repenting) then we are ultimately saying that Jesus didn't pay for grace solely with his death.

You're spot on with your last statement about then not wanting to sin once you are born again. Keep in mind that we can't expect to be born again and never sin again. we will probably sin a lot still, but we will have a new desire to truly do good acts and will have a instinctive desire to repent when we slip up and do sin. this leads into a ongoing conversation with him and mutual love. We love him for his grace and promise he gave us through his sacrifice and he loves us for loving him for it. Good acts and repentance is just what is inevitable born out though this love.

This whole concept was really hard for me to wrap my head around but It is the heart of what it mean to be Christian, and it really sheds light on all of the Christian saying that are repeated so much they lose meaning.

Hope you see I'm not bashing CJCLDS, It is likely that

That's how I see it at least, thanks for your response, and god bless you!

You are not perceived as bashing the LDS Church; please don't worry about it at all. Fundamentally the LDS understanding may be summed up as follows: we believe that it is impossible for someone to be a disciple of Jesus Christ and not be committed to keeping his commandments, "If ye love me, keep my commandments" was how the Savior stated it. We believe that there is no other gateway into heaven except through Jesus Christ. His atonement paid the price of all sin, that those who choose to follow him can be forgiven of their sins. This forgiveness of sins is not a perpetual, constant forgiveness i.e. you don't get to sin and it is instantly forgiven without any thought from the sinner. To be a disciple is a process of learning to emulate the example that Jesus gave us, to strive to become like him, and knowing that we can never achieve it on our own. Jesus becomes our Master and Lord. It is living in communion with the Holy Spirit daily that our hearts learn to hunger for righteousness in all that we do. We hunger for the good word of the Lord to both strengthen us and lead us in righteousness.

We believe the scripture in John 3:3-5 that tells us that we must be born of the spirit and of baptism to enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus himself was baptized to fulfill all righteousness. If Jesus needed baptism, then we do not argue, but we gladly accept it as fact that all need to be baptized. There were several ordinances that Jesus taught and used. We do likewise. Is it Jesus' ordinances that save or Jesus himself? We see no difference between the two; his word is enough for LDS.

Our church exists because Jesus caused it to exist. Not a single Protestant church, not one, can claim a restoration of truth and fullness of the gospel and authority. They all protested against the teachings of the Catholic Church; they all started by men creating their own churches, but not one looked to God and by his hand restored the Church of Jesus Christ that was lost. Every Protestant church is the result of man's hand, well-meaning to be certain, but all are the work of man. The LDS Church proclaims to be the restored Church of Jesus Christ; restored by the Lord's hand, maintains the same organization that he instituted while on earth, with full authority to act in his name.

The LDS Church teaches that man is saved by Grace. He cannot "win" or "work" his way into salvation. However, God tells us that there is a judgment day. If there is a judgment day then works have value because both good works and sins will be accounted for on judgment day. Jesus told us that in his Father's house are many mansions; differing rewards, different houses. The LDS Church teaches and provides a path that can lead each individual into God the Father's presence for all eternity. Are works important? Only for those that love Jesus Christ.

[Pahoran]

Would you say that LDS would call Community of Christ members "Christian"? How about the various other branched of sects of Mormonism (let's not split hairs whether this is the correct terminology)? Would the LDS say that polygamous sects have the same claim to the title "Christian"?

I've never heard any Latter-day Saint deny it. In fact, I've never even heard the question raised in LDS circles. Of course CofC people are Christians of some sort or another. So are the polygs. A Christian is someone who believes in Jesus Christ as the uniquely definitive figure in her faith, not someone who meets some arbitrary test for doctrinal correctness.

The question "Are Mormons Christians" has only one honest answer, and it is a resounding and unequivocal "Yes."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Glenn,

You wrote:

The unqualified statement "Mormons are not Christians" does not adequately represent my stance on the issue. I am more interested in illuminating the issues than in playing tug-of-war over a label.

I've seen you say this before, and I'm still not clear what you actually mean by it. Are you admitting that a believing Latter-day Saint is ipso facto a believing Christian?

If not, what are you actually saying?

Regards,

Pahoran

[volgadon]

Satin is a great deceiver,

Taffeta, darling.