By Orson Scott Card
There is a sort of comfortableness that can settle in with majoritarians. A complacency that allows one to be picky and exclusive.
I remember getting this feeling when I lived in Utah. I moved to the town of Orem, where Mormons were an estimated 98 percent of the population. That should certainly have made me feel at home!
However, I was also a Democrat, and in Orem, Democrats in 1980 were about as common World Series pennants in the Chicago Cubs clubhouse.
So the local Mormon congregation had no idea what to make of me. I clearly didn’t have a job — freelance writer? Of science fiction? — and I did something so eccentric as joining the Democratic Party, so how could I possibly be a good member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
My opinion was that the two questions were really unrelated — my identity as a Mormon was, I thought, secure. I kept the commandments. I fulfilled my callings in the Church. And — here’s the clincher — I sang tenor in the choir. Good tenors in church choirs are almost as rare as Democrats. I expected to be embraced with open arms.
Unfortunately, my ward (congregation) did not have a choir at that time.
Nor did they have a single calling that they thought I could fulfill.
Now, this is one of the peculiarities of Mormonism (which is, after all, the subject of this discussion, yes?): Because we have a lay ministry, every single member is expected to serve in some ministerial role. We teach or supervise or perform other services as part of an official “calling” in the Church.
In fact, that’s much of the way that we create our identity — by our callings. No matter where we move in the Mormon Church, our congregation will have a “Relief Society president” and many “Primary teachers” and a “ward clerk” and an “executive secretary,” and so on.
Even if these people are complete strangers to us, we know who they are in the ward — the function they fulfill, and what we can expect of them, and even some information about the kind of person who is usually given such a calling.
But in my ward in Orem, they couldn’t think of a calling that a science-fiction-writing Democrat could possibly fill.
In their minds, because I was such an unfamiliar creature to them, I couldn’t really be counted as “Mormon.”
It happened that my wife (a good Republican) was approached for her fourth — or was it fifth? — calling just as she was getting good and sick with the pregnancy that brought us our second child. So as my wife was turning down the calling — to teach a class of 9-year-olds in which the boys were so rambunctious that they had driven away four teachers in the past few months — I interrupted the conversation and said, “I’m available.”
Well, what could they say? I ended up teaching the class and calming down the boys, and we all had a wonderful time.
And by the time we moved away, the ward had learned something. It was actually possible for a Democrat without a day job who wrote books about space and strange creatures and all — he could also be a good Mormon.
When I moved to a place where Mormons were more rare, however — South Bend, Indiana, and then Greensboro, North Carolina, where I live today — Mormons were much more rare. Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians predominated.
So the leadership of all these wards saw me very differently. Because we were not in the majority, every Mormon who would faithfully fulfill his callings was valued — and nobody much cared about my day job or my politics. In fact, I wasn’t the only Democrat, because we hadn’t got the memo about how all good Mormons had to be Republicans out here in the hinterlands.
The result? They’ve had no problem finding callings for me. I’m still considered rather odd, but I have not felt myself to be an outsider; no one has regarded me as “not a good Mormon” because I don’t fit their preconceptions.
This story may seem overly long to some, but it’s absolutely central to the point I’m making.
It happens that I have exactly the same view as Dr. Mohler — only I apply it differently. I believe that only the Gospel of Jesus Christ can save the souls of those who sin. However, I believe that the only Church that has the authority to act in the name of God and speak for him in the world today is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
But I also know that far from being in the majority (except in the nation of Tonga), we Mormons, who (in my belief) do have that authority and that living gospel of Christ, are usually a tiny minority. It makes it all the more important that we teach the gospel — openly, to those who care to listen, and also quietly, by trying to live exemplary lives so that, seeing who we are and how we live, others might be moved to join with us and receive the saving grace of Christ that is offered to all who will believe and obey his commandments.
This is exactly what worries Dr. Mohler about Governor Romney: If elected, he might be such a good man, and such a good president, that people might become confused and think that Mormons are actually good Christians.
So I can’t disagree with him there: There is a real possibility that if Governor Romney became president, people around the world would look at him and his actions and say, If that man is a Mormon, then maybe I should be a Mormon, too.
That wouldn’t be Gov. Romney’s goal — his goal would be to serve his nation as best he could. But it might well be a by-product.
Of course, if people around the world hated him, then the reverse effect could happen, and people would say, If that man’s a Mormon, then keep those missionaries away from my door, I want none of that.” That’s also a risk — and I know Mormons who devoutly wish Gov. Romney were not running for president, because they see it as just one more way to bring negative attention down on the Church.
But let’s look at this as dispassionately as we can. None of us can control the impression Romney makes on the rest of the world, or how they extrapolate from him their attitude toward the Mormon Church. Dr. Mohler fears one possible outcome of a Romney presidency; there are Mormons who fear a different one.
But let’s take Dr. Mohler’s worst-case scenario: that President Romney is so universally loved that people all over the world will be moved to follow his example.
If Dr. Mohler is successful in persuading all those people that an admirable Mitt Romney has nothing at all to do with Christianity, then the logical result is that those who admire him will look, not to Christianity in general, but to Mormonism in particular as the sole source of his virtues.
On the other hand, if people perceive this same admirable Mitt Romney as I wish they would — as a Christian who is trying his best to emulate Christ as he believes the Savior wants him to — then these admirers of his who were already Christians of whatever denomination might show their admiration for Romney by returning to the Christian church they already attend and trying to live more assiduously the Christian life they have already been taught.
In other words, by differentiating Gov. Romney from Christianity, Dr. Mohler fairly guarantees that anyone who admires Gov. Romney will be led away from Christianity in general, because Christianity will have repudiated him. Only the Mormon Church would benefit from any admiration a President Romney might inspire.
Surely this is not what Dr. Mohler intends.
But this is truly a mere speculative argument. If Romney, as president, were despised, then it would be a good thing indeed for Christianity in general if everybody thought of him as a non-Christian!
Of course, I see no evidence that the low popularity of our very openly evangelical president Bush has caused any harm to Christianity. Most people have the wit to realize that the actions of a U.S. president may say nothing about the validity or value of the particular religion he belongs to. Or does Rev. Mohler know of some study that indicates that Pres. Bush’s low popularity throughout the world is harming Christian missionary work?
In all likelihood, Rev. Mohler’s worries about a Romney presidency and its effects on Christianity and the salvation of souls are unfounded or contrary — either Romney would have no influence, or his influence could even be positive toward all Christianity, if only other Christians would let it.
But I think there is a much clearer and more important argument, which does not just involved a particular candidate for the presidency.
It is true that when it comes to teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, we Mormons are definitely rivals with the evangelical Christian movement. Baptism in one requires a clear rejection of the other interpretation of Christ’s gospel, just as joining either of our Christian traditions means rejecting the Catholic and Orthodox Christian traditions.
Let’s not forget, after all, that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians have an even older “mainstream Christian tradition” than any Protestants, and for hundreds of years they were all convinced that Protestants were going to Hell—and causing the damnation of many souls. Since the 1960s, Catholics have been more polite toward Protestants—the word “heretic” is never used anymore (and they long accepted “heretic baptism”)—but the pope recently reaffirmed that while the Orthodox churches are to be regarded as “apostolic” with a defect, Protestant churches simply don’t have the apostolic authority.
And to hard-line Catholics, any distinction between Mormons and Baptists is pretty trivial—we’re all pope-disdaining, saint-ignoring, transubstantiation-denying distractions from the true Christian message.
Have we forgotten, too, that American Protestants have a long tradition of denying Catholics the status of Christians? Magnanimously, for purposes of our discussion here, Dr. Mohler is willing to admit that Catholics are Christians … at least compared to Mormons. He recognizes—no, he asserts—that his movement is part of the ancient Christian tradition, despite the long anti-papist tradition of the Baptist Church.
I submit that tolerance of other views of Christianity is a matter of perspective and situation.
When we Mormons, with the huge sums of money and supplies we raise for welfare work, needed to have help in getting it to the suffering people who needed it in places where our own church had no infrastructure, we turned to Catholic relief agencies and asked them to help us in our Christian mission.
I imagine that this caused some soul-searching among the Catholics involved, but they reached the conclusion that in the Christian goal of helping the poor, regardless of faith, surely our Mormon offerings must be acceptable to Christ, and should not be turned away just because they believe our doctrines about Christ to be horribly wrong-headed.
Because they realized that we did agree, definitely, on the simple truth of this scriptural statement: “Even as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”
So the Catholic relief agencies accepted the offerings of the Mormons and helped us distribute them because they knew it would be unChristlike to refuse to let the poor receive help, just because that help came from Christians with incorrect opinions about God.
There was an era when interdenominational rivalry would have trumped Christianity — but we were happy indeed that when it came to helping the poor, that era has passed, at least between the Catholic and Mormon churches.
There was a time — and not long ago — when we Mormons had a chip on our shoulders and began all our teachings by proclaiming the falseness of all other Christian churches. But we grew up. We realized that in most nations of the world, we aren’t teaching other Christians, we’re teaching people who have never heard the name of Christ.
What do they care whether we have the best Christian church — what they need is to hear of Christ at all. And to begin our teaching by telling them what’s wrong with wrong people is simply…wrong.
Right now, Mormons are as unwelcome among evangelical Christians as I, a science-fiction-writing Democratic Mormon was unwelcome among Republican normal-job-holding Mormons in Utah.
But that’s because evangelicals have a majoritarian attitude that is really not appropriate any more.
America is the most religious Western nation — but surely Dr. Mohler sees that our children can hardly get a college degree without being indoctrinated, not just in atheism, but in hostility to all organized religions, Christianity in particular.
When professors tell our children that all religions are outmoded, that Christianity belongs in the dustbin of history, that all evils in history have been caused by fanatical believers in some religion — do you think it matters to them whether the religion they’re rejecting is Orthodox Judaism, evangelical Christianity, Catholicism, or Mormonism?
And when Islamist terrorists seek the overthrow of all secular governments and the establishment of Sharia and the downfall of all competing religions, do you think they’ll care even a tiny bit whether the church they throw down or the crowd they blow up consists of official, traditional Christians or those weird Mormons?
The message of Christ is today proclaimed into the ears of an increasingly hostile world. Whether from jihadist Islam or jihadist atheism, we are beleaguered on all sides and none of us has the majority.
Instead of “mainstream Christianity” seeking opportunities to shun and exclude and deny the Christianity of Mormons, it might be more helpful for us to admit our irreconcilable differences but then recognize that in this world, today, right now, we can gain more for the cause of Christ by treating each other with respect and honoring each other for the degree to which we do live up to his teachings.
Returning to the example of Gov. Romney, I wonder if there is a Christian denomination on earth that would not be proud to claim as a member of their church a man who is so faithful to his wife and devoted to his children, so abstemious in his personal habits, so consonant to his expressed ideals?
Wouldn’t evangelical Christianity be best served, not by proclaiming, “That man is no Christian!” but rather by proclaiming, “We may not agree with all his beliefs, but Christians should all try to live their understanding of Christ’s teachings as well and thoroughly as he does!”
Shouldn’t all Christians be saying, “Take Governor Romney as an example of effectiveness in the world without sacrifice of faith and religious ideals!”?
It is true that we Mormons do not accept the way the doctrines of Christianity evolved, under the influence of neoplatonic philosophy after the death of the Apostles. We reject that tradition and believe it has been wrongish and getting wronger from about the middle of the second century A.D. onward.
But we accept every word of Christ in the New Testament. We teach our members to live up to the commandments — and we work from pretty much the same list of commandments as the Baptists, with the major exception being that we dance.
When Christianity is once again seen — correctly, I might add — as the nurturing mother of democracy and freedom throughout the world, as the great teacher that made humanism in all its forms not only possible but the ideal that most decent people aspire to — then perhaps we can afford to squabble amongst ourselves about who is really Christian and who is not.
Right now, Dr. Mohler is as uncomfortable with my insistence that we Mormons are Christians as a Vatican theologian would be with Dr. Mohler”s insistence that his denomination is part of the ancient Christian tradition.
But just as the Catholic Church has accepted Mormon help in serving the poor in the name of Christ, and just as ordinary Republican Mormons have found it in their hearts to accept me, a Democrat, as if I might be a real Mormon all the same, I wish Dr. Mohler would take the tiny, tiny step of saying, not that Mormons are right, but that a person can believe as a Mormon does and still do good works in the name of Christ, that would be acceptable to Christ by that clear, bright standard:
Even as ye have done it unto the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
posted July 11, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Did you intend to walk out of the original debate? Because…you did. It’s nice and all that you posted a very qualified (e.g. you catered to your argument to suit your purpose, I’m not posting on your merit or lack of) essay, but it really isn’t that relating to the topic at hand. Please qualify the question ‘Are Mormons Christian’ instead of qualifying your intended agenda.
Cheers.
Dal
posted July 11, 2007 at 4:34 pm
I appreciate the graciousness of this conversation; I certainly think that this is an appropriate forum to discuss these questions. What I find myself puzzled by, as an evangelical Christian, is Mr. Card’s penchant for skirting the issue and speaking in generalities, of spending so much time on Mitt Romney, etc. I do concede, of course, that Mitt’s presidential aspirations give rise to the discussion in the first place; I further concede, along with Dr. Mohler, that Mitt lives an exemplary moral lifestyle. I have not decided what to think regarding Mr. Romney’s candidacy, frankly; I think that both Card and Mohler make points worthy of consideration.
That said, the issue is not, “is Mitt Romney a good guy”, or “are Mormons moral, ethical people”, or anything like that; it’s simply, what does the Bible teach, and how does the Mormon church stack up with its teachings? For instance, Mr. Card speaks of those who “receive the saving grace of Christ that is offered to all who will believe and obey his commandments”. That sounds like an orthodox statement on its face, and many evangelicals might be tempted to accept it—but evangelicals do not believe that the “saving grace of Christ” is available to those who a priori “obey His commandments”. I appreciate the fact that this may seem like a fine distinction, but the grace of God is not contingent upon my obedience (else it is not grace at all).
I do not, by the way, begrudge Mormons the use of the title “Christian”; they are free to describe themselves in any manner they choose (it’s America, right?). That said, I put it simply this way, given that our definitions of what constitutes a Christian to be mutually-exclusive: if I, as an evangelical, am a Christian, then those who put their faith in Mormon theology cannot be as well; if Mormons are Christians, then I, who deny the essence of their understanding of the Christian faith, am not a Christian. We can both call ourselves “Christians”, but in the sense which is meaningful to me as an evangelical, we cannot both BE “Christians”.
posted July 11, 2007 at 4:41 pm
I think Mr Card should be running for the presidency because for the life of me he talks but never says anything relevant to the issue at hand. I agree with Dal—Mr Card—start by saying what it is your Gospel is and where in the Bible it is supported. Humanism and decency and all of that is fine but none of that according to Jesus will leave us in good standing in front of a Holy God. What is it you are trying to say???? tim
posted July 11, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Oh brother!
Every sect, even Catholics, are distanced in time from Jesus Christ. And all claim their Christianity on their understanding of the Bible. It sounds like God is not arguing here but men.
posted July 11, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Thought you may enjoy this take on this issue from Salon.com. The fact is, we must unite. In the end, we both believe in the same Jesus that was born in a stable over 2,000 years ago, and we have the same values. That should be enough. Here is Camille Paglia’s take on it:
“Many thanks to you and to the other Salon readers who sent detailed, indignant letters about Mormonism. It is true that I am perhaps excessively hypersensitive (given that I’m a professed atheist) to the arrogation to themselves by evangelical Protestants of the term “Christian.”
Whatever the official ruling of the Vatican, however, it is in my view absurd to deny that Mormonism, despite the mythic claims of its founder, is a historical branch of Christianity. Assertions that belief in the divinity of Christ is a priori definitional of Christianity simply replay the theological disputes of the Middle Ages, when losers in the heresy wars were burned at the stake.
In the map of world religions, Mormonism is indisputably a subset of Christianity. It is perhaps futile to appeal to believers to overlook doctrinal differences, so I’m scarcely optimistic about convincing anyone. But my passionate interest in and commitment to religious study (which I have long argued should be integrated into primary and secondary education) is on the record. One example is my essay, “Religion and the Arts in America” (a lecture I gave at Colorado College in February), which has just been published by Arion and should be posted on its Web site by next week.”
posted July 11, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Alright, stay with me here.
All people originated from Adam and Eve. In the same way, Christianity and Mormonism originated from Jesus Christ (sure, I realize this isn’t wholly accurate).
These days, when we choose to fill in those bubbles on employment forms and what have you, we typically liken ourselves to the historical precedent. Whites are white, blacks are blacks. (This isn’t about racism, friends!) Now, this heritage has long been established and identified. Each culture is dramatically different from the other even though the origin remains the same. I’m from European descent (read: white), so I don’t fill in the Latin-American bubble or anything.
But what if I did? Would me wanting to identify with that culture, because I love chips and salsa, loud colors, and great soccer games validate me as now being an amigo? I’m still just a white dude, no? It doesn’t matter how much I argue and claim a few semblances of that culture, I never embody the entirety of Latin-Americans or African-Americans and therefore I’m not that. I’m not from Latin-American descent.
Why are people trying to assimilate Mormonism into Christianity? Sure, they claim a lot of similarities with the Christian doctrine. Then again, their history even beyond that is vastly different to Christian (and Jewish) doctrine. So…it’s not Christianity, is it? I mean, the historical precedence just doesn’t fit with it. The current doctrinal perspective doesn’t either. So this different names for the same thing (Plans, check into it) just doesn’t work out.
Wanting to identify across an established barrier with obvious differences will not get you very far. It’s not the same. The history isn’t even the same, and it doesn’t make sense. Me claiming to be non-white doesn’t make sense, either, no matter how unfun it might be.
I’m glad we share some common background together. I like Abraham. Jesus ruled (seriously). But we’re not just arguing perspectives here, we’re arguing legitimacy and the validity of involving a foreign religion to masquerade as Christian. I’m white. I’m not gray and neither is this issue. As much as I want to generalize the very last of you into being autonomous borgs with identicle histories, we’re not the same. Celebrating as such only demeans any type of truth.
But we can still be friends.
Dal
posted July 11, 2007 at 5:46 pm
There is no doubt that Governor Romney would make a great neighbor. There is a bit of confusion, however, in Mr. Card’s understanding of Christ-likeness. Good works for good works’ sake is not Christ-likeness. A Hindu could be as morally upstanding as Governor Romney, but would we call him Christ-like? Buddhists also make great neighbors. True Christ-likeness is found in the intentions, the heart. Any good work without the glory of Christ as it’s goal should not be considered Christ-like. Christ had a goal in doing the works he did:
“‘But, so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,’ he said to the paralytic-’I say to you, get up, and pick up your strecher and go home.’” Luke 5:24
Christ did his works on earth to glorify his Father and to show the world that he was God incarnate. Christ-like works would do the same. Perhaps at this point I need to clarify the Christ of which I speak:
-He is the eternal Word become flesh (John 1:1, 1:18)
-He is the one who Thomas called “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28)
-He is “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1)
-He is the one of whom the Pslamist and the author of Hebrews says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever…” (Hebrews 1:8)
-Luke describes his ministers as those who “shepherd the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.”
-He is called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6)
This must be the Jesus that is emulated and glorified. Not the Jesus created by another gospel (expressly condemned in Galatians 1) If Mormons are to be called Christians and act Christ-like, they must deny the Book of Mormon (in obedience to Gal. 1 and Rev. 22:18-19), and declare Jesus Christ as God overall forever to be praised. Mere good-neighborliness will not cut it.
Romney’s presidency would neither thwart nor expand the gospel of Jesus Christ. God will call his sheep in his time, and they will come. (John 10) The true gospel of Jesus Christ is not threatened.
posted July 11, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Byron I would like to ask you: What is the Grace of God contingent upon? Is it not the Evangelical standpoint that the Grace of God is contingent upon our accepting it? How is that not obediance?
posted July 11, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Sorry, anything good is Christ-like including Budhists or even Aethists. They may recognize it but goodness is Christ-like. If the definition is that one must correctly or fully understand Christ to be Christ-like then none of us will qualify.
No, if the question is whether we will be on the right hand of Jesus when we are judged that is a different story.
posted July 11, 2007 at 6:00 pm
When Christ says “Come follow me” and “Walk the path he trod”. Did that mean just a heart felt declaration of faith only?
So Paul’s Christianity is all epistles but no missions? All sermons but no prison? All declaration of Faith but no stonings? All commune with the Saints but no lonely imprisonment?
posted July 11, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Dal:Why are people trying to assimilate Mormonism into Christianity?
GB:Why are you trying to exclude it?
posted July 11, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Orson,
You mentioned I don’t know how many times that there was nothing for you to DO in the church. That would be an incredibly difficult situation because the salvation of Mormons is based on the things that you DO…good works or bad works.
This is exactly what Spencer W. Kimball, the former president of your church wrote in his book The Miracle of Forgiveness…”Eternal life hangs in the balance awaiting the works of men. This process toward eternal life is a matter of achieving perfection. Living all the commandments guarantees total forgiveness of sins and assures one of exaltation through the perfection which comes by complying with the formula the Lord gave us… Being perfect means to triumph over sin. This is a mandate from the Lord. He is just and wise and kind. He would never require anything from his children which was not for their benefit and which was not attainable. Perfection therefore is an achievable goal.” (p. 208-209)
It is clear that YOU MUST ACHEIVE PERFECTION AND TRIUMPH OVER SIN IN ORDER TO DO THAT!
That is impossible. The Bible teaches that those who put their faith alone in Christ Will be saved for their sins. It explicitly says in Ephesians 2:8-9, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God: NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast.”
Christians depend fully on Jesus Christ for our salvation and the moment that we put our faith in Him we are saved and HAVE eternal life from that moment on. Those who truly put their faith in Christ and don’t just say words have no possibility of losing the eternal life that they have from that moment on.
Below I let the Bible clarify the most common passage in the Bible that is used by Mormons regarding faith and works in James chapter 2.
Any comments/corrections are welcome if you can back up your corrections with the Bible.
I have done a study of what the Bible teaches about the relationship of Faith and Words with regard to salvation. Please do as it says in Acts 17:11-12 and search the Bible to see if the things you have been taught are true. Please do not trust a feeling in your heart (Jeremiah 17:9), but rather trust what the word of God says. I do not want to trust the things my parents, pastors, friends, or anyone else have taught me, but instead I want to trust what is says in the Bible because it is the Word of God and God cannot lie (Titus 1:2). I truly am seeking for truth because if what I believe is not true, I do not want to pay the consequences for my sin and spend eternity in hell (Matthew 25:41, 46). If what the LDS church teaches is not true, I do not want you to spend eternity in hell. If what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teaches is true about the role faith and works play in regard to my salvation, I am willing to renounce being a Southern Baptist and become a Mormon. If you think I am wrong please show me in the Bible where I am wrong. Thanks!
Romans 3:19-31 – Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. 21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. 31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.
My Observations:
• Verses 19-20 – These verses say that by doing good works (the works of the Law) no flesh will be justified. The purpose of the Law is to make us aware of our sin because it is impossible to fully keep (Romans 3:20).
• Verses 21-22 – These verses state that the righteousness of God is not dependent on the Law (verse 21), but rather the righteousness of God is through faith in Jesus Christ. These verses are clear that our righteousness is not dependent on our good works, but rather by faith alone.
• Verse 26 – This verse says that God demonstrates his righteousness by so that he would be the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. This verse does not say that he is the justifier of the one who has faith, works, and is baptized, etc. It states that faith is what justifies us.
• Verse 27 – This verse declares (in the context of the previous verse) that justification occurs when we have faith in Jesus and not because of any works that we are doing to trying to do. If it were to be because of works that we have done or are doing we could boast and say that I am justified because of the works I have done.
• Verse 28 – Says in a straight forward way that man is justified by faith alone, apart from the works of the Law. Again there is a pattern in these verses that is very clear…Faith alone is what causes our justification in the sight of God and not the works of the Law.
• Verse 30 – states that God will justify both the circumcised and uncircumcised (everyone) by faith. It does not matter if a person has done the work of circumcision or not. If he has faith, he will be justified.
• Verse 31 – Says that just because faith alone saves us does not mean that we do not have to follow the commands of the Law. After we are justified by having true faith in Jesus, we will follow the Law (even though we will sin and mess up at times).
What do these verses say about what justifies us?
What do these verses say about what does not justify us?
Romans 4:1-25 – What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7 “BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED. 8 “BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.”
9 ¶ Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, “FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” 10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. 13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; 15 for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation. 16 For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,
17 ¶ (as it is written, “A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE YOU”) in the presence of Him whom he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist. 18 In hope against hope he believed, so that he might become a father of many nations according to that which had been spoken, “SO SHALL YOUR DESCENDANTS BE.” 19 Without becoming weak in faith he contemplated his own body, now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah’s womb; 20 yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, 21 and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform. 22 Therefore IT WAS ALSO CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.
My Observations:
• Verse 2 – States that IF Abraham was justified by works then he could boast before God because he could boast and say that his works are the reason he is justified.
• Verse 3 – Says that the Bible says that Abraham believed (had faith in) God and that is what made him righteous.
• Verses 4-6 – These verses declare that work (works) are not what matters because even the one who does not work but believes in Jesus through faith God says that that person is righteous. Verse 6 again makes it clear that our righteousness is not dependent on our works.
• Verses 9-11 – make clear when and how Abraham was made righteous. Abraham was righteous before he did the work of the Law and was circumcised. Abraham did get circumcised after he was made righteous by his faith which was a sign to show that he was righteous even before he was circumcised. I think this can be said about the meaning of baptism as well because now in the new covenant baptism takes the place of circumcision, but baptism still remains a public symbol that the person getting baptized has already been justified by faith before the baptism takes place. This is evidence that baptism does not justify you, but rather faith by itself does.
• Verses 12-13 – Say that the promise to Abraham was not made through the Law, but rather through the righteousness of faith.
• Verses 14-15 – State that if only those who perfectly keep the law, which is impossible to do (Romans 7:15-25), receive the promise, then faith has no value. The Law brings about wrath because when we break the Law we must pay for our sins.
• Verse 16 – Says that it is by faith which is in accordance with grace that all Jews, who are under the Law, and all Gentiles, who were not under the Law, will receive the promise. The promise is guaranteed to every Jew or Gentile who has true faith in Jesus Christ.
• Verses 19-22 – These verses say that even though Sarah’s womb was unable to bear children because of her age that Abraham believed through faith the promise of God. God’s promise was that he would allow Sarah to be able to have a child even though she was past the normal child bearing age. Because of Abraham’s faith, and for no other reason, he was righteous.
Romans 5:1-2 – Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.
• These verses clearly state that faith is what justifies and faith is what allows us to be introduced (or take part in) to His grace.
Ephesians 2:8-9 – For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
• These verses say that our faith is what allows us to be under the grace of God. Our faith is not something that we can take credit for because it is a gift of God. IF we were saved by grace because of our works then we would have something to boast about, but we are saved by faith, which God gives to us, so we cannot boast. It is impossible to say that our faith originated from us because God gave it to us as a gift. We did nothing to deserve his gift of faith.
Titus 3:5-8 – He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. 8 This is a trustworthy statement; and concerning these things I want you to speak confidently, so that those who have believed God will be careful to engage in good deeds. These things are good and profitable for men.
• Verse 5 – declares that Jesus saved us according to his mercy and not because of the good deeds we have done in righteousness.
• Verse 8 – States that those who have (past tense) believed God by faith and therefore have already been justified/saved are to be obedient and do good deeds. It is important to note that the good deeds are to follow being justified and are not a part of what initially justifies you before the Lord.
Galatians 3:21-26 – Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. 22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
• Verse 21 – This verse states that laws were not given to give life to people who obey them. If the laws were given so that people could by good works be justified, then righteousness would have been based on whether or not you could follow the law. Righteousness is not based on the law.
• Verse 22 – The Bible silences all sinners so that the promise of God (salvation), which is through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to all who believe.
• Verses 23-24 – This verse declares that the purpose of the Law is to reveal our sins to us which causes us to see that we need to put our faith in Jesus Christ so that he will forgive our sins. The last part of the verse tells us that our sins are forgiven (which means that we are justified) because of our faith alone in Jesus.
• Verses 25-26 – State that we are sons of God (have been justified) because we put our faith in Jesus Christ and nothing else.
Romans 9:30-33 – What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 just as it is written, “BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”
• Verses 30-31 – State that the Gentiles received righteousness by their faith, but Israel did not because they pursued a law of righteousness by basing their righteousness on their ability to do the works of the law.
• Verse 32 – Says that the reason that Israel did not receive righteousness is because they did not pursue righteousness by faith, but rather by works. These verses are another example that shows that faith alone is what justifies us and therefore makes us righteous before God, not works or baptism or anything else.
Romans 11:6 – But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.
• This verse states that if our justification is by grace, it is not on the basis of works. If it were on the basis of works grace would no longer be grace because grace is something that we get even though we do not deserve it. Since every person is a sinner and sins regularly, everyone deserves to pay the penalty for our sin which is death. Another way of saying the same thing is that our bad works make everyone deserve the wrath of God, but if we put our faith in Him, He will show us grace and forgive us our sins. This is something that none of us deserve.
*Galatians 5:4-6 – You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.
• Verse 4 – Please read this verse carefully because it says that everyone who seeks to be justified by the works of the law has been separated or cut from Christ and is fallen from Grace. If someone believes that good works are part of what justifies you then you are not a Christian and are separated from Jesus.
• Verses 5-6 – Say that whether you have done the work of circumcision or if you are uncircumcised that does not matter because the only thing that matters is our faith.
Romans 1:16-18 – For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.” 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
• Verse 16 – Is clear that the gospel is what brings salvation to everyone who believes (in Jesus through faith). It does not say that salvation comes to everyone who practices good works and is baptized.
• Verse 17 – states that righteousness is revealed from faith and that the righteous shall live by faith.
• Verse 18 – Is a very strong verse because it says that God’s wrath will be on anyone who suppresses the truth of God. I am worried for Mormons because the teaching of the Mormon Gospel suppresses the clear truth, as I am trying to show by using God’s Word, that justification/salvation IS by faith alone and NOT by faith AND works AND baptism.
Galatians 2:16-21 – nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. 17 “But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be! 18 “For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19 “For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God. 20 “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. 21 “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”
• Verse 16 – This verse declares that a person is not justified by works of the Law, but rather through faith in Christ Jesus. Then the verse again says that justification comes by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law because works of the Law will not justify anyone. It is hard to get any more clear than this verse, and it is even more difficult to disregard what this verse clearly declares and believe something else.
• Verse 21 – Says that if righteousness were to come through the Law, then the death of Jesus Christ which atoned for our sins would have not been necessary.
Romans 10:2-10 – For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. 5 For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. 6 But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: “DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, ‘WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN?’ (that is, to bring Christ down), 7 or ‘WHO WILL DESCEND INTO THE ABYSS?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).” 8 But what does it say? “THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
• To be justified by God and be saved one must have true faith which will lead you to confess your sins with your mouth and believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead. If you put your faith in Jesus alone and do not base your salvation on works, baptism or anything else (as the previous verses have shown) you will be a Christian who has been justified because of your faith in Jesus.
Note: I am well aware that the passage in James on faith and works is an important part of the discussion of how faith and works relate to our justification. I also am aware from personal experience that this is the first passage that Mormons turn to when the make the argument is made (with all the previous verses) that Christians are justified by faith alone and not works. Before we address James chapter 2, please ask yourself, “What does the Bible teach thus far in the verses I have shown?” As you know by now, I would strongly argue (because of what the Bible, God’s Word, says) that the above verses clearly show that a Christian’s justification must be based on faith alone and not works. Now it is my goal to use the whole context of James chapter two to evaluate this passage.
James 2:1 – My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism.
• James chapter 2 begins by showing the group of people that James is addressing. The verse says that James is talking to his brethren (see also James 2:14 and 3:1) who have put their faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore, in chapter 2 James is speaking to people who already have put their faith in Jesus Christ and have therefore (as the above verses show) already been justified by their faith in Jesus. James is speaking to Christians who have already been justified/saved.
James 2:14-24 – What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? 17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. 18 But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” 19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. 20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? 22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,” and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
• In verse 14, James asks his brethren, Christians who are already justified, a question. He asks them if someone were to say (or claim) that he has faith but has no works, could their “claim of faith” save them? This is a rhetorical question that has an implied answer of, “No” as the rest of the passage will show.
• Verses 15-19 give an example of someone who claims to have faith, but has no works that are necessary to back up their claim. Verse 19 makes an important point that unless a person believes God, through faith, their belief means nothing because even the demons believe God and shudder. The demons know that God is real, but they are unable to put their faith in God so their belief means nothing. In the same way, if a person were to claim to have faith or be a Christian and not have good works to back up their claim there is good reason to doubt if that person has really put their faith in Jesus Christ.
• Verse 20 again clarifies the meaning of the example that is found in verses 15-19. Verse 20 says that “faith” without works is useless or is not true faith. Again it is important to remember that James is talking to his brethren (true Christians) who have faith in Jesus and therefore are already justified. James is warning his brethren that they must (since they are already justified) have good works that reflect the fact that their faith has justified them.
• In verses 21-24 James gives a very important example that is in several of the above verse that we have already looked at. I have purposely waited to go to the book of Genesis in the Old Testament so that this example can be properly evaluated in its rightful context.
• Before I go to Genesis, I think it is important to define what the word justification means and to determine if there is more than one meaning for the word. I argue that there are 2 different meanings of the word justification. The Greek word dikaioo (justify) can mean either “God’s declaration that you are righteous” or it can mean “to show or demonstrate to be righteous.” A person who is showing themselves to be righteous can either be a true Christian who is already justified (declared to be righteous by God) by faith alone or the person who is “showing themselves to be righteous” could be someone who is NOT a true Christian because they did not put their faith alone in Jesus Christ, and therefore are not righteous. In all the above verses that we looked at before this James passage the word justification clearly means that God is “declaring that the people who put their faith alone in Him are righteous.“
• An example of the other use of the Greek word dikaioo (justify) is found in Luke 16:14-15, “Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things and were scoffing at Him. 15 And He said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God” (emphasis added).
• The point here is that the Pharisees were always attempting to show others that they were righteous by their outward deeds. I know that we both will agree that the Pharisees were not really righteous even though they attempted to do outward works to try to show themselves to be righteous. The Bible speaks very plainly in many places that the Pharisees were not truly justified (by God) and therefore were not truly righteous (Matt. 5:20, Matt. 23:13, etc.). As the verses before James chapter 2 show, God justifies (declares someone to be righteous) because of their faith alone and not because of their works or anything else. The Pharisees were trying to justify (show themselves to be righteous) by their works which did not justify them because they were basing their justification on their works.
• Now we are ready to go to Genesis so that we can properly evaluate the example that is given in James 2:21-23.
• Genesis 15:2-6 – Abram said, “O Lord GOD, what will You give me, since I am childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” 3 And Abram said, “Since You have given no offspring to me, one born in my house is my heir.” 4 Then behold, the word of the LORD came to him, saying, “This man will not be your heir; but one who will come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir.” 5 And He took him outside and said, “Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.” 6 Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.
• In the above Genesis passage, God promises Abraham that He will give Abraham a son by his wife Sarah (in spite of the fact that she was past child bearing age). Abraham had faith that God would do what he promised and therefore God reckoned/declared Abraham to be righteous. It is very important to understand the time in Abrahams life that God reckoned him to be righteous and therefore justified him (declared him to be righteous). Abraham was declared righteous by God (justified) in Genesis 15:6 which was before Isaac, his son that God promised that Sarah would have, was born.
• In James 2:21 it says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered Isaac as a sacrifice to God. The question is, What definition of justification is implied in this verse?
• In Genesis 22:8-14, the story is told of how Abraham obeyed God by carrying out God’s command to offer up Isaac his only son on the alter. At the last second God stopped Abraham from killing his son, but God tells Abraham that he showed/demonstrated his righteousness because he had faith in God and was willing to offer up his only son. This story happened many years after Abraham’s promised son, Isaac, was born. It is important to remember that God had already reckoned/declared Abraham to be righteous (Gen. 15:6) before Isaac was even born so the use of the word “justified” in James 2:21 falls under the second meaning of the word justified which is to “show or demonstrate to be righteous.” Abraham had already been justified (declared to be righteous) because he had faith that God would cause his wife Sarah to become pregnant in her old age and give birth to Isaac. Abraham’s obedience to God showed that his righteousness was a true righteousness based on faith alone unlike the Pharisees who attempted to justify (show themselves to be righteous) by their good works.
• Again, the definition of justified that is implied in James 2:21 is that Abraham showed himself to be righteous. This is the proper understanding of the Greek word dikaioo because Abraham had already been declared by God to be righteous in Genesis 15:6 before Isaac was even born.
• Verses 22 and 23 clearly state that Abraham’s faith was working with his works. In the same way, the good works of a Christian should work with their faith in such a way that shows everyone that sees them that they are truly what that claim to be…Christians justified (declared to be righteous by God) by faith alone. This passage never says that good works are what God looks at to declare you to be righteous, but rather good works are supposed to show or be evidence that you have already been declared to be righteous by God.
• The thief on the cross is another example of someone who was justified (declared by God to be righteous) because of his faith alone (Luke 23:39-43). Jesus told the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise.” The thief, was justified even though he had no good works and could not be baptized.
• Now after a careful evaluation of James 2:14-23, we are ready to address the most difficult verse which is James 2:24, “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” With our careful evaluation of the previous verses does this verse cause a problem for people like me who believe that Christians are justified (declared to be righteous by God) by faith alone apart from works?
• Now that we have been able to gain a proper understanding of the Greek word dikaioo (justify), it is clear that the meaning of the word “justified” as it is used in James 2:24 means that a man shows himself to be righteous by his works because he cannot show his justification to others by faith itself because faith is not something that can be seen by itself. Faith is invisible, but the evidence of true faith, good works, are what can be seen. This evidence of good works that can be seen is what shows that we have been made righteous (justified) by faith alone. As I have tried to show, a proper understanding of the Greek word dikaioo is essential to be able to understand how faith and works relate to each other in regard to their role in our justification. It is critically important to understand what the Bible teaches about what causes God to justify (declare to be righteous) a person, and how those who have been justified (declared to be righteous) by faith alone can show themselves to be righteous by justifying, by their good works or by being baptized.
Acts 15:1-19 – “Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue. 3 Therefore, being sent on their way by the church, they were passing through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and were bringing great joy to all the brethren. 4 When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses. 6 The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. 7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 “And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 “Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 “But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.” 12 All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. 13 After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, “Brethren, listen to me. 14 “Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. 15 “With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, 16 ‘AFTER THESE THINGS I will return, AND I WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID WHICH HAS FALLEN, AND I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS, AND I WILL RESTORE IT, 17 SO THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD, AND ALL THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME,’ 18 SAYS THE LORD, WHO MAKES THESE THINGS KNOWN FROM LONG AGO. 19 “Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles.”
• This passage in Acts is a very important passage because it is only place in the Bible where both Paul and James are together discussing what the requirement for justification/salvation (God declaring to be righteous) is.
• Verses 1 – states that some men came from Judea and began to teach that unless you are circumcised you cannot be saved/justified. Another way of saying the same thing is that these men were claiming that faith alone is not what justifies/saves, but one must also be circumcised in order to be justified/saved. This verse is saying that some men were teaching that justification/salvation is dependent on the work of being circumcised.
• Verse 2 – says that Paul and Barnabas strongly disagreed with these men who were teaching that the work of circumcision is a requirement for salvation. After an intense debate with the men, Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to further discuss this issue with the other Apostles and elders.
• Verses 4-6 – report that Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem where they were welcomed by the church, the apostles, and the elders. Paul and Barnabas shared with all those who welcomed them about the debate that they had had with the men from Judea regarding circumcision. After they had shared, some of the Pharisees stood up and said the same thing that the men from Judea had said. The Pharisees said that it was necessary for anyone who believes to be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses. The apostles and elders came together to further discuss the issue of whether or not the work of circumcision and obedience to the Law of Moses were required to be justified/saved (declared to be righteous by God).
• In verses 7-9 – the Apostle Peter, after much debate, says that God gave his Holy Spirit to the Gentiles in the same way he gave the Holy Spirit to the Jews, by faith alone. Peter is clear when he says that there is no distinction and therefore no requirement of circumcision or perfect obedience to the Mosaic Law, in order to be justified/saved (declared to be righteous by God). The last part of verse 9 is very clear when it says that God cleanses their hearts by faith. The Apostle Peter says that faith is what cleanses our hearts. If the work of circumcision or obedience to the Mosaic Law were to be a requirement for justification/salvation, then Peter would have made that clear when he made this statement.
• In verse 10 – Peter asks the Pharisees why they are putting God to the test by putting a yoke (perfect obedience to the Mosaic Law) upon the necks of the disciples and their fathers. In verse 11 Peter explains that obedience to the Mosaic Law is not what justifies, but rather God’s Grace.
• In verse 11 – Peter declares that we (those who believe in justification by faith alone) are save by the grace of Jesus Christ. Please remember what is says in Ephesians 2:8-9 – For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. Everyone who puts their faith alone in Jesus Christ will be saved by His Grace and NOT because of any work such as circumcision, baptism, or obedience to the Mosaic Law.
• Verse 13-18 – are essential verses to notice because they say that James, the one who wrote the book of James, was with them and began to speak. James was a part of those who had gathered to discuss whether or not faith alone is what causes God to justify (declare to be righteous) sinners or whether the work of circumcision was a requirement. It is important to notice the response of James because if James had disagreed with Peter when Peter said that God cleanses our hearts (justifies) by faith and not by the work of circumcision, then James surely would have spoken up and said that Peter was wrong.
• James did not speak up against what Peter says, but rather in Verse 19 voices his approval that the Gentiles do not have to do the work of circumcision because they are saved by faith alone just like Jews are. I pray that you can see that Paul, Peter, and James all agree that faith alone is what justifies, not works of the Law. With an understanding of their agreement, it is hopefully even more clear that James 2:14-24 does NOT contradict, but rather affirms the teaching of Paul that faith alone is what justifies/saves.
I Corinthians 1:17 – “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.”
• This verse plainly says that Paul was not sent to Baptize, BUT to preach the gospel. As noted above and below, the gospel is what must be done for a sinful person to be forgiven of their sin and have eternal life. The Bible teaches a person must have Faith alone in the true Jesus Christ in order to be saved.
• The Bible nowhere says that baptism is a requirement to be saved as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teaches. This verse is a crystal clear example that baptism is not to be seen as a part of the gospel and is therefore not a requirement for someone to do in order to be saved. Baptism must be done after someone is saved by faith alone in the true Jesus Christ in order to be obedient to God’s command to be baptized.
Galatians 1:6-9 – I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!
• Before I talk about this passage I want to show how the Mormon Church defines the Gospel.
• In Spencer Kimball’s book, The Miracle of Forgiveness, he defines the Gospel. “The gospel is a program of action – of doing things. Man’s immortality and eternal life are God’s goals. (Moses 1:39). Immortality has been accomplished by the Savior’s sacrifice. Eternal life hangs in the balance awaiting the works of men” (p. 208, emphasis added).
• This quote from his book is clear that the Mormon understanding of eternal life in dependent on the works of men, and therefore the Mormon gospel is not dependent on faith alone in Jesus Christ. As I have shown with the above verses the Mormon gospel is not the true gospel that is found in the Bible.
• Spencer Kimball further defines what is necessary for men to do to follow the Mormon gospel and attain eternal life. “In order to reach the goal of eternal life and exaltation and godhood, one must be initiated into the kingdom by baptism, properly performed; one must receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of authoritative hands; a man must be ordained to the priesthood by authorized priesthood holders; one must be endowed and sealed in the house of God by the prophet who holds the keys or by one of those to whom the keys have been delegated; and one must live a life of righteousness, cleanliness, purity and service. None can enter into eternal life other than by the correct door – Jesus Christ and his commandments” (p. 6 in The Miracle of Forgiveness).
• This quote from Kimball’s book lists many works that must be done in order to reach the goal of eternal life. In this quote faith is never mentioned! I pray that what the former President of your church is saying is clear to you…the Mormon gospel is a works based gospel that you must follow in order to attain eternal life. This clearly contradicts what the Bible teaches about justification by faith alone which guarantees eternal life. (If you want another description of the Mormon gospel that is based on works you can find it in the Mormon book, True to the Faith: A Gospel Reference on page 76).
• The true gospel that is found in the Bible is that a person is justified and therefore guaranteed eternal life if they have true faith in Jesus Christ. Faith alone is the Biblical gospel.
• Now with an understanding of what the gospel of the Mormon Church is, I will discuss what the Bible says are the consequences of teaching and believing a different Gospel. I will be using Galatians 1:6-9 (see above).
• In verse 6, the Apostle Paul says that he is amazed that people are starting to follow a different gospel (a gospel that adds other requirements, such as works and baptism, to having faith in Jesus Christ).
• Verse 7 states that the different gospel is really not another gospel (because there is only one gospel), but some people are trying to distort the one true gospel of Christ.
• In verses 8-9, the Apostle Paul then declares that if he or an angel or anyone else were to preach a different gospel that what he (Paul) had already preached to them, then the person who preaches a different gospel is accursed or condemned. It is important to understand that when Paul says that anyone who preaches a gospel that is different than the one that he had previously preached, he is referring to the gospel that he had preached which is recorded in the other books of the Bible such as Romans, Ephesians, Galatians, and Titus. Every above scripture that I have used to show that the true gospel of Jesus Christ is that faith alone justifies us was authored by Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of course. Therefore, the gospel that Paul says is being distorted is one that Paul himself wrote and explained in the passages that I have used in this evaluation of faith and works.
• In Galatians 1:11-12, Paul tells where he got his understanding of what the gospel is, “For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”
• This Galatians passage make it clear that any gospel that says a person is not justified by faith alone is not the true gospel. Therefore, the Mormon gospel is not a true gospel and all who follow it are accursed and will spend eternity in the Lake of Fire, Hell (25:41, 46).
Matthew 7:13-23 – “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it. 15 “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 “You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 “So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 “A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 “So then, you will know them by their fruits. 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.
• Verses 13-14 state that the narrow gate (which leads to a path that is not easy, but has eternal rewards with Jesus) is the gate that we should enter. The wide gate is an easier gate to enter because it is an easier path, but it is a path that leads to destruction as verse 13 says.
• Verse 15 – warns about trusting false prophets because if you trust and put your faith in the teachings of a false prophet you will be eternally separated from God when you die. A wolf will kill you which is the same thing that will happen to you if you trust a false prophet.
• Verses 16-20 – state that you can get a good idea about whether someone is justified by observing their works because a Christian who has been justified (declared to be righteous by God) should have good works.
• BUT as verses 21-23 illustrate you cannot trust someone just because they have good works. In these verses Jesus says that not everyone who “says” they believe in God and might “say” that they put their faith in God is truly justified (declared to be righteous by God).
• In verses 22-23 Jesus says that many people will come to him, when they are being judged, and say, “Jesus did we not do many good works in your name such as prophesying, casting out demons, and performing miracles? Jesus’ answer to those who think they are saved because they have done many good works ends the argument about whether or not works will save you. Jesus tells the people who have done good works to depart from Him because He never knew them (they were never justified by their works)! These verses are a great example to show that if someone has works, but does not have true faith in Jesus, their works will NOT justify/save them from their sins!
Deuteronomy 13:1-11 – “If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 “You shall follow the LORD your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him. 5 “But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has counseled rebellion against the LORD your God who brought you from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, to seduce you from the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from among you. 6 “If your brother, your mother’s son, or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods’ (whom neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 of the gods of the peoples who are around you, near you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other end), 8 you shall not yield to him or listen to him; and your eye shall not pity him, nor shall you spare or conceal him. 9 “But you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 “So you shall stone him to death because he has sought to seduce you from the LORD your God who brought you out from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 11 “Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such a wicked thing among you.
• Please be careful about following someone who teaches something that is contrary to what the Bible, the Word of God, teaches because the Bible says that any so called prophet that teaches things contrary to the Bible is a false prophet that, during the Old Testament time, would be killed as it says in Deuteronomy 13:1-5 (see also Deuteronomy 18:20-22).
• The false prophet that is described in Deuteronomy 13:1-5 even had good works such as signs and wonders, but the passage says that if the things that the “prophet” is teaching go against what the Bible teaches, he is a false prophet deserving of death. The scary thing about this passage is that it defines anyone who purposefully teaches something contrary to God’s word as a false prophet, which includes a brother, sister, father, mother, or anyone else (verses 6-11).
• Please do not put your faith in the teachings of anything or anyone other than the Bible because the Bible is the Word of God. If other books or prophets teach things that are contrary to what the Bible teaches, then those books and prophets do not contain the word of God and should not be trusted, even if they do some good works, or signs, or miracles.
II Peter 3:16-18 – “as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness, 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.”
• This passage is not meant to be an insult, but I think it is very relevant to what you have been taught as Mormons. I have told you many times that I do not trust what my parents, professors, friends (mormon missionaries), or anyone else teach me about the Bible without first going to the Bible and searching and studying it to see what it says just like the Bereans did in Acts 17:11-12. The time that I have taken to do this study on Faith and Works is also evidence of the way that I do things. Please do not trust a “feeling” in your heart or a “burning in your bosom” or a prophet, etc. more than you trust what the Word of God clearly says in the Bible because the Bible came from God and is truth (II Timothy 3:16-17, John 17:17).
• Jeremiah 17:9 says why it is dangerous to trust a feeling in your heart…”The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?” Proverbs 28:26 says, “He who trusts in his own heart is a fool, But he who walks wisely will be delivered.” Here is an example that might be helpful to understand why it is dangerous to trust a feeling…I got mad at my friend and felt like killing him because he stole something from me. I earnestly prayed to God and asked God if I could kill him. When I got done praying, I still felt like killing my friend. The question is could I kill my friend just because I had prayed and still had the feeling to kill him? I know that we would agree that it would be wrong to kill my friend even though I still felt like it. The question is why would it be wrong to kill him? It would be wrong because the Bible, the Word of God, says Thou shall not kill. When the Word of God says something, it overrides any and every feeling that we, as humans, might have that goes against what the Word of God says. Please do not trust a feeling in your heart or something that a human teacher or prophet says that contradicts the Word of God, but rather trust what the Bible says.
• The verses in II Peter 3:16-18 warn people not to blindly follow the teachings of men who distort the things that the scriptures teach. I beg you to seriously consider whether or not you are right in following the teachings of a man, Joseph Smith, or whether you should follow the teachings of God himself that are found in the Bible. If the Bible is the Word of God, then every Mormon will spend eternity in Hell because they do not believe the true Gospel of Jesus Christ which is that someone is justified by faith alone. Please do not risk being wrong.
• I have spent a lot of time on this because I wanted to find out whether the things that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teaches about Salvation were true or whether the things that I have been taught from the Bible are true. I am concerned for you because as I have shown that Bible clearly says that people who believe the teachings of the Mormon Church have not been justified by faith alone because they believe that works, baptism, etc. are requirements for salvation. According to the Bible, you have not been justified and therefore you are not Christians because your sins have not been forgiven. I care about where you spend eternity so please consider trusting what the Bible says about how you must be justified (by faith alone) to be a Christian and have your sins forgiven.
• I am confident that you understand the true gospel that is found in the Bible more clearly now. With your new understanding of the gospel you can either choose to do two things, 1. You can ignore what the Bible says about justification by faith alone and continue to be a Mormon, or 2. You can put your faith in Jesus Christ alone, leave the Mormon Church, and stop believing and teaching a false gospel. As you well know, if you leave the Mormon Church and believe and teach the true gospel, you will be rejected and detested by those in your church and probably those in your family. I know that your decision on whether or not to trust the true gospel is an extremely difficult decision, but if you do not leave the Mormon Church then you will spend eternity in hell as it says in Matthew 25:41 and 46, “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels” Verse 46 – “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
• I know your decision will be hard, but I can guarantee that whatever difficulties that you might encounter because of your decision to leave the Mormon Church won’t be near as bad as being accursed and spending eternity in the eternal fire of Hell.
• Please do not forget what it says in Galatians 5:4-6 – “You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.” Please do not seek to be justified by your works of the law.
• I beg you to make the right choice and I will be praying for you. Romans 10:9-10 says, “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.”
Please understand that I have taken the time to do this study to search and believe what the Bible says about faith and works (Acts 17:11-12), and not base the things I believe on a feeling. When I found things in the Bible that show that the teachings of the Mormon religion are not true, I could have kept the things that I have found to myself, but I truly care for you and so I spent the a lot of time preparing this. I love you and am concerned for you and your relationship with Jesus Christ because I do not want you to be deceived and spend eternity in hell because you have trusted the things you have been taught instead of studying the Bible and trusting what it teaches. Please do not put your faith in the words of any man, but rather in the Word of God, the Bible. It is my testimony that I have been justified by God (He has declared me to be righteous) because I have put my faith in Jesus Christ. As a result of my justification by faith alone, I am a Christian and I desire to do good works in order to be obedient to the commands of God and to show others that I am a Christian. The works that I do or do not do in no way affect my justification because my faith in Jesus Christ is what justifies me, apart from my works. Since I have been justified by faith, I must do good works because, if I don’t, I sin because God tells us to do good works.
If God is not with you…your labor is in vain,
posted July 11, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Daniel:
-He is the eternal Word become flesh (John 1:1, 1:18)
-He is the one who Thomas called “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28)
-He is “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1)
-He is the one of whom the Pslamist and the author of Hebrews says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever…” (Hebrews 1:8)
-Luke describes his ministers as those who “shepherd the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.”
-He is called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6)
This must be the Jesus that is emulated and glorified. Not the Jesus created by another gospel
GB:Mormons believe all that.
Daniel:If Mormons are to be called Christians and act Christ-like, they must deny the Book of Mormon
GB:You are entitled to your opinion however wrong you may be. The Book of Mormon and “act Christ-like” are not mutually exclusive. I doubt you have even read the book.
Daniel:God will call his sheep in his time, and they will come. (John 10) The true gospel of Jesus Christ is not threatened.
GB: Very true.
posted July 11, 2007 at 6:24 pm
GB: Mormons believe all that
Daniel: Easy to say, hard to back up
Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints taught,
“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. These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.345; also cited in Gospel Principles, p.305).
Doesn’t quite match up with the “forever” and “eternity” language of the Bible.
posted July 11, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Brady
Your post is soo loonngg aannddd IIII ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
posted July 11, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Victor,
That’s a very fair question, certainly. The answer is this (and again, admittedly, this is a fine point—but it’s a fine point that makes all the difference): Card speaks of “obeying (Christ’s) commandments” in such a way as to make grace contingent upon something other than simple faith acceptance of His gracious offer of salvation. Yes, one could say that believing faith is obedience to God—and I’d agree. But obeying “commandments” (plural) implies something other than the ONLY obedient response that we can make: faith in Christ alone for salvation. Obeying Christ’s commandments (plural) comes as an act of obedience resulting from the desire on the part of a child of God to please His Savior, not in any way, shape, or form to obtain salvation, nor to strike some “bargain”, nor to “pay God back” for grace, but to humbly do what the glory of God calls for, and by so doing, the child of God demonstrates (not pays for nor earns) his faith, that it is genuine.
posted July 11, 2007 at 6:36 pm
As a Mormon, I do not want to be considered a modern-day Christian, nor have I ever attempted to do so. However, I am a Christian in the truest sense because I love my God, His Son and attempt to live my life in such a manner that I might receive Eternal Life and through Christ, I may “be perfect even as [my] Father in Heaven is perfect.”
This blog only demonstrates that modern-day “Orthodox Christians” or whatever you want to call yourselves (a right I will grant you) are similar to Jews during the days of Christ. Their tongues speak of Christ, but their hearts are far from Him. They profess to believe His gospel and written word, yet they have been tainted by the oral traditions of their fathers (or pagan emperors). If the Savior appeared today and taught the things that He taught Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Isaiah or Peter, modern-day Christians would disimiss Him even as the Jews of old.
I have commented numerous times on this blog and not one modern-day Christian has answered why they do not believe or practice the things taught by Jesus, His Propets or Apostles?
Ex: Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, eternal marriage, temples, baptism for the dead, the priesthood, priesthood ordinances, Prophets and Apostles, a quorum of Seventy to preach thte gospel, eternal life, godhood (John 10:34 and Psalm 82:6), the truth regarding the Godhood.
Without a living Prophet, the Bible says that God would be doing nothing for man. (Amos 3:7).
God lives, He loves us, He sent His Only Begotten Son to save us, and He does more for man that man credits him.
And because God is the same yesteerday, today and forever, God has continued His plan practiced for thousands of years: Speak to Man through living Prophets.
posted July 11, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Why are so many of you assuming that Card is making grace contingent upon good works? I don’t see that at all. In fact, I don’t see anywhere that Card is talking about the philosophical implications of the interaction between grace and works. Further, I think he would eschew such talk as beside the point. He will serve Christ, whether God’s grace is contingent upon them or not (and I’d wager he’d say it is not).
posted July 11, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Daniel since you are getting nit picky
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Sorry but the word “eternal” doesn’t appear there. So your supposed conflict doesn’t exist.
posted July 11, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Mr. Card says: “Wouldn’t evangelical Christianity be best served, not by proclaiming, “That man is no Christian!” but rather by proclaiming, ‘We may not agree with all his beliefs, but Christians should all try to live their understanding of Christ’s teachings as well and thoroughly as he does!’”
No. Evangelical Christianity is best served when looking to Jesus Christ as the example of how to live; how to love God first, then love others. Mitt Romney is not my example; Jesus alone is.
Having said this, I appreciate the fact that Catholics and Mormons worked together to feed the poor, free of religious bias. I’m touched by the spirit of cooperation on behalf of those in true need. And I’m sure those who were hungry appreciated it, as well.
posted July 11, 2007 at 6:50 pm
So instead of talking about the issue, Mr. Card pulls out his Rodney King theology…”Can’t we all just get along?” This is not meant to be a conversation about Mitt Romney. It is not meant to be a discussion on nice people, or family values, or humanitarian aid. It is not meant to be a conversation about how the Mormons and Catholics held hands, gave hugs, and spent money together. This is meant to be a discussion on whether or not Mormonism is Christian based upon the clear teachings of the Bible.
Mr. Card states in his conclusion, “I wish Dr. Mohler would take the tiny, tiny step of saying, not that Mormons are right, but that a person can believe as a Mormon does and still do good works in the name of Christ, that would be acceptable to Christ by that clear, bright standard” Dr. Mohler has no obligation to concede anything to the Mormons. He has no obligation to give any validity whatsoever to the false righteousness of a false faith. His job, as a man called by God to preach the gospel, and in this forum, is to give an honest representation of the truth about the gospel of Jesus Christ and to compare it alongside Mormon religion.
And besides, for all your talk about the nice things Mormons do, so-called “good” people die and go to Hell every day. Just because Mormons are nice, helpful, family oriented, or anything else doesnt qualify them as Christian. Salvation is found only through Jesus Christ as represented in the Bible.
posted July 11, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Many thanks to Professor Card!
and I greatly respect your intellect and opinions (after all my daughter received an A in your class!) I’m sorry that your experience in Utah wasn’t better, but as you know, Mormons are not immune to imperfections! I think you are right that we can become complacent in our beliefs and fail to be as frequently self-examining as we should. As a former Methodist who converted to the church and was raised in the East, I may have a slightly more open-minded view of what it means to be a “true” Mormon than some of the Utah folks you mentioned. However, my middle daughter attends BYU and I felt quite at home among the Saints out West when we visited there. Her experiences at school couldn’t have been more positive, so I guess it’s up to us to make the difference and change attitudes. As Mormons and…ahem… dare I say Christians (my working definition is “follower of Christ and his teachings”) we should be Christ-like and fellowship and befriend other people. Wouldn’t the world be dull or worse if we were all exactly the same? I believe it was Lucifer himself who wanted to take away free will from us in the pre-existence.
You taught my daughter at SVU
This is a previous comment that I think applies here in the conversation about defining Christianity:
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.”
Historically, we are a faith that has been persecuted quite a lot, so this belief is particularly meaningful to us.
I am a Mormon and I know that we do not claim that other faiths hold no true doctrines. As for the definition of “Christianity” – as I stated in a previous day’s blog- I don’t believe we should argue semantics. I believe that Satan would like us to contend among ourselves over such things. This spirit of contention among religions that OSC alludes to is devisive and will only lead people away from Christ. Kind, open dialogue – yes! Contention – no! We should live as Christ taught us to live; therefore, we can be what he would have us be: Christ-like.
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 from most other Christian churches in our belief that God hasn’t stopped communicating with His children. We believe in continuing revelation; therefore, more scripture and a living Prophet. 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 someone believes in the Bible alone or in the Book of Mormon as well, 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”
posted July 11, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Mr. Card, you do a great deal of neglecting the logos of your argument. None of us are convinced, nor is the discussion advanced, by mere anecdotes and appeals to pathos.
You believe in Muhammad, no? But you do not believe in the same Muhammad that a Sunni Muslim does. You could tell a Muslim that you both believe in the same Muhammad and that you both agree on who he is, but you would be lying. You do not believe he was the seal of the prophets, nor do you believe he was even a prophet to begin with (I’m making an assumption here). So your appeals to Muslims that you both believe in the same person would sound empty and hollow.
That is how your appeals to evangelicals sound when you speak of Christ. You do it and every single LDS “elder” I’ve ever met does it. It’s insincere. You do not hold the same view of Jesus Christ as a Christian who holds to the “traditional Christian orthodox” view of the person of Christ.
Mr. Card, please confront the issue without all the faff. This thesis is imbalanced and rides completely on the hopes that peope are not looking for any substantive debate.
posted July 11, 2007 at 7:05 pm
It was Dr. Mohler who brought up the Romney issue, not Mr. Card. The only reason why this blog debate is occurring is because Romeny may have a chance at the Presidency. If the Christian Right want to sabotage such a presidency, they may! However, they may seem hypcortical when they criticize men like Mccain who made nasty comments about them. The Christian Right is beginning to look more like the Liberal Democrats…one rules for ourselves and another rule for everyone else. Democratic Example: Free speech is important until it goes against our liberal views! Christian right: Freedom of Religion, except if it goes against our views.
Finally…I think it is odd that a majority of the doctrine of orthodox christianity comes from men (not called as Apostles or Prophets) who lived after the NT was written. HYPOCRITES?
posted July 11, 2007 at 7:28 pm
“It was Dr. Mohler who brought up the Romney issue, not Mr. Card. The only reason why this blog debate is occurring is because Romeny may have a chance at the Presidency. ”
No, it was Card. Sorry.
posted July 11, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Tyler W,
We believe Jesus of Nazareth died for our sins and rose the third day. We worship Him. We try to do what He commanded.
I am interested in an honest dialogue and if you are interested here is my first question. If I met you on the street, you didn’t know I was Mormon, and I asked “According to your beliefs, what must I do to be saved?” what would be your response? If you knew I was Mormon would your answer change?
Thanks,
P. Nielsen
posted July 11, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Apparently many of the people commenting would exclude not only Mormons from “Christianity”, but also Catholics, Orthodox, and any Protestant who comes from a more Arminian tradition of belief in the need for the Christian to engage his free will and express his or her faith through attempting to live righteously. There are a lot of Evangelical Christians who don’t believe in what they call “cheap grace”, James Dobson among them. Are they also excludced from being “Christians”?
In pure historical terms, the relationship between Protestant churches and the Catholic Church is the same as that between the LDS Church and the various Protestant churches of the American frontier in 1830 Upstate New York. Martin Luther and John Calvin rejected the dominant Cahtolic views of their day on many issues, including who had authority to interpret the Bible, and formed what were really new churches, but which nevertheless attracted people like themselves who had formerly been official members of the Catholic church and its priesthood. There were both discontinuities and continuities, but the discontinuities that made them “not Catholic” did not make them less Christian. They themselves clearly believed that the discontinuities made them MORE Christian than they had been before as Catholics.
Just so for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Most of the members of the LDS Church were previously “Christians” in a sense generally accepted at the time. Many were affiliated with specific Protestant denominations of the day, while others were “seekers” who studied the Bible, believed what it said, and prayed to God, but did not think that any contemporary church had either authority or a sufficiently clear understanding of scripture that made it a necessary conduit to receiving grace and salvation. Even though there were discontinuities from existing Christian churches and their doctrines, there were also many continuities, including belief in the truth of the Bible and the reality of what it teaches about Christ as the only savior of mankind. In the life story of individual “Mormons”, there were those threads of continuity with Christianity as then taught and practiced. And like Luther and Calvin, the Latter-day Saints believed that their version of Christianity, with both its continuities with Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregationalist, and Baptist beliefs, and its discontinuity with some of them, was in fact MORE Christian than what they had experienced before as members of those churches or as unaffiliated Christian “seekers”.
To say that the discontinuities between Mormons and Methodists demarcate a threshold between “Christians” and “non-Christians” is just as silly as claiming that the discontinuities between Catholics and Lutherans rendered the Lutherans “non-Christians”. In pure historical terms, Mormons clearly had roots in the existing Protestant Christianity of the the 19th Century. They grew up nurtured in those various Protestant traditions, reading the same bible used by those churches, believing in baptism and the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, believing in prayer, sermons, and missionary teaching.
If only the differences and changes count in classifying religious movements, then no one other than Catholics or certain Orthodox churches, which have historical claims to continuity with the original apostles, has a right to claim the title of “Christian”. that specifically excludes all Protestants, including Baptists.
If, however, a Protestant can claim to be Christian despite the discontinuities of his beliefs with those of Catholics, then Mormons have just as much right to the title on purely historical grounds. The break between Protestantism and Catholicism was just as definitive as the break between Protestantism and Mormonism. Dr. Mohler seems tho think he can look to the continuities between Protestants and Catholics to make his church “Christian”, but he can ignore the continuities between Protestantism and Mormonism in trying to exclude Mormons from the historical tree of Christianity, which has grown hundreds of branches upon branches.
Mohler focuses on the early creeds of the Catholic Church as being touchstones for the definition of Christianity, but he does not address the rejection of later creeds and Catholic doctrines as a distinction. With respect to Catholics, Mohler has “defined Christianity down” to not need things that many Catholics (apparently including Benedict XVI, according to today’s news) believe are essential elements of Christianity. Mohler doesn’t think they are essential. He has conveniently defined what Baptists share with Catholics as defining Christianity, even though a Catholic might disagree.
On the other hand, Mormons like Orson Scott Card define what THEY share with Baptists AND Catholics as defining Christianity!. That includes the Bible as being true in a very literal way (more than many Episcopalians might admit), in the nature of Christ as the literal Son of God, who performed miracles, and suffered to atone for mankind’s sins, and after dying on the cross, was resurrected, and ascended to the Father, from which He will return to judge the world. Whether other people believe that is the core of Christianity or not, it is a simply arbitrary choice when they claim that the core ALSO has to include SOME catholic doctrine, but NOT too much of it (like the importance of works in salvation).
The truth is that any honest history of religion shows that many of the so-called “core” doctrines of many people in modern Evangelical Christianity (especially what others call “cheap grace”) are innovations of the last two hundred years, and have NO continuity with prior Christian beliefs, Catholic or Protestant! Up until twenty years ago, the Southern Baptist Convention had official diversity on many of the points which they now claim are essential Christian beliefs. The definition of Christianity that Mohler uses is a moving target that has shifted historically as his own denomination has changed and evolved over two centuries.
As to the centrality of the Hellenic content of the creeds, there are modern Evangelical theologians who specifically reject them precisely because they are inconsistent with and have no root in the Bible itself. The Apostles Creed did not carry them, but the Nicene Creed did. These theologians believe the Nicene Creed went down the wrong path and only the Apostles Creed is legitimate and biblical.
And that is exactly what Mormons believe on the subject. They think it is strange that so many Protestants insist on the Bible as the sole authority in religion, but then elevate post-Biblical creeds that do not even claim to be inspired on the same level as the Bible as being primary OVER the Bible in defining the nature of God.
