Dale

The claim LDS deny the true status of the Deity of Jesus is a sincere concern of Evangelical's. Anybody who does not in their mind hold that Jesus is Deity as part of the same creedal idea of God denies his true Deity. The cult label is just a sensational way of calling LDS a heretical pseudo-Christian group. I am Community of Christ/RLDS. For reason's of self defense i took quite a bit of witnessing to LDS study. I have tried to understand Evangelical's, but i do not agree with them. I am certain they do not see themselve's as lying, so i try and not get upset with them. FAIR and it's FAIR Wiki is a good personal study source on such issue's. LDS FAIR Apologetics Homepage I tend to survive incident's where people tried to witness to me in conversation. I just pondered so much of the basic Anti-LDS trivia that i found answer's that satisfied me. So when these incident's happen answers pop into my head. And i know where to find answer's if i need them. The stuff had the effect on helping me to like the Book of Mormon better. I do not agree that having a different view of the Godhead is denying Jesus Deity. I liked Joseph Smith and most of his idea's better. I know LDS are not a cult and very Christian. The Anti-LDS witnessing trivia those minister's use might impress them enough for them to repeat, but it kept me out of Evangelicalism.

Dr.T-Some of the most common proof's for two destinations only are Daniel 12:2;John 5:29;Matthew 25:31-46, and i think Revelation 21-22. My one time girlfriend used to hang out at Barean Baptist church in Nampa, Idaho. The lady there had been involved in witnessing to LDS for a number of year's. My girlfriend being LDS wanted me to meet her. One of her articles gathered 80 such scriptural section's against D.&C. 76. idea of the three kingdom's and a hell. I think one can have everlasting life whether on the new earth, or some place in the new heaven. I am not certain heaven will cease to be inhabited by saved resurrected being's just because the new earth will be inhabited. To me that open's up the possibility of heaven being divided into a few different destinations. Basically D.&C. 76 is the LDS, and my Community of Christ scriptural authority for the kingdom's. The idea of differing kingdom's was also a doctrinal speculation circulating in early Christianity. Definition's are important. The idea of exaltation is not a belief of mine. I think of being saved from hell to the kingdom of God. I think eternal life is for everyone saved from hell. Grace is unmerited. But i am not espousing the idea of grace alone as i think obedience can effect rewards in heaven. But no amount of obedience outside perfection would merit salvation from hell. LDS never try and get people saved from hell. Salvation from hell, or outerdarkness come's with the idea of the kingdom's. LDS focus not on the already taken care of, but on preparing people to be able to go to the Celestial kingdom. So obedience serve's the purpose of meriting reward, position's, destination's in heaven by grace plus obedience. But not meriting the celestial kingdom would not mean going to outerdarkness if the person is in the permanantly saved category.

Thank you for the clarification. I heard of Unitarianism before, but was uncertain about what they thought about the trinity. The spirit of man to a baptist friend of mine was created in the body based on Zachariah 12:1. She would feel that no intelligence of man existed before life. Only God's intelligence in her mind existed forever. My own position on Zachariah 12:1 is that all it say's is God creates the spirit that is within man. I am not certain that it discloses for sure that God made that spirit in the body. With Evangelical's creation ex-nehilo is an important idea. Nothing existed before and Jesus was before the intelligence of any other created being. And Jesus created all thing's and the intelligence is to them a created thing. I am not certain emplying a figure of speech like Moses speaking with God face to face mean's God has no face. To me if Jesus was a personage of spirit in-between his death and resurrection God has a face. (Luke 24:39) But saying God has wing's doesn't mean he could not have a body also. I think John 4:24 does not for certain teach God is formless spirit. Jesus lumped the Father and the Holy spirit when he said god is spirit. If Jesus was a personage of spirit then God is more than spirit. The 2nd person of the Trinity atleast would be a personage of spirit and tabernacle. Jesus can't merely be saying the Father, and Holy Spirit is spirit without saying he as God is spirit.

