Mormon charity, theology and etc - the latest news

[Benjamin Hobbs]

Yeah, that one caught me as well. Most of this sounds like the old "Catholic bashing" of old. Lots of huffing and puffing with nothing really substantial.

Any system that requires/encourages worship of any person in the place of God or that requires a works-salvation is not orthodox. That is what I meant.

I have no issue whatsoever in believing that Jewish, Muslim and Jehovah's Witnesses, most likely will have hell awaiting them. They all have more than sufficient knowledge of who Jesus is and they clearly reject Him. While I'm really sad that this fate awaits them, I'm not willing to bury my head in the sand and say that maybe their ok, because there isn't any part of me that can wrap my head around folks reaching heaven while clearly rejecting the Lord and Savior.

Why are JWs any more worthy for Hell than Mormons if they have a similar belief in his ontology?

But when folks say things like this;


Articles of Faith:


Are there some hokey things in these statements? Yes of course there are, and there is more if one reads through all of their stuff. My question isn't whether they have enough problems to miss the kingdom, but rather do they exhibit that which is required to attain it. I believe that Mormons demonstrate saving faith, and I have no issue calling them my brothers and sisters.

I'm not interested in all of the comments whereby it is said that they attest to all the right things yet they mean something else.

Translation: I'm not interested in the truth if it is discomforting or dashes my opinions to pieces.

Sounds like something that would come from Alex Jones, way too much conspiracy theory for me. No I don't believe that the book of Mormon was inspired and no I don't believe in the Mormon peculiar doctrines, but then again I'm not about to join the Catholics, Episcopalians of Methodists any time soon either, if I'm going to include them as my brothers and sisters and I do, then I'm including Mormons as well. I haven't seen anything here that would indicate that I shouldn't.

How many more statements "you're still not getting it" do you need?

Jesus isn't who you think he is. God isn't who you think he is. Salvation isn't what you think it is. Grace isn't what you think it is. Sin isn't what you think it is. Humans aren't you think we are. Matter isn't what you think it is. The Bible isn't what you think it is. Faith isn't what you think it is.

I'm sorry for being rather pointed on this, but what you are in essence saying is that the Christian faith is whatever someone decides it is.

[Rich Schmidt]

Jesus isn't who you think he is. God isn't who you think he is. Salvation isn't what you think it is. Grace isn't what you think it is. Sin isn't what you think it is. Humans aren't you think we are. Matter isn't what you think it is. The Bible isn't what you think it is. Faith isn't what you think it is.

I'm sorry for being rather pointed on this, but what you are in essence saying is that the Christian faith is whatever someone decides it is.

That's not what I'm hearing him say. I'm hearing him say that what matters isn't having the correct beliefs/information about Jesus. What matters is trusting him, "demonstrating saving faith" in him.

While Mormonism clearly has a warped view of God the Father, Jesus, salvation, etc, is it so warped as to make Jesus unrecognizable? Unreachable? If a poor, lost sinner, hungry for God, is led to faith by his Mormon neighbors, does he receive the grace he's seeking?

I think these are interesting questions.

BTW, Benjamin, I'm glad you're here, and I'm glad you're giving us the "inside scoop" from your own experiences with Mormons and the Mormon church!

[James Diggs]

That's not what I'm hearing him say. I'm hearing him say that what matters isn't having the correct beliefs/information about Jesus. What matters is trusting him, "demonstrating saving faith" in him.

While Mormonism clearly has a warped view of God the Father, Jesus, salvation, etc, is it so warped as to make Jesus unrecognizable? Unreachable? If a poor, lost sinner, hungry for God, is led to faith by his Mormon neighbors, does he receive the grace he's seeking?

I agree with this Rich, but I am confused why Jim thinks this works for the Mormon but not Jewish, Muslim and Jehovah's Witnesses who "most likely will have hell awaiting them" somehow more so that the Mormon. This makes the least sense with the Jehovah's Witnesses who are very much the same as Mormons.

It seems to me that Jim is holding onto some sort of correct beliefs that he thinks the Mormons have that the others don't. I think this is odd because when it comes to beliefs I don't see much in common at all when it comes to beliefs about who God and Jesus is, even though I think they (like many others of various religions) can reflect such qualities in their actions. Seems to me that after beliefs about who God and Jesus is, much of what he have left is just religious trappings unless such beliefs are worked out from who God actually is.

So I am not sure why the Mormon statements of beliefs that Jim lists really matter, they are not based on anything that we can find common ground with when it comes to who God is, who we are, and how Jesus restores us. Again, all that is left in such statements without the substance of who God actually is, are just religious trappings and exercises .

This debate seems kind of odd to me and I am having trouble following the reasoning behind it.

[Jon Bemis]

While Mormonism clearly has a warped view of God the Father, Jesus, salvation, etc, is it so warped as to make Jesus unrecognizable? Unreachable? If a poor, lost sinner, hungry for God, is led to faith by his Mormon neighbors, does he receive the grace he's seeking

IMO one reason Mormon's do not as readily find God's grace is because their belief system is based on a Jesus that isn't God and cannot save. Mormons do not believe in the Trinity as we understand it. They believe that God and Jesus were separate physical humans who dwelt on earth, that God was Jesus’ father, and both men died. An explanation of their 13 Articles can be found here.

For ten years I worked with a Mormon and we traveled extensively together. We spent a great deal of time talking about our beliefs and his main question was the basis for my "hope." It was clear that although he was a faithful Mormon he didn't have a sense of hope that he had done enough. He was studying the Gospel of John and came to believe that Jesus was God, and that much of what he believed could not be reconciled with John's account. So yes, it is possible for a Mormon to receive grace, but I would say that it is in spite of their teachings rather than because of it.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

That's not what I'm hearing him say. I'm hearing him say that what matters isn't having the correct beliefs/information about Jesus. What matters is trusting him, "demonstrating saving faith" in him.

While Mormonism clearly has a warped view of God the Father, Jesus, salvation, etc, is it so warped as to make Jesus unrecognizable? Unreachable? If a poor, lost sinner, hungry for God, is led to faith by his Mormon neighbors, does he receive the grace he's seeking?

I don't actually know. To me it is the same question as "are Mormons going to Hell?"

The problem I have is that it is an inherent part of the system and belief continuum of Mormonism to mock the Triune God, the Christian view of Heaven, salvation by grace through faith, and the holy church universal. This mocking might, I think, alienate Mormons from the grace of God. If Lewis is right and we will see Christ as either our wonderful Lord and God or we will find him to be the most terrifying thing imaginable, how much of a worldview will effect that? Or simply, how many times will you be able to mock Christ and still recognize him after you die?


To clarify, yes, there is mocking of Christian beliefs in Mormon "Sunday School" classes. Yes, they are taught to abhor what they call "faith alone" salvation from a very young age. And most often, the idea of "harps, clouds, wings and singing to God all day everyday" is laughed at and called "boring."

I think these are interesting questions.

BTW, Benjamin, I'm glad you're here, and I'm glad you're giving us the "inside scoop" from your own experiences with Mormons and the Mormon church!

Thanks. Glad to be here.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

IMO one reason Mormon's do not as readily find God's grace is because their belief system is based on a Jesus that isn't God and cannot save. Mormons do not believe in the Trinity as we understand it. They believe that God and Jesus were separate physical humans who dwelt on earth, that God was Jesus’ father, and both men died. An explanation of their 13 Articles can be found here.

For ten years I worked with a Mormon and we traveled extensively together. We spent a great deal of time talking about our beliefs and his main question was the basis for my "hope." It was clear that although he was a faithful Mormon he didn't have a sense of hope that he had done enough. He was studying the Gospel of John and came to believe that Jesus was God, and that much of what he believed could not be reconciled with John's account. So yes, it is possible for a Mormon to receive grace, but I would say that it is in spite of their teachings rather than because of it.

Just a slight correction here.

