Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

You have a saying, that I haven't ever heard an LDS person use. Salvation without exaltation is damnation. 

At least you get one thing right. I used to teach that all the time in the mission field and even on this board. Those in lower kingdoms receive 2 things. A degree of glory and a degree of damnation. Only those in the highest receive a perfect salvation with no damnation and those sons of perdition receive a perfect damnation with no salvation.

 

Damnation is more like a dam where your progression is stopped. That is one way to look at it anyway.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Nosca]

Sorry - can't figure out how to do quotes so I've bolded your responses JLHPROF.

 

So let’s review: According to you LDS should be called Christian because

1) you say you are,
2) you have, according to you, as valid a claim to that label as anyone else,
3) of your baptism,
4) the fact that you agree on virtually nothing with those from “traditional” Christianity doesn’t matter, and
5) even though LDS defined their beliefs 1800 years after Christ lived, that’s irrelevant (interesting how you say modern sects “made up” the Trinity but LDS didn’t make up their understanding of the Godhead)!

Also, you have no desire to agree with other Christian sects but still want to be associated with them under the Christian label (this does not make any logical sense) and don’t like when they don’t want to label you a Christian. And finally, LDS are really more Christian than anyone else because “…the LDS Church are the only ones with Christ's authority and the closest followers of his established religion” but you’re magnanimous enough to let others use the label although is applies “best” to LDS. Does all that sound about right?
 
And I would have to disagree with this.  If worshiping Christ as our Savior is all that is required then we are as Christian as they are.

Agreed, but this is really all we agree on.

 

If doctrinal and dogmatic differences matter then they have no more right to be called Christian than anyone else and should be called by their doctrinal labels too.  The fact that they have a closer doctrinal relationship to each other than to the LDS belief doesn't give them any more claim on the name Christian.  The Catholics, Baptists, Methodists etc are all very different from each other and the LDS are no more different from any one of them.  Either we are ALL able to be called Christian (because we all believe in Christ as our Savior) or we should all only be known by the names of our specific systems of doctrinal beliefs (LDS, Catholic, Baptist, Non-Denom, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Anglican etc).

The main thing you either don't understand or won't assent to, is that even though these sects you refer to have doctrinal difference, they all agree on the Trinity - that's what makes US Christian in a theological, traditional and historic sense, and LDS not Christian. Again, if we define the label as having a devotion to Christ, we're all (LDS included) Christian. Beyond, that, you're not. The statement of "... the LDS are no more different from any of them..." is so off it's laughable - RCC, Protestants, EV's, Orthodox have virtually no commonality in theological/doctrinal issues with the LDS. This line of reasoning is like Luther believing that Sola Scriptura was true simply because he said it was - almost 500 years later Protestants still can't prove it. Asserting that LDS are no different than other Christians simply because you say you are proves nothing.

 

Trinitarian belief is NOT traditional Christianity but an invention 3-400 years after the fact.  The modern sects that want to have sole claim on the title Christian defined their beliefs about 350 years after Christ lived.  The LDS Church defined their beliefs about 1800 years after Christ lived.  So what?  Christians were first called Christians in Acts 11:26 probably 300 years before todays evangelical definition was accepted.

Forgive me if you see some aberrant keystrokes here while I try to not fall out of my chair laughing!!! This statement is so asinine it's just - sad. Maybe that's what you learned in seminary but perhaps you should try reading some real history - and not just pro-Trinity sources - this is just history. The council at Nicea dealt with the Arian heresy by codifying what the Church had always believed - the Trinity. How to speak about the Trinity and the nature of God and the Godhead did evolve over time, but belief in it didn't come into being in the 4th century (Christians find it rather difficult to define God - and we'll never be able to - but we're quite sure he wasn't a sinful man who "progressed" to being god). Also, it's quite interesting that you take a shot at Christians for "inventing" a belief 350 after Christ, but it's OK for LDS to do the same thing 1800 years after Christ. But of course, you didn't invent your beliefs, only Christians did that.

