That is my experience with many who antagonize and criticize The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Many anti-Latter Day Saints may quote-mine, misquote, misrepresent our Teachings and beliefs, mischaracterize what we believe in and practice, and sometimes present half-truths of what we believe.





We believe the early Church founded by Christ was founded in truth and was meant to last. That Church (before the creeds) believed in and practiced many things we believe in and practice today, but the rest of Christianity does not. Namely we believe Christ is subordinate to God The Father, the predominate central belief of the pre-creed Christian Church. We also believe in "deification" a belief that existed before the early creeds.

Yes, we are -not- "creedal" Christians. We believe the early creeds that dismantled the pre-creed Church were acts of apostasy.




I assume when you write "The Mormon church," you are referring to, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints," Is that correct?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does have an active Missionary program.

If "historical Christianity" means post-creed Christianity, then yes, we do reject the creeds. We are not "creedal Christians."

There are statements attributed to Smith and Young that are not codified scriptural teachings of The Church. In those cases, antagonists to truth will state, "mArMaNs BeLiEvE ____." When it is not necessarily something we believe. It is something that can be attributed to Smith or Young, but it never made it to "official teaching, official belief" status.

In that case, it is not something we "believe." It might be something that they may have once said. But it is not something that we believe.

It is interesting to see what historians are uncovering and discovering. Many controversial statements attributed to Young and Smith, but Young especially come from the, "Journal of Discourses." It sounds official. It sounds important. Ane when I was a Missionary I heard it all the time. "Young said _______ in the 'Journal of Discourses' therefore, it is something you believe." Historians have found that there are tremendous transcription errors, including missing phrases, words, pages of information the transcriber left out between their notes of Youngs words, and what was printed.

The Historian who found the errors is Lajean Caruth. Link

Interesting.

Needless to say sometimes, "Young said _____." Does not necessarily mean that is something we actually believe as doctrine. And to present it as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saint practices and believes _____" When we don't actually... That -is- disingenuous for antagonists to use that argument. That -is- dishonest for anti-Latter Day Saints to use that argument.




We believe that Christ is Gods Son and separate and subordinate to God our Heavenly Father. That is the primary "Christian" belief before the early Christian creeds.Link

We believe in "deification" that we will become like God. That is a primary tenet of Christian belief before the early Christian creeds. Link



This is what we "believe" in codified, canonized scripture:

1 Nephi 11:19-20

19 And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look!

20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.

In Latter-Day Saint scripture and beliefs and scripture, Mary was called a "virgin" -after- she had Jesus.

In the "Journal of Discourses," Young is quoted as stating that Mary was impregnated by some natural means. But we know that the Journal of Discourses are not codified teachings, and that statements in them can be in error.

We believe, and it is --clearly-- in our codified, canonized scripture that Mary was a "virgin" when she bore Jesus.







Christ is Gods Son.

The rest of us (including the adversary, the creator of lies) are also creations of God The Eternal Father.

While it is -technically- true to say that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teaches that Christ is Gods Son, and also we are Gods creations, therefore the adversary is one of Gods creations.

It is also technically true to say that we worship Jesus Christ. We are saved through Jesus Christ. Lucifer fell, taking many hosts (others of Gods sons and daughters) with him.

We worship and follow Jesus Christ. We consider Christ our Savior. We have faith in, worship and follow Jesus Christ. The adversary, on the other hand, is the creator of lies, confusion, misrepresentation, doubt, and deceit.



We believe that Jesus is both Gods Son, and also an eternal God. How? I have faith.

"He was the Great Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Messiah of the New. Under the direction of His Father, He was the creator of the earth. “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3)." Link




We reject the "Trinitarian" post-creed concept of God. We believe in the pre-creed concept of God The Father, Christ His Son, and the Holy Spirit being seperate and subordinate to God.

Link



Nothing like the above statement is found in our official, codified scriptural teachings and beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The origin or starting-point of God is not found in our codified scriptures as such.

We -do- believe in "deification." There is tremendous Biblical/Book of Mormon/ Latter-Day and early-Christian statements and codified doctrinal sources and information regarding "deification."

The idea that -we- can spiritually progress to share Gods throne, His power, while always being subordinate to Him and worshipping Him... That is codified doctrine of The Church.