Elohim (the apparent proper name of God the Father) dwelt on an earth as a man, much like mankind does. He dwelt on a planet near the star of Kolob. There is no record or teaching that he ever died. (However there is a teaching by the second prophet of the LDS church that God the Father was Adam and Eve was one of his wives, this was called a "deadly, damnable heresy" by another prophet in the 1950s)

Jesus the Christ was the first spirit child of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. His spirit existed long before Heavenly Father became God (as all people have spirits that existed forever), but he was given a spiritual body by the union of HF and HM. He was declared the savoir of this world and is the god of the Old Testament.

[James Diggs]

The problem I have is that it is an inherent part of the system and belief continuum of Mormonism to mock the Triune God, the Christian view of Heaven, salvation by grace through faith, and the holy church universal. This mocking might, I think, alienate Mormons from the grace of God....

To clarify, yes, there is mocking of Christian beliefs in Mormon "Sunday School" classes. Yes, they are taught to abhor what they call "faith alone" salvation from a very young age. And most often, the idea of "harps, clouds, wings and singing to God all day everyday" is laughed at and called "boring."

I don't think the mocking of a triune God or "faith alone salvation" puts Mormons beyond the reach of God's grace at all.

[James Diggs]

So yes, it is possible for a Mormon to receive grace, but I would say that it is in spite of their teachings rather than because of it.

I think to a far lesser extent, but none the less often a reality, this can be true for Christians as well.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

I don't think the mocking of a triune God or "faith alone salvation" puts Mormons beyond the reach of God's grace at all.

I never said it was impossibilty. But I do wonder if some are still able to recognize God.

The problem I have is that the system doesn't point toward Christ. It can, but as Christ definitely isn't the centerpiece, Born-again Mormons (the term already exists) are going to be the exception and not the rule.

If it helps, I'm still doing a statistical analysis of the content of Mormon services. I can tell you that two years ago the leaders at a certain Mormon congregation that I attend forgot that it was Easter Sunday, had other teachings planned and not a single mention of Christ occurred outside of the ending of prayers (i.e. every proper Mormon prayer is ended by "I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ Amen"). That's three full hours of services mind you.

[James Diggs]

I never said it was impossibilty. But I do wonder if some are still able to recognize God.

Perhaps not within the context of religious trappings (regardless if they are the right or wrong religion). The Jews believed all the right stuff and some of them didn't recognize God either and crucified him for it. On the other hand even some followers of Jesus didn't recognize him along the road to emmaus, and they might have missed him altogether and let him continue on if they had not put into practice welcoming the stranger and only recognized Jesus after breaking bread with him.

I wonder how much good it is to argue our religion over theirs, our sacred text over theirs, our theology over theirs. I am not saying we toss out these things and shouldn't talk about them, but I think we recognize God by his substance of love justice and grace, and despite right or wrong beliefs we only recognize God when embracing the substance of God in flesh in blood ways like welcoming the stranger and breaking bread.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

Perhaps not within the context of religious trappings (regardless if they are the right or wrong religion). The Jews believed all the right stuff and some of them didn't recognize God either and crucified him for it. On the other hand even some followers of Jesus didn't recognize him along the road to emmaus, and they might have missed him altogether and let him continue on if they had not put into practice welcoming the stranger and only recognized Jesus after breaking bread with him.

When I say "recognize God" I mean specifically after death in the C.S. Lewis sense. Christ said that eternal life is to know God, so knowing the wrong one, or not being able to recognize him... well, let's just say it doesn't sound good. (Neither is it to have Christ not recognize you... but I digress).

I wonder how much good it is to argue our religion over theirs, our sacred text over theirs, our theology over theirs. I am not saying we toss out these things and shouldn't talk about them, but I think we recognize God by his substance of love justice and grace, and despite right or wrong beliefs we only recognize God when welcoming the stranger and breaking bread.

To me, legitimizing a false belief is murder in the eternal sense. I completely agree that they will know we are Christians by our love, but love does not mean limp-wristed tolerance and inclusion. I will buy dinner for Mormon missionaries, have Mormon bishops over to my house (if they come), I will even go to their houses to eat. But every single one of them knows that I find their beliefs offensive and heretical, and most importantly why.

[James Diggs]

opps, look like you added this while I was typing:

The problem I have is that the system doesn't point toward Christ. It can, but as Christ definitely isn't the centerpiece, Born-again Mormons (the term already exists) are going to be the exception and not the rule.

If it helps, I'm still doing a statistical analysis of the content of Mormon services. I can tell you that two years ago the leaders at a certain Mormon congregation that I attend forgot that it was Easter Sunday, had other teachings planned and not a single mention of Christ occurred outside of the ending of prayers (i.e. every proper Mormon prayer is ended by "I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ Amen"). That's three full hours of services mind you.

Yea, I am not saying that there is a lot of hope of finding Jesus in their religious trappings, but then again those things are to escape even when you believe the "right" things. I know what you are saying though and obviously their liturgy for worship follows the narratives of their own beliefs that drastically contrasts our own.

[James Diggs]

When I say "recognize God" I mean specifically after death in the C.S. Lewis sense. Christ said that eternal life is to know God, so knowing the wrong one, or not being able to recognize him... well, let's just say it doesn't sound good. (Neither is it to have Christ not recognize you... but I digress).

Hmmmm.... how about another C.S. Lewis example as Emeth pledged his life to Tash; Aslan accepted this as a pledge to himself even though Aslam emphatically asserts that He and Tash are opposites.

I take to me the services which thou hast done to him, for I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted.

Better yet, how about Jesus teaching in the sheep and the goats? In that people welcomed God (as much as they did unto the lest of these) regardless of not recognizing him in the moment. The point is, God recognized it for what it was and received it as such.

To me, legitimizing a false belief is murder in the eternal sense. I completely agree that they will know we are Christians by our love, but love does not mean limp-wristed tolerance and inclusion. I will buy dinner for Mormon missionaries, have Mormon bishops over to my house (if they come), I will even go to their houses to eat. But every single one of them knows that I find their beliefs offensive and heretical, and most importantly why.

I'm not sure I agree with you here Benjamin, I think the welcoming them to your table speaks a great deal more about what is good and true about God than making sure they know you strongly disagree with their theology. Jesus wasn't worried that sharing a table with others legitimized the ways they felt short. I am not saying that he didn't also preach and teach what was true- but there was nothing "limp-wristed" in his bold inclusions of others while the religious experts with the "right beliefs" condemned him for condoning the sins of those he showed hospitality too. Of course Jesus did not condone their sins, but to the religious leaders just sharing a table with them was to "legitimize" them and their ways.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

Hmmmm.... how about another C.S. Lewis example as Emeth pledged his life to Tash; Aslan accepted this as a pledge to himself even though Aslam emphatically asserts that He and Tash are opposites.



Better yet, how about Jesus teaching in the sheep and the goats? In that people welcomed God (as much as they did unto the lest of these) regardless of not recognizing him in the moment. The point is, God recognized it for what it was and received it as such.

I'll quote my wife on this one and say that "Mormonism is selfish through and through", and such that most of the profession to serve and praise God comes from a form of self promotion. Or in other words, the same way that keeping an oath sworn to Tash swares to Aslan then a praise to the God that does not exist and for the wrong motives... ends up serving the proverbial Tash.

I understand what you're driving at, and to an extent I agree. The problem is that Mormons are taught that the identity of God that Christians believe in is of the devil, that salvation by faith alone is Lucifer's most cunning plan. Paraphrasing Paul, zeal towards God is not enough if it is misdirected. And the Mormon God is a means to an end, how is that glorifying to God?

I'm not sure I agree with you here Benjamin, I think the welcoming them to your table speaks a great deal more about what is good and true about God than making sure they know you strongly disagree with their theology. Jesus wasn't worried that sharing a table with others legitimized the ways they felt short. I am not saying that he didn't also preach and teach what was true- but there was nothing "limp-wristed" in his bold inclusions of others while the religious experts with the "right beliefs" condemned him for condoning the sins of those he showed hospitality too. Of course Jesus did not condone their sins, but to the religious leaders just sharing a table with them was to "legitimize" them and their ways.

