Topic: Mormon Gospel vs the Christian Gospel? (Read 7222 times)

Anthony Horvath · « **on:** November 02, 2005, 09:47:51 PM »

This conversation carried over from the epistemological differences between Christianity and other, thread:

sntjohnny:At this point in the conversation, there is no way to test this spirit, who is the sole alleged source for the foundational material of Mormonism.

valerie:Perhaps so, thus we must assume the contrary about the angel Moroni. That he was indeed a false angel, maybe even Satan himself. Then I would be left to ask, why would Satan bring about a book that testified of Jesus Christ? Wouldn't that kind of defeat the purpose of being Satan? Thus you are also saying that Satan created this church with a membership of 12 million people who testify of Jesus Christ and his atonement and demonstrate that (for the most part) by following his commandments?

Sounds like Satan's church divided against itself.

Sntjohnny:

Galatians 1:6-9.

8 in particular seems applicable.

valerie:Then you must define for me the gospel, the true gospel and what in Mormonism has so perverted that true gospel.

I still have to disagree with you that Satan would preach anything that would lead people to Christ. How do you qualify such an assertion?

sntjohnny quoted valerie:"Then you must define for me the gospel, the true gospel and what in Mormonism has so perverted that true gospel."

sntjohnny:Actually, the burden would be on you to demonstrate that Mormonism is consistent with the gospel. I certainly don't mind producing a summary of the gospel as presented by the Christians scriptures, but on the other hand, you'll need to do the same with the gospel as you understand it as a Mormon.

Are you ready with such a description?

You know I am!

----------------------------------------

That's where we are at.

valerie · « **Reply #1 on:** November 03, 2005, 06:32:56 AM »

Yeah, I thought you might split this (I am doomed always to be in the Mormon forum)...and I like this topic! I very much want to know what the differences are!

I don't see why the burden is upon me when you have made the claim that Mormonism has perverted the true gospel. Nevertheless, I am willing to compare and contrast. I guess I should just start with a key point and you can then compare what Christians believe. Perhaps then we can see where such perversion lies!

By the way, you still have to answer the question as to why Satan would lead people to believe in Christ. Also you might want to clear up what perverting the true gospel might entail. I might stumble upon it unknowingly and that wouldn't be fun.

Let's start with the atonement (I think Christians believe in that).

Mosiah 3:
5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases.
6 And he shall cast out devils, or the evil spirits which dwell in the hearts of the children of men.
7 And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people.
8 And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.
9 And lo, he cometh unto his own, that salvation might come unto the children of men even through faith on his name; and even after all this they shall consider him a man, and say that he hath a devil, and shall scourge him, and shall crucify him.
10 And he shall arise the third day from the dead; and behold, he standeth to judge the world; and behold, all these things are done that a righteous judgment might come upon the children of men.
11 For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #2 on:** November 03, 2005, 11:42:48 AM »

Your burden is in showing that the Mormon Gospel is consistent with and identical with the orthodox Christian Gospel. I was not claiming it was perverted. I was arguing towards the point that the NT isn't exactly silent on how to 'test spirits' and even goes so far as to specifically warn that even if an 'angel from heaven' were to bring a different Gospel, let that being be condemned. Since we are specifically addressing an 'angel from heaven,' allegedly, this provides a way to test the spirit.

It is the Mormon argument that this being is trustworthy, its up to the Mormons to show that he really is.

We can leave your question about Satan dividing against himself until after we've looked at a few of these criteria, because if we discover that there are significant points of departure between 1st century Christianity and Mormonism, then it is no longer clear that it is really Satan dividing against himself, at all.

I was hoping for something different for your 'gospel.'

A short paragraph, of course rooted in some direct tie-backs, summarizing the gospel was more what I had in mind.

valerie · « **Reply #3 on:** November 03, 2005, 01:43:26 PM »

Quote

the NT isn't exactly silent on how to 'test spirits' and even goes so far as to specifically warn that even if an 'angel from heaven' were to bring a different Gospel

Let's be clear about this. The scripture you referenced Gal 1:6-9, I think Paul is clearly stating that a "different Gospel" would be one that perverts the Gospel of Christ. I think we need to lay down a definition here otherwise there is too much room for interpretation. You're the resident guru on Christianity, what do you think the perversion of a Christ's gospel might entail? Maybe I am being a pain on this, but if the definition isn't there you could pretty much take any difference between the two gospels and declare "check mate". And I really don't think, for example, the fact that Christian churches have a cross and Mormon churches don't is what Paul had in mind.

