Mormonism Is Not Christianity
Thursday June 28, 2007
Categories: Are Mormons Christian?
By Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. Are Mormons “Christians” as defined by traditional Christian orthodoxy? The answer to that question is easy and straightforward, and it is “no.” Nevertheless, even as the question is clear, the answer requires some explanation....
Filed Under: Al Mohler, Christians, Jesus, Latter-day Saints, Mitt Romney, Mormon, Orson Scott Card, Politics, Theology
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
And many Christians are not Christians by their "fuits". Though they tithe faithfully and attend church regularly and follow all sorts of rules and regulations, like Jesus said "I know you not" because it is not of their heart!
i think morman are Christian, even if they do not fully agree with so call tradtional Christian. Jesus is Lord to them and the rest of Christians.
Danny, has any mormon ever told you that Jesus was their Lord? That is totally against their doctrine, I grew up a mormon, and at 32, I found out who Jesus really was and is, but I didn't learn that in a mormon church, I found that truth in God's Word. According to everything I was taught by the mormons, Jesus was a great teacher, period, He was not the Son of God, the Savior of Mankind, the One Who reconciled sinful man to the Heavenly Father. Without professing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, one cannot be a Christian. We don't get to "think" someone is a Christian, we have to go to the Word of God and see what God has to say about who is and who isn't a Christian, our opinion is not important, only God's.
I know many mormons, they are devoted to the church and to Joseph Smith, they are good folks, they love family, they take care of their people, but, they fall short of the truth, that Jesus was God, who came to earth to live as a man so that He could reconile manking to Father God, the Bible is clear that Jesus chose to lay aside His deity to do so, but He took that deity back when He ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father.
In answer to the question "Who Gets to Define "Christian"? The only One Who can do that, is God the Father, and He made it pretty clear in His Word.
My goal in responding to this, is to instruct, not to offend. But God clearly says there is no gray, only black, only white, His way,leads to eternal life, all other ways, ... do not.
All I've ever asked is that Mormons demonstrate, by looking at traditional Christian doctrine, how they (Mormons) differ. Mormons claim to be "restored". Explain clearly, point by point how this restored doctrine differs from traditional Christian doctrine.
Sheesh~ what an interesting collection of comments however I would ask this of Dr. Mohler: the early church councils came up with two creeds which were meant to define just who/what God is. Most people, in the liturgical churches, are familiar with the Nicene Creed. In the days before Vatican 2 the other creed, the Athanasian Creed, was read on Trinity Sunday. Do you really believe what these two creeds profess? Do you even believe what they profess? Can you even begin to explain to me or the average layman what they are teaching?
No, I didn't think so.
By the way "Joie" how the hell does God "lay aside His deity to do so, but He took that deity back"?
The only One Who can do that, is God the Father, and He made it pretty clear in His Word.
Who decided what is God's Word?
One either accepts what Yeshua said about Himself or one doesn't. Yeshua was either telling the truth or He was a liar and/or a madman. So if one reads and studies the bible one will be able to decide for themselves whether a group calling themselves Christian really are Christian. They will be able to decide for themselves based on the Word if a group believes in His word and the foundational principles he laid down for Christianity or not. I read, I study, Mormons (like Jehovah Witness'--who use the name Jehovah in error by the way) are not Christians--they only use the name to legitamatize themselves.
But don't take my word for it or be offended. Read and study for yourselves so that you are not decieved.
Godspeed to all!
But Levia, who decides what the "Word" is?
Oh my Goodness, First, It is important to note, We need to have FACTS before we go out to teach. So, I suppose most of these opinions online are just that..Opinions..I am a Mormom. Otherwise known as a Member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Jesus Christ is our Saviour, Our Brother, the Son of God. He is the center of our lives. We believe in Him, We honor Him, We worship Him! He is the Saviour!!
I cannot say that enough. I am born, bred, and personally converted to that fact. My family lines run deep in this Gospel. We believe in The Bible, and add our personal Witness of another Testament of Jesus Christ. Read the Book, use the passage in Moroni, truly Pray to Our Heavenly Father, and I know you will find that We BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST! Please, learn. It is important. We believe all Men have the right to worship, how, where and what they may..We love the Saviour.
May you learn about the truth of our Testimonies about Christ.
Like Mia, I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Mormons is a nickname that was given to members of the church, because of our belief in the Book of Mormon being the word of God, along with the Bible.
I would just like to add my testimony that we are indeed Christians. Jesus is our Savior and great example. We all strive to live as He did, and show true charity for all mankind. We follow His teachings in all that we do.
If you read this and still don't agree that we are Christians, I encourage you to learn more about our faith. Go to www.lds.org for more information, if you like to learn online. You can also request to have missionaries visit your home to find out even more.
Joie I was not raise Mormon, i have read there book and I am tradtional Christian. If they use Holy biblei it state Jesus is Lord and Savior. if they do not then possble they are not christian. I respect there right to different view and harm no one. Mormans have lovely families and one can not mock that. The rest of us come from so strange families sometimes. I know i did and it always be part of me.
I find it amusing that the Baptists, themselves, were once considered heretics, and therefore, not true Christians.
In fact, a mere five centuries ago, to be a Christian, you had to be a Catholic, which is one reason Western Europe invaded Eastern Europe during the Crusades - to destroy the Greek Orthodox Church, which Catholics considered un-Christian.
In the five centuries since Martin Luther risked his life by opposing the Catholicism of his day - which he considered un-Christian - Protestants and Catholics have blooded the streets over who was really a Christian.
It has continued in Northern Ireland.
Much of the early history of America is one of people seeking religious freedom, not from Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims or Jews, but from other Christians who didn't think their form of Christianity was "Christian enough."
Which is something the Mormons only know too well. Their kind were driven from state to state, forcing them to leave behind homes and barns, and to bury husbands, wives, sons and daughters on the icy prairie.
It's a rough and ugly tale, this story of American Christianity. Nor are the Mormons an exception to the lists of brutalities, as evidenced by the horrific hysteria of Mountain Meadows, when Mormons ambushed a wagon train moving through southern Utah - in large part because it contained "apostates" from Missouri.
It's hard to imagine that Jesus of Nazareth, a figure who gave his life for the sake of peace and reconciliation, could have inspired so many chapters of violence at the hands of people who were so convinced that they were the "true Christians."
One day, Baptists everywhere will look back at this moment and cringe, the way people today look at those early reactions to human rights - or rock and roll.
Ironically, Christianity suffered a diaspora half a century before the famous Jewish diaspora at the hands of the Romans. What most likely caused it was not so much this affinity for Jesus as the idea that these Christians were letting Gentiles into their synagogue - and on an equal footing with Jews.
Christianity, itself, is built on a willingness to boldly try new things - even if it that would mean putting its headquarters in the city of the very empire that killed Jesus and destroyed the Jewish temple. Every time Christianity redefines itself, somebody ends up screaming, "You people aren't real Christians!"
The name of the religion is "The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints." Explain to me how that is not Christian?
Have you read the Book of Mormon, which is a confirming witness to the Holy Bible and another testament of Jesus Christ? This is the kind of "non-Christian" material it contains:
"And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins." (2 Nephi 25: 26)
There is not a more Christian organization than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Who is Dr. Albert Mohler that he has the authority to exclude people from taking the name of Jesus Christ and accepting Him as their Savior and Redeemer?
You guys are being pethedic. Who really cares if they're Christian or not they're not hurting you. I've been to a Mormom church and they talk about Jesus Christ all the time. It seems like in almost every sentence they're saying it. And their prayers go Dear Heavenly Father...In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen or summin along those lines.
And don't even start with them using the Christian bible as a crutch to prove their Christianity. Was it not the Christians that took the Torah from the Jews and then claimed that Jesus bleed for our sins which made most of the laws in the Torah null and void. So why the hell would you teach something that you don't believe in and then Christians don't even decipher the Torah correctly.
It seems like no one can be happy without trying to make themselves feel superior in their religion.
Jesus Himself said that many would come in His name and not be a follower.
There are lots of stories of people that claim to be Christian but when compared to what the Apostles wrote on what it is to be a Christian and what they quoted Jesus as saying, the people in error were proven to be just that.
Mormons are not Christians.
Not according to the Christians that existed before they did. Paul, Peter, John, Jude, James, Luke and the other contributors to the New Testament writings stand irrevoclably against people that present religions as askewed as Mormonism.
Joseph Smith was a bad historian. And what further exacerbates his heresy and problems is that the angels or gods visiting Smith were wrong as well.
Paul mentions angles like that.
Mormons and/or enyone else can use the words" Jesus Christ" and if you'll notice, Jesus said that many false teachers and prohets would.
God does not live on a planet near a star called Kolob. Smith said he does.
Jesus is not the spiritual brother of Satan. Smith said he was.
In Doctrines and covenats 132 (a Mormon holy book as important as the Bible) Smith says that men must have multiple wives in heaven. Mormonism teaches eternal marriage.
Jesus said we are not married in heaven.
Upon examination; the "Test all things" admonishment of the New Testament, Mormons that follow Joseph Smith teachings are not Christians.
Not according "just" to me, but also the Christians that wrote and compiled the New Testament letters and reports.
It would be far more honest, for those wishing to follow the teachings of Joseph Smith to rename their belief system something else.
I would suggest Moroniism.
That is truly what it is.
Interesting to note is, that Moroni is an angel with another Gospel. No one following Jospeh Smith's heresy can say they were not warned IN writing.
By the way . . .,
Two wrongs can never make a right according to Christ Jesus and those that wrote the New Testament.
Repenting is the only way to start following "The Faith delivered only once to the Saints."
And the scripture is NOT talking about Mormonism.
This is not about Mormons being Christian; its about trying not to step on toes.
It's amazing how many people know so much about religion but they can't spell "pathetic" while name-calling. After reading through the mush I think Bill Kilpatrick said it best. Mormons are Christians. Period. They have "discovered" an additional book and believe in an additional savior- so what? Who can prove them wrong? And if they are wrong, will God even care that they are "ultra" devoted christians! Mormon families are some of the most well-educated, welcoming, devotional, and peace-keeping families in this country. Our presidency would be served well by this type of structure and dedication. The prejudiced media is only playing Devil's advocate (literally) in nit-picking this religion. Gotta start finding something wrong with everyone- stir up that good 'ol political pot!
When considering whether someone is a Christian or not, does it matter which "Christ" the person is following?
For example if I were to say that to me Christ is a 3 foot midget woman who lives in my basement and I follow her with all my heart... would I be considered a "Christian"?
The reason I ask is because the Christ from Mormonism varies greatly from the Christ of historic Christian orthodoxy.
The Christ of the biblical Christianity is not only the Son of God, He is also God the Son. The Bible says that Jesus is the Creator of the universe.
"All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." John 1:3
"For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist." Collosians 1:16-17
This means that Christ created everything including the devil and hell.
On the other hand, Mormonism teaches that Christ is the brother of the devil.
Two completely different Christs.
Again I ask, when considering whether someone is a Christian or not, does it matter which "Christ" the person is following?
Mormon baptisms are not recognized as valid by Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, most Lutherans, all (Eastern) Orthodox, United Methodists, and others. The Episcopalian rules (my own tradition) require that Mormons be "baptized," not "received" nor even "conditionally" baptized. That sort of gives one a clue .....
Thank (G-d?) for secularism and irony. With the kind of disrespect and inconsistent behaviors (read: Not very Christlike) comments and judgments one group of so-called Christians hurls at another, do not wonder that people will turn their backs on the likes of that and seek their source of peace and truths through venues other than supposed "Christian" churches. If Christians can't even agree on their supposed truths, how is a non-Christian to take it as true? How is any of this infighting to be construed other than as completely antethetical to Christ in its unbrotherly, intolerant, unAmerican and unChristian aspects?
"The Christ of the biblical Christianity is not only the Son of God, He is also God the Son."
Amen, AC.
if you really want true Christianity contrasted with Mormon teachings (which are documented straight out of official LDS Church documents) then go to www.aomin.org. This is the website of Alpha and Omega ministries and Dr. James R. White. They have done extensive research on the LDS church and contrasted it with the Bible and traditional Christianity.
You can also do a google search and find James R. White's book "Letters to a Mormon Elder" for free online.
Mormonism is not Christianity. If you take the definition of Christianity from the Bible then Mormonism is in direct contrast and the only way you can define Mormonism as Christian is by re-defining Christian terms.
Examples would include:
Christian: Jesus is the only begotten son.
Mormon: Jesus is the only begotten son in the flesh.
Christian: There is one true God. Period.
Mormon: There is one true God, of this planet.
When you can only fit your religion into Christianity by adding caveats or redefining terms, then you are not Christian.
Jude 3 "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."
Mormonism is not the faith which was once delivered unto the saints! Paul, Peter, John and all the other saints before Joseph Smith arrived on the scene never preached the gospel of Moroni, I have never heard a Mormon say that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh! John 1:1-14
I hear a lot of Mormons say Jesus is our Saviour, our Brother, the Son of God, our Friend, but do they ever say what Thomas said in John 20:28 "Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"" Another verse I have never heard a Mormon quote is 2 Corinthians 5:19 "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." What is the word of reconciliation that the Mormons teach? I believe it to be some form of works and not Grace alone which is the faith once delivered.
Folks that think just becuase they are very commited to what they believe doesn't mean that what they believe is true. Romans 10:2 "For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge." I know some will not like the scriptures I quoted but it's the Bible are you going to hate it?
If you believe what this video teaches then you are a Mormon and not a Christian!
Oops here is the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7v_V8qSIIo
The comments from the evangelicals on this sight would just be silly if it weren't for the number of people who believe as they do! As a recovering "moderate" southern baptist, I would suggest that true Christianity is to be modeled after the faith of Jesus and not a faith in Jesus. For all who struggle with living the Way - may I suggest a living faith for our time - the UCC. Remember, as Gracie Allen said, "never place a period where God has place a comma". God is still speaking and cares more for the way we live our lives than how we feel about ancient creeds.
If a Moslem says they are a Christian, it must be so. If an atheist says they are a Christian it must be so. I mean who are were to argue with and judge people. If someone claims the name Christian, let them have it. The word has become meaningless in our current globalization of language. Today words have form, no substance, for substance requires absolute categories, and when it comes to what people claim to be, good Lord, who are we denial someone that they are not what they claim to be.
Personally, if I call for the plumber, and the garbage man shows up claiming to be the plumber, I will not let him in my house to fix the plumbing (if you know what I mean).
Mildbanter
Joie writes: "According to everything I was taught by the mormons, Jesus was a great teacher, period, He was not the Son of God, the Savior of Mankind, the One Who reconciled sinful man to the Heavenly Father."
Curious. I was born into a Mormon family, and remain a faithful member of that Church. I was taught as a child that Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior of Mankind, and though I don't recall use of the term "reconciled," I was taught that he is our advocate and mediator with the Father, and the only one by whom salvation comes. I was always taught that to say Christ was just "a great teacher" was false. My adult experience in the Church has been entirely consistent with that early teaching. Joie or I seem to have been raised in very different churches....
Mormonism is not Christian and doesn't follow what Jesus left to the Holy Apostles after His ascension into the Father's right hand.
One avenue that Mormonism foundation "chips" is Joseph Smith's first revelation at age 15. If this revelation is correct--it won't contradict the Bible or the BOM. If this revelation is wrong--it must be rejected as false, for contradicting the Bible or the BOM.
Teaching that Christianity is false, is completely wrong--there's no foundation to stand upon for the Mormon. Mormonism has or can never prove there was a universal apostasy that occured in early Christianity--and will never. No apostasy, no restoration; no restoration, no Joseph Smith; no Joseph Smith, no LDS, is that simple. The Bible clearly teaches in Galatians chapter 1, that if an angel or man brings another gospel(other than what Jesus Christ has done on the cross) let him be accursed. Joseph claims to have seen an "angel". Teaching pre-Mormons and post-Mormons, that Joseph Smith in fact received a revelation from two Personages: Jesus and God on 1820, is contrary to many verses in the Bible and misleading. What many Mormons don't know, is that there were about six different versions of Smith's revelations which the LDS and FLDS has censored.
Satan changes himself into an angel of light and he deceives the simple minded indiviual--in this case, Mormons have gotten deceived.Practically what Smith seen, was not from God--and if its not from God--its from Satan. Over 100 revelations that Smith had received--contradict the Bible, blasphemy God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Whenever somthing or someone contradicts what God has already said in the Bible, is not from God. This a test to determine whether a prophet is from God or not: If a person claims to be an ordained prophet of God, then what comes forth from the mouth of the prophet will come into agreement with the Word of God--otherwise he is false and not to be followed. Reading from 1820's revelation of Joseph Smith-- he fails this test.
If a person claims to be an ordained prophet of God, then what comes forth from the mouth of the prophet will come into agreement with the Word of God
And whom is defining this "Word of God" taht a prophets statements must agree with? As an example we'll randomly pick the Mormons, ergo the thier prophet is correct and POC is now apostate? Is that fare?
Nope. So whom should define this "Word of God" then?
otherwise he is false and not to be followed. Reading from 1820's revelation of Joseph Smith-- he fails this test
From a singular point of view that is true, but only such.
Regardless of Joe Smith, Mormons seem to truely take Jesus as Lord and Savior, are there other "hoops" they must jump through like trained circus animals? They love God and love thier fellow man, if anyone asks more of them then thier we have the beginings of non-chrisitanity...
Jesus is God.
I too was raised in the Mormon church. I'm staggered by Joie's claims that Mormonism claims Christ was only a great teacher. I don't know what Joie was doing during church meetings, but she(?) couldn't have been paying attention.
For the record, for any practising Mormons, Jesus Christ is the only Saviour and Redeemer (not just of this planet, as someone else claimed Mormons say, but of the universe), the one by whose merits we are saved. We worship Him, depend on Him, strive to live like Him, and weekly show ourselves willing to take His name on ourselves as we renew our baptismal covenants through the sacrament. The Book of Mormon teaches clearly about the Saviour's atonement, the essential need for it. Repentance and forgiveness come to us through the grace of Jesus Christ.
In the real scriptures we were warned of false prophets and the lies that they will try to spread.
I'm sorry that many are lost due to one mans delusional, self serving pseudo-gospel.
It is rather interesting that some would ridicule evangelicals on their firm stance behind the words of Christ. Did he not himself say "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man may go to the father except through me."
Furthermore, we know, from the old testament that Satan, aka Lucifer, aka Beelzebub was one of the rather more powerful angels who staged a rebellion. I seriously would question anybody who would relate him to God. Smith did just that by linking Christ to Satan.
Heck, Jesus himself said that a saint in heaven would be above the angels, making us greater than Lucifer, Michael, Gabriel, but nowhere near to the level of Christ who sits at the right hand of God.
I appreciate your comments, Dr Mohler. Just because someone calls themselves 'Christian' doesn't mean that they are.
I read Mr. Card's comments and was disappointed that he didn't address more of your doctrinal questions. He seemed to spend most of his time appealing to human wisdom and emotion and never addressed doctrine.
The truth of the Bible is very important and we need to continue to defend it whenever it is attacked (even by those who claim to believe.)
Mormons do not believe Jesus Christ is anything more than another human being. He is not God. This is where they differ from Christians.
Hi,
Any teaching that Jesus Christ is not the Eternal Son of God is not Christian. The bible, by the Holy Spirit not private interpretation, is God's Word. Thank you for reading.
While I am not a Mormon myself my brother converted and his wife is one. With them I have attended many Sunday services and have had many fruitful talks with several other Mormons and missionaries. All of them have affirmed that Jesus is the Christ, the only begotten Son of God and through His death on the cross the Savior of this world. True they do not agree on the Trinity but then in my discussions with many more Mainstream Christians I have found that they either do not even pretend to comprehend the Trinity and act as if there were three totally separate entities involved while paying lip serevice to the concept or they do not agree with it at all.
Foir what it is worth in my limited experience I would call Mormons Christian though certainly not orthodox but then neither were the Gnostics or the Cathars and their disagreements were silenced by force not reasoned debate or revelation.
If a person claims to be an ordained prophet of God, then what comes forth from the mouth of the prophet will come into agreement with the Word of God
And whom is defining this "Word of God" that a prophets statements must agree with?
*Read Deut 18:22--Joseph Smith is false.
As an example we'll randomly pick the Mormons, ergo the their prophet is correct and POC is now apostate? Is that fair?
Nope. So whom should define this "Word of God" then?
*The Word of God is the Word of God and not the Book of Mormon, D&C, Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Abraham, as millions of Mormons assume it is. There is not another testament of Jesus Christ--there are only two: The Old Testament and New Testament--there's no more testaments. God has given mankind the Bible--His final revelation of Himself to mankind--His love letter. This question is: How do Mormons know its from God what LDS has been teaching and not from Satan? By "burning in your bosom"? Jeremiah 17:5 tells us the heart is evil and Proverbs says that if we trust in our own heart we are a fool.
otherwise he is false and not to be followed. Reading from 1820's revelation of Joseph Smith-- he fails this test
From a singular point of view that is true, but only such.
Regardless of Joesph Smith, Mormons seem to truely take Jesus as Lord and Savior, are there other "hoops" they must jump through like trained circus animals?
*I disgree. Mormons rely upon LDS and countless of revelations that come from falliable men inside LDS. They haven't placed their faith upon Jesus Christ alone for their salvation but upon LDS, Smith, apostles, prophets and the president. Mormons follow the LDS God, Jesus Christ and spirit--not the same ones from the Bible. Mormons are taught to work for their salvation--to attain Godhood--exaltation. Such teaching is wrong. Everyone is saved by grace alone and not by works(Eph 2:8-9). Salvation by works is not taught in the Bible--Jesus has ALREADY finished the work on the cross--crying out "It is finished".
They love God and love thier fellow man, if anyone asks more of them then their we have the beginings of non-chrisitanity...
*They profess they love God and their fellow men, but that still doesn't prove anything. Every time a Mormon comes to my door, I tell them my testimony. When I'm done they get a concern look on their faces. I ask them if they're a Christian. Then if they say yes, I ask them to explain to why they are Christian. They will tell me that they got baptized into Mormonism. I ask them: Are you 100% sure that if you were to die today(God forbid) will God allow you into His pearly gates of Heaven? They're speechless! And if a Mormon tells me something that denies, opposes and contradicts the Bible; I will know they are lost in their sins and need to receive Jesus Christ into their heart.
the definition of christian is anyone who believes in christ as the son of god. mormons are most definantly christians. has anyone even bothered to look at the full name of the mormon church? "the church of JESUS CHRIST of latter day saints", lets break that down, the church of JESUS CHRIST (does it get any more clear than that?), so they believe in christ. of latter day saints, essentially those trying to follow the example and teachings of christ in these days. dr Mohler is indeed making an attempt to change the definition of christian. popular belief doesnt make truth. you can convince a class of 30 toddlers that a cat is indeed a dog, but that doesnt make it the true definition. dr mohler can convince X number of people that christian is defined by TRADITIONAL christian orthodoxy, that doesnt make it true. if you want to know if mormons are christians, ASK A MORMON!! you dont ask a catholic to teach you the beliefs of the bhuddist religion, cause he doesnt know!!!
"joie" - i dont know what mormon church you attended because i have been mormon all my life and it has been made VERY clear that jesus IS the VERY SON of god and that he did indeed suffer and die for the suns of ALL mankind. you either werent paying attention in church or it wasnt a mormon church. you could ask any 5 yr old member of our church and they would tell you that jesus christ is indeed the son of god and redeemer of the world.
Obama's United Church of Christ is NOT CHRISTIAN EITHER with their homosexual affirming selves. And listen to the heathen Episcopian telling someone who IS and IS NOT a Christian.
IF Gays are Christian the world is coming to an End!
Good is BAD and BAD IS GOOOOOOODDDDDDD!!!!!!!
I'm not Mormon. But I"M NO FOOL EITHER!
Bash one religion only to kiss the devil still!
Thank you for the discussion, Dr. Mohler.
And Orson. Thank you.
Todd
http://heartissuesforlds.wordpress.com
Forgive me if this has already been said or if this has nothing to do with the current topic of conversation. I admit I didn't really read all of them. I just wanted to offer a thought, and I really intend my conclusion for Dr. Mohler and Mr. Card more than anything (even though it seems unlikely they will read all the responses).
The first time that the word 'Christian' appears in the Bible is in The Acts of the Apostles. It is stated that the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch. Later in Acts, Agrippa asks Paul if he would have him become a Christian too. The only other instance of the word I found was in Peter's 1st Epistle where Peter seems to use it as a general reference to believers.
I've been told that the word had it's origin as a pejorative for Christians in the 1st century. Like many such terms, it became accepted as a label. So, for the most part, it seems to me that the term was applied by 1st century Greeks to those who followed Christ. Words evolve in their meaning over time though. Thus, the question, "Are Mormons Christians?" seems poorly stated. Both Dr. Mohler and Orson Card are right because they both give a definition for the word and show why the word applies to them. In the historic, orthodox sense, Mormons are clearly not Christians. But in the sense that a Christian is simply a person who believes in the historic Jesus and tries to do what he taught, than Mormons are Christians, according to that definition (I've heard a Muslim state that he is a Christian before).
So I think the question that is being asked doesn't actually get at the heart of the desired answers and opinions. It seems to me that many protestant/Catholic/orthodox Christians would like to know what Mormons actually believe and if Christians have fellowship with them. What would be more matter-of-fact, perhaps, is to ask if Mormon's believe the gospel, and if so, what do they say that gospel is. Definitions are needed on both sides. Card criticized the unnamed Anglican theologian for using incomprehensible theological jargon, but he himself makes statements about Christ saving the world and his grace covering the guilt of our sins. What exactly does he mean? Salvation from what? What kinds of sins does Christ's "grace" cover? How much sin can one commit? What does one have to do/believe/say/etc. in order to receive this ambiguous salvation and grace?
I shouldn't be one sided simply because I understand most the words that Dr. Mohler will use, though. Definitions are necessary on both sides. Concise, yet precise understandings of meanings because as Card stated, many Christians (using Mohler's definition) without theological training struggle to find difference in central tenets of belief. I don't think that this is the result of laymen Christians being closer to Mormonism (proof for Card that it is true?). I think this is the result of ambiguity. Because even a Christian without extensive training, after talking with a Mormon, will likely conclude that something is off, even if he does not know what.
So, with all that said. Concise and precise definitions and explanations please! Don't simply through around language and jargon.
Quick question to all the experts here:
My Jesus is Black. Am I still Christian?
Joie,
You say that you were mormon at one timet and that mormon doctrine does not teach the Jesus Christ is the one of God and the Savior of the world? You are either lying about once being a mormon or you had your eyes and ears closed and did not understand anything of mormon doctrine.
I have NEVER met a mormon who did not believe that Jesus Christ is the the Savior of the world. Mormon doctrine is clear on that point. Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world and no one can be saved, go to heaven etc except through him.
You are correct that God is the one who will decide whether we are Christian or not. I believe he will make that judgment based on our efforts to follow Jesus Christ. I think that was part of Mr. Card's point. People can have very large disagreements about doctrine, in the end, it is silly for people to try and tell someone they aren't Christian when they are trying to follow Jesus Christ - even if their ideas are incorrect.
bottom line:
How many gods are there in ALL existence, according to orthodox Mormon doctrine?
Countless. Is this not correct?
How many gods are there in ALL existence, according to orthodox Christianity?
One.
For me, this is the end of this debate.
"Joie" (June 28 @ 9.34) is not and never has been a Mormon.
Well,all I can say (as Jesus tought): a new commandment give I unto you, that ye love one another. That should be the Christian credo. I am the product of Huguenots, who had to flee France in order to escape persecutions(as severe as the holocaust,or almost) It has made our family very tolerant of other belief systems. We still can opt for our truth, which all of us can glean from the bible, and is accessible in most parts of the Western world to all who can read. Why all the hatred and persecutions took place, I do not know. A cousin of mine who had been raised a Mormon, by his formerly Lutheran nother, who received help from the generosity of Mormons to raise her children, asked me, whether I believed he was a Christian, and I told him "yes". I knew that God was the judge of his heart, and it was not up to me to judge him. There are two sides to Christianity: one is dogma, the other is faith. I like to think that faith overules dogma.
"Mormons do not believe Jesus Christ is anything more than another human being. He is not God. This is where they differ from Christians."
A betrayal of utter ignorance concerning MOrmon belief. Read ANY of our literature, esp. the BOM (the references are abundant--1 Ne. 19, 2 Ne. 2, 2 Ne. 25, Jacob 4, Mosiah 3-5, Mosiah 14-16, Alma 36-38, Hel. 5:12, and the list goes on WELL BEYOND what can be cited here) Hundreds of verses litearlly testify of Christ's divinity. I challenge you to find a single verse in our texts that say otherwise. Bottom line: you cannot and one of these days, people will need to get educated or get out of town in their dialogues on Mormonism.
Will (June 30) made a great point. Definitions are important. We live in an age where language is being torn apart by deconstructionism (read post-modernism). Words no longer mean anything and neither does dialogue if there is no exact definition behind a word. The same is true for confessions (read doctrines). If we do not have clearly laid-out definitions for what we believe, things begin to unravel. Most Christian churches, by any definition, are unraveling precisely because we have shifted away from doctrine and toward something else; namely an enculturated and emotional humanism.
Each person here feels that their opinion matters and is what others SHOULD believe. Why do we feel this way? Dr. Mohler may not have received his doctorate in Mormon Studies or Comparitive Religions, but he is one of the most intelligent and driven people I know. I have never met a person who reads as much or interacts as fairly as he does. He and I do not always end up in agreement on every topic, but he is far more qualified to speak on Mormonism than many Mormons may be.
Nobody here feels that Mormons do not really believe in their version of Christ, and nobody here is really saying that Mitt Romney should not run for or even become President of the United States. That is peripheral. Here we must deal with Mormonism as Christianity. I have interacted with Mormons, both in their church setting and through missionaries. What I have found interesting is there is has been a shift in how Mormons have desired to be seen in the surrounding community. There was a point when Mormons were satisfied with being called just that, Mormon. They did not seek to be identified with mainstream Christianity. Recently (I noticed the shift about 12 years ago), they started to pointedly "prefer" to be called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and started seeking to be considered mainstream. Now they call themselves Christian. The missionaries I have dealt with seek to minimize differences. They use the Bible and they talk about Greek, until you show evidence of knowledge of the Bible and of Greek, at which point the tactics change to the Book of Mormon. They never speak of the changes their doctrines have undergone. They never bring up comparing the Bible to their other Testament. Rather they stress personal experience and the "burning in the bosom." I am not trying to be insulting here, but am trying to show that the basis for LDS missionary work is emotional appeal and difference minimization. Doctrines take a back seat.
Let us remove the fog and look at the differences. Others here have accurately, even if not expertly, portrayed Joseph Smith's revelations as separate from what is "allowable" as presented by Scripture. What has not been revealed was Joseph Smith's involvement in Occultic practices and religious dabblings which got him arrested before he ever claimed to have received news of the golden plates. He had a suspect history which makes his claims suspect. Beyond that, we have no evidence for his claims (no special reading glasses, no golden plates with Egyptian hieroglyphs). His claims controverted the Biblical Scriptures. The beginnings of Mormonism far more resemble that of Scientology than that of Christianity in Israel/Asia Minor/Rome. Also, while Mormons claim to follow Christ, they deny the trinity, which places them in the same sort of heresy as the Arians and Sabellians. To them, Christ may be Savior, but savior from what, and to what, and why? Very quickly commonality disappears and Mormonism is left naked.
I do not dislike Mormons, but if we are to get anywhere, the whole truth of what they believe must be revealed. Who is Satan and what is his function? Who is God and what makes him "God?" What is his nature and what is his past, present, and future role? What can a faithful Mormon expect upon death? What are the rewards of faithfulness? Where do they go? What was the official stance of the Church of LDS on other races besides whites until recently, and what happened to black people when they died? Paul boldly spoke of his faith and the particulars and practicalities of that faith unashamedly and in public. Let the Mormons do the same. Let their beliefs be seen plainly and then we will talk of commonality.
Laslty, who gets to define what a Christian is? That is a very good question that depends largely on who you ask. We must examine what goal is held in mind by the questioner and what goal is held by the questioned. I would suggest that a definition that preserves traditional understanding is generally the best, and that if another definition is being considered, it should be clearly portrayed and a reason should be given for the shift. I believe this is the method being employed by Dr. Mohler. He stays with traditional understandings of what makes a Christian; that is, doctrinal committment, and personal devotion (read fruit) to those doctines. Mormons claim to have the latter, but if the former is not there, how can the latter be completely correct? If we seek a different definition for Christianity, what definition should we seek and why the change? If we are to follow the suggestions of some of the posters here, and allow any who claim to be or who want to be Christians to be so, without any demands upon them, how far does this stretch? How far does Christianity stretch before it rips apart (although this may be the goal all along). Are Buddhists, Muslims, Marxists, and Pagans Christians? Paul would vehemently say no. Peter, James, Silas, and Barnabus would say no (Peter and James had trouble initially accepting Gentile converts, while Silas and Barnabus accompanied Paul on missionary journeys, signifying a difference of belief). Traditional definitions and understandings must not be thrown away for the sake of "community," or "updating." If a definition is changed, it must be with good reason.
Just another opinion to consider.
The nature of Mohler's argument seems to me inconsistent with wider Baptist beliefs about authority and the nature of the church. In a sense, he is stating that creeds devised and accepted by church councils in the 4th and 5th centuries define christianity. This seems inconsistent, to me, with more general Baptist claims of authority, and thus inherently contradictory to their apparent ability to define Baptists as christians. To wit--
(1) Nicea, etc., were approved by a church council called by a Roman emperor and under the authority of an ancient pope and patriarchs. If they accept their authority to speak as such and to define christianity, why do they not accept their successors' (the popes and patriarchs, obviously) authority to do so? By the fourth century there is transparency in succession, major doctrines of succession had been in place, and central concepts of authority still central to Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy were in order. So it seems to me entirely contradictory to accept the authority of their creed but not their authority on other issues.
(2) The Nicene creed, particularly, is organically rooted in hellenized understandings of God--which go far beyond the biblical statements on the nature of God. Yet, my understanding of Baptist theology is that it was defined solely in terms of Biblical teaching. Thus is it not the case that accepting the nicene creed as an authoritative definition of christianity itself violates this central claim of Baptist teachings?
Greetings in Christ to everyone
I am an Indian by origin and had been born and brought up in multiculture and faith. I descend from hindu faith. I appreciate that we all debated, argued in favour or against here about mormonism. Its necessary to judge what we believe and what we not and what we should, depends on the choice we make to believe. But before making any choice we must know that we can make choices and not the consequences eg. 'Wage of Sin is Death'. This is evident from the (OT)Gospel in the first book, Geneisis. Although God warned Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of that particular tree "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" but gave freedom to them to choose whether to eat it or not to eat them. And that was the opportunity the Devil was looking for to interfere and deceive with his craftiness to make mankind commit sin in the eyes of God, the loving father.It twisted God's warning to Eve and convinced her to eat it. She could have reconsidered what God exactly said and judged on God's powerful words (You will surely die if you eat the fruit of that tree) and fred herself from the Devil's deceiving words and choose not to eat. She chose to eat it and the consequence of what is the death she faced. As the decendent of the first couple we all face that consequence today. So I believe with the knowledge of God's word I have been able to clarrify the the 'choice and consequence. But again Holy scripture says that God is merciful and he loved the world (Us)so much that He gave his only begotten son, Jesus (not anyone else--who is as holy as Jesus and God is) for the salvation and eternal life.
Similarly concerning faith in true God and teachings, I think we must be very careful to choose because when a wrong choice is made the painful and dreadful consequences are inevitable that we are bound face. The Scripture (both Old and The New Testaments)has been always warning us to Be on our guard that there are many false prophets who profess false teaching like Gnostic teachers and Gnosticism during early years of the foundation of Christian churches in the world.
If any one seeks the truth, He/she must pray and seek to God. I am more than sure that He would show a way as He did in my life. I never used to read the Bible before although I was born in a christian family which branched out from hindu origin. The more I read the Bible, more I enrich my wisdom from God's word. When Some areas I don't understand, I pray and seek God's blessings to give me wisdom to open the true interpretation of his words. And I am happy to say that I am not a blind christian rather a christian with the experience of God's presence in my life.
Concerning the 'mormonism', I have experience with them. After I came to UK. Two young people came from Canada and US to my door with a book preaching about christianity. I accepted them and called inside. We had long conversation about their faith. I questioned them as I always judge the true faith against the word of God. These two young gentlemen kept on trying to highlight in their preaching about Joseph Smith, always. No matter how much I tried to focus on Jesus, they always seemed trying subside Jesus and focus on Joseph Smith. They left me after hours of long conversation. Oneday I went to their church in Chorley, near Preston in the UK. I visited their library, sanctuary (but was not allowed to go inside unless I was a mormon. I questioned on many things but always their ushers avoided when I dug deep in our conversation. Ultimately, rather satisfying me with the answers justified in the old and New testament he left by saying "its your faith". I said to them indeed its my faith. I judge everything on the balance against the word of God because God's words in the scriptures are the absolute, complete and perfect weights. True Christianity never make you a blind believer. Jesus said He is the light to the world. Therefore, how a true Christian walking in the light can be blind.
Finally, as true truth seeker my opinion regarding all the faith, not only Mormonism, all opinions and philosophies regarding faith in God should be judged before making choice of any faith because consequences are attached to each choice and are sometimes dreadful as I mentioned earlier and there is no return. Scripture says,"seek and you will be given".
How come someone be greater than God and Jesus. When scripture says regrding Jesus that nothing was created without Him. He was in the begining and the end. As John the Baptist said "He (Jesus)must increase and I must decrease". He even told his deciples that to follow Jesus because He is the one who will baptise you with fire (Holy Spirit from God)" John was a great prophet which was even declared by Jesus. But John always with absolute humility submitted himself to Jesus. And thus said, "He must increase and I must decrease" and not even worthy to untie his shoe strap. If that is so how come one such as Mormons magnify Joseph Smith more than Jesus in their ministry. This all I am saying from my experience by meeting them. One of the biggest stumble stone for the non-believers and the false preachers is to deny craftily that Jesus is not the only begotten son of God when throughout the scripture God spoke about Jesus through his prophets and prepared His people for the coming of the Christ. Jews, his own people, had this problem to believe him and for that reason they crucified Him. If they were not blind then they accepted him as the promissed messiah from God, His own son. They were blind. So the whole truth is that Jesus is the centre of Christianity, a new covenant of God. Other than this all are false.
I am happy to learn that through many arguments against and in favour of Gods word. 'Jesus' the name from above is testified, becoming purer and purer to trust upon and calling doom upon them who deny Him. Some say they believe but put doubts in Him in their hearts or do not read about Him and his words in the scripture but say against Him.
Please! read Bible and seek him. He is stretching arms wide open for you to embrace and give you wisdom. You don't need anyone to understand his words but only his blessings.
May God Bless you all in Jesus name.
Partha Sebastian
You have many good points Dr. Mohler that Mr. Card could not easily debunk, but to debate religion, or in this case Mormonism, is very difficult because it is hard to agree on the core points. And so, as it happened, there is really no debate in the real sense of the word, but only expert opinions or rebuttals. But I salute both of you because your points of view are very interesting, enlightening, and really enjoyable to read. You two people are one of a kind! My congratulations.
Your opponent is correct---you have not read the Book of Mormon. There is nothing in that book but what Jesus also taught where he was born. However, there are some things that are made more clear in it. I am not a Mormon---I belong to the Community of Christ Church. We do believe that the Book of Mormon was brought forth by the power of God, but we never believed in polygamy, or that we can become gods, or that we will be married in heaven (and none of these things can be found in the Book of Mormon---in fact, it teaches against these things.) I consider myself a Christian who believes in God the Father and His Son, our Savior Jesus Christ. I also believe that the Book of Mormon is true scripture, brought forth by God for the benefit of the American Indian and other peoples of the Maya and Inca desendents. I am not a Mormon, but I would vote for Romney because I know something of his churches' teaching on morality.
I agree with Albert Mohler on this issue. I think that if we are to say if the Morman faith is really Christian, we have to look at how their doctrin is. To me, when I study all of the beliefs of Mormans I just can not find any real truth behind what they claim as far as them being Christian or not. I think to define a Christian you have to know what beliefs does a Christian need to have in order to really be considered a Christian.
1. Jesus Christ is God incarnate.
2. God has a triune nature.(Not a polytheistic god, but a monotheistic God).
3. Jesus Christ died on the cross for the redemption of man.
4. Can NOT believe that Jesus worked his way to Godhood from starting as man.
You can not have beliefs such as number 4 and still be considered Christian. That is simply not what The Bible teaches. For example, in John 8:58 Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I AM". This is an interesting quote because Jesus makes a claim to deity even before time began. So I can only conclude that the thought of Jesus acheiving Godhood from being man is totally incorrect. Thanks
Quick question to all the experts here:
My Jesus is Black. Am I still Christian?
*If you have repented of all your sins, believe that Jesus Christ has suffered, crucified, died and resurrect on the third day and have accepted Jesus Christ as your personal LORD and Savior. You have been regenerated(made alive) by the Holy Spirit--you have been born again--you are a spiritual child of God(son or daughter of God)--you are a Christian.
*No pariality exists within Christianity everyone has been made in God's image. I always tezch this important truth "God is color blind", therefore, we also should accept everyone who is different than we are, the same way God does--God loves both Jew and Gentile(non-Jew)--He loves everyone, just the same. Jesus skin maybe did change color, because He was in the desert for forty days and forty nights. If Jesus was dark-skinned, brown or white 2,000 years ago--it doesn't make any difference whatsoever--faith upon Him alone for our salvation--that's what matters "we live by faith not by sight". We live for Him, not what we see. Now if anyone bows down and worships an image of Jesus Christ, that is considered idoltary--it is a sin against God. If you believe He was black, then that's your conviction and if a Chinese believes He was Asian, then that's their conviction and so on. God doesn't show favortism nor is He a respecter of persons.
Posted by: Frogman55 | June 30, 2007 2:53 AM
Feelings don't make anyone a Christian--redemption through Jesus death on the cross, will make anyone a Christian if they are willing to accept Him into their heart and life.
Religion reaches up to God; God extends His hand in Christianity.
Mormonism goes by feelings "burning in your bosom" to accept the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures. Christians follow the Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ to the book of Revelation and don't go by feelings.
Living on feelings will deceive people!
Jeremiah 17:5 teaches us that we can't trust in our own hearts--they will deceive us.
That's another avenue I see Mormonism--not Christian.
Your opponent is correct---you have not read the Book of Mormon. There is nothing in that book but what Jesus also taught where he was born. However, there are some things that are made more clear in it. I am not a Mormon---I belong to the Community of Christ Church. We do believe that the Book of Mormon was brought forth by the power of God, but we never believed in polygamy, or that we can become gods, or that we will be married in heaven (and none of these things can be found in the Book of Mormon---in fact, it teaches against these things.)
*You have to explain to us why do you think the BOM was brought forth from the power of God, otherwise, your assumptions are incorrect.
I consider myself a Christian who believes in God the Father and His Son, our Savior Jesus Christ. I also believe that the Book of Mormon is true scripture, brought forth by God for the benefit of the American Indian and other peoples of the Maya and Inca desendents. I am not a Mormon, but I would vote for Romney because I know something of his churches' teaching on morality.
*You are correct that the Book of Mormon does contain doctrines from the Bible--that still doesn't mean Mormonism is Christian. However, that still won't vaildate that the BOM is the Word of God. I have the 1830 edition of the BOM and D&C from the 1800's. I haven't found one shred of evidience--where are the Nephite plates have been buried, have they ever been found? I ask this question to many Mormons:
The scrolls found in a cave by a shepherd boy on 1947, that put together the Bible, are on displayed in Israel. Why are the Nephite golden plates, not on display on the Hill of Cumroah today? Will there ever be found?
Can you find me archeological and historical proof from non-Mormon sources that prove that the peoples and places named in the Book of Mormon are true?
One elder looks at the other one--I don't get no response!
God doesn't contradict Himself!
"Mormons do not believe Jesus Christ is anything more than another human being. He is not God. This is where they differ from Christians."
A betrayal of utter ignorance concerning Mormon belief. Read ANY of our literature, esp. the BOM (the references are abundant--1 Ne. 19, 2 Ne. 2, 2 Ne. 25, Jacob 4, Mosiah 3-5, Mosiah 14-16, Alma 36-38, Hel. 5:12, and the list goes on WELL BEYOND what can be cited here)
*Could we say that Joseph plagarized many verses from the KJV?
*And don't tell me he didn't because that's how the BOM was made, by him.
Hundreds of verses litearlly testify of Christ's divinity. I challenge you to find a single verse in our texts that say otherwise. Bottom line: you cannot and one of these days, people will need to get educated or get out of town in their dialogues on Mormonism.
*Right, but why does LDS teach that Jesus was a god from the gods and came from the star Kolob, if the Bible teaches He is the same God FROM the OT, who came into this world, born from Mary's womb?
I would ask all my fellow Christians who are posting on this topic and Dr.Mohler himself to consider the following when asking themselves about who is and isn't Christian and who may or may not be saved.The first is a quote from a Russian Orthodox saint St.Theophan(I myself, am not of the Russian Orthodox faith,I just think like him on this subject),the verses that follow are from the King James Version of the Holy Bible.
"You ask, will the heterodox be saved.
Why do you worry about them?
They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being.
He will take care of them.
You and I should not be burdened with such a concern.
Study yourself and your own sins."
St.Theophan
For He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
So then it is not of him that willeth,
nor of him that runneth [struggleth],
but of God that showeth mercy" (Rom. 9:15-16)
"For what have I to do to judge them also that are without?
Do not ye judge them that are within?
But them that are without God judgeth" (1 Cor. 5:12-13)
" First of all, then, I urge that requests, prayers, intercessions,
and thanks be offered on behalf of all people,
even for kings and all who are in authority,
that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life
in all godliness and dignity. Such prayer for all
is good and welcomed before God our Savior,
since he wants all people to be saved and to come
to a knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:1-4)
While it's true that none of these verses are the words of Jesus,they are included in the Word Of God,written by some of his first and most inspired followers.
Just a few things to think about.
From a mere sinner,aspiring to live like a saint.
quote: I have interacted with Mormons, both in their church setting and through missionaries. What I have found interesting is there is has been a shift in how Mormons have desired to be seen in the surrounding community. There was a point when Mormons were satisfied with being called just that, Mormon. They did not seek to be identified with mainstream Christianity. Recently (I noticed the shift about 12 years ago), they started to pointedly "prefer" to be called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and started seeking to be considered mainstream. Now they call themselves Christian.
I have seen this shift. I feel differently about it than those outside my faith do though. As a child and a youth I never thought of calling myself a christen. Not because I didn't believe Christ was our Lord, Savior, Son of God and God, the Son. I just never felt a reason to label myself as Christian because I always considered myself as one. That's how most of us have felt I believe.
Then we started hearing lies being spread about us. Outright lies and lies spread by those who just didn't know better. Lies saying that we believe in Jesus as only a teacher and things such as that. I noticed in the south there was momentum going to be called a Christian by those outside my faith. When others stated we weren't christen because of the lies we affirmed that yes, we are.
You know if you want to say we are not christen because your definition of a christen is to only believe in a trinitarian God then I am OK with you saying we are not christen.
But if the reasons you say we are not christen because YOU THINK:
1) that we think he is only a teacher
2) that we don't call him Lord, creator or any other of the names listed in the bible
3) that we don't believe he is the Son of God
4) you haven't heard us quote a specific bible scripture
5) that we don't believe in Him as Savior
6) that we hold Joseph Smith higher than God
then you have been misled. (There were quite a few things that were stated by people here that are not our beliefs, besides the ones I mentioned).
If you want to say we are not christen because we don't believe in the definition we do then fine. BUT DON"T USE LIES AND UNTRUTHS AS PROOF THAT WE ARE NOT CHRISTEN.
Partha Sebastian - I'm sorry about your experience with the missionaries. It sounds like you could have used missionaries that know how to explain things better.
Isn't it odd how important defining who is in and who is out has become?
To some Old Order Amish they are the only Christians. The River Brethren I've met believe they are the only Christians. The Reformed Presbyterians teach that they are Christians and Roman Catholics cannot be. Roman Catholics reject Protestants (some even still believe that only they will be saved). Over the years Anglicans have hated Puritans who hated Baptists. They all hated Quakers and now hate Mormons, who reject the rest of "Christianity". When will it ever end?
Many, many folks like myself have left the "Christian Church" in all its various disguises. And while I don't believe it will ever happen when I am asked by your god and your Jesus why I left. I'll just have to point to you all and ask "Are you kidding?"
If as Jesus says, in Matthew, you will be judged by how you treated Him (His brethren) how will you answer? "Gee, that doesn't matter. All that matters is that I'm Saved! I claim you as my personal savior." won't cut it. Your "faith" is belied by your works and if there is a hell then I guess we'll both be there.
I am an Orthodox Christian with a capital "O". I formerly was baptist (with both small and big "B") and then Calvinist.
I understand why Mormons claim the title “Christian” in perfectly good conscience. But given their belief that the rest of the “Christian” world went dreadfully wrong from the death of the last Apostle until the supposed revelations to Joseph Smith, there’s something dishonest when they take offense at other Christians denying them the title. If the LDS Church is Christian, the other Churches that claim the title are “Christian” in only the most equivocal sense – and vice-versa. Pin them down, and Mormons will admit that.
But Dr. Mohler, as a Baptist, is indeed treading on the sort of dangerous ground noted by TMD (June 30, 2007 10:32 AM) by how he frames his argument. Pin him down and he should admit it.
Yeah, Baptists and Methodists and Presbyterians and other garden-variety Protestants agree, sort of, with historic Christianity up through the Council of Chalcedon. That's better than nothing - and nothing is how much of post-apostolic Christian history Joseph Smith accepted.
So I could, I suppose, say that a "true Christian" is one who believes the Nicene Creed. And in fact I do (perhaps arbitrarily) entertain a relatively lively hope for the salvation of Protestants like my wife and the rest of my family who, through Nicea to Chalcedon, are more or less orthodox.
But Protestants actually mean something different than did the Fathers of Nicea (and than do historic Christians today) when they confess in the Nicene Creed "one holy catholic and apostolic church." They in effect believe that the gates of hell did prevail against the Church for a spell - ending at or after the Reformation. That puts them, notably, in the same general league with Joseph Smith (who thought the Church went wrong really earlier and that got right again later). Protestants reject or ignore - why? - the 5th through 7th ecumenical councils. Despite "Bible only" claims, they picked up from Anselm of the 12th century some oddball ideas of how the atonement works. The list could go on.
In short, Protestants don't really believe “quo semper, ubique et ab omnibus,” but in a bit of "bootstrapping," citing their own denials of Christian history, seek to redefine it.
In that sense, "Mormonism is not Christianity" is necessarily a matter of arbitrary degree when spoken by a Baptist or any other Protestant. Count me with St. Theophan, kindly quoted by John (June 30, 2007 2:34 PM), when it comes to Protestants and Mormons alike: “They have a Savior Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them.”
"You know if you want to say we are not christen because your definition of a christen is to only believe in a trinitarian God then I am OK with you saying we are not christen."
I'm active LDS. I do think that the question hinges on your definition of Christianity. If you say that Christians are people who accept Jesus as their Savior, then Mormons are certainly Christians. But that would also make Messianic Jews Christians, and they'd be the first to disagree.
But I've noticed that among the mainstream Christian churches, at least, their differences are based on technicalities, not fundamentals. for example, a catholic and a baptist may argue about the appropriate age to baptize someone, but they both agree that baptism is essential ordinance. If you say that Christians are people who agree on a set of fundamental doctrines, then Mormons probably are not christian. Not that sort of Christian anyway.
I'm a Mormon who prefers not to claim to be a Christian. To my mind, Christians do talk an awful lot of airey-fairey nonsense, mingled with vast quantities of hand-holding, hugging, sentimental singing, and other wussey activities that real men avoid like plague. I really don't want people to associate me with all that.
It is obvious that Dr. Mohler lost the debate in his first sentence. The question proposed, according to the title of the debate, is “Are Mormons Christian?” But rather than address that rather obvious and simple question, Dr. Mohler decided to address the question of whether Mormons are Christians “as defined by traditional Christian orthodoxy,” an entirely different question.
I was not aware that there was any doubt about whether Mormons believe in the identical doctrines espoused by “traditional Christian orthodoxy.” They do not. But, since that was not the question asked, I do not see what Dr. Mohler’s answer to that question has to do with the question asked.
Maybe the question for the debate should have been, does the “traditional Christian orthodoxy” interpretation of the Bible conform to actual Biblical teachings? Put another way, maybe Dr. Mohler should have addressed the question of whether “traditional” Christians are Christian.
All together, I found Dr. Mohler’s entire response entirely unresponsive.
I'm just curious how much money all of you paid your wonderful pastors to teach this inane garbage, oh wait, excuse me, I mean enlightened tidbits of wisdom you spew out about Mormons. There seem to be a lot of experts. Do you really talk about Christ at your church, or do you just talk about Mormons?
Just in case you think this is a mean-spirited comment, have no fear-- I'm praying pray for you too.
A quote from Dr Mohler's essay: "the Jesus of the Book of Mormon is not the only begotten Son of God ... or the one through whose death on the cross we can be saved from our sins."
To anyone who actually knows something of Mormonism, this is an astonishing statement! Unfortunately, Dr. Mohler doesn't explain how he arrived at this conclusion, but it certainly doesn't inspire confidence in his understanding of his subject.
The Book of Mormon refers constantly to Jesus as "the only begotten son of God." It contains hundreds of references to Christ's atonement to save men from their sins.
The first Article of Faith (sort of like the Mormon version of the Nicene Creed) states: "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ." The third Article of Faith states: "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved."
Bruce R. McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine", considered by Mormons as the definitive treatise, states: "Salvation comes because of the atonement"
Dr. Mohler may have reason to condemn Mormonism in relation to other authodox Christian doctrines. But in stating that Mormons don't believe in Christ's atonement, he runs a strong risk that people will simply dismiss him as not knowing what he's talking about.
With hundreds of sects within christianity, why should the Mormons be treated any different then any other sect ?
Do evangelicals have the right to say who is christian and who is not ?
Their leaders can't even decide if they hate homosexuals or love being one. (Haggard)
I think the debate is sort of lame, and we can thank the likes of Al Sharpton and others for this waste of time.
buckle
I can't help but imagine God and Christ looking upon his beloved children and being so dismayed at all the arguing, dissention, bitterness, self-righteouness and constant bickering "in His name". He loves us all, right? Even if we are like children fighting in the sandbox, "I'm right, no--- I"m right" and on and on and on it goes.
Why can't we just accept that everyone thinks he/she is right and everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. He knows none of us know His truth. It's impossible. He's God--we aren't. The good news is that He loves us anyway. Just like a child who goes against his parents, those parents never stop loving that child. If a parent's love is that great, how much greater is God's love for his fault-filled children?? All we can do is believe the best we can and rest in the knowledge that we are loved not for what we insist is the truth, but because HE is truth.
We don't get to say who is - or is not - on the Ship of Christ. Their very name includes Jesus Christ in it, so I guess our opinion is out of play. That they don't necessarily define it the way someone else does is of no consequence. Thank goodness (God) for that!
One of the major foundations of Christianity is The Word of God that was written for instruction and teaching and inspiration for mankind. Christianity has determined that there are 66 "God-Breathed" Books of the Christian Bible. The book of Revelation in Chapter 22 states that woe to someone who would add to or take away from The Words of this Book. Some might say those words are applicable only to the singular book of Revelation; however, I believe and know that because God has protected His Word throughout 6000 years, that it is not a coincident that the last book of the Christian bible was Revelation (because it was written last) and I would maintain that those words are not only applicable to the book of Revelation but applicable to the Christian Bible and its 66 books in entirety! While Catholics are indeed Christians, the additional 5 or 6 books used in the Catholic bible were in existence at the time that it was determined which books met the requirement of "God breathed" and those 5 or 6 were excluded as meeting all of the standards.
The Book of Morman written almot 1800 years later than Revelation clearly states in its introduction that it was written for the peoples of the new continent i.e. North and South America.
To believe this, would be to believe that the Creator of the Universe did not believe the original 66 books of the Bible (last written in I believe 93-97 A.D.?) covered North and South America because he didn't know it would be discovered. That is ludicrous to think He didn't know America was in the future of the world! There is no need for the words in The Book of Morman, which is the foundation of the Mormon Church, because the 66 Books in the Christian Bible is sufficient for all mankind on the face of the earth for entirety! The God I serve knew and planned for the existence and eventual discovery of North and South America and knew America would be the Christian light of the world. He even knew that Christopher Columbus, who it is believed to have Jewish roots, would be inspired by God to discover America and we are the Remnant of Israel!
So to believe in Mormonism as a Christian faith and based on The Book of Mormon would be to believe that God's Original Word (last believed to be written 93A.D.-97A.D.) was not sufficient which would imply He i.e. God is not omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. Which He clearly is and even gave warning to anyone that would add to or delete the Word of God.
Mormonism is not a Christian faith because it teaches from The Book of Mormon!
Christianity is not just belief that Jesus was the Son of God, but that he is FULLY God and FULLY Man at the same time. And yes this is a lot in this and other concepts of Christianity that don't make sense, sorry if it's too confusing for you. If you want easy answers, Christianity is not the religion for you.
To Mormons- Do you believe that Jesus Christ is both Lord and the one true God, or just a great example, our brother, and our Savior (all of which he definitely is)?
BTW, the concept of marriages and families being sealed forever is a nice happy thought, but is not only not in the Bible, but is in fact against the words of Christ himself.
Jesus called and ordained his apostles giving them the authority to preach, ordain, baptize etc. They did not call themselves nor could they and still be recognized by him.
Mainline christianity has taken the honor upon itself to organize, define, teach etc. It teaches for doctrine the commandments of man. It has a form of godliness but denies Gods power (revelation, miracles, etc.) It worships the hellenized nicene god fashioned from years of debate in 325 AD. This God is not the god of the bible but of Xenophanes and plato. Since eternal life is to know the true god, mainline christianity insists on holding souls back because it will not look and embrace the true god as defined by the LDS faith.
Here are a few gems from the Book of Mormon to those who insist that revelation ceased at end of the Bible (2 Nephi 29:6-8,10):
The gentiles will say: "A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible."
Nephi responds: "Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?"
"Wherefore murmur ye because that ye shall receive more of my word?"
"Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written."
It's fantastic that there are so many passionate believers in the Bible. I appreciate belief and conviction,and I believe the words of the Bible and read it every day, but I fear that most, if not all, derogatory comments about the Book of Mormon are coming from those who have never touched a copy of the book (lest they be smitten with a curse, just as their pastor taught them).
I guess I'm just wondering why some people believe so vehemently that God would not reveal his word to anyone else except those who lived in ancient Israel.
A few observations:
Jesus never used the word "Christian." In fact, the word only appears three times in the New Testament.
- Acts 11:26. "The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." They were called Christians by outsiders and enemies. In the first century, what made a person a Christian was simply a dedication to Jesus Christ. One cannot expel Mormons by that definition.
- Acts 26:28. Agrippa replies to Paul, "A little more, and your arguments would make a Christian of me." Is it Paul's preceding testimony that defines a Christian? Paul testified that Hebrew prophets had foretold of Christ, that Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead, and that we obtain forgiveness through Jesus Christ. One cannot expel Mormons by that definition.
- 1 Peter 4:16. "If any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God." Well, if suffering defines a Christian, then one certainly cannot expel Mormons.
I noticed that Dr. Mohler was careful to use the term "Orthodox Christianity." That was an appeal to the concept that in order to be called Christian, a religion must accept the councils and creeds in the centuries following the death of Christ. There were 21 ecumenical councils. Most Protestant religions only accept the first seven--should we expel them? How about the Eastern Orthodox Christians who reject all but the first three--should we expel them?
Usually, those who wish to label Mormons as non-Christians appeal to the Nicene creed. However, the scholars of the Nicene council never claimed authority to define "Christianity." Furthermore, the Nicene Creed is heavily influenced by Hellenistic philosophy in it's metaphysical concept of God. To the early "Christians" who had listened to Jesus preach the Sermon on the Mount, the Nicene Creed would have been a mass of confusion. Additionally, those who were excommunicated for rejecting the Nicene Creed were never labeled "non-Christian."
The arguments people use to support the claim that "Mormons are not Christians" are all, upon close examination, baseless. They are merely word games cunningly devised to stir up contention and blind the eyes of humble seekers.
There is only one reason to propigate the deceptive lie that Mormons are not Christian. To scare people from learning what the LDS Church really teaches. Read the Book of Mormon. It's free. Mormon.org
A quote from Dan: "To Mormons- Do you believe that Jesus Christ is both Lord and the one true God, or just a great example, our brother, and our Savior"
I'm sorry? You're suggesting we might consider Jesus our Savior but not our god? What exactly do you mean by "Lord" and "one true god"? Give us some definitions to work with, and we might be able to answer you.
This is what I dislike most about Christianity -- it always seems just a cobbler of vague concepts so ill-defined I doubt the Christians themselves really understand them.
Don't call this Mormon a Christian. I don't want to be thought of as one of those people.
As others have pointed out, if a Christian is only Christian when meeting the qualifications of "traditional Christian Orthodoxy" then no protestant group should be included. They simply aren't orthodox Christians in any sense of the word.
I will only add this. As a former Mormon I spent years arguing these same points with Christians, trying desperately to prove to them that I was one too (a Christian that is), but I never stopped to look at it from their perspective. Looking back, I think I was afraid to. I was worried, in the back of mind, that perhaps THEY were right and then where would that leave me?
Long story short, I finally decided that IF the BOM, D&C, PoGP, etc were true then they could stand up to any scrutiny (as the Bible has done). I began to read and study (using multiple Bible translations, original church history documents, etc) some of the books that are on the market that oppose Mormon doctrine. Well thought out, well researched study helps by respected authors.
After two weeks of late nights and tears I came to the realization that I had been serving in a pseudo-Christian organization for years. Once the Truth was made clear to me I repented and asked the Lord to guide me away from these false teachings about Him and to steer me down the straight and narrow path. He's been faithful to do so ever since and I can't tell you the freedom I've experienced since that time...over 5 years ago.
So, to my brothers and sisters in the Mormon church...while YOU may be a Christian and your heart's intent IS to serve the One True God, by remaining affiliated with and adhering to the doctrine of the LDS or RLDS or whatever "branch" of the church you are part of, you are missing out on that which you seek most...the FULLNESS of the gospel which can't be found in the BOM or other church documents, but only in His Holy Word that, by His Grace and Sovereign Will, He has preserved for us this day.
May the Holy Spirit bless you with true understanding and call you out from the veil you don't even realize your under.
That's too bad, Michelle. I don't know what you were studying, or how balanced your study was, but I thought the same thing several years ago. In my experience, it does indeed stand up to scrutiny. I don't have an answer for everything, but I've got quite enough to satisfy me.
But that's an interesting comment about the fullness of God's holy word. Since we use the Bible as one of our holy texts, why would you consider that we don't have the fullness of God's word?
Dr. Mohler and others denying that Mormons are Christians:
If accepting the creedal formulations of "traditional Christian orthodoxy" is necessary for salvation, why didn't Christ teach them? Why didn't He know that trusting on his name and being born again was insufficient, like you do?
There are many accounts in the New Testament where Christ blesses one who has accepted him as their Lord. In none of these accounts does He say they are not saved until they understand the nature of the Trinity, or until they recant their belief in magic, reincarnation, the tooth fairy, or anything else. Because Christ taught that accepting him and being born again was sufficient for salvation, I don't understand why you think Mormon belief in a pre-mortal existence, or the Book of Mormon, or anything else, would prevent the Christ of the New Testament from saving them.
Ultimately, it matters only whether Christ considers one Christian, and fortunately for Mormons, we can read the bible and see that the definition you're using isn't the definition Christ used to distinguish His followers.
It's interesting in the thought that it is Orthodox Christianity telling Mormons that they are not Christian, when it was Joseph Smith who first made the claim that the Christian Church was absent from the earth from the close of the NT until 1820. By Smith's definition, Mormon teaching is not Christian teaching, assuming you understand Christianity as what has been historically taught in the Christian Church.
*First of all, you must know where the name Mormon is--Mormons know it came from the supposed angel, Morni. Here is an example on what happened to missionaires in China one day:
A group of Mormons traveled to China to witness about Mormonism. Each time they mentioned the word 'Mormon' in the city, the Chinese people will tell them, that the word meant, follower of the devil or Satan. To not blow their cover--each time missionaries go do their 'mission', they don't say they are Mormon, but Christian. This confuses many Christians in China and other parts of the world.
Mormons are not Christian, but a follower of Satan.
A few observations:
Jesus never used the word "Christian." In fact, the word only appears three times in the New Testament.
*You need to explain what the word 'Christian' means? Christian means a follower of Christ, His disciple(student) and little christ.
- Acts 11:26. "The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." They were called Christians by outsiders and enemies. In the first century, what made a person a Christian was simply a dedication to Jesus Christ. One cannot expel Mormons by that definition.
*They already been, expelled!
- Acts 26:28. Agrippa replies to Paul, "A little more, and your arguments would make a Christian of me." Is it Paul's preceding testimony that defines a Christian? Paul testified that Hebrew prophets had foretold of Christ, that Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead, and that we obtain forgiveness through Jesus Christ. One cannot expel Mormons by that definition.
*And your point is.....?
1 Peter 4:16. "If any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God." Well, if suffering defines a Christian, then one certainly cannot expel Mormons.
*Mormons are a cardboard copy of Christians--they are not genuine. This verse is speaking to those who belong to God through Jesus Christ and not Mormons, because they don't have a relationship with God.
*Pre-Mormons get baptized into Mormonism--doesn't mean they are Christian in general. I could tell you, that I'm Paul the apostle, but will never become Paul. I don't become Paul because I want to, I could follow his examples to live for Christ, but I could never be Paul. In the same way, Mormons could proclaim they are Christian but in reality they are not Christian at all, but pseudo-Christians(false Christians and false brethren).
*They are not saved and still dead in their sins, if they don't repent before death and place their faith and trust upon Jesus Christ alone for their salvation and deny LSD, they are going to Hell.
I noticed that Dr. Mohler was careful to use the term "Orthodox Christianity." That was an appeal to the concept that in order to be called Christian, a religion must accept the councils and creeds in the centuries following the death of Christ.
There were 21 ecumenical councils. Most Protestant religions only accept the first seven--should we expel them?
*The only creed I will ever accept is the Apostles Creed. Therein, are the teachings of the Holy Apostles--that were taught by Jesus Christ in the Gospels after His ascension to the Father's right hand.
How about the Eastern Orthodox Christians who reject all but the first three--should we expel them?
*We accept everything that comes from the Bible(sola scriptura)--not from man.
Usually, those who wish to label Mormons as non-Christians appeal to the Nicene creed. However, the scholars of the Nicene council never claimed authority to define "Christianity." Furthermore, the Nicene Creed is heavily influenced by Hellenistic philosophy in it's metaphysical concept of God. To the early "Christians" who had listened to Jesus preach the Sermon on the Mount, the Nicene Creed would have been a mass of confusion. Additionally, those who were excommunicated for rejecting the Nicene Creed were never labeled "non-Christian."
The arguments people use to support the claim that "Mormons are not Christians" are all, upon close examination, baseless. They are merely word games cunningly devised to stir up contention and blind the eyes of humble seekers.
*Once again, Mormons can't be Christian because they don't follow Jesus Christ---they follow Jospeh Smith, LDS, apostles, prophets and the president.
*Christians are Christian because they have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, born again, are Jesus sheep, hear His voice and they follow Him.
There is only one reason to propigate the deceptive lie that Mormons are not Christian. To scare people from learning what the LDS Church really teaches.
*Do you want to see what Mormonism teaches?
You don't want to read what they "really" teach.
Read the Book of Mormon. It's free. Mormon.org
*I got the 1830 edition!
*Your foundation is weak!
*Why should I read the BOM, if it wasn't inspired by the Holy Spirit?
*Where are the golden Nephite plates, that supposely the angel Morni) buried, then told Joesph Smith, to find at the Hill of Cumroah?
*Why are the Dea Sea Scrolls on displayed in Israel, but the Nephite plates are not at Hill of Cumroah?
What I love is that, when they're trying to bolster and inflate their numbers so that they can justify statements like "this is a Christian country" and "the founding fathers were all Christian", it seems EVERYONE is considered a Christian--even people who nominally just call themselves Christian because they're parents were, even... the Mormons!! (I wouldn't be surprised to hear them count Jews and Muslims as Christians, too!)
But when it comes to the usual agenda to divide and separate people from each other based on everything starting with the slightest deviation from their idea of "God's law" on up... suddenly each individual group making declarations about who's Christian is THE ONLY group who represent real Christians! LOL!
MC
Sorry POC, I know you put an awful lot of time and effort into your 1.47 post. But I really doubt anyone has the time to read it.
Quote from POC @ 1.56: "Read the Book of Mormon. It's free. Mormon.org
*I got the 1830 edition!"
Great! Why don't you try reading it?
Quote from POC @ 1.56: "*Why should I read the BOM, if it wasn't inspired by the Holy Spirit?"
Neither is John Grisham, but I still find his books interesting and informative. What's the point of owning a book if you're not going to read it?
Quote from POC @ 1.56: "*Do you want to see what Mormonism teaches?
You don't want to read what they "really" teach."
How would you know when you've never even read the Book of Mormon? If you want a reliable explanation of Mormon teachings, you should try talking to a couple of Mormon missionaries some time. Far better than forming opinions based on hearsay. Do you have a problem with educating yourself?
Quote from POC @ 1.56: "*Why are the Dea Sea Scrolls on displayed in Israel, but the Nephite plates are not at Hill of Cumroah?"
Because we don't have them, as you well know. And what of it?
*First of all, you must know where the name Mormon is--Mormons know it came from the supposed angel, Morni. Here is an example on what happened to missionaires in China one day:
A group of Mormons traveled to China to witness about Mormonism. Each time they mentioned the word 'Mormon' in the city, the Chinese people will tell them, that the word meant, follower of the devil or Satan. To not blow their cover--each time missionaries go do their 'mission', they don't say they are Mormon, but Christian. This confuses many Christians in China and other parts of the world.
Mormons are not Christian, but a follower of Satan.
