s/o LDS Garden of Eden

[Shellydon]

These things make it seem like the LDS faith is very different than mainstream Christianity. Like two totally separate faiths. Am I missing something?

 

I agree! From what I am reading here, it doesn't surprise me that some co-ops decide not to have LDS members, although the surface beliefs are somewhat similar, the rest is very, very different.

[MamaSheep]

These things make it seem like the LDS faith is very different than mainstream Christianity. Like two totally separate faiths. Am I missing something?

 

I agree! From what I am reading here, it doesn't surprise me that some co-ops decide not to have LDS members, although the surface beliefs are somewhat similar, the rest is very, very different.

 

Some people see it that way, others don't. I think it is not so much what people think about it that matters, though, but what Christ thinks about it. And I'm not really willing to put words in His mouth and make that judgment. If He thinks that modern "mainstream Christianity" still qualifies as "Christian", that's good enough for me. And if He doesn't, I trust Him to show mercy to my friends of other faiths, including "mainstream Christianity" (however you define that).

 

For myself, I am convinced that the LDS church is what it claims to be--a restoration of Christ's original church. The more deeply I understand LDS teachings, and the more I learn about early Christianity in its original form, the more convinced I am (though this is not my only reason for belief, just one form of supporting evidence, imo). Still, I have met many people who belong to mainstream Christian faiths who seem to me to genuinely have faith in Christ, and I am not willing to judge that their faith is somehow "not good enough". That is SO not my place. In my opinion, IF the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and modern "mainstream" Christianity are two (or more) different faiths, then it is not the LDS church that has separated itself from Christ, but "mainstream Christianity" that has gone astray from Christ's original teachings. My personal opinion is that it has not gone far enough astray to be actually considered a separate religion but, as I say, that's just my opinion and I am more than willing to submit to Christ's judgment on the matter should I be in the wrong about this. And I'm certainly willing to let other people form their own opinions on the subject. But I would not, personally, say that they are two separate religions because I would feel like I was unfairly condemning good Christian people of other faiths.

[gardenmom5]

So eating the fruit was not sin?

 

Where did sin come in then?

 

(Tell me to shut up if I'm obnoxious. I just find this very interesting. Most of my LDS friends IRL are not very knowledgable about their faith.)

 

eating the fruit was a transgression. (while they had been forbidden to eat it, they had also been commanded to be fruitful and multiply and they couldn't unless they ate it. but it was their choice.)

 

keep in mind - by giving them the fruit of the tree of knowledge, satan thought he was thwarting the plans of God. (as if! he's really not very intelligent) But they had to eat the fruit to become mortal (the fall brought death into the world) so they could have children.

 

I was not reared LDS, and so really didn't wrap my head around this one for a long time either - satan was tempting cain because he wanted to learn what it would take to get people to do things (usually bad). he got cain to offer a sacrifice - the reason it wasn't accepted was cain was obeying satan by offering it. then willful sin came into the world when cain willfully and deliberately murdered able out of jealous spite.

 

I do not think a sincere question is obnoixious.

[naturalmom]

I must respectfully say that all of these doctrines are so contrary to core beliefs in Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches, that LDS really does stand as a different religion.

 

All mainstream Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) begins with the same history. Writings of the church fathers is easily accessible today, and I would encourage people to read what was written in the centuries after the Bible to realize that Christianity at its core has not changed. There is plenty of historical evidence for the Scriptures and the accuracy with which they have been handed down.

 

I feel comfortable with Christians of nearly all denominations, and find that the differences do not impact the core of Christianity through the centuries. But this is a radical shift at the very core. I would feel comfortable worshipping at any of the traditional churches. I doubt that LDS would support the same thing, since they feel that mainstream Christianity has "gone astray from Christ's original teachings".

 

Many of these discussions about Eve remind me of C.S. Lewis' book Perelandra, a fictional work that presents a new world and the subsequent testing that "God" allows. All the arguments made to the woman in this fictional world to convince her to go against "God" sound very much like some of the LDS statements I have just read. But it is very clear in the book that these are false arguments. Obviously, C.S. Lewis was writing a fictional work, but it is almost eerie to me the similarity in the type of argument.

 

I have a hard time imagining Adam saying "Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God†(Moses 5:10) after God has said this to him:

 

“Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you…In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground.â€

All of this was because he had “eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’.â€

 

I think while LDS feels justification in using the term Christian, they are very different in belief from the people who have called themselves Christian for the last 2000 years.

 

I hope my disagreement with LDS is allowed, in the same way that their disagreement with traditional Christianity is allowed.

[gardenmom5]

But I would not, personally, say that they are two separate religions because I would feel like I was unfairly condemning good Christian people of other faiths.

 

that which leadeth to do good, builds, edifies, makes stronger, and more perfect (whole), etc., comes from God, no matter where we find it.

 

It's like sweetener - there are many natural sweeteners out there, some have more sweetening power than others, but they are all sweeteners. (hope that makes sense. If not, I apologize. sigh.)

[gardenmom5]

So maybe I am missing something here, It was the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil". Nowhere else in all of Scripture is sex called evil. It's misuse and abuse, yes, but sex within the boundaries of marriage as God lays out in Scripture, no.

 

 

 

it's the tree of knowledge of GOOD and evil. human intimacy within the bonds of legal marriage is certainly a good thing.

[gardenmom5]

. Satan knows the whole plan and was trying to short circuit it big time since he didn't get his way in Heaven.

 

he only knows the outline, not the details of how everything is to actually be implemented. some details Heavenly Father kept to Himself. (like the current popular guessing game out in the world - when will the end of the world be? The Savior was pretty specific only the Father knows that one.)

[WishboneDawn]

Do all Mormons have a literal understanding of Satan?

[WishboneDawn]

I must respectfully say that all of these doctrines are so contrary to core beliefs in Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches, that LDS really does stand as a different religion.

 

All mainstream Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) begins with the same history. Writings of the church fathers is easily accessible today, and I would encourage people to read what was written in the centuries after the Bible to realize that Christianity at its core has not changed. There is plenty of historical evidence for the Scriptures and the accuracy with which they have been handed down.

 

I feel comfortable with Christians of nearly all denominations, and find that the differences do not impact the core of Christianity through the centuries. But this is a radical shift at the very core. I would feel comfortable worshipping at any of the traditional churches. I doubt that LDS would support the same thing, since they feel that mainstream Christianity has "gone astray from Christ's original teachings".

 

Many of these discussions about Eve remind me of C.S. Lewis' book Perelandra, a fictional work that presents a new world and the subsequent testing that "God" allows. All the arguments made to the woman in this fictional world to convince her to go against "God" sound very much like some of the LDS statements I have just read. But it is very clear in the book that these are false arguments. Obviously, C.S. Lewis was writing a fictional work, but it is almost eerie to me the similarity in the type of argument.

 

I have a hard time imagining Adam saying "Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God†(Moses 5:10) after God has said this to him:

 

“Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you…In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground.â€

All of this was because he had “eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’.â€

 

I think while LDS feels justification in using the term Christian, they are very different in belief from the people who have called themselves Christian for the last 2000 years.

 

I hope my disagreement with LDS is allowed, in the same way that their disagreement with traditional Christianity is allowed.

