Am I lost in this forum?

[John T]

I went here hoping to see LDS threads, but found none.

Wazzup?

[larry2]

I went here hoping to see LDS threads, but found none.

Wazzup?

Hi and welcome John T. The Mormon or LDS forum is rather new and has not drawn posters at this point. You ask if you're lost and I would think that depends upon your adherence to God's word.

Please feel free to post your message but realize that there will be responses probably countering your understanding of scripture. I look forward to discussion with you and it's good to have you in Jesus' name.

[John T]

Thanks for the information.

Would you suggest that I take a hot topic from CARM or Walter Martin, and ask it here to populate the thread?

BTW Will you consider making any exceptions to the belief in supporting the Nicene Creed for Mormons to be able to post here, only?

[larry2]

Dear John T, I'm not sure the direction your posts will take so I would just post them on the Mormon Forum to begin and if considered more prosperous to general discussion or theology we can move it there and leave a "Moved to" notice on the previous forum. Thanks.

[dan p]

I went here hoping to see LDS threads, but found none.

Wazzup?

Hi , and I have seen some  LDS  sites and yes you are lost in this forum , sorry , because I would like to see how you can handle the bible . dan p

[larry2]

Hi John. When some different forums were set up as not traditional theology, we have yet to have any Mormons post on it.

[John T]

I went here hoping to see LDS threads, but found none.

Wazzup?

Hi , and I have seen some  LDS  sites and yes you are lost in this forum , sorry , because I would like to see how you can handle the bible . dan p

Actually, I was hoping to debate some of the LDS people. I am a grace-saved, Bible believing Christian. Surely that is something that the LDS people are not.

[the_last_gunslinger]

Actually, I was hoping to debate some of the LDS people. I am a grace-saved, Bible believing Christian. Surely that is something that the LDS people are not.

Hi, John. I'm not much for debate, but answering sincere inquiries is something I do very well, though I'm not sure into how much detail I can go without violating terms of service. But for people curious about beliefs, I've got no problem giving factual statements regarding practices and policy.

On a bit of a side note, I'm not sure I can agree with the assertion that LDS are not Bible believing Christians, but I guess it depends on your own personal interpretation.

[John T]

Not really.

You need to first define "Christian" and then "Bible believing".

I define the word "Christian" as it was first used in Antioch, and later refined (325) in the Nicene Creed.

I define Bible-believing" as believing in the 66 books comprising the Old and New Testaments as the full and complete revelation of God's word.

[the_last_gunslinger]

Not really.

You need to first define "Christian" and then "Bible believing".

I define the word "Christian" as it was first used in Antioch, and later refined (325) in the Nicene Creed.

I define Bible-believing" as believing in the 66 books comprising the Old and New Testaments as the full and complete revelation of God's word.

Certainly a definition of Christian is important, and I think my definition would be more inclusive than your. Truth is, I don't know if it's my place to try to determine how "Christian" someone is. It is impossible for me to know the contents of their heart, and impossible for me to judge their standing before Christ. I've known people professing to be Christians but acted anything but. Likewise, I've known atheists who were some of the most spiritual people I've ever met. For me, the only requisite for being considered Christian is a belief in Christ; that is the only empirical fact available to us. Any other definition comes from the interpretations of Man.

And I may be mistaken, but I don't believe anywhere in the Bible that it says one must accept the 66 books found within and nothing else. To say someone is not a Bible believing Christian when they wholeheartedly accept the Holy Bible as scripture is disingenuous at best. Fact is, we do believe in all sixty-six books, so we are most definitely Bible believing. I don't think accepting other scriptures means we no longer accept the Bible.

[Thankfulldad]

Fact is, we do believe in all sixty-six books, so we are most definitely Bible believing. I don't think accepting other scriptures means we no longer accept the Bible.

You may be sincere in this; however, I live in Utah...and this is not what is preached by Mormans here.  The book of Morman is what they believe.  The Bible is only a good book...with some good thoughts. 

[the_last_gunslinger]

Fact is, we do believe in all sixty-six books, so we are most definitely Bible believing. I don't think accepting other scriptures means we no longer accept the Bible.

You may be sincere in this; however, I live in Utah...and this is not what is preached by Mormans here.  The book of Morman is what they believe.  The Bible is only a good book...with some good thoughts. 