Mormons also believe it is strange that so many Southern Baptists will insist that the prerequisites to salvation are simply to accept Christ as one’s savior and (maybe) be baptized by anybody, without any requirement for study of the Bible or living any of the commandments of the Old or New Testaments (e.g. the Sermon on the Mount), and yet claim that Mormons, who do all of that AND MORE, are somehow outside the zone of salvation. When you insist the threshold for entering heaven is so low, HOW can you claim to exclude other people from heaven based on the very things that you proclaim are NOT essential to salvation? No person who insists on “cheap grace” (absolutely no role for works in salvation) has any right to exclude ANYONE who claims to have accepted Christ.
As to Dr. Mohler’s sdtatement that the Book of Mormon does not teach Christ–I have no idea how he can say he has studied the Book of Mormons and not found Christ there. Anyone can go to http://www.lds.org, open the Book of Mormon to Mosiah Chapter 3, and find there a beautiful sermon about the identity of Christ and how we come to Him and become His children. Then read 3 Nephi Chapter 11 describing Christ’s visit to the New World after his resurrection and ascension, and see if this is not recognizably the glorified Christ of the New Testament witness. If Dr. Mohler cannot recognize Christ in the Book of Mormon, I have to seriously question his ability to see Christ in the Bible. I can understand the imperative that he feels to steer people away from the LDS Church, but he should not allow it to lead him to misrepresent the simple truth about what the Book of Mormon says. The writers of the Book of Mormon preached Christ and salvation through faith in Him for a thousand years. If you love Christ, you will recognize His voice there.
The Book of Mormon does not say that all Protestants are the Church of the Devil. What it does say is that, prior to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, there would be both true Christians and false Christians on the earth, and that the true Christians would be reading the Bible and trying to live by its precepts. What makes you a Christian in the eyes of the Book of Mormon is your sincerity in worshipping Christ and trying to follow his teachings. NO one else can tell you where you stand, only yourself and God.
It is ironic that the insistence of some Christians on the omnipresence and omnipotence of God does not allow them to contemplate that maybe God has a few things to say to mankind that were not written before 100 AD. God in their eyes is infinite, except he is mute. He is omnipresent, but cannot call a prophet. He is omniscient, but does not know how to communicate directly as He did for a thousand years to Abraham and John. Anyone who rejects the possibility of new prophets and new words from God does not really believe in the infiinite God of the Nicene Creed.
posted July 11, 2007 at 8:07 pm
We are all Gods children. When he looks at us, he does not look at our ‘brand’ of Religion, he looks at our heart and our ability to love the community around us… our extended family.
Say what you want, advocate what you like…. it’s quite simple really.
If you love God with all your heart, mind and soul, you will naturally love others and yourself.
This is what God and Jesus really want, and if you look amongst the essence of all Religion teaching, you will find this same thread amongst them all.
Jesus gave up his life for us, held nothing back…. that is True Love in its purest form.
That love comes from our Heavenly Father, and that is what he wants to see existing in the world in which we live.
At the end of the day, those who live and love truly as our Heavenly Father loves and lives for us, are the True ‘Christians’, whoever they may be, and from whatever Religion.
Religion is supposed to help us to understand True Love, and True Living…. not for us to hit each other over the head with, but to enable us to become what we were supposed to be before we separated from the love of our Heavenly Parent.
Jesus came for all people, regardless of whatever Religion.
Labels come from people. I regard the teaching of the church that I go to as a message that Heavenly Father has given for this generation, and for this time.
I have seen that teaching give people renewed life and love, and such direction and faith that would move mountains.
Teaching comes from God, to whomever will listen and share with his children.
It does not belong to any one religion but to all people, as we are all his children, and we all need to learn.
If you don’t believe me, ask him.
All this fighting amongst Religion is a waste of time, and brings suffering to God. We need to work together, share with each other, and help each other to discover ways of healing ourselves and our world.
You may think that sounds easy, but in a world of such suffering and complication, we are all asked… what will we do to make it better?
Can you become Jesus to the people, as he was for you? That’s what Heavenly Father wants.
He lived a simple life, and used every opportunity to connect in heart with the people around him, teaching them and showing them Gods love.
posted July 11, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Sorry, Ila Jane, that’s a nice, warm sentiment, but I’m afraid falls well short of God’s desire for us. Truth matters, if we are to “worship in spirit and in truth”, if “the truth will set us free”, if we are to be “lovers of truth”, if “grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” God surely does not want us to turn our minds off and “all get along”…that’s Rodney King, not Jesus.
Yes, we treat every person with respect!!! But respect and truth are not mutually exclusive, and in fact, I respect our Mormon friends who, though I am not prepared to call them “Christian” in the same sense I understand “Christian” to mean, believe that truth matters; we just honestly disagree on what that truth entails. It’s about more, much more, than “love”…it’s about truth, holiness, and God’s glory (and those who talk about God’s love, but never about His glory and His holiness, have mistaken the gospel for some self-help psychological fix or something). I want to show people God’s love in the worst kind of way—but only after, and predicated upon, the Bible’s continual, beginning-to-end emphasis upon God’s glory, His sovereignty, and His holiness.
posted July 11, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Byron why don’t you attempt to answer my questions posted earlier above…if you seek truth, then why not take the challenge?
posted July 11, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Stuart,
I’ll consider it if a.) you’ll tell me which challenge particularly you’re referring to (one of our friends left a post the size of a novel, and it takes 5 minutes to scroll thru!), b.) you’ll agree to discuss in a spirit in which you don’t feel it necessary to call names, and c.) you allow appropriate time for the exchange to play out (since I’m not going to sit by the computer for hours going back and forth).
With those “ground rules” in place, perhaps we can have a conversation. I do think that there’s value in some good give-and-take, in an atmosphere of respect, instead of a game of “gotcha”, as so many folks on these type sites seem to want to play.
posted July 11, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Sounds good… the post was 6:36 PM. Neither will I be at the comp.
posted July 11, 2007 at 9:05 pm
P. Nielson,
At the root of your question, no room is left for the major points of departure between Mormonism and Evangelicalism. If we’re discussing mere semantics, then we might both agree that salvation comes through faith alone in our Lord and savior Jesus Christ, the only son of God, whose death on the cross paid the price for our sin in whole and subsequent resurrection defeated death.
However if two people are discussing apples and one of them fancies baseballs to be apples, then they’re not really discussing the same thing are they?
When I’m talking about mankind, I’m talking about a creature that can never become like God – the lie that Satan used in Genesis. I’m talking about a creature fully depraved and rotten with a sinful nature. When I’m talking about Jesus Christ, I’m talking about – and only about – the Jesus Christ portrayed by the entirety of the Bible. That Jesus was fully God and fully man. I’m talking about one part of the holy Trinity. I’m talking about a different Jesus. But this merely scratches the surface because many of these key words are defined differently by the LDS church.
Two men may hold what appears to be the same box, but one has a gift and the other is empty. You can’t tell the difference until you open them up.
Let’s not amuse ourselves by staring at the boxes Mr. Nielson.
Respectfully,
Tyler
posted July 11, 2007 at 9:14 pm
“It is ironic that the insistence of some Christians on the omnipresence and omnipotence of God does not allow them to contemplate that maybe God has a few things to say to mankind that were not written before 100 AD. God in their eyes is infinite, except he is mute. He is omnipresent, but cannot call a prophet. He is omniscient, but does not know how to communicate directly as He did for a thousand years to Abraham and John. Anyone who rejects the possibility of new prophets and new words from God does not really believe in the infiinite God of the Nicene Creed.”
No, we believe that after Christ’s atoning work on the cross and the faithful witness of the apostles, believers are left with something infinitely better than “new prophets” and “new words from God.” We now have the Word and the Holy Spirit. Because of the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit in believers and the complete revelation of Scripture, we no longer require new prophets.
There are cultural, historical, and theological reasons why both Islam and Mormonism found the idea of a new prophet and new revelation so appealing.
It is not irony on our behalf, but misunderstanding on yours. Pick up a solid systematic theology or biblical theology by a well-repected evangelical and read for yourself. Try “Systematic Theology” by Wayne Grudem or “According to Plan” by Graeme Goldsworthy. Read these two books and see if you honestly believe that the Book of Mormon coheres with Scripture.
posted July 11, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Stuart,
Thanks. Reading your list, I find, if I count correctly, 12 items that you believe were “taught by Jesus, His prophets, (and) apostles”. I understand, of course, that you are using them in a representative way, that in fact you consider there to be other things that “orthodox Christians” have left behind, effectively. I will speak only of evangelical Christians; there are others who would wear that name, but whose beliefs would differ significantly enough from mine that I wouldn’t presume to speak for them.
Here is the short answer (which for the moment will have to suffice; working through 12 separate issues would take considerable time): you have concluded, via your Mormon understanding of faith, that these practices are the things taught by Christ for our obedience, binding upon us as His followers. We do not understand that to be the case. I will briefly mention one, and perhaps we can tackle others if you can be so kind as to give me Scripture references for them (some I can find easily; others you’d have to help me with, candidly): baptism for the dead. This is mentioned once in Scripture, I Corinthians 15:29. The Book of Mormon, of course, doesn’t mention it. There is no other record in the New Testament of this practice.
In the I Corinthians verse, baptism for the dead is mentioned; it evidently was something that somebody was doing. Interestingly enough, it is not taught, though, as something that we are to do. Nothing in the rest of I Corinthians, nor the rest of the Bible, commends this practice as something which we should follow, nor for that matter does it develop it in any way. The other references to baptism in I Corinthians (and in the rest of the Bible) make no mention at all of this. The immediate context of the reference here is the resurrection of Christ; it is not “baptism”, per se. Further, Paul is referencing false teachers in this passage (“some among you” were denying the resurrection of Christ). Paul says that there exists a “they” (not “we” or “you”, but “they”) who are involved in this practice, and in no way commends it, but states it as a matter of fact that it was going on by some “they”. That’s interesting, given the fact that he immediately reverts to “we” language—one would think that he’d use “we” language were he interested in supporting this practice. Rather, it seems possible, and perhaps likely, that he is using the “they” to refer to this group that he considers false teachers within the Corinthian church (a messed-up church if ever there was one, right?).
I could go further, but I use this to illustrate this point: though you might consider evangelical Christians to be just downright leaving out some of the teaching of the Bible, maybe selectively picking parts we like and leaving off the ones we don’t, I assure you that that isn’t the case (I’ll qualify that, by the way, by saying that we ALL are by nature sinners, and regardless of our faith choice, we’re prone to the temptation to pick and choose, wouldn’t you agree? It’s one we need to fight.). We consider the evidence for a doctrine of “baptism for the dead” to be Scripturally uncompelling at best, and the practice of false teachers at worst.
Now, I’ve tackled one of the twelve, hopefully gaining your respect as at least one Christ-follower who is willing to respectfully have an interchange.
Your friend,
Byron
posted July 11, 2007 at 10:25 pm
“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles & Prophets concerning Jesus Christ; that he died, was burried, and rose again on the third day, and ascended into Heaven. And all other things which pertain to our religionare only appendages to it.”
Joseph Smith, JR.
posted July 11, 2007 at 10:44 pm
IF ANYONE WANTS TO SEE SOME SHORT VIDEOS THAT COMPARE THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS CHRIST TO THE TEACHINGS OF JOSEPH SMITH YOU MIGHT WANT TO CHECK OUT SOME OF THE VIDEOS FOUND HERE. OFFICIAL LDS SOURCES ARE USED AS WELL AS THE BIBLE.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jesus+christ%2F+joseph+smith&search=Search
posted July 11, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Someone above asked for an answer about the ordinance of eternal marriage that is a required part of the gospel in order to reach the celestial kingdom. The following is my response to a Mormon Bishop that I have been speaking to. He used Isaiah 24:5 to support that eternal marriage is found in the Bible. He used this verse because I asked him why NEITHER the Bible or the Book of Mormon every even mention anything about eternal marriage if (according to the introduction to the Book of Mormon) both the Bible and the Book of Mormon contain the FULNESS OF THE GOSPEL. I challenge anyone to read the following and show me ONE place where the Bible or the Book of Mormon mentions the New and Everlasting Covenant that D&C 132 mentions which refers to the gospel ordinance of eternal marriage. If no one can answer the questions of the following then you really need to reevaluate what you believe…THE RESPONSE TO THE MORMON BISHOP FOLLOWS
Hello *****,
I have finally had a chance look at one of the verses that you said my answer to was insufficient or weak, etc. In Isaiah 24:5 it says, “The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.” You used this verse to support the Mormon doctrine spoken of as the New and Everlasting Covenant. First of all the fact that the New and Everlasting Covenant has a completely different name “NEW and Everlasting Covenant” would mean that it is referring to a new covenant. I stated that if the New and everlasting covenant was an essential part of the gospel and both the Bible and the Book of Mormon contain the fullness of the gospel (according to the intro to the Book of Mormon). And don’t forget what Joseph Fielding Smith himself said, which defines the fullness of the gospel…”By the fullness of the gospel it is meant all the ordinances and principles that pertain to the exaltation in the celestial kingdom…” (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, pg 160). Therefore, it (the new and everlasting covenant) must be mentioned in them both because they both according to the intro to the B of M and Doctrines of Salvation contain the fullness of the gospel. I said and I still strongly say that NEITHER the Bible or the book of Mormon say or even mention the NEW and Everlasting covenant or anything about eternal marriage/temple marriage! This should really worry you according to what Milton R. Hunter (LDS) says in his book The Gospel Through the Ages, “He states The crowning gospel ordinance requisite for Godhood is Celestial Marriage. The doctrine of celestial marriage as taught and practiced in the Church of Jesus Christ today, means temple marriage… This blessed Gospel doctrine was lost by mankind during the period of the Apostasy following the Apostolic Age, and in its place a man-made system of marriage—‘until death do ye part’ – was established… However, as part of the restoration of the Gospel to the Prophet Joseph Smith, God…rerevealed the true doctrine of sacredness and eternal nature of the marriage covenant. This revelation is found in Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants… Obedience to this law is absolutely necessary in order to obtain the highest exaltation in the Kingdom of God.” (pg. 118-119).
This man even admits that it was rerevealed NOT in the Book of Mormon (which contains the fullness of the gospel) but rather is the D&C! If the Bible or the book of Mormon had this covenant in it he would definitely point that out…but he did not because “the crowning gospel ordinance” is not found in either the Bible or the Book of Mormon which must contain the fullness of the Gospel or the Mormon Church is not being truthful. I am praying that God will remove the blinders from your eyes because this crucial contradiction in Mormon Doctrine is crystal clear. And please remember what the Bible explicitly says in Matt. 22:23-29 about there being no marriage in heaven!
You both said that the Bible DOES mention the covenant that is referred to by the New and everlasting covenant in D&C 132. You pointed me to Isaiah 24:5 as I mentioned before. If you remember I said that this covenant is referring to the nation of Israel and their everlasting covenant with God of land, seed, and blessing. A quick search in the Bible has confirmed what I tried to show the night we talked…the Bible clearly defines what the everlasting covenant (the one in the Bible) is. Gen 17:7-11 says, “I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. 8 “I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.” 9 God said further to Abraham, “Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 “This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 “And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. (See also Gen 17:13, 19; I Chron. 16:15, 17; Psalms 105:8, 10; 111:5, 9).
Please carefully read over this passage. The everlasting covenant that you mentioned in Isaiah 24:5 is clearly defined what the people of Israel must do to follow the covenant that the Lord established. In verse 10 it says that the ordinance that the people of Israel had to follow was that of circumcision on the eight day. This clearly contradicts what you said about the everlasting covenant of the Bible referring to the New and everlasting covenant of mormon doctrine that is NEVER found in the Bible or the Book of Mormon. This passage does NOT say that the ordinance of the everlasting covenant is eternal marriage in the temple! Again it is disturbing to me that so much of LDS doctrine such as the New and everlasting covenant of eternal marriage is either completely fabricated or is clearly a distortion of taking a single verse out of the Bible and out of its canonical context and distorting it to fit the teachings of the LDS church/doctrine.
In summary…Things that should cause you concern…
1. According to LDS doctrine in the intro to the Book of Mormon the Bible AND B of M do (it does not say might, maybe, or should) contain the fullness of the gospel (please recall that Joseph Smith himself defined the fullness of the gospel on page 160 of Doctrines of Salvation Vol. 1).
2. The crowning ordinance of the gospel (eternal/temple marriage) is NOT found in either the Bible or Book of Mormon.
3. Therefore this doctrine of your church is proven wrong by your own prophet/scriptures.
4. You are teaching to your “flock” that the Bible does teach the New and everlasting covenant (eternal marriage) as you “taught” me. Your teaching is based on an attempt to find some mention of the New and everlasting covenant in the Bible…I think it is safe to say that you attempt to do this because you know that neither book that contains “the fullness of the [LDS] gospel” even mentions the New and everlasting covenant.
5. The Bible clearly contradicts what you are teaching in Matt 22:23-29 and in Gen 17:13, 19; I Chron. 16:15, 17; Psalms 105:8, 10; 111:5, 9).
6. James 3:1 “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.”
7. 2 Timothy 4:3-4 – For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.
8. Mark 9:42-49 – “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea. 43 “If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire, 44 [[where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.]] 45 “If your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame, than, having your two feet, to be cast into hell, 46 [[where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.]] 47 “If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell, 48 where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED. 49 “For everyone will be salted with fire.”
9. It is my prayer that God will remove the blinders from your eyes and open your eyes to see the truth of his Word (the Bible)…and that the gospel of the Bible would not be foolishness to you… 1Co 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. (See also I Cor. 1:21 and I Cor. 1:18).
I ask that you fully answer this one question and show me where I am wrong about what the Bible says and please answer the assertions that I have made about the error in the LDS doctrine about the fullness of the gospel (which is in its entirety (according to LDS doctrine) found in the Bible and Book of Mormon) being contradicted by the teaching that eternal marriage is an essential part of it (which is found in NEITHER the Bible or Book of Momron)…and all the other things that I addressed above. Thank you and I will continue to pray for you, your family, and Mormons as a whole.
Your Friend,
-Brady
posted July 11, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Dear Tyler W,
I have no wish to argue semantics. But I am intrigued when you say “At the root of your question, no room is left for the major points of departure between Mormonism and Evangelicalism.” I asked what you believe would be necessary for me to do to be saved (i.e. be a true Christian, as some seem to use the term) so that I might cut to the heart of this exact issue. I apologize if you thought otherwise.
It seems to me you believe there is quite a lot to be said about the major points of departure between our doctrines in answering my questions. If I am not mistaken, in fact, you deny that Mormons (in general) are saved because we believe (according to you and others) in a different Jesus (or as I would put it, so as not to confuse readers about the fact that we do in fact worship Jesus of Nazareth, Mormons believe in a different Christology).
So let me try again, and please feel free to point out the “major points of departure” if you feel they add to the discussion.
Please answer the following questions: If you met someone on the street who asked “In your understanding, if I am not already saved what must I do to be saved?” how would you respond? I am asking this in sincerity, no trickery on my part. This is only a place to start.
Second question: if you found out this person was Mormon, expand on what you feel that person must do to be saved.
Best,
P. Nielsen
P.S. Not that it is important, but it’s Nielsen with an ‘e’ at the end–I have Danish descent.
posted July 11, 2007 at 11:13 pm
And here is a link for Brady! Don’t read if you want to be fair.
http://fairwiki.org/index.php/Search_for_the_Truth_DVD
posted July 11, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Read these and then tell us how do they relate to Marriage sanctioned by God’s promise?
Gal. 3: 7-9, 26-29
Gen. 26: 1-4, 24
Gen. 35: 9-13
Gen. 22: 15-18
Gen. 17: 2, 21
Gen. 48: 3-4
John 8: 33, 39
1 Ne. 15: 14, 18
2 Ne. 29: 1, 14
3 Ne. 20: 25, 27
Gen. 12: 3
Gen. 15: 18
Gen. 18: 18
Gen. 21: 12
Gen. 28: 14
Ex. 19: 5
Deut. 14: 2
Judg. 2: 1
Isa. 49: 6
Isa. 50: 1
Isa. 54: 5
Jer. 3: 14
Jer. 31: 31
Hosea 2: 19
Matt. 3: 9
Luke 3: 8
Acts 3: 25
Rom. 9: 4
Rom. 11: 27
Heb. 6: 14
Heb. 11: 18
1 Ne. 17: 40
1 Ne. 19: 15
1 Ne. 22: 9
2 Ne. 6: 12
2 Ne. 9: 1
2 Ne. 10: 7
2 Ne. 11: 5
2 Ne. 30: 2
3 Ne. 21: 4
Morm. 5: 20
Ether 3: 11
Ether 13: 11
posted July 11, 2007 at 11:39 pm
More of Orson Scott Card’s anti-atheist bigotry
posted July 11, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Does anyone else get the feeling that Creedal Evangelicals treat Mormons the same way that the Jews treated the Samaritans? They both claimed to be covenant people, but the different beliefs of the Samaritans made them as pariahs to the Jews.
It is interesting, then, to see how Christ treated Samaritans (the woman at the well), and even used an outcast Samaritan in the Bible’s most poignant parable of Christian service.
Let us do as Christ did, and treat everyone with acceptance, love, and respect, and recognize the contribution that even a non-traditional follower can make.
posted July 12, 2007 at 12:39 am
“If God is not with you…your labor is in vain,…”
Rhetoric like this really appalls me. The statement is, in fact, true. (Assuming I’m interpreting it right.) The use of the statement to make judgments on the good works of others is false. Only God knows which labor he is “with,” and which laber he isn’t “with”.
posted July 12, 2007 at 12:50 am
Need to correct an error posted at the top of the thread by Orson Scott. Mr. Scott said:
“Let’s not forget, after all, that Catholics have an even older “mainstream Christian tradition” than any Protestants, and good Catholics are convinced that all those Protestants are going to Hell. And to Catholics, any distinction between Mormons and Baptists is pretty trivial — we’re all Pope-disdaining, saint-ignoring, transubstantiation-denying menaces to the salvation of souls.”
As a Catholic, I can assure you that our church does not teach that “all those Protestants are going to Hell”. The Catholic Church describes non-Catholic Christians as “our seperated bretheren”. We accept most Christian baptisms and most Christian marriages as valid. We do believe that the salvation of Christ flows through the Catholic Church, but God’s saving grace does not stop at the door of the Catholic Church. It continues to flow into other believers in other denominations. In other words, Catholics claim Christains as brothers in Christ. Not in full communion, but certainly their salvation is not in question.
By the way, I will have no problems voting for Mitt Romney if he is nominated. I agree with Mr. Scott that a successful Romney presidency will bring many nominal Christians back to their own denominations.
posted July 12, 2007 at 12:50 am
There is more relevant debate on the question posed to Dr. Mohler and Mr. Card in the comments section than in the actual body of the debate–and that only because Mr. Card was either handed a different question or is unwilling to stay on point. Dr. Mohle, on the other hand, has stayed on point.
Mr. Card: Sure this debate on whether or not Mormons are Christians has been spot lighted because of Mitt Romney’s candidacy. But the question is not about Romney. In fact, remember that you, not Dr. Mohler, were the one who brought into this discussion Mitt Romney. You have full license to bring him into this debate if it serves to answer the main question. But, so far, I don’t see how Mitt Romney plays into this discussion from a theological perspective.
I agree with Dal and Byron, the first two comments posted, that you seem to be avoiding the real issue being discussed. As a reader of this debate, it seems to me that you have no answers to Dr. Mohler’s main point that Mormonism in its inception was a rejection of historic Christianity. Yet now Mormonism wants to be considered a part of that which it once rejected. What is your answer to this?
Please, in your next post (in your first paragraph!), just provide an answer to Dr. Mohler’s main point that Mormonism in its inception rejected Christianity. It’s really a very simple request from this reader and might serve to get you back on track. Otherwise, it just appears to the general reading public that you have no answers.
posted July 12, 2007 at 1:06 am
Matt and the rest:
Mormons “do not” want to be considered as “traditional” Christians. We do not accept the artifacts of the Ecumenical Councils as completely valid positions. We do not hold the Nicene Creed as an acceptable statement of our beliefs. We are neither Catholic nor Protestant.
Mormons “do” want to be considered as disciples of Christ as presented in the Bible. We accept Christ as our God and Savior, and strive to follow His teachings, commandments, and example. We believe that Jesus is the Great God Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Messiah, and Redeemer of mankind. We believe that He will come again in power and glory at His Second Coming. We believe that He died for the sins and afflictions of every person who has or will live on this earth, and that everyone, regardless of their faith is blessed by the grace of Christ.
Does that mean we are Christians? I think so.
posted July 12, 2007 at 1:24 am
dude, I’m a Mormon and i don’t appreciate you putting our religion down… our religion has nothing to do with politics and never has, just because you see it as a political issue in the church, it is nothing more than an false statement, and before you criticize a religion, you should get your facts straight… so just make sure you do a little more research before you insult a religion, we are Christians, just as any baptist, or whatever, we worship god… and no one else… so i would appreciate it if you would stop misleading our church, and frankly i think mitt would make a great president… not because of religion but because he seems to be a good candidate, and frankly politics is supposed to be separation of religion and state… so back off of our religion, and i appreciate you listening to my comment… thanks mooney
posted July 12, 2007 at 1:25 am
There is a fundamental flaw with the many posts which say, “the Bible says this” or “the Bible says that”. That is because even though those who wrote the Bible were unquestionably recording the pure word of God, it is not possible, with any written document, for all those who read it to come away with a pure or exact understanding of its original meaning. This is because of the fallibility of language in general, the imperfections of translations, the changing context of society, and mostly, the myriad biases and paradigms of readers.
The framers of the Constitution of the United States of America were so aware of this fact that they formed an entire branch of government to deal with it. It was clear to them that even though the authors of a particular document (like the Constitution) may have a crystal clear image of their message, it is impossible for all readers in all settings to uniformly and accurately grasp all facets of that image. Hence the need for the Judicial branch of our government which exists, by definition, to interpret or define the Constitution, etc.
Unfortunately, for most of the Christian world, there is no “interpretive” system. The result is that after many centuries and much discourse, there are thousands of different denominations and theologies which all point to the Bible as “the source”. Some are quite similar and others are far apart but even the Mormon church can be included here as its adherants find support for their theology in its pages.
The distinction however, is that the LDS church lays claim to having access to accurate interpretation through a modern-day prophet who, they believe, receives communication directly from God. For them, revelation trumps scripture (including their additional canon) and brings the obtaining of truth full circle back to where the great meanings of the Bible originated in the first place; namely God.
Even though Protestants may reject the LDS church as being the restored original church of Jesus Christ or even being a “Christian” church, they must accept that, as manifest by the numerous and diverse opinions expressed here, referencing the Bible or any written volume as the “gold standard,” will always fall short.
posted July 12, 2007 at 1:58 am
Nowandlater,
I am disappointed because you totally disregarded and did not answer any of the questions in my posting about the fact that the Mormon doctrine of the New and everlasting covenant (regarding eternal marriage) is NEVER mentioned in the Bible or the Book of Mormon. You did utilize a smart debating technique by trying to distract me and others by trying to get me to answer your question. I will NOT answer your question until you answer mine by either admitting what I said was correct or by correcting me by showing where either the Bible or the Book of Mormon directly refer to the New and Everlasting Covenant (the ordinance of eternal marriage in the temple).
And by the way, NONE of the verses you posted directly or indirectly refer to the New and everlasting covenant (which says that the gospel ordinance of eternal marriage is essential for exaltation in the celestial kingdom). Please Read Matthew 22:23-29 which explicitly says that there is NO marriage in heaven.
If I am right about what I cited in my earlier posting (at 11:05 pm), then introduction to the book of Mormon is deceptive and inaccurate when it says that the fulness of the [Mormon] gospel is in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. If I am correct, it is not book that what Mormons claim to be the most accurate word of God (the Book of Mormon) starts off in the introduction being wrong about an essential issue for Mormons…
If you continue to try and sidetrack me and refuse to try and answer the questions that I posed…it will be clear to me that you either cannot answer the questions that I posed or else that you realize that the introduction to the Book of Mormon is deceptive and incorrect when it says that the fullness of the [Mormon] gospel is in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Please refer to my previous posting again if you need to.
-Brady
posted July 12, 2007 at 2:07 am
Nowandlater,
One more thing…I have previously been to the website that you posted in response to my posting and it is NOT an LDS website and the things on the website are NOT supported or endorsed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints!
The videos on the following link use sources that are official LDS sources and the videos show (using official LDS sources) some of the many deceptions and inaccuracies that are taught in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jesus+christ%2F+joseph+smith&search=Search
Sincerely,
-Brady
posted July 12, 2007 at 2:18 am
I am disappointed with this entry, since it largely strays from the main topic. It’s a fine topic, but it should have been used for one of Mr. Card’s semi-regular columns.
This overall debate need not take long. I expect it should end with people agreeing to disagree. The problem — and the real promise in this exchange — is finding where the misunderstandings lay, so we understand what the true disagreements are.
The biggest problem in any discussion about who is Christian is that the term “Christian” is overloaded. It has several meanings assigned to it. This by itself is OK, since most words have more than one meaning. But in discussions like this one, there are two common problems: A) different parties may be using different definitions, often without even realizing it, obviously leading to confusion; B) people may link different meanings together for no better reason than that they are linked to the same word.
Getting to brass tacks, here are 3 meanings of “Christian” (not the only ones, but the ones most important to this discussion):
I. [Historical] A Christian is one who accepts the historical Christian traditions, as decided by the Ecumenical Councils. This is the simplest one to agree about.
II. [Doctrinal] A Christian is one who believes certain core Christian doctrines. This is the most commonly used one, but it is not a single definition — it depends on what you think are the core doctrines.
III. [Salvific] A Christian is one who is saved by Christ. This is the most important one in the eternal sense, but the least practical one during mortal life, since it relies on one’s dogma about standards of salvation, and noone can penetrate the mind of God or the state of others’ souls.
Many mainstream Christians use a combination historical/doctrinal meaning of “Christian”. Therefore to hear Mormons claim “We are Christian” sounds baffling: how can say that while they simultaneously claim additional scripture and unusual doctrine? They may suspect Mormons are being disingenuous. Mormons may better understand this reaction if they think of the splinter groups, such as the polygamist fundamentalists. Just as we do not consider them Mormon, so many Christians do not consider us Christians.
Mormons use a broader doctrinal meaning of “Christian”, namely one who believes in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Savior. Therefore to hear people say “You are not Christian” sounds ignorant or mean-spirited: why do they let our doctrinal differences lead them to claim we do not even believe in Christ? Mainstream Christians can understand this better if they empathize with the early Christians, who were often considered superstitious or even atheist by their Roman contemporaries. Just as that must have been frustrating for them to have their joyous faith so belittled and dismissed, it is similarly frustrating to Mormons today.
In order to avoid these confusions, people can avoid the simple labels and use more precise language. E.g. instead of “Mormons are Christian”, try “Mormons believe in Jesus Christ”; instead of “Mormons are not Christian”, try “Mormons believe false doctrines”. This would help people know where the precise disagreements lay, rather than arguing around or past each other.
I have more to say, later.
Bryan
posted July 12, 2007 at 3:17 am
I took the Belief-O-Matic test found elsewhere on Beliefnet a few days ago. In light of the fevered debate the results were ironic.
Latter-Day Saint 100%.
Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant 98%.
Eastern Orthodox 83%
Roman Catholic 83%
Orthodox Judaism 77%
Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants 74%
According to the “test” my beliefs line up more closely with Mainline Conservative Protestant Christians than any other religion besides my own.
This captures the essence of why this debate is so vexing. Its as if people were denying that the sun was shining at full noon.
My witness to the world as a Christian is that:
Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior (2 Ne. 25: 19-20)*See below
Jesus suffered and died for my sins–and yours too (Alma 42: 15)**
Without His grace everyone would be sent to hell for eternity (2 Ne. 33: 6, 2 Ne. 25: 23)***
He died and rose again on the third day (Mosiah 3: 8-10)****
He is capable of any Miracle, including taking me, an imperfect man, and making it possible to become perfect, as He commanded in the Sermon on the Mount “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect.” (Matt. 5:48) It’s going to take a miracle, a miracle of forgiveness–but if at the end of this life I’m not a better person than when I started then I must not have really had faith in him. If this means that some people are going to accuse me in believing that I am saved by works then they have missed the point.
After all, as Jesus made clear in the Sermon on the Mount, doing that greatest of all miracles — and making fallen, imperfect, sinful humans into righteous perfect beings — is the entire point of his mortal life, suffering on the cross and resurection. (Matt 5: 20-48) It is the greatest of all miracles, and it is within his power. By grace we are saved FROM sin and hell and death. The Sermon on the Mount tells us what we are saved FOR. Remember the parable of the talents.
That said, Jesus Christ is the judge and jury on this issue, and at the end of the day, His opinion is the only one that matters as to whether or not I’m a Christian.
Footnotes:
(I’ve used elipses to shorten what would otherwise be long quotes. Those seeking the full text can look it up based on references above.)
*
19 For according to the words of the prophets, the Messiah cometh…his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
20 …And as the Lord God liveth that brought Israel up out of the land of Egypt…there is none other name given under heaven save it be this Jesus Christ, of which I have spoken, whereby man can be saved.
**
15 …therefore God himself atoneth for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands of justice…
***
33:6 …I glory in my Jesus, for he hath credeemed my soul from hell.
25:23 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.
****
8 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.
9 And lo, he cometh unto his own, that salvation might come unto the children of men even through faith on his name; and even after all this they shall consider him a man, and say that he hath a devil, and shall scourge him, and shall crucify him.
10 And he shall arise the third day from the dead; and behold, he standeth to judge the world; and behold, all these things are done that a righteous judgment might come upon the children of men.
posted July 12, 2007 at 3:29 am
Byron— Thanks for the candid response.
The 1 Corinthians quote does refer also to the resurrection. Paul uses the practice to prove that there is a resurrection, otherwise why would we do this practice (baptism for the dead) if the dead do not rise. You are correct in that this is the only reference; however, you would agree that there are some aspects of the Gospel of Chirst in the NT that was not mentioned before in the OT? I do not see how people can dismiss a biblical comment simply for a single reference. The Jews I believe tempted to do similar acts with Christ and His Apostles.
The principle of baptism for the dead must be looked in context with the entire gospel. Do you feel that baptism is essential for salvation? I do and I could give some biblical support for my belief if you disagree. If baptism is essential then one must look to 1 Peter 4:6 where is states that the gospel was preached to the dead so (paraphrasing, I don’t have it right in front of me)that the dead might be similarly judged with those in the flesh, despite being in spirit. Because the gospel is taught to the dead, there must be a way that the dead may be baptized. I do not agree with unearthing the dead and baptizing them (Ex: Padre Pio, for those who have heard of him), but we may act as proxies and perform baptisms for the dead.
Here is another of the 12…eternal marriage. BRADY you may want to read this part too. Genesis teaches that what God puts together, man should not put asunder. God performed the first marriage: Adam and Eve. The two became one flesh. If God, who is Eternal, performed the marriage and the marriage can only end by God’s power, then the marriage between Adam and Eve was eternal. Why not the same for us, especially when that God is the same yesterday, today and forever.
People need to understand Mormon theology, we do not have a single doctrine: Ex. Salvation varies from Eternal Life. Another one is that the Book of Mormon contains everything necessary to enter into glory of God (faith, repentence, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, and the laying on of hands for the gift of Holy Ghost). Please do not try to insist that Mormons hold that the BOM is the only necessary book, if that were true, Mormons would be guilty of the same act as orthodox christians. God may speak when He wants, to who He wants and about what He wants. Example: God felt it necessary to continue to have prophets despite the law being established by Moses, and then wanted to restore the gospel that existed prior to the days of Moses by the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Hope to hear back!
posted July 12, 2007 at 3:51 am
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.
No matter how much we do, it is ultimately grace that saves — I thank God that He invites 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.
posted July 12, 2007 at 4:37 am
Brady’s comment followed by a very lengthy doctrinal tour do force:
You mentioned I don’t know how many times that there was nothing for you to DO in the church. That would be an incredibly difficult situation because the salvation of Mormons is based on the things that you DO…good works or bad works.
See Mikes respnse of about 4:15 am July 12 for an also lengthy reply to one of Brady’s lengthy quotes.
By the Way Brady, If you read the whole Book of Mormon you would get more context, but thanks for quoting from it as much as you did. That’s more than most of the posters here and on these other threads have done.
Mike
posted July 12, 2007 at 4:38 am
That was over on the “Church of the Devil” thread.
Mike
posted July 12, 2007 at 4:49 am
Bradys comments on “Fulness of the Gospel” In the Introduction of the Book of Mormon:
I am disappointed because you totally disregarded and did not answer any of the questions in my posting about the fact that the Mormon doctrine of the New and everlasting covenant (regarding eternal marriage) is NEVER mentioned in the Bible or the Book of Mormon. You did utilize a smart debating technique by trying to distract me and others by trying to get me to answer your question. I will NOT answer your question until you answer mine by either admitting what I said was correct or by correcting me by showing where either the Bible or the Book of Mormon directly refer to the New and Everlasting Covenant (the ordinance of eternal marriage in the temple).
If I am right about what I cited in my earlier posting (at 11:05 pm), then introduction to the book of Mormon is deceptive and inaccurate when it says that the fulness of the [Mormon] gospel is in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. If I am correct, it is not book that what Mormons claim to be the most accurate word of God (the Book of Mormon) starts off in the introduction being wrong about an essential issue for Mormons…
If you continue to try and sidetrack me and refuse to try and answer the questions that I posed…it will be clear to me that you either cannot answer the questions that I posed or else that you realize that the introduction to the Book of Mormon is deceptive and incorrect when it says that the fullness of the [Mormon] gospel is in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Please refer to my previous posting again if you need to.
Mike’s response:
If we are to consider what the “fulness of the everlasting gospel” means, we must define it as Joseph Smith would define it. since he was the instrument through which the Book of Mormon came.
In the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church, Section 42 we find these explanatory verses:
“12 And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall TEACH THE PRINCIPLES OF MY GOSPEL, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the FULNESS OF THE GOSPEL.
13 And they shall observe the covenants and church articles to do them, and these shall be their teachings, as they shall be directed by the Spirit.
14 And the Spirit shall be given unto you by the prayer of faith; and if ye receive not the Spirit ye shall not teach.
15 And all this ye shall observe to do as I have commanded concerning your teaching, until the FULNESS OF MY SCRIPTURES is given.
16 And as ye shall lift up your voices by the Comforter, ye shall speak and prophesy as seemeth me good;
17 For, behold, the Comforter knoweth all things, and beareth record of the Father and of the Son.”
From the reference above we glean the following understanding about what Joseph Smith understood the meaning of the “fulness of the gospel to be.
1. The PRINCIPLES of the gospel contain the fulness of that Gospel.
2. “The fulness of the Gospel” is not the same thing as the “fulness
of my scriptures”.
So Joseph Smith would tell you that using the term “fulness of the scriptures” would not restrict God from adding scripture, according to D&C 42.
so what are the principles of the Gospel?
The 4th Article of Faith, found in the Pearl of Great Price, gives a definition of the first principles:
“4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
In several places these principles and ordinances are referred to as the “DOCTRINE OF CHRIST”
Two treatments of this doctrine are in the Book of Mormon:
First, Nephi’s teaching in @nd Nephi 31 and 32:
2 “Wherefore, the things which I have written sufficeth me, save it be a few words which I amust speak concerning the doctrine of Christ; wherefore, I shall speak unto you plainly, according to the plainness of my prophesying.
3 For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding.
4 Wherefore, I would that ye should remember that I have spoken unto you concerning that prophet which the Lord showed unto me, that should baptize the Lamb of God, which should take away the sins of the world.
5 And now, if the Lamb of God, he being aholy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!
6 And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water?
7 Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments.
8 Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove.
9 And again, it showeth unto the children of men the straitness of the path, and the narrowness of the agate, by which they should enter, he having set the example before them.
10 And he said unto the children of men: Follow thou me. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, can we follow Jesus save we shall be willing to keep the commandments of the Father?
11 And the Father said: Repent ye, repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son.
12 And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do.
13 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.
14 But, behold, my beloved brethren, thus came the voice of the Son unto me, saying: After ye have repented of your sins, and witnessed unto the Father that ye are willing to keep my commandments, by the baptism of water, and have received the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, and can speak with a new tongue, yea, even with the tongue of angels, and after this should deny me, it would have been better for you that ye had not known me.
15 And I heard a voice from the Father, saying: Yea, the words of my Beloved are true and faithful. He that endureth to the cend, the same shall be saved.
16 And now, my beloved brethren, I know by this that unless a man shall endure to the end, in following the example of the Son of the living God, he cannot be saved.
17 Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost.
18 And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive.
19 And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow apath, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.
20 Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of bhope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eeternal life.
21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the away; 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.”
Second, Christ’s teachings during his appearance to the Nephites:
3rd Nephi 11
32 “And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.
33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.
34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.
35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.”
37 “And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.
38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.
39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.
40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.
41 Therefore, go forth unto this people, and declare the words which I have spoken, unto the ends of the earth.”
The “fulness of the gospel”, then consists of the “doctrine of Christ”
1. Faith in Jesus Christ
2. Repentence
3. Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins
4. Receipt of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands
5. Endurance to the end in righteousness
By doing these things a person is cleansed and becomes “perfect in Christ” and is thus able to receive all other revelation and ordinances necessary to lay hold on Eternal life, given by the grace of Jesus Christ.
Now Brady: Please explain how any of this is not in accord with the Bible.
posted July 12, 2007 at 4:58 am
As to Brady’s assertion that there is no giving in marriage in heaven.
Mormons agree. Marriage, and Baptism and The gift of the Holy Ghost, and Priesthood ordinations are all physical ordincances that must be performed ON THIS EARTH. That is why Mormons accept the principle of vicarious work for the dead. In line with the concept of the vicarious sacrifice of the Son of God for our sins.
1st Peter 3:18-21 For Christ also hath once asuffered for sins, the just for the bunjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to cdeath in the flesh, but quickened by the dSpirit:
19 By which also he went and apreached unto the bspirits in cprison;
20 aWhich sometime were bdisobedient, when once the clongsuffering of God waited in the days of dNoah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were esaved by fwater.
21 The like figure whereunto even abaptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
1st Peter 4:6 6 aFor for this cause was the bgospel cpreached also to them that are ddead, that they might be ejudged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.
1st Corinthians 15:29 29 Else what shall they do which are abaptized bfor the dead, if the dead crise not at all? why are they then baptized for the ddead?
And since the first Marriage was performed by God, who is eternal, Marriage is menat to last eternally.
Genesis 2:18, 20-24 18 ¶ And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be aalone; I will make him ban help meet for him.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a awoman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and aflesh of my flesh: she shall be called bWoman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a aman leave his bfather and his mother, and shall ccleave unto his dwife: and they shall be eone flesh.
Mike
posted July 12, 2007 at 5:36 am
I’m sure this will be one of the last read posts but I hope that some of the evangalist will get a chance to read it.
My point is who asked the question. DR. MOHLER – I stumbled over this article as I looked for Mohlers who had done good in thier lives. I messed up here I suppose.
There seems to be this defensive reactions and petty attacks being made about what Mormons are. The fact is: A CHRISTIAN ASKED IF MORMONS COUNT AS CHRISTIANS-WOW LAST TIME I CHECKED …… YUP I WAS RIGHT….
THE PROPHET GORDON B. HINKLEY NEVER ASKED FOR A CLUB CARD TO THE CHRISTIAN COALITION YOU ALL STARTED HERE
FACT IS YOU FIND ONE PIECE OF CHURCH MATERIAL THAT COUNTERS THE FACT THAT WE BELIEVE IN THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST OR HIS SAVING POWER IT WOULD BE THE BIGGEST BLANKET PULLED OVER A GROUP OF MILLIONS I’VE EVER HEARD OF.
I’LL TELL YOU NOW THATS NOT POSSIBLE. JESUS CHRIST IS THE SAME JESUS CHRIST TAUGHT OF IN THE BIBLE. WHYELSE DO WE TEACH AND LEARN FROM THE BIBLE AND BOOK OF MORMON. THEY ARE COMPANIONS TEACHING THE SAME THING- GOD IS REAL-JESUS DIED SO THAT WE MIGHT LIVE-THE HOLY GHOST CONFIRMS OUR INNER THOUGHTS-ADAM AND EVE ALLOWED US THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE.
YOU CAN NOT DENY ANY OF THE GOSPEL TRUTHS IN THE MORMON CHURCH. JUST TRY READING OUR ARTICLES OF FAITH. THIS IS WHAT EVERY MEMBER IS INSTRUCTED TO BASE THIER BELIEFS OFF OF.
THERE ARE QUESTIONS YOU ALL HAVE ASKED THAT SEEM INTRIGUING YET CONFUSING. IN CUNFUSION THERE ARE LIES. IF YOU ARE CONFUSED ABOUT MORMONS THEN YOU HAVE BEEN LIED TO SOMEHOW. MOST LIKELY YOU KNOW AND INTERACT WITH LDS MEMBERS, AND WHEN YOU HEAR OFF THE WALL REMARKS OR THAT THEY AREN’T CHRISTIANS YOU BECOME CONFUSED. YOUR BEING TOLD TO NOT BELIEVE WHAT YOU SEE. YES ALL MORMONS HAVE PROBLEMS AND ARE SOMEWHAT HIPOCRITICAL BUT WHO ISN’T. HAVE YOU EVER BELEVED IN SOMETHING THEN STUMBLED IN THE SAME AREA YOU SO GREATLY BELIEVED IN. WELL UNDERSTAND THAT MORMONS ARE HUMAN AND MAKE GREAT MISTAKES TO-THATS CALLED FREE AGENCY.
posted July 12, 2007 at 6:03 am
What a luxury it is for Christians to throw rocks at each other over which of them has the best version of what Jesus must have taught and meant.
To the rest of this, it is sheer silliness on stilts.
Jesus contrasted those who believe with those who didn’t.
He told his disciples, if they loved him, to keep his commandments.
He said that not everyone who cries, “Lord, Lord” would enter into the Kingdom but those who did the will of his father, and even threatened that if his hearers’ righteousness didn’t surpass that of the Scribes and the Pharisees, they wouldn’t make it.
Jesus said a lot about action, as opposed to mere belief. Yet these fanatics want to argue about who has signed on to the best rendition of the message.
In the meantime, the Catholic Church denounces all Protestants, officially dis-acknowledging their churches as “communities” not “churches.”
If you can’t trace yourself back, through the line of bishops, you’re nothing. On that basis, the Catholics only recognize the Orthodox Church – meaning the Greek Orthodox and its progeny. The Reformed Churches – including the Baptists – are rootless heretics.
So much for Dr. Mohr, standing in front of his own glass house, admiring his collection of rocks.
It used to be the Mormons who were criticized for being elitist, telling themselves that theirs was “the one true church of Jesus Christ.” Who’d have imagined Protestants would show up and use that same lame line on them?
And for what? Is there nothing pettier than a Christian imagining his sect is okay while someone else’s is garbage?
posted July 12, 2007 at 8:18 am
I think a distinction needs to be made between two things:
1) What is LDS doctrine on salvation?
2) What does JoeSchmoe Mormon believe about salvation?
Just bescause a church teaches a certain way doesn’t mean all of its followers believe it or even know about such teachings.
posted July 12, 2007 at 8:21 am
Also, does Card or anyone on the comment section really care to share with us other “Christians” how we are in the “Church of the Devil” yet you all want to be lumped in with us. As a serious follower, I try to flee from things of the devil whilst thinking only of Christ’s penal substitutionary atonement.
posted July 12, 2007 at 8:50 am
Stuart,
Meeting your challenge entails, as I understood it, giving an explanation for some of those things that you listed. I don’t want to get into a back-and-forth on any one point; ergo, I’ll leave my baptism for the dead comments to stand as my explanation for that one. I will voice my agreement with you that one Bible passage clearly teaching a particular doctrine is sufficient to believe that doctrine; as I explained, we don’t understand I Cor. 15:29 to be advocating the practice.
Now, as for baptism in general, no, I don’t believe it to be essential for salvation, and by far, that is the evangelical position. Yes, there are a slim number of Scripture passages that can be taken to teach that. There are, as well, many others that speak of salvation without mentioning baptism. We are left with a conundrum: either the Bible contradicts itself, which of course we believe it does not, or we need to arrive at a satisfactory explanation for the the passages that do seem to teach the necessity of baptism.
Briefly (and of course, this is a huge subject!!!), several thoughts: one, the many times when Scripture speaks of salvation with no mention of baptism (but with mention of “faith” or “belief”). Some are John 3, Romans 10, Ephesians 2, Titus 3, and others (I’ll not resort to the dubious tactic of making as long a list of Bible passages as I can muster…). Cornelius and his household, in Acts 10, receive the Holy Spirit—which we believe to be evidential of salvation—prior to being baptized. Paul says that he’s glad that he didn’t baptize anyone (save for the household of Stephanas), a curious statement indeed if baptism is necessary for salvation. The thief on the cross would be in paradise with Christ that very day absent baptism.
Now, again, this is a huge subject, I realize, and so much more could be said; I again simply give some perspective from “our side”, again to stress that it’s not that we try to pick and choose what we want to believe/practice, but that we genuinely understand these things differently from the Mormon understanding.
I will say, parenthetically, that I believe that many evangelicals make too little of baptism, that while it is not essential for salvation, the practice of the early church was clear: those that believed were baptized; this was their “profession of faith”; there wasn’t this months/years-long gap between placing faith in Christ and following Him in baptism.
Your friend,
Byron
posted July 12, 2007 at 8:51 am
It’s hard to believe that the person writing this blog is an educated – or well read – individual.
Note the following from the blog:
Right now, Mormons are as unwelcome among evangelical Christians as I, a science-fiction-writing Democratic Mormon was unwelcome among Republican normal-job-holding Mormons in Utah.
But that’s because evangelicals have a majoritarian attitude that is really not appropriate any more.
America is the most religious Western nation — but surely Dr. Mohler sees that our children can hardly get a college degree without being indoctrinated, not just in atheism, but in hostility to all organized religions, Christianity in particular.
\\\
Interesting.
Not only was Joseph Smith (THE Founder of Mormon faith) going his own way on religion, HE WAS HOSTILE towards ALL “Christian” denominations and wrote as much in his preamble to his new religion. He was told by some angel not to join ANY denominations because they ALL have been led astray. C’mon Mormons stand stronmg in your hostile denouncement of “Evangelical Christianity.” Which of course is “what” the Gospel is all about. That at least IS understood by the missionary stance of Mormonism.
Mormons started the hate debate when Joseph Smith attacked every Christian in every Denomination on earth..
Mormons are not Christians.
Why not be proud about that Mormons? Your doctrines and writings are wierd and heretical in just about the most bizaare way found in the history since the beginning of the Apostles Church of Christ Jesus.
It is Mormons that use “indoctrination” techniques to assure that the brains of their youth are firmly rooted in Mormon ideology and theology.
No matter what attempts are made by the Mormons to cast doubt about the veracity of the Biblical writings, Mormom “ism” is teaching such incompatible beliefs with ANY form of Bible-based faith systems as to show what it is to any person with the ability to still think for themself.
A simple or in-depth reading of Doctrine and Covenance, or the Pearl of Great Price will show any honest person the immutable seperation between Mormon “ism” and the “Faith delivered ONLY ONCE to the Saints.” And those “Saints” were the Apostles and NOT Joseph Smith followers.
You are nice people Mr. and Ms. Mormon, for the most part. When you clean the immensly huge logs out of your OWN eyes . . . then you can reject the false teachings of Joseph Smith and the men leading you astray in Mormon “ism” and see what is and what isn’t being a Christian.
posted July 12, 2007 at 9:13 am
Here’s the promised other half of my comments.
I suspect that one other major factor in the Mormon/Christian discussion is the assumption about salvation that may go with the word “Christian”. When others say that some group is or is not Christian, is or is not apostate, are they claiming something about that group’s status before God? Rather than letting this run as emotional undercurrent, let’s bring it out in the open so we know what people are really saying.
First, the Mormon point of view. Mormon theology is a mixture of exclusivity and universality: the way to God is strictly defined, but it is accessible to everyone. More specifically, the way to salvation is only through Jesus Christ, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only church with authority to speak and act in his name (refering to prophetic revelation and priesthood authority). However, God judges us relative to our understanding, based on how much we seek truth and how well we live the truth we know. “All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, … who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom ["the celestial kingdom of God"]; For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.” D&C 137:7-9.
(This is why we baptize for the dead in our temples, so that in case people do accept the gospel in the spirit world before resurrection, this required ordinance is done for them. I also should point out that we have a different concept of heaven and hell. We believe that the sufferings of hell are of finite duration, and we believe heaven has “three degrees of glory”: the Telestial kingdom, for the unrepentant; the Terrestrial, for the honorable; and the Celestial, for the valiant.)
So while we believe that the LDS church is the “only true and living church”, we do not believe non-Mormons are necessarily damned. While we claim that there was an apostacy, we mean that the early Christian church lost its revealed guidance with the death of the apostles; we do not mean that members of other churches are considered rebels. Each individual will be judged by the Lord for him or herself. Each life a person has lived counts before God.
Secondly, the mainstream Christian point of view. I cannot summarize this because it is so diverse, but I can make a request: When you are making arguments about the meaning of “Christian” and who fits that label, can you also state whether you are implying something about people’s salvation? More importantly, can you clarify your thoughts for us about the relation between different meanings of “Christian”?
I get the impression that some people reason like this: “Because Mormons reject orthodox doctrines E, F and G, or because they believe heretical doctrines P, Q and R, they are not Christian. And since they aren’t Christian, they are damned.” But such reasoning switches meanings of the word “Christian” in midstream. I don’t think most people actually think that the standards for Christian historicity or orthodoxy are exactly the same as the scriptural standards for salvation. If you do think so, I’d like to understand your reasoning. If you don’t, I’d like to hear you say so, so we know what you are and are not implying.
Regards,
Bryan
posted July 12, 2007 at 9:23 am
Bill,
I’m afraid you miss the point. What you say would be wonderful—if truth didn’t matter. But it does matter. Jesus said, “you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” If He’d said, “you shall know some stuff, it might be true or it might not, it really doesn’t matter, and once you know this stuff, you might be free, sorta, more or less”, then I’d agree with you.
But the fact is, one isn’t a Christian merely by believing just any old thing about Jesus; the Bible itself says that the demons believe and tremble. Is there no such thing, in your framework, as heresy? For if there is no heresy, then there can be no “truth”. That is what this discussion (not necessarily “rock-throwing”, though some seem to have to stoop to that level, on both sides) is about; what constitutes the framework of orthodoxy, and what is heresy; what falls outside the pale of essential truth?
The understanding that Mormons have about the nature of Christ, the nature of God, and what God requires of man, differ fundamentally from what evangelicals understand, so much so that the different understandings are mutually exclusive. If one is right, the other is wrong, and vice-versa (and, of course, humility dictates that I mention that we could both be wrong). The truth is worth defending (and my Mormon friends, with whom I differ significantly, surely agree). It does no one any good to pretend otherwise.
I’m trying to follow Jesus, not Rodney King.
posted July 12, 2007 at 10:22 am
Nathan:
You make my point for me: there is better discussion happening in the comments than in the debate. Mr. Card should take some lessons from you and provide succinct, distilled, and on-point responses as you have.
Interestingly enough, though, you also make Dr. Mohler’s point for him: he has argued that Mormonism has rejected historic Christianity, “traditional Christian orthodoxy”. You state that Mormonism rejects these historic creeds:
You wrote: “We do not accept the artifacts of the Ecumenical Councils as completely valid positions. We do not hold the Nicene Creed as an acceptable statement of our beliefs.”
Dr. Mohler in his last post had to restate the question as put to him:
He wrote: “The first matter of concern is to clarify the question. When I asked, “Are Mormons ‘Christians’ as defined by traditional Christian orthodoxy?,” I was stating the question exactly as it was put to me. The words “as defined by traditional Christian orthodoxy” were part of my assignment, not my imposition.”
So you see, given what you wrote, it appears that you would agree with Dr. Mohler, that, no, Mormons are not to be considered Christian as defined by traditional Christian orthodoxy (e.g. Nicene Creed, etc). I am not an expert on these historic creeds, but I think it is safe to say that these documents served to help clarify what the Bible teaches regarding salvation, Christ, sin, etc. precisely in response to wrong teachings that were being propagated at that time. I understand that Mormons reject these creeds (whether in whole or in part, I don’t know) and believe themselves to be the only true Church. Therefore, intellectual honesty would require you to say that all who are not Mormon are not Christian as redefined by the Mormon church.
I leave you with a quote from Byron, the second comment on this post who made this point earlier:
“I do not, by the way, begrudge Mormons the use of the title “Christian”; they are free to describe themselves in any manner they choose (it’s America, right?). That said, I put it simply this way, given that our definitions of what constitutes a Christian to be mutually-exclusive: if I, as an evangelical, am a Christian, then those who put their faith in Mormon theology cannot be as well; if Mormons are Christians, then I, who deny the essence of their understanding of the Christian faith, am not a Christian. We can both call ourselves “Christians”, but in the sense which is meaningful to me as an evangelical, we cannot both BE “Christians”.”
posted July 12, 2007 at 10:40 am
If you define “Christian” using the artifacts of the Ecumenical Councils instead of using the doctrines explained in the Bible, are you not doing the same thing that you accuse Mormons of doing–adding to the Bible to define our faith?
posted July 12, 2007 at 10:49 am
Matt,
You said: “Therefore, intellectual honesty would require you to say that all who are not Mormon are not Christian as redefined by the Mormon church.”
Not at all. We don’t define `Christian’ in terms of “traditional Christian orthodoxy.” In fact, except when people are trying to be exclusionary, very few use this weird definition of Christian. We define it, as does the dictionary, as do most people on the street, as one who claims to follow Jesus Christ. By using the non-standard definition of via traditional Christian orthodoxy, one plays a game of exclusion and confusion.
I actually appreciate Br. Card’s post because he cuts right to the heart of the real question. Can Dr. Mohler take the small step Br. Card suggested, but admitting our service to Jesus Christ pleases Him?
Best,
P. Nielsen
P.S. We reject the path Christianity took after the apostles died, but that doesn’t mean we reject original Christianity. (Just as the Protestants rejected the path the Catholic church took.)
posted July 12, 2007 at 10:52 am
Matt:
My last comment was made before I read your new post. You are right. If the only definition of Christian is that you hold to the Creed, then Mormons are not. We believe that the definition of Christian is one who is a disciple of Christ, and tries to live their lives as such.
Accordingly, Mormons believe that Evangelicals, and Catholics, and Mormons are Christian. We do not believe that you are the “church of the devil”. The church of the devil is anyone who fights against Christ, and we can find those individuals in any denomination (or non-denomination) including amongst the Mormons.
I believe that while we have different interpretations, and have doctrines that the other believe are not completely true, by this definition of accepting Christ as our Savior, and trying to live according to His teachings, we CAN both be Christians.
“And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. (1 Corinthians 12:5-6)”
I believe, because I have many evangelical friends that prove this, that we can believe in the same Lord, living lives of charity and goodness, praying together, and rejoicing in Christ, and still maintain our differing beliefs. Let us unite in Christ, and glory in the power for good that we can be in this country because it is Him that unites us.
posted July 12, 2007 at 11:05 am
P. Nielsen:
Fine! If you want to loosely define Christian as anyone who claims to follow Jesus Christ as Christian and use Webster’s as your source, then a lot of people are Christian.
But I think that this is the point of this debate: Mormons and Christians (please excuse this distinction for the moment) disagree on what it means to be a true Christian! It’s not simply a matter of “You say ‘potato’ and I say ‘potahtoh’!”
There are some clear theological disagreements between Christians and Mormons (see earlier parenthetical statement) that makes them mutually exclusive. So again, I leave you with Byron’s quote:
“I do not, by the way, begrudge Mormons the use of the title “Christian”; they are free to describe themselves in any manner they choose (it’s America, right?). That said, I put it simply this way, given that our definitions of what constitutes a Christian to be mutually-exclusive: if I, as an evangelical, am a Christian, then those who put their faith in Mormon theology cannot be as well; if Mormons are Christians, then I, who deny the essence of their understanding of the Christian faith, am not a Christian. We can both call ourselves “Christians”, but in the sense which is meaningful to me as an evangelical, we cannot both BE “Christians”.”
posted July 12, 2007 at 11:10 am
Nathan:
Thanks for your response. I think if you would provide an answer to the following question, it might help to clarify our differences. Please excuse the elementary nature of this question:
“When you stand before God on judgment day and he asks why he should let you into heaven, how will you answer Him?”
posted July 12, 2007 at 11:11 am
Brady,
Again please read these references. My point is that the Abrahamic Covenant is pretty interesting. One element that is overlooked is that God promises that his people will have the same blessings as Abraham. Abraham was promised that his posterity will be as numerous as the stars or without end, and life with him. Eternal marriage and family without end is a very Biblical idea.
Gal. 3: 7-9, 26-29
Gen. 26: 1-4, 24
Gen. 35: 9-13
Gen. 22: 15-18
Gen. 17: 2, 21
Gen. 48: 3-4
John 8: 33, 39
1 Ne. 15: 14, 18
2 Ne. 29: 1, 14
3 Ne. 20: 25, 27
Gen. 12: 3
Gen. 15: 18
Gen. 18: 18
Gen. 21: 12
Gen. 28: 14
Ex. 19: 5
Deut. 14: 2
Judg. 2: 1
Isa. 49: 6
Isa. 50: 1
Isa. 54: 5
Jer. 3: 14
Jer. 31: 31
Hosea 2: 19
Matt. 3: 9
Luke 3: 8
Acts 3: 25
Rom. 9: 4
Rom. 11: 27
Heb. 6: 14
Heb. 11: 18
1 Ne. 17: 40
1 Ne. 19: 15
1 Ne. 22: 9
2 Ne. 6: 12
2 Ne. 9: 1
2 Ne. 10: 7
2 Ne. 11: 5
2 Ne. 30: 2
3 Ne. 21: 4
Morm. 5: 20
Ether 3: 11
Ether 13: 11
posted July 12, 2007 at 11:22 am
Matt:
My response to God will be one that also happens to be found in the Book of Mormon: “Oh have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that I may receive forgiveness of my sins.”
If I, or any other Mormon claim to be able to face God, and say “my works have been sufficient to save me”, then we are wrong.
Thanks for the question.
posted July 12, 2007 at 11:36 am
Nathan:
Can you please explain to me what “apply the atoning blood of Christ” means. What did Christ atone for? What does it mean to “atone”. For the sake of helping to clarify things, assume that I know nothing about this.
Thanks.
posted July 12, 2007 at 11:47 am
Matt:
According to the LDS Bible Dictionary, atonement: “describes the setting ‘at one’ of those who have been estranged, and denotes the reconcilliation of man to God.” By my own definition, to atone is to pay a price, or make a sacrifice to lift a creature from a low state to a higher one–one that the creature could not otherwise attain. Again from the Book of Mormon, we believe 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.”
posted July 12, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Nathan:
What is being paid for?
Why does man need reconciliation?
Also, what do you mean by “low-state” and “higher-one”?
Matt
P.S. This is good stuff! So please keep answering, and feel free to ask me questions as well.
posted July 12, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Byron…I appreciate someone who can discuss theology without the names. Thank you.
My biggest difficulty lies with the concept that if something is not always stated, then it is not required. Using similar logic, then Faith is not essential to be saved because when Chirst spoke of repentence (or any other doctrine), He did not also add the caveat that Faith was essential. One must remember that the scriptures were written generally to those who were members of Christ’s church and knew of the doctrines.
Instead of attempting to discuss each point you made, I would like to address only two. First, the comment by Paul. If you continue to read beyond that scripture, you will gain the context of Paul’s comments. As predicted by the prophets, there was already the beginningsof the apostacy. People had begun to represent themselves as followers of Paul or of other teachers. Paul was happy that he had only baptized a single family so that they wouldn’t place him above the Savior. Remember the Savior didn’t baptize anyone himself.
Second concerns the thief. Paradise is not heaven. That is supported by the fact that Christ himself did not go to heaven that day. Remember Christ told Mary Magdalene after his ressurrection that he had not yet ascended to his father. If you want to know where Christ went then you should look to 1 Peter 3:19 and 1 Peter 4:6.
And just to end, if baptism was not essential to get into heaven, why did Christ do it? also, why did Chirst tell John the Baptist, who initially refused to baptize him, say that it was to be done to fulfill all righteousness. There must be more to baptism then remission of sins because Christ did it and he was sinless. Also, in Acts, Peter (who I hope you agree was the leder of the church after the resurrection) says it is essential to have faith, repentence, baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost.
posted July 12, 2007 at 12:37 pm
The book of James calls the Savior the mediator..who is He the mediator between? What does He mediate?
posted July 12, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Suppose a man just finished 20 years of a life term for murder and was released on parole. Would you let him come into your church? Could he be Mormon or Evangelical? Could he be saved?
What about a prostitute? Or a young woman who had a child but isn’t married and doesn’t know what to do?
posted July 12, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Matt:
We recognize the state that we are in. Mankind is fallen, and in a situation where we “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; (Rom 3:23)”. This is the low state. The higher state is in God’s presence. In the very next verse: “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:”.
We believe this! I know that you believe this too. When Mormons talk of the “works” (commandments, ordinances, etc.) that we “perform” it is never in denying the grace of God. It is because of we are redeemed through His name, that we feel committed to the Lord, and want to keep His commandments. We do not believe that we can get there on our own. When Christ said that “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)”, we take that seriously, because we are born of Him. Because we are His disciples, if He says to be baptized, then we will.
You may interpret this verse differently, but here is how we base what we do (from our 4th article of faith) “We believe the the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are first Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost”.
You see that for us (and I believe for you too), the faith in Christ comes first. Then we call on His name (only) to receive a forgiveness of our sins. Once we feel the joy that comes from this miraculous grace, then, and only then do we feel a commitment and desire to keep the commandment to be born of water and the Spirit.
To me, this is Christianity. This is what it means to be born of Christ. We may have a different view of “what” it means to be born of water and of the Spirit, but we both believe that it is only in Christ that the miracle occurs.
posted July 12, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Nowandlater,
You have still NOT answered any of the questions I presented. I again ask that you answer the questions that I posed in my posting.
In your last Posting you said,
“Again please read these references. My point is that the Abrahamic Covenant is pretty interesting. One element that is overlooked is that God promises that his people will have the same blessings as Abraham. Abraham was promised that his posterity will be as numerous as the stars or without end, and life with him. Eternal marriage and family without end is a very Biblical idea.”
You did NOT answer my questions in what you wrote, but rather referred to the Abrahamic Covenant, which IS in the Bible. Please do not try to incoporate your preconceived notions into what the text of the Bible clearly says. The correction to your above claim regarding Abraham is that the Bible clearly says that Abrahams descendants will be so numerous that they cannot be counted. It never once mentions anything about eternal marriage. See the below passages…
Ge 22:17 indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies.
Ge 32:12 “For You said, ‘I will surely prosper you and make your descendants as the sand of the sea, which is too great to be numbered.’”
Since you cannot answer my question and show me where the Bible or the Book of Mormon mentions the New and Everlasting Covenant (which refers to the required gospel ordinance of eternal marriage) I will take your inability to answer the question to mean that Mormon doctrine is in error and should not be trusted.
Sincerely,
-Brady
posted July 12, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Dear Matt,
You said: “Fine! If you want to loosely define Christian as anyone who claims to follow Jesus Christ as Christian and use Webster’s as your source, then a lot of people are Christian.” I am glad we can at least agree on this small point. That is a start! Mormons see this as crucial because *most people* use this definition. In fact, that is why the dictionary defines it that way! If you told someone on the street “Mormons are not Christian” that bothers us because the person will (likely) walk away with the idea that we not only don’t believe in Jesus, but we also don’t try to live Christian principles of righteousness. So, for us, it is important that others not leave wrong impressions. We are more than happy for you to explain that we are unorthodox Christians, or that we hold (what you believe to be) false notions about God and Jesus but that we try to live righteous lives.
