Don N wrote:Simmmo said:
The key term is "religion of Christ". Do LDS belong to the religion of Christ. Of course, LDS think so. But the Bible says another thing. I defer to a statement of the early church: "in essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity."
In essentials unity. Yes the essentials are important and non-negotiable. To be considered the body of Christ, we must have unity in the essentials. You can't just claim Christianity and reject the essentials agreed upon by the body of Christ. Christianity must be defined. And we go to the Bible to do this. And the NT clearly teaches that salvation is by faith alone, through faith in Jesus Christ. There is no other way to salvation. Other essentials are that there is only one God. Just one. Not a pluralilty of Gods that Mormonism teaches. I had one reply on this forum that suggested that the number of gods in the cosmos were as the sands of the sea. Well, Christianity cannot be united with such a theology.
Therefore, Christians have concluded that LDS are not considered part of the body of Christ.
I must stress that all things there must be charity, or love. So we don't hate LDS, but we must disagree strenguously with their doctrine.
Now that I have Simmmo pretty much in context (one can refer to earlier posts to better establish context), I'd like to respond to some comments by pulling them out for that reason. First, Simmmo said:
"In essentials unity. Yes the essentials are important and non-negotiable. To be considered the body of Christ, we must have unity in the essentials. You can't just claim Christianity and reject the essentials agreed upon by the body of Christ."
Well, let's see. We LDS believe in the Ten Commandments; we believe Christ was born of Mary, taught for three years in ancient Palestine, appointed twelve Apostles to spread His message message; we believe that message; we believe He was crucified at Golgotha to atone for our sins; and we hold the Bible (which contains a portion of His message) to be sacred writ.
That pretty much covers the essentials that makes one Christian. Sooooo..... If you think we believe otherwise, it appears to me you have never asked Mormons what we believe and your information lacks some basic facts. That amounts to the same as asking a Ford man if Chevy makes a good pickup truck.
You continue:
"And the NT clearly teaches that salvation is by faith alone, through faith in Jesus Christ. There is no other way to salvation."
Yet Jesus and His Apostles, all the way through Paul, frequently stress the importance of doing good, of serving one's fellow man. The problem is that it is nigh on impossible to express faith without works. One cannot say "I believe" and then sit back and wait for his or her salvation. Remember, in more than one parable Jesus reproved those who did not serve Him.
You continue:
"Other essentials are that there is only one God. Just one. Not a pluralilty of Gods that Mormonism teaches. I had one reply on this forum that suggested that the number of gods in the cosmos were as the sands of the sea. Well, Christianity cannot be united with such a theology."
There is only one God. The problem is, we LDS do not agree with the creedal definition of God, which in some definitions sounds more like Modalism, and which long ago was denounced as heretical. Jesus himself often said He only did what His Father (God) would have him do. The Nicene definition, especially if one takes into account the filioque clause had God and Jesus sharing of the same substance and the Holy Ghost proceeding out of God and Jesus. The problem is that there has long been an argument over what "substance" means (rather, the two Greek words used in the argument), and whether God and Jesus are literally the same person (modalism) or are made of the same stuff just like you and I are made of the same stuff.
Early Christians believed in a doctrine since defined as "subordination," in which God is in charge, and His Son and the Holy Ghost do God's bidding. As I said before, Jesus always deferred to His Father, which lends a lot of credence to the doctrine of subordination. That doctrine more closely resembles LDS belief.
As or your "the number of gods in the cosmos were as the sands of the sea" comment, I believe the origin of that can be found in a Brigham Young talk found in the Journal of Discourses in which he was trying to describe how the Holy Ghost works. After reading it through a couple of times, I believe that Brigham Young was trying to describe God's influence via the Holy Ghost in terms of scientific understanding of his day. The particle theory of physics, which tried to explain light and heat energy as minute particles, was fairly new. So, Brigham Young tried to explain the Holy Ghost as being innumerable particles of God, and thus if one takes the quote out of cultural context - which critics of Mormonism are wont to do - we then see something like what you said regarding the number of gods. (It may be that you draw your opinion from something else. If so, then we will talk about that. However, what I have stated is based on a previous conversation with a critic of Mormonism.)