Quote

A short paragraph, of course rooted in some direct tie-backs, summarizing the gospel was more what I had in mind.

Wow, that's just not possible. How about we focus on the Articles of Faith? They are a pretty good summary of LDS beliefs. There are thirteen and they are pretty short. Here are the first two:

1 We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #4 on:** November 03, 2005, 03:42:37 PM »

"You're the resident guru on Christianity,"

Nah, its just my board. :)

"Maybe I am being a pain on this, but if the definition isn't there you could pretty much take any difference between the two gospels and declare "check mate"."

It looks to me like you've tangled too much with atheists, skeptics, and cynics. That's definately their MO. They'll switch definitions of a word in mid-sentence. I think you'll see that that isn't my style.

In otherwords, I'd be glad to clarify.

""A short paragraph, of course rooted in some direct tie-backs, summarizing the gospel was more what I had in mind.""

"Wow, that's just not possible."

Then we clearly aren't talking about the same thing.

The word 'gospel' has to basic uses in the Christian church. (I don't know if it has other uses in the Mormon church). 1. The message that God has redeemed through Jesus Christ and 2. the story of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I don't think I've ever heard it used, as you seemed to use it, as the overall teachings of a church.

You could contrast 'Gospel' in 1 appropriately like so: "Law and Gospel" but a good categorical contrast to Gospel in 2 would be "Gospel and Baghavad Gita." The 'law' was one way people thought they could be saved.

It is definition 1 that I am asking you to provide.

Here would be an acceptable summary of the orthodox Gospel:

Every man and woman is sinful and has fallen short and is doomed (Romans 3: 9-20), powerless to save themselves by any work or effort of their own on their own strength (Eph 2:8-9). However, God makes a free gift of salvation available through belief in Jesus (Romans 3:22-26), the Messiah (Acts 2:29-33), God incarnate (Phil. 2 : 5 - 8 ), who became sin on our behalf (2 Corinthians 5:21), joining Jew and Gentile, man and woman, slave and freeman, into oneness in his body (Gal. 3:26-29, Romans 6:1-10), which having defeated death (1 Cor 15:57, Romans 5:12-21), ascended. Henceforth we are empowered by the invigorating Spirit (Romans 8 : 1-18 ), also God (1 Cor 2:6-12), to live sanctified lives- not that doing good works save us, but because good works are what Good people do (James 2:26), and so can serve as signs of genuine redemption (Matt 7:15-20, John 15:1-8 ).

valerie · « **Reply #5 on:** November 04, 2005, 07:24:26 AM »

Ok, well my reservations are noted.

Quote

The word 'gospel' has to basic uses in the Christian church. (I don't know if it has other uses in the Mormon church). 1. The message that God has redeemed through Jesus Christ and 2. the story of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
quote]
Ah, I think I understand what you are looking for now. Mormons would call it the Plan of Salvation.

Your paragraph confuses me a bit. Especially this part...
Quote
who became sin on our behalf (2 Corinthians 5:21),
joining Jew and Gentile, man and woman, slave and freeman, into oneness in his body (Gal. 3:26-29, Romans 6:1-10)
Henceforth we are empowered by the invigorating Spirit (Romans 8 : 1-18 ), also God (1 Cor 2:6-12)
to live sanctified lives- not that doing good works save us, but because good works are what Good people do (James 2:26), and so can serve as signs of genuine redemption (Matt 7:15-20, John 15:1-8 ).

Were not going to get very far if I can't understand what you are saying! The bolded parts are what confuse me the most.

Moving on, here is my best attempt at the Plan of Salvation in one paragraph with Book of Mormon references.

Adam fell that men might be (2 Nephi 2:25). All men are in a lost and fallen state (Mosiah 16:3-5) and are not able to return to God on their own merit but are continually indebted to him (Alma 22:13-14). Thus man would have remained in this state and justice would have hold on them unless someone else satisfied the demands of justice. It must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice one in which only a God could make. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, offered himself as this sacrifice. He paid the price for the sins of all mankind. Thus can mercy be given to those who come to Christ and follow his commandments, they may participate in the great blessing of the atonement. Giving man an opportunity to repent and return to God (Alma 34). If men do not follow Christ, and repent, then they must pay for their own sins (Alma 42:22). Only through Jesus Christ is salvation possible (Alma 37:9). Jesus Christ overcame death and was resurrected. The resurrection is a free gift to all men, salvation (returning to God

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #6 on:** November 04, 2005, 08:49:43 AM »

"who became sin on our behalf (2 Corinthians 5:21),"

It would appear that Jesus literally absorbed sin into his being. The passage uses the same language.