So tell me. What would you think of Richard Mouw? He has said that Mormons are fellow believers in Christ and that Christians should stop worrying about Mormon theology.

Buddying up with people without making a distinction is legitimizing false belief. This distinction may not always be a verbal one, but a clear distinction is absolutely necessary to avoid any condoning of heresy.

[James Diggs]

I'll quote my wife on this one and say that "Mormonism is selfish through and through", and such that most of the profession to serve and praise God comes from a form of self promotion. Or in other words, the same way that keeping an oath sworn to Tash swares to Aslan then a praise to the God that does not exist and for the wrong motives... ends up serving the proverbial Tash.

I understand what you're driving at, and to an extent I agree. The problem is that Mormons are taught that the identity of God that Christians believe in is of the devil, that salvation by faith alone is Lucifer's most cunning plan. Paraphrasing Paul, zeal towards God is not enough if it is misdirected. And the Mormon God is a means to an end, how is that glorifying to God?

Well I think the fictional scenario C.S. Lewis described about Emeth isn't really that different of a problem, I mean Tash might as well been the devil and Tash taught Aslan was the devil.

So I think you are right if a Mormon embraces these selfish aspects of their theology which present all through it so that they embrace such selfishness than this is clearly a pledge to "Tash".... But, I still embrace the possibility that there can be Mormon versions of Emeth - sounds like you do too.

So tell me. What would you think of Richard Mouw? He has said that Mormons are fellow believers in Christ and that Christians should stop worrying about Mormon theology.

By no means do I think we stop preaching Christian theology and of course in this we don't treat Mormon theology as if it is somehow the same. At the same time, not that it isn't good to have an understanding of it, but I don't know how "worried" about Mormon theology we need to be as we continue to work on understanding and living out our own.

Buddying up with people without making a distinction is legitimizing false belief. This distinction may not always be a verbal one, but a clear distinction is absolutely necessary to avoid any condoning of heresy.

The thing is Benjamin, I think "Buddying up with people" can be in itself an unselfish theological message of love for the other that is often distinctive enough on its own without worrying about making sure there our "qualifiers" as we aim to reflect unconditional love.

I don't think we have to worry about making sure we make a distinction in what we believe, because I believe such opportunities will present themselves when we love the right way. Certainly they will for the Mormon, who will be just as interested in "evangelizing" you as you and I are of him or her. I can't imagine that the Mormon would not bring up their beliefs in the context of a growing friendship that would provide an opportunity to share the gospel as we know it- and then it would be in the context of demonstrating it in our unconditional love for them.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

Well I think the fictional scenario C.S. Lewis described about Emeth isn't really that different of a problem, I mean Tash might as well been the devil and Tash taught Aslan was the devil.

So I think you are right if a Mormon embraces these selfish aspects of their theology which present all through it so that they embrace such selfishness than this is clearly a pledge to "Tash".... But, I still embrace the possibility that there can be Mormon versions of Emeth - sounds like you do too.



By no means do I think we stop preaching Christian theology and of course in this we don't treat Mormon theology as if it is somehow the same. At the same time, not that it isn't good to have an understanding of it, but I don't know how "worried" about Mormon theology we need to be as we continue to work on understanding and living out our own.



The thing is Benjamin, I think "Buddying up with people" can be in itself an unselfish theological message of love for the other that is often distinctive enough on its own without worrying about making sure there our "qualifiers" as we aim to reflect unconditional love.

I don't think we have to worry about making sure we make a distinction in what we believe, because I believe such opportunities will present themselves when we love the right way. Certainly they will for the Mormon, who will be just as interested in "evangelizing" you as you and I are of him or her. I can't imagine that the Mormon would not bring up their beliefs in the context of a growing friendship that would provide an opportunity to share the gospel as we know it- and then it would be in the context of demonstrating it in our unconditional love for them.

I think we agree more than our communication has allowed.

I'm probably more on the concerned side because of my experience, especially after seeing Christians date and get married to Mormons. And seeing how Mormonism is seen as "Christian" by many people who should know better (e.g. Richard Mouw, former President of Fuller Theological Seminary).

[John Kennedy]

Having spent a few years in the heart of Mormon country (Provo, UT) and years studying Mormon history, it should be noted that we're talking about MUCH more than simply another belief system. It's a whole nother culture - a way of life. There's a very good reason why, at least in Mormon country, non-Mormons were referred to as Gentiles.

Mormonism is a package deal. That incredibly strong family structure makes it incredibly difficult for a Mormon to simply change churches. And if you're in Mormon country (Utah, southern Idaho, western Wyoming & Colorado, northern Arizona and eastern Nevada) there are strong economic and social structure issues to be dealt with. And the greater the generational depth, the more difficult the breaking away. I have yet to come in contact with anyone who came out of the church, especially if their family had been a part for several generations.

In an earlier post, I had given a link for a very informative website. Unfortunately, that was not the correct address. The correct address is www.mormoncurtain.com.

[Marsha Lynn]

The do not worship the same God you and I do, instead they worship a god they believe has evolved into who he is now.

I don't know if this is the best place/way to approach this, but am I the only one who cringes at statements like this? Generally, it is the Islam faith that is being discussed. I have heard over and over that Allah is not God. Even setting aside any assertion that Allah is the Arabic word for God, aren't Muslims monotheistic? If there is one immortal, invisible, almighty God, how can we say that some of the people who believe in such a God believe in some other immortal, invisible, almighty God? Are we acknowledging that there is more than one God? Is it not more accurate to say that other monotheistic religious traditions do not agree with us as to what the one and only immortal, invisible, almighty God is like?

If we are going to use this phrasing then I must assert that many Christians do not worship the same God I do. They worship a vengeful, angry God who is impossible to please rather than a God of immeasurable grace and love. Their God never smiles. The God I worship is full of compassion, abounding in love.

If we don't use the "different God" phrasing in regard to differing Christian perceptions of the one immortal, invisible, almighty God should we use it when discussing other monotheistic religions which portray God in ways that stand in contrast to our perception? Would it not be better to say those other religions have a very different concept of God than we do?

Having said all that, I'll admit to not having read this thread thoroughly enough to fully comprehend the Mormon view of God. Still, at what point is any tradition's view of a single God who exists outside our dimension so distorted as to not refer to the single God who exists outside our dimension at all? Of course, there's the complication of extending the Godhead to somehow take in Jesus Christ and maybe a separate Spirit of God, but if we're going to quibble about that, I think it will be orthodox Christianity that will be most challenged when tested for distortion of the belief in the one (and only one) true and living God.

BTW, this isn't directed at you personally, Jon. Your post just happened to be a convenient place to set the soapbox I've been wanting to pull out for a while.

Marsha

[Hans Deventer]

I don't know if this is the best place/way to approach this, but am I the only one who cringes at statements like this? Generally, it is the Islam faith that is being discussed. I have heard over and over that Allah is not God. Even setting aside any assertion that Allah is the Arabic word for God, aren't Muslims monotheistic? If there is one immortal, invisible, almighty God, how can we say that some of the people who believe in such a God believe in some other immortal, invisible, almighty God? Are we acknowledging that there is more than one God? Is it not more accurate to say that other monotheistic religious traditions do not agree with us as to what the one and only immortal, invisible, almighty God is like?

If we are going to use this phrasing then I must assert that many Christians do not worship the same God I do. They worship a vengeful, angry God who is impossible to please rather than a God of immeasurable grace and love. Their God never smiles. The God I worship is full of compassion, abounding in love.

That is indeed the conclusion I have reached. We cannot be talking about the same God. And since there is only one God, as we all agree, the Allah of Islam is non-existent. As is the "vengeful, angry God who is impossible to please". And worshipping a non-existent God is like worshipping an idol, something you create in your own image.

[James Diggs]

I don't know if this is the best place/way to approach this, but am I the only one who cringes at statements like this? Generally, it is the Islam faith that is being discussed. I have heard over and over that Allah is not God. Even setting aside any assertion that Allah is the Arabic word for God, aren't Muslims monotheistic? If there is one immortal, invisible, almighty God, how can we say that some of the people who believe in such a God believe in some other immortal, invisible, almighty God? Are we acknowledging that there is more than one God? Is it not more accurate to say that other monotheistic religious traditions do not agree with us as to what the one and only immortal, invisible, almighty God is like?

