evangelical

These are the basics of the faith. And since you don't properly understand them, I must explain them to you. Before we go on to solid meat, we must stick with the milk. Yes, you recognise the symbollic nature of water baptism. What does it symbolize? True baptism or the new birth. Water baptism is only a symbol. I am already married. I wear a wedding band to symbolize what has already taken place in the past. Putting on the ring each day is not what causes the marriage. It is only a symbol. You gave no reason to accept your interpretation of 'for'. to be continued

My teachings are based on the New Testament itself. If you can show me why I should interepret it as you do, then you could get me to change my mind. Your interpretation must be shown to be sound. The teachings that I have recieved, are the teachings of the apostles of Jesus Christ which I find in the NT itself. You seem to be under the false impression that I just blindly accept whatever my pastor has told me. Not so. Everything that I have been saying to you in this thread is, I think, based on plain and common sense. The answer to the two questions you next ask is obvious. I agree that baptism is important and of vast significance. These rhetorical questions are an example of you soundly giving me common sense. Please, keep such sound reason comming. Your next paragraph is very true. Change is hard to find in religion and theology at times. I must clarify something, however. I am not ridiculing you or your beliefs. Rather, I am saying that your views are simply mistaken if my interpretation of the Bible is correct. I think my interpretation is sound and have been willing to explain why. You do not accept my interpretation. Why? If the answer is because you have prayed and recieved a feeling that your views are correct, then that is subjective. You are the subject in this case, not me, and so I see no reason to accept your interpretation. If you'd like to give me an objective argument, I would be happy to reconsider my position in light of that. Now, you have given objective arguments in the past. I accept the NT and in there you have pointed to statements of Jesus and others, which may be objectively examined by everyone, to see the importance of baptism. You have made your case on that point. But that was not what was at issue. What was, and is, at issue is that Mormon belief as a whole is in conflict with Bible teaching, as I interpret it, as a whole. For example, if a person dies without being baptised and nobody every recieves proxy baptism in their place, that person may still be saved. They may even be amongst the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. According to the articles of faith, however, if there is no baptism then there is no salvation. You conclude with a statement about authority. I realise that the doctrine of authority plays a major role to your way of thinking. But I do not see any reason to accept that doctrine. Can you give me one (other than praying and feeling)? Jesus instructed His apostles to baptise in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The authority is in this name. If I robed a bank and heard, as I was fleeing the scene, "stop in the name of the law," what would I naturally suppose? That a police officer was behind me. A police officer has the authority to enforce the law. So 'the name of' means 'the authority of.' Baptism is to be done in the authority of God. Where does the Bible say that a person can only do this if they are visited by Peter, James, and John and recieve, in some sense, keys from them? Nowhere. And so, we see no restriction on who can baptise in the authority of God. Of course, there is one verse in which we read about binding and loosing and keys. In Matthew 16:16 Peter says, "Thou art the Christ, The Son of the living God." It is plausible that by "keys," mentioned right after this, are meant the knowledge/proclamation that Jesus is a. the Christ and b. the Son of the living God. In the absence of other scripture to clarify, it is dangerous to say that it definitely does not mean that and, instead, it definitely means that Peter has to visit Joseph Smith, and give him the keys, which are thereafter conferred by laying on of hands. You see, I am giving arguments for my interpretations. On the other hand, I believe I am correct in saying, that you merely appeal to a modern day prophet. A modern day prophet, that is, whom you ultimately accept as such, only on the subjective basis of prayer and feeling. So 1. my beliefs are based on the Bible (not the teachings of men) and 2. I have objective reason to interpret the Bible in the way that I do (which makes my interpretation seem more likely true than yours). And what I have been trying to get you to understand since the very first post of this thread is that in most cases (and I would say also in the case of being a Mormon as well) we do not merely pray and then after we get a certain feeling, automatically accept what somebody else, say a 19th century religious leader, is claiming to be the truth. To behave in such a way, pray-feel-believe, seems incredibly dangerous to me. I strongly encourage you to reconsider your faith.