"into oneness in his body (Gal. 3:26-29, Romans 6:1-10)"

The mechanism by which God has decided to work is taking us and combining us, literally, into the body of Jesus. This is accomplished through faith and baptism and strengthened in communion. Thus, if we were present in the Lord's body when he died, we are present with him in his resurrection. If we share in his death, we share in his resurrection. Again, the passages I cite use much of the same language.

"Henceforth we are empowered by the invigorating Spirit (Romans 8 : 1-18 ),"

'invigorating' is not any kind of theological term. I was really pulling from another passage where it credits the Holy Spirit as being the one that actually raised Christ. The 'empowerment' is what is supported in the Romans 8 passage.

"to live sanctified lives-"

Sanctification, however, is a theological term. It refers to the process of being restored to holiness.

"Adam fell that men might be (2 Nephi 2:25)."

That men might be what?

"All men are in a lost and fallen state (Mosiah 16:3-5) and are not able to return to God on their own merit but are continually indebted to him (Alma 22:13-14)."

Check and check.

"Thus man would have remained in this state and justice would have hold on them unless someone else satisfied the demands of justice."

Check.

"It must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice one in which only a God could make."

I think you have here a dramatic parting of the ways, cloaked in similar language. Only 'a God'? I can see how the statement could yet be compatible with Christian theology... answer this follow up question:

Do you think there are more than one Gods?

"Jesus Christ, the Son of God, offered himself as this sacrifice."

Check.

"He paid the price for the sins of all mankind."

Sure, check.

"Thus can mercy be given to those who come to Christ and follow his commandments,"

This is incompatible, however. In my statement I made clear that there is nothing that we can do. We are not even capable of doing something if we wanted to (Romans 3). Eph. 2:8-9 insists it is only through grace through faith. More importantly, for our purposes, this completely stands as an affront to what Paul is talking about in the short book of Galatians, which I commend to you for your reading.

"they may participate in the great blessing of the atonement."

Technically off, but not far.

"Giving man an opportunity to repent and return to God (Alma 34). If men do not follow Christ, and repent, then they must pay for their own sins (Alma 42:22)."

I could find a way to live with this.

"Only through Jesus Christ is salvation possible (Alma 37:9)."

Check.

"Jesus Christ overcame death and was resurrected."

Technically off, but not far. See my comments about 'invigorating' above. Its a trifle, though.

"The resurrection is a free gift to all men,"

This is curious. The resurrection is a free gift to all men, but salvation is not?

"salvation (returning to God

valerie · « **Reply #7 on:** November 04, 2005, 11:43:22 AM »

Ok, I will take your word on that other stuff. I read the scriptures you referenced. Those things are trifles.

Quote

"Adam fell that men might be (2 Nephi 2:25)."

That men might be what?

That men might be here on earth, that we might have bodies.

Quote

Do you think there are more than one Gods?

Brigham Young once said, "Man is as God once was and Man can be as God is". So yes, there is essentially more than one God. But there is only one God that rules over our Earth, that being God the Father and Jesus Christ is his Son. Jesus Christ is as God is now, he became a God. Jesus is still under God the Father's rule, as is evidenced by his continual reference and obedience to him.

Quote

This is incompatible, however. In my statement I made clear that there is nothing that we can do. We are not even capable of doing something if we wanted to (Romans 3). Eph. 2:8-9 insists it is only through grace through faith.

Let me make sure I understand...mankind can do nothing to save themselves. What they do or don't do doesn't matter because they cannot save themselves. This brings up a whole load of questions but I will get to those later!

Allow me to quote Eph. 2: 8-9...
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.
I would interpret it thus; Why yes, the grace of Christ is allowing us an opportunity to be saved. We cannot save ourselves, we don't have the power to overcome death and intercede in behalf of other men. It is a gift from God that we may obtain salvation.
But...I am getting a little ahead of myself here. What is meant by "saved"? I could easily interpret that to mean the ressurection which I trully believe is a free gift to all no matter what they do.

Quote

More importantly, for our purposes, this completely stands as an affront to what Paul is talking about in the short book of Galatians, which I commend to you for your reading.

Quote

For one thing, it is clear, especially for our purposes as explicitly illustrated in the book of Galatians, which is the source of this conversation, that you cannot be saved by keeping any commandments. That would be the 'law.'

