Mormons are required to earn each blessing:

Status
Not open for further replies.
That does not provide eternal life in Mormonism.
Sure it does. "All men" means all men. It includes Mormons as well as everyone else regardless of what they did anywhere in the world or at any time in their life.

As I said, gifts are free. blessings are earned. I don't have a problem with that. You can bad mouth it all you want, but the fact remains; if we must do something to be saved, then whatever that is that we must do, that's works and it's earned because we have to do it.
 
You can quote it and pretend that Mormonism and Christianity are in agreement, but that is a deceptive practice.
Oh. I don't think we're pretending any such thing. We are definitely not in agreement on this subject, but it isn't for the reasons you think it is. Where I think we disagree is in this question, what does "justification of life" mean?

Is the resurrection life? I think it is. Will all of us be resurrected? The scriptures tell us everyone will be. Note, this is not the judgment, this is simply the atonement where God in Jesus Christ, paid the debt that would have left us all in the grave. he paid it for everyone including Mormons and non-Mormons. It doesn't matter what you did in life.

It's not talking about salvation. That does matter what you did in life.
 
Eternal life per Mormonism has lots of requirements for being like God.
Yep. and that's not free. It's a blessing that we have to meet certain conditions or we can't have it. That's not the same as the resurrection.
Articles of Faith:

3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

Problems with church members deceiving both Mormons and non-Mormons:
1. Dishonesty
2. Breaking Mormon commandments per Articles of Faith 3 and 13.
The problem here is you misrepresenting our beliefs. Your argument is empty because we aren't deceiving anyone. But if you insist on teaching these we don't believe or teach, then you would be.
BIBLE

Revelation 21:8
But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
That could equally apply to you, couldn't it? Are you above the law?
 
Without obedience in your "First Estate" you would have been denied a physical body and would have been cast out with Satan and his angels. Why is it so difficult for a Mormon to be honest?
What were we supposed to be obedient to? Satan and his minions were cast out for rebellion, not for being disobedient.
 
BIBLE

Revelation 21:8
But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

And the Lord spoke and addressed abominations:

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
 
And the Lord spoke and addressed abominations:

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
Teachings of false doctrines come from a lord of hell no doubt.
 
I would suggest you stop trash-talking me. I will argue my own points.
And I suggest you stop representing our side and claiming Mormons earn salvation.

I'm guessing you're going to blow off my suggestions, as I'll blow off yours. Suggestions dont carry much water, do they?
 
And the Lord spoke and addressed abominations:

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
And then Joseph Smith went out and tried to join the Methodist church.
 
And then Joseph Smith went out and tried to join the Methodist church.
No. He didn't. His name was found in a class roster and the assumption was made based on that alone that he applied for membership. That's pretty weak evidence IMO. In fact, I'd say the fact that anyone would even bring that up is evidence of desperation. It's almost to the point of making up evidence.
 
And then Joseph Smith went out and tried to join the Methodist church.
So again, we all know the accusations but very little specifics.... we know he attended but no clear evidence he ever joined... nice try Mag.

Three of the primary sources that charge Joseph Smith with joining sectarian churches between 1820 and 1830 were produced in the latter part of the nineteenth century, over a half-century after the First Vision. None of the three are contemporary records; the earliest one was written 50 years after the First Vision took place.

  • Fayette Lapham claimed that Joseph had joined the Baptist Church.
  • Joseph and Hiel Lewis claimed that Joseph Smith joined the Methodist Church.
  • S.F. Anderick claimed that Joseph Smith joined the Presbyterian Church.
We must note too that none of these sources confirms the others—they all discuss different denominations and different time frames. Thus, the stories are not mutually reinforcing.

Eyewitness reminiscences and contemporary records provide strong evidence that these claims are not valid and, therefore, do not reflect historical reality. The three sources are all late, and all from hostile voices.

Fayette Lapham claimed to have interviewed Joseph Smith Sr. in 1829-30, and published a report forty years later. In it, he reported:

About this time [1822, perhaps as late as 1824] he [Joseph, Jr.] became concerned as to his future state of existence, and was baptized, becoming thus a member of the Baptist Church.

There are no records to support the claim that Joseph joined the Baptist Church​

The Lapham source is secondhand at best—putting forward information that reportedly came from the Prophet's father. There are no records beyond this late, second-hand recollection to support this claim.
  1. Fayette Lapham, "Interview with the Father of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet, Forty Years Ago. His Account of the Finding of the Sacred Plates," Historical Magazine [second series] 7 (May 1870): 305-309; reproduced in Vogel, Early Mormon Documents 1:456-466.
 
Yea. I little bit of research would save our critics a lot of embarrassment, but they know that propaganda is always better than facts when pushing a particular agenda.
 