That said, let me try to address your other points. You said: “But I think that this is the point of this debate: Mormons and Christians (please excuse this distinction for the moment) disagree on what it means to be a true Christian! It’s not simply a matter of “You say ‘potato’ and I say ‘potahtoh’!” There are some clear theological disagreements between Christians and Mormons (see earlier parenthetical statement) that makes them mutually exclusive.”
I agree that (some) orthodox Christians and (some) Mormons disagree on what it means to be a true Christian. Sometimes they don’t, as evidenced in some of the posts here. I also agree that there are clear theological disagreements between traditional Christianity and Mormonism. Both Dr. Mohler and Br. Card have agreed on these points.
So, to move the argument forward, let me ask you the following. How do you normally define ‘Christian’? Do most Christians you know define it this way? Must one accept the creeds of traditional, orthodox Christianity? Must one have the correct philosophical notions of God (i.e. must one correctly understand the creeds, or only accept them with limited understanding)?
I would also ask, “According to your understanding, what must one do to be saved.” I ask these questions in sincerity, and while I cannot promise that others won’t try to twist your answers, I truly want to understand exactly where our disagreement lies.
Best,
P. Nielsen
posted July 12, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Nowandlater,
I forgot to add this that you have not explained yet either.
Matthew 22:23-30
On that day some Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Jesus and questioned Him,
24 asking, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘IF A MAN DIES HAVING NO CHILDREN, HIS BROTHER AS NEXT OF KIN SHALL MARRY HIS WIFE, AND RAISE UP CHILDREN FOR HIS BROTHER.’
25 “Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother;
26 so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh.
27 “Last of all, the woman died.
28 “In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her.”
29 But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.
30 “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
AFTER YOU HAVE ANSWERED THE OTHER QUESTIONS I POSED…PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT THIS PASSAGE SAYS ABOUT MARRIAGE IN HEAVEN.
posted July 12, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Matt,
As a Catholic, I must say that I cannot refer to you as a Christian. From this point forward I must refer to you as a Protestant since there are clearly some “theological disagreements” between Protestants and Catholics “that makes them mutually exclusive.”
By the way, since you said that you were opened to questions, I have one that I have always wanted an answer to. What is the difference between Baptists, Southern Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, Episcopals, Unitarians, and the folks from the Church of Christ?
Thanks for your answer in advance.
posted July 12, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Mike,
Please read (if you haven’t) or reread my posting last night at 11:05 pm. What you said in your response contradicts the definition that Joseph Fielding Smith gave of the fulness of the gospel. There are several other points in what I wrote that might be helpful to read as well. I hope this helps.
-Brady
posted July 12, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Brady… your question regarding eternal marriage is pretty easy. You need only read the scripture you cited in Matthew. The LDS church does not profess to perform eternal marriages in or after the Resurrection. Therefore, your argument using Matthew is unfounded and only shows that LDS doctrine is once again consistent with the BIBLE.
You haven’t yet responded to the Genesis scripture in that God performed the first marraige between Adam and Eve, making it an eternal marriage. LDS doctrine further teaches that when a marriage is performed by one who has God’s authority and performed in God’s house (his temple) then one may receive the same gift that God gave to our first parents..an eternal marriage!
posted July 12, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Bryan said:
“I also should point out that we have a different concept of heaven and hell. We believe that the sufferings of hell are of finite duration, and we believe heaven has “three degrees of glory”: the Telestial kingdom, for the unrepentant; the Terrestrial, for the honorable; and the Celestial, for the valiant.”
I would like to expand on this in the spirit of fostering understanding.
In it’s most basic concept the Plan of Salvation is thus: There was a Creation. Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit resulting in death (physical death and a separation from God). Jesus Christ overcame death and hell (the separation from God) by his suffering, death and resurrection, thus opening the gates whereby we also may overcome death and hell (as judged by Jesus Christ), not of our own accord, because none of us could do it, but only through the grace of Jesus Christ. All of us who were born on this earth will be resurrected. Almost all of us will attain heaven. The only people who won’t and instead will be cast out are those who deny Jesus Christ while knowing full who he is and what he has done. Like looking full into the sun and saying it does not exist. Now heaven has different levels or divisions(the scriptures sometimes call these houses or mansions). There are many, many levels just as there a myriad different kinds of people, but there are three main levels, compared to the glory of the sun, moon and stars. This is where the judgment of Jesus Christ comes in. It is only He who can decide where in heaven you belong, because it is only He who knows us infinitely by virtue of the atonement. He knows our limitations, He knows our hearts, He knows how we have applied His teachings and commands. Baptism is one of His commandments, and in order to reach the glory of the sun (Celestial), one must enter into the baptismal covenant (that does not mean that just because a person is baptized, he is guaranteed a place there, it is Jesus Christ who will judge if that person has kept their covenants). Likewise with the covenant of Eternal Marriage (since it was brought up), which is a requirement for a level within the Celestial Glory.
As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, it is not enough to know that everybody we know will go to Heaven. We desire everybody to achieve the highest glory in Heaven that they can, as judged by Jesus Christ. That is why we emphasize living the best we know how, that is why we emphasize baptism through the authority of Jesus Christ for those ready to make and keep that covenant with Him. Certainly we do not desire anybody to make covenants they cannot or will not keep. It is also why we worship Jesus Christ as our Savior and Redeemer and focus on what we can do to be judged better by Him.
We cannot show you convincingly all of our beliefs in the Old and New Testaments. We rely on many forms of Scripture: our Standard Works and Revelation given by a living prophet. Maybe you can’t prove that our version of the Gospel is true from the Holy Bible, but we can prove the truth of the Holy Bible from the Book of Mormon! If the Book of Mormon is true (and I testify it is, as the Holy Spirit has born witness to my Soul), it holds that all of the scriptures are God’s word and is truth, as the Book of Mormon testifies of the Holy Bible and the Divinity of Jesus Christ.
posted July 12, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Brady,
I thought you only had one question. The rest looks like a lecture.
The story told to Jesus by the Sadducees was about a specific woman and her seven husbands. They wanted to know “in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven?” (Matt. 22:28) The Savior’s reply is extremely interesting and merits a great deal of thought. He said that they erred in denying the resurrection on the basis of this story for two reasons. First, they did not know the scriptures. Second, they did not know the power of God. That is interesting, because these were supposedly the scripture experts of that day — yet he said they did not know them.
He went on to say “For in the resurrection THEY neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. Let me make the following points regarding the Savior’s reply.
1) The word “they” refers specifically to the 8 people in the story, and not necessarily to all other people. Who were these people? In verse 25, the Sadducees say “there were WITH US seven brethren,” suggesting that the seven men in this specific case study were Sadducees also. Sadducees were a rather worldly group that denied the resurrection and generally rejected Christ. They aren’t likely to be in the kingdom of heaven, so their marriages on earth are irrelevant. Yet, most Christians believe that this verse means that nobody is married in heaven. That is wrong – and fact made even more clear by the next point below.
2) If you read verse 30 carefully, Jesus clearly speaks of two groups in heaven: a) people who are married in heaven and b) angels.
2 Pet. 3:7, Peter speaks of the man and woman being “heirs together” of the grace of life. Another suggestion of eternal marriage comes from the word of Christ about the sealing power he gave to Peter (Matt. 16:19 and Matt. 18:18): whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound (sealed) in heaven. And of marriage, Christ said “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:6). Also, in the Lord (meaning in heaven or in the eternities), the man is not without the woman and vice versa, according to 1 Cor. 11:11.
Add this, plus the references to the Abrahamic covenant (see scriptures above) and it is apparent that the LDS view on eternal marriages and families is very consistent with Biblical teachings.
posted July 12, 2007 at 2:07 pm
BRADY…
Using your logic, then the trinity is not a true doctrine because the word Trinity is never found in the BIBLE. And I think many people who have read the Bible would further state that the heavy majority of scriptures in the Bible do not support the trinity, but rather contradict it.
posted July 12, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Off Topic: It’s pretty humorous, but Donny why? why? People already think we are weird enough.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XbVtbc_XzrI
posted July 12, 2007 at 2:20 pm
P. Nielson:
How do you normally define ‘Christian’?
One who confesses Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
Now, before you say that we agree on this, let me also say that our understanding of what it means to confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior needs to be fleshed out. For instance, what does it mean that He is Lord? Lord of what? What does it mean to confess Him as Savior? What is a savior? What does he save us from? Etc. We can discuss this if you would like, but for now, let me answer the rest of your questions.
Do most Christians you know define it this way?
Most Christians I KNOW do. Do most people who call themselves Christian define it this way? Maybe yes, but again, we would need to flesh out the details of what they mean by what they say in order to see if it reflects accurately what the Bible says about Jesus. Because that is what is important: What does the Bible say about Christ. And to the extent that I accurately “confess” and believe what the Bible says about Christ, to that extent I am confessing (to agree with) Christ.
Must one accept the creeds of traditional, orthodox Christianity?
No, one must not accept traditional creeds of traditional orthodoxy to be saved. That said, however, one must accept what the Bible teaches (and a true Christian will). And, as long as the creeds are in keeping with Scripture, one is free to accept them.
Let’s remember, though, creeds are only a tool. They are used to summarize central themes and doctrines taught throughout the entire Bible. And so, as long as the creeds are in keeping with the Bible, I can and should accept them. However, whether or not I end up accepting them has no bearing on my salvation.
I could argue that what you and others have written about Mormonism is a form of a “creed”. Must I accept what you write as authority? No. But if it is in keeping with your church’s understanding of what is true and what the Book of Mormon teaches, then I would be foolish not to.
Must one have the correct philosophical notions of God (i.e. must one correctly understand the creeds, or only accept them with limited understanding)?
See above.
I would also ask, “According to your understanding, what must one do to be saved.”
One must repent from sin and plead for mercy from God.
It is God whom we have offended with our sin. We ALREADY stand condemned before Him. Our only hope of being saved from His wrath against our sin is to confess Jesus as our substitute and only hope of forgiveness. We can’t obey God because by nature we are sinful. We are unrighteous before God.
Yet, for God so loved the world, that he sent his son, not just to die in our place for our sin, but to live the righteous life we can’t live. When we believe in Him, not only do we receive forgiveness of sin, we receive the righteousness (perfect life) of Christ and adoption as sons. God now sees us as righteous (perfect) not because we possess that righteousness (perfection) in ourselves, but because we have been give Christ’s righteousness (perfection). That is why there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. God no longer sees us as unrighteous (imperfect) because He sees Christ’s righteousness.
Rom 8:3-4 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, (4) so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
And, once you believe, you are sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise who is given as a pledge of our inheritance. (Eph 1).
posted July 12, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Matt…
A few comments that I would like you to respond to.
One. Christ is the Lord of Lords, correct? Well who are those other Lords?
Two. Didn’t Christ teach this in Mark 16:15-16?
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved
Seems that salvation is dependent on beleiving (faith) AND being baptized.
posted July 12, 2007 at 2:30 pm
To my Mormon and non-Mormon friends posting here…I think that we are getting off track. If we are trying to debate particular points of doctrine and using our interpretations of scripture to prove each other wrong, neither will succeed, and the debate will go on fruitlessly for ever.
The point we are trying to decide is if Mormons should be considered Christian.
To distill the debate, the answer depends on the definition of “Christian”.
1. If being a Christian means one must agree with the results of the various Ecumenical Councils, and hold, particularly to the Nicene Creed, then the answer is “No”, Mormons are not Christian.
2. If being a Christian means that one accepts Jesus of Nazareth as their Savior, and admit that without His mercy and grace we would be lost forever, then the answer is “Yes”, Mormons are Christians.
Perhaps we cannot come to consensus in this forum on which definition is appropriate; but at least in each person’s heart, they can decide on the definition that fits their own feelings. I feel like the second definition allows Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons all to claim discipleship of Christ, even if our particular modes of worship vary from each other.
posted July 12, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Well said, Matt.
posted July 12, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Let me state at the beginning I’m a committed, convinced member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (I know I’ve prejudiced many of the readers with that statement), I’ve been reading this blog on and off now over the past several days. Dr. Mohler and Mr. Card have both written thoughtful commentary addressing the subject; I think Dr. Mohler has been more focused directly on the subject, “Are Mormons Orthodox Christians?,” (even though the blog heading is “Are Mormons Christians?”—I think there’s an important distinction to be found there). Mr. Card has taken the broader subject and its application to Mitt Romney’s candidacy, so the essays have not always appeared to address one another. It’s apparent that both agree on this, that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) are not orthodox Christians, and that they disagree whether, practically speaking, Mormons are Christians at all. Dr. Mohler with an emphatic, no!, Mr. Card with, of course Mormons are Christian.
The many, many responses have typically been just as interesting and engaging and it appears that everyone is in agreement that Mormons are not orthodox Christians, if that orthodoxy is based on the creeds as written, debated and, finally, accepted by those present some centuries following Christ’s death. Many have argued the creeds are based on truths found in the scriptures and so are scriptural, others argue that the creedal statements can be disputed by scripture and in fact, are an outgrowth of Greek philosophy and its profound influence on Christian doctrine.
It’s interesting to me that the scriptures can be interpreted to apparently support both views, the triune view of God, as well as God, Christ and the Holy Ghost being distinctly individual, but unified as one. It seems the LDS recognize and accept the idea of one-ness as taught in certain Bible passages, but the evangelicals appear to ignore those scriptures suggesting separate and distinct members of the Godhead found in other Bible scriptures.
What’s a person to think? It appears by all accounts there are doctrines and ideas taught without perfect clarity in the Bible and so are interpreted according to our own paradigm. I believe the idea of one-ness can easily co-exist with separate and distinct entities, particularly after reading John 17, but that the triune concept begins to unravel when reading the scriptures indicating God and Christ are distinct personages. And so the debate goes on, with both sides staying firmly in their camps without capitulation to the other. I believe the answer to this, “who’s Christian” question may be found in the simple declaration made by Christ at the end of the Sermon on the Mount (the Christian primer for behavior) as found in Matthew,
“Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
I know many Christians, from different denominations, who I respect for their daily living, the way they treat their spouses and children, neighbors and co-workers, the language they use and their friendly, inclusive natures, along with a hundred other small, seemingly insignificant actions. A Christian is not known by professing his faith, who hears it? Maybe know one but himself, a Christian is known by the day-to-day acts that show he indeed has faith in Christ who taught that we follow Him. Following Christ means we do the things that Christ did, comfort the afflicted, feed the poor, love our enemies, go the extra mile, turn the other cheek, give to those in need, clothe the naked, care for the widow and fatherless, etc. etc. Those are fruits of faith. Like the vine used in allegories and parables, we can’t see what nourishes the vine, we can only see the results of the nourishment, the fruit.
Now I already now the response to this post: Nice sentiments, but what about the doctrines? Those who would answer me thus—you stand on your doctrine and hold to it dearly—I’ll continue trying to do the things God and Christ asked me to do, submit my will to God knowing that He will provide the best kind of life for me through His tender mercies and the wonderful grace that comes through Christ. That is my faith, Christ atoned, died on the cross and was raised to life eternal, for me and all God’s children, my role in the plan is to show my faith in Christ by my obedience, then rely on His grace for eternal life.
I think the faith vs. works debate has become so territorial, and “I’m right, you’re wrong” as to defy resolution. We don’t listen to one another, of course it takes faith—in fact, it first and foremost takes faith, but works, or acts, or service, or whatever term you want to use, are extremely important as well, James taught that clearly. One can’t accept the Bible without accepting all of it. We will be judged according to our works, Christ admonished us to do good, one has to act on their faith in order for faith to be legitimate. Accepting Christ takes action, it requires a desire, and the faith in the promises made by Christ requires one to step forward, kneel down or cry out. And after that the very act of praying, reading the scriptures, going to a Bible class, Sunday church meetings, service to others, really all our good acts, are works based on faith. For the true believer, the practical application of faith is to do something of our own free will. Mortals have control over just one thing, it’s the only thing we can give to God, our will, the choices we make to act in accordance to our belief. He is creator, there is nothing that is not His, except the individual will of man—that’s the test of life—will we, or won’t we, give up our own will to God? And submitting our will can only be shown by our actions, whether we decide on obedience or not is up to us. God or Christ won’t, can’t, make our decisions, “…choose you this day whom ye will serve,” declared Aaron, “…but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”
There is no way around works for one who believes in Christ. And so the only criteria for whether one believes in Christ, regardless of denomination, doctrine or creed, is the standard Christ himself gave, “…by their fruits ye shall know them.”
I would suggest that we all quit these blogs, stop the contending over Christ’s name (how’s that for hypocritical anyway?) and go find someone who needs our care and succor, I believe that’s what Christ would have us do.
Regards,
BW
posted July 12, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Ryan:
I’m catchn’ what you’re thrown’.
It’s unfortunate though, that these distinctions have to be made. “Catholics”, “Protestants”, “Mormons”. But the reason for this is clear. Most of these distinctions have been made usually in response to wrong teachings about the Bible. There no longer exists a single definition for what it means to be Christian. So, distinctions are made in order not to help differentiate between true and false ideas of what it means to be Christian (or some other theological issue).
Where at one time I might consider myself “catholic” (lower case ‘c’), I would now refer to myself as “Protestant” but only relative to Catholicism, since Protestants “protested” the Catholic church. Mormons call themselves Mormons because they reject Catholics and Protestants. etc, etc.
Look, we know that when Christ comes He will separate the wheat from the chaff. He will not be looking at what title we gave ourselves. He will be looking for those who have been worshiping him in spirit and in truth! His sheep hear his voice and follow Him.
“What is the difference between Baptists, Southern Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, Episcopals, Unitarians, and the folks from the Church of Christ?”
Beats me…anyone else?
posted July 12, 2007 at 2:55 pm
“Perhaps we cannot come to consensus in this forum on which definition is appropriate; but at least in each person’s heart, they can decide on the definition that fits their own feelings. I feel like the second definition allows Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons all to claim discipleship of Christ, even if our particular modes of worship vary from each other.”
Nathan, Nathan, Nathan. Please don’t fall into a “whatever feels good for you is true” trap. That is not how we resolve this. I agree that we will probably not come to a consensus on who is a true Christian on this comment board. But that doesn’t mean we have to throw out reason.
We can, however, agree to disagree!
Sure, if you want to define Christian in the most simplest of terms in order to be inclusive of all, that’s your prerogative.
But if you want to define a Christian by what the Bible says…
posted July 12, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Lazarus Lives ( again from LivingScriptures, my family (we are all LDS) just adore these cartoons. They are wonderful! The ones which Orson Card worked are great too! )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iPhC7rqqyk
posted July 12, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Brady,
I just quoted the scriptures.
And it is clear that the “fulness of the gospe;” and the “fulness of my scripture” are mutually exclusive terms according to the Doctrine & Covenants.
Also, Since both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach us to “ask God” when questions arise, the answers can become additional concepts and truth that we did not previously have, thus the seed planted in the injunction to “ask God” can bear the fruit of the “fulness of the Gospel, without every word, teaching or concept being originally listed in toto.
posted July 12, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Nowandlater and Stuart,
The challenge is still on the table…Please show me one passage from either the Book of Mormon or the Bible the either directly OR indirectly to the New and Everlasting Covenant that speaks of Eternal Marriage.
You have showed me zero passages that support the Mormon Doctrine of Eternal Marriage from the Bible or Book of Mormon.
Stuart, you made a comment about the Trinity above…notice that I have said in this posting and in an earlier one that no where in the Bible or the Book of Mormon is eternal marriage referred to directly OR INDIRECTLY. The Word Trinity is not found in the Bible, but the teachings that there is one and only one God that has existed and now exists from all eternity past and that God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God (NOT three separate Gods) is found all over the Bible. We can discuss this later though.
I don’t want you to get distracted on the topic of the Trinity yet though because…My first question has NOT been answered.
-Brady
posted July 12, 2007 at 3:40 pm
I have given ample citations about family and marriage. If you can’t see what is there then I can not help.
posted July 12, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Why do Mormons worship and sing praises to Joseph Smith, Jr. Istead of only worshipping the God of the Bible? Isn’t that Idolatry?
One of the songs that I am referring to that is sung in Mormon churches is “Praise to the Man.” The Lyrics are below…
Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah!
Jesus annointed that Prophet and Seer.
Blessed to open the last dispensation,
Kings shall extol him, and nations revere.
Chorus
Hail to the Prophet, ascended to heaven!
Traitors and tyrants now fight him in vain.
Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren;
Death cannot conquer the hero again.
Praise to his mem’ry, he died as a martyr;
Honored and blest be his ever great name!
Long shall his blood, which was shed by assasins,
Plead unto heav’n while the earth lauds his fame.
Chorus
Great is his glory and endless his priesthood.
Ever and ever the keys he will hold.
Faithful and true he will enter his kingdom,
Crowned in the midst of the prophets of old.
Chorus
Sacrifice brings forth the blessings of heaven;
Earth must atone for the blood of that man.
Wake up the world for the conflict of justice.
Millions shall know “Brother Joseph” again.
I will let that idolatrous song speak for itself!
I WILL NEVER SING PRAISES TO AND THEREFORE WORSHIP ANYTHING…BUT THE ONE GOD OF THE BIBLE!
THIS IS YET ANOTHER REASON WHY MORMONS ARE NOT CHRISTIANS!
posted July 12, 2007 at 3:43 pm
“You mentioned I don’t know how many times that there was nothing for you to DO in the church. That would be an incredibly difficult situation because the salvation of Mormons is based on the things that you DO…good works or bad works. ”
That’s not true, and that’s a flat misrepresentation of what Card said. Card was talking about how Mormons assimilate into their own communities, and that is by action.
You on the other hand wish to excommunicate us from Christ based on what you pretend that we believe.
Jesus said that you would know our beliefs, through our works. “By this shall men know, ye are my disciples, if you have love one for another.” That’s not about whether God will save us. That’s about how Christians should recognize each other.
How about you stop playing God, and follow Jesus’ actual directions, to determine who is Christian?
posted July 12, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Dear Matt,
You said:
>>How do you normally define ‘Christian’?
>>One who confesses Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
>>Now, before you say that we agree on this, let me also say that our understanding of what it means to confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior needs to be fleshed out. For instance, what does it mean that He is Lord? Lord of what? What does it mean to confess Him as Savior? What is a savior? What does he save us from? Etc. We can discuss this if you would like, but for now, let me answer the rest of your questions.
—-
Matt, your definition sounds good. And we do agree on it. And we could discuss what it means for Christ to be a “Savior” and “Lord”. But let’s talk a little bit about that issue. I imagine that you would be willing to say that it is true that Jesus’ original disciples were Christians. They didn’t have the Bible. Most of them couldn’t read anyway, and were not familiar with Greek philosophical thought. I would even go a step further and say that many of them thought of Jesus as their Savior in very simple terms–He saved them from sin and death. Yet, I am 99.9999% sure that you would say they were Christians, in the truest sense of the word.
So, if you are willing to let these people, who have a very rudimentary (and in many cases, possibly incorrect) understanding of Jesus as Lord, but who nonetheless continued in the faith and were often killed for their beliefs, have the appelation “Christian” then why not Mormons?
But, if you still have problems applying the term to us, here is my challenge: Present to me what you believe to be a doctrine of our church which disqualifies our understanding of Jesus as Lord and Savior, but which does not exclude either the early Christians or some current Protestants. Just make sure no early Christians believed it, and that you truly and honestly feel that it is so heretical that it disqualifies us completely.
You also said:
>>I would also ask, “According to your understanding, what must one do to be saved.”
>>One must repent from sin and plead for mercy from God.
It is God whom we have offended with our sin. We ALREADY stand condemned before Him. Our only hope of being saved from His wrath against our sin is to confess Jesus as our substitute and only hope of forgiveness. We can’t obey God because by nature we are sinful. We are unrighteous before God.
>>Yet, for God so loved the world, that he sent his son, not just to die in our place for our sin, but to live the righteous life we can’t live. When we believe in Him, not only do we receive forgiveness of sin, we receive the righteousness (perfect life) of Christ and adoption as sons. God now sees us as righteous (perfect) not because we possess that righteousness (perfection) in ourselves, but because we have been give Christ’s righteousness (perfection). That is why there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. God no longer sees us as unrighteous (imperfect) because He sees Christ’s righteousness.
Rom 8:3-4 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, (4) so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
And, once you believe, you are sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise who is given as a pledge of our inheritance. (Eph 1).
——
I actually agree with this. I also believe that Christ’s atonement is what made it possible for all mankind to attempt to participate with Christ in the salvation process.
I would go further, and say that salvation from sin and death is not the end of the journey, but that we should work to become more Christlike in our daily walk, and retain a remission of our sins. That we come “to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” that we may “know as we are known” and be “joint-heirs with Christ.” We must endure to the end, run the race, etc… (to take symbolism from Paul). We must “do [good] to the least of these my brethren”, relying on Christ to give us the strength and ability to do so. Eternal life consists in knowing God (John 17:3), and “hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.” (1 John 2:3).
You might disagree with my understanding of these things; but I think you can admit that they are not foreign to Christian thought.
Best,
P. Nielsen
posted July 12, 2007 at 4:39 pm
You kept all the commandments??? Wow I don’t know anyone that can do that, except Jesus. You never told a lie during that time, not even one?
Just found that statement to be amazing.
posted July 12, 2007 at 4:41 pm
P. Nielsen:
In the interest of waning time, I will just respond to your last comment. But so as not to give the appearance that I am avoiding your questions, let me briefly answer your challenge by saying this: Our differences would be clarified if we were to spend the time to flesh out what we mean by Lord and Savior.
Now, to your comment:
“I also believe that Christ’s atonement is what made it possible for all mankind to attempt to participate with Christ in the salvation process.”
This comment reveals to me that you do not understand what salvation really means, at least in a Biblical sense. Let me put it this way:
We are separated from God because of our sin. Right? We sin because we have sinful natures. We cannot be reconciled to God by ourselves. We are already estranged from Him due to our sin. We can’t pay for our own sin AND go to heaven. If we pay for our own sin, we will be in Hell for an eternity–forever! That’s how much God hates sin.
Yet, God!, in His great mercy has offered up His son as a substitute, to pay for my sin and to give me His righteousness!
When Christ “atoned” for my sin, He satisfied God’s wrath against my sin. In other words, God took his wrath for my sin out on Jesus Christ, who willingly laid down His life for me (what amazing love Jesus Christ has for His sheep!!!! How precious it is indeed!!!)
Now that God’s wrath for my sin has been satisfied, atoned for, in Christ, I have full and free access to God to enjoy Him for all eternity. God is satisfied!
Anyone who has been truly saved has been given a new nature. That’s what it means to be reborn. God makes what was once dead in sin, alive! Even when we were dead in our trespasses and sin, God made us alive together with Him! Eph 2.
So, back to your comment:
God doesn’t just make it POSSIBLE to “participate with Christ in the salvation process”. No!!! He actually DOES SAVE people. And guess what He saves us from? His own wrath. You see, God’s justice and mercy converge at the cross. His justice is satisfied because Christ absorbs the wrath of God (His hatred for sin)! God’s mercy is put on display at the cross precisely because He provides a substitute.
posted July 12, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Ummmm….
Shall we list all traditional hymns which sing about prophets? What a desperate accussation!
posted July 12, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Doug,
Where did I say that? Why is it that when I only quoted the scriptures you immediately assumed I was making some impossible claim? Are you interested in understanding my position, or are you interested in winning an argument?
posted July 12, 2007 at 4:46 pm
“God doesn’t just make it POSSIBLE to “participate with Christ in the salvation process”. No!!! He actually DOES SAVE people. And guess what He saves us from? His own wrath. You see, God’s justice and mercy converge at the cross. His justice is satisfied because Christ absorbs the wrath of God (His hatred for sin)! God’s mercy is put on display at the cross precisely because He provides a substitute.”
Ok, so when Christ says “Come follow me”, you advocate not following him, but to standstill and declare how mighty Christ is to save. That’s fine for you to believe, but I believe in active faith in actually following Jesus Christ.
posted July 12, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Brady:You have showed me zero passages that support the Mormon Doctrine of Eternal Marriage from the Bible or Book of Mormon.
Stuart, you made a comment about the Trinity above…notice that I have said in this posting and in an earlier one that no where in the Bible or the Book of Mormon is eternal marriage referred to directly OR INDIRECTLY. The Word Trinity is not found in the Bible, but the teachings that there is one and only one God that has existed and now exists from all eternity past and that God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God (NOT three separate Gods) is found all over the Bible. We can discuss this later though.
GB:Can you say DOUBLE STANDARD?
posted July 12, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Matt,
You seem to be taking a Calvinistic view, whereby the saved were already saved at the moment Christ atoned for sin. In this view, man doesn’t participate in salvation at all, it is only the work of the Son.
I take a universalistic position, that Christ payed the price for all sin to His Father, buying *all* mankind (if you will). But I also believe that we must then covenant with Christ to do His will, and repent when we fall short, otherwise Christ will not own us (i.e. we will not “abide in Him” 1 John 2) and He will allow all the effects of justice to rest upon us. Christ’s atonement and resurrection save all mankind from the effects of Adam’s fall (physical and spiritual death). At the same time, Christ’s atonement makes it *possible* for all mankind to repent and be saved from their own sins, and receive eternal life, if they do what Christ asks (have faith, repent, be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, and endure to the end).
Your view, while common among many Protestant denominations, is not universal. Do you really think it separates true Christians from non-Christians? Many denominations reject Calvinism and his TULIP doctrines.
Best,
P. Nielsen
posted July 12, 2007 at 5:00 pm
You mentioned that there were traditional (which I am assuming means nonMomron) hymns that sing about prophets. A prophet of the Bible might be mentioned in a Christian (nonMormon) hymn, but I ask that you show me one instance that a Christian (nonMormon) hymn is sung praising/worshipping a man.
The only purpose of singing praises is to Worship the one God of the Bible…Why do Mormons explicitly sing praise to and therefore Worship Joseph Smith and therefore openly practice Idolatry in Church regularly?
posted July 12, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Nowandlater:
I do not advocate not following Him. In fact Christ commands ALL men to follow Him. And I also believe in active faith. In fact, as James wrote, faith without works is dead. Right! So to say you have faith and NOT act is really not faith at all.
But ask yourself this: Who are those who follow Christ? Who are the one’s who respond to God in faith and follow Him?
Why does person “A”, who is dead in his sins, one day decide to follow Jesus and person “B”, equally dead in his sins, not follow Jesus?
(BTW: I recognize this is WAY off topic, and I know I am partly to blame. But I hope others see these discussions providing some definitions to terms both Mormons and Christians use.)
The Bible clearly states that, even when we were dead in our sins, God made us alive together with Him. So my answer to my own question above is: those who truly respond to the call to follow him are one’s whom God has made alive in Him! (Ephesians 2). First God makes alive, then we respond in faith. Dead men can’t walk neither can they express faith in God until they have been made alive!
posted July 12, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Brady says:
The challenge is still on the table…Please show me one passage from either the Book of Mormon or the Bible the either directly OR indirectly to the New and Everlasting Covenant that speaks of Eternal Marriage.
Mike says: Since revelation has been received in our day expa\laining the concept of marriage more fully, and since the Bbile says that we may learn the truth by asking God, you show us where in the Bible further revelation is forbidden.
And I am ready to discuss the Revelation scripture that talks about not “adding to or taking from the word of God”, and the “accursed for presching another gospel” scripture, so I hope you have somthing better than that.
Mike
posted July 12, 2007 at 5:37 pm
BRADY: I did giv you a scripture, its called genesis where God makes Adam and Eve one in marriage for eternity (what God [the Eternal] puts together let not man put asunder)
I give you a scripture and you continue to not deal with it.
Regarding the trinity: Was Jesus crazy in that he prayed to Himself? Does Jesus know how to throw his voice so that it appears to come from the heavens, while he is physically in the water? Same thing regarding on the Mount of Transfiguration? Does that mean that Peter is also part of God, why limit it to the Trinity, Christ told the Apsotles that they could become one with Him as He is with the Father. Ohh an d by the way, there is only one God to whom LDS people worship, that is the Eternal Father.
Come on guys…give me a better explanation other than the Father and I are one scripture…
And by the way, BRADY, had you been a Jew at the time of Christ, are you sure you would have followed Him, He did teach things that were NEW and expounded on things that Isaiah and other prophets had only alluded too. The JEWS too said give me a scripture.
posted July 12, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Stuart:
You wrote: “I did giv you a scripture, its called genesis where God makes Adam and Eve one in marriage for eternity (what God [the Eternal] puts together let not man put asunder)”
It says, let not MAN seperate>. Here is what Jesus said:
Mat 22:24-32 asking, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘IF A MAN DIES HAVING NO CHILDREN, HIS BROTHER AS NEXT OF KIN SHALL MARRY HIS WIFE, AND RAISE UP CHILDREN FOR HIS BROTHER.’ (25) “Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother; (26) so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh. (27) “Last of all, the woman died. (28) “In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her.” (29) But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.
(30) “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
posted July 12, 2007 at 5:49 pm
LDS Boy
You are obviously NOT a Mormon. But an Anti-Mormon trying to deceive people about what we believe as is their trade craft. But your ignorance of real Mormon Doctrine gives you away.
posted July 12, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Matt:(30) “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
GB: Obviously no marriage ceremonies will occur “in the resurrection”. That doesn’t mean that marriages preformed by the sealing power of the Priesthood given to Peter on earth will be dissolved “in the resurrection”.
posted July 12, 2007 at 6:01 pm
BRADY…do you know how to read. I responded to that question earlier, but let me do it again just in case.
The scripture in matthew is correct! For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage. LDS people do not believe in performing eternal marriages after the resurrection, the same goes with any of the ordinances (baptism, laying on of hands for gift of holy ghost, etc.)
Why do you think Jesus was asked the question by those who did not follow or believe in Jesus? It was an attempt to get Jesus to contradict His teachings with those of the OT.
posted July 12, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Well LDS BOY, consider you mention a Mormon Pastor, it is obvious you are not LDS!
posted July 12, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Curious,
I suspect you think Catholics aren’t Christians because of their hymns about Mary. Hmmm…I can go to many other denominations; there is a lot more. This could get interesting.
——————————–
Daily Daily Sing to Mary
Sing my soul her praises due
All her feasts her actions worship
With the heart’s devotion true
Lost in wond’ring contemplation
Be her Majesty confess’d
Call her Mother, call her Virgin
Happy Mother Virgin Blest
She is mighty to deliver
Call her trust her lovingly
When the tempest rages round thee
She will calm the troubled sea
Gifts of heaven she has given
Noble Lady to our race
She the Queen who decks her subject
With the light of God’s own grace.
posted July 12, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Isn’t is sad that some so called “christians” are willing to lie and falsely impersonate to deceive other Christians about the true doctrines of the LDS church?
posted July 12, 2007 at 6:19 pm
LDSboy said:
Mormons, I invite all of you to state what we believe in before all these people:
Mike: The tone of your post makes it clear that you are not currently LDS. So don’t be disingenuous about it. Maybe you are a disgruntled ex-Mormon or claim to be one, but you are not a current active Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So you are a liar. So why should I believe your statements about what Mormons believe. And I really admire your courage in not stating your real name, as I have here.
SocalledLDSboy: We believe that ALL churches founded between 100 AD and 1820 AD were corrupt and abominations to God. We believe that Joseph Smith, our prophet, restored the true church of the God of Mormon.
Mike: We believe that there was an apostasy from the truth and that many plain and precious things were lsot including the ordinances of the gospel. Isaiah 24:5 “The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the eeverlasting fcovenant.”
SocalledLDSboy: We believe that God was once a man. We believe that we have to learn how to be Gods ourselves as all Gods have done before us.
Mike: 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 aseeth the bFather do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise
John 17:20-24 20 Neither apray I for these alone, but for them also which shall bbelieve on me through their word;
21 That they all may be aone; as thou, bFather, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be cone in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be aone, even as we are bone:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made aperfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast bloved them, as thou hast loved me.
24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
Romans 8, 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the cchildren of God:
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.
Revelations 3:20-22 20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will bcome in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
We believe that Jesus followed God the Father’s example by taking upon him a mortal body, and since you mostly believe in the trinity and thus cannot separate the three personages, God in the form of Christ became a man and we can become like him. We can be one with him as he is one with the Father, be joint heirs with him and sit down with him on Father’s throne. The Bible says so.
SocalledLDSboy: We believe that our purpose is to join the Mormon Church and to earn our way to Godhood by following Mormon rights and privileges.
Mike: We believe Jesus when he says that Baptism and other ordinances are necessary, and overcome to be like him and be one with him and be joint heirs with him and sit on his throne by keeping His commandments.
SocalledLDSboy: We believe that the God of Mormon is procreating with his retinue of wives in heaven and is sending down spirit babies, which are us.
Mike: Be believe that we are children of God. See Romans 8.
SocalledLDSboy: We believe that Jesus was the first spirit baby and that his brother, Lucifer, the devil, was the second spirit baby.
We do believe that Jesus was the firstborn in the Spirit and the only begotten in the flesh.
There is no doctrine in the LDS church that Lucifer was the “second spirit baby” I dare you to show me a direct quote anywhere in LDS sources on this. This is an untruth. If you were really LDS you would know this.
SocalledLDSboy: We believe that there are three heavens. A lower heaven for unbelievers. A middle heaven for unworthy Mormons. And finally, a celestial heaven where Mormon men are given a planet just like our God of Mormon.
Mike: Apparently so did the Apostle Paul:
1st Corinthians 15:40-42 40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41 There is one glory of the asun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
2nd Cor 12:1-4 It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third dheaven.
3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)
4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
We believe that the telestial kingdom is mainly for those who actively do evil mommon and non-mormon alike.
The terrestrial is mainly for those who failed to do good, mormon and non-mormon alike
The celestial is for those who ebntered into sacred covenants with God and kept them, the gateway is baptism as the Bible teaches in Mark 16:16 and Matthew 28.
SocalledLDSboy: We believe that the highest calling for a Mormon woman is to be eternally pregnant so she can populate a planet with spirit babies.
Mike: Since God’s highest calling is to bring us into being and save us, and since Jesus said “come follw me” and since we are to become like him and be prefected in him, We would naturally want to do what he does and what his Father does. There is no specific way revealed about how this creative process works in heaven. I dare you to show me a passage in canonized LDS doctrine that says otherwise.
SocalledLDSboy: We believe that NO ONE can go to heaven without the consent of Jospeh Smith, who reigns supreme.
We believe that Jesus is the keeper of the gate, that no man comes to the father but by Him. We believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet like Moses or Isaiah and an apostle like Peter or John, but he never claimed perfection and He likewise will not enter Heaven except through Christ. Again if you were really LDS you would know this.
SocalledLDSboy: We believe that we can baptise in the name of the dead.
And so does the Bible teach:
1st Cor 15:29 Else what shall they do which are abaptized bfor the dead, if the dead crise not at all? why are they then baptized for the ddead?
1st Peter 3:18-21 18 For Christ also hath once asuffered for sins, the just for the bunjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to cdeath in the flesh, but quickened by the dSpirit:
19 By which also he went and apreached unto the bspirits in cprison;
20 aWhich sometime were bdisobedient, when once the clongsuffering of God waited in the days of dNoah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were esaved by fwater.
21 The like figure whereunto even abaptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
1st Peter 4:6 6 aFor for this cause was the bgospel cpreached also to them that are ddead, that they might be ejudged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.
SocalledLDSboy: We believe that the Bible to be the word of God, BUT that a correct translation of the Bible is impossible to acquire. Therefore…
Mike: I have been quoting to you out of the Bible. I use both the KJV and the NIV, but I challenge you to discuss any of these doctrines and prove that they are not so from the scriptures.
We have no original text of the Bible, even the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest extant texts of portions of the Bible are only copies or copies of copies, and there are thousands of translations containing millions of variations
SocalledLDSboy: We believe that the Book of Mormon is the true word of the God of Mormon.
Mike: We believe that the Book of Mormon is another true testament of Jesus Christ as is the Bible. These are the words of the God of the Bible and the God of the New Testament, and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. We co not use the term “God of Mormon” If you were really LDS you would know that.
So calledLDSboy: We believe that, according to our prophet Joseph Smith, the Jews will not return to their land until they have all received Christ.
Mike: We believe no such doctrine. Document your allegation.
So calledLDSboy: We believe that the Jewish temple will be rebuilt not in Jerusalem but in Jackson Country, Missouri.
Mike: We believe that the Jewish Temple will be built in Jerusalem.
We also believe that a temple will be built in Jackson County Missouri.
We currently have over 120 operating temples, one currently in Missouri. If you were really LDS you would know this.
SocalledLDSboy: We believe that Mormon President Spencer Kimball received a new revelation in 1978 that allows blacks to join the Mormon Church.
Mike: Yes we do. We also believe that Peter received a revelation allowing the gospel to be taught to the gentiles in New Testament times: See Acts 10:1-31
SocalledLDSboy: We believe that Joseph Smith shot and killed at least two men when he was attacked in Illinois in 1836.
Mike: We know that Joseph acted in self defense against a mob that had already killed his brother. A mob numbering in the hundreds.
Does not SocalledLDSboy believe in self defense?
SocalledLDSboy: We believe that Joseph Smith was arrested in 1826 and convicted of fraud for glass-looking and fraud.
We believe what is written at this link:
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2002_1826_Trial_of_Joseph_Smith.html
SocalledLDSboy: We believe that any non-Mormon church is an abomination to the God of Mormon.
Mike: We believe that God will give all men and women an opportunity to accept the true gospel of Jesus Christ in this life or in the Spirit world. Show me what organization, doctrine or mechanism any other Christian church has that will save those who never even heard of Christ. show me a church that has a specific, organized missionary program to teach as many people as can be reached.
Article of Faith #11 We claim the aprivilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the bdictates of our own cconscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may
SocalledLDSboy: Let’s show everyone what we REALLY believe in, Mormons!
Mike: Yes. Let’s. But let us tell the truth and not try to foist a pack of lies upon the uninformed public. and let us own up to who we really are.
Mike
posted July 12, 2007 at 6:23 pm
The New and Everlasting Covenant in LDS Theology means all the ordninances of the Gospel mediated through Jesus Christ culminating with marriage. It is Faith in Jesus Christ, Repentance, Baptism by immersion, The Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying of hands, Temple ordinances, and marriage. Same blessings of all the Patriachs are promised to us as mediated through Jesus Christ, the Great Jehovah.
——————-
Gen. 9: 16
16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
Gen. 17: 7
7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
Num. 25: 13
13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was dzealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.
Isa. 24: 5
5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the cordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
Isa. 55: 3
3 Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.
Jer. 31: 31
31 ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer. 32: 40
40 And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.
Ezek. 37: 26
26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting ccovenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.
Heb. 8: 13
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth bold is ready to vanish away.
Heb. 12: 24
24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh ebetter things than that of Abel.
Heb. 13: 20
20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting ccovenant,
posted July 12, 2007 at 6:35 pm
LDS Boy
See Mikes post of 6:19 pm
Although there is a minor correction to his post.
SocalledLDSboy: We believe that Mormon President Spencer Kimball received a new revelation in 1978 that allows blacks to join the Mormon Church.
GB: “blacks” have always been able to “join the Mormon Church”. But yes we believe that the 1978 revelation allowed “blacks” access to the Priesthood. We also believe that Peter received a revelation allowing the gospel to be taught to the gentiles in New Testament times: See Acts 10:1-31
posted July 12, 2007 at 6:45 pm
One addition
I did not read closely enough one of SocalledLDSboy’s alleged beliefs:
SocalledLDSboy:
SocalledLDSboy: We believe that Mormon President Spencer Kimball received a new revelation in 1978 that allows blacks to join the Mormon Church.
Mike: blacks could be members of the church from the day it was orgianized. The 1978 revelation gave Blacks access to the priesthood and the temple ordinances. If SocalledLDSboy were really a Mormon he would know this as well. Another untruth from so-calledLDSboy.
Mike
posted July 12, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Thanks GB you caught it before I did.
And if LDSboy is really a Mormon then i’m Napoleon.
posted July 12, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Margaret Barker, “What Did Josiah Reform? The Earlier Religion of Israel,” BYU Speeches (6 May 2003) Non-LDS Cambridge scholar, Margaret Barker, discusses some of the interesting aspects of ancient Israel (and the Israelite temple). LDS scholars recognize some uniquely LDS traits in the things noted by Barker.
http://speeches.byu.edu/freefiles/provider2/type2/Barker_Margaret_2003.mp3
This is just too good!
posted July 12, 2007 at 7:22 pm
I am a Converted Mormon and have been in this Church for some years and the reason’s why I baptized in this Church is because I Pray and search for a Church that would fill my life and Soul. However, it is sad that someone would say that because it was a Democrat vice a Republican no callings were given,etc.
If you are a true religious person, the reason why you attend a church us to worship Our Heavenly Father and not to critize or post emails that would hurt others. If we are religious or not, we should at least have the love to towards others even if they don’t love us. If not then take a look at Jesus Example and see if he return a slap with a slap.
Yes we at The Church of Latter Saints of Jesus Christ consider to be Christians since we follow the teachings of Christ and for our youth there is a wonderful support system. Let’s teach our kids to love and be kind and avoid to point fingers at anyone.
I feel sad to read only critics on a report, we already have enought hate in other places around the world, we do not need to write things to hurt others.
I am very sorry and apologize to the Brother who was not treated properly, but remember we need to go to Church for God and not just for the people. We are humans and make mistakes and at the End we will individually pay for our own sins.
Love,
Zio
posted July 12, 2007 at 7:39 pm
ANOTHER GOSPEL?
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims to be the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.
As members of that church we are often taken to task by the ministers and members of other churches who are critical of that claim. They say that we worship a “different Jesus” than they worship. They say that our doctrine is not “Biblical Christianity”. They often quote the following Bible passage as support.
Galatians 1:6-8 NIV 6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
Galations 1:6-8 KJV 6 I marvel that ye are so soon aremoved from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another bgospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the cgospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Now when this scripture is quoted, the critics of the LDS church, use it to maintain that Mormons are accursed, and are “going to hell”. (Lon Solomon, Pastor of the McClean Va. Bible Church makes such a claim)
This post is written to examine the “gospel” preached by Jesus, his Apostles, and other Prophets in the Bible to determine what doctrines were originally taught that may be missing today. As we do this it should become clear what the gospel contains and what is missing from doctrine now.
1. GOD CREATED MAN IN HIS OWN IMAGE, MALE AND FEMALE
Genesis 1:26-27 NIV 26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
2. GOD HAS A BODY
Genesis 32:30 NIV 30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, [f] saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”
Exodus 24:9-11 NIV 9 Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up 10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of sapphire, [b] clear as the sky itself. 11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.
Luke 24:36-42 NIV 36While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”
37They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”
40When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43and he took it and ate it in their presence.
3. MEN CAN BECOME LIKE JESUS AND BE ONE WITH HIM AND THE FATHER
Jesus Prays for All Believers
John 17:20-24 NIV 20″My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. 24″Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.
Philippians 3:20-21 NIV 20But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.
1st John 3:1-2 NIV 1How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears,[a]we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.
Romans 8:16-17 NIV 16The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. 17Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.
Revelation 3:20-22 NIV 20Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. 21To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. 22He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”
LET US SUMMARIZE POINTS 1,2 & 3: A BIBLE CHURCH WILL TEACH THAT GOD HAS A BODY, THAT MAN AND WOMAN ARE CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF THAT BODY AND THAT THOSE WHO OVERCOME WILL BE LIKE GOD, WILL BE ONE WITH GOD, WILL BE HEIRS OF GOD, WILL SIT WITH HIM ON HIS THRONE.
What else does the Bible teach?
4. FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST MANIFESTED BY KEEPING HIS COMMANDMENTS
John 14:15 NIV “If you love me, you will obey what I command.
John14:21 NIV 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 15:14 NIV You are my friends if you do what I command.
Hebrews 11:4-40 NIV 4 BY FAITH ABEL OFFERED GOD A BETTER SACRIFICE than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.
5 BY FAITH ENOCH was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. 6And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
7 BY FAITH NOAH, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear BUILT AN ARK to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
8 BY FAITH ABRAHAM, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, OBEYED AND WENT, even though he did not know where he was going. 9 By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.
11 BY FAITH ABRAHAM, even though he was past age—and Sarah herself was barren—was enabled to BECOME A FATHER because he[a]considered him faithful who had made the promise. 12And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.
13All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. 14People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.
17 BY FAITH ABRAHAM, when God tested him, OFFERED ISAAC as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring[b] will be reckoned.”[c] 19Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.
20 BY FAITH JACOB BLESSED ISAAC AND ESAU in regard to their future.
21 BY FAITH JACOB, when he was dying, BLESSED EACH OF JOSEPH’S SONS, and worshiped as he leaned on the top of his staff.
22 BY FAITH JOSEPH, when his end was near, SPOKE ABOUT THE EXODUS of the Israelites from Egypt and gave instructions about his bones.
23 BY FAITH MOSES’ PARENTS HID HIM for three months after he was born, because they saw he was no ordinary child, and they were not afraid of the king’s edict.
24 BY FAITH MOSES, when he had grown up, REFUSED to be known as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. 25 HE CHOSE TO BE MISTREATED along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a short time. 26 He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward. 27 BY FAITH HE LEFT EGYPT, not fearing the king’s anger; he persevered because he saw him who is invisible. 28 BY FAITH HE KEPT THE PASSOVER and the sprinkling of blood, so that the destroyer of the firstborn would not touch the firstborn of Israel.
29 BY FAITH THE PEOPLE PASSED THROUGH THE RED SEA[d] as on dry land; but when the Egyptians tried to do so, they were drowned.
30 BY FAITH the walls of Jericho fell, after the PEOPLE HAD MARCHED around them for seven days.
31 BY FAITH THE PROSTITUTE RAHAB, because she WELCOMED THE SPIES, was not killed with those who were disobedient.[e]
32 AND WHAT MORE SHALL I SAY I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets, 33 who THROUGH FAITH CONQUERED KINGDOMS, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, 34quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. 35Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection. 36Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison. 37They were stoned[f]; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated— 38the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground.
39 THESE WERE ALL COMMENDED FOR THEIR FAITH, yet none of them received what had been promised. 40God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.
James2:14-19 NIV 14 WHAT GOOD IS IT, my brothers, IF A MAN CLAIMS TO HAVE FAITH BUT HAS NO DEEDS? Can such faith save him? 15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
19You believe that there is one God. Good! EVEN THE DEMONS BELIEVE that—and shudder.
5. REPENTENCE BY THOSE WHO HAVE FAITH
Matt 3:8 NIV Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.
Mark 1:4 NIV And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Luke 13:2-3 NIV 2Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.
Acts 17:30 NIV In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.
Acts 26:20 NIV First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their REPENTENCE BY THEIR DEEDS.
6. BAPTISM NECESSARY FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS BY THOSE WHO BELIEVE TO ENTER THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
Matt 3:13-15 NIV 13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” 15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.
Matt 28:19-20 NIV 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. . .
Mark 16:16 NIV Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Luke 7:30 NIV But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God’s purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John)
John 3:5 NIV Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
Acts 2:37-38 NIV 37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
38 Peter 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.
Acts 10:48 NIV 48 So he (Peter) ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Acts 22:13-15 NIV 13 He (Ananias) stood beside me and said, ‘Brother Saul, (Paul) receive your sight!’ And at that very moment I was able to see him.
14″Then he said: ‘The God of our fathers has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth. 15You will be his witness to all men of what you have seen and heard. 16And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’
1st Peter 3:21 NIV and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge[e] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
7. GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST BY THE LAYING ON OF HANDS BY THOSE WITH AUTHORITY
Acts 8:17-17 NIV 14When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. 15When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into[c] the name of the Lord Jesus. 17Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
LET US SUMMARIZE POINTS 4-7. A BIBLE CHURCH WILL TEACH FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST MANIFESTED BY WORKS OF REPENTENCE, BAPTISM AS A NECESSARY ORDINANCE TO ENTER THE KINGDOM OF GOD, AND LAYING ON OF HANDS BY THOSE IN AUTHORITY FOR THE GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST.
DOES YOUR CHURCH TEACH THESE DOCTRINES AS PLAINLY EXPRESSED IN THE BIBLE? IF NOT, DOES THE CONDEMNATION EXPRESSED BY THE BIBLE IN GALATIANS APPLY TO THOSE WHO TEACH IN THAT CHURCH?
posted July 12, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Why did Joseph Smith practice Polygamy before he “got a revelation from God” that it was alright?
Why was the later “revelation from God” for Mormons to stop polygamy right after the United States made it officially illegal?
Why did Joseph Smith marry women who were still married to their living husbands?
Why did Joseph Smith marry several 14 and 16 year old girls?
Why did Joseph Smith have approximately 30 wives?
ETC,
ETC.
posted July 12, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Response to Above Polygamy questions?
Why did Abraham the “Father of the Faithful” have plural wives?
Why did Jacob, the Father of the House of Israel have plural wives?
Why did Peter receive revelation to allow Gentiles to be taught the Gospel?
Why did God command adherence to the Law of Moses?
Why did God later rescind the Law of Moses?
Why did God command Abraham to kill Isaac?
The answer to all these and all the polygamy questions:
James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom let him ask of God who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not and it shall be given him.
posted July 12, 2007 at 8:04 pm
One thing that I would like to see in this debate is textual examples. Both men are very eloquent; however, concrete examples of what they are talking about are sparse. Also it doesn’t matter what each person thinks will happen if Romney is elected president. Yes that will have an effect on the world, but it does not change the question at hand: is Mormonism compatible with Christianity as taught by Jesus and the apostles in the New Testament.
Dr. Mohler:
You made the following statements regarding Mormonism:
“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. The Mormon doctrine of God includes many gods, not one. 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.”
Can you point to the Mormon literature that leads you to believe these things?
Mr. Card:
Similar question, are Dr. Mohler’s statements false and if not then why would that not disqualify Mormonism from inclusion under the banner of legitimate Christianity?
I am looking forward to reading future essays by both of you.
posted July 12, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Mike, No where in the Bible does it ever say that polygamy is alright for anyone to practice…no where. Please show me one place where it says that polygamy was something that was accepted or approved by God. There were those in the Bible who did practice polygamy and they were wrong and sinful. The Lord refers to polygamy as an abomination…that is a pretty serious no, no! Then please look at all the places in the Bible that speak negatively about polygamy.
posted July 12, 2007 at 8:23 pm
I have thoroughly enjoyed my LDS friends. It is refreshing to be around people who live their convictions. So, it is not with malice, but with deep love and respect that I point out a few of the numerous scientific problems in the Book of Mormon.
LANGUAGE PROBLEMS
1 Nephi 1:2 and Mosiah 1:4 assert that the native language of the Hebrews in 600-91 BC was Egyptian. Mormon 9:32 differs in saying that it was Reformed Egyptian around 400 AD. However, it is well established that in 600 BC the Hebrews spoke Hebrew. As a result of the Babylonian Captivity (560-538 BC) Hebrew was reduced to the language of the scribes, priests and rabbis. Aramaic became the language of the Hebrews. Then, in 70 AD, Titus forced the Hebrews out of Palestine, and they acquired the languages of the nations to which they were scattered. The Hebrews had not spoken Egyptian since Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt many centuries earlier.
In consulting with professors of Semitic languages at the University of California and elsewhere, I could find no evidence of the existence of “Reformed Egyptian”, nor for the claim that the following words are Egyptian or Semitic at all: Shazar (1 Nephi 16:13-14), Irreantum (1 Nephi 17:5), deseret (for “bee’ in Ether 2:3), Liahona (Alma 37:38), or other names that are unique to the Book of Mormon.
GEOGRAPHICAL PROBLEMS
2 Nephi 5:15:16 is self-contradictory about the presence of minerals.
1 Nephi 17:5 is a description of Arabia which is “called Bountiful because of its much fruit and also wild honey.” Arabia is bountiful in sunshine, petroleum, sand, heat and fresh air, but certainly not in “much fruit and also wild honey”, nor has it been since creation times. 1 Nephi 18:1 indicates that the Jews made a ship from ample timber of Arabia. The same objection above applies here.
1 Nephi 2:6-9 speaks of an Arabian river named Laman that flows continually into the Red Sea! There has been no river whatever in Arabia in recorded history!
The numerous descriptions of the Nephite’s new land cannot be correlated with any distinct geographic features of Meso-America such as lakes or rivers.
BOTANICAL PROBLEMS
In 1 Nephi 18:24 (591 BC) we read that upon arrival, the Nephi and his followers planted the numerous seeds they had brought, and that the seeds “did grow exceedingly, wherefore we were blessed in abundance.”
As is well known, the dominant crops of the Near East were grapes, olives, wheat, barley, figs, dates, flax, onions, leeks, garlic, beans, pomegranates, and sycamore figs, certain melons, various oranges, lemons and peaches. American crops such as potatoes, tobacco, blueberries, cranberries, eggplants and maize (our “corn”) were unknown in the Old World until modern times.
There is no evidence whatever that the Near Eastern crops ever “did grow exceedingly … in abundance” until modern Europeans brought them to the Americas. Admittedly, while modern European colonists did find grapes in the Americas, they are an entirely distinct species from that of the Old World.
Other problems are when 3 Nephi 18:18 speaks of wheat in the Americas in 34 AD. 1 Nephi 13:7, Alma 1:29, and 4:6, Helaman 6:13 and Ether 10:4 speak of linen (flax cloth). Barley is mentioned in Mosiah 9:9, figs in 3 Nephi 14:16 and olives in Jacob 5, 1 Nephi l7: 14, 15:7-16. None of these existed here at that time. “Neas” and “sheum” are mentioned in Mosiah 9:9 as two prominent and abundant plants. Yet, if they were so prominent and important, why are there no references to them in Old World literature, and why have they not survived?
Plant grafting is mentioned in 1 Nephi 15:16 and Jacob 5, yet there is no evidence that the Indians practiced this in 600 BC – 421 AD. Pruning is mentioned in 2 Nephi 15:6 and faces a similar problem. To describe seed and plant growth as “swelling” (Alma 32:28-34 and 33:23) is naive and grossly inaccurate. It reflects the error of preformationism (a discredited scientific hypothesis which held that the entire totality of the mature organism is contained in miniature in the seed).
ZOOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
Contrary to what 1 Nephi 18:25 asserts, North America had no cows, oxen, asses, horses or goats “for the use of man” between 600 BC and the time European colonists brought them.
2 Nephi 21:6-8 plagiarizes the KJV of Isaiah 11:6-8 and applies it to North America (see also 2 Nephi 30:12-14). But North America had no sheep, lions, leopards, or the two snakes (asps and cockatrices) mentioned at that time.
Ether 2:2-3 and 5:4 explain that Jared and his family captured the birds, fish and bees, and gathered seeds with which they populated North America. But American birds and fish are distinctly different from Old World species. Honeybees were first introduced by Europeans. Ether 6:1 claims that Jared and his small family kept alive all of the species of fish that now inhabit the Americas for 344 days in their aquaria!
Ether 9:18-19 contains several problems:
• First, it lists domestic cattle, oxen and cows as separate species!
• Second, these did not exist in the Americas at that time.
• Third, domestic swine did not exist here then.
• Fourth, horses, asses and elephants did not exist in America at that time. Prehistoric forms became extinct centuries earlier and were not “useful to man.”
• Fifth, “cureloms” and “cumons!’ are not identified by LIDS scholars. Yet, it would be most unlikely for such supposedly useful and common domestic animals to go extinct.
There are serious problems in the description of the behavior of poisonous snakes, etc. in Ether 9:30-34:
• First, the notion that snakes increase as a drought increases is contradicted by the fact that reptiles are particularly sensitive to heat and lack of water, and would die off faster than other animals.
• Second, even with the large population of modem America, only about twenty people die yearly by snakebite. It is certainly not realistic for Ether to claim that numerous people and animals were exterminated by snakes.
• Third, it is totally unlike sheep for all of them to flee in one direction.
• Fourth, it would not be realistic for sheep to be driven to the south by poisonous snakes, as there are many fewer snakes in the north.
• Fifth, snakes have never cooperated with one another in driving animals in any direction.
• Sixth, it would have been impossible for people to have eaten in such few days the countless animals that had been killed by the snakes.
• Seventh, Ether 10:21ff tells us that the land was densely covered with people, while Ether 10: 19 says that “the land was covered with animals of the forests.” Ether 10: 12 speaks of raising much grain. All of this simply does not square with the idea of an epidemic of poisonous snakes. People, farming, and predatory animals will not allow snakes to become numerous.
Satyrs (2 Nephi 23:21) and dragons (2 Nephi 23:22,8:9) are mentioned as literal creatures. Chickens (3 Nephi 10:4-6) and dogs (Alma 16:10, Mosiah 12:2, and 3 Nephi 7:8) were non-existent here at the time. In 3 Nephi 20:16 and 21:12, lions are described as ‘beasts of the forests.” Contrary to popular opinion and the Book of Mormon, lions do not live in forests or jungles. They live in savannas and veldts (few scattered trees) and lions never inhabited the Americas.
Silk is erroneously mentioned as being produced in the Americas at that time (1 Nephi 13:7, Alma 4:6 and Ether 9:1 7 and 10:24). But silkworm moths had not yet been introduced from Asia. Clothes moths are mentioned in 3 Nephi 13:19-20 and 27:32, yet there were no woolen garments for moths to attack, as sheep had not yet been introduced. Needless to say, clothes moths had not yet been introduced to North America.
2 Nephi 17:15 lists two foods at that time; butter and honey. But Indians had no milk animals nor honeybees. Candies are made either of beeswax, beef tallow or paraffin, so that a reference to candies in 3 Nephi 8:21 is unacceptable.
MICRO-BIOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
Alma 46:40 attributes “the cause of disease to … the nature of the climate,” instead of to fifth, poor diet, or germs. Alma 16:1 tells us that the stench of those killed in one battle was so strong that “the people did not go in to possess the land of Ammonihah for many years … and their lands remained desolate.” Action of bacteria, fungi, worms, insects, vultures etc., would require no more than a few weeks at the very most to disposes of these carcasses and their odors-not “many years!” 3 Nephi 17:7 mentions leprosy in 34 AD, yet the first known case in the Americas was in 1758.
PHYSIOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
Ether 15:30:31 says that Shiz was beheaded and that “Shiz raised upon his hands and fell, and after that he had struggled for breath, he died.” Obviously, without the brain to control the arms, legs, and breathing, all of this was totally impossible. Ether 14:2 specifically says that “every man kept the hilt of his sword in his right hand,” and yet a distinct minority of Indians, and people in general, for that matter, are left-handed. Alma 57:25 asserts that all in an army of 2,060 received many wounds, yet none died.
The implied reproduction rate in the Book of Mormon is astronomical! The story starts in 600 BC and ends in 421 AD. It involves a handful of people who travel from “the land of Jerusalem” [sic] to the Promised Land of America. Every four or five years or so there are devastating wars that kill many thousands of people (Alma 28:2, etc.), or as Ether 15:2 says, “nearly two millions of mighty men” in addition to their wives and children. For this to be so, it would be necessary for each couple to have scores of children, and for them to reach maturity in three or so years throughout the supposed period between 600 BC and 421 AD.
The description of the resurrection body in Alma 40:23 is astounding to say the least. It says that nothing shall be lost, not even a hair. In light of the fact that we shed a few score body and head hairs every week, and we “decommission” countless blood, skin, and other cells weekly, it is unrealistic to assert that all of these lost parts will be restored to us.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROBLEMS
Ether 2:20 says that the Lord instructed Jared to make a hole in the top and one “in the bottom” of each barge. What was the hole “in the bottom” for-to let water and wastes out? Ether 2:23 explains that if windows were put in the barges, the barges would be dashed to pieces.
In describing Christ’s crucifixion, 3 Nephi 8:20-23 says that the darkness was so great for three days that candles and torches could not give off light. Why not?
Alma 24:16 speaks of burying swords in the earth to keep them bright. On the contrary, this would speed their rusting. Even stainless steel would rust eventually under those conditions. Steel was unknown in the Americas prior to its being introduced by the Europeans, contrary to 1 Nephi 4:9; 16:18; 2 Nephi 5:15; Ether 7:9.
TECHNOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
It is erroneous for a book supposedly written in North America at that time to mention bellows (1 Nephi 17:11), fine steel bow, (1 Nephi 16:18) swords (2 Nephi 1:1 8, etc.), scimitars (Alma 2:12), sackcloth (2 Nephi 13:24, carts (2 Nephi 15:18,28) chariots (Alma 18:12; 20:6; 3 Nephi 21:14), numerous large buildings (Ether 10:5, etc.), many highways (Helaman 14:24), cement (Helaman 3:7-9), forts (Alma 48:8), a javelin (Alma 51:34), bushel (3 Nephi 12:15), breastplates (Mosiah 8:10), head plate and armor for the loins (Alma 46:13), compass (Alma 37:38, 44), spindles and spinning (Alma 37:40), sickles (Alma 26:5), yoke (1 Nephi 13:5), strong cords (Alma 26:29) a trumpet (3 Nephi 13:2), street corners (3 Nephi 13:5), chains (2 Nephi 1: 13, etc.), hoe (Ether 10:25), harp, tabret and viol (2 Nephi 15:12), plow (Ether 10:25), fuller’s soap (3 Nephi 24:2), barns (3 Nephi 13:26) and candles (3 Nephi 8:21).
ANTHROPOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
The Book of Mormon was supposedly written during the period in question, but there is no evidence that the Indians had anything other than simply pictorial writing at that time. They wrote no books. It is not appropriate to find references to many official records (Helaman 3:15), jot and tittle (3 Nephi 12:18), scrolls (Mormon 5:23, 9:2) and Alpha and Omega (3 Nephi 9:18); especially since Joseph Smith declared that there was no Greek in the Book of Mormon!
Other cultural problems include references to mammon (a Greek god of wealth3 Nephi 13:24), lawyers and judges (Alma 10: 14-15 and 3 Nephi 6: 1), acre (an Anglo-Saxon word-2 Nephi 15:10), “south-southeast direction” (1 Nephi 16:13), synagogues (a Greek word not in use until during and after the Babylonian exile in 586 BC, twenty years too late to be in the Nephite writings-3 Nephi 24:2), Gentiles (a term also unknown until after 538 BC- 1 Nephi 13:19), etc.
The Book of Mormon consistently refers to the “heart’ in the sense of soul, yet Indians varied in their terminology from lungs, kidneys, liver, intestines, to heart.
The Book of Mormon divides humanity into “black and white” and “Jew and Gentile” -most unrealistic for the Americas at the time-especially since the term “Jew” was never used of the Israelite people until after the Babylonian captivity (cf. Ezra 4:12 in the Old Testament, c.538 BC) about 63 years after Lehi’s family hopped the boat to the New World. The Mongoloid race is totally ignored, even though there were no black people in America until the coming of the European slave trade and the Indian people are Mongoloid!
The Book of Mormon teaches that Indians originated from Hebrew settlers in the Americas that wandered away from the Lord. 1 Nephi 12:11 says that as they wandered away in unbelief, “they became a dark, loathsome and filthy people.” 1 Nephi 13:15 praises future Americans as being “white, exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain.” But Palestinian Semites do not have pale skin like the Anglo-Saxon settlers of America. 1 Nephi 5:21, Jacob 3:3-9, and Mormon 5:15-17 say that God cursed the Indians with a dark skin. 2 Nephi 5:23 and Alma 3:6-10 say that anyone who marries an Indian “shall be cursed with the same cursing.” If this were true, why do people who are only part Indian not look full Indian?
2 Nephi 30:5-7 predicts that when Indians accept the LDS gospel that they will again become a “white and delightsome people.” 3 Nephi 2:15 gives supposed examples of this. 2 Nephi 13:4 says that punishment from sin shall include “instead of well set hair, baldness,” yet baldness is much more common among Caucasians. In 1981, the LDS altered the Book of Mormon to read that the Indians will become “pure and delightsome.” However, in its many contexts, the Book of Mormon is highly explicit about the curse of a dark skin.
Instead of Semitic origin, Indians are distinctly Mongoloid, having straight and black hair, brown eyes, little facial or body hair among men, high cheekbones, skin pigmentation, occasional Mongoloid blue spot, certain blood traits, etc. Most of these racial traits are utterly unlike the characteristics of Semitic people, who do not possess the Mongoloid blue spot or features, and who have copious facial hair among the men and wavy head hair. Dark skin, instead of being a curse, is a protection against skin cancer. And Indians are certainly not innately more filthy, loathsome, or ugly than any other people!