 

So you'd probably consider them an Abrahamic faith? I'm quite comfortable with calling LDS Christians. Even mainline churches often differ dramatically on huge key points, enough that some claim Catholics and other extremely old and traditional branches of Christianity are not Christian.

[gardenmom5]

So, do you believe that the original OT/NT have been corrupted (as the Muslims do?) Because some of these teachings seem quite different than what I've read in the OT/NT.

 

We use the King James Version of the bible. considering for how many centuries copies were made by scribes copying things out by hand, some errors are bound to happen just by happenstance. Considering you are translating from hebrew, aramaic, greek, etc., poor word choices in translation will occur as translation is not just dependent upon understanding of languages, but of understanding of the teachings as well. But overall, we use that "original OT/NT" that has been translated and preserved for us - in English - by Kiing James.

 

It was a mainline christian minister who recently did a comparision of the various bible translations and STRONGLY urged christians to use the King James as opposed to the more recent versions. He demonstrated significant differences in passages from the OT/NT among the various 'modern' bibles. I just happend across it while I was looking for something - I don't even remember what - and sorry I didn't bookmark it. It was rather interesting seeing the comparisons. I think it was "why use the king James bible"

Edited July 17, 2011 by gardenmom5

[WishboneDawn]

We use the King James Version of the bible. considering for how many centuries copies were made by scribes coping things out by hand, some errors are bound to happen just by happenstance. Considering you are translating from hebrew, aramaic, greek, etc., poor word choices in translation will occur as translation is not just dependent upon understanding of languagesl, but of understanding of the teachings as well. But overall, we use that "original OT/NT" that has been translated and preserved for us - in English - by Kiing James.

 

It was a mainline christian minister who recently did a comparision of the various bible translations and STRONGLY urged christians to use the King James as opposed to the more recent versions. He demonstrated significant differences in passages from the OT/NT among the various 'modern' bibles. I just happend across it while I was looking for something - I don't even remember what - and sorry I didn't bookmark it. It was rather interesting seeing the comparisons. I think it was "why use the king James bible"

 

I tend to think of the KJV as beautiful literature but one of the less accurate translations but at some point, that doesn't bother me so much.

 

I think the Bible is a reflection of our humanity as much as God's divinity and our humanity is often in those mistakes. We can learn about ourselves in those mistakes.

[HSmomNY]

Originally Posted by naturalmom

I must respectfully say that all of these doctrines are so contrary to core beliefs in Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches, that LDS really does stand as a different religion.

 

....

I think while LDS feels justification in using the term Christian, they are very different in belief from the people who have called themselves Christian for the last 2000 years.

 

I hope my disagreement with LDS is allowed, in the same way that their disagreement with traditional Christianity is allowed.

I can understand your point of view.

I have a deep faith in Jesus Christ. I believe He is my Savior and died for my sins. I have faith that through His atonement I can return to life with my Heavenly Father.

I understand that you may not call me a christian.

But I will continute to call myself a christian.

And if you told me you believed in Christ I would call you a christian too.

:001_smile:

[WishboneDawn]

I can understand your point of view.

I have a deep faith in Jesus Christ. I believe He is my Savior and died for my sins. I have faith that through His atonement I can return to life with my Heavenly Father.

I understand that you may not call me a christian.

But I will continute to call myself a christian.

And if you told me you believed in Christ I would call you a christian too.

:001_smile:

 

That's a beautiful and gracious response. :)

[gardenmom5]

Satan's sin was that he wanted to be worshipped like God and wanted to be equal with Him. Which of course, being a created being, he cannot and will not be. Just as we cannot and will not be.

 

Satan went beyond that in two areas. 1) satan wanted to force everyone to do what he wanted, AND he wanted the glory for himself that is due the Father (President Ezra Taft Benson* - april '89 commented "satan's desire was to dethrone God.") and 2) when he didn't get his way - he tried to force it.

 

Christ is so remarkable because He ALWAYS gave glory to the Father and sought to do His Father's will.

 

*President Benson also served as secretary of agriculture under Eisenhower for eight years. the only cabinet secretary to last eight years.

[The Girls' Mom]

This thread has been interesting to read.

 

In response to why "mainstream" Christians do not consider LDS a form of Christianity...I think the core difference lies in this:

 

Jesus, the eldest Son of God the Father, offered to carry out theplan used in many worlds before ours that would allow us free agency or the opportunity to choose for ourselves how we wanted to live. Because Jesus, our Elder Brother, loves us so much, He wanted to take upon Himself a mortal body like ours to show us the right way to live. And then He agreed to sacrifice His life so that in some heavenly way we could all be forgiven of our sins if we repent of them and choose to live righteously while here.

Jesus wisely knew that sometimes temptations would be so appealing that we would choose to do wrong. But under His plan we could recognize our wrongdoing, repent, and be forgiven. To repent means to be truly sorry, to change or turn away from that wrongdoing, to seek forgiveness, and then to try with all our hearts to live better lives.

 

 

Aside from the original sin doctrine already mentioned, "mainstream" Christians believe that Jesus is part of the Trinity. He is God, the Son part of the Trinity. He is also the only Begotten Son, not the Eldest.

 

This would be where SOFs clash with the LDS religion so strongly.

[dangermom]

Aside from the original sin doctrine already mentioned, "mainstream" Christians believe that Jesus is part of the Trinity. He is God, the Son part of the Trinity.

 

Whereas LDS believe that Jesus is part of the 'Godhead'--Father, Son, and Holy Ghost working together in complete unity. Just not the same substance.

 

He is also the only Begotten Son, not the Eldest.

 

This would be where SOFs clash with the LDS religion so strongly.

He's both. He's the Only Begotten Son in the flesh--and the Eldest of all of Heavenly Father's children in the spirit. LDS do believe that Christ is the Only Begotten. None of the rest of us have the Father for our physical father.

[gardenmom5]

Aside from the original sin doctrine already mentioned, "mainstream" Christians believe that Jesus is part of the Trinity. He is God, the Son part of the Trinity. He is also the only Begotten Son, not the Eldest.

.

 

I'm doing a bit of tweaking. - We believe Jesus Christ was the first begotten (or eldest) in the spirit world as we believe we are also spirit children of God, But he was the ONLY begotten in the flesh. So, we believe that not only is His Spirit the offspring of God, his body is also physically the Son of God.

 

And yes, we believe Jesus is a member of the Godhead - but we believe the Godhead is three seperate and distinct personages, each filling seperate and distinct roles in fulfilling their mission. (so to speak.)

 

(kinda like husband and wife have seperate and distinct roles, but are working together on the same goal.)

Edited July 17, 2011 by gardenmom5

[LittleIzumi]

that which leadeth to do good, builds, edifies, makes stronger, and more perfect (whole), etc., comes from God, no matter where we find it.

 

It's like sweetener - there are many natural sweeteners out there, some have more sweetening power than others, but they are all sweeteners. (hope that makes sense. If not, I apologize. sigh.)

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree: There is a great deal of truth and the good word of God to be found in many, many religions & people & places.

 

Do all Mormons have a literal understanding of Satan?

 

That is a fundamental part of our understanding, yes.

[pfamilygal]

This is all quite interesting.

 

I would agree that there are differences in practice with mainline/EO/RC Christianity. But on the whole, our core beliefs are very similar. The Nicene or Apostle's Creed pretty much covers it.

 

But it sounds like an LDS believer would not be able to confirm either creed.