But the origin of God? God the Father was once a man? We -know- (believe, have faith) that Christ was once a "man." But unlike "deification," where there is tremendous scriptural and pre-creed "evidence" and doctrinal foundation for this belief, there is not much we "know" about the origin or starting-point of God.

There is speculation and postulation. That is about it.

There is interesting discussion and interesting dialogue. But the origin of God? God is our -Eternal- Father in Heaven. We worship Him, and follow Him. He sent His Son, Jesus Christ to atone for mankind. That we believe. But the origin of God? Interesting discussion. Interesting theories. God was once a man? The actual -origin- or starting-point of God? It is not in our codified, canonized scriptures.

So you deny that Brigham Young and others taught the Adam-God doctrine? This is what you encounter with Mormons and Jehovah’s witnesses. A semantic jungle for one, where they use familiar terms that we use in Christian theology, but with totally different meanings. Also, the dodging of questions with slippery answers, like saying they are opposed to “post-creed” Christianity, when I used the direct term that Joseph Smith used, an “abomination”, thereby cutting down all of historical Christendom and supplanting themselves as the one true Christianity. Then there’s the convenient denial, or ignorance, of the founder of their given sect’s original teachings (also seen in Islam).

But you basically said that you acknowledge that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all eternally God, but you deny the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, which means you believe in polytheism, which is categorically rejected by the Old and New Testaments. So do you all (Mormons, LDS, etc.) believe in polytheism, and if so, how can you assert this teaching and maintain to be the one true Christian religion, when you’ve fundamentally denied an essential Biblical doctrine? Remember the Bible came first and is the word of God, so every LDS teaching and scripture must be weighed against it.

Here is a good watch for anyone interested, sums it up.

Eh? Er?

Where did I deny that? You have my curiosity meter piqued.

Can you point to a post where I, "deny that Brigham Young and others taught the Adam-God doctrine?" You have me seriously interested in seeing where your statement came from.

We are not here to argue about arguing.

If you have an honest question, ask it.




And encounter slippery statements about what "I" believe from folks who don't want to look at what I believe, and misrepresent, mis-quote, and present half-truths of what I believe.

The Jenova's Witnesses can start their own thread if you want answers from what they believe.




Holy crap.

You are on a roll.

Jehova's Witnesses. (Who aren't here to defend themselves). And now Islam. (Who are also not here to defend themselves.)

I have met Protestant Christians who had no idea about many aspects of Christian history, or that the pre-creed Church practiced many things that American Protestant Christianity considers blasphemous.

If you want to quote Smith and say that something he said is an --official-- teaching of the Church, cite the source, and we will see if it is --actually-- an official teaching of the Smith.

Smith said that the early creeds that demolished the early Church was an "abomination?" That  is fitting, seeing as how:

Link

"Dodging?" No. If you have a question, ask it.



From another one of my posts on this subject:







If you look at the link above, you will see that antagonists in the early-Church attacked pre-creed Christians on this very concept. It was one of the primary drivers of the apostate early creeds.

If Christ is separate and subordinate to The Father, and the Holy Spirit is separate, how can you not be what Jewish people accuse --all-- "Christians" as being: polytheistic? The answer is: God, His Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in purpose.







I am not going to have time today to  watch an hour-long video. I will answer whatever questions you post, but devoting over an hour?

I assume you have watched it.

If the video presents questions, criticisms, or antagonisms towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints could you summarize them here...?

Once again your assertions are based on an intentional misrepresentation of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity does not assert that God the Son is “subordinate” but rather he is equal to the Father in nature, same as the Holy Spirit, who are distinct in person, yet exist eternally within the nature of the one God. After the incarnation during Jesus’s earthly ministry, there were certain limitations on his power that he placed upon himself (Philippians 2:6-8). You see this in John 1:1 as well where the Word of God exists eternally with God and is God. The Greek is clear that John isn’t talking about separate “Gods”, and being Jewish and writing to a Jewish audience this wouldn’t have been the meaning or interpretation (despite what later Jewish scholars might claim) Colossians 2:9 is another example.

So once again, does the LDS church teach polytheism?

You posted an hour-long anti-Latter Day Saint video I assumed your next questions were going to be taking questions from the video and posting them here.

But whatever.



The “Trinity” you are describing is the non-Biblical definition of God derived from the early creeds.

