Evangelicals and Mormons

[Vort]

Matre Dei. Ora Pro Nobis!

Don't you mean "Mater Dei"?

[Shelly200]

As a former Southern Baptist, I know all about the "once saved, always saved" doctrine. Now, Southern Baptists make up the largest Protestant denomination in America, this is true. But not all Protestants, and no Catholics, believe in the always saved doctrine.

The problem is, as commenters have been saying, the difference in justifcation and sanctification. Most evangelicals believe the words to be interchangeable/synonyms. However, those who do not hold to the always saved doctrine understand that we are saved through justification, but that sanctification is a life-long thing. (The Catholic Church does an excellent job of teaching about sanctifying grace, and how our sins turn us from God.)

Happiness and unhappiness is subjective. There are happy and unhappy people in every religion, race, gender, economic class, etc. A lot of Evangelicals take happiness from their belief in being saved "once and for all" and being able to never have their names "erased from the Lamb's Book of Life." But often, the real happiness isn't through the thought that they can sin as much as they want and it's okay (which, ironically, is actually how they veiw Catholics-- "You (Catholics) can do whatever you want and then just go to Confession!" Anyone who says this has no idea what Confession is really about, and has probably never been to it before.). I think the real happiness (in all religions) comes from loving God and our neighbor -- the two greatest commandments.

One thing both the Catholic and LDS churches have in common is the idea of good works being a part of our faith -- faith without works is dead, and all that. Incidentally, it is through doing good works that many Evangelicals gain a sense of happiness.

Who doesn't delight in doing the things of the Lord? And if you believe the Lord and/or His church forbids the drinking of coffee, or alcohol, or smoking, or whatever else, then it would be delightsome to obey His commands. The same (should) go for any religion -- keeping kosher, not using contraception, not drinking alcohol (ahem, *most* Evangelicals believe it is wrong to drink alcohol [but do it anyway], so I'm confused as to what kind of church you FIL attends), dressing modestly, not eating cows, abstaining from all food for certain days, etc. It is when we begin looking at God's commands as chores/annoying things we *have* to do, instead of things we *want* to do to please our Creator that people start feeling unhappy. Most people who fall away from a rule-laden church (many ex-Catholics make the same claim - "it is impossible to follow all these rules") are just unable to untie themselves from their own religious concepts, or their own sins, or their own desires -- and then mock those who have self-discipline.

Anyway-- one thing I like to do is ask the "once saved, always saved" folks about the "horrible cases." Most Evangelicals have an extremely easy time believing they, their family, and their church are all saved no matter what sin they commit... but have a hard time using this concept across the board for every Christian sinner and every sin (even though, to them, sin is sin and there are no worse sins than others).

[RipplecutBuddha]

for my part, I like to recognize how much we have in common with the rest of Christianity rather than the differences. For heaven's sake, look at the differences we have within our own LDS theology. Building common ground is far more productive, and far more prone to yielding happiness and peace than identifying differences.

I'm not saying the differences aren't real and important, because they are. However it's all about perspective. All of Christianity recognizes the divine nature of Jesus, his mission, his love for us all, and most importantly the reality of his atonement.

[dberrie2000]

What they usually mean by this "other Jesus" comment is that the LDS doctrine of Jesus is very different from that of Protestants and Catholics.

But really not that different from the doctrine of Jesus according to Paul:

1 Cor8:6--"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."

And not that different from the Jesus of the author of Hebrews:

Hebrews1:2-5--"Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

4Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

5For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

And probably not that much different in doctrine from the Jesus of Peter:

1 Peter1:3--"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,"

[norah63]

As Paul stated, "For I determinded not to know anything amongyou, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified."(1cor2;2) This has always been a starting point for entering in to a conversation with another believer. Jesus must be our bridge of faith.

I know the verse given is usually, "if they come preaching another Jesus" (2cor11;4).

And this seems to somehow end the exchange of faith. Like that is the ultimate end of conversation.

I know it is just fear that breaks the connection between people, and we have been admonished to avoid fear in our lives.

Yes we are created for good works. Walking in agreement with our Lord Jesus gives us power to do the works he has given us to do. That brings true joy to all believers.

Thank you for a forum that gives freedom to post our Love of Christ .