 

Basically, the Trinitarians were the LDS of 325 AD, claiming the right to the term Christian and dismissing all other sects and scripture as non-Christian.  They don't see that they  did then exactly what the LDS Church does only 1300 years earlier (and without authority from God).  Just because in 325 AD a Roman Emperor ruled that you had to believe in the trinity to be called Christian doesn't make it so.

We'll never agree on this and that just makes the earlier point of either we're Christians and LDS are not, or vice versa. The Church was commissioned by Christ through St. Peter - I think even LDS agree with that. That it fell away into total apostasy is, as discussed above, simply an assertion by LDS without any real proof. Of course you believe this because your whole religion is meaningless without the claim. So is the assertion that the Church of then and today has no authority - the LDS claim to authority from Christ is just another assertion with the only proof being "hey, we have these books, we have this church, we have this guy we say is a prophet and I have my testimony - and mine's valid and your isn't. Again, just claims, no proof.

 

It seems to me that the term Christian doesn't belong to the group that set their beliefs earlier but to the group that most closely matches what Christ actually taught...Well, unfortunately there is no way round this point. It IS part of LDS belief that we are the only Church established with authority direct from God and Christ and that follows the NT pattern of his Church.

You'll have to explain this statement as I have no idea what you're talking about. Christ taught that He and the Father were one - not one in agreement or however LDS frame it. He taught the real presence in the Eucharist. He taught that the gulf between man and God was so great, due to the fall of Adam, that He had to come as man to bring us back into fellowship with the Father, etc, etc. None of which LDS agree with. The sad truth is that LDS have their religion backwards - you think the gulf between the apostles and the modern Church was so great it required restoration when it doesn't. Yet don't understand that the gulf between God and man was so great it required a savior to restore the relationship, not restore the Church.

 

If belief in Christ's doctrine and teachings are required to be Christian then the LDS are the only true Christians as they come closest.

Something LDS and Christians will never agree on.

If acceptance of Christ as our Savior is the only requirement to be Christian then the LDS AND other section are all equally Christians.

Agreed.

 

The only way that other sects would be considered Christian and the LDS are not is if you accept a 325 AD Roman limitation on what Christians are allowed to believe.  And why would you?

Uh, let's see, because history shows that your characterization is a LDS fantasy?

I thank you for your answers and the time to write them! You’ve basically confirmed what I’ve thought for years – namely that LDS believe that they are the real, true, best, in some instances for some LDS, only, real Christians and the other “sects” are wrong but you’re nice enough to let us poor posers use the label “Christian” anyway. This is very similar to conversations I’ve had with other many other LDS, on a variety of topics, where this kind of weird, conceited, sometimes passive aggressiveness (not with you) comes out of “Well I’m sorry you don’t like it, I’m sorry you’ve just learned through me that you’re wrong about everything, I’m sorry to tell you that LDS are right, I don’t mean it personally but that’s just the way it is.”

On most social issues, pro-life, the importance of family and devotion to Christ we're in total agreement. Beyond that, I could not call you a Christian and again, don't know why you'd want me to other than you really think the title only, truly, applies to the LDS - and I think you've made it clear that is what you think.

God Bless!

[JLHPROF]

I thank you for your answers and the time to write them! You’ve basically confirmed what I’ve thought for years – namely that LDS believe that they are the real, true, best, in some instances for some LDS, only, real Christians and the other “sects” are wrong but you’re nice enough to let us poor posers use the label “Christian” anyway.

On most social issues, pro-life, the importance of family and devotion to Christ we're in total agreement. Beyond that, I could not call you a Christian and again, don't know why you'd want me to other than you really think the title only, truly, applies to the LDS - and I think you've made it clear that is what you think.

God Bless!

 

You're welcome.  In the end, of course you can't ever agree with us and of course we think we have the most correct form of Christianity.  If it wasn't the case we would be members of each others Church.

[Vance]

Forgive me if you see some aberrant keystrokes here while I try to not fall out of my chair laughing!!! This statement is so asinine it's just - sad. Maybe that's what you learned in seminary but perhaps you should try reading some real history - and not just pro-Trinity sources - this is just history. The council at Nicea dealt with the Arian heresy by codifying what the Church had always believed - the Trinity.