The doctrine and beliefs I am describing is the pre-creed definition of God. What we believe.

Before the early creeds, early Christians believed Christ was Gods Son, and the Holy Ghost and Christ are subordinate to God. What The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believes.





Luke 3:22-23 can’t be any clearer. Christ and God are separate.

All three: God the Father, His Son, and the Holy Spirit were separate and present at Christs Baptism.

They are one in purpose. And even though they are separate, they are united as one. One Godhead. Three separate members united in one purpose.




How to tell me you haven’t read what I posted without telling me you have not read what I posted.

From the link in my above post in answer to your previous question…



Link (again) Link



If you have watched your (hour-long) video you posted and have questions, criticisms, or antagonisms from it… post them up.

They aren’t gotcha questions, he is just refusing to answer and is being intentionally obscure and evasive. He maintains that the Father and Son and Holy Spirit are all God but separate beings, he is claiming therefore that they are separate Gods, i.e. more than one God, i.e. polytheism.

The early Church did not teach that the Father, Son and HS were separate beings. This is polytheism and has been historically rejected by all denominations of Christendom.

Let me rephrase, do you believe that the LDS church/teachings represent the one true Christian faith and agree with Joseph Smith that all the historic creeds of Christendom are an “abomination”?

As someone who believes that he is saved by grace after all he can do, how does a member of the LDS church have any assurance of the state of his salvation? How do you know that you’ve done enough?

You don't.

There's no line that you pass in this life after which you just don't care because you're golden.

You should always continue improving... Doing good works.

So you don’t know where you’re going after you die? I didn’t ask if you stop trying, I asked if you have any assurance of your salvation. What if you didn’t do enough and you don’t know it until it’s too late? What if you’re dying and you want to accept Christ, but you don’t have time or the ability to do good works?

OP is answering questions about their (and my) religion why are other folks here taking on the roles of Pharisees and the Sadducees trying to entrap and change minds?

@JohnnyLoco  We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

Three separate deities, one in purpose. If that is polytheism in your definition than I think we'll agree that's the answer to your question.  Why press further calling it a "wrong" answer when we've answered in good faith?  We don't consider it polytheism but this isn't about changing our minds it's about getting answers.

@Vanagandr  "do you not consider it coercive behavior for someone in ecclesiastical authority to respond to a young man in his charge who has come to him expressing a serious issue first with mockery and then with pronouncements of damnation as I've outlined prior." Yes, Coercive and wrong. I consider it not Christlike at all.  

Do we judge Jesus on the acts of Judas?  The members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are imperfect and make mistakes, even the leadership at times I've seen are less than Christlike.  Do bad apples, the act of imperfect men\women, condemn the church though?  I've weathered the storms of leadership making mistakes knowing Christ is at the head of the church but imperfect and flawed men lead it and can't lead it astray despite their errors.

I'd further add that that there is "God The Father" and "gods" when people are using the term generally.   What does "gods" actually mean?  We worship God, The Father.  



I would add to that "context matters", as does wording.   Is telling someone under my stewardship that willfully violating the 10 Commandments will have an affect on their Salvation, coercion?



The 14 Fundamentals in following the Prophet.

But sir, that’s exactly what I’m getting at, LDS/Mormon theology is polytheistic yet you say it’s not, and the op was deliberately evasive when asked directly. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both taught that there were many gods, God the Father  was once a man, and that you can become an exalted god.

This is not a “Pharisee” attack (this is just playing the victim) but rather a question of utmost importance from us Christians, because Mormons not only claim to be Christians , they claim to represent true Christianity and believe all the historic creeds of Christendom are an “abomination.” My question is how can this be the case given that polytheism stands in complete opposition to Biblical testimony, such as Isaiah 43:10,

“”You are my witnesses”, declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.””

And 1Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

It’s disingenuous to create a thread under the guise of “answering questions,” which really means presenting the religion with your spin, and not expect serious theological questions (especially in a religious forum), and especially considering the claims made about Christianity by the LDS church and its founders, then claim that any serious question is an attack. Is this some kind of psychological defense mechanism? You tell me.

