LDS (Mormon) Discussion

[kevkelsar]

LDS doctrine teaches that you must do all you can to earn your salvation by doing good works, but then God's grace kicks in "after all you can do". That's a works-based salvation and is in stark contradiction to the Bible.

Not quite, we do not believe that we "earn" our salvation in any way, shape, or form. For those who don't know, I will quote the scripture in the Book of Mormon that brings about this misunderstanding.

2 Nephi 25:23 states, "For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do."

The "after all we can do" is not a pre-requisite for Grace. Grace is given freely to all, no matter how much they do in this life as long as they accept and follow Jesus Christ. Again, remember in James, Chapter 2 we are taught that faith without works is dead. We show our faith by taking action, by performing good works and fulfilling God's commandments. These works do not save us, by any means, but they are how we exercise our faith in God. We firmly believe that it does not matter how "good" of a person you are in this life, in the end without the Grace of Christ you have no chance.

 

[toddm]

LDS doctrine also teaches that God is eternal, that He has had no beginning and will have no end. Where in the Bible does it specifically teach that God was never a man?

I don't have time right now to address all your points in detail, but I do want to comment on a few real quick.

Numbers 23:19 - "God is not man, that he should lie; or a son of man, that he should change His mind"

Can you define what you mean "eternal" to be? If God was once a man, then he had to have a beginning, right?

Yes, we truly believe that the overall Atonement began with His suffering in Gethsemane. We believe that during His suffering in Gethsemane is when He took upon Himself the sins, pains, sicknesses, etc. of everyone. The pain and anguish was so excruciating that there were drops of blood from every pore, and that an angel came to assist Him.

We believe that Christ's sufferings in Gethsemane was when He overcame spiritual death, or our separation from the presence of God. His physical death and resurrection signified the triumph over our physical deaths, meaning that because He overcame death, one day we will all be resurrected.

It's these two parts that fulfilled the Atonement; overcoming spiritual death by taking upon Himself all our sins, pains, imperfections, etc. so that we may one day be allowed to enter God's presence and overcoming the physical death so that we may be resurrected.

So, if sins were atoned for in the Garden, then the cross was completely unnecessary, right?

Will you please provide me these "tests" outlined in the Bible and specific examples where Joseph Smith "failed" these "tests"? I would be happy to respond to any of those, but without specifics I can't really respond.

Deuteronomy 18:22 - when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.

Smith made several prophecies that did not come true. Here are just a few:

1) Christ was supposed to return by Feb. 14, 1891 (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 182, 2/14/1836)

2) The US Constitution will be saved by Mormons (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 12, p. 204, 4/8/1868)

3) Building of the Nauvoo house (D & C 124:59-60, 1/19/1841)

4) Temple would be built at Far West, MO (D & C 115:1, 7-9, 12, 4/26/1838)

5) Zion (Independence, MO) was the city of God and could not be moved (D & C 97:19-20)

6) Mormons would take over Salem, Mass. and find much treasure (D & C 111:1-11)

7) David Patten would go on a mission (D & C 114:1)

8) WW Phelps would not taste of death until Jesus came (Rocky Mountain Saints, by Stenhouse, p. 42)

9) Civil War prophecy (D & C 87:1-8)

10) Wicked would be swept off the earth - some living in 1833 would not die until these things happened (History of the Church, Vol. 1, p. 315-316, 1/4/1833)

Again, not an exhaustive list by any means, but just a few examples of false prophecies by Joseph Smith.

 

[kevkelsar]

LDS doctrine teaches that Christ is a created being and lesser than the Father. Christian doctrine teaches that he is co-equal and co-eternal.

Hmmm, allow me to quote one of our Apostles in a recent General Conference (this is official doctrine). Feel free to read the entire talk, as it addresses quite clearly our belief of the Godhead compared to that of "mainstream" Christianity.

The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent

Our first and foremost article of faith in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.†We believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance, a Trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures because it is not true.

As you can see we do not regard Jesus Christ as some "lesser" being than God the Father or the Holy Ghost.

LDS doctrine teaches polytheism. The Bible very clearly teaches monotheism.

I guess this would depend on your definition of polytheism. A dictionary definition simply states that polytheism is, "the doctrine of or belief in more than one god or in many gods." With that definition, polytheism is biblical.

4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Paul acknowledges that "there be gods many, and lords many." Thus, the belief in more than one god (note, "god" is not capitalized). However, my guess is that your definition of polytheism means the belief in and worship of more than one God (notice, "God" capitalized). If this is your definition, then in the LDS Church we are not polytheists. We worship but one God, the Father. We worship Him through Jesus Christ.

 

[kevkelsar]

I will get to your posts in order, so I will finish up with the initial post first before addressing your latest.

LDS doctrine teaches that God actually wanted Adam & Eve to "transgress" (LDS make a distinction between transgression and sin). The Bible teaches that God abhors sin and His desire is that we should be holy because He is holy.