LOL!!!!!

Physician heal thyself. The doctrine of the trinity is not derived from the Bible but is a post-Biblical invention.

 

Also, it's quite interesting that you take a shot at Christians for "inventing" a belief 350 after Christ, but it's OK for LDS to do the same thing 1800 years after Christ.

The shot is at the hypocrisy of the "sola scripturists", NOT Catholics.

Catholics are at least consistent, "sola scripturists" are not.

 

But of course, you didn't invent your beliefs, only Christians did that.

Nah, it was the Trinitarians that did the inventing. Edited September 23, 2014 by Vance

[Flyonthewall]

Right, so it appears that you agree with me that the context is humans looking at the sun, moon, and stars - in a location where we can all see and experience those things. Hence, in the same space as us.

It is a stretch to to say I agree with the "same space", but will not belabor the point.

 

You have a saying, that I haven't ever heard an LDS person use. Salvation without exaltation is damnation. 

 

I am curious, what is your interpretation of this passage with respect to the LDS view of heaven? Luke 16:19-31

This is the definition of Damnation from lds.org

The state of being stopped in one’s progress and denied access to the presence of God and his glory. Damnation exists in varying degrees. All who do not obtain the fullness of celestial exaltation will to some degree be limited in their progress and privileges, and they will be damned to that extent.

The key to Luke 16:19 - 31 are verses 14 & 15 -

14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.

15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

This is directed directly towards the Pharisees, who justified themselves before men rather than God. They sought the treasures of th world and that is where their treasure will be, in the world - not in heaven.

But even though directed to the Pharisees, it applies to all who are like them.

I think "hell" must be clarified in order to be on the same page. "Hell" in the scriptures has two different meanings depending on the usage/translation.

This is a link to our definition.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/hell

Edited September 23, 2014 by Flyonthewall

[danielwoods]

It is a stretch to to say I agree with the "same space", but will not belabor the point.

 

This is the definition of Damnation from lds.org

The key to Luke 16:19 - 31 are verses 14 & 15 -

14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.

15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

This is directed directly towards the Pharisees, who justified themselves before men rather than God. They sought the treasures of th world and that is where their treasure will be, in the world - not in heaven.

But even though directed to the Pharisees, it applies to all who are like them.

I think "hell" must be clarified in order to be on the same page. "Hell" in the scriptures has two different meanings depending on the usage/translation.

This is a link to our definition.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/hell

 

Can you tell me where this doctrine comes from? 

 

Hell, as thus defined, will have an end, when all the captive spirits have paid the price of their sins and enter into a degree of glory after their resurrection.

[Vance]

It comes from modern revelation. But since you claim to believe the Bible I will provide you this verse.

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

[JLHPROF]

Can you tell me where this doctrine comes from? 

 

Hell, as thus defined, will have an end, when all the captive spirits have paid the price of their sins and enter into a degree of glory after their resurrection.

 

Well, it would be hard to find it biblically since Christians don't see the differing levels in the hereafter that Mormons do.

2 Peter 2:4 says:

For if God spared not the angels that sinned , but cast them down to hell , and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

 

So basically, there is judgement to come for those in hell.  What are the possible verdicts of that judgement?

If they are judged not guilty why would God have put them in hell?  If everyone in hell IS already guilty then what are they being judged against?

 

You are familiar with LDS divisions in the hereafter.  Hell is for the wicked until their final state is determined - for some wicked that will be perdition (the lake of fire/second death/utter destruction) - they are the lost and unredeemable.  As Matt 10:28 puts it, kill the body and the soul.

 

For some wicked the end will be a state much like this earth where they are denied God's glory and suffer unimaginable regret, but yet there is still hope for their eventual progression.  D&C 19 refers to these people:

 

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

 

10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—

11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment. 

12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment."

 

Now as for progressing to higher glories after being assigned to a condition for a time through judgement, that is a debated topic even among Mormons.

Some prophets and apostles taught one thing, some taught another.  I am not even sure there is an official church position on the topic.