I’ve seen this behavior repeatedly from LDS. When they are pressed on matters of theology or the underpinnings of the Church, it’s often hard to get a straight answer from them, and a lot of responses seem vague, contradictory, or evasive. And attempts to call the Church’s theology into question are labeled as “antagonism” rather than legitimate attempts to have an honest discussion, especially since LDS are making the claim of being Christians despite all of the criticisms against that proposition that have been brought up here and elsewhere.

In light of the above, my question is this: when LDS receive resistance from Christians in the form of questions about the soundness of LDS theology, why is the response usually to just label those people as antagonists?

Yep, It's a bit more complicated than that.  We believe there are other gods, yet we don't worship any other gods.  We are God's children and by following our Heavenly Father's plan, as His son's and daughters, we can become like Him but not replace Him.

But you already knew that's what we believed so why did you ask the question?

When questions are leading "gocha" questions, intended to prove a point or build a case against our beliefs and not pose an honest query I'd say they are antagonistic thus fall in line with the Pharisee's line of questioning.
Do the members of The Church of Jesus Christ believe we are Christians?  Yes.  You may disagree but the question was asked and answered.

Thank you for the direct response to the actual question posed. I wasn't trying for any sort of gotcha, establish any sort of doctrinal flaw, or to cast aspersions on the rest of the church based on one experience. It was, as stated, simply an attempt through relating a personal encounter, to give an example of something that I feel could meet the definition of coercion that wasn't "holding a gun to somebody's head" as was stated in the GD thread (which I didn't feel was the only standard of coercion).  Honestly, even if your or anyone else's answer was "no", I wouldn't really have an argument with you (though I don't think we'd be able to see eye to eye on a lot of things) - I really just wanted to know, yes or no, if people felt that met the definition of coercion.

As for any potential aspersions, veiled or open, that might be implied about my own mindset or the details of my experience outside of the details I've already provided by others, I'll simply paraphrase Joseph Smith:  "no one need suppose me guilty of any great or malignant sins". The only issue I had brought forward to be met with threats to my salvation was one that was medical. This isn't in response to your reply, but something that came up from a private message sent to me that others reading some of the non-responses given might assume are being implied.

Thank you for proving my point and for bringing up another issue: in addition to the “antagonist” label, attempts to criticize LDS theology or practice also elicits the “Pharisee” label with all of its emotional underpinnings. How does the LDS Church respond to the argument that pointing out doctrinally unsound views and theology within the Christian Church was something that was repeatedly and explicitly done in Scripture by Paul, John, Peter, and others? In other words, is the label “Pharisee,” which actually connotes religiosity detached from a true relationship and love for God, really appropriate in this circumstance?

D&C 121:36-43  why would we get this warning and council if there wasn't or wouldn't be a risk\issue with those in authority doing the wrong thing?  The church, and  it's leadership, are improving and growing in love and compassion.  Understanding and handling of mental issues has gotten much better in the church and I expect will continue to get better.

"How does the LDS Church respond to the argument that pointing out doctrinally unsound views and theology within the Christian Church was something that was repeatedly and explicitly done in Scripture by Paul, John, Peter, and others?"

In a proper debate forum and format I'd concede.  The intent is a Q&A format and not a prove a point\debate format where "doctrinally unsound views and theology " are argued here though.

P.S. My views\opinions expressed here do not speak as an authoritative voice of The Church of Jesus  Christ of Latter Day Saints and I doubt any of the church members here do as well.   That said we may point you to links, from the official church website, to find examples that do.

So a format where you control the narrative? I get it.
I asked questions because the title of the thread and the op’s post led off with the inflammatory claim that what would seem to be honest criticisms are “antagonistic.” When the op starts a thread hoping to answer questions and start a dialogue, and if he were serious about spreading the gospel, you would think he would take all comers and not complain when serious questions from Christians are asked.

[Deleted]

No. OP set the framework and medicmandan is doing his job.

The original post and the thread title itself state that the thread is meant to provide a forum for LDS members to respond to common "criticisms" and "antagonisms" of the LDS Church. So I guess OP and others on this thread only want to respond to the inquiries they want to, not the ones actually posed by users. Which makes this thread pointless to participate in.

Latter-day Saints worship God the Father.  We aren't polytheistic.   He wasn't evasive.

Because we give you cited doctrinal answers that the person wont accept because they either don't understand or can't fit into their understanding of doctrine.  Then, instead of asking honest questions with the intent to understand, they become antagonistic and insulting, declaring us polytheistic even though we've stayed and cited that we aren't.