I am dismayed, trully dismayed. Tell me why, if mankind can do nothing toward their salvation does Paul, in chapter 5 of Galations, go on to state several sins and commandments?

By discounting a persons works you have completely perverted, and I do mean perveted, the gospel of Jesus Christ. For if works do not matter then there is no need for there to be commandments or law. If there is no law then there is no punishment. If there is no punishment then there is no need to be saved. If there is no need to be saved then there is no need for a saviour, Jesus Christ. I can see that Satan would want people to believe there was no need for Jesus Christ.

Apparently, I proved your point and you proved mine. Where does that leave us? We could talk about the weather. Or perhaps go shoot some pool. I don't drink alcohol, but we could go out for a soda!

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #8 on:** November 04, 2005, 12:51:02 PM »

""Adam fell that men might be (2 Nephi 2:25)."

That men might be what?

That men might be here on earth, that we might have bodies."

So without sin, there would be no physicality? It required disobedience so that we might have flesh?

Quote:
Do you think there are more than one Gods?

"Brigham Young once said, "Man is as God once was and Man can be as God is"."

This appears also to be the answer to my question above.

"So yes, there is essentially more than one God."

This doesn't necessarily speak specifically to our 'gospel' discussion, but it should be clear that we have clearly uncovered to very distinct differences between Christianity and Mormonism, both of which are on their own sufficient to make clear that Mormonism is anything but 'Christian.'

1. The Scriptures do not argue that man is a fallen spirtual being, and that haven fallen, now wears flesh. He is a fallen physical being, who was wore flesh from the beginning, and was declared 'good' on that occasion.

This is a significant different way of looking at the human race and the universe. It would be disengenous to suggest that Mormons have a rightful claim to the term 'Christian' based on this alone. I know that's not the debate here, but its obviously relevant.

2. The Judeo-Christian Scriptures make it clear that there is only one God, period. This God is not part of this created universe, or somehow a being within it. Despite passages consistent with being created in his image, the Scriptures in question regard the claim that a man could be God as blasphemous, the very charge that Jesus was rung up on. Or should I say, hung up on.

This too is such a significant way of looking at God that there can not seriously be allowed, on this point alone, for Mormons to take the claim 'Christian.'

But we still have the 'gospel' issue to deal with, which we must, since the Mormons allegedly embrace the judeo-Christian scriptures, as well.

"Let me make sure I understand...mankind can do nothing to save themselves. What they do or don't do doesn't matter because they cannot save themselves. This brings up a whole load of questions but I will get to those later!"

Yes.

"I am dismayed, trully dismayed. Tell me why, if mankind can do nothing toward their salvation does Paul, in chapter 5 of Galations, go on to state several sins and commandments?"

Well, you can take it up with Paul, if you like. Its possible he's contradicting himself, in which case you'd not want to be associating yourself with him, right? However, in chapter 5, in listing sins and commandments, he does not offer them as means towards salvation. It would be quite astounding to commit such a contradiction having rejected all such notions in chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4, and suddenly embrace them in 5.

"By discounting a persons works you have completely perverted, and I do mean perveted, the gospel of Jesus Christ. For if works do not matter then there is no need for there to be commandments or law."

Paul makes his case plain. Its not that they don't matter. Its that they don't save you. You can disagree, if you like, but he is explicit. Your view stands in stark contrast. We know explicitly what Paul would say about it.

For example Paul says:

"You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? Have you suffered so much for nothing- if it really was for nothing? Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?"

This is Paul's argument, and his portrayal of the gospel, which he says that even if an angel from heaven were to present differently, should condemn that angel to hell. Its one thing to disagree with Paul, and the rest of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. Its quite another to try to claim them still, even though from the perspective of those scriptures, the epistemological bottleneck that Mormonism is based on revolves around an angel 'from heaven' who presents a different Gospel, one of works, one of effort, and therefore, from this perspective, is condemned.

I would personally argue that the other two points I listed above (1. and 2.) also illustrate doctrines that are discordant. They don't serve to provide such a clear 'test' of an 'angel from heaven' as an examination of the Gospel provided, but they serve as satisfactory tests of other things.

valerie · « **Reply #9 on:** November 04, 2005, 02:10:46 PM »

Quote

Well, you can take it up with Paul, if you like. Its possible he's contradicting himself, in which case you'd not want to be associating yourself with him, right? However, in chapter 5, in listing sins and commandments, he does not offer them as means towards salvation. It would be quite astounding to commit such a contradiction having rejected all such notions in chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4, and suddenly embrace them in 5.