I am not a Mormon myself, but I learn about them a lot. In LDS teaching, Jesus and Satan are spiritual brothers of each other and of all of us. Mormons believe that we human beings pre-existed our birth on Earth in our bodies. But we forget what happened when we came to Earth. We cannot see beyond the veil. Becoming a god is only open to some Mormons (and no non-Mormons). If one makes it to the celestial kingdom then, and only then, is it possible to become a god. The LDS seem to often like to downplay this idea, but it is one of their teachings. For example, in the King Follett Discourse, of Joseph Smith, we read that God was once a human being on Earth. Then he died. Now we all have the chance to become like Him. This sermon is readily available online (just google it if you want). While the Saints seem to be less than totally forthcomming (and even misrepresent themselves?), at times, they do seem to teach all of their beliefs to pre-members, or, at least, they all seem to be more or less available to a potential convert. There are, however, things which go on in the temples that they only tell members. And then, I think, they only "tell you" as you are going through the temple. Those going through the temple are sworn to secrecy not to reveal what they have seen therein. As someone who has studied a great deal about Mormonism, and not come to accept it in the process, I can say that, in my opinion, you ought to be extremely cautious before you decide to fully join, if you ever do so decide. An extremely strong case can be made, and has been made, in my opinion, for what I would say is the falseness of much Mormon teaching. There are many books which are traditionally labelled "Anti-Mormon" by LDS people but these need not be appealed to in the making of a case against Mormon teachings and interpretations. The documents written by Mormons themselves, together with the Bible (which Mormons accept as authoritative), are all that is needed, in my opinion, to show the falsehood which I, for one, find in Mormonism. Whether the Saints really are a false church or not, you'll have to decide for yourself, but as far as I can see personally, based on my own research, I recommend you do not join. This is my own personal advice and conclusion.

Hold on. The people in the congregation, according to the account, were able to pray and feel it was false. Why couldn't Brigham Young, no mere congregant but the prophet himself, have similarly prayed about it to find out if it was only speculation or not. This shows the problem, in my opinion, with the whole personal testimony idea. What if men really were discovered on the moon? The people would still have had a feeling, after prayer, that those people did not exist. I simply cannot understand how the entire Mormon church came to believe what you believe after praying then recieving a feeling. This is very dangerous in my opinion.

Dear rameumpton, your last post in this thread was quite long so, in the interest of time, I am not going to respond to each point here. But I would like to make an observation. It seems to be a standard practice of Mormons to downplay certain of their doctrines and/or bend the truth to sound more acceptable to potential converts. This is my own impression of what seems to be objective fact. As a congregant of Satan's church, someone as unenlightened as myself (opposed to you, as a member of God's one true church) cannot be expected to eat spiritual meat, can I? Surely you can only give me milk. So when somebody like me asks about eternal progression to godhood, for example, perhaps it is best, don't you think, to be less than totally forthcomming? In spite of what you said in your above post, you know as well as I that Lorenzo Snow, and other Mormons, have plainly said that the God of this planet was once a man, and we, as men, may become like Him, only ruling over a different planet instead of Earth. Can't you appreciate how it looks to outsiders such as myself, that Mormons apparently lie (from our point of view) to potential converts? Often it is only after they are deeply entrenched in the local ward (through 'freindshipping'?), it seems to us, that they are told the real story.