[danielwoods]

Well, it would be hard to find it biblically since Christians don't see the differing levels in the hereafter that Mormons do.

2 Peter 2:4 says:

For if God spared not the angels that sinned , but cast them down to hell , and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

 

So basically, there is judgement to come for those in hell.  What are the possible verdicts of that judgement?

If they are judged not guilty why would God have put them in hell?  If everyone in hell IS already guilty then what are they being judged against?

 

You are familiar with LDS divisions in the hereafter.  Hell is for the wicked until their final state is determined - for some wicked that will be perdition (the lake of fire/second death/utter destruction) - they are the lost and unredeemable.  As Matt 10:28 puts it, kill the body and the soul.

 

For some wicked the end will be a state much like this earth where they are denied God's glory and suffer unimaginable regret, but yet there is still hope for their eventual progression.  D&C 19 refers to these people:

 

Now as for progressing to higher glories after being assigned to a condition for a time through judgement, that is a debated topic even among Mormons.

Some prophets and apostles taught one thing, some taught another.  I am not even sure there is an official church position on the topic.

 

There are two things I'm looking for. One is where does this idea that a person pays for their sin, come from. And two the idea that some in Hell will be in a "earth like state" in their future? 

[JLHPROF]

There are two things I'm looking for. One is where does this idea that a person pays for their sin, come from. And two the idea that some in Hell will be in a "earth like state" in their future? 

Well, both are clearly Mormon concepts from new revelation.  Finding examples in the Bible is challenging.

 

PAYING PRICE FOR SIN

(Googling "pay for your own sins" brings up a HUGE diversity in evangelical beliefs - interesting...)

 

1. Bible teaches that the wages of sin is death.  The punishment for ALL sin has to be death.

2. In the OT the price of sins were covered by the death of animals until Christ came and removed them completely - Hebrews 10

3. Christ paid for the sins of the faithful and repentant by his death and removed their consequence from us.

4. If we do not accept of Christ we pay the penalty of our own sins by the second death - Rev 20:14/Rev 21:8/Matt 10:28

5.Hebrews 10:26-27 - wilfull sin will be not be covered by the sacrifice of the Savior.  So who pays the price?

²⁶ For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

²⁷ But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

 

 

And then Mormon scripture D&C 19:16-18 - pretty much the same as the Bible verses above, only clearer.

 

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

 

 

HELL LEADS TO EARTH LIKE STATE

This one's even harder - the idea that those who are in hell (and not destroyed by the second death) will be placed in a state more like this mortal life we are in now.

 

1. Those sent to hell will still be judged.  As previously quoted:

2 Peter 2:4 says - For if God spared not the angels that sinned , but cast them down to hell , and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

 

If those already in "hell" are to be judged what are the possible outcomes?  Perdition (second death) or continuing in to live in hell - seems like perdition would be preferable...

 

2. Mormon scripture - D&C 76:84 defines the Telestial Kingdom as "Hell" and that the fallen state of the Earth is also considered telestial (Mormon temple teaching among other references).

 

So, not much in the Bible on this one.  We know that those in hell are judged.  We know that some are considered perdition/lost.  There must be an alternate verdict to the judgement of those in hell else why a judgement at all.  They would ALL be perdition.  Mormonism provides an alternate end for those in hell that are judged and not destroyed.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

There are two things I'm looking for. One is where does this idea that a person pays for their sin,

Really, you never heard this before?

 

Mathew 5: 25-26

25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

 26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[danielwoods]

Well, both are clearly Mormon concepts from new revelation.  Finding examples in the Bible is challenging.

 

PAYING PRICE FOR SIN

(Googling "pay for your own sins" brings up a HUGE diversity in evangelical beliefs - interesting...)

 

1. Bible teaches that the wages of sin is death.  The punishment for ALL sin has to be death.

2. In the OT the price of sins were covered by the death of animals until Christ came and removed them completely - Hebrews 10

3. Christ paid for the sins of the faithful and repentant by his death and removed their consequence from us.

4. If we do not accept of Christ we pay the penalty of our own sins by the second death - Rev 20:14/Rev 21:8/Matt 10:28

5.Hebrews 10:26-27 - wilfull sin will be not be covered by the sacrifice of the Savior.  So who pays the price?