Uh... what? I am from China, and the word "Mormon" does not sound like anything in any dialect I know that might mean devil or Satan. The overwhelmingly majority of Chinese are not Christians, so they do not even know who/what Satan is. Therefore, why would they think some new word to them sounds like "Satan?"
Also, Mormon missionaries are not allowed inside China, but if they were, they would be speaking in Mandarin and Cantonese to us, not English. They would pronounce "Mormon" in its Chinese phonetic translation, which would not sound the same as a typical English speaker saying it. But that sound still has no relation to Satan or devil or evil or ghost or monster or any other negative word.
And since a Mormon is a Christian, why would Mormons telling people they are Christians cause confusion?
Does a baptist telling people he is a Christian cause confusion?
Does a catholic telling people he is a Christian cause confusion?
Look at this classification chart I made:
Living Things --> Animals --> Rabbits
Religions --> Christians --> Lutherans
Religions ---> Christians --> Mormons
"*Why are the Dead Sea Scrolls on displayed in Israel, but the Nephite plates are not at Hill of Cumroah?"
When were the Dead Sea scrolls found? 1947 or so right? So In 1930 I could have said "Why are there no separate, unedited records on display that come from a little after the time that the events in the Bible transpired?" and used it as "proof" and I'm "right" that the Bible is fake.
Where is the second ten commandments tablet? Where is the rod of Aaron? Where is the Ark of the Covenant? Where is Jesus Christ right now? Why won't he appear to me if he is real? Just because we do not have everything does not mean it did not exist at one point.
But when it comes to the usual agenda to divide and separate people from each other based on everything starting with the slightest deviation from their idea of "God's law" on up... suddenly each individual group making declarations about who's Christian is THE ONLY group who represent real Christians! LOL!
Well. Laugh at your own deception. Non-Christians always like to paint Christianity in great extremes, while ignoring the truth. There are more than 30,000 denominations that--although in some disagreement--they acknowledge the Christianity of the others. They carry the essential beliefs.
But as long as you can satisfy yourself by characterizing your interlocutors any way convenient to you--knock yourself out.
In response to POC777:
Christian means a follower of Christ, His disciple(student) and little christ.
* The LDS church teaches, and the LDS saints believe, that Jesus Christ is exactly who He said He is--the Son of the Living God and the Savior of the World. We love Him and Worship him as such.
And your point is.....?
* My point is that LDS doctrine, in embracing the Bible as God's word, teaches the same truth that Paul did in his witness to Agrippa. If that is the definition of "Christian," then Mormons qualify.
Mormons are a cardboard copy of Christians--they are not genuine. This verse is speaking to those who belong to God through Jesus Christ and not Mormons, because they don't have a relationship with God.
* Huh? Again, in embracing the precious truths in the Bible, LDS doctrine affirms our relationship with God. We are His children. Through the atonement of Jesus Christ, we will return to live eternally with God.
Mormons could proclaim they are Christian but in reality they are not Christian at all, but pseudo-Christians(false Christians and false brethren).
* On what grounds?
They are not saved and still dead in their sins, if they don't repent before death and place their faith and trust upon Jesus Christ alone for their salvation and deny LSD, they are going to Hell.
* I deny LSD! It is an illegal and addictive drug! Seriously, though, LDS doctrine again affirms the absolute necessity of faith in Jesus Christ and repentance. It is only through the atonement of Jesus Christ that God's children can be saved. As far as Mormons going to Hell--I won't pass judgment. Christ is the judge of our souls.
The only creed I will ever accept is the Apostles Creed. Therein, are the teachings of the Holy Apostles--that were taught by Jesus Christ in the Gospels after His ascension to the Father's right hand.
* Then by the definition of "Orthodox Christianity," you also, my brother, are not a Christian.
Once again, Mormons can't be Christian because they don't follow Jesus Christ---they follow Jospeh Smith, LDS, apostles, prophets and the president.
* Once again, LDS doctrine, and the LDS saints, believe first and foremost in the Gospel--the Good News--of Jesus Christ. We believe Joseph Smith was a prophet who testified of Jesus Christ, just as the prophets of the Old Testament did. We have apostles in our church, just as Jesus Christ did in the New Testament. The defining characteristic of our prophets and apostles are that they stand as special witnesses that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of the world.
Christians are Christian because they have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, born again, are Jesus sheep, hear His voice and they follow Him.
* Agreed. The voice of the Good Shepherd is the only one that will lead us to salvation and life eternal. I follow Him with full purpose of heart.
Posted by: Frances A Smith | June 30, 2007 11:09 PM:
"The book of Revelation in Chapter 22 states that woe to someone who would add to or take away from The Words of this Book."
As far as anyone who is not God can tell, the passage you referenced is only talking about adding words into the Book of Revelations and taking words out. It is not talking about witting additional words that God commands you to write, which are eventually added to the Bible.
The Proof:
Deuteronomy 4:2 says "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."
And Proverbs 30:6 states "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."
If both passages were strictly speaking to the problem of adding scripture to the Bible, it could be argued that anyone who wrote anything after Moses penned Deuteronomy was a false prophet, as you call Joseph Smith for translating the words God commanded him to translate. In both cases these passages address the temptation for anyone to presumptuously speak for God.
The real issue lies in whether or not Joseph Smith was really acting as a mouthpiece for the Almighty. Did he truly reflect the mind and will of God by his teachings? Or did he inject his own views into what is today referred to as the restored gospel?
That is a whole separate topic...
Posted by: Frances A Smith | June 30, 2007 11:09 PM:
"While Catholics are indeed Christians, the additional 5 or 6 books used in the Catholic bible were in existence at the time that it was determined which books met the requirement of "God breathed" and those 5 or 6 were excluded as meeting all of the standards."
So were many of the books found in the LDS cannon. If they are true, Joseph did not write them in the 1800's, he merely translated them by the power of God into a modern language. If the Book of Mormon is true, it's beginning was 600 BC (before any of the books in the New Testament were written) and it's end was 400 AD (long after the last books of the New Testament were written).
Posted by: Frances A Smith | June 30, 2007 11:09 PM:
"The Book of Mormon written almost 1800 years later than Revelation clearly states in its introduction that it was written for the peoples of the new continent i.e. North and South America.
To believe this, would be to believe that the Creator of the Universe did not believe the original 66 books of the Bible (last written in I believe 93-97 A.D.?) covered North and South America because he didn't know it would be discovered."
How do you come to that conclusion? Why would God not have to know about America for The Book of Mormon to be written? When one says that the Book of Mormon is "for" the North and South Americas, they mean it is a religious history of those two continents. Of course God knew all along what was going to happen and what was happening. He is God. He knows everything. Past, present, and future. If you feel Mormons do not believe this then you do not understand what Mormons believe.
Posted by: Frances A Smith | June 30, 2007 11:09 PM:
"Mormonism is not a Christian faith because it teaches from The Book of Mormon!"
Good logic there(sarcasm). Just like thinking anything after Deuteronomy 4:2 is blasphemy written by false prophets.
Sorry POC, I know you put an awful lot of time and effort into your 1.47 post. But I really doubt anyone has the time to read it.
Quote from POC @ 1.56: "Read the Book of Mormon. It's free. Mormon.org
*I got the 1830 edition!"
Great! Why don't you try reading it?
*I did and didn't get the "burning of your bosom". I didn't get the same emotion you did. I don't go on feelings! Have you ever even asked yourself this question: "If the heart is evil, why do I follow it?"
Quote from POC @ 1.56: "*Why should I read the BOM, if it wasn't inspired by the Holy Spirit?"
Neither is John Grisham, but I still find his books interesting and informative.
What's the point of owning a book if you're not going to read it?
*The BOM was given by an angel--the Bible was given by inspiration from God written by holy men--led by the Holy Spirit.
An angel gave the Nephite plates to Joseph Smith and translated them with the special glasses--I don't trust that source.
Quote from POC @ 1.56: "*Do you want to see what Mormonism teaches?
You don't want to read what they "really" teach."
How would you know when you've never even read the Book of Mormon? If you want a reliable explanation of Mormon teachings, you should try talking to a couple of Mormon missionaries some time. Far better than forming opinions based on hearsay.
Do you have a problem with educating yourself?
My response:
I don't believe Joesph Smith was a prophet of God
I don't believe there was a universal apostasy in early Christianity.
I don't believe Jesus was Lucifer's brother.
I don't believe God lives on a planet called Kolob.
I don't believe God attained Godhood.
I don't believe in the Gospel of Mormonism.
I don't believe in the purgatory.
I don't believe in the "three levels" of heaven.
I don't believe in exaltation.
I don't believe in eternal marriage.
I don't believe in baptism for the dead.
I don't believe in pre-existence.
I don't believe salvation by works.
Those doctrines and others are not found either in the Bible or the BOM.
Quote from POC @ 1.56: "*Why are the Dea Sea Scrolls on displayed in Israel, but the Nephite plates are not at Hill of Cumroah?"
Because we don't have them, as you well know. And what of it?
*Without any evidence, there's no such thing as truth.I need evidence--proof. Without any evidence the BOM is not vaildated.
Posted by: Wizard of ID | July 1, 2007 3:10 PM
The below quote is absolutely true in every detail. Dr. Mohler is either lying about having enough knowledge to judge if Mormons are Christians, or is a very confused person.
A quote from Dr Mohler's essay: "the Jesus of the Book of Mormon is not the only begotten Son of God ... or the one through whose death on the cross we can be saved from our sins."
To anyone who actually knows something of Mormonism, this is an astonishing statement! Unfortunately, Dr. Mohler doesn't explain how he arrived at this conclusion, but it certainly doesn't inspire confidence in his understanding of his subject.
The Book of Mormon refers constantly to Jesus as "the only begotten son of God." It contains hundreds of references to Christ's atonement to save men from their sins.
The first Article of Faith (sort of like the Mormon version of the Nicene Creed) states: "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ." The third Article of Faith states: "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved."
Bruce R. McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine", considered by Mormons as the definitive treatise, states: "Salvation comes because of the atonement"
Dr. Mohler may have reason to condemn Mormonism in relation to other authodox Christian doctrines. But in stating that Mormons don't believe in Christ's atonement, he runs a strong risk that people will simply dismiss him as not knowing what he's talking about.
Another EXCELLENT POINT is this:
To Dr. Mohler and others who say Mormons are not Christians:
"If accepting the creedal formulations of "traditional Christian orthodoxy" (all established hundreds of years after Jesus died) is necessary to be considered a real Christian and partake of salvation, why didn't Christ teach them? Why didn't He know that trusting on his name and being born again was insufficient, like you do?
There are many accounts in the New Testament where Christ blesses one who has accepted him as their Lord. In none of these accounts does He say they are not saved until they understand the nature of the Trinity. Because Christ taught that accepting him and being born again was sufficient for salvation, I don't understand why you think Mormon belief in the Book of Mormon, or anything else, would prevent the Christ of the New Testament from saving them.
Ultimately, it matters only whether Christ considers one Christian, and fortunately for Mormons, we can read the bible and see that the definition you're using isn't the definition Christ used to distinguish His followers.
Maybe the question for the debate should have been, does the “traditional Christian orthodoxy” interpretation of the Bible conform to actual Biblical teachings? Put another way, maybe Dr. Mohler should have addressed the question of whether “traditional” Christians are Christian."
Mormons believe everything in the Bible, both Old and New Testament. What they do not believe in (in terms of deriving spiritual authority from) is the stuff that happened hundreds of years after Christ died and ascended to heaven.
Mormons believe that when verses in the Bible speak of "false prophets deceiving many" and "being careful not to be led away by false doctrines" etc, they feel these verses apply to what became the CATHOLIC church, and the branches that eventually split from it. That is why a restoration needed to occur. That is why God called Joseph Smith to restore Christianity to what it is supposed to be.
And just as the ancient Jews rebelled against Gods words when he told them that he has come to fulfill the old testament and bring in the new law, modern "Christians" rebel against God once again when he sends a prophet to once again cleanse His church.
The result of Jesus' preaching was the New Testament.
The result of God calling Joseph Smith to be a prophet was The Book of Mormon.
Note: Mormons do NOT think Jesus and Joseph are equals. Jesus is their LORD and SAVIOR. Joseph was merely a prophet...one of many.
In response to POC777:
Christian means a follower of Christ, His disciple(student) and little christ.
* The LDS church teaches, and the LDS saints believe, that Jesus Christ is exactly who He said He is--the Son of the Living God and the Savior of the World. We love Him and Worship him as such.
**You don't love Him because you don't follow His commandments(John 15:10). You keep the "everlasting gospel" of LDS and follow the commandments and ordinances--not what Jesus taught in the four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
And your point is.....?
* My point is that LDS doctrine, in embracing the Bible as God's word, teaches the same truth that Paul did in his witness to Agrippa. If that is the definition of "Christian," then Mormons qualify.
**You still have to explain why are you a Christian.
Mormons are a cardboard copy of Christians--they are not genuine. This verse is speaking to those who belong to God through Jesus Christ and not Mormons, because they don't have a relationship with God.
* Huh? Again, in embracing the precious truths in the Bible, LDS doctrine affirms our relationship with God. We are His children. Through the atonement of Jesus Christ, we will return to live eternally with God.
** You are not a spiritual child of God--Christians are.
Mormons could proclaim they are Christian but in reality they are not Christian at all, but pseudo-Christians(false Christians and false brethren).
* On what grounds?
**The Bible is proving you're not Christian.
They are not saved and still dead in their sins, if they don't repent before death and place their faith and trust upon Jesus Christ alone for their salvation and deny LDS, they are going to Hell.
* I deny Lds(I made a typo)! It is an illegal and addictive drug! Seriously, though, LDS doctrine again affirms the absolute necessity of faith in Jesus Christ and repentance. It is only through the atonement of Jesus Christ that God's children can be saved. As far as Mormons going to Hell--I won't pass judgment. Christ is the judge of our souls.
If you were to get into an accident and die today(God forbid)will God allow you into His Heavenly pearly gates? Why?
The only creed I will ever accept is the Apostles Creed. Therein, are the teachings of the Holy Apostles--that were taught by Jesus Christ in the Gospels after His ascension to the Father's right hand.
* Then by the definition of "Orthodox Christianity," you also, my brother, are not a Christian.
*I belong to Jesus Christ, He knows me and I know Him. You my friend don't belong to Him.
Once again, Mormons can't be Christian because they don't follow Jesus Christ---they follow Jospeh Smith, LDS, apostles, prophets and the president.
* Once again, LDS doctrine, and the LDS saints, believe first and foremost in the Gospel--the Good News--of Jesus Christ. We believe Joseph Smith was a prophet who testified of Jesus Christ, just as the prophets of the Old Testament did. We have apostles in our church, just as Jesus Christ did in the New Testament.The defining characteristic of our prophets and apostles are that they stand as special witnesses that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of the world.
**So you believe a prophet who contradicted the Bible, was in the occult and lived in polygamy?
Christians are Christian because they have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, born again, are Jesus sheep, hear His voice and they follow Him.
* Agreed. The voice of the Good Shepherd is the only one that will lead us to salvation and life eternal. I follow Him with full purpose of heart.
You are Christian if you have....
1. Recognize that your a sinner and can't save yourself(Rom 3:23)
2. Realize that Jesus Christ has died in your place(Rom 5:8)
3. Repent of all your sins(Acts 3:19)
4. Receive Jesus Christ as your personal LORD and Savior(Rev 3:20)
If you did the four steps, then you are Christian--if not you are not Christian, but Mormon who is lost in his sins and headed for Hell.
Posted by: Roper | July 1, 2007 3:39 PM
"*Without any evidence, there's no such thing as truth.I need evidence--proof. Without any evidence the BOM is not vaildated."
If you really regard that statement as true, how can you belong to ANY religion. They all require faith, do they not? The Bible is no better proof than the Koran, which is no better than the Talmud, which is no better than the Tipitaka, which is no better than the Book of Mormon, which is no better than (insert other major religions holy book here).
BTW, how do you KNOW God does not live on a planet called Kolob? Does the Bible say He does not? Even if Mormonism (the apparent source of that information) is false, God could still live on Kolob. If Mormonism is false, then there is a good chance Satan himself inspired Joseph Smith to make up Mormonism. Satan, while evil and greedy, probably DOES have more historical knowledge than any living person on Earth right now. Could not Satan have told Joseph this trivial fact, that God lives on a planet called Kolob, which is heaven? Satan lies a lot, but he does not always lie.
So why do you so strongly believe that God does not live on Kolob? Does it even matter? Is it central to a Christian's salvation to believe that God does not live on Kolob? Where in the Bible does it state what heaven is exactly and the name of the planet, if any, heaven is built around?
You are Christian if you have....
1. Recognize that your a sinner and can't save yourself(Rom 3:23)
2. Realize that Jesus Christ has died in your place(Rom 5:8)
3. Repent of all your sins(Acts 3:19)
4. Receive Jesus Christ as your personal LORD and Savior(Rev 3:20)
If you did the four steps, then you are Christian--if not you are not Christian, but Mormon who is lost in his sins and headed for Hell.
******************
I'm pretty sure all Mormons have done those four things. They believe in those verses just like you do.
Oh wait, you are one of those "FAITH ALONE SAVES US, ALL WE NEED TO DO IS CONFESS JESUS IS OUR SAVIOR AND SAY WE ACCEPT HIM IN OUR HEART AND WE WILL INSTANTLY BE SAVED, PERIOD!!" people, huh?
Well, Mormons also feel that they must, in addition to simply saying "I believe!", also live a good, Christian life how Jesus taught...but that should be common sense, right?
I mean, if someone did those four steps you mentioned, then murdered 23 people and mutilated and ate their dead corpses, that would disqualify them from salvation, right?
Also, what of James 2:14-17
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
So yeah, Mormons believe that no matter what they do, only Jesus Christ can save them. But they also believe it is possible to confess you love Jesus and accept him as your Saviour, but not live how he told us to, and therefore put yourself in danger of condemnation.
If your mom says "Billy, if you clean your room you can have ice cream!" So you clean your room really good, and then pour gas all over the house and light it, burning the house down and killing your grandfather, do expect to get ice cream?
Common sense, people. Common sense.
To Dr. Mohler and others who say Mormons are not Christians:
"If accepting the creedal formulations of "traditional Christian orthodoxy" (all established hundreds of years after Jesus died) is necessary to be considered a real Christian and partake of salvation, why didn't Christ teach them? Why didn't He know that trusting on his name and being born again was insufficient, like you do?
There are many accounts in the New Testament where Christ blesses one who has accepted him as their Lord. In none of these accounts does He say they are not saved until they understand the nature of the Trinity. Because Christ taught that accepting him and being born again was sufficient for salvation, I don't understand why you think Mormon belief in the Book of Mormon, or anything else, would prevent the Christ of the New Testament from saving them.
*The BOM won't save you, Jesus Christ will by His precious blood.
Ultimately, it matters only whether Christ considers one Christian, and fortunately for Mormons, we can read the bible and see that the definition you're using isn't the definition Christ used to distinguish His followers.
Maybe the question for the debate should have been, does the “traditional Christian orthodoxy” interpretation of the Bible conform to actual Biblical teachings?
*The doctrines are comfirmed "in the Bible".
Put another way, maybe Dr. Mohler should have addressed the question of whether “traditional” Christians are Christian."
Mormons believe everything in the Bible, both Old and New Testament. What they do not believe in (in terms of deriving spiritual authority from) is the stuff that happened hundreds of years after Christ died and ascended to heaven.
*We believe and teach in the Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ--what He gave to the Holy Apostles, we accept as truth.
Mormons believe that when verses in the Bible speak of "false prophets deceiving many" and "being careful not to be led away by false doctrines" etc, they feel these verses apply to what became the CATHOLIC church, and the branches that eventually split from it. That is why a restoration needed to occur. That is why God called Joseph Smith to restore Christianity to what it is supposed to be.
*The problem is Mormonism claims that Christianity apostasize in history, but this is not true--it is not recorded. Show us one record of evidence and we will believe you. There was no apostasy--nothing had to be restored. And if nothing had to be restored, then Joseph Smith was never commissioned by God, to bring the Mormon Church into existence. LDS is Smith's creation--that he got from his imagination.
And just as the ancient Jews rebelled against Gods words when he told them that he has come to fulfill the old testament and bring in the new law, modern "Christians" rebel against God once again when he sends a prophet to once again cleanse His church.
*There is always renmant of true Christains.
Jesus said "and the gates of hell won't prevail against it". Christians are not apostases and not lost--Jesus said "My church"-- millions of Christians--are the Bride of Christ. Mormonism is not from the Bride of Christ, but psuedo-Christianity.
The result of Jesus' preaching was the New Testament.
*The four Gospels--not when He preached to the Lamanites(Indians) in 33 AD. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Jesus literally went to the Americas.
The result of God calling Joseph Smith to be a prophet was The Book of Mormon.
*Joseph Smith called himself, God didn't call him.
*This is an imporant true:
"Whenever, something or someone, contradicts, opposes and denies, what God has already said in the Bible, is not from God.
The BOM is not God---it is false, and what is false comes from the 'father of lies'--Satan. It is false because the peoples and locations and other information from the BOM are only a fable.
Note: Mormons do NOT think Jesus and Joseph are equals. Jesus is their LORD and SAVIOR. Joseph was merely a prophet...one of many.
*Mormons think Joseph Smith is there savior and not Jesus Christ. LDS teaches that without eternal marriage there is salvation--no eternal life. That's not what the Bible says.
Posted by: Joolie | July 1, 2007 4:26 PM
You are Christian if you have....
1. Recognize that your a sinner and can't save yourself(Rom 3:23)
2. Realize that Jesus Christ has died in your place(Rom 5:8)
3. Repent of all your sins(Acts 3:19)
4. Receive Jesus Christ as your personal LORD and Savior(Rev 3:20)
If you did the four steps, then you are Christian--if not you are not Christian, but Mormon who is lost in his sins and headed for Hell.
******************
I'm pretty sure all Mormons have done those four things. They believe in those verses just like you do.
*It doesn't look like they have--even Satan knows God's plan of salvation.
Oh wait, you are one of those "FAITH ALONE SAVES US, ALL WE NEED TO DO IS CONFESS JESUS IS OUR SAVIOR AND SAY WE ACCEPT HIM IN OUR HEART AND WE WILL INSTANTLY BE SAVED, PERIOD!!" people, huh?
*This is the Christians statement of faith: "I am a sinner saved by grace alone, by faith alone, through Christ alone".
*God does His work through out the Christian's life not the Christian(Philip 2:12-13)--can't do nothing without Christ(John 15:5)--this only comes through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit(Gal 5:22-25) when they deny the flesh(Col 3:5-11)--the Holy Spirit completes the work(Philip 1:6).
No Christian can do nothing without God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit!
Well, Mormons also feel that they must, in addition to simply saying "I believe!", also live a good, Christian life how Jesus taught...but that should be common sense, right?
*Jesus says "He who loves Me, will keep my commandments". His commandments are His teachings. Mormons follow LDS teachings--not Jesus teachings.
I mean, if someone did those four steps you mentioned, then murdered 23 people and mutilated and ate their dead corpses, that would disqualify them from salvation, right?
*Since the love of God has been poured into the heart of the Christian by the Holy Spirit, have God's law and hatred(except when in the flesh) is no longer governing their life, how could a Christian kill another person?
Also, what of James 2:14-17
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
*Not salvation by works, but faith that works. Faith that is real and genuine. An unbeliever's faith is dead--they are not saved, in the other hand, the person who has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit--there faith is alive.
So yeah, Mormons believe that no matter what they do, only Jesus Christ can save them. But they also believe it is possible to confess you love Jesus and accept him as your Saviour, but not live how he told us to, and therefore put yourself in danger of condemnation.
*Those who are in Christ are no longer condemned(Rom 8:1-2)
*He didn't come into this world to condemn anyone(John 3:17)
If your mom says "Billy, if you clean your room you can have ice cream!" So you clean your room really good, and then pour gas all over the house and light it, burning the house down and killing your grandfather, do expect to get ice cream?
*I have no clue, what you're saying here.
Common sense, people. Common sense.
Posted by: Joolie | July 1, 2007 4:57 PM
"*Without any evidence, there's no such thing as truth.I need evidence--proof. Without any evidence the BOM is not vaildated."
If you really regard that statement as true, how can you belong to ANY religion. They all require faith, do they not? The Bible is no better proof than the Koran, which is no better than the Talmud, which is no better than the Tipitaka, which is no better than the Book of Mormon, which is no better than (insert other major religions holy book here).
*If you deny the Bible, you are denying God. The Word of God--is His final revelation to mankind-- its the truth, all others 'sacred books' are false.
*If no prophecies contain in the BOM as the Bible does, then why accept it as the Word of God?
BTW, how do you KNOW God does not live on a planet called Kolob? Does the Bible say He does not?
*Putting words into God's mouth-- that is wrong. That's what you're doing.
Even if Mormonism (the apparent source of that information) is false, God could still live on Kolob.
*The problem is that the Bible does not teach this--it teaches that He lives in "Heaven"(Matthew 6:9). Matthew 6:9, does not say, "Our Father on the planet Kolob" or "Our Father on a far star", no, it says "Our Father in Heaven. God is in Heaven not on the planet Kolob, as Mormonism assumes.
If Mormonism is false, then there is a good chance Satan himself inspired Joseph Smith to make up Mormonism. Satan, while evil and greedy, probably DOES have more historical knowledge than any living person on Earth right now.
Could not Satan have told Joseph this trivial fact, that God lives on a planet called Kolob, which is heaven? Satan lies a lot, but he does not always lie.
Satan is called the "father of lies" there is no truth in him(John 8:44). Will you read Genesis 3:1-6? Satan questions God's Word(v.1) Satan deceives(v.4-5). Satan tells Mormons that they will become gods--one of Satan's lies. That's not what Jesus taught!
So why do you so strongly believe that God does not live on Kolob? Does it even matter?
*LDS is adding to what God has already said in the Bible--they have the BOM, D&C, Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Abraham and many revelations.God calls them liars for adding to His Word(Proverb 30:5-6). And all "liars" will have their part in the lake of fire(Rev 21:8).
Is it central to a Christian's salvation to believe that God does not live on Kolob? Where in the Bible does it state what heaven is exactly and the name of the planet, if any, heaven is built around?
*God lives in Heaven(Revelation 4:1-11)
Boring.
Very, very boring.
So very, very boring, I can think of a thousand things I'd rather do than read your posts, POC. Up to and including watching paint dry.
Let us examine a few of the inconsistencies of Mormonism, shall we?
Mormons here have commented that they use the Bible and believe in it, yet by their Articles of Faith (#8) they affrim that the Bible is mistranslated, resulting in the need for a new translation performed by Smith.
Smith claimed different things about his visitations at various points. He claimed he was visited by "the Lord," by the angel Nephi, by the angel Moroni, by Christ and God, respectively.
Smith claimed that a temple would be built in Independence, MO by the generation then living. (Doctrines and Covenants 84:4)
Smith claimed Jesus would return in 1891. (Documentary History of the Church 2:182)
Brigham Young taught that Adam was God (Journal of Discourses 1:50-51) and claimed divine revelation of this "fact." (Deseret News, June 18, 1873)
Brigham Young proclaims doctrine of (continuing) blood atonement was a teaching of Jesus. (Journal of Discourses 4:219,220) This is later overturned by McConkie in Mormon Doctrine, pg. 92)
Joseph Smith introduced polygamy (Doctrines and Covenants 132 (particularly vv. 52-54)) which contradicts the Book of Mormon (Jacob 2:24).
Brigham Young taught that polygamy was necessary for individual godhood (Journal of Discourses 11:269)
Orson Pratt claimed Jesus had multiple wives (as did the Father) (The Seer pg. 172)
God (the Father) had physical, sexual relations with Mary to conceive Jesus. (Mormon Doctrine, 1966 Ed., pg. 547)
It was Jesus' wedding at Cana (Journal of Discourses 2:210). This also states that Jesus produced children.
Jesus and Satan are brothers (Gospel Through the Ages, pg. 15; Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, pp. 33-34)
Men can become gods and excel to the current level of God (Gospel Through the Ages, pg. 107)
Justification by Faith considered a "pernicious doctrine (Articles of Faith, pg. 479)
Bruce McConkie calls salvation by grace the second greatest heresy to the Mormon Church. (Sunstone Review, March 1984, pg. 9)
As we can see, the Mormon Church is not at all doctrinally similar to Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox faith. It denies major tennants of the Christian faith and many portions of Scripture. It not only adds to Scripture, but also takes away from it. It is also disingenuous for Mormons to attempt to be known as a mainline Christian group while minimizing these great differences. They say that they are Christians because of their conviction of Jesus as Savior, but we must again ask who or what is their God, their Jesus, and their natures as humans? The true answers to these questions set them far apart from other Christian groups.
Okay POC777,
One last attempt at reasonable discussion here.
From POC:
You are Christian if you have....
1. Recognize that your a sinner and can't save yourself(Rom 3:23)
2. Realize that Jesus Christ has died in your place(Rom 5:8)
3. Repent of all your sins(Acts 3:19)
4. Receive Jesus Christ as your personal LORD and Savior(Rev 3:20)
If you did the four steps, then you are Christian--if not you are not Christian, but Mormon who is lost in his sins and headed for Hell.
My response:
1. I am a sinner and cannot save myself.
2. I absolutely affirm that Jesus gave His life for me.
3. I repent daily and plead to Him to forgive my sins and strengthen my weakness.
4. I received Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior when I was baptized, and I believe I have continued that relationship throughout my life.
All of these are Articles of Faith--official public declarations of doctrine--of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Do I qualify yet, POC?
From POC:
I belong to Jesus Christ, He knows me and I know Him. You my friend don't belong to Him.
My response:
You have placed yourself in the position of Jesus Christ to judge whether I (and LDS saints in general) belong to His fold--a decidedly un-Christian position and one expressly forbidden by Jesus himself. Our conversation is over.
Look, according to the individuals that wrote the works compiled in the New Testament . . ., Mormons, or Latter Day Saints, are not Christians.
It does not take theology degree to figure that out.
Then, Donny, why didn't they ever say that?
Steve, you'll find scholarly responses to each of your items at
www.fairlds.org
www.shields-research.org
If you not interested in the actual answers, and are just here to bait someone into sparring with you, then I'm out.
I agree with Roper. Those are very lame talking points you got from your pastor Steve. Or perhaps you picked up a faith-promoting pamphlet at your church today?
Okay POC777,
One last attempt at reasonable discussion here.
From POC:
You are Christian if you have....
1. Recognize that your a sinner and can't save yourself(Rom 3:23)
2. Realize that Jesus Christ has died in your place(Rom 5:8)
3. Repent of all your sins(Acts 3:19)
4. Receive Jesus Christ as your personal LORD and Savior(Rev 3:20)
If you did the four steps, then you are Christian--if not you are not Christian, but Mormon who is lost in his sins and headed for Hell.
My response:
1. I am a sinner and cannot save myself.
2. I absolutely affirm that Jesus gave His life for me.
3. I repent daily and plead to Him to forgive my sins and strengthen my weakness.
How does He strengthen you?
4. I received Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior when I was baptized, and I believe I have continued that relationship throughout my life.
*Baptism is a sacarment--immersed in a pool of water will never save you--the atonement of Jesus blood will. Baptism has no power to save anyone--the gospel message(in the Bible) saves. It is religious to be baptized without conversion--that is self-righteous--God doesn't want your religion but your whole heart. He wants you. First, is conversion to Christianity--regeneration, secondly, its idenification in water baptism--the person has spiritual died and resurrected with Jesus Christ--a watery grave--to now live the newness of life for God. Without accepting Jesus Christ into your heart first, means nothing. Even Jehovah's Witness, get baptized--they are not saved, but lost in their sins.
All of these are Articles of Faith--official public declarations of doctrine--of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*It doesn't matter, what matters is "if" have accepted Jesus Christ into your heart and life--now if you haven't you are lost.
Do I qualify yet, POC?
From POC:
I belong to Jesus Christ, He knows me and I know Him. You my friend don't belong to Him.
My response:
You have placed yourself in the position of Jesus Christ to judge whether I (and LDS saints in general) belong to His fold--a decidedly un-Christian position and one expressly forbidden by Jesus himself. Our conversation is over.
*Right, but you still ain't a Christian.
Posted by: Roper | July 1, 2007 8:30 PM
Look, according to the individuals that wrote the works compiled in the New Testament . . ., Mormons, or Latter Day Saints, are not Christians.
It does not take theology degree to figure that out.
Exactly---all it takes is the wisdom of God--that comes directly from the Bible--taught by the Holy Spirit---He dwells in every genuine Christian--to "cast down every argument".
*I don't have an MA, Ph.D but a B.A--born-again!
Posted by: Donny | July 1, 2007 8:42 PM
Brian and Roper,
What is lame about presenting facts from your own doctrinal history? Instead of only stonewalling, why don't you present factual evidence for why you believe what you do and how it is supported by Scripture? Brian, I don't know why you think other Christian groups must be preaching against Mormonism, these things barely, if ever, come up in most churches. I personally think it should come up more so that people will not be deceived. Let us reasonably and rationally talk about your faith and doctrines. Since I have already studied it and rejected it, you won't convince me of its merits, but at least we can come to common consensus on where exactly we disagree and what the result should be. Roper, I am not trying to "bait" you, but rather trying to engage you in discussion about these areas of concern. If your church denies the virgin birth of Christ, Salvation by Grace, and the uniqueness of God as separate in past, present, and future form, in function, and in ability from humans, you should come out and reveal it unless you are trying to hide something on purpose. It certainly should not be up to me to educate others on this thread about what Mormons really believe. Thank you, however, for including the links.
Roper,
I have read your rather interesting paper on the pre-existing Adam. It leaves me with questions. How is the name "Ancient of Days," which most biblical scholars (even secular ones) attribute to God, attributed to Adam? And how is Adam considered to be Michael the Archangel in his pre-mortal state when Michael is brought up as still sexisting in his function as defending the dispersed people of Israel in the book of Daniel? Also what is your biblical basis for pre-existence besides Jer. 1:4-5, as Psalm 139:13 may contradict this interpretation of Jer? Also, cannot Jeremiah be taken as referring to a predestination by an all-knowing God, rather than a pre-incarnate state? I also find it interesting that you would mention that the light could be this pre-existing Adam, when John 1:1-4, 8-14 says that Christ was the light (and light in its figurative sense is only used of God and his holiness)? Only Christ, and not any human could be the light. Not only that, but the words used by John in this section must also destroy any notion that a man, pre-existent or otherwise, could make other men holy. Jesus, therefore, could not be only another son of God, but the Christ: fully man and fully God. Otherwise, Adam, Moses, John the Baptist, and others could, theoretically, be light and truth and lead men to holiness. Jesus in the gospels, and John and Paul in their letters could not be clearer that this is an impossibility.
sorry, I meant "still existing..."
Okay, Steve, you seem sincere, so I'll give it a shot.
Before we jump in to all of the issues you brought up, I'd like to know a little about what you believe.
According to your beliefs, what has to happen in order for a person to be saved? And what does salvation mean according to your faith?
About half of this essays pounds away at the point that Mormons are Christians, but it's not until halfway down that we get some specifics:
"The Mormon doctrine of God does not correspond to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Mormonism rejects the central logic of this doctrine (one God in three eternal persons) and develops its own doctrine of God – a doctrine that bears practically no resemblance to Trinitarian theology."
Whether it bears any resemblance to creeds developed centuries after the life of Christ, the Mormon view is based on the Bible. When Jesus was baptized, he stood in the River Jordan, the Holy Ghost descended like a dove and a voice from Heaven (presumably that of the Father) said, "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased."
Mormons take Jesus at his word when he said, "Father, let this cup pass from me. Nevertheless, not my will but thine be done."
"The Mormon doctrine of God includes many gods, not one."
This statement is misleading. While Mormons do believe Jesus when he said, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect," Mormons worship the Father, in the name of Jesus Christ.
"Furthermore, Mormonism teaches that we are what God once was and are becoming what He now is. That is in direct conflict with Christian orthodoxy."
How God got to be God is anybody's guess but Mormons do believe that, as children of God, we have divine potential. Whether that is in conflict with "Christian orthodoxy" is irrelevant. Read your own Bible:
"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure." (1 Jn. 3:2-3)
Then he argues that "the Jesus of the Book of Mormon is not the only begotten Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, or the one through whose death on the cross we can be saved from our sins."
That's funny because my copy of the Book of Mormon says just the opposite:
"But God did call on men, in the name of his Son, (this being the plan of redemption which was laid) saying: If ye will repent, and harden not your hearts, then will I have mercy upon you, through mine Only Begotten Son." (Alma 12:33)
Or here:
"And I, Nephi, saw that he was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world." (1 Nephi 11:33)
It's easy to see why Dr. Mohler excludes Mormons from his definition of Christianity. "Normative Christianity" - as he calls it - is "defined by the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the other formulas of the doctrinal consensus." Mormons have the audacity to believe that Jesus defined what a Christian is, not some "doctrinal consensus" of European scholars centuries after the events of the Bible.
In rejecting these creeds, Mormons put their faith in scripture and revelation - which they consider more important than the judgments of committees, despite the claim that such creeds are "rightly affirmed by all true believers in all places and throughout all time."
If Dr. Mohler is going to deny Christian status to Mormons, for their failure to "creed up," perhaps Dr. Mohler should appeal to have these creeds added to the Bible. Otherwise, this form of exclusion seems a tad arbitrary.
Why is it that the only sin Jesus won't forgive is having an imperfect view of him?
When people say that Mormons are not Christians what they mean is they aren't Trinitarians. I can't seem to find the word trinity in the bible. (At least the 2 KJV's I've read, one of which was the red letter version)
The only one with any right to say who is and who is not a Christian is Christ himself.
The good professor makes quite a few assumptions that fairly well invalidate his argument. Basically, he seems to assume that everyone who claims to be Christian subscribes to the articles of the Council of Nicea and a bunch of other Creedal material. He ignores the possibility that Smith had a new revelation - but you cannot argu revelation, you only accept or deny it. If the LDS folks wanted to e Orthodox, they would likely not have formed another denomination. So start witht he simplest fact that they are a different organization, and move on from there.
I am not and have no inclination toward LDS theology, but I do not ismiss it out of hand simply because it is not my theology. Sadly, a lot of the arguments in this section seem to have devolved down to a variantion on "You're not coming to my birthday party". Thank goodness
Maurice, I read your posting and one word of advice - less caffeine. Second, I have bad news for you - God is a mixed race lesbian mom. Scared? Good - fear and respect are shades of the same color. See them both and you will learn to live more fully and joyfully.
I have long been an admirer of Card's fiction - especailly the Ender/Bean stories and the Hatrack River saga. I fgure that if he can produce such excellent work, then taking some time to learn about what feeds his spirit is time well spent.
Peace be to you all - back off a bit, look around, and enjoy the varied scenery.
Well said, Dr. Mohler,
I am a non-denominational Christian and my faith (if you want to call it that)is not based on someone else's interpretation of "religion", or cultural movement. I know, based on the historical evidence (refer to "One Nation Under Gods-John Abanes), that Joseph Smith was a con-man and a swindler. One only has to take a look at his criminal record to know that. Furthermore, the disparity between Joseph Smith as the leader of a religious movement and Jesus Christ is extreme. Joseph Smith was killed trying to escape from jail where he was awaiting trial to be tried for burning down a newspaper building (in a vain attempt to suppress news article publications with regard to his "questionable" past). The point is this-Joseph Smith was shot, killed, and buried. He-No-Mo. So long Joe. Jesus on the other hand, well you know the rest. "He has risen" Mark 16:6
Mark De La Cruz,
If you actually read something balanced and scolarly with decent footnotes about Joseph Smith, like, for example "Joseph Smith, Rough Stone Rolling" by Richard Bushman. You might see how ignorant you are of the facts of the life and death of Joseph Smith.
The same might be said of the majority of postings on this thread by critics of the Mormons.
www.lds.org
www.mormon.org
www.fairlds.org
These links will help to educate those of you who actually care whether you look like fools when speaking about Mormons. The rest of you just keep spouting ignorance, it really helps us Mormons look intelligent when compared to you.
Also, for any who would like to participate in a courteous, reasoned discussion of LDS doctrine you are invited to access our blog at:
truthrestored.townhall.com
Those who think Mormons don't know their Bible or only use one version had best come prepared to justify those assertions. I personally tend to use the New Inspired Version in most of my Quotes, but we can use various translations.
"Joseph Smith was killed trying to escape from jail..."
A painted mob of hundreds of men brandishing knives, clubs and guns stormed the jail he had peacefully submitted himself to and were in the process of shooting into his jail room. Many people believe Joseph jumped from the window because he knew the mob was after him and it would save the people who wee in the jail room with him. If so, he was right. After his death, the mob let the others live.
To say he was killed while attempting to escape prison is flat out deceptive. He only tried to jump from the window AFTER people were shooting into his room both from the window and from the door way.
And just because Jesus died willingly on a cross and Joseph died while defending himself from his attackers, it does not mean Joseph is some evil guy. Making that comparison is retarded. There is no law saying you should let people murder you when they try. One of the purposes of Jesus life was to submit himself to the evil judgments of men. That was not one of the purposes of Joseph Smiths life, and you can't fault him for trying to defend himself.
Many Christians have been killed while trying to defend themselves. Are they unchristian as well?
POC you are one fruity person. You seem to be being willingly ignorant. You use bible verses that Mormons believe in to "prove" Mormons are wrong. You just interpret the verses a different way. You reject all verses from the Book of Mormon and don't even consider "what if it is real, additional revelation given from God?"
No where in the Bible does it say there are 66 books and none more can ever be added. No where did God say he is done talking to His children. There are a few verses that, upon first reading, might lead you to believe this, but those verses correct interpretation has been *proven* from a neutral standpoint using verses directly from the Bible in other posts on this thread.
Nothing Joseph Smith teaches contradicts the Bible. Only if you incorrectly interpret a verse in the Bible will it APPEAR, in a few places, to be a contradiction. Guess what, depending on how you interpret the Bible, the Bible contradicts the Bible. If you find a verse in the Bible that seems to contradict another verse, it means you are interpreting one or both of them incorrectly. So keep studying until you find the correct way to interpret the verse.
I'm sure you do that when you find a verse in the Bible that appears to be out of place, but you do not give the Book of Mormon the same courtesy. In fact, you go OUT OF YOUR WAY to try to find contradictions where none need exist.
Does Joseph teach some things that are either unclear or not present in the Bible? Yes. OF COURSE HE DOES. What would be the point of God talking to us in these modern days if he does not clarify his ancient words or give us additional knowledge?
Also, the people who made the Nicean and other creeds did not do it while even claiming (let alone having) officially authority to write additional scripture. Yet, they produced a wall of text that many people say one MUST BELIEVE in order to be a "true" Christian. If Jesus in the Bible taught us all the basic things we need to know to be a Chritian, why do people insist one must also believe in these additional creeds written hundreds of years after Jesus died?
Look at history to see that what eventually formed after Christs death was not a religion he would approve of. The Catholic church murdered millions of people and allowed all sorts of pegan rituals to enter their religion. They burned "witches" at the stake, tourtured men, women and children, waged wars against Muslims and Jews, taxed people heavily and controlled the Government, allowed people to pay set fees to have their sins cleaned (indulgences) and even the Pope's thesmelves fought and MURDERED in order to attain Popehood. There is a reason the time after Jesus death until about the time that Joseph restored Christianity was called "THE DARK AGES." Look it up.
You might at this point be tempted to say that if the creeds these people wrote are not needed, neither is what Joseph Smith brought to light needed. The answer to this is simple. Joseph Smith, if telling the truth about being a prophet, had direct authority from God Himself to teach what he did. God used Joseph Smith to give people clarification and additional instruction, to help them more easily live exactly how Jesus wants all Christians to live.
If Joseph Smith is a true prophet, then what he taught was necessary and is from God, and absolutely does not contradict a single verse in the Bible.
It all boils down to faith.
In the Book of Mormon it says if you want to know the answer to anything, simply pray about it. If you ask with a sincere heart, having faith in Christ, the truth will be made known to you. (Also says that in the Bible).
So ask God if you have ended up in a dead branch of Christianity or not. Ask Him if you should join the LDS church. As long as you have faith, and ask sincerely, He will answer you.
********
Also, it is interesting how Mormons post here they they love Jesus with all their heart and admit that He alone is their Savior, and that they are doing the best they know how to follow His teachings, and you STILL tell them "NO, YOU ARE WRONG, YOU ARE GOING TO HELL!"
How can you say that to people who live decent lives and accept Jesus as their savior?
You really believe that the instant someone confesses that Jesus is their Savior and accept him into their heart, they are automatically "Saved" and therefore can do nothing ever to fall out of good standing with God? Then why do verses in the bible exist say things like "Faith without works is dead, being alone." Don't just quote other verses that say "We are saved by faith in Jesus" because Mormons also agree with that. You need to find a way to MAKE THE TWO VERSES NOT CONTRADICT EACHOTHER. Mormons do that by believing that the only way to be saved is to have faith in Jesus Christ sufficient to make you want to obey him and live a good life and be baptized etc.
Mormons DO NOT believe that their works (actions) save them, but they do believe that you must do more than simply say some words to be saved. They believe that if one has faith, they will do good works. But they also believe one can "lose faith" and do evil works that bar them from entering heaven, like murdering tons of people and need seeking forgiveness. And rape etc.
What kind of a God would say "Say 3 lines of text and you are saved, even if you sin like crazy and make no effort to live how Jesus taught."
To say "Anyone who really accepts Jesus will never do these sins" is silly, because people change their minds ALL THE TIME. Are you saying that once one becomes a Christian they lose all free will? They no longer have the ability to change their mind and become evil?
I can find a person who believes just like you, that he is "already saved and need not do anything more" and then track his life and find that 7 years after "becomming saved" murdered his parents. So does that mean he was never a Christian in the first place? Because this has happened millions of times through out history, and happens every single day.
So how can YOU confidently say that anyone (yourself included) is "saved" and act like your "saved" status will never, ever, ever change? You have free will don't you? You can change your mind, can't you? Any wise God would understand that Humans who are told that they are "saved" and therefore can sin a little here and there will abuse their "Saved" status and use it as a shield to feel good about themselves while they sin on purpose, over and over again, because "they are already saved."
Your "faith alone saves us, good actions mean nothing" belief is not scriptural because it ignores so many verses that say works are required.
Either that, or you are straining at gnats and playing with words. Mormons believe they are not "saved" until they are standing in Heaven in the presence of God Himself. Of course, there is no way they could get there if Jesus had not atoned for them, but there is also no way they could get there if they rejected Jesus, or were an unrepentant serial killer, etc.
Without Jesus, we are all lost. Our faith in Jesus is what allows his atonement to cover our many sins. He must have faith in him and accept him as our Savior. But at the same time, we can't rape our neighbors children three times a year and then expect to enter heaven. We also cant say the little lines of text you say we need to say, and then sit in a chair watching TV all our life and expect Jesus to be happy with us. If you really believe in Jesus, you will DO GOOD WORKS. But also, if you beleive in Jesus and are doing good works, and then 10 years later somethig happens in your life and you decide to discard the idea of Jesus as your Savior, guess what? You are no longer "saved."
So to say "I was saved on October 12, 1978!" is just silliness. You are not saved until you are with God in heaven.
Living in the heart of the LDS faith (Utah) I have come to have a deep love and appreciation for my LDS friends and neighbors. Many of which live very Christian lives. However, one major difference that Dr. Mohler did not address is the the doctrine of Grace is completely absent from the LDS faith. Their reward is based on works, and clearly places it outside of Christianity. What I have told friends is the I have come to know many fine Christian LDS people, however what their church teaches is not Christianity.
"These links will help to educate those of you who actually care whether you look like fools when speaking about Mormons. The rest of you just keep spouting ignorance, it really helps us Mormons look intelligent when compared to you."
I've gotten all my information about Mormon Doctrine from The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price, and The King Follet Funeral Discourse.
I consider it pretty obvious that when you compare these writings with the Bible, I use NASB and ESV, that Mormonism is not Christianity.
"Living in the heart of the LDS faith (Utah) I have come to have a deep love and appreciation for my LDS friends and neighbors. Many of which live very Christian lives. However, one major difference that Dr. Mohler did not address is the the doctrine of Grace is completely absent from the LDS faith. Their reward is based on works, and clearly places it outside of Christianity. What I have told friends is the I have come to know many fine Christian LDS people, however what their church teaches is not Christianity."
If they don't practice Christianity, then they aren't "Christian LDS people".
"My Jesus is Black. Am I still Christian?"
YOU don't "have" a Jesus. I don't "have" a Jesus. There aren't a bunch of Jesus' running around for people to pick and choose. There was 1 Jesus (of the Bible) and he was a middle-eastern Jew. You can wish he was white or black all you want. He was Jewish.
And to all those who quote "judge not, lest ye be judged" please do some research on hermeneutics. That verse is simply not the blanket statement that people love to use it as. I've heard of a pastor named Paul Washer from Heart Cry Missionary and his response to the generic use of "judge not, lest ye be judged" is "twist not scripture, lest ye be like satan".
Mr. Clingan claims that "the doctrine of Grace is completely absent from the LDS faith. Their reward is based on works, and clearly places it outside Christianity."
Neither statement is correct. Given the claiim that "the doctrine of grace is completely absent," it would only take one statement from LDS scripture, sermon, hymn, or personal testimony to demonstrate the error of the first claim. Such statements are easy to find, if one is willing to actually look, rather than simply proclaim one's authority based on where one lives. For example, from the Book of Mormon, a book I have really read:
"Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise.
Wherefore, he is the firstfruits unto God, inasmuch as he shall make intercession for all the children of men; and they that believe in him shall be saved." (2 Nephi 2:8–9)
For a detailed discussion, see here:
http://www.farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=624
Furthermore, the claim that "a reward based on works" is "outside of Christianity" seems to me at odds with the opinion expressed here (and elsewhere) by one Jesus of Nazareth:
"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." (Matthew 16:27)
Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA
Dear Chad,
You quoted me here: "These links will help to educate those of you who actually care whether you look like fools when speaking about Mormons. The rest of you just keep spouting ignorance, it really helps us Mormons look intelligent when compared to you."
Then you say:
Chad: I've gotten all my information about Mormon Doctrine from The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price, and The King Follet Funeral Discourse.
Chad: I consider it pretty obvious that when you compare these writings with the Bible, I use NASB and ESV, that Mormonism is not Christianity.
Mike's Reply: And I consider it pretty obvious that when I compare the LDS writings with the Bible that Mormonism is Christianity.
Would you like to quote some specific support from the Bible for your assertion?
my e-mail: paisme@hotmail.com
our blog: truthrestored.townhall.com
You are confusing salvation and rewards after salvation. Mormons believe that salvation is wrapped up in works. Christians believe salvation is a free gift (read the book of Romans).
Mormons will quote James 2:14-17 as their evidence that works are required for faith. What is at issue is the ordering. Works do not produce faith. Works are not required for faith. Faith is given as a free gift and works are simply the outward manifestation of faith. If you have faith the works will follow. The opposite is not true. If works are required for salvation then man may have something to boast about before God. "Look at all the wonderful things I did, God!" This is in direct conflict with Romans.
Entire books have been written on this subject by authors far more eloquent, concise, and knowledgeable than myself. Thus I provide this link : http://www.novus2.com/alphamin/LETTERS/MAINPAGE.htm , which is an entire online book that addresses the differences between biblical Christianity and Mormonism complete with masses of quotations from official LDS scripture, publications, and authors.
Ralph Clingan @ 7.14 "the doctrine of Grace is completely absent from the LDS faith"
Bull. The doctrine is that we are saved by grace after all we can do. Why is it that Mormonism's biggest critics never know anything about it? Don't you Christians ever bother informing yourselves?
No, of course not. You Christians never bother learning anything about religion, do you. All you can ever do is sing your sappy-clappy songs, rabbit about how God loves evrybody so much, congrtulate yourselves that you're saved, then go off and persecute somebody.
Christians! No, Mormons are not Christians, because Christians are the biggest morons walking the planet! They should be re-classified as apes, they're so stupid!
What does a Christian believe, exactly? That for no good reason, God created planet earth for a blink in the eons of time, and peopled it for a mere blip. If we all behave ourselves for that blip's duration, we all get to sit around in heaven doing jack all eternity.
And no Christian ever asks "What's the point?" You say Mormon doctrine is stupid? At least Mormons have a reason for why God would be doing all this!
And then there's the commandments. What Christian church actually teaches people to keep them? What Christian church doesn't break them whenever it's convenient? When you're not abusing your choir boys, you're appointing homosexuals to be your priests! Of all the tedious, mindless hours I've endured in Christian churches, I've never heard a priest teach that Christians should follow the commandments! And their followers never do. And now they're all over this board, lying, misrepresenting, insulting, doing anything other than living the golden rule! You Christians ever heard of the golden rule? No, of course you haven't. Jesus taught it, so why would you have?
But there's one thing you really know how to do, isn't there? Whenever anyone disagrees with you, dares to suggest that you're wrong, you know exactly how to kill him, don't you? Not just Mormons, but anybody! The Crusades, the Inquisition, the English Civil War, the Conquistadores -- the Christians have slaughtered more people than Hitler!
Catholics murdered Protestants, Protestants murdered Catholics. Protestants murdered other Protestants because they weren't the right kind of Protestant. And Catholics weren't against murdering other Catholics, if they weren't the right kind of Catholic, or just because it was convenient. Then when you couldn't find anybody else to carve up, you'd all go off and have a Jew-murder party.
And heaven forfend you execute them humanely. You couldn't ever just shoot or hang them, like you did with ordinary people, could you? No, because they were Christians, you had to murder them in the cruellest ways you could think up. You should read some of those martyrs' histories you're all so keen on publishing! Burning them alive, cutting out their vital organs alive, mutilating them alive.
As a religion, you've got a lot of blood on your hands.
And you Christians have the effrontery to moralize to us Mormons! You Christians have nothing, NOTHING to lecture us about. Pull the beam from your own eye, you hypocrites! I thank God I'm not one of you, because if I were, I would hang my head in shame.
"Saved by grace after all we can do" is a Mormon doctrine. The "after all we can do" part is an added caveat used to support works-righteousness. It is the same as the caveat "in the flesh" that is added to Jesus being the only begotten son.
these would be indications that one is NOT a Christian.
this speaks of the Mormon doctrine that all other churches are apostate.
God created the world for His glory. Thats the point. A Christian should know that. He didn't create the world no reason. It is for His glory.
Mormon doctrine is not stupid. You are confusing someone saying the doctrine is incorrect with someone calling it stupid.
You've been listening to bad Christian teaching. The 10 Commandments are very important and Christians should strive always to keep them. I've heard plenty of sound preaching that stresses the importance of the 10 Commandments. The Commandments are what let us know about sin. They are a schoolmaster that brings us to Christ.
You are also massively confusing liberal Christian theology with Christianity as a whole. Some of us DON'T have choirboys. Some of us DON'T elect homosexual priests or pastors. Some of us DO have pastors that talk about sin, righteousness, eternal judgement, and the 10 Commandments. Hey, some of us even Do follo the Bible. Imagine that!
This is almost word-for-word an argument used by atheists. Its like saying that if a black guy steals my car, then all black people must be car thiefs. If some Christians do bad things, then all Christians must be bad. Flawed logic at best.
And heaven forfend you execute them humanely. You couldn't ever just shoot or hang them, like you did with ordinary people, could you? No, because they were Christians, you had to murder them in the cruellest ways you could think up. You should read some of those martyrs' histories you're all so keen on publishing! Burning them alive, cutting out their vital organs alive, mutilating them alive.
i have no idea whats going on here.
More flawed logic. Some people who called themselves Christians did bad things so therefore everyone but Mormons who call themselves Christians are bad.
Chad: "Christians believe salvation is a free gift"
Or more accurately, Protestants of Lutheran adherence believe salvation is through grace. Protestants of Calvinist inclinations will uphold the salvation through works.
Chad: "Saved by grace after all we can do is a Mormon doctrine."
I think Mormon and Angry was responding to the line from another post that "the doctrine of Grace is completely absent from the LDS faith." That is quite definitely (to use Mormon and Angry's expression) "Bull".
While I wouldn't have expressed it in quite the same way, I largely agree with Mormon and Angry. I despair of Christians! Of course some of them are respectable, sincere people. But as a whole, all I can see is division and dispute, confusion, abdication of responsibility, a disastrous lack of leadership, and a significant amount of overt profiteering.
It's not an attractive religion.
This is 100% incorrect. I am of the Calvinist tradition and every serious Calvinist I have ever heard would be appalled at the thought of salvation through works. Again, salvation through works is in DIRECT conflict with the book of Romans.
I only read the first points and was struck by how untrue this article was at the onset.
Joseph Smith (church founder) was asked once what the church believes in and what he responded to has become known as the thirteen articles of faith. Every Mormon child is encouraged to learn them all word for word. The very first article of faith is:
We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in his son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost.
There it is, we believe in the Holy Trinity. We also believe Jesus Christ to be his ONLY begotten son.
And, though not presented in that article of faith, we believe that Jesus Christ is our redeemer and that no man can return to Heaven without His grace.
Bottom line... We believe in Jesus Christ, we believe he died for our sins, we believe he died so we could live again, we believe he raised from the dead, we believe he will return again (2nd coming), we believe he is the only begotten of the Father (God), we believe we will be saved through his grace, we believe that we should strive to come closer to knowing and understanding him, we believe he is the only one who can save us (no other, not even Joseph Smith by a LOOOONG shot), we believe he started a church, and we believe we are members of that church. So, which part of this faith makes us non-CHRISTian?
A major part would be the famous quote by an LDS Apostle Lorenzo Snow: "As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become." Thats not Christian. Neither is the eternal progression of God...the doctrine that God is an exalted man (like we can become). Neither is the idea that Jesus and Lucifer are spirit-brothers.
James Duckett,
I have not been paying much attention to this side of it. Most of my participation has been in the comments unders OSC's article. So forgive me for jumping in a bit late, here.
You said:
We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in his son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost.
There it is, we believe in the Holy Trinity. We also believe Jesus Christ to be his ONLY begotten son.
The doctrine of the Holy Trinity doesn't just stop there, but let's test what you have.
1) You say that God is eternal. But I have read (from Mormon sources) that God was once a man, and that he was not eternally God. Is this true, or not true?
2) Do you believe that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all One God in Three Persons? This is a basic part of the Trinitarian doctrine. In the past, Mormons have denied this. Are you now saying that they are in fact One God in Three Persons? If you do not say this, then you are denying the Trinitarian doctrine of Christianity.
3) Do you believe that Jesus Christ was the Word, and the Word was with God, and was God, and the Word became flesh? Do you believe the Jesus Christ was also eternal? If you deny that Christ is eternal, you deny an essential piece of the doctrine of the Trinity.
It is extremely important that you answer these honestly and without evasion. If you reject the essential doctrines of Christianity, you reject Christianity. You may think that Jesus Christ started your Church, but if it is counter to the Christian Church's that have been around for 2000 years, it clearly isn't Christianity.
Christianity means something. The things that it means are at odds with Mormonism. If the essentials of Christianity has correct doctrines, then Mormonism has false doctrines. If, on the other hand, Jesus Christ actually did start the Mormon Church, and if the Mormon Church is, in fact, right about all doctrines, then the Mormon Church would be of Christ--but it still wouldn't be Christian. If the Mormon doctrines are right, Christianity is a false religion. Why they are so determined to be counted among a religion they believe to be false is completely flabbergasting to me. Unless, of course, they are enemies of Truth? And allies of confusion?
Anon @ 2.42: "I'm simply looking for Truth."
And the truth is Christianity?
It was Jesus Christ who said that a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, and as Mormon and Angry pointed out rather forcefully, Christianity's legacy is a long and grotesque one of bickering, bigotry, persecution, repression, power-broking, corruption and greed.
It's true that Protestantism emerged as a backlash against the corruption of the Roman church. But then the Protestants started behaving just like the Catholics.
Most of America's largest churches date back to a married king of England with a roving eye, and a ruthless and ambitious woman determined to stop at nothing to become queen. Some foundation for a church!
And from the Church of England has grown the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians and Episcopalians. Can an evil tree bring forth good fruit?
I cannot believe that the man who taught "Love one another as I have loved you" will own the institution responsible for so much reprehensible (and decidedly non-Christian) behavior, for so many centuries. Without a doubt, any authority his church may have originally held must have been withdrawn when it started being abused so badly. And without the authority of Jesus Christ, it's not going to make a jot of difference whether you're "Christian" or Hari Khrishna.
Chad says:
"You are confusing salvation and rewards after salvation. Mormons believe that salvation is wrapped up in works. Christians believe salvation is a free gift (read the book of Romans)."
You are changing the subject, plus presuming to tell me what Mormons believe. Neither tack is productive. I was responding to Mr. Clingan's claim that "the doctrine of Grace is completely absent from the LDS faith. Their reward is based on works, and clearly places it outside Christianity.""
Such claims misrepresent my faith. The quote and link I offered were sufficient to demonstrate that with respect to Clingan's claim. In my opinion, your claim here also misrepresents my faith. On the topic of what I believe, I happen to be the pre-eminent authority, having lived with my beliefs for 53 years. I am also well placed to consider LDS belief, I have attended LDS services in three countries, and at least 15 US states. I have read extensively in LDS scripture and scholarship, and I have published a few dozen articles in a variety LDS Journals. Please do me the kindness of letting me explain my own faith. I would not presume to explain yours.
Regarding your "Mormons will quote James 2:14-17 as their evidence that works are required for faith..." etc. you haven't talked with me, and I would suggest not predicting what I would say or think. You clearly do not know and have demonstrated no interest in finding out. And for that matter, when I see a discussion turning into a "by the numbers" recitation of shallow cliches, rather than a genuine inquiry into the important sources and studies, I see that life is too short to waste further time.
Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA
I think you are getting mixed up in identifying Christianity with some of its supposed followers.
If I say I'm a Mormon and then kill 12 people, you can't say Mormonism is bad or its false based on my actions. I may have not even really been a Mormon.
Response to Anon @ 3.58:
1) You say that God is eternal. But I have read (from Mormon sources) that God was once a man, and that he was not eternally God. Is this true, or not true?
Yes. Before men become men, they exist as spirits. And before they become spirits, they exist as intelligences. Intelligences are eternal.
2) Do you believe that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all One God in Three Persons?
No. They are three separate personages, one in purpose only.
3) Do you believe that Jesus Christ was the Word, and the Word was with God, and was God, and the Word became flesh?
I do wish Christians would stop talking jargon, and just call a spade a spade. I know you're quoting John, but what do you mean by it? Do I believe that Christ existed? Yes. Do I believe that he died to atone for our sins? Yes. Do I believe that through His grace, we will be saved? Yes.
Anon @ 4.19: "I think you are getting mixed up in identifying Christianity with some of its supposed followers. If I say I'm a Mormon and then kill 12 people, you can't say Mormonism is bad or its false based on my actions."
I could if the murders were fully sanctioned, supported and encouraged by the church. The Crusades and the Inquisition, the foundation of the Church of Englandand with it the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians and Episcopalians -- these were not the private actions of individuals.
I would be very glad to let you explain your faith. I am in no way trying to silence you at all. I was simply quoting from your own scripture which, I would hope, is what you would be a pre-eminent authority on.
If you would like to make an attempt at explaining my faith, by all means, go ahead. I would not find this offensive in the least bit. I would simply correct you where you make mistakes.
I wasn't "predicting what you would say" at all. I was simply providing the scripture that Mormons most commonly cite to defend their doctrine.
For the third time, I provide this link: http://www.novus2.com/alphamin/LETTERS/MAINPAGE.htm
Here is an entire book filled with Mormon doctrine and theology, straight from Mormon scripture, publications, journals, and authors, contrasted with the teachings of the Bible. If you want discussion of important sources and studies and theology, there you go. Again, I'm not going to repost this book in this discussion board as it is too long and it is not my material. If you want to learn, go read it. I can't read it for you.
I think the following might be a valuable test of who is a follower of Christ.
John 13:35
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
Wizard of ID quotes: Anon @ 2.42: "I'm simply looking for Truth."
I would like it to be clear that this was not me. I have been posting under the name "Anon," but this quote came from someone who did not use any name at all.
Wizard of ID continues: "And the truth is Christianity?"
Why, yes. I believe so. You give us a grossly incomplete understanding of the evils that have occurred in our Church, but you fail to remember that Jesus Christ warned us about such things happening in His Church. The fact that evil men and "wolves in sheep's clothing" have existed in any given church does not say anything to the truth of that faith. This is just a version of ad hominem on steroids. (After all, Mormons are perfect, aren't they?)
Interesting how Mormons often find themselves arguing alongside atheists in things like this. With regards to the Inquisition and Crusades, you might want to talk to a Catholic. I'm a Protestant.
If I'm a pastor of a church, and I tell my church to go kill 12 people, and they do, you still can't say that Christianity is bad or false based upon this.
Wizard of ID, thank you for the straight forward and honest answers to my questions. The result shows that you do not believe in the essential Christian doctrine of the Trinity, which means that you believe Christianity is wrong. If you believe Christianity is wrong, you certainly aren't counted among them.
If the True Christ started Mormonism, then Christianity is wrong. If that is the case, I hope someday to be disabused of my error some day. But if I am disabused of it, I will not join in the confusion and deception that would be caused by claiming I was Christian.
Wizard of ID quoted: Anon @ 4.19: "I think you are getting mixed up in identifying Christianity with some of its supposed followers. If I say I'm a Mormon and then kill 12 people, you can't say Mormonism is bad or its false based on my actions."
Again - this was not me. Would you please do me the favor of tagging those as "anonymous" instead of just "Anon," WoID?
Thanks.
Oh. And by the way, Mormonism probably would not even exist if not for the Crusades. We would most likely all be writing in Turkish or Arabic right now if not for the Crusades halting the bloody and ruthless advance of the Muslims.
You're welcome.
Remember Lepanto!
4.44: "With regards to the Inquisition and Crusades, you might want to talk to a Catholic. I'm a Protestant"
Can an evil tree bring forth good fruit?
Bah. Potay-toe Potah-toe. It's all mythology anyway. If the Mormons say they're Christian, then they're Christian.
Why does it matter in the long run when it's all invented by people?
Which came first: Trinitarianism or Christianity? The answer to this is the answer to whether Mormons are Christians.
After a thoughtful reply to a previous post, Roper's reply was "*Right, but you still ain't a Christian." Well, that seems to be the trump card in this discussion, which makes it all so pointless. Dr. Mohler and the rest will continue to play that trump card over and over, it doesn't make a difference. I'm sad to see the level of negativity or even downright slander here when it comes to some of these comments about Mormonism. While some of the descriptions of Mormon belief presented here are fairly done, the great majority are embellishments or pure fabrication. If you know you have the truth, then why invent lies to disprove someone else's religion?
>> 1) You say that God is eternal. But I have read (from Mormon sources) that God was once a man, and that he was not eternally God. Is this true, or not true?
God is and was eternal. That is all that is important. Will you otherwise dictate to me the eternal nature of God?
>> 2) Do you believe that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all One God in Three Persons?
Exactly!! Three persons. Each an entirely different person. Single and one in purpose and mission (to save our souls).
>> In the past, Mormons have denied this.
I just quoted our first doctrine of faith. We have always believed in three separate beings and intelligences as it is one of the biggest things learned through Joseph Smith's "first vision" when he saw God and Jesus standing side by side.
>> 3) Do you believe that Jesus Christ was the Word, and the Word was with God, and was God, and the Word became flesh?
Okay, I'll admit that I'm not 100% sure about the interpretation of this scripture. So in answering this, I may not be answering your question. The Word being the Word of God? Sure, Jesus did deliver God's plan to his chosen people (the Jews) who rejected it and then it was delivered to the rest of God's children on Earth (the Gentiles). the Word (Jesus) was with God and is God. Of course. Jesus is eternal. The Word became flesh? Isn't that what the first half of the New Testament is all about?
>> Do you believe the Jesus Christ was also eternal?
Whole heartedly.
>> If you reject the essential doctrines of Christianity, you reject Christianity.
Let's be honest here. Many of the Christian Church's doctrines are clearly and plainly not followed by many religions openly accepted as being Christian Faith. So why is Mormonism the most heavily judged? The answer is because we believe in modern revelation and the Book of Mormon. But I would challenge you to tell me which church actually follows all of the doctrines outlines by Christ? If so, please name it. OSC's argument still stands... who has the moral right to dictate who is and is not a Christian. Even CS Lewis argued this in the opening of his book, "Mere Christianity."
>> You may think that Jesus Christ started your Church, but if it is counter to the Christian Church's that have been around for 2000 years, it clearly isn't Christianity.
Oh, I believe with all my heart that Christ started the LDS church. But that is what faith is and I'm not going to debate faith. Faith is something you have to find out for yourself.
>> Christianity means something.
Darn tootin'!!!! It is why the LDS religion is proud to call ourselves a member of it.
>> The things that it means are at odds with Mormonism.
I would disagree with that. I believe our fundamental beliefs are the same and that the anti-Mormon movement is lead by those who are sickened to see tithes come our direction. I mean, have you read much of the anti-Mormon literature out there? It is so mean-spirited and untruthful.
I mean, why would any Christian denomination persecute a church with our values? We believe that Christ should be the center of our lives. We believe the Bible to be the word of God and that the Book of Mormon does nothing but further attest of Christ's greatness and helps us to understand him better (come on, who doesn't want that?!?!?). We believe in family and fighting evil on earth. We have sooooo much in common that I am saddened that the leaders of most other churches want nothing to do with us when, together, we could accomplish so much good on this Earth and help others turn to Christ.
>> If, on the other hand, Jesus Christ actually did start the Mormon Church, and if the Mormon Church is, in fact, right about all doctrines, then the Mormon Church would be of Christ--but it still wouldn't be Christian.
Wow, that made no sense whatsoever. Sorry....
>> If the Mormon doctrines are right, Christianity is a false religion.
Not at all. Not in the least. How could any follower of Christ be false no matter what official religion they follow.
>> Why they are so determined to be counted among a religion they believe to be false is completely flabbergasting to me.
You said it yourself, because being a Christian means something. We pride ourselves (the good pride, of course :D) on being followers of Christ.
>> Unless, of course, they are enemies of Truth? And allies of confusion?