We also explain the same thing repeatedly, often in the same thread.  I love discussing my faith, and the faith of others with people that really desire to learn.  I'm thankful for mods that keep this thread informative and on track.

Page 2 and nothing about brass plates or hat looking?

I've made my issues be known in other threads.

As a Christian believer in Sola Scriptura my issues with the LDS are many, too many to list really. But my one I'll point out again is, LDS teachings say that a person must be married to enter heaven. Paul says that he wishes all could be like him and be single/celibate. Jesus says that some have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of Heaven, not gotten married but lopped it off. I have no issue with the LDS church itself existing but it shouldn't be surprised when nearly every other Christian denomination says they don't line up with most Christian beliefs and don't feel comfortable saying the LDS are truly Christian, not in a "no true scotsman" fallacy type of way but the faith has so many differences, why even say you are Christian? the Muslims believe in Christ as well but don't call themselves Christian.

As a Freemason my issue is one. Smith stole deliberately and liberally from rituals he encountered in Freemasonry and passed them off to an unknowing congregation as being his own revelation. I've seen the endowment video. I've had 2-3 people tell me it's not the same but when you call the signs, handshakes, and penalties the same term and they look the same (thankfully you don't have the right words to get in a Lodge, he must have forgotten them...), well if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. Here again it's not that I mind that he stole so flagrantly (though he did swear not to share any of the ritual with non-masons upon the penalty of death) but more that he said he came up with it or that a revelation was given to him.

Honest in a little, honest in much. Dishonest in a little, dishonest in much. Smith has no credibility in my eyes regardless of how well meaning the LDS church is and so his prophecies in my eyes are products of his imagination riding on the back of other established traditions and beliefs.

I think there are multiple issues going on here. First, there's this tendency to label responses from others who find LDS arguments unpersuasive, or logically or theologically flawed, as being "antagonistic." It's like any response other than the blind and full acceptance of an argument gets that label. Why not respond with counterarguments instead of ad hominems? Second, OP posted this thread for the ostensible purpose of providing a forum to address criticisms of the LDS Church and its theology. If that isn't going to be allowed, the mods might as well kill the thread because this isn't going to go anywhere.

Also if we are posing questions, one just came to me, the other I didn't know about until just now (or maybe I did but didn't think of it in regards to the way I'm going to ask a question).

1) If exalted people become gods and well and may even have planets given them to "people" would that not make the people themselves gods to those people?

2) I don't have a teaching that I can reference easily but it's said that you are taught that God the Father also once came from another place and had "his" own god of that place. So why is God the Father greater than that god?

I believe I read that one last time. I believe I refuted a great number of points about it last time as well but that might have been a facebook conversation I was having.

This line here "Some Latter-day Saints point to similarities between the format and symbols of both the endowment and Masonic rituals and those of many ancient religious ceremonies as evidence that the endowment was a restoration of an ancient ordinance." in other words some of it is so close that those who have seen both have to acknowledge the similarity.

"Rather, Joseph’s encounter with Masonry evidently served as a catalyst for revelation" which to me is no different than the band Greta Fleet's encounter with Led Zeppelin served as a catalyst for their revelation.

It all seems to be a way of saying, yea they're pretty stinking close. And Smith went through all three degrees in a short period of time and then had the endowment ready in a month's time.

It talks about him sharing it with women...dare I say that unless the oaths are different in UT that he also took a vow not to communicate these things to women as well.

The degrees themselves are about integrity. You've surely heard the same words I did in the third degree regarding integrity. But I see no integrity in Smith's handling of our rituals and his liberal copying of them, his breaking of oaths in such a short amount of time and then saying they were just divine revelation to an unknowing group of non-masons.

And even the way this article tries to bend truths to make them seem better, I just don't like it. It doesn't seem honest.

I don't want to disparage another religion. I don't. I will not tell you I have the correct religion though I believe I do. But there are many things in Smith's life that point to his dishonesty and this is one for me that's incredibly telling. I know Mormons and they are hard working people who love their Church and are generally patriotic good natured people. For all of the theological issues I have with the LDS church or Jehovahs Witnesses, they make a good deal of other protestant groups look like total louses in the evangelizing department.  I don't go looking for Mormons to convert but this was put up seeming to ask for inquiries of a negative nature in order to answer them (which is also the case with the long over wrought conversation I had on facebook that I mentioned earlier).

