Mormonism is not "Christianity"

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Will the god of Mormonism, whomever you may consider him to be, allow Jihadists who murder men, women, and children an opportunity to receive the Gospel in Spirit Prison, & subsequently an opportunity to progress toward Godhood?

I would certainly hope so.

That. Is so screwed up.

You, my non-friend, are an asshole. Totally. You damned weirdo.

V/R
Dr. Cameron

[_consiglieri]

So when I accepted JC as my Savior, with all sincerity, I wasn't really saved after all? I was never "one of us"?

That means there is something more to being saved than just accepting JC as one's Savior.

This is where I see the EV view of salvation start to resemble the Mormon view of salvation, Beastie.

EV's teach we are saved by a profession of faith in Jesus, but the caveat is we are not really saved (or we don't know if we are really saved) at that point. We have to wait until the end of our lives to see if we do something that takes us out of that saved status. In other words, our works come into play in making the final end-of-life determination as to whether we are saved.

Mormons teach we must have faith in Jesus Christ to be saved, but in addition there must be "good works" we show forth afterward as a sign of our devotion and "saving faith." If good works do not follow, our faith in Jesus is not "saving." In other words, our works come into play in making the final end-of-life determination as to whether we are saved.


(Some) EV's teach works are not necessary to salvation, but in the end there are some works (such as becoming a Mormon--or atheist) that, should a "saved" person commit, demonstrate they were never really saved in the first place.

Ironically, for some EV's, committing murder or adultery after being saved is not a disqualifier. Hence, becoming a Mormon or atheist must be worse than becoming a murderer.

When viewed through a microscope, the EV position on salvation and the Mormon position on salvation are substantially similar though the respective descriptive language differes somewhat.

On top of that, many EV's are beginning to preach that once a person reaches heaven, there are different degrees of glory they will inherit--based upon their works.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_consiglieri]

That. Is so f****d up.

You, my non-friend, are an asshole. Totally. You f*****g weirdo.

V/R
Dr. Cameron

The color of your skin don't matter to me
As long as we can live in harmony

Why can't we be friends?
Why can't we be friends?
Why can't we be friends?
Why can't we be friends?

All the Best!

--Warlieri

[_consiglieri]

No, and yes. No: So far from being considered "early Christians," John actually labeled such folks as "anti-Christs" (ἀντίχριστοι). If John's declaration carries any weight, they were certainly not "early Christians."

Yes: it appears that the proximate heresy was some form of docetism.

The question you're raising, I think, is whether or not John's declaration has anything of significance to say to us today in disparate theological debates. I think it does.

Best, friend.

John's comment that "they were not part of us" has long struck me as similar to a wife getting divorced and claiming she "never loved" her husband.

At least it has struck me that way since 1993 when my first wife did exactly that.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_consiglieri]

I did exactly what the televangelist encouraged me to do. I prayed and told God, in all sincerity, that I accepted JC as my Savior.

And yet I was not saved.

It is only in retrospect you are deemed to have not been saved, Beastie.

But I suspect you already know that. ;^)

This line of discussion points up the absolute requirement of correct belief in EV soteriology, and the utter unimportance of works.

Accept Jesus and commit murder, you are saved.

Accept Jesus and become an atheist (or Mormon), you are damned.

I had a similar experience to yours, Beastie. Years before I joined the Mormon Church, I accepted Jesus as my personal Savior while watching a Billy Graham crusade on TV. Brother Graham said I was saved and nothing could take that from me. I was then written in the Book of Life.

Brother Graham didn't know Brother Hoops.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. If I recall correctly CKS comes at this from a predestination point of view, so understands this as all having been worked out from the beginning according to God's Will, and there is really nothing we can say or do to change that. Do I have that right, CKS?

[_consiglieri]

But I committed the one sin God cannot forgive. Disbelief.

Or different belief. ;^)

God is hard on those who follow their heart . . .

[_consiglieri]

Liz, please define one piece of the Mormon doctrine of Joseph Smith that is accepted as "Christian".

I glory in plainness; I glory in truth; I glory in my Jesus, for he hath redeemed my soul from hell. (2 Nephi 33:6).

[_Yoda]

So...the bottom line seems to be that you disagree with the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition on what a Christian is.

Liz, please define one piece of the Mormon doctrine of Joseph Smith that is accepted as "Christian". The answer is there isn't anything Christian about Mormon doctrine. The one common doctrine is belief in the Bible, but the Mormon prophet of God changed the Bible, making all of Mormon doctrine exclusive to Mormonism.