Actually, now I'm confused.... o.O
I'd like to address a few other things I've read above (I'll admit, I haven't read much):
1) The LDS church does NOT believe that men will be saved by their works. The roots of that belief point towards pride. Sadly, many members believe it. It amazes me how many people of the faith can listen to our twice-yearly held conference and still believe that. It is through the Grace of Christ we are saved. The bible says so, the Book of Mormon says so, the leaders of the LDS church says so. Any LDS member who says otherwise needs to do some research. I'll admit, I was once a believer of this doctrine. Works and acts is a means of doing God's work but it isn't going to be what saves you. It will only save you in the sense that it helps convert you into the person who wants to be saved.
2) There seemed to be a bit of a debate on the truth of the LDS church. People throwing scripture out there backing up and refuting the truth of Mormonism.
Yeah right!
Okay, Mormonism can not be proven or even disproven just as the same with Christianity, Judism, Muslim, and even Athiesm. It all comes down to faith. Why do you believe Christianity to be right and Islam to be false? Faith. Not because you worked some math problem out and it came to Truth = Southern Baptists. Again, this is another thing we have in common. Followers of the LDS faith became followers by hope, prayer and faith. I bet most followers believe the same. I am enthralled by faith and have asked many people (both LDS and non-LDS) how they obtained their faith. Again, the stories are VERY, VERY similar though I will admit I haven't had the opportunity to ask people outside of Christianity (the Jews I've asked mostly answered because they were born into it and tradition... but I haven't asked many). So debating what is true and false is silly by its very nature. You can't intellectualize faith.
Let's stick with the real debate... what and who gets to define a Christian?
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not Christian. Read Dr. Walter Martin's book, Kingdom of the Cults, to read they aren't. Also check out the Christian Research Institute.
This discussion has become painfully complicated.
The Bible states that the disciples of Christ were called Christians. Who cares what the creeds say? (Different denominations (Baptist, Methodist, Mormon or Catholic) certainly don't adhere to the same creeds. If they did there would be no distinction between the denominations.)
"And the disciples [of Christ] were called Christians" (Acts 11:26)
The Book of Mormon defines "Christian" similarly:
"all those who were true believers in Christ took upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or Christians as they were called, because of their belief in Christ" (Alma 46:15)
If I am a Christian, let me be known by my fruit. If I take upon myself the name of Christ through baptism and spiritual re-birth it is certainly between me and Him. I'm sorry, but Dr R Albert Mohler and his creeds, philosophy and restrictions have little to do with it.
In the end I believe Christ will judge our "Christianity" with the same judgment and limitations we dish out upon others and their Christianity. God help us if we close the boarders of our sandbox. It just isn't a Christian principle.
> The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not Christian. Read Dr. Walter Martin's book, Kingdom of the Cults, to read they aren't. Also check out the Christian Research Institute.
So Dr. Martin is the authoritative figure on who is Christian or not?
No Jesus and the Bible are the authoritative figures on who is Christian and Mormon doctrines teach things that are opposite Jesus and the Bible. End of story.
Who gets to define "Christian"?
Jesus Christ Himself gets to define "Christian".
According to Jesus Christ for someone to be a Christian it is of utmost importance to know who He is. In John 8 Jesus Christ said, "If you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." Who does Christ say will die in his sins? He who "does not believe that I am He."
So the questions is: who is it that we must believe Jesus to be in order to not die in our sins?
Let us take u a look at who the Bible says He is:
John 1:1-3,14,12 clearly states, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made... and the Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us... as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God" ***
Phillipians 3:20 calls Him, "The Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ"
These verses tell us clearly that Jesus Christ is not only the Savior of the world but He is also the God and Creator of everything that has ever been made. When it says that "everything was made through Him" it means that EVERYTHING was made through Him. There is nothing that exists (whether spirit-beings, demons, thrones, principilaties etc) that is eternal rather everything was "made" through Christ and for Christ. If anyone believes that their spirit is eternal or that other eternal things exist that were not "made through Him" then that person is contradicting this Scripture.
Lets take a look at what else the Bible says about Him:
Isaiah 45:21 says, "Who has declared this from ancient time? Who has told it from that time? Have not I, the LORD? And there is no other God besides Me, A just God and a Savior; There is none besides Me."
Here the Scripture says that there is NO OTHER GOD besides Him. If anyone believes that there are other gods besides the 1 true God of the Bible that person is in grave error for the Scripture makes it abundantly clear that "there is none besides" Him.
In Isaiah 43:10 The LORD says about Himself, "Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me." According to this Scripture not only was there no god formed before Jesus Christ but there will never be one formed after Him. If someone believes that they will one day become a god they are flat wrong according to this Scripture.
Psalm 90:2 declares, "Before the mountains were brought forth,Or ever You had formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God." This Scripture declares that God is the Creator of the world and everything in it. It also makes it clear that He is "from everlasting to everlasting" aka eternal.
The point is this: If a person does not believe that Jesus Christ is whom the Bible declares He is... that is... the one true and only eternal Creator (of all things) and Savior God who became flesh, who died on behalf of sinners, and rose on the third day... that person is not a Christian. Rather, unless this person repents, he will die in his sins and perish.
****Of note: Contrary to popular belief (and Mormon teaching, I think) we are not all "children of God", rather we must be given the right to BECOME children of God through faith in the Word become flesh, Jesus Christ.
Read the beginning about Joesph Smith and how he "found" these tablets in America and started the Mor(m)on religion. You decide for yourself.
For a biography of Joseph Smith I recommend "Rough Stone Rolling" by Richard Bushman.
I also recommend the Book of Mormon. If you are going to bash one's religion, at least have read their writings.
I also agree that one posted earlier, Trinitarianism came *after* Christianity, and as such has no authority on this debate.
There's an awful lot of bad blood in some of these blogs, both from non-Mormons (who think the Mormons are in error) as well as from some Mormons (who are seeting with resentment).
There's probably no way to reconcile some of these differences. Good people can differ on subjects of great importance to them.
But good people don't have to denigrate themselves, or their faith, by taking shots at one another. Mormons consider themselves Christians. Other folks think them in error. Some go so far as to write them out of the list of Christian faiths.
Fine.
But even when we disagree, we should remember the teachings of Jesus, because Jesus - while vocal about his own differences with others - was still a loving, generous, patient, tolerant figure.
Let's not let go of our humanity in the effort to win an argument that can't be won. At the end of the day, when the other person persists in disagreeing, maybe it's time to move on to other issues - like what's worth sharing.
Mormons and non-Mormons make great neighbors when each as enough respect for the other to let the other be who they are.
Growing up a member of the CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS. I was always taught Jesus Christ was my saviour and that he died on the cross for my sin. I accept this and believe this. I was never taught anything different. I was taught that I must repent and be baptized in the name of the Father the Son and Holy Ghost in the name of Jesus Christ. I was confirmed a member of the church in the name of Jesus Christ. I partook of the sacrement every sunday which we(Mormons) commemorate the sacrafice Jesus Christ made for our sins. This sacrament is blessed in the name of Jesus Christ. We opened and closed every meeting with a prayer in the name of Jesus Christ. I remember Christ as being the focal point of my Mormon life. Of course there were other elements to the belief that differ from other faiths. But I do not understand in my wildest imaginings how anyone could not consider LDS people Christian. Although I am no longer a member of the LDS faith. I am grateful for the teachings that taught me a love for my Heavenly Father and my Saviour Jesus Christ. In my opinion you really can not find a more Christ like people than those in the LDS church.
Just take a look at this blog... How Christ like are your remarks?
How Christ like were the LDS remarks? Christ charged us in the Bible "To Love One Another As I Have Loved You" All Christians in my opinion should give this a try. Respect our differences and Love Each Other.
I pray that Heavenly Father Bless You All
In the name of My Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ Amen
"Read the beginning about Joesph Smith and how he "found" these tablets in America and started the Mor(m)on religion. You decide for yourself."
As compared to the Wedding at Cana, Feeding the Five Thousand, Healing the Sick, Making the Lame to Walk, Restoring Sight to the Blind, or, gosh darn it, atoning for mankind's sins, dying on the cross and resurrecting himself.
But then you Christians never were too hot on the faith thing, were you? Much better at just holding hands and singing "Kumbaya," before heading out for a good ol' persecution and murder session.
I will repeat what I said yesterday:
No, Mormons are not Christians, because Christians are the biggest morons walking the planet! They should be re-classified as apes, they're so stupid!
What does a Christian believe, exactly? That for no good reason, God created planet earth for a blink in the eons of time, and peopled it for a mere blip. If we all behave ourselves for that blip's duration, we all get to sit around in heaven doing jack all eternity.
And no Christian ever asks "What's the point?" You say Mormon doctrine is stupid? At least Mormons have a reason for why God would be doing all this!
And then there's the commandments. What Christian church actually teaches people to keep them? What Christian church doesn't break them whenever it's convenient? When you're not abusing your choir boys, you're appointing homosexuals to be your priests! Of all the tedious, mindless hours I've endured in Christian churches, I've never heard a priest teach that Christians should follow the commandments! And their followers never do. And now they're all over this board, lying, misrepresenting, insulting, doing anything other than living the golden rule! You Christians ever heard of the golden rule? No, of course you haven't. Jesus taught it, so why would you have?
But there's one thing you really know how to do, isn't there? Whenever anyone disagrees with you, dares to suggest that you're wrong, you know exactly how to kill him, don't you? Not just Mormons, but anybody! The Crusades, the Inquisition, the English Civil War, the Conquistadores -- the Christians have slaughtered more people than Hitler!
Catholics murdered Protestants, Protestants murdered Catholics. Protestants murdered other Protestants because they weren't the right kind of Protestant. Then when you couldn't find anybody else to carve up, you'd all go off and have a Jew-murder party.
And heaven forfend you execute them humanely. You couldn't ever just shoot or hang them, like you did with ordinary people, could you? No, because they were Christians, you had to murder them in the cruellest ways you could think up. You should read some of those martyrs' histories you're all so keen on publishing! Burning them alive, cutting out their vital organs alive, mutilating them alive.
As a religion, you've got a lot of blood on your hands.
And you Christians have the effrontery to moralize to us Mormons! You Christians have nothing, NOTHING to lecture us about. Pull the beam from your own eye, you hypocrites! I thank God I'm not one of you, because if I were, I would hang my head in shame.
Posted by: Mormon and Angry | July 2, 2007 1:07 PM
Jesus Christ and His Apostles have already defined what a Christian is. Christians were first called Christians in the book of Acts and Christians are defined all through the New Testament of the Bible. Read all about it!
Mormon and Angry has a few OK points but makes them quite rudely. Mormon and Angry, as a member of the LDS faith, you are embarrassing me. Please try to be more civil.
One of Jesus' Apostles, Peter, taught what one must do to demonstrate faith in Jesus Christ and to take upon them His name:
37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."
40With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." 41Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. (Acts 2:37-40)
I still don't understand why many Mormons in this discussion refuse to interact with the texts of the Bible that are in direct conflict with Mormon scriptures.
All I see are arguments against Christianity, which is ironic since apparently Mormons are offended at not being included in Christianity.
Mormons on this board have been so quick to point out bloodshed and division in Christianity while in the next sentence being outraged that someone says they aren't Christian.
I personally see many threads of inconsistency like this throughout the entire Mormon religion and I'd like to see a Mormon actually address any of these instead of just using arguments against Christianity.
*** ...we have an objective standard by which to define what is and is not Christianity.
We are not talking here about the postmodern conception of Christianity that minimizes truth. We are not talking about Christianity as a mood or as a sociological movement. We are not talking about liberal Christianity that minimizes doctrine nor about sectarian Christianity which defines the faith in terms of eccentric doctrines. We are talking about historic, traditional, Christian orthodoxy.
-Dr. Albert Mohler ***
It's oh-so-easy to conclude the LDS Church isn't Christian when you're deliberately cherry-picking the definition of "Christian" that provides the most help to your thesis. It's also intellectually dishonest. Rather than choosing the very narrowest definition he can, let's see Dr. Mohler write another article using a broader, more inclusive definition of Christianity to de-Christianize the Mormon Church. After all, if we adhere to the strictest interpretation of the definition Dr. Mohler chose - "historic, traditional, Christian orthodoxy" - the only valid organ of Christianity becomes the Roman Catholic Church because all other branches of the faith are, historically and traditionally, heterodox.
My prayer for everyone else is that you will not go to enemies to ask about any faith but go to that faith and ask them. If you want to know about being a Catholic, go to the Catholics. If you want to know about Judiasm talk to a Rabi. Protestants? Seek out a reverend, pastor, minister, whoever is in a position to tell you the truth. If you want to know about Mormons then go to A Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (EVERYONE IS WELCOME), call a mormon friend, talk to our Missionaries, or visit our website.
There are several Mormons responding to things on both Mr. Card's and Dr. Mohler's comments. By going directly to Mormons, I have at least three different stories. Some insist that they do not believe in the Trinitarian doctrine of Christianity. Some say they most decidedly do. Some say that God and Jesus were always Gods and eternally so. Others say that they weren't. The sources from LDS that I've seen seem to be clear that they are not Trinitarians, but in some places they seem to claim they are.
There is a distinct postmodern approach in the Mormon arguments. They believe that people determine the nature of things when they use words. But that is wrong. Things have a nature unto themselves, and words refer to that nature. Christianity has had a nature--a very well understood nature--for two thousand years. There are essential qualities and essential things that make up what Christianity *is*. Not what it has been "defined" to be, but what it *is*. The postmodern approach of making words mean what you want them to mean instead of using them to refer to something real makes discussion incoherent, and it reduces words to useless things. It is Orwellian double-speak, and it is deceptive nonsense.
No one "gets to define" Christianity. It is what it is. Even the Pope doesn't define it. He is subject to it.
I really don't know what to respond to any more. It seems like a completely futile effort to communicate with the Mormons (at least here.) I am left with the impression that Mormons do not care about Truth or meaning. That it is more important to them that they undermine the meaning of Christianity so that they can get away with saying they are Christians, too, and be better positioned to convert the less studied who are deceived into thinking they are simply becoming another kind of Christian. There is a pernicious quality to this discussion, and I think I have reached the end of my participation in it. (Of all the Mormon interlocutors here, I mostly respect Mormon and Angry--in spite of his disgust for my faith--for admitting he is not Christian. His converts will be *honestly* gained. And if the One True Christ actually did start Mormonism--more power to him.)
I pretty much echo the statements above by Anon.
It is nearly impossible to pin down a Mormon's beliefs. The ones that I have spoken to on these threads simply refuse to give a straight answer. I even tried the "Answer these questions with a simple 'yes' or 'no' approach", to no avail! (An approah I myself will eagerly ascribe to if need be.) Again, if there is a single Mormon out there willing to answer my questions please let me know.
Here are some questions that I would like answered with a simple 'yes' or 'no':
1) Is Jesus Christ God?
2) Is Jesus Chris eternal? (eternal = no beginning and no end, has always existed and will always exist)
3) Did Jesus Christ come into existence after the Father?
4) Was there ever a God before Jesus Christ?
5) Will there ever be a God after Jesus Christ?
6) Was the Father once a man who later became a God?
7) If so, who was God while the Father was a man?
8) Is Jesus Christ the Creator of everything whether visible or invisible? (including every spirit whether demonic or angelic)
9) Is Jesus Christ the Creator of the devil?
10) Is Jesus Christ the brother of the devil?
11) Are human beings eternal beings? (Meaning they have no beginning and no end)
12) Is Jesus Christ co-eternal with the Father?
13) Is Jesus Christ co-eternal with the Holy Spirit?
14) Are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit three different gods?
15) Do you believe that there is only one God?
16) Do you believe men can become Gods?
17) Do you believe in more than one God?
Those are just some of the questions. Please answer them with a simple 'yes' or 'no'. I would really appreciate.
I take it as a sign that Mormonism is a cult if these questions cannot be answered in a straight forward and honest way. To be fair, I myself, am willing to answer these questions if anyone required me to. Thank you.
Anon, you're dealing with several different Mormons, who are not coordinating their arguments, who have varying degrees of skill at making an argument, and who have varying degrees of skill at understanding the points of others. This is probably where the confusion is coming from.
So, to crystalize the answers that you raised:
1) Mormonism does not believe in the three-in-one concept of god, but that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are entirely separate entities.
2) The Father and Jesus Christ are eternal in that have always existed and will always exist. However, they have not always held the god status they now hold. they are also eternal in that they will continue to hold their god status for ever more.
And yes, I realise another entire blog could be devoted to arguing each of those points. I'm not going to try to explain those arguments right now.
Amid all this fuss about whether or not Mormons are Christians, I wonder whether it's worth asking to what extent Christians could be defined as Christians.
After all, Christ said, "By their fruits shall ye know them," and the fruits of Christianity (as Mormon and Angry explained in no uncertain terms) have historically been dreadful: a long and terrible tale of biggotry, persecution, repression, war, pillage, thousands of executions of barbaric cruelty, power struggles, greed, corruption, self-glorification and naked profiteering.
Today, all I see of Christianity is division, strife, clannish cover-ups, a disastrous lack of leadership, and still more naked profiteering.
Is this what Christ wanted? Would he recognise the Christian churches for the institution He founded? I doubt it.
Someone rightly argued on a earlier post that one cannot hold an entire institution responsible for the actions of a few individuals. Yet we're not talking about a handful of incidents, but ongoing, habitual, willful, action and policy, fully sanctioned, supported, encouraged by church authorities of the highest rank, across tens (or even hundreds) or thousands of occasions stretching over a dozen or more centuries. As Mormon and Angry said "As a religion, there's a lot of blood on your hands."
I cannot believe Christ would credit an institution that has so abused His name to countenance the execution of pure evil and overt ambition. Any authority the Christian church may once have had has to have been withdrawn. It's true that many have, with the best of intentions, attempted to reform the Christian churches, but this is pointless since Christ taught that "an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit." Christ's church must, can only be, restored by Jesus Christ Himself.
Mormonism, of course, is the only institution that claims such a restoration.
There can be no doubt that you "Christians" constitute a religion in that you conform to a common set of doctrines. But since those doctrines generally have more to do with Plato and Socrates than Jesus Christ, are those doctrines even Christian?
From that point of view, it can be legitimately claimed that Mormons are indeed Christians, since our doctrines are those revealed directly by Jesus Christ. Christians would perhaps be more honestly called "Platonics."
Amid all this fuss about whether or not Mormons are Christians, I wonder whether it's worth asking to what extent Christians could be defined as Christians.
It is, indeed, a question worth asking. There may very well be groups who call themselves "Christian," who are not.
There is also little doubt that every denomination and every person finds himself not acting in the loving way Christ taught. But we all know that is the case, and we all know that it is one of the reasons we desperately need to be saved. So making issue of it doesn't make sense to me in a discussion that it trying to understand just what Christianity IS. There is plenty of "unchristian" behavior on all sides to spotlight if we want to play that game. But it is irrelevant. What it is, and how they should act are two different things.
Finally, you can't have it both ways. Either you are seperate from Christianity, or you are just one voice among the thousands who make claims about their position in Christianity. Your claims of "restoration" are not unique in the slightest, and it is just one more group saying "we're special, so come to us instead of them."
Like I've said several times now--I would be very introspective and full of concern if I found myself on the side that was playing games with meaning, instead of trying to discern it.
I personally do not believe that a Mormons are christians either.
What they beleive and what the bible says, proves that point.
Yet we're not talking about a handful of incidents,...
No, but you are talking in grossly incomplete and convenient terms. There is much more to the history of things than what you are saying. Mormons have there fair share of murderers and pedophiles, and they are not without violence. They also (conveniently) have a much shorter history from which to highlight.
I will not downplay any of the horrors of the actions of some Christians. However, there are certain circumstances that have been blown way out of proportion, and there is a much larger history of how Christianity brought peace and prosperity to this world. To simply characterize them the way you have is simple-minded, incomplete, and self-condemning.
There can be no doubt that you "Christians" constitute a religion in that you conform to a common set of doctrines.
Thank you for saying so. It sounds like you are saying you do not belong in that group. Are you admitting that you are non-Christian, then?
But since those doctrines generally have more to do with Plato and Socrates than Jesus Christ, are those doctrines even Christian?
This is just plain wrong, WoID. Some Orthodox thinking was influenced by the philosophers. They influenced the way they were explained and the way that they were analyzed, but the philosophers had nothing to do with the origin of those doctrines. You don't seem like the intentionally deceptive type WoID, so I assume you just don't know what you are talking about. A good study of the early Church Fathers, and the continuity from Christ that they demonstrate would be very beneficial to you, I think.
Claim of restoration not unique in the slightest?
Anon,
if your statement is true, please reveal another person who claims to have received the direct authority / priesthood from God to re-establish the church of Jesus Christ on the earth along with the authority to perform the saving ordinances of the gospel. Is there someone else who claims to be a prophet like Joseph Smith was? Who was visited by Christ, Elijah, Moses and others? Who received the priesthood of Aaron from John the Baptist, the Melchizidek priesthood by laying on of hands from Peter, James and John? Who received and recorded volumes of revelation regarding the kingdom of God in the latter days?
You are an agent unto yourself and can think that Joseph Smith's claims are false as is church that he restored / started. That is, you have a right to your own opinion. (But that doesn't mean your opinion is right.) Your statement though that our claims of "restoration" are not unique in the slightest is nutty, unless you can come up with another religion with claims of restoration as fantastical as the LDS.
And I mean "fantastical" in the full sense of the word: not just hard to believe but if true then wonderfully, terrific happenings.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints provides a tremendous amount of literature to its people. This body of printed material can hardly be surveyed here. However, we can focus upon those publications that are specifically meant to communicate doctrinal truth to the members of the Mormon Church. Since the vast majority of this material appears in Church published documents, we feel quite confident that we are being fair in allowing it to speak and bear testimony to the LDS position.
Melchizedek Priesthood Study Guide
The Melchizedek Priesthood, or the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God, as some Mormons refer to it, is central to the LDS concept of authority. The Church has published a book titled Search These Commandments, which is subtitled, "Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide."[1] On pages 151 through 158 we have a study, Lesson 21, based upon D&C 132:20. The first section of the lesson is titled, "God Was Once a Man As We Are Now." The topic of Lorenzo Snow is brought up in these words:
I believe the significance of this is clear: the Church has no qualms about promoting Snow's couplet in modern times, and even citing a very secondary source regarding Joseph Smith's confirmation of the verity of Snow's ideas. Not surprisingly, then, the very next citation is very familiar to us:
The Prophet Joseph Smith said:
The continued relevance, and authority, of Smith's teaching is here plainly demonstrated. So, too, is the authority of a General Authority speaking in Conference, as the next citation provided shows:
Are modern Mormons taught that God was once a man and progressed to godhood? Most definitely. The second section of this lesson is titled, "Our Father Advanced and Progressed Until He Became God." What sources are provided to the Melchizedek priest to substantiate this claim?
Aside from demonstrating how deeply embedded in LDS thought is the idea of eternal progression, the use of all of these non-canonical sources by the Church to its own members should be noted. The Church is not merely providing private speculation from these leaders to her members. By citing these sources the Church is demonstrating that her truth can be found in a wider body of literature than just the Standard Works.
Next we find that the Church specifically says that the mortal life of God the Father, prior to His exaltation, was basically the same as our life today:
The next section is titled "Through Obedience to the Gospel, Man May Become like God." To illustrate this, they quote from a devotional speech in which Elder S. Dilworth Young attributes words to the Father in heaven as He revealed His plan to us in our premortal home.
Take special notice that the Father's Father is here mentioned. That is, the God of God, the God that the heavenly Father worshipped when He was a man, is here affirmed to exist. Some modern LDS refuse to speculate beyond what pertains to this earth, but the Church, in teaching its own people, is willing to discuss such matters. The centrality of Smith's King Follett Discourse is seen again: the reference, HC 6:302-17, is to the History of the Church by Joseph Smith, and the King Follett sermon is found in volume 6, pages 302 and following. The lesson returns to the idea that God's mortal existence was very much like ours by quoting an LDS Prophet:
Following these quotes, the student is asked some questions. Some include, "What can a child grow up to be?" which is immediately followed by "What can a son of God grow up to be?" There is only one answer: a God. The student is then told that God does not jealously guard his position and power.[2] The King Follett discourse is cited again, this time the section that says you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you. After some more discussion the lesson concludes with a most interesting note: "Be careful in presenting this material that you dont bring God down to man's level. Our objective is to perfect ourselves and raise our level to his exalted place." Here is the LDS Church teaching her own members her theology, and in so doing, being quite open about the ramifications of believing that God was once a man. And even here, one hundred and forty years after Joseph Smith stood to deliver his sermon at Conference on the character of God, the emphasis remains upon the exaltation of man to the position of the divine. It doesn't seem much has changed. ---------- [1] Search These Commandments, (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1984). It carries the copyright of the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. [2] Compare, however, Isaiah 48:11.----taken from blog post on www.aomin.org by Dr. James White----
AC Go ahead. answer your questions first. then I will. then I suspect we will have to discuss them by saying more than yes or no.
I probably won't answer until late tonight as I am on the way to work.
Anon:
>> It seems like a completely futile effort to communicate with the Mormons (at least here.) I am left with the impression that Mormons do not care about Truth or meaning.
Honestly. Please, be honest. Yes or no. Are you open to the idea that Mormons COULD in fact be Christian? Or are you dead set against it and no matter what we say you will not consider it at all. A bunch of my questions to you were never addressed as well.
It seems that the topic has been nit-picked so much that nobody can even clearly define what a Christian is. It would seem the simplest definition is one who believes in Christ. But now this has turned into silly little arguments over aspects that have nothing to do with Christ.
Hey Mike Bension,
These are the answers to my own questions:
1) Is Jesus Christ God?
Yes.
2) Is Jesus Christ eternal? (eternal = no beginning and no end, has always existed and will always exist)
Yes.
3) Did Jesus Christ come into existence after the Father?
No.
4) Was there ever a God before Jesus Christ?
No.
5) Will there ever be a God after Jesus Christ?
No.
6) Was the Father once a man who later became a God?
No.
7) If so, who was God while the Father was a man?
-
8) Is Jesus Christ the Creator of everything whether visible or invisible? (including every spirit whether demonic or angelic)
Yes.
9) Is Jesus Christ the Creator of the devil?
Yes.
10) Is Jesus Christ the brother of the devil?
No.
11) Are human beings eternal beings? (Meaning they have no beginning and no end)
No.
12) Is Jesus Christ co-eternal with the Father?
Yes.
13) Is Jesus Christ co-eternal with the Holy Spirit?
Yes.
14) Are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit three different gods?
No.
15) Do you believe that there is only one God?
Yes.
16) Do you believe men can become Gods?
No.
17) Do you believe in more than one God?
No.
I hope that now you will answer the questions in the same manner, a simple straightforward 'yes' or 'no' fashion. Thank you.
AC, short "yes" and "no" answers are rarely helpful (especially in matters of religion) since one religious persuasion's interpretation of a given concept will often be entirely different to another's. How do you expect to understand unless anything unless you understand where they're coming from?
But, since I suspect that a refusal to answer "yes" and "no" will prompt you to declare our silence as proof of your claims, here goes.
1) Is Jesus Christ God?
Yes
2) Is Jesus Chris eternal? (eternal = no beginning and no end, has always existed and will always exist)
Yes
3) Did Jesus Christ come into existence after the Father?
No
4) Was there ever a God before Jesus Christ?
Erm, no. Not if He's eternal. (oops, sorry, that was more than one word)
5) Will there ever be a God after Jesus Christ?
Yes (Does that seem incomprehensible? This is the problem with insisting on one-word answers. I could explain it, but I'm not going to. You insisted.)
6) Was the Father once a man who later became a God?
Yes
7) If so, who was God while the Father was a man?
This is an open question. How am I supposed to answer yes / no?
8) Is Jesus Christ the Creator of everything whether visible or invisible? (including every spirit whether demonic or angelic)
No
9) Is Jesus Christ the Creator of the devil?
No
10) Is Jesus Christ the brother of the devil?
Yes
11) Are human beings eternal beings? (Meaning they have no beginning and no end)
Yes
12) Is Jesus Christ co-eternal with the Father?
Yes
13) Is Jesus Christ co-eternal with the Holy Spirit?
Yes
14) Are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit three different gods?
Yes
15) Do you believe that there is only one God?
No
16) Do you believe men can become Gods?
Yes
17) Do you believe in more than one God?
Yes
And all of the above, I realize, is about as illuminating as mud. But, you insisted on inadequate one word answers, which is what you got.
Given your frame of reference, you will, of course, completely misinterpret my answers.
3.01 You really should learn the art of brevity. I really can't imagine who's going to be interested in reading a diatribe that long. I took one look at the length of it and lost the will to live.
Anon @ 2.27"Are you admitting that you are non-Christian, then?"
Surprise! Not every Mormon agrees on the "Christian" label. If a Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ, then yes, I am. If it's someone who believes in a set of doctrines commonly accepted by non-Mormon churches, then no, I'm not.
There should be a couple more questions added. LDS answer is below
14) Are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit three different gods?
yes
14a) Are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit one God?
yes
15) Do you believe that there is only one god?
no
15a) Do you believe that there is only one God with which we have anything to do with, and before Him there is no other?
yes
Note, this is all Biblical (based on interpretation). For example, Genesis says that God says "Let us go down" (plural). It also uses the Hebrew term Eloheim (which is the plural of God), so it should read "The Gods made man" and "the Gods created the Heaven and the Earth"
Now, you may think that LDS have this concept of a plethora of "gods", bur really, they interpret "the Gods" as "the Godhead" meaning the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Also note: Godhead is in the Bible. "Trinity" is not.
Hmm...
Anon wrote: Claim of restoration not unique in the slightest?
Rob Madsen replied: if your statement is true, please reveal another person who claims to have received the direct authority / priesthood from God to re-establish the church of Jesus Christ on the earth along with the authority to perform the saving ordinances of the gospel.
You didn't say that Mormonism was unique for all the details. You said specifically that it was the only church that claimed to be restorative. *THAT* was a nutty thing to say, and a church claiming to be restorative is not at all unique. The Mormons, in fact, recycled much of the Protestant assertions about the apostasy, and the restoration of the Church during the Reformation. You also have nutty branches like the World Wide Church of God that claims to be restorative. The details are different, but the claim is the same.
Is there someone else who claims to be a prophet like Joseph Smith was? Who was visited by Christ, Elijah, Moses and others? Who received the priesthood of Aaron from John the Baptist, the Melchizidek priesthood by laying on of hands from Peter, James and John? Who received and recorded volumes of revelation regarding the kingdom of God in the latter days?
There are uncountable kooky claims out there. There are people who base their beliefs on any number of fantastical claims. There are several whose leaders claim to actually *be* Jesus Christ. Fantastical claims do nothing to increase the credibility of your assertions--especially when there are so few witnesses! In the Catholic Church, we have tens of thousands of **eye-witnesses** of the signs of Fatima. If you think fantastical is what makes it--Go check her out! There were many atheists and journalists who attended for the sake of witnessing that the signs did not happen, but they became people who testified that they did. The deeper you go into the Catholic Church, the more you will find that we don't have a bunch of missing gold tablets. We have the real stuff!
Jesus warned us about false prophets, too. Claiming that Joseph Smith was a prophet does nothing to impress me. Christ himself warned me about him.
One thing you say is spot on.
That is, you have a right to your own opinion. (But that doesn't mean your opinion is right.)
That is right. The Truth is independent of either of our opinions. Truth is also my friend.
Your statement though that our claims of "restoration" are not unique in the slightest is nutty,…
If Truth is nutty, then Truth is nutty.
… unless you can come up with another religion with claims of restoration as fantastical as the LDS.
Just to be sure I drove this home--fantastical details and nutty claims were not stipulated in your original assertion that you were "restorative." I'm sure you have your own unique set of nuttiness in which you make your claims. But I don't think that is the kind of uniqueness you were trying to claim.
By the way, I'm using the word "nutty" because you used the word "nutty." One good irrational and irrelevant ad hominem deserves another. (Maybe not--but I'm not a Saint.) The rest of the Mormons reading can disregard the ad hominem for what it is. I mean no disrespect to you.
And I mean "fantastical" in the full sense of the word: not just hard to believe but if true then wonderfully, terrific happenings.
Check out Fatima. ;)
There is a lot of confusion ~ as these comments attest ~ in the church, in Christendom, about who is truly Christian and who is not.
We want a nice, easy-to-button-up coat to put on, to say we are the ones. It is the we-they mentality that Satan loves, because it divides the Body.
Mormonism definitely stretches some of the traditional boundaries, but the central tenet of Christianity is not a list of qualifiers, it is simple faith in who Christ is, the savior. That is the chief cornerstone, the foundation of all expressions of Christian religiosity. We build on that foundation with either precious gems or wood, hay, and stubble. Those flammable elements will burn up when we move into that next paradigm: and we all possess some of these things. What we do well will endure and purchase for us a better resurrection.
There is far too much bickering in the Christian world over incidentals, tacked-on doctrines, and supposedly "superior" styles of approaching God. Be thoroughly convinced in your own mind. But extend generosity, not self-righteous patronizing, to those who are working out their salvation with a slightly different motif. Judging this way is "straining at gnats and swallowing camels."
God is a JUST judge. Sometimes I think many Christians believe that truth the least. They may find that many of their cherished "traditions" wind up on the junk pile in the judgment.
Anon wrote: "It seems like a completely futile effort to communicate with the Mormons (at least here.) I am left with the impression that Mormons do not care about Truth or meaning."
James Duckett replied: Honestly. Please, be honest. Yes or no. Are you open to the idea that Mormons COULD in fact be Christian? Or are you dead set against it and no matter what we say you will not consider it at all.
Honestly, I thought I was clear about this in earlier posts. I am definitely open to the idea that Mormonism could, in fact, be Christian. Most of what I have seen is contrary to that, though. If it turns out that Mormonism does, in fact, include Orthodox Trinitarian Doctrine, then they would probably be Christian in my book. But you can't just say that it does. Trinitarian Doctrine means things, and saying that you believe in only Three Gods with One Purpose is not enough. (I believe you think there are more than three, anyway.) Trinitarian Doctrine has been clear that all Three Persons are One God. It is a great mystery, and you may not agree with it. But if you don't agree with it (and other things known about the doctrine), then you are not Christian.
If this all turns out to be a bunch of confusion, and Mormonism does, in fact, comply with the Christian Trinitarian Doctrine and any other essential attributes of Christianity, then I would accept them as Christian Bretheren. Albeit, a separated Bretheren. (I am not sure there would be any other essential attributes of Christianity. I haven't given it thought beyond that. I only include that qualification in case there is.)
Even though it looks extremely doubtful to me that Mormonism is Christian, you would still be brethren of another sort. You are (as are Buddhists and Athiests), after all, people made by Christ and of Christ, and you do, after all, get some inspiration from Christ, and some of His teachings are shared by us. That common ground is not insignificant, and we can all be Christ-inspired to be as Christ like as we can. We can also share in good morals and good living.
A bunch of my questions to you were never addressed as well.
I have tried to respond to what I felt was relevant. If I missed something you thought was relevant, please let me know. (If I last much longer in this exercise, I will do my best to respond to them.)
It seems that the topic has been nit-picked so much that nobody can even clearly define what a Christian is.
No. I don't think that is true at all. There has been a lot of clarity on the subject, although there have been those who lack clarity. The focus on Trinitarian Doctrine has been quite clear, though. Some Mormons disagree with it. Part of the confusion is that some Mormons reject it, and others try to prove they conform to it. I really don't know what to respond to half the time.
The biggest problem I see, though, is the notion that you make Christianity what it is by defining it. That is a completely false approach. The question you should ask is: Where does Christianity get its meaning? It gets its meaning from two-thousand years of followers of Christ as One Person of the Trinitarian God. Christianity has been overwhelmingly united on that Trinitarian Doctrine, which includes God's eternal existence as God--not as a man. Jesus became man, but He was also always God. That is *essential* to the meaning that makes up Christianity. If you deny what has given Christianity its meaning, then you deny Christianity. Thinking you can redefine it to mean something it does not is the mistake.
No one "gets to define" Christianity. It is what it is. Even the Pope cannot change what it is through the act of definition. We can only "define" Christianity by describing what we already know about it.
It would seem the simplest definition is one who believes in Christ.
How simple a definition might be has little to do with what something is. If simplicity misses the essential nature of something, it is insufficient.
With your insufficient definition above, you can't get away from the problem of those who believe in Christ the Cheese Danish. They would have a fair claim at being Christian, too. (As would Atheists who believed in him.) In all of Christianity, believing in Christ has deeper meaning than just a name. For some odd reason, some Mormons think they can use the name for an entirely different Being, and expect that they are of the same belief system. It is irrational, and it is deceptive. (Intentional, or no.)
If you decided to celebrate my mother's birthday, but claimed she was an alien from Alpha Centauri and that I misunderstood everything she taught me from birth, and that now you are the legitimate heir to her legacy and my family name, I would say you are nuts. You shouldn't be surprised that I have much the same reaction regarding my mother Church.
But now this has turned into silly little arguments over aspects that have nothing to do with Christ.
I think you are trying to brush off the problems that have been presented to you. These arguments have everything to do with Christ. But the modus operandi here seems to be to pretend that meaning doesn't matter, so now you want to brush these things off as if they do not matter.
Meaning *does* matter.
Wizard of ID quotes: Anon @ 2.27"Are you admitting that you are non-Christian, then?"
Then replies:
Surprise! Not every Mormon agrees on the "Christian" label. If a Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ, then yes, I am. If it's someone who believes in a set of doctrines commonly accepted by non-Mormon churches, then no, I'm not.
Your affinity for clarity and meaning is an honorable one. You have my respect.
Um, excuse me, but what does Christ say? Anyone who believes in Him. He is the Lord, Savior, Redeemer, King, etc, etc, etc. It does not matter if you are a Baptist, a Mormon, or whatever, if you believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that he was crucified, resurrected, and arose, and you have asked Him to be Lord of your life, THEN YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN!
There is a lot of confusion ~ as these comments attest ~ in the church, in Christendom, about who is truly Christian and who is not.
No. The Mormons on this list are sowing confusion. Among Christians--with a few exceptions--there is little confusion. Even those who don't consider Catholicism part of Christianity will still agree that the Trinitarian Doctrine is essential to Christianity. You simply want to give the impression that there is confusion so that you can slip Mormonism into that confusion. If the only way you can get there is by spreading confusion and doing violence to meaning--you should probably figure out that something is deeply, deeply wrong with what you are doing.
We want a nice, easy-to-button-up coat to put on, to say we are the ones. It is the we-they mentality that Satan loves, because it divides the Body.
Satan loves confusion. Satan loves it when you invite him in the door by destroying the meaning of things. As long as the meaning is confused and uncertain--the devil will find a way into it. Those of you who are being destructive to meaning are inviting Satan into your discussion.
In the Bible Christ said that he would divide us, too. So division is not a sign that can be used by self-righteous Mormons to say we are pleasing the devil. Notice how you are getting farther and farther from the point? Notice how you are bringing in self-righteous judgments in order to distract from the meaning that you are trying to destroy? (There's more of this below.)
Mormonism definitely stretches some of the traditional boundaries, but the central tenet of Christianity is not a list of qualifiers, it is simple faith in who Christ is, the savior.
You continue to ignore the thing that has been said several times on this forum. "Simple faith in who Christ is" has a different meaning to you than it does to Christianity. "Simple faith in who Christ is" can be spouted freely by anyone who chooses to believe that Christ is anything that they want. Christ could be an animated Teletubby. Christ could be a sentient strawberry shortcake. Christ could be a mass murderer. Christ could be a court jester. All these "beliefs" would be legitimate according to the way you use the statement. You seem to believe that Christ is someone other than Who Christianity believes Him to be. The figure you worship may be inspired by the Christ of Christianity, but it is some other kind of being. Your "simple faith in who Christ is" is *grossly* insufficient for inclusion in the Christian religion.
That is the chief cornerstone, the foundation of all expressions of Christian religiosity.
It might be if it actually had any meaning when you said it. It is the cornerstone *if* you believe in Christ as One of the Persons in the One God. But the way you mean it, it is obvious to any real Christian that it is NOT. You completely disregard the tacit teachings and understanding that Christians have about Christ when *Christians* say: We have faith in Who Christ is.
We build on that foundation with either precious gems or wood, hay, and stubble. Those flammable elements will burn up when we move into that next paradigm: and we all possess some of these things. What we do well will endure and purchase for us a better resurrection.
Without meaning, your materials are very precarious indeed.
There is far too much bickering in the Christian world over incidentals, tacked-on doctrines, and supposedly "superior" styles of approaching God.
When non-Christians try to undermine Christian meaning and Christian teaching, there will be objections. You are only preaching this "let live" attitude because you want the violence you do to the meaning of Christianity to be accepted. Very convenient. (And a distraction from the point at hand.)
Be thoroughly convinced in your own mind. But extend generosity, not self-righteous patronizing, to those who are working out their salvation with a slightly different motif. Judging this way is "straining at gnats and swallowing camels."
This isn't about being self-righteous. (This is another of your distractions mentioned above.) Again, you preach generosity because the kind of generosity you want is to be allowed to destroy meaning. You want us to be generous enough to throw away meaning and invite Satan into the Christian door. You want us to be generous by allowing you to do everything you can to destroy Christianity and make it incoherent.
Forgive me if I'm not feeling so generous just now.
God is a JUST judge. Sometimes I think many Christians believe that truth the least. They may find that many of their cherished "traditions" wind up on the junk pile in the judgment.
God is also merciful. I hope His mercy is deep enough for both of us.
You know what? Maybe instead of Christian, a better word would be Believer? Believer in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, aka The Son of God.
I discuss this debate on my blog at the following link:
http://tinyurl.com/22zz5t
Um, excuse me,...
Um. Excuse me, Dana. But you have to take into consideration what those words *mean*. Christianity believes that believing in *Him* means believing in a particular being with a particular nature. You apparently believe in a figure with a very different nature.
The Sola Scriptura approach of Bible interpretation does not help you. There are a hundred different reasonable interpretations of that Scripture, and you are simply choosing the one that is convenient for you. Without an authority that understands the Traditional intentions of the author, there is no way to tell who's interpretation is correct.
Also, see my previous post for further edification.
As far as mormons are christains I'd say NO. Because if you realy look at it closely it's foundation is Masonic. Smith and his followers where all masons they took rituals from the masonic lodge and made it into a church. when smith translated the book of momon he had a sheet in between the recorder of the book and himself he was quoteing from the KINg James bible and never had any plates of gold sent by angles. all there rituals are done in the temple where only members are alowd this is not christian for all christain churces welcome all faiths to worship not just a select few. so if you ask me this is not the christain way of worship.
I do not want to offend anyone with this comment but someone has to be truthful and speak the thuth before all our young people get caught up in this trap.
Wizard of Id,
I appreciate the fact that you actually responded to the questions in a straightforward fashion. Thank you.
Below I will give you the biblical answers to these questions.
1) Is Jesus Christ God?
Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: Yes
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us..." John 1:1,14
2) Is Jesus Chris eternal? (eternal = no beginning and no end, has always existed and will always exist)
Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: Yes
"whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." Micah 5:2
"In the beginning was the Word" John 1:1
"I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore..." Revelation 1:17b,18a
3) Did Jesus Christ come into existence after the Father?
The Wizard of Id said: No
The Bible says: No
"Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me." Isaiah 48:16
4) Was there ever a God before Jesus Christ?
The Wizard of Id said: No
The Bible says: No
"before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." Isaiah 43:10
5) Will there ever be a God after Jesus Christ?
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: No
"before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." Isaiah 43:10
6) Was the Father once a man who later became a God?
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: No
"Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." Psalm 90:2
This means that the Father never became God, but rather, from "everlasting to everlasting" He has been and will always be God.
7) If so, who was God while the Father was a man?
The Wizard of Id said: This is an open question. How am I supposed to answer yes / no?
AC says: Yes, I guess you are right. It was more of a rhetorical question.
8) Is Jesus Christ the Creator of everything whether visible or invisible? (including every spirit whether demonic or angelic)
The Wizard of Id said: No
The Bible says: Yes
"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." John 1:3
"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. " Colossians 1:16-17
9) Is Jesus Christ the Creator of the devil?
The Wizard of Id said: No
The Bible says: Yes
"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. " Colossians 1:16-17
10) Is Jesus Christ the brother of the devil?
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: No
As the above two questions make abundantly clear: God is the Creator of the devil, not his brother.
11) Are human beings eternal beings? (Meaning they have no beginning and no end)
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: No
Man is a created being: "I have made the earth, and created man upon it" Isaiah 45:12a
"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding." Job 38:4
"He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men" Acts 17:25b,26a
12) Is Jesus Christ co-eternal with the Father?
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: Yes
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God." John 1:1-2
13) Is Jesus Christ co-eternal with the Holy Spirit?
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: Yes
The Holy Spirit is God:
"But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?... thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God." Acts 5:3-4b
God is of course eternal:
"The everlasting God" Genesis 21:33
14) Are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit three different gods?
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: No
"Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well" James 2:19a
"For there is one God" 1 Timothy 2:5a
15) Do you believe that there is only one God?
The Wizard of Id said: No
The Bible says: Yes
"Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." Isaiah 44:6
"Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." Isaiah 44:8b
16) Do you believe men can become Gods?
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
Th Bible says: No
"before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." Isaiah 43:10
17) Do you believe in more than one God?
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: No
"I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me" Isaiah 45:5 (How much clearer can He get?)
"there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. " Isaiah 45:21b-22
"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else..." Isaiah 46:9aa
Again, "before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." Isaiah 43:10
"I will not give my glory unto another" Isaiah 48:11
It is this ONE true living eternal Creator of everything God who exists ALONE as God with no possibility of there ever being other gods alongside Him whom Jesus claimed to be:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." John 8:58
And in whom you must believe in order to be saved from the wrath to come:
"And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." John 8:23-24
My friend, I beg you in the name of Jesus, repent of the false Mormon god and turn to the living God for the forgiveness of your sins! Seriously! The Bible is OH SO CLEAR about who He is! How many times did we just read Him say that He is the only God that exist and there is no other nor will there ever be?! I beg you with all the love in the world, repent! This is your soul at stake! If you do not repent of the false Mormon god and believe that Christ is who the Bible says He is you will surely die in your sins and burn in hell. Please repent and believe!
What is astonishing about Dr. Mohler's essay, and many of the other criticisms of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (AKA "Mormons") is the appalling ignorance that lies at the base of the critical comments. Claiming that Jesus Christ is not depicted in the Book of Mormon is a very strange statement. You can go to any bookstore and find hundreds of books written for the Christian market that describe Jesus Christ and try to explain what he did and how he would advise modern people about how to care for their health, their marital relationships, and the environment. At least in the sense that hundreds of Baptists like Dr. Mohler make money writing books about Jesus, the Book of Mormon also talks about the same Jesus--the one who was born to the virgin Mary, taught his gospel, ordained apostles, healed the sick, performed other miracles, sweat blood in Gethsemane, and died on the cross after asking his Father to forgive his executioners--and was resurrected and appeared to not only the apostles but also "above five hundred brethren at once". There is nothing else in the New Testament that describes that particular appearance of Christ, but anyone who takes Paul seriously has to believe that it really happened, even though we don;t have the names of any of the witnesses or where this happened. What the Book of Mormon says is that Christ, who as the resurrected God could appear to five hundred men who were among the earliest Christians, did the same thing at another location. Does that seem unlikely? Only if you don't really believe Christ is God. And while visiting those people, he recapitulated the teachings and miracles of his mortal life in Judea and Galilee. Does that offend you? The very idea that Christ, the Son of God, might actaully be able to exercise his powers anyplace on earth (or heaven) He thinks best?
One thing the Book of Mormon says is that those people who really believe the Bible will also believe the words of the Book of Mormon, because they are also the words of Christ. The honest in heart, specifically those who do not reject God and refuse to listen to any more of his words, will recognize the voice of Christ in the Book of Mormon because they know his voice from the Bible.
Let's say we conduct a poll to see if "Mormons" are Christians. Let's conduct a poll of three million people. They will be people who met the definition of "orthodox traditional Christian" as used by Dr. Mohler. They were members of various denominations--of every Christian church recognized as "orthodox" with a small "o". We will ask them to study the tenets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints closely, and consider whether it is Christian or not in light of their experience and education in their own various Christian denominations. Would they be a reliable guide to whether Mormons are Christians or not?
That "poll" has been conducted. Three million Americans who were previously members of various traditional Christian churches did the comparison, and decided that "Mormons" are in fact Christians, too. And they showed that decision by being baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ.
Three million Christians, by anyone's definition, have declared in the most sober way possible that Mormons are Christian, that they were Christians before their baptism, and they continue, as Mormons, to be Christians. They know the other churches inside out--some of them were ministers and priests--and they also know Mormonism inside out, and they declare that Mormons are Christians in every way that is important, specifically in having saving faith in the Christ who is testified of by the evangelists and apostles of the New Testament.
Now some people try to say that these Mormons are stupid, or ignorant, or gullible, or even evil. But the fact is they were regular members of the Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian and Catholic churches, so you have to apply those epithets to your fellow "Christians" as well. And these converts decided that there was nothing in "Mormon" beliefs that would require them to leave behind their faith in Christ.
The notion that Joseph Smith was a charlatan is hogwash. Crooks and confidence men do not voluntarily surrender themselves up to people they know will kill them, especially when there are thousands of people who would die to protect them in their escape. Smith died as a martyr to his testimony of his visions. He was never wealthy, in an era when there were self-made men all over America based solely on the ability to get followers. He was persecuted throughout his life. Smith could have taken the easy path to religious leadership, as so many others did in his day, by sticking with religious orthodoxy. He certainly could have led a church without having to do all the work of producing and publishing the Book of Mormon, a book that never sold well but was more often passed around, not making a profit, being attacked even before it was published. Smith's boldness in declaring his message, and its unpopularity among most of his contemporaries, were not the marks of a P.T. Barnum or Elmer Gantry, but rather of someone like the prophets Elijah and Jeremiah, who underwent imprisonment and exile because they said what God told them to say.
Christians should remember that critics of Christianity call Jesus of Nazareth the same kind of charlatan and magician that some Christians now call Joseph Smith (e.g. The Passover Plot, or The Da Vinci Code). Yet we now can read his most intimate diaries and letters, and in all of them Joseph is revealed as a sincere believer in the things he taught. And that is how he died.
Baptists like Dr. Mohler should be aware that the most virulent of the anti-Mormons who tell Baptists what to believe about Mormons are in fact charlatans themselves, distorting the most basic things about their own life stories, including fabricating credentials. The entire buy-in by the Southern Baptists of the frauds perpetrated by the professional anti-Mormons is a demonstration of un-Christian behavior by millions of people, who hunger to hear and read bad things about Mormons, a people who never harmed or threatened them, who read the Bible and worship the Father in the name of his Son, and who try to obey Christ's commandment, to love one another, as He loved us. Indeed, the animosity that streams from the mouths of Southern Baptists toward Mormons is a gross violation of Christ's command, and a witness that Baptists are indeed NOT the disciples of Christ because their capacity to love is so crippled.
The greatest irony of Baptists criticizing the Mormons as inadequate Christians is that so many Southern Baptists embrace the notion that they can be saved and assured of permanent salvation for eternity by a single act of confession of faith in Christ. They claim that salvation can be obtained through no real effort or obedience of their own. They set the bar very low for themselves, yet they turn around and claim that Mormons cannot be saved by that standard, but must DO and BELIEVE a whole litany of things. Yet where are the people at the Billy Graham crusades who conduct a catechism of everyone coming forward seeking baptism or salvation, questioning whether they correctly understand the Nicene doctrine of the simultaneous unity AND trinity (threeness) of God? Where are the people who check whether people have read the Bible, let alone understood it? The truth is that most Southern Baptists don't talk about how wonderfgul it is that God has no passions or emotions, that He is totally unlike us. They concentrate on the resurrected Lord, the Son of God who was fully in possession of his glory and powers, yet could be touched and felt and could eat a honeycomb with the apostles. The music that animates Baptist worship is not in praise of how utterly unlike mankind God is, as described in the creeds, but rather on the words of the Bible that describe God as loving us so much he sent his Son to suffer and die for us. Frankly, hardly anybody believes in the "triune God" because they cannot make a coherent statement comprehending how it is possible to be a single entity of one substance, while at the same time being three distinct persons that are not confounded, to be the loving Father who sent his suffering Son, while also being a God without a body or emotions. All that subscription to this aspect of the creeds entails is words without substance, recitation without understanding, form without heart. And there are plenty of Evangelical theologians who agree with this analysis, that they are corrupted by the overlay of Greek philosophy that separates us from the simple truths of the Bible itself about the nature of God's emotions and the physical reality of his Son. Mormons simply say outright what most sincere Christians really know, that the neoplatonic God borrowed from Aristotle is a false God, a different Father who has no resemblance to the incarnate Son of God who bled on the cross and returned to his physical body. The immaterial, unfeeling God is a Gnostic heresy that implanted itself onto "normative" Christiantiy. That is a sin against God the Father, for it tells his children that they are orphans, that he does not really love them or sorrow with them but simply simulates it, the way a computer might. No wonder He was angry when he denounced the creeds to Joseph Smith.
He is you will surely die in your sins and burn in hell. Please repent and believe!
For the record, according to Orthodoxy, we are forbidden to judge the hearts of men, and we are forbidden to condemn anyone to hell. The Bible does give us stern warning, and we know that those who do not believe are in great peril. But we cannot play judge of another's soul. Using the Bible is simply claiming your own interpretive authority for being the judge of someone's soul. This is just one of the dangers of the Sola Scriptura doctrine. (A doctrine that is an innovation of Protestantism, and is not supported by Holy Scripture.)
Anon,
It was the Lord Jesus Christ Himself that said whoever does not believe that He is (the one true God of the Bible), that person will die in his or her sins. Mormons believe in a false Jesus that cannot save but surely condemns as per the Bible.
Mormons preach "another gospel". A gospel that condemns as per Scripture. It was the Apostle Paul who said, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that:
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Galatians 1:8-9
You said that I cannot know. Jesus said that I can (to a certain degree of course). It was Jesus who said that we will "KNOW them by their fruits". We are to inspect "fruit" in order to KNOW who is the true and who is the false. Mormonism's fruits deny basic biblical teaching and replace them with a false Gospel which means a call to repentance is clearly in place.
You seem like a very nice person and I love how you are defending basic biblical doctrine. With that said, Roman Catholicism also preaches a false works-righteousness idolatrous gospel that anyone whom ascribes to should immediately repent of. We will save that discussion for some other time.
Um, excuse me Anon, but who are you to tell me who or what I believe in? I believe in Christ, that He is the Son of God, my Lord and my savior, and His "nature" is one of Love, Grace, and Forgiveness. I am not going to argue with you or anyone else, but do NOT presume to tell me who or what I believe in. I am not a Mormon, but I feel like anyone has the right to worship as they see fit. However, Christ himself gave us the great commission, and told us to love each other as we love ourselves. He also told us not to judge, do you remember that part? My job as a believer in Christ is to make sure that everyone I come across and is willing to listen knows that Christ did exist, He did die for our sins, and He does love us. And I will pray for you too. Religion is not the answer, Christ is.
For the record.
Our unnamed poster submitted the following:
After a thoughtful reply to a previous post, Roper's reply was "*Right, but you still ain't a Christian." Well, that seems to be the trump card in this discussion, which makes it all so pointless. Dr. Mohler and the rest will continue to play that trump card over and over, it doesn't make a difference.
Actually, that "Right but you still ain't a Christian" was POC777's response to my (Roper's) post.
Just didn't want any of my friends from other forums to think I had apostatized from the LDS faith :)
I initially asked this question of Steve, but he hasn't returned to the discussion yet. So I'll direct it to anyone here sympathetic to Dr. Mohler's argument.
According to widely-accepted Christian doctrine, what has to happen in order for a person to be saved? And what does salvation mean?
I know this question seems tangential to the discussion, but I believe it's germane for reasons that should become apparent.
Interesting point, Dana. Except that you avoided the issue alltogether. Do the words have meaning, or don't they? If they do have meaning, the Mormon beliefs are either aligned to them or counter to them. If they do not have meaning--we have nothing to say to each other. (Literally.)
Sorry about my incorrect assumption about you. But it's really beside the point.
Roper, your question and its answer probably won't be helpful to resolve the "definition" issue at hand, but here are some words from Zippy Catholic that I think are edifying to your question:
The underlying assumption seems to be salvation by knowledge. To understand the Catholic Faith you have to understand that it is not primarily about intellect, or even morals: it is about Christ received through the sacraments, because He commanded it, and because those who love Him will do as He commands because they love Him. And He commands as He does because He loves us. Understanding may follow practice, to a greater or lesser degree. But the Catholic faith is a loving response to our King and Redeemer, not an intellectual response to a text. A Downs Syndrom Catholic who can't read the Bible is in no way lesser than a theologically giant intellectual.
The Catholic faith doesn't get snagged on "what exactly is it that saves us" because the thing that saves us isn't an "it". The thing that saves us is a Who. Asking what you have to do to be saved is like asking what you have to do to make sure that your wife will still love you tomorrow. There may be things you can do, but it isn't a mechanical process. It isn't something that happens at an instant, making anything that follows irrelevant. It is love.
The Catholic view is that if we love Christ we will follow his commands, submit to the Rock of authority He established (including text written by inspired human beings, traditions passed on by human beings, and a magisterium that remains quite fallen and human yet bears the protection of the Holy Spirit in doctrinal and sacramental matters), and wait in joyful hope.
That isn't to say that there aren't sincere elements of all of these things in Protestant faiths. But the answer to "what must I do to be saved" can't be specified in a finite text, any more than "what must I do to make sure my wife still loves me tomorrow". There are no guarantees, and yet the guarantees transcend any intellectual guarantee because they are rooted in love.
END EXCERPT
I've browesed through the many comments made, and I've noted that the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints, nick-named the mormon church, matches the new testament church of Christ almost identically in the way it has been persecuted in this blog.
edit: matches the new testament church of Christ almost identically in the way it has been persecuted in the past and how it is presently persecuted in this blog.
Now, take the above excerpt from Zippy and go back to my example about my mother.
I wrote: "If you decided to celebrate my mother's birthday, but claimed she was an alien from Alpha Centauri and that I misunderstood everything she taught me from birth, and that now you are the legitimate heir to her legacy and my family name, I would say you are nuts. You shouldn't be surprised that I have much the same reaction regarding my mother Church."
Now I would still expect my mother to take some pity upon you. You might not have my family name, and you might not really know her for who she is. But your beliefs in her were somehow inspired by her, and she would no doubt wish you well--mercifully swallowing much of her irritation. She might even feed you some cake. In a way you would have a warped relationship with her, and in a way you would have a relationship with a figment of your imagination. But you would still not be my mother's children, and you would not be legitimate followers of her.
Christ's love and mercy is boundless. He is a far more loving and merciful Being than my mother. So who am I to say whether Mormons are saved, or not? As an Orthodox Christian--I don't know. My issues in this discussion have never been whether or not Mormons are saved. My issues have been whether or not they are Christian.
Besides--whether you think He is a space alien, or not. You and the whole world really are His children.
I've browesed through the many comments made, and I've noted that the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints, nick-named the mormon church, [Dixon's edit] matches the new testament church of Christ almost identically in the way it has been persecuted in the past and how it is presently persecuted in this blog.
Oh, please. That is just plain silly. To equate this to persecution the likes of the martyrdom of Stephen is the epitome of hyperbole. You obviously have no clue what true persecution is. (Lucky you.)
And why is the pursuit of Truth and clarity a matter of persecution?
This is just one more example of back-handed ad hominem. And ad hominem is a tool for those who are intellectually bankrupt.
(Pssst. Hey, Skippy. You got those lions ready, yet?)
Thank you, Dr. Mohler. The Mormon church has made an idol out of Joseph Smith and is darkened in understanding. We who believe should pray that God would open their hearts and minds.
Does this sound like someone who bears the fruit of the spirit?
In "Doctrine and Covenants Section 132" Joseph Smith wrote, "And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified."
Joseph Smith was deluded by lusts.
If being a Christian means that I try to understand and live my life according to His words as contained in the Bible. That I read those words, meditate on those words and try in a very deep sense to understand how to try to put His words into practice in my day to day life, I am Christian. If it means I find refuge in Him and peace that surpasses my understanding, I am Christian. If it means that through Him, I am delivered from my sins and my pains and my sadnesses in a way I don't fully understand, I am Christian.
If being Christian means that I fully accept the philosophical creeds reconciliating Greek thought to the words in the Bible, then I am not Christian. If it means that I accept any preacher's teaching as authority and definitive interpretation of what God is in my life, I reject that wholeheartedly.
I will leave it up to God to be who He is. I struggle to follow His example, and rest my lot on the judgment seat to say whether or not He knows me. As a minimum, I can say that I have found Peace in this world through Him. I have also found inspiration from many sources of those that try to follow Him and learn from Him from across a variety of Catholic, Jewish, Mormon, Baptist, and Evangelical writers. And broader yet from others that seek to understand God and His Will for Us.
Explanations and debates into exactly how and why Jesus does what He does now I don't find useful. Just as the debates over exactly how old the earth is and what happened to the dinosaurs during the flood. Neither helps me adopt a more loving view towards my neighbor the way Christ's examples and teachings do.
The Mormon at the other side of this argument writes, "at the level of religious practice we believe that we are the only Christians who act and speak with the authority of Christ."
If you "learn from Him from across a variety of Catholic, Jewish, Mormon, Baptist, and Evangelical writers," then, GOOD! You're not buying into the Mormons!
I think Card hit the nail on the head. I'm not sure where Mohler got a Ph.D., but he begs the question from the outset. Circular reasoning like "I am right; therefore, you are wrong" is not very good scholarship, theology, or worship. Sounds like he's used to speaking only to people who agree with him.
I think that Mormon theology is just as Christian as evangelical theology. To argue otherwise usually requires a definition of Christian that excludes the Apostles themselves (who didn't read the Bible, understand the Nicene Creed or its Greek philosophical backdrop). It would be equally misleading for Mormons to say that evangelicals aren't Christian, though. I think both sides should just say, "you're also trying to follow Christ, but you don't understand what [I think] I do about his Gospel."
If being a Christian means…
It does mean some of those things, but it also means some other very essential things. Included in those essential things is the doctrine of the Trinity. Have you read the other posts?
That I read those words, meditate on those words and try in a very deep sense to understand how to try to put His words into practice in my day to day life, I am Christian.
That is problematic. Since you don't have an authority for interpreting those Scriptures, you really have no way of knowing if you are interpreting them correctly. There are any number of reasonable ways to interpret Scripture. This leads many to simply interpret it they way that they like. But that isn't reading from scripture--that's reading *into* it.
If being Christian means that I fully accept the philosophical creeds reconciliating Greek thought to the words in the Bible, then I am not Christian.
The implication that the early Church did this is a distortion. Christian doctrine was not determined by Greek thought at all. (Unless you mean *Christian* Greeks.) Greek philosophy was a study in *method*. The Church borrowed from the *methods* in order to better articulate the doctrines.
I know that is not a convenient truth to those who want to distort the origins of Christian doctrine, but it is true. Hopefully you care about truth. (I get the feeling that you do.)
If it means that I accept any preacher's teaching as authority and definitive interpretation of what God is in my life, I reject that wholeheartedly.
I don't think there are very many Christians who would take the teaching of "any" preacher as authoritative and definitive interpretation, either. So I don't know why you even say this. And, while were at it, are you saying that there is no authority at all in Mormonism?
I will leave it up to God to be who He is.
I hope you do. Keep in mind that, although I am 100% confident that Catholicism is the One True Church, I have not been arguing whether or not Christianity or Mormonism is true or false in this discussion. I respect the faith that you have, but I reject this idea that you can reject the doctrine of the Trinity and still be Christian. If Mormonism is correct in its understanding of Jesus and God the Father, then Christianity is a false religion. If that is true, I hope He will have mercy on me for my ignorance.
On the other hand, I think the case for Catholicism is overwhelming for those who would explore it, so I really hope that He will have mercy on all Mormons.
Explanations and debates into exactly how and why Jesus does what He does now I don't find useful. Just as the debates over exactly how old the earth is and what happened to the dinosaurs during the flood. Neither helps me adopt a more loving view towards my neighbor the way Christ's examples and teachings do.
The influence of the True Christ's teaching is apparent, I think, in the goodness of the Mormons that I have met. I do see some wisdom in what you say. However, there is also something to be said for Truth and meaning. Much of what Jesus taught is in the context of very deep meaning, and I will not stand by to watch that get compromised. I will not stand by while others open the door to let Satan in.
This is what Christianity has come to: endless disputations about who's in charge, who speaks for Jesus and who gets in the club.
How unfortunate.
According to the Gospels, Jesus had a solution, a way of turning any community into "the Kingdom of God." It involved a new way of thinking.
Be gentle, merciful, honest, pure in heart, peacemakers.
Be the salt of the earth and the light of the world.
Don't make peace with God until you've made peace with your brother.
The best way to avoid adultery is to avoid it in your heart.
You don't need an oath if your word is true.
Go the extra mile.
Love even your enemies.
Don't do good just to be seen.
Don't pray just to be seen.
If you want to be forgiven, learn to forgive.
Don't set your heart on riches but on doing good.
There's more to life than food.
There's more to life than your clothes.
There's more to life than your house.
Don't judge.
Pray.
Don't listen to what men say, watch what they do.
This is Christianity - not endless squabbles over ecclesiastical authority, the mode and manner of baptism, which offices to hold, who gets to run the store and who gets to come in.
There are a lot of different groups with a lot of different ways of approaching the teachings of Jesus, but the most un-Christian approach is to stand in judgment of this group or that and say, "You can't come in. You're not a Christian."
Christianity ought to be about more than that.
There are a lot of different groups with a lot of different ways of approaching the teachings of Jesus, but the most un-Christian approach is to stand in judgment of this group or that and say, "You can't come in. You're not a Christian."
When is this nonsense going to stop? This has been dealt with several times now. If you cannot make judgments about meaning, we are completely lost, because we are all dealing with meaninglessness. If anybody who believes anything about who or what Jesus is can claim to be Christians, then we invite any devil in existence who claims his favorite demon is named Jesus Christ to be counted among the Christians. DO YOU REALLY WANT TO BE THE ALLY OF DEMONS?
That isn't to say that Mormons are in any way demons themselves. However, to avoid being allies of demons we have to respect meaning and Truth. Christianity *means* very tangible things, and if Mormonism doesn't fit into what it means, then Mormons should reject becoming an ally to the demons and accept the fact that they are not Christians.
This idea that "Oh, we should all just get along" is a reason to avoid anything meaningful is a pernicious and evil thing. It is reasoning that belongs in hell where it came from.
Hey AC
Thank you. Now I will compare answers with you.
1) Is Jesus Christ God?
AC: Yes.
Mike: Yes
Bible: Yes
2) Is Jesus Christ eternal? (eternal = no beginning and no end, has always existed and will always exist)
AC: Yes.
Mike: Yes
Bible: Yes
3) Did Jesus Christ come into existence after the Father?
AC: No.
Mike: No.
3a. Is Jesus the Son of the Father?
Mike: Yes
Bible: Yes
4) Was there ever a God before Jesus Christ?
AC: No.
Mike: No because Jesus is eternal
5) Will there ever be a God after Jesus Christ?
AC No.
Mike: No Jesus Christ is eternal so there will be God eternally and Jesus is God. And we can be like Him as He is like the Father, can be one with Him as He is one with the Father, Can be joint heirs posessing all that He and the Father have, and can sit with Him as He sits with his Father on the throne.
Bible: See John 17, Romans 8, Revelation 3:22, Ist John 2.
6) Was the Father once a man who later became a God?
AC No.
Mike Yes
Bible: John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. Since Jesus became a man and then died and was resurrected, and since Jesus does nothing but what he sees the Father do, then the Father, according to Jesus became a man, died and was resurrected.
7) If so, who was God while the Father was a man?
AC ?
Mike: Since Jesus was God while he was a man, and since Jesus does nothing but what he sees the Father do, The Father was God while he was a man.
Bible: John 5:19
-
8) Is Jesus Christ the Creator of everything whether visible or invisible? (including every spirit whether demonic or angelic)
AC: Yes.
Mike: No
Bible: Every Thing, not every man or every creature
9) Is Jesus Christ the Creator of the devil?
AC Yes.
Mike: No
Bible: The Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost are all eternal, so is Satan, and men and all matter. The Bible word for Create in the First verse of Genesis "Baurau" means to organize rather than to create our of nothing.
If God, The Father or Jesus created Satan out of nothing, then they are responsible for evil. If all things are organized form eternal pre-existing matter thay are free agents.
10) Is Jesus Christ the brother of the devil?
AC No.
Mike Yes
See Comments above
11) Are human beings eternal beings? (Meaning they have no beginning and no end)
AC No.
MIke Yes
See Above
12) Is Jesus Christ co-eternal with the Father?
AC: Yes.
Mike: Yes
Bible: Yes
Is all matter co-eteranl with the Father? Bible yes Genesis 1:1
"Baurau"
13) Is Jesus Christ co-eternal with the Holy Spirit?
AC:Yes.
Mike: Yes
Bible: Yes
14) Are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit three different gods?
AC No.
Mike: No.
How are they one?
AC: ?
Mke: In Unity, Purpose and Love, in Power and might and Dominion See John 17
15) Do you believe that there is only one God?
AC Yes.
Mike: Yes
16) Do you believe men can become Gods?
AC: No.
Mike: No, They can become God. One with the Father and the Son, Joint Heirs with Them, Like Them, one in Unity, purpose and Love, in Power and might and Dominion. See John 17, Romans 8, 1st John 2, Revelation 3:22
17) Do you believe in more than one God?
AC: No.
Mike: No
AC: I hope that now you will answer the questions in the same manner, a simple straightforward 'yes' or 'no' fashion. Thank you.
Mike: Since when the Widzard of Id did so, you then elaborated, I feel free to do so as well.
From Anon:
Christ's love and mercy is boundless. He is a far more loving and merciful Being than my mother. So who am I to say whether Mormons are saved, or not? As an Orthodox Christian--I don't know. My issues in this discussion have never been whether or not Mormons are saved. My issues have been whether or not they are Christian.
My reply:
My observation is this: Most Christians will say that salvation comes from accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and a commitment to follow Him in faith. Different denominations may state it differently and add further clarification, but I believe that's the common core.