 

Tell me if I am correct in my understanding. (I am using "we" to mean mainline EO/RC/Protestant here).

 

We believe that God exists in three persons who are also one, the Trinity. They are alike in substance, all being fully God.

 

You (LDS) believe in three separate persons who have the same goal but are not one.

 

We believe that God created man as fully human, in the image of God, but not the substance.

 

You believe that God created man as divine children who are growing to be more like Him.

 

We believe satan was created as an angelic being, different in form and substance from both man and God. He rebelled and tried to overthrow God, wanting to be worshipped like God. He was cast down to earth where he does evil and tempts mankind to choose evil. His time here is limited though, and in the end his reign will end and he will be judged.

 

You believe satan was a spirit created in the same substance as Christ and man. He chose to rebel and tempts man to do the same.

 

We believe sin entered the world through Adam and Eve's choice to directly disobey God and eat the fruit He had forbidden them to partake of. Death entered the world and perfect fellowship with God was disrupted.

 

You believe that God ultimately wanted Adam and Eve to eat the fruit because it caused them to become wise, grow up and become parents.

 

We believe that man is created with a soul in the womb.

 

You believe we existed prior to our births in the spirit world and are here for a time of learning.

 

Am I correct?

 

Thank you all for being so gracious to explain things. It really is quite interesting.

 

I can say, after hearing all this, that my stance would be:

 

I am happy to call my LDS sisters friends. I am happy that my kids go to co-op with LDS kids and that we hang out. I can appreciate that my LDS sisters love Jesus and desire to serve Him. I would not, however, feel comfortable worshipping in an LDS congregation, and would not feel comfortable having an LDS teacher teach my child Bible or religion at co-op. The differences there are too great. (FWIW, my kids are all taking art from my dear LDS friend this year at co-op).

 

I hope I don't sound like a mean wench-bag. Or a nice wench-bag for that matter.

Edited July 17, 2011 by pfamilygal

[NicAnn]

Whereas LDS believe that Jesus is part of the 'Godhead'--Father, Son, and Holy Ghost working together in complete unity. Just not the same substance.

 

He's both. He's the Only Begotten Son in the flesh--and the Eldest of all of Heavenly Father's children in the spirit. LDS do believe that Christ is the Only Begotten. None of the rest of us have the Father for our physical father.

 

 

I'm Jehovah's Witness, but wanted to butt in. :) We don't believe in the Trinity, but we teach the above-- Jesus is the Only Begotten Son and he is who God made first in Heaven with Him. But there were other's after Jesus, in Heaven, but not in flesh. We teach that Jesus was with Jehovah during creation.

 

Interesting discussion!! I love hearing about other faiths, especially ones that are so different from my own.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Nicoleandco
I meant NOT in flesh, oops.

[MamaSheep]

Whereas LDS believe that Jesus is part of the 'Godhead'--Father, Son, and Holy Ghost working together in complete unity. Just not the same substance.

 

Agreed. It may also help to note that we believe Jesus to be the same being who was known as Jehovah during Old Testament times.

 

He's both. He's the Only Begotten Son in the flesh--and the Eldest of all of Heavenly Father's children in the spirit. LDS do believe that Christ is the Only Begotten. None of the rest of us have the Father for our physical father.

 

I find the title "Only Begotten Son" quite interesting. What need would there be to include "Begotten" in this title unless it is to distinguish the Only Begotten Son from other sons who were not begotten?

[WishboneDawn]

I am happy to call my LDS sisters friends. I am happy that my kids go to co-op with LDS kids and that we hang out. I can appreciate that my LDS sisters love Jesus and desire to serve Him. I would not, however, feel comfortable worshipping in an LDS congregation, and would not feel comfortable having an LDS teacher teach my child Bible or religion at co-op. The differences there are too great. (FWIW, my kids are all taking art from my dear LDS friend this year at co-op).

 

I think that's a really reasonable position. I certainly wouldn't enroll my kids in a Bible class being taught by the conservative Baptist church of a friend when my views are very different. I don't think an LDS parent ot some of those Baptist parents would want their kids in a Bible class I taught and I wouldn't be offended if they told me that up front. If it were a math class though the implication would be that they didn't want their children associating with me at all and that would be hurtful.

[Amira]

This is all quite interesting.

 

I would agree that there are differences in practice with mainline/EO/RC Christianity. But on the whole, our core beliefs are very similar. The Nicene or Apostle's Creed pretty much covers it.

 

But it sounds like an LDS believer would not be able to confirm either creed.

 

Tell me if I am correct in my understanding. (I am using "we" to mean mainline EO/RC/Protestant here).

 

We believe that God exists in three persons who are also one, the Trinity. They are alike in substance, all being fully God.

 

You (LDS) believe in three separate persons who have the same goal but are not one.

 

We believe that God created man as fully human, in the image of God, but not the substance.

 

You believe that God created man as divine children who are growing to be more like Him.

 

We believe satan was created as an angelic being, different in form and substance from both man and God. He rebelled and tried to overthrow God, wanting to be worshipped like God. He was cast down to earth where he does evil and tempts mankind to choose evil. His time here is limited though, and in the end his reign will end and he will be judged.

 

You believe satan was a spirit created in the same substance as Christ and man. He chose to rebel and tempts man to do the same.

 

We believe sin entered the world through Adam and Eve's choice to directly disobey God and eat the fruit He had forbidden them to partake of. Death entered the world and perfect fellowship with God was disrupted.

 

You believe that God ultimately wanted Adam and Eve to eat the fruit because it caused them to become wise, grow up and become parents.

 

We believe that man is created with a soul in the womb.

 

You believe we existed prior to our births in the spirit world and are here for a time of learning.

 

Am I correct?

 

Thank you all for being so gracious to explain things. It really is quite interesting.

 

I can say, after hearing all this, that my stance would be:

 

I am happy to call my LDS sisters friends. I am happy that my kids go to co-op with LDS kids and that we hang out. I can appreciate that my LDS sisters love Jesus and desire to serve Him. I would not, however, feel comfortable worshipping in an LDS congregation, and would not feel comfortable having an LDS teacher teach my child Bible or religion at co-op. The differences there are too great. (FWIW, my kids are all taking art from my dear LDS friend this year at co-op).

 

I hope I don't sound like a mean wench-bag. Or a nice wench-bag for that matter.

 

I think this is a great list of the differences between LDS beliefs and traditional Christianity. And I agree that you wouldn't want me teaching your kids about the Bible at a co-op. You don't sound at all mean- just realistic.

[Xuzi]

This is all quite interesting.

 

I would agree that there are differences in practice with mainline/EO/RC Christianity. But on the whole, our core beliefs are very similar. The Nicene or Apostle's Creed pretty much covers it.

 

But it sounds like an LDS believer would not be able to confirm either creed.

 

Tell me if I am correct in my understanding. (I am using "we" to mean mainline EO/RC/Protestant here).

 

We believe that God exists in three persons who are also one, the Trinity. They are alike in substance, all being fully God.

 

You (LDS) believe in three separate persons who have the same goal but are not one.

 

We believe that God created man as fully human, in the image of God, but not the substance.

 

You believe that God created man as divine children who are growing to be more like Him.

 

We believe satan was created as an angelic being, different in form and substance from both man and God. He rebelled and tried to overthrow God, wanting to be worshipped like God. He was cast down to earth where he does evil and tempts mankind to choose evil. His time here is limited though, and in the end his reign will end and he will be judged.