If we are going to use this phrasing then I must assert that many Christians do not worship the same God I do. They worship a vengeful, angry God who is impossible to please rather than a God of immeasurable grace and love. Their God never smiles. The God I worship is full of compassion, abounding in love.

Thanks Marsha, this is why I find the idea of C.S. Lewis' character of Emeth so helpful. I agree, if we are going to argue who has the right God on paper, as in our theology and how everything works, I am going to have to include some Christians in this list too (not to mention that as we put God on paper- we risk venturing into idolatry). The thing is I don't know if we should assume any of us fit 100% into our own intellectual expressions of theology any more than God himself fits into it. Sometimes people's lives can express a better (or worse) theology then they believe intellectually on paper.

I know Christians who hold a theology I completely disagree with when it comes to the character of God. When we talk about theology, even thought they say God loves, they make God sound like a spiteful God more determined to send people to hell then redeem them. But then some of those same people live out something completely different and reflect great love completely inconsistent with how they say their theology in so many places works. The theology of their lives is much better than the one they have on paper. Their God is bigger and has more substance than their theology because they actually are following God rather than the idols we can make when we try to map him out.

I think this can work for the Muslim, and Mormon too. God is a God of love and a God of peace they will say, yet we can find all kinds of holes in their theology that is inconsistent with that. And so like the Christians with the same dilemma with their theology the question is what do they believe more, Who or what do they really embrace by faith in a way that translates into their lives?

Of course I know Christians whom lives reflect a spiteful God more determined to send people to hell then redeem them too, and their theology matches their lives. In these case they can not overcome their theology by serving a God that is bigger than it. Their theology doesn't push them forward as it points to God, but drags them down. And so it is the same about many Muslims and Mormons or many others too. So I think theology is important and when done right it should help propel us to embrace God himself and all his character of goodness, justice, love and grace as we were created in his image and have that image restored through Jesus Christ. So I think theology still matters.

All this to say that I think we need to be careful in how we approach people, I don't want our discussions about theology and who is serving the right God to be reduced to who has the best looking idol. Again, not to say that we shouldn't talk about theology, but we need to remember that God is bigger than the words we use for him. God is bigger than all the meaning anyone can stuff into words like "Allah", "Elohim", or "Jehovah" and "Yahweh"- and even "Jesus".

Because of this I think it is possible that there are Emeth's out there, who despite calling God "Tash" and believing "Aslan" to be the devil are actually following something bigger and with far more substance than their own definitions in all their shortcomings. The "Allah" they say they are trying to follow may be, for all intents and purposes, the same God we follow after all.

[Jon Bemis]

I don't know if this is the best place/way to approach this, but am I the only one who cringes at statements like this? Generally, it is the Islam faith that is being discussed. I have heard over and over that Allah is not God. Even setting aside any assertion that Allah is the Arabic word for God, aren't Muslims monotheistic? If there is one immortal, invisible, almighty God, how can we say that some of the people who believe in such a God believe in some other immortal, invisible, almighty God? Are we acknowledging that there is more than one God? Is it not more accurate to say that other monotheistic religious traditions do not agree with us as to what the one and only immortal, invisible, almighty God is like?
If we are going to use this phrasing then I must assert that many Christians do not worship the same God I do. They worship a vengeful, angry God who is impossible to please rather than a God of immeasurable grace and love. Their God never smiles. The God I worship is full of compassion, abounding in love.

I suspect from your response that you have limited understanding of the god(s) the LDS worship. You pointed out that you have not read this thread thoroughly, which would have given a bit more insight. Would you cringe if the statement had been made regarding Greek or Roman gods of antiquity or any other god of humankind's invention? Because IMO that is precisely what we are talking about here. I don't have the time to post a more comprehensive approach now, but will later. Thanks.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

I don't know if this is the best place/way to approach this, but am I the only one who cringes at statements like this? Generally, it is the Islam faith that is being discussed. I have heard over and over that Allah is not God. Even setting aside any assertion that Allah is the Arabic word for God, aren't Muslims monotheistic? If there is one immortal, invisible, almighty God, how can we say that some of the people who believe in such a God believe in some other immortal, invisible, almighty God? Are we acknowledging that there is more than one God? Is it not more accurate to say that other monotheistic religious traditions do not agree with us as to what the one and only immortal, invisible, almighty God is like?

<snip>

Mormonism is not monotheistic, so no. I understand what you're driving at, but with the a church teaching "Abraham, Isaac and Moses are gods, all good men in the church able to become gods" and "god is the same species as us, he is just higher up on the elevator of eternal progression", I wouldn't for a second presume that Mormons worship the same God.

I linked to this already, but again it's a great teaching tool for Christians. It's a guy similar to me asking Mormons outside of their biannual General Conference about the teaching "As man is God once was, as God is man may be" (Called the Lorenzo Snow couplet). It's the first video on the page. godneversinned.com

[Benjamin Hobbs]

Having spent a few years in the heart of Mormon country (Provo, UT) and years studying Mormon history, it should be noted that we're talking about MUCH more than simply another belief system. It's a whole nother culture - a way of life. There's a very good reason why, at least in Mormon country, non-Mormons were referred to as Gentiles.

Mormonism is a package deal. That incredibly strong family structure makes it incredibly difficult for a Mormon to simply change churches. And if you're in Mormon country (Utah, southern Idaho, western Wyoming & Colorado, northern Arizona and eastern Nevada) there are strong economic and social structure issues to be dealt with. And the greater the generational depth, the more difficult the breaking away. I have yet to come in contact with anyone who came out of the church, especially if their family had been a part for several generations.

In an earlier post, I had given a link for a very informative website. Unfortunately, that was not the correct address. The correct address is www.mormoncurtain.com.

I have nothing to add other than I can attest to this from personal experience.

And add my favorite websites. (in order of recommendation)
mrm.org
utlm.org (very information/documentation heavy)
mormondoctrine.net
concernedchristians.com
carm.org

[James Diggs]

Mormonism is not monotheistic, ..."Abraham, Isaac and Moses are gods, all good men in the church able to become gods" and "god is the same species as us, he is just higher up on the elevator of eternal progression", I wouldn't for a second presume that Mormons worship the same God.

It's sounds like it is definitely and entirely different animal from where we are coming from a Christians. With that said I don't think it is over reaching at all to say we may have far more in common with Muslims than Mormons in this regard.

Isn't that interesting.

[Marsha Lynn]

I suspect from your response that you have limited understanding of the god(s) the LDS worship. You pointed out that you have not read this thread thoroughly, which would have given a bit more insight. Would you cringe if the statement had been made regarding Greek or Roman gods of antiquity or any other god of humankind's invention? Because IMO that is precisely what we are talking about here. I don't have the time to post a more comprehensive approach now, but will later. Thanks.

If being mistaken in any aspect of one's concept of God means a person is worshiping a nonexistent "god," I think we're all in trouble. Which of us can completely and accurately understand and describe the God we worship? Scripture assures us, from Job to Paul's letters, that none of us can reach that level of understanding. God is God, we are not. We can't get our mind around what is so far above and beyond us.

Assuming that some are more mistaken in their concept of God than others, how far off does one need to be before he or she is worshiping an immortal, invisible, almighty deity that is so false as to be a completely different god than the one we acknowledge? And who determines the answer to that question?

I am reminded of Paul the Apostle's visit to Athens in Acts 17. He walked around and observed the various idols and objects of worship. When he had a chance to address the worshipers, he latched onto the closest concept they had to the one immortal, invisible, almighty God -- an altar to the "unknown god." He said, "Let me tell you about the God you are worshiping at this altar."

It seems to me that rather than arrogantly dismissing the "god" of monotheistic people as false or nonexistent from our elevated position as worshipers of the "real God," we might do better to offer them a fresh perspective concerning the Deity they have already acknowledged as God drawn from the scriptures they already acknowledge as sacred.