Maybe I grind my axe too hard though it's mostly in the insistence of the church to be called Christian and then saying other are wrong when they dispute that. I'm far from a PGM and only a worn out JW myself. But when I joined that video I'd seen of the endowment came to mind and I started putting pieces together and didn't like the picture they made.

Truly I guess my issue or why I would "argue" against LDS beliefs is because they seem to be a heavy yoke in some areas. Jesus says "my yoke is easy and my burden is light" and I guess I want that for others as well. Jesus said "it is finished" and I say 'amen'.

I keep expecting you to post questions you found from your (over an hour long) anti-Latter Day Saint video you posted. But whatever.







That might be how you view things.

But I –from my perspective—am not trying to be obscure and evasive. If you have questions, ask them. I will provide an answer. With links to original sources.

My points are almost always backed-up with links to the source.

The problem I have found is that you are not actually reading my responses, or going to the original source I provide.







I am repeating and explaining the teachings and beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

We believe God the Father, His Son, and the Holy Spirit are separate. But they make-up one Godhead, and we worship one godhead.

I do not believe that we are “polytheistic.”

But Jews believe all “Christians” (not just The Church of Jesus Christ) are “polytheistic.”

And an interesting caveat, the pre-creedal Church that existed before the apostate creeds in the first few centuries after Christ… Their belief is in-line with what we believe.





How to tell me you don’t read my responses without actually telling me you don’t read my responses. Lol…

The early Church, “did not teach that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were separate beings…” Uh… Er… Um…

Well, actually…  





You have read my posts, and have not found any comments from me on the apostate creeds that gutted the pre-creed Church?

You need more clarification from me on my views towards the non-Biblical apostate creeds that destroyed the pre-creed Church?

Uh. Er. Um. Ok. Here goes… The apostate creeds that destroyed and abolished the important teachings and beliefs of the early Christian Church… Those creeds were an act of apostasy.

Do you need me to be any clearer?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does not claim to be the only and exclusive followers of Jesus Christ. There are many good people who follow Christ to the best of their knowledge and understanding in other denominations devoted to the teachings of Jesus Christ. There are as many interpretations of scripture as there are verses and thousands of different denominations. Many with sharp disagreements. Some with disagreements over what is actually included in scripture. Why did the New American Bible, the New American Standard Bible, and the New Revised Standard Version omit part of John 5:7? We don’t claim to be the only followers of Christ.

We do claim that the early creeds destroyed many of the pre-creed teaching of The Church. We do claim that Christ established a Church that was meant to be His organization led by His leaders (Prophets, Apostles, etc). We do claim that Christ restored His Church through the prophet Smith.  

We claim that there was an apostasy and corruption of The Church of Jesus Christ in the first few centuries, and the capstone of that apostasy was the apostate early creeds. We claim that the truth was restored in modern times through Smith, a Prophet in the Biblical sense.  

That is not necessarily a teaching and belief of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints per se.

Here is the Book of Mormon verse you are referring to:

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

For those who do not understand Latter-Day Saint teachings and beliefs, and believe in “grace,” this looks like a Pharisee/Saducee/Scribe type of a “gotcha” where The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints show we do not fully embrace Christs grace.

“Latter-Day Saints think they can work their way to heavens grace!”

Here is the problem with that thinking.  

2 Nerphi 25:23, well all of 2 Nephi… All of the Book of Mormon before 3 Nephi, actually… Was written during the time the, “Law of Moses” was the law the followers of God followed.

The people in the Book of Mormon were taught about Christ. Taught about the atonement, but Christ had not come yet. Christ had yet to sacrifice for our sins, be crucified, and resurrected. The atonement had not occurred yet.  

You should read 2 Nephi 25:23 in the context that the people were the “Law of Moses.” They -did- actually sacrifice. They did actually have to “do” things in the Law of Moses.













Well, first of all, your understanding of 2 Nephi 25:23 was an example of “using the wrong yardstick.”

I would start by using the correct yardstick.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teaches and believes and it is crystal-clear in scriptures that salvation is provided by grace, that we can be saved in our sins by grace, we can repent and be saved by grace.  