The New Testament as a whole (the only Scripture we both agree on to deal significantly with baptism) makes it clear that baptism is important though not essential for salvation. There are versed which link baptism and salvation are a matter of correlation, not causation. So far so good, more or less. Nicodemus does not receive a personal testimony in the Mormon sense in verse 2. He recognises Jesus as Messiah there, on the basis of objective evidence. Namely, the miracles Jesus performed which all present could have observed. Nicodemus does not say, "I prayed to God then recieved a feeling that you are the Messiah." Notice what the baptism is into. Namely, the baptism here is into Christ, as opposed to, into water. "For by grace are ye saved," says the Bible. To know that something is definite and real is to confirm it. Being baptized into water confirms one's belief to the outside world. Only you can see inside you and know it is true in that way. In the very same chapter of John, either John or Jesus says, "he that believes not is condemned already because he has not believed." Not "...because he does believe but has not been baptised yet. Finally, Nicodemus believed that Jesus is the Messiah. The demons believed that and trembled. They were certainly not saved. The ones who are baptised by fire are not the saved, it seems, or the baptised, but the people in Hell. Going to Hell is a baptism into fire. At least this is what the passage seems to be saying. Nicodemus is surprised by the idea of a second birth. But he has no problem with a first birth. Jesus explains that physical birth alone is not enough. Spiritual birth is also necessary. There is a stark contrast between the man who is only born physically, and the man who is also born spiritually. If one is born spiritually they will be baptised by the Spirit and go to Heaven. If one is only born physically, then they are not baptised by the Spirit and not go to Heaven. Instead they will be immersed in the flames of Hell. They are, in other words, baptised by fire. An acceptable meaning of 'for' is 'because of'. For example: Did you go to the doctor-yes-why-for my sickness. It is not that I am in search of a thing called 'my sickness' but rather that because of the sickness I already have, that I go to the doctor. The doctor visit is not the door through which I enter into sickness. Now, you are tying in what you believe to the Bible. That is very comendable. But that is also what the people where doing in the days of the early creeds. It is necessary to base our faith on what we recognise as Scripture, but we must also be interpreting that Scripture properly. There is reason, within the New Testament, to take 'for' in the sense of 'because of'. I see no reason, in the context of the New Testament itself, to take 'for' in the causal sense which you want to give it. Which interpretation, mine or yours, should be considered more sound? It is not that there is only one verse which appears to teach grace alone. Rather, the New Testament as a whole. There may or may not be verses in the other standard works, of course, but I do not personally accept those so to convince me, you must restrict attention to the Bible. Many passages explicitly teach that grace saves or grace alone. And 'grace saves' means 'grace saves'. It doesn't mean 'grace saves but we have to earn our salvation too." That violates the law of identity in logic (x is x). Is baptism the gate wherein we enter grace? If that is true then no baptism means no salvation. But the Bible says that if we have faith (faith is not faith and baptism) then we have grace. So the view that water baptism is necessary, as a pre-requisite, for salvation by grace is contrary to the Bible. If that doctrine is taught in the other standard works, then we see here where they do contradict the Bible. We are not saved by grace only after all we can do, according to the Bible. That is not salvation by grace alone. There are verses in the Bible that speak to the necessity of good works (including baptism) for the Christian but no verses that speak to the necessity of good works for salvation. That is anathema in the eyes of biblical authors. You are quite right that we may choose for or against Jesus. I have never denied the doctrine of agency. However, our choosing of Jesus is not what saves us. It is the grace of God which He bestows upon us that saves us. I suppose one could call our choice a kind of gate, but there is a radical difference between Mormon and biblical soteriology, as I understand. We have a great debt to God, says Joseph Smith, which Jesus paid off for us, as a loan. We have to pay back what He loaned us. Or in the Articles of Faith, we read that we have to be baptised to be saved and have the laying on of hands to be saved. On my view, we do absolutely nothing to be saved. God saves us with His grace, period. Pretty much everybody agrees that grace plus saves. The problem is that grace plus is not grace at all. Believing in grace plus, then, makes the gospel impotent to do anything.