Well, let me just state that if this assertion is correct, then the Mormons there are in error. the Holy Bible is considered one of our standard works, and is official canon. The eight Article of Faith reads as such:

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."

We clearly believe in the Bible and accept it as God's word.

[Thankfulldad]

Fact is, we do believe in all sixty-six books, so we are most definitely Bible believing. I don't think accepting other scriptures means we no longer accept the Bible.

You may be sincere in this; however, I live in Utah...and this is not what is preached by Mormons here.  The book of Mormon is what they believe.  The Bible is only a good book...with some good thoughts. 

Well, let me just state that if this assertion is correct, then the Mormons there are in error. the Holy Bible is considered one of our standard works, and is official canon. The eight Article of Faith reads as such:

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."

We clearly believe in the Bible and accept it as God's word.

And only the King James Version...which can be tough to translate; which, if you translate differently then Your Church Apostles...look out because you are wrong.  Their way or the highway...

Friend...please find a good Bible Church; the LDS...are not the way to Heaven (even if you have a few to choose from)...

[Catholica]

Gunslinger, welcome to the forum!  I am curious about something that someone told me and whether it is true.

According to official LDS doctrine, does the Church regard the Bible as inerrant?  I was told that, out of the four books that LDS use, that the Bible is the only one that is not considered inerrant.  Is this true?

[the_last_gunslinger]

And only the King James Version...which can be tough to translate; which, if you translate differently then Your Church Apostles...look out because you are wrong.  Their way or the highway...

Friend...please find a good Bible Church; the LDS...are not the way to Heaven (even if you have a few to choose from)...

And I appreciate your concern, I really do. I understand that most people don't contend against the LDS church out of some misplaced hatred (though some probably do). Most are genuinely concerned with the spiritual wellbeing of their neighbor. Their evangelizing efforts have at their heart, the same goal as our own, that is, to bring people closer to Christ, and I respect any such efforts done in sincerity.

Yes, we do use the King James version, which personally is my favorite version out there. I'm not sure the reasoning, only that it creates a sense of uniformity. Our scriptural passages have been memorized and used in lectures and sermons for our entire history. Our church is highly standardized to ensure that we are firmly united, and to lessen the chances of misinterpretation. Our structure is one of the things that really draws me to the church, and I think having a unified version of the Bible, respected by most Christians only enhances this.

I understand the concept of being wary of apostles interpreting scripture, but try imagining it from our perspective. We believe the current apostles hold the same position in the church that Peter, James, John and Paul did. They are considered special witnesses of Christ. If you lived during the 1st century and one of these apostles instructed you on the meaning of a particular verse or doctrine, would you not listen to what he has to say? We trust that they are led by the Holy Spirit, and we are given the opportunity to pray for ourselves and gain a testimony of their teachings, to see whether they are of God or not. I also believe that scriptures can only be interpreted one way in most instances. And if our apostles really are called of God (not asking you to believe this, but for the sake of argument) then it would be in my best interest to listen as they speak for God, if moved by the Holy Spirit.

[Thankfulldad]

And only the King James Version...which can be tough to translate; which, if you translate differently then Your Church Apostles...look out because you are wrong.  Their way or the highway...

Friend...please find a good Bible Church; the LDS...are not the way to Heaven (even if you have a few to choose from)...

And I appreciate your concern, I really do. I understand that most people don't contend against the LDS church out of some misplaced hatred (though some probably do). Most are genuinely concerned with the spiritual wellbeing of their neighbor. Their evangelizing efforts have at their heart, the same goal as our own, that is, to bring people closer to Christ, and I respect any such efforts done in sincerity.

Yes, we do use the King James version, which personally is my favorite version out there. I'm not sure the reasoning, only that it creates a sense of uniformity. Our scriptural passages have been memorized and used in lectures and sermons for our entire history. Our church is highly standardized to ensure that we are firmly united, and to lessen the chances of misinterpretation. Our structure is one of the things that really draws me to the church, and I think having a unified version of the Bible, respected by most Christians only enhances this.