My conclusion is this: If Jesus really is Lord and Savior, then only He has authority to determine who belongs to His fold. Not Orson Card. Not Dr. Mohler. Not anyone on this forum. The whole pointlessness of this debate is that people want to use a linguistic distinction (the definition of the word "Christian") to judge whether others belong to Christ. Only Christ can do that. Only Christ can know that.
So instead of trying to excise a person or group of people who have clearly shown acceptance of and dedication to Jesus Christ, wouldn't it be far more "Christian" to use the time and talents God has given us to take this Good News to those who haven't received it?
And with that, I've wasted too much of my own time on this issue.
I made the following comment:
"There are a lot of different groups with a lot of different ways of approaching the teachings of Jesus, but the most un-Christian approach is to stand in judgment of this group or that and say, 'You can't come in. You're not a Christian.'
This evoked a reaction from an anonymous poster, who took me to task. I'd like to respond to specific issues raised by this poster, specifically the following:
NONSENSE
"When is this nonsense going to stop? This has been dealt with several times now. If you cannot make judgments about meaning, we are completely lost, because we are all dealing with meaninglessness."
It's not a question of meaning but of authority. Given that Christianity has more flavors than Basken Robins, it's only fair to ask, "Who gets to decide which group or groups or proper Christians - and which aren't?"
For about fifteen hundred years, the answer would have been clear - depending on which side of Europe you called home. If you lived under the control of the Byzantine Empire, the Orthodox were the only true Christians. If you lived west of that line, it was Catholicism or nothing.
Had he lived during this time, Dr. Mohler would have been tortured and executed for being a Baptist. A similar fate awaited other Protestants - who are only now in the clear because northern Europe rose up, through force of arms, to defend its right to set up national churches. Even then, the question of "Who's a proper Christian?" was decided by the king.
We live in a country where church and state are separated - or at least estranged - in large part because of England's bloody experience. When the Crown wasn't locked in a civil war between Protestants and Catholics, it was locked in a civil war between Anglicans and Puritans.
Of all the words uttered by Jesus, or his disciples, there are no nifty little definitions that can be used to decide which followers of Christ get to call themselves Christians. There are, however, lots of admonitions on how to live a Christian life. Jesus, himself, said that not all they cried, "Lord, Lord" would enter into the kingdom, but they who did the will of the Father.
Jesus was very clear that unless a person's behavior was better than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, they were just kidding themselves - building on a foundation of sand. I think such advice would apply to everyone, regardless of sectarian affiliation.
"If anybody who believes anything about who or what Jesus is can claim to be Christians, then we invite any devil in existence who claims his favorite demon is named Jesus Christ to be counted among the Christians. DO YOU REALLY WANT TO BE THE ALLY OF DEMONS?"
The problem with this objection is not just that it's based on a hypothetical - one that has yet to occur in 2,000 years - nor is it simply that the situation you describe is beyond absurd. It's that even if you saw some group marching down the street with a sign that said, "Praise the Demon Jesus," you'd still have the same problem you started with: Who gets to decide what the standard is for being a Christian?
In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, "By their fruits ye shall know them." He didn't say anything about which creed to adopt. He told his disciples that if their righteousness did not exceed that of the Scribes and the Pharisees, they would in no wise enter into the Kingdom of God.
This debate is sad and is also endless. Mormons are taught to defend their religion,so they will never admit that they may not be right. Those of us who know and believe the truth of God's Word have been warned through the Holy Bible that there would be a great falling away and that false Christs, prophets and messiahs would be the hallmark of the endtimes. We also know that Satan has blinded the minds of the unbelievers so that they cannot see the truth of God's Word. Born again ones: don't argue about what you know to be truth, instead pray that through this debate that God the Holy Spirit will convict some and convince others that maybe what they (the Mormons) have accepted as truth may in fact be gross error. Only the Holy Spirit of the God of the Holy Bible can draw the lost to Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of all mankind.
WoW! I am truly chocked! Who are these people who say Mormons are not Christians? Igorance and lack of research seem to be their source of information. In the real sense of all those who claim to be a Christian, Mormons are the most devout, loyal Christians I have ever met or hope to meet. Nothing they ever do excludes Christ's teachings, sacrifice and total devotion to family, community and country is their way of life. It insults me as a human being, when ignorant people, liars, and deceivers attemps to tarnish peoples reputation or beleifs when they absolutely have no clue of what they are talking about. I am ashamed for those who had their own corrupted agenda in giving false testemonies about what they have been taught in the Mormon religion. I personally have been a student of their teachings for 25 years, I have researched, and whatched very closely how they live, act and behave. I testify to anyone and everyone who desires to know, that they are indeed Christians, and that we are all blessed to have them in our lives. There is not any other religion in the present time that are better representatives of Christ as The Latter Day Saints( more commonly know as mormons). So, people shape up and do not go about creating lies and fantasies about a people you truly do not know. Remenber, there is a commandment that talks about bearing false witness. Please do not condemn yourselves!
http://www.carm.org/lds/lds_christian.htm
Why is Mormonism a non Christian religion? It is not Christian because it denies that there is only one God, denies the true Gospel, adds works to salvation, denies that Jesus is the uncreated creator, distorts the biblical teaching of the atonement, and undermines the authority and reliability of the Bible.
AC @ July 3, 2007 9:09 PM
Congratualtions AC. I should probably have seen that one coming, but I confess you successfully blindsided me. Presumably, you prepared your responses before you'd even posted your questions, and your major criterion for whether or not to include a question was whether you could find chapter and verse about it. Is this why you insisted on one-word answers -- because you didn't want to risk someobody explaining our position before you damned us all to hellfire? Your questions were notable for some surprising omissions. Not one about the holy communion and its symbolism, for example; an odd omission in a debate about the Christianity of one's religious practice, since it is, after all, probably the most fundamental of Christian rituals. It's tempted to assume that, knowing the answer already, you couldn't see any possibility of getting in a cheap shot around it.
However, I can quote scripture too, and I doubt you know your Bible quite as well as you think you do. Ignoring the questions that we agreed on takes us to #5:
5) Will there ever be a God after Jesus Christ?
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: No
Psalms 82, 6-7: "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes."
Matthew 5:48 "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Now, please correct me if I'm wrong here, but last time I read my Bible, the Father in heaven was actually a god. So how are we going to be perfect as He is without being gods?
Romans 8:17 "And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together."
8) Is Jesus Christ the Creator of everything whether visible or invisible? (including every spirit whether demonic or angelic)
The Wizard of Id said: No
The Bible says: Yes
Can you explain to me at what point Jesus created Himself?
9) Is Jesus Christ the Creator of the devil?
The Wizard of Id said: No
The Bible says: Yes
Revelations 12: 7-9 "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."
So if Lucifer was in heaven before the Creation, when exactly did Christ create him?
Do you believe that evil exists in heaven? Do you believe God (or Jesus) would create evil? or make someone evil?
I don't believe Jesus created the devil. I think Lucifer (meaning "bringer of Light") became the devil through his own choices and actions.
10) Is Jesus Christ the brother of the devil?
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: No
Having established that Jesus didn't create the devil, and Lucifer was in heaven before the Creation, it's a reasonable assumption, even relying solely on the Bible, that Lucifer is Christ's spiritual brother.
11) Are human beings eternal beings? (Meaning they have no beginning and no end)
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: No
I said you would misinterpret my yes/no answers without some explanation of where I'm coming from! I wasn't talking just about humans as bodies of flesh and bone, but as pre-mortal spirit beings.
Job 38:4-7 (Yes, I know you quoted verse 4, but you didn't read the next three verses, did you!) "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
So did the sons of God shout for joy if they didn't exist?
Ecclesiastes 12:7 "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."
You can't return to somewhere you've never been.
Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee;"
Romans 9:29 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son"
Ephesians 1:4 "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world"
14) Are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit three different gods?
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: No
Matthew 20:23 "he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father"
If Christ is the same being as the Father, how is it not His to give?
Matthew 26:39 "And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt."
John 5:19 "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do"
Have you ever been in a positon where you could do nothing except what you'd seen yourself do?
John 8:18 "I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me."
John 17:3 "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
John 20:17 "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father:"
Acts 7:55 "But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God"
When was the last time you stood on the right side of yourself?
Questions 15 and 17 are best answered as one:
15) Do you believe that there is only one God?
The Wizard of Id said: No
The Bible says: Yes
17) Do you believe in more than one God?
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: No
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us
Exodus 34:34 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God
Deuteronomy 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods,
My friend, I beg you in the name of Jesus, repent of the false Mormon god and turn to the living God for the forgiveness of your sins! Seriously! ... I beg you with all the love in the world, repent!
Do you know the meaning of the word "disingenuous"? My friends do not set traps to blindside me; and those who love me show respect for my religious beliefs, even if they don't share them.
This is your soul at stake! If you do not repent of the false Mormon god and believe that Christ is who the Bible says He is you will surely die in your sins and burn in hell.
But I thought we were saved by grace? Hasn't that been your major argument all along? That if we accept Christ as our Savior, and take His atoning sacrifice upon us, then we are saved. In your questions, the role of Jesus Christ was at least one thing that we agreed upon. Which means, by your own arguments, that we Mormons are saved; and if we persist in an erroneous belief in the Book of Mormon, that is just one more sin for which Jesus Christ atoned; and nobody's going to burn anywhere; and you really haven't thought this one all the way through, have you!
Brothers and sisters. Please do not fall into the trap that often happens to those followers of revealed truth. Many of us have forgotten the basic message of the Gospels. The leaders of the Church that Jesus grew up in did not perceive Jesus as a Jew but as of the devil because he was not one of them. "Who is this man?" "Where did he get this knowledge?" "Did we lay hands on him?" "Is he not the carpenters son?" "This man casts out demons by the prince of demons."
Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the life, no-one comes to the Father except through me." The first followers of Jesus called themselves "Followers of the way" not "christians". Throughout the gospels we see a contrast between those who think the way to the Father is through their religious system, tradition, or way of worship and those who follow "The Way" to the Father by way of practicing it in their everyday life. Todays de-emphasis on works (fruit) by modern day "Christians" has taken away from what it means to be a "true christian" or "follower of the WAY"
The parable of "The Good Samaritan" plays upon the battle between those who think that you have to worship at the Temple and those who do not. Jesus portrays the Samaritan as the one who was the "true" follower of the way because of his works of mercy toward another of God's children regardless of what his denomination may be. That is why at the last judgement the sheep and the goats are seperated by their fruit and not their religious affilliation. God is the Father of all people that is why a Muslim or a Jew or a Buddhist or any other religion for that matter, may get into the kingdom before one who claims to be a christian. Remember, "To whom much is given, much is expected"
Be well.......Michael
People often assume that Mormons aren't Christians because of things they've read or overheard, but it pays to do a little fact checking.
CHARGE #1
"Why is Mormonism a non Christian religion? It is not Christian because it denies that there is only one God ..."
THE BOOK OF MORMON SAYS:
"And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is ONE GOD, without end. Amen." (2 Nephi 21:31)
CHARGE #2
"[Mormonism] denies the true Gospel, adds works to salvation ..."
THE BOOK OF MORMON SAYS:
"Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved." (2 Nephi 10:24)
"For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." (2 Nephi 25:23)
"Nevertheless, the Lord God showeth us our weakness that we may know that it is by his grace, and his great condescensions unto the children of men, that we have power to do these things." (Jacob 4:7)
"Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.
And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot." (Moroni 10:32-33)
CHARGE #3
"[Mormonism] denies that Jesus is the uncreated creator ..."
THE BOOK OF MORMON SAYS:
"Yea, I know that ye know that in the body he shall show himself unto those at Jerusalem, from whence we came; for it is expedient that it should be among them; for it behooveth the great Creator that he suffereth himself to become subject unto man in the flesh, and die for all men, that all men might become subject unto him." (2 Nephi 9:5)
"And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary." (Mosiah 3:8)
CHARGE #4
"[Mormonism] distorts the biblical teaching of the atonement..."
THE BOOK OF MORMON SAYS:
"And now, behold, I will testify unto you of myself that these things are true. Behold, I say unto you, that I do know that Christ shall come among the children of men, to take upon him the transgressions of his people, and that he shall atone for the sins of the world; for the Lord God hath spoken it.
For it is expedient that an atonement should be made; for according to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made, or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all are hardened; yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through the atonement which it is expedient should be made.
For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice." (Alma 34:8-10)
CHARGE #5
"[Mormonism] undermines the authority and reliability of the Bible."
THE BOOK OF MORMON SAYS:
"And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.
But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles?
O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. But behold, I will return all these things upon your own heads; for I the Lord have not forgotten my people.
Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?
Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?
Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also." (2 Nephi 29:3-8)
"And it came to pass that I beheld the remnant of the seed of my brethren, and also the book of the Lamb of God, which had proceeded forth from the mouth of the Jew, that it came forth from the Gentiles unto the remnant of the seed of my brethren.
And after it had come forth unto them I beheld other books, which came forth by the power of the Lamb, from the Gentiles unto them, unto the cconvincing of the Gentiles and the remnant of the seed of my brethren, and also the Jews who were scattered upon all the face of the earth, that the records of the prophets and of the twelve apostles of the Lamb are true.
40 And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved." (1 Nephi 13:38-40)
"Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins shall write; and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers in the latter days, and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord." (2 Nephi 3:12)
If Jesus really is Lord and Savior, then only He has authority to determine who belongs to His fold.
That is correct, Roper.
The whole pointlessness of this debate is that people want to use a linguistic distinction (the definition of the word "Christian") to judge whether others belong to Christ.
I specifically said in earlier posts that I am NOT determining who belongs to Christ. I am determining what is Christian, and what is not. If Christianity is false, then Christians do not belong to Christ in the way they think they do. If Mormonism is right, they are the Truest of all followers of Christ. But they would still not belong to *Christianity* because Christianity is something different than Mormonism. If Mormons are the Truest of all followers of Christ, it is deceptive and devilish work to equate them with Christians, who would not be.
Bill Kirkpatrick wrote:
It's not a question of meaning but of authority. Given that Christianity has more flavors than Basken Robins, it's only fair to ask, "Who gets to decide which group or groups or proper Christians - and which aren't?"
You are avoiding Truth, and you make me wonder if it isn't intentional. Christianity is unified in the Doctrine of the Trinity, in spite of the Baskin Robbins effect that has fragmented it. In all it's fragementation, it still has a Unity in Christ. That's a pretty amazing thing, and a testament to the power of Christ. You would undermine and destroy that Unity. You would destroy what it means for your own gains. You are an enemy of Truth and meaning. I doubt it is intentional, but you are doing the work of the great deceiver, Satan.
I've said it a dozen times, but I'm about through saying it. No one gets to decide what Christianity is. (So no one gets to decide which groups are proper Christians.) Christianity is what it is, and your attempt to destroy what Christianity means does not change what it always has been.
The rest of what you said was a mix of more rehashed stuff I already handled and some ad hominem, so I'll leave it be.
I don't think there is much more to accomplish here, either. All we are getting is repetitions of the same tactics without actually facing the destruction to meaning that they are doing.
Anon: "If Mormons are the Truest of all followers of Christ, it is deceptive and devilish work to equate them with Christians"
You know what I'm getting tired of? It's all you non-Mormons and your silly false dichotomy that if Mormons aren't one thing, they must be involved in some sort of conspiracy to deceive. Why can't you all just accept that we have a different definition of christianity than you do?
Who was it who decreed with such unquestionable authority that Christianity requires conforming to a set of doctrines of Catholic origin?
Newsflash, brainiacs! Mormons aren't Catholics! So why would we conform to Catholic doctrine?
This is Wikipedia's definition of Christianity, which sounds pretty good to me:
"Christianity is a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, and they see the New Testament as the record of the Gospel that was revealed by Jesus."
There is a simple answer to this debate. The following is what the Bible teaches. There are 5 principles that all must [Christians] believe to have eternal life:
1) Heaven is a free gift, and cannot be earned, or deserved.
2) Man is a sinner, and cannot save himself. Have you ever lied? Have you ever stolen anything? Have you ever lusted after another, which Jesus said is committing adultery in your heart? Have you ever disobeyed your parents? Have you always put God first? Well, we have all broken one commandment or another. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
3) God is merciful, but, just as merciful as He is, He is also just. He must punish sin, but does not want to punish us.
The ultimate statistic, 100% of us will die. We will face judgment when we do. Have you broken a commandment? If so, God must punish that sin. Be ye therefore perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect. If you fall short, on your own merit, you will go to Hell.
4) However, God provided a way. Jesus was fully man, fully God. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God....And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:1,14
Jesus came to earth to fulfill the Old Testament. We are all guilty, yet, Jesus came to pay the sin debt we all owe. He was horribly beaten, crucified, and separated from the Father. He took this punishment, and died, to first glorify God, and then to pay our sin debt. "It is finished", this word in Greek is teleo, which means: to end, that is, complete, execute, conclude, discharge (a debt): - accomplish, make an end, expire, fill up, finish, go over, pay, perform. If we attempt to pay more, ie, use our good works to pay for our entrance to Heaven, we are offending God. It's like spitting in the face of God. No, our good works are obedience, and nothing more. Our payment is already made.
5) How do accept this gift? 2 parts.
a) We repent. We not only tell God from the bottom of our hearts that we are sorry, but, we turn from those sins, doing our best to never again do those evil deeds.
b) If we truly repent, we see God for who He is, and have saving faith. This is not mere head knowledge. This is not temporarily relying on God for different things. This is trusting God with our entire lives, and having Jesus as Lord and Savior.
If Mormons, or, anyone else believes and accepts these 5 premises, I'd say they are Christian and have eternal life. Certain other subjects in the Bible we won't fully understand until we meet our Maker.
There is an old saying, "Just 'cause the cat has her kittens in the oven doesn't mean they are bisquits"
The flip side is you can call yourself anything you want. Overall, Jesus' message, as proclaimed in the Gospels at least is you can call yourself anything, but a person's faith is proclaimed by how they acquit themselves. Subscriptions to doctrine, dogma, or creeds just gets you a membership card into one "club house" or another. Lots of the "members" are less "Christian" than folks who have never chosen to join. Personally I prefer neoMarxian dogma - Groucho's that is -- "I would never join a club that would have me as a member". If they call themselves Christian, so What!?! - Or as the great philiosopher Garfield put it, Big Fat Hairy Deal.
Happy 4th of July - patriots, Chrsistians, and everyone else!
Jestrfyl,
I agree. Matter of fact, I'm believe that true Christ following isn't a religion anyways. Saving faith isn't found in a church, and there isn't anything that makes a church holy. Believers, the church, is the religion. There are plenty in any church that do not have eternal life, which is scary.
"Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you?" "When you did it to the least, you did it to me?" Tell me all you "Heaven is mine, and all those just like me - the rest of you, stay away" types: Does that person KNOW Christ? Yes. Christ says so, even if you don't. But do they know the "name" of Christ by which they supposedly must be saved? They're obviously unfamiliar with the Bible - if they had read the book of Matthew during their lives on earth, they wouldn't have asked the above question. So they don't know Christ's name, but Christ says they really did help (feed) him, at which point they definitely got to know him. And so they may enter Heaven.
Hmm. How can that be? Isn't it by the name of "Jesus" that we're saved?
Well, Christ's name isn't like our name. I might know your name to get your attention, but God's name isn't one of those. Rather, God's "name," like everything about God, is about his essence - God doesn't have attributes separate from God himself. God doesn't just love. God IS love. Moses asked God for his name, and he replied, "I Am Who Am." That is, "I'm existence itself - all that exists was created through me." That's not a name meant to get God's attention. That a name meant to describe God's himself, his very essence.
You and I will also get a name like that in heaven. God knows us now better than we know ourselves. But in Heaven, I'll finally know myself fully, as God does. Does my name "Tom" describe that. I certainly doubt it. Shouldn't I have a name that describes my essence, created in the mind of God from all time? Of course. And so Revelation 2:17 says, "[To] Everyone who overcomes . . . I will give a white stone, and on the stone will be engraved a new name that no one knows except the one receiving it." It will be just between me and God, forever. That is, even in Heaven there's a bit of privacy. There's at least one secret between God and me that just we know, and that's my utter core. And all in Heaven get to spend the rest of eternity discovering each other as we unfold, a process that will never end.
So knowing Christ's "name" means knowing Jesus himself - not what were suppose to vocalize to get his attention, so we can get to Heaven. Using Jesus's name the latter way doesn't get you to Heaven. "Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord' shall enter the Kindom of Heaven, but they who do the will of my Father who is in Heaven. . . . Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? . . . and I will say to them, 'I never knew you.' " The Bible doesn't have to specifically point out these distinctions between the two Testaments for us to be expected to make the connection.
You have a personal relationship with Jesus? Good. But so do many others who can't quite place the name. Or even know what "orthodoxy" means. You notice that it's all about orthodoxy with Dr. Mohler, never about Jesus, the man himself. Never.
You know what I'm getting tired of? It's all you non-Mormons and your silly false dichotomy that if Mormons aren't one thing, they must be involved in some sort of conspiracy to deceive. Why can't you all just accept that we have a different definition of christianity than you do?
Wait a minute, Mormon and Angry, you are one of the Mormons who said that you were not Christian. You are not involved in this deception. So, you told us earlier that you don't have a different definition--you claimed you rejected being called a Christian. Because of this, in spite of your vituperative style, you gained my respect.
Have you changed your mind?
Also, I have not said there is a conspiracy. I don't know where this comes from, I only see that most of the Mormons in this discussion are taking the same approach. It is a huge *error*, whether it is a conspiracy to deceive, or not. It is the work of the Deceiver, whether it is intended to be, or not.
I do apologize if the general use of "Mormons" sometimes seems to include those who have honorably recognized the Truth. At times, I probably should have clarified that I meant "Mormons who claim to be Christians," but it should have been obvious that is what I meant.
Who was it who decreed with such unquestionable authority that Christianity requires conforming to a set of doctrines of Catholic origin?
The fact that they happen to be of Catholic origin is beside the point. These doctrines are either an essential part of what Christianity is, or they are not. Any honest look at Christianity will show that the doctrine of the Trinity *is* essential.
Newsflash, brainiacs! Mormons aren't Catholics! So why would we conform to Catholic doctrine?
I'm not asking for your conformity. I'm asking for a proper respect for meaning, and specifically for the meaning of Christianity. I am asking that the participants here not do violence to meaning in cooperation with Satan.
This is Wikipedia's definition of Christianity, which sounds pretty good to me:
Wikireality is nothing close to anything reliable. If you think it is, maybe I will go into the section on Mormonism and make sure it is edited to say "Mormons are not Christians."
Brian, you are simply compiling a list that pleases you. You are not examining Christianity for what it actually *is*. People who honor meaning also honor...y'know... reality. If the Nature of God is not a defining thing in a religion--there really isn't any meaning to the religion at all.
By diminishing meaning, you diminish Mormonism, too.
Anon,
That list which you say is arbitrary is repeated over and over in the Bible.
Which goes back to how the Bible was canonized, and certain other books were left out. The standard they used was that if a new book to be added contradicted any of the foundations of the books that were accepted, then, they were left out.
Using that premise, and my understanding of the book of Mormon, it would've been left out of canonization of the Bible if it existed at that time.
Anon 5.35 "I'm asking for a proper respect for meaning, and specifically for the meaning of Christianity ... Wikireality is nothing close to anything reliable."
Why do I suspect you'd consider the Library of Congress unreliable if it didn't support your view? But we could try Oxford University's definition of Christianity: "the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus Christ."
Or Christian: "a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Christianity. "
Nothing about the trinity there. So I guess Oxford University is pretty unreliable, huh?
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/christian
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/christianity
"Have you changed your mind?"
No. But I have gotten tired of all this nonsense that we've got some huge conspiracy of deception! How frickin' paranoid! If you believe that, you need therapy.
You should really lay off all the "Kumbaya" and clapping. The vibrations are disturbing your mental abilities.
Wizard of Id,
I did not blindside you. It does not matter how you justify your wrong answers, they remain wrong answers. For example, you say there is more than one God? That is a wrong heretical answer no matter HOW you justifiy it or explain it. As far as why a topic such as the Lord's Supper is omitted, honestly, it didnt even cross my mind. I have no clue what Mormons believe regarding it. We can discuss it some other time. I will now attempt to answer some of your rebuttals but after that I am done with this thread.
5) Will there ever be a God after Jesus Christ?
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: No
Psalms 82, 6-7: "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes."
He called them gods in the sense that He had appointed them rulers and judges over the people.That is all it means.
Has Satan actually bewitched you to believe that you are or will be a God?
Wizard of Id, I am telling you the truth, if this verse applies to you:
"I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High." Isaiah 14:14
Then so does this one:
"Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit." Isaiah 14:15
***Matthew 5:48 "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Now, please correct me if I'm wrong here, but last time I read my Bible, the Father in heaven was actually a god. So how are we going to be perfect as He is without being gods?
The Father in heaven is not "actually a god" rather He is the one and only God. How are we to be perfect? By trusting in Jesus Christ (the Jesus of the Bible that is, not the Mormon one). Through faith in Jesus Christ's atoning work on the cross and resurrection a sinner is declared perfect in God's sight... through faith.. not of works lest any man should boast.
Romans 8:17 "And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together."
This says nothing about Wizard of Id being "God" or ever being formed into a "God" which would obviously contradict Isaiah 43:10. All it says is that we will be heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. NOT that we will be heirs of God's Godhood. Again I tell you that according to the Bible the only one who promises people they will become Gods is the Devil:
"And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Genesis 3:4-5
That is the same thing he is telling you through Mormon teachings: You shall not surely die. You shall be as God.
Oh man. I beg you to repent of this foolishness and turn to the living God. Dont believe the devil. He is a liar and a murderer.
8) Is Jesus Christ the Creator of everything whether visible or invisible? (including every spirit whether demonic or angelic)
The Wizard of Id said: No
The Bible says: Yes
***Can you explain to me at what point Jesus created Himself?
Very funny. I thought of putting the clause "not including Himself" but I thought it was a given being the case that the Bible clearly says He is eternal. I'll clarify it OK?
Is Jesus Christ the Creator of everything (excluding God who is eternal) whether visible or invisible including the devil, angels, demons, heaven, hell, spirits of humans, etc. ? The Bible says He did, yet you deny it.
9) Is Jesus Christ the Creator of the devil?
The Wizard of Id said: No
The Bible says: Yes
Revelations 12: 7-9 "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."
***So if Lucifer was in heaven before the Creation, when exactly did Christ create him?
If Lucifer was in heaven before the creation of what? The creation of heaven? Or the creation of earth etc? I dont know when exactly it was that this war took place all that I know is that it took place after God created heaven and the angels and before Adam fell. Either way this says nothing of Lucifer being uncreated.
***Do you believe that evil exists in heaven?
No.
The first time evil was found in someone in heaven the being was cast out of heaven as the passage above states.
In Job it says that Satan came before God and in other parts of the Bible it says that Satan is our accuser. But do his accusations take place in the heaven Revelation 12:7-9 so clearly says he was cast out of? No .
***Do you believe God (or Jesus) would create evil?
No. God did not create evil but He allows it for His sovereign purpose.
***or make someone evil?
No. God created man "good" and man then chose to do evil. The same goes for Satan.
***I don't believe Jesus created the devil. I think Lucifer (meaning "bringer of Light") became the devil through his own choices and actions.
Very funny. Here we go with the word games again. Did Jesus Christ create Lucifer then? The Bible says Christ did create Lucifer meanwhile you deny it.
10) Is Jesus Christ the brother of the devil?
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: No
***Having established that Jesus didn't create the devil, and Lucifer was in heaven before the Creation, it's a reasonable assumption, even relying solely on the Bible, that Lucifer is Christ's spiritual brother.
This is just straight-up blasphemy. We clearly believe in two different Jesus'. The Apostle Paul, as he was moved by God the Holy Spirit, said:
"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him..." 2 Corinthians 11:3-4
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Galatians 1:8-9
It is the biblical position that the Mormon Jesus is "another Jesus" of "another spirit" of "another gospel". According to the Bible: preachers of and followers of this false Jesus, false spirit, false gospel are "accursed".
11) Are human beings eternal beings? (Meaning they have no beginning and no end)
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: No
****I said you would misinterpret my yes/no answers without some explanation of where I'm coming from! I wasn't talking just about humans as bodies of flesh and bone, but as pre-mortal spirit beings.
I did not misinterpret. I knew exactly what you meant. It is still heresy.
Job 38:4-7 (Yes, I know you quoted verse 4, but you didn't read the next three verses, did you!) "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
***So did the sons of God shout for joy if they didn't exist?
All this says is that the morning stars and sons of God (created angels) shouted for joy while God created the earth. In fact, the Bible actually (very clearly) says that God created the angels:
"Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee." Nehemiah 9:6
and here:
"Praise ye him, all his angels... Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created." Psalm 128:2a, 5
Ecclesiastes 12:7 "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."
***You can't return to somewhere you've never been.
This is one is easy. God creates a spirit-flesh being that previously did not exist. The spirit-flesh being dies and the flesh returns to the dust while the spirit returns unto God who gave it.
Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee;"
Romans 9:29 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son"
Ephesians 1:4 "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world"
Yes the Bible teaches that God knew me from before I was born even from before the foundation of the world etc. (He actually knows everything btw, He is omniscient) What it does not teach is that I existed from before the foundation of the world, that would be heresy.
14) Are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit three different gods?
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: No
Matthew 20:23 "he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father"
Matthew 26:39 "And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt."
John 5:19 "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do"
John 8:18 "I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me."
John 17:3 "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
John 20:17 "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father:"
Acts 7:55 "But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God"
***Have you ever been in a positon where you could do nothing except what you'd seen yourself do?
***If Christ is the same being as the Father, how is it not His to give?
***When was the last time you stood on the right side of yourself?
This is best answered by explaining the biblical doctrine of the Trinity.
The Father is not the Son neither is He the Holy Spirit. The Father is God.
The Son is not the Father neither is He the Holy Spirit. The Son is God.
The Holy Spirit is not the Father neither is He the Son. The Holy Spirit is God.
The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three Gods. The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are 3 distinct Persons who co-eternally exist as ONE God.
Therefore, yes the Son prayed to the Father and did what the Father told Him etc, even so, they are not 2 Gods, but ONE.
***Questions 15 and 17 are best answered as one:
15) Do you believe that there is only one God?
The Wizard of Id said: No
The Bible says: Yes
17) Do you believe in more than one God?
The Wizard of Id said: Yes
The Bible says: No
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us.
Yes, the ONE God sometimes refers to Himself as "us" and "we". That is because He is Tri-Une in nature.
Exodus 34:34 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God
Deuteronomy 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods,
To borrow from Anon, if someone made up a god called Bobbo who is a stale crusty donut... The God of the Bible says that He is the God of EVERYTHING including this false god that does not even exist and for that reason He commands you not to worship this false god called Bobbo because the true living God is a jealous God who will punish that.
****My friend, I beg you in the name of Jesus, repent of the false Mormon god and turn to the living God for the forgiveness of your sins! Seriously! ... I beg you with all the love in the world, repent!
****Do you know the meaning of the word "disingenuous"? My friends do not set traps to blindside me; and those who love me show respect for my religious beliefs, even if they don't share them.
I disagree about whether I blindsided you. I asked you straight-forward questions that have a straight-forward correct biblical answers. If they are answered wrong then they must be corrected despite the excuse of why they were answered wrong. Again, like I said above, if you believe in more than One God, no matter how you think you can justifiy it, you are stll wrong and need to repent. I do love you and dont want to see you perish.
****This is your soul at stake! If you do not repent of the false Mormon god and believe that Christ is who the Bible says He is you will surely die in your sins and burn in hell.
****But I thought we were saved by grace? Hasn't that been your major argument all along? That if we accept Christ as our Savior, and take His atoning sacrifice upon us, then we are saved. In your questions, the role of Jesus Christ was at least one thing that we agreed upon. Which means, by your own arguments, that we Mormons are saved; and if we persist in an erroneous belief in the Book of Mormon, that is just one more sin for which Jesus Christ atoned; and nobody's going to burn anywhere; and you really haven't thought this one all the way through, have you!
I have thought it out. The whole point is that it matters *which* Jesus you are believing in. If you are believing in a false Jesus you are not and cannot be saved.Jesus said that if you do not believe that He is He (the God of the Bible, not the Mormon one) then you will die in your sins. The Jesus of the Bible saves. The Mormon Jesus condemns.
With that said, the Bible does teach that we are saved by grace through faith but Not "after all we can do" but rather "and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. Not of works lest any man should boast." But this faith must be in the real Jesus of the Bible. The Bible says that our sins have condemned us before God. It teaches that the wrath of God abides on sinners and if they die in their sins they will be cast into the lake of fire. But it also teaches that the true Jesus of the Bible who is the second Person of the Trinity became flesh and suffered and died on the cross on behalf of sinners. He bore our sins on the cross and was crushed under the wrath and fury of God the Father. Then He was buried. And then on the third day He rose again. It teaches that God commands all men everywhere to repent and trust in the true Jesus of the Bible for the forgiveness of sins. Because of this great news, that forgiveness and eternal life is available through the shed blood of the Jesus of the Bible (Second Person of the Trinity), I implore you on God's behalf: be reconciled to the God of the Bible! Repent of your sins, of which belief in an idol is one, and turn to the living God and you will be saved. Otherwise, you will surely die in your sins and perish.
If you wish to continue discussing this email me at itsadiel@gmail.com
Good night.
One correction before I go. I want to clarify what I meant when I said that "If you are believing in a false Jesus you are not and cannot be saved."
I did not mean that there if you are believing in a false Jesus you cannot be saved as in there is no hope for you. What I did mean is that if you are believing in a false Jesus you are not saved. While you are alive there is hope. This hope is in Jesus Christ of the Bible who is the Second Person of the Trinity.
Repent and believe in Him (the Second Person of the Trinity, God the Son, the Jesus Christ of the Bible) and you will be saved and pass from death unto life!
Oh come folks! It seems that no matter what biblical proof one gives of the foundation that Yeshua laid for those who would call themselves His disciples many of you ignore them and insist that Mormons are Christians despite their contradictory writngs. We live in an age when many think that whatever you feel or think about a particular subject is right just because you think and feel it's right. So if a group wants to call themselves Christian you say well they are Christians even though they contradict what the Founder said were the hallmarks of Christianity. I bet if you went to see your favorite team play their game ( a game long established with rules so you'd know what to expect when you showed up)and you got there and your team was playing a different game you'd want your tickets back! Well Christianity is a lot more important than that. What's the harm someone asked--wellthe harm is that error has infiltrated true (gasp--yes I said true---objective truth) Christianity and many souls are at peril. In the last day Yeshua said He will say to those who said that they did all this in His name and He will say depart from me you evil doers I know you not! Matthew 7:22-23. So there will be those who profess His name yet Yeshua does not say, "ok you meant well and you thought you were doing good, even though you contradicted what I said in my original scriptures written by those who personally knew me or thier associates, and claimed I gave you additional revelations which contradicted everything I said in my previous scriptures, but that's ok you're forgiven, enter into my kingdom I have prepared for you". No Yeshua tells them to leave! And you know what that means.
So if you chose to be decieved so be it! When the handwriting is on the wall, when Yeshua says, narrow is the way that leads to salvation and few that be that find it -- I guess He's talking to you foolish thinking people who chose to believe lies (Matt 7:14/1 Timothy 4:1-2)!
I will continue to pray that some (and some will) believe in His Word as presented in the Bible handed down to us from those who were closest in time to Him. And to Whom the Tenakh (Old Testament) pointed to.
Down through the ages there will be those who will preserve the Truth as best we can until He returns!
Peace and Blessing to All!
Minister Levia!
www.communityinyeshuathemessiah.org
After reading this last post, I have to give points to the Mormons.
For example, AC claims Mormons are beliving the lie of Satan in the Garden of Eden. He is careful to say Mormons believe that "they will not die", which 1) wasn't the point and 2) isn't true as far as I can see.
The verses in question say:
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. - Genesis 3
So Satan makes two promises: 1) they will not die and 2) Their eyes will be opened, making them "as gods".
But in the next few verses it says:
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God awalking in the garden bin the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
So their eyes were opened, so Satan wasn't lying about that. But were they "as gods"? Lets read more:
22 ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
So, God himself acknowledges that they were "as one of us". In other words gods (but not God). 2 points to the Mormons.
Mormon and Angry, you really crack me up. I seriously don't know what to think of you now. First you say that Mormons are not Christians, then you fight for the right to call yourself Christians, and now you are using secular sources to support your new point of view in a typical postmodern fashion. (Instead of looking at the nature of the thing in question, you are looking for words and glossaries to dictate what that thing is.) Here's a hint: Dictionary definitions do not ever come close to capturing the full nature--the *essential* nature--of the object it describes. The definitions are always incomplete approximations for the convenience of communication. *And*, they are prone to error and do not always agree with other "authoritative" dictionaries. They *never* pretend to capture the full nature of something as great and vast as Christianity.
I don't know why you are so angry, but I'm really not out to discredit Mormonism in any way. In fact, I am ultimately fighting to keep Mormonism from being lost in meaninglessness, too. I hope you find yourself on the side of clarity and Truth.
God bless you, man. Whatever it is you believe.
That list which you say is arbitrary is repeated over and over in the Bible.
You misunderstand me, Brian. I don't deny that your list shows elements that can be found in Christianity. I reject the notion that you can make an arbitrary list of attributes and pretend that it covers all *essential* attributes of Christianity.
Mormonism does, indeed, share some attributes and ideas with Christianity. But that doesn't make it Christian.
You can try to pass off a watch because it has a dial, two hands, and a watchband. But without the insides, it's not a watch. To pass it off as a watch is chicanery. Forgive me for exposing the swindle.
For the record.
Our unnamed poster submitted the following:
After a thoughtful reply to a previous post, Roper's reply was "*Right, but you still ain't a Christian." Well, that seems to be the trump card in this discussion, which makes it all so pointless. Dr. Mohler and the rest will continue to play that trump card over and over, it doesn't make a difference.
Actually, that "Right but you still ain't a Christian" was POC777's response to my (Roper's) post.
Just didn't want any of my friends from other forums to think I had apostatized from the LDS faith :)
*But I thought you said "I apostasized" because you confessed:
I have recognized that I am a sinner
I have realize that Jesus Christ has died in my place for my sins and can't save myself.
I have repented of all my sins
And for the cream topping
I HAVE RECEIVED JESUS CHRIST AS MY LORD AND SAVIOR!
So you are a Christian--and have apostasized from LDS, how odd!
I will find your post and remind you exactly what you said!
AC: "The whole point is that it matters *which* Jesus you are believing in.i>"
Now it's your turn to give a yes/no answer: There's two Jesuses?
Having slogged through most of the comments here, I have a better understanding of Christ's frustration with and condemnation of the Pharisees.
"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting -- it has been found difficult and left untried." (G. K. Chesterton)
AC, you might do well to read Luke 12:47-48.
"The slave who knew his master's wishes but did not prepare to fulfill them will get a severe beating, whereas the one who did not know them and who nonetheless deserved to be flogged will get off with fewer stripes. When much has been given a man, much will be asked of a man to whom more has been entrusted."
This tells me that you and I have to worry far more about our punishment than the Mormons do. Jesus will be easier on them for not knowing the requirements of Christianity.
Additionally, if you are going to take the sola scriptura approach to Scripture, you might want to heed this:
"Thereupon Jesus said to them: "Let me solemnly assure you, if you do not east the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. He who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal and I will raise him up on the last day."
Many of his disciples heard this and objected to it, but Jesus repeated it three times to make it clear he meant what he said. Many disciples abandoned him because it was too difficult for them to take. The Apostles, who were the foundation of the Catholic Church, accepted what he said.
So, if you insist upon the Mormon's losing their souls because of how you personally interpret Scripture, you have a difficulty above, because Christ doesn't give you much wiggling room about what he means. And he says that you have no life within you if you do not eat his flesh and drink his blood.
From my point of view, you, like the Mormons, have ignorance of Jesus's commands to you, so you may not get "striped" for not partaking in the Eucharist. However, from your sola scriptura point of view--your soul is in great peril. Were I in your shoes, I would worry more about the grave peril of your own soul, rather than worry about playing God and informing the Mormons of their damnation.
Okay POC777,
One last attempt at reasonable discussion here.
From POC:
You are Christian if you have....
1. Recognize that your a sinner and can't save yourself(Rom 3:23)
2. Realize that Jesus Christ has died in your place(Rom 5:8)
3. Repent of all your sins(Acts 3:19)
4. Receive Jesus Christ as your personal LORD and Savior(Rev 3:20)
If you did the four steps, then you are Christian--if not you are not Christian, but Mormon who is lost in his sins and headed for Hell.
My response:
1. I am a sinner and cannot save myself.
2. I absolutely affirm that Jesus gave His life for me.
3. I repent daily and plead to Him to forgive my sins and strengthen my weakness.
How does He strengthen you?
4. I received Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior when I was baptized, and "I believe I have continued that relationship throughout my life".
**Keep in mind: Conversion by your mind and conversion by your heart are different. Conversion in your mind is not true conversion at all--but by the heart is true conversion--that's real. Once Jesus comes into your "heart" you don't follow anything else but Him and the Bible. You might've walked away from the LORD--Christianity comes from Him. Then you decided to jump into the bandwagon into Mormonism. That's just an assumption. Not because you "know" much about Christianity, makes you a Christian. You become a Christian after Jesus becomes LORD and SAVIOR--you deny LDS completely--LDS: denies, opposes and contradicts God, Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit, the Bible and Christianity. God doesn't contradict Himself!
*Baptism is a sacarment--immersed in a pool of water will never save you--the atonement of Jesus blood will. Baptism has no power to save anyone--the gospel message(in the Bible) saves. It is religious to be baptized without conversion--that is self-righteous--God doesn't want your religion but your whole heart. He wants you. First, is conversion to Christianity--regeneration, secondly, its idenification in water baptism--the person has spiritual died and resurrected with Jesus Christ--a watery grave--to now live the newness of life for God. Without accepting Jesus Christ into your heart first, means nothing. Even Jehovah's Witness, get baptized--they are not saved, but lost in their sins.
All of these are Articles of Faith--official public declarations of doctrine--of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*It doesn't matter, what matters is "if" have accepted Jesus Christ into your heart and life--now if you haven't you are lost.
Do I qualify yet, POC?
From POC:
I belong to Jesus Christ, He knows me and I know Him. You my friend don't belong to Him.
My response:
You have placed yourself in the position of Jesus Christ to judge whether I (and LDS saints in general) belong to His fold--a decidedly un-Christian position and one expressly forbidden by Jesus himself. Our conversation is over.
**His fold?
**No, I'm only defending the Christian faith from woves in sheep's clothing--who are trying to separate the flock.
*Right, but you still ain't a Christian.
Posted by: Roper | July 1, 2007 8:30 PM
This question is directed to everyone in this debate and I need an honest response so here I go:
If you were to die today(God forbid) and were standing at the pearly gates of Heaven--and God will tell you. "Why should I open the gates and allow you into Heaven, why?" What will you say to Him?
And to all those who quote "judge not, lest ye be judged" please do some research on hermeneutics. That verse is simply not the blanket statement that people love to use it as. [posted by Chad]
hmmm, reading the above statement in context, Matthew 7:1-5, or in Luke 6:36-37, where the ideas of mercy and forgiveness are included, I see no problem in taking it to mean just what it says, that it is not our job to either judge or condemn our neighbours, whatever their beliefs may be.
to my sense, a Christian is one who follows Christ, in word and deed; who obeys Jesus' two great Commandments, as given in Matthew 22:37-39. also a pretty definition of who is 'of God' and 'knows God' is given in 1 John 4:7.
IMHO, it is time this doctrinal bickering and condemning any who do not believe 'my way' should STOP, and we all should pay more attention to living as Christ commanded.
I think some others would do well to realize that it is one thing to say that Mormonism is not within Christianity, and another thing entirely to say they do not belong to Christ.
If Mormonism is true, they clearly belong to Christ. Christianity would then be wrong, and Christians might belong to Christ in spite of that.
If Christianity is true, Christians clearly belong to Christ. Mormonism would then be wrong, and the Mormons might belong to Christ in spite of that.
Christ died **for the whole world**. He died for everyone who ever lived with or without the advantage of Christian teaching. He will judge us according to what we are dealt, and we have no business judging anyone else--neither their hearts, nor their eternal destination. Those who make such judgments are clearly disobeying the commands of God. They put their own souls in peril. Using their own personal interpretation of Scripture as their gavel of personal authority is no excuse.
Mormons, I pray that all of you belong to Christ. I pray that the atheists and the Buddhists belong to Christ. I pray that the Animists and the Muslims belong to Christ. I pray that Jesus's mercy extend to all. I pray that Satan get no claim over any of you.
And, while we are at it, there is also a huge difference between judging the hearts of men and condemning them to hell, which is strictly forbidden, and making judgment about meaning and judgments about morality.
So--
Mormons going to hell? Mormons all have evil in their hearts? Mormons are not Christians? Using deceptive language is immoral?
The Bible verses referred to by others above are clearly of the kind that judges men's hearts and judge's their eternal destination. They are clearly not of the kind that makes judgments about morality and meaning.
Now it's your turn to give a yes/no answer: There's two Jesuses?
*Mormonism claims that Jesus preached the Gospel to the Indians in the Americas on 34 AD.
*However, there is absolutely no accounts of Jesus ever visiting the Americas or even preaching to Indians on 34 AD. No evidence has ever been found!
*Christianity claims that Jesus preached the gospel in the four books: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Evidence have been found!
*There is many accounts that Jesus came to this world as God in the flesh to die for mankind on the cross---to save them from Hell.
*So there you have it, the Mormon Jesus supposely preached to the Indians on 34 AD(one year after His resurrection) and the Jesus from the Bible, preached the gospel to those who were lost.
*The Mormon Jesus comes from Joseph Smith's imagination and the biblical Jesus comes from the Bible. The Christian preaches the Jesus from the Bible; the Mormon preaches a different Jesus, not from the Bible.
*Paul said in 2 Corinthians 11:4 "For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted--you may well put up with it.
So.....
*The Mormon Jesus--is "another Jesus"--he is not same Jesus from the Bible.
*The Mormon has a "different spirit"--that is not the Holy Spirit.
*The Mormon preaches a "different gospel" not the same one Jesus taught in the four gospels.
*So the Mormon Jesus--is not the same Jesus from the Bible, he is different.
*There is only one Jesus Christ-- and He comes from the Bible!
Posted by: Mormon and Angry | July 5, 2007 1:23 AM
This question is directed to everyone in this debate and I need an honest response so here I go:
If you were to die today(God forbid) and were standing at the pearly gates of Heaven--and God will tell you. "Why should I open the gates and allow you into Heaven, why?" What will you say to Him?
I really don't see the relevance here, but if it were me, I would probably say something like the following:
"My dearly beloved Father, I am fully undeserving, and only You can provide the reason why. But Eternal Father, I offer you the body and blood, soul and divinity of Your dearly beloved Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, in atonement for my sins, and those of the whole world.
For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world."
What would you say?
Al Mohler presents is argument as he understands. It is pretty straightforward, but there are sections which gives a shallow discussion of Mormon beliefs. For instance he states that Mormons believe in many gods. This implies that Mormons pray and worship other gods beside the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That is not true. But I am afraid if a discussion of Mormon beliefs were discussed more deeply it may undermine his argument.
For what it's worth, I really think a lot of POC777's arguments are pretty poor. But they are not within the focus I have had in this discussion, and I simply don't have the energy or patience to deal with them.
POC777, I really think you would do well to deal with what Mormonism actually professes as doctrine as it compares to Christian doctrine, rather than spending so much time twisting away at your interpretations of things. I don't think they prove what you think they do. So what if they think Jesus was in America teaching the Indians? Whether that is right or wrong has little or nothing to do with Who Jesus Christ is.
Actually, POC777, in most of your posts, it is quite difficult to tell just what are your words, and what are the words of others. The discussion is almost completely incoherent to me.
And, while we are at it, there is also a huge difference between judging the hearts of men and condemning them to hell, which is strictly forbidden, and making judgment about meaning and judgments about morality.
*All those who are "in Christ" make sound judgments from the Bible--they don't condemned those who don't know God--their Master didn't condemn no one when He was on this earth and neither do they condemn those who are Christian--they pray from them to become Christian.
So--
Mormons going to hell?
If they have repented of all their sins--genuine repentance does not mean "I'm sorry God it will never happen again" and then live as you choose. No, it means to completely turn away from all sin and turn to God--change your heart, change the way you live and change the way you think and accepted Jesus Christ as their LORD and Savior, is that simple, yet difficult for most to accept as truth.
Mormons all have evil in their hearts?
*All of us are evil none of of us are good--"there is only One who is good and that is God". Jesus calls His disciples evil(Matthew 7:11) and in Matthew 15:19 He says that out the heart comes evil things--we live in a corrupted world of sin. We are evil people! Sin is what made our hearts evil--Jesus will remove that evil heart and give anyone who is willing to come to Him--a new heart. Once the person receives a "new heart" Jesus now comes to dwell within the indiviual's life and will transform the person forever--born again.
Mormons are not Christians?
*Not if they continue to deny what God has instructed the Christian in the Bible.
Using deceptive language is immoral?
*It is not deceptive language, because the Holy Spirit does not lie--He tells the truth everytime. Since He dwells in every Christian--He will now teach them how not to lie anymore(unless it comes from the flesh)--but to always tell the truth.
The Bible verses referred to by others above are clearly of the kind that judges men's hearts and judge's their eternal destination. They are clearly not of the kind that makes judgments about morality and meaning.
Jesus said in Matthew 12:30
"But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give an account of it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned".
Posted by: Anon | July 5, 2007 2:02 AM
This question is directed to everyone in this debate and I need an honest response so here I go:
If you were to die today(God forbid) and were standing at the pearly gates of Heaven--and God will tell you. "Why should I open the gates and allow you into Heaven, why?" What will you say to Him?
I really don't see the relevance here, but if it were me, I would probably say something like the following:
"My dearly beloved Father, I am fully undeserving, and only You can provide the reason why. But Eternal Father, I offer you the body and blood, soul and divinity of Your dearly beloved Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, in atonement for my sins, and those of the whole world.
For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world."
*What would you say?
"Father, I am a sinner who was saved by your undeserved grace and kindness that led to repentance.Thank you Father, for allowing a wicked and vile person as myself to enter your kingdom--to see your beauty. If it wasn't for your Son, Jesus Christ dying in my place for my sin debt--I will be separated from You for all eternity--in Hell.
In one of my posts above, you see the following:
So--
Mormons going to hell? Mormons all have evil in their hearts? Mormons are not Christians? Using deceptive language is immoral?
That is not how it was intended. Here is another attempt:
So--
Saying Mormons are going to hell is *forbidden*.
Saying Mormons all have evil in their hearts is *forbidden*.
Saying Mormons are not Christians is *not forbidden*.
Saying that using deceptive language is immoral is *not forbidden*.
The first two judge the hearts of men and their eternal destination. These are no-nos. The second two make judgments about meaning and morality, which is perfectly fine. (They may or may not contain error, but they are not forbidden.)
Okay. So what have we accomplished, POC777?
Actually, POC777, part of me wants to tell you that it is really none of your business what the conversation between any individual and Christ will be on judgment day. You are not our confessor, and you are not our God. It is not your place to judge the words we will speak to Christ on that day, nor is it your place to put words in God's mouth for that occasion. So why do you want to scrutinize them? What gives? Stop hiding the ball and just tell us what your point is.
POC777, your comments at 2:34AM, you responded to things that did not get properly posted, so they don't follow with my discussion. (Not your fault.) Please see the correction I made and respond according to that.
I will, however, respond to this comment of yours:
*Not if they continue to deny what God has instructed the Christian in the Bible.
Without any authority, there are many, many possible interpretations that can be made of the Bible by reasonable men. Reasonable men might interpret Scripture in the way the Mormons believe. You don't realize it, but all sola scriptura Christians *rely upon* Traditional Christian knowledge for their interpretations. For example, the Trinitarian doctrine is *essential* to Christianity. A Christian who reads the Bible, interprets it according to the traditional knowledge they already have regarding the Trinity. But a person without that foreknowledge can reasonably interpret it to have meaning that is not inclusive of the Trinity.
So you can look at Christianity and see that there is this essential doctrine that the Mormons do not share, and therefore conclude that Mormonism is not compatible with Christianity. But you cannot exclude them based on the fact that you like *your* interpretation of Scripture better than *theirs*.
I really, really wish that religious beliefs played absolutely no part in elections at all, period. Because, as you can see from the posts on this thread, it can bring out the worst in people. There are so many people posting here, sincerely convinced of the "rightness" of their own beliefs and interpretations of god and religion. I dare say, each of them also sincerely believes the majority of the others are damned and doomed for all of eternity for not believing as they do. All of them have their prophets and groups of wisemen who have claimed revelations from god and deliberated countless times over their exact meanings. Is Jesus, or Buddha, or Mohammed, or Joseph Smith really any more valid than any other prophet? Is any ones holy book any more credible than any other? So does it really matter if Mormons are really christians or not? The election of the President of the United States of America shouldn't be about which particlar religious cult you belong to, it needs to be about the best man or woman possible to lead our country in these very trying times. I personally would rather it wasn't someone who thinks their god talks to them. Or someone who uses their religious beliefs to make decisions about important issues such as birth control, global warming, abortion, war, stem cell research, education, and alot of other things. These issues require brains, not prophets.
Leroy Morte, Like I posted on the other side, I have not been arguing about the "rightness" of Christianity or the "wrongness" of Mormonism. I have been discussing the meaning of Christianity and Mormonism, and fighting against the destruction of meaning.
All the same, I think your implication that these things don't matter is very misguided.
Roper,
Sorry, I have been working long hours and have been unable to keep up with blogs. I would like to continue our discussion in another format. If you are willing, you can e-mail me at prayin_4u@hotmail.com. Notice: this invitation is to the poster known as Roper only. Thank you.
I believe what is important that we try to live as Christ-like as possible and leave the judgment up to God. We spend so much time trying to disprove everyone else, that we forget to go preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world and fulfil that commandment. God knows our hearts, and He reveals Himself and His knowledge to us. Whatever part of His plan we play, work with what knowledge we have and serve Him well. God will take care of the rest.
After scanning this entire discussion, its amazing to see the utter lack of scriptural exposition given in defense of Mormonism. It appears from this discussion that Mormon apologetics consist of arguments against orthodox Christianity or arguments for a very broad definition of Christianity. NEITHER of these things address the TRUTH of Mormonism.
It matters whether you are worshipping the right Christ. If Christ is a 10 foot tall purple alien to me, and I worship him, believe he is the Savior, trust in him, believe he is the Son of God, etc., etc., then by the Mormon definition, I am Christian. Whether you like it or not, the Mormon version of Christ is different from the Biblical Christ. You cannot deny this fact without denying either Mormon doctrine, or Christian doctrine.
What little Mormon exposition I have seen on here is a few attempts at Greek and Hebrew. The most egregious error I have seen is an attempt to state that "Elohim" is the plural form of God, meaning "Gods". This translation was given by Joseph Smith in defense of his doctrine on the plurality of gods (google the "King Follet Funeral Discourse"). The only problem here is that Joseph Smith did not speak Hebrew, nor was he trained in Hebrew. Any native Herbrew speaker who is passed the 4th grade and any Hebrew student who has passed a year of Hebrew studies would never make the mistake of tranlating "Elohim" as "Gods" (plural) in the context which it appears in Genesis. Hebrew grammar rules prevent this from happening.
corrections to the above post:
"who is passed" should be "who has passed"
"Herbrew" should be "Hebrew"
I believe what is important that we try to live as Christ-like as possible and leave the judgment up to God.
Cat,
Are you telling us that meaning does not matter, and that we should not care about meaning?
What about Mother/Father God who lives on the planet Kobar? Weird? Not really. In the various Temples, and in the "higher doctrine" a mormon believer will learn that Kobar, wherein God is producing spiritual children to populate the universe, will continue to do so and that is how mormonism will continue to grow. That is why it is so important to know your family's history to insure that they will follow you to your planet. If your wife isn't a "good wife", she will not be "called up" by her husband to his planet after they depart this planet. This is not to mention the various "temple wives" that exist in great numbers today. Think this is insane? Take the time to study the mormon religion in detail and these items, along with others, will shock you. This religion is beyond bizarre.
Continuing Cat's thread: when the judgment day arrives, we will each stand before Jesus of Nazareth to be judged. What will then be important to our Judge? My recollection is that his instructions were:
"Come, follow me."
"If ye love me, keep my commandments."
"Be ye therefore perfect..."
"Love thy neighbor as thyself."
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
"This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."
"My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it."
"But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it."
I became a Christian while being raised by devout mormon parents. My father was a high priest...my mother served as relief society president. And I served as the president of our ward's youth organization. Dubbed as "special" and "spiritual", I was often asked to give "talks" during weekly services. Monday nights were reserved for our Family Home Evenings, and we concluded each day on our knees in prayer. At 8 years old, I heard the true gospel for the first time when I attended a neighborhood Christian church with a friend. For the first time, I heard a preacher describe my internal struggle with sin perfectly. For the first time, I heard someone describe the sin nature that accompanies each physical birth, and its need for redemption. For the first time, my eyes recognized the cross as the point of origin, where sin dies and new life begins...not a weapon of destruction (which is the perception of mormons whose confused theology denegrates the cross as a weapon used to kill rather than the instrument of salvation.) And finally, I heard the divinity of Christ exalted as the One and Only Way of salvation... Not one of many gods...nor the created son of one of many gods...but the One true God over the heavens and earth through whom all things were made. At 18, I abandoned mormonism, following the Lord's lead to a Bible Study. After nine years of intense study, God's Word succeeded in peeling away the scar tissue of deceit, grafting in the truth found only in the Bible.
Do I hate mormons? No, they are not the enemy. I remember what it felt like to be ostracized and abused by many well-intentioned Christians.
Would I vote for a mormon president, who met the qualifications and was a "good" man? Absolutely not... A man caught in such a gruesome web of spiritual deception could not possibly lead a country-in-crisis with God's strength and discernment. A man who believes that he will one day become a god of his own world will not lead under the yoke and in submission to the God of this universe. Remember Jesus' words to those deceived by appearances, "Woe to you... You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean..." Matt. 23:27
Do not lower your defenses against this seemingly harmless, peace-loving cult... Heed the warning..."And no wonder, for satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness..." 2 Cor. 11:14-15
Dr Tom @ 10.53: "Take the time to study the mormon religion in detail and these items, along with others, will shock you. This religion is beyond bizarre"
Bizarre? You should look at what those Christians get up to! You know they actually practice cannibalism? Every Sunday, they go through this ritual where they eat human flesh and drink human blood!
And they drown their children. Some like to wait until their children are a bit older before making them get into a big bath and pushing them under. Others like to get new-born babies and pour water all over them! Barbaric!
Why don't you just go ahead and take one single aspect of our doctrine, sensationalize it as outrageously as you possibly can, and then present it without any sort of context at all, Dr Tom?
Oh, and by the way, it's a star, and it's called Kolob. And you don't need a temple to learn about this -- you could just buy a copy of Bruce R. McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" (available from all good bookstores throughout Utah, and on Amazon). If you're going to attack us, you'd be advised to get your facts straight. Otherwise, you're going to end up looking a tad foolish!
Anonymous @ 5.47: "After scanning this entire discussion, its amazing to see the utter lack of scriptural exposition given in defense of Mormonism"
We're not discussing the scriptural basis for Mormon doctrine. We're discussing whether Mormons are Christians or not. What's to quote?
But you could try scrolling a little further up, to 4th July @ 2.07 and 11.20
Pops @ 11.13
So what's your point, Pops?
Anon @ 12.29: "I'm really not out to discredit Mormonism in any way. In fact, I am ultimately fighting to keep Mormonism from being lost in meaninglessness, too. I hope you find yourself on the side of clarity and Truth."
Anon, reading your other posts, I actually believe you. I apologize if I didn't take you seriously at first and painted you along with the other lunatics. I promise to be more respectful (to you, at least) from now on. :)
Wow,
I feel sorry for so many people on here. I was raised Wesleyan and converted to the LDS church several years ago. I was one that listend to the preacher tell me that Mormons were of a cult and I believed it and went on and was happy in my ignorance. One day I decided to learn for myself after I met some members and saw that they did not seem like weird fanatics drinking poisoned kool aid like I had imagined before. After a loooooong period of devout study, I understood the doctrine and saw that there are no contradictions with what early Christians believed and practiced, so I joined. I've never been more fulfilled. I already had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and I certainly did not give that up. I have a much stronger relationship now, and am able to truly feel the Holy Ghost in my everyday life. No the doctrine isn't easy to understand, and it can seem offensive on some topics at first. But if you so-called Christians (I am speaking to those that view themselves as experts and want want to eliminate the LDS members from the ranks of Christian) would study your scriptures, and not just read them, you would know to look for the occurances that we claim have happened.
We claim an apostasy from Jesus Christ's church. And we claim to be the restoration of it. Sound weird to you? Read your scriptures . . . That's right, these things are prophecied to happen. When? Before the second coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (That's right, Jesus IS our LORD and SAVIOR, regardless of what some ignorant posters claim on here)
I would think most of Christianity believes we are in the end of times, so why they would not be looking for these prophecies to take place, I haven't a clue.
You believe I am a member of a mislead cult, well, since you can be so brass as to make this claim, I will be frank as well.
I believe those that think this way, are those that Jesus spoke of that draw near with their mouths but their hearts are far from Him. They seem to me as the Pharisees that "knew" so much of the doctrines and scriptures that they totally missed the Christ. Well, these "Christians" that attack the LDS church are no different. They have fallen into the Devil's trap. They follow the philosophies of men (I speak of those that took it upon themselves to define the nature of God in Nicea along with all His doctrine).
Think about that and really ponder that I could be right. If you ask in faith and research the LDS church through the proper channels (not the internet or rumors), then I know you'll find your way.
Gee, a whole 2 posts out of hundreds. The evidence is overwhelming.
Not to mention both posts are surprisingly eisegetical and cannot withstand hermeneutical examination. Its quite easy to rip scripture out of context and misuse it to say what you'd like it to mean. Its another thing to examine it in context and think about the original writer's intentions.
And we are discussing whether Mormons are Christians or not. If the beliefs and doctrines of Mormons differ from what Christ taught in the Bible, and Christians are followers of Christ, how in the world do you think discussing Mormon doctrine has nothing to do with the discussion?
http://www.novus2.com/alphamin/LETTERS/MAINPAGE.htm
Letters To a Mormon Elder by James White
You may not be aware that Mormons are discouraged from getting involved with people who want to "scripture bash," that is, endlessly trading chapter and verse. It's almost always completely pointless, and has nothing to do with a quest for the truth and everything to do with conceit. Plenty of non-Mormons here have attempted to start one. What I see is Mormons refusing to be sucked in.
Here's some interesting teachings from Mormon leaders like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young:
“We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil so that you may see.” (Founder of the LDS Church Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345-347)
“I might with boldness proclaim that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all.” (Founder of the LDS Church Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, 6:7)
“God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! This is the great secret.” (Founder of the LDS Church Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345)
“As man is now God once was; as God now is man may become.” (Lorenzo Snow, 5th President of the LDS Church, The Gospel Through the Ages, 105-106)
“The fact that there is no reference to a Mother in Heaven either in the Bible, Book of Mormon, or Doctrine and Covenants, is not sufficient proof that no such thing as a Mother did exist there.” (President Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 3:142)
“When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Arch-Angel, the Ancient of Days! About whom holy men have written and spoken – He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 1:50-51)
“The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion, was evidently based on polygamy. A belief in the doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they were ‘Mormons.’” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, p. 345-346)
“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son has also; but the Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit.” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22)
5/7 1.23 AC: "The whole point is that it matters *which* Jesus you are believing in."
Mormon and Angry @ 1.23 "Now it's your turn to give a yes/no answer: There's two Jesuses?"
Thanks, Mormon and Angry. I couldn't have said it better! :)
I thought I would always want to vote for a woman, but Hillary changed my mind.
I thought I would never want to vote for a Mormon, but Mitt Romney changed my mind.
This is incredibly ridiculous and is akin to saying "I'm going to believe what I want to regardless of evidence for truth, and stick my head in the sand and refuse to listen."
What amazes me is the ability of Mormons avoid or ignore anything that may even slightly conflict with their faith's teachings.
Your statements brings to mind a child sticking his fingers in his ears and yelling when anyone tries to say anything to him.
I highly respect Mormons who engage in sincere apologetics and I am more than willing to interact with and/or read materials they put forth in defense of their faith.
but i guess I'm just being "sucked in" to discussing truth.
I don't believe you're interested in the truth. I think you're just interested in trying to prove Mormons wrong. There's a big difference.
Most Mormons I know enjoy a mutually respectful dialog about peoples' reasons for their beliefs. But when the closest thing to intelligent comment is along the lines of "Well, Song of Solomon chapter 1 verse 2 proves that you're evil and perverted and you're going to burn in hell" -- well, that gets really boring really quickly.
I Testify To You...
This is my testimony, one that I believe is given to me by the Holy Spirit of God. The Bible says the Spirit of God witnesses to our spirits that we are the children of God (Romans 8:16) and that He leads His people into all truth (John 16:13).
I share this testimony with you because I believe the issues mentioned above define the gospel itself. The gospel requires that we know the one true God (John 17:3); a false god cannot save us. The gospel requires that we know the true Jesus Christ, for a false Christ cannot save (John 8:24, 2 Corinthians 11:4). And the true gospel alone can bring salvation, which is why we are warned about those who would preach a false gospel (Galatians 1:6-9).
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, however, denies every single one of the beliefs I shared with you above. Every one.* It is because of this that I share this literature with you. If you are LDS, I sincerely wish to warn you that you have been misled. If you are not LDS, I wish to inform you of the great differences that exist between Christianity and Mormonism at the most fundamental levels. While we often use the same words, we fill those words with very different meanings.
If you are LDS: I have given you my testimony. Doubtless you may say you have your own. The two testimonies contradict each other, however. What can we do now? The difference between us, my friend, is just this: my testimony does not determine truth. My testimony is a wonderful and precious thing, but it is not how I know the truth. My testimony must be subjected to a higher authority: the Bible. No matter how strongly I may "feel" about something, I must submit my feelings to the correction of the Word of God. So while you and I may have testimonies that conflict, I can take my testimony to the Word of God and demonstrate how it is consistent not only with some of the Bible, but with all of the Bible. My beliefs come from the Bible, and I would be glad to demonstrate this to you.
If you are not LDS: Christianity claims to be God’s truth. As such, there is no room, nor reason, for compromising on the essential elements of the faith. Mormonism is a fundamentally different religion, for Mormonism openly proclaims a "plurality of Gods" (see the Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-20, 37, Book of Abraham chapters 4-5, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith pp. 345ff). Christianity is unalterably monotheistic: we believe in only one true and eternal God. Mormonism presents a different God, a different Christ, and a different gospel. Because we love God, honor His truth, and desire others to know Him, we share this information with you.
(1) Deut. 6:4; Isa. 43:10, 44:5-8; Psalm 90:2, 96:5; Mal. 3:6; James 1:17. (2) Isa. 40:22, 41:4, 44:24; Jer. 10:10-11; (3) 2 Chron. 6:18; Jer. 23:24; John 4:24. (4) Zech 12:1; Psalm 50:21; Isa 29:16; Hosea 11:9. (5) John 1:1, Phil. 2:5-6; Heb 1:10. (6) John 1:3; Col. 1:15-17; Heb. 1:1-3. (7) Col. 1:19-20, 2:13-14; 1 Pet. 1:18-19; 1 John 1:7. (8) John 6:44, 65; Eph. 2:1-5. (9) Eph. 2:8-10. (10) 2 Tim. 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21.
I appreciate your devout commitment to what you believe, Chris. It used to deeply offend me to hear the mormon church referred to as a cult, as well. However, a cult defined within the context of Christianity is any religious organization that...
--adds to Scripture (beyond the Bible)
--subtracts from the deity of Christ (believing in many gods ruling over many worlds rather than in the unique deity of Jesus Christ...as man is, Christ once was. as Christ is, man will become.)
--multiplies the ways to get to heaven (ex...faith in Christ plus faith in the church prophets, faith in the one true church, faith in the book of mormon, faith in Joseph Smith, blind faith in modern church leadership...)
--and divides families (polygamy according to Brigham Young)
mormonism on the surface appears harmless... But its beliefs about the deity of Christ are alarming... Was He a created being, brother to Lucifer, or has He always been one of the three divine persons of the Trinity?
Other questions to ponder when determining whether mormonism should be considered a type of Christianity... Why does mormonism refuse to acknowledge the power of the cross, thereby undermining the atoning death of Christ? Do it teach that Gethsemane was the place of atonement rather than Calvary? What about original sin? Was Adam and Eve's decision in the garden of Eden a sin that brought about the fall of mankind? Or were they bravely choosing knowledge over immortality? And if there was no original sin, why did we need a Savior?
Does mormonism claim to have the unique authority to "seal" families in the temple? Does it teach that only the best mormons will gain entrance in the celestial kingdom, based on works... but that no one will be doomed to an actual hell?
Where in the Bible are these beliefs affirmed?
Rather, Paul says, "But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." Romans 3:21-24
Chris, I did not turn away from mormonism to another church. I turned away from a false gospel to the unchanging gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the object of my passion, my purpose and the source of my abiding peace. And "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes; first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: 'The righteous will live by faith.'" Romans 1:16-17
Focus on the deity of Christ, Chris... Not on your own righteousness nor your ability to defend mormonism. The Church is not the source of your salvation. Christ is...always was and always will be.
PC @ 2.41
I'll refer you to Mormon and Angry's response to Dr Tom at 1 o'clock
2.54: "I have given you my testimony. Doubtless you may say you have your own"
No, I'm going to say that I could care less about your testimony. You and the condition of your soul have absolutely no bearing whatever on my salvation.
I will bow out of this conversation now due to not wanting to continue down rabbit trails such as "arguing about arguing" and arguments that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.
I don't have to "prove Mormons wrong". The Bible does that. Take the teachings of the Bible and put them side-to-side with Mormon scripture and its plain to see they are not the same. And if they are not the same, I'm going to go with the Word of God.
I pray the real Holy Spirit will remove the veil over the Mormons and bring them into light. I pray that the Mormon heart and mind will be opened to the truth of the Bible and the falseness of LDS teaching.