[norah63]

How do Mormons and Evangelicals differ on end time things? Do either believe in anti-christ,

or tribulation, ect..

On another thread the mark of the beast was mentioned and didn't seem to be a concern for any.

[RadioactiveWolfboy]

I am an active LDS, live the gospel as best I can, pay a full tithe, obey the word of wisdom, go to the temple, and I am very happy. I don't feel burdoned by the "rules". I feel that if I live the gospel as best as I can, asking myself everyday.."what can I do better?" that I will okay in the end. My biggest weakness right now is reading the Book of Mormon. I need to read it more. But am I worried that if Christ came tomorrow that I am going to be in trouble. Nah. ....I'm sure there are those who worry too much because of the strict nature in the Church. Simply put they are not ready to live to the higher standard. If someone said something offensive to me I would let them know it, but not avoid church. My daughter was sexually molested by a members son. I could let it eat at me, but I choose to forgive and move on. The family meanwhile blames my daughter and me for his incarceration. Their problem, not mine. It is unfortunate that my daughter and son no longer go because the parents of the offender give evil looks in church, but I suspect they will come around. Inactives just need to remember the church is perfect, people are not.

[prisonchaplain]

How do Mormons and Evangelicals differ on end time things? Do either believe in anti-christ,

or tribulation, ect..

On another thread the mark of the beast was mentioned and didn't seem to be a concern for any.

Even amongst Evangelicals there is a great deal of discussion about how the end times will play out. The most common combination of beliefs was popularized by the Left Behind Series (LaHaye and Jenkins). We believe that prior to a seven-year time of troubles Christians will be "raptured" or taken up to be with Jesus. What will follow is seven years of many disasters, both natural and man-made, that are meant to give humanity a final chance to recognize the Creator of the Universe, and repent. Most will not, and at the end of the seven years, will defiantly face Jesus and his forces at a great battle, called Armageddon. When the battle ends, those faithful to God will be rewarded with an eternity with God, and the rest will be condemned to an eternal hell.

I do not know most of the details to the LDS understanding, but they certainly disagree with the final part, believing that most souls will be assigned to one of three heavenly kingdoms, and that only the Sons of Perdition, and those willfully and thoroughly opposed to God will be case into the outer darkness.

[Juan_P]

Even amongst Evangelicals there is a great deal of discussion about how the end times will play out. The most common combination of beliefs was popularized by the Left Behind Series (LaHaye and Jenkins). We believe that prior to a seven-year time of troubles Christians will be "raptured" or taken up to be with Jesus. What will follow is seven years of many disasters, both natural and man-made, that are meant to give humanity a final chance to recognize the Creator of the Universe, and repent. Most will not, and at the end of the seven years, will defiantly face Jesus and his forces at a great battle, called Armageddon. When the battle ends, those faithful to God will be rewarded with an eternity with God, and the rest will be condemned to an eternal hell.

I do not know most of the details to the LDS understanding, but they certainly disagree with the final part, believing that most souls will be assigned to one of three heavenly kingdoms, and that only the Sons of Perdition, and those willfully and thoroughly opposed to God will be case into the outer darkness.

I'm a bit rusty on this, and should look it up, but from memory (so take that as it comes) we are mostly similar but use different terminology. For example we also believe that prior to the 'seven-year time' -which we call the seventh 'seal' being opened, we will be taken up to meet Jesus -raptured but don't use the term- as he comes to the world in his 'second coming' which is with power and destruction on earth's wicked. The battle of Armageddon starts then too.

But when that ends what starts for us is the 1000 years of peaceful millenial rule where Jesus will rule on earth with his word -ie in religious sense- coming from Jerusalem, where Jesus will live but the secular law eminating or being set at the New Jesusalem ie in Jackson county Missouri. Basically this means the UN and The Hague courts moving to Missouri and becoming a truely international congress for law makers.