The correct yardstick… Grace… https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/grace?lang=eng

The yardstick is, though, did Christ teach that is by “faith alone” we are saved? Certainly, more than belief is needed to be saved. The scriptures list all kinds of things we must do as followers of Christ to follow His example and be saved…

Baptism… Mark 16:16 “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

Prayer… Acts 2:21 “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

Confess Sins… Romans 10:9-10 “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”

Endure… Matthew 10:22 “And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.”



I have faith that as I worship and follow Christ, I will be saved. I was converted to Christ as a teenager in a miraculous religious experience, and I have knowledge placed in me from God that I am following Him and doing what He wants me to do. I believe I am reconciled with God when I follow His plan, and keep His commandments.  

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints rejects the, “faith alone” concept as un-Biblical, unscriptural. We also do not accept that we are “saved by works.” Antagonists and critics try pinning “saved by works” on us, but it does not fit.  

“Faith alone” does not work because we are constantly sinning, and we constantly need to repent. Even after conversion and Baptism.

“Saved by works” does not work because our works are not what save us. That being said “works” (if repentance, faith, baptism, Temple worship, serving others are works) cannot be ignored by those who follow Christ.

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ can be “assured” by following Christ and being reconciled with God…



How can members of The Church of Jesus Christ be assured in following the Teachings of Christ in The Church of Jesus Christ? By, “reconciling yourselves to the will of God.”

“His Grace is Sufficient”

Link

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/brad-wilcox/his-grace-is-sufficient/

Followers of Christ should -always- be looking to serve others, share the gospel, and spread the message of Christ.


"Faith alone" is un-Biblical, un-scriptural. Latter-Day Saints do not accept that concept.  

“Saved by works” is a pejorative that our antagonists and critics try to pin on us. Because we are saved by grace. It is by grace that we can repent (a work). It is by grace that we can choose to let Christ into our hearts and be converted (a work). It is by grace that we can be saved. Works are important, they cannot be ignored for any true follower of Christ. But they are not what “save” us. We are saved by grace.


When a follower of Christ is following Christ, and keeping His commandments… They can be “assured” they are on the path that leads to salvation. They can be “assured” they are holding onto the rod of iron that leads to salvation. And it is a “path,” that leads to salvation, not necessarily event.

According to Jews, “Christians” are “polytheistic.” But “Christians” would say they are not. You can say what you want. I will say I worship God, His Son, and the Holy Spirit as one.







Chapter and verse, please… From scripture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.




The pre-creed Church of Jesus Christ practiced and believed in “Deification.” So do we.

The Bible clearly-contains this teaching… Ps 82:6, John 10:34






Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believe in, follow, and worship Jesus Christ.

We follow Christ.

People who believe in and follow the apostate early creeds that destroyed the pre-creed Church can still call themselves “Christians.” And I can see that some of their beliefs are in error, but they still try to follow Christ.




If you have an honest question, ask it.

If you have an honest question, post it.

You will get honest answers to honest questions.

When can we expect you to ask the question from your (over an hour) anti-Latter Day Saint video?

If grace is sufficient and a person's salvation (or their place in eternity) is not based upon works, then why must a member of the LDS Church get married in the temple to be allowed into the celestial kingdom? We've had this discussion before: Ephesians 2:8-9 states that by faith alone we are saved, not by works. That is the mechanism by which we are saved. When read in conjunction with James 2:17-26, it is clear that works is the evidence that our faith is genuine. The works themselves do not gain us salvation. But how does this comport with the requirement in Doctrines and Covenants for temple marriage for admission into the celestial kingdom, and why does this requirement not appear in the Bible and may even be contradicted by it (see 1 Corinthians 7:8-9)?

This is not what Latter-day Saints believe.  



I'm a Freemason as well.  This is inaccurate and your statement about the endowment specific s isn't correct.  

I have provided links to source material.

What link or original source are you dissatisfied with?

No one likes to argue about arguing, no questions get asked, and no questions get answered.

If you have a question… Ask it.

If you are dissatisfied with the original source, when your point is to get original-source information— then post asking for more information and clarification.



If you have an honest question, ask it. Many of the criticisms and antagonisms directed at the Church derive from hostile, antagonistic sources.  