First of all, thanks for the kind response. Second, I guess I should have been more clear. In the book, Mere Christianity, by C S Lewis, we read of being in a hallway of sorts. Each door is a different denomination of Christianity (including Roman Catholicism). This book is adressed to Christianity in general, as opposed to a particular 'door'. He is speaking to just Christianity or Christianity qua Christianity. The very fact that he could write such a book is proof that each 'door' is the same in fundamentals though not in secondary matters. These minor differences, says Lewis, are often considered of the utmost importance within a given 'door'. It is hard, he says, to get everyone to agree, sometimes, on what exactly counts as an essential Christian doctrine. But perhaps certain members of a given denomination are, I think, getting a bit carried away. So far as I know every Protestant and Catholic church holds to the first four ecumenical councils. These councils provide us with a good standard with respect to determining essential Christian doctrine for they are, by definition, what all Christians have always believed. The LDS, and others who claim to be Christian yet deny the cardinal doctrines of the councils, have major problems with these councils. It is very common for such groups to misunderstand the nature of the councils as I understand it. The councils were not to allow human doctrine into the beleifs of the church or to decree more or less arbitrary pet doctrines. Rather, there where people in the days of the early church who were teaching things contrary to what the Bible itself taught. Therefore, it became necessary to clearly explain what the Bible itself taught so that Christian laypeople would not be so easily lead astray. The church itself, as a complete body, could provide an interpretive framework to avoid misinterpretation. This is not a bad thing but a good thing. When I was first starting to read the Old Testament, I was very concerned about probably having to get circumcised. If I knew the big picture (i.e. by having an interpretive framework) then I would have known that present-day Christians do not need to get circumcised. Not only is an interpretive framework good, it is absolutely essential. Mormons have an interpretive framework too. For example, there is no way to come to the interpretation of the Corinthians passage on glories that you do, in less you first believe in the doctrine of the telestial, terrestrial, and celestial kingdoms. Your doctrine, just like mine, guides your understanding of the Bible. Of course, that doctrine is ideally based ultimately on Scripture. And what is "Gospel Principles" if not a good summary, though unispired (like the creeds), of LDS doctrine? It is for all intents and purposes a creed. If that book is not "the doctrines and commandments of men" then niether are the creeds of traditional Christendom. The creeds, then, unite all of traditional Christianity. There is no disagreement on these cardinal points. If there is a sect which is in significant disagreement with the early creeds, then and only then, from the perspective of traditional Christianity, is the sect outside of the universal Christian church. For example, if a Jehovah's Witness denies that Jesus is God (and he or she does deny that), then a Jehovah's Witness cannot be a Christian on this perspective. They are, in other words, heretics (this is a descriptive, not pejoritive term). But if one denomination believes in infant baptism and another believes in believer baptism, that is a relatively minor (though, of course, it is still important) disagreement. The two denominations, therefore, have no right to call each other heretics. They may consider each other to be wrong, with respect to their own point of view, but neither are heretics or outside the fold of traditional Christianity. I am not interested in scoring points. Rather, as an individual who has knowledge of Mormonism and also what I would consider to be more biblical Christianity, I can see very clearly that Mormon people are headed for an eternity, quite frankly, in Hell. As a loving Christian man, however, I do not want anyone to go to Hell. The thought of you being eternally damned is made all the worse, it seems, when I think of how decieved, in my opinion, you are. You, and other Mormons, "are not far from the kingdom of God" but you are also not in it, on my view. I am like a beggar telling other beggars where to find food. You have the Bible. You believe the Bible. This is a point of contact between us. It is merely my desire to restore the gospel and the plain and precious truths removed, on my view, from it by the LDS institution. It is not about me winning arguments. Instead, it is about you learning the truth. And I assure you, I do wish to learn all I can about Mormon history, doctrine, Scripture, and culture. And finally, I am not in any way offended. You strongly believe what you do (and me too) but, while we do not agree, I have presumed, very forwardly, to explain why I think you are wrong. It is only fair to extend the same oppurtunity to you. Do unto others, Jesus said, as you would have them do unto you. Again, I am not suggesting that we contend with one another or fight or argue. Rather, that we have a polite, neighorly, and even loving exchange of ideas. At the end of the day, it goes without saying, you may exercise your agency by continuing to disagree with my views, and remain a faithful Saint. That's what's so great about our country-religious freedom.

Greetings all! As I see things, there is an important ecclesiastical distiction. This goes at least back to Augustine. There is an visible church and an invisible church. The 'real' church is only the invisible church and it is a body of people. If I were marooned on a desert island for the rest of my life, for example, I would be incapable of attending a visible church service but I would still be a part of the church. Now, when one speaks of various denominations, I suggest, they are really speaking primarily about the visible church only. True, there are people believing slightly different doctrines within these visible churches that also belong to the invisible church. But apart from minor disagreements on secondary issues, the invisible church is "one faith". I have noticed that LDS missionaries often stress such secondary-I hesitate to use the word-divisions. That is, the many Protestant denominations are, apparently, supposed to encourage the prospective convert, in that direction. And yet, and here we are getting close to my question, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not the only Mormon denomination. I was once told, by an LDS missionary, that there have been sects following the wrong key-holder, down throughout history (starting with Brigham Young's coming to authority). And when you consider that LDS is much younger and much smaller than traditional Christianity it is easier to see why these Mormon denominations are easier to ignore. I can appreciate that the LDS perspective is that these groups are apostates because they do not really have the right prophet as their head. They are thus not 'real' Mormons. But that is not very different from what the people of many Protestant denominations think about other virtually similar Protestant denomination's attendees. It is very tempting for an outsider like me to view this as a proslytizing version of special pleading, or, what perhaps amounts to the same thing, as lying (or at least being dishonest). So my question is, how should I view the procedure, on the part of some missionaries, to stress Protestant denominations (and what's the big deal about different deminations anyhow?) and ignore Mormon ones? I have the option of giving in to my temptation or, perhaps there is some better way to view the situation-something that you know, as Mormon ladies and gentlemen, which I do not. Thank you. Shalom out.