If the creedal God can be without beginning why can't the progession of God's be without beginning? And if the creedal God found his urge to be a God why couldn't the first exalted God? Joseph Smith felt God the Father n one was subordinate to an original God, but became so perfect he was allowed to become an independent exclusive God himself. Joseph Smith actually felt God's personality was uncreated. He did speculate in one of his sermon's spirit's were created. It would have been better if he suggested that the person within the spirit body later created was uncreated. But he accepted Psalm 90:2 very literaly. At some point he felt the Father like the 2nd person of the Godhead, or Trinity if you prefer took upon himself mortality. That the Father went through a birth, death and resurrection process. The world's that will be inhabited by God's are not world's that existed before only the all thing's Jesus created. The god's that will inhabit those world's will either be forever subodinate to God, or have to find a place outside all thing's that God own's including the world's. It is my understanding Jesus is figuratively one with the exclusive God, and is kind of like a spiritual medium in a saiance at time's. So he speak's misleadingly as if God were a singular being as in Isa.43:10. But honestly they are aware of each other which make's them two modern person's. I just confess to the contradiction between the three and their misleading claim to being one God i see no way to explain it. We don't know that other worlds are lifeless. It's only been within the last twenty year's that we even developed the technology to find the 200+ planets we have. And even then we are dealing with gas giants like Jupiter. We can't travel to look up close and see. Plus i think it's the next decade that they are launching a specific program to look for earth like planet's. They recognize that the planet finding technology isn't enough to find earth like planets let alone advanced enough to find ET. Maybe UFO's have crashed on earth and the government keep's the wreckage locked up. Islam does not think Jesus was anything more than a great man or teacher. Ephesian's 2:8-10 has been misread by Evangelical's. It merely say's man is not saved by mere acts of human effort. Some of those works are works we have to do upon pain of damnation if we don't do them. Jame's 2:10 reaffirm's God will hold man not saved by grace after all they can do will be held guilty for act's of breaking law. Evangelicalism depated from early Christianity when they rejected grace plus obedience. This used to be common orthodoxy before Martin Luther said it wasn't. If being heretic's that creates a new version of the church makes one a non-Christian Evangelicals are not Christian. I use a broader definition of Christian. I consider Evangelicals Christian although i think them wrong. By the way i don't see baptism as acts of human effort, but yielding ouselve's to God allowing him to work in us by his grace. (1 Corr. 15:10) The creedal writer's in order to confess the idea of the three of God did not wander close to the idea of God's adopted a misleading word. Instead of confessing the three were like three men person's they said the three were mere role's of God. They employed the latin word persona to suggest the person's of God were no more person's than the person an actor played via his face masks in a play. The person's of an actor in a play can't talk to each other as the Father can with his Son. The ability of the three to be aware of each other wanders the New Testament idea of God close to poly-theism. Orthodox Jews and Moslem critic's of the Trinity are right into seeing the Trinity idea as poly-theistic. Only by saying the person's of God are as dumb as the person's of an actor can you deny the person's are defineable as being like three modern person's. Isa.43:10 without the latin word persona presents as much problem for the idea of God's as much as it does the idea of the three and one God. If the word lie's when it say's the person's are mere role's of God we only have one definition of person's. The only word i know of dealing with three person's is associated with three human person's. Without that ancient word credal writer's had no defense against the Jewish and Moslem charge the Trinity was a mix of mono-theistic and poly-theistic idea's. I am actually a member of the Community of Christ (Formerly the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints). We don't feel God was ever a man. Officially my denomination teache's the Trinity. The Southern Baptist misrepresnted our belief statement, and thought we wre modalists. If they had the book Exploring the Faith which explained the belief statement they would have found the creedal idea of God. But not being a creedal church we have had Anti-Trinitarian's also. Those who rejected the Trinity to avoid wandering into tri-theism denied the Deity of Jesus. I see no way to deny the Deity of Jesus, and since i feel the persona word is untrue i see Jesus as to disinct from God, and close enough to be called a God among three God's. My answer's are how i would answer your questions if i were LDS. Plus i doubt the truth of the Trinity.

I was LDS before becoming a member of the Community of Christ. I consider the LDS history a part of my heritage. I had family at Nauvoo who went west to Utah. My denomination's history is as you say our common history to a point. But my family history has great ties to the LDS church that i am quite proud of.