In that millenium, the Lion rests with the Lamb etc and no wickednes will be on earth since all wicked are sent down to hell including those people who eventually end up in the 3rd kingdom. At the end of the 1000 years of Jesus reign, Satan will be released from hell again for a short time -not said how long- along with those sent there at the start who aren't as Satanic, and then is the final confrontation between Jesus and his people and Satan and his people ie good vs evil. Jesus previals and then comes that final judgement day where people are split into one of 3 kingdoms of glory which we claim Corinthians 15 refers to. However Satan and the 3rd of heavens host who followed him and those faithful believing mormons who had optained a witness of Jesus place as redeemer and god of the world but then denied and fought against Jesus (ie sons of perdition), only they in mormon theology will spend eternity in hell. All adulterers, murderers etc will eventually bend the knee and recognize that Jesus is Lord and Savior and most will end up in the 3rd kingdom after that time in hell. The second kingdom is for good faithful people who didn't accept the full gospel for whatever reason or mormons who fell away for convenience but don't fight against Jesus, they will inherit the 2nd kingdom -which we say Jesus will visit continually. Then only faithfully saints will go to the highest or celestial kingdom etc

This mormon idea of 3 kingdoms is an expansion, by revelation we claim so expanded by God, of mainly what Paul taught the Corinthians. But there is no real acceptance of expanding biblical theology by revelation by any christian church so obviously they reject the concepts of 3 kingdoms of glory -even though Revelations 22 :10-11 could also be considered to point to 3 kingdoms or levels of glory plus the Satanic folk.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Juan_P

[annewandering]

Raptured can be taken to mean a bit different things to different people. We do not believe that good people will not go through the bad times. Also, as far as I know we are going to all be here for the battle of Armageddon. Well except for the ones that have died. If all the good people were gone then where are the prophets who are dead in jerusalem going to come from?

[Juan_P]

How do Mormons and Evangelicals differ on end time things? Do either believe in anti-christ,

or tribulation, ect..

On another thread the mark of the beast was mentioned and didn't seem to be a concern for any.

Yes, its generally the same regarding anti-christ (although we would generally teach that there have been and will be many anti-christs during all time but the last one is the worst of them all) tribulation too but we don't use the term much nor in the way evangelicals do, and the mark of the beast was spoken off a lot in the past but many people speculated a lot on what the mark 666 was about, some reasoning that its the Pope's hat so the pope is the anti-christ something which doesn't help mormon-catholic relations; others claimed that its credit cards because before they were called bank card with 3 'b' signifying that 666, ie all speculation so mostly these days the authorities in the church try telling members to try to avoid that speculation becuase, as before, it doesn't help with out relationships with other churches, which our present leaders want to improve.

But Revelations generally is studied closely by mormons and believed in but with some peculiar interpretations which evangelicals don't believe in.

[Juan_P]

for my part, I like to recognize how much we have in common with the rest of Christianity rather than the differences. For heaven's sake, look at the differences we have within our own LDS theology. Building common ground is far more productive, and far more prone to yielding happiness and peace than identifying differences.

I'm not saying the differences aren't real and important, because they are. However it's all about perspective. All of Christianity recognizes the divine nature of Jesus, his mission, his love for us all, and most importantly the reality of his atonement.

That's true, I agree there is probably more similarities than differences but there are enough difference to be able to say that all other christians, protestants, catholics, othodox ie historical christianity is very different to us.

I personally now prefer the description of being under christianities wide umbrella but outside traditional christianity which is based on the Nicene Creed, something we reject outright. Maybe we should call ourselves christians because we accept the jesus of the NT but not nicene christians nor traditional christians since we reject everything that come after the apostles died off. Protestants we certainly are not.

[prisonchaplain]

Juan--I left out the 1000-year reign, but we also believe in it. There is not specific mention of Jackson County, MO in our doctrine, but otherwise our beliefs are similar.

[Juan_P]

Juan--I left out the 1000-year reign, but we also believe in it. There is not specific mention of Jackson County, MO in our doctrine, but otherwise our beliefs are similar.

Yes.

There's no mention of Jackson County because off course that isn't in the bible. It's modern revelation to us, revelation which doesn't change biblical beliefs per se, since Jesus still lives and reigns in Jerusalem Israel, but revelation which expands our current understanding and knowledge by showing what the future role of the US will be. Without it I think the rest of christianity is closing themselves down and telling God "i know enough and I don't need to know any more"... imho off course.

[rameumptom]

Juan,

Actually LDS teaching is that the rapture or translation will occur at the 2nd Coming, when Christ comes in power. As he descends, the righteous will be carried up to meet him.