Marsha

[Marsha Lynn]

In an earlier post, I had given a link for a very informative website. Unfortunately, that was not the correct address. The correct address is www.mormoncurtain.com.

Isn't using resources produced by ex-Mormons to find out the truth about Mormonism sort of like relying on the Concerned Nazarenes to tell us the truth about the emerging church? Or looking to articles about John Cougar Mellencamp's early days* to give us a good picture of the Church of the Nazarene in the 1960s in southern Indiana?

*I had a link here but realized it was full of objectionable content. You'll have to do your own research or take my word for it that such articles tend to present a rather skewed perspective of our tradition.

[Marsha Lynn]

It's sounds like it is definitely and entirely different animal from where we are coming from a Christians. With that said I don't think it is over reaching at all to say we may have far more in common with Muslims than Mormons in this regard.

Isn't that interesting.

Except I go back to what you wrote earlier -- what people say they believe and what their lives testify concerning their beliefs may be widely separated, for good or bad.

In Here We Stand (which I do not have available to get an accurate quote), the observation is made that we Nazarenes have much in common with Catholics in terms of doctrine, perhaps more than with fundamentalist Christian traditions. However, many people can share convincing anecdotal evidence that Catholics are completely screwed up in their beliefs, so much so that it is a stretch to call them Christians. Yet, that anecdotal evidence says nothing about the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic church nor the heart of Catholics who delve deep into their faith.

Judging individuals within a church based on the official doctrine of the church overlooks the doctrine written on the hearts of individual adherents. Judging the de facto doctrine of the church based on the teachings of individuals or man-on-the-street interviews confuses the forest and the trees.

I have no Mormon acquaintances so I can say nothing good or bad about their beliefs. (And, yes, that means it's a valid question to ask why I'm still talking here.) On the other hand, I have spent a lifetime living alongside Amish and Mennonites. I know that when I look at them I see culture with its roots in religion as much as actual faith. I know little about their religious beliefs. That's partially because they themselves tend to know little about their doctrine. While they know the rules of their culture, they can't explain what lies behind the rules. I doubt that many could accurately explain their position on the doctrine of the Trinity or the nature of Jesus Christ.

When I first started at the library in this conservative rural area, the library board was exceptionally diverse in religion. There was a member of the Christian Church, an American Baptist, two Methodists, a member I can't remember now, a Catholic, and an Amish man in not real good standing with the church. (If he had been a better Amish man he wouldn't have been serving in a public office. He has since been cast out of the church, after becoming an EMT, and is now Mennonite.) I found it amusing that when issues with ethical aspects to them arose it was the Catholic and Amish board members who were most inclined to push for ethical compromise. Does that mean Catholics and Amish as a whole have low ethical standards? No. Does it mean those board members are not Christians? I wouldn't make that judgment, any more than I would deChristianize the Nazarene who pushed me toward breaking the fourth of the Ten Commandments by recruiting me to do work tomorrow (Sunday) afternoon that could not possibly be squeezed into the six days God gave us for accomplishing our work. What it does mean is that there is great diversity within those traditions that involve so much history and culture going beyond simple faith. People don't necessarily leave such strongly-bound faith communities just because they aren't perfectly aligned with the official doctrine of the church or have moved more toward God than the average member or farther away.

Marsha

[Jon Bemis]

It seems to me that rather than arrogantly dismissing the "god" of monotheistic people as false or nonexistent from our elevated position as worshipers of the "real God," we might do better to offer them a fresh perspective concerning the Deity they have already acknowledged as God drawn from the scriptures they already acknowledge as sacred.

Marsha

I don't mean to be arrogant at all. I am alarmed though that Christians might hold an inclusive view of a belief system that IMO was developed either to undermine Christianity or as a result of one man's fanciful imagination. The LDS's source of authority include:

The King James version of the Bible. (They print their own Bible (King James Version) with additional LDS footnotes, dictionary and topical guide. These cross reference to their other books of scripture and provide LDS explanations.)

The Book Of Mormon which is considered by the LDS to be at least equal to the Bible. Joseph Smith (the author) claimed it was superior. “Joseph Smith said, "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg 194.)

Smith claims to have translated the Book of Mormon from an ancient set of golden plates inscribed by prophets, which Smith discovered near his home in Palmyra, New York in the 1820s. According to Smith, the plates were put there by Moroni in about AD 400 along with the Urim and Thummim which were a set of seer stones bound by silver bows into a set of spectacles by which Smith was able to translate the plates into English.

Reliable scholars view the Book of Mormon as a fabrication of Smith who plagiarized several other works including “The View Of Hebrews” published in 1823, “The Wonders of Nature” published in 1825, The Apocrypha, and The King James Bible.

Pearl of Great Price: This is the lessor used of LDS scripture (compared to the Book of Mormon), but it is considered authoritative by many Mormons. Joseph Smith claims to have translated this work from Egyptian hieroglyphics written on papyri he obtained from a traveling exhibition show. The papyri is currently in the Metropolitan Museum in New York. Modern translation of the hieroglyphics reveal the writings to be a description of burial rites and have no similarity to Joseph's translation.

Doctrine and Covenants is part of the open scriptural canon for Mormons and is the source for many of the LDS’s teachings (available here).

Journal of Discourses is a 26 volume compilation of LDS presidents and apostles sermons, covering about 35 years. While not held on the level of scripture it has nonetheless been considered authoritative. However, some in the LDS are increasingly distancing themselves from declaring the work binding (for one example of this see example,.fairmormon.org).

Out of these sources the Mormons have developed some unusual (to say the least) beliefs:

• Mormons can become gods and goddesses. ([1] Journal of Discourses 1:50-51; J of D 8:115; Doctrine and Covenants Section 132:20)
  
• Goddesses will spend eternity in full submission to their god-husband. (Doctrine and Covenants 84:33-9; for more information: Kent Ponder, Ph.D. e-mail address: kponder@swcp.com http://home.teleport.com/~packham/prozac.htm.)
  
• Mormon women will give birth “forever and ever” to spirit-babies. (LDS Apostle Orson Pratt wrote, “Each father and mother will be in the condition to multiply forever and ever” (The Seer, 37).)
  
• Mormon men can have multiple wives in heaven. (Doctrine and Covenants 132; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:269; Men can still be sealed for eternity (not time) to women other than their wives; “The practice of polygamy has been discontinued, but the doctrine of polygamy has never been revoked. D&C 132 is still part of the LDS canon. Some current church practices are still based on polygamous principles.” See pro-Mormon site http://mormonopenforum.blogsome.com/...rnal-polygamy/ (accessed February 25, 2007).
  
• Heavenly Father is an exalted man who lives with his goddess wife, Heavenly Mother, on a planet near the great star Kolob. (Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 3:2-4, 9; J of D, 26:214.)
  
• American Indians are descendants of the wicked Lamanites, who were Israelites that God cursed with dark skin. (Book of Mormon: Alma 3:6-19; 3 Nephi 2:14-15; Enos 1:20; J of D, 7: 290-291.)
  
• God the Father had sex with Mary to conceive Jesus, who is the half brother of Lucifer. (Journal of Discourses 8: 116; J of D 8: 211; J of D 8: 115; Mormon Doctrine p.546-547.)
  
• All Christian churches are an abomination. (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith—History 1:19. Smith claimed God sent him to “restore” true Christianity.)
  
• Mormons need 4 secret handshakes to get into the Celestial heaven. (Celestial Kingdom is the highest of 3 levels in the Mormon heaven (need handshakes to get past the angel guarding the veil); See ex-Mormon site http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_t...pub_1816881347 (accessed February 25, 2007); David John Buerger, The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship, http://lds-mormon.com/buerger.shtml as of February 25, 2007).
  
• Joseph Smith revealed that the actual Garden of Eden is in Jackson County, Missouri. (Doctrine and Covenants 116; Journal of Discourses, 10:235; Smith named the Spring Hill, Daviess County, Missouri area Adam-Ondi-Ahman.)