 

And then Mormon scripture D&C 19:16-18 - pretty much the same as the Bible verses above, only clearer.

The payment is the lake of fire, of which there is no getting out.

So, where is the idea come from that one can pay for their sins and get out of Hell?

 

HELL LEADS TO EARTH LIKE STATE

This one's even harder - the idea that those who are in hell (and not destroyed by the second death) will be placed in a state more like this mortal life we are in now.

 

1. Those sent to hell will still be judged.  As previously quoted:

2 Peter 2:4 says - For if God spared not the angels that sinned , but cast them down to hell , and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

 

If those already in "hell" are to be judged what are the possible outcomes?  Perdition (second death) or continuing in to live in hell - seems like perdition would be preferable...

 

2. Mormon scripture - D&C 76:84 defines the Telestial Kingdom as "Hell" and that the fallen state of the Earth is also considered telestial (Mormon temple teaching among other references).

 

So, not much in the Bible on this one.  We know that those in hell are judged.  We know that some are considered perdition/lost.  There must be an alternate verdict to the judgement of those in hell else why a judgement at all.  They would ALL be perdition.  Mormonism provides an alternate end for those in hell that are judged and not destroyed.

There doesn't need to be an alternative verdict to judgment of those in Hell? Why would that be?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

There doesn't need to be an alternative verdict to judgment of those in Hell? Why would that be?

Where is my Captain Picard and Riker double face palm?

[JLHPROF]

 

There doesn't need to be an alternative verdict to judgment of those in Hell? Why would that be?

 

I just showed you FROM THE BIBLE that those who are sent to Hell will be judged after they have spent time there.  This means a decision has yet to be made on something.  That's what's being judged.

 

If I arrested you for a string of murders and put you in jail (hell) and then took you to court for your trial what would the judgement options be?

Perhaps the death penalty (perdition/2nd death) or life in prison (return to hell/telestial state).  If the sin were less serious acquittal (repentance) might even still be a possible outcome.

 

If everyone in hell was to stay in hell, why on earth would there be a judgement of its inhabitants at all - there would only be one verdict.

 

Where is my Captain Picard and Riker double face palm?

 

I know, right?

[JLHPROF]

The payment is the lake of fire, of which there is no getting out.

So, where is the idea come from that one can pay for their sins and get out of Hell?

 

 

You know what, my turn to ask the question.

 

Christ was pure, without sin, and absolutely perfect.  Agreed?

Christ took upon himself the guilt, penalty and effects of all mankind's sins.

Christ paid that penalty with his death (because the wages of sin are death).

 

So this wonderful being Christ was covered with all the sin that ever was (until he sweat blood from the weight of the sin he had taken in) and paid the price of those sins by sacrificing himself.

 

If Christ really was accountable for all our sins why didn't he have to be condemned to hell to meet the demands of eternal justice?  That's where people go who are accountable for sins that are upon them right?

 

(If you don't know the answer let me help you - he didn't have to stay in hell because justice had been met - the price paid.  Just the same, once the price of any sin is paid and justice served, hell no longer has power over anyone).

Edited September 24, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Nosca]

LOL!!!!!

Physician heal thyself. The doctrine of the trinity is not derived from the Bible but is a post-Biblical invention.

 

The shot is at the hypocrisy of the "sola scripturists", NOT Catholics.

Catholics are at least consistent, "sola scripturists" are not.

 

Nah, it was the Trinitarians that did the inventing.

 

Somebody please tell me how to respond to multiple quotes so the answers are separated - sorry, not on here often and I can't figure it out.

 

Vance - you're doing the same thing JLHPROF was re: the Trinity.  Sorry, a retort of "Physician heal thyself. The doctrine of the trinity is not derived from the Bible but is a post-Biblical invention" is just - weird, it makes no sense in the context of the post. The historic Christian tradition is belief in the Trinity - you can argue with this if you want to but you'd be arguing with folks who have more degrees, training and knowledge than you can shake a stick at.  You'd be arguing with history.  You'd be arguing with the Bible - yes it is in the Bible.  It is in the testimonies and writings of the ECF's.  Yes it did develop over time as to how to talk about it and explain it and no, we can't fully explain it, never will be able to.  But invent it, ahhh no. 