It is possible that some may be translated prior to this, but I doubt it, as the work to be done is upon the earth, and that is to build up the kingdom of God on the earth in preparation for the Savior's return. This means that all will have to go through the tribulation. Our modern scriptures teach that we will build Zion and her stakes as refuges from the storms ahead. D&C 45 teaches that the wicked will fear to fight against Zion, because of the power of God which will be in it. And those dwelling among the wicked who will not fight "must needs flee to Zion for safety."

So, we do not believe in the pre-tribulation rapture. Christ's coming in glory occurs at the END of Armageddon. Christ comes down in great power, steps upon the Mount of Olives and it splits into two. The new valley becomes the location where the Jews flee for protection. Then the remaining armies of Gog and Magog are destroyed. Thus begins the Millennium.

But it is all after the tribulations to come, not before.

Edited January 23, 2012 by rameumptom

[norah63]

This is all so intersting to read. There seems to be such a lack of communication between all the diffrent faiths concerning the end times. Guess if not for a rapture, there would not be much positive to tell about the end times. I personally have never thought rapture, except as Jesus decends and we are caught up to meet him in the air. That is the second coming as I read 1Thessalonians 4:16-17.

And the mark of beast would not be important if one was raptured away. Thousand year reign is a protestant belief also, thats enlightning to learn. I have heard some teachings of that being what is going on now as a 'church age'.

As for the more revelation theme, it seems that to write down what is given through revelation is a more open way to share. Than just to read what we now have and say, 'well it really means this'.

That part to me is the adding to or taking away. In my opinion.

I do appreciate all the information given, it incourages my faith.

[Traveler]

This is all so intersting to read. There seems to be such a lack of communication between all the diffrent faiths concerning the end times. Guess if not for a rapture, there would not be much positive to tell about the end times. I personally have never thought rapture, except as Jesus decends and we are caught up to meet him in the air. That is the second coming as I read 1Thessalonians 4:16-17.

And the mark of beast would not be important if one was raptured away. Thousand year reign is a protestant belief also, thats enlightning to learn. I have heard some teachings of that being what is going on now as a 'church age'.

As for the more revelation theme, it seems that to write down what is given through revelation is a more open way to share. Than just to read what we now have and say, 'well it really means this'.

That part to me is the adding to or taking away. In my opinion.

I do appreciate all the information given, it incourages my faith.

We can all be confident that no "Christian" at the end of time will suffer any more than the "good Christians" of any other time - It would not be fare.

Historically, the problems do not seem to be among those concerned about dying for their faith - but rather those that seem to think living for their faith has no eternal consequence or purpose.

The Traveler

[norah63]

Excellent way to see it, living for our faith. As much as there is to unravel about all the diffrences in the faiths of our day, it really does all come down to the finished work of Christ. That sounds sort of

prodestant, and didn't mean it that way. Today as I was reading all about the Campbellites, I learned so much about the diffrent strains of the Church of Christ. And how some of the early followers of that went on to become Latter day Saints.

Instead of a Grace vs works, maybe it has always just been more of the three levels of faith.

In some circles its called, saved, being saved, and staying saved. If looked at that way, the three heavens are not accepted by prodestant believers, cause that looks like works. Yet couldn't it just be love.

This thread has been really made me think about the unity of Christ within his kingdom.

[Traveler]

Excellent way to see it, living for our faith. As much as there is to unravel about all the diffrences in the faiths of our day, it really does all come down to the finished work of Christ. That sounds sort of

prodestant, and didn't mean it that way. Today as I was reading all about the Campbellites, I learned so much about the diffrent strains of the Church of Christ. And how some of the early followers of that went on to become Latter day Saints.

Instead of a Grace vs works, maybe it has always just been more of the three levels of faith.

In some circles its called, saved, being saved, and staying saved. If looked at that way, the three heavens are not accepted by prodestant believers, cause that looks like works. Yet couldn't it just be love.

This thread has been really made me think about the unity of Christ within his kingdom.

Norah, if we research the word salvation we learn that it has the same root meaning as salvage. When something is salvaged that which is still useful and valuable is separated from that which has lost value. The the good stuff is saved and the bad stuff is discarded.