You didn't answer the question...
Why does Paul go on to state several sins and commandments? What are they there for if not for salvation?

And you're right. If Paul is trully speaking such a gospel (which I don't think he is) then I won't associate myself with him. But I think he is teaching about works otherwise there is no need for commandments. Yet again in Romans 13 he lists commandments. In Romans 14 he even goes so far as to say "For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." Confess what? Give an account of what? If we can't DO anything then there is no accounting necessary.

Tell me why the scriptures are replete with commandments if said commandments are not necessary?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #10 on:** November 04, 2005, 03:27:40 PM »

"You didn't answer the question..."

I did answer the question. I answered it before you asked it in my description of the Christian Gospel:

"Henceforth we are empowered by the invigorating Spirit (Romans 8 : 1-18 ), also God (1 Cor 2:6-12), to live sanctified lives- not that doing good works save us, but because good works are what Good people do (James 2:26), and so can serve as signs of genuine redemption (Matt 7:15-20, John 15:1-8 )."

"Why does Paul go on to state several sins and commandments? What are they there for if not for salvation?"

Well, we can safely say that since he has already rejected any notion of trying to earn one's salvation by following commandments, whatever reason it may be, its not going to be for salvation.

If you read the book of Galatians, he answers the question for you, as well.

Chapters 1-4 are this resonating and blistering attack on any notion that the Gospel of Christ involves following laws, as is illustrated in the passage I already referenced. As I pointed out, the 'life by the Spirit' follows AFTER salvation, and certainly not before.

You mentioned chapter 5, but chapter 5 is mostly more of what has already come before. He transitions from condemning living by the law to living by the Spirit (5:16) and lists things that were acts of the SINFUL NATURE, so not what he was talking about. But the fruit of the spirit (see again Matt 7:15-20) is specifically for those who already belong to Christ Jesus (Gal 5:24), and that is saying nothing different than saying it is speaking of those ALREADY saved, not those trying still to BE saved.

You can disagree if you like, but Paul says if you don't understand this point, you may as well just go all the way and emasculate yourself: Gal 5:12. I don't know what the equivalent meaning might be for women, but Val, it really can't get any clearer than that.

And that's just drawing from Galatians. These are central and core doctrines spoken to often throughout the Christian NT.

"If we can't DO anything then there is no accounting necessary."

I'm hoping that you simply over looked the very simple distinction that no one is saying that the things we do don't matter, but rather, they don't 'matter' for our salvation. This is not my point. Its the argument of all of the NT.

Try this one:

"Yet to all who received him [Christ], to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God- children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husbands will, but born of God."

John 1:12-13

Do not push against the goads, Valerie. You may feel that you have a very common sense position, and maybe it is a common sense position, but it is not the position of the NT Scriptures, and there is no hope for you to reconcile them.

"Tell me why the scriptures are replete with commandments if said commandments are not necessary?"

I would suggest that you invest time in reading them more specifically on this point. The question is not unanswered. In fact, it is explicitly asked.

For example:

"The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 5:20-21

It is not an isolated reference.

Do you believe that Jesus was a real, flesh and blood, man?

valerie · « **Reply #11 on:** November 04, 2005, 04:03:21 PM »

If works tied to salvation makes you think that Mormons are deluded then so be it. You certainly aren't saying that keeping the commandments would cause you not to be saved? Because then again that would be works tied to salvation and you said that is not the gospel. Thus Mormons cannot and should not be condemned for following the commandments, because follow or don't follow it doesn't matter. Right? Well then that does not serve to pervert the gospel even as you say Paul stated it. Therefore, although this may be incompatible with Christian doctrine it does not pervert said gospel and does not prove argued angel was false.

Resurrection free to all mankind...I think that goes along with the works and salvation argument. Although, I think there is a rift on what exactly the resurrection is. Please explain how Christians view it? Also I think there is a rift on what salvation is. Please explain this as well.

Quote

Do you believe that Jesus was a real, flesh and blood, man?

Yes. He was born of a flesh and blood woman that makes him flesh and blood.

Hey, remember one thing here, I didn't have Christianity 101 so don't start me off with graduate work. So go emasculate your own self.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #12 on:** November 04, 2005, 09:26:37 PM »

"If works tied to salvation makes you think that Mormons are deluded then so be it."