Yea. I little bit of research would save our critics a lot of embarrassment, but they know that propaganda is always better than facts when pushing a particular agenda.
What is that saying? “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
 
So again, we all know the accusations but very little specifics.... we know he attended but no clear evidence he ever joined... nice try Mag.

Three of the primary sources that charge Joseph Smith with joining sectarian churches between 1820 and 1830 were produced in the latter part of the nineteenth century, over a half-century after the First Vision. None of the three are contemporary records; the earliest one was written 50 years after the First Vision took place.

  • Fayette Lapham claimed that Joseph had joined the Baptist Church.
  • Joseph and Hiel Lewis claimed that Joseph Smith joined the Methodist Church.
  • S.F. Anderick claimed that Joseph Smith joined the Presbyterian Church.
We must note too that none of these sources confirms the others—they all discuss different denominations and different time frames. Thus, the stories are not mutually reinforcing.

Eyewitness reminiscences and contemporary records provide strong evidence that these claims are not valid and, therefore, do not reflect historical reality. The three sources are all late, and all from hostile voices.

Fayette Lapham claimed to have interviewed Joseph Smith Sr. in 1829-30, and published a report forty years later. In it, he reported:


There are no records to support the claim that Joseph joined the Baptist Church​

The Lapham source is secondhand at best—putting forward information that reportedly came from the Prophet's father. There are no records beyond this late, second-hand recollection to support this claim.
  1. Fayette Lapham, "Interview with the Father of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet, Forty Years Ago. His Account of the Finding of the Sacred Plates," Historical Magazine [second series] 7 (May 1870): 305-309; reproduced in Vogel, Early Mormon Documents 1:456-466.
He applied to take the preliminary class that was necessary to join the Methodist church. His name was on the role. But when some leaders saw it, they refused to let him into the class or join their church because of the nefarious practices he was involved with… glass looking, stone peeping, claiming to be able to find treasures for people, fortune telling.

This is history, Ralph. Not anti-Mormon propaganda. Of course you don’t want to acknowledge it. Then you’d be forced to look at some things you don’t want to look at.
 
He applied to take the preliminary class that was necessary to join the Methodist church. His name was on the role. But when some leaders saw it, they refused to let him into the class or join their church because of the nefarious practices he was involved with… glass looking, stone peeping, claiming to be able to find treasures for people, fortune telling.

This is history, Ralph. Not anti-Mormon propaganda. Of course you don’t want to acknowledge it. Then you’d be forced to look at some things you don’t want to look at.
Nope, there never was any evidence he signed a roll. His name was added on by the Pastor...


IN 1879, 59 YEARS AFTER THE FIRST VISION, JOSEPH AND HIEL LEWIS CLAIMED THAT JOSEPH SMITH JOINED THE METHODIST CHURCH WHILE TRANSLATING THE BOOK OF MORMON​

Joseph and Hiel Lewis were cousins of Emma Hale Smith; they would have been aged 21 and 11 respectively in 1828:

...while he, Smith, was in Harmony, Pa., translating his book....that he joined the M[ethodist] [Episocpal] church. He presented himself in a very serious and humble manner, and the minister, not suspecting evil, put his name on the class book, the absence of some of the official members, among whom was the undersigned, Joseph Lewis, who, when he learned what was done, took with him Joshua McKune, and had a talk with Smith. They told him plainly that such a character as he was a disgrace to the church, that he could not be a member of the church unless he broke off his sins by repentance, made public confession, renounced his fraudulent and hypocritical practices, and gave some evidence that he intended to reform and conduct himself somewhat nearer like a christian than he had done. They gave him his choice, to go before the class, and publicly ask to have his name stricken from the class book, or stand a disciplinary investigation. He chose the former, and immediately withdrew his name. So his name as a member of the class was on the book only three days.--It was the general opinion that his only object in joining the church was to bolster up his reputation and gain the sympathy and help of christians; that is, putting on the cloak of religion to serve the devil in.[2]

There is a difference between attending Methodist services and formally joining the Methodist Church​

Note that Joseph did not inscribe himself, but the Methodist minister added Joseph's name to the class book. It is not surprising that Joseph might have attended Methodist services: Emma's family was involved in Methodism, she was related to Methodist ministers, and Joseph at this period was living on the Hale family's farm. The Hales had serious reservations about their new son-in-law, who claimed by this point to have the Book of Mormon plates in his possession. It would be natural for him to attend worship services with them if only to reassure them that he was not hostile to religion.