The scriptures indicate to us that the process by which good is salvaged is a process free to us because of the grace and mercy of G-d. But I am surprised that many religious people do not see any advantage in striving to have good things in their lives (heavenly treasures) to be freely salvaged by Jesus.

I also believe the scriptures admonish us clearly on the "way" we earn heavenly treasures - since there is only one way which Jesus showed through his example; I am surprised that many that say they believe in the example of Jesus refuse to follow the way saying it constitutes works so they follow after a strange path thinking the correct path is not necessary. But even worse they condemn those that do - joining with the forces enticing others from earning or laying in store heavenly treasures that Jesus can salvage for us.

The Traveler

[norah63]

That's how it was taught in a non-dom. bible study group that I attended. That we were saved for good works, to be done through the power of the faith we call upon.

Also they taught the inner court outer court and holy of holy's concept.

Or, the thirty, sixty, hundred-fold blessings. Each says it in a little diffrent way.

Yet I percieve that the same thought is getting across.

That's why it doisn't make any sense that the body of believers should be so seperate from each other. Man always tends toward division, while Jesus prayed that we would be one as He and the Father were one.

If each Church wants to be more open to co-operation among other Churches,

or just have more understanding among themsleves, isn't that a good sign?

just my two cents.

[pendragon]

As a Christian who believes in the Biblical Gospel I cannot see any way that orthodox Christians and Mormons can come together in fellowship. If I am away from my home church I can find Christian fellowship in virtually every other Christian church...if my home church were to close its doors it would be a simple matter of finding another church in which to worship with fellow believers because simply put Christians are found across all denominations and the focus of Christian worship is Jesus and the church is only the gathering place for those engaged in that worship. Because of the vast differences in doctrine, not least of which is the nature of God and Jesus as a created being, I cannot find that fellowship in a Mormon chapel. Does that mean that I cannot be civil and fulfill the Golden Rule with regard to Mormons? Certainly not...but until those doctrinal issues are resolved (and IMV there are signs of that coming from the LDS Church) there cannot be true fellowship of like belief.

[prisonchaplain]

pendragon, the most open-minded and intelligent LDS and Evangelical scholars would agree with you. Robert Millet, a BYU administrator, and Rev. Greg Johnson, an Evangelical pastor, are very good friends. They have interfaith dialogues, and do their best to understand each other. Millet happens to be a fan of Evangelical writings, reading the likes of Charles Stanely, John Piper and others. Nevertheless, both admit that their doctrinal differences are huge, and that while they may pray for each other, they would have a hard time engaging in joint corporate prayer (do to their different understandings of spiritual authority).

Craig Blomberg (Denver Seminary) and Stephen Robinson (BYU) co-authored a book on the divide between their two faiths. Again, they were friendly, respectful, but frank. They admitted that they could not share one another's pulpits, could not share in full Communion together, and that their churches would continue to attempt to evangelize one another.

So, it is true. We are not close to being able to share in full Christian fellowship. Nevertheless, we can share in friendship. We can learn to better understand each other. And, we can learn to be honest about what our differences really are, and abandon some of the old stereotypes. Jesus did a great job of this with the woman at the well. She was wrong some matters of religion, but if she would follow Jesus, she could have the living water.

I've been here six years. I'm nowhere close to perfect, but I like to think I've found a good stride...a balance between sharing what I believe, and really hearing what "the other" believes--and engaging in this process with Christian love.

[Vort]

pendragon, the most open-minded and intelligent LDS and Evangelical scholars would agree with you.

"Disagree", perhaps?

[pendragon]

I am familiar with the Millet and Johnson connection and was in the Mormon Tabernacle during a joint meeting when Ravi Zacharia spoke. I am not a fan of this particular effort...IMV too much apologizing from the evangelicals and too much coat tailing from the Mormons. I have Mormon neighbors and agree that I have a responsibility to be friendly, compassionate and loving, treating them with the respect I would ask for myself. That said, my first responsibility as a believer is to fulfill The Great Commission....most positively through my actions...adding words as necessary.

[prisonchaplain]

"Disagree", perhaps?

They would agree that there are limits to the spiritual fellowship they can share.