That is not what I'm saying at all. I am only saying that your presentation of the Mormon 'gospel,' which I take to be accurate, is at variance with the Christian gospel, as presented in the NT, and specifically as presented in the book of Galatians which has strong words for those claiming to have his gospel and yet not actually having it.

"You certainly aren't saying that keeping the commandments would cause you not to be saved??

eh? If I take out the two negatives, I get this:

"Are you saying that keeping the commandments would cause you to be saved?"

Is that accurate?

If so, then obviously, as I've said, the answer is definitively 'no.' Thus:

"Because then again that would be works tied to salvation and you said that is not the gospel."

Is again a formula Christians reject. Works are NOT tied to salvation. Works are the results of that salvation, and can serve as a visible sign of that salvation, both for the believer himself and other believers in evaluating that believer, and a sign for God himself, likely, of the same effect, but it is never ever ever ever ever the means to achieve that salvation.

Never.

"Thus Mormons cannot and should not be condemned for following the commandments, because follow or don't follow it doesn't matter. Right?"

Its a very simple before/after distinction.

"Therefore, although this may be incompatible with Christian doctrine it does not pervert said gospel and does not prove argued angel was false."

Ah, but if I have already established by other means reason for thinking Christianity has validity, then this provides some non-arbitrary grounds for rejecting Mormonism, especially if its credibility is hung on the Christian message.

However, if you are willing to treat Mormonism as completely independent from Christianity, something which in my opinion, is the really honest way to go, then we are reduced again to simply receiving a message from an angel, without any way to test that angel.

We could accept that every part of the story of Mormonism's origins is true, and yet have good cause to withhold our assent, as independent verification is not only possible, nor is it forthcoming, probably in principle.

"Although, I think there is a rift on what exactly the resurrection is."

There is. In Christianity, a person's body is transformed into a new physical being. Even the heavens and the earth will have a resurrection. We will not be disassociated from our bodies, but our bodies will be changed, nonetheless.

"Please explain how Christians view it? Also I think there is a rift on what salvation is. Please explain this as well."

In Christianity, salvation basically consists in the divine rescue of a fallen race, who, on account of their own deviant actions and decisions, are destined towards eternal separation from God. Being spiritually dead, they are able in no way to participate in their own salvation. Think of an unconscious survivor of a shipwreck bobbing in the water. The rescue vessel comes, the diver jumps in, the diver pulls the guy on board, and revives him. There is ambiguity built into this analogy, though, because we can view the same concept from different perspectives.

Salvation was accomplished for all in one moment on the cross, but is finally consummated at the end of time when the fellowship is finally completely restored.

"Yes. He was born of a flesh and blood woman that makes him flesh and blood."

Just checkin.

"Hey, remember one thing here, I didn't have Christianity 101 so don't start me off with graduate work. So go emasculate your own self."

That's why I like you Val. You take it all in stride. You recognize that I'm not trying to be insulting or offensive, even if perhaps the implications of what I'm saying could be construed that way by some. You recognize I have no desire to do nothing more than have an honest conversation, and so an honest conversation ensues.

I like it!

valerie · « **Reply #13 on:** November 05, 2005, 06:50:34 AM »

Quote

Ah, but if I have already established by other means reason for thinking Christianity has validity, then this provides some non-arbitrary grounds for rejecting Mormonism, especially if its credibility is hung on the Christian message.

I think all you have established is how the Chrisitans interpret the Bible not that the interpretation is valid. However, I can see how a Christian would use this as grounds for rejecting Mormonism (I would too! It certainly is an easier scenario since there is no sin!). The credibility of the LDS church is not hung on the Christian message. I would think that is pretty clear. If it were, we wouldn't go around saying that Chrisitians (and others) don't have the full gospel of Jesus Christ. We would be discrediting ourselves before we even declared our message.

Quote

However, if you are willing to treat Mormonism as completely independent from Christianity, something which in my opinion, is the really honest way to go, then we are reduced again to simply receiving a message from an angel, without any way to test that angel.

I guess I already agreed to that. However, I think the angel test we have is still valid. The Mormons do believe in the Bible and very specifically in what Paul is teaching (we just don't interpret it your way). As long as there is no rejection of Paul, and there isn't, the test should still be valid.

Quote

We could accept that every part of the story of Mormonism's origins is true, and yet have good cause to withhold our assent, as independent verification is not only possible, nor is it forthcoming, probably in principle.

What? Say that a different way, I don't understand.