I understand the concept of being wary of apostles interpreting scripture, but try imagining it from our perspective. We believe the current apostles hold the same position in the church that Peter, James, John and Paul did. They are considered special witnesses of Christ. If you lived during the 1st century and one of these apostles instructed you on the meaning of a particular verse or doctrine, would you not listen to what he has to say? We trust that they are led by the Holy Spirit, and we are given the opportunity to pray for ourselves and gain a testimony of their teachings, to see whether they are of God or not. I also believe that scriptures can only be interpreted one way in most instances. And if our apostles really are called of God (not asking you to believe this, but for the sake of argument) then it would be in my best interest to listen as they speak for God, if moved by the Holy Spirit.

Then just stick to the Bible...focus all your energy there; and see how it differs from the LDS belief system.

[the_last_gunslinger]

Gunslinger, welcome to the forum!  I am curious about something that someone told me and whether it is true.

According to official LDS doctrine, does the Church regard the Bible as inerrant?  I was told that, out of the four books that LDS use, that the Bible is the only one that is not considered inerrant.  Is this true?

Hi, I almost didn't see your post. I'd be glad to answer.

We don't hold the Bible to be inerrant like most Christians do, though inerrancy means different things with us. We do believe that some parts of the Bible may have been altered or changed, rather by careless translation or by wicked men hoping to imbue that sacred text with their own conception of what one should believe. We also believe that, due to some misunderstanding of certain biblical text, errancy comes about. So even if it is literally written accurate, misinterpretation can mar its true meaning. That's not to say we don't believe the Bible to be the word of God, just that we believe it may be incomplete, although it's mostly right, enough so that we place a tremendous amount of faith in it.

As for the second part of the question, I'm not sure if there's anything official that answers that, but it's commonly held that any of them may contain some error. In regard to The Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith said it was the "most correct book," not that it was perfect. It stands to reason that the Book of Mormon (again, for the sake of argument) is true, that it would be more complete since it was translated only once, as opposed to hundreds of times. But the chance for error is still prevalent, in fact, the Book of Mormon has had some minor edition, correcting primarily grammatical mistakes and clarifying passages that were ambiguous. Same goes for the other books, I suppose.

[Catholica]

Gunslinger, welcome to the forum!  I am curious about something that someone told me and whether it is true.

According to official LDS doctrine, does the Church regard the Bible as inerrant?  I was told that, out of the four books that LDS use, that the Bible is the only one that is not considered inerrant.  Is this true?

Hi, I almost didn't see your post. I'd be glad to answer.

We don't hold the Bible to be inerrant like most Christians do, though inerrancy means different things with us. We do believe that some parts of the Bible may have been altered or changed, rather by careless translation or by wicked men hoping to imbue that sacred text with their own conception of what one should believe. We also believe that, due to some misunderstanding of certain biblical text, errancy comes about. So even if it is literally written accurate, misinterpretation can mar its true meaning. That's not to say we don't believe the Bible to be the word of God, just that we believe it may be incomplete, although it's mostly right, enough so that we place a tremendous amount of faith in it.

As for the second part of the question, I'm not sure if there's anything official that answers that, but it's commonly held that any of them may contain some error. In regard to The Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith said it was the "most correct book," not that it was perfect. It stands to reason that the Book of Mormon (again, for the sake of argument) is true, that it would be more complete since it was translated only once, as opposed to hundreds of times. But the chance for error is still prevalent, in fact, the Book of Mormon has had some minor edition, correcting primarily grammatical mistakes and clarifying passages that were ambiguous. Same goes for the other books, I suppose.

Thanks for the answer!

Out of curiosity, do you know, or can you point me to a reference, as to which verses of the Bible the LDS Church states contain error?

[the_last_gunslinger]

Then just stick to the Bible...focus all your energy there; and see how it differs from the LDS belief system.

I think this is what a lot of people don't understand about members of the church. It's not like we completely ignored the Bible when we decided to join. When my family converted back in 1997, my Mom, who at the time was a Free Methodist, had some serious reservations about the LDS faith and she spent endless nights searching the Bible, trying to prove it wrong. Instead, just the opposite happened. See, we don't believe the Bible contradicts our teachings, otherwise I doubt we'd have very many members at all.

[Thankfulldad]

Then just stick to the Bible...focus all your energy there; and see how it differs from the LDS belief system.