 

And the main point I'm making about that is that for many, dare I say most Christians, it is this belief that 1) makes us Christians and 2) and we all agree on.  An EV may tell me Constantine invented the RCC in the 4th century (based on history he would also be wrong) but he wouldn't tell me the Trinity was invented during the time of Constantine as JLHPROF did.  The only ones who want to be called Christians yet don't accept the Trinity are the LDS (and probably some whack job EV's out there - there are lots of them - not sure about JW's).

 

I am not a theologian or historian and have no intention of getting in a debate with someone who's mind is made up anyway - life is too short.  I can dump enough Catholic and Protestant info on you to show that the Trinity is a Biblical concept and easily supported by the Bible to bury you alive.  I can also appeal, very logically, to the ECF's and Tradition to show it.  If you want some links to follow that make that point, let me know and I'll post them.  But if you want to get into a debate about how they're all wrong, I'm not interested - your call.

[JLHPROF]

Somebody please tell me how to respond to multiple quotes so the answers are separated - sorry, not on here often and I can't figure it out.

 

The historic Christian tradition is belief in the Trinity - you can argue with this if you want to but you'd be arguing with folks who have more degrees, training and knowledge than you can shake a stick at.  You'd be arguing with history.  You'd be arguing with the Bible - yes it is in the Bible.  It is in the testimonies and writings of the ECF's.  Yes it did develop over time as to how to talk about it and explain it and no, we can't fully explain it, never will be able to.  But invent it, ahhh no. 

 

 

No, the Trinity was just ONE of many Christian beliefs of the ECF's.  THAT'S history.

 

 

And the main point I'm making about that is that for many, dare I say most Christians, it is this belief that 1) makes us Christians and 2) and we all agree on.  An EV may tell me Constantine invented the RCC in the 4th century (based on history he would also be wrong) but he wouldn't tell me the Trinity was invented during the time of Constantine as JLHPROF did.  The only ones who want to be called Christians yet don't accept the Trinity are the LDS (and probably some whack job EV's out there - there are lots of them - not sure about JW's).

 

I never said that the Trinity was invented during the time of Constantine.  I said that it was only made a requisite of Christianity at that time.  Prior to that time there were MANY early Christian denominations with differing beliefs.  Many Christians who did not accept the trinity - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarian  at that time.

A little basic history:

 

Most nontrinitarians take the position that the doctrine of the earliest form of Christianity (see Apostolic Age) was nontrinitarian, but (depending on which church) believe rather that early Christianity was either strictly Unitarian or Binitarian or Modalist. Typically, nontrinitarians believe Christianity was altered by the edicts of Emperor Constantine I, which eventually resulted in the adoption of Trinitarian Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire during the reign of Theodosius I.

 

Although there is much debate as to whether the beliefs of the Apostles were merely articulated and explained in the Trinitarian Creeds, or were corrupted and replaced with new beliefs, all scholars recognize that the Creeds themselves were created in reaction to disagreements over the nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These controversies, however, were great and many, and took some centuries to be resolved.

 

The Confession of the Council of Nicaea said little about the Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit was developed by Athanasius in the last decades of his life. He defended and refined the Nicene formula.  By the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine had reached substantially its current form.

 

The trinity wasn't invented by Constantine, but it was made the Christian standard belief at that time.

Even today there are MANY accepted Christian sects that don't believe in the Trinity - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarian

The LDS Church is no different - we are just nontrinitarian Christians.

 

 

 

I am not a theologian or historian and have no intention of getting in a debate with someone who's mind is made up anyway - life is too short.  I can dump enough Catholic and Protestant info on you to show that the Trinity is a Biblical concept and easily supported by the Bible to bury you alive.  I can also appeal, very logically, to the ECF's and Tradition to show it.  If you want some links to follow that make that point, let me know and I'll post them.  But if you want to get into a debate about how they're all wrong, I'm not interested - your call.