 

You believe satan was a spirit created in the same substance as Christ and man. He chose to rebel and tempts man to do the same.

 

We believe sin entered the world through Adam and Eve's choice to directly disobey God and eat the fruit He had forbidden them to partake of. Death entered the world and perfect fellowship with God was disrupted.

 

You believe that God ultimately wanted Adam and Eve to eat the fruit because it caused them to become wise, grow up and become parents.

 

We believe that man is created with a soul in the womb.

 

You believe we existed prior to our births in the spirit world and are here for a time of learning.

 

Am I correct?

 

Thank you all for being so gracious to explain things. It really is quite interesting.

 

I can say, after hearing all this, that my stance would be:

 

I am happy to call my LDS sisters friends. I am happy that my kids go to co-op with LDS kids and that we hang out. I can appreciate that my LDS sisters love Jesus and desire to serve Him. I would not, however, feel comfortable worshipping in an LDS congregation, and would not feel comfortable having an LDS teacher teach my child Bible or religion at co-op. The differences there are too great. (FWIW, my kids are all taking art from my dear LDS friend this year at co-op).

 

I hope I don't sound like a mean wench-bag. Or a nice wench-bag for that matter.

You've pretty much got it. :) And I'll admit, that I wouldn't teach a Bible class in a main-stream Christian co-op either, as I know there are differences in our doctrine. :) But then the same could be said of a Catholic teaching a Bible class in a Reformed Christian setting, or a Baptist teaching in a Lutheran setting, I'd imagine. It's best, IMO, when "outsourching" some of your child's religious instruction, to be sure the teacher is in line with your family's beliefs.

 

And I've been to other church's worship services, and haven't felt very uncomfortable at all. I was even in a MOPs group for a couple of years, and thoroughly enjoyed my time there, and was greatly uplifted by my fellow Sisters in Christ. :)

 

Now, to address the bolded part of your post (incase you were wondering why I did that :lol: ), we believe that our Spirits were pre-existant, but our SOULS are created when our Spirits and physical bodies are united. It's one of the reasons why we were sent here to earth, to gain a body, as we aren't a complete soul without one (which is why being cast from Heaven was such a dramatic consequence for Satan and his followers, as they would never be souls).

 

Doctrine &Covenants 88:14-18

Now, verily I say unto you, that through the redemption which is made for you is brought to pass the resurrection from the dead. And the spirit and the body are the soul of man. And the resurrection from the dead is the redemption of the soul. And the redemption of the soul is through him that quickeneth all things, in whose bosom it is decreed that the poor and the meek of the earth shall inherit it.

I know that seems like a semantics thing, but I thought I'd point that out. :)

[MamaSheep]

I must respectfully say that all of these doctrines are so contrary to core beliefs in Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches, that LDS really does stand as a different religion.

 

All mainstream Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) begins with the same history. Writings of the church fathers is easily accessible today, and I would encourage people to read what was written in the centuries after the Bible to realize that Christianity at its core has not changed. There is plenty of historical evidence for the Scriptures and the accuracy with which they have been handed down.

 

Reading what was written in the centuries after the Bible is one of the things that has convinced me that "mainstream" Christianity (by whatever definition) has undergone gradual, but significant, change from its original form.

 

I feel comfortable with Christians of nearly all denominations, and find that the differences do not impact the core of Christianity through the centuries. But this is a radical shift at the very core. I would feel comfortable worshipping at any of the traditional churches. I doubt that LDS would support the same thing, since they feel that mainstream Christianity has "gone astray from Christ's original teachings".

 

I don't really think of my "comfort" as a deciding factor. Truth is more important to me than "feeling comfortable".

 

Many of these discussions about Eve remind me of C.S. Lewis' book Perelandra, a fictional work that presents a new world and the subsequent testing that "God" allows. All the arguments made to the woman in this fictional world to convince her to go against "God" sound very much like some of the LDS statements I have just read. But it is very clear in the book that these are false arguments. Obviously, C.S. Lewis was writing a fictional work, but it is almost eerie to me the similarity in the type of argument.

 

I have a hard time imagining Adam saying "Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God†(Moses 5:10) after God has said this to him:

 

“Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you…In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground.â€

All of this was because he had “eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’.â€

 

I think it's interesting to note that it is the ground that is "cursed", not Adam. And the ground is cursed "for your sake"--for Adam's own good. God is telling Adam that he will now need to work hard for a living, it will no longer be handed to him. We say much the same to our own children when they grow up and leave home, and yet somehow our children (if they are wise and mature) understand that leaving home and venturing out on their own will bring more opportunity for accomplishment and joy than would sitting at home and remaining children, dependent upon their parents. I don't think it's at all strange for Adam to bless God after that conversation. Adam is acknowledging that God knows best, and that his "transgression" (which literally means to move across) has led to a new life which, while difficult and filled with labor, will ultimately lead to a better end point than staying safely in the Garden would have.

 

I think while LDS feels justification in using the term Christian, they are very different in belief from the people who have called themselves Christian for the last 2000 years.

 

I hope my disagreement with LDS is allowed, in the same way that their disagreement with traditional Christianity is allowed.

 

Certainly. That's one of the lovely things about free will. You think what you like, we think what we like, and God gets to sort us all out in the end. :)

[dangermom]

This is all quite interesting.

 

I would agree that there are differences in practice with mainline/EO/RC Christianity. But on the whole, our core beliefs are very similar. The Nicene or Apostle's Creed pretty much covers it.

 

But it sounds like an LDS believer would not be able to confirm either creed.

 

Tell me if I am correct in my understanding. (I am using "we" to mean mainline EO/RC/Protestant here).

 

We believe that God exists in three persons who are also one, the Trinity. They are alike in substance, all being fully God.

 

You (LDS) believe in three separate persons who have the same goal but are not one.

 

We believe that God created man as fully human, in the image of God, but not the substance.

 

You believe that God created man as divine children who are growing to be more like Him.

 

We believe satan was created as an angelic being, different in form and substance from both man and God. He rebelled and tried to overthrow God, wanting to be worshipped like God. He was cast down to earth where he does evil and tempts mankind to choose evil. His time here is limited though, and in the end his reign will end and he will be judged.

 

You believe satan was a spirit created in the same substance as Christ and man. He chose to rebel and tempts man to do the same.

 

We believe sin entered the world through Adam and Eve's choice to directly disobey God and eat the fruit He had forbidden them to partake of. Death entered the world and perfect fellowship with God was disrupted.

 

You believe that God ultimately wanted Adam and Eve to eat the fruit because it caused them to become wise, grow up and become parents.

 

We believe that man is created with a soul in the womb.

 

You believe we existed prior to our births in the spirit world and are here for a time of learning.

 

Am I correct?

 

Thank you all for being so gracious to explain things. It really is quite interesting.

 

I can say, after hearing all this, that my stance would be:

 

I am happy to call my LDS sisters friends. I am happy that my kids go to co-op with LDS kids and that we hang out. I can appreciate that my LDS sisters love Jesus and desire to serve Him. I would not, however, feel comfortable worshipping in an LDS congregation, and would not feel comfortable having an LDS teacher teach my child Bible or religion at co-op. The differences there are too great. (FWIW, my kids are all taking art from my dear LDS friend this year at co-op).