Only Christians have the grace of God. The day of judgment is to separate the sheep, who have grace, from the goats, who don't. Our sins were on Jesus at the cross. If you speak of this as Him being answerable for them, that was already covered at the Crucifixion. So then, no, Jesus is not answerable for our sins again at the day of judgment.

Some Mormons do have more than one wife (just watch the news) but Mormons that are also LDS no longer practice plural marriage. They believe in the idea, at least in the after life, but they no longer practice it here. LDS (who are probably most, or maybe all) of the Mormons here at lds.net do not, I believe, consider polyganist Mormons to be real Mormons. They do not have the true keys of authority, according to LDS theology. Black people were forbidden from the preisthood until the 1980's. Non-Mormons often take this as racism. The color of their skin was cursed, according to Mormon Scripture, for sins they are said to have commited. The Mormons do believe that they can potentially become Gods when they die though sometimes they seem reluctant to admit this at first. I believe they see it as an advanced theological truth but an investigator (such as yourself) is, I think, often presumed to be ready for only "milk". The book "Gospel Principles" talks briefly about eternal progression to godhood. That is a Mormon Sunday School book available digitally on lds.org. That is a good book to learn directly from Mormons their basic beliefs. Other Mormon sources to look into on this account are the "King Follett Discourse" and the Lorenzo Snow Couplet. Actually, I can give you that right here. It is short enough (I hope I don't misquote it) "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." If one is a Mormon and does certain specified things in this life, then in the afterlife you will go to the celestial kingdom and eventually progress to godhood and rule over your own planet. But it is difficult (and impossible?) to know when one has done enough good to make it into celestial kingdom godhood. The LDS consider themselves to be Christians but all Protestant and Roman Catholic Churches often tend to regard them, it seems, as heretics. This is not a derogatory label but a descriptive one. In other words, LDS people deny the cardinal truths Christians have always believed. These cardinal doctrines where ironed out by intelligent church theologians during the first 4 ecumenical councils. One such important doctrine, in the eyes of the non-Mormon, is the doctrine, of the Trinity. These councils took place during the time which Mormons regard as "The Great Apostasy." They have the doctrine that from about the close of the New Testament times (say 100 AD) until the 1800s, the true church had fallen off the face of the planet. In any case, the idea of the Great Apostasy is that there where no apostles on the Earth to interpret the Bible correctly and authoritatively for the church. That is, until Joseph Smith became a modern day prophet and apostle, according to the Mormons. When he was a teenager he prayed about which church to join and God is said to have told him not to join any of them for they were all an abomination to Him. Then he received some gold plates which he is said to have translated using the urim and thumim. The result was the Book of Mormon. Mormons want investigators to pray about the Book of Mormon to find out if it is true. They'll even quote from the Bible where James wrote, "if any of you lack wisdom, pray to God." While I persnally believe in the Bible whole-heartedly, it is my own conviction, as a non-Mormon, that prayer is usually a very poor test for truth. I am an armchair epistemologist, too, by the way. God can certainly give us wisdom in answer to prayer. But truth can never contradict truth. I accept the Bible as truth (Mormons do too, "insofar as it is correctly translated"). I cannot reconcile the Bible as I understand it with other Mormon Scripture. Of course, the Mormons can and do. What would you decide if you compared the Bible with, say, the Book of Mormon. I cannot say before hand. But I would encourage you, if you continue to investigage LDS or some other Mormon sect to compare what you are hearing there to the Bible. Remember, truth cannot contradict truth. If the Bible is true, and it contradicts certain Mormon teaching (this is a big if) than those Mormon teachings cannot be true. Please also remember that it is a basic rule of interpreting anything, even the Bible, to pay close attention to context. One can make the Bible, or anything else, say anything they want it to, by interpreting verses out of context. It doesn't hurt, in my opinion, to check the older (hence more easily misunderstood) KJV translation of the Bible against a newer (hence somewhat more difficult to misundertand) Bible translation. Perhaps the TNIV, or Today's New International Version, would be helpful here. It is available for free, while you remain online, at biblegateway.com The KJV is also available there. lds.org even has a downloadable, free, KJV Bible (and their other Scriptures-the uniquely Mormon ones) for your iPOD!