 

Well, right back at you.  Your mind is made up regardless of what theology or history shows.

Edited September 24, 2014 by JLHPROF

[teddyaware]

2. Mormon scripture - D&C 76:84 defines the Telestial Kingdom as "Hell" and that the fallen state of the Earth is also considered telestial (Mormon temple teaching among other references).

 

A careful reading of Doctrine and Covenants 76 will reveal the telestial kingdom is not defined as hell but as a "tough love" way station of personal suffering for sin on the way to eventual redemption and resurrection into the telestial kingdom of God's glory. Just because those who are destined to enter the telestial kingdom of glory spend some time in hell, on the way to eventual salvation, does not mean that the telestial glory and hell are synonymous. The logical sequence of events set forth in D&C 76 clearly reveals the sufferings of hell and resurrection in the telestial kingdom of glory are not one and the same...

104 These are they (the unrepentant wicked) who suffer the wrath of God on earth.

105 These are they who suffer the vengeance of eternal fire.

106 These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work;

107 When he shall deliver up the kingdom, and present it unto the Father, spotless, saying: I have overcome and have trodden the wine-press alone, even the wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God.

108 Then shall he be crowned with the crown of his glory, to sit on the throne of his power to reign forever and ever.

109 But behold, and lo, we saw the glory and the inhabitants of the telestial world, that they were as innumerable as the stars in the firmament of heaven, or as the sand upon the seashore;

110 And heard the voice of the Lord saying: (at the final judgment) These all shall bow the knee, and every tongue shall confess (that Jesus Christ is Lord; Phil 2:10) to him who sits upon the throne forever and ever;

111 For they shall be judged according to their works, and every man shall receive (after suffering as spirits in hell) according to his own works, his own dominion, in the mansions (of glory, i.e. not hell) which are prepared; (D&C 76)

[JLHPROF]

 

A careful reading of Doctrine and Covenants 76 will reveal the telestial kingdom is not defined as hell but as a "tough love" way station of personal suffering for sin on the way to eventual redemption and resurrection into the telestial kingdom of God's glory. Just because those who are destined to enter the telestial kingdom of glory spend some time in hell, on the way to eventual salvation, does not mean that the telestial glory and hell are synonymous. The logical sequence of events set forth in D&C 76 clearly reveals the sufferings of hell and resurrection in the telestial kingdom of glory are not one and the same...

104 These are they (the unrepentant wicked) who suffer the wrath of God on earth.

105 These are they who suffer the vengeance of eternal fire.

106 These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work;

107 When he shall deliver up the kingdom, and present it unto the Father, spotless, saying: I have overcome and have trodden the wine-press alone, even the wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God.

108 Then shall he be crowned with the crown of his glory, to sit on the throne of his power to reign forever and ever.

109 But behold, and lo, we saw the glory and the inhabitants of the telestial world, that they were as innumerable as the stars in the firmament of heaven, or as the sand upon the seashore;

110 And heard the voice of the Lord saying: (at the final judgment) These all shall bow the knee, and every tongue shall confess (that Jesus Christ is Lord; Phil 2:10) to him who sits upon the throne forever and ever;

111 For they shall be judged according to their works, and every man shall receive (after suffering as spirits in hell) according to his own works, his own dominion, in the mansions (of glory, i.e. not hell) which are prepared; (D&C 76)

 

Fair enough.  Completely agree.  (But I doubt this would hold any weight with our evangelical counterpart).

[teddyaware]

Fair enough.  Completely agree.  (But I doubt this would hold any weight with our evangelical counterpart).

But here's the most important thing: In the end it really doesn't matter what any of our critics have to say because those of us who have strong testimonies of the Restored Gospel know in our hearts that the God of the Latter-day Saints really is the eternal embodiment of divine love, justice and mercy; and we rejoice in the knowledge that our doctrines fully bear out this glorious fact to perfection. Meanwhile our critics can spend their days "rejoicing" in a "God of love" who inexplicably, without any hesitation or apparent mercy, condemn the majority of the human race to an endless hell of incomprehensible suffering and unending sorrow. We know for a surety that the true God of love God is better than that, and one day even our most bitter critics will come to know it too.