 

I hope I don't sound like a mean wench-bag. Or a nice wench-bag for that matter.

 

Actually I'd amend that bolded one slightly; we believe that we may become more like Him. That's our choice: whether to choose God, or choose something else. If we choose something else, we won't become more like God.

 

 

I would not expect to teach any Bible class in a co-op. All most LDS homeschoolers want is to be recognized as fellow Christians and people it's possible to hang out with.

[MamaSheep]

This is a pretty good list, though I would say not comprehensive, as I think there are other differences. It's a good list for the sake of discussion, though.

 

Others have offered some clarifications, and I have a couple I'd like to add, if that's ok.

 

This is all quite interesting.

 

I would agree that there are differences in practice with mainline/EO/RC Christianity. But on the whole, our core beliefs are very similar. The Nicene or Apostle's Creed pretty much covers it.

 

But it sounds like an LDS believer would not be able to confirm either creed.

 

Tell me if I am correct in my understanding. (I am using "we" to mean mainline EO/RC/Protestant here).

 

We believe that God exists in three persons who are also one, the Trinity. They are alike in substance, all being fully God.

 

You (LDS) believe in three separate persons who have the same goal but are not one.

 

I think adjusting this phrasing slightly would help to avoid some confusion.

 

I would say that the Trinitarian view of God would be that God exists as three persons who are expressions of one divine being. They are the SAME substance, all being fully God.

 

We believe in persons who are individual beings, but who, as a group of three, also operate in utterly complete and perfect unity, as a single unit of divine authority. They are alike, and each is fully God, but they are three beings in unity, not a single being expressed three ways or divided into three persons.

 

We believe that God created man as fully human, in the image of God, but not the substance.

 

You believe that God created man as divine children who are growing to be more like Him.

 

We believe satan was created as an angelic being, different in form and substance from both man and God. He rebelled and tried to overthrow God, wanting to be worshipped like God. He was cast down to earth where he does evil and tempts mankind to choose evil. His time here is limited though, and in the end his reign will end and he will be judged.

 

You believe satan was a spirit created in the same substance as Christ and man. He chose to rebel and tempts man to do the same.

 

LDS belief does not draw the same distinctions in "substance". D&C 131:7 "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter."

 

We do talk about "spirit" versus "physical" matter, but ultimately it's a matter of degree, not of kind. It's matter at a different level of refinement, not a different substance altogether.

 

All of God's spirit-children (including man and Christ, and yes, Lucifer) are seen as being created of the same "substance" as God's spirit. They are His offspring, and are "like" Him in substance, just as physical "offspring" are like their parents in substance. Man's physical bodies are created of the same physical matter as Jesus's physical body (and that of the Father, which is another point of doctrinal difference), but the matter of which a resurrected, glorified body is made is purified and imbued with glory in a way that mortal physical bodies are not. It's all the same "stuff", it's just in different states, so to speak. So the discussion of same and different "substances" doesn't really enter into LDS theology.

 

Angels, in LDS belief, are not a separate creation from man. The word "angel" basically means a messenger. We view these messengers from God as being unembodied, disembodied, or resurrected spirit children of God (aka "humans"). There is no substantial difference between an angel and a human. An angel might be a spirit-child of God (human) who has not yet lived in mortality (unembodied), or one who has already lived and died and has either been resurrected, or is still awaiting resurrection (disembodied). Sometimes in scripture it's fairly clear that the word "angel" is being applied to mortal men of God.

 

When the Bible says man is "a little lower than the angels" we understand that to mean that men in a mortal condition have a greater degree of separation from the presence of God than do those in a pre- or post-mortal condition. The Bible also says that Jesus was "made a little lower than the angels", and we take this to mean that His eternal, divine spirit entered fully into a mortal body under the conditions of mortal existence, not that His fundamental "substance" or make-up underwent some kind of drastic alteration. During His mortal ministry He was fully God because His spirit was already part of the Godhead prior to His birth and it maintained its divine status, and He was fully man because His divine spirit entered fully into the mortal condition in a physical body.

 

So in a way it's technically accurate, but not really complete to say that we believe Satan was created in the same substance as Christ and man. We believe that Christ, Lucifer (who became Satan when he rebelled) and man are all spirit offspring of God's spirit, and therefore of the same "substance" as God--and by extension, the same "substance" as each other. And I'm not sure "created" is really the right word for it either, as that sort of implies that God took something separate from Himself and made them, like a man might make a statue out of clay, whereas we believe our relationship to God is more like that of a child to a father, where a part of the father grows into the child.

 

We believe sin entered the world through Adam and Eve's choice to directly disobey God and eat the fruit He had forbidden them to partake of. Death entered the world and perfect fellowship with God was disrupted.

 

You believe that God ultimately wanted Adam and Eve to eat the fruit because it caused them to become wise, grow up and become parents.

 

We believe that man is created with a soul in the womb.

 

You believe we existed prior to our births in the spirit world and are here for a time of learning.

 

Am I correct?

 

Thank you all for being so gracious to explain things. It really is quite interesting.

 

I can say, after hearing all this, that my stance would be:

 

I am happy to call my LDS sisters friends. I am happy that my kids go to co-op with LDS kids and that we hang out. I can appreciate that my LDS sisters love Jesus and desire to serve Him. I would not, however, feel comfortable worshipping in an LDS congregation, and would not feel comfortable having an LDS teacher teach my child Bible or religion at co-op. The differences there are too great. (FWIW, my kids are all taking art from my dear LDS friend this year at co-op).

 

I hope I don't sound like a mean wench-bag. Or a nice wench-bag for that matter.

 

I don't think you sound "mean" at all. I suspect that LDS teachings are not the only ones you would want to avoid for your child. And I will say that when dd asked to go visit the little "outreach" carnival put on by a local Christian church (they didn't say on their literature what branch of Christianity, but from the content my guess would be Southern Baptist) over at the park across the street, I did go over with her and listen to the lessons she was taught so we could discuss what was said afterward. But yes, although I appreciate that my friends of other Christian faiths love Jesus too, I am careful about the religious education my children receive, and I can certainly understand and respect that my friends of other faiths would feel the same way. :)

[gardenmom5]

I would agree that there are differences in practice with mainline/EO/RC Christianity. But on the whole, our core beliefs are very similar. The Nicene or Apostle's Creed pretty much covers it..

No, we don't follow the coucil of nicea. we believe there was a falling away, or apostacy as was taught in 2 thessolonians about a falling away happening before Christ came again. (re: second coming) thus a need for restoration and not reformation. (though we believe the reformers performed a great service and were sincere in their efforts to serve God.)

 

We believe that God exists in three persons who are also one, the Trinity. They are alike in substance, all being fully God. .

that sounds contradictory to me. I don't get it. We believe they are seperate and distinct and have the same goal and work with a uniformity of purpose. They are all members of the Godhead.

 

Jesus had to have the powers of God in order to have the power over death so He could choose to give up His life on the cross. He choose when He died. That way He could die "unblemished" when the soldiers came to quicken their deaths so they wouldn't be on the cross at the sabbath, they found Jesus already dead. He also had the power to take up his life again - he had the power to be Resurrected. Restoring His body and spirit again in perfection never to be seperated again. Jesus was the ONLY one to live on the earth who has ever had that power. It is by Him, and through Him and His atonement that we can one day also be resurrected. Entirely dependent upon Him.