I think this is what a lot of people don't understand about members of the church. It's not like we completely ignored the Bible when we decided to join. When my family converted back in 1997, my Mom, who at the time was a Free Methodist, had some serious reservations about the LDS faith and she spent endless nights searching the Bible, trying to prove it wrong. Instead, just the opposite happened. See, we don't believe the Bible contradicts our teachings, otherwise I doubt we'd have very many members at all.

I belong to Grace Community Bible Church in Draper, Utah; there, we have many ex-mormans that have breathed a sign of relief that Jesus paid the price for their sins and their salvation is sucured by the Blood of Jesus...that Jesus finished the work there.

Peace...through Jesus, His blood, THE CROSS...and so on...

What is your view of the Cross of Jesus?

[the_last_gunslinger]

Thanks for the answer!

Out of curiosity, do you know, or can you point me to a reference, as to which verses of the Bible the LDS Church states contain error?

This is kind of a hard thing to support, because we believe a majority of the error lies in subtraction from the book, rather than addition. So it's pretty hard to point out error in lost passages. For instance, take Mathew 16:19 which reads:

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

We believe the true meaning of this passage is lost, and that it is a reference of the sealing power of the Priesthood, the power to bind families together, so that they may be bound here and in heaven.

Similarly Hebrews 7:3

Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

This was in reference to Melchizedek, and the King James Version seems to imply it was he who was without father or mother. We believe that it was not Melchizedek that was without mother or father, without descent, but rather the Priesthood which he held.

There are other obvious examples of error such as the differing accounts of Judas's death, but those kinds of errors are fairly inconsequential and we have received no revelation telling us which account is correct.

[the_last_gunslinger]

What is your view of the Cross of Jesus?

I suppose it's not too dissimilar to your own view. We believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that he lived a sinless life, carried out the atonement, was crucified and took upon him the sins of the world. As such, he overcame death, and allowing for the salvation of all men. Through his sacrifice, by the grace of God, all men will overcome physical death and be resurected.

[Thankfulldad]

What is your view of the Cross of Jesus?

I suppose it's not too dissimilar to your own view. We believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that he lived a sinless life, carried out the atonement, was crucified and took upon him the sins of the world. As such, he overcame death, and allowing for the salvation of all men. Through his sacrifice, by the grace of God, all men will overcome physical death and be resurected.

Was satan the son of God also?

Was God once like you and I?

[the_last_gunslinger]

Was satan the son of God also?

Was God once like you and I?

In answer to your first question, according to our beliefs, yes. Though I don't see how it's that different from traditional Christianity, only we believe in a more literal interpretation of "children of God." Most Christians believe that the angels were created by God, and Satan was once an angel. The mechanics of how he came to be, or how he was created, in my mind, is a semantics issue.

As for your second one, it's a difficult theological question, and I'm not sure I'm equipped to answer this, not without completely botching our official stance. I think that it might be possible for God to have once been like us, while still being eternal, as long as we stretch the definition of eternal a little. I guess the safest answer I can give is that we don't know. It's one of those theological mysteries that us as mortals can't wrap our minds around, much like your belief in the Trinity.

[Thankfulldad]

Was satan the son of God also?

Was God once like you and I?

In answer to your first question, according to our beliefs, yes. Though I don't see how it's that different from traditional Christianity, only we believe in a more literal interpretation of "children of God." Most Christians believe that the angels were created by God, and Satan was once an angel. The mechanics of how he came to be, or how he was created, in my mind, is a semantics issue.

As for your second one, it's a difficult theological question, and I'm not sure I'm equipped to answer this, not without completely botching our official stance. I think that it might be possible for God to have once been like us, while still being eternal, as long as we stretch the definition of eternal a little. I guess the safest answer I can give is that we don't know. It's one of those theological mysteries that us as mortals can't wrap our minds around, much like your belief in the Trinity.

Man...get back to your Bible

[larry2]

Hi Gunslinger, and thanks for answering our questions.

In the introduction of my "Book of Mormon," the following statement is made.

The Book of Mormon is a volume of the holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God's dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fullness of the everlasting gospel.

Question - if one is the fullness and don't say what the other says, how can they both be the fullness..