This attempted wordplay is easily compared to the differences between Judaism and Christianity. Jews reject the New Testament. Christians reject the Mormon doctrine translated by Joseph Smith. I would guess you'd counter with "some Christians" reject Mormon doctrine, and I would counter that makes as much sense as stating "some Jews" reject the New Testament. This question attempts to define what Christianity encompasses and fails to define what a "Mormon" is by definition. I can agree that Mormonism has roots in Christian doctrine, but Mormon doctrine is not, in any way shape or form, "Christian"... it's "Mormon" by definition.

For arguments sake, let me present an absurd analogy. The Lucky Charms leprechaun speaks to me telling me that he has a restored doctrine of Jesus Christ. I translate the magical plates he gives me using magical seer stones and change the Bible. Would a church based on this premise be defined as "Christian" because I started with the Bible and claimed Jesus Christ was giving me this new doctrine? Isn't the concept of a "restored" version of what Jesus Christ supposedly taught warrant a different definition? In this analogy, I place as much faith in a cartoon leprechaun as I do in Joseph Smith as a prophet of God. Do you see the point?

First of all, Joseph Smith did not rewrite the entire Bible. We use the King James version of the Bible as our canon, with cross-references pointing to portions of the Bible which Joseph Smith retranslated.

Setting that aside, there are several versions of the Bible being used by various Christian sects. If I am not mistaken, the Catholic Church has its own version. There is also the NIV. How is using either of these versions of the Bible any different than using the KJV with cross-references?

I believe in the same beatitudes, the same sacrifices of Christ that you do, Thews.

I am the first to admit that Mormonism is NOT Orthodox Christianity, and I have been very vocal about my objection to many of the tenets. But I will not stand by and be told that as a Mormon, I do not worship Jesus Christ. It is ludicrous. I do worship Jesus Christ.

I could care less about whether or not the LDS Church is admitted into the country club of mainstream Christianity, but I'll be damned if you, or anyone else is going to tell me whether or not I worship Jesus Christ.

[_beastie]

This is where I see the EV view of salvation start to resemble the Mormon view of salvation, Beastie.

EV's teach we are saved by a profession of faith in Jesus, but the caveat is we are not really saved (or we don't know if we are really saved) at that point. We have to wait until the end of our lives to see if we do something that takes us out of that saved status. In other words, our works come into play in making the final end-of-life determination as to whether we are saved.

Mormons teach we must have faith in Jesus Christ to be saved, but in addition there must be "good works" we show forth afterward as a sign of our devotion and "saving faith." If good works do not follow, our faith in Jesus is not "saving." In other words, our works come into play in making the final end-of-life determination as to whether we are saved.


(Some) EV's teach works are not necessary to salvation, but in the end there are some works (such as becoming a Mormon--or atheist) that, should a "saved" person commit, demonstrate they were never really saved in the first place.

Ironically, for some EV's, committing murder or adultery after being saved is not a disqualifier. Hence, becoming a Mormon or atheist must be worse than becoming a murderer.

When viewed through a microscope, the EV position on salvation and the Mormon position on salvation are substantially similar though the respective descriptive language differes somewhat.

On top of that, many EV's are beginning to preach that once a person reaches heaven, there are different degrees of glory they will inherit--based upon their works.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

This is why, in an earlier response to Hoops, I referred to different "brands" of Christians. Hoops strenuously objected, but the obvious truth is that there is so much variance within Christianity on certain points - very crucial points - that it's misleading to lump them all in together.

To me, the after-life and requirements of faith associated with Mormonism made more sense than EV. It seems sensible that it can't be just ALL based on belief, and none on works, because that does seem suspicious. As I said in an earlier response, that's really the "all is permitted" philosophy, not atheism. And if one accepts the role of Christ as Savior, it can't be ALL works, either. So a combination makes sense, and it seems logical that many believers throughout different sects have arrived as the same conclusion.

And it seemed even more sensible that, within the pool of works/faith, there is still differentiation of levels. Levels of belief. Levels of commitment.

Now, I am adamantly NOT saying that all the teachings of prophets make sense. They do not. Some are incredibly screwed up. But the very basic outline of LDS beliefs made more sense to me.

[_beastie]

But I committed the one sin God cannot forgive. Disbelief.

Or different belief. ;^)

God is hard on those who follow their heart . . .

Indeed. One reason I am an atheist. But just one. ;)