 

I know mainline christians believe Jesus was resurrected. what do you believe He did with his body if he doesn't have one now? This really is a curiosity.

 

 

We believe that man is created with a soul in the womb.

 

You believe we existed prior to our births in the spirit world and are here for a time of learning.

 

Am I correct?

our definition of 'soul' is when spirit and physical body are joined together - so yes, that would be in the womb. We also believe our spirits were created in a pre-mortal world where we were given the choice to follow God and Jesus Christ's Plan (re: we would sin, have to repent, Jesus would atone for our sins, etc.) or not, before the foundations of the world. We, as in everyone on earth, all choose to follow Them, or we wouldn't be here on earth.

 

We believe we are here to "prove" if we will be faithful and obedient to God's commands, and most importantly, will we Trust in God with nothing but faith to go on? If we remembered them, there would be knowledge, and no faith required. there are other things to learn as well (like how to control a physical body), but those are some of the bigger ones. (We believe God already knows the answer, but we need to know for ourselves so we will also have assurity of the Justice and mercy of God.)

 

Thank you all for being so gracious to explain things. It really is quite interesting.

 

I can say, after hearing all this, that my stance would be:

 

I am happy to call my LDS sisters friends. I am happy that my kids go to co-op with LDS kids and that we hang out. I can appreciate that my LDS sisters love Jesus and desire to serve Him. I would not, however, feel comfortable worshipping in an LDS congregation, and would not feel comfortable having an LDS teacher teach my child Bible or religion at co-op. The differences there are too great. (FWIW, my kids are all taking art from my dear LDS friend this year at co-op).

 

I hope I don't sound like a mean wench-bag. Or a nice wench-bag for that matter.

 

this is a gracious response - and most of us would feel the same. we would be happy to have you as friends, visit your church on occassions, but we would also be more comfortable teaching our young children our understanding of the gospel so they don't get confused.

Edited July 17, 2011 by gardenmom5

[Julie in Austin]

I must respectfully say that all of these doctrines are so contrary to core beliefs in Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches, that LDS really does stand as a different religion.

 

My intention here is to speak respectfully of you and your beliefs; I hope that comes through and it is my intent. Here goes:

 

When I see a statement like that, I feel amazed that someone would think categorizing what happened in Eden as a "sin" or a "transgression" is a "core" belief. To me, core beliefs are things like: Jesus Christ was the Son of God, Jesus Christ lived a sinless life, Jesus Christ died for our sins, Jesus Christ was resurrected on the third day, we need to repent and have faith in Jesus Christ, etc.

[Julie in Austin]

Do all Mormons have a literal understanding of Satan?

 

Perhaps you could find a few who don't, but generally speaking, Mormons have a literal understanding of Satan.

[Julie in Austin]

I can say, after hearing all this, that my stance would be:

 

I am happy to call my LDS sisters friends. I am happy that my kids go to co-op with LDS kids and that we hang out. I can appreciate that my LDS sisters love Jesus and desire to serve Him. I would not, however, feel comfortable worshipping in an LDS congregation, and would not feel comfortable having an LDS teacher teach my child Bible or religion at co-op. The differences there are too great. (FWIW, my kids are all taking art from my dear LDS friend this year at co-op).

 

I hope I don't sound like a mean wench-bag. Or a nice wench-bag for that matter.

 

You sound nice, period. I think your position is very reasonable, and I feel the same way about interacting with other Christians: friends, co-ops, discussions, etc., but not teaching religion to my younger kids.

 

The issue of whether LDS are Christian comes up frequently. My own position, which is perhaps somewhat different from other LDS, is this:

 

If Christian means "believes in Jesus Christ," then, yes, of course, obviously.

 

If Christian means "believes what mainstream Christians believe about Jesus Christ," then maybe or maybe not, depending on how we are defining mainstream Christian and what we are focusing on.

 

I personally feel that people should decide for themselves whether the label "Christian" applies to their own beliefs and if they say they are, then I am not going to dispute them.

[gardenmom5]

I'm Jehovah's Witness, We teach at Jesus was with Jehovah during creation.

 

Interesting discussion!! I love hearing about other faiths, especially ones that are so different from my own.

 

Interesting. We believe Jesus is Jehovah of the OT.

[WishboneDawn]

My intention here is to speak respectfully of you and your beliefs; I hope that comes through and it is my intent. Here goes:

 

When I see a statement like that, I feel amazed that someone would think categorizing what happened in Eden as a "sin" or a "transgression" is a "core" belief. To me, core beliefs are things like: Jesus Christ was the Son of God, Jesus Christ lived a sinless life, Jesus Christ died for our sins, Jesus Christ was resurrected on the third day, we need to repent and have faith in Jesus Christ, etc.

 

:iagree:

[MamaSheep]

This is all quite interesting.

 

I would agree that there are differences in practice with mainline/EO/RC Christianity. But on the whole, our core beliefs are very similar. The Nicene or Apostle's Creed pretty much covers it.

 

But it sounds like an LDS believer would not be able to confirm either creed.

 

Tell me if I am correct in my understanding. (I am using "we" to mean mainline EO/RC/Protestant here).

 

We believe that God exists in three persons who are also one, the Trinity. They are alike in substance, all being fully God.

 

You (LDS) believe in three separate persons who have the same goal but are not one.

 

We believe that God created man as fully human, in the image of God, but not the substance.

 

You believe that God created man as divine children who are growing to be more like Him.

 

We believe satan was created as an angelic being, different in form and substance from both man and God. He rebelled and tried to overthrow God, wanting to be worshipped like God. He was cast down to earth where he does evil and tempts mankind to choose evil. His time here is limited though, and in the end his reign will end and he will be judged.

 

You believe satan was a spirit created in the same substance as Christ and man. He chose to rebel and tempts man to do the same.

 

We believe sin entered the world through Adam and Eve's choice to directly disobey God and eat the fruit He had forbidden them to partake of. Death entered the world and perfect fellowship with God was disrupted.

 

You believe that God ultimately wanted Adam and Eve to eat the fruit because it caused them to become wise, grow up and become parents.

 

We believe that man is created with a soul in the womb.

 

You believe we existed prior to our births in the spirit world and are here for a time of learning.

 

Am I correct?

 

Thank you all for being so gracious to explain things. It really is quite interesting.

 

I can say, after hearing all this, that my stance would be:

 

I am happy to call my LDS sisters friends. I am happy that my kids go to co-op with LDS kids and that we hang out. I can appreciate that my LDS sisters love Jesus and desire to serve Him. I would not, however, feel comfortable worshipping in an LDS congregation, and would not feel comfortable having an LDS teacher teach my child Bible or religion at co-op. The differences there are too great. (FWIW, my kids are all taking art from my dear LDS friend this year at co-op).

 

I hope I don't sound like a mean wench-bag. Or a nice wench-bag for that matter.

 

Mulling this over a little more, this bolded bit snags at me just a little too.

 

You believe that God ultimately wanted Adam and Eve to eat the fruit because it caused them to become wise, grow up and become parents.

 

This much is true. I would add the words "continue to" before "grow up", since we see this process of "growing up" as having begun before the world was even created, and as continuing into the eternities beyond death and resurrection.

