The LDS view of ex-Mormons who become Christian

[BenRaines]

How about this definition: I was baptized in to the LDS church. I have chosen to follow another Christian denomination and wish to have my name removed from the records of the LDS church. How will my family react to that action?

Personally I say, go to the church where you can find happiness. Attending church was never designed to make people miserable. As for your family I don't know them so I don't know how they will react.

I have an adult daughter who does not attend church any longer. I love her, I pray for her, I love her children, my grandchildren. I even hang out with her non LDS husband.

That is how we deal with it.

I believe what has riled most up is your hidden suggestion that LDS are not Christian. We believe in Christ, we follow Christ and believe we are Christian. Your statement that we are not does not make us so nor does ours make us Christian either. Christians are known by the Christlike actions. I would say that most of the LDS I know are Christian and live Christlike lives.

Ben Raines

[thews]

How about this definition: I was baptized in to the LDS church. I have chosen to follow another Christian denomination and wish to have my name removed from the records of the LDS church. How will my family react to that action?

Personally I say, go to the church where you can find happiness. Attending church was never designed to make people miserable. As for your family I don't know them so I don't know how they will react.

I have an adult daughter who does not attend church any longer. I love her, I pray for her, I love her children, my grandchildren. I even hang out with her non LDS husband.

That is how we deal with it.

I believe what has riled most up is your hidden suggestion that LDS are not Christian. We believe in Christ, we follow Christ and believe we are Christian. Your statement that we are not does not make us so nor does ours make us Christian either. Christians are known by the Christlike actions. I would say that most of the LDS I know are Christian and live Christlike lives.

Ben Raines

Thanks for your input. I agree that we disagree, but I'm not sure that you understand why I have an issuse. Consider this:

Person looking for a church: What religion are you?

Mormon: Christian. Would you like to come over for bible study?

Person looking for a church: Sure.

In this scenario, there is no mention of Joseph Smith or Mormon doctrine. It isn't about teritory and who gets to be called by what name, but a "Mormon" by definition is someone that places belief in Joseph Smith as a prophet of God and accepts the Mormon doctrine. To imply "Christian" accepts Joseph Smith as a prophet of God is what you believe, but it's not what I believe, and I am a Christian.

I do appreciate the input regarding the questions I've asked and appreciate you letting me ask them.

[thews]

And this is where you contradict yourself again, in the same thread. Here's the question: if you're a non-LDS Christian, what book would you like the LDS to remove you from?

The books the LDS keeps to keep track of its members. If I fail to have my name removed, I'll be lised as "LDS" by the LDS church. This is not a contradiction.

We don't baptize non-LDS people until they're dead, so you wouldn't be 'on the books'. And if your family can't figure out by now from your words and actions that you are not LDS, then they must be as dense as you seem to be. Your words tell us who you are, and you sir, are not who you pretend to be.

You keep saying the same thing and judging me. I already stated why I didn't submit the letter and I know my intent. You again are attempting to somehow find a way to discredit me by your judgment, and you are wrong for doing so IMO. I have not said anything to make anyone believe I am some sort of "seeker" looking for truth in Mormon doctrine, as I have made up my mind. I have some valid questions I wanted LDS people to answer, and some very kind people did, which helped me. My beliefs obviously threaten you, which is why you keep saying the same thing over and over and judging me.

Tell you what... you can have the last word OK? Say the same thing again and I just won't respond.

[BenRaines]

So to follow your definition do you believe that ALL Christians believe the same? I would beg to differ with you that All Christians do not teach the same doctrine yet by your definition are the same. Doctrine, in your example, can not be a definition of Christian. Yet in the case of LDS you wish to make it so.

Would not a good definition of Christian be "One who believes in Christ and attempts to live a Christlike life".

I don't believe I would call a Hebrew or a Muslim Christian but one who attempts to follow Christ's teachings I would. By my definition.

Ben Raines

[john doe]

Thanks for your input. I agree that we disagree, but I'm not sure that you understand why I have an issuse. Consider this:

Person looking for a church: What religion are you?

Mormon: Christian. Would you like to come over for bible study?

Person looking for a church: Sure.