And in a later post Simmmo also said:
We must also strenguously disagree with RCC and orthodox church on works and salvation. I believe that protestants should not consider them the body of Christ either, that is why the reformation was necessary. but given the political influence of both, then many have accepted them as Christians. Note also, tho, that catholics and orthodox are monotheistic religions. The reformation did not reform the trinity or the nature of God. What the reformers did was to reject this spurious notion that anything but faith in Jesus was required for salvation.
But Mormonism teaches of plural gods and a litany of works for salvation. The RCC and Orthodox are united with Christianity on the nature of God.
I find your condemnation of Catholicism ironic in light of the fact that early in the Reformation the (small "c") catholic church did not consider the Reformists to be Christian. Later, when the Roman Church capitalized the "c" to separate themselves from the growing body of Protestants, they also seemed to quit accusing the Protestants of not being Christian. Just as ironic is the fact that pagans in the early Christian period accused Christians of being atheists. So, the fact that certain Evangelical Christian groups (and most certainly not ALL Protestant denominations!) accuse the LDS of not being Christian is not at all a new debate.
We LDS do not reject the Trinity, we merely reject the creedal definition of the Trinity, and we prefer the term "godhead," which is found in the New Testament. As for plural gods, bear in mind that "elohim," is Hebrew for "gods," and is used both to describe God and the pagan gods that the ancient Hebrews were told not to worship. One must realize that compared to us imperfect humans, even Jesus and the Holy Ghost are gods. the Godhead, or Trinity if you prefer, are one "Elohim," which one can consider in the same light as an army. On cannot literally have an army of one: Many soldiers make up an army.
And, we do not believe in salvation by a litany of works.
I'm sorry, but you seem to misunderstand the relationship between faith and works. Works are evidence of salvation. So when one is saved by grace, the Spirit begins a lifetime work in changing that person - this is evidenced in the works one does. But works are not salvation in and of itself. One can not work for salvation. For if one could work for salvation it is no longer of grace. The person who just claims he is saved, but does no good works, was never genuinely saved. I agree, that the beautiful message of God's saving grace can be misused. But true salvation, true saving grace is evidenced in a changed life. So works are the fruit of salvation, but never the root. Whenever Jesus and the apostles talk about our good works it is always in this context. If our salvation depended on grace + works, how would you explain Ephesians 2:8-9? All of Paul's writings explicitly make clear that works have nothing to do with your salvation. He could have hardly done more for the notion that we are saved by grace. This passage in Titus 3:3-10 seems to have been written just for LDS:
At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone.
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. 11You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.
You see true saving grace brings about good works and obedience. But LDS have gone the other way, they say you must have good works in order to be righteous and to gain salvation. Where is the place for grace in this? Where is the need for Christ's redeeming blood if we could do it ourselves? LDS have also taught that sin is just an outward act not our inward thoughts too. This is evidenced in so many of the LDS doctrines. Because if you define sin as an attitude, as Jesus did, then you would know that it is impossible for fallible humans to keep the law perfectly all of the time. We therefore need God's saving grace. If we aren't saved by grace, we wouldn't be saved at all. That is why James says "mercy triumphs over judgement!" And yes in LDS there is a litany of works added to salvation... I look at the latest Gospel Principles publication. Check for yourself what is says about salvation. It's like a checklist of items that one must tick off.
Christ and the nature of God: you see there is conjecture as to whether LDS believe that Mary was a virgin at birth or only at conception, where the Father came down from heaven to actually impregnate her the same way we would procreate. That has been taught by LDS leaders, and that is not Biblical.
Additionally, LDS teach that God the Father has a body of flesh and bone... Massive problems with Christianity here. The Bible clearly does not teach this. Numerous texts support the fact that God cannot be confined to a body.
As for the term Elohim, trinitarians have no problem with the fact that this is a plural term. We believe that the Godhead are three distinct persons, but one being.
Can you provide the ref for the Brigham Young teaching you cite. Quite frankly, your explanation sounds like an after the fact apology for the doctrine of plural gods. The fact that LDS teaches that righteous men can become gods means that you would interpret Brigham young as teaching a plurality of gods. afterall, he himself expects to be exalted with the gods. With all the power and glory of a god. And to become the god of his own world.
Salvation by works, and plural gods, men becoming exalted gods - these are heretical doctrines. This is why the LDS church is seen as not being part of the body of Christ. You are free to worship and believe in anything you wish, but the fact remains that Christians can not accept your fellowship because of these doctrines. They are not congruent with ours.
View the profile
by 