Joseph Lewis described himself as one of the "official members", indicating the Joseph was not a member of the church

It is telling, though, that as soon as Joseph Lewis learned that Joseph had attended, he quickly took steps to disassociate the church from a person he saw as an imposter: note too that Lewis describes himself (rather than Joseph) as one "of the official members." A study of Methodist procedure makes it extremely unlikely that Joseph could have been a member of the Church, especially for only three days.

The Lewis source presents a scenario that was directly contradicted in print by an adult eyewitness who was a Methodist church officer.
It is certainly possible that Joseph attended a Methodist meeting with his wife and in-laws: even in the Lewis' telling, however, he was quickly made to understand that he was not wanted, and he persisted in his own beliefs rather than continue with them.

  1. Joseph and Hiel Lewis, "Mormon History. A New Chapter, About to Be Published," Amboy Journal [Illinois] 24 (30 April 1879): 1; reproduced in Vogel, Early Mormon Documents 4:300–306.
  2. FairMormon.
 

More information for Magdalena...

In contrast to probationers, full members were required to undergo a disciplinary procedure​

The Guide-Book is very clear:

[35] When a Church relation is formed, the member, virtually, promises to observe the rules and usages of the society, and if he violates them, to submit to the discipline of the Church. And hence none can claim a withdrawal from the Church against whom charges have been preferred, or until the Church has had an opportunity to recognise the withdrawal. A solemn covenant cannot be dissolved until the parties are duly notified....
How is this discipline to be handled? The Guide-Book contains extensive rules for managing such trials, and insists that such a trial is the only way to challenge the membership of a full member:

[83] It is a principle clearly recognised by the Discipline of our Church, that no member, in full connexion, can be dropped or expelled by the preacher in charge until the select committee, or the society of which he is a member, declares, in due form, that he is guilty of the violation of some Scriptural or moral principle,, or some requisition of Church covenant....[96] The Discipline requires that an accused member shall be brought before "the society of which he is a member, or a select number of them." In either case it should be understood that only members in full connexion are intended....
The "select committee" was a quasi-judicial body of church members assembled to hear such charges, assess the evidence, and affix punishment if necessary. The Guide-Book emphasizes that this important right had been explicitly defined after Joseph's time (in 1848). For full members, it is clearly seen as a privilege which cannot be abridged:

[83] The restrictive rules guarantee, both to our ministers and members, the privilege of trial and of appeal; and the General Conference has explicitly declared that "it is the right of every member of the Methodist Episcopal Church to remain in said Church, unless guilty of the violation of its rules; and there exists no power in the ministry, either individually or collectively, to deprive any member of said right." -- Rec. Gen. Con. [89] 1848, p. 73. The fact that the member is guilty of the violation of the rules of the Church must be formally proved before the body holding original jurisdiction in the case. If the administrator personally knows that the charges are substantially true, it does not authorize him to remove the accused member. The law recognises no member as guilty until the evidence of guilt is duly presented to the proper tribunal, and the verdict is rendered....
Thus, even if the Lewis brothers had personal knowledge of Joseph's guilt, if he had been a full member, they could not have simply told him to leave.

Could Joseph just withdraw as a full member?​

The Guide-Book seems to rule this option out, for full members:

[108] If an accused member evades a trial by absenting himself after sufficient notice has been given, and without requesting any one to appear in his behalf, it does not preclude the necessity of a formal trial....
Furthermore, the public removal in front of the congregation seems to be out of harmony with another rule regarding trials for full members:

[110] It is highly improper, ordinarily, to conduct a trial in a public congregation. None should be present except the parties summoned; at least, unless they are members of the Church....
  1. Osmon Cleander Baker, A guide-book in the administration of the discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church (New York : Carlton & Phillips, 1855). All citations in this article are from this work, unless otherwise footnoted. All italics are original; bold-face has been added.
  2. Jump up↑ The Methodist Magazine 5 (January 1822). Citation provided by Ted Jones
 
dberrie2020 said: For instance--the Atonement of Jesus Christ was a free gift and blessing to all mankind--predicated on the perfection of Jesus Christ:

Romans 5:18---King James Version18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.


That does not provide eternal life in Mormonism.

Of course it does. The Atonement of Jesus Christ not only provided eternal life for the LDS--but for all men, as a free gift--as an opportunity. No obedience, faith, nor endurance required of mankind--free gift to all men--as the scripture above testifies to, in Romans 5:18.

You can quote it and pretend that Mormonism and Christianity are in agreement, but that is a deceptive practice.

Please do quote for us what you believe is found in the Biblical text--which isn't found in the LDS church--as far as salvational doctrines go?

Hebrews 5:9---King James Version
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Eternal life per Mormonism has lots of requirements for being like God.

Articles of Faith:
3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

Such as this?

Acts 2:38---King James Version
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top