I disagree that "the Deity they have already acknowledged" is God.

[James Diggs]

It's sounds like it is definitely and entirely different animal from where we are coming from a Christians. With that said I don't think it is over reaching at all to say we may have far more in common with Muslims than Mormons in this regard.

Isn't that interesting.

Except I go back to what you wrote earlier -- what people say they believe and what their lives testify concerning their beliefs may be widely separated, for good or bad....

Oh yea, of course. I am not trying to deny that for the Mormon or the Muslim. I was only finding it interesting because so many Christians think they have more in common theologically with the Mormon than the Muslim, when it is actually the other way around.

Islam shares in our Abrahamic tradition and has much more in common theologically when it comes to who God is than Mormanism that drastically redefines all the terms and is operating from a completely different paradigm. It shares some the same names, but nothing is the same about what these things are and mean.

I can perhaps understand where feeling and fears about Muslims come from, but to hear about how the theology of the Muslim is the devil and Mormon theology is practically Christians is kind of funny. I only brought it up because I thought it spoke to a prejudice that we sometimes have in looking at at the religious beliefs and theology of others.

I wasn't trying to say anything that would take away from what I said before and I think still think both have the potential to live out a better theology than they confess as God may be actively working on their lives.

[Jim Chabot]

I don't mean to be arrogant at all. I am alarmed though that Christians might hold an inclusive view of a belief system that IMO was developed either to undermine Christianity or as a result of one man's fanciful imagination. The LDS's source of authority include:

The King James version of the Bible. (They print their own Bible (King James Version) with additional LDS footnotes, dictionary and topical guide. These cross reference to their other books of scripture and provide LDS explanations.)

The Book Of Mormon which is considered by the LDS to be at least equal to the Bible. Joseph Smith (the author) claimed it was superior. “Joseph Smith said, "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg 194.)

Smith claims to have translated the Book of Mormon from an ancient set of golden plates inscribed by prophets, which Smith discovered near his home in Palmyra, New York in the 1820s. According to Smith, the plates were put there by Moroni in about AD 400 along with the Urim and Thummim which were a set of seer stones bound by silver bows into a set of spectacles by which Smith was able to translate the plates into English.

Reliable scholars view the Book of Mormon as a fabrication of Smith who plagiarized several other works including “The View Of Hebrews” published in 1823, “The Wonders of Nature” published in 1825, The Apocrypha, and The King James Bible.

Pearl of Great Price: This is the lessor used of LDS scripture (compared to the Book of Mormon), but it is considered authoritative by many Mormons. Joseph Smith claims to have translated this work from Egyptian hieroglyphics written on papyri he obtained from a traveling exhibition show. The papyri is currently in the Metropolitan Museum in New York. Modern translation of the hieroglyphics reveal the writings to be a description of burial rites and have no similarity to Joseph's translation.

Doctrine and Covenants is part of the open scriptural canon for Mormons and is the source for many of the LDS’s teachings (available here).

Journal of Discourses is a 26 volume compilation of LDS presidents and apostles sermons, covering about 35 years. While not held on the level of scripture it has nonetheless been considered authoritative. However, some in the LDS are increasingly distancing themselves from declaring the work binding (for one example of this see example,.fairmormon.org).

Out of these sources the Mormons have developed some unusual (to say the least) beliefs:

• Mormons can become gods and goddesses. ([1] Journal of Discourses 1:50-51; J of D 8:115; Doctrine and Covenants Section 132:20)
  
• Goddesses will spend eternity in full submission to their god-husband. (Doctrine and Covenants 84:33-9; for more information: Kent Ponder, Ph.D. e-mail address: kponder@swcp.com http://home.teleport.com/~packham/prozac.htm.)
  
• Mormon women will give birth “forever and ever” to spirit-babies. (LDS Apostle Orson Pratt wrote, “Each father and mother will be in the condition to multiply forever and ever” (The Seer, 37).)
  
• Mormon men can have multiple wives in heaven. (Doctrine and Covenants 132; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:269; Men can still be sealed for eternity (not time) to women other than their wives; “The practice of polygamy has been discontinued, but the doctrine of polygamy has never been revoked. D&C 132 is still part of the LDS canon. Some current church practices are still based on polygamous principles.” See pro-Mormon site http://mormonopenforum.blogsome.com/...rnal-polygamy/ (accessed February 25, 2007).
  
• Heavenly Father is an exalted man who lives with his goddess wife, Heavenly Mother, on a planet near the great star Kolob. (Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 3:2-4, 9; J of D, 26:214.)
  
• American Indians are descendants of the wicked Lamanites, who were Israelites that God cursed with dark skin. (Book of Mormon: Alma 3:6-19; 3 Nephi 2:14-15; Enos 1:20; J of D, 7: 290-291.)
  
• God the Father had sex with Mary to conceive Jesus, who is the half brother of Lucifer. (Journal of Discourses 8: 116; J of D 8: 211; J of D 8: 115; Mormon Doctrine p.546-547.)
  
• All Christian churches are an abomination. (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith—History 1:19. Smith claimed God sent him to “restore” true Christianity.)
  
• Mormons need 4 secret handshakes to get into the Celestial heaven. (Celestial Kingdom is the highest of 3 levels in the Mormon heaven (need handshakes to get past the angel guarding the veil); See ex-Mormon site http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_t...pub_1816881347 (accessed February 25, 2007); David John Buerger, The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship, http://lds-mormon.com/buerger.shtml as of February 25, 2007).
  
• Joseph Smith revealed that the actual Garden of Eden is in Jackson County, Missouri. (Doctrine and Covenants 116; Journal of Discourses, 10:235; Smith named the Spring Hill, Daviess County, Missouri area Adam-Ondi-Ahman.)

I disagree that "the Deity they have already acknowledged" is God.

I think that this is a fair synopsis of where Mormons have been and you show some indications as to where they appear to be going. Much more helpful that the "they use the same terms but everything has a different meaning" stuff.

I'm still of the persuasion that they began as a Christian Cult, and that they are moving solidly in a direction which brings them closer to the greater Christian community. They are, as you say, moving away from the journal of discourses. They are becoming more and more open to change and to ideas from the greater Christian community, as shown by the multiple times that Ravi Zacharias has been invited to speak there in prominent places and he has met with them at their highest levels. As nutty and freakish their beginnings, I'm calling them brothers and sisters, and it's getting easier.

Granted that they have no authoritative documents outside of Scripture, but it may be noted that the Amish do consider the ordnung, which is similar to the journal of discourses and the Magisterium, as they do practice Gelassenheit as toward it's authority in and over their lives. The extreme shepherding practiced by the Amish, I believe, exceeds that of the Mormons. Yet almost universally, the Amish are considered Christian.

As to the Muslims, Jews and JW's, I don't see a fair comparison. Each of these religions has knowledge of Christ and all specifically reject His divinity. If we are to compare religions on the basis of whether they are "Christian" or not, the litmus test is in their treatment of Christ. Mormons rely on Christ for their direction and salvation, so I'm good.

[John Kennedy]

Isn't using resources produced by ex-Mormons to find out the truth about Mormonism sort of like relying on the Concerned Nazarenes to tell us the truth about the emerging church? Or looking to articles about John Cougar Mellencamp's early days* to give us a good picture of the Church of the Nazarene in the 1960s in southern Indiana?

*I had a link here but realized it was full of objectionable content. You'll have to do your own research or take my word for it that such articles tend to present a rather skewed perspective of our tradition.

Your point is well taken. However, while ex-members of any group may not be the epitome of objectivity, their observations shouldn't necessarily be rejected out of hand, either. I think www.mormoncurtain.com is like any other source of information - it needs to be read with some discernment and a willingness to check/verify.

A lot of people on the forum type area of the site are, admittedly, pretty bitter, but a lot of the information presented squares up with what I have learned from other sources. And the LDS may be just the kind of church some people on NN are looking for - it certainly hasn't been feminized.