Quote

There is. In Christianity, a person's body is transformed into a new physical being. Even the heavens and the earth will have a resurrection. We will not be disassociated from our bodies, but our bodies will be changed, nonetheless.

Actually, there is no rift there. That is exactly what Mormons believe.

Let's talk about salvation then. I will use your shipwreck analogy. The ship is sunk and here we all are bobbing in the water. Only we are not unconscious. We look around and there are different implements that will serve as floatation devices but only for a short time. Before the ship sank an SOS was sent out and it is certain that a rescue boat is on the way. However, since the captain was the one who sent the SOS and only he and a few of his officers heard the response not everyone believes that the rescue boat is coming. There we are some believing, some not and you have to decide if you are going to float and try to survive (testing your faith in the captain) or just give up and die.

Jesus will make up for what it is not possible for us to do. However, we must do all we can to show our faith and dedication to that faith. Jesus gets us to the shore after we have swam as far as we can but only then. We learn nothing in this life if we are saved without a trial of faith. Just to be clear, Mormons believe that salvation is living in Gods presence with Jesus Christ. The resurrection is free to all, no matter their works, but not all will live in Gods presence after the final judgement.

Even that rift doesn't sound like a perversion of the Gospel. Because, as I have pointed out earlier, the LDS church brings people closer to Jesus Christ and that is not at all what Satan would do.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #14 on:** November 05, 2005, 05:18:48 PM »

Quote

I think all you have established is how the Chrisitans interpret the Bible not that the interpretation is valid. However, I can see how a Christian would use this as grounds for rejecting Mormonism (I would too! It certainly is an easier scenario since there is no sin!). The credibility of the LDS church is not hung on the Christian message. I would think that is pretty clear. If it were, we wouldn't go around saying that Chrisitians (and others) don't have the full gospel of Jesus Christ. We would be discrediting ourselves before we even declared our message.

Interesting. I am basically a "universalist" with a twist. What saddens me is that some universalists feel the same way as you. But then we can include the more liberal churchs who say the same thing too. My question. Is every interpretation valid? What do you think Val? Can a number of interpretations, even though they may contradict each other, be ALL true? I think the boiling down point is whether we believe there is a truth, if any, to be found. Then it would be the individual who will search the scriptures to "see if these things be so" as the brave bereans did.

valerie · « **Reply #15 on:** November 06, 2005, 06:26:47 AM »

Quote

Is every interpretation valid? What do you think Val? Can a number of interpretations, even though they may contradict each other, be ALL true? I think the boiling down point is whether we believe there is a truth, if any, to be found. Then it would be the individual who will search the scriptures to "see if these things be so" as the brave bereans did.

No, not every interpretation is true, that would be silly and confusing! This is good for the personal revelation thread because it is exactly a question I asked of the Christians.

valerie · « **Reply #16 on:** November 17, 2005, 06:55:31 AM »

Hey sntjohnny,
Just reviewing some other stuff...
Please explain this to the Mormon, I don't understand this.

Quote

Works are NOT tied to salvation. Works are the results of that salvation, and can serve as a visible sign of that salvation, both for the believer himself and other believers in evaluating that believer, and a sign for God himself, likely, of the same effect, but it is never ever ever ever ever the means to achieve that salvation.

When was the person saved? Thus after being saved they keep the commandments? Why, so others can determine that the person is saved? What exactly is the saved part? How did they get there?

Zagzagel · « **Reply #17 on:** November 20, 2005, 09:47:39 PM »

Snt.j can answer for himself...but this is what I am attempting to answer in your other thread under the "christian" forum.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #18 on:** December 01, 2005, 01:16:46 PM »

"I think all you have established is how the Chrisitans interpret the Bible not that the interpretation is valid."

But I'm not really doing any interpretation. I have pointed to Galatians, but I don't need to limit myself to it by any means. I can just point to the words and let the words speak for themselves. For example, Ephesians 2:8-9

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith- and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- not by works, so that no one can boast."

That's pretty clear. It goes on...

"For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

It requires no interpretation to simply identify that the passage does not say 'works' are unimportant, its clear they are. But they aren't a mechanism for salvation, either.

Or another:

Romans 5:6-8

"You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

Again, no interpretation required. It was when we were poweless that God saved us. It's pretty evident what the essential elements of the Christian Gospel is.

Some folks are running around this forum trying to draw distinctions between Jesus and Paul, so I feel compelled to offer some other examples saying the same thing.

Of course, we have John 3:16 saying,

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life."