I will throw in my Reoganized Latter Day Saint perspective. Celestial law is so tough to keep 100% that it wasn't designed to be kept. James 2:10 is clear that failure to keep the law of Moses in even a single point meant you failed the whole law. Celestial law is not as tough as the law of Moses because damnation to outer-darkness was the penalty for those who were not saved by grace after all they failed to do. Person's can still go to a lower kingdom which isn't falling from grace. I am not absolutely certain D.& C. 76 was meant to suggest good members of Christian churche's go to the terrestrial. Or that inactive member's of my church would get to the terrestrial either. I do not see them meeting the criteria of dying without law, and not getting a testimony of Jesus in the flesh. I think i should present both my view and the common view that i think LDS and Community of Christ share in common on who goes to the terestrial. If i am right that may be a good or bad thing for those of us not keeping Celestial law 100%. Either that mean's Celestial law is easier to keep in imperfection, and person's have made it to tough or us failure's end up in outer-darkness. I think imperfect people not of themselve's keeping that law a 100% can be saved from outer-darkness. I am reminded of Matthew 19:16-26. The disciple's ask Jesus "Who then can be saved?" Jesus say's "With men this is impossible; but with God; but with God all things are possible." (verses 25,26) Jesus in verses 20-24 basically found one item to hold the guy guilty of breaking the law of Moses on. 2 Nephi 25:23 provide's the solution to the impossible only via the solution of grace. I am not certain of the popular LDS definition of eternal life. I see anybody saved from hell in any kingdom as having eternal life. I am uncertain the LDS wider definition of damnation is based on the scripture's used to support it. I see the scriptures used in the LDS Bible Dictionary under the topic of Damnation honestly misunderstood to support a definition. I see D.&C.132:4:6,27 was in my mind not taking about saved angel's being damned. I think it only meant that person's commanded to practice plural marriage who did not abide the law would be sent forever to outer darkness. I know of no scripture that refers to any saved being like the angel's as being damned. The author of the LDS Bible Dictionary used the verses to support the wider definition of damnation he thought true. (Bible Dictionary, pg. 652.) I do not claim my view's are innerant. I read as a hobby many critic's of the LDS Church. Celestial law is one area critic's like to show as mission impossible. So from time to time i have pondered the issue "Am i living Celestial law?" I decided i am living Celestial law it is only by grace. Via trusting in my good works i fail as much as the rich young man in Matthew 19.

I don't see worshipping only the Father as helping LDS avoid Evangelical charges of poly-theism. Some are aware of LDS only worshipping the Father and still see the plurality of Gods idea as poly-theistic. The Jewish people worshipped the pre-mortal Jesus as the Father alone. Isaiah is pretty clear on the 2nd person of the Godhead clear claim to being the exclusive God. They did not think of a Father as being a higher being to the Lord.

I have a statement of Orson Hyde where Joseph Smith taught the revelation's of the prophet should be tested. That the new revelation should undergo discussion in the leading quorums of the church before going to the people. And if in discussion the document ran against a snag it warranted looking into. He knew some revelations were of God, others of men and other's of the Devil. He knew that even a prophet might be wrong into thinking a false revelation was of God. Brigham Young is felt to have left some speculative idea's in his sermon's. But his idea atleast the one's that are most controversial never have been affirmed as official LDS doctrine. He said regarding Adam God that he couldn't get the Latter-day Saints to accept it. So even if he tried to get the whole church to accept a speculation he tried and failed.

I am a member of the Community of Christ. Even though i disagree with LDS much i still have much in common with the church also.

AnthonyB-Is Unitarianism the same as modalism? The creedal writer's did adopt persona while holding the person's were not mere roles of God. Since they had no other way to explain it outside of wandering into tri-theism they badly chose a word that never fit the Trinity. I recently ran into a CARM article on the Trinity that acknowledged the three each had awareness. The creed's do not confuse the person's. The entity like distinctions exist within the one God. LDS have sometime's used the argument that Jesus would be a ventriloquist at his baptism. That's not what the creed's say. The person's are distinct within God. One Catholic guy told me that as long as they arn't seperate they are not three God's. Allister E. McGrath's book is the clearest explanation on the Trinity i have seen yet.

I see the idea the three part's of God being aware of each other as wandering close to tri-theism. It merges the distinction's of three beings with absolute mono-theism as if the two could be merged. Thus the creedal writer's emplyed the latin word persona to absolutely deny they were like three men. Does anybody have an alternative to the latin word persona idea of the person's? The word was and is the only definition of person's that fit's mono-theism. The only other definition i know of make's them defineable as three modern person's. But it say's the three are mere role's of God which sound's like it fits modalism closer to me. My Understanding The Trinity book is clear that the creed's do not say the three are person's. In an ancient sense it does, but it does not in the modern sense. The word person has if i recall Allister E. McGrath's right has undergone a change. In an ancient sense it applied to an actor and the person's he played. The modern sense now is applied to three modern human person's. God is one person in the modern sense, but three person's in the ancient sense. PrisonChaplain's 1-5 list make's look neatly organized what i think the creedal writers did not nor couldn't think through. The person's of an actor are not distinct from the actor. The person's of an actor are not aware of the other person's an actor play's. The person's of an actor are dumb. The distinct centers of consciousness within God are not dumb, and the Father and Son and Holy Spirit are aware of the other person's within God. I know how they can be one God and it all boil's dow to this latin word persona making them non-person's person's. If they have the attribute's associated with three modern person's that make's them defineable as person's. Only if the three are not three modern person's does the creedal idea not wander close toward's the idea of tri-theism. I was for many year's confused by how Trinitarians could beleive in three person's as God yet object to the idea of three God's. But when i read Understanding The Trinity i understood the creed's defined the word person's in a mono-theistic compatible way. I was mistaken into thinking the creed's meant God was one God with three modern person's inside him. The creed's only work as mono-theism if the latin word persona make's them non-person person's within one person God. I know i have spent a lot of time expressing my doubt's about that latin word. But the word is how the creedal writer's felt they kept their idea away from teaching tri-theism. But they stopped working on the creed's and ignored a key problem that never fit their latin word. The person's are self aware of each other which is an ability three God's would also have.