In this scenario, there is no mention of Joseph Smith or Mormon doctrine. It isn't about teritory and who gets to be called by what name, but a "Mormon" by definition is someone that places belief in Joseph Smith as a prophet of God and accepts the Mormon doctrine. To imply "Christian" accepts Joseph Smith as a prophet of God is what you believe, but it's not what I believe, and I am a Christian.

I do appreciate the input regarding the questions I've asked and appreciate you letting me ask them.

Consider this:

Person looking for a church: What religion are you?

Catholic: Christian. Would you like to come over for Bible study?

Person looking for a church: Sure

In this scenario there is no mention of the Pope or Catholic Doctrine. It isn't about territory or who gets called by what name, but a Catholic by definition is someone who accepts the Pope as the head of their church and accepts Catholic doctrine. To imply "Christian" accepts the Pope as speaking for Christ to a Catholic, but Evangelicals reject that out of hand. Why they generally accept Catholics as Christians but not LDS makes no sense to normal thinking people.

[thews]

Consider this:

Person looking for a church: What religion are you?

Catholic: Christian. Would you like to come over for Bible study?

Person looking for a church: Sure

In this scenario there is no mention of the Pope or Catholic Doctrine. It isn't about territory or who gets called by what name, but a Catholic by definition is someone who accepts the Pope as the head of their church and accepts Catholic doctrine. To imply "Christian" accepts the Pope as speaking for Christ to a Catholic, but Evangelicals reject that out of hand. Why they generally accept Catholics as Christians but not LDS makes no sense to normal thinking people.

Catholic doctrine uses the bible. The "doctrine" may include differences in priests, rosary beads etc., but the doctrine does not include a completely different set of doctrine but only uses the bible. Again, if I can ask this, what is a "Mormon"? By definition, it's someone who accepts the doctrine of Joseph Smith. This is not universally accepted by "Christians," but exclusive to Mormons only. A Jew is someone who rejects the New Testament, which warrants a different name (definition) than someone who accepts both the old and new Testament, because the definition of the doctrine each uses is different. A "Jew-Christian" would imply that Jews accept the New Testament which they don't. The differences in monotheism vs. henothesim are vast, and IMO is the basis for who Jesus Christ was, which is God in man, or one God in Christian faiths.

[thews]

So to follow your definition do you believe that ALL Christians believe the same? I would beg to differ with you that All Christians do not teach the same doctrine yet by your definition are the same. Doctrine, in your example, can not be a definition of Christian. Yet in the case of LDS you wish to make it so.

My point, if I can make it, is if "Christian" includes Mormon doctrine, then ALL Christians accept the doctrine of Joseph Smith, or belief Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. Joseph Smith said that the reason God gave him this new doctrine was because all other "Christian" churches were wrong (correct me if I'm wrong please). This is a two way street for you and a one way street for me, as I don't believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and I am a Christian.

Would not a good definition of Christian be "One who believes in Christ and attempts to live a Christlike life".

Not really. This makes sense, but the definition of the word is what I'm talking about. Jesus Christ is literal son of God in the Mormon faith (correct me if I'm wrong), and God in man in the Christian faith. This very definition of who Jesus Christ was defines mono vs. henotheistm. I'm not saying Mormons don't believe in Jesus Christ, but as part of a Godhead vs. the one and only God concept is vastly different.

I don't believe I would call a Hebrew or a Muslim Christian but one who attempts to follow Christ's teachings I would. By my definition.

Ben Raines

What then is a "Mormon"?

[BenRaines]

As I asked earlier, what of other Christians who do not follow your Christian doctrine, are they Christian?

For the moment lets focus on your definition of Christian, since it excludes those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Are you saying that you agree and accept all other Christian Doctrine? Catholics for example? Protestants, Evangelicals, Baptists, Pentecostals? Church of Christ, Assembly of God? You accept all their Christian doctrine?

I am trying to understand why you target LDS beliefs as not being Christian but others you accept, Lutherans, Weslyans, etc.

No offense intended I am trying to understand.

Ben Raines

[thews]

As I asked earlier, what of other Christians who do not follow your Christian doctrine, are they Christian?

If you mean the bible as "my" doctrine, then I would answer yes. A church that simply uses the bible (not the JST) as the basis for its doctrine would be a "Christian" church IMO.

For the moment lets focus on your definition of Christian, since it excludes those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Are you saying that you agree and accept all other Christian Doctrine? Catholics for example? Protestants, Evangelicals, Baptists, Pentecostals? Church of Christ, Assembly of God? You accept all their Christian doctrine?