Sorry for the ridiculously long time between posts. My own definition of salvation might go something like the following: 1. Humankind having both a sin nature, and hence personal acts of sin, are estranged from the one and only, triune, holy, unchanging, eternal God. 2. God is very loving and so does not want us to experience eternal Hell (i.e. the natural and ultimate consequence of our sin). But He is also very just and our sin deserves punishment. 3. The cost of our sin is too great for us to pay ourselves. In fact, we can do nothing at any time to merit reconciliation with the one and only God. That would be, of course, contrary to the whole notion of biblical grace. It is "a free gift" and "not of works lest any man should boast". Rather, by very definition, grace is unearned "else it be not of grace but of works". 4. The first Person of the Trinity sent the second Person of the Trinity to be our substitute. Only God Himself, or Jehovah, or Yaweh, or Elohim, or Jesus Christ (whatever name you wish to use) could pay such an extreme debt. Again, we are impotent in contributing to this in any way at the beginning of our life as a biblical Christian but also throughout our Christian lives. 5. This Jesus came and lived a sinless life as a human being, without giving up His deity. He then died on a cross in our stead. 5. The first Person of the Trinity poured out His just wrath on Christ at that time. It is not that Christ sinned. Rather, He was punished for our sin. 6. In similar fashion, the sinlessness of Christ (or His holiness or righteousness) is laid upon us when we believe in what He did for us on the cross and begin to follow Him. This following is a lifelong act as oppossed to merely a one-time thing. Of course, if we are truly following Jesus, we are not simultaneously sinning. 7. When we become sinless in God's eyes (though probably not in our actions, immediately, if ever in this life) the relationship with God is restored. All of our sins-past, present, and future-are erased from the memory of God, in a manner of speaking. We begin the process of total deliverance from sin, as well, at this time. 8. At whatever time we die, we go to Heaven (or the New Earth or whatever) to live with our Saviour for all eternity. This is the biblical view of salvation, as I read the Bible, at least. Now, I do not think that we are saying the same thing at all, though, of course, there are certain similarities. According to the Book of Mormon, as I understand it, I belong, quite frankly, to the Church of the Devil. I believe the doctrines and commandments of men, as opposed to those of God (though, of course, I do perhaps get some of it right). I have removed plain and precious truths from the gospel. This is not 'anti-Mormon propaganda'. Rather, if the true gospel has been restored by Joseph Smith, as you believe, from the corruption of the great falling away, in which I am ensnared, then I am wrong and you are right. In other words, there is no possible way in which you as a Mormon and I as an Evangelical, can honestly say that we agree on the issue of salvation. I see no point in suger-coating things so that the impression is created that everybody believes exactly the same way, that there are no important doctrinal conflicts between various sects, and we all ought to hold hands and sing songs together while hugging a few trees. We can certainly be civil with one another. I even count you a friend (if internet associates may be called 'friends'). But, it seems to me that we really ought to honestly recognize where both of us stand. Again, I do not mean to drag you into a verbal fight or anger you. And you (and the other Mormons at lds.net and that I've met in person) have been very curteous to me in spite of my heretical views. I thank you for it. But neither of us is really going to learn anything, I think, if we pass out flowers and sing Kum-Ba-Yah. But let us return, after brief digression, to my view of salvation (your view comes in your subsequent post?). As I say, it is based on the Bible. Nowhere do we find the exact formulation in the Bible of what I have written above. But that does not mean that it is a mere teaching of men. It is taught in the Bible by necessary implication. The above 8 points may be summarized under 3 headings which find support spread throughout the Bible as a whole. Those three points are a. Trinity, b. Incarnation, and c. sola gratia. Romans and Galatians nicely establish the doctrine of grace alone and/or faith alone. Other books brought in to supplement this like James (Faith without works is dead.) or Acts (If you believe and are baptised for the remission of sins, you shall be saved.) have other, and I would say more plausible, interpretations than those given to them by Mormons denying point c above. I'll leave that issue aside for now but we may return to it later if you so wish. I think that I am right in saying that you more or less agree with some sort of incarnation (b) but deny that Jesus is ''part'' of a Trinity. If God really is a Trinity (which you deny, I grant) then the God that saves is a Trinity. If that is the case, then the God we go to for salvation is a Trinitarian God. In other words, if we want to be saved, on my view, we basically must believe in the Trinity. So the doctrine of the Trinity is very important with respect to my understanding of the atonement. Why suppose there is a Trinity? I answer that because the Bible itself teaches as much, though not explicitly in any one verse. While it is all too common for a proffessing believer in the doctrine of the Trinity to misunderstand it, I do not think I have ever heard someone who disbelieves in the doctrine, give an accurate explanation of it. I do not say this to insult you or brag about how smart I like to think I am. No. The point is simply that the doctrine is complex and ought to be clearly explicated before one, I suppose, accepts or rejects it. I want us to get our definition straight at the outset, in other words. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is the teaching that there is only one God, and that one God exists as three co-equal Persons. Even amongst Trinitarians, there are two common mistakes. Sometimes a person shall say that God is like a man in a sense. Namely, a man can be a father, a son, and a husband. Three in one or trinity. That is not a trinity. That is a single man (among many others) who is a single person. This is the very thing the doctrine is trying to deny. Another mistaken view of the Trinity is that since Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, there are three Gods. This is the other thing the Trinity doctrine is denying. Three Gods is not "only one God". The Bible teaches from beginning to end, it seems, that there is only one God. Not only one God for us but other gods on other planets or more gods comming in the future. Only one God without qualification. Precisely one God throughout all of time. One verse is in Isaiah. Thus sayeth the Lord, before me there was no God formed and after me there shall be none. Furthermore, it teaches that the Father is God. This is beyond dispute. Jesus claimed to be God implicitly. For example, when He said, "before Abraham was born, I AM (or YHWH). The Jewish leaders got the "pun" and where going to stone Him for blasphemy. Besides, I think you can agree that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are each God. So then, there is one God only, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each God. They are certainly not the selfsame Person. Jesus prayed to the Father, for example, and spoke of sending another comforter. Take all of this paragraph together and you have the doctrine of the Trinity. Note that we have not appealed to Gnosticism or Greek philosophy or Pagan mythology. Only the Bible. As a Mormon, perhaps you shall find a different interpretation for the passages I take to mean that there is only one God. But that is surely a plausible interpretation of the verse, barring prophetic authority from a living prophet, don't you agree? I am really hoping that you will see that the doctrine of the Trinity is a biblical doctrine (though perhaps based on misinterpretation). That is the main point. The second main point is that you understand precisely what is, and what is not, meant by 'Trinity'. You need not believe that God is that way, but I hope you understand, now, if you did not before, how I understand God. And as I said, this is crucial (no pun intended) for my understanding, as an evangelical, of 'salvation'.