I desire nothing but that Mormons know the true Gospel and the true Jesus Christ. If they have to be "proved wrong" to find this truth, then so be it.
Wizard of ID: "Thanks, Mormon and Angry. I couldn't have said it better! :)"
You're welcome, Brother ID! Give me five? *FIVE*
You say that “traditional Christian orthodoxy" are the only true Christians because they follow the Nicean Creed. Have you ever read it? Do you know anything about it?
It is releigion by comittee. It is the purest example of religion dictated by MEN, not by Heavenly Father, or Jesus Christ.
Have you even READ the bible? How can you believe the concept of the TRINITY, when, during the baptism of Jesus, you hear a voice from the heavens "This is my Son, in whom I am well pleased".
Was Jesus a ventrilloquist? Or was there actually another separate, devine being?
When Jesus prayed, WHO DID HE PRAY TO? Himself? No, he prayed to His Father In Heaven. "Our Father in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name..."
You say that only those who follow the Nicean creed are Christian. I say, Only those who follow Christ are Christians. I'd rather follow a religion given by God, rather than a creed given by Emperor Constantine, a converted Roman, by comittee.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcyzkd_m6KE
Here is an interesting Youtube clip on the Book of Abraham.
Sorry 3.06. I realize it must be a terrible disappointment to you.
Ooh, Mormon and Angry -- I'm being sarcastic! I must be falling under your influence!
Michael Horn: "Emperor Constantine, a converted Roman, by comittee."
And it's questionable whether Constantine was even a Christian himself. It's pretty well established that his support for christianity was more political than anything else.
This is a completely modalistic interpretation of the trinity. Modalism has been traditionally considered heresy.
What if the heretics were right?
Jesus was considered a heretic.
Uhhh...Jesus was the Word of God.
Not in the Pharisees opinion!
Comparing Mormon Teachings vs. Christian Teachings
On Scripture
Mormonism
Book of Mormon
Pearl of Great Price
Doctrine and Covenants
King James Bible
Christianity
The Bible
On God
Mormonism
Polytheistic (many gods)
One god over earth
Not eternally Divine: He was once a man who became a god
Organized the Universe
Progressed to Godhood and is still progressing
Possesses a Physical Body
Heavenly Mother Exists
Christianity
Monotheistic
Trinitarian
Eternally Divine
Spirit
He does not change
Creator of all
On Jesus Christ
Mormonism
Not eternally divine
Literal son of God
His name is Jehovah
Not virgin born by the Holy Ghost
Elohim’s First born spirit-child
Brother of Lucifer
Polygamist
His death atoned for Adam’s sin
He became a god
Christianity
Virgin born by the Holy Spirit
Eternally Divine
God incarnate
His atonement provides the only way for human salvation
On Salvation
Mormon
Immortality is provided through Christ’s atoning death not eternal salvation
Original Sin is denied
Result of grace coupled with works
Exaltation to godhood
Made possible by Jesus and Joseph Smith
No salvation outside LDS Church
Salvation for the Dead
Christian
Not earned by works
No salvation after death
By grace through faith in Christ alone
PC, did you check out Mormon and Angry's response to Dr Tom at 1 o'clock?
Re: Eph 2: 8-9
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should aboast.
Define Saved. I believe that in this passage, Saved refers to the GIFT of immortality. Mormons do believe in this GIFT. We all will be ressurrected through the GIFT of Jesus' atonement and subsequent resurrection. However, we also believe in another concept, Eternal Life, which is to return and live with God the Father as Exalted beings. This Eternal Life IS dependant on works.
James 2: 14, 17-18, 20-22, 24-26
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
• • •
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my afaith by my works.
• • •
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
• • •
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
That list is not correct. Do some research and learn what Mormons really believe. Your ministers are lying to you.
The reason Mormons have not been refuting your Bible verses is because they believe wholeheartidly in them. Grace, faith, the Godhead, the virgin birth, the divinity and eternal nature of Jesus Christ, all agree with Mormon belief. It is the non-Mormons who have been lying and lied to about what Mormons believe, and sadly, most of them believe the crap they are fed.
and this matters how?
Re: I testify to you.
You hold fast to your testimony, as do most Mormons, as do I. Where did your testimony come from? Did it come from man? or did it come from the Holy Ghost? One cannot base thier testimony solely on the Bible. The Bible should not be the basis for a testimony for the simple fact that it can be interpreted SO many ways. That is the exact reason we have so many different "Christian" religions.
"My testimony must be subjected to a higher authority: the Bible.", you say.
I say, "My testimony must be subjected to a higher authority: Heavenly Father Himself (via the promptings of the Holy Ghost)."
That sometimes, people considered heretics are right.
Would you agree with me if I said you're a heretic?
Wizard of ID,
I did read Mormon and Angry's absurd response to you.
B,
Which part of the list is not correct?
Would you say these statements are true of Mormon teachings:
“We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil so that you may see.” (Founder of the LDS Church Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345-347)
“I might with boldness proclaim that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all.” (Founder of the LDS Church Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, 6:7)
“God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! This is the great secret.” (Founder of the LDS Church Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345)
“As man is now God once was; as God now is man may become.” (Lorenzo Snow, 5th President of the LDS Church, The Gospel Through the Ages, 105-106)
“The fact that there is no reference to a Mother in Heaven either in the Bible, Book of Mormon, or Doctrine and Covenants, is not sufficient proof that no such thing as a Mother did exist there.” (President Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 3:142)
“When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Arch-Angel, the Ancient of Days! About whom holy men have written and spoken – He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 1:50-51)
“The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion, was evidently based on polygamy. A belief in the doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they were ‘Mormons.’” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, p. 345-346)
“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son has also; but the Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit.” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22)
A Brief Detour: James 2:20 and Paul's Teaching on Righteousness
It might be best right here, Steve, to address what seems to be one of the "favorite" passages of Mormon people who attempt to defend the idea that justification is not by faith alone, but by faith and works, that being James 2:17-24. I think it fits well here simply because both Paul and James refer to the same person as their example (Abraham) even to the point of quoting the same passage from the Old Testament (Genesis 15:6). Some have said that James and Paul simply disagreed on this issue and that their teachings are contradictory. But I think that is little more than a cop-out. A close examination of James' words reveals another story. Here is what he said,
I've often commented that if the most "memorized" verse among conservative Christians is John 3:16, then the most "memorized" verse among Latter-day Saints is James 2:20, so often have I heard it quoted by missionaries and others. But does the verse teach that God's grace is insufficient without man's works to bring about full and complete justification? What is James talking about here?
As always, let's examine the context. First, James is not discussing how one is made righteous before God, how one finds forgiveness of sins. The whole book is not written to unbelievers, nor is it its purpose to discuss how unbelievers are made believers. Instead, James' book is primarily moral and ethical in nature. It is an exhortation to Christian living, directed solely to people who already name the name of Christ. We read in 1:18-21,
James is talking to Christians (1:19) and calling them to a holy life. But in the process he "lets it slip" that he, just like Paul, believes that salvation is the work of God. It is God who "begot us with the word of truth" and it is the word of God that "is able to save your souls."
This is exactly what Paul said in 1 Thessalonians 2:13,
Part and parcel of this recognition of God's work of salvation is the idea that when God saves someone, they will be changed and will live a life that will demonstrate that they are truly Christians. This, too, is exactly what Paul taught as well. The famous passage in the second chapter of Ephesians that you have probably heard more than once in this debate is often not quoted completely -- you may have read Ephesians 2:8-9, but how often did you hear verse 10 quoted along with it?
We are saved by grace through faith. This salvation, and this faith, is not of ourselves, but is the free and undeserved gift of God. Our salvation is not of works, for if it were, then we would have something about which to boast. But Paul doesn't stop there. God saves us, but does He leave us just as we were? Does not God have a plan and purpose for our life? Indeed He does, for Paul goes on to assert that we are the creation or workmanship of God, created in Christ Jesus unto (not by) good works. God has before ordained that we should walk in good works, bringing glory to God. That is His purpose for us. Those good works do not bring about our salvation, they flow from our salvation. The salvation comes first -- first we are justified. Then we do the good works, for only those who are right with God can even do good works! And this is exactly what James will be arguing for in his book as well.
So we see that James is addressing Christians and exhorting them to good works just as Paul did. Note Paul's words to Titus:
This is a common theme in all of Paul's letters. Never will you see the Bible saying "well, since God saved you, you can just go and have a good time." That kind of thinking is utterly foreign to the Christian, and is directly contradictory to the Word of God. In fact, many LDS people have made that very accusation against the gospel of grace, and I have often replied, "Do you know you just quoted a passage from the Bible?" They are normally taken aback by this, so I go on to quote the passage to them:
A person who has died with Christ Jesus (Galatians 2:20) is a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17). We have died to sin, and therefore cannot continue to live under its dominion. The desire of our heart is not to bring grief to God's heart, but to bring glory to His name. So we see that Paul and James are teaching the exact same thing. No contradiction here.
Next, we see that James does not believe that the law can bring a man into salvationin fact, he is again in complete agreement with Paul. He writes,
James asserts that it is not enough to simply keep most of the law, or to do "all you can" (2 Nephi 25:23). He says that nothing but perfection would do and, since none of us keep the law perfectly, obviously that is not the way of justification, just as Paul taught (Romans 3:20).
And so we come to the second half of chapter 2, and the discussion by James of the relationship of faith and works. In verse 14 he tells us what kind of "faith" he is discussing:
Now please note that the faith James is talking about is a faith that does not produce works. It is a faith that produces no fruit, shows no changed life. Is this the faith that Paul talks about in Romans, a faith that is in Christ Jesus and is the supernatural gift of God? Certainly not! So we see that James is talking about a "head faith," a faith that is nothing more than an intellectual acknowledgment of certain facts, not a true heart-changing, saving faith that is the work of the Spirit of God. Since Paul asserts that justification is based solely on true, saving faith, and himself denies that this kind of faith can exist without the resultant change in a person's life, then James' whole discussion here is directed not against Paul's teaching but against a completely different kind of belief -- a belief that is still around to this day. James will attack the idea that a person can at one point in time simply acknowledge that Jesus is Lord and then go on to live a life of sin and debauchery, even to the point of denying the Lord (yes, believe it or not, some people actually teach that!), and yet still be saved! James denies that this is saving faith and Paul denies this as well! But the important thing to grasp is that James is discussing a totally different concept than that we have seen in Paul. Let's go on and see how this is borne out by the text.
In verse 17 James asserts that a faith that does not result in works is "dead, being alone." Dead faith cannot save anyone. Mere intellectual assent to certain facts is not saving faith, and is surely not the work of the Spirit of God. He goes on to show the foolishness of this kind of "head faith" in verse 18, and in doing so gives us another vitally important aspect of his discussion in this chapter. James speaks of "showing" our faith, proving our faith before men. How can one show one's faith to other men? You certainly can't do it without works. Faith is a matter of the heart, so it cannot be seen by men other than in the effects it has upon the manner of life of the person. Why is this so important? Because when James will talk about Abraham being "justified" by his works, he does so in the context of demonstrating his faith before other men, not before God! The "justification" of which James speaks, then, is in a completely different context than Paul's discussion in Romans or Galatians. Paul says that no man shall be justified in the sight of God by works; James says that the only way a man can be justified in the sight of men is by works! Again, we see that the topics under discussion differ from Paul and James, and that in reality they are in perfect harmony with one another.
And so James asserts that while the demons "believe" and tremble, this does them no good, for the "faith" that is theirs is hardly the faith that is the work of the Spirit, but is just a simple recognition of the fact of God's existence. This kind of faith is of no use to them. As a result, faith without works is dead, and to that I say a hearty "amen" and say, "Paul taught the same thing in Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and all his other letters." But we need to recognize that James is not saying that true, saving faith, which always results in good works and is never "alone," is insufficient to save. Sadly, that is what most LDS try to say James is teaching, but he is not.
James then gives us an example: Abraham. He asks if Abraham was not justified by works when he offered Isaac upon the altar. Well, was he? We must remember, Steve, that the readers of James' letter would know the Old Testament story of Abraham by heart. How would they have understood his words? We know that Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness" in Genesis 15:6. This was at least twenty years before the offering of Isaac of which James speaks (Genesis 22:1-l4). So James knew, as did his readers, that Abraham's faith had brought him righteousness before this act of obedience on his part two decades later. But as we have already seen, James is not talking about how one becomes righteous in God's sight, but how one demonstrates one's faith. So Abraham's act of obedience did not initially make him righteous but instead showed the reality of his faith in God. His works "perfected" his faith, showed his faith, and most importantly, sprung from his faith. In each instance faith is prior to, and foundational to, the works. James is saying what Paul said in different words in Romans chapter 12 and in Ephesians 2:10. When he says that a man is "justified" by works and not by faith only, the preceding discussion prohibits us from taking this to be a denial of Paul's doctrine of justification by faith alone. Rather, he is speaking of a different sense of justification (before men, not before God) and is still keeping before us the truth that real, saving faith will not be without works.
James' next example bears this out (James 2:25), for when he speaks of Rahab being "justified" by her works, we know that the reason Rahab did what she did was because of her faith. She told the spies in Joshua 2:9-11 that she knew of the true God Jehovah, and in fact said, "for the Lord your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath." Since she really believed that, she acted on her faith and hid the servants of Jehovah. Her actions showed the reality of her faith.
So we see that James and Paul are not contradicting each other. When the context of James and his whole teaching is taken into consideration, we see that he is emphasizing the importance of the demonstration of our faith by our works. He is not teaching us that our works bring about our justification before God, nor does he deny the fact that faith is foundational to, and gives rise to, real works of righteousness. So we see that Paul's doctrine of justification is not contradicted by James.
---Mormons should understand verses before they believe in them.
You have no other evidence for this other than your "feeling" that the Holy Ghost testifies this to you.
If we all rely on our feelings then I could just say I feel like the Holy ghost testifies that my dog is Jesus Christ.
I rely on the Word of God. You rely on your feeling that the Holy Ghost testifies to you. I'd rather rely on the Bible than just a feeling.
"Leroy Morte, Like I posted on the other side, I have not been arguing about the "rightness" of Christianity or the "wrongness" of Mormonism. I have been discussing the meaning of Christianity and Mormonism, and fighting against the destruction of meaning.
All the same, I think your implication that these things don't matter is very misguided.
Posted by: Anon | July 5, 2007 3:57 AM"
Misguided in what way? Because I think our leaders should be chosen for their intelligence and not their belief in a deity? Misguided because I don't take you or anyone else on this threads word for the existence of, interpretation of, or validity of a deity? The "Rightness of Christianity" or the "Wrongness of Mormonism" is really moot in my opinion. It's like 2 children trying to convince me their imaginary friend is "Cooler" than the others. It still doesn't prove either one is anything other than a figment of their imagination. And endlessly arguing over it doesn't get anyone anwhere. People have been arguing, killing, ostracizing each other, depriving each other of liberty and property, and innumerabe other things in the name of gods and religion for all of recorded history. Exactly what has it produced other than more arguments? Is it really all that misguided of me to think that maybe religion in general hasn't worked so well, and maybe we need something else? Maybe all of the energy used on these arguments should be put toward making the world a better place, instead of worrying about whose imaginary friend is bigger.
4.01 Who exactly do you think cares enough about your opinion to read all that????
I say, "My testimony must be subjected to a higher authority: Heavenly Father Himself (via the promptings of the Holy Ghost)."
You have no other evidence for this other than your "feeling" that the Holy Ghost testifies this to you.
If we all rely on our feelings then I could just say I feel like the Holy ghost testifies that my dog is Jesus Christ.
I rely on the Word of God. You rely on your feeling that the Holy Ghost testifies to you. I'd rather rely on the Bible than just a feeling.
I think that is a common misconception. Personal revelation from the Holy Ghost is more than a feeling. It is very hard to describe if you have not felt it.
Also, we rely on the "fruits" of those revelations to know thier truths as well.
How do you know the Word of God (the Bible) to be true? Did you know live in those times? Did you know Jesus Christ? I think not. You MUST rely on faith.
Therefore, if you must rely on faith, what is faith? By definition it is not seen. Faith is believing in things which are not seen, which are true.
How does your faith manifiest itself if not by the power of the Holy Ghost. "by the power of the Holy Ghost you shall KNOW the truth of all things"
Leroy Morte,
More people have killed in the name of atheism than in the name of religion. i.e. Communist Russia, Communist China, Communist Korea, Communist Vietnam, etc... So, should we deduce from that that atheism is worse than theism or just that killing is wrong no matter your theology?
Sorry about 4:25, I put quote tags around the quoted stuff.. but apparently it was wrong.
Hey B...those comments are correct. Tell me how they are wrong?
PC @ 3.52: "I did read Mormon and Angry's absurd response to you."
Sorry if it wasn't to your taste. But you see, we have a sense of humor. I'll try not to let it show so much.
Stuart, those comments are wrong because you have taken individual quotes out of context. For example, the King Follette discource has often been used to show that God was not God, but in that very same speech, Joseph Smith equates the eternities with a ring and that a ring has no beginning and no end, but if you cut a ring, then it has a beginning and an end, but you cannot have it both ways. In other words, because God has no end, He also has no beginning. You choose to cut-and-paste from an anti-Mormon source without understanding the context or meaning behind Smith's words. That is why what was posted is false. Same with the virgin birth (which Mormons believe), same with Grace of Christ, same with all of these points you are trying to used to persuade people from learning.
Dr Mohler does not cite any evidence that Mormons are not Christian. He's a lot of hot air.
I think Bill Kirpatrick said it best: This great nation was founded by Christians evading persecution by other Christians. People like Dr Mohler -- a Southern Baptist, a denomination that did not exist until the 1750s -- are more than happy to now denounce Mormons as "not Christian" based on glittering generalities.
Mormons tout Jesus all over the place. I'm no theologian, but I'd say that makes them Christian. Just like the Southern Baptists and all the other Protestants and Eastern Orthodoxers (ie non-Catholic Christians) out there.
Other other hand, many who claim to be Christian by virtue of their faith are no such thing in practice: Those who spread division & intolerance; those who hoard wealth; those who scorn the poor, the sick and the weak; those who pray publicly; those of you support needless war & torture; these people disregard the words and acts of Jesus Christ, and are therefore, in fact, un-Christian.
May these people look into their own hearts, feel shame, and repent.
I know you are just yanking chains, but this is an opportunity for understanding.
Bizarre? You should look at what those Christians get up to! You know they actually practice cannibalism? Every Sunday, they go through this ritual where they eat human flesh and drink human blood!
Well, I grant you that the Eucharist is a jolting thing. It is so jolting that when Jesus Christ taught that it was necessary (John 6), many of his disciples left him. Yes, it is a profoundly bewildering thing, but the Apostles accepted the teaching, and through the Eucharist, it is also a profoundly Holy and Glorious thing! I credit the Eucharist for the vast majority of the depth of my Spiritual life and my love for God.
But, it isn't cannibalism. Yes, we believe its substance is the real flesh, blood, soul, and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but it is in the form of bread and wine. Cannibalism is an act related to eating human flesh in the form of meat.
Also, you should probably know that it is mostly just the Orthodox Church and a very few Protestant churches who believes it is the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. To most of the Protestants it is only symbolic.
And by "the Orthodox Church," I mean all of Orthodoxy, including Catholicism.
Anon, reading your other posts, I actually believe you.
I'm glad. I'm working very hard to be understood. I'm sure I can be an unreasonable jerk, but I'm trying very hard to avoid that, as well.
I apologize if I didn't take you seriously at first and painted you along with the other lunatics.
No worries. They probably are sincere and don't mean you any harm, but it has to be annoying as blazes when the topic is one of meaning, but they keep interjecting: "By the way, you are going to hell." And I don't think they realize the affront to God when they say this, but that doesn't change the fact that they are trodding on forbidden (and excessively uncharitable) ground. Still--I think they deserve pity more than anything. (Actually, I think we all deserve a little pity.)
I promise to be more respectful (to you, at least) from now on. :)
Don't raise the bar too high. We may want to brawl about something else at another time. ;)
However, a cult defined within the context of Christianity is any religious organization that...
I really don't think this "cult" stuff is productive, Jessica. "Cult" has many sinister meanings these days, and it is unfair to pin all those connotations on Mormonism. Even if we were in a venue where it wouldn't be so inflammatory, I would insist on very solid rigor in understanding the technical term as it was being used. I don't think you've done that. Either way, it's not charitable to make issue of it, when it does not help us with the topic at hand.
Besides that--after looking at your criteria, I realized there were several ways I could interpret and apply them. One way that I noticed would make *all* Christian denominations cults. (And, by the way, in some contexts, "cult" actually is a positive word.)
It is releigion by comittee. It is the purest example of religion dictated by MEN, not by Heavenly Father, or Jesus Christ.
No. The creeds were articulations of the doctrines contained in the Deposit of the Faith given directly to the Apostles and the Church by Jesus Christ. The Bishops of the Councils, with the protection of the Holy Spirit--the Paraclete that was promised to them by Jesus Himself, and witnessed at Pentacost in the miraculous signs of flame and language, worked through the language and monitored each other to make sure it was accurate and faithful to the doctrine that had been known since it was handed to the Apostles. That is not dictation. That is preservation.
Have you even READ the bible? How can you believe the concept of the TRINITY, when, during the baptism of Jesus, you hear a voice from the heavens "This is my Son, in whom I am well pleased".
That is part of the great mystery of the Trinity. Jesus handed us these truths, and as fantastic as they seem, we believe them because we love Jesus and we trust Him.
Was Jesus a ventrilloquist? Or was there actually another separate, devine being?
This is a materialist argument. I expect materialist arguments from atheists. What is *real* goes far beyond the physical world.
When Jesus prayed, WHO DID HE PRAY TO? Himself? No, he prayed to His Father In Heaven. "Our Father in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name..."
Yes. You are still just articulating more of the mystery. They are One God in Three Persons. Christ prayed to the Father while being One God with Him. He was also probably trying to teach us things, like how to be unified to Him and to the Father.
You say that only those who follow the Nicean creed are Christian. I say, Only those who follow Christ are Christians.
Well…for the billionth time, you cannot "say" what Christians are. Christianity has a distinct nature with essential attributes. If you reject the essential attributes, you reject Christianity. If you still insist that you are Christian, you do violence to meaning and ultimately do harm to Mormonism.
I'd rather follow a religion given by God, rather than a creed given by Emperor Constantine, a converted Roman, by comittee.
Guys--please do your homework. The doctrines in the Creed are well known and understood by the Early Church Fathers who go back to the time of the Apostles. Constantine did not give them anything. They already had it. I strenuously encourage you to study the early Church Fathers. It will change your perspective of the history of Christianity immensely. And there's lots to read! Many of these are men who worked directly with the Apostles.
---Mormons should understand verses before they believe in them.
You mean understand *your* interpretation of them? By what authority? If they find another reasonable way to interpret the words, why should they find yours valid? What authority makes your interpretation trump theirs?
*Meaning* always precedes text. I have been fighting for the cause of meaning, and the fact that Christianity has meaning inasmuch it has a common and essential attribute of the Doctrine of the Trinity. But a reasonable man can interpret Scripture without the previous knowledge of the Trinity, and they can reasonably interpret it in a way that excludes the Trinity. *Your* interpretations include the Trinity because the doctrine is solidly embedded in Christian Holy Tradition. Without having the benefit of that foreknowledge, there is no telling what your interpretation would have been.
Jesus provided that authority with the Majesterium of the Catholic Church and Holy Tradition. But the Catholic focus is meaning, and we can use Scripture to teach that meaning, but the words alone are not proof of anything. And if Mormons don't recognize Catholic authority, it makes no sense to push off Catholic interpretation onto them.
Mormons bring a different set of assumptions to the table. You cannot refute them by text alone.
Oh! And while we're at it, how about James 2:24-26*:
"Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving messengers, and sending them out another way? For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead."
*This is the only place in Scripture where you find the words "faith alone" ("faith only" in this translation) and as you can read, it *refutes* the idea of faith alone.
And it's questionable whether Constantine was even a Christian himself. It's pretty well established that his support for christianity was more political than anything else.
I don't think that is true, and I don't think it is fair to Constantine. Constantine struggled deeply with reconciling his actions with Christianity. He was so unsure of it, that he didn't want to profane Christianity by being Baptised while he was warring so much. For this reason, he had a priest with him always, so that if he were to reach the threshold of death, the priest could Baptise him a Christian before he died.
Whatever else you say about it--these are not the actions of a man who isn't *very* serious about Christianity.
Misguided in what way? Because I think our leaders should be chosen for their intelligence and not their belief in a deity?
I think it is incomplete and oversimplified. But that's a long discussion, so I'd rather let it go.
And endlessly arguing over it doesn't get anyone anwhere.
That may be true in a practical sense sometimes. But in a strict sense, you can only say that if you think *meaning* is irrelevant. Is that what you think? If meaning is irrelevant, then any level of intelligence is …well…meaningless.
People have been arguing, killing, ostracizing each other, depriving each other of liberty and property, and innumerabe other things in the name of gods and religion for all of recorded history.
That is an excessively simple-minded and incomplete way of looking at it. Religion is rarely the only reason or even the main reason for violence. And as another poster above mentioned, atheist entities (and I would add secular humanism) are responsible for far more death than religion. Stalin alone settles that bet.
Exactly what has it produced other than more arguments?
Several things, actually. It irons things out and provides some clarity to some people some of the time. That is, in fact, productive, even if you choose to brush them off simply because some other people are still battling it out.
It has also produced respect among men. "Angry and Mormon" and I have found a mutual respect for each other in the heat of our battles. That's a good thing.
Developing ways of thinking is another thing that we accomplish.
Discrediting and discarding error is another thing that we accomplish--even if some hard cases still cling to them.
There are many things that we accomplish as men with minds. But I have to ask: If you think we accomplish nothing with these arguments--why on earth are you joining it? Your participation comes across as exceptionally self-contradictory and confused to me.
Is it really all that misguided of me to think that maybe religion in general hasn't worked so well, and maybe we need something else?
You are ignoring all the good that religion has done for the world. The charity it has brought. The evil it has stopped. (Sometimes violence is necessary in the face of evil.) The education it has encouraged. A good study of religion will show that the world is a far better place because of it. But, if it satisfies you to only sift through the excrement and blood for a one-sided judgment, suit yourself.
Maybe all of the energy used on these arguments should be put toward making the world a better place, instead of worrying about whose imaginary friend is bigger.
I guess if you believe that the propagation of error is a healthy thing, this may be a foolish game. And there are almost certainly better things to do. But that still makes me ask: Why are *you* here?
"Leroy Morte,
More people have killed in the name of atheism than in the name of religion. i.e. Communist Russia, Communist China, Communist Korea, Communist Vietnam, etc... So, should we deduce from that that atheism is worse than theism or just that killing is wrong no matter your theology?"
Do you really think the cult of personality that developed around the charismatic leaders of those communist nations isn't akin to a religious movement with a deified prophet, scriptures, commandments, and beliefs? But even without that, how many millions of native americans, pagan europeans, black africans, and muslim infidels during the crusades do you think were slaughtered, deprived of their property and rights, and enslaved by christian europeans? How many have been killed by muslim jihadists over the last 1500 yrs? How many ritual human sacrifices performed by Aztec, Mayan and other native americans practicing their religion? How many people presecuted by pagan Rome? How many settlements did Jehovah command his Isrealites to slaughter to the last man, woman, child, and animal in their conquest of the Holy Land? How many Jews killed in europes pogroms, both pre 1930 and Nazi Germany? How many died in the Hundred years war in Europe, between Protestants and Catholic? How many Mormons killed on their way to Utah? How many did they kill when they got there? How many Irish and British over the Northern Ireland situation?
But even without that, how many millions of native americans, pagan europeans, black africans, and muslim infidels during the crusades do you think were slaughtered, deprived of their property and rights, and enslaved by christian europeans?
Okay, I have to laugh, because your ignorance is spread out in front of everybody.
The Crusades have nothing to do with Native Americans, pagan Europeans, or Black Africans. The Crusades were meant to push back the Muslims who had been continuously and brutally conquering the Christian world with their ruthless swords. They suppressed the Christians they conquered in very brutal ways. The eastern Christians begged for help from the western Christians. If it weren't for the Crusades--in spite of their falure in some ways--you would probably be speaking Turkish or Arabic and enjoying the daily abuse of your woman. The Muslim world was determined to conquer and enslave the Christian world. (Islam means "Peace"--The "Peace" you get when everyone is forcibly converted to Islam or else enslaved.)
Remember Lepanto!
And--by the way--Muslims call *us* infidels.
And if you think your mental regurgitation of crap is a responsible and complete representation of history, you simply are not worth paying attention to.
And I still haven't gotten an answer to my question. If, as you insist, this exercise is futile and a waste of good time--WHY ARE YOU HERE?
Do you really think the cult of personality that developed around the charismatic leaders of those communist nations isn't akin to a religious movement with a deified prophet, scriptures, commandments, and beliefs?
And, by the way, as the rest of you can see above, this guy conveniently cries foul and informs us that things are not as simple as all that, while simultaniously expecting us to swallow his simple-minded garbage when it applies to us. One more example of his self-contradictory and confused mind.
RE: Scott in Pac NW
1. The Southern Baptist Conference was not founded until 1845 in Augusta, Ga.
2. As with every Christian denomination; the Southern Baptists have distinctives on non-essential issues which make them what they are. Yet from their very beginning they have well stood within the ranks of orthodox Christians who can trace their spiritual lineage back to the New Testament Church Christ founded. The same cannot be said of the "Latter day Saints".
3. The Southern Baptists have a long history of cooperation with Christians of varied denominational backgrounds. This is made possible by the fact that while we may disagree on non-essential issues such as Church polity; we none-the-less are in one accord concerning the essentials of "...the faith once delivered to the Saints".
Not so with the Mormons; they have a different Christ, a different gospel, and a different spirit.(2 Co 11:4) These are much more than just "glittering generalities" as you call them.
4. Over-generalizations and misconstruing of the facts as you have done have historically caused more hate, intolerance, and division than any straight-forward presentation of the Gospel. And unless one is utterly devoid of reason, you sooner or later will realize that TRUTH always divides from ERROR, and LIARS have very little tolerance for the truth.
It readily becomes apparent that you too have a different Jesus from the one who historically exists in the New Testament. The one I know was no "pacifist" concerning spiritual truth, and forever corrects any attempt to mis-characterize himself otherwise when he stated.. "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
(Mat 10:34)
We are in a war for truth Scott, and like it or not, regardless of which side you choose... you're in it.
CrossWise
Apologies for the duplicate post. It seems the beliefnet server was having problems.
I once encountered an elderly fellow in Taipei, Taiwan -- he asked this question of me (an ordained ministered of the Lord Jesus Christ):
"How can you claim that 'God so loved the world' when you deny everlasting life to those who fail to 'believeth in Him'".
He really thought it was a telling point that there seemed to be a contradiction between universal love and conditional salvation!!
God really does love all of us perfectly, and no matter when or where we may have been born, He will grant us a full and fair opportunity to earn salvation as defined by the Lord in John 3:15.
Not matter how much we do, it is ultimately grace that saves -- I thank God that He includes all.
Some may doubt God's omnipotence, thinking that grace will not cover those who (as Mormons) accept Jesus as their personal Savior, the promised Messiah, and Lord.
I'm thankful to trust that He is not so limited.
The following statement was made earlier by a critic of My Church:
"And so James asserts that while the demons "believe" and tremble, this does them no good, for the "faith" that is theirs is hardly the faith that is the work of the Spirit, but is just a simple recognition of the fact of God's existence. This kind of faith is of no use to them. As a result, faith without works is dead, and to that I say a hearty "amen" and say, "Paul taught the same thing in Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and all his other letters." But we need to recognize that James is not saying that true, saving faith, which always results in good works and is never "alone," is insufficient to save. Sadly, that is what most LDS try to say James is teaching, but he is not."
This is an absolute misstatement of LDS Doctrine. You will find nowhere, either in the Bible or in any LDS Scripture, the assertion that anyone is saved by works, exclusive of or outside Faith in Jesus Christ. The first principle of the Gospel, listed in the LDS "Articles of Faith" is "Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ".
Without Him any salvation in any form is impossible. Yet the Bible is replete with commandments given by Jesus himself, and we are specifically told how important these commandments are in the New Testament:
"I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father." (John 14:12)
"If you love me, you will obey what I command." (John 14:15) "Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him." (John 14:21) "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24 He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me. (John 14:23-24)
1"I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. (John 15:1-4)
5"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. 8 This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples. (John 15:5-8)
As a Mormon these verses summarize what I believe. If I have no Faith in Christ I am not a branch of the vine. But If I am a branch of the vine I will:
1) Love God
2) Do as Jesus Does
3) keep Jesus Commandments
4) bear much Fruit
The strength to do the works of Faith comes from God the Father, by Faith in Christ, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
Please do not tell me what I believe. I know what I believe.
So we should go with 2 verses instead of the entire book of Romans? This is what happens when you rip Bible verses out of context both within their chapters and books and within the Bible as a whole.
If a human wrote a book and something in one chapter contradicted something in a another chapter then it would be understandable. However, God is not human and he is not stupid. God can handle putting together the Bible and not making mistakes or contradicting himself all over it.
Theology is not taking 1 or 2 verses that seem to say what you want them to and then proudly proclaiming "see! i told you so!". Theology is how this verse relates to that verse, how this chapter relates to that chapter, how this book relates to that book, and how these books relate to the Bible as a whole.
The whole of the Bible supports "saved by Grace ALONE", NOT the Mormon "saved by Grace, after all we can do.
The evidence is there. Don't take it up with me. I didn't say it. Talk to God.
James is not at odds with Paul. "They are not antagonists facing each other with crossed swords; they stand back to back, confronting different foes of the gospel." [Alexander Ross, "The Epistle of James and John," The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 53.] In 1:17-18, James affirmed that salvation is a gift bestowed according to the sovereign will of God. Now he is stressing the importance of faith's fruit—the righteous behavior that genuine faith always produces. Paul, too, saw righteous works as the necessary proof of faith.
Those who imagine a discrepancy between James and Paul rarely observe that it was Paul who wrote, "Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!" (Rom. 6:15); and "Having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness" (v. 18). Thus Paul condemns the same error James is exposing here. Paul never advocated any concept of dormant faith.
When Paul writes, "by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight," (Rom. 3:20),
Achieving a Celestial Marriage
A celestial marriage, i.e., one wherein the couple is sealed in the Mormon Temple, is the key to exaltation according to another publication produced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Achieving a Celestial Marriage is another student manual, copyrighted 1992 by the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. What it says about God is especially relevant, since it does so in the context of guiding couples into the very relationship that makes exaltation to godhood possible! On pages 129-132 we encounter the plain and clear words of this official publication regarding the means by which men are exalted to the status of a God. As normal, the source begins with the idea of man's capacity for progress and exaltation, and from this, moves to the idea that God Himself went through a similar process.
The reader has surely noted the repeated emphasis, throughout the literature surveyed so far, on the absolute necessity of faithfulness to divine laws and ordinances if one is to gain exaltation. Here these concepts are said to be definitional of the gospel of Jesus Christ itself. We cannot emphasize too strongly that in Mormonism this idea of advancement to godhood is the gospel of the Mormon Church! If we fail to understand this, we risk seeing this as a mere side-issue, rather than the defining concept that it is. The necessity of obedience to such laws comes out in the next section as well:
One of the concepts that is especially troubling to the Christian reviewer of these beliefs is the idea that part and parcel of the idea of exaltation and the very power of God is the idea of procreation. It is not as if there is something wrong with human sexuality: but the projection of creaturely means of propagation onto the Creator Himself is what causes the orthodox Christian to read the following words with amazement:
When making the decision concerning the magnitude of difference between the LDS view of God, and the historic Christian view, the idea that God has a continuation of the seeds forever and ever, and that this is made a part of His deity, should be kept in mind.
This section is followed by one titled God was once a mortal man, and again, we find the LDS Church falling back, not upon her Scriptures to teach her people, but the King Follett Funeral Discourse. Subtitles include "He Lived on an Earth Like Our Own" and "He Experienced Conditions Similar to Our Own and Advanced Step by Step." This is followed by another section, "God is Now an Exalted Man with Powers of Eternal Increase," with a subtitle, "Our Father in Heaven Lives in an Exalted Marriage Relationship." Under this section Melvin J. Ballard is quoted:
The repetition of the same theme concerning the heavenly Mother should also play a large role in comparing LDS teaching to historic Christian theology. The literal parent-child relationship of God and humans is then emphasized with subtitles including "We Are Literal Children of God" and "We Lived with our Heavenly Parents Prior to Coming to Earth."
----------
[1]Doctrines of the Gospel, (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1986), pp. 7-8.
[2] The person familiar with LDS theology will find it interesting that in the intervening material there is a citation of Bruce R. McConkie's Fireside talk at BYU titled, Our Relationship with the Lord. This talk is famous, for in it McConkie counseled against seeking a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. The impossible position the LDS are placed in by their theology of God is well illustrated in McConkie's attempts to explain just who it is that Mormons worship, and how Jesus is not to be worshipped as the Father is. This leads to a direct violation of the commandment to worship Jehovah alone.
---from www.aomin.org
I also find it funny that the Mormons in this discussion are constantly screaming "don't tell me what I believe". I'm not telling you what you believe, I wouldn't do that. I'm telling you what the LDS Church believes and I'm getting that information from LDS Church official publications. If you believe something different than the LDS Church, that has nothing to do with me.
POC777, your comments at 2:34AM, you responded to things that did not get properly posted, so they don't follow with my discussion. (Not your fault.) Please see the correction I made and respond according to that.
**I will add "My response" to not confuse others.
I will, however, respond to this comment of yours:
*Not if they continue to deny what God has instructed the Christian in the Bible.
Without any authority, there are many, many possible interpretations that can be made of the Bible by reasonable men.
My response:
Every interpretation has to come directly from the Holy Spirit--if not, it is man's interpretation and not to be heeded. I don't accept man's interpretations from the Bible, but from the Holy Spirit. He is the One who interpretates the Bible and not from man's intellectual. I will choose any day, a man who is Spirit-filled and Spirit-led, than a man who is a scholor, and yet, doesn't have the Holy Spirit living in him.
Reasonable men might interpret Scripture in the way the Mormons believe. You don't realize it, but all sola scriptura Christians *rely upon* Traditional Christian knowledge for their interpretations.
My response:
Chirstians rely upon the Bible as their foundation for truth--they don't follow man. If Christians follow man--then they are in big trouble and will not get closer to God but futher. Repeatly the Bible teaches every Christian to trust in God and not man. Man is evil; God is not good! Since man is evil why should he be trusted as a reliable source for truth, if God is good and doesn't lie?
For example, the Trinitarian doctrine is *essential* to Christianity. A Christian who reads the Bible, interprets it according to the traditional knowledge they already have regarding the Trinity. But a person without that foreknowledge can reasonably interpret it to have meaning that is not inclusive of the Trinity.
My response:
Right, but every Christian must be like a Berean and search the Scriptures(the Bible) if what people teach is true. If any teaching from any religion contradicts the Bible, it is false and must be denied immediately. The doctrine of the Trinity as you said is only essential to the Christian--it is not a requirement. It is good to learn about the Trinity--to not get confused on which one is God--The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three in one God, yet function differently. A person who does not know or understand about the Trinity, might think there are three Gods and not one God or more gods.
The Deity of Jesus Christ--every Christian must know to understand the divinity of Jesus Christ, as God coming in the flesh, to this world to save mankind from their sin-debt. If a new Christian, doesn't know these doctrines and then graduates from his or her body, that Christian is going to Heaven. I will always point to the robber next to Jesus on the cross, who repented of his sins and confessed "LORD"--who did not get baptized or even learned one doctrine--he went to Heaven on that day to be with Jesus Christ.
So you can look at Christianity and see that there is this essential doctrine that the Mormons do not share, and therefore conclude that Mormonism is not compatible with Christianity. But you cannot exclude them based on the fact that you like *your* interpretation of Scripture better than *theirs*.
My response:
Almost every post in this debate, cleary shows that Mormonism is not Christian. For the reason, that the BOM is not "another testament of Jesus Christ" because there are only two testaments: Old Testament and New Testament, which come from the Bible--Mormon doctrine... opposes, denies and contradicts on what God has already said in the Bible.
Mr. Smith's first vision on 1820, was not from God.
From John Ankerberg: "The issue of Mormons revelations is finally reduced to one simple test. If Joseph Smith's revelations deny, contradict and oppose the Bible, then whatever their source, they cannot possibly have orginated in God. And if they did not originate in God, they have no divine authority and should not be heeded."
We have witnesses that Mormonism is not Christian--the evidence are so overwhelming, that no Christian or Mormon could deny.
Dr. Anthony Hoekema states Mormonism--is really anti-Christian. He declares in his book "The Four Major Cults:
"We must at this point assert, in the strongest possible terms, that Mormonism does not deserve to be called a Christian religion. It is basically anti-Christian and anti-biblical"
Gorden Fraser, the author of four books on Mormonism, explains:
"We object to Mormon missionaries posing as Christians, and our objections are based on the differences between what they are taught by the [Mormon] General Authorities and what the Bible teaches"
Dr. Walter Martin correctly asserted:
"In no uncertain terms, the Bible condemns the teachings of the Mormon Church"
Former Mormons and experts on Mormonsim Jerald and Sandra Tanner, also correctly affirm:
"The Mormon Church is certainly not built on the teachings of the Bible"
Posted by: Anon | July 5, 2007 3:07 AM
Why does every Mormon have to go through the process of a ceremonial eternal marriage, for their salavtion and to get to Heaven, if God has provided the way: He sent His begotten Son, to die for their sin-debt in full--for their salvation--to receive the free gift of eternal life--and when death comes will to go to Heaven?
My response:
Chirstians rely upon the Bible as their foundation for truth--they don't follow man. If Christians follow man--then they are in big trouble and will not get closer to God but further. Repeatly the Bible teaches every Christian to trust in God and not man. Man is evil; God is not good! Since man is evil why should he be trusted as a reliable source for truth, if God is good and doesn't lie?
*Forgive me, I did a typo I meant to write "God is good!" not the opposite.
So we should go with 2 verses instead of the entire book of Romans? This is what happens when you rip Bible verses out of context both within their chapters and books and within the Bible as a whole.
And guys like you are what happens when you reject these words and contort them to mean what you want. (More on this below.)
If a human wrote a book and something in one chapter contradicted something in another chapter then it would be understandable. However, God is not human and he is not stupid. God can handle putting together the Bible and not making mistakes or contradicting himself all over it.
I am not saying that there is any contradiction in the intended meaning of the inspired authors of the Bible. I am saying that those words contradict *your* interpretation. I was completely aware that you would find another way to interpret them. But it certainly isn't readily apparent that they should not be interpreted to contradict your view. In fact, I would go so far as to say the *most likely* interpretation of a reasonable human being would be to contradict your view.
The whole of the Bible supports "saved by Grace ALONE", NOT the Mormon "saved by Grace, after all we can do.
You are swapping words and playing with them now. The discussion was in regard to "faith alone," not "Grace ALONE." I would agree that we are saved by the grace of Jesus Christ. However, according to your doctrine, faith is a contingency to that grace. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that faith is the *only* contingency. In fact, it specifically says **faith without works is dead**. This would mean that without works, you have not fulfilled your contingency--because its *dead*. It would mean that works are also a contingency for that grace.
Now, I believe it's a bit more mysterious than that, but what is clear to me is that faith and works are two sides of the same coin that avails us to the grace that saves us.
Nowhere in the Bible does it specifically say that you will be saved by faith alone. It says in places that you are justified by faith, but it never says *alone*. There are other verses, however (and not just the one above), that support the need for works for justification. It takes a certain linguistic acrobatics to discard them.
So the only way you can say with any confidence that the Bible supports the idea of justification by "faith alone," is by bringing in previous *non-Biblical* knowledge. The reason I am confident in the Catholic interpretation is that it does in fact bring knowledge of Holy Tradition and the Deposit of Faith handed to us by Jesus Christ. So I'm good. But you (I assume) *reject* all foreknowledge that is extra-biblical. You are in a bit of a quandary, because you can do whatever acrobatics you want to support your interpretation, but in the end, it's just one man's interpretation that goes against the most straight-forward interpretation of James 2:24-26.
The evidence is there. Don't take it up with me. I didn't say it. Talk to God.
No. It's not. You have satisfied yourself with a way to interpret that tells you what you want. But that isn't reading evidence from the Bible. That is reading evidence *into* it.
James is not at odds with Paul.
I agree. He's at odds with you.
"They are not antagonists facing each other with crossed swords; they stand back to back, confronting different foes of the gospel." [Alexander Ross, "The Epistle of James and John," The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 53.] In 1:17-18, James affirmed that salvation is a gift bestowed according to the sovereign will of God. Now he is stressing the importance of faith's fruit—the righteous behavior that genuine faith always produces. Paul, too, saw righteous works as the necessary proof of faith.
Notice that they do not say "faith alone." They are teaching about the importance of faith, but it is not exclusionary. It's as if you read an essay on the importance of wheels to the bicycle, and based upon that information, you reject the need for the frame. The wheels being important and essential do not negate the critical need for the frame.
I repeat: Nowhere in the Bible does it say that you are saved by faith alone. That is an **innovation** of the Reformationists.
Those who imagine a discrepancy between James and Paul rarely observe that it was Paul who wrote, "Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!" (Rom. 6:15); and "Having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness" (v. 18). Thus Paul condemns the same error James is exposing here. Paul never advocated any concept of dormant faith.
There are dozens of reasonable interpretations of those things. (And weren't you the one complaining about people "ripping" lines out of context?) I actually interpreted that first line of Paul's as saying: "Being in grace does not rid you of the obligation not to sin."
When Paul writes, "by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight," (Rom. 3:20),
This has to do with circumcision, and relates to the Judaic law. There is a grand canyon's worth of room for interpretation here. But the easiest way to make my point is to point out that Paul says further down in Romans 3:25-26 "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins, Through the forbearance of God, for the shewing of his justice in this time; that he may be just, and the justifier of him, who is of the faith of Jesus Christ."
We know from James that faith without works is dead, so we know that the faith to which the verse refers is a faith achieved *with works*. We also *don't see* anything like "faith and nothing else" in that chapter.
Additionally, in Romans 3:31, Paul concludes the chapter by saying: "Do we, then, destroy the law through faith? God forbid: but we establish the law."
No matter how you twist the words, they are still consistent with the Orthodox understanding of faith and works. Your innovations *rely* upon the preconceptions you bring to the interpretation. And, your interpretations go against the most straight forward reading of James 2:24-26 and Romans 3:31. And *nowhere* in the Bible does it say you are saved by faith alone.
You are in a very, very wobbly situation to be telling the Mormons, "---Mormons should understand verses before they believe in them."
Paul insists that no man can ever win justification through his own efforts ... James demands that a man who already claims to stand in right relationship with God through faith must by a life of good works demonstrate that he has become a new creature in Christ.
This analysis of D. Edmond Hiebert seems to support the "faith and works" argument to me. He is saying above that works are essential.
With this Paul thoroughly agreed. Paul was rooting out 'works' that excluded and destroyed saving faith;
Right. Paul was "rooting out" specific ways of applying the law that were damaging. He said nothing about abolishing law, and as Romans 3:31 tells us, he explicitly rejects the notion.
James was stimulating a sluggish faith that minimized the results of saving faith in daily life.
So, D. Edmond Hiebert seems to support the idea that faith without works is dead. He's just emphasizing a middle area where it's simply "sluggish."
It never ceases to amaze me the way sola scriptura crowd will play with language in order to impose their extra-biblical innovations upon interpretation of Scripture.
Anon
this discussion is on Mormonism. if you want to discuss the errors of Rome...the most blatant being intetrpreting Peter as "the rock" Jesus was referring to, as well as the Roman misinterpretation of the "keys to the kingdom", both errors that completely fly in the face of the plain-meaning of scripture as well as the Koine Greek...then it would be best done on another board.
Every interpretation has to come directly from the Holy Spirit--if not, it is man's interpretation and not to be heeded. I don't accept man's interpretations from the Bible, but from the Holy Spirit. He is the One who interpretates the Bible and not from man's intellectual. I will choose any day, a man who is Spirit-filled and Spirit-led, than a man who is a scholor, and yet, doesn't have the Holy Spirit living in him.
Oof. You have several problems here. First off, you seem to think that you can command the Holy Spirit to guarantee the correctness of you own personal interpretation of Scripture. That's just downright scary, and I fear for your soul. Truly. You cannot command the Holy Spirit, my friend.
Second, there are thousands of Christian denominations who have split off from each other because they have called upon the Holy Spirit to interpret their Bible, and they have each come up with mutually exclusive and incompatible doctrines. If the Holy Spirit guaranteed their interpretation as you seem to think, these denominations would not be in disagreement. And the Holy Spirit certainly would not deceive them.
Third--Who are you to say who is filled with the Holy Spirit, and who is not? Who is to say that the Holy Spirit does not also work through Mormons in spite of their error about Him?
The sola scriptura crowd cites the Holy Spirit using Him as their own personal trump card for their interpretation. They place themselves as individual Masters of God, and claim their own personal authority based upon it. May God have mercy on them.
I wrote: Reasonable men might interpret Scripture in the way the Mormons believe. You don't realize it, but all sola scriptura Christians *rely upon* Traditional Christian knowledge for their interpretations.
POC777 responded:
Chirstians rely upon the Bible as their foundation for truth--they don't follow man. If Christians follow man--then they are in big trouble and will not get closer to God but futher.
Then I guess we should have ignored the Apostles.
Jesus Christ appointed men as his Church and authority on earth. He said very dramatic words to these men: Whatever they hold bound will be held bound in heaven! He gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom! I don't follow the Church just because--I follow his Church because he **commanded it**. If Christ appoints men as his Church, I follow--and I will not be turned away from Christ's Church simply because you do not like the fact that it consists of men. Especially since you offer me an alternative that is obviously bogus, and requires that I have the arrogance to command the Holy Spirit.
Repeatly the Bible teaches every Christian to trust in God and not man. Man is evil; God is not good! Since man is evil why should he be trusted as a reliable source for truth, if God is good and doesn't lie?
You are reading your own wild interpretation into the Bible. The Bible shows that the Apostles started Churches everywhere and that these *men* were to continue that Church and be faithful to it.
Nowhere does it say that the Church should be ignored, and nowhere does it deny Church authority. The bigger picture of Scripture belies your personal rejection of Christ's Church.
Right, but every Christian must be like a Berean and search the Scriptures(the Bible) if what people teach is true. If any teaching from any religion contradicts the Bible, it is false and must be denied immediately.
False according to whose interpretation? By what authority?
The doctrine of the Trinity as you said is only essential to the Christian--it is not a requirement.
You are confused. If it is essential, that means it is required.
The Deity of Jesus Christ--every Christian must know to understand the divinity of Jesus Christ, as God coming in the flesh, to this world to save mankind from their sin-debt. If a new Christian, doesn't know these doctrines and then graduates from his or her body, that Christian is going to Heaven.
This really has nothing to do with the problems you have with interpretation. And it is not your place to say who goes to heaven, and who doesn't. That is God's decision. Once more, you are taking your own personal interpretation of Scripture and commanding God to follow your interpretation. And by doing so, you are making judgments that are *forbidden* to us. By what authority? By what authority is your interpretation worth anything?
I will always point to the robber next to Jesus on the cross, who repented of his sins and confessed "LORD"--who did not get baptized or even learned one doctrine--he went to Heaven on that day to be with Jesus Christ.
We have hope for all men. That is why I have rebuked a few for condemning Mormons. But this has nothing to do with the problems you have with interpretation.
I wrote: So you can look at Christianity and see that there is this essential doctrine that the Mormons do not share, and therefore conclude that Mormonism is not compatible with Christianity. But you cannot exclude them based on the fact that you like *your* interpretation of Scripture better than *theirs*.
POC777 responds:
Almost every post in this debate, cleary shows that Mormonism is not Christian. For the reason, that the BOM is not "another testament of Jesus Christ" because there are only two testaments: Old Testament and New Testament, which come from the Bible--Mormon doctrine... opposes, denies and contradicts on what God has already said in the Bible.
By what authority do you say that the BOM is not another testament of Jesus Christ? You reject the authority of Christian Orthodoxy, so you have nothing. Nothing in your Bible unequivocally and unmistakably rejects the possibility of another testament.
I reject their book. But it is impossible to reject the book on the basis of text alone.
since you brought it up...
Robert Sungenis and evpi. tau,th|
by James White
The book, Jesus, Peter & the Keys, attempts to provide responses to some of the arguments that have been put forward against the unique, and sometimes very strained, exegetical claims of Rome. In particular, this book often cites Robert Sungenis, a Westminster Seminary graduate, as their primary source of Greek scholar. While we are unaware of any advanced study in the field on the part of Mr. Sungenis beyond a Master’s degree, and have never been informed that he has professional teaching experience, published scholarly works, etc., his opinions on the grammar of the Greek text are presented as the "final word" by Jesus, Peter & the Keys (see our summary review elsewhere on this page)
On page 25 of JP&K, Sungenis is cited in response to an argument that I have presented a number of times. In fact, Sungenis’ comments on pages 24 and 25 are taken directly from those he made in our debate at Boston College in 1995. Beginning on page 24, Sungenis attempts to strengthen the Roman Catholic identification of Peter as the rock of Matthew 16:18 by discussing, briefly, the demonstrative pronoun tau,th|, which is the dative feminine singular form of ou=toj, meaning "this." He points out that at times this term can be translated "this very" as in "this very night your soul is required of you" (Luke 12:20). While this is quite true, it is also quite irrelevant, for even the translation "and upon this very rock I will build My church" does not shed any light whatsoever upon the identity of the "rock." In fact, I believe such a translation would argue against the position Sungenis takes, for there would be no reason to use a demonstrative pronoun with such emphasis immediately upon saying su. ei= Pe,troj (You are Peter) if Jesus was identifying Peter and the "rock." The more tau,th| is emphasized, the less likely the antecedent is Peter. That is, the stronger tau,th| is translated, the stronger the disjunction between Peter and this rock.
The main argument I have presented in the past, and to which Sungenis and Scott Butler are attempting to respond in JP&K, is this: when one reads the text as it stands (i.e., when one does not immediately abandon the Greek and run to a mythical, unverifiable "Aramaic original"), one is struck with how strange it is that Jesus takes the "long way around" to get to making the equation "Peter = rock" if in fact that is His intention. It would have been much simpler to say, "You are Peter, and on you I will build My church." But He didn’t say that. Instead, here are His words:
The Bible says that we are saved by grace through faith and not of works:
"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9
What then is the role of works? Fruit of our salvation:
"For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." Ephesians 2:10
The *we* in "we are His workmanship" are those who have been "created in Christ Jesus*. These new creations were created for: good works.
If someone claims to be a "new creation" and yet produces no good works then that person's profession of faith is "dead". Why? Because "new creations" always produce works, some thirty-fold, some sixty-fold, and some hundred-fold. Thus "faith without works" is truly dead. It is counterfeit. True saving faith (the type of faith that those who are *created in Christ Jesus* possess) always produces works. How do we know if someone's faith is dead or whether it is salvific? Our Lord gives us the answer, "You will know them by their fruits".
Mr. 12:40. If you would actually read the progression of the posts, you would see that the facts presented have everything to do with Mormonism. I use them to compare authority with the lack of authority that is being used to discredit Mormonism through scripture alone. They are also being used to ridicule those who ridiculed Mormons for interpreting scripture.
I'm all for a fair comparison of Truth and a discussion that supports one religion over another. But I am not for an *unfair* one. I have the same problem with these guys as I do with some of the Mormons. They believe they can impose meaning on things by sheer will, and they wreak distruction on meaning by doing so. They hurt both Mormonism and Christianity by doing so--probably Christianity more so.
But thanks for looking out for me.
Mr. 12:56, I haven't even read your post because you aren't having a discussion, you are being lazy and regurgitating a bunch of text of some dude I really don't care about.
All I have to do to refute whatever it is you are saying with your personal interpretation of the Keys of the Kingdom and other such things is: By what authority do you say my interpretation is wrong? By what authority do you say that your interpretation is right?
Clearly *you* have a problem with providing your interpretation any kind of credibility. No matter how many scholars you cite, these are just men who brought their preconceived notions to the table and made thier interpretations accordingly. But by what authority? Do you command the Holy Spirit?
Obviously, the Catholic interpretation of those Scriptures are *solid*. They are reasonable, and they are harmonious with all of the rest of Scripture. You cannot refute that simply because you don't like it.
I may or may not read the rest of it when I have time.
"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9
AC, there is still a Grand Canyons worth of room for interpretation here.
The funny thing is that we can all come up with lines in Scripture that seem to contradict. And we all are *forced* to realize that there must be some different meaning for them not to contradict. But then *you* AC bring your own preconceived notions to the table to reconcile those apparent contradictions. You read into the Bible, not out of it.
So, when I see the above quote, I ask myself: "What does it mean in the context of what has already been said?" Since we know faith without works is dead, we know that the "faith" mentioned in the quote includes works, and we also know that something mysterious is meant by "works" here. Especially when you consider that an act of faith is a *work*.
Consider the fact that it says it (which is clearly grace) is the gift of God, not works. Well--how do you know that this isn't talking about the works of faith? In other words, the complete verse is intended to say something like: "You are saved by grace *through* faith, but not because of it, because grace, ultimately, is a gift from God."
Perfectly reasonable.
We can play this game all day--and that is the nature of my main argument. WE CANNOT RESOLVE THIS BY CITING TEXT ALONE. No matter what I say, you will have a counter interpretation. No matter what you say, I will have a counter interpretation. And all of these interpretations might be perfectly reasonable. But it gets us nowhere, because there is no authority whatsoever behind your intepretations. I have no reason at all to choose your pet ideas--innovations of the Reformation--over the teachings of the Church Christ ordained.
I am not going to play this text exchange game. It is endless and it does violence to *meaning*.
Whether a person is a Christian, boils down to a few key questions.
1) Do they accept the god that is revealed in the Bible, that is a one god in three persons? This doctrine, though never stated outright in the Bible, as many surely will have claimed, is still very clear. In the Old Testament, God is revealed as being "one" and that there was no other before or after Him. In the New Testament, there are three distinct persons identified as God: The Father, The Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit. This would sound like there are three distinct gods, except that they are constantly identified as being one (see John 1). Thus we come to the doctrine of a Triune God. Therefore, if a person denies this, they are by definition not a Christian because they reject the God of the very Christ they claim to serve.
2) Do they accept that Jesus was God? Many say that Jesus never claimed that He was God, and to them I would say that they need to read the Bible more closely. Jesus did claim to be God, and quite often. Just one example of this would be where Jesus said "I and the Father are one." Another would be where He said, "before Abraham was, I am." This isn't just some slip of the tongue, Jesus was ascribing to himself the covenant name of God and at the same time also eternality. So, if you reject that Jesus was God, that leaves him to be either a madman or a fool. And neither of these, I believe, would be worth following.
3) Are they saved? Now, I know that there is all kinds of controversy over what this means, but I believe if you take the Bible at face value it is very clear. We are all sinners (Romans 3:23), one way or another and stand at enmity with God. Jesus, who was God, came to earth in the form of a man and lived a perfect life then died on the cross. This was to pay the price for our sin, which is death (Romans 6:23), so that we wouldn't have to to. He was then resurrected from the dead and ascended to the right hand of the Father (Mark 16:19). So, what does it take to be saved? First we have to confess with our mouths that Jesus is Lord, this means we have to acknowledge that He is God (the Greek word "kurios," which is translated lord, carries with it the connotation of deity)and the sovereign of our lives. Secondly we have to believe in our hearts that God raised him from the dead. Now how is all this accomplished, by the Grace of God working through our faith and apart from our good deeds. If we place our trust in Christs atoning sacrifice on the cross, then we are saved.
In conclusion, if any one rejects any of these three, they are definitionally not a Christian. And as far as I know, the Mormon church rejects all three. So, while the Mormon church and the three major branches of Christianity may agree on many things, Mormonism is not just another Christian denomination, it is a heretical off-shoot of Christianity.
This is a convenient way of avoiding interacting with facts contradict your view. It matters not whether I cite an article or whether you regurgitate what a priest taught you. You can choose to interact with the evidence or you can hide from it by using excuses like this.
Umm...how about the rules and uses of the Koine Greek language that the New Testament was written in. Or are those just "my interpratation" as well?
see above response. i'm providing scholarly sources based up universal facts (like grammar, or publications of the LDS Church), you, however, have provided no such support other than your own opinions. i never mentioned the Holy Spirit at all so I'm not sure where you're grasping that from.
and the fingers go into the ears and "lalalalalala". I just provided an article that clearly refutes the Roman interpretation based on grammar. You cannot refute that simply because you don't like it.
As a Christian (who is not a Mormon), I am primarily concerned with the truth claims of the LDS that are historically, archaeologically, and geographically incompatible with the facts.
I would encourage anyone interested in in learning about the differences between historical Christianity and the claims of the LDS to investigate the facts for themselves.
Here is a good place to start: http://www.lhvm.org/vid_bible_med.htm
This is a convenient way of avoiding interacting with facts contradict your view. It matters not whether I cite an article or whether you regurgitate what a priest taught you. You can choose to interact with the evidence or you can hide from it by using excuses like this.
Oh, please. Get over yourself. First of all, look at the thousands of words in this discussion that I have read and written.
Second, I can dump thousands more words in front of you and claim "you just aren't willing to face the evidence" if you don't read them. I have read many, many books on religion, and I have no reason to believe that what you have dumped here isn't just more of the same tired out old arguments along with the claim that you somehow command the Holy Spirit. If you want to have a discussion--select the actual arguments that you think refutes my position instead of being lazy and dumping that whole thing as if it made the argument for you. (Unless you simply don't want to be taken seriously.)
Third, I have presented you with an objection. If--somewhere in that mass of text--there is something that deals with that objection (I truly doubt there is) please indicate it so that we can scrutinize it without going through the rest of the tedious stuff.
Fourth, I said I might read it. But without any commentary from your about what its salient points are, there really is no reason for me to do so.
Fifth, making the statement "This is a convenient way of avoiding interacting with facts contradict your view." in the context of this discussion is a puerile, shoolyard statement to make. Grow up.
Umm...how about the rules and uses of the Koine Greek language that the New Testament was written in. Or are those just "my interpratation" as well?
They absolutely do not change the fact that you are interpreting text. Any self-respecting linguist will tell you that. Words--whether Koine Greek or American English--are not absolute. If they were--meaning would have to be relative.
You also state that as if Koine Greek were absolutely understood without error, and that is an obviously silly thing to imply.
I wrote: ...Do you command the Holy Spirit?
...see above response.
The above response obviously does nothing for you. It actually demonstrates your disconnect with reality.
i'm providing scholarly sources based up universal facts (like grammar, or publications of the LDS Church), you, however, have provided no such support other than your own opinions.
Wait a minute. You are claiming that you are the master of universal grammar over everyone else? You are under the delusion that grammar is static? You are clearly delusional about the first, and excessively uneducated about the second.
And why should I except for a second the authority that you claim over grammar (chuckle) and the authority of the "scholars" you cite? And why should I reject 2000 years worth of scholarship that was done by the Catholic Church?
i never mentioned the Holy Spirit at all so I'm not sure where you're grasping that from.
Just a mix of posters. But if you don't claim the Holy Spirit (which I consider fortunate for your sake), what authority do you claim?
You obviously have none.
I wrote: Obviously, the Catholic interpretation of those Scriptures are *solid*. They are reasonable, and they are harmonious with all of the rest of Scripture. You cannot refute that simply because you don't like it.
You replied: and the fingers go into the ears and "lalalalalala". I just provided an article that clearly refutes the Roman interpretation based on grammar. You cannot refute that simply because you don't like it.
Pish posh. Do you think taunting improves your position? You haven't proven squat with your document. I know it before I read it. Please tell us what about that article *proves* it. If you cannot articulate it, you don't understand it yourself, and you are only hoping they prove it because you want to dump someone elses writing into a post and pretend that you have "won."
And, yet, notice that you have not shown any reason at all why we should accept your authority.
Get over yourself, man.
You are still avoiding the arguments put forward. I'm not going to be distracted by "arguing about arguing". Either read and respond or choose not to. I have read almost all of what you have posted and I haven't seen anything other than your opinion informed by Rome.
I could care less how many books you've read on religion. If you put forth a source, I will read it and address any arguments in it. You, however, refuse to do the same. Its easy to believe something and gorge yourself on only sources that support what you believe. Its another thing to interact with opposing viewpoints. Truth stands up to cross-examination.
The whole thing is salient or else i would not have posted the whole thing. I can't help it if someone might be too lazy to read it. You are quite good at dismissing things without reading them. I'm sorry if its "tedious". Not everything can be packaged up for you in a nice neat little package. Sometimes we must do some heavy lifting.
When someone in a discussion is presented with an opposing viewpoint and they do not respond and try to redirect the conversation, or dismiss the facts without even reading them, that is avoiding interaction with the facts. I'm sorry if that offended you. If I speed and get pulled over and the officer tells me I was speeding, I'm not going to tell him "thats a puerile, shoolyard statement to make. Grow up." If you're not willing to read or interact with opposing facts put forth, you are avoiding interacting with them whether you're offended at that statement or not.
Anon
you, like the Mormons on this board, continually refuse to have a real discussion. When someone places facts before you that are contradictory to your viewpoint, you either refuse to read them (15 minutes of reading is apparently way too much) or you shift focus to something that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
so, you can blow all the hot air you would like. your absence of ability to understand the concept of "grammar rules" is truly amazing, but I'm not going to follow you down this rabbit trail. until you want to have an actual scholarly discussion, I am done responding. i don't have the time to spend endlessly chasing you down these rabbit trails while you avoid the essential elements of the contradicting facts you have been presented.
i have seen this go on forever from other Mormons and Roman Catholics and I know it is almost always fruitless. have a good day and please know i have no ill will towards you whatsoever and i wish you the best.
David Dittmer recently made these comments critical of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:
David: Whether a person is a Christian, boils down to a few key questions.
David: 1) Do they accept the god that is revealed in the Bible, that is a one god in three persons? In the New Testament, there are three distinct persons identified as God: The Father, The Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit. This would sound like there are three distinct gods, except that they are constantly identified as being one (see John 1). Thus we come to the doctrine of a Triune God. Therefore, if a person denies this, they are by definition not a Christian because they reject the God of the very Christ they claim to serve.
Mike: Mormons accept the God that is revealed in the Bible. We believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct persons. We also believe that they are one God. We believe the account in John 17. It states that believers may also be one with God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost, as they are one with each other. This unity as expressed in John 17 is a unity of love, power, understanding and will. there is no verse in the Bible that defines the unity of the Godhead as being physical, or any other way besides that defined in John 17.
David: 2) Do they accept that Jesus was God? Many say that Jesus never claimed that He was God, and to them I would say that they need to read the Bible more closely. Jesus did claim to be God, and quite often. Just one example of this would be where Jesus said "I and the Father are one." Another would be where He said, "before Abraham was, I am." This isn't just some slip of the tongue, Jesus was ascribing to himself the covenant name of God and at the same time also eternality.
Mike: Mormons accept that Jesus was and is God. When Jesus said that he and the Father are one and before Abraham was I am, Mormons believe Him. That oneness again ius expressed in John 17. Mormons believe that Jesus is co-eternal with the Father.
David: 3) Are they saved? Now, I know that there is all kinds of controversy over what this means, but I believe if you take the Bible at face value it is very clear. We are all sinners (Romans 3:23), one way or another and stand at enmity with God. Jesus, who was God, came to earth in the form of a man and lived a perfect life then died on the cross. This was to pay the price for our sin, which is death (Romans 6:23), so that we wouldn't have to to. He was then resurrected from the dead and ascended to the right hand of the Father (Mark 16:19). So, what does it take to be saved? First we have to confess with our mouths that Jesus is Lord, this means we have to acknowledge that He is God (the Greek word "kurios," which is translated lord, carries with it the connotation of deity)and the sovereign of our lives. Secondly we have to believe in our hearts that God raised him from the dead. Now how is all this accomplished, by the Grace of God working through our faith and apart from our good deeds. If we place our trust in Christs atoning sacrifice on the cross, then we are saved.
Mike: Statements David made about salvation:
We are all sinners. Mormons agree.
Jesus, who is God, lived a prefect live and atoned for our sins. Mormons agree.
Jesus paid for our sins so we wouldn't have to. Mormons agree
Jesus was resurrected and returned to the Father. Mormons Agree
To be saved we must:
a) confess Jesus with our mouth. Mormons would say this is a good first step.
b) believe in our hearts that God raised him form the dead. Mormons believe this,
David says all of this is accomplished by the Grace of God working through faith and apart from our good deeds. Mormons believe that without Grace and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ we could never be saved.
What has Jesus told us we should do so that we may lay hold on this faith and his grace?
"I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will DO what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father." (John 14:12)
What does Jesus say? "anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing".
So faith is not just an abstract concept, but a concrete principle demonstrated by doing. "If you love me, you will obey what I command." (John 14:15) "Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him." (John 14:21) "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24 He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me. (John 14:23-24)
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."
Let's recap: We show love and faith for Jesus and his Father by obeying their commandments and teachings. the Holy Ghost will teach or reveal what we should do. If we do those things the Father and Son will come and dwell with us.
Now Jesus teaches how we are saved
1"I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me." (John 15:1-4)
Jesus says that the branches that are cut off are those that "bear no fruit" that is, they do not do the works Jesus commands. Even those disciples that do his works will be tried and tested to allow them to grow and do even more. Once a branch is cut off from Christ, due to a lack of faith manifested by failing to keep his commandments, it cannot live or bear fruit apart from him.
5"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. 8 This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples." (John 15:5-8)
9"As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. 11I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. 14You are my friends if you do what I command." (John 15:9-14)
David concludes by saying: "In conclusion, if any one rejects any of these three, they are definitionally not a Christian. And as far as I know, the Mormon church rejects all three. So, while the Mormon church and the three major branches of Christianity may agree on many things, Mormonism is not just another Christian denomination, it is a heretical off-shoot of Christianity."
Mike: David hasn't studied enough about the Mormons to know what he is talking about. Since we reject none of the three conditions David states. and since the bible tells us how to lay hold on Fatih in John 14 and 15, and how to be one as God is one, and since Mormons believe that this Bible teaching is true, we are most definitely Christians.