Well if the doctrine they base their faith on is the bible (again not the JST), then yes. Fo rthe record I am a non-denominational Christian.

I am trying to understand why you target LDS beliefs as not being Christian but others you accept, Lutherans, Weslyans, etc.

It's not a target, but attempting to re-define what being a "Mormon" is IMO. Again, this about doctrine. "Mormons" are the only (different variants like RLDS excepted) that use the Mormon doctrine. No other "Christian" church uses the doctrine of Joseph Smith, which is why they're defined differently by the word. The one thing generic "Christian" churches have in common is the doctrine they use. I'm not telling you it's wrong, what I am saying is the fundamental difference in the definition of the words is in the definition of "Mormon," which means to place faith in Joseph Smith as a prophet of God and accept the Mormon doctrine. It doesn't mean Mormons don't also use the Christian bible, what it does mean is that they do use the Book of Mormon.

No offense intended I am trying to understand.

Ben Raines

None taken... I like discussing this rationally and i thank you for your input... but I don't want to break the forum rules, so tell me if I'm out of line please. :)

[BenRaines]

I don't find it out of line but I do find it confusing. I know of no Mormon Doctrine, other than a book written by a former member of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles of the LDS church.

Please share with me some of the Mormon Doctrines that you oppose. Please be prepared for me to provide, from online research more than any, some Non Denominational doctrines that I might find conflicting with my beliefs.

I too enjoy discussing rationally.

To get started, as a Christian, how do you handle or accept the varying doctrines found in many Christian faiths, all based on bible teachings?

[thews]

I don't find it out of line but I do find it confusing. I know of no Mormon Doctrine, other than a book written by a former member of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles of the LDS church.

Please share with me some of the Mormon Doctrines that you oppose. Please be prepared for me to provide, from online research more than any, some Non Denominational doctrines that I might find conflicting with my beliefs.

I too enjoy discussing rationally.

To get started, as a Christian, how do you handle or accept the varying doctrines found in many Christian faiths, all based on bible teachings?

Ok, I'll answer your question first. When you say "varrying doctrines," I use the KJV version of the bible. The bible is intended to reach all levels of intelligence, and to do that with one book, it has to encompass many things. If you're reffering to different translations, I don't put much stock in that. The way I see it, it's God's word, and what God wanted to convey in the bible he would. The fact that there's different versions of the translations, I see these as minor and up to the person to pick which one suits them.

Did that answer the question?

[BenRaines]

How about the doctrine of baptism, immersion or sprinkling, don't need baptism, it is a work and many Christians believe that no works are needed. Is it only baptism of spirit that is needed or water and spirit?

Just an example.

I could care less about the various translations of the bible. I took use the King James Version of the Holy Bible.

Ben Raines

[thews]

How about the doctrine of baptism, immersion or sprinkling, don't need baptism, it is a work and many Christians believe that no works are needed. Is it only baptism of spirit that is needed or water and spirit?

Just an example.

I could care less about the various translations of the bible. I took use the King James Version of the Holy Bible.

Ben Raines

What I believe is baptism is basically something one does to state to the world that they have accepted Christ as their savior. I also don't think if one doesn't get baptized, they're damned. It's a personal thing, so how it's done is of little relevance.

[Guest TheLutheran]

Given you are still a Christian, you would not merit eternal hell. Given you have rejected what we believe to be the fulness of the gospel, you also will not receive the highest level of heaven.

So, depending on your faithfulness and righteousness, you would probably receive the Terrestrial or Telestial kingdom (see D&C 76 for a description of those going to each kingdom). Of course, this could also change if you were to change your lifestyle once again, either to fully embrace the restored gospel, or to totally reject Christ.

. . . . but I'm curious.

Thews~~

As a non-LDS Christian, do you believe in three levels of heaven?

[thews]

. . . . but I'm curious.

Thews~~

As a non-LDS Christian, do you believe in three levels of heaven?

No I don't... but I don't believe in hell either, so I'm sorta different.

[BenRaines]

Sorta different would be an understatement based on bible teachings. Is it more of a take what you like and leave the rest? Baptism, if you want to show, I think that would be prideful. No hell, why? Cause I don't like it.