OTHER PROBLEMS
Numerous historical and archaeological problems exist. The first edition of the Book of Mormon contained numerous grammatical and spelling errors. There are many contradictions between the Book of Mormon and other Mormon writings. And the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible in many places. Lack of space prohibits a listing of examples of the above problems.
CONCLUSION
It is hoped that this paper will help my LDS friends and other seekers after truth, for as Moroni 10:4 well says:
“And when ye shall receive these things I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it by the power of the Holy Ghost.”
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT SALVATION
“For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” – Romans 3:23
“For the wages of sin is death; but the Gift of God is eternal life through
Jesus Christ our Lord.” – Romans 6:23
“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.”
- John 3:16
“And they said, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved,
and thy house.” – Acts 1 6:31
posted July 12, 2007 at 8:59 pm
“Ether 14:2 specifically says that “every man kept the hilt of his sword in his right hand,” and yet a distinct minority of Indians, and people in general, for that matter, are left-handed.
LoL!!! That bit of analysis sits at the intersection of absolute literalism and virtual illiteracy.
If a witness says that he saw a car crash at sunrise, do you call him a liar because we all know that the sun’s position is fixed relative to the earth’s?
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT SALVATION
“For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” – Romans 3:23
“For the wages of sin is death; but the Gift of God is eternal life through
Jesus Christ our Lord.” – Romans 6:23
“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.”
- John 3:16
“And they said, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved,
and thy house.” – Acts 1 6:31
Rather than just cut and pasting antimormon dribble, why don’t you think about it, and try to show any verse in the Book of Mormon that contradicts those biblical scriptures that you just cited?
posted July 12, 2007 at 9:02 pm
John E. Clark, “Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief,” BYU Speeches (5 May 2004) Dr. John Clark, director of the New World Archaeological Foundation, discusses some of the evidences that place the Book of Mormon into the real world context of ancient Mesoamerica. (MP3)
http://speeches-files.byu.edu/freefiles/provider2/type2/Clark_John_052004.mp3
posted July 12, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Daniel C. Peterson, “A Scholar Looks at Evidences for the Book of Mormon,” (Provo, Utah: FARMS) In this audio presentation, Dr. Peterson examines some of the many evidences that favor Joseph’s prophetic abilities in translating an authentic ancient text.
http://www.farmsresearch.com/multimedia/viewaudio.php?id=4
posted July 12, 2007 at 9:07 pm
“For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” – Romans 3:23
We believe that too.
“For the wages of sin is death; but the Gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” – Romans 6:23
We believe that too.
“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.”
- John 3:16
We believe that too.
“And they said, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” – Acts 1 6:31
We believe that too.
posted July 12, 2007 at 9:37 pm
A young Hugh Nibley talks! I double dog dare the Orthodox (2nd/3rd Century thinkers)camp to listen.
Hugh W. Nibley, “Forty Day Ministry: Part I,” BYU Speeches (12 February 1964) Dr. Nibley looks at non-canonical literature that purports to reveal information about Christ’s forty day ministry. Nibley demonstrates that some of the details in this ancient literature has interesting parallels to unique LDS beliefs. Part 1 of 2. (MP3 file)
http://speeches-files.byu.edu/freefiles/provider2/type2/Nibley_HughW_021964-2.mp3
Hugh W. Nibley, “Forty Day Ministry: Part II,” BYU Speeches (12 February 1964) Dr. Nibley looks at non-canonical literature that purports to reveal information about Christ’s forty day ministry. Nibley demonstrates that some of the details in this ancient literature has interesting parallels to unique LDS beliefs. Part 2 of 2. (MP3 file)
http://speeches-files.byu.edu/freefiles/provider2/type2/Nibley_HughW_021964-1.mp3
posted July 12, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Wow! So many people with soo much to say … soo much to comment on.
A. Card mentioned the fact that Mormons follow the New Testament.
Which tells a whole lot about what Mormons believe & why they are Christian. He did not avoid the question , although there are many other points he could have made as to why they are.
B. I liked the comment that was posted as to why Mormons want to be called Christians or lumped in with them when they are the church of the Devil. That made me laugh. Good point.
C. Mormons might also be called Christians because of the name of their church. “The church of Jesus Christ of L.D.S.” it’s not Lutheran’s church or anyone else’s (Although Mormons are most grateful to Martin Luther for his faithfulness & sacrifices in making the scriptures accessible to everyone & in their own tongue.)
Mormons are also Christians because as listed previously by someone else they are the ONLY church set up as Christ originally set up his church with Apostles and Prophets , 70′s , proselyting , baptism ,etc.
D. Mormons serve a more just God than other Christians because we don’t believe that a sincere person of any faith who is trying to live to the best of their understanding of what is right will “go to hell.”
There are MANY places prepared for God’s children & he will bless them to the greatest degree they are able to stand based on how valient they were for his truth. Like that girl at columbine who would not deny her belief in the savior even when a gun was placed to her head. She was valient . People are not simply EVIL or RIGHTEOUS but are a whole varying range of places in between. Therefore there is not simply a heaven or a hell. But a loving God makes appropriate groupings for his children where they will be most happy & comfortable.
1 Corinthians Chap. 15 vs.40-42 also earlier in this chapter vs.29 speaks of baptism for the dead which is something that the Jews practiced in the Temple , & is another Biblical reason why Mormons are Christian. The Russian Orthodox church also continues to perform baptisms for the dead today , albeit selectively.
E. As to that whole faith/works stuff: 1 Corinthians chap. 13 the whole thing! most particularly vs. 2 “though I have all faith , so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.”
**** If ONE who possessed ALL FAITH , would be NOTHING without Charity how then can we be saved by FAITH alone?****
Let me explain to you how Mormons understand the whole faith/works thing: Christ brought forth the ressurrection of the dead for ALL mankind. The wicked as well as the righteous , it is a free gift to ALL. All will be ressurrected & live again in their bodies, to stand before their God to be judged of their WORKS. As mentioned above with the varying degrees of glory , there are MANY places prepared based on our individual works. However ALL are saved : that is ressurrected & receive a degree of glory whatever it may be.
It is by Grace that we are saved AFTER , ALL that WE can do.
That’s about all that I can chew for now. This was an interesting rant though . Mary
posted July 12, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Matt,
Amen!
posted July 12, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Eggzactly!
“**** If ONE who possessed ALL FAITH , would be NOTHING without Charity how then can we be saved by FAITH alone?****”
Oooh! I found another version of this!
Come, Thou Font of Every Blessing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ux2jJubwQew
posted July 12, 2007 at 10:48 pm
We don’t hear anything from God for roughly 1800 years after his ascension and then a fourteen-year-old farm boy claims that God showed up in answer to his prayer to find out which church he should join.
In the meantime, learned men, scholars, priests, and otherwise concerned people have made no such claim. (Some nice people have claimed that Mary showed up and left her mark a couple of times, but that’s nothing compared to this.)
Now, I appreciate that so many people have taken time to copy and paste their papers on their doctrines of salvation on this discussion board, but they really are beside the point.
As Mormons, we are not looking for ways to jockey into position among the other interpretations of Christian sacred texts. We are now the authoritative source for explaining what those texts mean. An accurate exegesis of scriptural text probably merits an 8 or 9 on the 100-point “Experience with Divinity” scale. But actually having a face to face with the resurrected Lord! A very real living breathing and far bigger elephant is standing in the room and you choose to find discrepancies between its trunk and the trunk of the stuffed plush toy elephant you hold in your hands.
Come back when you’ve had an interview with the creator of the universe, finished writing a 580-page book and gotten thirteen respectable men to sign off that an angel of God appeared and declared to them that the book was divine and then we’ll talk about your claims to Christianity or having a divine sanction on your efforts to interpret scripture.
Orthodox Christianity has brought nothing to the table of that scale; not Aquinas, not Augustine, not Luther, not Calvin, not Wesley, not C.S. Lewis, nobody has come close to matching it.
Shane
posted July 12, 2007 at 10:57 pm
I will be thoroughly interested when this conversation turns to 1st and 2nd century Christian beliefs.
posted July 12, 2007 at 11:04 pm
The problem with many major faiths, is that their adherents often don’t read their own doctrine; and that is truly blind faith…dangerous faith. Because upon their belief foundation is built the framework of their salavation. If those foundation stones are false, contradicted by the ultimate source…i.e., the Bible, then they are in serious trouble. However, the social institution of your local faith convince you to stay with this…a dilemma to anyone intellectual enough to study this discord. Too many people have only the thinnest veneer of understanding of their own faith, doctrine, and they accept without question all the artifices of their lay ministers, their church leaders, their priests, bishops, cardinals, and the pope…even when it patently contradicts Christian fundamental precepts. Mormonism does this by supplanting the Bible with the Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants, the BoM, and any other writings from their modern day “Apostles.” The Catholic’s do this with ever papal bull which comes forth from the Vatican, or extant in their writings over centuries. Many other ‘christian’ faiths do this too, but they are far less institutionalized. The basic salvation message is perfectly witnessed in the New Testament…and the satanic influence is bent upon splitting the believer from the Word of God. Catholics, Mormons and most organized bodies do more to obscure the word and form divisions than they do to provide the proper salavation insight. In that game, they are much alike…and simply calling themselves christian is little evidence that either of them truly are christian.
posted July 12, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Robert L. Millet, “What We Believe,” BYU Speeches (3 February 1998) Robert Millet examines some of the uniquely LDS beliefs that seem to cause concern among other Christians. (PDF files; also available in PDF format.)
http://speeches-files.byu.edu/freefiles/provider2/type2/Millet_Robert_021998.mp3
posted July 12, 2007 at 11:24 pm
LDS Boy,
Since you claim to be of our faith, please explain the role of Simone Peter, Abraham, Moses, Isaac, Jacob, Elijah, Noah, and many others in relationship to their generation and to Jesus Christ, Jehovah.
Waiting for your fascinating insight! /sarcarsm off
posted July 12, 2007 at 11:37 pm
SocalledLDSboy:
Thank you for reiterating my point that ALL Christian churches erected between 100 AD and 1820 AD were abominations to God. Whether they were Catholic, Presbyterian, Bapist, Unitarian, Methodist, etc. It doesn’t matter. NO ONE was saved during that period of apostasy.
Mike: I know that you aren’t Mormon so why the pretense?
As usual, for those of your ilk, you pouce on items that you think you “scored points” on.
Unfortunately for you, since Mormon theology, through baptism for the Dead, As documented in the Bible in my first response to you. 1st Cor 15:28, 1st Peter 3:10-22, 1st Peter 4:6, allows that all men may be saved if they choose it. So there you go again lying about LDS doctrine.
Now how are you going to account for those people who never heard of Christ again?
posted July 12, 2007 at 11:42 pm
David L. Paulsen, “Joseph Smith and the Problem of Evil,” BYU Speeches (21 September 1999) Dr. Paulsen examines how Joseph Smith’s revelations solve the philosophical problem of evil in a God-created world. (Real Audio; also available in PDF.)
http://byubroadcasting.org/devotionals/audio/real/092199.ram
Enjoy!
posted July 12, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Dear Mike Bennion, you, my friend, seem to disregard the infallible word of Brigham Young, our succesor to Joseph Smith.
“SocalledLDSboy: We believe that NO ONE can go to heaven without the consent of Jospeh Smith, who reigns supreme.
Mike: We believe that Jesus is the keeper of the gate, that no man comes to the father but by Him. We believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet like Moses or Isaiah and an apostle like Peter or John, but he never claimed perfection and He likewise will not enter Heaven except through Christ. Again if you were really LDS you would know this.”
READ:
“No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith… He reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity and calling, as God does in Heaven” – Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7
Mike’s Three observations:
1. “In his sphere”
2. If you were really a Mormon you would know that the Journal of Discourses is not canonized scripture.
3. I noticed that you gave an incomplete citation only listing volume 7 so that people will have a difficult time tracing the statement to read for context, since there are 58 separate discourses recorded in vol 7, (23 attributed to Brigham Young) So if you really want to discuss this quote I require The speech date and page number.
Boy, you need to do better than that.
posted July 12, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Katie’s comment: Mike, No where in the Bible does it ever say that polygamy is alright for anyone to practice…no where. Please show me one place where it says that polygamy was something that was accepted or approved by God. There were those in the Bible who did practice polygamy and they were wrong and sinful. The Lord refers to polygamy as an abomination…that is a pretty serious no, no! Then please look at all the places in the Bible that speak negatively about polygamy.
Posted by: Katie | July 12, 2007 8:21 PM
Mike’s Response:
http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Polygamy_not_Biblical
Critics take an extremely limited survey of the Bible with this claim. It is true that David and Solomon were condemned for some of their marriage practices. This problem was mentioned in Deuteronomy:
15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother…17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away… (Deuteronomy 17:15,17
Critics ignore the fact that only FOUR CHAPTERS LATER, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat equitably plural wives and children. (See Deuteronomy 21:15-17.) Why does He not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He instruct the Israelites on how to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?
So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
not multiply wives to themselves (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see 2 Samuel 12:8, Jacob 2:30, DC 132:38-39);
that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God (1 Kings 11:3-4);
not take excessive numbers of wives (see Jacob 2:24).
David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.
[edit]David
David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah (see 2 Samuel 11:1-27. Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David’s behavior, and told the king:
7 ¶ And Nathan said to David…Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
8 And I GAVE THEE thy master’s house, and THY MASTER’S WIVES into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. (2 Samuel 12:7-10)
Nathan here tells David that the Lord “GAVE THEE…THY MASTER’S WIVES.” And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.
But, David sinned and did evil in the matter of Uriah. If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for it now? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier?
[edit]Solomon
Solomon’s problem is described:
1 BUT king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
2 Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love…
7 Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
8 And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. (1 Kings 11:1-8
Solomon’s wives turned his heart away from, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.
[edit]Other Biblical examples
David and Solomon do not prove the critics’ point, but in fact demonstrate that plural marriage may, on occasion, be sanctioned (as in David’s case certainly).
But, we need not rely on these examples only to demonstrate that plural marriage was practiced by righteous followers of God in the Bible. Other cases include:
ABRAHAM married Hagar (Genesis 16:3), Keturah (Genesis 25:1) and other unnamed concubines (Genesis 25:6).
JACOB (Genesis 29:21-30, Genesis 30:3-4, Genesis 30:9)
ABIJAH had fourteen wives (2 Chronicles 13:21) and yet he is described as a RIGHTEOUS KING of Judah who honored the Lord (2 Chronicles 13:8-12) and prosper in battle because of the Lord’s blessing (2 Chronicles 13:16-18)
JEHOIDAH, priest under king Joash had two wives (2 Chronicles 3:{{{4}}}) and is described at his death as one who “had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]” ({s|2|Chronicles|24|16}}).
and also possibly:
MOSES [married Zipporah (Exodus 2:22 and an "Ethiopian" (Cushite) woman Numbers 12:1 which may or may not be the same person.[1]]
[edit]The Law of Moses
As noted above, Deuteronomy 21:15 provides rules governing Israelites who have plural wives. Further instructions are also given in Exodus 21:10. Why did God not ban plural marriage through Moses if it is always an immoral act?
[edit]Conclusion
The Bible does not forbid plural marriage. In fact, many of the most noble Biblical figures (e.g. Abraham) had more than one wife. Furthermore, Biblical laws quoted by critics forbid kings from being led astray by plural spouses, or entering relationships not sanctioned by God’s authority. However, the same Biblical laws provide guidelines for legitimate plural relationships.
[edit]Endnotes
[back] Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 2:10. off-site
posted July 13, 2007 at 12:06 am
To the person fraudulently calling himself “LDS Boy,” and to anyone listening to him.
The church has never said that Brigham Young was “infallible.”
Was Moses “infallible” when he took credit for God’s miracle? Was the apostle Peter “infallible” when he denied Christ, or when he refused to eat with Gentiles even after God commanded him to not treat them as unclean?
Brigham Young was wrong about a number of things. D&C 50 gives us the process for approving doctrine through common consent, before it rises to the level of “scripture.” The process is not that different in essence from how the books now unified as the “New Testament” were identified. Not every word that the prophet speaks is prophesy, but God manifests the truthfulness to the listeners.
posted July 13, 2007 at 12:08 am
LDShomeBoy,
Oh that is such a thought provoking answer! Please tell me more! I don’t believe in absolute Prophet Infallibility, sorry. I do believe in Accountability and the Lord’s Empowerment of his prophets. But certainly not infallibility.
But back to the point. Why don’t you explain our beliefs in relationship to Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Elijah, and Simone Peter in relationship to Jesus Christ? Do you that we believe affirming truth? In the witness of two or more is the truth established? Doesn’t that sound familiar?
posted July 13, 2007 at 12:17 am
“If those foundation stones are false, contradicted by the ultimate source…i.e., the Bible, then they are in serious trouble.”
That’s a very strange thing to say. You think that the Bible is the ultimate source of truth?
The Bible an anthology of God’s word. Jehovah, also known as Jesus Christ our Savior and our God, is the ultimate source of the Bible. John’s statement that “in the beginning was the Word” was not intented to give license to bibliolatry. The Bible is the Good Book — an anthology of Good Books, to be precise, but it is not God; it is not the “Ultimate Source.”
We revere the Bible, but brethren, let’s not let that reference lead us to bibliolatry.
posted July 13, 2007 at 12:27 am
For instance, Mr. Card speaks of those who “receive the saving grace of Christ that is offered to all who will believe and obey his commandments”. That sounds like an orthodox statement on its face, and many evangelicals might be tempted to accept it—but evangelicals do not believe that the “saving grace of Christ” is available to those who a priori “obey His commandments”. I appreciate the fact that this may seem like a fine distinction, but the grace of God is not contingent upon my obedience (else it is not grace at all).
I appreciate your fine distinction, and I agree with you that grace is not grace if contingent on your obedience, but I submit that you have missed a finer distinction. Brother Card did not say:
“receive the saving grace of Christ that is offered to all who believe and obey his commandments.”
He said:
“receive the saving grace of Christ that is offered to all who WILL believe and obey his commandments.”
That statement does not make obedience a priori requirement for grace.
Since faith without works is dead, we know that those who truly believe, being saved, will repent and obey God’s commandments.
And how can you say you truly believe unless you are *willing* to repent and obey God’s commandments? Yes, the flesh may be weak, yes, you might be unable, without God’s grace, to keep his commandments. I don’t understand how it all works, and I don’t know that I need to understand. Why would desiring to repent and obey Jesus Christ hinder my salvation? It seems to me that the desire to repent and obey Jesus Christ’s commandments would be part of my faith in him.
If I am damned for this understanding, please show me, from the Bible, why this is so. I love my savior and I want my beliefs to be in line with what he taught.
posted July 13, 2007 at 12:27 am
Mike,
I am sorry but all that work you did to answer my question did not answer it. I commend the effort, but you did not show any place where God commands, condones, or approves of polygamy.
posted July 13, 2007 at 12:30 am
LDS Boy,
I want to commend you for being honest about some of the things your church teaches! It looks like you are one of the few who actually knows and embraces the things that your church teaches.
posted July 13, 2007 at 12:32 am
Hey LDS Boy, what was Jospeh’s Smith’s testimony, how about you read the beginning of D&C 76. Thanks buddy!
posted July 13, 2007 at 12:34 am
BoyWhoFraudulentlyCallsHimselfLDS asked:
“Do you even own a copy?”
No. I have never owned a copy of “Mormon Doctrine” or “Doctrines of Salvation,” and when I was a missionary, were were specifically forbidden to own those books, because they are the private interpretations of church leaders, and contain incorrect statements of LDS doctrine. No, I don’t consider myself “greater than Bruce R. McConkie,” who was a great scriptorian, but like all men, made mistakes. Unlike many great men, Elder McConkie had the courage to admit many of his mistakes, and denounced some of his own earlier teachings later in life, stating that he and others had “misunderstood the scriptures.” There’s no mortal sin in that. As Paul said, we all see through the glass darkly, even though one day, with God’s grace, we will see face to face, and “know as we are known.”
posted July 13, 2007 at 12:36 am
LDS Boy, honest? Katie, um, hate to tell you this but….whisper…whisper…whisper…. Um, yep it is true LDS Boy is definetly NOT LDS BOY!
He is actually LDS GAY VEGAN COMMUNIST TRANGENDERED. Sorry, I had to break it to you, but it is the truth. {Snicker}
posted July 13, 2007 at 12:39 am
Katie, shame on you for aiding and abetting a fraud. Or if you actually believe what you just said, shame on the one who taught you these falsehoods about our beliefs. Think about what you just said, and ask yourself, if our church really “teaches” these things, then who is it teaching them to, if no one in the church knows them?
posted July 13, 2007 at 1:40 am
One of the basic teachings of the LDS faith is, “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may someday be.”
Now, I don’t know how mormons define God, but my definition of God prohibits me (or my husband) from ever being gods to anyone because there is only one God, and He doesn’t need me being a sub-god for Him. He’s got it all under control.
A second issue for me is the idea that we must be “sealed” to each other for all eternity in a temple ceremony. What? God’s not smart enough to know that Steve and I want to be together in the afterlife? We need some secret code word to identify each other in the beyond? Steve could choose to not “pull me through” and gets to decide my afterlife? He could pull our daughter through and leave me on the other side to spend all of eternity without my only child? I don’t think so. As a Christian, I will trust God, and God alone, to decide my afterlife. My current life, too, by the way.
But the real kicker is that I believe that Jesus the Christ has the power to remit my sins, no matter the political or social situation. There is no sin, no matter what, that will not be forgiven in The Christ’s name, regardless of the imposition of an LDS theocracy. No blood need be spilled to send up a pleasing odor to God. Just true repentence and the Grace and Mercy of Jesus the Christ. (Mormon Doctrine, McConkie, p?? somwhere in the 90s in my edition).
Mormons can be, and frequently are, great people (my brother’s one, so I ought to know), but until they accept that ONLY the Grace and Mercy of Jesus the Christ is their salvation and all the works and ceremonies and restrictions are just window dressing, they cannot really be Christians, regardless of what they call themselves – just as I will always be a human, no matter how insistently I tell you I am a wombat.
Susan
posted July 13, 2007 at 1:51 am
“One of the basic teachings of the LDS faith is, “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may someday be.”
Actually, no, Susan, that’s not a “basic teaching.” I’m not entirely sure what it means, and I don’t think that you do either. I do know that Anasthasius, architect of the Nicene Creed, said something very similar: “God became man so that man might become God.”
Was Anasthasius a Christian?
“I don’t know how mormons define God,”
No, you’ve certainly made your ignorance about our beliefs clear enough. And I don’t think that any of us knows enough about God to “define” him. I don’t think that salvation depends on passing a standardized test on the nature of God administered by Dr. Molher.
“until they accept that ONLY the Grace and Mercy of Jesus the Christ is their salvation and all the works and ceremonies and restrictions are just window dressing, they cannot really be Christians”
Fair enough. But if we believe that these works and ceremonies and restrictions are the window-dressing that God has asked of us, those that love God will honor them. Not for our salvation, but because we love and wish to serve the author of our salvation.
posted July 13, 2007 at 1:58 am
what kind of deviant LDS Church are you part of? You reject the D&C?
Of course I do not reject the Doctrine & Covenants (D&C). The D&C is scripture. “Mormon Doctrine” and “Doctrines of Salvation” are not part of the D&C. I carried the D&C everywhere as a missionary, along with the Bible and the Book of Mormon. As a missionary in the 1980s, I was specifically forbidden to own a copy of “Mormon Doctrine.” That’s the difference between modern scripture, and the private interpretation of church leaders.
posted July 13, 2007 at 10:50 am
WOW!! The anti-mormons are out in force.
LDS Boy (so called) Has exposed himself as the LIAR and DECEIVER that anti-mormons are.
BTW Thomas, what anti-mormon source did you cut and paste that from?
posted July 13, 2007 at 11:34 am
To all my fellow christians, being defined as followers of Christ and his teachings as defined in the Bible with the understanding that God is the final judge of all mankind, not “Brady” or “Nathan” or “Billy Bob”…
I am not a lawyer. And this grows tiresome.
I’m heading out to Kansas tomorrow to help clean up the flood victims.
I’m not doing it so that God will save me.
I’m doing it because I want to help.
However, I do care what God thinks of me.
I want him to be proud of me.
He is my father in heaven.
And although I fall far short of being perfect, he loves me anyway.
He loves me so much that he sent his perfect son, Jesus Christ, who came willingly and traded his life for mine.
Why would he do that?
And He came anyway, knowing many would reject his teachings, throwing mud at his gift of atonement and go on to do horrible things to their fellow human beings.
He would have come if the only person he could have saved was me.
He is MY Lord and Savior.
Say what you want.
I stand before you as the blind man who can now see.
My heart is full.
My heart…the same organ that burst with joy as my children were brought into the world.
The same organ that overflowed with joy when I married my husband.
The same organ that nearly broke when one of my children was taken back home, but was comforted with peace as I prayed for understanding.
The same organ that glows when I speak of my Savior.
Someone quoted a scripture earlier trying to prove that the heart cannot be trusted.
I am no stranger to joy. I trust my heart because I gave it long ago to my Savior. I listen and I am patient when I pray for understanding and He has never let me down. He always hears and answers my prayers. He requires me to humble myself and stay close so that I will hear His will, not someone else’s will masquerading as His.
I raise my voice with all others who love Christ and rejoice in His Atonement and Resurrection.
I love the Savior Jesus Christ with all my heart!
And I am a mormon.
For some, that proclamation is the death nell of my salvation.
And perhaps one day you and I will stand together at my judgment and will wish to put in your two cents worth on where I should go.
I highly suspect the Lord’s response will be, “I didn’t ask you”.
- Liz
P.S. I agree with the previous writer-let’s all disbar the Sanhedrin council of circular, un-Christlike debates and go do something productive. My time is precious.
posted July 13, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Question: What parent here on earth would not want his/her child to have everything they have and more?
If so, with an imperfect mortal parent, then why not with a Perfect, Loving Eternal Father.
Who does not believe Christ when he commands us to be perfect as our Eternal Father and why should we deny who we are, true children of an Eternal God and potential joint-heirs with the Savior of the World?
If you so-called Christians want to deny who you are, fine! But don’t criticize people who believe in the scriptures and the especially the Savior who said through HIM ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE!
Here is a better definition of Christians…those who believe the Lord and do not attempt to limit His Power and Abilities.
posted July 13, 2007 at 12:26 pm
I only read the first couple of comments after the article itself, so forgive me if this is redundant.
The debate was over long ago. The question posed was a bad one. Mohler defines himself as an “Orthodox” Christian and therefore, according to the text of the question, whatever he says goes, because it is him saying it. So Mormons are not Christians according to Orthodox Christianity, simply because Orthodox Christians say they are not. Silly.
Better questions would have been, “Are Mormons Christians?” or “Do Mormons follow Christ?” or “Are Mormon beliefs about Christ orthodox?” even “Do Mormons believe in Christ?”
Mohler and Card would have disagreed just as fundamentally on the answers to all those questions without the unfortunate presupposition in the question itself that one party was the final indisputable authority.
posted July 13, 2007 at 12:33 pm
People ask why the world needs the BOM or other additional scriptures. I will give you a few reasons.
1. The Bible only speaks of the Jewish people, God is the God of all people! Is it impossible with a PERFECT God that he wanted to speak to all of his children?
2. The world has changed since 100 A.D. and scriptures are suppose to help people through their life on earth. I imagine that the Apostles had to answer similar questions after they began writing “new scripture” beyond those taught in the OT, and why did they? Because the times changed.
3. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. For thousands of years, God has spoken through His chosen prophets to procalim His word, why would he suddenly change His methods?
As a mormon, and a descendent of some of the men that so-called Christians have criticized, there will more scriptures that will come forth and I am eager to learn more baout my Eternal Father and His Only Begotten Son and My Savior Jesus Christ.
For those who have “faith,” yet have never even read the BIBLE, I can understand why you wouldn’t want the responsibility of actually learning about the God you claim to follow. Without scriptures we do not know God or the Christ, and it was Christ who said how can man serve him they do not know!
posted July 13, 2007 at 12:33 pm
OSC is the greatest living fiction author and a real hero of mine in that realm.
Al Mohler is a champion of the actual Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Mormonism is an invented (and inventive) American religion that has no basis in truth other than it’s rejected, ill-fitting, chords that loosely tie it to the shredded orthodoxy of biblical truth.
And the last post from OSC was incredible. Not credible.
posted July 13, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Ender…well spoken! Those are the same comments that the Jewish leaders and the world said of Christianity when it “started”
posted July 13, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Ender:Mormonism is an invented (and inventive) American religion that has no basis in truth other than it’s rejected, ill-fitting, chords that loosely tie it to the shredded orthodoxy of biblical truth.
GB:Can you say “naked assertion”?
posted July 13, 2007 at 1:51 pm
LDS Boy (so called) AGAIN exposes himself as the LIAR and DECEIVER that anti-mormons are.
posted July 13, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Stuart:
>>1. The Bible only speaks of the Jewish people, God is the God of all people! Is it impossible with a PERFECT God that he wanted to speak to all of his children?
False: Paul was commissioned to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles (non-Jews. Read Galatians for a case-in-point.
>>2. The world has changed since 100 A.D. and scriptures are suppose to help people through their life on earth. I imagine that the Apostles had to answer similar questions after they began writing “new scripture” beyond those taught in the OT, and why did they? Because the times changed.
Sure, times change, but man’s problem has never changed. He is and always will be born into sin, a slave to sin, until he is saved!
2Ti 3:16-17 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; (17) so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
>>3. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. For thousands of years, God has spoken through His chosen prophets to procalim His word, why would he suddenly change His methods?
You are confusing the character of God with the means God uses. His character never changes, but His means do. Christ was the final “prophet”:
Hebrews 1:1-2 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, (2) in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
Where once God used prophet, in these last days He has spoken through His son! That’s a change, isn’t it?
posted July 13, 2007 at 2:21 pm
LDS Boy,
I must say you are doing yourself a disservice to your cause.
When you act serious, respectful, and declare your identity, then I will respond seriously. No more comments from me until that happens. But just like, spitballs or throwing rocks, I reserve the right however to respond anything overtly offensive.
posted July 13, 2007 at 2:44 pm
It appears that Orson Scott Card is reading this, because he just changed the title of his post from” Other Mormon’s Didn’t Accept Me either” to “Are Any Sincere Christians Expendable?”
What’s your point, Mr Card?
posted July 13, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Are there any other changes you made to your original post?
posted July 13, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Quoted from Carey: “Suppose a man just finished 20 years of a life term for murder and was released on parole. Would you let him come into your church? Could he be Mormon or Evangelical? Could he be saved? What about a prostitute? Or a young woman who had a child but isn’t married and doesn’t know what to do?”
Absolutely! Send them my way! They will absolutely be welcome in my church, my home, and my life! Can they be saved??? The Bible makes it clear that all who are drawn by the Holy Spirit and who trust in Christ alone for salvation will be saved, regardless of the things they have done! Love covers a multitude of sins!
The Mormon/Evangelical question is a tricky one. Of course, anyone can associate with a group. There are lots of so-called mormons, so-called evangelicals, so-called catholics, or so-called whatever else you want people out there, who do not actually conform to the teachings of their faith.
Salvation is much different than religion. Religion is dead works. Salvation is a changed life through the sacrifice of Christ that is empowered by the Holy Spirit.
Look to the truth of Jesus Christ as found in the Holy Bible alone…no false documents from false prophets required.
posted July 13, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Eric,
Would you put the Nicene Creed in the category of extra-Biblical documents, and thus a false document from a false prophet?
posted July 13, 2007 at 4:04 pm
MATT…
Again you miss the point…Why was there a need for additional scriptures after the first few books of the OT, written down by Moses?? If the scriptures are to resolve the similar problems, why did we need more? Isaiah speaks of these problems more than any other man in the Bible, otehr than the Savior himself.
Why did God continue to call Prophets after Moses, who did not preach a new law, but rather were inspired by God to preach the principles.
The NT is exactly that…a NEW TESTAMENT. Christ restored the gospel that had been taught from Adam until Moses. If you have read the BIBLE you will see that the ten commandments and the Mosaic law were given on Moses second trip to the mountain, what was written on the tablets the first time?? HUH?
If Jesus Christ is the last prophet, why do you cite the words of His Apostles, especially those books that do not attempt to speak of Christ’s life. Why is the book of revelations concern itself with the prophecies of a latter day? Why does Peter speak of a restoration of all things? Why would we need one, if everything was taught?
If God’s means change then the Bible must be wrong, see Amos 3:7.
Wasn’t it Christ who said it was not His calling to preach to the Gentiles, but that He was commanded by the Father to only preach to the house of Israel? Or is the NT wrong about that?
Who are the “other sheep” that will hear Christ’s voice? They can’t be the Gentiles for the previous reason. So who are they? Maybe it was other members of the House of Israel that had been scattered, you can read the OT to find out that the House of Israel was scattered!
posted July 13, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Stuart:
I guess the difference between your belief and mine, which puts us in somewhat of a stalemate, is that you believe that God is still speaking through prophets today, whereas I do not. Would that be a correct statement?
I am not questioning the clear reality that God used different prophets time and again to continue to unfold His plan. Why different prophets?
One possible answer is that the unfolding of God’s plan was going to take longer than just one generation of prophet. In other words, they died.! So he raised up other men to speak for him, but His plan was always the same and moving forward.
Secondly, you obviously agree that God does not change. Therefore, there should be a clear consistency between the message of the Bible and the message of the BOM, right? Meaning, they shouldn’t contradict each other, right? Do they contradict each other?
How Amos 3:7 addresses the issue of God’s immutability, I do not know. Please explain.
What support do you have that the “other sheep” must needs refer to sheep in the “Americas”? (I know you did not specifically state that, but I understand that this verse is used by Mormons to support this idea).
Look, I appreciate your responses. But throwing at me a bunch of questions to make a point really doesn’t move the conversation forward.
Do you really expect me to answer every single question? I hope not. So, why don’t we just work on one topic. You pick!
posted July 13, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Mr. Card’s defense of Mormonism as part of Christianity is terrible and is only based on relevance to other religions, politics, countries, people groups, etc.
posted July 13, 2007 at 4:59 pm
I find this entire thing very humorous. Christians are supposed to be loving, and non-judgmental. Arguing religious differences achieves nothing, because NONE of us were there when the crucifixtion happened. All that it produces is hatred and religious bigotry.
Basing the validity of a religion against the Nicean Creed is pointless. It was a document that had been voted upon by MEN [who are prone to error], and has been revised many times. There is quite a good chance that these men were wrong on something.
All that we can do, is love the sinner, not the sin. Even if it means that one person believes a certain religious belief, and another believes it evil, we must follow Christ’s example and love one another. If one believes in Jesus Christ, and that he died to save us from our sins, REGARDLESS of ANY subsidiary beliefs or opinions, they are a brother or sister in Christ. Because we were not there when all of this happened, as human beings, we cannot prove anything, rendering denominational labels and the validity thereof useless.
We are all God’s children. He does not care about our labels, but rather our faith in him, and his son. To exclude individuals from your “christian Family” because they do not believe exactly as you do, is un-Christ like. This debate is folly. We should not be arguing whether or not someone is Christian, but accept the fact that they believe in Christ, serve and follow him as best as they can, and use this common bond to better the world.
posted July 13, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Adam,
Is arguing religious differences really pointless?
Would you say that the Apostle Paul was achieving nothing when he wrote say, the letter to the Galatians? This entire letter was written in defense of the Gospel he had taught the Gentile believers. Others were perverting the Gospel he had taught the Gentiles, which was leading them away from the purity of the Gospel! So he starts off by saying that if anyone is teaching a Gospel other than what he had taught the Gentiles, let them be accursed! Read:
“Gal 1:8-9 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! (9) As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!”
Paul also warned the elders of the churches in Ephesus of false teachers when he wrote to them:
Act 20:28-31 “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. (29) “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; (30) and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. (31) “Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears.
Paul was obviously concerned and wanted to make sure that men would not just sit back and let false teaching go unchallenged.
The call by Paul to be on guard for false teaching and false teachers presumes that we have the means and ability to identify them.
So if even Christ warns of this when he said: (Mat 24:24) “For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect…
then these conversations are not pointless! We are called to be on guard and fight for the truth. I know not all will take up that call. But don’t look down on those who do and call it folly. It only shows that you haven’t realized the seriousness of some of these things.
Blessings to you.
posted July 13, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Well first off…if you read the Bible, you will see that the VARIOUS prophets preached the same principles, so it wasn’t to unfold the Mosaic Law. It was to help put things in perspective with those current times.
If you beleive Amos 3:7 then you God would be doing nothing if there were no prophets. Correct? I believe that God is involved with our lives because he is Perfectly Loving Father; therefore, he continues to call living prophets.
The Bible and the BOM do teach the same principles: faith, repentence, baptism by imeersion for the remission of sins, laying on of hands for the gift of the holy ghost, priesthood, etc. etc. etc.
The “other sheep” is not only the Americas as contained in the BOM because those members of the House of Israel in the Americas are not the only ones in the world. Christ, Himself, said that the americas were the some of the “other sheep.”
Ok here is the single question! If you believe in the BIBLE, why don’t you beleive and practice the things taught within it?
posted July 13, 2007 at 5:32 pm
I think this is a great scripture, that goes along with those spoken of by MATT.
2. That ye be not soon shaken in mind, aor be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by bletter as from us, as that the cday of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: afor that day shall not come, except there come a bfalling away first, and that cman of dsin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who aopposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know awhat withholdeth that he might be brevealed in his time.
7 aFor the bmystery of ciniquity doth already work: only dhe who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that aWicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his bcoming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all apower and bsigns and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be adamned who bbelieved not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
posted July 13, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Matt, you directed your response to Stuart, so I hope you don’t mind me sharing my own thoughts and opinions.
I agree that God’s plan does not change – but how he presents it might be different depending on the audience. Take for example, the Law of Moses compared to the Gospel of the New Testament. They do not contradict each other and if they appear to contradict, then that is just a limitation of the written word. So, I do not see the Bible and the Book of Mormon contradicting each other either (but I suspect you might be preparing to copy/paste a list of apparent contradictions….)
Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets
I think we all agree that we do not know everything that God knows – and that he has gradually reveled his Truth since the beginning of time. The writings of the prophets in the Bible are an example of how he has taught us line upon line, precept upon precept. I think that Stuart meant that if God suddenly decides to stop this process (especially without explanation), then it would imply that he had changed his mind about using prophets.
Unless God decides to stamp “The End” on the last page of Scripture, then I would expect him to continue revealing his secrets unto his servants the prophets as promised.
“Other sheep” in the Bible mean other branches of the House of Israel. Since they are lost, I don’t know exactly who or where they all were. The account of Jesus visiting those in the America’s as documented in the Book of Mormon is just one account, but there were also others which we do not have a detailed record.
3 Nephi 15
21 And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
3 Nephi 16
1 And verily, verily, I say unto you that I have other sheep, which are not of this land, neither of the land of Jerusalem, neither in any parts of that land round about whither I have been to minister.
As for Stuart’s questions – I assume they are rhetorical, and that you might not have give them previous consideration. I am certain he will answer them if you ask for his opinion
posted July 13, 2007 at 5:37 pm
MATT.. nice post. I agree, and you may want to read this scripture which compliments those you posted. 2 Thes. 2:3
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know awhat withholdeth that he might be brevealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all apower and bsigns and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
The “falling away” or apostacy was already beginning during the times of the Apostles. Yet, I love how some are attempting to attribute such comments to the LDS Church. Verse 11 is really nice!
The LDS Church is the restoration of Christ’s church after the falling away, as proclaimed by Peter that in the latter days there would need be a restoration of all things.
posted July 13, 2007 at 5:55 pm
I just want to share a quote that should cause concern about the heart of Joseph Smit, Jr.
This is taken from the History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Vol. 6, pgs 408-409…
This is Joseph Smith, Jr. speaking. It was taken from his last sermon.
“I have more to boast of than every any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, or Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-Day Saints never ran away from me yet.” -Joseph Smith, Jr.
This is a perfect example of how Joseph Smith, Jr. pridefully boasted about his “accomplishment” and pridefully spoke of himself as acheiving more that Jesus did.
I ask that any Mormon who reads this to check out what the Bible says about pride and about man boasting in the things that he has supposedly accomplished.
Remember that this was Joseph Smith’s last sermon recorded…
Proverbs 16:18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
posted July 13, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Well Pride…. I hope you never say you are proud of your children or anyone! I love when people take things out of context! How does this one discourse go with all of his other comments.
And the truth is…that Joseph was right!
posted July 13, 2007 at 6:26 pm
PrideBeforeHeFell:Remember that this was Joseph Smith’s last sermon recorded…
GB:Do you have the audio of that sermon? Was in audible enough to get an accurate transcription? Was that the whole sermon? Are you sure your context is accurate?
Just wondering.
posted July 13, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Sorry it should read “Was it audible enough to get an accurate transcription?”
posted July 13, 2007 at 6:33 pm
This is a perfect example of how Joseph Smith, Jr. pridefully boasted about his “accomplishment” and pridefully spoke of himself as [misrepresentation].
I ask that any Mormon who reads this to check out what the Bible says about pride and about man boasting in the things that he has supposedly accomplished.
Remember that this was Joseph Smith’s last sermon recorded…
I’ll agree that what Joseph actually said sounds prideful, although it wasn’t quite what you said he said. But if you read the Bible with any degree of attention, you’ll note that Moses also sinned in pride, in one of his last public appearances. So all you’ve done is prove the Book of Mormon statement that Joseph was a prophet “like unto Moses” — for bad as well as for good.
If you knew or cared about the Bible, you would not base arguments on the proposition that a real prophet cannot also be a sinner.
posted July 13, 2007 at 6:41 pm
“Mormonism is an invented (and inventive) American religion that has no basis in truth other than it’s rejected, ill-fitting, chords that loosely tie it to the shredded orthodoxy of biblical truth.”
We aren’t interested in tying ourselves to what you call your shredded orthodoxy. We’re only interested in Christianity, and the Biblical truths. You have no right to go redefining words such as “Christian,” which are terms from the Bible, or turning the savior’s name into your own personal country club.
Keep your shredded Orthodoxy. The opposite of “orthodox” is “heretical.” That’s the traditional term for people who reject the traditions and philosophies of men.
posted July 13, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Stuart:
I’m not sure if this is meant to be sarcasm or a genuine question:
“If you believe in the BIBLE, why don’t you beleive and practice the things taught within it?”
If it’s a genuine question, please provide some examples of how you perceive me not believing and practicing what is taught in the Bible? Please provide Scripture along with my apparent failings.
If it was sarcasm, never mind responding.
posted July 13, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Thank you all for your comments
There have been some great posts and discussion. When Latter-Day Saints say that we are Christians we do not claim that other great Christian faiths are not Christian. We recognize and appreciate the great faith in Christ that other church members have.
Build bridges. Both in the academic world and the religious world, you will find there is more that unites than that divides. Face-to-face and where
possible heart-to-heart discussion is better than throwing rocks from a distance. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “we should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up” (Teachings, p. 316). He further taught and lived the principle: If you will not accept our religion accept our hospitalities (Words of Joseph Smith, 1843, p. 162).
–Truman G. Madsen, “Sacred Treasures,” New Era, Aug. 1994, 46
Are Mormons Christians?
by Stephen E. Robinson, “Are Mormons Christians?” New Era, May 1998, 41
Of course we are Christians. Why would anyone say otherwise? Here are the facts.
If you live in Utah, you may be surprised. If you live where Latter-day Saints are a minority, you’ve probably heard it before—perhaps many times. But there are sincere people out there who believe the Latter-day Saints aren’t Christians. In fact, the accusation that we are not Christians is probably the most commonly heard criticism of the LDS Church and its doctrines today.
Why would anyone say such a thing? Isn’t the name of our church The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Do we not worship Christ? Is not the Book of Mormon another testament of Jesus Christ? How could anyone seriously doubt that Latter-day Saints are Christians?
The purpose of this article is to help you understand why some people make this accusation. Knowing that, perhaps you can be more comfortable and knowledgeable in dealing with such views when you hear them expressed. But remember that the spirit of contention is always un-Christian (see D&C 10:63). This article is meant to provide information and understanding rather than ammunition for disputes.
There are a number of arguments used supposedly to “prove” that we are not Christian. It is important to recognize that none of them have anything to do with whether or not Latter-day Saints believe in Jesus Christ. Rather, what they basically boil down to is this: Latter-day Saints are different from the other Christian churches. Their arguments against the Latter-day Saints being Christian generally fall into six basic categories:
Exclusion by special definition
1 What is a Christian? The term is found three times in the New Testament (Acts 11:26; Acts 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16), but it is not defined in any of those passages. According to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, the term Christian may be defined in a number of ways, but the most common is “one who believes or professes … to believe in Jesus Christ and the truth as taught by him … one whose life is conformed to the doctrines of Christ.” The second most common meaning is “a member of a church or group professing Christian doctrine or belief.”
Under either of these two definitions, Latter-day Saints qualify as Christians. However, if a special definition is created under which Christian means “only those who believe as I do,” then others might claim Latter-day Saints aren’t Christians—but all this would really mean is that while Mormons believe in Christ, we don’t believe exactly as they do. Excluding us in this way by inventing a special definition for the word Christian is like defining a duck as an aquatic bird with a broad, flat bill, webbed feet, and white feathers, and then concluding that mallards aren’t ducks because their feathers are the wrong color.
If the term Christian is used, as it is in standard English, to mean someone who accepts Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God and the Savior of the world, then the charge that we aren’t Christians is false. However, if the word Christian is given an overly narrow definition, then it is merely a way of saying LDS Christians differ in some degree from other Christians. No one “owns” the term Christian or has the right to deny it to others who worship Jesus as the divine Son of God.
Exclusion by misrepresentation
2 Some people insist on condemning Latter-day Saints for doctrines the Saints don’t even believe. They say, in effect, “This is what you Mormons believe.” Then they recite something that is certainly not taught by the Latter-day Saints. It’s easy to make LDS beliefs seem absurd if critics can make up whatever they want and pass it off as LDS doctrine.
A good example of this kind of misrepresentation took place when the subject of the Latter-day Saint pioneers came up in my daughter Sarah’s school classroom a few years ago. One of her classmates said, “My daddy says Mormons are people who live in Utah and worship idols.” Sarah quickly answered back, “Well, I’m a Mormon, and we don’t worship idols.” But many of her classmates never did believe her, largely because they had already accepted the misrepresentation.
Another form of misrepresentation is to claim something is official LDS doctrine when it may merely be an individual opinion or even speculation. The official doctrine of the Latter-day Saints is clearly defined and readily accessible to all. Doctrines are official if they are found in the standard works of the Church, if they are sustained by the Church in general conference (D&C 26:2), or if they are taught by the First Presidency as a presidency. Policies and procedures are official whenever those who hold the keys and have been sustained by the Church to make them declare them so. Other churches claim the right to define and interpret their own doctrines and policies and to distinguish between official church teachings and the opinions of individual members. Surely the Latter-day Saints must be allowed the same privilege.
Name calling
3 Name calling has often been used in religious controversies. At one time, Catholics called Protestants “heretics,” and Protestants called Catholics “papists.” But this sort of tactic amounts to nothing more than saying, “Boo for your religion, and hurrah for mine.”
The negative term most frequently flung at the LDS is “cult,” a term which can suggest images of pagan priests and rituals. But the truth is there is no objective distinction by which a cult may be distinguished from a religion. Use of the term cult does not tell us what a religion is, only how it is regarded by the person using the term. It simply means “a religion I don’t like.”
Though non-LDS scholars have made many attempts to define a “cult” in a way that would distinguish it from a “religion,” to date every such attempt has failed. So far the major difficulty has been that any definition of “cult” that fits the LDS Church also fits New Testament Christianity! But that’s not bad company to be in.
Exclusion by tradition
4 It is sometimes argued that to be truly Christian, modern churches must accept both biblical Christianity and the traditional Christianity of later history. In other words, one must accept not just biblical doctrines, but also the centuries of historical development—the councils, creeds, customs, theologians, and philosophers—that came along after New Testament times. Since the Latter-day Saints do not accept doctrines originating in the early Church after the death of the apostles and prophets, we are accused of not being “historical” or “traditional” Christians.
In fact, we believe that revelation to the early Church stopped because of the death of the Apostles and the growing apostasy, or falling away, from the truth. In the absence of Apostles, the church eventually turned to councils of philosophers and theologians, for guidance. These councils, after lengthy debates, in turn interpreted the gospel according to their best understanding. Often they drew upon the philosophies of respected men (like Plato), concluding, for example, that God has no body or physical nature; or that the three separate persons of the Godhead—the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—are only one being. The declarations of these councils are still generally accepted today by traditional Christian churches as official doctrines. Yet these creeds were formulated centuries after the deaths of the Apostles and the close of the New Testament.
Were the Twelve Apostles Christians? Of course. But if it were true that one must accept the whole package of historical Christianity in order to be a Christian, then it would be impossible for early Christians, including Jesus and his disciples, to qualify—since they lived centuries before these traditions came to be. On the other hand, if the New Testament Saints can be considered Christians without accepting all the traditions of men that came later, then so can the Latter-day Saints, and the historical exclusion is invalid.
The canonical or biblical exclusion
5 The term “canon of scripture” refers to the collection of books accepted by any group as the authoritative word of God. For most Christians the canon of scripture is limited to the Bible. But Latter-day Saints have a larger canon of scripture that includes the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. The canonical exclusion, in its simplest form, says that since Latter-day Saints have books of scripture in addition to the “traditional” Christian Bible, they cannot be Christians.
One of the problems with this canonical exclusion lies in the assumption that there is only one “traditional” Christian Bible. Over the centuries, there have been a number of different versions of the Bible, and many Christian churches and individuals have disagreed about which books should be included. Even today, the Bible used by Catholics contains a number of different books than the Bible used by Protestants. Yet Catholics and Protestants continue to call each other Christians—even though they have different canons of scripture.
When revelation stopped after the death of the early Apostles, people were forced to draw one of two conclusions: (1) either revelation had stopped because God had already said everything they would ever need, or (2) revelation had stopped because the church lacked apostles and prophets to speak for him. Traditional Christians accept the first explanation; Latter-day Saints accept the second.
Sometimes critics cite Revelation 22:18–19 [Rev. 22:18–19] as evidence that the Bible forbids adding to or taking away from the canon of scripture. In these verses, John curses those who would add to or take away from “this book.” But when John wrote Revelation, the Bible in its present form did not yet exist. He was simply referring to his own book, the Book of Revelation, rather than to the whole Bible.
The truth is that prophets have usually added to the scriptures—almost all the biblical apostles and prophets did this. There is, in fact, no biblical statement whatever closing the canon of scripture or prohibiting additional revelation or additional scripture after the New Testament.
Some non-LDS Christians believe that the Bible contains all religious truth. However, the Bible itself says nothing of the sort. The word Bible never appears in the Bible—for the Bible never refers to itself. Thus all these claims about the Bible are unbiblical. The Bible itself never claims to be perfect, never claims to be sufficient for salvation, and never claims to grant its readers authority to speak or act for God. Rather, such claims are made by those who have lost priesthood authority and have lost direct revelation and, instead of trying to find them again, are trying desperately to maintain that their loss doesn’t matter.
The doctrinal exclusion
6 This type of argument claims that since the Latter-day Saints do not always interpret the Bible as other Christians do, we must not be Christians. But, in fact, other denominations also differ among themselves doctrinally, and it is unreasonable to demand that Latter-day Saints conform to a single standard of “Christian” doctrine when no such single standard exists.
For example, the Latter-day Saints are accused of worshiping a “different god” because we do not believe in the traditional Trinity. “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost” (A of F 1:1) as taught in the New Testament. What Latter-day Saints do not believe is the non-Biblical doctrine formulated by the councils of Nicaea (A.D. 325) and Chalcedon (A.D. 451) centuries after the time of Jesus—the doctrine that God is three coequal persons in one substance or essence. We do not believe it because it is not scriptural. As Harper’s Bible Dictionary states: “The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.”
Jesus didn’t teach the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity. The New Testament writers didn’t have any idea of it. The doctrine itself wasn’t invented until centuries later. So one can’t say the Latter-day Saints are not true Christians for not accepting it, unless one also excludes Jesus, his disciples, and the New Testament Church, who similarly did not know or teach it.
Latter-day Saints do believe that God the Father has a physical body. This view is attacked as “non-Christian” by critics who often cite John 4:24, which states in the King James version that “God is a spirit.” However, since there is no indefinite article (a, or an) in the Greek language from which this verse is translated, the consensus among biblical scholars is that there should not be an indefinite article at John 4:24. It should simply read “God is spirit.” In other words, this scripture does not limit God to being only a spirit, but merely includes spirit as one of his attributes. After all, we also read that “God is light” (1 Jn. 1:5) and “God is love” (1 Jn. 4:8), and yet no one interprets these verses to mean that God is only light, or God is only love. Certainly, the member of the Godhead called the Holy Ghost is spirit, but that fact tells us nothing about whether or not God the Father has a physical body.
Finally, quite often we hear that Latter-day Saints are not Christians because true Christians believe in salvation by grace, while the Latter-day Saints believe in salvation through our own good works. But this is a misunderstanding. Yes, Latter-day Saints do believe we must serve God with all our “heart, might, mind, and strength” (D&C 4:2). But the Book of Mormon makes perfectly clear that it is impossible for us to completely earn or deserve our blessings from God (Mosiah 2:21, 24); that redemption can never come through individual effort alone, but only through the Atonement of Jesus Christ (2 Ne. 2:3, 5–8); and that—after all we can do (Alma 24:11)—we are saved by grace (2 Ne. 10:24; 2 Ne. 25:23).
Conclusion
We have discussed arguments some people use for claiming that Latter-day Saints are not Christians. Notice that not one of these addresses the question of whether we accept Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God and Savior. Our critics don’t address this—the only issue that really matters—for the LDS position here is an unassailable matter of record. Our first article of faith [A of F 1:1] declares our belief in Jesus Christ. We meet every Sunday and partake of the sacrament to renew our faith in and our commitment to Him as the Son of God and the Savior of the world.
I have frequently asked non-LDS critics exactly which Book of Mormon teachings about Jesus Christ they disagree with. Invariably the response has been that it isn’t what the Book of Mormon says that is offensive to them—it is the Book of Mormon itself. Most anti-Mormons reject the LDS scriptures without knowing or caring what those scriptures actually teach about Christ. You see, it isn’t really the LDS doctrine of Christ that is objectionable; rather, it is the claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, that the Book of Mormon is God’s word, and that the gospel has been restored to the earth in the latter days.
Both the Book of Mormon as scripture and Joseph Smith as a prophet bear witness to Jesus Christ as Savior. The Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price bear that same great witness, as do all of the modern prophets and apostles. Though all the world may say that Latter-day Saints do not know or love or worship Jesus Christ, the truth is that we do. If this is not enough to be counted as Christian, then that word has lost its meaning.
(This article is largely adapted from the book Are Mormons Christians? Bookcraft, 1991.)
Elder Neal A. Maxwell: “There is today more ecumenicism, but there is also more shared doubt. More and more people believe less and less—but they do believe it together. The fewer the issues, the easier it is to get agreements. The fewer standards there are, the less there is for congregations to rebel against. Since knowing is tied to doing, and doing to knowing, there is an awful cycle in all of this. Jesus said we can know of the divinity of his doctrines by keeping his commandments and by doing the will of the Father. Therefore, a slackening of behavioral standards brings more doubt. (John 7:16-17.) Such doubters will not want to be reminded of the strong, true doctrines pertaining to human behavior. Standards will grow even more slack, and true teachings will dwindle even further.” (Things As They Really Are, p48-49)
The book I was reading is called The Reformed Pastor by Richard Baxter, and it is a classic of creedal Christian ecclesiastical literature. Written in 1656, just a few years after the Reformation, the book is a guide to pastors in the then very new reformed faith as to the demands and expectations on their lives and work. From its pages a couple of passages jumped out at me in light of this blog.
And it is not ourselves only that are scorched in this flame, but we have drawn our people into it, and cherished them in it, so that most of the godly in the nation are fallen into parties, and have turned much of their ancient piety into vain opinions and disputes and envyings and animosities. Yea, whereas it was wont to be made the certain mark of a graceless wretch to deride the godly, how few are there now that stick at secretly deriding and slandering those that are not of their opinions! A pious Prelatical man can reverently scorn and slander a Presbyterian; and a Presbyterian an Independent; and an Independent both. And, what is the worst of all, the common ignorant people take notice of all this, and do not only deride us, but are hardened by us against religion; and when we go about to persuade them to be religious, they see so many parties, that they know not which to join; and think that it is as good to be of none at all, as of any, since they are uncertain which is the right; and thus thousands are grown into a contempt of all religion, by our divisions; and many poor carnal wretches begin to think themselves in the better case of the two, because they hold to their old formalities, when we hold to nothing. [Emphasis added.]
And then a few pages later:
Besides, consider what a disadvantage you cast upon your cause, in all your disputations with men of different views. If your principles be better than theirs, and their practice be better than yours, the people will suppose that the question is whether the name or the thing, the shadow or the substance, be more desirable, and they will take your way to be a mere delusive formality, because they see you but formal in the use of it, yea, that you use it not at all.
Christian Interfaith Relationships
Christian Interfaith Relationships
Christian Interfaith Relationships
by Richard P. Lindsay
The Church has never existed in isolation or insulation from other Christian faiths. Its roots and its nurture are in, and remain in, the Christian heritage. But its claim that the heavens have opened anew, that a restoration of the lost radiance and power of the full gospel of Jesus Christ is under way at divine initiative, and its rejection of many long-standing traditions have generated misunderstanding and ill will. In the first generation in the United States, the solidarity of the Latter-day Saints was thought to be inimical to pluralism and at the same time aroused the ire of sectarians. Missionary efforts through personal contact more than through mass media and image making sometimes compounded the problem. In certain times and circumstances, there has been no will, or at least no lasting resolve by either side, for outreach and cooperation.
In three ways these tensions are being reduced:
1. Institutionally. Church officers now participate with leaders of other faiths in Christian interchange. LDS leaders in many countries are welcomed to interfaith devotionals with their Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox counterparts. This has been in keeping with the precept and example of early Church authorities (see Tolerance). For mutual support, they likewise meet and organize, across varied lines and programs, for example, the chaplaincies of many nations of the free world, the Boy Scout movement, the National Council of Christians and Jews, and local and international service clubs concerned with social, ethical, and moral issues.
2. Educationally. The Church fosters the largest adult education curriculum in the world. Many of the courses are Bible-related, and some focus on Christian history and institutions. For high school and college-age students, who now exceed half a million, the Church provides similar courses in its seminaries and institutes adjacent to high schools and major universities. Teachers in the Church Educational System are given financial supplements to visit the Holy Land, to study the origins of the three great monotheistic religions, to become familiar with the vocabularies and worldviews of alternative Christian institutions, and to understand and recognize common ground in the lives of the youth they teach. LDS scholars of many disciplines are increasingly involved in the religious studies programs of academic and professional organizations.
The Church has opened its extensive broadcasting facilities to representative programming across the spectrum of Christian groups (see Bonneville International; KSL, Radio). It has also been a major participant in religious broadcasts in the VISN Religious Interfaith Cable Television Network, which represents most major denominations in the United States.
To establish two-way interchange, the Richard L. Evans Chair of Christian Understanding was established at Brigham Young University. Funded and advised by a variety of Christian groups (the initial commitment came from a Presbyterian), this Endowment fosters religious studies symposia, lectures, forums, exchange programs, and visiting professorships. It also sponsors interfaith meetings where common as well as controversial theological issues are presented by representatives of each tradition, and where workshops help resolve tensions in an atmosphere of goodwill.
The Religious Studies Center at Brigham Young University produces distinguished volumes utilizing scholars of many faiths who represent interdisciplinary and comparative expertise. Although a literature of disparagement continues both from the left and from the right (see Anti-Mormonism), Church leaders continually remind the membership that whatever may be said of those who make a religion of anti-Mormonism, a retaliatory response is neither wise nor Christian.
3. Practically in Christian Humanitarianism. At its best the pattern of LDS life, institutionally and individually, has not been to demand rights but to merit them, not to clamor for fellowship and goodwill but to manifest them and to give energy and time beyond rhetoric. In a major address to regional Church leaders, former President Spencer W. Kimball set the tone:
We urge members to do their civic duty and to assume their responsibilities as individual citizens in seeking solutions to the problems which beset our cities and communities.
With our wide ranging mission, so far as mankind is concerned, Church members cannot ignore the many practical problems that require solution if our families are to live in an environment conducive to spirituality.
Where solutions to these practical problems require cooperative action with those not of our faith, members should not be reticent in doing their part in joining and leading in those efforts where they can make an individual contribution to those causes which are consistent with the standards of the Church [Kimball, Ensign 8 (May 1978):100].
Examples of recent Church-encouraged projects that reach across different affiliations include cooperative emergency assistance, support for homeless shelters in many cities, and linkage with the work of the Salvation Army. At BYU, students of other faiths are often elected to student offices, and various service clubs strive against intolerance and clannishness. In the same spirit, the Church was among the first to give aid, with other Christian bodies, to disaster areas in such places as China, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Los Angeles, Peru, Armenia, Japan, Iran, Chile, and Greece. Through two special fasts, the Church raised $11 million for the hungry in Africa and Ethiopia, and utilized Catholic services as a delivery system (see Humanitarian Service ).
Because so much in contemporary society is dissonant, centrifugal, and divisive, interfaith understanding and mutuality seem indispensable. LDS history suggests that what appear to be intractable political, social, and economic clashes are often, at root, religious. To overcome needless divisions and to heal the wounds of modern life, including the religious life, are not just the commission of Latter-day Saints but of all who take seriously the message and ministry of Jesus Christ. Unless in some there is Christlike concern for all, there is little hope for any.
(See Daily Living home page; Interfaith Relationships home page)
Bibliography
Arrington, Leonard. “Historical Development of International Mormonism.” University of Alberta, Religious Studies and Theology 7 (1) Jan. 1987.
Keller, Roger R. Reformed Christians and Mormon Christians: Let’s Talk. Ann Arbor, Mich., 1986.
Madsen, Truman G. “Are Christians Mormon?” BYU Studies 15 (Autumn 1974):73-94.
Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.2, Interfaith Relationships
Evangelical preaches at Salt Lake Tabernacle
By Carrie A. Moore
Deseret Morning News
With Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints sitting together in the Salt Lake Tabernacle for an “Evening of Friendship,” internationally renowned Christian philosopher Ravi Zacharias told them Sunday night that Jesus Christ’s unique claim upon humanity is that he embodied truth and sacrificed himself for a world that often does not recognize him.
Christian philosopher Ravi Zacharias speaks at the Salt Lake Tabernacle, in an event organized by Standing Together Ministries. (Jason Olson, Deseret Morning News)
Jason Olson, Deseret Morning News
Christian philosopher Ravi Zacharias speaks at the Salt Lake Tabernacle, in an event organized by Standing Together Ministries.
But what many Utahns may remember most distinctly is the sermon that came before it.
Taking the pulpit to speak of the event’s historic nature, Fuller Theological Seminary President Richard Mouw addressed a capacity crowd of several thousand, offering a stunningly candid apology to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and noting that “friendship has not come easily between our communities.” He dubbed the evening “historic” and apologized that Evangelicals “have often misrepresented the faith and beliefs of the Latter-day Saints.”
“Let me state it clearly. We evangelicals have sinned against you,” he said, adding both camps have tended to marginalize and simplify the others’ beliefs.
Historical animosity dating back to the founding of the LDS Church by Joseph Smith in 1830 has heightened in recent years between the two groups, particularly in the 1990s, when several high-profile evangelical leaders asserted that “Mormons are not Christians.”
Mouw noted the 200th anniversary of Joseph Smith’s birthday next December and several scholarly events planned to celebrate during the coming year. “I hope many in the evangelical community will take part in those events,” he said.
The Tabernacle was filled to capacity 10 minutes before the 6 p.m. service began. More than 7,000 tickets had been distributed shortly after plans for the event became known in September.
The fact that the LDS Church opened its signature pulpit to Zacharias — the first such invitation in more than a century — has had some in both faith camps talking about the motives of Standing Together Ministries and the Richard L. Evans Chair of Religious Understanding at Brigham Young University, who organized the event.
Zacharias shared the dais with both evangelical preachers and Latter-day Saint scholars and moved widely beyond the pulpit as he weaved biblical parables with modern tales of those who encounter Christ and recognize truth, often in the context of major human heartache and suffering that no political maneuvering can solve.
He spoke of the “exclusivity and sufficiency of Jesus Christ,” noting that he asserted an exclusive truth claim in his declaration as “the way, the truth and the life.” While he acknowledged that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints differ in many of their views from historic Christianity, he emphasized much of what they share in reverence for a being both consider the divine Savior of mankind.
Christ as Lord offered the perfect “description of the human condition,” he said, noting that when surveying the world’s major religious traditions, “no where is the doctrine of sin so clearly enunciated as in the Christian faith.” Without such a definition, relativism makes almost any behavior acceptable because it can simply be called some kind of sickness.
He related a conversation with a woman who had dedicated her life to freeing children from sexual slavery in an Asian nation, and how she had snatched an 18-month-old girl out of the hands of a man who was defiling her. “You tell me there is no such thing as evil. You want to call it deviance, aberrant, a slip of judgment? Jesus looked at it and called it what it was.
“Psychologists are coming to the realization that in taking away that word (sin), they’ve taken away that which was needed to identify what was real.”
Richard Mouw
Richard Mouw
The Bible says all people commit sin, and thus “come short before the glory of God. Have you seen your own heart before Jesus Christ?”
Christianity is the one faith that offers true forgiveness, he said, recalling his own suicide attempt as a young boy in India. Someone brought a Bible into his hospital room, and he can now relive the “moment knowing what it was to hear the Lord say, ‘neither do I condemn thee. Go they way and sin no more.’ ”
The Christian gospel offers the one true chance at lasting peace, he said, noting a conversation last March with one of the founders of Hamas, whose members regularly take responsibility for suicide bombings among Israelis. Reminding the leader of the biblical account both Islam and Christianity share of Abraham offering his son on the altar, he told the man that God stayed the execution.
“Until we receive the Son that has been provided, we’ll be offering our own sons” up to the killing fields of warfare.
He said Jesus is the “embodiment of the ideal” of purity, and as such, evil will seek to besmirch his character. Singling out the best-selling novel, “The Da Vinci Code,” as a great “gasp of human skepticism,” he said, “what better way to nail in the coffin of Christendom than to attack the purity of Christ.” The book presumes a sexual relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
Christ’s triumph over the grave will outlast such speculation, he said, quoting evangelist Billy Graham’s answer to the chancellor of Germany in the wake of World War II. “Outside the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I know of no other hope for mankind.” The 45-minute sermon was greeted with a warm standing ovation.
Best-selling Christian musician Michael Card provided music for the service, performing piano and vocal music and asking the audience to join in on the chorus of several numbers.
One pastor who concluded the service said several times he didn’t want the meeting to end, noting he was excited to have met in the Tabernacle and suggesting the meeting become an annual event. Then with a smile, he added, “Don’t you all have a bigger place right across the street?”
E-mail: carrie@desnews.com
Do Latter-day Saints believe that they are the only Christians?
W. John Walsh
Robert L. Millet
Joseph Fielding McConkie
Van Hale and Bill Forrest
by W. John Walsh
Those from competing religions often attempt to convince the public that Latter-day Saints are intolerant and hostile to people who are not members of their Church. In reality, Latter-day Saints are encouraged to reach out and befriend nonmembers of our Church, regardless of differences between our belief systems. President Gordon B. Hinckley has said:
“We can respect other religions, and must do so. We must recognize the great good they accomplish. We must teach our children to be tolerant and friendly toward those not of our faith. We can and do work with those of other religions in the defense of those values which have made our civilization great and our society distinctive.