Galatians 1:8     But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Galatians 1:9     As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

2 Nephi 29:9-10  . . Because I have spoken one word, ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another: for my work is not yet finished. . -  (10)  Wherefore, because that ye have a bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

In Colossians 1.25-26, Paul states  "Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;  26  Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:"

The word  "fulfill"  according to the Strongs concordance is as follows -

4137 plhrow pleroo play-ro'-o

from 4134; TDNT-6:286,867; v

AV-fulfil 51, fill 19, be full 7, complete 2, end 2, misc 9; 90

[gospel]

Was satan the son of God also?

Was God once like you and I?

In answer to your first question, according to our beliefs, yes. Though I don't see how it's that different from traditional Christianity, only we believe in a more literal interpretation of "children of God." Most Christians believe that the angels were created by God, and Satan was once an angel. The mechanics of how he came to be, or how he was created, in my mind, is a semantics issue.

As for your second one, it's a difficult theological question, and I'm not sure I'm equipped to answer this, not without completely botching our official stance. I think that it might be possible for God to have once been like us, while still being eternal, as long as we stretch the definition of eternal a little. I guess the safest answer I can give is that we don't know. It's one of those theological mysteries that us as mortals can't wrap our minds around, much like your belief in the Trinity.

Man...get back to your Bible

Yes gunslinger
After that last answer please....get back to your Bible

[the_last_gunslinger]

Yes gunslinger
After that last answer please....get back to your Bible

I'm not sure which part of my response brought on this comment. Isn't it true that Mainstream Christians believe Satan was created by God?

As for the other statement, I claimed ignorance on the topic. It's something that was taught by Joseph Smith, but I haven't studied it enough to give a thorough answer.

As for larry2's post, I'll get to that as soon as I can. Right now I'm also working on a final essay for a Literary Theory class, and to answer your question, it'll probably take a little time to compose, especially with this stupid essay I've got to finish tonight.

And I'm always happy to answer honest inquiries, so long as they are conducted with respect.

[Catholica]

Yes gunslinger
After that last answer please....get back to your Bible

I'm not sure which part of my response brought on this comment. Isn't it true that Mainstream Christians believe Satan was created by God?

It doesn't take much around this forum to get people to spout vitrol.

I don't like using the term "Mainstream Christians" because its divisive and really I'm not sure that most people would say that I fit that term.  So I will speak for the Catholic Church, and perhaps a Mainstream Protestant can confirm what they believe.

We believe that Jesus was not created by God, but rather existed as God from the beginning, that is, Jesus always was, is, and always will be divine.  We believe that at the incarnation, Jesus, who was "the Word", the second person of the one Trinitarian God, became flesh, became man. 

We believe Satan was created by God an angelic being who is not divine nor human, as were all angels.  They do not share the divine intellect or divine nature, but are completely separate, unique beings.  We believe that for an instant God gave all the angels a choice over whether to serve him for eternity.  Satan and a third of the angels in heaven chose not to serve God, and they were cast out of heaven and are now properly called demons, with Satan as their prince.

So the difference between Jesus and Satan are that:

Jesus is God, was not created, was, is, and always will be divine, and became incarnate. 
Satan is not God, was created, never was, is not, and never will be divine, and never became incarnate.

[the_last_gunslinger]

We believe Satan was created by God an angelic being who is not divine nor human, as were all angels.  They do not share the divine intellect or divine nature, but are completely separate, unique beings.  We believe that for an instant God gave all the angels a choice over whether to serve him for eternity.  Satan and a third of the angels in heaven chose not to serve God, and they were cast out of heaven and are now properly called demons, with Satan as their prince.

Yes, I was pretty sure this was the standard view amongst non-Mormon Christians. I still believe that the two sides are essentially arguing semantics, however. Is Satan the son of God also? It depends on how one defines "son." As related to humans, a son is 'created' by a mother and a father. In regards to God, how he created his angels is anyone's guess; some have erroneously claimed that the LDS church teaches that God had sex with a heavenly mother, who is eternally pregnant, but to my knowledge, nowhere is it written of how they created their spirit children. I don't believe it works the same way as it does on earth. And if it's a matter of merely creating them, then our beliefs are almost identical. Now when we're talking about Christ's relationship to the Father, I can see some pretty clear diversions, but the question was whether or not Satan was a son of God, and again, it depends on how you define "son."