In this thread, for instance, in an honest effort to solicit questions, criticisms, and antagonisms for honest answers, a poster posted a (over an hour long) anti-Latter Day Saint video.  

Clearly engaging in –not asking questions— trying to antagonize. It happens. Meh. Whatever.

Then when the poster was pressed to take questions from the (over an hour long) video and ask them here, I have yet to see any… Clearly the poster is not starting from a starting-point of fair, honest, and balanced approaches to getting honest questions asked.

If you have a question, ask it.

If you are an honest seeker for truth, and have an honest question… Ask it.

But arguing about arguing? Not being satisfied with the answer, even when the source material is shown? I don’t know what to say. Arguing about arguing does not answer anyone’s questions.

Chapter and verse from codified canonized Latter-Day Saint scripture, please.

"We believe" connotes an --official-- teaching... something in canonized scripture we can defend and poi to and say: “we believe that.”

"Young once said..."
"Smith once said..."

Is not official teachings.

And more and more significant errors are being found in the Journal of Discourses, with the author, Webb, being caught in making significant, serious changes between notes and what was actually printed...

What point was proven?



The Pharisees/Scribes/Sadducees did a few interesting things...



If you have an honest question, ask it.

If you claim, "members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believe _______." As a statement of something we formally “believe,” then cite the codified canonized scripture that refers to what you are claiming we believe.

But it sounds like a lot of arguing about arguing and not really asking honest questions about the official beliefs, teachings, and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Sometimes people debate Mormonism vs. Christianity, but they don't always realize there can be language issues: Both groups can be using the same word, but it has different meanings to each group.

This video is a really good primer, two pastors having a calm discussion of where they're coming from, what terms mean before you can debate them or base choices upon. Good watch:

There’s a lot to unpack, but I will just stick with this. If you believe there exists more than one god or that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God but separate beings (which logically entails they are separate gods) then you necessarily are polytheistic. It doesn’t matter if you believe the 3 gods make up a triumvirate or as you call a “Godhead” or whether you just worship God the Father, you are a polytheist and not a Christian in the historical and orthodox sense. Why will you not just admit this? The early Church did not teach polytheism, I just cited the Apostle Paul (can’t get much earlier) who affirmed “there is one God”.

Complaining?

Who am I complaining -to-, might I ask? You have my curiosity meter piqued.

What am I complaining about, and who am I complaining to.

If you have a question, ask it.

Debating about debating does not get any questions asked, and does not get any questions answered.

If you are an honest seeker for truth, and you want honest answers with links to the source, then post your questions...

We do not believe the scriptural canon is closed per se.



Paul's advice is good for Missionaries. It is not good for Missionaries to be seeing a wife while doing Missionary work.

Our teachings and beliefs are backed-up by Biblical scripture... "neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord." [1 Corinthians 11:11]



I have seen Christian theologians from other Christian denominations refer to us as, "Christians." Link

"Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints unequivocally affirm themselves to be Christians." Link



Muslims are not here to defend their beliefs. Why include them in this discussion?

Muslims do not believe Christ died on the cross. Something we believe.



Here is a thread from a active Mason who is also a faithful follower of Christ in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints... Link

We believe in the pre-creedal, (obviously) deeply-Christian belief of deification...

Link

We believe, as did the earliest Christians, that we will be deified. That we know.

We, once deified, and like God will like God create planets? Good question. Deification is found in the scriptures. The specific logistics of how it all works is not.

We believe we will be deified in exaltation. We will always worship God. The scriptures teach our reward for following God in this life will be wonderful. But beyond that, the logistics just are not spelled-out.



We believe in deification. But the origin of God? It is not spelled-out in Latter-Day Saint canonized official sources.

The logistics of the origin of God? Not spelled out in Latter-Day Saint canonized official sources.

Its interesting to think about and discuss... But it is not found in Latter-Day Saint scripture.

This Mason vouches for Smith...

Link





The Christians in the first few centuries after Christs ministry endured a great many trials for following Christ.

Christs Apostles were abused, and many tortured for their beliefs in Christ.

Bible verses on "enduring"...

He that endureth to the end shall be saved, Matt. 10:22 (Mark 13:13).

They have no root and so endure but for a time, Mark 4:17.

Charity endureth all things, 1 Cor. 13:7.

After Abraham had patiently endured, he obtained the promise, Heb. 6:15.