For instance, there recently came to my office a Protestant minister who is a most effective leader in the unending battle against pornography. We are grateful for him. We join with him and his associates. We give financial support to his organization.
We can and do work with those of other religions in various undertakings in the everlasting fight against social evils which threaten the treasured values which are so important to all of us. These people are not of our faith, but they are our friends, neighbors, and co-workers in a variety of causes. We are pleased to lend our strength to their efforts.
But in all of this there is no doctrinal compromise. There need not be and must not be on our part. But there is a degree of fellowship as we labor together.” (See We Bear Witness of Him for President Hinckley’s full comments)
One of the favorite techniques critics use to sponsor the misrepresentation that Latter-day Saints are hostile to nonmembers is to distort LDS views on salvation. This distortion is normally accomplished by either twisting an actual LDS belief into something we don’t believe or accurately quoting a real LDS belief, but leaving out the other LDS doctrines which give context to that belief.
Now let’s answer your specific questions:
Do Latter-day Saints believe that they are the only Christians? Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin noted:
“A dictionary defines a Christian as ‘one who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus,’ and ‘one who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.’ Thus two characteristics identify Christians: First, they profess belief in the Savior, and second, they act in harmony with the Savior’s teachings. Faithful members of the Church called Saints or Latter-day Saints, qualify clearly in both characteristics. In our belief and our action, we demonstrate that ‘ Jesus Christ Himself (is) the chief corner stone’ of our faith.” (See Christians in Belief and Action for Elder Wirthlin’s full comments)
Unlike some competing denominations, Latter-day Saints don’t try and play word games with this definition. For us to recognize a nonmember of our Church as a Christian, we don’t demand that they hold all the same views of Jesus as we do. For example, some other Christian denominations teach that Jesus discarded his resurrected body at some point and now only exists as a spirit. Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus presently has a resurrected physical body, the same physical body he had during his mortal sojourn. (See Resurrection of Jesus Christ) Our difference of belief on this fundamental doctrine does not cause us to say that those who hold different –and we believe false– views are not Christians. Despite their false views on this issue, we still consider them Christians. If you say you believe in Jesus Christ and say you try to follow his teachings, and want to be called a Christian, then Latter-day Saints are happy to acknowledge you as such. (For discussions of related issues, see “Mormonism” and Christendom )
by Robert L. Millet
Latter-day Saints believe that truth is to be found throughout the earth–among men and women in all walks of life, among sages and philosophers, and among people of differing religious persuasions. But they do claim that through the call of Joseph Smith and his successors, and through the establishment of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored to earth. They value the truths had among the children of God everywhere but believe that theirs is the “only true church” in the sense that the same divine authority and the same doctrines of salvation had from the beginning are now to be found in their fullness in the LDS faith. It is odd that Protestant Christianity should be so offended with Joseph Smith’s statement that 19th-century Christianity was off course; is that not exactly what those protesters like Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli said in regard to the Roman Catholic Church?
The Mormon Faith: A New Look at Christianity
Copyright by Deseret Book
by Joseph Fielding McConkie
The essence of Christianity centers on the idea that salvation is in Christ. That being the case, everyone who truly embraces the Christian faith must at the same time embrace the idea that it is only in and through Christ that salvation comes. Christ himself said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). Thus the doctrine of all the holy prophets has been that there is “none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12; see also D&C 18:23; 2 Nephi 25:20; 31:21). Within the ranks of those professing to be Christians there may be differences on the requirements of salvation, but all must agree on the acceptance of Christ as the source of salvation. At issue here is not whether a line must be drawn between the believer and the nonbeliever but simply where that line should be drawn. Latter-day Saints have marked a narrow path; the Protestant world endorses a broad one. For us there is but “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5) and thus one true Church. For Protestants the point of unity is the saving grace of Christ, beyond which is an immense doctrinal and denominational diversity. They hold it to be unchristian for us to suppose that they are not on the path of salvation while rejecting as outrageous any notion that we could possibly be on that path.
Answers: Straightforward Answers To Tough Gospel Questions
Copyright by Deseret Books
by Van Hale and Bill Forrest
From the beginning a basic LDS claim declares that the church originally established by Jesus Christ through his apostles and prophets eventually apostatized, and was restored by Jesus through Joseph Smith in 1830, and the years that followed. (See Restoration of the Gospel home page)
It has become popular among opponents of the LDS faith to distort and misrepresent this LDS belief by claiming that Mormons despise all of the beliefs and advocates of all non-LDS Christian churches. A typical example of this is Walter Martin:
“With one dogmatic assertion Joseph pronounced everybody wrong, all Christian theology an abomination, and all professing Christians corrupt-all in the name of God’” (Maze of Mormonism (Santa Ana: Vision House, 1978), p. 31:)
A tract widely circulated by the anti-Mormon group, Saints Alive in Jesus, begins:
“Mormon missionaries, young fellows, neatly dressed, polite, ringing doorbells-two by two! Telling you that: Your church is all wrong; Your creed is an abomination; Your pastors are corrupt.” (Here They Come . . 30,000 of Them)
The following article was first published in the Deseret News and is reproduced here from Millennial Star 63 (August 22, 1901), p. 549-551. This article represents LDS attitudes toward other Christian churches much more accurately than do the statements of Mormonism’s opponents generally.
“MORMONISM” AND CHRISTENDOM
Attitude of the Former Towards the Latter Clearly Defined–Its True Position
A gentleman who has taken much interest in the articles in the Deseret News in reply to the attacks by the Presbyterian convention upon the “Mormon” Church, writes to us expressing his opinion that the News has “the best of the argument,” but wants to know whether the Latter-day Saints “reject Christianity in all its branches, with all its doctrines, despising the whole system and the gospel it proclaims.”
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not take the position set forth in this query. It accepts Christianity, that is the Christianity of Jesus Christ, in all its branches and with all its doctrines. But it regards modern Christendom, with its multifarious sects and denominations and preachers, and many of its contradictory notions, as entirely different from that Christianity which Jesus of Nazareth and His Apostles promulgated. There is, however, some measure of truth in every religion extant; that we certainly do not reject. There are good people in all the religious organizations both in Christendom and in heathendom; they, we certainly do not condemn.
The systems of religion which men have invented are human, and therefore are not to be regarded as authorized of God. Whatever good there may be in any of them is divine. That which is erroneous is from mortal man or from the Evil One. None of them could continue in existence but for the measure of truth therein contained. But they all embody errors that stamp them as man-made and therefore unreliable. The Church of Christ must come from Christ, and its doctrines must be such as He reveals, not merely “the commandments of men.” The good which some men and women associated with those systems are able to accomplish, we recognize and believe it is acceptable to God. But when men administer ordinances and ceremonies in the name of Deity which they have not been authorized by the Lord to perform, they assume a position which is displeasing to the Almighty, and their official acts in His name are utterly empty and void.
We do not despise or repudiate any principle of truth that is to be found in any system of religion, no matter by what name it may be called. Anything that is true in theology, philosophy, literature, science or art; in any discovery, invention or project, we accept and it blends into the truths of religion which the Lord has revealed in these latter-days, just as separate drops of water unite in one mass as soon as they coalesce. For “Truth is truth where’er ’tis found, on Christian or on heathen ground.” There are some great truths in oriental non-Christian religions as well as in the sects that call themselves “Christian.” None of these comes into repulsion with the system now revealed from heaven, and which is commonly dubbed ” Mormonism.”
This idea is clearly set forth in simple language in the Book of Mormon as follows:
Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God, and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin and to do that which is evil continually. But behold, that which is of God, inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, everything which inviteth and enticeth to do good and to love God and to serve Him is inspired of God.
We do not interfere, or wish to interfere, with the promulgation of anything that is true and beneficial to mankind, no matter from whence it proceeds. We do not desire to belittle the efforts of good men and women to elevate and improve humanity. On the contrary we wish them Godspeed. If they have anything better or more advanced than that which we have received, we stand ready to accept it. But we know this: God has opened up a new dispensation, “the dispensation of the fullness of times, in which He will gather in one all things that are in Christ.” He has set up His Church again on earth, and committed authority to chosen men to administer in His name and teach the truths which He reveals. As There can be but one true Church of Christ no matter how many branches it may have in different nations, we do not regard any of the conflicting sects as divine or authoritative.
Our mission is to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to every creature, both in Christendom and in heathendom, and call upon all people, everywhere, to repent of their sins believing in Christ, and to be baptized by one having authority, for the remission of sins which comes through the atonement; with the promise that they who obey shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, which teacheth all things, guides into all truth, shows things to come and reveals the Father and the Son. It is the everlasting Gospel proclaimed by Christ Himself when on earth, and by the Apostles whom he sent into the world for that purpose~ and is the only way of salvation. The Church which he has set up today is organized after the pattern of the early Christian Church, and its ministers hold the same authority, power, keys and inspiration that were given to holy men of old.
This is our position as to the Church of the true and living God, and its attitude toward other religious creeds and societies. While we take this stand, and claim the right to worship God according to His revealed will, and the dictates of our own consciences, we accord the same right to all people upon the face of the earth let them worship what, or whom, or when they may. (See Articles of Faith)
JOSEPH SMITH’S VIEW OF THE CREEDS
Those who claim that Mormons deny the existence of any truth or goodness in any other Christian church usually cite this verse from Joseph Smith’s account of his first vision (Joseph Smith 2:19) as their source:
. . . The Personage [Jesus Christ] who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
However, the following statement of Joseph Smith, which explains and tempers this, is never quoted:
I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth; I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes, and say, “Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further;” which I cannot subscribe to. (History of the Church 6:57).
To understand Joseph Smith’s position the following statement must also be considered:
Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true “Mormons.” (History of the Church 5:517).
Here Joseph Smith acknowledged truth in other churches, even truths not then found in Mormonism, and declares that true Mormons must gather these and treasure them up. On another occasion he said:
The inquiry is frequently made of me, “Wherein do you differ from others in your religious views?” In reality and essence we do not differ so far in our religious views, but that we could all drink into one principle of love. One of the grand fundamental principles of ‘Mormonism” is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may. (History of the Church 5:499)-
The only thing that Joseph Smith condemned in other churches was that which was less than divine, that which was man-made. In a letter he wrote while in Liberty Jail he acknowledged the sincerity of those of other churches:
For there are yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it. (D&C 123:12).
It seems clear that the only ones whom Joseph Smith condemned were those professors of religion who sought by craftiness to deceive.
Editor’s Note: Joseph Smith also made the following statement:
“The Saints can testify whether I am willing to lay down my life for my brethren. If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a Mormon, I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholic or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves.” (Documentary History of the Church Vol.5, p. 498.)
STATEMENTS OF BRIGHAM YOUNG
Brigham Young also expressed views similar to those of Joseph Smith:
“Mormonism” so-called, embraces every principle pertaining to life and salvation for time and eternity. No matter who has it. If the infidel has got truth it belongs to “Mormonism.” The truth and sound doctrine possessed by the sectarian world, and they have a great deal, all belong to this church. As for their morality many of them are morally just as good as we are. All that is good, lovely, and praiseworthy belongs to this church and kingdom. (Journal of Discourses 11:375).
It was the occupation of Jesus Christ and his Apostles to propagate the Gospel of salvation and the principles of eternal life to the world, and it is our duty and calling, as ministers of the same salvation and Gospel, to gather every item of truth and reject every error. Whether a truth be found with professed infidels, or with the Universalists, or the Church of Rome, or the Methodists, the Church of England, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Quakers, the Shakers, or any other of the various and numerous different sects and parties, all of whom have more or less truth, it is the business of the Elders of this Church (Jesus, their elder brother being at their head,) to gather up all the truths in the world pertaining to life and salvation . . . (JD 7:283).
(See Do Only Mormons Go to Heaven?; Daily Living home page; Interfaith Relationships home page; Response to Criticism home page; Accusatory Questions home page)
Are Christians Mormon?
by Truman G. Madsen, Edited by Kerry A. Shirts
For a hundred and fifty years the question has been repeatedly asked worldwide, “Are Mormons Christian?” We have struggled through the semantic tangles to answer that with an unqualified “yes.” In his heart every Mormon knows that this question is much like asking, “Is Hamlet Shakespearian?” It might be said, “After all, Hamlet is a manifestation of Shakespeare. In fact, Hamlet is Shakespeare.” Precisely. And so, the Mormon knows that Mormonism is the most vital twentieth century manifestation of Christ. Unlike Hamlet, it is alive. If it is less than that it is nothing.
Here the plan is to reverse the question and ask, “Are Christians Mormon?” This is not mere word play. In our time there are renowned and influential spokesmen and writers in all the major wings of Christendom–and they are not on the periphery but at the center–who are defending and teaching what, a century ago, Joseph Smith almost alone taught. For teaching it he, and his immediate heirs, gave their lives. No one of these spokesmen has pulled it all together, but there are pieces and fragments everywhere.
Before we outline these in a way that must be at best, a beginning, may I offer just four cautions:
First, tracing trends and movements and shifts is always a selective affair. Just as powerful as the movements I am going to chronicle are counter movements equally influential that could lead one to the conclusion that Christianity today has never been farther away from its original moorings. Moreover, those who have swung towards us have sometimes swung pendulum-like too far the other way.
Second, terminology is deceptive. Men may speak similarly but mean and feel differently. And, as you know, the theological vocabulary is notoriously vague.
Third, the focus on belief–it involves values, commitments, kinds of loyalty, and cultures.
Finally, there is–as our missionaries more than anyone in the world may know–a tremendous chasm between what professional writers may say theologically, philosophically, and what actually penetrates to the grass roots. Between the theoretician and the layman there is an ocean.
But after those precautions, let us proceed with boldness.
The Nature of God (See Teachings About the Godhead home page)
When the Boy Prophet emerged from the grove now called Sacred, he announced an unqualified testimony that God is a person. In doing so he offended the traditional sensitivities of every official Christian church. They had used the word “person”–and still do–but only in a most attenuated form, ascribing to the Eternal, consciousness, will, some kind of individuality, but denying the full-bodied characteristics of personality that we associate with the word.
Today that has remarkably changed. There are many who are saying that either the God of the Christian heritage is a person–a God like Jesus the Christ–or Christianity is simply false. Nels F. S. Ferre, for one, has said, “We must return to the categories of the New Testament and abandon the categories of the philosophers.” ["The Christian faith, we have said, needs to develop its own framework for expressing its universal message. Too long has it been limited by being couched within the thought stance of substance philosophy, while the newer process metaphysics is also unable to do full justice to the universal nature of the Christian faith.. . . The three categories of the New Testament which fundamentally define God, the Ultimate, are spirit, personal purpose, and love. We turn, therefore, to. . . these categories as the substrates from which the Christian framework can be formulated without recourse to alien, limiting, and distorting philosophies." Nels F. S. Ferre, The Universal Word (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969), p. 91.] Three recent articles have almost identical titles, “Is the God of the Philosophers the Same as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?” [Norbert Samuelson, "That the God of the Philosophers is Not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," Harvard Theological Review 65 (January 1972): 1-27; Robin Atfield, "The God of Religion and the God of Philosophy," Religious Studies, vol. 9, no.1 (March 1973):1-9. Catholic Karl Rahner also makes the distinction in "Visions and Prophecies": "Out of the infinite possibilities of his freedom (who is the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, not that of the philosophers) God could reveal this or that.. . . " Rahner, Inquiries (New York: Herder & Herder, 1964), p. 106.] And their answer is “no”. Judah Halevi, Pascal, and Martin Buber, to name three recent philosophers, have said so.
A new interest in the question of whether we must delimit the word “being” and add the word “becoming” in our understanding of God is widespread. [One of the classic systematic presentations of the strength of "finitism" in theology is William Pepperell Montague's Belief Unbound (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1930). The "process philosophy" movement, involving such men as William James, Alfred North Whitehead, Charles Hartshorne and others, is particularly concerned with the subject. Cf. Hartshorne's Man's Vision of God (Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1941): Charles Hartshorne and William L. Reese, eds., Philosophers Speak of God (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953); and Paul Tillich, "Tillich's Doctrine of God," in The Theology of Paaul Tillich, ed. Charles W. Kegley and Robert W. Bretall (New York: Macmillan, 1961).] Having studied under two well-known theologians, I can report a like instinct in them. One, still alive, has written in summary, “The Mormons are right.” This is Charles Hartshorne of the University of Texas who has said that God is in some senses perfect but in other and important senses not; that there is yet process in God; that we must avoid, as Whitehead once said, “paying metaphysical compliments to God” which turn out to be insults. [In a personal letter dated 31 December 1972, Hartshorne, speaking of "tendencies in modern thought with affinities to Mormonism," also referred to Fechner, Leguier, Bergson, W. E. Hocking, Varisco, James Ward, and John Elof Boodin.]
The other, dead, is Paul Tillich. And I happen to know, as few do, that shortly before his death, having written three volumes identifying God with “Being Itself,” with the Ground of Being, and denying all personal attributes, he keenly and tragically regretted it and fervently said, “If only I could do it over I would rewrite my book in terms of ‘Spirit.’” [This according to conversations in his last months with Nels F. S. Ferre and John Dillenberger. See Tillich"s volume, Biblical Religions and the Search for Ultimate Reality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955). This book has been called a "brilliant compromise" between Being and personality. Careful reading will show it retains the word "person" only as an unavoidable human projection.] The next step would have been “person.”
Robert McAffee Brown, [In Brown's response to Sterling McMurrin's Theological Foundations of Mormonism (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1965), he speaks of tendencies on contemporary theology toward a positive estimate of personality. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 1, no. 1 (Spring 1966), especially pp. 112-13.] John Cobb, Jr., and many others are taking similar ground. We are no longer alone. [John B. Cobb, Jr., A Christian Natural Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965). See my review in BYU Studies, 6 (Spring-Summer 1965), pp. 186-88.]
Related to this is a comment of a prominent philosopher of education who has gone through, one by one, the traditional theistic categories like immutability, self-fulfilledness, absolute happiness, and then said, “I see no evidence in the scriptures nor any reasons discovered in logical analysis to believe that Jesus attributed any of these mythological traits to God.” [Dean E. Turner, "The Careful Heart," (unpublished manuscript). Professor Turner's work also contains a complimentary section on the Mormon defiance of the traditional reading of "omnipotence," "omniscience," and "omnipresence."] Jesus spoke of God as “Father.”
The Nature of Man (See Mankind)
Intertwined with this is the remarkable testimony we have struggled to bear as to the nature of man, the witness that there is something, even now, divine in mankind. This was offensive to anti-religionists and humanists for on their view man is much less than a superman and has only this life to work out his folly; offensive to the traditional Catholics because in their view there is a chasm between the nature of man and God and man only has dignity to the degree that he receives what they call “salvific grace.” It was offensive to Fundamentalists and Calvinists because in their view man is afflicted with pride and in the worst view utterly depraved–a worm. The doctrine has seemed even more out of step with the mental weather of our time, for national and world catastrophe in the last fifty years has so shaken our confidence in man, so undercut the foundations of assurance, that today nihilism is popular and it is as if writers have chosen up sides to see who can declare the most sophisticated despair.
Out of step with all this, we have gone on saying that these writers are not describing all of real life, but only life without God; not being honest, but only morbid; not being true to experience, but only to a projected face of experience; and not undercutting genuine faith in God, but only their disillusioned false faiths.
Today others are seeing man’s potential. Rufus Jones, the Quaker mystic, has written in nearly thirty books, “The old dualism must go”–the dualism that absolutely separates man and God. ["The two-world theory has become impossible to those who think in the terms of this generation. It is a dead conception. We have come back, by the help of psychology and modern philosophy, to the position of the first apostle of Christianity that every person lives and moves and has this real being in God." Rufus Jones, The Radiant Life (New York: Macmillan, 1944), p. 150.] Henri Bergson closes his book, Two Sources of Religion and Mortality, saying, “The universe is a machine for the making of Gods.” [Henri Bergson, The Two Sources of Morality in Religion (New York: Henry Holt, 1935). Bergson's concluding lines read: "Mankind lies groaning, half crushed beneath the weight of its own progress. Men do not sufficiently realize that the future is in their own hands. Theirs is the task of determining first of all whether they want to go on living or not. Theirs is the responsibility, then, for deciding if they want merely to live, or intend to make just the extra effort required for fulfilling, even on their refractory planet, the essential function of the universe, which is a machine for the making of gods" (p. 306).] Elton Trueblood has recently written, “Christianity is palatable not only because Jesus is like God, but because God is like Jesus.” ["The deepest conviction of all Christian theology is the affirmation that the God of all the world is like Jesus Christ. Because the logical development is from the relatively known to the relatively unknown, the procedure is not from God to Christ, but from Christ to God." Elton Trueblood, The Humor of Christ (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), p. 32.] And so may man be.
The Jesuit paleontologist, Teilhard de Chardin, in The Phenomenon of Man cited evidence that the ultimate purpose undergirding even the cells and matter-in-motion of the cosmos is to produce Christs–Christogenesis, the emerging of a great and glorious personality. ["Though frightened for a moment by evolution, the Christian now perceives that what it offers him is nothing but a magnificent means of feeling more at one with God and of giving himself more to him. In a pluralistic and static Nature, the universal domination of Christ could, strictly speaking, still be regarded as an extrinsic and super-imposed power. In a spiritually converging world this 'Christic' energy acquires an urgency and intensity of another order altogether. If the world is convergent and if Christ occupies its center, then the Christogenesis of St. Paul and St. John is nothing else and nothing less than the extension. . . of the noogenesis in which cosmogenesis--as regards our experience--culminates. Christ invests himself organically with the very majesty of his creation.. . . Evolution has come to infuse new blood, so to speak, into the perspectives and aspirations of Christianity. In return, is not the Christian faith destined, is it not preparing, to save and even to take the place of evolution?" Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959), pp. 269-97. See also "Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: The Christianization of Evolution," Critical Issues in Modern Religion, Roger Johnson and Ernest Wallwork, eds. (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973), pp. 122-33. See also Dietrich Bonhoeffer: "The image of Jesus Christ impresses itself into daily communion on the image of the disciple.. . . That image has the power to transform our lives, and if we surrender ourselves utterly to him, we cannot help bearing his image ourselves. We become the sons of God, we stand side by side with Christ, our unseen Brother, bearing like him the image of God." Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship (New York: Macmillan, 1937), p. 337. The concluding chapter, "The Image of Christ," pp. 337-44, is devoted to this subject.] Karl Rahner, certainly the most influential and also the most officially renowned Catholic theologian, has written, “It is not possible to speak theologically about God without at the same time saying something about man and vice versa.” [See Rahner's Spirit in the World (New York: Herder & Herder, 1968), p. xvii.] Exactly.
Third, there was the claim that caused all to wince, of continual revelation. The Christian churches, in the absence of revelation, had tightened their views protectively, defensively, either around a holy man, the pope and hierarchy, or around a holy book, the Bible, which was alleged to be all-sufficient and only-sufficient. Religious knowing came only through that word and all other claims were treated as emotional extravagance.
Of Continual Revelation (See Prayer, Fasting, and Revelation home page)
Today it is different. Again the Quakers, George Fox, Rufus Jones, Elton Trueblood, speak (in these exact words) of continual revelation, by which they mean the cultivation of the inner light. [
posted July 13, 2007 at 9:42 pm
I understood Mr. Card’s argument when he FINALLY got off the Romney bandwagon and TRIED to answer the REAL question. However, it took FOREVER!!! Good grief. OK…you’re a smart science fistion writer and obviously you can write a lot. I don’t need to read all that crap when you really say NOTHING. The fact still remains that If Christians and Mormons differ on theology as you say they do then we can’t just say, “Well, no big deal…let’s just be friends.” It’s just not that simple. Doctrine is SO important. And the reason that so many christians today believe that mormons qualify as Christians is because of a lack of importance place on doctrine. Dr. Mohler knows doctrine and for that reason he knows that just believing in a man named Jesus does not make him the Lord of your life any more than saying that Allah and God are both the same God makes it true. It’s not and it’s important to talk about your differences in doctrine. I hope you eventually will!
posted July 13, 2007 at 10:50 pm
I’m still waiting for a legitimate response to my answer on the faith /works issue. 1 Corinthians Chap.13 vs 2
***If ONE who possesses ALL faith is NOTHING without charity how then can we be saved by faith ALONE?***
If among faith, hope & charity the greatest of these is CHARITY , the argument may be made that we can make it on Charity alone (because it encompases ALL 3) But faith alone is nothing . We can’t be saved by nothing.
Mike & Katie,
Mike’s going to be frustrated with me & think that I’m giving ammunition to the enemy here , but I’m just honestly sorting through my own questions & frustrations here.
I agree with Mike that polygamy was a commonly accepted practice in the old testament. Not only that but MANY other things that are NOT acceptable today , were also a O.K. then. Like concubines & handmaids & even prostitution was not frowned upon.
It goes without question that it was common practice to give children to your deceased brother’s wife (or other close relative as was the case with Ruth and Boaz. There was a debate as to which man was the closest relative to her , to do that for her. This was normally not a hardship to the men who performed this service , because they were not required to give up their own wife or love , or hope of future wife in order to do so. Polygamy was acceptable.
In the case of Judah’s son. The Lord destroyed him because he spilled his seed on the ground & would not give a child to his brother’s wife. Then when her father in law (Judah )also would not do it , she pretended to be a prostitute & tricked him into giving her a child. Judah was not condemned for going to a prostitute to comfort himself after the death of his wife , however when he had heard what she had done he was going to have her BURNED because she was the daughter of a priest. Double standard? Her up bringing holds the answer.
The Jews had the Temple & ALL the ordinances that are performed therein , including sealings. However the lay person did not commonly receive them. In Leviticus or Deuteronomy where they talk at legnth about the Temple , they go into a specific description of the type of woman a PRIEST was supposed to marry. Only the priests were held to that level of excellence (apparantly the daughters of priests as well)
Today ALL members have the opportunity to become priests , the higher standards are expected of ALL. Sealings are available to ALL.
I have a really hard time reading the Old Testament & believing that God even likes women. It is clear however that at different times God requires a different set of standards to a different group of people , based on their individual abilities & levels of progression. There are higher & lower laws.
Peter led the saints in the New Testament to practice the law of consecration. In early modern church history that law was also temporarily required. Today we are only expected to pay a tithe. Today we follow the Word of Wisdom where we are to “eat meat sparingly & only in times of WINTER & FAMINE” When the Lord returns & the Lamb & the Lion lie down together EVERYONE will be vegetarians even the animals just like they were back before the flood when “meat” meant fruit & herbs. (The meat offering in the Temple for the Jews was grain.)
The Lord changes the rules from time to time. prior to the flood there was no capitol punishment. Cain was allowed to roam free after he slew able although anyone who found him knew who he was & what he did.
The Lord was extremely tolerant & patient. However under such benevolence the people became soo terribly wicked & violent that all but 8 were fully ripe for destruction. (Well 8 & however many went up with the city of Enoch..) After the flood God said “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed” and the death penalty was instituted.
certain rules are for certain people at certain times. That’s why it’s absolutely necessary for there to ALWAYS be a living prophet & continual revelation. If you look to the Bible for absolutes you will be disopointed. For you will find what appears to be contradictions through out.
There is absolutely NO condemnation of polygamy in the Bible. It was quite acceptable.
If you want to find condemnation for polygamy you must look in the book of Mormon! That’s right . Now all you anti- mormons out there , I will tell you the scenario but not the reference . If you want it for your own future twisted purposes , you’ll have to search it out yourself. However other Mormons will know EXACTLY what I’m talking about. The chapter was referenced several times in recent conferences when discussing the evils of pornography. In this chapter the prophet of the time was chastising the men for breaking the tender hearts of their wives & children by desiring many wives & concubines like David of old. The chapter states that if the Lord wants to increase the population of his followers rapidly (I’m para phrasing) He will command it , but that in this particular instance he wants to raise up a “righteous branch ” , therefore they will not commit whoredoms like them of old.
Here we see that just because something was done “by them of old” does not make it acceptable for us to follow all of their examples just because a patient God did not strike them down instantly for there actions but permitted it to go on for a time.
The Lord shows us that polygamy will certainly increase the numbers of his people more rapidly , but when he wants to raise up RIGHTEOUS children , one wife only will they have & concubines NONE.
Personally I’m still struggling with how this all ties together. I also find myself offended that God chose both through Judah’s prostitution & David’s adultery to make that the line that our Lord & Savior is born through. What a slap in the face to David’s legitimate wives. My husband commits adultery & then the Lord sends the mistress Solomon the Wise for a son & makes HER the great great etc. grandmother of the Savior of all mankind. Why God chose to do that I do not understand.
Side Note : If Joseph Smith made up the Book of Mormon (Ha Ha HA Rihgt….) Why would he put all that in there about a righteous branch & only one wife & then reinstate polygamy , knowing that he would then be under scrutiny.
Something to think about.
Mary
posted July 13, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Ross: “And the reason that so many christians today believe that mormons qualify as Christians is because of a lack of importance place on doctrine.”
That’s not true, Ross. The majority of arguments against the LDS church being Christian, both on this forum and off, have been based on falsehoods and gross exaggerations about the LDS teachings, practice, and history. The next-largest group is those like Dr. Mohler, who toss aside doctrine and the Bible and appeal to “tradition” to exclude us.
This has nothing to do with doctrine.
The HYMNS that Nowandlater posted here are what is taught in church. You say they aren’t relevant, but the hymns are LDS doctrine. Much more so than anything written in private interpretation writings like “mormon doctrine” or “doctrines of salvation.” If you want any grasp of the beating heart of LDS doctrine, read the hymns. Read the Book of Mormon. Read the articles of faith. Read the general conference talks by Gordon B. Hinckley.
If you believe in the Bible, then why are you all so glib and content about looking to the traditons and philosophies of men for the “definition” of Christianity, rather than looking to the Bible?
What happened to “Sola Scritura”?
This astonishing equivocation of “tradition” to Christianity dishonors the actual tradition of Luther and Wycliffe. It’s a betrayal of the entire reformation. Not to mentioning trodding the name and words of Jesus Christ under the feet of men.
You offer the Nicene Creed, but I challenge you to show me that there was any pre-1820s consensus that the Nicene Creed was the definition of CHRISTIANITY, rather than merely the definition of Orthodoxy, i.e. what the scholars and priests had determined was correct way to interpret the Bible. Show me a pre-1820s “definition of Christianity” that actually called itself that. Show me historical statements proving that traditional Orthodox Christians referred to Origen as a “non-Christian,” rather than as an “heretic.”
The entire debate here is built on a false equivocation of Orthodoxy to Christianity, and a false construction of “tradition.” This is fundamentalism in a nutshell — a misrepresentation and modern politically motivated reconstruction of history and tradition.
If you want to judge us against your “new tradition,” then admit that’s what you’re doing. Stop projecting this so-called definition of Christianity into the past, because not even the Inquisition denied that its heretic victims were Christians.
posted July 13, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Quote: “Eric, Would you put the Nicene Creed in the category of extra-Biblical documents, and thus a false document from a false prophet?” ~ Posted by: Demosthenes | July 13, 2007 3:54 PM
Demosthenes,
I see what you’re trying to accomplish here. However, I cannot respect your arguement because it is fundamentally flawed. You have truly missed the point of what I have to say.
First, it would do you good to consider the fact that the Nicene Creed makes no claim whatsoever to be the inspired, inerrant, authoritative Word of God. It in no way equates itself with Scripture. Those who wrote it did not claim to be prophets of God. It is simply a doctrinal statement, designed to state in a clear and concise manner, some of the fundamentals of the faith. Nothing less, nothing more.
Second, everything that is not the Bible itself is considered an extra-biblical document. For example, I just finished a book on personal finance written by a guy named Dave Ramsey. It is an incredible book, and I would recommend it to anyone. It offers great common-sense advice on how to handle your money! Now, this is definitely an extra-biblical document, something to which I am sure you would agree. Why do I not condemn it as false revelation from a false prophet? Well, the answer is simple. Dave Ramsey does not claim to be a prophet of God, and he does not equate his book with the Bible.
On the other hand, texts such as the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price do make that claim! They claim to be the revelation of God, and they were written by men who claim to be his prophets!
The problem with this is that the Bible makes clear that nothing is to be added to or taken from it. Hebrews 1 also makes it clear that Jesus Christ is the ultimate and final revelation of God. That is why as someone who is devoted to the Bible alone as the authoritative Word of God, I must proclaim the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, Koran, Veda, Tao-te-ching, Bhagavad Gita, or any other book that claims to contain the revelation of God as a false text from a false prophet.
I do not do this because I hate you. I do not do this because I get a kick from judging others. I do not do this because I am a close-minded jerk! I do this simply because if I am to be true to the Holy Bible, I can do nothing else! I must be honest about what it says!
Just in case you are wondering, I do not base my life upon the Nicene Creed. It was a wonderful document that served its place in history and I respect those who wrote it, but today it is of little consequence to me. When I want to know what God says, I do not look to church councils or any other source. I simply open my Bible, and the full revelation of God to man is before me!
I hope this brings some clarity to where I stand.
posted July 13, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Speaking of other documents…Enjoy.
FARMS, “LDS Perspectives of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” (Provo, UT: FARMS) MP3: 48 minutes.
http://farms.byu.edu/multimedia/viewaudio.php?id=6
posted July 13, 2007 at 11:28 pm
To the person who wants Mormons to renounce the Book of Mormon before they can be called Christians (Which book testifies of him & confirms that the Bible is true.) Susan , I think was her name.
Why doesn’t anyone ever call upon the Catholics to renounce the apocrypha? or those of ALL Christian denominations to renounce the Dead Sea Scrolls? Or certain Baptists to renounce Josephus , or the Book of Jasher & the Book of Enoch?
What about the other books that COULD’VE easily gone into the Bible except that they wanted to save on printing costs?
Why limit yourselves to have less info & huge gaps in content?
posted July 13, 2007 at 11:40 pm
“Brigham Young was wrong about a number of things. D&C 50 gives us the process for approving doctrine through common consent, before it rises to the level of “scripture.” The process is not that different in essence from how the books now unified as the “New Testament” were identified. Not every word that the prophet speaks is prophesy, but God manifests the truthfulness to the listeners.” ~ Posted by: Peter Christian Nuttall | July 13, 2007 12:06 AM
“I don’t believe in absolute Prophet Infallibility, sorry. I do believe in Accountability and the Lord’s Empowerment of his prophets. But certainly not infallibility.” ~ Posted by: nowandlater | July 13, 2007 12:08 AM
I find these posts interesting considering what the Old Testament has to say about this kind of thing. In the Old Testament, a prophet was either right 100% of the time or he was a false prophet. In fact, anyone who claimed to speak for God but spoke something that was not the truth was to be put to death! Consider Deuteronomny 18:20-22 (KJV):
“20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. 21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? 22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.”
So according to this passage, the one who claims to speak from God but does not speak the truth is to be disregarded as a false prophet and put to death. Yet your so-called prophets such as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and all the way to present day are constantly creating, changing, and removing Mormon doctrine. Apparently yesterday’s word from the Lord to his great Mormon prophet is tomorrows Mormon mistake! How can this not bother you? Why are you not upset, furious even, that those men who call themselves prophets, seers, and revalators tell you things that are not true, or that the doctrines of old were a mistake!
A prophet in the Bible was either a true prophet or a false prophet. He either told the truth, or he did not! There is no middle ground. Every true prophet of God is infallible when speaking the words of God!
I urge you to examine closely those who claim to by your so-called prophets. Consider whether or not they pass the Biblical test.
posted July 13, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Did not men write the Bible??? I don’t thing God wrote it. Mark, John, Luke etc. were inspired by God and wrote about Jesus’ teachings.
The fact that Mormans believe in some of the ordinances and temple etc. is no more wierd the other denominations believing in the virgin birth or the resurection. OF COURSE THEY BELIEVE IN THIS TOO. How can you judge what they believe when the Bible says not to judge lest you be judged! Come on people I do believe they are Christians just as I am and I do not belong to the LDS church. Do some reading and don’t just repeat the conventional wisdom of people who are so narrow in their judgement because of their tunnel vision. What are they afraid of????T think they do protest to much!
posted July 13, 2007 at 11:57 pm
“Brigham Young was wrong about a number of things. D&C 50 gives us the process for approving doctrine through common consent, before it rises to the level of “scripture.” The process is not that different in essence from how the books now unified as the “New Testament” were identified. Not every word that the prophet speaks is prophesy, but God manifests the truthfulness to the listeners.” ~ Posted by: Peter Christian Nuttall | July 13, 2007 12:06 AM
AA Milne:
“I don’t believe in absolute Prophet Infallibility, sorry. I do believe in Accountability and the Lord’s Empowerment of his prophets. But certainly not infallibility.” ~ Posted by: nowandlater | July 13, 2007 12:08 AM
I find these posts interesting considering what the Old Testament has to say about this kind of thing. In the Old Testament, a prophet was either right 100% of the time or he was a false prophet. In fact, anyone who claimed to speak for God but spoke something that was not the truth was to be put to death!
No, not according to the Bible. I’m familliar with what Deuteronomy *says* on the matter. But that’s not consistent with what actually *happened* in the Bible, was it? Jonah prophesied that Nineveh would be destroyed, but the people repented, and God spared them. And some King was told he was about to die, but he prayed, and God granted his prayer, and contrary to the prophesy, gave him more years of life. I don’t recall anything about Jonah or the other true prophets being put to death when their prophesies failed to materialize.
And those are examples of prophets testifying IN THE NAME OF THE LORD! Brigham Young said some stuff that was flat out wrong, but I don’t recall him saying any of it was a revelation from God. You’re leaving out that part of the scripture in the application, and I think Deuteronomy and Revelations have scary things to say about people who chop bits out of scripture
If you can show me Brigham Young actually PROPHESYING something falsely, in the name of the Lord, then let’s talk and see if Deuteronomny 18:20-22 applies, OK?
A few words of wisdom from the great theologian
http://www.anglik.net/aaMilne.htm
LINES AND SQUARES by A.A. Milne
Whenever I walk in a London street,
I’m ever so careful to watch my feet;
And I keep in the squares,
And the masses of bears,
Who wait at the corners all ready to eat
The sillies who tread on the lines of the street
Go back to their lairs,
And I say to them, “Bears,
Just look how I’m walking in all the squares!”
And the little bears growl to each other, “He’s mine,
As soon as he’s silly and steps on a line.”
And some of the bigger bears try to pretend
That they came round the corner to look for a friend;
And they try to pretend that nobody cares
Whether you walk on the lines or squares.
But only the sillies believe their talk;
It’s ever so portant how you walk.
And it’s ever so jolly to call out, “Bears,
Just watch me walking in all the squares!”
posted July 14, 2007 at 12:14 am
The challenge is still on the table…Please show me one passage from either the Book of Mormon or the Bible the either directly OR indirectly to the New and Everlasting Covenant that speaks of Eternal Marriage. You have showed me zero passages that support the Mormon Doctrine of Eternal Marriage from the Bible or Book of Mormon.
Come, it’s completely obvious that the Hebrew tradition of marriage described in the Bible, particularly in the story of Tamar and Judah’s sons, and in the book of Ruth, illustrates the assumption that marriage was eternal. The widow acquired the *right* for the husband’s nearest male kin to impregnate her and otherwise act as a husband, but she remained in name and in legal fact, the wife of the deceased, and her children were treated legally and in name as the children of the deceased husband, regardless of to whom they were physically conceived.
Ruth doesn’t go to Boaz and ask him to marry her. She crawls into his bed and sits on his feet. Unless you understand the Hebrew tradition and underlying assumptions that Boaz was designated as the proxy for her deceased husband, that’s not the behavior of a woman whom a book of scripture is named after.
And because they fail to understand or refuse to contemplate that Hebrew assumption and tradition, orthodox theologians have over the centuries misconstrued Jesus answer to the Sadducees about the women and her husband’s brothers to mean that the marriage relationship ceases to exist in heaven. Jesus said there is no more marrying or giving in marriage in heaven. Those are references to the act of marrying, not to the relationship of marriage. The woman of the Sadducee hypothetical was only “given in marriage” *once*, despite the number of brothers that acted as proxy husbands.
posted July 14, 2007 at 12:26 am
A prophet in the Bible was either a true prophet or a false prophet. He either told the truth, or he did not! There is no middle ground. Every true prophet of God is infallible when speaking the words of God!
With all due respect, that’s Wahabbi fundamentalist talk. Your false reconstruction and smig oversimplification creates a dangerous dualistic picture of the world, and denies the rich story of the Bible. Moses took credit from taking water from the rock. Peter denied that he knew Christ, but he was also a prophet, who saw the vision admitting the gentiles into the church — and yet according to Paul, disobeyed the teaching of his own vision and refused to eat with the Gentile Christians whom God had commanded him to not call “unclean.” Jonah prophesied in the name of the Lord that Nineveh would be destroyed, and yet it was not destroyed.
Only Jesus Christ is infallible. Do not put your trust in the strength of men, brother, even the prophets, because the Bible makes clear that all of them, every one except for Jesus Christ, were fallible sinners. And that is as true of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young as of Moses and Noah.
Yes there are mormons out there that won’t admit that Brigham Young or Joseph Smith had their faults, and they are as wrong as you are about the Bible, and in as much spiritual danger of idolatry.
Why is it so hard for some folks to remember that Jesus Christ is the center of Christianity?
posted July 14, 2007 at 12:36 am
This is beautiful speech about Jesus Christ. This Jesus is the real Jesus. This is the one we worship.
Truman G. Madsen, “The Olive Press,” BYU Speeches (9 May 1982) Truman Madsen looks at the symbolism of the olive press as related to Christ’s suffering at Gethsemane. (MP3; also available in PDF)
http://speeches-files.byu.edu/freefiles/provider2/type2/Madsen_Truman_051982.mp3
posted July 14, 2007 at 1:23 am
I got tired of Card’s poor writing and reasoning. Be succinct, writer.
posted July 14, 2007 at 2:09 am
Succinct? How can he succinctly address a non-argument? Dr. Mohler repeats his conclusory unsupported assertion that Mormons don’t meet the supposed “definition” of Christianity, but has yet to state what this definition is, or where and when traditonal Orthodox Christians sat down and defined Christianity.
First provide the that definition of Christianity that you claim that Traditional Orthdox Christianity has provided, ideally something written before 1820 so no one thinks that it’s part of an intellectually dishonest exercise to exclude certain religious groups. And only then, once you have a definition laid out that you’re not embarrassed to acknowledge as “THE DEFINITION OF CHRISTIANITY,” let’s look at actual LDS doctrine, measure and see if it fits that definition.
Enough with the preliminaries. Where’s this supposed “definition” we keep hearing about?
So far the closest thing to a definition of “Christianity” that Dr. Mohler has provided us is that it’s not “Mormonism.” But surely we can do better than that. Paul, Anasthasius, Augustine, Martin Luther, Wycliffe, picture them all looking down from heaven to see what “definition of Christianity” that you’re going to use here. If you’re going to take the debate seriously, shouldn’t you offer a defnition that takes Christianity as seriously as you evidently take Mormonism? If someone who had never heard of Christianity before were to read this site, would he walk away knowing anything pertinent to his salvation?
Or has Christianity stopped being about salvation from sin?
posted July 14, 2007 at 2:32 am
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=1478400
I cried, this is a news story about a girl with brian cancer, and what the Mormon Tabernacle Choir did for her.
posted July 14, 2007 at 3:02 am
According to Mormon theology, what happens to Christians if the Mormons are right? Don’t the Christians just get sent to a lower heaven?
What happens to the Mormons if the Christians are correct?
posted July 14, 2007 at 3:50 am
“According to Mormon theology, what happens to Christians if the Mormons are right? Don’t the Christians just get sent to a lower heaven?”
According to Mormon theology, you’ve asked a null question, because Mormon theology says that Mormons are Christians. Christ’s atonement saves us all from sin and hell, except for who deny the holy spirit wherein they shed innocent blood. Meaning those who know God and yet reject him, like Cain, who killed his brother Abel, in order to spite God.
No, Mormons don’t all go to the “highest heaven” and not all non-LDS Christians go to “lower heavens.” That’s what our temple work is about. But within Heaven, God does judge us and reward us according to our works, as promised in the parable of the talents and many others.
Surely the LDS aren’t the only Christian church that recognize the Bible teaching that we are saved from death and hell through the grace of Jesus Christ, and but also judged and rewarded for our works.
We don’t do good works in order to be saved from sin. That comes through God’s grace.
Or do you Orthodox Traditonal Christians deny that saved persons have free will to follow Christ and do good works, once they are through that narrow gate? I thought that was just the TULIP Calvinists that deny those clear Bible doctrines.
posted July 14, 2007 at 4:28 am
“What happens to the Mormons if the Christians are correct?”
That depends on which Christians you talk to. There are a lot of non-LDS Christians who recognize that the LDS church is Christian, and a lot that don’t think that belonging to any particular sect makes you Christian or not — e.g. some mormons are Christians and some are not; some Baptists are Christian and some are not. Personally I think that’s a lot more consistent with what Jesus taught in Matthew 25. And it wasn’t a mormon who penned the song “oh I want to be in that number, when the Saints come marching in.” Meaning that you don’t know who’s a Christian and who isn’t — but you want to be in that number!
A lot of folks that I always thought were traditonal, orthodox Christians always told me that they thought that being a Christian has to do with your testimony of and relationship with Jesus Christ, than it had to do with being “traditional” and “Orthodox,” or with passing some standardized test on the Nicene Creed.
Jesus said that his sheep hear his voice and follow him. I don’t think that sounds like distinguishing for between the folks that believe that there’s One God with three persons, as opposed to three persons in One God. I’ve got a son that bless his heart, can’t even count to three. Does that mean he’s damned?
posted July 14, 2007 at 7:29 am
I have to defend my “TULIP” friends and merely quote Martin Luther on works. “Your works are not for God. They are for your neighbor.” Therefore, your assessment about Calvinists is somewhat accurate. If God is God and was not once a man as we are he has no need for ANYTHING not even our “good” works. BTW, we are kidding ourselves if we think that any of our motives in life are totally pure.
posted July 14, 2007 at 10:47 am
As demonstrated by this song. It’s the heart which ultimately counts. “Here’s my heart, O take and seal it,
Seal it for Thy courts above.” If a Orthodox Christian or an uncreedal Christian, like a Mormon or a Stonewall, loves Jesus with all their hearts then in my opinion all other things will ultimately work out and a place in the heavens would be one for the sincere and good of heart.
Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Og2PPbWt_1k
Come, Thou Fount of every blessing,
Tune my heart to sing Thy grace;
Streams of mercy, never ceasing,
Call for songs of loudest praise.
Teach me some melodious sonnet,
Sung by flaming tongues above.
Praise the mount! I’m fixed upon it,
Mount of Thy redeeming love.
Sorrowing I shall be in spirit,
Till released from flesh and sin,
Yet from what I do inherit,
Here Thy praises I’ll begin;
Here I raise my Ebenezer;
Here by Thy great help I’ve come;
And I hope, by Thy good pleasure,
Safely to arrive at home.
Jesus sought me when a stranger,
Wandering from the fold of God;
He, to rescue me from danger,
Interposed His precious blood;
How His kindness yet pursues me
Mortal tongue can never tell,
Clothed in flesh, till death shall loose me
I cannot proclaim it well.
O to grace how great a debtor
Daily I’m constrained to be!
Let Thy goodness, like a fetter,
Bind my wandering heart to Thee.
Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it,
Prone to leave the God I love;
Here’s my heart, O take and seal it,
Seal it for Thy courts above.
O that day when freed from sinning,
I shall see Thy lovely face;
Clothed then in blood washed linen
How I’ll sing Thy sovereign grace;
Come, my Lord, no longer tarry,
Take my ransomed soul away;
Send thine angels now to carry
Me to realms of endless day.
posted July 14, 2007 at 11:12 am
Martin Luther on works. “Your works are not for God. They are for your neighbor.”
But Jesus says, “Even as ye have done it unto the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” Based on the words of Jesus, I think there is a big correlation between doing good to your neighbor and serving the Lord.
This reminds of a famous song for us Mormons. This song was sung by Joseph Smith just before a mob of 300 rushed his jail cell firing weapons. It does show what was on the heart of the early leaders of the church so it is relevant to this discussion.
A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O8apETbhtE
A poor wayfaring Man of grief
Hath often crossed me on my way,
Who sued so humbly for relief
That I could never answer nay.
I had not power to ask his name,
Whereto he went, or whence he came;
Yet there was something in his eye
That won my love; I knew not why.
Once, when my scanty meal was spread,
He entered; not a word he spake,
Just perishing for want of bread.
I gave him all; he blessed it, brake,
And ate, but gave me part again.
Mine was an angel’s portion then,
For while I fed with eager haste,
The crust was manna to my taste.
I spied him where a fountain burst
Clear from the rock; his strength was gone.
The heedless water mocked his thirst;
He heard it, saw it hurrying on.
I ran and raised the suff’rer up;
Thrice from the stream he drained my cup,
Dipped and returned it running o’er;
I drank and never thirsted more.
’Twas night; the floods were out; it blew
A winter hurricane aloof.
I heard his voice abroad and flew
To bid him welcome to my roof.
I warmed and clothed and cheered my guest
And laid him on my couch to rest;
Then made the earth my bed, and seemed
In Eden’s garden while I dreamed.
Stripped, wounded, beaten nigh to death,
I found him by the highway side.
I roused his pulse, brought back his breath,
Revived his spirit, and supplied
Wine, oil, refreshment—he was healed.
I had myself a wound concealed,
But from that hour forgot the smart,
And peace bound up my broken heart.
In pris’n I saw him next, condemned
To meet a traitor’s doom at morn.
The tide of lying tongues I stemmed,
And honored him ’mid shame and scorn.
My friendship’s utmost zeal to try,
He asked if I for him would die.
The flesh was weak; my blood ran chill,
But my free spirit cried, “I will!”
Then in a moment to my view
The stranger started from disguise.
The tokens in His hands I knew;
The Savior stood before mine eyes.
He spake, and my poor name He named,
“Of Me thou hast not been ashamed.
These deeds shall thy memorial be;
Fear not, thou didst them unto Me.”
posted July 14, 2007 at 11:21 am
er…. this post totally repeats itself. Several paragraphs near the beginning are duplicated. Not sure if that is intended for emphasis or if it’s an error…. but it doesn’t read particularly well.
posted July 14, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Peter,
With all due respect, quit playing games. You and everyone else on this thread know the difference between Mormon and Christian in context of this discussion. I’m sure that a Jehovah’s Witness would consider hiself or herself “Christian” as well.
I asked the question to see if anyone would answer honestly that according to Mormon teaching, if Mormonism right and Biblical Christianity is wrong, no big deal! The person who believes the Bible is correct and the Mormon faith is false, well that person just goes to a lower heaven. Belief doesn’t really matter.
On the other hand, if the followers of Mormonism have a false Christ (Matt 24:24 “For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.”) then their end will not be a “lower heaven”.
Oh, and for the “TULIP” comment, notice the word “elect” at the end of the verse. John 6:44 says, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”
Romans 9:17-24
“For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory– 24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?”
God is sovereign. Praise His name.
posted July 14, 2007 at 1:05 pm
I. [Historical] A Christian is one who accepts the historical Christian traditions, as decided by the Ecumenical Councils. This is the simplest one to agree about.
II. [Doctrinal] A Christian is one who believes certain core Christian doctrines. This is the most commonly used one, but it is not a single definition — it depends on what you think are the core doctrines.
III. [Salvific] A Christian is one who is saved by Christ. This is the most important one in the eternal sense, but the least practical one during mortal life, since it relies on one’s dogma about standards of salvation, and noone can penetrate the mind of God or the state of others’ souls.
Section I excludes Christ and the Apostles.
posted July 14, 2007 at 1:16 pm
I have been a member of both Mormon and evangelical churches and enjoy attending services at both churches. I love the music and the Bible classes and the talks and the sermons but I hate when peope try to tell you one chuch is the only one. I wonder how Jesus would react if he heard the comments of some people.
posted July 14, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Danny: “Your works are not for God. They are for your neighbor.”
]
That quote from Martin Luther in no way contradicts the biblical doctrine that God will judge us for, and reward us for, our works. Yes, our motives for charitable works should be out of love for our neighbor, or else they are not charitable works. And yet the Bible is clear that God will judge and reward. My understanding is that this judgment and reward is separate from the issue of salvation from sin, since salvation comes to us through the grace of Jesus Christ through faith in his name.
Do you disagree?
Howard said:
I. [Historical] A Christian is one who accepts the historical Christian traditions, as decided by the Ecumenical Councils. This is the simplest one to agree about. [Howard adds a footnote saying that "Section I excludes Christ and the Apostles."
Howard, correct me if I’m mistaken, but I believe that you are NOT quoting any statement written prior to 1820.
That’s not a “traditional definition.” That’s a modern definition, constructed out of appeals to tradition. Just as the first people to call themselves “feminists” called themselves “second wave” femininists and labeled the suffragettes as the first wave. Just as the “third reich” claimed to continue from the earlier “first reich” of Julius Caesar” and “second reich” of the holy Roman empire. What you’ve offered isn’t a traditional definition, but a fundamentalist definition, i.e. a modern splicing together of traditions, presented out of context. Religious fundamentalism is simply a type of New Age mysticism, a creative romanticized retelling of old stories, new wine in old bottles.
I repeat, I challenge any of you to show me documents prior to 1820 showing that traditional Orthodox Christians have thought of the Nicene Creed as the definition of “Christianity,” rather than merely the definition of “Orthodoxy.”
When you call Mormons “non-Christians,” this is a new fad. The traditional orthodox way to describe persons who believed in the resurrection and atonement of Jesus Christ, but didn’t agree with the trinitarian construction, is “HERETIC.” Not “non-Christian.”
I also find it unsatisfying that your definitions I and II leave out everything relevant about what Christianity is. “Certain core doctrines?” Again, why can’t anyone present me with a definition that is intended to describe Christianity? What I’m seeing here is definitions that seem constructed to exclude certain groups, without even addressing what Christianity is. The failure to iterate the “certain doctrines” to which all Christians must adhere to, suggests that perhaps these doctrines aren’t as agreed on as some folks are implying here.
If the whole point of excluding mormons really is to protect the meaning of Christianity with respect to doctrine, then why, in all these pages of debate, does no one articulate what that doctrine is?
And if this definition is “traditional,” then please show me where this definition was written as a definition of Christianity. Because when you pass off a definition of Orthodoxy as a definition of “Christianity,” you might as well be offering us a traditional recipe for cold turtle soup. If they meant it to be a definition of Christianity, then that’s what they would have called it.
If these orthodox traditions really mean anything to you, then why are you insisting on changing the traditional term for what we are?
posted July 14, 2007 at 2:22 pm
The purpose of the law is to shut the human mouth. I should convict us that we cannot follow it completely or perfectly. If you think you can you have vastly underestimated the holiness of God.
I agree works for our neighbors and salvation are two different issues. However, when doing enough good works moves you into a position to rule a planet(there is but one God)you have undeified a holy God. He is far more than an earthly father. He is most glorified when we are satisfied in Him.
posted July 14, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Howard, while I think that your definition I and II are incomplete and beg the question at issue, I do appreciate your three part breakdown, which I think is an excellent approach. I also agree with your definition III, and with what you said about it not providing an answer to the question at issue. But I think that simply addressing that point would have put this debate into much useful and less acrimonious perspective.
posted July 14, 2007 at 2:32 pm
“I should convict us that we cannot follow it completely or perfectly.”
I agree.
If you think you can you have vastly underestimated the holiness of God.
I don’t think I can, but I have doubtlessly vastly underestimated God’s holiness, since my mortal mind cannot apprehend God in his full glory.
“I agree works for our neighbors and salvation are two different issues.”
Looks like we agree on a number of things.
“However, when doing enough good works moves you into a position to rule a planet(there is but one God)you have undeified a holy God.”
I don’t know about ruling planets, which like I said, is speculation based on the Bible. But the parable of the talents does talk about ruling “cities,” and not so much as a reward for good deeds but as a stewardship based on past accomplishments.
“He is far more than an earthly father. He is most glorified when we are satisfied in Him.”
I agree. And if He judges your works and your heart, and decides to place you, like the first servant in the talents story, in charge of ten cities or ten planets, that would not be in order to “satisfy” you, but to accomplish HIS will. Because He has found you a good and faithful servant.
posted July 14, 2007 at 3:20 pm
“III. [Salvific] A Christian is one who is saved by Christ. This is the most important one in the eternal sense, but the least practical one during mortal life, since it relies on one’s dogma about standards of salvation, and noone can penetrate the mind of God or the state of others’ souls.”
I agree that no one can penetrate the mind of God, or the state of others’ souls, but Jesus did tell us how HE wanted us to identify his disciples.
John 13: 34-35
35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
You can’t see into someone’s faith, but if that faith is true and alive, it should be manifest in their works, as taught in the book of James. Works themselves do not save us, but the scriptures do teach us that works are a manifestation of true faith in Jesus Christ.
It’s true that Jesus Christ will look beyond our works at our hearts, to determine who are his true disciples. But since we are not omniscient, the New Testament teaches us to look at love and good works to determine who is a disciple of Christ.
Why should Christians second-guess Jesus Christ about the method by which we are to know which people are his disciples?
Traditional Orthodox Christians were never so arrogant. They identified people as “heretics,” meaning “wrong-thinkers” but they never questioned whether the heretic was actually a *Christian.*
posted July 14, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Matt,
Alright…. follow me here. Let’s use logic.
Part of your statement hinged on this quote:
(Mat 24:24) “For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect…
What I find interesting is the wording. It discusses False Christs and False Prophets. For there to be False ones, there have to be True ones. Otherwise, it would have said something along the lines of All Christs and All prophets will arise…
That is a detail that most forget when reading that scripture. In order for an array of things to be counterfeit, there has to be an array of authentic counterparts.
If God were to send a prophet to the earth, he would not part the heavens, and announce the person’s existance with a fanfare of trumpets. He would do the way he has always done. Quietly, and discreetly.
So, J.S. could very well have been a prophet, and he very well could not have been. I am not one [nor anyone else] who is qualified to judge that. God and God alone can judge that.
I also dont put much into using biblical quotes into defending your reasons to bicker about religious differences. You were not there, and you did not pen the text. The text has been translated thousands of times, and none of those individuals were ordained of God to do so, but rather paid. Besides, text is subject to interpretation. To DISCUSS differences is fine. To discuss is to be calm and respectful without trying to deflate the other person’s opinion. But to ARGUE is unacceptable. To ARGUE much like this thread appears, is un-Christ-like.
My opinion, is that these labels of denomination are entirely useless. When we were born, we only had the label of gender, name and race. Of those three, two of them [name and race] are creations of man [skin color doesnt matter afterall...]. We shouldnt be labelling each other, and trying to exclude other people. If someone believes in Christ and his works, and the fact that he died to save us, then that is all we need to consider important. Yes, they may have different opinions, but they should be embraced in the arms of the family of Christianity regardless of their denominational MAN MADE label.
posted July 15, 2007 at 12:05 am
This was an interesting exchange on truthrestored,townhall.com under the article “Mormons Are Christian”:
Va Daddy: Interesting read, and from Catholics!
Problems with the Book of Mormon
From: http://www.catholic.com/library/Problems_with_the_Book_of_Mormon.asp
DADDY O: FUNNY YOU SHOULD HAVE TO RESORT TO THE CATHOLICS TO DEFEND YOUR PROTESTANT POSITION.
Cath: In these “latter days,” there are few people who haven’t been visited at least once by Mormon missionaries. At some point in your doorstep dialogue, these earnest young men will ask you to accept a copy of the Book of Mormon, read it, and pray about it, asking the Lord to “send the Holy Ghost to witness that it is true.” Then, very solemnly, they’ll “testify” to you that they know the Book of Mormon is true, that it’s God’s inspired word, and that it contains the “fullness of the everlasting gospel.”
They’ll assure you that if you read their text in a spirit of prayerful inquiry, you, too, will receive the testimony of the Holy Ghost. That testimony supposedly will convince you beyond doubt that the Book of Mormon is exactly what they claim it to be.
Keep in mind that the missionaries want you to have a feeling about the Book of Mormon after reading it. They’ll tell you that you’ll receive the witness of the Holy Ghost in the form of a “burning in the bosom”—a warm, fuzzy feeling—after reading and praying about it. This feeling is the clincher for them. It’s the real “proof” that the Book of Mormon is inspired Scripture, and everything else follows from that conclusion.
But think about it. How often have you felt strongly about something or someone, only to learn your feelings were misguided? Feelings, although a part of our human makeup, can’t be a yardstick in matters like this.
After all, some people might get a good feeling after reading anything from the Communist Manifesto or the Yellow Pages. They could pray about such a feeling, and they could take the lingering of the feeling as some kind of divine approbation, but no such sensation will prove the inspiration of Marx’s or Ma Bell’s writings.
When you tell the missionaries you don’t need to pray about the Book of Mormon, they’ll think you’re copping out, that you’re afraid to learn the truth. Admittedly, you’ll seem like a cad if you simply refuse and leave it at that. You need to provide them with an explanation for refusing.
DADDY O:
Matt. 21: 22 (Mark 11: 24) whatsoever ye shall ASK IN PRAYER, believing.
1 Tim. 2: 8 I WILL THEREFORE THAT MEN PRAY every where.
James1:5-6 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ASK OF GOD, that giveth to all men liberally, and dupbraideth not; and IT SHALL BE GIVEN HIM.
6 But LET HIM ASK IN FAITH, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/a/172
IT IS INSTRUCTIVE THAT VA DADDY AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BOTH REJECT THE PLAIN TEACHING OF THE BIBLE TO PRAY FOR KNOWLEDGE THAT GOD WILL GRANT. NO WONDER THERE WAS AN APOSTASY WHEN MEN NO LONGER SEEK TO ASK GOD BUT RELY ON THEIR OWN INTERPRETATIONS.
Cath: The devout Mormon believes this text is inspired because Joseph Smith said it is. He believes Smith had the authority to claim divine inspiration for the Book of Mormon because the book itself says Smith was a prophet and had such authority.
DADDY O: “THE DEVOUT MORMON” HAS ASKED FOR HIMSELF AND THEREFORE NEEDS NO ONE ELSE TO TELL HIM FOR GOD ALREADY DID. NO WONDER VA DADDY LIKES THIS ARTICLE. IT IS FULL OF “CAUSE I SAID SO” KINDS OF ARGUMENTS.
Cath: Jesus Visited America?
DADDY O: YES HE DID.
Cath: Let’s take a closer look at the text the missionaries offer. At first glance the Book of Mormon appears to be biblical in heft and style. It’s couched in tedious “King James” English, and it features color renderings of Mormon scenes made to look like Bible illustrations.
DADDY O: IT APPEARS BIBLICAL BECAUSE IT’S AUTHOR IS GOD. THE CATHOLICS AND VA DADDY ALIKE HAVE FOUND THE OLD SCRIPTURES “TEDIOUS” (TRANSLATION: THEY DON’T AGREE WITH OUR PRECONCIEVED NOTIONS). IF IT IS A PROBLEM THAT GRAMMAR WAS CLEANED UP IN THE BOOK OF MORMON WHAT CAN WE SAY ABOUT THE HUNDRED OF BIBLE TRANSLATIONS AND THE THOUSANDS OF VARIENT TEXTUAL READING THERE. TALK ABOUT THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK!
Cath: The introduction tells you that the “Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fullness of the everlasting gospel.” There it is again, the “fullness of the everlasting gospel.” Naturally, you ask yourself just what that phrase means.
DADDY O:
http://fairwiki.org/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_and_the_fulness_of_the_gospel
According to the Mormon church, authentic Christianity can’t be found in any of the so-called Christian churches only, of course, in the Mormon church.
DADDY O: IF THERE WAS AN APOSTASY THAT IS TRUE.
Mormons teach that, after Jesus ascended into heaven, the apostles taught the true doctrines of Christ and administered his sacred ordinances (roughly the equivalent of Catholic sacraments). After the death of the apostles, their successors continued the work of the gospel, but with rapidly declining success. Within a few generations, the great apostasy foretold in the Bible had destroyed Christ’s Church (contrary to Jesus’ own promise in Matthew 16:18).
The Mormon church asserts that the Church Christ founded became increasingly corrupted by pagan ideas introduced by nefarious members. (Sound familiar?) Over a period of years, the Church lost all relationship with the Church Christ established. Consequently, the keys of authority of the holy priesthood were withdrawn from the earth, and no man any longer had authorization to act in God’s name.
From that time onward there were no valid baptisms, no laying on of hands for the receipt of the Holy Ghost, no blessings of any kind, and no administration of sacred ordinances. Confusions and heretical doctrines increased and led to the plethora of Christian sects seen today.
Mormons claim that to restore the true Church and true gospel to the earth, in 1820 God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith in a grove of trees near his home. They told him that all professing Christians on the face of the earth were abominable and corrupt and that the true Church, having died out completely shortly after it began, was to be restored by Smith.
DADDY O:
http://www.fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/
Cath: Mormons run into no small difficulty in reconciling the great apostasy theory with Chris’s promise in Matthew 16:18: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”
DADDY O: NO DIFFICULTY AT ALL
http://www.shire.net/mormon/defending/forum5.html
Cath: How could it be that Christ, who should have known better, would promise that his Church wouldn’t be overcome if he knew full well a great apostasy would make short shrift of it in a matter of decades? Was Christ lying? Obviously not. Was he mistaken? No. Did he miscalculate things? No, again. Christ’s divinity precluded such things.
What are we left with then? Could it be that Mormons are mistaken in their interpretation of such a crucial passage? This is the only tenable conclusion. If there were no great apostasy, then there could have been no need for a restoration of religious authority on the earth. There would be no “restored gospel,” and the entire premise of the Mormon church would be undercut.
The fact is that the only church with an unbroken historical line to apostolic days is the Catholic Church. Even many Protestants acknowledge this, though they argue that there was a need for the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century.
As non-Catholic historians admit, it can be demonstrated easily that early Church writers, such as Ignatius of Antioch, Eusebius, Clement of Rome, and Polycarp, had no conception of Mormon doctrine, and they knew nothing of a “great apostasy.”
DADDY O: http://www.fairlds.org/Mormonism_201/m20106.html
Nowhere in their writings can one find references to Christians embracing any of the peculiarly Mormon doctrines, such as polytheism, polygamy, celestial marriage, and temple ceremonies. If the Church of the apostolic age was the prototype of today’s Mormon church, it must have had all these beliefs and practices. But why is there no evidence of them in the early centuries, before the alleged apostasy began?
DADDY O: OH, BUT THERE IS!
http://www.fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/chap02.html
Cath: Church History Is Catholic
DADDY O: VA DADDY WOULD ARGUE JUST AS STRENUOUSLY AGAINST THIS STATEMENT AS WE WOULD. IF HE AGREES WITH IT THEN THERE IS NO VIALBE REASON FOR THE REFORMATION.
Cath: The fact is that there is no historical or archaeological indication of any kind that the early Church was other than the Catholic Church. When dealing with Mormon missionaries, remember that all the evidence is in favor of the claims of the Catholic Church. If you want to watch their sails go slack quickly, ask the missionaries to produce any historical proof to support their claim that in the early centuries the Church was Mormon. They can’t do it because there is no such evidence.
DADDY O: THIS HAS TO BE THE OVERSTATEMETN OF THE CENTURY. AND IF YOU WANT TO WATCH THE CATHOLIC SAILS GO SLACK QUICKLY JUST ASK THEM TO DOCUMENT THE DESCENT OF PRIESTHOOD AUTHORITY FROM PETER THROUGH THE LINE OF PONTIFFS TO THE CURRENT DAY. HAVE THEM SHOW THE ACTUA; ORDINANCES PERFORMED ALL THE WAY DOWN.
ALSO SEE:
http://www.fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/chap07.html
Cath: The Book of Mormon itself suffers the same fate when it comes to its own historical support. In a word, it hasn’t got any.