That doesn't quite get at the 'powerless' part, and it is John talking (not Paul), so let's go further in John to some words of Jesus:

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day." John 6:44

Keep this one in mind for a moment. But as you can see, the message is more or less the same across the board, without distinction between Jesus, Paul, or the other disciples.

"The credibility of the LDS church is not hung on the Christian message. I would think that is pretty clear."

Oh, I don't know about it being clear. But when I say such things, I mainly refer to how Mormons use the same language as Christians, call themselves Christians, and spend a lot of time reaching out to the disaffected Christians out there, who are unaware that the words Mormons use sometimes have different meanings and if Mormons are 'Christian' its in a different sense then what is traditionally understood. This allows some people to be comfortable exploring Mormonism, where the chances are good otherwise that the Mormon apologist would not find a hearing at all.

""Quote:
We could accept that every part of the story of Mormonism's origins is true, and yet have good cause to withhold our assent, as independent verification is not only possible, nor is it forthcoming, probably in principle.""

"What? Say that a different way, I don't understand."

In other words, Mormonism's information comes from a source that cannot even in principle be tested or corroborated. As important as it might be to check various aspects of Mormonism for accuracy to the real world, I'm saying that even if it checked out in every case, the source of the information itself is completely cloaked. Since we allow that there can be angels of deception, and we have little way to check this particular angel, we can in intellectual integrity decline to believe in Mormonism.

Contrast that with Christianity, which does not pin its authenticity on a message from an angel, or even prophecies in general, but the specific historical claim that Jesus rose from the dead. Its true that some people think that evidence weak- more power to them. Nonetheless, the principle claim that defines all the rest is in principle testable and falsifiable, and in that sense superior to Mormonism, and Islam for that matter, too.

"Let's talk about salvation then. I will use your shipwreck analogy. The ship is sunk and here we all are bobbing in the water. Only we are not unconscious."

No one can come to the father unless they are drawn. It was while we were still powerless that Christ died for us. We are not saved by works. I appreciate your candor in explaining the Mormon Gospel, but you can see that right here is a fundamental difference between the two Gospels. Its not ambiguous in the Christian scriptures: we were powerless.

"Even that rift doesn't sound like a perversion of the Gospel."

Maybe not a perversion of the Mormon Gospel, but a perversion of the Christian Gospel.

Have you read the book of Romans lately? Romans 1-8 is really a presentation of the whole Christian Gospel message. It begins with our sin, and being 'dead' in it (dead=powerless), and points out that everyone was in this condition. Then it explains how God interceded, and how afterwards, the power of the Holy Spirit works to transform us.

I suggest it.

valerie · « **Reply #19 on:** December 01, 2005, 03:01:56 PM »

I do not refute the scriptures you quoted Sntjohnny. Only that you do not take all the scriptures into account and look at them as a whole. We are talking about salvation so...

I think we agree that faith is necessary so we will set that one aside. The next key is repentence which you have not addressed at all. Matt. 3:2,11; 4:17; 9:13; 11:20; 12:41. Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 8:22. Rom. 2:4. 2 Cor. 12:21...so on and so on. What is repentence for if works mean nothing? Repent of what?

The next key Baptism...
Matt. 20:23. Mark 1:4. Luke 3:3. Acts 19:4. Rom. 6:4. Eph. 4:5. Col. 2:12. Heb. 6:2 so on and so on. What is baptism for? Why was Jesus Christ himself baptized?

The next key the Holy Ghost...
Matt 3:11, 28:19. Mark 1:8. Luke 2:25, 3:16, 3:22, 4:1 so on and so on.

The next key endure to the end...
Matt. 10:22, 24:13. Mark 4:17, 13:13. 1 Cor. 13:7. 2 Tim. 2:3, 2:10 so on and so on.

I got tired of typing references to the keys of salvation.

I think you will get my point. Sure there are about a million references to faith and the Lord's mercy but what about the rest?

Quote

Maybe not a perversion of the Mormon Gospel, but a perversion of the Christian Gospel.

Perhaps it is the "Christian" gospel that is a perversion to Christ's gospel. After all, the "Christian" gospel doesn't cover all the necessary requirements that lead to salvation. Thus leaving many people without out an oar up a river, so to speak. The Mormon gospel at least covers the Christian gospel basics thus, if the Christian gospel is right, the Mormon gospel just has people doing unnecessary stuff but people will still be saved.

Author Topic: Mormon Gospel vs the Christian Gospel? (Read 7222 times)