I believe that movie is the trilogy that came out some time ago depicting the early Mormons. I have only seen the second film in the series. As I recall, that was an emotional movie. It is normal to cry during emotional movies but that does not necessarily mean that the Holy Spirit was speaking to you. You know that the Holy Spirit is not speaking to you, if what you are hearing contradicts the Bible. In the Articles of the Faith, the Bible is affirmed to be the word of God only insofar as it has been correctly translated. Apparently, 'correctly translated' includes the meaning 'correctly transcribed.' Now, through textual criticism we may (actually, the scholars have done it for us) reconstruct more or less what the original Bible said. Those parts that are open to debate do not affect important doctrines at all. Now, if I were a Mormon and I saw something in the KJV that contradicted what I believe as a Mormon (the uniquely Mormon beliefs, I mean) then I would suppose that that was something which was incorrectly translated or incorrectly transcribed. I would say that it was a plain and precious truth removed from Scripture. Because of textual criticism, however, it seems to me, I would be unjustified in such a claim. In other words, I myself would say that it is possible to know what the original Bible said and to compare it with LDS theology. Though there is a strong sense of the compatability of the Bible and the other standard works within LDS circles (and, of course, there is copius quotation of the Bible in them), it is very difficult for me, as an evangelical, to see how this claim is tenable. At least if the Bible is taken as fully reliable (and a text critical Bible is fully reliable) and all of the verses are taken in context. If I am correct, in my views, and it could be that I am mistaken, then we may say that the Holy Spirit was not telling you to rejoin the Mormon Church. You may wish to read the book of Romans in the Bible. The first 12 chapters, or so, spell out the gospel as it was believed in the first century Church. As I interpret it, the gospel is by grace alone (though the meaning of this phrase throughout Protestant history seems to be misunderstood by Mormons). In any case, according to my understanding, the gospel as explained in Romans is very different from the gospel that the LDS claim was the original one. We want to make sure we get the gospel right because Paul pronounced a curse on the proclaimers and/or followers of a false gospel. By the way, when James says "faith without works is dead" he was not contradicting Romans. Faith alone saves us, according to my view, but not faith that is alone. We believe, I would say, and are saved so it is not 'after all we can do.' God makes us good, as I understand James, while we have saving faith. If we don't have the works, we don't have the faith. Thus our faith is dead. But this is very different from saying that our works in any way contribute to our salvation. At any rate, this may be food for your thought. If you do not have a Bible of your own, and you wish to read Romans, you may find a King James version at "lds.org". The KJV is not a text critical Bible but it is close enough to one (as I said before, textual variants do not significantly effect doctrine). If you have any questions for me personally (perhaps to clarify something I have said here) then I suggest you send me a private message. It is not that I desire to have a clandestine conversation with you, or anything like that. Rather, I simply may not check back here again if I do not hear from you. I try to post to many different threads and it is hard to keep track of them. Thank you for taking the time to read this. I wish no ill will to any individual Mormon, or to Mormons as a collective group. I am merely showing you, here, the Scripture as I understand it. I think it is a sound interpretation too. Goodbye for now.