The Book of Mormon describes a vast pre-Columbian culture that supposedly existed for centuries in North and South America. It goes into amazingly specific detail describing the civilizations erected by the “Nephites” and “Lamanites,” who were Jews that fled Palestine in three installments, built massive cities in the New World, farmed the land, produced works of art, and fought large-scale wars which culminated in the utter destruction of the Nephites in A.D. 421. The Latter-Day Saints revere the Book of Mormon as the divinely-inspired record of those people and of Christ’s appearance to them shortly after his crucifixion in Jerusalem.
The awkward part for the Mormon church is the total lack of historical and archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon. For example, after the cataclysmic last battle fought between the Nephites and Lamanites, there was no one left to clean up the mess. Hundreds of thousands of men and beasts allegedly perished in that battle, and the ground was strewn with weapons and armor.
Keep in mind that A.D. 421 is just yesterday in archaeological terms. It should be easy to locate and retrieve copious evidence of such a battle, and there hasn’t been enough time for the weapons and armor to turn to dust. The Bible tells of similar battles that have been documented by archaeology, battles which took place long before A.D. 421.
The embarrassing truth for Mormons, that is that no scientist, Mormon or otherwise, has been able to find anything to substantiate that such a great battle took place.
DADDY O: ANOTHER CATHOLIC WHOPPER SWALLOWED HOOK LINE AND SINKER BY VA DADDY.
http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeological_Evidence_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.html
Cath: “Lifting” from the King James Bible
There are other problems with the Book of Mormon. For example, critics of Mormonism have shown convincing proof that the Book of Mormon is a synthesis of earlier works (written by other men), of the vivid imaginings of Joseph Smith, and of simple plagiarisms of the King James Bible.
The only Bible that Joseph Smith relied on was the King James Version. This translation was based on a good but imperfect set of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible.
Scholars now know the Textus Receptus contains errors, which means the King James Version contains errors. The problem for Mormons is that these exact same errors show up in the Book of Mormon.
It seems reasonable to assume that since Smith was a prophet of God and was translating the Book of Mormon under divine inspiration, he would have known about the errors found in the King James Version and would have corrected them for when passages from the King James Version appeared in the Book of Mormon. But the errors went in.
DADDY O: I THINK SOMEONE SHOULD TAKE JESUS AND HIS APOSTLES TO TASK FOR PLAGARIZING THE OLD TESTAMENT.
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND THE NAG HAMMADI MANUSCRIPTS, DISCOVERED SINCE JOSEPH SMITH’S DAY DEMONSTRATE THAT MANY OF THE THEMES AND EXPRESSION THOUGHT TO BE ORIGINAL WITH THE NEW TESTAMENT ARE COPIED FROM MORE ANCIENT MANUSCRIPT RECORDS, SUCH AS PAUL’S “FAITH HOPE AND CHARITY MOTIF. IT COMES FROM A MUCH OLDER RECORD AND WOULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO THE BOOK OF MORMON WRITERS THROUGH THE BRASS PLATES.
SORRY, THIS LINE OF ARGUMENT DOESN’T WASH.
Cath: The “Fullness” of the Gospel?
According to a standard Mormon theological work, Doctrines of Salvation, one finds this definition: “By fullness of the gospel is meant all the ordinances and principles that pertain to the exaltation of the celestial kingdom” (vol. 1, p. 160). That’s an official Mormon statement on the subject. But there’s a problem.
If the Book of Mormon contains all the ordinances and principles that pertain to the gospel, why don’t Mormonism’s esoteric doctrines show up in it? The doctrine that God is nothing more than an “exalted man with a body of flesh and bones” appears nowhere in the Book of Mormon. Nor does the doctrine of Jesus Christ being the “spirit brother” of Lucifer. Nor do the doctrines that men can become gods and that God the Father has a god above him, who has a god above him, ad infinitum.
DADDY O: WE ALREADY COVERED THIS ABOVE ON THE “FULNESS OF THE GOSPEL LINK. BUT IN ADDITION SINCE THE “40 DAY LITERATURE” HAS COME OUT, MANY PARALLELS TO TEMPLE WORK HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED.
Cath: The Book of Mormon is Anti-Mormon
DADDY O: POPPYCOCK!
These heterodox teachings, and many others like them, appear nowhere in the Book of Mormon. In fact, pivotal Mormon doctrines are flatly refuted by the Book of Mormon.
DADDY O: ALREADY COVERED THIS.
For instance, the most pointed refutation of the Mormon doctrine that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are actually three separate gods is found in Alma 11:28-31: “Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?” and [Amulek] answered, “No.” And Zeezrom said unto him again, How knowest thou these things?” And he said: An angel hath made them known unto me.”
DADDY O: ANYONE WHO HAS SPOKEN WITH US VERY LONG WILL HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED TO OUR USE OF JOHN 17 AS DEFINING THE ONENESS IN THE GODHEAD. THERE IS SIMPLY PUT, NO CONTRADICTION AT ALL. SEE MY BLOG ARTICLE ON JOHN CHAPETER 14-17
Cath: The Bottom Line
The Book of Mormon fails on three main counts. First, it utterly lacks historical or archaeological support, and there is an overwhelming body of empirical evidence that refutes it.
DADDY O: WE HAVE TOTALLY REFUTED THIS ASSERTION ABOVE.
Cath: Second, the Book of Mormon contains none of the key Mormon doctrines. This is important to note because the Latter-Day Saints make such a ballyhoo about it containing the “fullness of the everlasting gospel.” (It would be more accurate to say it contains almost none of their “everlasting gospel” at all.)
DADDY O: REFUTED BY THE “FULNESS OF THE GOSPEL” LINK.
Cath: Third, the Book of Mormon abounds in textual errors, factual errors, and outright plagiarisms from other works.
DADDY O: VA DADDY AND THE CATHOLICS HAVE THE GALL TO MAKE THIS CLAIM WHILE USING A HUNDRED BIBLES WITH THOUSANDS OF TEXTUAL VARIATIONS. UNBELIEVEABLE!
Cath: If you’re asked by Mormon missionaries to point out examples of such errors, here are two you can use.
We read that Jesus “shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem, which is in the land of our forefathers” (Alma 7:10). But Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not Jerusalem (Matt. 2:1).
DADDY O: THE PROPER HEBREW USAGE IN THE TIME OF LEHI (600 BC) INCLUDED PLACING SMALLER CITIES WITHIN THE GREATER SPHERE OF THE METROPOLITAN AREA ADJACENT TO IT. THIS IS REALLY SOPHOMORISH.
http://fairwiki.org/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms:Jerusalem_vs_Bethlehem
Cath: If you mention this to a Mormon missionary, he might say Jerusalem and Bethlehem are only a few miles apart and that Alma could have been referring to the general area around Jerusalem. But Bethany is even closer to Jerusalem than is Bethlehem, yet the Gospels make frequent reference to Bethany as a separate town.
DADDY O: SEE LINK ABOVE
Cath: Another problem: Scientists have demonstrated that honey bees were first brought to the New World by Spanish explorers in the fifteenth century, but the Book of Mormon, in Ether 2:3, claims they were introduced around 2000 B.C.
The problem was that Joseph Smith wasn’t a naturalist; he didn’t know anything about bees and where and when they might be found. He saw bees in America and threw them in the Book of Mormon as a little local color. He didn’t realize he’d get stung by them.
DADDY O: Bees
Among the supposed Book of Mormon anachronisms is the mention of bees (Ether 2:3)…It should be noted firstly that the Book of Mormons use of the term “bees” occurs in an Old World (Jaredite) setting, it is never used in connection with the New World, therefore the argument could simply end here. Did the Jaredites bring bees to the New World? We may never know. Some studies suggest, however, that bees were known in the ancient New World. Bruce Warren, for instance notes that there are many references in the Maya region to honey bees in ancient times, and these references occur in ritual contexts, i.e., are of native or pre-Spanish origin.” Other New World scholars have observed that not only was the domesticated bee in ancient America but that there were gods of bees and beekeepers . . . Honey was considered a real treat for the Indians. Equally important was black wax taken from the hives which was often traded for other commodities.”[7]
Further information on New World bees in a domestic context can be found in F. Padilla, F. Puerta, J. M. Flores and M. Bustos, “Bees, Apiculture and the New World,” in Archivos de zootcnica, 41/154 (1992-extra): 563567. PDF link
USING THE SAME LINK AS ABOVE YOU CAN SEE A LIST OF “ANACHRONISMS” THAT PEOPLE LAUGHED AT JOSEPH SMITH FOR, THAT HAVE TURNED OUT TO BE ACCURATE AFTER THE COMING FORTH OF THE BOOK OF MORMON. THIS STRENGTHENS RATHER THAN WEAKEN THE ARGUMENT FOR THE BOOK OF MORMON.
Cath: Tell the Mormon missionaries: “Look, it is foolish to pray about things you know are not God’s will. It would be wrong of me to pray about whether adultery is right, when the Bible clearly says it is not. Similarly, it would be wrong of me to pray about the Book of Mormon when one can so easily demonstrate that it is not the word of God.”
DADDY O: SINCE THE LINKS HERE DEMONSTRATE THAT IT IS NOT SO EASY TO DISMISS THE BOOK OF MORMON
AS THE WRITER OF THIS ARTICLE THINKS, THE ARGUMENT IS REFUTED, LEAVING US WITH THE PLAIN BIBLE SCRIPTURES THAT TELL US TO ASK GOD.
I NOTICE THAT THIS ENTIRE ARTICLE USED ONLY ONE BIBLE SCRIPTURE. WHAT IS IT WITH CHRISTIANS THAT SHY AWAY FORM USING THE BOOK IN WHICH THEY CLAIM EVERYTHING CAN BE FOUND?
Cath: NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
DADDY O: ALL DUE RESPECT TO BISHOP BROM, THERE ARE NUMEROUS DOCTRINAL AND MORAL ERRORS IN THIS ARTICLE, AND THE CATHOLICS SHOULD REALLY DO THIER HOMEWORK BETTER, AND SO SHOULD YOU VA DADDY.
posted July 15, 2007 at 12:15 am
Dear Mr. Nielson,
Did i get the name right?
If you were walking down the street and I have just met you and did not know you, and you asked me, “What am I to do to be saved?” My answer would be simple. “Go to church whenever you can, read the Bible, and most importantly, PRAY EVERYDAY AND TRY TO LOVE GOD!!!”
Now, if you told me you were Mormon and asked me the same question my answer would still be the same: “Go to church, read the Bible, PRAY And LOVE GOD with ALL YOUR HEART AND SOUL.” I get the feeling you already do this.
Now, if you have met me, and you knew I was a devout Roman Catholic, I would ask you the same thing: “According to your religion, what must I do to be saved?”
God bless,
Caitlin
P.S. I don’t think we are saved till we get to Heaven, I think we have to work on it.
posted July 15, 2007 at 2:06 am
He is Bruce R. McConkie’s last talk just days before he died. I think this is very relevant to this discussion. If you are in the Orthodox camp, I double dog dare you to listen!
The Purifying Power of Gethsemane – Part I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTqeJ2d3DwY
posted July 15, 2007 at 3:28 am
anyone, or group collectively, who thinks they have the corner on who and what God is, is crazy.
posted July 15, 2007 at 1:55 pm
God said it all in this verse John 3:16- For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whomever shall believe in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.
I am a born-again Christian, I don’t claim a religion I claim a relationship with my Lord Jesus who was born son of God and died on the cross for our sins, and then 3-days later rose again. Now he is alive as our Holy spirit. I have a relationship with him and my faith in him is what will get me to heaven. It is not works that gets you to heaven it is faith. Webster Dictionary: Definition of christian: a person who believes in Jesus Christ, adherent of Christianity.
Kimberly
posted July 15, 2007 at 3:46 pm
I believe in Jesus Christ.
posted July 15, 2007 at 4:15 pm
If, “By their fruits you will know them,” is a good indication of who is a Christian, then Romney is no one to look at.
Massachusetts is the sickest den of perversion in the US. Romney led not one degenerate away from their debauchery. Instead, we have a State that legalized homosexual marriage and is teaching to children in kindergarten that if they have “funny feelings” they are a transexual, bisexual or homosexual. And that that is just fine with their “teachers.”.
I wouldn’t vote for Romney if he handed me some of the tens of millions of dollars he possesses.
posted July 15, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Donny, what you said is very misleading. The laws on marriage in the state of MA does not reflect Romney’s governorship, nor does it reflect the people of Massachussetts. MA legislators fought to prevent the people from voting on the recent attempt to amend the MA constitution to restore the true definition of Marriage. Why would the legislators cut back room deals with the new governor (not Romney) and shut down the referendum to restore marriage, unless they knew that the people would support that referendum? Think about it.
Romney paid a big political cost for fighting and limiting the Goodridge decision. There’s no living polititian in the United States that has done more than Mitt Romney to try to protect the definition of marriage as the union of man and woman for life.
And I’ll bet that there are some mormon-bashers on this forum whose “traditional Christianity” is phoney as “LDS Boy”‘s mormonism. The reason that Romney and the mormon church are getting worked over in the media has nothing to do with our doctrine or history — it’s because Romney is the only candidate running for office that openly supports the FMA. Unless the US constitution is amended to recognize that marriage means the union of one man and one woman for life, we’re eventually going to see a US Supreme Court that will do to our whole coutry what Justice Margaret Marshall did to Massachussetts, all at one stroke.
Posting false information about Romney’s work on the marriage issue is exactly the sort of propatanda that we can expect to see from those who want to neuter marriage in our law, language, and society. Divide and conquer, eh Donny?
posted July 15, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Card, dude, stop messing around with this crap and write some damn books. And knock it off with the anti-atheist propoganda too. The ‘poor oppressed us’ routine is getting really realy old considering the loud, rich, powerful and largely unscrupulous majority you belong to. It’s about as intellectually honest as ‘white rage’.
posted July 15, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Do you feel that Morman’s should be exclusive? As you mention, you, as Democrat (and science fiction writer) were not readily accepted into your own religion, how does one “break in” to the Morman faith? I am not Morman, but I have friends who are. The teachings of morality are admirable and are certainly good traits for any Christian.
I believe the Bible is the divine Word of God and I do not believe that it teaches that you must be a Morman, Catholic, or Baptist to be a Christian. One’s belief in Jesus Christ as their Saviour is the only way to become a Christian and it is available to ALL who accept Him as their Saviour. However, I do believe that it is important for our nation’s leaders to have morality, family values, good ethics, etc. regardless of their religious persuasion. After the Clinton administration and the immorality that came with it, I would welcome someone with strong moral values.
posted July 15, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Some of the most beautiful lyrics written praising Christ I have heard
were written by a committed Mormon. In the Orthodox Christianity Group, is there something comparable?
I heard him come
I saw his very face
I wondered who
Would come into this place
Where dead men walk
And where the dying talk
Of life before
The curse upon them came.
He looked on me;
He must have felt my gaze
He came toward me,
Through the crowded maze,
And I a leper in shame, hid my head
Till someone said, “Jesus, is his name”
And he said,
Nations fall behind him
The rivers crawl to find him.
Mountains move
Just to let him through.
Come and never leave him
Just let your heart believe him.
And never let his light go
(Echo) Never let his light go
Never let your love grow dim.
He fed a thousand
With one loaf of bread
I saw him raise
A child from the dead
He healed the sick
The blind man saw his eyes
The lame man stood
And joyous were his cries
And he said:
Nations fall behind him
The rivers crawl to find him
Mountains move
Just to let him through
Come and never leave him
Just let your heart believe him
And never let his light go
(Echo) never let his light go
Never let your love grow dim
I saw his pain
As they nailed him to a cross
Wish that we
Could understand the cause
He looked on me
As he had once before
Saying, “Teach my word
To all forever more”
And I’ll say:
Nations fall behind him
The river crawl to find him
Mountains move
Just to let him through
Come and never him
Just believe
And never let his light go
(Echo) never let his light go
Never let your light grow dim
posted July 15, 2007 at 6:54 pm
What Mormons believe (from a Mormon.)
We believe that ALL churches founded between 100 AD and 1820 AD were corrupt and abominations to God.
We believe that Joseph Smith, our prophet, restored the true church of the God of Mormon.
We believe that God was once a man. We believe that we have to learn
how to be Gods ourselves as all Gods have done before us.
We believe that our purpose is to join the Mormon Church and to earn our way to Godhood by following Mormon rights and privileges.
We believe that the God of Mormon is procreating with his retinue of wives in heaven and is sending down spirit babies, which are us.
We believe that Jesus was the first spirit baby and that his brother, Lucifer, the devil, was the second spirit baby.
We believe that there are three heavens. A lower heaven for unbelievers. A middle heaven for unworthy Mormons. And finally, a celestial heaven where Mormon men are given a planet just like our God of Mormon.
We believe that the highest calling for a Mormon woman is to be eternally pregnant so she can populate a planet with spirit babies.
We believe that NO ONE can go to heaven without the consent of Jospeh Smith, who reigns supreme.
We believe that unless a Mormon males serves for two years as a Mormon missionary, he CANNOT go to heaven.
We believe that we can baptise in the name of the dead.
We believe the Bible to be the word of God, BUT that a correct translation of the Bible is impossible to acquire. Therefore…
We believe that the Book of Mormon is the true word of the God of Mormon.
We believe that, according to our prophet Joseph Smith, the Jews will not return to their land until they have all received Christ.
We believe that the Jewish temple will be rebuilt not in Jerusalem but in Jackson Country, Missouri.
We believe in the infallible word of the Mormon President, who is constantly receiving revelations from God that become unchallengable truths for all Mormons.
We believe that Mormon President Spencer Kimball received a new revelation in 1978 that allows blacks to join the Mormon Church.
We believe that this revelation repeals the previous infallible revelation, which barred blacks from becoming Mormons.
We believe that Joseph Smith shot and killed at least two men when he was attacked in Illinois in 1836.
We believe that Joseph Smith was arrested in 1826 and convicted of fraud for glass-looking and fraud.
We believe that any non-Mormon church is an abomination to the God of Mormon.
posted July 15, 2007 at 7:21 pm
P. Nielsen (if you are still reading),
I just ran across your response to me dated July 12th in which you labeled my position as Calvinistic. It is an appropriate label you have assigned to me. I would say that one’s view on this DOES NOT separate a true Christian from a false Christian. Yet this view is unmistakably Biblical, this coming from one who once hated this doctrine!
Let me begin by saying that I know this topic will not be relevant to the main point of this debate.
That said, let me ask you just one thing (with some comments): What does it mean for Christ to atone for our sin?
You have stated: “I take a universalistic position, that Christ payed the price for all sin to His Father, buying *all* mankind (if you will). ”
Now, I am going to make some assumptions about your positions as a Mormon. My argument will be in part based on these assumptions, so if I need correcting, please do.
But, as I understand it, Mormons do not believe in Hell, at least in the classical sense. I understand that there is such a thing as an Outer Darkness in Mormon theology, reserved for only the most heinous of sinners. All but the most heinous of sinners are going to enter into at least the lowest of the three heavens. Is that correct?
If this is correct, I want to say two things: First, Mormon theology is not Universalistic, because there are some who will end up outside of “heaven” called the outer darkness. Second, this view (if I have stated it correctly) grades sin on a scale of not-so-bad to worst. And I am afraid it minimizes the holiness of God and His universal hatred of sin.
You must realize that to a Holy God, steeling a penny will land you into the “outer darkness” just as much as killing millions of Jews. In other words, if you have even so much as stolen a penny, you might as well kill millions of Jews because you are hell-bound. You are already guilty of breaking the whole law if you break it at just one point! (BTW: I am not advocating killing Jews, I am making a point here!) So whether one person stole a penny and another killed many people, each person is separated from God and will pay for his own sin, unless there is a substitute.
How does this play into your understanding of the payment for sin Christ accomplished? Well, if Christ paid for the sins of all of mankind, then all would indeed be saved, because that which separated us from Christ (steeling a penny or killing many Jews) has been (past tense) paid for by Christ. In this case, if God were to send anyone to hell (outer darkness or lower heaven, in your case) then God would be punishing sin twice! Once at the cross and once again when the sinner goes to hell to pay for his own sin. Is God just? Yes! So one punishment will suffice. Two are not needed. Remember Christ said, “It is finished!”.
In the interest of time and space, I will stop here. I hope you can see where I am going with this. In short, (I know you won’t like this) Christ paid for the sins of only those who would believe. Who are those who will believe? Those you have been predestined according to His purpose who works out all things after the counsel of his own will (Eph. 1)
If Christ did pay for the sins of all, then none would go to the Outer Darkness or Hell, because that which once separated us from God (sin) has been taken care of. So even Mormonism is truly not universalistic because they do reserve the right to have a place called Outer Darkness, reserved for those for whom apparently Christ did not die for.
I don’t expect you to agree with me, but that is basically because your view of the atonement (never mind the holiness of God and your understanding of what sin is) is, may I be so bold to say, unbiblical (if indeed I have characterize your position accurately-not trying to set up a straw man here.)
Regards,
Matt
posted July 15, 2007 at 7:25 pm
I recommend this talk to the previous poster.
Robert L. Millet, “What We Believe,” BYU Speeches (3 February 1998) Robert Millet examines some of the uniquely LDS beliefs that seem to cause concern among other Christians.
http://speeches.byu.edu/freefiles/provider2/type2/Millet_Robert_021998.mp3
posted July 15, 2007 at 7:48 pm
LDS Boy (so called) you posted this a few days ago. It was deleted I suspect because you broke the rules. You are a LIAR and a DECEIVER. Nothing but an anti-mormon hack. You are NOT a mormon.
See Mike Bennion’s post of July 12, 2007 6:19 PM and 6:45 PM on this thread.
SocalledLDSboy, You have put a little lipstick on this anti-mormon pig but it is still an anti-mormon pig.
posted July 15, 2007 at 8:05 pm
I am an 79 year member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints baptized at 8 years of age However I have ,in my few travels,
participated in Services of 11 other denominations . Two of them even asked mde to teach Sunday School for them for a period of time. All these discussions and comments ( I have read only a few ) are very
interesting However to me Jesus intercessory prayer in John 17 sums it all up .Verse 11 ” Holy Father ,keep through thine own name these whom thou hast given me,THAT THEY MAY BE ONE ,AS WE ARE ” and verses 20-21 ” Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall
believe me through their word ;THAT THEY ALL MAY BE ONE ;
AS THOU FATHER ,ART IN ME , AND I IN THEE , THAT THEY ALSO MAY BE ONE IN US:THAT THE WORLD MAY BELIEVE THAT THOU HAST SENT ME ”
History indicates to me that such unity ended even before all the Original 12 were martyred and kept deteriorating .
In my travels visiting both LDS and other Churches in Canada,United States and Africa the only Congregations I have attended where I could be sure of how Services would be conducted have been LDS .
I cannot picture ANY DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN JESUS AND HIS FATHER ON EVEN THE MINUTEST POINT OF DOCTRINE OR CONDUCT . I do not know how often I have heard ” those are secondary Doctrines we can debate but we must be sure we ” AGREE ON BASIC , FUNDAMENTALS ” . DOSE THAT SOUND LIKE UNITY CHRIST PRAYED FOR ?? So the POPE has now stated that the Roman Catholic Church is the ONLY TRUE CHRISTIAN CHURCH !!
The LDS Church has been designated by JESUS CHRIST “D&C 1 verse 30
the whole verse is worth reading but this is part “THE ONLY TRUE AND LIVING CHURCH UPON THE FACE OF THE WHOLE EARTH ” bold YES BUT IF BY ” THEIR FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THEM ” CHECK IT OUT !!
From my experience and in answer to prayer !! I testify it is true.
posted July 15, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Hi Matt,
If you haven’t read Richard Bushman’s book Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, I’d really recommend it – especially if you’re interested in this early history of the LDS church and the evolution of the different doctrines. Bushman, in this book, gives a great summary of the LDS Plan of Salvation. If you can get a hold of the book, read starting with page 196 for more information on the background of the revelation (which actually came from Joseph Smith praying to understand 1 Cor 7:14 and John 5:29).
Bushman wrote:
“The doctrine recast life after death. The traditional division of heaven and hell made religious life arbitrary. One recieved grace or one went to hell. In Joseph’s afterlife, the issue was degrees of glory. A permanent hell threatened very few. The question was not escape from hell but closeness to God. God scaled the rewards to each person’s capacity. Even the telestial glory, the lowest of the three, ‘surpasses all understanding.’
…
Where was Joseph Smith coming down on the question of universal salvation? Contradictory as they sound, the universalist tendencies of the revelation and the anti-universalism of the Book of Mormon defined a middle ground where there were graded rewards in the afterlife, but few were damned. “The Vision” did not actually endorse universal salvation any more than the Book of Mormon did. It imposed permanent penalties for sinning, rewarded righteousness with higher degrees of glory, and assigned the sons of perdition permanent out darkness. But “The Vision” also eliminated the injustices of the heaven-and-hell theology. The three degrees of glory doctrine lay somewhere between the two extremes.”
As for the LDS doctrine of the after life “grading sin” (as you put it), I don’t believe that is the case. If you seriously study the scriptures and teachings surrounding the doctrine, it has much more to do with when, why, and if you accept Christ than it does with what types of sin you commit. In any case, even protestantism “grades” sin in some ways – don’t you have something called the “unpardonable sin?”
posted July 15, 2007 at 9:54 pm
I mentioned earlier something about Sacrament.
Well, I found this nice short presentation from Apostle Dallin H. Oaks about the Sacrament:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NhbBQSsfVU
posted July 15, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Dear Matt,
I am indeed still here, and I’m glad I categorized your beliefs appropriately. I also appreciate that you said “that one’s view on this DOES NOT separate a true Christian from a false Christian.” I think this is probably the most important thing either of us will say, but I’ll still attempt to answer your questions.
I agree that your view is certainly biblical, in the sense that the doctrines were arrived at via interpreting the Bible. (I image you might argue they are the only set of coherent doctrines that can be arrived at from studying the Bible. I’ll let you argue that with your non-Calvinist Protestant friends.) While I personally see other ways of interpreting the same scriptures in a non-Calvinistic way, I certainly do recognize that your beliefs are biblically based, sincerely held, and well-thought-out. In fact, I see Calvinism as very logical and appealing. I just don’t believe in it.
Now, on to some clarifications. You said, “as I understand it, Mormons do not believe in Hell, at least in the classical sense.” On that you are partly right. We believe that only those who commit the unpardonable sin (denying the Holy Ghost) will be cast into “outer darkness” or “the lake of fire” or “suffer the second death”, but all other sins will be forgiven (eventually) (see Mark 3:28-29). God will judge the degree of faithfulness of everyone, and all those who have not committed the unpardonable sin will receive some degree of glory. (I should clarify that our understanding of “denying the Holy Ghost” may differ from what you believe it to be.)
Mormon theology is universalistic in its application of the atonement to all men *in redeeming them from the affects of Adam’s fall* (i.e. from physical death, and the first death). In other words, everyone will be resurrected (good or bad) and everyone will be brought back into God’s presence (for judgement). It isn’t universal in its application to our own personal sins. (One must exercise faith, repent, be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, and endure to the end, to receive all the Father has in store.)
Second, Mormons do not believe all sins are equally bad *in some ways*. Yes, without Christ’s atonement, any old sin (e.g. stealing a penny) would keep us forever out of the presence of God. Period. On that we agree. And all men sin, we agree on that too. So, without Christ, all mankind would be doomed to hell/outer-darkness/the-second-death. Justice demands it! We agree on that too. But Mormons believe (or at least this one does) that through Christ’s atonement, and God’s plan, this earth life has been made into a probationary state, and we are given time to repent, make a covenant with Christ, and accept Him as our Redeemer/Deliverer. And at the end of life we will all bow the knee, sin will be conquered, and all will be judged. With Christ’s help we can replace our sinful nature with a holy one. And when we fail, we can repent. But some sins are harder to repent of than others. Some sins require punishments, such as being cast off from the body of Christ for a time (i.e. no fellowship with the saints). And one sin is simply unpardonable by God. So in that sense, not all sins are equally bad in my view (even if they would equally keep us out of heaven).
The Calvinist position, as I understand it, is that certain people were chosen by God to be saved, and Christ saved them. Nothing anyone does can change that. Their sins are paid for, and they are clean because they are one with Christ, and Christ is clean. God’s grace is irresistable, and no one can remove the saved from His hands.
My position is that Christ’s atonement made it possible for *all* mankind to be saved, if they so choose, not just a select few chosen by God before/at creation. I believe man has agency to choose. God desires all men to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4). I believe that this is a process, and we can owned by Christ, who will plead our case before the Father (i.e. be our Advocate). By covenanting with Him, He makes us holy (on this we agree) but we must still “work out our own salvation”, “repent”, and “endure to the end” or Christ will stop owning us (we will not “abide in Him” 1 John 2). In other words, I believe we must live up to our end of the covenant (whereas, I imagine you believe in irresistable grace–so none can break the covenant who truly are called into it by God).
These certainly are fundamental differences in belief. Many of my beliefs can be argued from the Bible, and in that sense, I would say they are biblical. But, as you know, Mormons do not limit themselves to the Bible. Nor did the early Christians, since they didn’t even have the Bible yet (and some of the books of scripture they used are not all in our current Bible!)–nor could many of them read.
Anyway, I hope this clarifies my take on these issues. I have had many discussions with ardent Calvinists, and I appreciate their faith in Christ, and I understand their position. It just is that my understanding of God is different than that. And don’t worry, they have shown me all of the Bible verses which seem to support their view and negate mine, and I have done the same, and we never came to an agreement. But I do appreciate you explaining your beliefs, sincerely attempting to explain what you see lacking in mine, and conversing.
Best,
P. Nielsen
P.S. Did we ever get to the heart of why you don’t think Mormons are Christians? I can see where you think our doctrine is fundamentally wrong. But what separates us from other non-Calvinistic Christians, in your view?
posted July 15, 2007 at 10:17 pm
If all faiths had to agree upon religious doctrine in order to receive salvation, there would be neither salvation nor religion. By the same token, if we had to deserve love in order to receive it, no child or person would be loved. That is Christ’s message, to love one another, there is no greater commandment.
posted July 15, 2007 at 10:52 pm
I found a talk relevant to the phrase, “Even as ye have done it unto the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”
Check it out!
Howard W. Hunter– A More Excellent Way (part 1 of 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqLaxtWHs5k
Howard W. Hunter– A More Excellent Way (part 2 of 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMvXHkni_hw
posted July 15, 2007 at 11:01 pm
P. Nielsen:
Thank you for your clarifying response. I appreciate the fact that you have for the most part accurately portrayed my beliefs although at least by the words you used, that is, I think we are operating to some extent from different meanings of the same words.
I say this as a result of having spent, but four days ago, almost 2 hours with some Mormon missionaries at my friends home. I realized early on that, although we use the same words, the meanings we ascribe to them are different. As an example, I understand that Mormons often say that the atonement took place or began in the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus sweat drops of blood. This is not how historic, Christian theology has viewed the atonement and it is also foreign to the Bible. The Bible portrays the atonement taking place only at the cross. I bring this up not to now engage in this argument but rather to provide evidence for my claim that we use the same words, but have different meanings for them. So it might appear that we agree, but it might take some fleshing out of definitions to shed light on the fact that we probably don’t.
Also, since you have already expressed that you have had many conversations with ardent Calvinists, I will not further argue these points.
That said, though, we must agree that we both can’t be right, right? We can certainly both be wrong, but in this case, since we have different views on say the atonement and election, we MUST say that one of us is wrong or we are both wrong on these points we have been discussing.
I am not saying this to turn it into a “who’s right and who’s wrong” battle. I make this point only to say that intellectual honesty and logic requires us to say this. Wouldn’t you agree? In this day of “whatever is true for you is true”, we of most people must hold firm to the reality that mutually exclusive ideas can’t both be equally correct.
So now to your P.S. I hope my above comments will help make it clear why I do not believe Mormons are Christians. Let me begin by defining a Mormon as one who holds to traditional Mormon theology and a Christian as one who holds to traditional, historic Christian theology (hey, isn’t this the whole point of the debate between Mohler and Card?!?)
Basically put, the Jesus Christ of Mormon theology is other than the Jesus Christ of Christian theology. (I hope we agree on that. If not, we have to start over.) And since Jesus Christ is central to everything we believe–it is He in whom we put our faith for salvation–we must make sure we believe in the correct Jesus. Obviously I believe not in the Jesus of Mormonism, but of Christianity. Therefore, it follows that Mormons can’t be Christians. You must say the same in reverse, that I am not a Christian because I do not believe in the Jesus of Mormonism.
What we must not say is that we are both Christian, even though we believe in different Christs. That is foolishness.
Regards,
Matt
posted July 15, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Caitlin,
I didn’t see your post until just now. I agree with everything you said, and would just add that along with prayer, we should do all that God tells us to do, to the best of our ability.
Cheers!
—————-
Matt,
I certainly agree that either one of us is fundamentally wrong or both of us. (I’d wager that we are both wrong on at least a few small things!) I don’t agree that the “Jesus Christ of Mormon theology is other than the Jesus Christ of Christian theology.” In what meaningful way is this true in your opinion? Do you mean that we don’t view Jesus through the lens of the Nicene creed? Neither did the first Christians (they didn’t even have the creed), nor do other Christian sects which deny the Nicene creed. Why do you think the Mormon Jesus is meaningfully different than the Jesus worshipped by the first Christians?
Also, I do not agree historic Christian theology has universally stated that the atonement took place “only on the cross.” But, assuming for the moment I am completely wrong on this, would you deny Mormon Christianness because we believe Christ’s suffering started before the nails were driven through His hands? Consider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement It seems to me that there are much bigger differences than *when* the atonement began, categorized there, and yet you would consider all of those sects Christian, would you not?
Best,
P. Nielsen
posted July 16, 2007 at 12:14 am
But Mormons believe (or at least this one does) that through Christ’s atonement, and God’s plan, this earth life has been made into a probationary state, and we are given time to repent, make a covenant with Christ, and accept Him as our Redeemer/Deliverer.
But that’s the wrong order, and putting them in that order creates a very misleading picture of the doctrine. Order them as we do, i.e. faith, repentance, baptism, the gift of the holy spirit, and then following Christ where he leads us, until the end … and your construction of the LDS church as “not Christian” unravels.
We emphasize that faith in Christ is the first step of the gospel. Through faith you accept Jesus Christ as your Redeemer/Deliverer. Read Alma 36, or Enos, and you’ll see that the Book of Mormon teaches that salvation from sin comes through that exercise of faith.
Once you have made that leap of faith and accepted Christ as your savior, the “firsfruit of faith is Repentance.” You desire to do good works, and to reject sin.
“And at the end of life we will all bow the knee, sin will be conquered, and all will be judged. With Christ’s help we can replace our sinful nature with a holy one. And when we fail, we can repent. But some sins are harder to repent of than others. Some sins require punishments, such as being cast off from the body of Christ for a time.” That’s not punishment, and it’s taught in the New Testament — warning people to not take communion unworthily.
“(i.e. no fellowship with the saints)”
That’s what excommunication means to other churches but not to us. Both the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants FORBID denying an excommunicant fellowship. Excommunication means you can’t *serve* in the church, or partake in or administer sacred rites, and the church will not accept your tithing. We have a lay clergy, and it would be inappropriate to have an adulterous Bishop leading the congregation, don’t you think?
Yes, we’ve adopted some of the terminology inappropriately, like “disfellowshipping” (a lesser short term version of excommunication) but in our church it’s a misnomer, since literal disfellowshipping is prohibited by scripture. Yes there are some self-righteous jerks that are rude to people who have been disfellowshipped or exed, but it is forbidden.
“And one sin is simply unpardonable by God.”
Yes, there is something that we call the “unpardonable sin,” which is to look God in the face and reject him. As far as we know, only one man — Cain, has ever done that, since Cain knew God before he slew Abel, specifically in order to spite God. But that’s so remote that it’s hardly a belief that shapes our lives, and it seems silly to make a determination of whether a whole church is “Christian” based on our belief that God has no particular plans to forgive Cain. Isn’t that kind of like going back to whether angels dance on the head of a pin or whether the gates of heaven swing or roll? You believe in free will, and all the “unpardonable sin” means is that it’s possible for a saved person to choose to reject God’s grace. And as far as we know, it’s only happened once.
posted July 16, 2007 at 1:05 am
Let’s look at unique LDS scripture and see what it discusses about the crucifixion. Here are few of them:
2 Nephi 2:13 “Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.
14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil”
1 Ne. 10: 11
11 And it came to pass after my father had spoken these words he spake unto my brethren concerning the gospel which should be preached among the Jews, and also concerning the dwindling of the Jews in unbelief. And after they had slain the Messiah, who should come, and after he had been slain he should rise from the dead, and should make himself manifest, by the Holy Ghost, unto the Gentiles.
1 Ne. 11: 33
33 And I, Nephi, saw that he was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world.
1 Ne. 19: 10
10 And the God of our fathers, who were bled out of Egypt, out of bondage, and also were preserved in the wilderness by him, yea, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, yielded himself, according to the words of the angel, as a man, into the hands of wicked men, to be lifted up, according to the words of Zenock, and to be crucified, according to the words of Neum, and to be buried in a sepulchre, according to the words of Zenos, which he spake concerning the three days of darkness, which should be a sign given of his death unto those who should inhabit the isles of the sea, more especially given unto those who are of the house of Israel.
2 Ne. 6: 9
9 Nevertheless, the Lord has shown unto me that they should return again. And he also has shown unto me that the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, should manifest himself unto them in the flesh; and after he should manifest himself they should scourge him and crucify him, according to the words of the angel who spake it unto me.
2 Ne. 10: 5
5 But because of priestcrafts and iniquities, they at Jerusalem will stiffen their necks against him, that he be crucified.
2 Ne. 25: 13
13 Behold, they will crucify him; and after he is laid in a sepulchre for the space of three days he shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God. Wherefore, my soul delighteth to prophesy concerning him, for I have seen his day, and my heart doth magnify his holy name.
Mosiah 3: 9
9 And lo, he cometh unto his own, that salvation might come unto the children of men even through faith on his name; and even after all this they shall consider him a man, and say that he hath a devil, and shall scourge him, and shall crucify him.
Mosiah 15: 7
7 Yea, even so he shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father.
D&C 6: 37
37 Behold the wounds which pierced my side, and also the prints of the nails in my hands and feet; be faithful, keep my commandments, and ye shall inherit the kingdom of heaven. Amen.
D&C 20: 23
23 He was crucified, died, and rose again the third day;
D&C 21: 9
9 For, behold, I will bless all those who labor in my vineyard with a mighty blessing, and they shall believe on his words, which are given him through me by the Comforter, which manifesteth that Jesus was crucified by sinful men for the sins of the world, yea, for the remission of sins unto the contrite heart.
D&C 35: 2
2 I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world, even as many as will believe on my name, that they may become the sons of God, even one in me as I am one in the Father, as the Father is one in me, that we may be one.
D&C 45: 52
52 Then shall they know that I am the Lord; for I will say unto them: These wounds are the wounds with which I was wounded in the house of my friends. I am he who was lifted up. I am Jesus that was crucified. I am the son of God.
D&C 46: 13
13 To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.
D&C 53: 2
2 Behold, I, the Lord, who was crucified for the sins of the world, give unto you a commandment that you shall forsake the world.
D&C 54: 1
1 BEHOLD, thus saith the Lord, even Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, even he who was crucified for the sins of the world—
D&C 76: 41
41 That he came into the world, even Jesus, to be crucified for the world, and to bear the sins of the world, and to sanctify the world, and to cleanse it from all unrighteousness;
Moses 7: 55
55 And the Lord said unto Enoch: Look, and he looked and beheld the Son of Man lifted up on the cross, after the manner of men;
posted July 16, 2007 at 2:07 am
In regards to Mormons emphasis on the Garden of Gesthemane. We view that Christ died spiritually and physically for us. Both we necessary to reconcile us with God. The atonement was a process. Please consider the famous scripture, Isaiah 53:5. By the account of this scripture we are healed by the stripes which Christ suffered.
Isa. 53: 5
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
But when did he suffer stripes? Was it not by the Roman solidiers even before Pontus Pilate offered him to the Jews to be freed?
Did he not say he would tread the winepress alone? That implies a process over time.
Isa. 63: 3
3 I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hematidrosis
According to Dr. Frederick Zugibe (Chief Medical Examiner of Rockland County, New York) it is well-known, and there have been many cases of it. The clinical term is hematohidrosis. “Around the sweat glands, there are multiple blood vessels in a net-like form. Under the pressure of great stress the vessels constrict. Then as the anxiety passes the blood vessels dilate to the point of rupture. The blood goes into the sweat glands. As the sweat glands are producing a lot of sweat, it pushes the blood to the surface – coming out as droplets of blood mixed with sweat.”[citation needed]
In a lecture, Dr. Zugibe stated: “The severe mental anxiety…activated the sympathetic nervous system to invoke the stress-fight or flight reaction to such a degree causing hemorrhage of the vessels supplying the sweat glands into the ducts of the sweat glands and extruding out onto the skin. While hematidrosis has been reported to occur from other rare medical entities, the presence of profound fear accounted for a significant number of reported cases including six cases in men condemned to execution, a case occurring during the London blitz, a case involving a fear of being raped, a fear of a storm while sailing, etc. The effects on the body is that of weakness and mild to moderate dehydration from the severe anxiety and both the blood and sweat loss.”
posted July 16, 2007 at 2:24 am
Doesn’t the Bible say “Repent and be baptized, every one of you” ?
It doesn’t say “have faith and be baptized” and it doesn’t say “be baptized, those who feel the need”.
Think about it.
posted July 16, 2007 at 2:25 am
Some thoughts about the translation of the Book of Mormon.
In almost every one of our posts there are several “typos” often when I copy and paste I will corect my spelling or other’s spelling and grammar for clarity.
Joseph would sit down every day and start dictating. The manuscript of the translation was literally one long paragraph with little of no punctuation and capitalization. Remember, Joseph Smith is not a learned man in terms of earthly education. It is fascinating to see that roughness come through in the original manuscript. And this actually increases my respect for the prodigious thing that the Book of Mormon is.
John H. Gilbert, one of E.B. Grandin’s pressmen did most of the punctuation. The following is part of his account concerning the state of the manuscript that became the Book of Mormon:
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=22
”
“The Book of Mormon “was printed on a ‘Smith’ Press, single pull, and old fashioned ‘Balls’ were used” (Gilbert, “Memorandurn” 3). Small printing offices generally did not have composition rollers. Using a hand press required more time. Also “the type of one form had to be distributed before another could be set up” accounting for much of the nearly eight months required for printing the volume (P. Tucker 56). Case, Abbey, & Co., of Shortsville, New York, was said to have manufactured the paper used in printing the first edition (Milliken, A History 1:415).”
“When the printer was ready to begin the typesetting, about the middle of August, Martin Harris was notified. Hyrum Smith then brought the first installment of the “printer’s manuscript” numbering 24 pages. He had them buttoned under his vest and coat for security. The pages were closely written and legible, but Gilbert said that every chapter was virtually one solid paragraph as there was not a punctuation mark from beginning to end” (Letter to Cobb; also see “Memorandum” 2–3).3 John Gilbert described the make up of the text:”
“Names of persons and places were generally capitalized, but sentences had no end. The character or short & was used almost invariably where the word and occurred, except at the [beginning] of a chapter. I punctuated it to make it read as I supposed the Author intended, and but very little punctuation was altered in proof-reading. The Bible was printed 16 pages at a time, so that one sheet of paper made two copies of 16 pages each, requiring 2500 sheets of paper for each form of 16 pages. There were 37 forms of 16 pages each, 570 pages in all [the printed volume totaled 588 pages]. (Gilbert, “Memorandum” 3)”
“Gilbert requested that the manuscript be left with him so he could take it home at night and go over the sheets for punctuation. The printing process was slowed by frequently having “‘to stop and read half a page to find out how to punctuate it”‘ (“Memorandum” 2). Hyrum’s reply was, “‘We are commanded not to leave it.’” However, a few days later Hyrum handed him the copy and stated, “‘If you will give me your word that this manuscript shall be returned to us when you are through with it, I will leave it with you”‘ (Ibid). Gilbert gratefully took the manuscript home and in two or three nights had punctuated it using mostly a lead pencil with only a few marks in ink. When he found that some extended portions of the manuscript appeared to have been taken verbatim from the Bible, he kept a copy of it on his typecase to help him in deciphering the handwritten text and putting in the proper punctuation marks (“The Book of Mormon” 4:618). Although Pomeroy Tucker recalled that Gilbert “was given limited discretion in correcting, which was exercised in the particulars of syntax, orthography, punctuation, capitalizing, paragraphing, etc.” (53), Professor Skousen noted in a 13 July 1992 interview that Gilbert was not permitted to make corrections in syntax and that any such corrections “did not occur except by accident.”
“John Gilbert asserted that, “Oliver Cowdery was not engaged [hired] as compositor on the work—was not a printer. He was a frequent visitor to the office, and did several times take up a ‘stick’ and set a part of a page—he may have set 10 or 12 pages, all told” (Letter to Cobb). Gilbert further stated:”
“Cowdery held and looked over the manuscript when most of the proofs were read. Martin Harris once or twice, and Hyrum Smith once, Grandin supposing these men could read their own writing as well, if not better, than anyone else; and if there are any discrepancies between the Palmyra edition and the manuscript these men should be held responsible.”
The following comments are by Stephen D. Ricks
a linguist and translator and teacher at Brigham Young University.
http:maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/pdf.php?filename=OTAxMTMxMDg5LTItMi5wZGY=&type=amJtcw==
“But what kind of effort was involved? (In Joseph’s translation of the Book of Mormon) It must have been in rendering the ideas on the plates into English. But how would Joseph Smith have known those ideas? Part of the divine process by which Joseph worked may have allowed him to think, as it were, in that language, to understand, by inspiration, the ideas of the language. The effort in translating may have taken the form of expressing the ideas on the plates in felicitous English. Such effort can sometimes be daunting. I am currently engaged in the translation of two books, one in German and one in Hebrew, the former rather longer than the Book of Mormon, the latter somewhat shorter. I have found that it is one thing to grasp in my
mind the ideas of the original without translating those ideas into English but that it is quite a different matter to find the most
felicitous expression for those ideas in English. There is also very considerable effort involved in continuing the process of
translation hour after hour. I would consider my day an unalloyed success if I were to complete a translation of five to seven pages. This is roughly the rate at which Joseph Smith labored
on the translation of the Book of Mormon.”
“The accounts of the Three Witnesses speak of words appearing on the seerstone or “translators.” But at what point in the translation process did they appear? I believe that it was after Joseph had formulated in his mind a translation that represented with sufficient accuracy the ideas found on the original. Was there only one correct translation for the ideas found on the plates? I do not believe so. Could a “correct” translation be improved upon in word choice or in some other manner, or could these ideas have been rendered into different words? Yes. I regularly teach a graduate course in ancient Hebrew, where we read
parts of the Old Testament or the Dead Sea Scrolls in Hebrew. Were I to give my students a translation examination from Hebrew into English, it is possible—indeed, likely—that I would receive from them several different renderings of the same verse in English but still consider them all essentially “correct,” since each reflected with acceptable accuracy the ideas found on the original.”
“Joseph himself seems to have felt no particular
compunctions about revising the Book of Mormon, as witnessthe numerous changes (mostly of a grammatical nature) made by him in 1837 in the second edition of the Book of Mormon. If he
had considered only one rendering acceptable, then he would certainly have refrained from making any changes in it (unless the changes resulted from errors in transcription or printing).”
This is Emma Smith’s testimony of her time as scribe for Joseph’s trnaslation of the Book of Mormon:
“I am satisfied that no man could have dictated the writing of the manuscripts unless he was inspired; for, when acting as his scribe, your father would dictate to me hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or after interruptions, he would at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him. This was a usual thing for him to do. It would have been improbable that a learned man could do this; and, for one so ignorant and unlearned as he was, it was simply impossible.”
“Last Testimony of Sister Emma” by Joseph Smith III p. 290
The following are selections from the article,
“By the Gift and Power of God” by Neal a. Maxwell:
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/bookschapter.php?bookid=&chapid=45
“One marvel is the very rapidity with which Joseph was translating—at an estimated average rate of eight of our printed pages per day! The total translation time was about sixty-five working days.8 By comparison, one able LDS translator in Japan, surrounded by reference books, language dictionaries, and translator colleagues ready to help if needed, indicated that he considered an output of one careful, final page a day to be productive. And he is retranslating from earlier Japanese to modern Japanese! More than fifty able English scholars labored for seven years, using previous translations, to produce the King James Version of the Bible, averaging about one precious page per day. The Prophet Joseph Smith would sometimes produce ten pages per day!9″
“A second marvel of the Book of Mormon translation process is that from what we know, rarely would Joseph go back, review, or revise what had already been done. There was a steady flow in the translation. The Prophet’s dictating resulted—just as the compositor, John H. Gilbert, remembered—in no paragraphing.”
“Emma Smith said of the inspired process: “After meals, or after interruptions, [Joseph] would at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him.”10 One who has dictated and been interrupted must usually resume by inquiring, “Now, where were we?” Not so with the Prophet!”
“If one were manufacturing a text, he would constantly need to cross-check himself, to edit, and to revise for consistency. Had the Prophet dictated and revised extensively, there would be more evidence of it. But there was no need to revise divinely supplied text. Whatever the details of the translation process, we are discussing a process that was truly astonishing!”
“A third marvel of the translation process is that although he was intensely involved in translating an ancient record, the Prophet Joseph himself was clearly unschooled in things ancient. For example, early in the work he came across words concerning a wall around Jerusalem and asked Emma if the city indeed had walls. She affirmed what Joseph simply hadn’t known.14″
“He knew nothing, either, of the literary form called chiasmus, which appears in the Bible at various places and, significantly, also appears in the Book of Mormon.”
“Emma does mention, however, and so does David Whitmer, the Prophet’s spelling out of unfamiliar names, letter by letter, especially if asked by the scribe. For instance, Oliver Cowdery first wrote the name Coriantumr phonetically. He then immediately crossed out his phonetic spelling and spelled the name as we now have it in the Book of Mormon. Coriantumr with its “-mr” ending clearly would have required a letter-by-letter spelling out by the Prophet.”
“Fourth, we marvel that the Prophet Joseph Smith worked completely without referring to any other sources. None of the twelve people who either participated or merely observed mentioned Joseph’s having any reference materials present. (The twelve people were Emma Smith, Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery, David Whitmer, William Smith, Lucy Mack Smith, Michael Morse, Sarah Hellor Conrad, Isaac Hale, Reuben Hale, and Joseph Knight Sr.) Since the Prophet dictated openly, these individuals would have been aware of any suspicious behavior or procedures. Emma was emphatic on this very point: “He had neither manuscript nor book to read from, [and] if he had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me.”15″
“Thus the Book of Mormon came through, but not from, Joseph Smith!”
No, this Book that some think is so easy to refute and dismiss is truly a “Marvelous Work and a Wonder”.
posted July 16, 2007 at 9:07 am
Peter Christian Nuttall,
I think you seriously misunderstood my post. I am Mormon. You seemed to think I was saying things in an attempt to cast us as non-Christians. I wasn’t.
First, I was using “disfellowshipped” in the sense we Mormons do. If you thought I was taking it further, you misunderstood my post and read to much into what I said.
Second, when you had a problem with the “ordering” I apologize I didn’t make it clear I *wasn’t* ordering. I was only listing steps, not necessarily in chronological order. Sorry to give the wrong impression.
posted July 16, 2007 at 9:14 am
P.S. I think I see now where your confusion came about my “no fellowship with the saints” comment. You were right that what I was describing is closer to “excommunication” (which includes the penalties of “disfellowship”). And I wasn’t clear that I was limiting the lack of fellowship to *church related activities* such as saying prayers, partaking of the sacrament, temple worship, and so forth. We certainly should continue loving all men. Thanks for the clarification.
posted July 16, 2007 at 10:33 am
P. Nielsen,
Answer me this question: Who is Jesus?
Is He the third person in the Trinity; in His incarnation fully God and fully man. Not just a god who is one “in purpose” with the Father, but actually fully God. Not just the God of this world (a name Biblically reserved for Satan) but God over all creation.
Is He just the first born son of God the Father and subordinate to the Father, or is He equal to the Father in every way?
Was He once as we are, a man? Or is he God from eternity past and will be to eternity future, etc.
If I have accurately portrayed these distinctions correctly, we are talking about two different Jesus’ here.
I am not accusing you of failing to use the Nicene Creed as your basis of belief or as a lens through which you should view Scripture. Rather, I am saying that on the testimony of Scripture itself we are talking about two different Jesus’.
If using the Nicene Creed as a tool helps to distinguish between what Christians and Mormons believe about Jesus, then it is a good tool–given that the Nicene Creed accurately summarizes what Scripture teaches concerning Christ. Where the Nicene Creed departs from Scripture, it is useless! Scripture always and everywhere stands in judgment upon man and the things of man, not man or his documents upon Scripture. Personally, I am not too familiar with the Nicene Creed in the first place. So let’s not even bother with it.
But I leave you with what I started: Who is Jesus – specifically in Mormon theology?
Matt
posted July 16, 2007 at 10:49 am
P. Nielsen,
Regarding our views of the atonement: I agree that one’s view of when the atonement takes place may not have been the best example for the point I was trying to make. Nevertheless, our views of what the atonement accomplished are very much different. You say it only made it possible for people to be saved (even the word ‘saved’ has different meanings for us). Whereas Scripture claims that the atonement actually did save those who would believe–those who will believe are those who have been predestined unto salvation (Eph 1).
Therefore, it still stands that our definitions for atonement are different. So even though in casual conversation with Mormon missionaries it may appear that we are talking about the same thing, we are not. The fact that we are even debating the meaning of the atonement is evidence enough!
Matt
posted July 16, 2007 at 11:01 am
Hi P. Nielsen,
I’ve enjoyed your other posts, remember who you are and apologize for mentally misattributing some of your statements to Matt.
I appreciate your recognizing that the clarification was needful, even though I obviously misunderstood the intent of the statements. I’ve seen church leaders revisit this topic repeatedly in various church meetings, clarifying over and over again that “shunning” of excommunicated and so-called “disfellowshipped” members is forbidden, and that church actions are not “punishment.” (Unfortunately the uninspired terms “church discipline” and “disfellowshipping” subvert that message and add to the confusion of both members and nonmembers on this subject). Fortunately many members do get the message — when my uncle was excommunicated, his ward continued to welcome him and show him kindness, and he eventually was rebaptized. But the continual emphasis by church leaders on this point suggests that there are some members that don’t understand what these church actions are about.
As for the ordering of steps, I think that the way that the Book of Mormon orders them, and the way we order them in the articles of faith and other church teachings, i.e. faith, then repentance, then baptism, etc. helps clarify that we really are talking about the same gospel and the same Jesus Christ as our non-LDS brothers in Christ on this forum. There’s a wonderful talk by Elder Dallin Oaks on how the church members use the word “salvation” to refer to several distinct concepts, and how this leads to confusion over the faith/works issue. That salvation from sin and hell really does come through faith in Jesus Christ alone, through grace and without works.
Likewise, there are many Christian groups that like the LDS church, also emphasize the other parts of the gospel, and don’t stop at salvation by faith in Christ. An evangelical friend of mine who had previously been certain that a Mormon could never be a Christian, accepted my challenge to read Elder Oak’s talk and the description of the gospel at the end of 2 Nephi, and completely changed his opinion. While he’d previously been appalled when he heard LDS testimony meeting that there was so little talk of their salvation from sin and hell, but after reading that information, his analysis changed, because he understood that these LDS members were giving their testimony of what his church refers to our “walk with God.” He even said he wished that his church put more emphasis on that part of the gospel, since that’s the part we deal with day to day. For our part, I think I and many other LDS could put more emphasis on our gratitude to Jesus Christ for saving us from sin and spiritual death. That would put the other stuff into proper perspective, and avoid giving people — including some other LDS people — the false impression that the LDS church teaches that we are saved from sin through ordinances or through works, rather than through Christ’s grace.
posted July 16, 2007 at 11:42 am
“…Scripture claims that the atonement actually did save those who would believe–those who will believe are those who have been predestined unto salvation (Eph 1). Therefore, it still stands that our definitions for atonement are different.”
Matt, are you sure that you want to insert your beliefs about to *whom* the atonement applies into “the definition” of the atonement. If so, your use of terms like “we” and “our”, on a board of populated mostly by nonCalvinists, needs a little explaining. You just claimed that I think that’s an questionable proposition, but let’s assume for sake of argument that this is true. If it’s true, then you Calvinists and those who your fellow-Calvinists describe as “semi-Pelegians” (those who believe in some degree of free will), including LDS and most Protestants and Catholics today, and probably most people on this board have a different “definition” of the atonement than you do.
posted July 16, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Dear Matt,
Regarding the atonement: I agree that we understand it differently. But, I think many other Christian sects also understand it quite differently, as evidenced in that link I provided to wikipedia. If you reject us as a Christian denomination because of our understanding, why don’t you reject other Christian denominations?
Regarding what I believe about Jesus, you asked:
>>Is He the third person in the Trinity; in His incarnation fully God and fully man. Not just a god who is one “in purpose” with the Father, but actually fully God. Not just the God of this world (a name Biblically reserved for Satan) but God over all creation.
>>Is He just the first born son of God the Father and subordinate to the Father, or is He equal to the Father in every way?
>>Was He once as we are, a man? Or is he God from eternity past and will be to eternity future, etc.
My answer is, firstly, if you asked these questions to Christians in the first century, what would their answer be? What if you asked other Christian sects? Do they understand the “trinity” like you do? Ever heard of “social-trinitarianism”?
But to go through them. 1) No, I don’t believe Jesus is the *third* person of the Godhead. He is the second, not the third! (Okay, okay, picky, picky! My humor is showing!) My understanding of the trinity may differ from yours, *but* it isn’t too far from social trinitarianism, which is accepted by some Christian sects.
2) I honestly don’t know what “fully man and fully God” mean. I think they are throwbacks of Greek philosophy as applied to the gospel, and are not found in the scriptures. Furthermore, as I’ve pointed out on other issues, other Christian denominations have not universally accepted this part of the creeds.
I believe Jesus was as much a man as you or I, and I believe Jesus was as much a God during His mortality as before and after. Does that answer your question? Does it disqualify me from Christianity?
3) I don’t know what you mean by: “Not just a god who is one “in purpose” with the Father, but actually fully God.” But I’d guess my answer would be no; as would other social trinitarians’ answer.
4) Yes, I believe Christ is God over all creation.
5) Is Christ subordinate to the Father? Well, He said the Father is greater, in the Bible. Again, *other* Christian sects believed this (as did many of the first Christians).
6) “Was He once as we are, a man? Or is he God from eternity past and will be to eternity future, etc.” I belive both. And again, other Christian sects have believed this. Some Christian sects have even denied that Christ was God from eternity past.
Best,
P. Nielsen
————
Dear Peter,
My mom was also excommunicated and rebaptized, so I know what you are talking about. Cheers.
posted July 16, 2007 at 1:02 pm
P. Nielsen,
So would you agree that our views of Jesus Christ are different and therefore we believe in a different Jesus? (I’m not necessarily asking who has the right understanding of Jesus right now.)
Also, I really don’t care what any sect might believe about any given doctrine. Christ is always and everywhere interested in individuals, not labels. However, labels usually serve the purpose of summarizing in general terms one’s view on any given topic, such as the label Calvinist in my case. This term tells you much about what I believe, but would still require some explanation on my part to make sure that your ideas of Calvinism align themselves with what I might affirm.
Regarding “why don’t you reject other Christian denominations?”: First, who said I don’t. Second: there are things that Christians can disagree on that would not disqualify one as a Christian and there are things that do. For instance, we may have an in-house debate on the appropriate means of baptism (full immersion, sprinkling, forwards, backwards, etc.). But one’s position on this is not essential to one’s salvation.
If, however, I come to you and say Christ was a dog who ran in front of a car to pay for my car loan debt and claim myself to be a Christian, I would be wrong! And therefore not a Christian.
Ok, I know, that is an extreme example. But Satan (and the lies he devises) doesn’t usually masquerade around as a dog, but as an angel of light! Meaning, false hoods, lies, are usually garbed in apparent truths.
So we must be ever so accurate with our assertions–accurate defined as that which the Bible teaches. My authority is not in the number of men or sects that agree or disagree with me. My authority is Scripture. ‘You don’t find truth by counting noses.’ And if my position is unpopular on this comment board even among evangelicals (as Nutall asserts) so be it.
I am convinced by Scripture, not by man!
If you would recall, I really didn’t want to get into a debate about the atonement. I wanted to discuss who Christ is! We obviously agree that we have different views on who Christ is. And the simple conclusion is that we are both wrong or one of us is wrong. If we get Christ wrong, who He is, we are not truly saved. If we believe in a Christ other that who the Bible portrays Him to be, we are believing in one of those false Christs Christ warned about.
It’s really that simple.
Might I also add that you regularly appeal to what other Christian sects accept to apparently strengthen your argument. Again, truth is not in the number of people who happen to believe something is true. Truth is in Scripture–in Christ, truth incarnate.
Matt
posted July 16, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Matt, Origen taught that Christ was subordinate to the father. Would you say that Origen was a “non-Christian”?
“: there are things that Christians can disagree on that would not disqualify one as a Christian and there are things that do. For instance, we may have an in-house debate on the appropriate means of baptism (full immersion, sprinkling, forwards, backwards, etc.). But one’s position on this is not essential to one’s salvation.”
I’m glad that we agree on that, Matt. That not every difference in doctrine or practice speaks to whether someone is a Christian.
“My authority is not in the number of men or sects that agree or disagree with me. My authority is Scripture. ‘You don’t find truth by counting noses.’”
So you say now, Matt, but your previous argument that I cited, the one contrasting “our” beliefs with LDS beliefs, read like an appeal to nose-count authority.
“And if my position is unpopular on this comment board even among evangelicals (as Nutall asserts) so be it.”
That misses “Nutall”‘s point, though, Matt. You were offering your (Calvinist) position as the definition of *Christianity,* which is something that I haven’t even seen Calvinists do here. If that’s part of your definition of Christianity to exclude mormons, then aren’t you kind of dancing around the fact that your definition also excludes evangelicals from “Christianity?”
Since the Bible states unambiguously that even “the elect” can be deceived, can you make no room in your mind for the thought that a Christian could be mistaken about a doctrinal issue, and yet remain a Christian? Certainly Christ is the truth, and to be a Christian would require one to embrace certain truths.
In John 17, Jesus prays that his disciples will be one, in the same way that Jesus and the Father are one. If you are persuaded by scripture rather than nose-counts, then how do you reconcile that great prayer with your doctrine? Using your reasoning, I could say that the Christ that you worship is not the Christ of John chapter 17.
If understanding the full nature of God right now, was necessary for our salvation from sin and our ability to be Christians, then surely God would have made things a little more clear in the Bible. But Paul suggests that it’s OK for things to be a little fuzzy right now, and promises that we will one day see “face to face,” and know God “as we are known.”
I think that a Christian is someone
1) who believes the gospel report that Jesus was raised from the dead,
2) Believes that Jesus suffered and died to pay the price of our sins.
3) has faith in Jesus Christ unto salvation (since just the devil meets element 1 and 2, and yet is not a Christian, obviously).
It also seems to me that a Christian would make an honest effort to know God, through study of the scriptures and prayer, but this isn’t something we can see through the outward appearance.
posted July 16, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Peter and P. Nielsen,
It seems that we are in an endless circle of going-no-where discussions. It is obvious that neither I nor you two are going to budge on any of our beliefs at this point.
Is that a fair statement?
So let’s just agree to disagree, await the next installment from Dr. Mohler (if one is pending) and continue our discussions based on what Dr. Mohler writes.
I leave you with this:
“Mat 7:13-15 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. (14) “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it. (15) “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”
AND
“Pro 14:12 There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.”
Obviously I could be the one on the broad way. At least we know that Jesus warns us to make sure we are in the correct faith, that we have correct beliefs, that we are on the right path. This also assumes that these beliefs can be understood and known.
We are clearly on different paths. Sure they may both be the broad way, but they can’t both be the narrow way.
At least that much we can agree on.
Thank you both for your kind and well thought out responses and interactions. I would hope that Mr. Card will take some lessons from you two on how to stay on topic.
Blessings,
Matt
posted July 16, 2007 at 3:14 pm
“It seems that we are in an endless circle of going-no-where discussions. It is obvious that neither I nor you two are going to budge on any of our beliefs at this point.
Is that a fair statement?”
Not for my part, and if you meant what you said about being convinced by scripture rather than other reasons, it seems it wouldn’t be so for you either. I’ve often found in discussions that I’d misunderstood a scripture, or had perceived ambiguity when in fact a scripture was clear in context, or had assumed that a matter was unambiguous when in fact the scripture left multiple interpretations open.
“We are clearly on different paths. Sure they may both be the broad way, but they can’t both be the narrow way.”
While you’re exhausting the logical possibilities, another possibility is that the things that we’re arguing about are irrelevant to what Jesus was speaking of as the broad way and the narrow way. Jesus said that *HE* was the way. Not the Mormon church, not Calvinist dogma, not the Nicene Creed. I’m not persuaded that a human interpretation of God’s word is any more relevant to Jesus’ narrow way, than it’s relevant to say that Saul of Tarsus found Jesus on the road to Damascus.
But if you do believe that you are in what Jesus called the narrow way, and that I am off it, don’t you have some sort of duty to more precisely articulate what that way is?
“So let’s just agree to disagree”
That’s just the trouble — I’m not sure what we disagree on, since some of your statements have been vague, a few of your statements contradict each other, and the rest of your statements — most of them actually, cite doctrinal interpretations that I agree with, but that you assume incorrectly that I should disagree with. I’ve offered you a plain, simple, and (most important) precise definition of Christianity, but I have yet to hear how you are defining this term. I’ve asked you some questions about the meaning of your terms, and whether they apply, but you have not replied.
posted July 16, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Peter,
First off, I have really been in conversation with P. Nielsen. You offered some comments to me in response to some of the comments I have made to P. Nielsen. Yet, I have not responded to any of your posts directly, although I did refer to one of your posts in one response to P. Nielsen.
Yes, I did direct my last comment to both you and P. Nielsen, which may have been a mistake only in that we haven’t been debating directly, so why would I feel a need to respond to you? I don’t know. I just did, thinking that you two were coming from the same perspective.
Secondly, I am willing to discuss these issues further. It just appeared to me that we were indeed going nowhere. Clearly P.Nielsen and I disagree on who Christ is. I made the point earlier:
“If we get Christ wrong, who He is, we are not truly saved. If we believe in a Christ other that who the Bible portrays Him to be, we are believing in one of those false Christs Christ warned about.”
My simple point is that P. Nielsen and I have mutually exclusive views on who Christ is. Sure there may be some overlap, but the overall pictures we paint are different. That is why I wanted to focus on who Christ is as the Bible declares Him to be. Once we can agree with Scripture on this, then we can begin to define who a true Christian is. Is not a Christian a follower of Christ? Therefore, we must make certain that we are speaking of the same Christ before we attempt to define who a Christian is. I could agree with your definition of a Christian:
“I think that a Christian is someone
1) who believes the gospel report that Jesus was raised from the dead,
2) Believes that Jesus suffered and died to pay the price of our sins.
3) has faith in Jesus Christ unto salvation (since just the devil meets element 1 and 2, and yet is not a Christian, obviously).”
But even this definition is loaded with terminology that we need to flesh out. What is the gospel report? What does it mean that he died to pay the price of our sins? For whom did he pay the price? All or some? What did that payment accomplish? Why did Christ come in the first place? Was he just a man or was he God. So you see, there are many terms even in your definition whose meaning will change depending on our view of Christ.
So, Peter, who is Jesus Christ?
posted July 16, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Brady,
It’s hard for me to reply to such a post because I don’t want to seem insensitive nor do I want to come accross as someone who doesn’t think the Bible is the Word of God.
It’s interesting to note that when the faith/works debate comes up 99% of scriptures used are after the gospels. That’s not to say that the gospels are contradictory to the rest of the books in the New Testiment but the basis behind the faith/works doctrine is dervived from the latter books.
It’s interesting to note that a good Christian friend of mine who is not LDS also believes that works don’t save but on the flip side seems to believe that they will definately damn someone. You can’t work yourself to heaven but you sure can do evil enough works to get you to hell.