Travis --
That PBS special on the Mormons had a telling quote from some guy who was a real doubter, something like:
"... there is no more archaeological etc. evidence for the Book of Mormon, than there is for the historical verifiability of Jesus."
What are accepted as "facts" is ever evolving, especially in science, as well as history.
As I said above, contradiction is often in the eye of the beholder.
Mike Bennion,
Either you believe in things that differ from official LDS Church documents or you are using the same Christian terms David used, but they mean different things to you than they do to David.
When Mormons and Christians are forced to define what they mean when they use Christian terms, thats where you find the differences.
I have been a Mormon for 43 years and have extensively studied LDS and non-LDS doctrine at a graduate University Level. I know what the Mormon church believes and my statements above are consistent with that belief.
I just quoted the Bible to support my assertions. Show me where what I said is wrong.
I invite you to discuss this with me our website is truthrestored.townhall.com
I'm off to work. I'll check in on this later.
Mike
To the blog monitor,
If you are going to censor me for issues of courtesy, I think you should be consistent and delete several of the posts above. I am no less courtious than they are to me.
In the meantime, "Message received."
Ah!
Here is why you are reviewing my post:
URLS: You may share the URL of a web resource other members may find useful, but you agree not to post URLs repeatedly or for the purpose of promoting a website or service (see "Solicitation" above). You agree not to post a hyperlink to or URL of a site that violates these Rules of Conduct. You will not reproduce chain letters, pyramid schemes, mail fraud schemes, or any other unauthorized advertising.
I was absolutely NOT promoting anything. I was posting links to articles that were *directly* relevant to the discussion. Thanks.
Hopefully you will see the purpose in what I did so that my interlocutors can see it shortly. :)
I understand perfectly the above statement, but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Mormonism is true. It only serves to illustrate that you are well versed in the Mormon faith. That, I do not doubt.
I never said you were wrong anywhere. My point is that when a Mormon says he believes in Jesus, it is different than a Christian saying he believes in Jesus.
To a Mormon, Jesus is a spirit-brother of Lucifer. To a Christian, he isn't. Mormons and Christians can say the exact same sentence, yet mean completely different things. Thats is my point...that when Mormons and Christians are forced to define the terms they use, then it is plain to see there are fundamental differences.
you, like the Mormons on this board, continually refuse to have a real discussion.
It seems to me that *you* are the one who has yet to respond to the issue of authority. You criticize me - taunt me - for not following up, but now you get cranky and run? That is profoundly hypocritical.
When someone places facts before you that are contradictory to your viewpoint, you either refuse to read them (15 minutes of reading is apparently way too much) or you shift focus to something that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
The problem is that you are bent out of shape because we don't accept your authority regarding "facts." But your "facts" are wrong. And now that you are exposed as having no authority whatsoever, you are upset. You are upset that you - by force of will - cannot play God and tell us what the facts are.
so, you can blow all the hot air you would like.
It's my favorite pass-time. Thanks.
your absence of ability to understand the concept of "grammar rules" is truly amazing, but I'm not going to follow you down this rabbit trail.
You mean--my absence of accepting your simple-minded error about the nature of grammar? And my refusal to let you name yourself Master of Grammar over the rest of us?
until you want to have an actual scholarly discussion, I am done responding. i don't have the time to spend endlessly chasing you down these rabbit trails while you avoid the essential elements of the contradicting facts you have been presented.
Yeah. That's right. *I'm* running away. (If it wasn't so pathetic, it would be funny.)
i have seen this go on forever from other Mormons and Roman Catholics and I know it is almost always fruitless.
Right. It is fruitless because your sophistry has met a dead end. You have found yourself with no authority and no reasonable way to back up your view. It is fruitless because you are trying to tear down a Church of brick by whipping it with a chewing gum wrapper.
have a good day and please know i have no ill will towards you whatsoever and i wish you the best.
No. There was no ill will in the way you taunted me at all. And there is no ill will in me saying that you are running away and proving the lack of authority behind everything you said above.
While you are running, you might stop somewhere to get a book on linguitstics. A college bookstore would be best.
Anon,
excellent scholarly post. your words reveal much truth about yourself.
Pride goes before destruction,
and a haughty spirit before a fall.
Proverbs 16:18
Unsigned @ 3.03: You're the same person who was trying to entice me into a scripture bash yesterday. You failed then, so now you're going after a moderate Christian instead. Seems you're getting mad because he's not interested in being abused and insulted by you either.
Have you considered consulting a therapist about these obsessional issues? You seem to be doing the blog equivalent of stalking. You know what I mean ... becoming fixated on a particular person, and finally becoming aggressive when they refuse to react the way you fantasized they would.
"15 minutes of reading is apparently way too much"
You got that one right! Nobody here owes you that much.
"until you want to have an actual scholarly discussion"
I love scholarly discussions. But you're no scholar.
Every interpretation has to come directly from the Holy Spirit--if not, it is man's interpretation and not to be heeded. I don't accept man's interpretations from the Bible, but from the Holy Spirit. He is the One who interpretates the Bible and not from man's intellectual. I will choose any day, a man who is Spirit-filled and Spirit-led, than a man who is a scholor, and yet, doesn't have the Holy Spirit living in him.
Oof. You have several problems here. First off, you seem to think that you can command the Holy Spirit to guarantee the correctness of you own personal interpretation of Scripture. That's just downright scary, and I fear for your soul. Truly. You cannot command the Holy Spirit, my friend.
Second, there are thousands of Christian denominations who have split off from each other because they have called upon the Holy Spirit to interpret their Bible, and they have each come up with mutually exclusive and incompatible doctrines. If the Holy Spirit guaranteed their interpretation as you seem to think, these denominations would not be in disagreement. And the Holy Spirit certainly would not deceive them.
Third--Who are you to say who is filled with the Holy Spirit, and who is not? Who is to say that the Holy Spirit does not also work through Mormons in spite of their error about Him?
The sola scriptura crowd cites the Holy Spirit using Him as their own personal trump card for their interpretation. They place themselves as individual Masters of God, and claim their own personal authority based upon it. May God have mercy on them.
I wrote: Reasonable men might interpret Scripture in the way the Mormons believe. You don't realize it, but all sola scriptura Christians *rely upon* Traditional Christian knowledge for their interpretations.
POC777 responded:
Chirstians rely upon the Bible as their foundation for truth--they don't follow man. If Christians follow man--then they are in big trouble and will not get closer to God but futher.
Then I guess we should have ignored the Apostles.
Jesus Christ appointed men as his Church and authority on earth. He said very dramatic words to these men: Whatever they hold bound will be held bound in heaven! He gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom! I don't follow the Church just because--I follow his Church because he **commanded it**. If Christ appoints men as his Church, I follow--and I will not be turned away from Christ's Church simply because you do not like the fact that it consists of men. Especially since you offer me an alternative that is obviously bogus, and requires that I have the arrogance to command the Holy Spirit.
Repeatly the Bible teaches every Christian to trust in God and not man. Man is evil; God is not good! Since man is evil why should he be trusted as a reliable source for truth, if God is good and doesn't lie?
You are reading your own wild interpretation into the Bible. The Bible shows that the Apostles started Churches everywhere and that these *men* were to continue that Church and be faithful to it.
Nowhere does it say that the Church should be ignored, and nowhere does it deny Church authority. The bigger picture of Scripture beliefs your personal rejection of Christ's Church.
My response:
That's not even what I said above--you denied my question.Repeatly the Bible teaches every Christian to trust in God and not man. Man is evil; God is not good! Since man is evil why should he be trusted as a reliable source for truth, if God is good and doesn't lie?I know that the Holy Apostles planted churches after Jesus ascension to the Father's right hand. Of course God, is going to use man to fulfill His plan for redemption, He used prophets, prophetesses, kings and priests, Mary and so on, who were normal people.
Today He uses pastors and teachers for the edification of the Body of Christ. I'm not even talking about that, I'm saying that we should examine every man's interpretation with the "measuring stick" of the Bible: Keep what Jesus, the Apostles and the Epistles taught and deny what contradicts, denies and opposes the Bible. I never mention anything about the Apostles, but about "man"---the natural man--the one without the Holy Spirit---unregenerated who is spiritually dead--you're putting words in my mouth.
Right, but every Christian must be like a Berean and search the Scriptures(the Bible) if what people teach is true. If any teaching from any religion contradicts the Bible, it is false and must be denied immediately.
False according to whose interpretation? By what authority?
My response:
God's authority! So you believe all roads lead to Rome and there's many ways to get to God? Wrong!
The doctrine of the Trinity as you said is only essential to the Christian--it is not a requirement.
You are confused. If it is essential, that means it is required.
My response:
You are wrong! Where did Jesus teach that we needed to keep the doctrine of Tri-unity to be saved? Find me one verse and I will believe you. That is not require for salvation--believing and accepting what Jesus Christ did on the cross, is required.
The Deity of Jesus Christ--every Christian must know to understand the divinity of Jesus Christ, as God coming in the flesh, to this world to save mankind from their sin-debt. If a new Christian, doesn't know these doctrines and then graduates from his or her body, that Christian is going to Heaven.
This really has nothing to do with the problems you have with interpretation. And it is not your place to say who goes to heaven, and who doesn't. That is God's decision. Once more, you are taking your own personal interpretation of Scripture and commanding God to follow your interpretation. And by doing so, you are making judgments that are *forbidden* to us.
My response:
You are wrong. The Bible teaches that all those who have repented of all their sins and receive Jesus Christ as LORD and Savior, are going to Heaven.
Where is it taught that its forbidden to make sound judgments with sound doctrine(the Bible), concerning what you post or others?
How will the Christian know if a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon is true?
I only find in 1 Cor 2:15 that is okay to make judgment what others say. By what you wrote--it contradicts the Bible.
By what authority?
My response:
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
*Every Christian has the right and authority to teach, rebuke, correct and instruct--every Christian is allowed to read the Bible and search the Scriptures. It is God's approvable!
By what authority is your interpretation worth anything?
My response:
Yahweh has given every Christian the authority to weight out what Mormonism teaches or anything else--and reject everything that contradicts, opposes and denies the Bible. He has given me the authority to "cast down every argument". You are arrogant and proud!
I will always point to the robber next to Jesus on the cross, who repented of his sins and confessed "LORD"--who did not get baptized or even learned one doctrine--he went to Heaven on that day to be with Jesus Christ.
We have hope for all men. That is why I have rebuked a few for condemning Mormons. But this has nothing to do with the problems you have with interpretation.
My response:
1. I ain't condemning Mormons but rebuking their doctrine
2. You're the only person in here who has problems with my posts
3. You haven't proven what I posted is wrong.
I wrote: So you can look at Christianity and see that there is this essential doctrine that the Mormons do not share, and therefore conclude that Mormonism is not compatible with Christianity. But you cannot exclude them based on the fact that you like *your* interpretation of Scripture better than *theirs*.
POC777 responds:
Almost every post in this debate, cleary shows that Mormonism is not Christian. For the reason, that the BOM is not "another testament of Jesus Christ" because there are only two testaments: Old Testament and New Testament, which come from the Bible--Mormon doctrine... opposes, denies and contradicts on what God has already said in the Bible.
By what authority do you say that the BOM is not another testament of Jesus Christ?
My response:
The Bible is the authority--it rejects the BOM. Adding a pseudo-testament of Jesus Christ, is adding to the Word of God. And he who adds to the Word--God calls them a liar(Proverb 30:5-6) and all liars will have their part in the lake of fire.
You reject the authority of Christian Orthodoxy, so you have nothing.
My response:
I never said I rejected Orthodox Christianity, find me a post where I say "I reject Orthodox Christainity" and I will believe you. I believe in the Apostles Creed that comes from Orthodox Christianity--and comes directly from the Bible--because there are the doctrines that make up the Body of Christ--the essentials of the faith.
Nothing in your Bible unequivocally and unmistakably rejects the possibility of another testament.
My response:
Your Bible? I have the NIV, Jewish Bible, KJV 1611 and NKJV--66 books. You are wrong to say that the Bible does not reject another revelation--it rejects it! Jesus, the Apostles nor the Epistles mention, about another testament of Jesus Christ. As I said in my other post--there is absolutely no evidence of Jesus Christ ever preaching to a group of Indians in the Americas on 34 AD. Show the proof! If there's no proof, then you are wrong.
I reject their book. But it is impossible to reject the book on the basis of text alone.
My response:
You haven't proven to us "why" you reject the Book of Mormon--myself and other Christian have posted why we deny the BOM and other Mormon doctrine. You make your posts sound Christian, but maybe you're not and false. You continue to believe the BOM, being only a fable that can't be proven by anything or the Nephite golden plates were ever found at Hill Cumorah? Where are they?
Posted by: Anon | July 6, 2007 12:56 PM
Dont Mormons believe that God is an alien that lives on another planet with "his wife", and that he is just one of many Gods on many planets in the universe. Dont they also believe that humans can become one of these gods by becoming a Mormon? That doesnt sound like Christianity to me. Thats just for starters too. Theres a whole lot of weird stuff that Mormons believe. It seems more like Scientology to me than Christianity.
These questions are directed to every Mormon in this debate, I need your honest answers:
1. Can you find me archeological and historical proof from non-Mormon sources that prove that the peoples and places named in the Book of Mormon are true?
2. Why does the Book of Mormon state that Jesus was born in Jerusalem (Alma 7:10) when history and the Bible state that he was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1)?
3. I’ve read where Joseph Smith said that he translated the golden plates (from which he got the Book of Mormon) letter-by-letter, “by the power of God” and that it was “the most correct of any book on earth." If that’s true why has the Mormon Church had to make more than 4,000 changes to the Book of Mormon that was originally published in 1830?
lol. this is just more "lets avoid the issues and toss insults" garbage. the prevalence of this is simply amazing.
your posts don't indicate that you love discussion. discussion involves interacting with arguments.
Anon
This is the Apostles Creed:
1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:
4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: *He descended into hell:
5. The third day he rose again from the dead:
6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:
9. I believe in the *holy catholic[universal] church: the communion of saints:
10. The forgiveness of sins:
1l. The resurrection of the body:
12. And the life everlasting. Amen.
My response:
I believe every statement because every single truth comes directly from the Bible.
*That is, the true Christian church--Body of Christ--every believer in Christ!
*Not Hell, where the fire is not quenched but the abode of the dead.
Don't Mormons believe that God is an alien that lives on another planet with "his wife"?
My response:
Of course, they believe He lives on a planet called Kolob(knowing that His headquarters are in Heaven). And believe He had sex with a Heavenly Mother(godness) who produced billions of spiritual babes. Where is this found in the Bible or BOM?
and that he is just one of many Gods on many planets in the universe.
My response:
The question arises: When did God become God? And did God have a grandfather who was also God?
Don't they also believe that humans can become one of these gods by becoming a Mormon?
My response:
This echos what Satan told Eve in Genesis 3.
That doesn't sound like Christianity to me. Thats just for starters too. Theres a whole lot of weird stuff that Mormons believe. It seems more like Scientology to me than Christianity.
My response:
It sure does!
Posted by: Bible_Scholar | July 6, 2007 7:16 PM
Intellectualism is a very troubling thing. The brain squeezes the love right out of the discussion. It seems to me antithema to "debate" Jesus Christ, or discuss the Gospel of Jesus Christ in a hateful and angry environment. The very nature of the "debate" makes of us combative judges while exposing the tremendous beam hanging from our own eye, all the while wielding a hatchet to aid in the removal of the mote in our lost brother's eye. What I know of Jesus Christ is this ... He gave his life (all of it) to mend the broken, heal the sick, and deliver the captive. May we do likewise. The question for us all might be, "Am I more like Jesus or the Pharasee?"
Well, it appears my post that had some links on it got swallowed up by the honorable blog monitors, so I'll try it again without the links.
I was shamed into reading the article above regarding the keys to the kingdom. (I sigh with the back of my hand on my forehead.) It actually surprised me. Not because it wasn't the same old lame arguments, but because it didn't claim anything close to what the guy who posted it said it would.
To begin with, let's review the argument here. I have been saying that you cannot prove your point on text alone. I have said that repeatedly while noting that for every interpretation that you guys throw my way, I will return with a counter interpretation that is every bit as reasonable. And for every interpretation I throw your way, you will return with a counter interpretation that may or may not be every bit as reasonable. Therefore, I never expected the Keys to the Kingdom and Peter as the Rock to be "proved" through biblical texts. But I also knew that the article that was copied here would not prove it wrong.
And, guess what? The authors of the article itself don't make any claims that it refutes the Catholic interpretations. The article concludes by saying this: "…their exegesis of Matthew 16 will continue to be questionable, having failed to respond to a meaningful challenge to its validity."
Questionable? I laughed out loud. They don't claim any refutation at all! They simply say that it will "continue to be questionable." But that means they are making my case for me, because my case has always stated that you cannot resolve these conflicting interpretations by the Bible alone. You must have some other authority to resolve it.
As I suspected, this article that our mystery poster insisted I was shying away from was the weak, insubstantial article I thought it was.
Furthermore, the authors are obviously stating *opinion*. They use words like "less likely" and "I believe such a translation would argue against…" and "one is struck by how strange it is." Not at all the type of language you expect in any kind of solid and undisputable proof. Obviously, they were more prudent about their claims than the guy who posted it on this forum.
But even taking that stuff into consideration, their arguments were quite poor.
In order for this article to carry weight, you have to go by the assumption that there is no dispute over how to analyze Greek in general. The authors make no such claim, although they may try to "assume the deal." Anyone who claims to be "scholarly" (chuckle at the expense of the guy who posted the article) would know that there are many opinions and schools of thought regarding how to parse, analyze, and translate Greek. And that goes just for linguists, let alone theologians with an agenda.
The article also relies on the belief that it was completely isolated in its writing, when we know for a fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic and would have actually spoken the words in Aramaic, not Greek. We have evidence in Scripture of this where the Aramaic was preserved in the name they called Peter--Cephas. Cephas means "rock" in Aramaic, and the fact that they called Peter Cephas for long after the time Jesus spoke the words is very dramatic evidence that he indeed meant that *Peter* was the rock. But the article chooses to ignore this scholarship, instead of consider it. (The article specifically conveyed that it considered it unimportant.)
It also makes ridiculous arguments that are critical of Jesus for not using a pronoun when they thought he should. It's as if they believe that language can only be spoken in one way without variation.
The confession of Peter stuff was *pure* interpretation that has nothing to do with the linguistics.
The commentary about Sungenis only verified that there are multiple opinions and multiple interpretations about the grammar.
The statement that the Church Fathers do not discuss the Chair of Peter is also dead wrong. The Early Church Fathers not only discuss it--they defer to the Bishop of Rome to settle disputes.
The idea that this article would scare me away from facing the arguments is *laughable*. I have read much more challenging opinions in the past. It is more laughable than I predicted, which really puts the puerile remarks of our mystery poster in perspective.
But one good turn deserves another. If, as our interlocutor insists, the fact that someone doesn't read arguments presented to them and face every argument within means they are avoiding facts that contradict their point of view, then he must act in kind. I have several things for you to read. And--as to your words--if you do not read them all completely, you are avoiding the facts that contradict your personal point of view.
First assignment: Read all three volumes of The Faith of the Early Fathers, by Jurgens.
Second assignment: Go to Catholic Answers on line at www dot catholic dot com. Click on Church & Papacy in the menu under "LIBRARY." Click on and read all of the following articles:
Apostolic Succession (Fathers*)
The Authority of the Pope Part 1 (Fathers*)
The Authority of the Pope Part 2 (Fathers*)
Origins of Peter as Pope (Fathers*)
Papal Infallibility
Peter and the Papacy
Peter the Rock
Peter's Primacy (Fathers*)
Peter's Roman Residency (Fathers*)
Peter's Successors (Fathers*)
Was Peter in Rome?
Third assignment: The Faith of our Fathers, by Gibbons
Fourth assignment: Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, by Currie
That should be enough for now. These resources have facts and arguments that are 100 times more impressive than your article above.
Again--if your words earlier that **taunted me** have ANY credence at all, you must read all of those things carefully and attempt to dispute them. It would be a very hypocritical thing, if you don't.
Oh. And, by the way, you *still* have not given us any authority that validates the interpretations that you personally prefer.
The question hangs over your head. "By what authority?"
Dude with no authority wrote: 15 minutes of reading is apparently way too much
WoID responds: You got that one right! Nobody here owes you that much.
My two cents: Right. Especially since he only put about 10 seconds into cutting and pasting, and didn't show the slightest initiative for making the argument himself.
POC777, you really need to do some formatting or something. You keep pasting in the entire posts of others without distinguishing who says what, and it makes your posts almost completely unreadable. Please just paste in what you are responding to, and format them in italics or something. (To format in italics put "" at the end of what you want in italics and "" at the beginning. The reason I do it backward here is because the right order would make them disappear while formatting the words between.)
If you read nothing else, read the section below about Proverb 30:5-6. It pretty much puts a nail in POC777's coffin. (Give 'em enough rope…)
That's not even what I said above--you denied my question.
Since you quoted my entire post, I haven't a clue what you are referring to.
Repeatly the Bible teaches every Christian to trust in God and not man. Man is evil; God is not good! Since man is evil why should he be trusted as a reliable source for truth, if God is good and doesn't lie?
First of all, Jesus Christ can do whatever it is He sees fit. He appointed the Apostles, but He didn't just entrust the Church to man. The men to whom He entrusted the Church were subject to his commands, and they were given the responsibility of protecting the Faith and they were also given special protection by the Holy Spirit. Yes, we know that these men were fallible, but they were given special gifts by Christ as I have already mentioned in other posts.
But let's think about this for a minute. If we cannot trust man at all, as you seem to be saying, then how can we trust the book we call the Bible? The Bible was assembled by man long after the Apostles were gone. The Bible only exists because of decisions made by men of Christ's Church.
Men decided which of the many books circulating were inspired works. The Gospels were not signed, so *men* witnessed to the fact that they were written by the Apostles.
Also, how can you trust the *men* of the Reformation who took books out of the Bible?
Without some trust of some authority with men involved in some way--You've got NOTHING.
But your trouble doesn't stop there, because you *always* have to trust a *man* to interpret Scripture. Scripture does not rid you of the element man.
I know that the Holy Apostles planted churches after Jesus ascension to the Father's right hand. Of course God, is going to use man to fulfill His plan for redemption, He used prophets, prophetesses, kings and priests, Mary and so on, who were normal people.
You seem utterly confused here. On the one hand, you say that Christ couldn't have used men, but on the other hand you say that *of course* He uses men. You seem to know the truth and deny it at the same time.
Today He uses pastors and teachers for the edification of the Body of Christ. I'm not even talking about that, I'm saying that we should examine every man's interpretation with the "measuring stick" of the Bible: Keep what Jesus, the Apostles and the Epistles taught and deny what contradicts, denies and opposes the Bible.
You cannot possibly use the Bible as a measuring stick without interpreting it. How can you *know* what Jesus, the Apostles and the Epistles taught without interpreting the word of the Bible? You are completely circular here. "Use the Bible to validate the accuracy of the Bible as used by another." It makes no sense, and it *always* involves one man or another interpreting the Bible.
I never mention anything about the Apostles, but about "man"---the natural man--the one without the Holy Spirit---unregenerated who is spiritually dead--you're putting words in my mouth.
No--I'm pointing to inconvenient Truths.
POC777 wrote: If any teaching from any religion contradicts the Bible, it is false and must be denied immediately.
I responded: False according to whose interpretation? By what authority?
POC777 comes back: God's authority!
So, what you are saying is that you have God's authority when you make your personal interpretations of Scripture? Do you really think it is wise to claim God's authority?
So you believe all roads lead to Rome and there's many ways to get to God? Wrong!
"All roads lead to Rome" is a quote that has nothing to do with the Church, so I really don't know what your point is here. All I know is that if Jesus Christ appoints men and starts a Church in order to establish Christian authority, I better obey Jesus Christ and His intentions. And the fact that your sola scriptura is obviously a dead-end only bolsters my confidence in Christ's Wisdom for making the Church the way He did.
POC777 wrote: The doctrine of the Trinity as you said is only essential to the Christian--it is not a requirement.
I replied: You are confused. If it is essential, that means it is required.
POC777 comes back: You are wrong! Where did Jesus teach that we needed to keep the doctrine of Tri-unity to be saved? Find me one verse and I will believe you. That is not require for salvation--believing and accepting what Jesus Christ did on the cross, is required.
I must have misunderstood you. I didn't say that anything was essential to salvation. I think that what you are saying is that believing in the doctrine of the Trinity is not required for salvation, while I thought you were saying it was not required to be a Christian faith. You should work on completing your thoughts a little better. (Not putting you down. It's just that it's hard enough making sense out of your posts the way it is, so please be a little more precise.)
I wrote: This really has nothing to do with the problems you have with interpretation. And it is not your place to say who goes to heaven, and who doesn't. That is God's decision. Once more, you are taking your own personal interpretation of Scripture and commanding God to follow your interpretation. And by doing so, you are making judgments that are *forbidden* to us.
POC777 responds: You are wrong. The Bible teaches that all those who have repented of all their sins and receive Jesus Christ as LORD and Savior, are going to Heaven.
The Bible does teach us the way to heaven, but the guarantee you claim is based upon your personal interpretation of things. You are not God, and waving the Bible neither makes you God, nor gives you omniscience. Sure, you can have great confidence. But if you put your guard down, you invite the temptations of the devil--and he can still destroy you.
Where is it taught that its forbidden to make sound judgments with sound doctrine(the Bible), concerning what you post or others?
That's not the question. The question is: How do you know they are sound? By what authority do you say they are sound? You have only answered that once, and you did so by claiming that you carry the authority of God when you interpret Scripture. (See where I quote you above in this post.) My God has taught me to reject false gods, so I am certainly going to reject *you* who claim your own personal godhood with God's authority.
I only find in 1 Cor 2:15 that is okay to make judgment what others say. By what you wrote--it contradicts the Bible.
It is unclear to what you are referring here, but do you seriously believe this is evidence to your godhood?
I asked again: By what authority?
POC777 replied: 2 Timothy 3:16-17
Let's do a comparison of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 1 Timothy 3:15.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work."
Note that this says that Scripture is "profitable." We both believe Scripture is profitable. I believe it is profitable in the context of Holy Tradition and the Deposit of Faith handed to us by Jesus Christ Himself, while you believe it is profitable in the context of your own personal self-appointed authority.
Note also that it is profitable for certain reasons: teaching, reproving, correction, instruction in justice. All of these things can be done with Scripture, provided you have a context that reveals the original intention of the inspired writers. It says nothing about the Bible being an authority over Truth by itself, nor in the hand of those who have rejected Christian authority. In fact, there is a place in scripture where a man reading Scripture appeals to an Apostle asking how he can possibly understand it if you do not explain it to me? (I'll see if I can find it.)
So, the scripture you cite only tells us what the Catholic Church already knows, and it describes the usage that the Catholic Church already does. It does *NOTHING* to establish authority in your personal interpretation. (And need I state again all of the mutually exclusive interpretations among "Bible" Christians?)
1 Timothy 3:15 "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
Note in this case that the words are much stronger. The words don't just say that the Church is "profitable." It says that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth! Far, far stronger words, indeed!
However, since all you have to do is twist the words to interpret them the way your self-appointed authority desires, I'm sure you will attempt to reinterpret them for me.
But after you go through those acrobatics, you still will not have answered the question: By what authority are your interpretations right, while mine are wrong? By what authority are your interpretations sound? By what authority is your interpretation valid at all?
*Every Christian has the right and authority to teach, rebuke, correct and instruct--every Christian is allowed to read the Bible and search the Scriptures. It is God's approvable!
I refuted this above already, but--hypothetically, if this meant that every Christian infallibly interpreted Scripture, why do so many faithful Christian Churches disagree with each other about the interpretations of Scripture?
Yahweh has given every Christian the authority to weight out what Mormonism teaches or anything else--and reject everything that contradicts, opposes and denies the Bible. He has given me the authority to "cast down every argument". You are arrogant and proud!
I'm arrogant and proud? You claim Yahweh's authority based upon what? Nothing but your own personal interpretation. Did Yahweh appoint you an Apostle? You claim the authority of God for yourself, and you call *me* arrogant?
I read the Bible, too, and I am a faithful Christian, yet I interpret the Bible different than you do. How can that be true if all Christians have the authority of Yahweh?
Your claim is profoundly ridiculous, and I think it is an affront to God.
1. I ain't condemning Mormons but rebuking their doctrine
I didn't say you condemned Mormons. I noted that I have rebuked "a few" for condemning them, but I did not finger you. On the other hand, I am criticizing those who say that the Mormons have no authority to interpret Scripture the way they see it, when you interpret Scripture the way you see it.
2. You're the only person in here who has problems with my posts
So? Even if that's true (which is doubtful), what does that have to do with your complete lack of an authority?
3. You haven't proven what I posted is wrong.
If you cannot show us the authority behind your interpretations, I have revealed that you have no authority, and that nobody should take your claims of authority seriously. I have certainly given plenty of evidence that you are, in fact, wrong, but I know that won't stop you from continuing your own personal mission to read your beliefs *into* Scripture. But it doesn't matter--because you have no authority.
I wrote: By what authority do you say that the BOM is not another testament of Jesus Christ?
POC777 responds: The Bible is the authority--it rejects the BOM. Adding a pseudo-testament of Jesus Christ, is adding to the Word of God. And he who adds to the Word--God calls them a liar(Proverb 30:5-6) and all liars will have their part in the lake of fire.
Ahem. That Proverb is from the Old Testament. At the time that Proverb was written, the New Testament didn't exist. It was **added**. If you stick by this argument, you pretty much condemn the Apostles as liars. At the very least, you disqualify the entire New Testament.
This egregious error on your part demonstrates pretty convincingly that you have no guarantee behind you like you think you do. (I'm sure you will twist words to try to worm out of it, and I really don't care--it is obvious here that you are in error, and it is obvious that you cannot claim the authority of God.)
I wrote: You reject the authority of Christian Orthodoxy, so you have nothing.
POC777 responds: I never said I rejected Orthodox Christianity, find me a post where I say "I reject Orthodox Christainity" and I will believe you.
Orthodox Christianity consists of the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Are you telling me that you submit to their authority? (I didn't think so.)
I believe in the Apostles Creed that comes from Orthodox Christianity--and comes directly from the Bible--because there are the doctrines that make up the Body of Christ--the essentials of the faith.
Well, then I suggest you study the Creeds a little better, because the first Creeds **preceded** the Bible. The other Creeds were made by the Councils of the Catholic Church.
Also--How do you know you are interpreting the meaning of the Creeds correctly? By what authority? (Keep in mind that we probably agree with a lot of what they mean. But I have an authority to verify the meaning. What do you have?)
I wrote: Nothing in your Bible unequivocally and unmistakably rejects the possibility of another testament.
Your Bible? I have the NIV, Jewish Bible, KJV 1611 and NKJV--66 books. You are wrong to say that the Bible does not reject another revelation--it rejects it! Jesus, the Apostles nor the Epistles mention, about another testament of Jesus Christ.
According to Catholic authority, you would be right. But according to what authority can *you* say it is true?
As I said in my other post--there is absolutely no evidence of Jesus Christ ever preaching to a group of Indians in the Americas on 34 AD. Show the proof! If there's no proof, then you are wrong.
That is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not the Bible unequivocally and unmistakably rejects the possibility of another testament. If you find a verse that supports it, I have every confidence that a Mormon can interpret it in a very reasonable way that says something entirely different.
I wrote: I reject their book. But it is impossible to reject the book on the basis of text alone.
POC777 responds:
You haven't proven to us "why" you reject the Book of Mormon--
Why I reject the Book of Mormon has nothing to do with the fact that you have absolutely no authority to interpret Scripture. It is another conversation alltogether. (Besides--I have already spoken of my authority.)
myself and other Christian have posted why we deny the BOM and other Mormon doctrine.
And I have pointed out that you have no authority to deny their book. We know about the doctrines that make the book exclusive because of Holy Tradition, and we know that there will be no new Divine Revelation because of Holy Tradition. (I also know it by the authority of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, but I'm indicating what *you* know, right now.) You interpret the Bible the way you do because of knowledge that is not expressed in the Bible. But the problem is, you reject any authority except for the Bible, so to you that knowledge is not authoritative. Which means you cannot authoritatively assert the things you know about the Bible. (You cannot assert anything unbiblical.) So even if it is true that the Book of Mormon is not a valid testament, and even if it is true that the Doctrine of the Trinity is correct, you have no authority to say so. You have rejected the Christian authority for an innovation of the Reformation--the doctrine of sola scriptura. And this doctrine has left you with no way to demonstrate any reason at all that your interpretations are authoritative. Because they are not. If I were a Mormon, I would completely ignore you because of this.
You make your posts sound Christian, but maybe you're not and false.
If you think I am anything but sincere, why are you communicating with me?
I assure you, I am a very faithful Catholic, and I am every bit a faithful Christian as you are. I am also under the assumption you are sincere. If you think it's time to call me a liar, I suggest you just walk away.
You continue to believe the BOM,
No, I don't. I told you explicitly that I reject it. But I also reject your false authority--I think you place yourself as a god, and as God commanded, I reject you. I also reject the false methods you use to discredit the Mormons.
being only a fable that can't be proven by anything or the Nephite golden plates were ever found at Hill Cumorah? Where are they?
I certainly don't have to prove what I don't believe.
I don't think there is much more we can accomplish here, POC777, unless you provide us a credible basis for your authority. I don't think you should go off on any other tangent in this discussion until you have done that. Because, until you have done that, nothing else you say has any credibility with me.
(To format in italics put "" at the end of what you want in italics and "" at the beginning. The reason I do it backward here is because the right order would make them disappear while formatting the words between.)
Well, that didn't work out as planned. Let's see if this words. In order to make italis, you use the "
I hope that helps.
LOL. That didn't work at all. My best advice, then, is to look up the tags you can use for HTML formatting.
Your posts all break down due to one thing Anon, the Catholic Church does not have the authority you claim it does. Without that authority, your interpretations are just as meaningless as you claim everyone else's to be.
I made some statements before, that I must confess, were made in ignorance. Or rather, they were made on the basis of what I had always been told about what Mormons believe. So, I apologize for making those statements. However, after going to the official LDS webpage and beginning to read through the basic beliefs, I am just as concerned. One of the things that is getting under my skin is the notion that there is still a necessity for a modern-day, physical, priesthood. To be blunt, there is no such need. The role of the priest was to offer sacrifices to God and to make atonement for sins. Even according to LDS teachings, Christ died as a perfect atonement. There is no more need to make earthly sacrifices, so there is no need for a priesthood. On top of that, there is no more need for a priesthood because we have one who is the Perfect High Priest. Jesus was not just a member of the Aaronic or Melchizadekian priesthood, he was the fulfillment of them.
Wow, from the length and energy indicated by these postings I can see why the LDS folks feel a bit outside of things. Many electrons were sacrificed just in the couple of days over this one. It's a good thing the internet does not generate methane, because this would be a stinky place right now. Here's a thought...
My wife has a theory - in response to name droppers everywhere - It is not very interesting to hear about who you know or with whom you say you are associated. It is much more impressive to have that famous person or renowned group say they know or are associated with you. So to answer the question, Who decides is aperson or group is Christian - ask the one whose title is being tossed around so lightly. Short of doing that, our own answers are just sneezes in a hurricane.
Gesundheit!
To answer David's question, the need for Priesthood is simple. Jesus Christ is not on the earth physically to run things. He needs stewards to do His work. That is all priesthood is, the power and authority to act in the name of Jesus Christ.
Your posts all break down due to one thing Anon, the Catholic Church does not have the authority you claim it does. Without that authority, your interpretations are just as meaningless as you claim everyone else's to be.
That is almost 100% correct.
The fact of the matter is, even with Catholic authority, my personal interpretations that I base upon Catholic authority and doctrine are still very suspect.
Regarding Catholic interpretation, you are also correct. Either Catholic is the legitimate authority of Christ, or it is not. If it is not, I am in the same boat as everyone else who has no legitimate authority. But that just means that nobody has any authority about nothin', and we might as well forget the whole thing.
But in a practical sense, I am still far ahead of the sola scriptura people. Because Catholicism *can* be authoritative, while the Bible alone clearly *cannot*.
Fortunately for me, I am fairly studied in the early Church, and I am aware of an amazing amount of Divine Revelation that gives me 100% confidence in the Catholic Church. So I'm good! :)
One of the things that is getting under my skin is the notion that there is still a necessity for a modern-day, physical, priesthood. To be blunt, there is no such need. The role of the priest was to offer sacrifices to God and to make atonement for sins.
Hello, David.
Actually, along with giving Peter and the Apostles the work of making the Church and establishing Bishops, he also gave them the command to "Feed my sheep." (Christ says that in the Bible.) There are many mentions in the New Testament regarding presbyters and deacons, who are men with holy orders, and the priesthood are the men who feed Christ's sheep through the Word and through the Sacraments.
There is really a rich amount of knowledge about this stuff, including in the Bible, and--I've proven I'm a repetitive person--a good study of the Early Church Fathers will demonstrate a lot of what was going on in Christ's Church.
So, you see, the priesthood are doing what Christ commanded the Church to do.
I would be interested in anything you might think shows that Jesus abolished the priesthood, but--if you have been following my other comments--you know what I think about personal interpretations and claims of personal authority.
Cheers!
Because Catholicism *can* be authoritative, while the Bible alone clearly *cannot*.
It should be clarified that Catholic authority includes three things. It includes Holy Tradition (the Deposit of the Faith), the Magisterium (the Pope and the College of Bishops), and the Holy Bible.
None of these things can override the others. The intended meaning of the Bible is inerrant, and the Pope does not have the authority to override that meaning. He also doesn't have the authority to contradict the Deposit of Faith. He and the Magisterium do have the protection of the Holy Spirit in matters of doctrine and Sacraments. It is in this context that Catholic authority interprets Scripture.
The Bible also supports the other two. Paul tells us to hold fast to the Traditions that he teaches--both written *and* unwritten--and he also tells us (as quoted earlier) that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. (Some translations say "pillar and bulwark.")
All three are a complete and harmonious authority established by Jesus Christ Himself, and preserved by His Church and His inspired writers.
David: I made some statements before, that I must confess, were made in ignorance. Or rather, they were made on the basis of what I had always been told about what Mormons believe. So, I apologize for making those statements. However, after going to the official LDS webpage and beginning to read through the basic beliefs, I am just as concerned. One of the things that is getting under my skin is the notion that there is still a necessity for a modern-day, physical, priesthood. To be blunt, there is no such need. The role of the priest was to offer sacrifices to God and to make atonement for sins. Even according to LDS teachings, Christ died as a perfect atonement. There is no more need to make earthly sacrifices, so there is no need for a priesthood. On top of that, there is no more need for a priesthood because we have one who is the Perfect High Priest. Jesus was not just a member of the Aaronic or Melchizadekian priesthood, he was the fulfillment of them.
Mike: thank you for your apology, and I admire the fact that you went to the source to read about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
As to your assertion about the priesthood this link has a detailed response with extensive Biblical documentation as support for the LDS doctrine. http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Jesus_is_the_only_Melchizedek_priesthood_holder
I could tie up lots of space and cut and paste, but I expect that someone like yourself who is apparently fair enough to go to a primary source, will follow up without me doing that.
In addiction I would be happy to discuss this further at paisme@hotmail.com or at truthrestored.townhall.com
Mike
err...addition.
Mike: I have been a Mormon for 43 years and have extensively studied LDS and non-LDS doctrine at a graduate University Level. I know what the Mormon church believes and my statements above are consistent with that belief.
?: I understand perfectly the above statement, but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Mormonism is true. It only serves to illustrate that you are well versed in the Mormon faith. That, I do not doubt.
Mike: I just quoted the Bible to support my assertions. Show me where what I said is wrong.
?: I never said you were wrong anywhere. My point is that when a Mormon says he believes in Jesus, it is different than a Christian saying he believes in Jesus.
To a Mormon, Jesus is a spirit-brother of Lucifer. To a Christian, he isn't. Mormons and Christians can say the exact same sentence, yet mean completely different things. Thats is my point...that when Mormons and Christians are forced to define the terms they use, then it is plain to see there are fundamental differences.
Posted by: | July 6, 2007 3:57 PM
Mikes Response: earlier ? you said this: "Either you believe in things that differ from official LDS Church documents or you are using the same Christian terms David used, but they mean different things to you than they do to David."
So my first response was in response to the first part of this statement.
If David and I mean different things by the terms we use than it is incumbent upon us to prayerfully study the doctrines of Christianity from the Bible to see whether our beliefs are supported by that document. I am satisfied, having done just that, that LDS doctrine is indeed supported by Biblical writ, and that there is no proscription that would limit God from giving further revelation than what is already contained in the Holy Bible.
Travis earlier made these remarks:
As a Christian (who is not a Mormon), I am primarily concerned with the truth claims of the LDS that are historically, archaeologically, and geographically incompatible with the facts.
I would encourage anyone interested in in learning about the differences between historical Christianity and the claims of the LDS to investigate the facts for themselves.
Here is a good place to start: http://www.lhvm.org/vid_bible_med.htm
Mike's response:
For the fair minded readers out there who want both sides of the issue so they can make informed decisions:
By all means, look at Travis' recommended website
Then to see the LDS prespective on the issue see the following:
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/
www.mormon.org
www.lds.org
truthrestored.townhall.com
Mike
What makes us non-Christian versus unorthodox?
Do these issues tie into salvation? In other words, do you believe Mormons will be damned for their (according to you) false beliefs about Christ?
Do you recognize that Mormons do claim (and sincerely strive, for the most part) to follow Jesus of Nazareth, even if they have (supposedly) incorrect beliefs?
What are the minimums of being a Christian, whether orthodox or not?
Are you claiming authority to speak for all orthodox Christians when you classify us as non-Christian "according to orthodox Christianity"?
Would all orthodox Christians agree with your assessment? If not, why claim authority to answer the question "according to orthodox Christianity" if they don't agree on this point?
Joie, is so far off on what Mormons belive that it is hard to reconise what you are talking about.
Joie, I am a convert to the LDS church and I know I have always been taught that Jesus Christ is the only Begotten Son of the Living God our Father in Heaven. I know this as a fact along with most Mormons so I don't know what church you were raised in but it was not he Mormon church out of Salt Lake City, Utah.
You are right. If this is what I have to belive and do to become a Christian then I know I am not your kind of Christian an I am grateful for it. I have never heard of such sillness as if you don't renounce your faith you can not be called a Christian even though you belive Jesus Christ is the Son of God our Father in Heaven. You people have some major problems. Or to much time on your hands.
Levia,
"they only use the name to legitamatize themselves." Mormons don't use any name to legitamatize ourselves to anyone. We are Gods children and belive in Jesus Christ the Son of the living God our Father in Heaven, so I this make me a non-christian then iam that iam.
Anon
Forgive me, if I offended you with my posts--but you also were arrogant and proud. With all due respect, I know where you are coming from--I was raise as a Catholic and went through the same road. I left RCC at age 11--because I felt the Holy Spirit was not there(as Christian will tell me) and decided to jump into other religions over the years--I almost became a Satanist. I don't follow Tradition as you do, I follow Jesus Christ, empowered by the Spirit of God to help me be obedient to what it is written in the Scriptures in my everyday life. I'm a normal man who loves Jesus Christ and lives for Him, will defend the Christian faith at all costs no matter what people say. If you want to talk to me about the origin of the Roman Catholic Church or if the Holy Apostles made the Catholic Church after Jesus ascension--I would be happy not to debate but reason, otherwise, hold your peace. Now you continue to tell me which authority do I have? I have authority from God and don't need to follow an oath preform by Tradition--Holy Orders.
Annon
Let's see if you know your history:
What happened in the first thirty years after Jesus ascension to the Father's right hand?
It should be noted that the Holy Tradition and the Magisterium should be rooted in external Truth, otherwise its just simply made up or based on opinion. The external Truth it is rooted in should be the Word of God. However, only the Roman interpretation of the Word of God includes Holy Tradition and the Magisterium. In the end Roman Catholicism is still just another interpretation. The New Testament writers constantly appealed to the Scriptures as their base of authority in declaring what was and was not true biblical teaching: Matt. 21:42; John 2:22; 1 Cor. 15:3-4; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2:2; 2 Peter 1:17-19, etc. Of course, Paul in Acts 17:11 says, "Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so." Paul commends those who examined God's word for the test of truth. He did not commend them for appealing to tradition. Therefore, we can see that the method used by Jesus and the apostles for determining spiritual truth was to appeal to Scripture, not tradition. In fact, it is the Scriptures that refute the traditions of men in many instances.
The Word of God came before Roman Catholicism, not vice versa. Technically, Scripture should interpret Roman Catholicism. It does not clearly do this, otherwise everyone would be Catholic.
Yes, Paul says these things. What is at issue is whether the Traditions Paul taught are what Roman Catholicism teaches. The Bible is both for and against tradition. See 2 Thess 3:6 vs. Matt 15:3-6,
2 Thess 2:15 vs. Mark 7:8-9, and 1 Cor 11:2 vs. Col 2:8. The Bible is for tradition where it supports the teachings of the apostles (2 Thess. 2:15) and is consistent with biblical revelation. Yet, it is against tradition when it "transgresses the commands of God" (Matt. 15:3). By Jesus' own words, tradition is not to transgress or contradict the commands of God. In other words, it should be in harmony with biblical teaching and not oppose it in any way. People disagree on whether Roman Catholic tradition (veneration of Saints, Maryology, penance, etc.) transgresses the commands of God.
Authoritative statements slipped in like this feel deceptive. This is not an authoritative statement but is just another interpretation made by Roman Catholicism.
You also said elsewhere that you were studied in the early church and were 100% confident. This means nothing about whether your claims are True. I can find hundreds of other people who are as studied as you or more who believe the completely opposite way that you do and are also 100$ confident.
But even without that, how many millions of native americans, pagan europeans, black africans, and muslim infidels during the crusades do you think were slaughtered, deprived of their property and rights, and enslaved by christian europeans?
Okay, I have to laugh, because your ignorance is spread out in front of everybody.
The Crusades have nothing to do with Native Americans, pagan Europeans, or Black Africans. The Crusades were meant to push back the Muslims who had been continuously and brutally conquering the Christian world with their ruthless swords. They suppressed the Christians they conquered in very brutal ways. The eastern Christians begged for help from the western Christians. If it weren't for the Crusades--in spite of their falure in some ways--you would probably be speaking Turkish or Arabic and enjoying the daily abuse of your woman. The Muslim world was determined to conquer and enslave the Christian world. (Islam means "Peace"--The "Peace" you get when everyone is forcibly converted to Islam or else enslaved.)
Anon, The extirminations of native americans, the enslavement and forced conversions of black africans, and the killing of european pagans(the witch trials) are all separate events from the crusades, but were all committed by christian europeans, I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear to you. And there was a crusade in europe against christians. The Cathars, the first crusade, it was so successful they decided to use it against the muslims. Also, Constantinople, a christian city, was sacked by crusading europeans on their way to the holy land to fight the moslims. I'm not defending islam, I think it's one of the most intolerant and disturbing religions. But back to my original point, which you seem to have ignored, religions by far have the highest numbers. And that is irrefutable. As to your other post, why am I here? This thread started over a question, are mormons christians, that quickly became an argument over whose religion is correct. People of many different faiths have chimed in for their particular sect, arguing quit ferociously at times that they're way is the correct way. In that debate, I think my opinion is as valid in this argument as the rest, and is deserving of being represented.
Anon
Was Peter the first Pope?
Know your history!
Read for me Romans 16, is Peter's name found in the records, yes or no?
If Peter was never the first Pope, then RCC never existed.
Know your history!
In Foxe's book of martyrs, we read that Peter was crucified upside down, this what Jesus told him in John 21:17-19.
Know your history!
Did you know that RCC borrowed some things from pagan Babylon?
Know your history!
Now for the last question:
What authority does RCC have over Christians today?
Know your history!
Forgive me, if I offended you with my posts
Done. I wasn't really offended. I was simply pointing out the abject hypocrisy.
--but you also were arrogant and proud.
I have no doubt that I am utterly entrenched in my pride, arrogance, egotism, and self-centeredness. But that has nothing to do with the Truth of our topic, and for the accusation to come from someone as obviously prideful and arrogant as yourself was both comical and very sad.
I don't follow Tradition as you do, I follow Jesus Christ, empowered by the Spirit of God to help me be obedient to what it is written in the Scriptures in my everyday life.
I do not "follow" Tradition. I follow a Person--Jesus Christ. I recognize Holy Tradition and the Catholic Church as authorities established by that Person, Jesus Christ. I don't follow a thing; I follow a Person. And that Person commands me to recognize the authority He established, so I obey out of love for Him.
I'm a normal man who loves Jesus Christ and lives for Him, will defend the Christian faith at all costs no matter what people say.
I understand your resolve and your zeal, and I laud you for them. But my criticism of you did not start from you defending Christianity. My criticism of you started when you claimed your personal godlike authority against the Mormons. If I were to enter a discussion with some Mormons with the agreed upon objective to discern which of our Churches was the One True Church, it would be an entirely different kind of discussion with an entirely different tenor to it, because I would not initiate the discussion by making the preposterous claim that I carried the full authority of God.
You are operating under the error of sola scriptura, and the error that you command God's authority in matters of Scriptural interpretation. God is Truth, and to love God, you need to love Truth. No matter what "side" you think you are on, error is the enemy, and we must dispatch it whenever we can. If you rid yourself of this error, you will be able to love Jesus and defend Jesus in truthful and tangible ways. If you do not rid yourself of this error, you hurt the defense of Christianity because you add to error and falsehood.
So, you see, I am spiritually on your side in the defense of Christianity when I fight against your error.
If you want to talk to me about the origin of the Roman Catholic Church or if the Holy Apostles made the Catholic Church after Jesus ascension--I would be happy not to debate but reason, otherwise, hold your peace.
Well, in your posts that follow, quite frankly, it looks like you are itching for debate, not "reason." But, with all due respect, all of your judgments are colored by your error and by your blasphemous assumption of God's authority. I don't see how a continued discussion of this would be profitable as long as you refuse to explicitly reject the error of sola scriptura and reject your claim to godhood and otherwise demonstrate your source of authority. I really don't want to explore Christ's Church with someone who would draw me away from Christ on the basis of error.
Now you continue to tell me which authority do I have? I have authority from God and don't need to follow an oath preform by Tradition--Holy Orders.
You clearly misunderstand Holy Orders as it pertains to the Catholic Church. Becoming a priest does not give you the kind of authority you think it does. It gives them the authority to administer the Sacraments, perform the Mass, and preach, but it does not give them doctrinal authority. The doctrinal authority of Catholicism is much bigger than any given priest.
Your continued claim to command God's authority elicits my pity. (Even the Catholic Church doesn't claim God's authority. They claim specific authority over specific things as commanded by God.) I fear for your soul, because the Serpent of Eden has convinced you that "you are like God" in your command of Scripture and meaning and in the knowledge of Good and Evil. Even after the glaring error you made with Proverbs that reveals you as wrong, you are still blind to the depths of self-worship into which you have fallen.
And after all is said and done--your lack of authority leaves your words fruitless and without impetus.
I will pray for you, POC777. (In fact, I already have.) I hope that you will take this issue of your self-appointed authority of God seriously and pray very hard about it. I pray that Jesus delivers you from this error.
God bless you.
Let's see if you know your history:
What happened in the first thirty years after Jesus ascension to the Father's right hand?
This is a silly question. There are books and books and books about things that happened after the Ascension of Christ.
What's your point?
This is where you are in error Anon. Your authority to make these claims is not an authority at all. It is simply Roman Catholicism's interpretation, which is just another of the many. You are in error because you argue that someone else's interpretation has no authority and then you proclaim your interpretation as authoritative. Your arguments are hypocritical.
You are saying "your interpretation has no authority but my interpretation has authority because my interpretation says I have authority." Authority should come from outside your interpretation but your claimed authority comes from inside your interpretation. Rome claims to have authority because it interprets scripture in a way that gives it authority.
Forgive me, if I offended you with my posts
Done. I wasn't really offended. I was simply pointing out the abject hypocrisy.
--but you also were arrogant and proud.
I have no doubt that I am utterly entrenched in my pride, arrogance, egotism, and self-centeredness. But that has nothing to do with the Truth of our topic, and for the accusation to come from someone as obviously prideful and arrogant as yourself was both comical and very sad.
*Jesus is the Truth and not RCC!
I don't follow Tradition as you do, I follow Jesus Christ, empowered by the Spirit of God to help me be obedient to what it is written in the Scriptures in my everyday life.
I do not "follow" Tradition. I follow a Person--Jesus Christ. I recognize Holy Tradition and the Catholic Church as authorities established by that Person, Jesus Christ. I don't follow a thing; I follow a Person. And that Person commands me to recognize the authority He established, so I obey out of love for Him.
*You have absolutely no prove that Jesus Christ established RCC--RCC came about hundreds of years after the Holy Apostles not before. Jesus Christ established His church--"My church"--His Bride--every born-again--Hallejah Christian. Peter was not the first Pope of Rome, you can't prove that he ever was. Your assumptions are without a foundation--baseless.
I'm a normal man who loves Jesus Christ and lives for Him, will defend the Christian faith at all costs no matter what people say.
I understand your resolve and your zeal, and I laud you for them. But my criticism of you did not start from you defending Christianity. My criticism of you started when you claimed your personal godlike authority against the Mormons.
*You brought up RCC, I was following the debate about Mormon. Your leaders also claim that "you" can become gods in the Cathelism--that's not what the Bible teaches.
If I were to enter a discussion with some Mormons with the agreed upon objective to discern which of our Churches was the One True Church, it would be an entirely different kind of discussion with an entirely different tenor to it, because I would not initiate the discussion by making the preposterous claim that I carried the full authority of God.
*You accept every religion, just like every Pope has been doing for thousands of years. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life". Jesus is the only way not RCC!
You are operating under the error of sola scriptura, and the error that you command God's authority in matters of Scriptural interpretation. God is Truth, and to love God, you need to love Truth. No matter what "side" you think you are on, error is the enemy, and we must dispatch it whenever we can. If you rid yourself of this error, you will be able to love Jesus and defend Jesus in truthful and tangible ways. If you do not rid yourself of this error, you hurt the defense of Christianity because you add to error and falsehood.
*Roman Catholicism is built on Christianity-- is not Christian--because they don't teach from the Bible but from their own interpretations(from Tradtion) they got from many Popes in history.
So, you see, I am spiritually on your side in the defense of Christianity when I fight against your error.
*No, you're not, otherwise, you would've instructed me on what I posted as you claim it was wrong.
If you want to talk to me about the origin of the Roman Catholic Church or if the Holy Apostles made the Catholic Church after Jesus ascension--I would be happy not to debate but reason, otherwise, hold your peace.
Well, in your posts that follow, quite frankly, it looks like you are itching for debate, not "reason." But, with all due respect, all of your judgments are colored by your error and by your blasphemous assumption of God's authority. I don't see how a continued discussion of this would be profitable as long as you refuse to explicitly reject the error of sola scriptura and reject your claim to godhood and otherwise demonstrate your source of authority. I really don't want to explore Christ's Church with someone who would draw me away from Christ on the basis of error.
Now you continue to tell me which authority do I have? I have authority from God and don't need to follow an oath preform by Tradition--Holy Orders.
You clearly misunderstand Holy Orders as it pertains to the Catholic Church. Becoming a priest does not give you the kind of authority you think it does. It gives them the authority to administer the Sacraments, perform the Mass, and preach, but it does not give them doctrinal authority. The doctrinal authority of Catholicism is much bigger than any given priest.
*That's exactly my point--every priest or nun, gets ordained in RCC and receive their authority from the Vatican. They're not ordained by God or has received His authority to become a priest. As a matter of fact, every Christian is a priest of God(1 Peter 2:4-5; 9-10). The priesthood of RCC and Mormonism are very similar, can we say Jesuits. This has been going on for thousands of years--if Jerome was still alive, RCC will NOT be in authority as they are today. The Vatican is "the Mother of Harlots" of Revelation 17--this church doesn't teach what is from God but from Babylon(do research on the Two Babylons)
Your continued claim to command God's authority elicits my pity. (Even the Catholic Church doesn't claim God's authority. They claim specific authority over specific things as commanded by God.) I fear for your soul, because the Serpent of Eden has convinced you that "you are like God" in your command of Scripture and meaning and in the knowledge of Good and Evil. Even after the glaring error you made with Proverbs that reveals you as wrong, you are still blind to the depths of self-worship into which you have fallen.
*No, I'm a sinner saved by grace alone, by faith alone, through Christ alone period. I have repented of all my sins--accepted Jesus Christ as my personal LORD and Savior into my heart and life--I have been saved, sanctified and secured--born again--freely received eternal life--have hope that one day I will go to the intermediate Heaven to be with Him. What hope do you have?
And after all is said and done--your lack of authority leaves your words fruitless and without impetus.
*You follow RCC, which is wrong and endangering your soul into Hell. Every Christian follows Jesus Christ, He knows them by name, they listen to Him as His sheep. I am His sheep.
I will pray for you, POC777. (In fact, I already have.) I hope that you will take this issue of your self-appointed authority of God seriously and pray very hard about it. I pray that Jesus delivers you from this error.
*I will also keep you in my prayers--I want no conflict between us. All I got to say is that I follow what the Bible--Jesus, the Acts and the Epistiles--I don't follow quotes from RCC men, that are already dead.
God bless you.
Let's see if you know your history:
What happened in the first thirty years after Jesus ascension to the Father's right hand?
*Every Christian that I know here or personally, knows the answer to this question, why can't you answer it? You claim to have authority in the Bible and if you have authority as you claim, answer the question then. Don't back off!
This is a silly question. There are books and books and books about things that happened after the Ascension of Christ.
*No..no what do "you" think? Don't be looking through RCC's books--I want to know what "you" think not what "RCC" thinks. You get spoon fed by RCC, but you can even defend RCC, that is sad.
What's your point?
*That RCC was not established by the Holy Apostles--you could read Acts 2 and notice that Peter doesn't mention one time about the Roman Catholic Church, not once. The Christian church(Body of Christ--every Christian) was established by the Holy Apostles. RCC didn't have to do anything by establishing the Christian church--RCC didn't exist until hundreds of years later.
Posted by: Anon | July 7, 2007 1:09 PM
I recognize Holy Tradition and the Catholic Church as authorities established by that Person, Jesus Christ. I don't follow a thing; I follow a Person. And that Person commands me to recognize the authority He established, so I obey out of love for Him.
*Anon, hasn't proven to us that Jesus established RCC through Peter--if they're no evidence of Peter ever being the first Pope, Anon, is wrong and should not be heeded.
This is where you are in error Anon. Your authority to make these claims is not an authority at all. It is simply Roman Catholicism's interpretation, which is just another of the many. You are in error because you argue that someone else's interpretation has no authority and then you proclaim your interpretation as authoritative. Your arguments are hypocritical.
*Anon, receives interpretations from the Popes--from the Cathelism-- not from the Bible as he or she should.
You are saying "your interpretation has no authority but my interpretation has authority because my interpretation says I have authority." Authority should come from outside your interpretation but your claimed authority comes from inside your interpretation. Rome claims to have authority because it interprets scripture in a way that gives it authority.
*He or she receives "interpretations" from RCC's interpretattions and hundreds of other interpretations--not biblcial interpretations. This kind of reminds me of the Pharisee's--these group of men--will "add" to the Law of Moses--which will burden the Jews. That's what I notice with RCC today--they burden Catholics with their interpretations.
Posted by: | July 7, 2007 1:21 PM
The Origin of the Roman Catholic Church
The Book of Acts records for us the birth of the New Testament Church, and some of the history of the first 30 years of Christianity.
In spite of great persecution, by the end of the first century A.D. Christian churches had been established in numerous cities throughout the Roman Empire. Primarily because of its location in the capital of the Roman Empire, the church in Rome slowly began gaining some prominence. When the Roman Emperor Constantine legalized the Christian faith, and ended the persecution of Christians with the Edict of Milan in 313, the church in Rome gained even further prominence. As the church in Rome allied itself with the Roman government, it continued to grow in it’s authority, and influence. As early as the 3rd century the leaders of the church in Rome were claiming for themselves a supremacy over other churches throughout the Empire when it came to matters of doctrine. And by the 6th century the Church in Rome was exercising jurisdiction over the churches.
And thus, the Roman Catholic Church was born.
I was raised "Mormon" and believed in Jesus as a Creator and Examplar. A couple of years ago, I believe I was born again and came to trust in his salvation. I don't see "Mormonism" as incompatible with that experience at all. I love reading the Bible and the Book of Mormon. I am grateful for the gift of revelation.
I think Mormonism does not need to go seeking for the approval of the professional pulpit. We must be faithful to our bridegroom and shepherd, our savior and master, Jesus Christ who declared himself to be the Son of God. It is His approval that matters.
It should be noted that the Holy Tradition and the Magisterium should be rooted in external Truth, otherwise its just simply made up or based on opinion. The external Truth it is rooted in should be the Word of God. However, only the Roman interpretation of the Word of God includes Holy Tradition and the Magisterium.
Holy Tradition and the Magisterium are rooted in the Word of God, including the unwritten Word and teaching that Paul explicitly told us to hold fast to. (The stuff you reject.) It also draws from "external" Truth that Christ entrusted to them.
But I notice two things here. First, I notice that you are far more interested in finding ways to discredit, rather than understand. Second I notice that you have done nothing to resolve the problem that you have absolutely no authority in your own personal interpretations of Scripture. What is the "external" source of truth you use for interpretation? You certainly shouldn't be criticizing the Catholic Church when you have none yourself.
So what alternatives do we have here? A Catholic Church that could be a source of authority, or your personal interpretations that can't. For some reason you seem to think that tearing down the authority of the Catholic Church helps your position. But it doesn't. Your position of having no authority deserves to be completely ignored regardless of whether or not the Catholic Church has authority.
What is your authority?
(By the way, I thought you said you were quitting? Did you change your mind? And, don't you have some homework to do?)
In the end Roman Catholicism is still just another interpretation.
In matters of Scripture, there is some truth to that. But it is still interpretation with the weight of authority behind it. But, of course, the Church's authority goes well beyond just interpreting Scripture.
The New Testament writers constantly appealed to the Scriptures as their base of authority in declaring what was and was not true biblical teaching: Matt. 21:42; John 2:22; 1 Cor. 15:3-4; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2:2; 2 Peter 1:17-19, etc.
You crack me up. You know for a fact that you have no authority whatsoever to claim your interpretation is correct, and you know for a fact that I reject your interpretation because of your lack of authority. You also know for a fact that I will have perfectly reasonable counter interpretations of every single one of these.
Yet, in spite of all that, you spout Scripture as if you could prove something. For every single point you make about all these references to Scripture, I pose, yet again, the still unanswered question: By what authority should we accept your personal interpretations?
Of course, I'm kind of enjoying these little challenges right now, so I'll deal with the following ones in spite of the futility of it being resolved by you.
Of course, Paul in Acts 17:11 says, "Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so." Paul commends those who examined God's word for the test of truth.
Of course! I value Scripture, too, and in the Catholic Mass we receive the word with great eagerness. We also study the Scriptures to understand the meaning as it was intended by the inspired authors. But the verse you quote does not say or imply that all readers will have infallible interpretations. The members of the Synagogue in Beroea were *trained* in Scripture and *steeped* in the Traditional knowledge of Scripture. They would find your doctrine of "the Bible alone" to be alien and misguided.
And you still haven't solved the problem of disagreement among the many faithful Christian churches due to the mutually exclusive interpretations they have of Scripture. If their interpretations are guaranteed to be correct--as you imply above--then why do they contradict each other? (You continually avoid this question, but the main question you continually avoid that really needs to be answered is the "By what authority?" one.)
I have no doubt that you can read your interpretation *into* Scripture. But it isn't at all something that needs to be read *from* Acts 17:11. And, in fact, the context of the Synagogue in the presence of Paul's guidance completely goes against that interpretation.
He did not commend them for appealing to tradition. Therefore, we can see that the method used by Jesus and the apostles for determining spiritual truth was to appeal to Scripture, not tradition.
Do you seriously think it is logical to say that the encouragement of one method abolishes the use of another? That's like seeing a parent teach a child to wipe his chin and using it as proof that the same parent does not teach the child to chew with his mouth closed.
Besides, we know for a fact that Paul teaches us to hold fast to the traditions we have learned:
"Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle." 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14
In case you are disturbed by the archaic translation, most modern translations say "by word of mouth," including NIV, NASB, NAB, and NRSV. I have also seen it as "whether written or unwritten."
So we are commanded by Paul to hold fast to oral tradition. Not only that, but as stated above, the context of reading the Scriptures in Acts 17:11 was steeped in Tradition. For that matter, language is part of Tradition.
I didn't have to include verse 13, but I did because it highlights something very interesting. Paul refers to "our gospel," the gospel of the Apostles, and it is in this context that he says to hold fast to both the written and unwritten word. It is clear that the Apostles considered their *gospel* to consist of oral tradition as well as the written word.
In fact, it is the Scriptures that refute the traditions of men in many instances.
Right. But the Holy Tradition of the Catholic Church is the Holy Tradition passed down from the Apostles coming from God. The Catholic Church also admonishes against "traditions of men." (You know--like the innovations of the Reformation, including the doctrine of sola scriptura.)
That's right. Sola scriptura is a tradition of men, so you should reject it outright.
The Word of God came before Roman Catholicism, not vice versa. Technically, Scripture should interpret Roman Catholicism. It does not clearly do this, otherwise everyone would be Catholic.
That depends on what you are talking about. The Old Testament precedes the Catholic Church. But the establishment of the Apostles was the establishment of the Catholic Church, and Peter was the first Pope. (Apostolic succession is well-established in the historic record.) Since the Apostles were established before they wrote the Gospels, it is obvious that even the separate books of the Bible did not precede the Catholic Church. But that's not all. The actual assembly of those books is a matter of historic record, and that was done by the Catholic Church. So if you are saying the Bible came before the Catholic Church, you are displaying a complete lack of knowledge of history.
Yes, Paul says these things. What is at issue is whether the Traditions Paul taught are what Roman Catholicism teaches. The Bible is both for and against tradition. See 2 Thess 3:6 vs. Matt 15:3-6,
2 Thess 2:15 vs. Mark 7:8-9, and 1 Cor 11:2 vs. Col 2:8.
Very true. The Bible teaches against certain kinds of tradition (tradition of men), and it teaches against using tradition as a way to break the law. The Bible also commands that you hold fast to the traditions of the Apostles.
So--we know conformity to the Bible means that you will hold fast to the tradition of the Apostles, and we know that some of these are *unwritten* (NOT in the Bible). Obviously, it is the Catholic Church who holds fast to these Apostolic traditions, while you explicitly reject them if they are not explicitly mentioned in the Bible.
The Catholic Church also rejects the tradition of men--especially as it undermines Apostolic Tradition--while you accept traditions of men, including this invention of "the Bible alone."
The more you try to prove your view, the more you support Catholicism.
But regardless of the end results--you still haven't established where your authority lies. How can we possibly rely upon your interpretations without authority?
The Bible is for tradition where it supports the teachings of the apostles (2 Thess. 2:15) and is consistent with biblical revelation. Yet, it is against tradition when it "transgresses the commands of God" (Matt. 15:3). By Jesus' own words, tradition is not to transgress or contradict the commands of God. In other words, it should be in harmony with biblical teaching and not oppose it in any way.
The Catholic Church does not use tradition to "transgress the command of God." The Catholic Church is in complete harmony with the Bible. There is nothing in the Bible that contradicts Catholic teaching.
People disagree on whether Roman Catholic tradition (veneration of Saints, Maryology, penance, etc.) transgresses the commands of God.
People disagree with it--but they disagree with it based upon their own self-appointed authority, which should carry no credibility with anyone. If you have no authority to interpret Scripture in a way that disagrees with the Catholic Church, then you are completely unreliable and have no authority to say that they are not in harmony. You have no credibility and your interpretations should be ignored. If not--by what authority should you not be disregarded as unreliable?
I wrote: All three are a complete and harmonious authority established by Jesus Christ Himself, and preserved by His Church and His inspired writers.
You responded: Authoritative statements slipped in like this feel deceptive. This is not an authoritative statement but is just another interpretation made by Roman Catholicism.
I'm no authority, so I wasn't pretending to make any "authoritative statement." I was simply teaching what Catholicism actually *is*. I am speaking as a Catholic. It is what I know as a Catholic, but that doesn't make it deceptive. It is either true, or it is not true. As a Catholic, I know that it is true. I'm certainly not forcing you to believe it.
Besides, this post that I made regarding Catholic authority was not intended to present an argument. I was simply describing Catholic authority for what it was, because there were some who posted obvious mistakes about what Catholic authority was. You may not agree with Catholic authority, but what I wrote is accurate about what Catholic authority *is*. (Though it doesn't pretend to be complete.)
Still, I actually enjoy this opportunity to put the description in context with some of the more common objections out there.
You also said elsewhere that you were studied in the early church and were 100% confident. This means nothing about whether your claims are True.
Of course it doesn't. Truth is always independent of what people think. But this is the Truth that I know, and I'm certainly not going to deny it or pretend it isn't so. Besides, the statement was not intended in the slightest to "prove" anything was true. It was to show that "I'm good!" And I am.
But you and your pet tradition of man are obviously in error, and your arguments fall like ashes before the Rock of the Church.
I can find hundreds of other people who are as studied as you or more who believe the completely opposite way that you do and are also 100$ confident.
Of course, you can. As stated above, Truth is independent of what we think. Sure--it's entirely possible that I am completely delusional. But in spite of that, I believe in something credible that can have authority, while you believe in something (your personal self-appointed authority) that is not credible and does not have authority. So, if I'm delusional--what does that say about you?
I was raised "Mormon" and believed in Jesus as a Creator and Examplar. A couple of years ago, I believe I was born again and came to trust in his salvation. I don't see "Mormonism" as incompatible with that experience at all. I love reading the Bible and the Book of Mormon. I am grateful for the gift of revelation.
My response:
Whenever something or someone, contradicts, opposes and denies, what God has already said in the Bible, is not from God.
If you answer this question, then I know the Book of Mormon, is true, if not I know it is not from God, false and shouldn't be heeded as the Word of God:
Can you find me archeological and historical proof from non-Mormon sources that prove that the peoples and places named in the Book of Mormon are true?