RLDS is, I think, now called 'The Community of Christ'. Just as Protestantism has many denominations, so too for the Mormon faith. RLDS is the largest denomination after LDS. Whereas the LDS have a personal testimony that Thomas S. Monson is the direct successor of Joseph Smith (as modern prophet of the Church), RLDS have a personal testimony that another man is the direct successor. Do not quote me, but I believe the original divergence was over Brigham Young (LDS believing God told them he was the second modern prophet and RLDS believing God told them another man). Both groups accept the same standard works (Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants). The major difference between LDS and RLDS, to the best of my understanding, is disagreement over who holds the keys of authority for the Church. I was told by an LDS missionary that the LDS faith considers RLDS to be apostates. I was told by an RLDS man that they used to say the same thing about LDS but now hold them as brothers. Neither of those statements where official Church declarations so there may be in house debate on this point.

Thanks for you responses. In particular, I'd like to thank Hemidakota for giving specific resources I can look at. It shall take a while to finish going through them. When the time comes, if there is anything for myself, or any of you, to add, we may continue this interesting conversation. Bye now.

Greetings all! I have a question for you Mormon ladies and gentlemen. It is about the source of the Book of Abraham. I have heard that it was translated, by Joseph Smith, from the Joseph Smith papyrus. But then, I understand, when the very same papyrus was translated by Egyptologists, years later, the papyri had nothing to do with Abraham and was totally different, according to the Egyptologists than what Joseph Smith said it was. So then, my question is, how would you, as a Mormon believer, respond to such a charge, if posed to you? Thank you in advance for your friendly and thoughtful answer. Hope to hear from you soon! Goodbye for now.