Did God want them to transgress? I can't say. Was it necessary for them to transgress? We believe so. Before the Fall, Adam and Eve were innocent. They did not know the difference between good and evil. Neither was there death before the Fall (Romans 5:12). Adam and Eve had no children before the Fall, and in the LDS Church we believe that birth was not possible before the Fall (2 Nephi 2:22). Therefore, had they not partaken of the fruit and brought about the Fall, Adam and Eve would have remained in their innocent state forever, never being able to choose good (God) from evil (Satan). They never would have had children, nothing would have changed. All of us never would have been born.

The reason why we believe this opens up into a much larger discussion of our pre-mortal existence and purpose for even being here in this mortal life.

We differ from mainstream Christianity in this because it seems that mainstream Christianity believes God made a mistake and this whole Redemption by a Savior is His way to cover up His mistake by allowing the Fall to happen. We believe that God knew all along that the Fall would happen and, in fact, was necessary for all of us to even be born here and go through the experience of a mortal life and choose to follow God's commandments. Before the Fall, that choice couldn't happen because there was no knowledge to choose between good and evil.

These are just SOME of the main points of difference, and these are major differences. So, how can you say that the BOM is a continuation of the Bible, yet have so many areas of contradiction? Does God change His mind? Does God need to improve on what He's already said as if His Word is not eternal?

Furthermore, w/ said differences, how can a LDS member label themselves a "Christian" when they flat-out deny the very doctrines that define a Christian?

The Book of Mormon is not a continuation of the Bible. In fact, the majority of it was originally written during the same time frame as the Bible. In my 10 years of studying extensively the Bible and Book of Mormon, I have not found any contradictions between the two. Neither does the Book of Mormon "improve" upon the Bible. There are certain teachings in the Book of Mormon that are better described/explained in the Bible. Likewise, there are certain teachings in the Bible that are better described/explained in the Book of Mormon.

God's word is eternal, however, our understanding of it is not. Neither do we believe that God changes His mind. Rather, He teaches us step by step. If God were to give us everything He knows all at once, we would be way too overwhelmed to even comprehend a single thing. So, He reveals a little at a time, and only when we are ready to receive more.

Now, the doctrines that "define" a Christian are of personal opinion. Simply put, a Christian is a person who believes in and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. That's what we do in the LDS Church. Everything we do is focused on the teachings of Jesus Christ.

 

[kevkelsar]

Numbers 23:19 - "God is not man, that he should lie; or a son of man, that he should change His mind"

Can you define what you mean "eternal" to be? If God was once a man, then he had to have a beginning, right?[/quote]

I fail to see how that scripture proves God never was a man. Obviously, God will not lie like we do, or change His mind like we do.

When I say eternal, I mean never having a beginning and never having an end. In the LDS Church, we believe that we are ALL eternally in existence. We believe that we have always been in existence and we will always be in existence. We believe that before we were born on this earth we existed as spirits. And before we were spirits we were what are called intelligences. Again, another one of those topics that would require a whole lot more explanation, all scriptural.

So, if sins were atoned for in the Garden, then the cross was completely unnecessary, right?

No, the cross (physical death and even more physical suffering) was necessary. Again, we believe that Christ's sacrifice (suffering in Gethsemane, death on the cross, and resurrection) overcame spiritual death and physical death.

 

[toddm]

As you can see we do not regard Jesus Christ as some "lesser" being than God the Father or the Holy Ghost.

You acknowledge that Jesus is a created being don't you, meaning not eternal? So, you're saying that Jesus is co-equal and co-eternal w/ the Father?

I guess this would depend on your definition of polytheism. A dictionary definition simply states that polytheism is, "the doctrine of or belief in more than one god or in many gods." With that definition, polytheism is biblical.

4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Paul acknowledges that "there be gods many, and lords many." Thus, the belief in more than one god (note, "god" is not capitalized). However, my guess is that your definition of polytheism means the belief in and worship of more than one God (notice, "God" capitalized). If this is your definition, then in the LDS Church we are not polytheists. We worship but one God, the Father. We worship Him through Jesus Christ.

Paul is only acknowledging false gods here, meaning they're not even real. Noticed they are CALLED gods, but that doesn't make them a god. Just because a pantheist calls a tree a god doesn't make it so, and when Paul was writing to Corinth, he was writing to a culture immersed in pagan/false god worship, to which he distinguishes that there is only one true God, YHWH.

By LDS polytheism, I refer to the doctrine of progression to godhood. LDS doctrine teaches that the faithful LDS member can progress to becoming a god over his own planet - meaning that there are many gods, but LDS claim to only worship THIS God of THIS planet. This is in stark contradiction to the Bible (Deut. 6:4, Isaiah 43:10, 45:5-6).

If God was once a man and progressed to godhood, then that is the hope of every devout LDS male. So you can't say that "Elohim" is superior to these other gods. That is polytheism.

 

[harry1]

Please excuse my bluntness here on Mormonisn as I lived in Utah for quite some time and experienced another world. Joseph Smith was a con-man who made these claims with no one around using seer stones which apparently were illegal. The Mormon bible not the Chrisitian bibles has been changed to add Joseph Smith being foretold as a coming Prophet.
Also there is a belief of different levels of heaven that you can acheive.
I have a great website the directly quotes what mormons believe.
I think the morals and values are excellent but there is a hidden side that you don't see.