Doctor Stuess that's the talk. Here is the link to the FAIR page with her Dispelling the Black Myth talk. FAIR Topical Guide: Blacks and the Priesthood It's under the FAIR resources section on that page. In the FAIR Topical they have a good section devoted to Race and Cultural Issues. I am a Reorganized latter Day Saint. We started having black priesthood in 1865. Joseph Smith 3rd had a revelation given through him on May 4,1865, It say's in part "Therefore it is expedient in me that you ordain priests unto me, of every race who receive the teachings of my law, and become heirs according to the promise." (D.&C. 116:1c., pg.155) The LDS leader Spencer W. Kimball got his authorization in 1978. Prior to them feeling God ok'd the ordination of black's they just couldn't do it. They felt God via modern revelation put the ban in place and only he could lift it. I was LDS in the 1970's and i was glad that God inspired that good man to lift the pro-hibition on the ordination of black's. I never considered the policy racist only something God wanted in place for his own secret reason.

Of course if Joseph Smith added to the Bible false book's he would be open to the penalty of the warning. The Bible is God's word and adding, or taking away from the word's of any inspired book, or collection of inspired book's would be serious. Certainly the Lord would be concerned about all book's of the Bible's preservation not merely that of the Book of Revelation.

I see the exclusiveness of God as God as a true doctrine. but i like to know how the person's of God can be person's without contradicting that. So i got a book entitled Understanding the Trinity by Evangelical scholar Allister E. McGrath and he explained the latin word persona to his readers. I doubted the truth of it because it didn't fit the person's of god because the person's of an actor was dumb. Inspite of my doubts about the Trinity idea i am open to the idea of person's not being person's if that can ever be logically explained.

Critic's of Joseph Smith gather up together a number of his prophetic statements they see as false prophecies. I recall Dick Baer a crony of Ed Decker once wrote a book detailing 60 of what he considers false prophecies. The LDS message board's tend to unfortunately bleep out his first name mistakingly thinking i was referring to a part of the male anatomy. I never have read the entire set of statements. Usually i see the critic's pick out 7-10 favorite example's they point to all the time. The law and it's rule's have been abolished so i do not agree today that everything a prophet say's must come true. Neither the law or the Bible is my final authority on such mistake's Jesus is via modern revelation. I do not think with one exception that anything on the basic critic's list qualifies as a false prophecy. I think in their zeal to say they have disproven Joseph Smith they fail to find the solution's that i feel place's the prophecies off the false prophecy list's.

There was an idea some older LDS leaders have expressed that was racist. One was that black's were less valiant in the pre-existence so were born black. Renee Olsen a Black LDS convert gave a FAIR talk where she discussed such comment's that modern LDS are not into. Such ideas hurt black's but the LDS Church has changed so much since it's pre-1979 day's. The transcript of her talk is online in the FAIR topical Guide if i can find her talk i will later get you the link. If you want to search on your own LDS FAIR Apologetics Homepage . It's FAIR Wiki also might have articles regarding race and they find a link to it's wiki on the main FAIR page.

Are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit aware of each other like three human's are? Does not such a belief wander close to the idea of Gods? Prove that you can take God at face value if the New Testament mixes mono-theism with the tri-theistic idea the person's are person's. The latin word persono they employed to deny they were person's make's no sense. It say's the person's of God are like three unintelligent person's an actor play's in a play via face masks. But the person's of an actor can't talk with each other as the Father and Son can. The person's of an actor have no intelligence a part from the actor's intelligence. The person's of an actor have the intelligence of an idol.

The Father and Son know of each other. Isaiah is purely mon-theistic, but the New Testament is not. Rather than try and explain away the contradiction between the exclusive God of Isaiah and the three persons of God i just confess to seeing an unresolveable contradiction. Not buying into the idea the three can't be defined as person's i see them as only defineable as person's.