[the_last_gunslinger]

Hi, larry2, sorry for my delayed response. I'll try tackling your question to the best of my abilities.

In the introduction of my "Book of Mormon," the following statement is made.

The Book of Mormon is a volume of the holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God's dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fullness of the everlasting gospel.

Question - if one is the fullness and don't say what the other says, how can they both be the fullness..

This is a very good question, and in order to understand the answer, we must first define what the "gospel" is compared to the "theology" that accompanies it. The specific doctrines and practices are only offshoots of the actual gospel, and it is important to note that the Book of Mormon does not claim to contain every single point of doctrine. Now if you would be so inclined to allow me to quote from the Book of Mormon a rather good description of what the "gospel" is:

    Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.

    And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—

    And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.

    And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world.

    And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father.

    And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men. And for this cause he fulfilleth the words which he hath given, and he lieth not, but fulfilleth all his words.

    And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end.
-3 Nephi 27:13-19

Here lies the true gospel of Jesus Christ, that he is the Son of God, sent to do the Father's will, that he took upon him the sins of the world that whoever believes in him and endures to the end shall have everlasting life, that the true followers will be given the gift of the Holy Ghost, and that by the power of the atonement, all may be made clean so that the faithful and repentant may gain entry into heaven. That's the gospel, and both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach these things. The gospel then is that Christ atoned for our sins, and both of these books contain this message in its fullness.

[larry2]

Thanks Gunslinger for your effort in answering this question, but I must ask why you resort to the "Book of Mormon" to explain scripture of the "KJV" if they are both the same?

To me the time line you present as "Enduring to the end" does not apply to present day Christianity. We are saved by grace through faith, it is a gift of God, and not of works, lest any man should boast. Does enduring suggest a work to you? This portion of scripture may not mean the same to you as it does to me, but those that endure to the end of the tribulation will be physically saved from death and enter into the thousand year reign of Christ over the earth which has become known as the millennium.

You said: "Here lies the true gospel of Jesus Christ, that he is the Son of God, sent to do the Father's will, that he took upon him the sins of the world that whoever believes in him and endures to the end shall have everlasting life.

The actual quote of your KJV bible is Matthew 10:22  ". . .he that endureth to the end shall be saved." I'm not sure where you stand on the different applications of the word  "Saved," because it does mean different things. For instance we read John 3:16, "John 3:16  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Do you have everlasting life? 1 John 5:13 "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life . ." Gunslinger, do you believe you now possess eternal life? 

You see, the "Book of Mormon" does change this. 2 Nephi 31:20 says "Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life."

Knowing you have eternal life, and ye shall have eternal life sure are not one and the same thing.

Blessings in Christ Jesus.

[the_last_gunslinger]

Thanks Gunslinger for your effort in answering this question, but I must ask why you resort to the "Book of Mormon" to explain scripture of the "KJV" if they are both the same?

Why did I resort to the Book of Mormon? Simple, really. I had been engaged in a similar debate on another website from a person who wanted to know why the Book of Mormon is lacking many key LDS doctrines if it proclaims the fullness of the gospel. Since it was focused exclusively on the BoM, I quoted from it, and I had those passages handy. I'm not sure, off the top of my head, where I could find them in the Bible.

To me the time line you present as "Enduring to the end" does not apply to present day Christianity. We are saved by grace through faith, it is a gift of God, and not of works, lest any man should boast. Does enduring suggest a work to you? This portion of scripture may not mean the same to you as it does to me, but those that endure to the end of the tribulation will be physically saved from death and enter into the thousand year reign of Christ over the earth which has become known as the millennium.

We also believe that it is by grace that we are saved according to faith, but that faith is incomplete if not accompanied by works. Our works are not done so that we may boast of our accomplishments. We are told in the Bible that if we love Christ, we will keep his commandments. That is the primary reason for works. We most definitely do not believe we can earn our way into heaven. Without Christ's sacrifice, our works mean nothing.

Enduring could be a work, depending on how you define it. Then again, accepting Christ could, by some, be considered a work, since you actually have to do something. But it more accurately means to endure trials. When bad things befall you, put your faith in Christ, do not lose sight of the gospel message because you fall on hard times. Do not forsake the church or God because you are suffering a crisis of faith. If you truly put our faith in God, you will be able to endure any trials that come your way. Failing to endure to the end may imply a complete falling away from God, in which case, salvation may be at stake.