Sorry a little sarcasm slipped in.

Ben Raines

[thews]

Sorta different would be an understatement based on bible teachings. Is it more of a take what you like and leave the rest? Baptism, if you want to show, I think that would be prideful. No hell, why? Cause I don't like it.

Sorry a little sarcasm slipped in.

Ben Raines

No propbem... I realize what I believe is different. I think the concept of hell is something we need to know what evil is. If the knowledge of good and evil is the objective, we can't "know" God exists or we'd all do what we were told. I don't believe evil exists on the other side, and it really doesn't make sense to me why God wouldn't just get rid of Satan right now, rather than let him burn in his pit. I believe Jesus Christ was God, and the basis for that is the bible. That many people compiling that many stories in one book is amazing. Think about how hard that would be today with computers and all of them in the same building. The words have stood the test of time and tell us basically how to live life... Jesus Christ never played the God card and asked to be worshiped because he was God, but rather taught us how to love.

I think it's all a big tie. There is no right or wrong religion (as long as it's based on what you believe is the absolute truth), and the purpose of life is to find the meaning of truth. We will all learn different lessons, and any evil we do we will carry with us as we journey onward in whatever the afterlife holds for us all. An atheist won't know God in the earth domain, but he/she will in the afterlife... that would suck IMO ...waking up after death and having to acknowledge you were wrong, but what is a just punishment? Buring forever? I just trust my gut, and what I believe is what I believe and that's the truth... my decision and I'm good with it. I know it's not generic "Christian," but I just don't think that choosing correctly and being obident is the objective of teaching the soul emotion.

Can I ask you something about Mormonism... why do you suppose Jesus Christ would come, leave his word, and then add more 1800+ years later? What about the people that lived from 1AD to 1830? Why would he deny them his true word?

Edited September 20, 2009 by thews

[BenRaines]

Why did he deny those before 1AD? According to written scripture he only spoke to his chosen people, the Children of Israel. What of the Gentiles? There is no writing of God, Jehovah, Jesus Christ, speaking to the Gentile except through the Children of Israel. Did they not deserve the Word of God? Why did he only communicate with them?

Book of Mormon shows that God did communicate with his children in the Americas. That he did love them as he did the Children of Israel and as he did to all after the coming of Christ. Would it not be a fair question to ask why would your God or Christ not visit and teach and have scriptures for his children in the Americas? Why would he wait 1492 years before sending Columbus and later Christianity to his children in the Americas?

Ben Raines

[thews]

Why did he deny those before 1AD? According to written scripture he only spoke to his chosen people, the Children of Israel. What of the Gentiles? There is no writing of God, Jehovah, Jesus Christ, speaking to the Gentile except through the Children of Israel. Did they not deserve the Word of God? Why did he only communicate with them?

Book of Mormon shows that God did communicate with his children in the Americas. That he did love them as he did the Children of Israel and as he did to all after the coming of Christ. Would it not be a fair question to ask why would your God or Christ not visit and teach and have scriptures for his children in the Americas? Why would he wait 1492 years before sending Columbus and later Christianity to his children in the Americas?

Ben Raines

I'm not understanding you. I'm talking about Jesus Christ coming to earth, leaving doctrine, waiting 1830 years and then giving more doctrine... it never made sense to me why his people from 1 to 1830 were denied. Where Christianity spread and when is moot when it comes to intentionally waiting 1830 years to "restore" the doctrine.

[BenRaines]

So scriptures in Bible that refer to a famine, not of food but of the word, what do you believe that refers to? To me a time where the voice of the Lord was not active among the children of the Lord. Needed to be a restoration after this famine.

Any thoughts?

Ben Raines

[lattelady]

Thews, believing in "absolute truth" and "just trusting [your] gut" are opposing belief systems. You either believe in absolute truth, like the truth found in God's Word, or you live life by following your heart (or gut), whichever one leads you best. Do you trust in God, that His Word is truth, or do you trust your gut? Absolute truth is pretty absolute--it's total truth. It seems that you take parts of the Bible that you feel comfortable with, and leave behind the parts that you can't really resolve in your own mind--and that's where you just trust your gut. But God's Word is either to be trusted, or it's not.