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/ldsbeliefs.htm

 

[kevkelsar]

I apologize for my absence, life got extremely hectic over the weekend and with work this week. I will try to respond later today or tomorrow.

 

[Steve76]

I just don't get the 'Secret Underpants' malarky!??

You can only be let in on this secret if you join their Church and get Baptized there.. :gah

It just does not seem fair to me.. I want to know about the pants man!


http://getwiththeword.blogspot.com/

 

[toddm]

Numbers 23:19 - "God is not man, that he should lie; or a son of man, that he should change His mind"

I fail to see how that scripture proves God never was a man. Obviously, God will not lie like we do, or change His mind like we do.

Okay, well where does it say that he WAS a man?? There's nowhere in the Bible that ever suggests that God was formerly a man, but rather solidifies the fact that He's eternal, a spirit, and not a son of man.

When I say eternal, I mean never having a beginning and never having an end. In the LDS Church, we believe that we are ALL eternally in existence. We believe that we have always been in existence and we will always be in existence. We believe that before we were born on this earth we existed as spirits. And before we were spirits we were what are called intelligences. Again, another one of those topics that would require a whole lot more explanation, all scriptural.

It's not scriptural. It's only scriptural if you pull verses out of their context and force them to say something that they do not, but at the risk of juggling too many different facets of LDS theology, perhaps we should just stick a few key ones, like who Jesus is or something.

No, the cross (physical death and even more physical suffering) was necessary. Again, we believe that Christ's sacrifice (suffering in Gethsemane, death on the cross, and resurrection) overcame spiritual death and physical death.

Well, it never says that Jesus literally sweated drops of blood. The text in Luke 22:44 states that it was sweat LIKE great drops of blood. It's a simile, which is the same as a metaphor but uses the words "like" or "as" to make the connection. This word is in the Greek and literally translates to "as if" or "like". Furthermore, Luke is the only one out of the 4 Gospels that records this. Do you really think that the other Gospel writers would have left this detail out if it were as significant to the atonement as LDS doctrine teaches?? Where else in the entire Bible do you see anyone, anywhere make a reference to the atoning blood drops in the Garden?? No where. It's ALWAYS on the cross. There is absolutely zero warrant to think that this was actual blood, or even if it was actual blood there's still nothing that ever suggests any atonement took place.

 

[Steve76]

I just don't get the 'Secret Underpants' malarky!??

You can only be let in on this secret if you join their Church and get Baptized there.. :gah

It just does not seem fair to me.. I want to know about the pants man!

Does anyone have any insight to the above? I would honestly like to know about this doctrine. When I met up with two Mormons last month they would not emphasize on this and I do not respect the secrecy..
It sounds like freemasonary to me and I have read that there may be a link there??
Anyone?
Ta
;)

 

[toddm]

I just don't get the 'Secret Underpants' malarky!??

You can only be let in on this secret if you join their Church and get Baptized there.. :gah

It just does not seem fair to me.. I want to know about the pants man!

Does anyone have any insight to the above? I would honestly like to know about this doctrine. When I met up with two Mormons last month they would not emphasize on this and I do not respect the secrecy..
It sounds like freemasonary to me and I have read that there may be a link there??
Anyone?
Ta
;)

LDS theology is a mixture of a lot of stuff. Freemasonry being one of them. Masonic symbols are on many LDS temples, as well as on their garments (that's the "secret underwear" you seem so fascinated with). The only reference to garments I might see in the Bible is referring to the priest's undergarments in Leviticus, but I know that LDS women wear garments also so I don't think it's directly to tied to the priesthood (to which only men can belong). The LDS consider the garments sacred, so they usually don't share this info w/ non-LDS people.

 

[Free]

that's the "secret underwear" you seem so fascinated with

lol.

 

[Steve76]

that's the "secret underwear" you seem so fascinated with

lol.

Hehe!
I see..thanks for the info! I can honestly say that I was not fascinated tho! ;)

 

[toddm]

that's the "secret underwear" you seem so fascinated with

lol.

Hehe!
I see..thanks for the info! I can honestly say that I was not fascinated tho! ;)

Haha..just razzing you a bit..that's all.

 

[Steve76]

Hehe!
I see..thanks for the info! I can honestly say that I was not fascinated tho! ;)

Haha..just razzing you a bit..that's all. [/quote]

No worries...they do look pretty fascinating tho!
Would be good over here for the winter..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Garment.jpg

 

[kevkelsar]

My apologies again. There were some very unfortunate events that occurred at my work. It is quite the battle to recover, and posting on here has been one of the last things on my list to do. Making sure I have a job to support my wife and children has taken a much higher priority. Thank you for your patience and understanding.

 

[Rick W]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Garment.jpg

The Masonic symbols are missing.

 

[jasoncran]

i recall that both joseph smith and brigham young were masons.

jason

 

[Rick W]

i recall that both joseph smith and brigham young were masons.

jason

I know Smith was ("was") but I'm not sure about Young. Smith borrowed quite a bit from the Masonic rites. The kicker is you'll not find a thing mentioned about how their ceremonies are to be conducted in any of the LDS accepted scripture.