That's what I see in Mormonism--they teach that in order to "earn" eternal life--you must follow Mormon doctrine--baptism into Mormonism--exaltation--eternal marriage--Godhood. That's not what the Bible teaches. Eternal life is a free gift, that must be received, believing what Jesus did on the cross 2,000 years ago(John 3:16; John 3:36; Rom 6:23). In John 14:6, we read "Jesus said to him[Thomas] "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." Not through RCC, Hinudism, Buddhism, Mormonism and other religion--through Jesus Christ. Without going through Jesus first--it is impossible to go to the Father(God). And by going through Jesus Christ you must:
Recongize that you are a sinner and can't save yourself from your sins(Rom 3:23), realize that Jesus has died in your place for your sin-debt(Rom 5:8), repent of all your sins--change the way you think and your life(Acts 3:38-39) and receive Jesus Christ as your personal LORD and Savior(John 1:12-13; 3:3;Rom 10:9-13 & Rev 3:20). Once you have done the four r's, you are now a Christian, if not, you are lost in your sins and headed for Hell.
I think Mormonism does not need to go seeking for the approval of the professional pulpit. We must be faithful to our bridegroom and shepherd, our savior and master, Jesus Christ who declared himself to be the Son of God. It is His approval that matters.
My response:
*The problem is not with them following Jesus, but following LDS teachings--adding to the Bible--they are err.
Posted by: Tricia V | July 7, 2007 2:08 PM
This is where you are in error Anon.
Says you, Mr. no authority about anything.
Your authority to make these claims is not an authority at all.
I have not claimed authority on one single thing in this entire forum, so what you are saying is nonsense. I have presented arguments that reveal your complete lack of authority, and I have presented some ideas and arguments that support Catholic authority. But I have claimed no authority myself. I, in fact, have none.
But that does not stop the power of my arguments and the power of logic. Nor does it change the fact that your position is completely bankrupt.
It is simply Roman Catholicism's interpretation, which is just another of the many. You are in error because you argue that someone else's interpretation has no authority and then you proclaim your interpretation as authoritative. Your arguments are hypocritical.
I read that with a lot of good humor because you are obviously very strenuously trying to twist things in such a way that you can get some satisfaction out of calling my arguments hypocritical. But really you simply reveal that you are either ignorant and cannot follow the arguments, or you are intentionally being deceptive so you can get your jollies with the "hypocritical" thing.
I have stated several times now that Catholic authority is contingent upon it actually being *true*. I have also come to most of these beliefs by self study, not because I was "spoon fed" anything. I didn't turn to the Catholic Church because I would blindly accept what it teaches. I turned to the Catholic Church because I recognized its Truth. *After* I recognized it as being true, *then* I was informed by the Truths that Jesus Christ left to it. I am either wrong, or I am right--but that is the history of it. For you to say that I am hypocritical simply for stating the arguments is simply stupid.
You are saying "your interpretation has no authority but my interpretation has authority because my interpretation says I have authority."
You obviously haven't read what I wrote very carefully, because I didn't write anything of the sort. Besides, you are still just trying to tear down my understanding of authority because you know for a fact that you have none. How does tearing down my authority help you? What authority do you have? Even if I have none--What authority do you have?
Authority should come from outside your interpretation but your claimed authority comes from inside your interpretation.
This makes absolutely no sense. You are going to have to actually...you know... explain it and form an argument if you want to be understood.
And you still haven't resolved your problem with having no authority "outside" your interpretation of Scripture.
Rome claims to have authority because it interprets scripture in a way that gives it authority.
The Catholic Church claims nothing of the sort, but at this point, I don't expect that to stop you from spreading intentional lies about it.
POC777, to start, you are now using a shotgun technique to argue against something that I did not present as an argument. I presented it so that others would understand Catholic authority a little better, and not distort it in there discussion of it. It was not intended to say "this is what it is like, and you have to believe it." But if you want to have any kind of coherent discussion at all--focus on something.
You spilled out a whole bunch of grossly incomplete historical things that have varying degrees of accuracy, and most of them include **your personal interpretations** and historic *speculation* that has nothing to do with what we actually *know*.
You make insupportable claims. You say that the Church became a different Church when it was supported by Rome, but that is completely contrary to the fact that it was headed by the same bishops of Apostolic succession before and after it was approved. You also ignore the established historic *fact* that the Chair of Peter was established in Rome. (He also established one in Antioch, but he established *his* Chair, in Rome.)
You also ignore the fact that the Apostles--MEN--ordained someone to replace Judas and carry on the authority of Christ.
You mix up random historical assertions with theology in a way that lacks even the remotest inclination towards rigorous and fair exploration of these issues.
It is a disruptive and ridiculous way to make your point. Your methods are confusing the truth, not helping the truth. Are you an ally of Truth, or not?
This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about when I said I really don't feel it would be that fruitful to have such a discussion with you. Not only do you bring your preconceived notions to Scripture--you bring it to your (mis)management of history, as well.
It doesn't help when you use very insulting words like "spoon fed" to describe me, as if you are so much more intelligent than me, and by the way, Anon, you simply don't know how to think. What a bunch of *crap*. I could just as easily say that you are spoonfed by the rest of the men who claim they are gods of Scripture, and that you have no mind of your own--but I have been far more charitable than that.
And, by the way, the patronizing line "Know your history!" is also annoying. I know my history enough to know that you are being *very* irresponsible with your presentation of it.
And--if you think I am stupid and can't think for myself--why on earth are you having a discussion with me? If I thought you were stupid and couldn't think for yourself, I would completely ignore you.
I go back to what I said before. Instead of suffering through endless distortions and incomplete discussions about history, before we have any more discussion, *you* need to establish your original claims.
By *what* authority do you claim to carry the authority of God in interpreting Scripture. This turn to history in an all-out assault of my Church is simply a way for you to avoid the fact that you have no authority at all.
Hey Albert. You may want to check out this website lds.org. You have a couple of facts regarding the mormons stated incorrectly.
Let's see if you know your history:
What happened in the first thirty years after Jesus ascension to the Father's right hand?
*Every Christian that I know here or personally, knows the answer to this question, why can't you answer it? You claim to have authority in the Bible and if you have authority as you claim, answer the question then. Don't back off!
The problem with this stupid notion is that you could write books and books about the things that happened in the first thirty yeras after the Ascension of Jesus Christ. I don't know what you are asking about, and you expect me to read my mind. Then you get smug because I can't read your mind.
You have taken to some tactic of senseless quizzing, instead of actually stating an argument. It is a stupid tactic, and it shows absolutely no responsible dealing with history and no decent rigor at all. It's really quite pathetic.
I'm pretty much done here folks. Anything else these guys say will fall flat until they demonstrate their authority, and I have pretty much nailed that home. They will continue maligning my Church, but any intelligent person can see their lack of rigor and their willingness to do violence to the truth in order to state their opinions. They really do not deserve any more of my time.
Besides, that dude with the article on the Keys to the Kingdom has a lot of homework he should be doing instead of spending his time here. (Remember--by your own words--if you do not read them in order to do your best to refute them, then you are running away from facts that go against what you believe.)
and you expect me to read my mind.
I obviously meant "read your mind."
Anon,
Your entire argument rests on the supposed authority of the Catholic Church and the Magisterium and the Holy Tradition which you claim was handed down from Christ.
This is simply not true unless you subscribe to the Roman Catholic interpretation of scripture
You are believing in a human interpretation of scripture exactly like everyone else in this discussion. That is why you are a hypocrite.
Also, you speak as if every word or verse in the Bible is open to inerpretation. It is not. There are absolute statements. "The sky is blue." is an absolute statement. Its not open to interpretation. There are absolute statements in the Bible. There are also statement in the Bible that can only be reinterpreted (away from their plain-meaning) with strained logic. This is exactly what happens with Rome. Jesus did not refer to Peter as "the rock" nor did he give him the keys to the kingdom. I can make these claims by looking at the Greek.
First of all, when we look at the Greek of Matthew 16:18 we see something that is not obvious in the English. "...you are Peter (πέτρος, petros) and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build My church..." In Greek nouns have gender. It is similar to the English words actor and actress. The first is masculine and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word "petros" is masculine; "petra" is feminine. Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros. But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine "petros" but the feminine "petra." Let me illustrate by using the words "actor" and "actress": "You are the actor and with this actress I will make my movie." Do see how the gender influences how a sentence is understood? Unless you are willing to deny that words and grammar have any meaning at all, you cannot refute this. In the example used above, you cannot logically say that "actress" refers to "actor".
The authority you claim for your assertions is based on the authority you claim the Catholic Church has. However, the Catholic Church only has this authority based on their own interpretation of scripture. I'm not claiming to have any authority at all. You can try all you want to pin this on me, but I never have once claimed this like you have claimed the authority of the Catholic Church.
You are a hypocrite because you claim no one else's interpretation is valid because they have no authority, but you claim the Catholic Church's authority, which is based on an interpretation (which is just as subject to flaws as everyone elses')! This kind of circular reasoning is flawed at best.
The New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5–6, Rev. 21:14). One metaphor that has been disputed is Jesus Christ’s calling the apostle Peter "rock": "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).
Some have tried to argue that Jesus did not mean that his Church would be built on Peter but on something else.
Some argue that in this passage there is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra), yet they ignore the obvious explanation: petra, a feminine noun, has simply been modifed to have a masculine ending, since one would not refer to a man (Peter) as feminine. The change in the gender is purely for stylistic reasons.
These critics also neglect the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and, as John 1:42 tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Kepha or Cephas (depending on how it is transliterated). It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: "You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church."
The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter, as the following passages show.
The credit for the above excerpt goes to an article from Catholic Answers.
Would you speak German to an Italian person? No? Why would Jesus speak Aramaic to a Jew, someone who speaks Hebrew? If you claim Peter spoke Aramaic, where is your external proof?
and Anon, here is a question for you...
by what authority do you claim that the Roman Catholic interpretation of scripture is true?
Hello. I am a follower of Jesus Christ; a "Mormon", or more correctly titled, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I associate with friends and advocates of other faiths, some Christian and some other. Those claiming the title of Evangelical Christian have taught me many things of faith and devotion. I appreciate the diligence in lifestyle and the fruits of the spirit obtained by my Evangelical friends. I have read articles from Dr. Mohler prior to this posting, and I have came away with an appreciation for the sincerity in his feelings.
Dr. Mohler's first sentence in this post was a question. "Are Mormons “Christians” as defined by traditional Christian orthodoxy?" The only honest answer is "No, we Mormons are not 'Traditional' Christian Orthodoxy." We may have many similar values. The yearnings of our hearts may be one with all followers of God and of his Son, Jesus Christ. And we may all file a claim to a title of "Christian". But as Mormons, the moment Joseph Smith proclaimed a vision from heaven, having spoke with God and Jesus Christ, they having addressed him, Joseph Smith separated himself from denominations claiming orthodoxy.
We (Mormons) can not properly claim to be orthodox. We do not follow the creeds of the orthodox nor the core teachings of the orthodox. It may hurt Mormons to be excluded but let us not permit that to drive a wedge of animosity between those things we can see eye-to-eye on: Repentence, Charity, Humility, Kindness, Love of God and Love of Neighbor. We can be these things without contenting for the title of "Orthodox".
Let's see if you know your history:
What happened in the first thirty years after Jesus ascension to the Father's right hand?
*Every Christian that I know here or personally, knows the answer to this question, why can't you answer it? You claim to have authority in the Bible and if you have authority as you claim, answer the question then. Don't back off!
The problem with this stupid notion is that you could write books and books about the things that happened in the first thirty yeras after the Ascension of Jesus Christ. I don't know what you are asking about, and you expect me to read my mind. Then you get smug because I can't read your mind.
My response:
Answer the question--you act so childish! Stop playing games!
You have taken to some tactic of senseless quizzing, instead of actually stating an argument. It is a stupid tactic, and it shows absolutely no responsible dealing with history and no decent rigor at all. It's really quite pathetic.
My response:
This is how I start a conversation--by asking questions--I need answers. I need to know what "you" think, not what your Church thinks or others, you.
I'm pretty much done here folks. Anything else these guys say will fall flat until they demonstrate their authority, and I have pretty much nailed that home. They will continue maligning my Church, but any intelligent person can see their lack of rigor and their willingness to do violence to the truth in order to state their opinions. They really do not deserve any more of my time.
My response:
No have no foundation--your Church is false--if you don't want me to expose RCC in who they really represent over the centuries--stay quiet.
Besides, that dude with the article on the Keys to the Kingdom has a lot of homework he should be doing instead of spending his time here. (Remember--by your own words--if you do not read them in order to do your best to refute them, then you are running away from facts that go against what you believe.)
My response:
The keys to the Kingdom have been given to every Christian--they are co-heirs--kings and queens--togther with Jesus Christ. So you mean to tell me that RCC, has the power to bind and loosen anyone she chooses to go to Heaven?
And you're telling me that I'm in God's place!
The Pope has the power with his signiture to sign an indulgence to release those in the pugatory? That's not what the Bible says or even teaches about the pugatory.
Vicar of Christ--the Pope replacing Jesus Christ on earth--is completely false--not even Peter replaced Jesus Christ. RCC is wrong!
Posted by: Anon | July 7, 2007 3:39 PM
this is also false. Petros is not the Greek term for "Peter", it is the masculine Greek term for "rock". Petra is the feminine. If Petra had been modified to have a maculine ending, it would read "Petros", but it doesn't. "Petra" was NOT modified to have a masculine ending...thats the whole point and the reason why it doesn't refer to Peter.
Some argue that in this passage there is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra), yet they ignore the obvious explanation: petra, a feminine noun, has simply been modifed to have a masculine ending, since one would not refer to a man (Peter) as feminine. The change in the gender is purely for stylistic reasons.
*The word petra means "rock"---a pebble. Jesus is the Rock--it is His church and not Peters! Paul said that he built his foundation upon Jesus Christ not upon Tradition. He even teaches that the Apostles and the prophets were built on the foundation, as Jesus Christ the Chief cornerstone.
this is also false. Petros is not the Greek term for "Peter", it is the masculine Greek term for "rock". Petra is the feminine. If Petra had been modified to have a maculine ending, it would read "Petros", but it doesn't. "Petra" was NOT modified to have a masculine ending...thats the whole point and the reason why it doesn't refer to Peter.
*Exactly!!!
Posted by: | July 7, 2007 6:50 PM
I will start by saying I have been a Mormon for 46 years. I understand and Love the doctrines, The people, the culture, and most of all The Savior Jesus Christ who is the only begotten son of the Father.
There is a difference in christian beliefs and I wish all sincere seekers of christ well.
I would not attempt to define someone elses doctrine other than my own but if you want to know what a latter day saint believes ask one.
There is only one God that the latter day saints worship The Father, We also worship his son, Jesus Christ who was sent to earth to redeem all those who would believe on his name and keep his commandments.
If you love me keep my commandments" We know that he ( Jesus Christ ) is the only name and way in which we can be saved and return to live with the Father. So we strive to keep his commandments to show our love for him and not to work our way into heaven.
His Sacrifice and atonement and resurection is the central doctrine of the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints.
We believe the Father and the Son have resurected bodies of flesh and bone just as Jesus testified to Thomas in the new testament. We also believe that the Holy Ghost is the third member of the Godhead but does not have a body but is a spirit personage and his job is to testify of christ.
This is our central doctrine all others come after.
I believe as Mathew teaches that by their fruits ye shall know them. I know the fruits of the spirit that accompanies the believers and I Love what the church has done for me in my life. I am a better person all around with a better family and an understanding of my purpose in life and what my Heavenly father wants for me in the next life.
Just as I want the best for my children, I believe that we are all children of God the father and he wants us to have all that he has. In fact that is why Jesus came , so that we can become like him through the blood and resurection of christ.
Didnt christ say all that my father has will be yours. Our Goal in life is to try every day to be a better follower of christ so that we can someday become like him.
I share this testimony with you in the Name of Jesus Christ Amen.
DJ
Are you 100% sure that if you were to die(God forbid) today and standing before God's Heavenly pearly gates, will He allow you into Heaven, why?
I will start by saying I have been a Mormon for 46 years. I understand and Love the doctrines, The people, the culture, and most of all The Savior Jesus Christ who is the only begotten son of the Father.
There is a difference in Christian beliefs and I wish all sincere seekers of Christ well.
I would not attempt to define someone elses doctrine other than my own but if you want to know what a latter day saint believes ask one.
There is only one God that the latter day saints worship--the Father. We also worship his Son, Jesus Christ who was sent to earth to redeem all those who would believe on his name and keep his commandments.
My response:
According to what you said above you believe...
1. You believe one God and worship Him
2. You worship Jesus Christ
3. You believe Jesus came to redeem mankind
4. You believe in keeping His commandments
My response:
Wait, you said "to redeem all those who believe on His name", when did you get redeemed? Even demons believe in Him and shudder--saying "I believe in Jesus Christ" is not the same as accepting Him into your heart as your personal LORD and Savior. Saying that I'm the prophet Elijah, doesn't make me Elijah. Many profess they "know" Jesus Christ but they haven't given their heart to Him--He wants your heart. Intellectual conversion is not the same as heart conversion!
If you love me keep my commandments" We know that he ( Jesus Christ ) is the only name and way in which we can be saved and return to live with the Father. So we strive to keep his commandments to show our love for him and not to work our way into Heaven.
My response:
Which commandments do you follow the Mormon Gospel(commandments and ordinaces) or Jesus teachings in the four gospels?
His Sacrifice and atonement and resurection is the central doctrine of the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints.
My response:
Okay, so you believe...
1. In Jesus sacrafice on the cross
2. In His atonement for our sin-debt
3. In the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked
Which Atonement, Mormonism's or what Jesus did for our sins on the cross, 2,000 years ago?
We believe the Father and the Son have resurected bodies of flesh and bone just as Jesus testified to Thomas in the new testament. We also believe that the Holy Ghost is the third member of the Godhead but does not have a body but is a spirit personage and his job is to testify of christ.
My response:
Okay, once again you believe that...
1. God the Father has a resurrected body
2. God the Son has a resurrected body
3. The confession of Thomas in John 20 proves Jesus is God
4. God the Holy Spirit
5. The Trinity
6. The Spirit is a Person
7. The Spirit testifies about Jesus Christ
God does not have a body--He is Spirit(John 4:24)
This is our central doctrine all others come after.
I believe as Mathew teaches that by their fruits ye shall know them. I know the fruits of the spirit that accompanies the believers and I Love what the church has done for me in my life. I am a better person all around with a better family and an understanding of my purpose in life and what my Heavenly father wants for me in the next life.
My response:
Right, Jesus said "By there fruits you shall know them", knowledge, won't draw anyone closer to God--you need to have an intimate relationship with Him--and that's only through Jesus Christ.
Just as I want the best for my children, I believe that we are all children of God the father and he wants us to have all that he has. In fact that is why Jesus came, so that we can become like Him through His blood and resurection of Him.
My response:
Has He washed away your sins already with His precious blood?
Didn't Christ say all that my father has will be yours? Our Goal in life is to try every day to be a better follower of Christ so that we can someday become like him.
My response:
Okay, so you acually believe we will be exactly like Jesus as God in His omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent?
I share this testimony with you in the Name of Jesus Christ Amen.
My response:
Have you ever said this simple prayer: LORD Jesus, I repent of all my sin, thank you for dying on the cross for me and resurrecting on the third day. Come into my heart as my LORD and Savior, fill me with Your Holy Spirit and make me a new person, with a new heart, a new mind and a clean conscience--and write my name in the Lamb's Book of Life and make me the person you want me to be, all the days of my life. In Jesus name, I pray Amen and Amen.
Posted by: dj | July 7, 2007 9:38 PM
This is an excerpt from my soon-to-be-publish book entitled "Why Do Christian Walk Away from the LORD". I hope and pray that it will speak to each of you, God bless you!
Hell is real and nothing to joke about
The reason I am writing this is tell you about Hell for those of you who don’t have a relationship with Christ right now; I am not writing this to scare you but to encourage you to rethink where you will spend for all eternity. Satan in John 8:44 is called the father of lies, he is so tricky that he deceives you into thinking, that you could save yourself and that Hell is not real but false. He tells you that Christians don’t know what they’re talking about and are crazy. He tells you to question Hell by saying: How could a God of love send people to Hell? Actually, God does love you and doesn’t send you into Hell but yourself for refusing His love.
This is why He gave us His begotten Son to pay you’re your sin-debt in full and not go to Hell. I will give this example. Let’s say you’re are a doctor and know something is wrong with your friend, who turns out to be, a terminal disease, and you have the cure. Will you tell your friend about his condition quickly or stay quiet? You will tell him quickly, because you don’t want him to suffer pain and die a terrible death but to be cured right away. You love him. In the same way, God tells everyone the same thing, they have cancer growing inside of them, and this cancer is sin, that if it’s not cured, they will soon die in their sin which is why they will go to Hell.
However, the good news is that Jesus Christ will cure that cancer to avoid Hell, with His precious blood, if you decide to come to Him now. It’s like a get-out-of-Hell card! Hell is the opposite of Heaven. Jesus told us in Matthew 7:13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it”. Everyday around the world, many people die without Him and go to that place because it’s easier for them to enter the “broad way” which will destroy them---Hell, than for them to enter the “narrow way”--Heaven.
The truth is that Jesus had spoken of Hell more than He ever spoken about Heaven in the four gospels. He didn’t teach us about Hell to be mean, but to give us examples by parables that describe this horrifying place for our conscience mind. That’s why before He had taught about Heaven, He taught about Hell, to escape it. If you were to see a person in a burning building, will you rescue them in an instant? Of course, why should you allow the person to turn into ashes, knowing you could save them from the flames?
That’s what Jesus did. Jesus spoke more of Hell than anybody on this earth today who teaches and preaches on the subject. Many pastors don’t teach or preach on Hell, because they will offend others and afraid of losing numbers(no more tithes and offerings). But in Matthew 10:18, He teaches us about the fear of God, when He said “And don’t be fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell”. Did God purposely throw both the body and soul, because He wanted to?
No, it was because of sin, He can’t stand it so He turns away because He is holy. Sin is what put Jesus Christ on the cross, our sins crucified Him, and we crucified Him because of our sins. In the future judgment, all those who didn’t place their faith and trust on Jesus Christ for their salvation, will suffer for eternity in this place of horror, for their sins, which God’s wrath will be upon them, in a place called the lake of fire. That’s why we read in John 3:36 “He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him”. So if you don’t believe in the Son, Jesus Christ, God’s wrath abides on you, right now at this moment.
But you might say “I do believe in Him” but James tell us “even demons believe in Him and tremble”. Believing doesn’t mean “Okay I believe in Jesus Christ” and then live your life as you want to, no, is repenting of all your sins and changing your entire life—you turn from sin and turn to God. Now you live for God and no longer live for yourself. Repenting means to change the way you think and act. Acts 2:38-39 tells us “Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call”.
He didn’t make Hell for you or me and doesn’t want anybody to go to this place and suffer for their sins, to be separated from Him for all eternity but to deliver them from that place. Imagine being separated from God forever? Not only Him but from your family and friends? We read in Matthew 25:41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand. ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels’. He made Hell for Satan and his angels at first, because of they sinned against Him, but as we can see in the verse, it says “you cursed”, how did they get cursed? Sin! Who they are? None other than who refused the gift of salvation from Jesus Christ. If you are refusing His gift, then you are cursed. He wants everyone who hasn’t come to Him; to realize that He loves them and doesn’t have a place in His heart for them to be thrown into the lake of fire, where we read “Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire.
This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.” I give you this example, say there’s a person who is the CEO of a company and has an invitation to a dinner in an expensive restaurant and is the speaker for the evening. When he enters the restaurant, he meets the matire'd; he asks him “I have a reservation because I called in yesterday to book it”. The man says “Wait”. He looks for his name, putting his finger and looking for it, but no name. He turns page after page still no name. He says “I’m sorry sir but your name doesn’t appear anywhere”.
The boss responds “But I booked a reservation yesterday and I’m the CEO of a company and the speaker for the evening”. He says “It doesn’t matter who you are or what you do if your name isn’t found in the here, I won’t let you enter”. If you’re not a Christian now, your name will not be found in the book of life and like the CEO who couldn’t go through the matire'd, you will not enter Heaven and will be cast into the lake of fire, on Judgment Day. Now is the time for you to come and realize that you need Jesus Christ now and surrender everything to Him, at this moment before it’s too late before you find yourself in Hell in torments. If you accept Jesus Christ today into your heart, your name will be written in the Lamb’s book of life, permanently.
I don’t know why you’re reading this book now, it might be that God is speaking to you and doesn’t want you to go to Hell but to Heaven when you die. I don’t want you to go to Hell, that’s why I’m wrote this, because I love you. I don’t know why you haven’t gotten saved, but now is the time, “Now is the day of salvation” it might be pride keeping you from allowing God to change you to give you new life or you might be saying: “I’m alright and don’t need Jesus Christ right now, I’m fine” “My religion will save me” “I’m a good person and when I die I will go to Heaven”. You have been trying all those years, to attain love, joy and peace, but still can’t. The truth is nobody in this world is good enough to enter Heaven, no amount of good works will merit you into Heaven, only God is good; after all, there will be good people in Hell. That’s why Jesus died for you and me, to not go to Hell.
If you want to come into a relationship with Him now and for sure you will go to Heaven when you die then repeat this prayer after me: Lord Jesus, I repent of all my sins, I ask You to forgive me of all my sins and I thank you for dying now the cross for me and resurrecting on the third day, now I’m asking to come into my life, as Lord and Savior, filled with Your Holy Spirit, and make me a brand new person, with a new heart, new mind and a clean conscience and write my name in the Lamb’s book of life, make me the person you want me to be, all the days of my life, in Jesus name I pray. Amen and Amen. Welcome to the family! You have received Jesus Christ and now what, we’ll in order to grow in your relationship with Him you must: Find a church in your area where they teach God’s Word, pray everyday, witness to others what Jesus has done for you and if you have a bible right now; start reading the book of John. Enjoy the rest of this book!
WHOA!! STOP!!! this is SO DEPRESSING!!!
If all who consider themselves committed Christians, consecrated followers of Christ, will STOP this ridiculous and FUTILE bickering, and instead go forth and DO the Commands of Christ, viz, Matthew 10:7-8
"And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give."
AND
Luke 10:27 ...Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live." ,
you will PROVE by your ACTIONS that you are indeed a Christian.
In short, "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.[Matt 5:16]
Let all who consider themselves dedicated followers of Jesus Christ be totally committed to obeying these directions, spend their energy in these ways, and what a better world we will have!
Deuteronomy 6:24-26 to all,
Verndigger
́Εστιν δέ καì ̉άλλα πολλ̀α ‛̀α ̉εποίησεν ‛ο ̉Ιησους, ‛άτινα ̉ὲαν γράφηται καθ̉ ‛έν, ο̉υδ̉ α̉υτ̀ον ο̉ιμαι τ̀ον κόσμον χωρησαι τ̀α γραφόμενα βιβλία.
I personally think that Jesus did a pretty ingenious thing. Instead of just symbolically saying Simon was the rock, he renamed him. It was a name that stuck. Peter is the anglicized version of the Greek for rock, and Cephas is the Aramaic for rock. Both of those names became the names that were used to refer to Simon for the rest of his life, and they appear in the Bible in many places.
So, while a whole bunch of folks with differing opinions hash out what the Greek really says, the average Joe can look right past the fray and see the man with the name that Jesus gave him. If the name was intended to be for his confession, why did it stick to him?
It's a happy circumstance where even those of us who are not scholars can take a step back, open our eyes and see the obvious. After that, the debators can be ignored.
My previous comment says a lot, too.
WHOA!! STOP!!! this is SO DEPRESSING!!!
*Why are you so depressed?
If all who consider themselves committed Christians, consecrated followers of Christ, will STOP this ridiculous and FUTILE bickering, and instead go forth and DO the Commands of Christ, viz, Matthew 10:7-8
*Relax!
"And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give."
*Jesus brought the kingdom to men--He was the King!
And said:
1. Heal the sick
2. Cleanse the lepers
3. Raise the dead
4. Cast out devils
1. Heal the sick. According to James 5:14-15, we could anoint the sick with oil(myrth and olive oil mixed together) and pray over them to be healed. Peter healed the man who couldn't walk(Acts 3:1-10). In 1 Cor 12:9, we are told, the Spirit gives the Christian the "gift of healings". The Spirit operates this gift, not the Christian--and can't heal when they choose.
2. Cleanse the lepers. I see instruction in Leviticus 13-14 about cleansing lepers. Jesus cleanse a leper in Mark 1:40-45. Not one example could be found in the Book of Acts and the Epistles don't gives us instructions to "cleanse the lepers".
3. Raise the dead. There are examples in the book of Acts, when Peter resurrected Dorcas(Acts 9:36-43) and when Paul resurrected Eutychus(Acts 20:7-12). There is no instruction in the Epistles for "raising the dead."
4. Cast out devils. The Book of Acts has those examples. Jesus casted demons from the PCP man in Mark 5:1-20. An example, is when Paul casted out the demon from the woman fortune teller(Acts 16:16-18). I see no instruction in the Epistles, however, many pastors today drive out demons from people. Many could discern whether or not there are demons in people and by faith will drive them out, this is called "to another discerning of spirits" in 1 Cor 12:10!
Jesus gave this command to the Apostles(Mark 16:17-18). These are the marks of an Apostle!
AND
Luke 10:27 ...Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live." ,
My response:
Okay, first there must be a verticle line before a horizontal line.
1.How could we love the LORD with all thy heart?
2.How could we love the LORD with all thy soul?
3.How could we love the LORD with all thy strength?
4.How could we love the LORD with all thy mind?
5.And how could we love thy neighbor as thyself?
you will PROVE by your ACTIONS that you are indeed a Christian.
My response:
In short, "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.[Matt 5:16]
Jesus said...
1. Our light needs to shine
2. Our good works will be notice
3. The Father is glofied
Quick quiz:
How does our light shine, men see our good works and then the Father is glorified?
This reminds me of the gospel song:
This little light of mine, I'm goin' to let it shine(2x)
Let shine(3x) Oh yeah.
Let all who consider themselves dedicated followers of Jesus Christ be totally committed to obeying these directions, spend their energy in these ways, and what a better world we will have!
Deuteronomy 6:24-26 to all,
My response:
And the LORD commanded us to observe all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that He might preserve us alive, as it is this day. Then it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to observe all these commandments[about 612] before the LORD our God, as He has commanded us."
First of all what is a statue?
Verndigger
Posted by: Verndigger | July 8, 2007 1:59 AM
Let me simplify this whole thing for everybody (I really don't see how this issue got so terribly complicated).
Summary of round one of Dr. Mohler's arguments: "The doctrines of Mormonism were established by God, angels, and prophets while Christian Orthodoxy was established by committee."
Yep, he's right. But that is not the topic of this debate. The topic is: "Are Mormon's Christian?"
I hereby testify to Dr. Mohler, to Mr. Card, to the readers of this blog and to the world that Jesus Christ is my savior and that only by Him and through Him can men and women be saved. He lived, taught, performed miracles and later died for our sins. He was resurrected and lives today. His story is in the New Testament of the Holy Bible and I urge everyone to read the Bible and follow its teachings. Jesus is my exemplar and I believe that the quest of anyone professing true discipleship is to align their lives to become One with Him. I urge all to seek out and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
I believe in Christ and strive to live by His teachings. This makes me a Christian.
I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This makes me a Mormon.
Let us look at what Webster says (Webster is widely recognized as an authority on English words like "Christian" by most of the English speaking world). http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/christian
"1 a: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b (1): disciple 2 (2): a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906 (3): a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961
2: the hero in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress"
So according to this, at least one of the correct, recognized definitions of the word "Christian" is broad enough to include me, a Mormon.
Let us look at what Webster says (Webster is widely recognized as an authority on English words like "Christian" by most of the English speaking world). http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/christian
Mr. Housley,
You way overestimate what the makers of the dictionaries themselves claim it to be.
No dictionary anywhere claims to capture the essence and nature of something by virture of the extremely limited and incomplete approximations they call "definitions." When a "definition" is attempted to better encapsulate the meaning of something in the way intended in this conversation, it attempts to do far more.
For example, is there anyone reading who really believes that this:
Main Entry: quantum mechanics
Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
: a theory of matter that is based on the concept of the possession of wave properties by elementary particles, that affords a mathematical interpretation of the structure and interactions of matter on the basis of these properties, and that incorporates within it quantum theory and the uncertainty principle -- called also wave mechanics
Adequately defines what quantum mechanics is? Can we use this cursory definition in every case to confirm to a student that he is dabbling in QED or has gone off the map?
I just picked something at random. You can find thousands of examples that illustrate the fallacy of using dictionaries the way you would like to.
Do you have a translation for this Interloper? I suspect thats why no one is responding.
I expected a reply from POC777 and from the dude who posted the article titled "Robert Sungenis and evpi. tau,th|" from the website www.aomin.org. Here's his time stamp: "Posted by: | July 6, 2007 12:57 PM"
They should certainly have something to say about it.
If they do not answer, I guess the point is proved.
silly interloper
Na mayroon akong ibang mga tupa na hindi sa kawang ito; sila ay dapat ko ring dalhin, at kanilang diringgin ang aking tinig; at magkakaroon ng isang kawan, at isang pastol.
At katotohanang sinasabi ko sa inyo, na kayo yaong aking sinabi: Mayroon akong ibang mga tupa na hindi sa kawang ito; sila ay dapat ko ring dalhin, at kanilang diringgin ang aking tinig; at magkakaroon ng isang kawan, at isang pastol.
I never claimed to be able to read Greek. The Greek I discussed had a translation provided. Throwing up some Greek and not providing any translation or any reason for doing so proves no point at all.
Maybe I should post a sentence in Swahili and then step back and say my point is proved.
Let me simplify this whole thing for everybody (I really don't see how this issue got so terribly complicated).
Summary of round one of Dr. Mohler's arguments: "The doctrines of Mormonism were established by God, angels, and prophets while Christian Orthodoxy was established by committee."
Yep, he's right. But that is not the topic of this debate. The topic is: "Are Mormon's Christian?"
I hereby testify to Dr. Mohler, to Mr. Card, to the readers of this blog and to the world that Jesus Christ is my savior and that only by Him and through Him can men and women be saved. He lived, taught, performed miracles and later died for our sins. He was resurrected and lives today. His story is in the New Testament of the Holy Bible and I urge everyone to read the Bible and follow its teachings. Jesus is my exemplar and I believe that the quest of anyone professing true discipleship is to align their lives to become One with Him. I urge all to seek out and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
I believe in Christ and strive to live by His teachings. This makes me a Christian.
I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This makes me a Mormon.
*You can't serve two masters, you either deny Christianity or Mormonism. You can't be both Christian and Mormon at the same time--that will contradict, oppose and deny: God, Jesus, Holy Spirit and the Bible. You need to decide!
Let us look at what Webster says (Webster is widely recognized as an authority on English words like "Christian" by most of the English speaking world). http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/christian
"1 a: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b (1): disciple 2 (2): a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906 (3): a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961 2: the hero in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress"
So according to this, at least one of the correct, recognized definitions of the word "Christian" is broad enough to include me, a Mormon.
*Baptism into Mormonism doesn't mean you're Christian--heart conversion is what makes you a Christain!
*Are you 100% sure that if you were to die(God forbid) tonight and standing before God's Heaven;y pearly gates, will He allow you into, Heaven, why?
POC777:*You can't serve two masters, you either deny Christianity or Mormonism.
GB:That is a logical fallacy. They are not mutually exclusive.
POC777:*Are you 100% sure that if you were to die(God forbid) tonight and standing before God's Heaven;y pearly gates, will He allow you into, Heaven, why?
GB:I know that there is a God, and I am not Him. He will be the Judge in deciding who gets into heaven and not you or me. However, based on your definition of salvation I would slide right in, no questions asked.
Silly was audacious enough to allege: "If they do not answer, I guess the point is proved."
The target of his insane allegation gave answer: "I never claimed to be able to read Greek. The Greek I discussed had a translation provided. Throwing up some Greek and not providing any translation or any reason for doing so proves no point at all."
Aah, but if you know the point at hand, you find that it does prove something.
You and POC777 (though you especially) made several declarations regarding Greek scholarship, and you ridiculed one of the participants for having the audacity to say there were other opinions on the matter. You declared your superiority in understanding Greek grammar. You evoked the rules and uses of the Koine Greek language as evidence to support your view. You mocked a participant for not understanding the "universal facts" of the matter. You mocked the Mormons for not understanding before they believe. You declared your superiority in evaluating and selecting scholarship. You condemned a participant as a hypocrite for rejecting your superiority.
You, in front of everyone participating, professed to have complete superiority over our opinions of the translation, you claimed better insight of the Greek texts, and you invoke the so-called universal rules and uses of Koine Greek…
…and, yet, you cannot even translate one simple line of New Testament Greek.
Now, in front of everyone participating, you have revealed yourself to be a poser and a sham. You have revealed yourself as having been "spoon fed" an opinion that you have accepted without the slightest clue if it is valid or not.
"Maybe I should post a sentence in Swahili and then step back and say my point is proved."
That would be efficacious in embarrassing me….(gasp!)….IF I had pretended to be any kind of expert on Swahili scholarship. But I didn't.
Cheers,
Silly
GB,
I sure am glad I didn't make any claims about the language you present to us. Now that the real purpose for it was revealed, I'll return your jab with a wink.
Hamlet handed them a flute, but they cannot play it.
Rosencranz and Gilderstern are dead.
Cheers,
Silly
Silly was audacious enough to allege: "If they do not answer, I guess the point is proved."
The target of his insane allegation gave answer: "I never claimed to be able to read Greek. The Greek I discussed had a translation provided. Throwing up some Greek and not providing any translation or any reason for doing so proves no point at all."
My response:
I study Greek, my friend, and not as you. But I would be glad to learn from you--I love learning.
Aah, but if you know the point at hand, you find that it does prove something.
You and POC777 (though you especially) made several declarations regarding Greek scholarship, and you ridiculed one of the participants for having the audacity to say there were other opinions on the matter.
My response:
1.I'm not a New Testament Greek scholar.
2.If I ridiculed one of the participants, forgive me.
3.I don't agree with every opinion, I search the Scriptures.
You declared your superiority in understanding Greek grammar. You evoked the rules and uses of the Koine Greek language as evidence to support your view. You mocked a participant for not understanding the "universal facts" of the matter. You mocked the Mormons for not understanding before they believe. You declared your superiority in evaluating and selecting scholarship. You condemned a participant as a hypocrite for rejecting your superiority.
My response:
1. I don't declare my superiority in understanding Greek grammar(I only know "words").
2. I didn't even know I "envoked the rules and used Koine Greek language as evidence to support your view."
3. If I mocked a participant those weren't my intentions.
4. If I indeed mocked Mormons that wasn't my message.
5. I didn't declare "my superiority" in evaluting and selecting scholarship.
6. I didn't condemn no participant.
You, in front of everyone participating, professed to have complete superiority over our opinions of the translation, you claimed better insight of the Greek texts, and you invoke the so-called universal rules and uses of Koine Greek…
…and, yet, you cannot even translate one simple line of New Testament Greek.
My response:
1. I'm a student of New Testament Greek
2. I'm not a scholar but studying
3. I'm only a normal Christian man who loves the LORD
Now, in front of everyone participating, you have revealed yourself to be a poser and a sham. You have revealed yourself as having been "spoon fed" an opinion that you have accepted without the slightest clue if it is valid or not.
My response:
If you feel that way about me, no problem. If I do get "spoon fed" the why do I read and study the Bible very much, without a pastor, teacher or even a scholar at my side? This is the LORD's wisdom! However, if you're going to tell me "Mormonism is Christian" then we will "reason" from the Bible and the BOM; book by book, chapter by chapter, verse by verse.
"Maybe I should post a sentence in Swahili and then step back and say my point is proved."
That would be efficacious in embarrassing me….(gasp!)….IF I had pretended to be any kind of expert on Swahili scholarship. But I didn't.
My response:
Don't let your pride take over--have humility:
"For if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself"
Cheers,
Silly
Posted by: Silly Interloper | July 10, 2007 1:04 AM
POC777:*You can't serve two masters, you either deny Christianity or Mormonism.
GB:That is a logical fallacy. They are not mutually exclusive.
My response:
Which one will you choose? Don't give to me intelligent response, it is offensive to me, answer the question.
POC777:*Are you 100% sure that if you were to die(God forbid) tonight and standing before God's Heaven;y pearly gates, will He allow you into, Heaven, why?
GB:I know that there is a God, and I am not Him. He will be the Judge in deciding who gets into heaven and not you or me. However, based on your definition of salvation I would slide right in, no questions asked.
My response:
1. Everyone knows that God exists--even Satan and his angels(demons).
2. We are not God--God is God--thank you very much.
3. He is the Judge of both the righteous and the wicked through Jesus Christ.
4. Salvation is a gift from Him--we can't earn it through personal merits.
5. No questions asked, no problem.
My response:
So according to your statement made:
1. Have you recognized that you're a sinner and can't save yourself from your sin-debt in full?
2. Have you realized that Jesus Christ has died in your place for your sin-debt in full?
3. Have you repented of all your sins--has a transformation taken place?
4. Have you received Jesus Christ as your personal LORD and Savior into your heart?
Answer yes or no to this questions, I need to know!
Posted by: GB | July 10, 2007 12:02 AM
POC:Which one will you choose? Don't give to me intelligent response, it is offensive to me, answer the question.
GB:So you want gibberish instead of an "intelligent response"? Nah I will stick with my "intelligent response".
I choose both, they are not mutually exclusive. If you don't like that answer? Tough!! Get over it!!
POC:1. Have you recognized that you're a sinner and can't save yourself from your sin-debt in full?
2. Have you realized that Jesus Christ has died in your place for your sin-debt in full?
3. Have you repented of all your sins--has a transformation taken place?
4. Have you received Jesus Christ as your personal LORD and Savior into your heart?
Answer yes or no to this questions, I need to know!
GB:As I said before "However, based on your definition of salvation I would slide right in, no questions asked."
Answers
1. yes, 2. yes, 3. yes, 4. yes
False. I never "ridiculed" anyone. You have proven yourself a liar. I do not doubt that some Greek is open to slight differences in interpretation. However, you seem to forget that some things are NOT open to interpretation. "The sky is blue." This sentence is not open to any different interpretation. It means what it says. The only way you may interpret it differently is by adding or changing meanings of words.
False. I never declared myself a Greek scholar. I never stated that I read Greek. I provided Koine Greek and its accompanying translation. I never claimed I translated it. I did not say "here is my translation of this Greek". If my tone appeared mocking in any way, I assure you it was in response to said participants mocking tone. I, however, fully admit that responding to mocking with mocking is wrong on my part.
In regards to the universal facts of language...yes, there are universal rules contained in language. Take the sentence "I called Jim to tell him about my car." Rules allow us to know that "him" refers to "Jim" and "my" refers to "I". These associations are NOT open to interpretation. You cannot change "him" from referring to "Jim" and the same can be said of "I" and "my".
If I did this, then I apologize.
This is a blatant falsehood. Please post my words declaring "superiority in evaluating and selecting scholarship". I also never declared participant as a hypocrite for rejecting my superiority. I said participant was a hypocrite for claiming everyone else's interpretations were invalid because of lack of authority, but then claiming his own interpretation as valid because of authority given to him by his interpretation.
You cannot say "I have authority because I interpret authority." THAT IS NOT AUTHORITY. That is your interpretation giving you authority. When you use this "authority" to condemn everyone else's interpretation as having no authority, you are a hypocrite.
I did not "condemned a participant as a hypocrite for rejecting your superiority". The hypocrisy had nothing at all to do with "rejecting" my "superiority". You should really get your facts straight before accusing someone with blatant falsehoods. It destroys your credibility.
Please post my profession "to have complete superiority over our opinions of the translation". I never claimed to have better insight. You are completely confused. Here is an example:
Spanish: "Me llamo Jane."
English translation: "My name is Jane"
Does that mean I am claiming to have better insight into the Spanish language? That is ridiculous. Its a literal translation of a sentence. Can this sentence be given any meaningful different interpretation? Does "my" really refer to "name"? Is "Jane" really the "name"? Please show me how language can't have absolutes.
Please post where I claimed to be able to translate Koine Greek. I posted information from scholarly sources. I never said "here is my translation of the Greek".
I however would be justified in assuming you can translate Greek since you posted Greek with no translation and are mocking posters for not being able to translate it. However, I would be highly shocked if you were not being hypocritical in this.
I will let my arguments put forth speak for themselves instead of sinking to this level of personal attack.
my interpretation is valid because my interpretation says its valid.
anyone see any flaws in this?
to further develop my thoughts on the Greek I discussed earlier:
ponder the difference between these two sentences:
"This sentence means..."
"This sentence is..."
The first, is referring to interpretation and the second is not. The second is simply referring to existence...it is simply observing the contents of the sentence as it physically appears.
The Greek words "Petros" and "Petra" I referred to in my posts above were not interpretations. They are simply the words that appear in the verse as it was written in the Koine Greek language, the language of the New Testament. The English translation of these words is "rock". That is also not an interpretation. It is simply a translation from one language to another.
However "Petros" is the masculine form of the word "rock" and "Petra" is the feminine form. In some languages, nouns are masculine and feminine. Koine Geek, Spanish, and Italian are a few languages that do this. When languages have this aspect, nouns used to refer to something must match the gender of the object they refer to. An analagous example in English would be "she" and "he". It is understood that "she" refers to something feminine, and "he" to something masculine.
So, when Peter is called "Petros" he is called the masculine form of "rock". If a noun is going to be used to refer to Peter, it should be in the masculine form to match the gender of "Petros". This is not what happens. "Petra" is used...the feminine form of "rock". Therefore the most logical conclusion is that "Petra" did not refer to "Petros". An English example would be saying that "she" logically does not refer to "him" within a sentence, unless we are talking about someone changing gender.
All of this is NOT an interpretation. It is simply an observation of text written in Koine Greek translated to English that follows the language rules of Koine Greek. There is no personal interpretation in these observations.
This falls under the "This sentence is..." category. Words and sentences logically flow from the "This sentence is..." category into the "This sentence means...". You have to know what something is before you can know what it means. If I presented you with an unknown word and said "here is the word furhsogfbns, tell me what it means", you would first have to figure out what the word is before you know what it means. Is it a noun? a pronoun? an adjective? a name? what is it?
Why don't we examine what Brigham Young wrote regarding blacks. (Brigham Young was a President of the LDS Church, someone who receives revelations according to Mormons.)
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African Race? If the White man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.
Cain slew his brother. . . and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin." - Brigham Young, "Journal of Discourses," Vol. 7, Pages 290 & 291
Plenty more of this in the Book of Mormon, folks.
Joe
I don't have the time to argue, your remarks don't mean anything to me, this discussion is over. Good day sir!
There's no point to arguing with a Mormon because Truth is something that escapes them.
Silly Interloper,
My point was not to say that the Webster Dictionary can or does thoroughly describe any particular term, but that it authoritatively defines the English language, as it is commonly and acceptably used by those who speak and hear it. Most people, when they hear the word "Christian", don't think about the Nicene Creed (that's listed separately at http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Nicene%20Creed). They think, "Oh, that means people who believe in Jesus Christ."
Everyone who says that Mormons are not Christians are fully aware of the above fact. If they are also aware that Mormons in fact claim a very deeply held belief in Jesus Christ, then they are fully aware that they are encouraging a deception. My (Mormon) mother taught me that knowingly allowing someone to come to a false assumption from something that I say is the same thing as a telling a lie.
I am fascinated by the numerous and passionate arguments which have been posted here to make the case that Mormons are not Christians. Since Mormons unequivocally say they are Christians and many non-Mormons categorically say they are not, it is evident that the heart of the matter has to do with the definition of the term Christian.
As pointed out by Mr. Card, Dr. Mohler referenced “traditional Christian orthodoxy” to provide his own definition. This is ironic since Dr. Mohler belongs to a denomination which, along with all other protestant denominations, was once labeled as heretical itself relative to “traditional Christian orthodoxy”. It seems that “traditional” is not quite so traditional after all.
Maybe Dr. Mohler feels that, just like my new Windows Vista operating system, his upgraded version of “traditional Christian orthodoxy” is an improvement over previous versions. In other words, the more time that passes since Christ's earthly ministry the more accurate the interpretation of His teachings. Is that how it works?
An earlier post referenced an article which piqued my interest because rather than analyzing Mormon theology relative to some recent and shifting definition of Christianity, it examines the theology relative to beliefs held by first century Christians. The article is a bit lengthy for posting here but I am doing so anyway because it is thought-provoking and well worth the reading for those who agree with the premise as well as those who do not.
Comparing LDS Beliefs With First–Century Christianity
by Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks
Since the inception of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, many critics have denied that it is Christian. Surprisingly, the basis for the claim has little to do with the standard definition of Christian: anyone or any group that believes in Jesus Christ as the Savior and Son of God. Rather, it has to do with Latter-day Saint doctrines that some feel are alien to "traditional Christianity," where "traditional Christianity" means that body of beliefs held by most present-day Christian churches. The argument essentially goes that if the LDS church believes in certain doctrines not believed in by most present-day Christian churches, then the LDS church cannot be Christian.
The problem with this argument is that the major doctrines under attack are amazingly similar to Christian beliefs held during the New Testament period and the generations immediately following.
Does the New Testament define Christianity?
The Gospels lack any explicit treatment of the word Christian. Indeed, the word appears only three times in the New Testament, and never from the mouth of Christ himself. The word Christianity is entirely absent from the New Testament.
Acts 11:26 tells us that "the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." Here, the passive construction "were called Christians" suggests that the term was first used not by Christians, but by non-Christians. (Similarly, the names Yankee and Mormon were first used by outsiders.)
The term was probably modeled on such words as Herodian and Caesarian, already in circulation at that time, and meant nothing more complicated than Christ's people or, perhaps, partisans of Christ. Note that the Christian congregation at Antioch represented a wide range of backgrounds, including Jews and non-Jews. These believers displayed the whole spectrum of attitudes toward the Jewish law—from continued adherence to the traditions of Judaism to rejection of all things Jewish.
The next mention of the term Christian is in Acts 26:28, where Agrippa makes his famous reply to Paul: "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." The Apostle had related to Agrippa and Festus the story of his conversion. The doctrinal content of Paul's speech is simple and straightforward: Paul bears witness that Jesus had been foretold by the Jewish prophets, that he suffered and rose from the dead, and that forgiveness may be obtained through him. Paul described Christ's mission as summoning people to "repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance." (Acts 26:20.) The scriptural account gives no indication that Paul had to correct Agrippa's use of the word Christian to describe one who believes in these basic doctrines.
First Peter 4:16 is the last instance of the word's appearance in the New Testament. This verse is virtually without doctrinal definition, merely assuring the believer that he need not be ashamed if he suffer as a "Christian." Even here, the term may be one that persecuting outsiders were using. It may have derived from current Roman, that is, non-Christian, legal usage.
In each of these instances, the term appears to originate from someone outside the community of believers themselves. In neither of the two passages from Acts does Paul use the word himself; it is non-Christians who use it. Where the term is used, the stated and implied beliefs of the Christians are far different from the present-day beliefs used to deny that Latter-day Saints are Christians, as can be clearly shown.
Is it true that because Latter-day Saints reject the traditional doctrine of the Trinity, they are not Christians?
The Church's first Article of Faith is "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." This is a straightforward statement of belief that there are three members in the Godhead. However, Latter-day Saints do reject the doctrines of the Trinity as taught by most Christian churches today. For the most part, these creeds—the most famous of which is the Nicene Creed—were canonized in the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. following centuries of debate about the nature of the Godhead. Consequently, it is highly questionable whether these creeds reflect the thinking or beliefs of the New Testament church.
"The exact theological definition of the doctrine of the Trinity," notes J. R. Durnmelow, "was the result of a long process of development, which was not complete until the fifth century, or maybe even later."1 As Bill Forrest remarks, "To insist that a belief in the Trinity is requisite to being Christian, is to acknowledge that for centuries after the New Testament was completed thousands of Jesus' followers were in fact not really 'Christian.'"2 Certainly the revelatory manner by which Joseph Smith learned of the doctrine of the Godhead pierces through the centuries-old debate on the subject.
Is it true that because Latter-day Saints believe that human beings can eventually become like God, they are not Christian?
As even a cursory glance at early Christian thought reveals, the idea that man might become as God—known in Greek as theosis or theopoiesis —may be found virtually everywhere, from the New Testament through the writings of the first four centuries.3 Church members take seriously such passages as Psalm 82:6, John 10:33–36, and Philippians 2:5–6, in which a plurality of gods and the idea of becoming like God are mentioned.
The notion of theosis is characteristic of church fathers Irenaeus (second century A.D.), Clement of Alexandria (third century A.D.), and Athanasius (fourth century A.D.). Indeed, so pervasive was the doctrine in the fourth century that Athanasius's archenemies, the Arians, also held the belief and the Origenist monks at Jerusalem heatedly debated "whether all men would finally become like Christ or whether Christ was really a different creature."4
According to an ancient formula, "God became man that man might become God." Early Christians "were invited to 'study' to become gods" (note the plural).5
Though the idea of human deification waned in the Western church in the Middle Ages, it remained very much alive in the Eastern Orthodox faith, which includes such Christian sects today as the Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox churches.6 Jaroslav Pelikan notes, "The chief idea of St. Maximus, as of all Eastern theology, [was] the idea of deification."7
Is the subject of deification truly a closed question? After all, echoes of man becoming like God are still found in the work of later and modem writers in the West. For instance, C. S. Lewis's writings are full of the language of human deification.8 Even Martin Luther was capable of speaking of the "deification of human nature," although in what sense it is not clear.9
Related to the claim that Latter-day Saints are not Christians because of their belief in deification is the assertion that if they hold to some kind of belief in deification then it must be that Church members do not view Jesus as uniquely divine. Such an assertion is totally erroneous. The phrase "Only Begotten Son" occurs with its variants at least ten times in the Book of Mormon, fourteen times in the Doctrine and Covenants, and nineteen times in the Pearl of Great Price. Basic to Latter-day Saint theology is the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the Only Begotten Son of the Father in the flesh.
Is it true that because Latter-day Saints practice baptism for the dead, they are not Christian?
The argument that Latter-day Saints cannot be Christians because they practice baptism for the dead presumes that it has been definitely established that 1 Corinthians 15:29 has nothing to do with an early Christian practice of baptism for the dead. The argument ignores the fact that such second-century groups as the Montanists and Marcionites—who are invariably referred to as Christians—practiced a similar rite. The practice was condemned in A.D. 393 by the Council of Hippo, which certainly implies that it was still a vital issue.10 As Hugh Nibley has shown in great detail, many of the Church Fathers understood this verse literally, even when they did not always know what to make of it.11
Mormon temple ritual in general is another source of controversy, largely because many think that the reticence to talk about it is not Christian. But the New Testament scholar Joachim Jeremias has shown that "the desire to keep the most sacred things from profanation"—a concern shared by the Latter-day Saints—is widely found in the New Testament and in the early Christian community.12
The second-century church father Ignatius of Antioch was known to have held "secret" doctrines. The historian Tertullian (second century A.D.) even takes the heretics to task because they provide access to their services to everyone without distinction. As a result, the demeanor of these heretics becomes frivolous, merely human, without seriousness and without authority.13
The pagan critic Celsus (second century A.D.) probably referred to Christianity as a "secret system of belief" because access to the various ordinances of the church—baptism and the sacrament—was available only to the initiated. In his response to Celsus, Origen (third century A.D.) readily admitted that many practices and doctrines were not available to everyone, but he argues that this was not unique to Christianity.14 As late as the fourth century, some groups were making efforts to return to an earlier Christian tradition of preserving certain doctrines and practices for the initiated only.15
Is it true that because Latter-day Saints do not accept the Bible as their sole authority in faith and doctrine, they are not Christians?
Latter-day Saints accept the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price as scriptural, in addition to the Bible. But the whole question of canon—which writings are sacred, inspired, and binding on disciples—has always been a complicated one in the history of traditional Christianity.
In the earliest period of the Christian church, it is difficult to see a distinction being made between canonical writings and some books not in the present Protestant canon. For example, the Epistle of Jude draws heavily on noncanonical books such as 1 Enoch and The Assumption of Moses. As E. Isaac says of 1 Enoch, "It influenced Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Hebrews, 1 John, Jude (which quotes it directly) and Revelation (with numerous points of contact)…in molding New Testament doctrines concerning the nature of the Messiah, the Son of Man, the messianic kingdom, demonology, the future, resurrection, the final judgment, the whole eschatological theater, and symbolism."16
The so-called Muratorian Fragment, dating from the late second century A.D., shows that some Christians of the period accepted the Apocalypse of Peter as scripture. Clement of Alexandria, writing around A.D. 200, seems to admit a New Testament canon of thirty books, including the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle of Clement, and the Preaching of Peter. Origen recognized the Epistle of Barnabas and the letter from the Shepherd of Hermas.17
Even in more recent times, the question of canon has not been unanimously resolved. Martin Luther characterized the Epistle of James as "an epistle of straw"—largely because it seemed to disagree with his teaching of justification by faith alone—and mistrusted the book of Revelation.18 Roman Catholics and the Orthodox churches tend to accept the Apocrypha as canonical—books included in their Bibles but left out of most Protestant Bibles, including the current King James Version. In fact, Eastern Orthodox churches have never settled the question of canon. A number of scholars have pointed out that the church has priority, both logically and historically, over the Bible—that is, a group of believers existed before a certain body of texts, such as the books of the Old and New Testament, were declared canonical.19
Is it true that because Latter-day Saints deny the doctrine of original sin, they are not Christian?
The notion of original sin as it is usually understood today in traditional Christianity is a distinctly late invention that evolved from the controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries. Tertullian (second century A.D.), who was very concerned with the idea of sin, says nothing of the doctrine of original sin. Indeed, very few of the Church Fathers up to the fourth century show any interest in it at all. It was not clearly enunciated until Augustine (fourth/fifth century) needed it in his battle with the Christian Pelagians, who denied the doctrine, and it came to be associated with the Council of Carthage in A.D. 418.20
As Norbert Brox points out, "Pelagian theology was the traditional one, especially in Rome. But the Africans, under the theological leadership of Augustine, managed to make their charge of heresy stick within the church, thereby establishing the Augustinian theology of grace as the basis of the Western tradition."21 Some modern scholars now raise the issue that Augustine, and not Pelagius, was the real heretic.22
Is it true that because Latter-day Saints reject the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, they are not Christians?
Perhaps the most famous statement of the Latter-day Saint understanding of the relation between grace and works is in 2 Nephi 25:23: "It is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." This idea is sometimes called synergism —a term Van A. Harvey has used to describe Roman Catholicism.23
The doctrine that salvation depends both on God's grace and man's good works is very old in Catholic theology. One of the canons at the Council of Trent specifically repudiates the notion of grace alone: "If anyone saith that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sin for Christ's sake alone; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified, let him be anathema."24 Are we to say, then, that Roman Catholicism is not Christian because it does not subscribe to the doctrine of salvation by grace alone?
The doctrine of salvation through faith alone, sometimes called solafidianism, is not a biblical doctrine: there are no instances in the New Testament of the phrases "grace alone" or "faith alone." The philosopher-theologian Frederick Sontag argues that Jesus himself was interested not in words, and not even in theological dogma, but in action: For the Jesus in Matthew, he says, "Action is more important than definition."25 Richard Lloyd Anderson shows that even in Paul's major treatments of the doctrine of grace, particularly in Romans and Ephesians, there is a balancing element of works as well.26 Other New Testament writers, most notably James, make it clear that saving faith can only be recognized through works: "Faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." (James 2:17.)
The generations immediately following the New Testament period also recognized the need for both grace and works for salvation. The famous Didache—The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles—which dates back to before A.D. 70, is conspicuous for its moralism and legalism.27 It is also significant that "the oldest datable literary document of Christian religion soon after the time of the Apostles"—the letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, written in the last decade of the first century—emphasizes "good works, as it is in the Epistle of James, which may belong to the same time."28 The second-century document Shepherd of Hermas contains twelve commandments. J. L. Gonzales writes that they "are a summary of the duties of a Christian, and Hermas affirms that in obeying them there is eternal life."29
Even F. F. Bruce, who contends that Paul taught a doctrine of salvation by grace alone, concurs sadly that the doctrine was not a part of the early Christian church: "The Biblical doctrine of divine grace, God's favour shown to sinful humanity, …seems almost, in the post-apostolic age, to reappear only with Augustine. Certainly the majority of Christian writers who flourished between the apostles and Augustine do not seem to have grasped what Paul was really getting at…Marcion has been called the only one of these writers who understood Paul."30
Marcion, incidentally, was a second-century gnostic Christian who distinguished between the gods of the Old and New Testament. He felt that the Old Testament deity was a lesser deity than the God of the New Testament and rejected the Old Testament entirely, as well as any New Testament writing "tainted" with Old Testament ideas. Marcion produced a canon of scripture that recognized no Apostle of Jesus except Paul. He considered the other Apostles falsifiers of God.
By contrast, in the fourth century, one prominent Christian bishop was teaching the necessity of rituals. "If any man receive not Baptism," wrote Cyril of Jerusalem, "he hath not salvation." He also wrote about an ordinance of anointing, which he called "chrism": "Having been counted worthy of this Holy Chrism, ye are called Christians… For before you were deemed worthy of this grace, ye had no proper claim to that title."31
The Eastern Orthodox churches also do not accept solafidianism, the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. "Eastern Orthodox Christians emphasize a unity of faith and works. For the Orthodox, being conformed to the image of Christ…includes a response of our faith and works."32 Sensing the danger that a "grace alone" position could become "cheap grace" (to borrow an expression from the theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer) or "a theologically thin, no-sweat Christianity," some modern Protestant writers have adopted a similar position, recognizing that works also play a vital role in salvation.33
With so many other past and present Christians rejecting the position that grace alone brings salvation, excluding the Latter-day Saints from "Christianity" for their belief in faith and works is not justified.
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints easily meet the definition of a Christian as implicitly defined in the New Testament: they believe that ancient prophets foretold Christ's coming, that Jesus Christ suffered for our transgressions, that he was put to death but rose from the dead, that through him we may obtain forgiveness of our sins, and that he will come again in glory.
The doctrinal reasons some Christians give for excluding the Latter-day Saints from Christianity make little sense, because many of the doctrines used by traditional Christianity are late developments, reflective of creeds formulated in the fourth and fifth century or developed during the Reformation.
Given the wide variety of beliefs among the various Christian churches, it is better to take persons claiming to be Christians at their word and to let the Lord be the judge.
Daniel C. Peterson, an instructor of Arabic at Brigham Young University, serves on the Church Curriculum Gospel Doctrine Writing Committee. Stephen D. Ricks is an associate professor of Hebrew and Semitic Languages at BYU. He is currently accompanying faculty in the university's travel study program in Israel.
Notes
1. Cited by Bill Forrest, "Are Mormons Christians?" Mormon Miscellaneous Response Series (Salt Lake City: Mormon Miscellaneous, n.d.).
2. Ibid.
3. See appropriate index entries in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100–600): The Christian Tradition (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971) and the index entry "Salvation —defined as deification," in The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600–1700): The Christian Tradition (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1974). See also K, E. Norman, Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology, Ph.D. dissertation, Duke Univ., 1980.
4. Clyde L. Manschreck, A History of Christianity in the World, 2d. ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1985), p. 52.
5. P. Barlow, "Unorthodox Orthodoxy: The Idea of Deification in Christian History," Sunstone 8 (Sep./Oct. 1983):16–17.
6. See G. I. Mantzarides, The Deification of Man: Saint Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Tradition, trans. Liadain Sherrard (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1984).
7. The Spirit of Eastern Christendom, p. 10.
8. A Grief Observed (New York: Bantam Books, 1963), pp. 84–85; Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1960), pp. 138–40,174,187.
9. Jack R. Pressau, I'm Saved, You're Saved…Maybe (Atlanta: John Knox, 1977), p. 57; A. Nygren, Agape and Eros, trans. Philip S. Watson (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1982), p. 734.
10. Samuel M. Gilimour, "Baptism for the Dead," in An Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. V. Ferm (New York: The Philosophical Library, 1945), p. 54.
11. "Baptism for the Dead in Ancient Times," Improvement Era, Dec. 1948, pp. 786–88, 836; Jan. 1949, pp. 24–26, 60; Feb. 1949, pp. 90– 91, 109–10, 112; Mar. 1949, pp. 146–48, 180–83; Apr. 1949, pp. 212–14.
12. The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (New York: Scribner's, 1966), p. 130.
13. Tertullianus, Apologia 7–8; De praescriptionibus adversus haereticos 41.
14. Ongen, Contra Celsum 1:7.
15. Norbert Brox, Kirchengeschichte des Altertums (Düsseldorf, West Germany: Patmos Verlag, 1983), p. 134.
16. E. Isaac, "1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch," in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. J. H. Charlesworth, 2 vols, (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983), 1:10. See also "Apocrypha," in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, ed. G. A. Buttrick (Nashville. Abingdon, 1953), 1:161–69.
17. Manschreck, p. 33.
18. R. Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (Nashville: Abingdon–Cokesbury Press, 1950), pp. 177, 331–32; Max Lackmann, Sola Fide: Eine exegetische Studie über Jakobus 2 zur reformatorischen Rechtfertigurigslehre (Gutersloh, West Germany: C. Bertelsmann Verlag, 1949).
19. H. Holzapfel, Die Sekten in Deutschland (Regensburg, West Germany: Verlag Josef Kuesel & Friedrich Pustet A. G., 1923), pp. 20, 23–27; P. Johnson, A History of Christianity (New, York: Atheneum, 1983), p. 22.
20. K. Rahner, "Original Sin," in Sacramentum Mundi: An Encyclopedia of Theology, ed. Rahner et al., 6 vols. (London: Burns and Oates, 1969), 4:329.
21. Kirchengeschichte, p. 141 (authors' translation).
22. W. E. Phipps, "The Heresiarch: Pelagius or Augustine?" Anglican Theological Review 62 (1980):124–33.
23. A Handbook of Theological Terms (London: George Allen Unwin, 1966), p. 199.
24. Session V1, Canon 12, cited in L. Boettner, Roman Catholicism (Phillipsburg, N.J.: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1986), p. 261.
25. "The Once and Future Christian," International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 19 (1986):116–18.
26. Understanding Paul (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1983), pp. 185–86, 272–76, 355–62.
27. Justo L. Gonzales, A History of Christian Thought, 3 vols (Nashville: Abingdon, 1970), 1:69, 94–96.
28. Werner Jaeger, Early Christianity and Greek Paideia (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1961), pp 12, 15–16.
29. Gonzales, p. 89.
30. The Spreading Flame (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979), p. 334.
31. Catechetical Lectures 3:10; 21:5.
32. W. G. Rusch, "Getting to Know the Orthodox," The Lutheran, 2 Apr. 1986, p. 12.
33. Pressau, p. 38. See also J. Macquarrie, An Existentialist Theology (Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books, 1973), pp. 144–49.
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=93
POC777,
>*Baptism into Mormonism doesn't mean you're Christian--heart >conversion is what makes you a Christain!
First, thank you very much for quoting all my testimony in your reply. I appreciate that more than I can adequately portray here.
Second, I don’t think that my Mormon baptism or my heartfelt testimony of the Jesus Christ does completely signify a "heart conversion". The way a person lives His teachings in their life does that. My testimony conveys my personal opinion of Jesus Christ quite accurately, if not completely. My baptism signifies a covenant that I have made with Him that I will take His name upon me; that I will remember Him and keep His commandments.
>*Are you 100% sure that if you were to die(God forbid) tonight and >standing before God's Heaven;y pearly gates, will He allow you into, >Heaven, why?
Thank you for asking and taking such an interest in my salvation.
I am not 100% sure that I have earned such a standing before God, but I am trying very hard to. One of the things that Christ taught was the parable of the talents and I am not sure my life completely reflects compliance with the underlying principle behind that teaching, among others. I am a sinful man, working to align my life to become one with Christ.
This is my first “blog” ever! Be kind! :)
I am a happily married, 41 year old mother of three daughters as well as a public school teacher. My husband and I have been married for 21 years and share so much love and joy in our home. We have raised our daughters in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, teaching them to love their Savior and to follow His teachings as we grow to understand them better each day. I am happy to say my girls have grown-up as moral, kind and intelligent young women who have testimonies of the gospel of Jesus Christ. We are truly blessed!
With respect to some participants in this conversation, I think it is dangerous for anyone who professes to follow the teachings of our Savior to engage in negative, hurtful dialogue because it does not help bring people to Christ. If ministers, pastors, preachers, priests, intellectuals, laymen and women, and other miscellaneous interested folks intend to convince people to follow a certain definition of Christianity - I ask: What is the purpose? Why are people engaging in a debate of semantics?
One thing I really like about my church is that I have always been taught NOT to disrespect other religions. Our 11th Article of Faith states, ”We claim the privilege of worshiping the Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how where, or what they may.” I have never seen a Mormon standing outside of a church or religious conference holding signs that bash other religions and shouting hate speech. Most Mormons will tell you this is a common occurrence at our General Conferences, Pageants, and historical church sites. Again, I ask: What is the purpose? As many people have experienced personally, Mormons are generally friendly, helpful, hard-working folks. Wouldn't it be more helpful to mankind (more Christ-like?) to spend our lives feeding the hungry, clothing the poor and visiting the lonely and ill?
I would like to suggest that this kind of debate is rarely productive because Lucifer, the Father of All Lies, is seeking, with great energy and cunning, to turn our attention away from bringing people to Christ. He mires us in the mud of semantics, ignorance and fearful prejudices. I think he does this very cleverly because we sometimes allow ourselves to feel extremely self-righteous, proud and knowledgeable in our own beliefs. We begin to allow the letter of the law to overcome the spirit of Christ's gospel message of peace.
Let's not get lost in definitions of "Christianity." Instead, let's use our time and talents to become more Christ-like.
"Joy" :)
i think a main point that is being overlooked here is that mormons view themselves as the true christians, thus it only makes sense that they wouldn't be considered christian by the orthodox definition. they believe that those following the orthodox definition are following something corrupt and false and that their restored faith was delivered to the prophet joseph smith by god himself as true and the way he had intended his religion to be from the start.