I am LDS. I do not believe that mowing an old ladies lawn will elicit salvation, nor will serving food to the needy will get me to a closer seat next to God in the next life. “works” and ordinances of the gospel are different (in my eyes). Does one need baptism for salvation? The Bible teaches me, Yes. Do I need to follow the commandments of God to live with him again? My interpretation of Bible verses teach me, yes. It’s not that I’m ignoring all of your study and quotes from the Bible because I do believe that baptism would benefit me nothing if it weren’t for Christ and his grace. If Christ did not exist, getting baptised, following his teachings and commandments, receiving my endowments in his house would benefit me nothing. That is why Mormons believe 100% in following Christ and his teachings (works) and 100% in Grace (accepting that we can do nor accomplish anything pertaining to salvation without him).
Somewhere you knocked “feelings” and a “burning in the boosom”. The secular world is picking the Bible apart every day. Denying Christ. Denying Adam & Eve, the flood, the stories of Moses, etc. They have “proof” that the Bible is full of folk stories from a tiny region of the world. They ponder wether a Christ existed at all. With scientific “proof”, DNA reasearch, archeaology claiming contrary conclusions that originate in the Bible how are we supposed to know it to be the “Word of God”? Study, Study, Study? Haven’t they studied? Who are we to say they are wrong when they’ve studied as hard or even harder (it’s there profession) than you have? Who do we ask? God? James 1:5 says so. How does God answer? Over a beer at the pub? Not usually. He talks to our hearts, to our minds and to some gives a burning in the boosom, or the chills, or a feeling of peace and calm. If you don’t agree then you’ve put a gag order upon God which you have no authority to do! You’ve intstructed people to trust a book before talking to your Father. Nice advice.
“Christianity” has proved that your answer that “we don’t need feelings or a burning in the boosom, because we have the Word of God” and all we need to do is study, study, study, is wrong. How many deaths, contentions, wars, etc. have resulted in interpreting (studying) the Bible incorrectly? How many Christian denominations are there in the world reading the same verse but giving it different interpretation and meaning? Before Mormonism came it was easier to see you fight amongst yourselves. The best thing that happened to Protestantism was Mormonism so you could have a rest from one another and the wolves could feast on new flesh. How about we read, pray and listen to what God tells us is the interpretation? Or better yet, how about we follow Gods way of doing things as he’s done from the beginning and listen to prophets that have the authority to speak in his name?
I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Do I believe that it was written by God? No. Did the finger of God touch it and cause all the words to have a shimmering of gold? No. If we study the history of the Bible it’s obviouse to anything smarter than a monkey that we are lucky to have what we do. Monks preserved what they could, and books were voted on (without Gods input) at to what writings were in and what were left out.
Christian religions will (or should) at their root always try to do there best to be an example of Christ. I know that the Baptists, Lutherans, Seventh Days, Calvanists, Episcipals, etc.. follow Christ the best way they can using the Bible, athough they don’t agree on a lot of things.
The world will never have the peace and stability of the LDS community because of their contetions and use of only one book that was published and used for false purposes unintentionally.
We have Christ (who we have not issued a gag order upon).
We have a prophet (God will always work through one).
We have the Bible.
We have the Book of Mormon (supporting 100% of Bible teacings).
We have other scripture clarifying Gods purposes for us and obolishing the need for contention.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught through his Church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) is the only thing that can unite people accross the globe and eventaully bring eternal peace to those who bow their knee and confess that Jesus is the Christ, our God.
Amen
posted July 16, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Matt, I am delighted that you haven’t given up on me here, and I’m impressed with the way that your last post has reframed our discussion.
With respect to the first element of my attempt to define the word Christian, “1) who believes the gospel report that Jesus was raised from the dead,” you ask “What is the gospel report?” I agree that’s something that you and I should address, but not with respect to the first element, which only pertains to one very specific part of the gospel report, i.e. that Jesus had risen from the dead. This was the gospel report, the first “good news” after the crucifixion: “our Lord has risen.” The synoptic gospels were not written until decades after the word “Christian” was first used at Antioch, where the word it had to identify those who believed the report of the apostles that Jesus the Christ had risen. Rome had to sense a threat to its power, which it held through terror. Crucifixion wasn’t just execution – it was humiliation, a public display of state power over the body. To say that a person who had been crucified had returned from the dead, and was still regarded as a leader, was an unprecedented threat to the Roman state. It took courage to believe, and even more courage to say that you believed, so I think we should remember the resurrection as a key fact that every Christian believes. I agree that Christian has come to mean something more specific than just one who believes that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, but I think belief in the fact of the resurrection is a specific element that we need to preserve as part of the definition. John the Beloved did not write what we know as the Gospel of John (which adds so much key doctrine to the earlier synoptic gospel accounts) for a very long time after the synoptic gospels, so for at least a generation, the first “good news” of Christianity was that the Lord had risen.
Element #2 involves key doctrinal beliefs of Christianity, and if you think some are missing, we can add more elements, or expand the 2nd part of the definition. What I would like to avoid is putting anything into the definition that isn’t pertinent to a person’s salvation. If someone is persuaded that Christ was black or white or bald, we might think that such a belief was jarring and strange, but it wouldn’t be grounds for saying that they believe in a “different Christ.” That’s just a question of fact about Christ, and not a fact that is pertinent to our salvation.
In addition to the fact of the resurrection, the gospel report tells us that Jesus Christ has taken our sins upon himself, broken the bands of death and hell for all those that place their faith in him.
I personally believe that Jesus suffered the pains and sin of every human being that ever lived, even for those who will reject his grace. But I’m not certain that this belief is necessary for me to be saved. It seems to me that in order to be saved, I simply need to believe that he suffered died for *me*, and accept that grace, having faith that he’s extended it to me. Perhaps I’m wrong, but it seems to me that salvation is personal. Jesus told his disciples to cast in the net to find persons to teach the gospel to, but when it comes to salvation, I believe that it’s a personal relationship. Of course he would remember us. Each of us is engraven into his hands and feet. He suffered for each of us, personally, because of his endless love for us.
Who is Jesus Christ?
(Like the KJV translators, I’ll use italics to set off the stuff I’m not sure of. If you see something not italicized that’s wrong, please make a particular point to correct me, since I hate to be “sure” of something that’s wrong.)
I don’t think that “Before Abraham was, I AM.” leaves any room for interpretation. Jesus is JHVH, Jehovah, Jahweh, the creator of the world, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He chose to come to earth, and was born of the virgin Mary, in Bethlehem, as prophesied by the prophets of the Old Testament. Angels sang at his birth. In his thirties, he fasted for many days, and the Devil tested him by subjecting him to temptation just as all men are tempted – but Jesus never succumbed to temptation in act, word, or thought; he lived and died sinless. John the Baptist was astonished when Jesus came to be baptized – the Baptist seems to be the person in the New Testament who best understood who Jesus was. Although sinless, Jesus submitted himself to baptism so that he might fulfill all of the commandments, and to give us a perfect path to follow, to lead by example as well as by word. At his baptism, the Holy Ghost descended on him in form of a dove, and a voice proclaimed from heaven “this is my beloved son, in whom I am well-pleased.” At first many seemed to see Jesus as one of many great Rabbis like his contemporary Gamaliel of the Talmud, offering insights into the Law of Moses. For example, Jesus taught people how to pray (with simple words, sincerely, without repetition), to whom to pray (to Our Father in Heaven), why to pray, when to pray, where to pray (privately for our most personal and fervent prayers, and communally as a group, to be “One”), and how to NOT pray (to be seen of men). But Jesus’ authority clearly exceeded that of the Rabbis: he healed the sick and proclaimed that he had the power to forgive sin. Jesus organized a ministry, and one group of twelve apostles and a greater group of seventy went out into the world to teach his words, and yet, as best I can tell, none of them really understood who he was or why he had came until after the resurrection. He often taught in parables to the people at large, but taught his disciples in clearer language. Peter once, under the power of the Holy Ghost, declared that Jesus was the promised Messiah*, the only son of the living God – and yet at other times, the gospel accounts portray Peter as fairly clueless about who Jesus is and what his purpose was. Jesus entered Jerusalem as a symbolic king, and yet within a week had been betrayed and crucified, and yet he was the only one not surprised by this development. In Gethsemane he prayed that his Father find some other way of saving mankind, but it seems that there was no other way, except by offering up His own life, and taking upon himself the sin and pain of those that He wished to redeem. When His work was done on the cross, his heart broke, the earth shook, and the veil of the temple was torn, exposing the holiest room in the temple to the view of others. We know that his heart ruptured, because when the centurion, to ensure that Jesus was dead, thrust a spear into his side, and witnesses saw “blood and water,” which is the appearance of the separated fluids that form in a ruptured heart. The God of heaven and earth gave up his mortal body, and according to Peter, spent three days ministering to the spirits in prison, Sheol, probably also speaking to the spirit of the thief as he had promised on the Cross. Some might argue that Jesus’ promise to be with the thief in paradise is inconsistent with Peter’s statement that Jesus visited the spirits in sheol during that time, but it seems to me that any place in the presence of the Lord’s spirit would have been paradise, and that bringing relief to sheol’s captives would fulfill the scripture of breaking the bonds of death and hell. It may be during those three days that Jesus also fulfilled David’s prophesy in the psalms that he would not leave David’s soul in hell. The same psalm also prophesied that Jesus’ body would never see corruption, and it didn’t, because three days after the crucifixion, the tomb was empty. The Lord had risen. He showed himself first to Mary, and then told her that he had not yet shown himself to His Father. Presumably after meeting His Father, He showed himself briefly to various groups of apostles and disciples, and then spent 40 days teaching a much larger group of disciples. For some reason unexplained in the scriptures, the teachings of the resurrected Lord are not presented in detail like the Sermon on the Mount, and other teachings that occurred while the Lord dwelt in a mortal body. I believe, but cannot be certain, that it was during this time that Jesus taught those who would soon be called “Christians” who he was, why he had come, the meaning of the resurrection, etc. I believe but cannot prove that many of the epistles contain the doctrines, if not some of the exact words, that Jesus taught during his 40 day ministry. Since the ancient world did not quote or cite as we do, it would be difficult to tell, for example, what parts of 1 Corinthians 13 were quoted or paraphrased from the sermons of the resurrected Christ, and which were composed by Paul under the influence of the Holy Ghost. Why does it matter? Because Jesus’ sermons recorded in the four gospels say very little about the atonement, the key doctrine of Christianity. And I have a hard to believing that One God would spend forty days in his immortal resurrected body, teaching a large group of disciples, and not say anything important.
* The account in the gospels says “thou art the Christ,” but Peter was probably speaking in Aramaic, not Greek. The Jews for some time had taken the greek word “Christ” to signify the Jewish messiah promised in by prophets since Moses, although the word had been used for other purposes in Greek and some other indo-European cultures.
Whew. That was *not* a cut and paste. I harbor no illusions that I’ve answered your question satisfactorily, but I’ve done the best I could in the time I had. There is so much more to say, so much more that I would like to know, and yet I do not think that everything that I said is necessary to someone having faith in Christ unto salvation. I’m almost certain that the stuff that I didn’t set off in italics isn’t pertinent to salvation, since I wrote a lot of it just to avoid saying something factually misleading (e.g. about how the word “Christ” referred to the promised Messiah of the Old Testament, and not to earlier uses of that Greek word which did not refer to the religion of the God of Abraham). How much of what I said – and how much more that I failed to say during this whirlwind tour of the gospel – does a person need to know in order to be saved?
I have a disabled son who lost his ability to speak and understand when he was four years old after a devastating illness, and I don’t know how much of what I’ve said that my son is even physically capable of understanding.
Consider also how the gospel report grew and continued to grow after Christ’s death, through the epistles, the synoptic gospels, and then the amazing knowledge conveyed in the Gospel of John – much of which wasn’t available to the average Christian until hundreds of years after Christ’s death.
Jesus says that his sheep hear his voice. Is that pertinent? Jesus said that eternal life is to know him. Maybe salvation consists of latching on to whatever part of the gospel report that we receive, with all our heart. Or maybe only Jesus knows how much we have to know, for Him to seal us His, and make us hunger and thirst after his righteousness, and after more of his word. For my son’s sake, I hope it’s something like that. Or that Jesus will make his grace known to my son in His own time and way.
You’ve posed challenging but useful questions. I look forward to your corrections and insights.
-Peter
posted July 17, 2007 at 12:32 am
Mr. Card’s verbosity is a sad semantic shell game. Changing the subject is an unfortunate attempt to not deal with what is being addressed and making inferences of bigotry is an unfortunate attempt to cow someone who will not be intimidated. Oh, well.
C’mon, Orson. Jesus is God. That is orthodoxy. Your position is indefensible. Look, you have your group, and it a morally upstanding group which can be trusted in everything except God’s glory and the gospel. You don’t have to be so defensive.
Just say it and stop going on and on.
Who is Jesus in Mormon theology? What is that great commision all about, with all those other guys tagged on at the end, and what planet are they from?
What is with the plural/singular flippy-floppy in the Pentateuch?
For crying out loud, stop dodging and start answering.
Harry
posted July 17, 2007 at 2:24 am
“Jesus is God. That is orthodoxy.”
It’s also LDS theology.
“Who is Jesus in Mormon theology?”
Mormons don’t really do “theology.” We just read the scriptures; we don’t interpret them through Greek Philosophy. Here’s what we believe:
The stated purpose of the Book of Mormon, as written on the Title Page, is “to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL God”
- See Title Page of the Book of Mormon
Jesus is also:
“The father of heaven and of earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning”
-Hel. 14: 12; see also 3 Ne. 9: 15.
“The Son of God”
-3 Ne. 5: 13; 3 Ne. 5: 26; 2 Ne. 25: 19
“The Redeemer”
-3 Ne. 5: 26
“The only name under heaven whereby man may be saved”
-2 Ne. 25: 20; see also Alma 36: 17-18.
Jesus said that his sheep know his voice. Tell me, Harry, does the following statement sound like the words of anyone you know?
-3 Ne. 9: 15
posted July 17, 2007 at 8:03 am
Ive read all the comments…hmm very tiring and confusing sometimes…would it not be simple to JUST BELIEVE, leaving it all in Gods hands, have faith in your own feelings and listen for the answers from the spirit of God.Listen to what your heart tells you that Jesus is the Christ and all we have to do is have faith in him and have trust.When you say your prayers ask your heavenly father up above if all these things are true……..go about your daily work and wait for the answer to come, in the meantime pray and enjoy your life and enjoy the blessings which are yours…family health etc. I hope that you all have the desire to find the truth….God bless you every day of your lifes….
Irene Mathieson.
posted July 17, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Peter,
I’m still here. It’s just going to take me a while to read through your last post…
Matt
posted July 17, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Ahh! Why did it have to be a debate between two of my favorite authors! So torn. . .
One quick comment on Cards response: He seems to be banking on the fact that Mormon’s lead “good” lives, and that’s what counts with God:
“I wish Dr. Mohler would take the tiny, tiny step of saying, not that Mormons are right, but that a person can believe as a Mormon does and still do good works in the name of Christ, that would be acceptable to Christ by that clear, bright standard.”
Might that be where Christians and Mormans differ? Christianity is not merit based, but rather grace based. I am not accepted by God because I do good things, but because God views me in Christ, and sees Christ’s righteousness instead of my sin. That’s the crux of being a Christian, not where we fit in to our community or church, or whatever.
And it’s not about fitting in to the orthodox view, or being the minority. It’s about truth. Pure and simple.
posted July 17, 2007 at 4:35 pm
I’m Christian and don’t understand why Mormanism is thought of as Christian. They have some of the same teachings, but most are different and don’t follow the same doctrines as the Christian faith.
President Mr. Hinkley, even said himself that Christianity and Mormanism are different. See Church News, June 20, 1998, p.7 When you don’t believe in the same Christ, in which the Bible teaches. To me it is cut and dry, especially when you do your research.
If you don’t follow the same Christ and don’t follow the same doctrine that Jesus and the 12 apostles put in place, how can you call that Christian?
I’m tired of the debate. If people researched this and asked Christ to show them the truth, than we wouldn’t be having these discussions. It’s easier just to say Joseph Smith is right, than finding out the truth for ourselves.
I challange those who think they have the truth, by studying God’s Word the Bible, and seeing the doctrine set down my God’s prophets and disciples and seeing the huge difference that is found in the doctrine found in the Mormom faith.
Love and God Bless! I love Mormons as well as Christians. Just wish everybody, would do some deep research.
posted July 17, 2007 at 4:35 pm
“One quick comment on Cards response: He seems to be banking on the fact that Mormon’s lead “good” lives, and that’s what counts with God: “
Not at all. Orson Scott Card is banking on the vain hope that more people here will follow Jesus’ teaching that we will know the true prophets from the false prophets by their works. Card thinks that “good” lives will count for you, since Jesus told you that you should count them. What Card is not counting on is that some folks here would rather play God.
Have you mistaken yourself or Dr. Mohler for God?
Orson Scott Card is not debating God on this forum. He’s debating Dr. Mohler. And Dr. Mohler has made abundantly clear that this debate is not about what God thinks, but about what “Traditional Orthodox Christians” think.
“Might that be where Christians and Mormans differ?”
Null question and circular logic. You cannot assume that Christians and “Mormans” differ, in order to prove that Mormons aren’t Christians.
“Christianity is not merit based, but rather grace based. I am not accepted by God because I do good things, but because God views me in Christ, and sees Christ’s righteousness instead of my sin.”
Dr. Mohler has not addressed the question of whether God accepts us. He has limited this discussion exclusively to the question of whether you “Orthodox Traditional Christians” will accept us. You’ve ignored Jesus’ instructions that we should assess this question by works, and you’ve declined to extend grace.
You really should stop taking the name of Christ in vain when you make these arbitrary determinations that we don’t fit into your little orthodox club.
Take your time, Matt; I look forward to your answer.
Harry, I’m dissapointed that you didn’t reply. But what did you mean by “plural/singular flippy-floppy in the Pentateuch”?
posted July 17, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Nice try, Heather.
Heather, I can’t help but notice that you failed to quote the statement from “President Mr. Hinkley,” that according to you, stated that “Christianity and Mormanism [sic]” are different. Most LDS folks don’t even have access to the church news, and as far as I know, it’s not available online anywhere. Tell the truth, Heather — did you actually see that supposed statement in the church news, or is this just what you call “research,” i.e. cutting and pasting the stuff that antimormons have fed you, without verifying sources or thinking for yourself?
posted July 18, 2007 at 3:41 am
Mitt Romney Presidential Agenda
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pHSlWorAP4o
This makes fun of the idea of a Mormon Theocracy.
posted July 18, 2007 at 5:12 am
Why can’t people just be honest? Mormons believe that there are many planets each with its own God. On this planet-earth-God the Father came down to earth and had sex with Mary and so produced Jesus. If people believe in Mormonism they too can become gods and rule over their own planets. In contrast, Christians (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox) believe that this is only one God who is eternal. No one can become a god. This God used supernatural powers to make Mary pregnant with His son Jesus. This Jesus is made of the same substance (whatever that is) that God is made of. Jesus, therefore, is both God and man. Mormonism cannot be defined as Christian, and likewise, Christians cannot call themselves Mormons or even Muslims. Words, you see, do have meaning.
posted July 18, 2007 at 9:49 am
Mr. Card,
A few observations:
1) Unless the basic rules of writing have changed since I’ve been in school, paragraphs are expected to contain at least 3 sentences. Your habit of treating each sentence of your writing as a paragraph causes what is already a rambling response to Dr. Mohler’s first rebuttal to be even more difficult to follow.
2) “This story may seem overly long to some…”. This is probably the understatement of the decade.
3) Please stick with the resolution of this discussion: Are the basic tenets of Mormonism consistent with the basic tenets of orthodox Christianity.
Regards,
Michael
posted July 18, 2007 at 10:45 am
I think of Mormons as Christians that have made themselves godlike. I’ve learned that they believe the higher they are in the church the closer you are to God (and more important). Mark 16:14-19
The Bible says to spread the word, no where does it say you have to be a Mormon to do this. That’s like the Jews back in the time of Jesus when they thought the gospel was only for them and then Jesus comes and changes everything.
No one person is any more important in God’s eyes no matter what “position” you have in life. That is the humble grace and mercy of God.
We had Mormon neighbors and they were wonderful loving people.
posted July 18, 2007 at 12:09 pm
I believe the answer to this discussion lies with the words of Paul.
Galatians 1:6-9
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
There are so many teachings from the book of Mormon that do NOT fall in line with the gospel. I would extend this statement to many “Christian churches” as well. Those that claim that a person has to do anything to gain salvation is perverting the gospel just as those among the Galatians were. There were those among them who said that the Gentiles (most of the members of the churches of Galatia) had to be circumcised Paul was telling them here with very strong language that they were distorting the gospel.
The gospel says that there is nothing we can do to make God love us or cause us to deserve salvation. Any church that preaches that there are things that you must do or must not do to be a Christian are false churches, whether it is you must be baptized, be a good husband/wife/child, go to church, etc. Any church that requires any of these things is not a church professing the gospel of the Bible. Don’t take my word for it READ THE BOOK! It is all there. Likewise there is nothing we can do once we are saved that will take us from the hand of God (that is in the Book as well). Whether I lie, cheat, steal, murder, commit suicide, think of the worst sin you can and insert a heart that has truly been redeemed cannot be taken from the had of God. God does not scratch our name out of the Book of Life, it is there for eternity. If I get mad at my husband and act on my anger by saying things that I shouldn’t (which I have done and so has the whole of the human popluation read James) Christ says that that is no different in the eyes of God than me killing him. Now, that doesn’t give me the freedom to do so because there are definitely different consequences for the two sins, but it makes me just as sinful as the murderers in prison are sinful. Any church that has rules and restrictions and a list of things that you must do (or not do) to be saved is not a church that teaches the gospel. Churches that teach that we can be good or decent or “honorable” (to take a word from the Mormon teaching of the terrestrial kingdom) apart from Christ having reign in our lives do not teach the Truth of the Gospel! Jesus says in Mark that no one is good but God alone! So, yes, I believe that the Mormons teach a gospel contrary to the one taught by Christ. The Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible and does not compliment it. And as Paul says above that even if he or an angel from Heaven were to preach a gospel contrary to the one we have received through Christ we are to reject it. I believe that a false gospel is much more dangerous than atheists or even other religions who reject Christ completely. And no we should not applaud their actions and theology because that is not what Christ did. He called the Jewish leaders out on their false teaching. Paul and Peter and other disciples did the same!
posted July 18, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Admiration for Romney will probably lead to as many conversions to Mormonism as the (easily attestable) admiration O.S. Card enjoys in the science fiction and fantasy community has lead to such conversions. I don’t think the Presbyterians or the Lutherans or the Catholics need to get too concerned.
posted July 18, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Peter,
Thanks for your patience. I was a bit sidetracked yesterday with other responsibilities but am now ready to respond to your last post to me.
Some general comments:
First, I am glad to here you say that there are elements of the Gospel that one must believe—that are pertinent to one’s salvation—in order to be saved. You stated this in the negative by saying: “What I would like to avoid is putting anything into the definition [of Christian] that isn’t pertinent to a person’s salvation”.
Second, today we have the entire Bible whereas in the early days they did not (a point I think you have made). We are responsible to believe in God’s word as we have it today, not based on what the early Christians had then. The early Christians were responsible to believe in what they had then. (Even Adam and Eve were commanded only to be fruitful and multiply, rule over the earth, and avoid the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and were held responsible for this!)
Third, I also believe that salvation is personal. It is our personal sin that separates us from God, and he will deal with us in an individual, personal way. God will not be dealing with us as groups or denominations or as members of certain churches. Our personal sin is what separates us, not what church we belong to!
—-
Well, there was very little I could disagree with you in what you wrote in your ‘whirlwind tour’ about the life of Christ and what he did. You gave a rather factual report of what occurred.
When you state that “’I don’t think that Before Abraham was, I AM.’ leaves any room for interpretation” are you saying that Jesus is God as much as God the Father is God? Meaning, are you affirming the historical understanding of the Trinity, not the Trinity of Mormon theology? It seems like you are.
You also wrote:
“Jesus Christ has taken our sins upon himself….[and] the pains and sin of every human being that ever lived, even those who will reject his grace”.
Later on you also wrote: “…except by offering up His own life, and taking upon himself the sin and pain of those that He wished to redeem.”
I’d like to take some time to talk about this:
What did it mean for Christ to take upon himself the sins and pain of man? What did that accomplish in God’s plan?
We agree that sin is what separated us from God. “ for all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God” (Rom. 3:23).
We also know that:
“For the wages of sin is death…”– (Rom 6:23 )
Going back to the Garden of Eden we read:
“The LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; (17) but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” (Gen 2:16-17 )
We understand this “death” to be both physical and spiritual. That is, our bodies will die, but more importantly, we will be (are) separated from God for all eternity precisely because of our sin.
But what is sin? What are we talking about when we talk about sin. Sure, sin is manifest in many ways: lying, stealing, adultery, coveting, evil thoughts, lust, etc. ad. infinitum.
But might there be one thing common to all sin? I mean, if you think about it, Adam and Eve didn’t have the 10 commandments to guide them. They had “do not eat…”.
So, is there something common to all sin? I think there is. Sin, in its essence, is failing to take God at His word! Whenever we sin, not matter what form it takes, we are ultimately calling God a liar! We are saying, “God, I know what you said, but I don’t believe you and am going to do otherwise; I know better!”
We say to the God who made us and formed us, who upholds our very life (we do not posses the ability to exist on our own), who sustains our life even in our sin, who gives us the very ability to even debate on this blog, we say to Him, “Hey, I am my own master and will do as I please, not as you would have me to do!”
(What arrogance sin is! Who are we to attempt to assert our independence from God on whom our very next breath depends?!?)
And the law of God, the Ten Commandments, only exposes the fact that we do sin! In fact, Paul says that this is the purpose of the law:
“What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “YOU SHALL NOT COVET.” (8) But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.” Rom 7:7-8
In other words, the laws purpose was never seen ultimately as a means to salvation, but rather as a means of exposing our sin! That’s the purpose the Law serves—to expose the reality of our sin. If you try to live by the law, you are already dead! But again, our desire to assert our independence shows up in the form of trying to live up to the law in hopes of being able to offer something worthy for God to take notice of! But it’s all filthy rags! We are still saying, “I am worthy to be received by you!” when we try to live by the Law. “Look, God, I have lived up to the Law (not really), now you owe me heaven!”
What rubbish! Remember James 2:10? “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. “
That’s why I can say, if you have so much as a hatred thought of someone, you might as well kill a million people because nothing you do is going to save you now! You are already guilty of breaking the law! No amount of Law keeping is going to save you! You are already dead.
We know that the wages of sin is death, both physical and eternal separation from God. We also know that no one has not sinned. Everyone is separated from God.
Ok, so why all this talk about sin? Please, hang in there; I’m getting to my point!
What did Christ do, what did he accomplish when he died on the cross? We have already read this passage in part, but here it is in whole:
”For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. “
Death is our wage unless we have the free gift of God! Right?
But what is this free gift? What did he accomplish?
What Christ accomplished was satisfying God’s just wrath against our sin. He paid our penalty for sin (death). He took away that which once separated us from God, our sin, and paid our penalty for us.
“having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.”
Does it not mean that that which once separated us from God has been taken care of in Christ? So much so that now nothing can separate from the love of Christ! We are His eternally.
Furthermore, when we place our faith in Christ, not only is our sin paid for (not only are our sins imputed to Christ) we receive the righteousness of Christ (his righteousness is imputed to us). What does that mean? That means that God, from whom we were once separated because of our sin, now sees us as righteous, perfect, without sin. For eternity!
Why?
“Rom 8:3-4 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, (4) so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”
The requirements of the Law have been fulfilled in us not on the basis of our own works (pre- or post-salvation, I might add) but because Christ Himself obeyed the Law fully and this is now ‘imputed’ to us. It’s a great exchange: my sinfulness for His righteousness!
Ok, I know you are saying to yourself, “What does this have to do with what I wrote?”
Well, you wrote, “It seems to me that in order to be saved, I simply need to believe that he suffered [and] died for me, and accept that grace, having faith that he’s extended it to me.”
I agree with this IF, you mean what I have just spent the bulk of this essay declaring what Scripture declares about the work of Christ.
God’s wrath is satisfied if you are truly in Christ and relying upon His righteousness and His payment for your sin!
That’s what it means to be saved; we are saved from God Himself.
If you reject this Christ and His work, you are still dead in your trespasses and sins. You have not been made alive in Christ. And if you are in rejection of this upon your death, you will end up in Hell, because you have not believed what God has demanded of us, namely to believe in this Jesus Christ.
Wouldn’t you agree?
There is so much more to say…..
posted July 18, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Matt, and the rest:
I have been away for a few days, but have found the dialog in my absense compelling and interesting.
Matt, let me say that your “essay” was wonderful. It was inspiring to me, and made me ponder things more deeply. Sometimes when you hear someone else express things in a way that you do not normally express them yourself, it can open paths of thought that may have otherwise gone unexplored.
So I have a question for you, Matt…if I say that I believe what you are saying (and I do), does that qualify me to be a Christian? If the answer is ‘yes’, can I maintain that belief, and still believe in certain different tenets (for example, that the canon of scripture is not closed) and still be considered a Christian?
If so, then I think we are at an accord.
posted July 18, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Nathan:
My general answer is this: I have argued, (and have hopefully been faithful to Scripture), that sin is in essence calling God a liar. Or it is at least saying, God, I don’t believe you and will do things my way. It’s a failure to acknowledge God’s rightful rule over us and attempting to assert our own rule.
That said, I also believe what marks a true believer is one who has a desire to submit to the Word of God. (Isn’t that what we are ultimately doing when we confess Christ as Lord–we are agreeing with Scripture what Scripture says of Jesus. Also, isn’t that what it means to confess sin–that is, saying the same thing about our sin that God has said.) That means that as we are faced with thoughts or ideas about God or what He has declared in His word that have not been in concert with Scripture, a true believer will seek to conform his thoughts to Scripture.
Sin has not only corrupted our actions, it has corrupted our thoughts so that we don’t think accurately all the time. But a true believer admits to this and is also willing to change in order to conform to the testimony of Scripture.
Now I write all this in answer to your question to say that there are certainly areas of doctrine or theology that are not essential for salvation. But when our entire faith is based on the testimony of words–the Bible–we want to make certain that we have the entirety of Scripture. If indeed there is more revelation (i.e the canon is not closed) I would want to know. One sure test would be: does it conform to the rest of revelation.
I don’t want to get into a discussion of whether or not the canon is closed (I believe it is) You , as a Mormon (if you indeed are one) believe that God is still using prophets today, that Scripture is not closed. Well, test what they say with the rest of Scripture. If you find that they contradict the Word, to whom will your final allegiance be? God or your church’s ‘prophets’.
Look, Nathan, you are ultimately accountable to God, not men, whether they be kings or prophets. Therefore, make certain you are listening to the voice of God as revealed in the Bible, make certain you clearly understand what the Bible teaches, knowing that God does not speak with a forked tongue. Then begin to test anyone else’s teaching with it.
“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; (17) so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”
What a great promise that is! Study the Bible first. Make certain you know its message first, so that you can then determine the validity of the messages of others–even of the comments I have posted!
posted July 18, 2007 at 4:41 pm
I’m concerned and dissapointed that the “read all comments” link seems to be dysfunctional, and hope that our wonderful discussion is not sliding into the void, and that the forum will restore the function to allow all comments to be read.
Matt: “When you state that “’I don’t think that Before Abraham was, I AM.’ leaves any room for interpretation” are you saying that Jesus is God as much as God the Father is God?”
What I’m saying is that Jesus Christ and Jehovah, creator of heaven and earth, are different names for the same person.
“Meaning, are you affirming the historical understanding of the Trinity, not the Trinity of Mormon theology? It seems like you are.”
It sounds to me like you’d be as surprised at what the Book of Mormon teaches about Jesus Christ, separately, surprised at the actual LDS teachings about the Godhead.
(“Trinity” refers to the Nicene theory of the Godhead, but the word “Godhead” is not theory-specific — simply refers to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, without specifying their … ontology? Is that the right word?)
For my own part, I confess that if your statements are representative of Calvinism, than I am as misinformed about Calvinism as you are about LDS teachings.
“God’s wrath is satisfied if you are truly in Christ and relying upon His righteousness and His payment for your sin! That’s what it means to be saved; we are saved from God Himself.
If you reject this Christ and His work, you are still dead in your trespasses and sins. You have not been made alive in Christ. And if you are in rejection of this upon your death, you will end up in Hell, because you have not believed what God has demanded of us, namely to believe in this Jesus Christ.
Wouldn’t you agree?”
Yes, I would, because you’ve phrased it, “if you are in rejection of this upon your death,” rather than “unless you accept this before dying.” What you said is consistent with the Book of Mormon as well as with the Bible. Your statement construes God’s grace more broadly than I’ve seen it construed by most other traditional (i.e. non-LDS) Christians, and therefore I agree.
I strongly agree with your characterization of sin as pride and distrust of God.
I disagree with your intepretation of Paul’s statement in Romans, if by “the purpose of the law” you mean the *sole* purpose of the law. Yes, Paul is saying that the law tells us that we fall short, and so we cannot use the law for spiritual salvation. Only grace can accomplish that. But I think that you overstate Paul’s meaning and look beyond the mark when you say:
“If you try to live by the law, you are already dead!”
If you try to live by the full law, you are already dead. If you try to live by the law in order to be acceptable to God, in order to earn salvation through your works, then you are like those who built a tower to get into heaven. The pinncacle of arrogance.
But if you try to live by the law, because you trust God, and believe that he has given you commandments to warn you of actions that would cause you and your loved ones harm, then you are not dead.
If you try to live by the law, out of love for God, then you are alive in Christ.
“What rubbish! Remember James 2:10? “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. “
That’s talking about salvation from sin and hell. Spiritual salvation. But keeping God’s law, even in part, does lead to a measure of temporal salvation. “Thou shalt not commit adultery” has saved many marriages from divorce and cruelty, and has saved many children. God’s concern for our temporal salvation appears in many commandments, such as “Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days be long upon the earth.”
“We know that the wages of sin is death, both physical and eternal separation from God.”
Yes, that’s the *eternal* wage of sin. It’s also pain and harsh consequences in this life, for ourselves and for our loved ones.
Why would we worry about this life when eternity is so much more lasting and important? Because if we are saved, then Jesus Christ’s atonement takes care of eternity. That leaves plenty of time for a true and undefiled religion to focus most of its time on leading its members to good works. Not because we think it’s more important than salvation, but because the most important thing, salvation from sin, is taken care of with that initial act of faith.
“Furthermore, when we place our faith in Christ, not only is our sin paid for (not only are our sins imputed to Christ) we receive the righteousness of Christ (his righteousness is imputed to us).”
Christ’s sinlessness is imputed to us through our accepting his atoning sacrifice, and by remembering it. But righteousness also involves good works, and I don’t think that scripture supports the theory that Christ’s good works, healing the sick, comforting the afflicted, and sacrificing himself for others are imputed to us.
By good works, I mean that which exceeds the requirements of the law. That which we do not out of fear of God’s wrath, but out of love, and out of desire to follow Jesus. And that which we do because God’s spirit has awoken in us the desire to do God. These are the works of Christ in us:
posted July 18, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Matt:
I could not agree with you more! I have interspersed some comments below…
>My general answer is this: I have argued, (and have hopefully been faithful to Scripture),
>that sin is in essence calling God a liar. Or it is at least saying, God, I don’t believe you
>and will do things my way. It’s a failure to acknowledge God’s rightful rule over us and
>attempting to assert our own rule.
I agree with you.
>That said, I also believe what marks a true believer is one who has a desire to submit to
>the Word of God. (Isn’t that what we are ultimately doing when we confess Christ as Lord
>–we are agreeing with Scripture what Scripture says of Jesus. Also, isn’t that what it
>means to confess sin–that is, saying the same thing about our sin that God has said.)
>That means that as we are faced with thoughts or ideas about God or what He has declared
>in His word that have not been in concert with Scripture, a true believer will seek to conform
>his thoughts to Scripture.
I agree with this as well.
>Sin has not only corrupted our actions, it has corrupted our thoughts so that we don’t
>think accurately all the time. But a true believer admits to this and is also willing to change
>in order to conform to the testimony of Scripture.
I agree.
>Now I write all this in answer to your question to say that there are certainly areas of
>doctrine or theology that are not essential for salvation. But when our entire faith is based
>on the testimony of words–the Bible–we want to make certain that we have the entirety
>of Scripture. If indeed there is more revelation (i.e the canon is not closed) I would want to
>know. One sure test would be: does it conform to the rest of revelation.
I would want to know too. And moreover, since mankind can (obviously) interpret things according to their own whims and fancies (hence our discussion here), I would want God to confirm that conformity to me in the manner He chooses so to do (He told me to ask (James 1:5), and said He would answer, so the Word itself gives means outside of the book itself to help determine conformity).
>I don’t want to get into a discussion of whether or not the canon is closed (I believe it is)
>You , as a Mormon (if you indeed are one)
Yes.
>…believe that God is still using prophets today, that Scripture is not closed. Well, test
>what they say with the rest of Scripture. If you find that they contradict the Word, to
>whom will your final allegiance be? God or your church’s ‘prophets’.
My allegiance is to God. If I believe in a prophet, and he claims to speak the word of God, then I believe I still have an obligation to confirm that with God in the manner previously discussed.
>Look, Nathan, you are ultimately accountable to God, not men, whether they be
>kings or prophets. Therefore, make certain you are listening to the voice of God as
>revealed in the Bible, make certain you clearly understand what the Bible teaches,
>knowing that God does not speak with a forked tongue. Then begin to test anyone
>else’s teaching with it.
Wise advice. Thank you.
>”All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
>correction, for training in righteousness; (17) so that the man of God may be
>adequate, equipped for every good work.”
>What a great promise that is! Study the Bible first. Make certain you know its message
>first, so that you can then determine the validity of the messages of others–even
>of the comments I have posted!
I agree. I have done that, and believe God, and take Him at His word.
Thanks for your words.
posted July 18, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Matt, you said something that caught my attention. So I am just making a comment. I do not intend to butt into your exchanges with Peter and Nathan.
Matt: That said, I also believe what marks a true believer is one who has a desire to submit to the Word of God. . . . That means that as we are faced with thoughts or ideas about God or what He has declared in His word that have not been in concert with Scripture, a true believer will seek to conform his thoughts to Scripture.
GB: I think a more accurate and more scripturally based statement would read something like this.
I believe what marks a true believer is one who has a desire to submit to the will of God. That means that as we are faced with thoughts or ideas about God or what He has declared in His word that have not been in concert with His will, a true believer will seek to conform his will to God’s will.
Part of the mission of Jesus Christ was to set the example. (Mark 8:34, 10:21, John 10:27, 13:15, 21:22, 1 Pet 2:21)
And what did he do? He submitted His will to the will of the Father and we are to do the same. (Matt 7:21, 12:50, 26:39 & 42, Mark 14:36, John 4:34, 5:30, 6:38 & 39, 7:17 Act 22:14, Rom 12:2, Eph 6:6, Col 4:12, Heb 10:36, 13:21, 1 Pet 2:15, 4:2, 1 Jn 2:17, & Rev 17:17
posted July 18, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Matt, Nathan, Peter,
Since this place is now only offering a limited view of past posts. I invite you to move your conversation to http://truthrestored.townhall.com/
The thread of the latest post there is as good as place as any.
GB
posted July 18, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Mr. Card asks the questions: Is any sincere Christian expendable?
Sincerity or zealousness is not a sign of truth. The crowd that sought to kill Paul in Acts 21-22 was full of zealous believers (“…being zealous for God as all of you are this day” Acts 22:3), but they lacked the truth. Paul didn’t tell them that it was OK that they had incorrect views of God because they were just so darn sincere and zealous. He declared the Gospel of Jesus Christ to them through his testimony.
Mr. Card is avoiding the issue. No one questions whether mormons perform acts of kindness and good works, whether mormons are good neighbors or solid citizens. The issue of debate here is whether or not mormons are Christians, and what separates mormon doctrine and Christianity are not merely semantics or differing interpretations of minutiae of theology. Mormonism proclaims a very different god and a Gospel that is no Gospel at all. No matter how industrious or civic minded mormons are, they lack the Gospel of Jesus Christ, “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” It is neither loving nor Christ-like to withhold proclaiming the Gospel to mormons and calling on them to repent and turn in faith to Jesus Christ as revealed in the Bible.
posted July 18, 2007 at 11:09 pm
GB:
I appreciate the sentiment, but I, for one, like the forum here, and the association with the discussion between Dr. Mohler, and Mr. Card. I submitted a request (as others likely have) to the technical support of this site to see about addressing the disappearing comments.
Unless others feel otherwise, I would opt for keeping this here.
Nathan
posted July 19, 2007 at 10:54 am
A: I am a Christian – Assembly of God
B: I am constantly hearing how certain groups of believers are not Christians but what I don’t hear is the EXACT why. Help us out here, what is it that makes the LDS a cult?
It is hard not to avoid the subject when the subject is not laid out in advance, asking the question “Are Mormons Christians?” without a background on where the question is coming from is like asking “Are human beings animals?”.
Although I may not agree with the LDS or the JW’s for that matter I must say they lead by a greater example than most Evangelicals. When was the last time you went door to door to spread the word? How often do you see paid advertisements from the Baptists, Presbytarians, Pentecostals or any other Christain Group inviting non-believers to call and learn about Christ and in the process receive a Bible to learn by?
This is a heavy subject, all I ask is we are specific as to why we are claiming another group is not a true Christian Group.
For Example:
Although Islam started with the basic beliefs of the Bible up to Abraham, a Muslum is NOT a Christian because they believe Jesus Christ was a great prophet and not the Son of God. If our Bible teaches correctly (as I believe it does), that would make Jesus Christ a liar as he claimed to be the Son of God. Therefore, by no means can we call a Muslum a Christain.
posted July 19, 2007 at 11:53 am
It looks like all of the comments are back. There seem to be two different links. Here is the one that works for me:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/blogalogue/2007/07/by-orson-scott-card-there.html.comments.html#156919
posted July 19, 2007 at 12:14 pm
May I submit that the true definition of Christian is one who believes that Jesus Christ was the literal Son of God, and one that will embrace and follow his teachings.
Since Mormons believe that Jesus Christ stands at the head of their Church, and that their leader is an Apostle of Christ, that alone should make them Christians.
Then when you add that their basic scripture is the King James version of the Bible, that their Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants are companions to, and not replacements of the Bible, it further cements the fact that they are, undeniably, Christians.
Any so-called “Christian” that doesn’t believe in a living God, and that God still speaks to his people through his prophets and by direct personal revelation, is not recognizing the complete truth of the nature of God. And therein lies the crux – the nature of God. . . disembodied spirit being that is so large he fills the universe, but so small that he can dwell in your heart; or perhaps since we as humans are made in his image, a divine being with an eternal and perfected body of flesh and bone?
posted July 19, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Arthur Sido says:
Mormonism proclaims a very different god and a Gospel that is no Gospel at all. No matter how industrious or civic minded mormons are, they lack the Gospel of Jesus Christ, “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints”
Mike’s Response:
this original blog article is at http://www.truthrestored.townhall.com
ANOTHER GOSPEL?
by Mike Bennion
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims to be the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.
As members of that church we are often taken to task by the ministers and members of other churches who are critical of that claim. They say that we worship a “different Jesus” than they worship. They say that our doctrine is not “Biblical Christianity”. They often quote the following Bible passage as support, (Note: I am going to quote from both the New Inspired Version and the King James Version of the Bible to avoid the accusation that it is only the KJV that says what the Mormons say it does):
Galatians 1:6-8 NIV 6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
Galations 1:6-8 6 I marvel that ye are so soon aremoved from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another bgospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that atrouble you, and would bpervert the cgospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an aangel from heaven, preach any bother cgospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be daccursed.
Now when this scripture is quoted, the critics of the LDS church, use it to maintain that Mormons are accursed, and are “going to hell”. (Lon Solomon, Pastor of the McClean Va. Bible Church makes such a claim)
This blog article is written to examine the “gospel” preached by Jesus, his Apostles, and other Prophets in the Bible to determine what doctrines were originally taught that may be missing today. As we do this it should become clear what the gospel contains and what is missing from doctrine now.
1. GOD CREATED MAN IN HIS OWN IMAGE, MALE AND FEMALE
Genesis 1:26-27 NIV 26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
2. GOD HAS A BODY
Genesis 32:30 NIV 30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, [f] saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”
Exodus 24:9-11 NIV 9 Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up 10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of sapphire, [b] clear as the sky itself. 11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.
Luke 24:36-42 NIV 36While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”
37They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”
40When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43and he took it and ate it in their presence.
3. MEN CAN BECOME LIKE JESUS AND BE ONE WITH HIM AND THE FATHER
Jesus Prays for All Believers
John 17:20-24 NIV 20″My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. 24″Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.
Philippians 3:20-21 NIV 20But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.
1st John 3:1-2 NIV 1How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears,[a]we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.
Romans 8:16-17 NIV 16The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. 17Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.
Revelation 3:20-22 NIV 20Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. 21To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. 22He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”
LET US SUMMARIZE POINTS 1,2 & 3: A BIBLE CHURCH WILL TEACH THAT GOD HAS A BODY, THAT MAN AND WOMAN ARE CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF THAT BODY AND THAT THOSE WHO OVERCOME WILL BE LIKE GOD, WILL BE ONE WITH GOD, WILL BE HEIRS OF GOD, WILL SIT WITH HIM ON HIS THRONE.
What else does the Bible teach?
4. FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST MANIFESTED BY KEEPING HIS COMMANDMENTS
John 14:15 NIV “If you love me, you will obey what I command.
John14:21 NIV 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 15:14 NIV You are my friends if you do what I command.
Hebres 11:4-40 NIV 4 BY FAITH ABEL OFFERED GOD A BETTER SACRIFICE than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.
5 BY FAITH ENOCH was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. 6And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
7 BY FAITH NOAH, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear BUILT AN ARK to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
8 BY FAITH ABRAHAM, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, OBEYED AND WENT, even though he did not know where he was going. 9 By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.
11 BY FAITH ABRAHAM, even though he was past age—and Sarah herself was barren—was enabled to BECOME A FATHER because he[a]considered him faithful who had made the promise. 12And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.
13All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. 14People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.
17 BY FAITH ABRAHAM, when God tested him, OFFERED ISAAC as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring[b] will be reckoned.”[c] 19Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.
20 BY FAITH JACOB BLESSED ISAAC AND ESAU in regard to their future.
21 BY FAITH JACOB, when he was dying, BLESSED EACH OF JOSEPH’S SONS, and worshiped as he leaned on the top of his staff.
22 BY FAITH JOSEPH, when his end was near, SPOKE ABOUT THE EXODUS of the Israelites from Egypt and gave instructions about his bones.
23 BY FAITH MOSES’ PARENTS HID HIM for three months after he was born, because they saw he was no ordinary child, and they were not afraid of the king’s edict.
24 BY FAITH MOSES, when he had grown up, REFUSED to be known as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. 25 HE CHOSE TO BE MISTREATED along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a short time. 26 He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward. 27 BY FAITH HE LEFT EGYPT, not fearing the king’s anger; he persevered because he saw him who is invisible. 28 BY FAITH HE KEPT THE PASSOVER and the sprinkling of blood, so that the destroyer of the firstborn would not touch the firstborn of Israel.
29 BY FAITH THE PEOPLE PASSED THROUGH THE RED SEA[d] as on dry land; but when the Egyptians tried to do so, they were drowned.
30 BY FAITH the walls of Jericho fell, after the PEOPLE HAD MARCHED around them for seven days.
31 BY FAITH THE PROSTITUTE RAHAB, because she WELCOMED THE SPIES, was not killed with those who were disobedient.[e]
32 AND WHAT MORE SHALL I SAY I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets, 33 who THROUGH FAITH CONQUERED KINGDOMS, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, 34quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. 35Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection. 36Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison. 37They were stoned[f]; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated— 38the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground.
39 THESE WERE ALL COMMENDED FOR THEIR FAITH, yet none of them received what had been promised. 40God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.
James2:14-19 NIV 14 WHAT GOOD IS IT, my brothers, IF A MAN CLAIMS TO HAVE FAITH BUT HAS NO DEEDS? Can such faith save him? 15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
19You believe that there is one God. Good! EVEN THE DEMONS BELIEVE that—and shudder.
5. REPENTENCE BY THOSE WHO HAVE FAITH
Matt 3:8 NIV Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.
Mark 1:4 NIV And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Luke 13:2-3 NIV 2Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.
Acts 17:30 NIV In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.
Acts 26:20 NIV First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their REPENTENCE BY THEIR DEEDS.
6. BAPTISM NECESSARY FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS BY THOSE WHO BELIEVE TO ENTER THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
Matt 3:13-15 NIV 13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” 15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.
Matt 28:19-20 NIV 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. . .
Mark 16:16 NIV Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Luke 7:30 NIV But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God’s purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John)
John 3:5 NIV Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
Acts 2:37-38 NIV 37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
38 Peter 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.
Acts 10:48 NIV 48 So he (Peter) ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Acts 22:13-15 NIV 13 He (Ananias) stood beside me and said, ‘Brother Saul, (Paul) receive your sight!’ And at that very moment I was able to see him.
14″Then he said: ‘The God of our fathers has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth. 15You will be his witness to all men of what you have seen and heard. 16And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’
1st Peter 3:21 NIV and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge[e] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
7. GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST BY THE LAYING ON OF HANDS BY THOSE WITH AUTHORITY
Acts 8:17-17 NIV 14When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. 15When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into[c] the name of the Lord Jesus. 17Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
LET US SUMMARIZE POINTS 4-7. A BIBLE CHURCH WILL TEACH FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST MANIFESTED BY WORKS OF REPENTENCE, BAPTISM AS A NECESSARY ORDINANCE TO ENTER THE KINGDOM OF GOD, AND LAYING ON OF HANDS BY THOSE IN AUTHORITY FOR THE GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST.
DOES YOUR CHURCH TEACH THESE DOCTRINES AS PLAINLY EXPRESSED IN THE BIBLE? IF NOT, DOES THE CONDEMNATION EXPRESSED BY THE BIBLE IN GALATIANS APPLY TO THOSE WHO TEACH IN THAT CHURCH?
posted July 19, 2007 at 2:28 pm
“But what if I did? Would me wanting to identify with that culture, because I love chips and salsa, loud colors, and great soccer games validate me as now being an amigo? I’m still just a white dude, no? It doesn’t matter how much I argue and claim a few semblances of that culture, I never embody the entirety of Latin-Americans or African-Americans and therefore I’m not that. I’m not from Latin-American descent.”
And you have yet to address anything specific about what it means to be a Christian, other than saying that a Christian can’t be LDS.
Dal, Mormons believe
(1) that Jesus Christ is literally Jehovah of the Old Testament, creator of heaven and earth
(2) that Jesus was crucified and paid the price of our sins
(3) that those who believe in Jesus and accept his sacrifice are saved from sin and an endless hell.
(4) that Jesus rose physically from the dead and showed himself to his followers before returning to heaven.
I’m surprised that someone who calls himself a “Christian” would characterize these beliefs as a merely superficial resemblance to Christianity, and compare them to “chips and salsa.”
BTW, I’m not of latin-american descent either, but I grew up in Mexico, and I assure you that your characterization of skin color as the essence of what it means to be Latino is nearly as ignorant as your inferences about Christianity.
The only element you listed with any relevance to what it means to be Latino was the bit about appreciation for “Loud colors.”
posted July 19, 2007 at 4:15 pm
When can we expect the next installment from Dr. Mohler or is the debate between Card and Mohler over. Can any moderators please comment. Just wondering…
posted July 19, 2007 at 5:06 pm
For questions like these I’ve always liked the clear-cut criteria that Jesus himself declared in Matthew 25:31-46. Wouldn’t that make a good foundation on which to at least unite as “Christians”?
posted July 20, 2007 at 2:43 am
Tritheism
Tritheism is the teaching that the Godhead is really three separate beings forming three separate gods. This erring view is often misplaced by the cults for the doctrine of the Trinity which states that there is but one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the trinity is, by definition, monothestic. That is, it is a doctrine that affirms that there is only one God in all the universe.
Tritheism has taken different forms throughout the centuries. In the early church the Christians were accused of being tritheists by those who either refused to understand or could not understand the doctrine of the Trinity. In the late 11th century a Catholic monk of Compiègne in France, Roscelin considered the three Divine Persons as three independent beings and that it could be said they were three gods. He maintained that God the Father and God the Holy Ghost would have become incarnate with God the Son unless there were three gods.
Present day Mormonism is tritheistic — but with a twist. Mormonism teaches that there are many God’s in the universe but they serve and worship only one of them. The godhead for earth is to them really three separate gods: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The Father used to be a man on another world who brought one of his wives with him to this world – they both have bodies of flesh and bones. The son is a second god who was literally begotten between god the father and his goddess wife. The holy ghost is a third god. Therefore, in reality, Mormonism is polytheistic with a tritheistic emphasis.
Of course, tritheism clearly contradicts the teaching of the Bible regarding monotheism
posted July 20, 2007 at 5:27 pm
I think Mr. Card made a good point about “conventional” Christianity (i.e., it has neoplatonic influences). It’s possible that God worked outside of the Jewish faith tradition shortly before and after the historical Jesus.
I think one side can spin religion, doctrine, and history all they want. It’s just like people proving weird theories. It’s all perspective. More, it’s a matter of faith.
People can be pretty awful to each other. I’m not really concerned with somebody’s church.
Jesus says that if you love the Lord with all your heart, mind, and strength… and your neighbor as yourself, you’re following all the commandments.
posted July 20, 2007 at 9:58 pm
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
posted July 20, 2007 at 10:46 pm
I am going to preface my comments by explaining that I am a born again Christian who was raised in a Protestant household while attending a fairly charismatic Protestant denomination church. I was indoctrinated with the rather bigoted belief that Mormons, while really nice people, were a cult whose members were all destined to go to hell for their faith in wholly misguided tenets.
And then I grew up.
There is not a single living mortal who we can trust to know complete truth. Faith is all we have to go on. We have to believe in something. It goes without saying that the authors of the Bible were divinely inspired. In the end, we can debate doctrine until we’re blue in the face, the cows come home, and Armageddon is upon us. But if anyone ever claims to know what the whole truth is, and what the absolutely correct beliefs should be, that individual would need serious psychological help.
Do you believe in God? Are you doing everything you can to live out your life as you believe God would want you to? Is your guideline the Ten Commandments? Your goal your pursuit of perfection with respects to those commandments? Can you honestly say that your heart is turned towards the way you feel God is leading you?
Whether you are Protestant, Baptist, Catholic, Mormon, Mennonite, or whatever, as long as your faith is in God and you are striving as best you know how to live your life in a way that is pleasing and right in His eyes, all the theology in the world is just so much noise.
I am so disappointed in the attitude of intolerance so many [so called] spiritual leaders are displaying these days. What’s worse is that they couch this attitude in one of “seeming” tolerance. Can we not just agree that if you believe in God and commit yourself to His ways that this is what it means to be Christian? Yes, the typical Christian belief is such that you must say the “sinner’s prayer”. Honestly, though, if you are humbling yourself before God in your heart, isn’t that exactly what the sinner’s prayer is designed to portray? Are you not making it a public declaration by living your life as an example of Christ?
Love. Give. Help. Prosper. Do what is right. Put God first. It doesn’t really get any simpler. We cannot help being hypocrites to a certain extent, but when we publicly tear down those who are simply trying to live their life as they believe God wants them to, and then claim we are living righteously and we know best, I’m afraid that is one giant step over the line. If you do not have something good to say about someone, either say nothing at all, or if asked, just respond that you don’t agree that individual. Once you start publicly criticizing somebody for their beliefs, or making personal attacks, you just diminish yourself.
posted July 21, 2007 at 3:29 am
Salitica said:
Present day Mormonism is tritheistic — but with a twist.
Mike’s response:
http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=92
Joseph Smith taught:
Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization anyhow. “Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for those that thou hast given me…that they may be one as we are.”…I want to read the text to you myself—”I am agreed with the Father and the Father is agreed with me, and we are agreed as one.” The Greek shows that it should be agreed. “Father, I pray for them which thou hast given me out of the world,…that they all may be agreed,” and all come to dwell in unity [TPJS, p. 372; cf. John 17:9–11, 20–21; also cf. WJS, p. 380].
The unity prayed for in John 17 provides a model for the LDS understanding of the unity of the Godhead—one that is achieved among distinct individuals by unity of purpose, through faith, and by divine will and action. Joseph Smith taught that the Godhead was united by an “everlasting covenant [that] was made between [these] three personages before the organization of this earth” relevant to their administration to its inhabitants (TPJS, p. 190). The prime purpose of the Godhead and of all those united with them is “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39; Hinckley, p. 49–51).
Each member of the Godhead fulfills particular functions in relation to each of the others and to mankind. God the Father presides over the Godhead. He is the Father of all human spirits and of the physical body of Jesus Christ. The human body was formed in his image.
Jesus Christ, the Firstborn son of God the Father in the spirit and the Only Begotten son in the flesh, is the creative agent of the Godhead and the redeeming mediator between the Father and mankind. By him God created all things, and through him God revealed the laws of salvation. In him shall all be made alive, and through his Atonement all mankind may be reconciled with the Father.
The Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit who bears witness to truth. The Father and the Holy Ghost bear witness of the Son, and the Son and the Holy Ghost bear witness of the Father (3 Ne. 11:32; cf. John 8:18). Through the Holy Ghost, revelations of the Father and of the Son are given.
The LDS doctrine of the Godhead differs from the various concepts of the Trinity. Several postbiblical trinitarian doctrines emerged in Christianity. This “dogmatic development took place gradually, against the background of the emanationist philosophy of Stoicism and Neoplatonism (including the mystical theology of the latter), and within the context of strict Jewish monotheism” (ER 15:54). Trinitarian doctrines sought to elevate God´s oneness or unity, ultimately in some cases describing Jesus as homoousious (of the same substance) with the Father in order to preclude any claim that Jesus was not fully divine. LDS understanding, formulated by latter-day revelation through Joseph Smith, rejects the idea that Jesus or any other personage loses individuality by attaining Godhood or by standing in divine and eternal relationships with other exalted beings.
[See also Christology; Deification.]
PAUL E. DAHL
Salitica said: Mormonism teaches that there are many God’s in the universe but they serve and worship only one of them.
Mike’s response: Actually the Bible teaches it:
1st Corinthians 8:5-6 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one aGod, the bFather, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one cLord Jesus Christ, by whom are dall things, and we by him.
Salitica says: The godhead for earth is to them really three separate gods: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
So does the Bible:
God the Father -
Gen. 14: 19 Blessed be Abram of the most high God.
Num. 16: 22 (Num. 27: 16) God of the spirits of all flesh.
Mal. 2: 10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created.
Matt. 3: 17 voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son.
Matt. 5: 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father.
Matt. 6: 9 (Luke 11: 2; 3 Ne. 13: 9) Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Matt. 16: 17 flesh and blood hath not revealed it . . . but my Father.
Matt. 17: 5 voice . . . said, This is my beloved Son.
Matt. 26: 39 O my Father . . . let this cup pass from me.
Luke 2: 49 wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business.
John 3: 16 God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son.
John 8: 18 Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
John 14:12 because I go unto my Father.
John 17: 21 That they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me.
John 20: 17 I am not yet ascended to my Father.
Acts 7: 56 Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
1 Cor. 8: 6 to us there is but one God, the Father.
1 Cor. 11: 13 that a woman pray unto God uncovered.
Eph. 4: 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all.
Heb. 12: 9 subjection unto the Father of spirits.
Jesus Christ
[SUMMARY]
His birth is foretold, Luke 1: 26-38.
Is born, Matt. 1: 18-25 (Luke 2: 1-7).
Is circumcised, Luke 2: 21.
Is presented in the temple, Luke 2: 22-38.
Is visited by the wise men, Matt. 2: 1-12.
Flees to Egypt, Matt. 2: 13-18.
Is brought to Nazareth, Matt. 2: 19-23 (Luke 2: 39).
Visits Jerusalem, Luke 2: 41-50.
Brothers and sisters of, Matt. 13: 55-56 (Mark 6: 3).
Is baptized, Matt. 3: 13-17 (Mark 1: 9-11; Luke 3: 21-23).
Is tempted by the devil, Matt. 4: 1-11 (Mark 1: 12-13; Luke 4: 1-13).
Calls his disciples, Matt. 4: 18-22 (Matt. 9: 9; Mark 1: 16-20; Mark 2: 13-14; Luke 5: 1-11, 27-28; Luke 6: 12-16; John 1: 35-51).
Commissions the twelve, Matt. 10: 1-4 (Mark 3: 13-19; Luke 6: 12-16).
Sermon on the Mount, Matt. 5-7.
Sends disciples forth by twos, Matt. 9: 35 – 11: 1 (Mark 6: 7-13; Luke 9: 1-6).
Foretells his death and resurrection, Matt. 16: 21-26 (Matt. 17: 22-23; Matt. 20: 17-28; Mark 8: 31-37; Mark 9: 30-32; Mark 10: 32-45; Luke 9: 22-25; Luke 9: 43-45; Luke 18: 31-34).
Is transfigured, Matt. 17: 1-8 (Mark 9: 2-8; Luke 9: 28-36).
Sends forth the seventy, Luke 10: 1-24.
Triumphal entry of, into Jerusalem, Matt. 21: 1-11 (Mark 11: 1-11; Luke 19: 29-44; John 12: 12-19).
Institutes the Lord’s Supper, Matt. 26: 26-29 (Mark 14: 22-25; Luke 22: 17-20; 1 Cor. 11: 23-26).
Is betrayed, arrested, and forsaken, Matt. 26: 47-57 (Mark 14: 43-53; Luke 22: 47-54; John 18: 2-13).
Is crucified, Matt. 27: 31-56 (Mark 15: 20-41; Luke 23: 26-49; John 19: 16-30).
Appears after his resurrection, Matt. 28: 9-20 (Mark 16: 9-18; Luke 24: 13-50; John 20: 11-31; Acts 1: 3-8; 1 Cor. 15: 5-7).
Ascends to heaven Mark 16: 19-20 (Luke 24: 50-53; Acts 1: 9-12).
Appears to the Nephites, 3 Ne. 11: 1-17 (3 Ne. 11 – 26).
See also Bread of Life; Cornerstone; God, Creator; God the Father – Jehovah; Godhead; Jesus Christ, Advocate; Jesus Christ, Antemortal Existence of; Jesus Christ, Appearances, Antemortal; Jesus Christ, Appearances, Postmortal; Jesus Christ, Ascension of; Jesus Christ, Atonement through; Jesus Christ, Authority of; Jesus Christ, Baptism of; Jesus Christ, Betrayal of; Jesus Christ, Birth of; Jesus Christ, Condescension of; Jesus Christ, Creator; Jesus Christ, Crucifixion of; Jesus Christ, Davidic Descent of; Jesus Christ, Death of; Jesus Christ, Divine Sonship; Jesus Christ, Exemplar; Jesus Christ, Family of; Jesus Christ, Firstborn; Jesus Christ, Foreordained; Jesus Christ, Glory of; Jesus Christ, Good Shepherd; Jesus Christ, Head of the Church; Jesus Christ – Jehovah; Jesus Christ, Judge; Jesus Christ, King; Jesus Christ, Lamb of God; Jesus Christ, Light of the World; Jesus Christ, Lord; Jesus Christ, Mediator; Jesus Christ, Messenger of the Covenant; Jesus Christ, Messiah; Jesus Christ, Millennial Reign; Jesus Christ, Mission of; Jesus Christ, Only Begotten Son; Jesus Christ, Power of; Jesus Christ, Prophecies about; Jesus Christ, Redeemer; Jesus Christ, Relationships with the Father; Jesus Christ, Resurrection; Jesus Christ, Rock; Jesus Christ, Savior; Jesus Christ, Second Comforter; Jesus Christ, Second Coming; Jesus Christ, Son of Man; Jesus Christ, Spirit of; Jesus Christ, Taking the Name of; Jesus Christ, Teaching Mode of; Jesus Christ, Temptation of; Jesus Christ, Trials of; Jesus Christ, Types of, in Anticipation; Jesus Christ, Types of, in Memory; BD Jesus
Acts 7: 55 saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God.
Acts 9: 5 (Acts 22: 8; Acts 26: 15) I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
Acts 10: 38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth.
Acts 13: 23 hath God . . . raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus.
Acts 18: 5 testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.
Acts 19: 15 evil spirit . . . said, Jesus I know, and Paul.
Rom. 6: 3 so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ.
1 Cor. 2: 2 any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
1 Cor. 12: 3 no man can say that Jesus is the Lord.
Eph. 2: 20 Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.
Philip. 2: 10 at the name of Jesus every knee should bow.
Philip. 2: 11 every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
2 Tim. 2: 8 Jesus Christ of the seed of David.
Heb. 2: 9 Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death.
Heb. 4: 14 great high priest . . . Jesus the Son of God.
Heb. 12: 2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith.
Holy Ghost
See also Comforter; God, Spirit of; Holy Ghost, Baptism of; Holy Ghost, Comforter; Holy Ghost, Dove, Sign of; Holy Ghost, Gift of; Holy Ghost, Gifts of; Holy Ghost, Loss of; Holy Ghost, Mission of; Holy Ghost, Source of Testimony; Holy Ghost, Unpardonable Sin against; Holy Spirit; Lord, Spirit of; Spirit; BD Holy Ghost
Matt. 1: 18 Mary . . . was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Matt. 28: 19 baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Mark 12: 36 David himself said by the Holy Ghost.
Luke 1: 35 said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee.
Luke 1: 41 babe leaped in her womb, and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost.
John 7: 39 Holy Ghost was not yet given.
Acts 1: 8 receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come.
Acts 2: 33 having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 4: 8 Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost.
Acts 5: 3 Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost.
Acts 6: 3 seven men . . . full of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 7: 51 ye do always resist the Holy Ghost.
Acts 8: 15 prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost.
Acts 10: 38 God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost.
Acts 13: 2 Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul.
Acts 13: 52 filled with joy, and with the Holy Ghost.
Acts 16: 6 forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach.
Acts 19: 2 Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed.
Acts 20: 28 Holy Ghost hath made you overseers.
Rom. 14: 17 peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
Rom. 15: 13 abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.
1 Cor. 6: 19 your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost.
2 Cor. 13: 14 communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you.
1 Thes. 1: 5 gospel came . . . in power, and in the Holy Ghost.
1 Thes. 1: 6 much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost.
Heb. 6: 4 partakers of the Holy Ghost.
1 Pet. 1: 12 with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven.
Jude 1: 20 most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost.
Rev. 2: 7 hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
Salitica says: The Father used to be a man on another world who brought one of his wives with him to this world – they both have bodies of flesh and bones.
Mike’s response:
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.
If we believe Jesus he would not have taken upon him a body if the Father had not taken a body before him. “The son can do nothing of himself”.
Mormon doctrine says nothing about God bringing a wife to this world.
Mormon doctrine is silent about a wife for God. Salatica has mistated Mormon doctrine here. There is no canonized doctrine that says these things.
Salatica says: The son is a second god who was literally begotten between god the father and his goddess wife.
Mike’s response: Mormon doctrine is silent on the manner of Jesus origin except to teach that he is co-eternal with God, and is the Son of God. Frist born in the Spirit and only begotten in the flesh.
He is one with the Father and we can be one with him. See John 17.
Salatica says: The holy ghost is a third god.
Mike’s response: The Holy Ghost is a member of the Godhead. He is one with the Father and the Son as are those who worship God in spirit and truth. See John 17.
Salatica says: Therefore, in reality, Mormonism is polytheistic with a tritheistic emphasis.
Mike’s response:
Mormon’s believe in three personages who are one as in John 17 just as the Bible teaches.