 

And I would also add that we do believe it was through Adam's transgression that the possibility for sin entered the world (since "sin" requires a level of intent that is only possible for one who knows good and evil and makes a concious choice between the two), and that Adam and Eve were the first of mankind to sin.

 

It is true, though, that we believe God's intent was fulfilled in the Garden, and this is in contrast to the "mainstream" Christian belief that God's plan was for mankind to live forever in paradise and that Adam and Eve, in their ignorance and rebellion, were able to disrupt God's plan and ruin God's perfect creation.

 

We recognize that man's face-to-face fellowship with God was disrupted for a time (spiritual death), but we believe that this was part of God's plan to teach and test His children, and that God had already provided a Savior before the foundation of the world to heal that breach and bring man back into God's presence--this time with a greater understanding of and appreciation for that fellowship, and a deeper, more profound relationship with God than man could have achieved had he remained in paradise.

 

You are right, though, that we reject the "mainstream" belief that God's plan was so delicate that a man eating a piece of fruit was able to cast it all into ruin. We believe an all-knowing, all-powerful God set it up that way on purpose, and is still in control of His creation. And we believe that although God does allow man to make his own choices, even choices that are contrary to God's will, that very freedom to choose is part of the overarching structure of God's plan for mankind, and man does not have the power to actually destroy the plans of God. We can count on God's promises because God is more powerful than us, and He knows more than we do, and He is able to keep His promises in spite of anything we might do, intentionally or otherwise, to disrupt His plans.

[LittleIzumi]

This is all quite interesting.

 

I would agree that there are differences in practice with mainline/EO/RC Christianity. But on the whole, our core beliefs are very similar. The Nicene or Apostle's Creed pretty much covers it.

 

But it sounds like an LDS believer would not be able to confirm either creed.

 

Tell me if I am correct in my understanding. (I am using "we" to mean mainline EO/RC/Protestant here).

 

We believe that God exists in three persons who are also one, the Trinity. They are alike in substance, all being fully God.

 

You (LDS) believe in three separate persons who have the same goal but are not one.

 

We believe that God created man as fully human, in the image of God, but not the substance.

 

You believe that God created man as divine children who are growing to be more like Him.

 

We believe satan was created as an angelic being, different in form and substance from both man and God. He rebelled and tried to overthrow God, wanting to be worshipped like God. He was cast down to earth where he does evil and tempts mankind to choose evil. His time here is limited though, and in the end his reign will end and he will be judged.

 

You believe satan was a spirit created in the same substance as Christ and man. He chose to rebel and tempts man to do the same.

 

We believe sin entered the world through Adam and Eve's choice to directly disobey God and eat the fruit He had forbidden them to partake of. Death entered the world and perfect fellowship with God was disrupted.

 

You believe that God ultimately wanted Adam and Eve to eat the fruit because it caused them to become wise, grow up and become parents.

 

We believe that man is created with a soul in the womb.

 

You believe we existed prior to our births in the spirit world and are here for a time of learning.

 

Am I correct?

 

Thank you all for being so gracious to explain things. It really is quite interesting.

 

I can say, after hearing all this, that my stance would be:

 

I am happy to call my LDS sisters friends. I am happy that my kids go to co-op with LDS kids and that we hang out. I can appreciate that my LDS sisters love Jesus and desire to serve Him. I would not, however, feel comfortable worshipping in an LDS congregation, and would not feel comfortable having an LDS teacher teach my child Bible or religion at co-op. The differences there are too great. (FWIW, my kids are all taking art from my dear LDS friend this year at co-op).

 

I hope I don't sound like a mean wench-bag. Or a nice wench-bag for that matter.

 

I think that makes a great deal of sense. It's why I use mostly secular resources, because explaining why, in HOD, we didn't actually believe that everything bad on earth was because of Adam & Eve, for instance, gets old quickly :tongue_smilie:. All I want to add is on the bolded, we also believe Satan's period of power on Earth is limited and that in the end, he will be bound (during the Millennium), and then after the Millennium Satan and his followers will be cast out forever.

 

I think it's interesting to note that it is the ground that is "cursed", not Adam. And the ground is cursed "for your sake"--for Adam's own good. God is telling Adam that he will now need to work hard for a living, it will no longer be handed to him. We say much the same to our own children when they grow up and leave home, and yet somehow our children (if they are wise and mature) understand that leaving home and venturing out on their own will bring more opportunity for accomplishment and joy than would sitting at home and remaining children, dependent upon their parents. I don't think it's at all strange for Adam to bless God after that conversation. Adam is acknowledging that God knows best, and that his "transgression" (which literally means to move across) has led to a new life which, while difficult and filled with labor, will ultimately lead to a better end point than staying safely in the Garden would have.

 

:iagree: Leaving the paradise of the Garden of Eden for the "real world" must have been extremely difficult in and of itself, but it was for the greater good.

[8circles]

I can understand your point of view.

I have a deep faith in Jesus Christ. I believe He is my Savior and died for my sins. I have faith that through His atonement I can return to life with my Heavenly Father.

I understand that you may not call me a christian.

But I will continute to call myself a christian.

And if you told me you believed in Christ I would call you a christian too.

:001_smile:

 

What lovely gracious response.

[naturalmom]

I wish I knew how to quote!

 

I'm really glad for pfamilygal's summary of the Nicene Creed. I tend to base my definition of Christian on that. And I think it's been made clear that LDS does not hold to that creed.

 

Although you may not find RC's and Protestants teaching joint Bible classes, they do have those same core beliefs that are found in the Nicene Creed.

 

MamaSheep, when I said I would feel comfortable in those various mainstream churches, that had everything to do with truth, and nothing to do with feelings/preferences. Again, it's down to the core beliefs being so radically different.

 

Julie in Austen, I understand your point about ": Jesus Christ was the Son of God, Jesus Christ lived a sinless life, Jesus Christ died for our sins, Jesus Christ was resurrected on the third day, we need to repent and have faith in Jesus Christ" (there, that's a nonfancy quote!) being core beliefs. However, LDS and mainstream Christianity start from very different initial points. All the parts about Eden are important because they are tied to who God is, who/what we are, and what salvation actually means.

 

LDS believe Jesus is the Son of God, but they have a different view of who that God is, really. And that changes all of it for me.

 

I'm sorry I'm not as good as phrasing things politely (well done, so many of you, like pfamilygal, MamaSheep, and nearly everybody really!) But I feel these are very important issues. I have a hard time with the glossing over of differences that I think we all can see do exist; or comparing those differences with the differences that exist between mainstream Christian denominations. Apples and oranges are different, but they're both fruit. Comparing either of those with say kale reveals a greater divide. (and I like kale!) There's a little bit of similarity, in that they all come from seeds and are plants, so they're quite different from roast beef or chicken. But there is a clear distinction to be found that separates the apples/oranges from the kale/other vegetables.

[HSmomNY]

But I feel these are very important issues. I have a hard time with the glossing over of differences that I think we all can see do exist; or comparing those differences with the differences that exist between mainstream Christian denominations. Apples and oranges are different, but they're both fruit. Comparing either of those with say kale reveals a greater divide. (and I like kale!) There's a little bit of similarity, in that they all come from seeds and are plants, so they're quite different from roast beef or chicken. But there is a clear distinction to be found that separates the apples/oranges from the kale/other vegetables.