To samrahuasa
I would like to restate my main point:
One thing I really like about my church is that I have always been taught NOT to disrespect other religions. Our 11th Article of Faith states, ”We claim the privilege of worshiping the Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”
We are a faith that has been persecuted quite a lot, so this belief is particularly meaningful to us.
I am a Mormon myself and we do not claim that other faiths hold no true doctrines. As for the definition of "Christianity" - as I stated previously- I don't believe we should argue semantics. I believe that Satan would like us to contend among ourselves over such things. We should live as Christ taught us to live; therefore, we can be what he would have us be.
What do Mormons say when we are together in our church meetings? We say that many people (members of our church or not) are Christian and they do follow gospel teachings as Christ himself taught. If this is simplistic, then I confess to being a simple - and happy - woman.
We differ in our beliefs in the fact that we believe that God hasn't stopped communicating with His children. We believe in continuing revelation. We believe that God answers our sincere prayers. How do we know what we receive is from God? That is a very important question!
Whether you believe in the Bible alone or in the Book of Mormon also, if a revelation (given to Joseph Smith or to you or me) is from God, then the Holy Spirit must be involved. How do you know that you are feeling the promptings of the Holy Spirit? According to scripture, you feel the promptings of the "still, small voice" within you or you experience a feeling of comfort, overwhelming love and peace. Yes, it's hard to describe or explain because it's something you must personally experience. It's like trying to describe a taste to someone who has never eaten that particular food. Just give them a bite and - ahhhhh! There it is!
I'm so grateful for my friends, most of who are not members of my church because I don't live in Utah (ha ha), who enrich my life and help bring me closer to my Savior. I accept the fact that this world is complex and only God knows our hearts.
"Joy" :)
This is such an old argument, "Are Mormon's Christian?" and yet it continues to scratch heads and stump even the scholars. Who are we to try to define who is and who is not a believer in Christ?
God knows our hearts and he will be the judge.
I believe in Christ. I know that he is God the Son and I believe he is the Savior of the world. I am also a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
I am too engaged in trying to live a good life and trying to be like Christ to worry whether or not people think I am a Christian. If everyone had this outlook then we wouldn't be preoccupied over theory and tradition defining who we are.
"JOY" - THANK-YOU for your thoughtful post, containing very sensible comments!
my post back on July 8 at 1:59, "WHOA! STOP!" said essentially the same thing.
if we all LIVE according to Christ's pattern, we will change the world.
yet it seems that at least some here refuse to listen, or just don't get the message.
sad.
So, IMHO, we just have to go on loving them as God's children, and knowing they will one day wake up.
wouldn't it be lovely if instead of constantly harping on the differences in our varied doctrines, we focused on and worked on discovering our common ground !!
I get so tired of the 'fence mentality' - "us in here and everybody else out there."
I wish you - and all - Numbers 6:24-26
Verndigger
ENOUGH ALL READY!!!
There is no value in these incessant arugments...
Not too unlike Islam, which has been seized by radical fundamentalists, so too the modern day Christian movement, is seized by radical fundamentalists...
"By their fruits..." is the only true measure of a Christian. It's not so much "What" we believe, but how we "Act" that determines ones true faith in Jesus Christ. Even the devils "believe" that Jesus is the Christ (see James 2:19; Luke 8:27-8), and perhaps, at least on this point, we can ALL agree that it won't save them.
Only when we start loving one another for "Who" we are (children of God) and not for "What" we believe, will Christ's hope for us ever be realized.
Jesus never got into "Bible bashing" but instead simply stated the truths and then went about "acting" as a Christian.
Funny thing about faith...it really does require Faith...
Praise God we live in a time and country where we can "act" out our Christian beliefs...
So continue arguing if you like...but for me, I'm off to help my Jewish neighbor move a piano, then I have to set the BBQ and get ready for my Mormon friends who are coming to dinner tonight...who knows maybe tomorrow I can go watch my Catholic neighbor's kid pitch baseball in the Pee Wee league classic...
rotorhead
AMEN, and AMEN, Rotorhead!!!
POC777,
>*Baptism into Mormonism doesn't mean you're Christian--heart >conversion is what makes you a Christain!
First, thank you very much for quoting all my testimony in your reply. I appreciate that more than I can adequately portray here.
Second, I don’t think that my Mormon baptism or my heartfelt testimony of the Jesus Christ does completely signify a "heart conversion". The way a person lives His teachings in their life does that. My testimony conveys my personal opinion of Jesus Christ quite accurately, if not completely. My baptism signifies a covenant that I have made with Him that I will take His name upon me; that I will remember Him and keep His commandments.
My response:
Jesus said that if we love Him we will keep His commandments. Mormon doctrine, opposes, denies and contradicts, what Jesus commandments in the four gospels.
>*Are you 100% sure that if you were to die(God forbid) tonight and >standing before God's Heaven;y pearly gates, will He allow you into, >Heaven, why?
Thank you for asking and taking such an interest in my salvation.
I am not 100% sure that I have earned such a standing before God, but I am trying very hard to
My response:
But Jesus HAS already paid the price for your sin-debt in full--eternal life--it's a gift that must be received, we can't earn it through personal merits, is that simple. Read this verse John 3:16, does it say anything about "earning our salvation" yes or no?
One of the things that Christ taught was the parable of the talents and I am not sure my life completely reflects compliance with the underlying principle behind that teaching, among others. I am a sinful man, working to align my life to become one with Christ.
My response:
Have you said this simple prayer: LORD Jesus, I repent of all my sin. Thank you for dying on the cross for me and resurrecting on the third day. LORD Jesus, come into my heart as my LORD and Savior, fill me with your Holy Spirt and make a new person. With a new heart, a new mind and a clean conscience---write my name in the Lamb's book of life and make me the person You want me to be all the days of my life. In Jesus name, I pray. Amen and Amen.
Posted by: Bill Housley | July 11, 2007 1:49 AM
My Personal Christian Views
I will just put my opinion out here, and if it offends or is not accurate, I apologize in advance. My knowledge of Mormon is very limited. I will try to input only what I "know", but some of my info has come from other comments on this topic.
I was sent to a Lutheran school for six of my Grammar school years. I do lean towards their beliefs, but do not consider myself a Lutheran. I have been "on vacation" from faith for many years following that schooling, due to the fact that "I hated being force fed religion for so long". In the last few years, I have "found" my faith in the lord, as described in "The Holy Bible". I consider myself as merely a "Christian". My father is Catholic. My mother was Lutheran, went with the "witness" faith for a while, and now I am not sure how she believes. My father-in-law is a Mormon. I have been "around" a little.
The Basics
There is a lot of talk about the basics, so here it is plain and simple, according to my understanding of the Bible. If you believe that God sent his son down to earth to die for our sins, and are "Baptized in Christ", and repent of your sins, you will be "saved".
The definition of "sin" has been interpreted countless ways over time. I have heard too many to list. I believe the "Ten Commandments" summed it up pretty well. If you really think about it, most laws, rules, guides, are just various "explanations" of those original TEN. Bottom line is if you "feel" or "think" it is wrong, then it probably is a sin.
When they say "receive (received, receiving, etc.) the Holy Ghost", it is simply taking these beliefs "to heart"; letting them guide you and your actions, emotions, etc. When that happens, you are "showing" and/or "living" your faith. Let God's Word and Teachings guide your life.
My Views
The thing about Mormons that gets me is "the book of Mormon" is a "testament of Jesus Christ". Unless I read the bible wrong, Jesus will return on Judgment Day to judge all. It said nothing of adding more testaments to the bible. He said, "My word is the true word", not find another book to believe as well. That is where I find "inconsistencies" in the Mormon faith. He did warn us that the devil will try very hard to trick us, including "false" faiths. I am NOT calling Mormon a false faith. It is not my place to judge, I simply do not agree with having another book "side-by-side" with the "Holy Bible".
I do not understand how the Joseph Smith person fits in, but he should not be ranked as high as God or Jesus. If he is not, then that is fine. If that were the case, I would have to group Mormon close to Catholic, in that they prey to someone other than God or Jesus. I know Catholics do prey to Mary for some things.
Mary was just a normal woman, of her time, who "believed" in the "promise of a savior". She was nothing more than that. That was the point of Jesus time on earth. He was to have the same kind of life as any other person on earth, but he was perfect (without sin), and he still had to die like all the sinners. That alone is how he redeemed all of us.
Closing
So, if you believe in God and the Life/Death of Christ (and the reason behind it), Are "Baptized in Christ", Truly Repent of your sins, and "Receive the Holy Ghost (as described above) and live your life according to the "Holy Bible", then you are a True Christian, No matter what "name" your religion has.
Lastly
Let us all remember a Quote from Jesus, himself, "Judge not; lest you be judged." Only God can say who is right or wrong.
POC777:Jesus said that if we love Him we will keep His commandments. Mormon doctrine, opposes, denies and contradicts, what Jesus commandments in the four gospels.
GB:Can you say "naked assertion".
POC777,
Again, I truly appreciate your kindness toward me in this discussion, it is very refreshing and--sadly--rare.
>Mormon >doctrine, opposes, denies and contradicts, what Jesus >commandments in the four gospels.
You have been misinformed on this. If you can provide me with some specifics I might be able to help you understand Mormon doctrine better in this regard. I do not have the authority to speak
for and in behalf of my church, but I am very familiar with Mormon beliefs--both the REAL beliefs and those things that some people claim that we believe that we do not--and I am somewhat familiar with traditional Christian beliefs as well. I am more than happy to help.
>But Jesus HAS already paid the price for your sin-debt in full-->eternal life--it's a gift that must be received, we can't earn it >through personal merits, is that simple. Read this verse John
>3:16, does it say anything about "earning our salvation" yes or no?
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/3/16)
We agree with this scripture completely. However, we also believe that Jesus taught that to simply say we believe is not enough. Actions speak louder than words. We also believe in the doctrine of repentance.
I should note that if this scritpure passage really does say that all we have to do is believe is Jesus then Mormons really are saved, for they do beleive in Jesus. I should also note that this scripture makes no mention of the Nicene Creed.
>Have you said this simple prayer: LORD Jesus, I repent of all my sin. >Thank you for dying on the >cross for me and resurrecting on the >third day. LORD Jesus, come into my heart as my LORD and
>Savior, fill me with your Holy Spirt and make a new person. With a >new heart, a new mind and a >clean conscience---write my name in the >Lamb's book of life and make me the person You want me to be all the >days of my life. In Jesus name, I pray. Amen and Amen.
Quite often. Not these exact words of course, but yes. The only difference is that Mormons direct their prayers to Heavenly Father, as we think Jesus himself taught us to do.
There are a number of commandments, doctrines, clarifications and interpretations which Mormons believe Jesus Christ has provided mankind through prophets who are not represented in the Holy Bible. This rather specifically excludes us from the Nicene Creed, but that's fine with us because we don't consider the Nicene Council to be authoritative. I do not consider the British law to drive on the left side of the road to be authoritative, because I drive in the United States. If a British citizen were to contend that just because I don't drive on the left side of the road I am not a REAL driver, that would of course be absurd. The provisions of the Nicene Creed are binding on members of the Nicene Creed and we have chosen to exclude ourselves from those restrictions. We are free from them. If this sounds arrogant, then consider that our doctrines were taught to us by angels and we don't think that such a source ought to be filtered by a committee of dead men who were not prophets of God.
If I owned a company, and I appointed representatives to go about telling others what my company stands for, those reprehensive would have authority to speak for me. If someone else whom I did not appoint decided to start going around telling others what I and my company stood for, it would be their opinion they would be sharing, not mine, and nothing they said would be binding upon me or members of my company.
Mr. Housley
I greatly admire your sincerity as a Mormon and how you approached my post--it is quite rare to find someone like yourself. I understand that the Book of Mormon, has Christian doctrine--that is find by me--I don't go by "feelings"--the burning on your bosom. The Bible teaches us to not trust in our hearts because they will deceive us--we need to trust in God not man(Jer 17:5). If you say you're Christian then you will obey this precept "we live by faith not by sight" and don't go by your feelings. My problem is with D&C, Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham and countless of revelations received from those inside the Temple that: oppose, contradict and deny what is written in the Bible and BOM.
I have read and studied the BOM(1830 edition) and "the everlasting gospel", which is Mormon doctrine. I don't agree with this statement: "As man is, God once was: as God is, man may become". Nowhere do we find this in the Bible and the BOM. I don't agree that Jesus Christ came to the Americas on 34 AD to preach to the Lamanites(Indians). I don't agree with exaltation into Godhood to receive the free gift of everlasting life to go to Heaven. I don't agree with Mormon men having sexual relations with Mormon women as gods and godesses--to produce spiritual children ruling their own planets.
I don't agree with polygamy--God in the Book of Genesis, only married Adam and Eve nobody could deny this command--there is only marriage between one man and one woman. I don't believe in baptism for the dead to save the souls of departed love ones--the Bible teaches someone dies in their sins without Christ it's all over, no more could be done. These are just "some" of the things, I don't agree with the Church of Latter-Day Saints--it contradicts the Bible and the BOM. I know many Mormons who call themselves "Christians" but are not really following Jesus Christ but Joseph Smith and another Jesus Christ that's not from the Bible.
POC777
As far as you polygamy questions see "Posted by: Mike Bennion | July 12, 2007 11:59 PM" on the "Are Any Sincere Christians Expendable?" thread.
I don't agree with this statement: "As man is, God once was: as God is, man may become".
First of all, while that's a widely known statement and accepted statement by a prophet, it's not scripture, or in the D&C. I'm not sure what it means exactly, but all LDS people I know believe that that Jesus Christ will always be our savior and our God. Many LDS believe that one day we will create worlds just as God created this one. But that's speculative.
Consider that Anasthasius, the architect of the Nicene Creed, said something very similar to that quote by Lorenzo Snow. Anasthasius said "God became man, so that man might become God."
The first part is easiest to understand -- God became man refers to Jesus Christ, right? Isn't that what the book of John taught?
Joseph Smith once pointed out that Jesus said that he'd done nothing that he hadn't seen the Father do first, and theorized that God the Father had once come down to an earth, as Jesus had. That this wasn't the first time this has all happened. But Joseph Smith was speculating. If you read the speech (which was a funeral sermon, not a scriptural work), Joseph Smith even states at the beginning of the speech that he's interpreting the scriptures for himself and hopes that God will inspire him. That means it's not prophesy. The church hasn't canonized the theory as scripture, nor have we rejected it. The theory is closely based on Bible scripture, rather than on any modern revelation, and I don't think any of the support is from the Book of Mormon.
What did Anasthasius and Lorenzo Snow mean about that part of Man becoming God, then? I'm not sure, but it's clear they are both drawing on Bible scripture again -- John chapter 17, Jesus prays that the disciples will become one as Jesus and the father are one, Revelations chapters 1-3 and Chapter 21, the promises to "he that overcometh," e.g. to sit with God on his throne ...
I suspect it means that God's love and his great mind will fill us as Jesus prayed would happen to his disciples in John 17, that we will be one with God. I'm very uncomfortable with the word "gods," but that's the word that Jesus used, "ye are gods and children of the most high." I'm not sure, and I can't trust my feelings of discomfort to tell me that the scripture is "wrong." This is the Bible. I may not understand it all, but I'm not going to turn my back on it, even if 99% of Christians tell me to ignore those parts.
"The thing about Mormons that gets me is "the book of Mormon" is a "testament of Jesus Christ". Unless I read the bible wrong, Jesus will return on Judgment Day to judge all. It said nothing of adding more testaments to the bible."
The Bible itself wasn't compiled to include the New Testament until the 4th century. Unless I read the Bible wrong, there's nothing in the Bible about compiling the gospels and epistles and Acts and the book of Revelation into one single book, and calling that book "The Bible."
Alternately, perhaps you did read the Bible wrong, or not at all, and missed the prophesies of the voice that would cry out from the dust, the prophesy in Ezekiel of the "stick of Joseph," (the book of Mormon) that would be joined with the "stick of Judah" (the Bible), and the prophesy by Jacob in Genesis about what would happen with the seed of his son Joseph.
In either event, it seems a little presumptuous to say that God could not possibly do anything simply because you aren't aware of it.
Is this what the tradition of Christian Orthodoxy has come to?
He is not a tame lion.
"Dr. Mohler's first sentence in this post was a question. "Are Mormons “Christians” as defined by traditional Christian orthodoxy?" The only honest answer is "No, we Mormons are not 'Traditional' Christian Orthodoxy.""
That's an honest answer to the question that Dr. Mohler appears to have *meant*, but that's not the answer to the question that he actually posed.
You answered the question "Are Mormons traditional Orthodox Christians." And I think that's the question that Dr. Mohler is addressing as well.
But it's not the question that Dr. Mohler was assigned to answer.
The question,"Are Mormons “Christians” as defined by traditional Christian orthodoxy?", presumes that "traditional Christian Orthodoxy has provided a definition of the word "Christians." Only once we identify that definition, can we answer the question of whether Mormons meet that definition.
Where is the definition?
Rotorhead,
You said, "It's not so much "What" we believe, but how we "Act" that determines ones true faith in Jesus Christ. Even the devils "believe" that Jesus is the Christ (see James 2:19; Luke 8:27-8), and perhaps, at least on this point, we can ALL agree that it won't save them."
So are you saying that actions trump doctrine? If so, how does a person know what actions are pleasing to God without clear teaching? Please see the following sampling of verses for examples of the importance of right doctrine.
2 Timothy 2:14-15 (rightly handle the word of truth)
Luke 24:45-47 (Christ opened their minds to UNDERSTAND the scriptures)
Revelation 2:15 (Christ identifies those holding to false teachings)
2 John 1:9-11
"Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works."
Gal 1:6-9 (anyone preaching a different gospel is accursed)
Romans 6:17-18 (our righteous living stems from following true teaching)
Romans 10:9-14 (what we believe is vital to salvation)
Romans 16:17-18
"I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive."
2 Timothy 4:1-5
"I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry."
Of course it matters what we believe. What will happen to your Jewish friend if he were to die in his sleep tonight without the Messiah?
Luke 12:4-5 Jesus said, "I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him."
I guess Jesus didn't spend ALL of his time just walking around and "acting" Christian.
"So, what does Mormonism reject? The orthodox consensus of the Christian church is defined in terms of its historic creeds and doctrinal affirmations."
Then state that definition. Or else we will wonder if there really is a consensus!
Two great doctrines stand as the central substance of that consensus. Throughout the centuries, the doctrines concerning the Trinity and the nature of Christ have constituted that foundation, and the church has used these definitional doctrines as the standard for identifying true Christianity.
Then state these doctrines as part of the supposed definition of Christianity, if you are not ashamed of them! Althoough I think some people will be astonished at the theological speculations that you are offering as the core essence of Christianity, and wonder why you'd have to believe those things in order to be saved.
"The Mormon doctrine of God does not correspond to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Mormonism rejects the central logic of this doctrine (one God in three eternal persons) and develops its own doctrine of God – a doctrine that bears practically no resemblance to Trinitarian theology."
I'm sorry, but that's just silly. You believe in One God in three eternal persons. We believe in three eternal persons in One God. You have to be a professional theologian to tear your hair out about that. I don't think that people rise to heaven or burn in hell because some think there is One God in three persons, while others think there are Three Persons in One God. The number of persons, and the number of God, is the same.
The Mormon doctrine of God includes many gods, not one.
The Book of Mormon teaches repeatedly that there is One God, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are One God. Three persons in one God. Yes, there are other statements from LDS prophets who speak of "gods" in the plural, and the Bible does this too, (Jesus said "ye are gods and children of the most high.") I don't rightly know what it means, but if you believe in the Bible, you don't just excise it out because it doesn't fit neatly into the Nicene Creed. I just hang on to it and see if it makes more sense when God wants me to understand it.
"Furthermore, Mormonism teaches that we are what God once was and are becoming what He now is. That is in direct conflict with Christian orthodoxy."
Anasthasius, the architect of the Nicene Creed, himself wrote "God became man so that man might become God." Was your Nicene Creed written by a non-Christian, then? I don't completely understand what Anasthasius meant, or what the LDS prophet Lorenzo Snow meant by that incredibly similar statement, but there's a lot of stuff in the Bible that I don't understand.
"Contemporary Mormonism presents the Book of Mormon as “another testament of Jesus Christ,” but the Jesus of the Book of Mormon is not the only begotten Son of God"
That's a demonstrably false statement, sir. The Book of Mormon teaches explicitly that Jesus is the only begotton son of God. See 2 Ne. 25: 12; Jacob 4: 5; Jacob 4: 11; Alma 5: 48; Alma 9: 26; Alma 12: 33-34; Alma 13: 5, 9.
"the second person of the Trinity,"
The "Trinity" is not in the Bible, either. Can you show anything in the Book of Mormon regarding the nature of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that is at odds with the same teachings in the Bible? Because by the standard you are laying out, the New Testament is not "Christian" according to this elusive "definition of Christianity" that you still have not shared with us.
"or the one through whose death on the cross we can be saved from our sins."
That's a demonstrably false statement, sir. The Book of Mormon teaches that doctrine explicitly. See Mosiah 16: 13 ("remember that only in and through Christ ye can be saved"); see also 3 Ne. 9: 21; 1 Ne. 11: 33; Alma 5: 21; etc.
Dr. Mohler, you state that the "Jesus of the Book of Mormon" is not "the second person of the trinity," and I agree with you, since the trinity doctrine isn't in the Bible either.
But there are other churches who follow the Book of Mormon and the Bible who would disagree with us. The Community of Christ, for example, is one of a number of churches that interpret the Book of Mormon as teaching the doctrine of the trinity.
Have you read the book that you speak of?
There are two kinds of Christians
Those who are "right" and those who are "wrong"
It is the ones who are right that decide which is which.
--Abbie Hoffman
Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Hahaha, this is really funny, here you have a so-called Christian sect that goes around bashing all other Christians. Only recently Southern Baptist were distributing cd's and flyers on how Mormons are wrong. How is that a display of Christianity when you are tearing down the belief of others. Do you see Mormons or even Catholics going around, tearing down others belief's? Lead by example, buddy not by words alone.
Those of us that are Christians, that were once Mormons, are not tearing down anyone's beliefs. We are merely pointing out the difference between the Jesus of the Bible and the Jesus of the Book of Mormon. Mormons are not taught in the missionary lessons that Jesus is any different in the Bible then in the BofM. It is not until a person has been in the church for over a year that they learn the truth, usually by going to the temple. Everyone has the right to believe in Jesus in whatever form they desire, however, to put his name so boldly in the title of their church is very misleading. I now know that the Jesus who gave me salvation is not the Jesus that I was taught about in the Mormon church. I attened the Mormon church since I was a child and the Jesus they taught was the one in the King James bible. Then, when I was old enough to go to the temple, I was taught about another Jesus. All I am asking of the Mormons, are for them to be truthful from the beginning, the missionary lessons, regarding their view of Jesus, so that a person investigating the church can make the decision to do so, based on the whole truth, not a half truth.
Lori Daniel:Then, when I was old enough to go to the temple, I was taught about another Jesus.
GB: This statement makes me doubt that you ever went to the temple. It also makes me doubt that you were ever a mormon.
GB, you can think whatever you choose, but when I took the lessons from the missonaries they taught that God created the earth. But then in the temple, we find out that he send angles down to the work. Also, no where in the Bible does it state that Satan is the brother of Jesus. Yet this a taught to us in the church. Is it not?
Also, you should search the internet for the Free Mason ceremony and see how much the Mormon temple ceremony copies it. Joseph Smith was a Free Mason and within a few months of becoming one, he had the revelation of the temple ceremony. The hand shakes, the special words, the wearing of the apron, etc. Also, why does the church keep changing the temple endowment ceremony. It use to be that a temple worker would touch a person, receiving their endowments and garments, with oil on certain parts of the body. Well, many people became uncomfortable with this practice and so it was stopped. I come from a long line of Mormons, so yes I do know what I am talking about.
Lori:But then in the temple, we find out that he send angles down to the work.
GB: This statement makes me doubt that you ever went through the temple. It also makes me doubt that you were ever a mormon.
And if you were it obvious that you are a bitter person who has a lot of hate inside. No wonder the Mormons prefer not to spend time with you. It is a big turn off to be bitter, hateful and carrying a very large chip on your shoulder. It sounds like the problem is with you not your former Mormon associates.
"We are merely pointing out the difference between the Jesus of the Bible and the Jesus of the Book of Mormon."
That's not an accurate description of what you're doing, Lori. If that's what you were doing, you'd quote the Book of Mormon's statements about Jesus, and show how these teachings were inconsistent with the Bible. But since the teachings are consistent, you and others like you, including, I'm sad to say, Dr. Mohler, make sweeping and innaccurate statements about what mormons beleive about Jesus, and then pass these statements off as "the Jesus of the Book of Mormon."
If book of Mormon taught a "different Jesus" than the Jesus described in the Bible, then you could prove it very easily, by quoting.
I'd like to reiterate that Dr. Mohler did not address the actual question that was assigned to answer.
The question,"Are Mormons “Christians” as defined by traditional Christian orthodoxy?", presumes that "traditional Christian Orthodoxy has provided a definition of the word "Christians." Only once we identify that definition, can we answer the question of whether Mormons meet that definition. Dr. Mohler has offered us the Nicene Creed (without citing it) as a definition of Christianity, but the Nicene Creed was a definition of Christian ORTHODOXY. Dr. Mohler provides no evidence to show that anyone ever used the term "non-Christian" to refer to people who believed in the resurrection and atonement, but did not agree with all the particulars of the Nicene Creed.
Where is this definition that was supposed to have been debated?
I agree with GB, Lori was never a Mormon. And certainly was not active for a year to be granted access to a temple. She is simply spouting off anti-Mormon rhetoric and trying to justify her knowledge by claiming to have been an insider. But here deception is so thinly veiled that anyone with half a brain can see right through it. Get a life.
And I use the term "knowledge" loosely.
GB, I'd agree that Lori's obviously paid more attention to anti-mormons than she has to the LDS church. For example, like most mormons, she probably learned that the LDS church "teaches" that Jesus is Satan's brother by listening to anti-mormons rant. (Yes, the statement can be inferred from LDS doctrine, just as any Christian could infer it from reading the Book of Job, but antimormons frame it misleadingly, since the description of God's angels (including the fallen angel lucifer) as God's "sons", and the New Testament inclusion of all of us as children of God, in no way treads on the fact that Jesus is "the only begotten of the father." God is the father of our spirits, and has the same relationship with the angels, according to Job, but Jesus had no mortal father; Jesus was conceived miraculously when his mother, the virgin Mary. That's why Jesus is the "only begotten" of the Father.
Still, I don't think there's sufficient evidence to accuse Lori of lying here. Not all LDS folks pay attention in the church or in the temple, and some that stray learn most of what they "know" about the church from antimormons. In my experience, the fakers, like "LDSboy," are a lot more obvious to spot. Just correct her false statements of doctrine when you can. I realize it's frustrating because when she makes claims about the temple ceremony, we can't respond specifically because of promises we made.
Lori said: "certain parts of the body. Well, many people became uncomfortable with this practice and so it was stopped."
Lori, your calculated vaguness makes the temple ceremony sound very exciting, but the truth is less titilating. I've been doing initiatories since 1986, and there's never been any sort of innapropriate touching as part of the ceremony. Anyone remotely acquainted with the church knows that we are a very modest people with regard to how we dress. Yes, some folks are uncomfortable with close proximity, and being held for baptism by emersion even troubles such people. Women officiate in ordinances for other women in the temple -- The least honest antis often say or try to give the impression that men are administering the washings and annointings to women in the temple, but even the Tanners decry that sort of scare tactic falsehood.
The doctrine taught in the endowment ceremony does not change. The purpose of the endowment is to provide members with the blessings and knowledge they need to overcome the world. (See Revelations 3:21, etc.) As the world changes, the blessings and knowledge needed to overcome it, also changes. Our destination has not changed, but our starting point has changed, therefore the journey is slightly different.
Peter, normally I would agree with you but in this case, Lori has claimed to have thoroughly investigated the churches doctrine and history. Thus my very strong rebuke of her.
Wow, an actual one sided debate. Funny thing is that Mormonism is not definable as a wholly separate religion from Christianity, and can be be more accurately defined as a "non orthodox sectarian cult within Christianity." (no insult intended to the Mormons by use the word "cult")
IF we were to define Christianity based on the Orthodoxy of the Nicean Creed, then the Greek Orthodox Church would not be defined as Christian, as well as the Baptist Church. (funny how a real character like John the Baptist, who makes a quick exit from the story, is actually ignored by the Baptist church) The only church definable as "Christian" according to the Nicean creed is the Catholic Church, who wrote (don't give me crap about the catholic church coming after the Nicean creed, the church was define "catholic" meaning "World Wide" by the bishops at the time the creed was ratified.
There is a purity of truth that the Book of Moroni defined much more elegantly than the Nicean creed, and the Nicean Canon, and just because one group of old men closed the canon along time ago does not mean another group would not reopen it and redefine their belief in Jesus and Faith outside of the canon. "It is not part of the canon, therefore it is irrelevant" seems to be THE FOOLISHNESS OF Dr. Mohler,.
and the debate as to whether or a person is a Christian or not has no place in politics, and I believe many of us go beyond religion when we seek the truth of political decisions, only fervent believers will tie the party ribbon on the theology of a candidate
oh and just to let you know I am not a Mormon, nor can I be defined as a Christian, though I believe in the truth of Jesus, but because of this belief in the truth of Jesus I have been branded "devil worshiper" on many occasion because I do not tow the theological wagon behind my cart. I have only one objection to tradition Mormon values, but I have many objections to traditional Christian values.
Who cares, believe in a resurrected Jesus sometime in the near future or one who came to America because there were other sheep to lead.
I concede that a strong rebuke is appropriate, but I think we should save the word "liar" for stronger cases.
Certainly a number of Lori's statements, like Dr. Mohler's statements about "the God of the Book of Mormon," seem to be made in reckless disregard for their falsity, because, like you said, she claimed authority of experience for her statements. If she had the knowledge that she asserted that she had, then she *should* have known better than to say what she said.
But honest people do make reckless mistakes from time to time, and I'd prefer to save words like "liar" for clear-cut cases, like a guy that says that he IS an Mormon and then proceeds to put the words "We believe" in front of a series of statements that mormons obviously do not believe.
Christ answered this question Himself Dr Mohler; "by this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another" John 13:35.
Most "Mormons" seem to be doing their best to live by this [although some "Christians" make it a challenge!].
The Pharisees knew what was orthodox and traditional, and look where it got them. So did the inquisition.
Weren't Baptists once cruelly condemed as heretics? - brave people, following Christ according to their faith. Do you now judge the faith of others?.
I am a Reorganized Latter Day Saint. Over 90% of people reading this blog have no idea what that is. I am a member of the Reorganized Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints, which today is known as the simplier name "Community Of Christ". We had to change our name twice because the "Utah Mormons" refused to, even though they were defeated in a court of law twice by our faith as the church that truly follows the leadership of Joseph Smith. We have NEVER believed in Temple Rites. Neither did Joseph Smith. We have NEVER endorsed polygammy. Neither did Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith was married to several women by proxy. THis means that these women were married to him after his death. Pretty hard to denounce anything after you are dead.
Joseph Smith ordained his son Joseph Smith III to be his successor. He did this when he was imprisoned and knew he was not comming back to Nauvoo. When his attackers came to arrest him he hid out to escape arrest. But when his followers started to murmer about what kind of leader is this who hides, he decided to come back and turn himself in, knowing he was going to die. He said, "I go as a lamb to the slaughter" when the authorities took him away to Carthage. A mob attacked the jail (with the assistance of the absent police guards) and killed him and his brother Hyrim.
Joseph Smith III was only 12 years of age when his father died and too young to carry on in his father's footsteps. So at Josephs death, many members suddenly had "revelations" that God had chosen them to lead the church. The church splintered, going in several different directions, the greatest number deciding to follow the infamous Bringham Young, who was in the Council Of Twelve, who led them to Utah. Young decided to plant his church in the middle of the desert because there were no neighbors that would harass and persecute the "Mormons." The church could grow strong with no opposition.
During the journey, the women outnumbered the men tremendously. So, Bringham had a "revelation" that men should have more than one wife. Not only was it accepted but it became one of God's highest Ordinances. The truth (to me) is that it was done for economical reasons, and my opinion is that Young claimed that Joseph Smith had endorsed this practice. Thus, the birth of polygammy amoung the Mormons, falsely tying Joseph Smith to the practice. The trip from Nauvoo, Illinois to Salt Lake Cith, Utah was grueling, and many died. With so many women to care for, the NEED for men to "marry" them was indeed a necessity. Afterall, the journey was made by horseback and covered wagon. It's a long, grueling trip today by air conditioned cars.
When they finally reached Salt Lake City, they set up camp. Then the true doctrine of the church REALLY got spun and distorted. Temple Rites, Avenging Angels, Polygammy, etc. was in full bloom. The only problem that this was far, far removed from the true church. Something truly holy became contaminated.
Meanwhile, back at Nauvoo, a very small number of Mormons stayed home and did not follow anyone. When Joseph Smith III was old enough to assume leadership of the true church, the true traditional faith of the original Mormons was carried on. However, the Utah Mormons refused to let go of their name, even though they were defeated in a court of law not once, but twice, to do so. So we had to. We became "The Reorganized Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints", the true Mormons, with Headquarters in Independence, Missouri. Within the last few years, however, we had to change it again, because the world's perception of the Utah Mormons made it hard for us to be seperated from them, our church names being so similar.
I have empathy for the Mormons. They were misled, but they were true believers in Jesus Christ and were seeking His truth, and wanted honestly and sincerely to be good people and followers of the true God. And God can bless and sacntify anything and anyone. Though their roots after Joseph Smith's death were tainted and smeared by a few bad men seeking and getting drunk on power, their hearts were pure and sincere.
I also have a great deal of respect for them. They are fine, very family oriented, upstanding people. Today, you might find a "bad Mormon" practicing polygammy in some small farm in Utah, but you would be very hard pressed to find any significant number of "bad Mormons" in our jails and penetientaries.
But there is a significant difference between them and us. Most Mormons (Utah) don't even know we exist because their church does not teach them anything about us. But then again, most of the world, and probably you, the reader, never heard of us either. Just a short history for you.
Pope Benedict has recently declared that all Protestant, Evangelical-Born-again christians are not christians at all but defectors of the True Church of Christ or Catholicisms. "Who gets to define Christian?"
Mom, Are We Christians?”
Elder Gary J. Coleman
Of the Seventy
Gary J. Coleman, “‘Mom, Are We Christians?’,” Ensign, May 2007, 92–94
I am a devout Christian who is exceedingly fortunate to have greater knowledge of the true “doctrine of Christ” since my conversion to the restored Church.
Christianity celebrates the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God the Eternal Father. Christian churches with great variations of doctrine dot the land the world over. When 14-year-old Cortnee, a daughter of a mission president, entered a new high school as a freshman, she was asked by classmates if she was a Christian. They scoffed at her response that she was a Mormon, a common reference to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Upon arriving home she asked her mother, “Mom, are we Christians?”
Growing up in my family, we lived as devout members of another Christian faith. I was baptized a member of that church shortly after my birth. Our family went to church each week. For many years my brothers and I assisted the pastors who conducted our Sunday services. I was taught the importance of family prayer as our family prayed together each day. I thought that someday I would enter the full-time ministry in my church. There was no question in our minds that we could define ourselves as devout Christians.
When I was a university student, however, I became acquainted with the members and teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a Christian faith centered on the Savior. I began to learn about the doctrine of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ in these latter days. I learned truths that I had not known before that changed my life and how I viewed the gospel. After much studying, prayer, and faith, I chose to embrace beautiful restored truths found only in this Church.
The first restored truth that I learned was the nature of the Godhead. The true Christian doctrine that the Godhead consists of three separate beings was known in biblical times. God bore witness of Jesus, His Only Begotten Son, on several occasions. He spoke at Jesus’s baptism: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”1 Jesus Himself testified of God, His Father, when He said, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”2 After Jesus’s death and Resurrection, we learn that Stephen, “he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.”3 What a dramatic testimony of the Godhead from that disciple of Christ.
The knowledge of God and His physical separateness from His Son and the Holy Ghost was lost after the death of Christ and His Apostles. Confusion and false doctrines about the Godhead were fashioned out of the Nicene Creed and Constantinople councils, where men declared that instead of three separate beings, the Godhead was three persons in one God, or the Trinity. Just as Christian Protestant reformers struggled with these creeds of men, I did as well. The teachings about the Trinity that I learned in my youth were incomprehensible to me.
However, when I was introduced to the glorious truths of the First Vision experienced by the Prophet Joseph Smith, it was a stunning awakening for me to finally understand the truth about the nature of God the Eternal Father and His Only Begotten Son. Joseph declared: “I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!”4 This heavenly vision restored the wondrous yet plain and precious knowledge of God and His Son to the earth again, dispelling at once the teachings I had learned about the Trinity.
I know that heaven-sent revelations have replaced the gross errors of man-made doctrines concerning the Godhead. I know that God is our Heavenly Father. His Son, Jesus Christ, is my Savior. The Holy Ghost testifies of the Father and the Son. I express my profound gratitude to God for introducing the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ to mankind in these last days. The Savior lives; He has been seen; He has spoken; He directs the work of His Church through apostles and prophets today. What magnificent truths He has taught as the Good Shepherd who continues to look after His sheep.
The second restored truth I learned as an investigator of this Church was the reality of additional scripture and revelation. The prophet Isaiah saw in vision a book that he proclaimed was part of “a marvellous work and a wonder.”5 I testify that the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ is that book. It is a sacred record written by prophets of God to persuade all people to come unto Christ, and it helps to reveal the gospel of Jesus Christ in its fulness. The Book of Mormon tells of prophets and other faithful members of the Church who took upon themselves the name of Christ, even before the Savior’s birth.6 This book tells of the resurrected Christ teaching men what they must do to gain peace in this life and eternal salvation in the world to come. What could be more Christian than seeking to take His name upon ourselves and follow His counsel to become like Him?
President Gordon B. Hinckley has said, “I cannot understand why the Christian world does not accept this book.”7 I first read the Book of Mormon at the age of 21. I then asked God if it was true. The truth of it was manifested unto me by the comforting power of the Holy Ghost.8 I know that the Book of Mormon is a second testament of Jesus Christ. I join my testimony with the prophets of this sacred book to declare that “we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ.”9 I am deeply grateful for every word that He has spoken and for every word He continues to speak as He quenches our thirst with living water.
Another restored truth of the gospel I became acquainted with was the restoration of priesthood authority, or the power to act in God’s name. Former prophets and apostles, such as Elijah, Moses, John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John, have been sent by God and Christ in our day to restore the holy priesthood of God. Every priesthood holder in this Church can trace his priesthood authority directly to Jesus Christ. Men now possess the keys to establish the Church so that we can come unto Christ and partake of His eternal ordinances of salvation.10 I testify that this is the Church of Jesus Christ—the only church authorized with true priesthood authority to exercise the keys of salvation through sacred ordinances.
Cortnee asked, “Mom, are we Christians?” As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you are a Christian, and I am too. I am a devout Christian who is exceedingly fortunate to have greater knowledge of the true “doctrine of Christ”11 since my conversion to the restored Church. These truths define this Church as having the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Like other members of the Church, I now understand the true nature of the Godhead, I have access to additional scripture and revelation, and I can partake of the blessings of priesthood authority. Yes, Cortnee, we are Christians, and I testify of these truths in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
Notes
1. Matthew 3:17.
2. John 17:3.
3. Acts 7:55–56.
4. Joseph Smith—History 1:17.
5. See Isaiah 29:14; see also vv. 11–12, 18.
6. See Alma 46:14–16.
7. The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith,” Liahona and Ensign, Nov. 2002, 81.
8. See Moroni 10:4–5.
9. 2 Nephi 25:26.
10. See D&C 2; 13; 110; 112:32.
11. 2 Nephi 31:2; see also 3 Nephi 11:31–36.
^ Back to top
“The Peaceable Followers of Christ”
By President Boyd K. Packer
Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
Next >
Boyd K. Packer, “‘The Peaceable Followers of Christ’,” Liahona, Dec 1998, 17
An address given at the Church Educational System fireside at Brigham Young University on 1 February 1998
Because of the nature of the message that I have to present, I would deeply appreciate your faith and prayers as we move forward in the meeting.
In his closing sermon, the prophet Moroni said, “I … speak unto you that are of the church, that are the peaceable followers of Christ,” and he spoke further of our “peaceable walk with the children of men.” 1
My preparation for this assignment has been challenging. I have determined to do something I have seldom done before—to present a message intended for someone not present with us.
My message is for those who teach and write and produce films which claim that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a Christian church and that we, the members, are not Christians.
When faced with that question, I find myself disadvantaged—cornered, challenged. I think you young people could do a better job of answering that question than I. I find it difficult to respond without saying that such individuals are uninformed and unfair and not consistent with the spirit of Christian brotherhood. But confrontation is not the way to reason through a challenge such as this. The much better approach is to teach, to remain “peaceable followers of Christ.”
If they claimed that we do not fit the Christian mold they have designed for themselves or that we do not conform to their definition of Christian, it would be easier to reason together.
We need not justify what we believe, only to teach and to explain. Others can accept or reject as they please. They have their agency.
There is more to it than simply writing a definition of what a Christian is and then rejecting anyone who does not conform to it.
If we really are not Christians, there are some things that are left for them to explain.
For example: Suppose someone who had never heard of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints came upon one of our hymnbooks and asked himself, “Who published this? What do they believe? What kind of people are they?”
He would find it filled with hymns and anthems which testify of Christ, many which are revered by Christians throughout the world: “Jesus, Lover of My Soul,” “Jesus, the Very Thought of Thee,” “The Lord Is My Shepherd,” and more than 30 others.
He would find more than a hundred hymns written by Latter-day Saints which teach of Christ. In the spirit of worship, these hymns teach of the ministry of our Lord, our Redeemer. We sing reverently of His Crucifixion, His sacrifice for our sins, His Resurrection, His Atonement, His Ascension.
These hymns certainly are not the voice of non-Christians. Instead they reveal a people of devotion and faith who love, indeed worship, our Savior and Redeemer. Listen to a few verses selected from a few of them.
The first one, “Jesus, Once of Humble Birth,” written by Elder Parley P. Pratt, who was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, will be sung by Mark Hall, accompanied by Herbert Klopfer:
Jesus, once of humble birth,
Now in glory comes to earth.
Once he suffered grief and pain;
Now he comes on earth to reign.
Once a meek and lowly Lamb,
Now the Lord, the great I Am.
Once upon the cross he bowed;
Now his chariot is the cloud.
Once he groaned in blood and tears;
Now in glory he appears.
Once rejected by his own,
Now their King he shall be known. 2
The next verses from “Behold the Great Redeemer Die,” written by Eliza R. Snow, an early president of the Relief Society, will be sung by Kimberly Hall:
Behold the great Redeemer die,
A broken law to satisfy.
He dies a sacrifice for sin,
That man may live and glory win. …
He died, and at the awful sight
The sun in shame withdrew its light!
Earth trembled, and all nature sighed
In dread response, “A God has died!”
He lives—he lives. We humbly now
Around these sacred symbols bow,
And seek, as Saints of latter days,
To do his will and live his praise. 3
Finally, verses from “How Great the Wisdom and the Love,” also written by Eliza R. Snow, will be sung by Brother and Sister Hall:
How great the wisdom and the love
That filled the courts on high
And sent the Savior from above
To suffer, bleed, and die!
His precious blood he freely spilt;
His life he freely gave,
A sinless sacrifice for guilt,
A dying world to save.
By strict obedience Jesus won
The prize with glory rife:
“Thy will, O God, not mine be done,”
Adorned his mortal life.
He marked the path and led the way,
And ev’ry point defines
To light and life and endless day
Where God’s full presence shines. 4
Is that the voice of non-Christians?
More than 50 hymns of transcendent beauty and devotion speak in pure testimony of the Lord. They invite a spirit of reverence and worship of the Lord into the meetings of the Latter-day Saints.
How could words or music like that be written by non-Christians? Was it not the Master who asked, “Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?” 5
How do they account for such reverent tributes to the Lord? Well, that is their problem, not ours.
One reason for my feeling challenged by this claim that we are not Christians is that I do not know how to answer it without quoting from revelations, from scriptures which they reject.
Unless these critics at least understand why we accept such revelations, we will never come to agree.
Consider the name: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
On this subject, the Lord Himself has spoken more than once. Listen to this account from the Book of Mormon:
“And it came to pass that as the disciples of Jesus were journeying and were preaching the things which they had both heard and seen, and were baptizing in the name of Jesus, it came to pass that the disciples were gathered together and were united in mighty prayer and fasting.
“And Jesus again showed himself unto them, for they were praying unto the Father in his name; and Jesus came and stood in the midst of them, and said unto them: What will ye that I shall give unto you?
“And they said unto him: Lord, we will that thou wouldst tell us the name whereby we shall call this church; for there are disputations among the people concerning this matter.
“And the Lord said unto them: Verily, verily, I say unto you, why is it that the people should murmur and dispute because of this thing?
“Have they not read the scriptures, which say ye must take upon you the name of Christ, which is my name? For by this name shall ye be called at the last day;
“And whoso taketh upon him my name, and endureth to the end, the same shall be saved at the last day.
“Therefore, whatsoever ye shall do, ye shall do it in my name; therefore ye shall call the church in my name; and ye shall call upon the Father in my name that he will bless the church for my sake.
“And how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel.
“Verily I say unto you, that ye are built upon my gospel; therefore ye shall call whatsoever things ye do call, in my name; therefore if ye call upon the Father, for the church, if it be in my name the Father will hear you.” 6
In a revelation given in 1838, the Lord spoke to “the elders and people of my Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, scattered abroad in all the world,” saying, “For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” 7
Others refer to us as Mormons. I do not mind if they use that title. However, sometimes we are prone ourselves to say “Mormon Church.” I do not think it best for us to do so.
The First Presidency has told us to “keep in mind that this is the Church of Jesus Christ; please emphasize that fact in making contacts with others. … We feel that some may be misled by the too frequent use of the term ‘Mormon Church.’ ” 8
We obey the commandment “Whatsoever ye shall do, ye shall do it in my name.” 9 Every prayer we offer is in His name. Every ordinance performed is in His name. Every baptism, confirmation, blessing, ordination, every sermon, every testimony is concluded with the invocation of His sacred name. It is in His name that we heal the sick and perform other miracles of which we do not, cannot, speak.
In the sacrament we take upon ourselves the name of Christ. We covenant to remember Him and keep His commandments. He is present in all that we believe.
Several years ago Sister Packer and I went to Oxford University. We were looking for the records of my seventh great-grandfather John Packer. Dr. Poppelwell, the head of Christ’s College at Oxford, was kind enough to have the archivist of Christ’s College bring the records. There in the year 1583, we found my ancestor’s name, John Packer.
The following year we returned to Oxford to present a beautifully bound set of the standard works for the library at Christ’s College. It seemed a bit awkward for the head of Christ’s College, Dr. Poppelwell. Perhaps he thought we were not really Christians. So he called for the college chaplain to receive the books.
Before handing them to the chaplain, I opened the Topical Guide and showed him references to one subject: 18 pages, very fine print, single-spaced, listing references to the one subject of Jesus Christ. It is the most comprehensive compilation of scriptural references on the subject of Jesus Christ that has ever been assembled in the history of the world—a testimony from the Old and New Testaments, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price.
However you follow these references, I told him, side to side, up and down, book to book, subject after subject, you will find that they are a consistent harmonious witness to the divinity of the mission of the Lord Jesus Christ—His birth, His life, His teachings, His Crucifixion, His Resurrection, and His Atonement.
The atmosphere changed and we were cordially given a tour, including an excavation revealing recently discovered murals which dated to Roman days.
Among those references listed in the Topical Guide is the one from the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ:
“We preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.” 10
Christ dominates that testament page by page. He is referred to in 3,925 verses, more than half of the 6,607 verses in the book. Beginning with the title page, where the purpose of the book is given as “the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God,” He is referred to as the Son of God, the Redeemer of the world, the Only Begotten of the Father, and nearly a hundred other titles. In the last phrase of the last sentence of the last verse, verse 6,607, the Savior is referred to as “the great Jehovah, the Eternal Judge.” 11
It is one thing to say that we are not their kind of Christian. It is another entirely to characterize us as not being Christian at all.
There are doctrinal beliefs that will continue to be misunderstood and disturb our critics. A few of them are these:
• The statement in the revelation that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth.” 12
• Scriptures in addition to the Bible—the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price.
• Continuing revelation through apostles and prophets.
• The doctrine of the Godhead. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct personages, and “the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s.” 13
• We are the literal spirit children of God, and thus have the possibility to eventually become as He is.
• Marriages may continue after this life, and families can be forever.
• And, of course, we are not saved by grace alone, but saved “after all we can do.” 14
One need not have answers to all those questions to receive the witness of the Spirit, join the Church, and remain faithful therein. There is a knowledge that transcends rational explanations, sacred knowledge that leads to conversion.
While we can provide answers, they will not be satisfactory, however, to those who do not accept continuing revelation. To argue or debate over sacred things usually generates much more heat than light.
There is what I call the principle of prerequisites. That principle operates in school. Without the basic prerequisite course in chemistry, we will have a hard time understanding advanced chemistry, if we ever do. Not that we are not intelligent enough to understand, but a proper foundation simply has not been laid.
Paul told the Corinthians that very thing: “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
“Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
“Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 15
I suppose others are puzzled as to how we attract so many converts, or why members stay in the Church with so many questions we are not able to answer to everyone’s satisfaction.
Our critics’ belief, based on the Bible, holds that man is saved by grace alone. Theirs is by far the easier way.
Our position, also based on the Bible but strengthened by other scriptures, holds that we are saved by grace “after all we can do,” 16 and we are responsible by conduct and by covenants to live the standards of the gospel.
We agree with the Apostle James that “faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone,” and we say to all those who make such an accusation, “Shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.” 17
Buttressed by covenants and ordinances, Latter-day Saints observe the law of the fast, pay tithes and offerings, send their children on missions, “For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.” 18
As converts mature spiritually, they gain “a reason [for] the hope that is in [them].” 19 The gospel becomes as satisfying to the mind as it is soothing to the heart. We spend our lives learning the things of God. Those difficult questions one by one become testimonies.
“We claim the [right to worship] Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” 20
A caution to those who willfully misrepresent us: They may do well to consider what Gamaliel said to his fellow Pharisees after they had arrested the Apostles:
“Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;
“And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.
“For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.
“After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.
“And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
“But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.
“And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.” 21
Gamaliel unknowingly agreed with the Lord, who had said, “Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.” 22
I will tell you we do not talk of downsizing anything in the Church.
And so, the problem is theirs, not ours. We know whom we worship and what we worship and in whose name. They may say we believe because we were brought up that way from our youth. While true of many of us, it is not true of most. Two-thirds of us are converts who come by the waters of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Each one in the Church, born in or converted, must acquire an individual testimony.
While we must act peaceably, we need not submit to unfair accusations and unjustified opposition.
“The Lord had said unto [the Nephites], and also unto their fathers, that: Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies.” 23
If our detractors organize to come against us—to disrupt our work (and that has happened before)—there will be those among them who will say, “We ought not to be doing this. This does not feel good. What we are doing is not right.” And as surely as we remain “peaceable followers of Christ,” a division will rise up among them, and they will ultimately disarm and weaken themselves.
They might learn from an old Spanish saying, Les salió el tiro por la culata, which translated means, “The bullet came out the wrong end of the gun.”
While we take the gospel of Christ to all people, we do not oppose other churches. If you meet someone who challenges our right to the title Christian, do not confront them. Teach them peaceably. We have but to remain humble and peaceable followers of Christ, for He has promised, “I will fight your battles.” 24
The marvelous thing is that the Lord can manage the Church without a professional clergy. In an early revelation, He commanded “that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world;
“That faith also might increase in the earth;
“That mine everlasting covenant might be established;
“That the fulness of my gospel might be proclaimed by the weak and the simple unto the ends of the world.” 25
Some of us puzzle over why, of all things, we are said to be un-Christian. But that is our lot. The prophets have told us that opposition goes with the territory. It was ever thus.
It is not an easy church to belong to. The gospel requires dedication and sacrifice. It is not an easy church to administer. With the patterns of the priesthood as they are, men and women are called from every walk of life to teach and to lead and to serve. We have members with every level of gospel knowledge, leadership ability, talents, and testimony. We learn to be patient with one another.
Eliza R. Snow wrote “Think Not, When You Gather to Zion”:
Think not when you gather to Zion,
Your troubles and trials are through,
That nothing but comfort and pleasure
Are waiting in Zion for you:
No, no, ’tis designed as a furnace,
All substance, all textures to try,
To burn all the “wood, hay, and stubble,”
The gold from the dross purify.
Think not when you gather to Zion,
That all will be holy and pure;
That fraud and deception are banished,
And confidence wholly secure:
No, no, for the Lord our Redeemer
Has said that the tares with the wheat
Must grow till the great day of burning
Shall render the harvest complete.
Think not when you gather to Zion,
The Saints here have nothing to do
But to look to your personal welfare,
And always be comforting you.
No; those who are faithful are doing
What they find to do with their might;
To gather the scattered of Israel
They labor by day and by night.
Think not when you gather to Zion,
The prize and the victory won.
Think not that the warfare is ended,
The work of salvation is done.
No, no; for the great prince of darkness
A tenfold exertion will make,
When he sees you go to the fountain,
Where freely the truth you may take. 26
So, with the encouragement of the Spirit, we do the best we can and go peaceably on.
Some years ago I was invited to speak to a group of faculty and students at Harvard University. I, of course, hoped that the gospel message would be accepted and that our meeting would end in a harmony of views. As I prayed that this might result, there came to me a strong impression that this petition would not be granted.
I determined that, however preposterous the talk about angels and golden plates and restoration might be to my audience, I would teach the truth with quiet confidence, for I have a testimony of the truth. If some must come from the meeting unsettled and disturbed, it would not be me. Let them be disturbed, if they would.
It was as the Spirit foretold. Some in the group shook their heads in amazement that anyone could believe such things. But I was at peace. I had taught the truth, and they could accept it or reject it as they pleased.
There is always the hope, and often it is true, that in any group one person with an open mind and heart may admit one simple thought: “Could it possibly be true?” Combine that thought with sincere prayer, and one more soul enters a private sacred grove to find the answer to the question “Which of all the churches is true, and which should I join?”
As I grow older in age and experience, I grow ever less concerned over whether others agree with us. I grow ever more concerned that they understand us. If they do understand, they have their agency and can accept or reject the gospel as they please.
It is not an easy thing for us to defend the position that bothers so many others. But, brethren and sisters, never be ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Never apologize for the sacred doctrines of the gospel. Never feel inadequate and unsettled because you cannot explain them to the satisfaction of all who might enquire of you. Do not be ill at ease or uncomfortable because you can give little more than your conviction.
Be assured that, if you will explain what you know and testify of what you feel, you may plant a seed that will grow and blossom into a testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
“Behold I say unto you, that as these things are true, and as the Lord God liveth, there is none other name given under heaven save it be this Jesus Christ, of which I have spoken, whereby man can be saved.” 27
As one of the Twelve, I bear witness of the Lord Jesus Christ. He lives. He is our Redeemer and is our Savior. He presides over this Church. He is no stranger to His servants here, and as we move into the future with quiet confidence, His spirit will be with us.
I invoke His blessing upon you, our youth, that you will have the courage of your conviction and that testimony, even though it be but a tiny seed, will grow up and bear fruits unto everlasting life. I bear witness of Him in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
[illustration] The Good Shepherd, © 1996 Greg Olsen; courtesy of the artist and Mill Pond Press, Inc., Venice, Florida
[illustration] Lost No More, © 1997 Greg Olsen; courtesy of the artist and Mill Pond Press, Inc., Venice, Florida
[photo] We sing reverently of the wisdom and love of Christ, as did Mark and Kimberly Hall, below, who sang hymns as part of President Packer’s talk.
[photos] Books photographed by Tamra Hamblin
[illustration] Christ Stilling the Storm, by Robert T. Barrett
[illustration] Christ Raising the Daughter of Jairus, © Greg Olsen
[illustration] Behold Your Little Ones, by David Lindsley
Notes
1. Moro. 7:3–4; emphasis added.
2. Hymns, no. 196, vv. 1–3.
3. Hymns, no. 191, vv. 1, 5, 6.
4. Hymns, no. 195.
5. Matt. 7:16.
6. 3 Ne. 27:1–9; emphasis added.
7. D&C 115:3–4.
8. “Policies and Announcements,” Ensign, Mar. 1983, 79.
9. 3 Ne. 27:7.
10. 2 Ne. 25:26.
11. Moro. 10:34; see also Susan Ward Easton, “Names of Christ in the Book of Mormon,” Ensign, July 1978, 60–61.
12. D&C 1:30.
13. D&C 130:22.
14. 2 Ne. 25:23.
15. 1 Cor. 2:11–14.
16. 2 Ne. 25:23.
17. James 2:17–18.
18. 2 Ne. 25:23; emphasis added.
19. 1 Pet. 3:15.
20. A of F 1:11.
21. Acts 5:34–40.
22. Matt. 15:13.
23. Alma 43:46.
24. D&C 105:14.
25. D&C 1:20–23.
26. Hymns (1948), no. 21.
27. 2 Ne. 25:20.
^ Back to top « Previous Article: I Have a Question
Next Article: Visiting Teaching Message: Observing the Law of Tithing »
Liahona Home
Past Issues
Search Liahona
LDS.org Help Free E-mail Subscriptions Feedback Newsroom
Mormon.org FamilySearch.org Rights and Use Information Privacy Policy
Official Web site of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
© 2007 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.
Ron Sutton, speaking of the "Community of Christ" formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said: But there is a significant difference between them and us. Most Mormons (Utah) don't even know we exist because their church does not teach them anything about us. But then again, most of the world, and probably you, the reader, never heard of us either. Just a short history for you.
Posted by: Ron Sutton | July 24, 2007 5:24 AM
Mike's Response: I am a Utah, Wyoming, California Mormon, and I know about you and have read your information and vistied your sites in Kirtland, Ohio and Nauvoo Illinois. thnks you for your kind words about the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Ron Sutton Said: During the journey, the women outnumbered the men tremendously. So, Bringham had a "revelation" that men should have more than one wife. Not only was it accepted but it became one of God's highest Ordinances. The truth (to me) is that it was done for economical reasons, and my opinion is that Young claimed that Joseph Smith had endorsed this practice. Thus, the birth of polygammy amoung the Mormons, falsely tying Joseph Smith to the practice. The trip from Nauvoo, Illinois to Salt Lake Cith, Utah was grueling, and many died. With so many women to care for, the NEED for men to "marry" them was indeed a necessity. Afterall, the journey was made by horseback and covered wagon. It's a long, grueling trip today by air conditioned cars
Mike's Response:
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/against_plural.htm
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/history/plural_marriage/History_EOM.htm
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/history/plural_marriage/McConkie_MD.htm
No Ron. unfortunately your version does not hold up to the primary documentation about this doctrine.
I do not believe that Mormon revelations come from God because God never contradicts Himself, yet Mormon revelations continually contradict themselves. It seems to me that the Mormon church was founded on those revelations, therefore it cannot be founded on Jesus Christ.
Renee,
And yet you provide no evidence to back up your assertion. Are we just supposed to believe you because you said so?
I think not!
Based upon the lack of documentation by many of those in the discussion, including Dr. Mohler, it might be wise for a number of people to go back and take logic classes or debate classes. I say this as a former collegiate debator.
Let me give some example from Dr. Mohlers article:
Dr. Mohler said: the Jesus of the Book of Mormon is not the only begotten Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, or the one through whose death on the cross we can be saved from our sins.
Mike's response: Not only is there no documentation on this assertion, but this is a bald faced mis-statement of LDS doctrine.
Had Dr. Mohler taken the time to read more of the Book of Mormon than he has he would know this. Here are several direct quotes from the Book of Mormon that show that Dr. Mohler's statement is in error:
Jacob 4: 5, 11
5 Behold, they believed in Christ and aworshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his bname. And for this intent we ckeep the dlaw of Moses, it epointing our souls to him; and for this cause it is sanctified unto us for righteousness, even as it was accounted unto Abraham in the wilderness to be obedient unto the commands of God in offering up his son Isaac, which is a fsimilitude of God and his ONLY BEGOTTEN SON.
• • •
11 Wherefore, beloved brethren, be areconciled unto him through the batonement of Christ, his ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, and ye may obtain a dresurrection, according to the epower of the resurrection which is in Christ, and be presented as the ffirst-fruits of Christ unto God, having faith, and obtained a good hope of glory in him before he manifesteth himself in the flesh.
Alma 12: 33-34
33 But God did call on men, in the name of his Son, (this being the aplan of redemption which was laid) saying: If ye will brepent, and harden not your hearts, then will I have mercy upon you, through mine ONLY BEGOTTEN SON;
34 Therefore, whosoever repenteth, and hardeneth not his heart, he shall have claim on amercy through mine ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, unto a bremission of his sins; and these shall enter into my crest.
Alma 13: 5, 9
5 Or in fine, in the first place they were on the asame standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, who was prepared—
Dr. Mohler said: The major divisions within Christian history (Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism) disagree over important issues of doctrine, but all affirm the early church’s consensus concerning the nature of Christ and the Trinitarian faith.
Mike's Response: The Filique Clause would suggest that this claim is not true, not to mention that again there is no documentation.
Dr. Mohler said: Christianity is rightly defined in terms of “traditional Christian orthodoxy.” Thus, we have an objective standard by which to define what is and is not Christianity.
Mike's response: "Rightly defined" by who? How do we know that this is the right way to define Christianity? The "Tradional Orthodox Christians" define it this way. So what? Did God tell the Orthodox Christians that this was the right way to define Christianity? If so where is Dr. Mohler's documentations of that revelation?
I hope to not sound hostile in any way sir, but the name of our church is "The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints". I don't get what you are saying about "christian orthodoxy". Isn't that really just believing that Jesus lived and was the christ? And if we AREN'T christians, then why is that in our name?
The reason people call us "Mormon" is because Mormon was the man who abridged the Book of Mormon. The term "Mormon" is just a nickname for church members really.
Sincerely,
Tabitha Vaught
LDS "Gods" as Monarchic Monotheism: Blake Ostler
LDS "Gods" as Monarchic Monotheism
Blake Oster's writings explain that what some theologians take for multiple "Gods" in LDS thought are Monotheistic, in a form which he calls "Monarchic Monotheism". It is made up of a "council of the gods", all of whom are clearly completely subordinate to the Most-High God.
He began teaching this in Volume one of his "Exploring Mormon Thought", which has been used in graduate philosophy courses at BYU for some years.
Love and Thanks,
Steve St. Clair
Here is the section on this subject:
=====================================
Subordinate "Gods"
The very term "God" has seemed to include in it the notions of supremacy and perfection. Nevertheless, "God" or "Gods" is found in the Hebrew scriptures referring to beings that are not supreme. For example, there are divinities who are inferior or subordinate or divinities only by permission of the head God. Such divinities were felt to have religious power and authority, but only by participation or permission from the higher God. In the Hebrew scripture, a member of El's court, angels and possibly gods of foreign nations are called gods in this sense. The various mediating principles and half-personified divine attributes found in the Hebrew writings such as debar or the divine word or Wisdom, would belong to this class. In the New Testament, "the Word," and "the Mediator,'' are also used in this sense in the Epistles of Paul and the Gospel of John. In such passages, Christ is viewed as a subordinate being even though he is considered as divine and meriting worship.However, Mormons refer to subordinate "gods" in two senses primarily. First, Mormons speak of the gods in the "council of the gods before the world was." Thus, the Father is referred to as ruling in "the council of Eternal God of all other gods" (D&C 121:32); and the book of Abraham states that "the gods organized and formed the heaven and the earth" (Abraham 4:1). This use of the word "gods" is essentially equivalent to the Old Testament usage that refers to Yahweh or to Yahweh Elohim planning with and ruling over a council of gods who are subordinate to him. As Hans-Joachim Kraus observed:
In the heavenly world Yahweh, enthroned as God and king, is sur- rounded by powers who honor, praise and serve him. Israel borrowed from the Canaanite-Syrian world the well-attested concept of a pan- theon of gods and godlike beings who surround the supreme God, the ruler and monarch. In Psalm 29:1-2 the bene elohim ("sons of God") give honor to Yahweh. They are subordinate heavenly beings stripped of theirpower, who are totally dependent on Yahweh and no longer possess any independent divine nature. In Job and the Psalter, powers of this sort are called bene elohim, elim, or qedushim ("sons of God," "gods," and "holy •ones," Job I:6ff; Ps. 58:1; • 8:5; 86:8). But Yahweh alone is the highest God CElyon) and king. . . . In Psalm 82 we have a clear example of the idea of a "council of gods.". . . "God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holdsjudgment:' The "high- est god" is the judge. The gods (elohim) are his attendants. They are wit- nesses in the forum which Yahweh rules alone, and in which he possesses judicial authority. We might term the cheduth-el "Yahweh's heavenly court." All of the gods and powers of the people are in his service.
In later volumes of his multi-volume work, Blake Ostler will demonstrate conclusively that the beliefs of First-Temple Judaism (the Old Testament period), Second-Temple Judaism, the New Testament period, and early Christianity continue to clearly describe God or the Godhead in identical terms.
Here is an excerpt from his chapter on Second Temple Judaism:
============================
Monotheism and the Hierarchy of Divine Beings in Second Temple Judaism
The view that there was a hierarchy of divine beings, with the one God as the Most High accompanied by a principal divine agent second only in authority to God surrounded by a court of divine beings who serve in the Holy of Holies in the highest heaven was universal in Second Temple Judaism – the Judaism that gave rise to Christianity. The council of gods continued in this form throughout the period that gave rise to Christianity. Monotheism was not threatened by the view that there are numerous divine beings and even those who are called “gods” because it was understood that the Most High was the one God. Moreover, it was commonly believed that the divine glory could be shared by exalted humans. Indeed, it was a very common belief that humans could ascend to the throne of God and be transformed glory for glory into the same divine status as the heavenly beings by participating in the rites of washing, anointing and investiture preparatory to officiating as a priest and king in the heavenly Temple where God resides.
15.1 Jewish Views of the Hierarchy of Divine Beings. Was Second Temple Judaism characterized by the same view of God that was prominent in pre-exilic texts of a head God presiding in the council of the sons of God? On the one hand, there are those who maintain that Second Temple Judaism is characterized by the same view of God(s) that prevailed in the pre-exilic Israel and that I have argued continued even in Second Isaiah and the exile. Notwithstanding language that poetically exaggerates the difference between the gods and Yahweh by asserting that they are nothing and that Yahweh will not even recognize their existence, the notion of the council of Yahweh continued throughout this period. The point at which we leave Israelite monarchical monotheism is thus the very place where we can start to elucidate the beliefs of Second Temple Jews. Larry Hurtado summarizes the evidence regarding Second Temple “Jewish monotheism” as follows:
I propose that Jewish monotheism can be taken as constituting a distinctive version of the commonly-attested belief structure described by Nilsson as involving a "high god" who presides over other deities. The God of Israel presides over a court of heavenly beings who are likened to him (as is reflected in, e.g., the OT term for them "sons of God"). In pagan versions, too, the high god can be described as father and source of the other divine beings, and as utterly superior to them. In this sense, Jewish (and Christian) monotheism, whatever its distinctives, shows its historical links with the larger religious environment of the ancient world. There are distinctives of the Jewish version, however, both in beliefs and, even more emphatically in religious practice. As Nilsson has shown, in pagan versions often the high god is posited but not really known. Indeed, in some cases (particularly in Greek philosophical traditions), it is emphasized that the high god cannot be known. Accordingly, often one does not expect to relate directly to the high god or address this deity directly in worship or petition. In Greco-Roman Jewish belief, however, the high god is known as the God of Israel, whose ways and nature are revealed in the Scriptures of Israel.
John Collins observed: “By nearly all accounts, at the end of the first century C.E. strict monotheism had long been one of the pillars of Judaism.” However, he quickly corrects this mis-perception: “Jewish monotheism, which gave birth to the Christian movement, was not as clear-cut and simple as is generally believed. Several kinds of quasi-divine figures appear in Jewish texts from the Hellenistic period that seem to call for some qualifications of the idea of monotheism.”2 Peter Hayman reached a similar conclusion: “It is hardly ever appropriate to use the term monotheism to describe the Jewish idea of God. From the book of Daniel on, nearly every variety of Judaism maintained the pattern of the supreme God plus his viceregent/vizier.... Needless to say, this situation left many Jews confused, especially about the identity of the number two in the hierarchy.” A similar view, which I propose to defend here, is elucidated by Adela Yarbro Collins. Collins maintains that there may have been some who in fact had a “strict” view of monotheism in Second Temple Judaism, but there was a good deal of diversity in thought. The view that there was only one God who had a fulness of divinity, but that there were also other beings who possessed divinity on a continuum of divinity, with some divine beings have a greater fulness of divinity and others less, was prominent in Second Temple Judaism. Adela Collins stated:
An abstract and strictly monotheistic theology was not, however, shared by all Jewish groups in the first century C.E.. Philo and the Wisdom of Solomon solved the philosophical problem, raised by Greek philosophy, of how a transcendent god could create and interact with the material world by positing an intermediary being, Wisdom or the Logos, whom Philo could describe as “a second god.” The Community of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a Palestinian Jewish ultra-observant group which favored the Hebrew language, could speak of a plurality of ‘gods’ (V X - ’elim). Not only that, but the biblical divine name ‘Elohim’, which is equivalent to the generic Hebrew word for ‘god’ ('th - El), is attributed to an angel in the fragmentary Melchizedek scroll. The evidence implies that the strict monotheism of the Deuteronomic literature had already been ‘stretched’ or even ignored in much of the literature of Second Temple Judaism. Many Jews of that period evidently did not conceive of God as absolutely unique in a metaphysical sense. Instead, they seem to have placed the deity at the top of a pyramid, so to speak, of divine beings who were the agents of God in creating, sustaining and interacting with all things.
==========================
Here is an excerpt his chapter on the New Testament, in which he demonstrates that the relationship between the Father and the Son were seen as a continuation of the "Monarchic Monotheistic" approach:
============================
The Relation of Father and the Son:Christological Monarchic Monotheism in the New