The Church's steps toward some reconciliation with its onetime arch nemesis, Freemasonry, is interesting. Nauvoo, the city from which the main body of the church fled to Utah after Joseph Smith was killed, had the largest grand lodge in the state of IL, and Smith and other early Mormon leaders were high-ranking Masons.

Some historians have theorized that at least some of the mob that killed Smith were other Masons who were infuriated with Smith's incorporation of some of the Masonic rituals into the Mormon temple rituals. WhenI lived in UT I learned to look for a Shriner's pin or Masonic ring - you could be sure the wearer was Gentile. But now, especially in UT, there are Mormons who are also Masons.

One of the very visible (even though the letters on the signs are getting smaller) indications of the Chuurch's (having lived in Mormon Country there is only one Church) move toward a closer identification with mainstream Christianity is in the signage on it's chapels.

They used to read THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS. They now read THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints. (I know, I know......a few years after Pilot Point The Pentecostal Church of the Nazarene became The Church of the Nazarene for obvious reasons).

I don't think I would be going too far to make the statement that, in common with other belief systems, the LDS Church tends to behave very differently in areas in which it has overwhelming preponderance. In Mormon Country the church is, in effect, 'judge, jury, and lord high executioner' - it exercises immense temporal power.

I recall a friend of mine who lived in Salt Lake City in the 50's. He was fond of noting the positioning of the statue of Brigham Young in the middle of the intersection of South Temple and Main - "There stands Brigham," he would say, "With his back toward the temple and his hand toward the bank." The bank, was (and is) owned by the church. A LOT of that tithe money has gone into the Church's hefty economic portfolio.

Having said all that, I would have to acknowledge that I knew, and know, many Mormons who, as my father would've said, live above their theology - they, indeed, live out the gospel. I'm more and more inclined, with the passage of time, to leave the judgement of different belief systems in the hands of a loving God.

[Jim Chabot]

I don't know if this is the best place/way to approach this, but am I the only one who cringes at statements like this? Generally, it is the Islam faith that is being discussed. I have heard over and over that Allah is not God. Even setting aside any assertion that Allah is the Arabic word for God, aren't Muslims monotheistic? If there is one immortal, invisible, almighty God, how can we say that some of the people who believe in such a God believe in some other immortal, invisible, almighty God? Are we acknowledging that there is more than one God? Is it not more accurate to say that other monotheistic religious traditions do not agree with us as to what the one and only immortal, invisible, almighty God is like?

I don't cringe at statements like this, I do ignore them though. Of course Muslims worship the same God, and of course Jews worship the same God. Yet they are condemned because of their rejection of Christ. Jesus said to the Jewish leaders that they were children of Satan rather than Abraham. While they worship the same God, somehow they do not see Him. Yes it would be far more accurate to say that we do not agree as to what God is like.

If we are going to use this phrasing then I must assert that many Christians do not worship the same God I do. They worship a vengeful, angry God who is impossible to please rather than a God of immeasurable grace and love. Their God never smiles. The God I worship is full of compassion, abounding in love.

You aren't the first one on naznet to say this, I like your more accurate phrasing so much better, it shows much more charity and humilty.

If we don't use the "different God" phrasing in regard to differing Christian perceptions of the one immortal, invisible, almighty God should we use it when discussing other monotheistic religions which portray God in ways that stand in contrast to our perception? Would it not be better to say those other religions have a very different concept of God than we do?

Amen! It would be much better.

Having said all that, I'll admit to not having read this thread thoroughly enough to fully comprehend the Mormon view of God. Still, at what point is any tradition's view of a single God who exists outside our dimension so distorted as to not refer to the single God who exists outside our dimension at all? Of course, there's the complication of extending the Godhead to somehow take in Jesus Christ and maybe a separate Spirit of God, but if we're going to quibble about that, I think it will be orthodox Christianity that will be most challenged when tested for distortion of the belief in the one (and only one) true and living God.

Good stuff, and I think you are looking at this in a pretty good way. I'm thinking that the treatment of Christ is of primary importance. There is only one way to the Father and it is through Christ. Reject Christ and you have rejected the Father, and your done. At least in my opinion, that's how I see it work out. Accept Christ and your in. Nutty, kooky, freaky.........................your still in.

Ravi Zacharias does a great job dealing with the challenge of inserting Jesus Christ and the Spirit into the concept of a God who is one. Interestingly enough, he is speaking at the Mormon Tabernacle at their General Conference.

[John Kennedy]

That type of mindset continues to show it's ugly head with the Western Fires crisis. Since Mormons consider their meeting houses consecrated for purity they won't allow any coffee, tea, or tobacco anywhere on the premises. That's understandable. What isn't understandable is that they are the only faith group not allowing anyone to stay on or use their facilities for fear of violating this "consecration".

I know this from contact with someone who was setting up relief efforts. Even when the organization of Churches offered to mitigate any use of any of those substances on Mormon property (i.e. weed out families that would use such from being located there) the mormons refused.

This brings to mind an observation of mine. When I live in UT in the 50's the state's alcohol laws were quite stringent. Restaurants could serve beer and wine and it was sold in supermarkets. Hard liquor was only sold in state-owned package stores and there was no liquor by the drink.

When I was there 50 years later, many restaurants had the same alcohol availability as found in other states. When I inquired as to the change I was told this was because of the Olympics coming to Salt Lake. A change of this magnitude couldn't have been made without the Church going along with it - not in Utah. (Maybe the people so incensed by Barack's White House brewery would be interested in noting that the go-to guy in the Salt Lake Olympics later became the guv of a New England state and is now seeking higher office - jus' sayin'.)

[John Kennedy]

I'm glad for God's grace to me. Sometimes, I'm a bit uncomfortable with his grace to you.

Two observations:

You done stopped preachin' and gone to meddlin'.

I always knew that was implicit in the belief systems of many - just never before saw it it print.

[Marsha Lynn]

I linked to this already, but again it's a great teaching tool for Christians. It's a guy similar to me asking Mormons outside of their biannual General Conference about the teaching "As man is God once was, as God is man may be" (Called the Lorenzo Snow couplet). It's the first video on the page. godneversinned.com

Just an FYI note: I'm sure the video links in this thread are worthwhile to those who absorb information that way. I am not one of those people. I started this one. 15 words in the first 20 seconds with dramatic musical accompaniment. That's slower than I type and much, much slower than I can read. And I don't need dramatic music to underline the words I read. Then man-on-the-street interviews. Really? Does this tell me anything at all? How do I know how many people they interviewed and how the clips to be included were chosen?

I didn't make it beyond the first 60 seconds of the video. I don't mind that other people take in information from video sources, I'm just not one of them. The batteries on the remote control for the TV I would watch if I watched television tend to run down and corrode in between uses. Thus, directing me to watch a video before making further comment will primarily serve to end my part in the conversation.

Not a conviction, just a quirk.

[John Kennedy]

I don't mean to be arrogant at all. I am alarmed though that Christians might hold an inclusive view of a belief system that IMO was developed either to undermine Christianity or as a result of one man's fanciful imagination. The LDS's source of authority include:

The King James version of the Bible. (They print their own Bible (King James Version) with additional LDS footnotes, dictionary and topical guide. These cross reference to their other books of scripture and provide LDS explanations.)

The Book Of Mormon which is considered by the LDS to be at least equal to the Bible. Joseph Smith (the author) claimed it was superior. “Joseph Smith said, "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg 194.)

Smith claims to have translated the Book of Mormon from an ancient set of golden plates inscribed by prophets, which Smith discovered near his home in Palmyra, New York in the 1820s. According to Smith, the plates were put there by Moroni in about AD 400 along with the Urim and Thummim which were a set of seer stones bound by silver bows into a set of spectacles by which Smith was able to translate the plates into English.

Reliable scholars view the Book of Mormon as a fabrication of Smith who plagiarized several other works including “The View Of Hebrews” published in 1823, “The Wonders of Nature” published in 1825, The Apocrypha, and The King James Bible.