 

 

I have never thought of myself as kale......

I always thought of myself as a tomato, a fruit that is often thought of as a vegetable.

 

;)

 

Sorry, I just could not help myself. :D

[Julie in Austin]

I wish I knew how to quote!

 

I'm really glad for pfamilygal's summary of the Nicene Creed. I tend to base my definition of Christian on that. And I think it's been made clear that LDS does not hold to that creed.

 

Although you may not find RC's and Protestants teaching joint Bible classes, they do have those same core beliefs that are found in the Nicene Creed.

 

MamaSheep, when I said I would feel comfortable in those various mainstream churches, that had everything to do with truth, and nothing to do with feelings/preferences. Again, it's down to the core beliefs being so radically different.

 

Julie in Austen, I understand your point about ": Jesus Christ was the Son of God, Jesus Christ lived a sinless life, Jesus Christ died for our sins, Jesus Christ was resurrected on the third day, we need to repent and have faith in Jesus Christ" (there, that's a nonfancy quote!) being core beliefs. However, LDS and mainstream Christianity start from very different initial points. All the parts about Eden are important because they are tied to who God is, who/what we are, and what salvation actually means.

 

LDS believe Jesus is the Son of God, but they have a different view of who that God is, really. And that changes all of it for me.

 

I'm sorry I'm not as good as phrasing things politely (well done, so many of you, like pfamilygal, MamaSheep, and nearly everybody really!) But I feel these are very important issues. I have a hard time with the glossing over of differences that I think we all can see do exist; or comparing those differences with the differences that exist between mainstream Christian denominations. Apples and oranges are different, but they're both fruit. Comparing either of those with say kale reveals a greater divide. (and I like kale!) There's a little bit of similarity, in that they all come from seeds and are plants, so they're quite different from roast beef or chicken. But there is a clear distinction to be found that separates the apples/oranges from the kale/other vegetables.

 

naturalmom, you are absolutely right that there are significant doctrinal differences between LDS and other Christians. I don't think there is a single LDS *or* other Christian who would dispute that, actually.

 

But when the question is whether someone is a Christian (or not), I see it like this:

 

Person A says, "I believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, was born of Mary, was the only perfect person who ever lived, died for our sins, and was resurrected. I believe that we should repent and model ourselves after Him."

 

And Person B says, "Person A isn't a Christian."

 

. . . that seems kind of . . . weird . . . to me. It seems that Person B is making the focal point of Christianity something other than Jesus Christ. Person A and B may have hugely different _interpretations_ of Christianity, but if A is affirming those and other basic truths about Jesus Christ, then it seems that B is saying that being a Christian is about something *other* than those basic truths about Jesus Christ.

[I.Dup.]

Family units are eternal and sealing a family together is the highest ordinance in the temple and in the gospel.

 

I am very curious about LDS beliefs. I am still reading through this thread, but I have known about the importance LDS believers place on family (I find that inspiring, BTW) but I am wondering how this correlates with Jesus' own words: 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31 But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’[b]? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.†-Matt. 22

 

I know Joseph Smith was given his own gospel, but wouldn't the idea of eternal marriage contradict what Jesus himself said?

 

I'm sorry if this is redundant, I am still reading through the thread. :)

[Julie in Austin]

I am very curious about LDS beliefs. I am still reading through this thread, but I have known about the importance LDS believers place on family (I find that inspiring, BTW) but I am wondering how this correlates with Jesus' own words: 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31 But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’[b]? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” -Matt. 22

 

I know Joseph Smith was given his own gospel, but wouldn't the idea of eternal marriage contradict what Jesus himself said?

 

I'm sorry if this is redundant, I am still reading through the thread. :)

 

That's a good question. The context there was levirate marriage (=the practice of a brother marrying his deceased brother's wife if she did not already have sons in order to provide sons). In that case, we would not expect that to be an eternal marriage, so LDS do not see any conflict.

[I.Dup.]

That's a good question. The context there was levirate marriage (=the practice of a brother marrying his deceased brother's wife if she did not already have sons in order to provide sons). In that case, we would not expect that to be an eternal marriage, so LDS do not see any conflict.

 

Thank you. :) Are there any verses in the Bible (as in, the KJV, not the Joseph Smith scriptures) that agree with the LDS position of eternal marriage?

 

Also, how would/does the LDS church view the "quiverfull" concept- that God personally creates each child and we should accept each child conceived as a blessing?

[LittleIzumi]

Thank you. :) Are there any verses in the Bible (as in, the KJV, not the Joseph Smith scriptures) that agree with the LDS position of eternal marriage?

 

Also, how would/does the LDS church view the "quiverfull" concept- that God personally creates each child and we should accept each child conceived as a blessing?

 

God's teachings on marriage have been given specifically to specific groups of people. The previous position on marriage to a brother, how some were allowed to have many wives (David, Solomon, etc) but others were not, etc. In Matthew Jesus says: "

3 ¶The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so."

 

 

Most of the detailed scripture on eternal marriage is in LDS scripture, mostly Doctrine & Covenants. The Bible does not say eternal marriage is not so, but it does give specific commandments re: temporal marriage to specific groups that shouldn't be extrapolated to all (as in the above scripture--divorce was necessary because of mankind's actions in a particular society but was not so from the beginning--marriages weren't supposed to end).

[LittleIzumi]

Oh, and on "quiverful," we are not commanded one way or another. We are commanded to "multiply and replenish the earth," but topics like birth control and individual situations are supposed to be between the family and the Lord--we are to pray about it & try to follow what the Spirit tells us is God's will for our family at the time.

[I.Dup.]

Okay, thank you. What about LDS teachings on pregnancy/contraception/children as blessings to be accepted?

[I.Dup.]

We must have been posting at the same time, thank you. So there are no official church teachings on pregnancy/child bearing then?

[meggie]

Thank you. :) Are there any verses in the Bible (as in, the KJV, not the Joseph Smith scriptures) that agree with the LDS position of eternal marriage?

 

Also, how would/does the LDS church view the "quiverfull" concept- that God personally creates each child and we should accept each child conceived as a blessing?

 

 

Taken from the Church's handbook:

"Birth Control

 

It is the privilege of married couples who are able to bear children to provide mortal bodies for the spirit children of God, whom they are then responsible to nurture and rear. The decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.

Married couples should also understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife."

 

 

 

 

And taken from The Family: A Proclamation to the World:

 

 

"The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

 

 

I have met a few LDS families that practice the quiverfull "how ever many the Lord sends us" but essentially the leadership of the church leaves it up to the parents. To us, all children are blessings, but it is ok to use birth control. It's between us and the Lord. I've never been asked anything about it in my interviews with leaders (for things like callings and temple recommends).

 

ETA: I have known various families who have used every type of bc from the pill to sterilization to NFP to barrier method, etc. It is never asked about by any of our church leaders. The only cases where the leaders would support an abortion is in the case of rape or incest.

Edited July 17, 2011 by meggie

[I.Dup.]

Okay so accepting children as God sends them (not using birth control) would not be frowned upon?

[meggie]

Okay so accepting children as God sends them (not using birth control) would not be frowned upon?

 

Nope. As long as both parents are in agreement.

[dangermom]

Okay so accepting children as God sends them (not using birth control) would not be frowned upon?

No, not at all. I'd say there have been a significant number of Mormons who have done that.