The actual quote of your KJV bible is Matthew 10:22  ". . .he that endureth to the end shall be saved." I'm not sure where you stand on the different applications of the word  "Saved," because it does mean different things. For instance we read John 3:16, "John 3:16  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Do you have everlasting life? 1 John 5:13 "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life . ." Gunslinger, do you believe you now possess eternal life?  

This is where things get tricky, as we do have some differing views on salvation and everlasting life. When you speak of being 'saved' that equates to our belief in the highest level of heaven, the Celestial Kingdom, where you will dwell in the presence of both the father and the son. For us, there is a distinction between everlasting life, and exaltation. By virtue of Christ's sacrifice, all will be resurrected and receive a level of glory, in at least one of the degrees of heaven. Exaltation, though, requires a deeper commitment, it requires that one receive the fullness of the gospel, that one be baptized by someone holding proper priesthood authority, that one receive the gift of the Holy Ghost in like manner, that one enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, and that one be faithful, enduring to the end.

I know I have eternal life; what remains to be seen is to what degree of glory I will enter. We all will be judged according to our works written in the Book of Life, and we will then be assigned a kingdom of glory. I've got a long ways to go if I hope to enter into the presence of God, however.

I truly commend you on these questions. They are very good and well thought out. I'm really enjoying the chance to answer them.

[larry2]

Gunslilnger, I'm happy you enjoy discussing biblical concepts, for I have many questions. The following excerpt is taken from a pamphlet I wrote concerning salvation at the following two links which many of my questions will come from, and possibly countering the doctrines of LDS you quote.

Salvation with Security - Part One  

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/theology/salvation-with-security-part-one/msg594337/#msg594337

Salvation with Security - Part Two

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/theology/salvation-with-security-part-two/msg594338/#msg594338

SALVATION

First - It is provisional. If you accept Jesus as your savior, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9-10) "If you say with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved, (10) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

Second - When you become saved, it is at this time that you are born again and have overcome the penalty of sin, or become saved from the great white throne judgment and the resulting lake of fire. (Repeating John 5:24), "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." In (Romans 8:1) "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus."

Third - The working out your own salvation referred to in (Philippians 2:12) is learning to overcome the habit of sin in our lives. This is the experiencing part of our salvation and is another step in our growth as a Christian. (2 Peter 1:5-7) tells us to "Add to your faith virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness and charity." To realize this growth in our lives, we must learn to begin counting our old man dead. (Romans 6:6) "Knowing this, that our old man (The Adamic nature) is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

[gospel]

We believe Satan was created by God an angelic being who is not divine nor human, as were all angels.  They do not share the divine intellect or divine nature, but are completely separate, unique beings.  We believe that for an instant God gave all the angels a choice over whether to serve him for eternity.  Satan and a third of the angels in heaven chose not to serve God, and they were cast out of heaven and are now properly called demons, with Satan as their prince.

Yes, I was pretty sure this was the standard view amongst non-Mormon Christians. I still believe that the two sides are essentially arguing semantics, however. Is Satan the son of God also? It depends on how one defines "son." As related to humans, a son is 'created' by a mother and a father. In regards to God, how he created his angels is anyone's guess; some have erroneously claimed that the LDS church teaches that God had sex with a heavenly mother, who is eternally pregnant, but to my knowledge, nowhere is it written of how they created their spirit children. I don't believe it works the same way as it does on earth. And if it's a matter of merely creating them, then our beliefs are almost identical. Now when we're talking about Christ's relationship to the Father, I can see some pretty clear diversions, but the question was whether or not Satan was a son of God, and again, it depends on how you define "son."

Jesus is not even a literal Son but a means by which we can understand His relationship to the Godhead in terms of human understanding

So the actual question is this

Is Satan like Jesus in any way

The answer is no, Satan is a created being and Jesus is not

Using the term son obfuscates the understanding and blurs the delineation between The Godhead and that which has been Created by the Godhead....if that makes any sense

John 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.


Colossians 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

There is no comparison whatsoever that can be made between Jesus and Lucifer before he fell and Satan after his rebellion

Jesus is God


Satan is not God or a god

There should be no confusion whatsoever in this matter