Pearl of Great Price: This is the lessor used of LDS scripture (compared to the Book of Mormon), but it is considered authoritative by many Mormons. Joseph Smith claims to have translated this work from Egyptian hieroglyphics written on papyri he obtained from a traveling exhibition show. The papyri is currently in the Metropolitan Museum in New York. Modern translation of the hieroglyphics reveal the writings to be a description of burial rites and have no similarity to Joseph's translation.

Doctrine and Covenants is part of the open scriptural canon for Mormons and is the source for many of the LDS’s teachings (available here).

Journal of Discourses is a 26 volume compilation of LDS presidents and apostles sermons, covering about 35 years. While not held on the level of scripture it has nonetheless been considered authoritative. However, some in the LDS are increasingly distancing themselves from declaring the work binding (for one example of this see example,.fairmormon.org).

Out of these sources the Mormons have developed some unusual (to say the least) beliefs:

• Mormons can become gods and goddesses. ([1] Journal of Discourses 1:50-51; J of D 8:115; Doctrine and Covenants Section 132:20)
  
• Goddesses will spend eternity in full submission to their god-husband. (Doctrine and Covenants 84:33-9; for more information: Kent Ponder, Ph.D. e-mail address: kponder@swcp.com http://home.teleport.com/~packham/prozac.htm.)
  
• Mormon women will give birth “forever and ever” to spirit-babies. (LDS Apostle Orson Pratt wrote, “Each father and mother will be in the condition to multiply forever and ever” (The Seer, 37).)
  
• Mormon men can have multiple wives in heaven. (Doctrine and Covenants 132; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:269; Men can still be sealed for eternity (not time) to women other than their wives; “The practice of polygamy has been discontinued, but the doctrine of polygamy has never been revoked. D&C 132 is still part of the LDS canon. Some current church practices are still based on polygamous principles.” See pro-Mormon site http://mormonopenforum.blogsome.com/...rnal-polygamy/ (accessed February 25, 2007).
  
• Heavenly Father is an exalted man who lives with his goddess wife, Heavenly Mother, on a planet near the great star Kolob. (Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 3:2-4, 9; J of D, 26:214.)
  
• American Indians are descendants of the wicked Lamanites, who were Israelites that God cursed with dark skin. (Book of Mormon: Alma 3:6-19; 3 Nephi 2:14-15; Enos 1:20; J of D, 7: 290-291.)
  
• God the Father had sex with Mary to conceive Jesus, who is the half brother of Lucifer. (Journal of Discourses 8: 116; J of D 8: 211; J of D 8: 115; Mormon Doctrine p.546-547.)
  
• All Christian churches are an abomination. (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith—History 1:19. Smith claimed God sent him to “restore” true Christianity.)
  
• Mormons need 4 secret handshakes to get into the Celestial heaven. (Celestial Kingdom is the highest of 3 levels in the Mormon heaven (need handshakes to get past the angel guarding the veil); See ex-Mormon site http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_t...pub_1816881347 (accessed February 25, 2007); David John Buerger, The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship, http://lds-mormon.com/buerger.shtml as of February 25, 2007).
  
• Joseph Smith revealed that the actual Garden of Eden is in Jackson County, Missouri. (Doctrine and Covenants 116; Journal of Discourses, 10:235; Smith named the Spring Hill, Daviess County, Missouri area Adam-Ondi-Ahman.)

I disagree that "the Deity they have already acknowledged" is God.

Over the years I have come to two conclusions about Mormon doctrine and the study thereof:

>Within the Church, Mormon doctrine is essentially what the General Authorities say it is.
>When engaging in thoughtful, scholarly analysis of Mormon doctrine, take plenty of Dramamine.
It'll make your head swim.

[Sarah Smith]

Ah, the LDS good bad and ugly.

The good: superb organizational skills and I do agree some with their welfare practice which requires at least some effort from recipients for help.

The bad: denial of the deity of Christ, belief He was conceived in the same way human babies are conceived, belief blond babies are especially blessed, and if you haven't been gentile in deseret (I have!) you don't know the meaning of pervasive discrimination.

The ugly: good wives get to be called out by their special names by their husbands so they can get pregnant for eternity to populate his planet, over which he will be god. Burn the toast? Get old and fat? Who says he will call you out? Unplucked roses (women who never marry) might if they behave themselves get called for diaper duty as servants to those pregnant wives. Anyone noticed UFO's coming in and out of a hole down near antarctica lately?

We had dear LDS friends who did show us some of their material in the 80's that made plain they were to "use evangelical, orthodox terms" in front of gentiles but always be aware the definitions were different.

[John Kennedy]

Ah, the LDS good bad and ugly.

The good: superb organizational skills and I do agree some with their welfare practice which requires at least some effort from recipients for help.

The bad: , and if you haven't been gentile in deseret (I have!) you don't know the meaning of pervasive discrimination.

.

And, having been Gentile in Deseret, I say AMEN! sister. My Utah days as a high school student allowed me to experience what it means to be a member of a minority group. It has had the effect of forever shaping my perspective on the separation of church and state. They can't build the wall high enough.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

Isn't using resources produced by ex-Mormons to find out the truth about Mormonism sort of like relying on the Concerned Nazarenes to tell us the truth about the emerging church? Or looking to articles about John Cougar Mellencamp's early days* to give us a good picture of the Church of the Nazarene in the 1960s in southern Indiana?

*I had a link here but realized it was full of objectionable content. You'll have to do your own research or take my word for it that such articles tend to present a rather skewed perspective of our tradition.

Yes, it could be seen that way. But unless you have good reason to doubt the ex Mormons over current Mormons, it's just a query.

I personally have witnessed hundreds of little things I was told by exMormons and have been lied to by active Mormon bishops and members alike. Yes, there is a lot of bias on both sides of the Zion Curtain which is why you have to check your sources. Utlm.org is the most reliable and documented source out there, only using Mormon published sources research.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

I think that this is a fair synopsis of where Mormons have been and you show some indications as to where they appear to be going. Much more helpful that the "they use the same terms but everything has a different meaning" stuff.

I'm still of the persuasion that they began as a Christian Cult, and that they are moving solidly in a direction which brings them closer to the greater Christian community. They are, as you say, moving away from the journal of discourses. They are becoming more and more open to change and to ideas from the greater Christian community, as shown by the multiple times that Ravi Zacharias has been invited to speak there in prominent places and he has met with them at their highest levels. As nutty and freakish their beginnings, I'm calling them brothers and sisters, and it's getting easier.

Granted that they have no authoritative documents outside of Scripture, but it may be noted that the Amish do consider the ordnung, which is similar to the journal of discourses and the Magisterium, as they do practice Gelassenheit as toward it's authority in and over their lives. The extreme shepherding practiced by the Amish, I believe, exceeds that of the Mormons. Yet almost universally, the Amish are considered Christian.

As to the Muslims, Jews and JW's, I don't see a fair comparison. Each of these religions has knowledge of Christ and all specifically reject His divinity. If we are to compare religions on the basis of whether they are "Christian" or not, the litmus test is in their treatment of Christ. Mormons rely on Christ for their direction and salvation, so I'm good.

I would invite you to visit and attend a few Mormon Sunday services.

However, you do keep ignoring what I've said about salvation being something different. Yes, Mormons rely on Christ for salvation, but in their eyes so does everyone who ever lived. Salvation to them is resurrecting after death, and every single person who ever lived will do this because that's what Christ accomplished. After death people will go one of four places, outer darkness (reserved for very few, I've heard it taught that "less than the number of fingers on a hand will go there"), the Terrestrial kindgom (for the vast majority of people to be taught the LDS gospel of eternal progression) the Telestial Kingdom (for "good" people, including Jack Mormons, Christians, good atheists and the like) and then Celestial Kingdom (where good Mormons, having been married in the temple will immediately learn how to become gods, this is where God wants everyone to end up).

So are you just as confident with your statement as you were before? And btw, I can't remember the last time someone in the LDS looked to Christ to guide them. No one is to pray to Christ, he's rarely quoted in the Bible but he is thanked a lot.