[thews]

Thews, believing in "absolute truth" and "just trusting [your] gut" are opposing belief systems. You either believe in absolute truth, like the truth found in God's Word, or you live life by following your heart (or gut), whichever one leads you best. Do you trust in God, that His Word is truth, or do you trust your gut? Absolute truth is pretty absolute--it's total truth. It seems that you take parts of the Bible that you feel comfortable with, and leave behind the parts that you can't really resolve in your own mind--and that's where you just trust your gut. But God's Word is either to be trusted, or it's not.

It's not that cut and dry to me. Having had a near death experience (I didn't see anything except myself dead), I know what it's like to stand and wait to be judged. The only thing that mattered was the absolute truth. I was completely alone, and as I started to rationalize who I was and why, nothing but absolute truth mattered, as there was nowhere to run and nowhere to hide.

The concept of religion varies depending on what we were brought up with. If you were born Jewish, you'd probably be Jewish now. If you were raised in China, you probably wouldn't be Christian. I guess my opinion is based on what I believe is the purpose of this life, and that would be to teach the soul emotion and what it's like to live without God. We really don't have to book of rules, which is why I don't believe in hell. Once we do have those rules, we'll be held accountable.

Religions that judge are ones I disagree with, which is why I consider myself a non-denominational Christian. I sincerely believe Jesus Christ was God, but I don't discount that God could have had other influences in other parts of the world. I don't necessarily believe it, but I don't discount it.

In the end what I believe is the truth... I do believe this. I am not ruled by fear of what happens if I choose incorrectly. If it was what I believed, that's what mattered. If I'm wrong, then it was due to the fact I didn't know the rules. In the end I don't fear death. I don't look forward to it, but I do not fear it. The truth is what matters... whatever it is, it has to be based on truth. JMHO.

[thews]

So scriptures in Bible that refer to a famine, not of food but of the word, what do you believe that refers to? To me a time where the voice of the Lord was not active among the children of the Lord. Needed to be a restoration after this famine.

Any thoughts?

Ben Raines

To be honest with you, evil has a purpose in the earth domain. If I'm right, and there is no hell or evil in the afterlife, then the concept of hell had a purpose. In the scale of intelligence, a person in the upper 10% can understand many things. In the lowest 10%, maybe all they can really understand is do bad things and go to hell? I'm not mocking the bible or its content, as I believe it has a purpose, but we can't know what it is until we're dead.

The whole concept of hell is based on fear. Choose correctly and you get rewarded in heaven. Choose incorrectly and it's damnation. Let me ask you something... do you as an LDS member, think that a person who was born and raised a Buddhist, and dies a Buddhist, and did have the chance to listen to Christian doctrine (we'll leave it at that) but rejected it, deserve hell?

[john doe]

Let me ask you something... do you as an LDS member, think that a person who was born and raised a Buddhist, and dies a Buddhist, and did have the chance to listen to Christian doctrine (we'll leave it at that) but rejected it, deserve hell?

No, and they won't go there either. As has been indicated in posts #9 and #79 They will go to kingdoms of glory. Just not to the highest kingdom of glory.

[TheJoker]

This is very interesting!! You are a "Christian" but imply the LDS Church is not.

There is evidence for both sides. Oh and when you say "Christian" like this. Some people find that offensive.

And, you believe in Christ, not the B of M, another testament of Christ.

I am not going to comment on how ridiculous that argument is.

I wonder if you want to deny the truthfulness of and restoration of the gospel, the authority of the priesthood and the latter-day prophets?

Because some of us do not believe that the LDS church is true. The things you have just mentioned are not in the bible. Which is the main book on Christian belief.

If you really don't think any of this is true, why does it matter what the church states your eternal life would be? It’s not true, correct??

Because he is curious. And he never said it was not true. He said he is no longer a member. Stop coming to stupid assumptions.

What's really the bottom line here? The gospel, the organization of the church, the idea that an uneducated boy of 15 could translate something like the Book of Mormon?

There is very reiable evidence that Joseph Smith's father and brother were teachers in the off season. The Smith's were not a stupid family.

Or, do you just feel more comfortable in, or is it easier to be a part of an evangelical church that has no boundaries or is guilt-free?

Please step off your high horse about other religions. If you want to be respected for your beliefs. Respect other people's beliefs.

And, by denying the church you can enter into another religion in full membership?

There is no hope for some people....