Edited September 25, 2014 by teddyaware

[Flyonthewall]

The payment is the lake of fire, of which there is no getting out.

Do you believe in a literal lake of fire? I agree there is no escape, but that does not preclude being let out when the uttermost farthing has been paid.

 

So, where is the idea come from that one can pay for their sins and get out of Hell?

Can pay? You make it sound like a bargain. Did you miss this from our scripture:

"16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—"

This might be semantics, but I don't believe it is a matter of paying for one's own sins as it is suffering for them. The price has already been paid by Jesus Christ.

Edited to add:

Psalms 16:10

10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

 

There doesn't need to be an alternative verdict to judgment of those in Hell? Why would that be?

The scriptures plainly say that those in hell will be delivered up for judgment - you explain why if judgment has already been passed. Edited September 25, 2014 by Flyonthewall

[Flyonthewall]

Somebody please tell me how to respond to multiple quotes so the answers are separated - sorry, not on here often and I can't figure it out.

Use the '[' and ']' with the word "quote" in the middle, without spaces or quote marks to begin and the brackets and a slash '/' in front of the word "quote" to end.

[ quote ] text [ /quote ]

[danielwoods]

Really, you never heard this before?

 

Mathew 5: 25-26

25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

 26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

 

God doesn't accept Farthings as payment, only the blood of Jesus. 

 

I just showed you FROM THE BIBLE that those who are sent to Hell will be judged after they have spent time there.  This means a decision has yet to be made on something.  That's what's being judged.

 

If I arrested you for a string of murders and put you in jail (hell) and then took you to court for your trial what would the judgement options be?

Perhaps the death penalty (perdition/2nd death) or life in prison (return to hell/telestial state).  If the sin were less serious acquittal (repentance) might even still be a possible outcome.

 

If everyone in hell was to stay in hell, why on earth would there be a judgement of its inhabitants at all - there would only be one verdict.

 

 

After death comes the judgement. The judging you are referencing is simply a confirmation or formality. Because there is no "earning" or "paying" your way out of Hell, at least according to the NT. That is why I was looking. I don't see this doctrine in the NT either. 

[danielwoods]

You know what, my turn to ask the question.

 

Christ was pure, without sin, and absolutely perfect.  Agreed?

Christ took upon himself the guilt, penalty and effects of all mankind's sins.

Christ paid that penalty with his death (because the wages of sin are death).

 

So this wonderful being Christ was covered with all the sin that ever was (until he sweat blood from the weight of the sin he had taken in) and paid the price of those sins by sacrificing himself.

 

If Christ really was accountable for all our sins why didn't he have to be condemned to hell to meet the demands of eternal justice?  That's where people go who are accountable for sins that are upon them right?

 

(If you don't know the answer let me help you - he didn't have to stay in hell because justice had been met - the price paid.  Just the same, once the price of any sin is paid and justice served, hell no longer has power over anyone).

 

So, once again, I am curious where you see this in the NT. 

 

Christ paid the price of our sin because he was able to do so. We aren't able to do so, hence those in Hell never leave. 

[danielwoods]

Fair enough.  Completely agree.  (But I doubt this would hold any weight with our evangelical counterpart).

 

Right, because it's not in the NT. 

 

But here's the most important thing: In the end it really doesn't matter what any of our critics have to say because those of us who have strong testimonies of the Restored Gospel know in our hearts that the God of the Latter-day Saints really is the eternal embodiment of divine love, justice and mercy; and we rejoice in the knowledge that our doctrines fully bear out this glorious fact to perfection. Meanwhile our critics can spend their days "rejoicing" in a "God of love" who inexplicably, without any hesitation or apparent mercy, condemn the majority of the human race to an endless hell of incomprehensible suffering and unending sorrow. We know for a surety that the true God of love God is better than that, and one day even our most bitter critics will come to know it too.

 

My goal is to know the truth. I trust the Biblical text is true. The teaching of earning or paying for ones sins is contrary to the teaching of the NT.