The Bible and New Testament clearly wanders at time's into or close to the idea of three God's. The three person's of God arn't dumb. They are aware of each other as much as three person's are. The creedal writers to explain the person's of God adopted the latin word persona. It suggested the person's of God were mere role's of God, or to put it the dumb person's an actor play's. The word never fit the creed's as in the creed's they are aware of each other which fit's the modern definition associated with three person's only. The Book of Mormon accept's the us and image of Genisis 1:26,27 literally. We were created according to Ether 3:15 after Christ's spirit body. 3rd Nephi has the Father, and Son distinctly aware of each other as much as human person's are. If the Father is a personage also that's not modalism, nor the creedal Trinity. Part's of the book and even the Bible are absolutely mono-theistic. But the Bible is not purely mono-theistic everywhere unless the latin word persona really defend's the New Testament idea of the person's as mono-theistic. One would have to say the person's of God are dumb which they did to deny they were distinct person's. So i see the Bible and Book of Mormon as qualified mono-theism in places that wanders into the idea the Godhead consist's of three person's.

Mark Cares a is the author of Speaking The Truth In Love To Mormons. In his book he agree's with LDS that Rev. 22:18,19 is not strong proof for a closed canon. He feel's better verses exist to support their idea. So he tell's people in his book not to use the verses on LDS people. I like having his book around just in case the verses came up in conversation. That way i don't have to convince them i will let him do it for me. He pastor's Messiah Lutheran in Nampa, Idaho where i live. i got to meet him a few time's. He is a nice Lutheran guy. But his ministry has a website on the internet going after their disagreements with Mormonism. Joseph Smith changed the Book of Revelation's in the JST. So some allowance must be had for an authorized man prophet to take liberties with the wording. If the Book of Revelation's warning did not scare off corrupt scribe's bent on tampering then the Bible is not innerant. If one book of the Bible was tampered with then other book's of the Bible might have been also. The original autographic manuscripts are lost. What we have has been has been used to say by Evangelicals that the scribe's were faithful. Emanuell Tov an expert on Old Testament manuscripts has been used by FAIR & FARMS to support the idea tampering has happened. FAIR Wiki has some articles that cite him in it's section on the Bible if i recall right.

Not getting into the abode of God isn't the same as not being saved from hell, or outer darkness. Since Evangelical's see two destinations only heaven and hell not getting into heaven (the abode of God) would be very bad. I don't see LDS belief as requiring much obedience to get saved in the lower kingdom's. Getting into the abode of God would if i understand LDS right require grace plus gospel obedience.

Muslim's do not consider themselve's member's of the Christian church though. They think he was just a good man, or a great teacher. They would not convert to any type of Christianity unless they wanted to convert over to belief in Christ. I am not sure anyone just for expressing any type of belief in Jesus should be called Christian. Evangelical's see LDS as embracing a false Jesus and gospel.(2 Cor. 11:4; Galatian's 1:8,9.) A belief in a wrong Jesus to them disqualifies you as a believer in Jesus. So your belief in Jesus would be equally to them not really believing in Jesus with a unbelieving Muslim who believes in Jesus. It's not enough to hold a belief he was a great man, and teacher. I don't think Jesus was no longer a Jew because he founded Christianity. To me he would be a Jewish Christian even though Old World Christians were not called Christian's yet. I do not see plenty of room for LDS Christians, Muslim Christian's, ect as long as each group originated with a belief in a form of early Christianity. One does not give up one's heritage when one become's a Christian. Evangelical's have come to believe only old world churche's traceable to the early church can be considered Christian. So any church that claim's to be a restoration should not in their mind be termed Christianity. Instead they consider the LDS, and any related church like my Community of Christ/RLDS a Pseudo-Christian religion.

Evangelical people will read scriptures like Mark 16:16 so as to harmonize it with grace alone. They see unbelief not lack of being baptized that effects salvation. Plus in Acts 2 they see the persons being baptized because they were already saved. Baptism would be the fruit of salvation not the root. Good work's in evangelicalism are done out of love for their Lord after they are saved not to be saved. ---------- With Titus 3:5 it's a common verse used against the idea obedience is essential to salvation. Some of those works of rightiousness were things we had to do upon pain of damnation if we did not do them.

The basics of what goes on in LDS temples is either made clear in LDS publications or atleast alluded to. LDS leaders and members do not of course get into sharing or discussing specifics of the content like one could do if they had the luxury to point to a transcript. But i do not find basic LDS temple purposes and activities a great secret. Only that LDS get only into what they can and in way's they don't feel violate's what might be described as a covenantal non-disclosure agreement.

I never lived chat very much. I do come from an LDS background. So i have experiences in both denominations. We have our temple in Independence, Missouri mostly open to the public. But of course we do not have temple practices.