Salatica says: Of course, tritheism clearly contradicts the teaching of the Bible regarding monotheism.
Mike’s response:
John 17 teaches a unity of love, power, purpose, thought, and will.
John 17 does not teach a unity of substance. Salatica cannot show me any Bible scripture that confirms the extra-Biblical creedal teaching that the unity of the Godhead is of “substance”. If what the Mormons believe is “tritheism” then the Bible teaches it also. the monotheism taught by the Bible is the unity of John 17.
20 Neither apray I for these alone, but for them also which shall bbelieve on me through their word;
21 That they all may be aone; as thou, bFather, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be cone in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be aone, even as we are bone:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made aperfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast bloved them, as thou hast loved me.
posted July 21, 2007 at 11:05 am
“Of course, I see no evidence that the low popularity of our very openly evangelical president Bush has caused any harm to Christianity. Most people have the wit to realize that the actions of a U.S. president may say nothing about the validity or value of the particular religion he belongs to. Or does Rev. Mohler know of some study that indicates that Pres. Bush’s low popularity throughout the world is harming Christian missionary work?”
I am not aware of any study showing this, but my son recently returned from a mission to Spain where he did have some trouble with talking to people because he was American. I don’t think it had anything to do with President Bush’s religion, but rather a political disagreement that affected the missionary work there. In that case, all American missionaries, regardless of faith, would be affected.
I find a fascinating account in the New Testament that really changed my whole understanding of the relationship between different Christian churches. It’s found in Mark 9, starting at verse 33 (KJV). For me, and for this discussion, the important verses are 38-40.
“38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
“39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
“40 For he that is not against us is on our part.”
And I really like the wording for this account as stated in Luke 9:50. “And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.”
A couple of interesting points that come to mind:
1. It sounds like even while Christ was in His earthly ministry there may have been different “denominations” of Christians. Otherwise, why would someone attempt to cast out devils in the name of Christ and yet not follow Christ and His apostles? It never before occured to me that there would be different “sects” of Christians, even while Christ, the source of Christian doctrine, was still on earth to settle any disagreements with His pure teachings. But, I suppose people then are like people now, able to accept some things, like His miracles, and not other things, like some of his teachings. So they might be inclined to invoke His name to cast out devils, even if they couldn’t agree with everything He taught.
2. That seemed to be an issue with John, but not so much with Jesus. He seems much less concerned that those who invoke His name to do miracles actually follow Him and the apostles, even though He obviously is the source of true Christianity. Did some people follow these other denominations rather than the “true” Christians? Probably, but I think Christ was confident enough in His position to not be too concerned about that. Their intentions seem to be more important than which church they belonged to.
That, I think, is the critical point to make in this discussion. If both Mormons, Catholics, and Evangelical Christians have good, Christian itentions, isn’t that more important than who has the correct nuance of understanding the nature of God? To say that we Mormons worship a “different Jesus” than “real” Christians just seems silly to me. We both claim to worship Christ, so neither group is against Christ. According to the scriptures above, that means that we are all for Him.
Shouldn’t we all be on the same team? We can do that without compromising our core beliefs at all. In matters of faith, who’s to say one is right and another is wrong. That is God’s call; the rest of us are living on faith that we made the right choice. Just like certain aspects of Mormonism are weird to non-Mormons, there are things about their beliefs that I find weird. The nature of God is just one example of that. So we can all agree that we are different. And in the end, we’ll find out who is really right and wrong. Until then, we live by faith, and seem weird to people of other faiths. I reserve the right to be weird in others’ eyes without losing credibility in areas not directly related to my faith, such as politics.
posted July 21, 2007 at 12:45 pm
I was listening to our local Christian radio station and came across a two day discussion concerning Mormonism.
Full Disclosure: This is not a debate, so it is a one-sided discussion. However, I think Mormons call in to the show to offer their side, so in a small way, both sides are represented. Also, during the show, there are some advertisements for some DVDs on Mormonism which to a Mormon might sound a bit over the top. But I would still ask you to at least listen to the content of the discussion before you make a final judgment. At least hear them out.
The discussions can be found here:
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Bible_Answer_Man/
There are two days of discussion: July 19th and 20th.
posted July 22, 2007 at 5:10 pm
If there is a religious test for Romney as a Mormon, will there be one for an evangelical by the secularist?
posted July 23, 2007 at 12:59 am
This is a good discussion. Unfortunately we are not debating wether or not Mormons are Christians. There is no debate there. The very first of the Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints says, “We believe in God the Eternal Father, in His son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost”. How can that be seen any other way? A Christian, by definition, is one who believes in the divinity of Christ. One who follows His teachings.
Also, in the original argument it was stated that Mormons don’t believe that Jesus Christ was the only begotten of the Father. That’s probably going to be news to a lot of LDS people out there. Jesus Christ is the only begotten in the flesh, but we are all sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father…else how would he be out Father?
posted July 23, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Matt,
Listened to a good portion of the “Bible Answer Man”. Just two people who are ignorant about Mormon Doctrine discussing Mormon Doctrine.
Not very enlightening.
posted July 23, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Dana said: “There is no debate there. The very first of the Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints says, “We believe in God the Eternal Father, in His son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost”. How can that be seen any other way? A Christian, by definition, is one who believes in the divinity of Christ. One who follows His teachings.”
By that illiterate literalistic reading, Dana the following statement from the Nicene Creed would also supposedly deny that Christ was divine:
“We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father, ”
So please set aside your sophistry, prejudice and bad faith, stop reading words one way if written by a Mormon and a differently if written by someone who is part of your clack.
posted July 24, 2007 at 12:57 am
Matt Said:
I was listening to our local Christian radio station and came across a two day discussion concerning Mormonism.
Full Disclosure: This is not a debate, so it is a one-sided discussion. However, I think Mormons call in to the show to offer their side, so in a small way, both sides are represented. Also, during the show, there are some advertisements for some DVDs on Mormonism which to a Mormon might sound a bit over the top. But I would still ask you to at least listen to the content of the discussion before you make a final judgment. At least hear them out.
The discussions can be found here:
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Bible_Answer_Man/
There are two days of discussion: July 19th and 20th.
Mike’s response:
These radio shows are from Hank Hanegraff
Hank took over WALTER MARTIN’S role as the Bible Answer Man for Christian Research Institute.
Walter Martin is deceased. Founder of CRI (Christian Research Institute). Claimed to have earned a PhD (doctorate degree) but upon investigation, it was discovered that he received his degree from a diploma mill.
Published Works: Kingdom of the Cults- Rebutted by Louis Midgley in FARMS Review of Books v12:1 (Provo: FARMS, 2000); John K. Wise in The Journal of Mormon Apologetics v1 (Felton, CA: FAIR, 1999); Maze of Mormonism- Rebutted by Louis Midgley in FARMS Review of Books v12:1 (Provo: FARMS, 2000); Richard L. Anderson in BYU Studies v 6:1.
Back to TOP
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=345
We have, I believe, in Martin’s list of what he called “Pitfalls to be Avoided” an appropriate standard by which to judge his performance as an anti-Mormon. Did Martin follow his own advice?
“Do not,” Martin advised at that time, “attack directly the founders of any particular cult, either on moral or intellectual grounds.”35 Did Martin ever attack (ridicule, mock, belittle, or deride) Joseph Smith or other leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? If he did, then he obviously neglected to follow his own advice. In addition, “do not,” he insisted, “pretend to understand the doctrines of a cult unless you have first looked them up and studied them from primary sources.” To fail to understand what the “cultist” actually believes is, according to Martin, to invite being “embarrassed beyond words.” Instead, one ought to know “what his [that is, the cultist's] literature teaches.”36 Presumably this would not involve trying to tell the “cultist” what he believes, but it would demand that he be allowed to set forth his own understanding of his beliefs.
Therefore Martin felt that countercultists ought to make “every effort to understand the doctrinal, historical and psychological components” of the “cultist.”37 We may ask, did Martin make a genuine effort to understand the beliefs of Latter-day Saints from their own perspective? Or was his understanding filtered through the contorted and distorting lens of anti Mormonism?
Martin insisted that no matter “how ‘dense’ a cultist may appear to be,” it is a mistake to “become antagonistic or impatient.” To do so is to become one’s “own worst enemy.” He also insisted that the evangelical should “avoid a hostile or suspicious attitude or one which radiates superiority of either belief or accomplishment.” And “do not,” Martin insisted, “attempt to ‘overpower’ the cultist with Biblical quotations or trite evangelical clichés.”38 Martin seems to rule out proof texting and slogan thinking. Did he violate these rules? Do Martin’s writings have any “trite evangelical clichés”?
“Do not cast aspersions or doubt upon the sincerity or motives of the cultist.” “Do not humiliate a cultist,” no matter what his “background, education, intellectual ineptness, or knowledge of the Scripture.” “Do not dodge questions for which you do not have an answer.” And the kindly evangelical should also allow “a cultist to ‘save face’ . . . , especially if you both know he has lost the point.” (And remember, to countercultists, winning “points” in debates is what witnessing is all about.) Martin also insisted that evangelicals should radiate “true Christian love” as they “approach every cultist as an ambassador for Christ.” The countercultist should always move with “great tact and a careful choice of words and expressions.”39 We will soon see if Martin practiced what he preached.
Encountering Martin’s Early “Scholarship”
In 1962, I purchased a copy of Martin’s The Maze of Mormonism. It was simply atrocious and also, even at $2.95, overpriced. It was poorly written and did not contain the fruit of serious research. Its author was obviously not well-informed. The book made no original contribution to the study of Mormon things. I was both amused and disgusted by the book.
Now, returning to The Maze of Mormonism after thirty-eight years, I am even less impressed with it. Why? It is just packed with falsehoods and errors. For example, in 1962 Martin claimed that an LDS “ward is composed of districts known as ‘blocks’ presided over by a bishop with two teachers as assistants.”40 Obviously this claim is simply wrong. In 1965 the statement still read: “Each ward is composed of districts known as ‘blocks’ presided over by a bishop with two teachers as assistants.”41 In 1978 it was changed to the following: “Every ward is composed of districts, known as ‘blocks,’ presided over by a bishop with two counselors as assistants.”42 Finally in 1985 this passage was again modified: “Each ward is presided over by a bishop and his two counselors.”43 It took Martin and his associates twenty-three years to get just this tiny bit of information right.
Subsequent printings and editions of Martin’s essays often underwent massive changes designed to remove or correct such misinformation. Hence the later versions of his anti-Mormon writings are better than the originals, but only marginally. In nearly fifty years neither Martin nor his many assistants and editors have been able to get all the inaccuracies out of his essays. By 1978, Martin seems not to have been involved in making corrections or in modifying his essays. He was far too busy making speeches for admiring audiences. His associates seem to have taken on the task of correcting, editing, and perhaps even writing his essays. His output seems to have benefited from having what amounted to ghostwriters, but the host of corrections and additions made over the years to his essays were made by only somewhat better informed editors or assistants.
Who exactly researched, corrected, or even wrote Martin’s anti-Mormon essays? If Jill Martin Rische, who is the executor for her father’s papers, would make them available for scholarly inquiries, assuming that they have not already been trashed or culled, then it might be possible to nail down these details. Without Martin’s papers I have only clues from his writings to suggest who might have worked on them.
Like myself, other Latter-day Saints have lacked enthusiasm for Martin’s work. Hence I was amused when I discovered that Robert and Rosemary Brown had offered solid evidence that Martin lacked probity in many of the claims he made about himself and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.44 Neither Martin nor his disciples have addressed the substantive issues raised by the Browns. Instead of dealing directly with their evidence, apologists for Martin have been content to attack the Browns personally. The best that can be said for Martin’s apologists is that some have attempted to do a bit of damage control, but their efforts have been feeble.45
After I read what the Browns had discovered about Martin’s divorces and then eventually noticed that he once claimed that one wife is enough, it occurred to me that, rather ironically, it was not the case for him. But I am not really interested in Martin’s divorces, other than to point out that he seems to have been, ironically, a kind of serial polygamist. And I grant that an unaccredited correspondence school in California that calls itself a “university” bestowed a doctoral degree on Martin in 1976. But it appears that he never wrote a dissertation nor was involved in any of the usual examinations that go with earning a genuine Ph.D.46″
And we Mormons are syupposed to take Hanks word for everything?
I don’t think so.
posted July 24, 2007 at 1:27 pm
I wonder if this guy has some self esteem problems. I am a convert to the LDS church. I have peircings and tatoos. Nobody has ever made me feel bad about who I am or where I came from. In fact people have told me not to worry about what others think. If I am worried about having tatoos then I should pray to Heavenly Father to see what he thinks I should do about it. No good, loving, honest, person should ever make another person feel inadequate for who they are. All we are asked to do is to try our best. If someone else tells you that you are not good enough, then that is their problem, not yours.
posted July 24, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Mike:
So did you actually listen to the shows? Nobody but you brought up Martin. This is what is commonly called a Strawman: You set the argument to your liking and then knock it down. How about addressing the issues brought up in the discussion.
GB:
Are they wrong about what they state? I mean this genuinely. See, you didn’t address the actual comments either. You just called the speakers ignorant. This is what is commonly referred to as an ad hominem attack. Rather than addressing the points brought up, you decide to attack the people. Not very convincing.
Mike and GB:
If Mormonism is true and these guys are so wrong, you should have no problem addressing the actual issues brought up. Now you both may well be able to do so, but thus far, you haven’t proven anyone wrong and have show yourselves to be unwilling to address the issues.
Look, none of us is perfect in arguing our cases and may make mistakes along the way. But that is why actually discussing these things is better rather than just dismissing them.
posted July 24, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Matt,
First error “the Book of Mormon forbids polygamy”.
Jacob 2:27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 FOR IF I WILL, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I WILL COMMAND MY PEOPLE; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
The Book of Mormon forbids polygamy UNLESS the Lord commands it.
Second error “yet Doctrine and Covenants commands polygamy”
The D & C 131:1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];
3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.
The D&C only states that a man must be married to achieve the highest reward God has to offer. NOWHERE does is state that the marriage has to be a plural marriage.
Both of these errors occurred about the 5:00 min mark on 07/19/07. If you need more I suppose I could listen to more. But it is a waste of my time.
posted July 24, 2007 at 10:43 pm
The mistake most (antagonist) commentators make on Mormon polygamy revolves around section 132 of the Doctrine & Covenants (which they always like to point to, but never explain in detail). They believe that when we talk of the “new and everlasting covenant of marriage” that we refer to plural marriage. This is false, and GB is absolutely right. Section 132 verse 19 actually says, “…if A man marry A wife by my word…”. The end of section 132 does talk about plural marriage, but in a different context than what is being discussed in verses 12 through 27 (marriage for this life only vs. marriage for eternity).
Matt, in the broadcast you refer to, Hank Hanegraaff and Joel Kramer show their lack of understanding of Mormon doctrine, and of our scripture. It is either that, or a willful desire to mislead their listeners so as to drum up fear and loathing of Mormonism, and ultimately of those of us who practice it.
If you would like to rationally discuss the topic at hand, or other points of doctrine, let’s do so in a spirit of respect and open dialogue. Throwing out grenades like Hanegraaff and Kramer, however, will not accomplish that objective.
posted July 24, 2007 at 10:55 pm
I think the comment that I found most distasteful was the statement from Hannegraaff and Kramer that Mormon doctrine is constantly changing and in a state of flux, and that we are trying to become more part of mainstream Christianity.
If you look at our doctrines and practices over the past 150 years, I think that you will find that they have changed FAR LESS than any other denomination. We do not take a popular vote on tenets as other Protestant religions do.
Mormons do not want to be considered Protestant. We do not want to be considered Catholic. We do not want to be considered creedal or orthodox. We just want to be acknowledged for our belief in Jesus Christ as our Savior and Redeemer. Call that what you will.
We call it Christian.
posted July 25, 2007 at 1:13 am
I’ve read Hannegraff’s stuff on the web and in Books. I’ve Read Martin’s books. I’ve coevered all the material in th eGodmakers and in the new DVD that the Baptists put out. I’ve been exposed to pretty much every anti-mormon argument there is.
If you want to cover the specific points in detasil I am most happy to oblige. But since you simply posted a link. I simply posted info on the Man on the Link and his predeccesor.
Mike
posted July 25, 2007 at 11:09 am
Can I take the conversation in a different direction for a moment?
I have heard the term “anti-Mormon” brought up a couple of times, and I guess I might be labeled as such because I have spoken against Mormonism on this comment board.
I would like to ask this question of those of you who are Mormon:
What do you think motivates someone like myself and other “anti-Mormons” like Hank Hanegraaf to spend time on this blog and radio shows and countless websites to try to show Mormons the error that they have embraced?
It seems to me that labeling someone “anti-Mormon” or an “antagonist” is a bit unfair. Sure, we speak against Mormonisms, but that is because we are “pro-truth” and “pro-Christ” and “pro-Bible”. This is akin to calling someone who labels himself “pro-Life” as “anti-Abortion”, or “anti-Choice”. Yes I am anti-Abortion but that is because I am first pro Life. In this same way I might be anti-Mormon, but that is because I am first pro-truth.
Labeling someone anti-Mormon, especially when one doesn’t label himself that way, changes the focus of the discussion. Saying, “anti-Mormon” could be construed as one who has a predisposition–an a priori commitment- against Mormonism and therefore anything this person states is ultimately motivated by this anti-Mormon prejudice, NOT his desire for truth, and therefore his arguments can be dismissed or he is not be to received as genuine.
So I ask, what do you think motivates someone like myself and others to speak “against” Mormonism?
I am motivated first by a love for Christ and second by a love for the lost, of which I would include those who hold firmly to the teachings of Joseph Smith and the LDS Church. Therefore, when I find someone in error whether it be an atheist, a Buddhist, a Jehovah’s Witness, or my friend down the street who says he believes in God but lives a life contrary to this, I am motivated (and even commanded by Christ (Matt. 28:19)) to go to that person and expose them to the truth.
posted July 25, 2007 at 11:44 am
Matt:Saying, “anti-Mormon” could be construed as one who has a predisposition–an a priori commitment- against Mormonism and therefore anything this person states is ultimately motivated by this anti-Mormon prejudice, NOT his desire for truth, and therefore his arguments can be dismissed or he is not be to received as genuine.
GB: I think I can agree with that statement. From my experience “anti-Mormons” have the attitude that fighting Mormonism is so important that it is ok to use deceptive methods.
Now if you are more loyal to the truth than to fighting Mormonism then I wouldn’t call you an anti-Mormon.
As far as motives are concerned, I suspect that some are motivated by the fear that they will lose members of their “flock” (with the accompanying financial support of course). Others are deceived by the devil into believing that the truth can be sacrificed to fight Mormonism “because it is so wrong”. You would have to ask them what their motives are, but since the truth isn’t of primary concern to them, their answer would be suspect.
BTW there was a third error at about the 5 min mark “those authorities seem to contradict one another”.
As I showed earlier the Book of Mormon and the D & C don’t contradict one another.
Matt: I am motivated (and even commanded by Christ (Matt. 28:19)) to go to that person and expose them to the truth.
GB: I am glad to hear that, for that is my motive as well.
posted July 25, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Matt:
I do not consider those who are willing to engage in respectful dialogue as being (necessarily) anti-Mormon. I would not consider your comments in this forum to be anti-Mormon. In fact, while l believe that people who do not accept my religion do not have the complete truth, I respect and am tolerant of their varying positions. Many (I would even say most) times I engage in such conversation, I come away edified, and having learned something.
I would say that anyone who says we do not try to expose others to what we hold as truth has never seen a pair of missionaries.
But Matt, let me ask you a few questions. Have you ever gone to a worship service, and had to fight your way through antagonists who were screaming at you that you were of the devil, and going to Hell? Have you ever had to fight through people picketing with signs and making a mockery of things that you hold sacred? Have you ever had people try to interrupt your worship service by making purposeful commotion outside of your sanctuary? Have you (or your family, or ancestors) ever been physically threatened for having a certain belief? Have they had their houses burned, and been driven from the places they legally owned. Have they had a government issued order of extermination placed upon them?
These are things that I personally, and my close ancestors have experienced (in the United States of America, no less). Is that ministering in the spirit of Christlike love? I have seen police in Salt Lake City (I am not from Utah, by the way) look the other way at activities that would be considered hate crimes if the same thing were done to Catholics in Boston, or Buddhists in San Francisco.
If you came to me, and said, “I love you as a brother, and would like to share my faith in Christ with you”, I would be personally touched, and not offended at all–even if we did not “convert” each other. I have Evangelical and Catholic friends who have done this, and our friendship is stronger than ever.
But look at what Joel Kramer does (http://www.lhvm.org/index.htm). His whole ministry is not Christ focused, but anti-Mormon focused. On his home page, there is not one single reference to Jesus Christ. Is that right? Can you find any Mormon websites that specifically and deliberately cast aspersions on another religion (as opposed to expressing our beliefs or responding to outrageous allegations made against us).
That, my friend, is an anti-Mormon, not a pro-Christian.
posted July 25, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Matt says:
Saying, “anti-Mormon” could be construed as one who has a predisposition–an a priori commitment- against Mormonism and therefore anything this person states is ultimately motivated by this anti-Mormon prejudice, NOT his desire for truth, and therefore his arguments can be dismissed or he is not be to received as genuine.
Mike’s response:
The Cristian Research Institute headed by Hank Hannegraf at the current time and formerly by Walter Martin demonstrate, as well as any organization I know, such an a priori commitment against Mormonism and other groups which they label as cults. These men live off the preceeds of the money that they make by opposing religions instead of teaching their own.
Their accusations have been shown over and over again to be at best mis-stated or mis=construed and at worst to be outright lies, as demonstrated by the details in my post about them.
If they know that they are lying, then they are using lies to try to acheive their ends. And this is sad. the ends do not justify the means. If they are unaware that they are lying, (and this is difficult to believe as they have been notified by many members of the LDS Church that they are not accurate in their statements) then they have not done the necessary research to make them authorities on the subject and their work cannot be accepted as valid.
If you, Matt, wish to be taken seriously as someone who is genuine in your desire to have a meaningful dialogue with Mormons, about our religion, you would do well to base your discussion on the scriptures, rather than on material borrowed from the likes of Hank Hannagraf and Walter Martin.
posted July 25, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Matt,
Another two errors at about the 51 min mark of 07/20/2007
“The Bible explicitly condemns the polygamy of the Old Testament kings in Deuteronomy 17:17 and likewise the New Testament elders and deacons are called to be the husband of but one wife.”
I will first address the Old Testament part.
Deu. 17:15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
. . . .
17 Neither shall HE multiply wives to HIMSELF, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. (emphasis mine).
Hanegraaff’s reading of the scripture is incomplete. Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to equitably treat plural wives and children.
Deu. 21: 15 ¶ If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:
17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.
Why does He not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He instruct the Israelites on how to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?
So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
1. not multiply wives to themselves (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—2 Samuel 12:8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.);
2. that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God (1 Kings 11:3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. 4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.);
3. not take excessive numbers of wives.
David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these biblical principles (See 2 Samuel 11:1-27 and 2 Samuel 12:7-10).
Nathan tells David that the Lord “gave thee…thy master’s wives.” And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.
But, David then sinned and did evil in the matter of Uriah. If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for all his plural marriages? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier, when David was righteous and hearkening to the Lord?
Solomon’s problem is described in 1 Kings 1-2,7-8. Solomon’s wives turned his heart away from God, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.
There are other examples of legitimate Biblical plural marriages. Certainly—examples include:
• Abraham married Hagar (Genesis 16:3), Keturah (Genesis 25:1) and other unnamed concubines (Genesis 25:6).
• Jacob (Genesis 29:21-30, Genesis 30:3-4, Genesis 30:9).
• Abijah had fourteen wives (2 Chronicles 13:21) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord (2 Chronicles 13:8-12) and prospered in battle because of the Lord’s blessing (2 Chronicles 13:16-18).
• Jehoiada, priest under King Joash “took for him two wives” (2 Chronicles 24:3). Jehoiada is clearly approved of, for he is described at his death as one who “had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]” (2 Chronicles 24:16).
If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not condemned or corrected for legitimate plural marriages, it is untenable to claim that a biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy.
Now I will address the New Testament part.
Hanegraaff’s quote of the scripture is in error. The only scriptures that I could find that he could be referring to is (1 Timothy 3:2,12)”A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;”
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
And (Titus 1:6-7) If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
Now this passage does not prove that a man should have “but” one wife or “only” one wife. It only proves that a bishop should be a married man. Notice that there is no reference to elders in any of these versus. Also notice that there is no explicit requirement for the deacons to be married only the suggestive term “Let” is used.
posted July 26, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Mr. Card has once again failed to address the real question. He focuses on Mitt Romney instead of addressing the questions of what the Mormon Church really teaches about Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit or the use of new revelation as it relates to the Book of Mormon. But that is what they do. They use language that is twisted to mislead people into their less than orthodox faith. The whole argument about “neoplatonic philosophy” is just a smoke screen. How do they get to be the judge of what is true or not. Paul writes in Galatian 4:4, “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.” God sent forth Jesus and the New Testament was written at a time when human thought had developed enough for the revelation of the nature of God to be understood as well as it could. His plan was perfect.
Mr. Card’s posting is without merit. He needs to be honest. However, if he is honest, it will definitely show that is not is line with “traditional Christian orthodoxy” which is derived from the Bible not the Book of Mormon.
posted July 26, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Brent: . . . “traditional Christian orthodoxy” which is derived from the Bible . . .”
GB: They call that a “bald assertion”. You provide no foundation for this statement.
posted July 26, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Mr. Scott Card,
If you have not already, I highly recommend you take a Logic class at a local college. Also, taking a debate class or visiting any high school or college debate team would also be helpful. I say this to recommend polishing your debate style because, quite frankly, you don’t have one. And if you think you do, it needs improvement – vast improvement. You do not even argue logically the points that Dr. Mohler makes nor argue from the topic at hand. Instead, your argument is, “Well, ok, Dr. Mohler is correct. I concur that Mormons are not traditional Christians. But who cares. I’m tired of this debate. Let’s just all go to Chucky Cheese and just get along. Oh, by the way, how about Mitt Romney?”
posted July 29, 2007 at 11:29 am
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 first article on this series:
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?
posted August 1, 2007 at 11:26 am
the question was asked. What did Jesus say ?
Are Any Sincere Christians Expendable?
Mt 23:15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
Now God will
Ac 17:30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.
repentance is still open my mormon friends
posted August 2, 2007 at 3:04 am
Bryan,
It is intructive to note that the teachers of the law and the Pharisees, were fighting against the concept of new revelation, brought by angels, and by Jesus Christ to his Apostles, resulting in power, healings, miracles and ordinances all expounded doctrinally by new Scripture.
Now you fight against new revelation, brought by angels, and by the Visit of the Father and the Son to his New Apostles, resulting in power, healings, miracles and ordinances, all expounded doctrinally by new scripture.
James 1:5 my friend, it is not too late.
Mt 23:15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
13 Wherefore, I command you to repent, and keep the acommandments which you have received by the hand of my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., in my name;
14 And it is by my almighty power that you have received them;
15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I asmite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your bsufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.
16 For behold, I, God, have asuffered these things for all, that they might not bsuffer if they would crepent;
17 But if they would not repent they must asuffer even as I;
18 Which asuffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might bnot drink the bitter cup, and shrink—
19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and afinished my preparations unto the children of men.
20 Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I ahumble you with my almighty power; and that you bconfess your sins, lest you suffer these cpunishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have dtasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit. Doctrine and Covenants 19:13-20
Ac 17:30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.
You better find out at your peril if these are the words of Christ.
posted August 2, 2007 at 9:44 am
Now you fight against new revelation, brought by angels, and by the Visit of the Father and the Son to his New Apostles, resulting in power, healings, miracles and ordinances, all expounded doctrinally by new scripture.
——————-
How are Apostles appointed in the bible.
NIV
Matthias Chosen to Replace Judas
Ac 1:21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Ac 1:22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”
Ac 1:23 So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias.
Ac 1:24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen
Ac 1:25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.”
Ac 1:26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
Now I Understand that Paul did see see Jesus as the 12 did BUT lets see about Paul.
Gal 1:11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up.
Gal 1:12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
Paul letters are called scriptures by Peter
2Pe 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
2Pe 3:16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
PLUS when Paul said he wasd an apostle to the grentiles none of the 12 said anything against this
Gal 2:7 On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews.
Gal 2:8 For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.
NOTICE the “RIGHT HAND OF FELLOWSHIP”
Gal 2:9 James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.
Gal 2:10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.
NONE of the LDS “apostles” are true apostles and I highly doubt that Jesus would send TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT messages.
Christian
Jesus is the creator of ALL and ALWAYS was FULLY GOD
LDS
Jesus is the brother of satan and a “spirit” born child of God the Father.
both CANNOT be right my friend
posted August 2, 2007 at 10:45 am
Bryan,
You were doing real well until you dropped this bald assertion:”NONE of the LDS “apostles” are true apostles and I highly doubt that Jesus would send TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT messages.”
You obviously didn’t read any of the links provided to you on the subject of Jesus being the spirit brother of satan. You really should before you bring this subject up again.
BTW Bryan, IF “Jesus is the creator of ALL” THEN, He created Himself. Does that sound reasonable to you?
posted August 2, 2007 at 11:54 am
GB,
-What is the definition of an apostle?
-God is stated in Scripture to be eternal, without beginning or end. Does this mean He created Himself?
-If Jesus was not the creator of all, what is the meaning of John 1: 1-3?
The Word Became Flesh
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
Or of Colossians 1?
The Supremacy of Christ
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
posted August 2, 2007 at 12:56 pm
BTW Bryan, IF “Jesus is the creator of ALL” THEN, He created Himself. Does that sound reasonable to you?
———————-
that is a none question meant to confuse things. EVERYTHING that was created was CREATED by Jesus including satan BEFORE satan sinned. Only God is UNCREATED and has ALWAYS been God.
This goes to the heart of WHO Christ IS. Who was Christ BEFORE His incarnation.
NIV throught-out
Phil 2:6 Who, being in very nature God,did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
Phil 2:7 but made himself nothing,taking the very nature of a servant,being made in human likeness.
Phil 2:8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross!
Isa 6:3 And they were calling to one another: “Holy, holy , holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory.”
JESUS is the LORD Almighty
Rev 4:8 Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings. Day and night they never stop saying:
“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come.”
Rev 4:9 Whenever the living creatures give glory, honor and thanks to him who sits on the throne and who lives for ever and ever,
Rev 4:10 the twenty-four elders fall down before him who sits on the throne, and worship him who lives for ever and ever. They lay their crowns before the throne and say:
Rev 4:11 “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power,for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.”
WHO created ALL things but Jesus
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
So Jesus is the LORD ALMIGHTY the creator God. the bible says their is ONE God.
Mal 2:10 Have we not all one Father ? Did not one God create us? Why do we profane the covenant of our fathers by breaking faith with one another?
Ro 3:30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.
Jas 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
So the ONE God has ALWAYS been FULLY GOD
God has always been God (Psalm 90:2; 93:2; 102:26-27; Jer 10:10; Rom 1:23; 1 Tim 6:16; Isaiah 46:9-10; 48:12; 57:15; Heb 7:16)
OT God
One God who brings salvation
Ex 15:2, 2Sa 22:3 ,2Sa 23:5 ,1Ch 16:23 ,2Ch 6:41 ,Ps 9:14 ,Ps 13:5 ,Ps 14:7 ,Ps18:2 ,Ps 27:1 ,Ps 28:8 ,Ps 35:3 ,Ps 35:9 ,Ps 37:39 ,Ps 40:10 ,Ps 40:16 ,Ps 50:23 ,Ps 51:12 ,Ps 53:6 ,Ps 62:1 ,Ps 62:2 ,Ps 62:6 ,Ps 62:7 ,Ps 67:2 ,Ps 69:13 ,Ps 69:27 ,Ps 69:29 ,Ps 70:4 ,Ps 71:15 ,Ps 74:12 ,Ps 85:7 ,Ps 85:9 ,Ps 91:16 ,Ps 95:1 ,Ps 96:2 ,Ps 98:1 ,Ps 98:2 ,Ps 98:3 ,Ps 116:13 ,Ps 118:14 ,Ps 118:21 ,Ps 119:41 ,Ps 119:81 ,Ps 119:123 ,Ps 119:155 ,Ps 119:166 ,Ps 119:174 ,Ps 132:16 ,Ps 149:4 ,Isa 12:2 ,Isa 12:3 ,Isa 25:9 ,Isa 26:1 ,Isa 26:18 ,Isa 30:15 ,Isa 33:2 ,Isa 33:6 ,Isa 45:8 ,Isa 45:17 ,Isa 46:13 ,Isa 49:6 ,Isa 49:8 ,Isa 51:5 ,Isa 51:6 ,Isa 51:8 ,Isa 52:7 ,Isa 52:10 ,Isa 56:1 ,Isa 59:16 ,Isa 59:17 ,Isa 60:18 ,Isa 61:10 ,Isa 62:1 ,Isa 63:5 ,Jer 3:23 ,La 3:26 ,Jnh 2:9 ,Zec 9:9,
Jesus brings salvation
Lk 1:69, Jn 4:22, Ac 4:12, Ac 13:47, Ac 28:28, Ro 1:16 , Eph 1:13, 1Th 5:9, 2Ti 2:10, 2Ti 3:15, Tit 2:11, Rev 7:10 , Rev 19:1,
One God who is Savior
Isa 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD,and apart from me there is no savior.
Dt 32:15 ,2Sa 22:3 ,2Sa 22:47 ,1Ch 16:35 ,Ps 18:46 ,Ps 24:5 ,Ps 25:5 ,Ps 27:9 ,Ps 38:22 ,Ps 42:5 ,Ps 42:11 ,Ps 43:5 ,Ps 65:5 ,Ps 68:19 ,Ps 79:9 ,Ps 85:4 ,Ps 89:26 ,Isa 17:10 ,Isa 43:3 ,Isa 43:11 ,Isa 45:15 ,Isa 45:21 ,Isa 49:26 ,Isa 60:16 ,Isa 62:11 ,Isa 63:8 ,Jer 14:8 ,Hos 13:4 ,Mic 7:7 ,Hab 3:18.
Jesus is savior
Lk 1:47, Lk 2:11 , Ac 5:31 , Ac 13:23, Phil 3:20, 1Ti 1:1 , 1Ti 2:3, 1Ti 4:10, 2Ti 1:10 , Titus 1:3, Titus 1:4, Titus 2:10 , Titus 2:13 , Titus 3:4, Titus 3:6, 2Pe 1:1, 2Pe 1:11, 2Pe 2:20, 2Pe 3:2, 2Pe 3:18 , 1Jn 4:14, Jude 25,
ONE God who is the Rock.
TRINITY. Hab 1:12 O LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy One, we will not die.O LORD, you have appointed them to execute judgment; O Rock, you have ordained them to punish.
Ge 49:24, Dt 32:4, Dt 32:15, Dt 32:18, Dt 32:30, Dt 32:31, 1Sa 2:2, 2Sa 22:2, 2Sa 22:3, 2Sa 22:32, 2Sa 22:47, 2Sa 23:3, Ps 18:2, Ps 18:31, Ps 18:46, Ps 19:14, Ps 28:1, Ps 42:9 , Ps 62:2, Ps 78:35, Ps 89:26, Ps 92:15, Ps 94:22, Ps 95:1, Ps 144:1, Isa 8:14, Isa 17:10, Isa 26:4, Isa 30:29, Isa 44:8, Da 2:34, Da 2:35,
Jesus is the Rock.
1Co 10:4, Mt 7:24-27, Mt 16:18, Ro 9:33, 1Pe 2:8.
ONE God who is the Redeemer
Isa 48:17 This is what the LORD says- your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: “I am the LORD your God, who teaches you what is best for you, who directs you in the way you should go
Job 19:25, Ps 19:14, Ps 78:35 , Isa 41:14 , Isa 43:14, Isa 44:6, Isa 44:24, Isa 47:4, Isa 48:17, Isa 49:7, Isa 49:26, Isa 54:5 , Isa 54:8, Isa 59:20, Isa 60:16, Isa 63:16, Jer 50:34
Jesus brings redemption
Lk 2:38, Rom 3:24, 1Cor 1:30, Gal 4:4-6, Tit 2:14 , Eph 1:7, 4:30, Col 1:13-14, Heb 9:12
ONE God who is creator
Gen 1:1,21,27, Gen 2:4, Gen 5:1-2, Gen 6:7, Dt 4:32, Ps 104:30, 148:5, Isa 42:5, 45:12, 45:18, Eze 28:13, 15, Mk 13:19, Eph 3:9, Rev 4:11, 10:6
Jesus created ALL things
John 1:1-3,10,14, Col 1:16, Heb 1:2,
I hope this helps
posted August 2, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Bryan,
What did He use to create “all things”?
posted August 2, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Since Mormons believe that Jesus is co-eternal with the Father we do not believe that God created the matter of which he is made. We believe that all matter is co-eternal, that is one cannot make matter Ex Nihilo. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, only altered, organized and changed.
If Jesus created Satan out of Nothing then God is responsible for evil because he created it and with perfect foreknowledge knew he was doing it. And there can be no free will if God with perfect foreknowledge created sopmething to be evil. If it was good and then chose to do evil and God is perfect how could he make something imperfect? This huge paradox plagues creation Ex Nihilo.
posted August 2, 2007 at 2:23 pm
And by the way, while we are talking about creation. Can you prove that when the first verses of the Bible say” “In the Beginning” that they mean the beginning of everything? What if they mean in the beginning of this particular part of creation; these heavens and this earth? What was God doing before time, as he existed outside of time. Where does the Bible explain that? How do you know?
posted August 2, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Bryan,
What did He use to create “all things”?
NOTHING, Creatio Ex Nihilo
ESV
Ps 33:
6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host.
9 For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.
Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
Ps 148:5 Let them praise the name of the LORD! For he commanded and they were created.
Roman 4:17 as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.
Check-out the article
Is Creatio Ex Nihilo A Post-Biblical Invention? An Examination Of Gerhard May’s Proposal
So, contrary to May and others, the doctrine of creation out of nothing was not simply created ex nihilo by post-biblical theologians of the second century to counteract gnostic ideas. We have good reason to believe that the doctrine of creation out of nothing is rooted in biblical passages indicating that God is the ontological Originator of all that exists.77
http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_exnihilo_copan.html
posted August 2, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Since Mormons believe that Jesus is co-eternal with the Father we do not believe that God created the matter of which he is made. We believe that all matter is co-eternal, that is one cannot make matter Ex Nihilo. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, only altered, organized and changed.
If Jesus created Satan out of Nothing then God is responsible for evil because he created it and with perfect foreknowledge knew he was doing it. And there can be no free will if God with perfect foreknowledge created sopmething to be evil. If it was good and then chose to do evil and God is perfect how could he make something imperfect? This huge paradox plagues creation Ex Nihilo
——————————
HOW so. IF God “NEEDED something to create then he is NOT all powerful and is their a LIMITED amount of “”all matter is co-eternal”" their would be a time when ALL matter would be USED UP and nothing more could be created. maybe the mormon gods should start a recycling programme.
Tell me. A parent trains a child to obey the laws. the child grows into adult hood and of his OWN freewill breaks laws. how is that the fault of the parent.
in the same way God granted FREEWILL. I am sure that God KNEW of the possible out come of freewill but He wanted His creations to have this wonderful gift. He could have just made robots with programmed emotions with-out freewill but where would LOVE be.
posted August 2, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Bryan,
Can God make a rock so big that He can’t lift it?
posted August 2, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Bryan,
Can God lie?
posted August 2, 2007 at 4:23 pm
GB,
I believe that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and is transcedent above what we see as the physical universe. There is a spiritual dimension that we cannot see and only every so often are we afforded a peek at it, but it is real. It is connects with this universe but is not necessarily bound by its laws.
To whit: Can God make a rock too big for Him to lift? I don’t know – how big is your god?
Can God lie? He could if He really wanted to, but it is against his NATURE to lie, or even think about committing a sin. Likewise, Christ led a sinless life on earth. Could He have sinned if He had wanted to? Yes, but it was totally antithical to the fullness of God that dwelled in His body. Our fleshly natures, inherited from Adam, have a proclivity to sin, but God’s divine nature, being holy and transcedant from His creation, has no bent to commit sin at all.
Can God create something out of nothing? Is He bound by the universal laws He created Himself, including E=MC2? The Scriptures tell us in Psalms 33: – 8 Let all the earth fear the LORD;
let all the people of the world revere him.
9 For he spoke, and it came to be;
he commanded, and it stood firm.
Read the final 3 chapters of Job – “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?” Surely you know, for you have lived so many years!
I have to echo the statement of Gabriel when he was speaking with Mary in Luke 1:37 “For nothing is impossible with God.”
Just because our minds can’t comprehend how ex nihilo creation would work, does that mean God can’t do it? My God can and did.
posted August 2, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Can God make a rock so big that He can’t lift it?
—————————–
WHY would God want to do that?. God is logical in His nature, what is the logic of “Can God make a rock so big that He can’t lift it?”
——————————-
Can God lie?
——————————
lying is a sign of weakness, God has NO weakness
Heb 6:18 God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged.
posted August 3, 2007 at 3:34 am
Bryan Said: HOW so. IF God “NEEDED something to create then he is NOT all powerful and is their a LIMITED amount of “”all matter is co-eternal”" their would be a time when ALL matter would be USED UP and nothing more could be created. maybe the mormon gods should start a recycling programme.
Mike’s response: Faulty logic. Nowhere in the bible or in LDS doctrine is there any proof that matter is limited or that time or space is not infinite. There is an infinity of matter. For you to claim otherwise and then maintain that God can create everything out of nothing is a bit presumptuous. Indeed. A God who stands outside of time and space and creates something out of nothing is a God who creates non-eternal creations. How can something be eternal that had a beginning? If we live Eternal Life, we cannot have had a beginning.
Eternity runs both ways.
Besides the Bible tells us that we will return to God. To reconcile is to bring somone back into God’s presence. You can’t go back where you haven’t been.
http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/basic-beliefs/heavenly-father-s-plan-of-salvation/you-lived-with-god#d
Bryan said: Tell me. A parent trains a child to obey the laws. the child grows into adult hood and of his OWN freewill breaks laws. how is that the fault of the parent.
Mike: It isn’t because the parent did not make the child out of nothing. The materials that the child is made of are pre-existent, and so the child has agency. If the parents created the child out of nothing, then the parent would be responsible for what the child does.
Bryan: Just because our minds can’t comprehend how ex nihilo creation would work, does that mean God can’t do it? My God can and did.
Mike’s response:
1. How do you know?
2. Prove it formn the Bible.
posted August 3, 2007 at 10:30 am
it was said.
——————————-
you said
Matter cannot be created or destroyed, only altered, organized and changed.
——————————
Now you say.
—————
you said
There is an infinity of matter.
———————-
And WHERE does this “infinity of matter” COME FROM is it STILL being created? WHO is CREATING this “infinity of matter”. all you have done is but of FIRST CAUSE.
——————–
you said
For you to claim otherwise and then maintain that God can create everything out of nothing is a bit presumptuous. Indeed. A God who stands outside of time and space and creates something out of nothing is a God who creates non-eternal creations. How can something be eternal that had a beginning? If we live Eternal Life, we cannot have had a beginning.Eternity runs both ways.
————————
The bible is clear, creation from NOTHING. I never said nor does the bible say or teach something created is eternal ( meaning BOTH ways ). the bible is clear ONLY God is eternal ( meaning BOTH ways ), NOT his creation. granted good angels and humans born INTO God’s kingdom will have NO END of life. BUT they ( angel humans ) HAD A BEGINNING.
——————————
you said
Besides the Bible tells us that we will return to God. To reconcile is to bring somone back into God’s presence. You can’t go back where you haven’t been.
———————-
adams FALL into SIN. Christ as savior of HUMANS.
I suggest you read the article I posted about creation from NOTHING being taught from thre bible
posted August 4, 2007 at 2:48 am
Adam was created from nothing? I thought it was from the Dust of the Earth. Why wasnt the Earth created from the Dust of the Universe? Why does it have to be from nothing? That makes no sense to me.
posted August 4, 2007 at 9:20 am
who created this “Dust of the Universe?” then. just puts of first cause
posted August 5, 2007 at 4:02 am
Bryan: it was said.
MIke Bennion: No. I said it.
——————————-
Bryan: you said
Matter cannot be created or destroyed, only altered, organized and changed.
Mike Bennion: Can you show me any matter that has been annihilated lately?
——————————
Bryan: Now you say.
—————
you said
There is an infinity of matter.
Mike Bennion: And since this is not a contradiction, so what?
———————-
Bryan: And WHERE does this “infinity of matter” COME FROM is it STILL being created? WHO is CREATING this “infinity of matter”. all you have done is but of FIRST CAUSE.
Mike Bennion: OK that last bit was a bit ungrammatical and hard to understand. But let me restate it so you will understand. Matter is not created. It is etrnal. It is capable of being organized into various types of organisms and systems, but it is not created in the sense that it was at some point non-existent. Matter is co-eternal.
You don’t think so? Well go ask God, he can tell you.
I’ll tell you what. We’ll discuss this more fully when you can tell me what god was doing before the Big Bang, OK. (I suspect god trying to explain these types of things would be akin to teaching a four year-okd quantum mechanics. I don;t think we’d get it yet.
——————–
Bryan: you said
For you to claim otherwise and then maintain that God can create everything out of nothing is a bit presumptuous. Indeed. A God who stands outside of time and space and creates something out of nothing is a God who creates non-eternal creations. How can something be eternal that had a beginning? If we live Eternal Life, we cannot have had a beginning.Eternity runs both ways.
Mike Bennion: Yep. that’s what I said. Pretty eloquent huh?
————————
Bryan: The bible is clear, creation from NOTHING. I never said nor does the bible say or teach something created is eternal ( meaning BOTH ways ). the bible is clear ONLY God is eternal ( meaning BOTH ways ), NOT his creation. granted good angels and humans born INTO God’s kingdom will have NO END of life. BUT they ( angel humans ) HAD A BEGINNING.
Mike Bennion: Oh…so you don’t believe the scripture that says,
John 3: 16
16 ¶ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have EVERLASTINHG LIFE.
Or the scriptures that say:
John 4: 36 gathereth fruit unto LIFE ETERNAL.
John 5: 39 Search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have ETERNAL LIFE .
John 6: 54 drinketh my blood, hath ETERNAL LIFE.
John 6: 68 thou hast the words of ETERNAL LIFE.
John 10: 28 I give unto them ETERNAL LIFE.
John 17: 3 this is LIFE ETERNAL, that they might know thee.
Acts 13: 48 ordained to ETERNAL LIFE.
Rom. 2: 7 seek for . . . immortality, ETERNAL LIFE.
Rom. 5: 21 grace reign through righteousness unto ETERNAL LIFE by Jesus.
I also disagree that the Bible teaches creation EX Nihilo. You haven’t quoted any scriptures to prove it in any case.
No. If something had a beginning it cannot be eternal. so according a consequence of Ex Nihilo creation is that there couldn’t be “Eternal life.
——————————
Bryan:you said
Besides the Bible tells us that we will return to God. To reconcile is to bring somone back into God’s presence. You can’t go back where you haven’t been.
Mike Bennion: Yes I did.
———————-
Bryan: adams FALL into SIN. Christ as savior of HUMANS.
Mike Bennion: Reconciliation comes for the root word that means to “live with” as in “domicile” a dwelling place. We wouldn’t have “lived with god” if he made us out of nothing. so your Adam concept doesn’t hold water.
Bryan: I suggest you read the article I posted about creation from NOTHING being taught from thre bible
Mike Bennion: I have read a number of articles on Ex Nihilo creation.
I think you should read this:
http://www.fairlds.org/New_Mormon_Challenge/TNMC04.html
Stanley L. Jaki, a Catholic priest of the Benedictine Order, stated:
The caution which is in order about taking the [Hebrew] verb bara in the sense of creation out of nothing is no less needed in reference to the [English] word creation. Nothing is more natural, and unadvised, at the same time, than to use the word as if it has always denoted creation out of nothing. In its basic etymological origin the word creation meant the purely natural process of growing or of making something to grow. This should be obvious by a mere recall of the [Latin] verb crescere. The crescent moon [derived from crescere] is not creating but merely growing. The expression ex nihilo or de nihilo had to be fastened, from around 200 A.D. on, by Christian theologians on the verb creare to convey unmistakably a process, strict creation, which only God can perform. Only through the long-standing use of those very Latin expressions, creare ex nihilo and creatio ex nihilo, could the English words to create and creation take on the meaning which excludes pre-existing matter.2
This caution is significant. In fact, look at the very title C&C adopt for their article which assumes that the term “Creator” must mean creation ex nihilo. However, a person who organizes materials in a completely new way is a creator. For example, God “created the earth” by organizing the existing matter available in the proto-solar system whether he organized eternally existing matter or previously created that matter ex nihilo. Certainly, a painter is properly said to be the creator of a painting and a craftsman is a creator of, say, a new chest that had never before existed, even though they use existing materials to create them. Indeed, I will argue that God created all that is made, and there is not anything made that he has not created. I will show that this is precisely the sense in which God is said to create in the earliest Christian texts. However, organizing in a new way all that is made does not mean that materials were not used in the new creation.
C&C begin by arguing that statements in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants (“D&C”) may actually support the traditional view. The Mormon scripture states: “there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heaven and the earth, and all things that in them are.” (2 Nephi 2:14; c.f., Mosiah 4:9; 2 Nephi 11:7; D&C 14:9; 20:17; 45:1). C&C suggest that one: “could even argue that some of these early passages imply creatio ex nihilo.”3 But of course only the prior assumption that the word create means creation out of nothing can support this assertion. As I will show, this prior assumption which forces the text with unwarranted assumptions is endemic to the way C&C read scripture, including especially the biblical texts.
Joseph Smith received the revelation now in D&C 20 in 1830. This revelation has added significance because it constituted the “Articles of the Church,” the first published statement of the Latter-day Saints’ beliefs. D&C 20:17 states that: “By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which in them are.” Now the Mormon scriptures are quite subtle. Notice that God is the “framer” of all things. Is this one word significant? In the context of later revelations it becomes important to notice such nuances. C&C fail to take account of The Lectures on Faith in their reading of Mormon scripture. Now the Lectures are not included in present compilations of Mormon scripture, but they were included as a part of the Mormon canon from the time of their publication in 1835. The first Lecture states God’s mode of creation: “It was by faith that the worlds were framed – God spake, chaos heard, and worlds came into order by reason of the faith there was in him.”4 This text is not speaking merely of this earth but of worlds. God creates by speaking, and he does not speak to nothing at all but to the chaos which responds to him in faith. From very early in the Church, God’s mode of creation was understood to be creatio per verbum or creation by speaking his word. His word is efficacious because he is not talking to himself, he speaks to “chaos” which responds faithfully.
C&C argue that Mormon scriptures can be interpreted in a way that is consistent with creation out of nothing so long as they are not read in the context of Joseph Smith’s statements. C&C quote parts of D&C 93 as follows: “‘intelligence, or the light of truth’ was not created or made, that ‘man was in the beginning with God’ and the elements are ‘eternal.’”5 They then conclude: “epexigetical [sic] equation of ‘intelligences’ with ‘light and truth’ indicates that ‘intelligence’ here probably refers to what Doctrine and Covenants 88 calls the ‘light of Christ’… Understood in this way uncreated intelligence/light of truth can be viewed as part of God’s eternal being.”6 However, this interpretation simply ignores the context of D&C 93. The entire text is structured to show that persons are like God and can share God’s glory. In more complete context, D&C gives a very different message:
I was in the beginning with the Father …. Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the light of truth …. Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth was not created or made, neither indeed can be …. For man is spirit. The elements are eternal. The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth. (D&C 93:21, 22, 29, 33, 35)
In context, the scripture says that “man” existed in the beginning just like God. The point is that because “man” was in the beginning and exists just like God, “man” can share fully God’s glory. While it is possible to give an idealist (i.e., mind-dependent) reading to “intelligence,” it is much more difficult to see how “elements” can be seen as a merely ideal reality existing only within the mind of God. It seems to me that the fact that intelligence is said to be “not created or made” and that “elements are eternal” is saying that both have always existed without creation.
C&C next suggest that the “affirmation that ‘man was in the beginning with God’ and that the elements are eternal can be understood in a relative sense and need not imply that they are literally uncreated.” By “relative sense” they mean that D&C 93 is only speaking of “this earth and its inhabitants” as in the Book of Moses (1:33, 35). However, that context will not work for D&C 93 for the simple and sufficient reason that even if limited to this earth, the earth is never said to be either eternal or uncreated — to the contrary, Moses says that God created the earth. Unless the earth could be understood to be eternal like the elements from which it is made, the interpretation offered by C&C simply misses the point.
C&C also argue that their reading “removes the tension between D&C 93 and 2 Nephi 11:7.” What tension? Well, 2 Nephi 11:7 says that: “if there be no God, we are not, for there could have been no creation.” I take it that what they mean, though they don’t say, is that 2 Nephi 11:7 implies that we would not exist in any way at all because we could not be created if there were no God, and the implication of D&C 93 is that persons are eternal and uncreated like God. Note that they slip into their eisegesis of this passage the implicit assumption of creation ex nihilo. But 2 Nephi 11:7 clearly does not need to assume creation ex nihilo, for Nephi is speaking of this life and the fact that we exist as mortals in this life. Thus, as mortals we are created by God, but as immortal spirits we are not. 2 Nephi 11:7 can be read as consistent with the view that persons, as spirits, have always existed, but as embodied mortals are created and if there were no God, we could not exist as mortals.
Most importantly, C&C simply fail to quote the most important text of all regarding the eternal existence of uncreated intelligences! C&C state: “The Book of Abraham creation narrative implies that the earth was created from pre-existing materials, but it does not preclude the possibility that God created this matter ex nihilo at some point prior to the earth’s formation.”7 Fair enough. Yet why read that assumption into the text when there is nothing at all in the text to suggest it and what is there is directly contrary to it? Further, how could C&C miss the outstandingly clear statement of Book of Abraham 3:18 which directly refutes their thesis?
[I]f there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum [Hebrew 'olam], or eternal.
As I argued in an article that extensively discussed these issues, it is this scripture above all that shows that intelligences/spirits are not created and have always existed without a beginning.8 Moreover, the fact that spirits/intelligences are individuated in the sense that one is more intelligent than another shows that we are not dealing with mere ideal realities, but with mind independent realities that are eternal. The use of the word “intelligences” is surely intentional here to recall the statements in D&C 93 that “intelligence … was neither created nor made; neither indeed can be.” This is the most important scripture in the Mormon canon which pulls the idea of uncreated intelligences together, and C&C fail to even take cognizance of it!
Further, C&C suggest that it is open to LDS to reject as binding Joseph Smith’s non-scriptural statements expressly rejecting creatio ex nihilo and adopting the view that creation consists of organizing chaos. In this contention I agree with them. We are bound by covenant only to accept what is in scripture. However, we should take the uniquely LDS scriptures in the interpretive context established for them by Joseph Smith for a very good and overwhelmingly compelling reason: these scriptures came through him. It is like suggesting that we ignore what the apostle Paul would have to say about what he meant when he wrote his epistles found in the New Testament simply because his statements were not included in the New Testament. Wouldn’t we love to have such an explanation from Paul? Who would have the gall to suggest that they could interpret Joseph Smith’s revelations better than he can? Isn’t such a suggestion presumptuous in the extreme? This suggestion points out one very stark difference between Mormons and evangelicals. Mormons place their interpretations of scripture in the context of the prophets who wrote them and of further light and knowledge received by revelation from God. Evangelicals want us to base our salvation on their brain-power and ability to interpret scripture by the methods of scholarship. Well, based on the results, the evangelical stress on scholarship as the basis for knowing what scripture means is not only precarious, it is downright foolish.
Now from C&C’s perspective, I suspect that they believe that they are being charitable to Mormons. After all, they seem to believe that they have obliterated any possible Mormon world-view. Thus, from their perspective they undoubtedly believe that they are throwing us a bone. I can imagine them saying: “look, you are not stuck with a naive theology that we have just obliterated, for we have fashioned a better theology for you than you or your prophets could. You could save your belief in Mormonism by trashing it and adopt what evangelicals believe instead.” After I’ve stated it this way, I trust that evangelicals will see why the charity that they believe that they offer appears, from my perspective, to be hubris in extremis. There simply is no need for a saving interpretation, for it is the view of C&C that is contrary to sound biblical exegesis.
3.0 The Biblical Doctrine of Creation from Pre-existing Chaos
C&C argue that the Bible is consistent only with the view that all things are created ex nihilo. They first address the argument that Genesis expressly adopts the view that the world was created from pre-existing chaos – a view adopted by many, perhaps most, biblical scholars. They argue that the notion of a “beginning” in Genesis 1:1 entails an absolute beginning. They also argue that the Hebrew verb b_r_’ is inconsistent with the view of creation from a pre-existing chaos. Finally, they adopt the view argued by Jim W. Adams that because the Hebrew account of creation does not contain a theogony (birth or origin of the gods) narrative like other Ancient Near Eastern (“ANE”) documents, therefore the Hebrew account is radically different in all respects. They conclude that the biblical account must therefore also reject the view of other ANE cultures that God created by organizing a preexisting chaos. Finally, they argue that the New Testament data also require creatio ex nihilo. They add that creatio ex nihilo is the well established doctrine of orthodox Christianity from the time of Christ to the present.
I argue for the view that there are compelling reasons to see the creation account of Genesis as expressly teaching creation out of a preexisting chaos. However, I also argue that the account in Genesis is pre-scientific and deals only with the creation of the earth and what can be seen from an earthly perspective without aid of instruments. The Bible is therefore irrelevant to the issue of creation of the universe as we know it in modern astrophysics. I also argue that the New Testament materials do not address the issue of creatio ex nihilo and are consistent with the view of creation from a preexisting chaos. I then argue that C&C fail to distinguish between “absolute nothing” (ex ouk on) and “relative non-being” (to me on) or a state of there not yet being any “thing.” This distinction was well established in discussions that gave rise to the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo and is necessary to consciously formulate the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo.
3.1 The Argument from the Hebrew Verb b_r_’
The first argument asserted by C&C is that Genesis 1:1 begins by “positing an absolute beginning.”9 They base three arguments on the meaning of the verb b_r_’. This verb is the second word of Genesis 1:1 (third person, perfect) that is often translated as created. First, they argue that “the significance about b_r_’ is not that it implies creation ex nihilo by itself, but that God is always the subject of this verb.” (emphasis of C&C) They argue that Joseph Smith’s position that b_r_’ means to create from a preexisting chaos is wrong, for “the verb b_r_’ does not ever have an object … mentioning a material out of which something has been made.” (emphasis added) Finally, they argue that “Joseph Smith’s understanding of the Hebrew word create is mistaken as he was applying reorganization to b_r_’ when it should properly have been applied to asah.”10 Each of these claims is demonstrably mistaken.
First, the claim made by C&C that God alone is the subject of the verb b_r_’ is simply and plainly inaccurate. The primary meaning of the word b_r_’ is to cut, divide, or separate. Even in the Genesis account this is the primary meaning of the word. As James Atwell recently stated, the verb b_r_’ “has a deliberate and considered significance when it occurs in P [the Priestly document], but this falls short of creatio ex nihilo. It is best understood in the context of the alternative verbs ‘separate’ and ‘make’.”11 There are at least three uses of the verb bara in the Old Testament where humans, not God, are the subject of the verb.12 After the Israelites left Egypt and entered the promised land, Joshua divided it among the tribes of Israel. They immediately began to argue over the land. Joshua told the people of Israel: “If thou be a great people, then get thee up to the wood country and cut down (b_r_’) for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the giants if mount Ephraim be too narrow for thee…. The mountain shall be thine; for it is wood, and thou shalt cut it down (b_r_’ ) ….” (Joshua 17:15, 18). The subject of the verb b_r_’ here is clearly the people of Israel. Second, in Ezekiel 23:47 the verb b_r_’ is used to denote a command to a company of people to “hack to pieces (b_r_’ ) with swords” those who had committed adultery. The subject of the verb b_r_’ is once again humans. As Jaki commented:
It should seem significant that both the book of Ezechiel, certainly a post-Exilic product, and in the book of Joshua, a product quite possibly some seven hundred years older, one is confronted with the very human connotation of bara, a verb which exegetes love to raise to a quasi-divine pedestal. The significance remains intact whether one takes Genesis 1 for a Mosaic document, or for a post-Davidic composition, or even for a post-Exilic one, the latter being the most likely case. In all of these cases the taking of bara for an exclusively divine action, let alone for taking it for creation out of nothing, can only be done if one overlooks those three uses of it that span more than half a millenium.13
The assertion made by C&C that “when b_r_’ is used, there is never any mention of preexisting material” is puzzling, for just two pages earlier they admitted: “Now it is well known that b_r_’ (create) is used for, say, God’s creation of the people of Israel (e.g., Isa. 43:15) or his creation of a clean heart (Ps. 51:12), but obviously this should not be understood as being ex nihilo.”14 Why is it so obvious that in these instances b_r_’ does not mean creation out of nothing? Well, because it is obvious that there is some preexisting material out of which God created. God organized Israel out of the people he brought out of Egypt and a clean heart out of a sinful heart. Thus, it seems abundantly clear that b_r_’ is used sometimes with preexisting materials in mind. However, the verb b_r_’ is in fact never used in the accusative form, that is, it is never used in the form “created from this or that.”
There are three words in Hebrew scripture that can be translated in English as create. According the C&C, b_r_’ means to bring about something with an absolute beginning, not created out of preexisting material. They argue that the verb which should have been used in Genesis 1:1 if Joseph Smith were correct is ‘asah, which they argue means to make something out of preexisting material in the same way that humans do, to fashion, accomplish, make, work or produce.15 In addition, there is the verb yatsar which means to form, fashion, frame, or make. But a sharp distinction between organizing preexisting material for ‘asah and absolute creation where before there was nothing in any sense for b_r_’ is simply an oversimplification. God made Israel out of preexisting people and a clean heart out of an existing heart.
On the other hand, these three verbs are often used interchangeably and in parallel structures showing that they have essentially the same semantic field. In Hebrew poetry, when words are placed in a parallel form (parallelismus membrorum is the technical term) the words are often used as synonyms or antonyms. For example, Isaiah 43:6-7 says:
Bring my sons from far,
and my daughters from the ends of the earth;
even every one that is called by my name:
for I have created (b_r_’ ) him for my glory,
I have formed (yatsar) him;
yea, I have made (‘asah) him.
Isaiah uses all three words for create to describe what God has done for those called by his name. Moreover, none of these uses of the word create in Hebrew mean to create ex nihilo, for they address how God has taken an existing person and created a new personality in that person to manifest his glory. Consider also Psalm 51:10 which uses the verb b_r_’ : “Create (b_r_’ ) in me a clean heart, O God; and renew my spirit within me.” In Psalm 33:15 the same thought is expressed using the verb yatsar: “He fashioneth (yatsar) their hearts alike, he considereth all their works.” The verbs b_r_’ and yatsar appear to be used interchangeably or as synonyms.
Similarly, in Genesis 1:21 and 27 it says that: “And God created (b_r_’ ) great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind, and God saw that it was good … So God created (b_r_’ ) man in his own image, in the image of God created (b_r_’ ) he him, male and female created (b_r_’ ) he them.” In comparison, Genesis 2:7 says: “And the Lord God formed (yatsar) man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into him life; and man became a living soul.” Man was not created from nothing, but from preexisting dust of the ground. Further, Genesis 2:19 states that: “And out of the ground the Lord formed (yatsar) every beast of the field, end every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.” Both man and beasts were created from existing matter, yet in chapter one of Genesis the verb b_r_’ is used for the same acts of creation whereas in chapter two the verb yatsar is used.
More importantly, both b_r_’ and ‘asah are used in parallel form in Isaiah 45:12 to describe the creation of the earth and man: “I have made (‘asah) the earth and created (b_r_’ ) man upon it.” In the same chapter of Isaiah, God is said to create (yatsar ) the earth: “God himself that formed (yatsar) the earth and made (‘asah) it; he created (b_r_’ ) it not in vain, he formed (yatsar) it to be inhabited.” (Isaiah 45:7, 18) It is abundantly clear from this verse that b_r_’ , yatsar and ‘asah are used interchangeably, for God creates the earth in all three senses.
The verb b_r_’ must be considered the sexiest verb in the Bible given all the fantasies that scholars in the creedal tradition seem to have about it. It seems to have seduced C&C. The siren song of a verb that only God can use of himself is, alas, mere wishful thinking. However, the use of the verb b_r_’ does show that God accomplished a marvelous act of creation with absolute ease by speaking and dividing asunder preexisting realities. God makes by dividing asunder. He created Israel by separating her from the existing nations in the same way that he created the earth by dividing it from the primeval watery chaos. In Hebrew thought, the cosmic world mirrors the social structure of the Israelite nation. They were brought out of a state of chaos and a desert waste to a sacred society ordered by God’s law and covenant. However, there is always the threat of returning to this chaos if Israel rejects God. Joseph Smith’s assertion that the verb b_r_’ as used in Genesis 1:1 means that God organized a preexisting chaos is actually quite plausible in context. In the next section I argue that he was right on the mark.
Have a nice day.
posted August 5, 2007 at 9:56 am
I suggest the article bellow
Is Creatio Ex Nihilo A Post-Biblical Invention? An Examination Of Gerhard May’s Proposal
So, contrary to May and others, the doctrine of creation out of nothing was not simply created ex nihilo by post-biblical theologians of the second century to counteract gnostic ideas. We have good reason to believe that the doctrine of creation out of nothing is rooted in biblical passages indicating that God is the ontological Originator of all that exists
http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_exnihilo_copan.html
——————————————-
Mike Bennion: OK that last bit was a bit ungrammatical and hard to understand. But let me restate it so you will understand.
Matter is not created. It is etrnal. It is capable of being organized into various types of organisms and systems, but it is not created in the sense that it was at some point non-existent. Matter is co-eternal.
You don’t think so? Well go ask God, he can tell you.
I’ll tell you what. We’ll discuss this more fully when you can tell me what god was doing before the Big Bang, OK. (I suspect god trying to explain these types of things would be akin to teaching a four year-okd quantum mechanics. I don;t think we’d get it yet.
—————————
Answer
the problem with “pre-existing matter” that mormons seem to forget or ignore is carbon-dating. IF matter is “eternal” then carbon-dating would be useless because ALL the carbon would be GONE and we would have a DEAD universe,
————————–
Bryan: you said
I NEVER SAID THIS, check the response above.
For you to claim otherwise and then maintain that God can create everything out of nothing is a bit presumptuous. Indeed. A God who stands outside of time and space and creates something out of nothing is a God who creates non-eternal creations. How can something be eternal that had a beginning? If we live Eternal Life, we cannot have had a beginning.Eternity runs both ways.
————————-
this is WHAT I SAID
you said
For you to claim otherwise and then maintain that God can create everything out of nothing is a bit presumptuous. Indeed. A God who stands outside of time and space and creates something out of nothing is a God who creates non-eternal creations. How can something be eternal that had a beginning? If we live Eternal Life, we cannot have had a beginning.Eternity runs both ways.
————————
MY ANSWER
The bible is clear, creation from NOTHING. I never said nor does the bible say or teach something created is eternal ( meaning BOTH ways ). the bible is clear ONLY God is eternal ( meaning BOTH ways ), NOT his creation. granted good angels and humans born INTO God’s kingdom will have NO END of life. BUT they ( angel humans ) HAD A BEGINNING
———————-
John 3: 16
16 ¶ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have EVERLASTINHG LIFE.
Or the scriptures that say:
John 4: 36 gathereth fruit unto LIFE ETERNAL.
John 5: 39 Search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have ETERNAL LIFE .
John 6: 54 drinketh my blood, hath ETERNAL LIFE.
John 6: 68 thou hast the words of ETERNAL LIFE.
John 10: 28 I give unto them ETERNAL LIFE.
John 17: 3 this is LIFE ETERNAL, that they might know thee.
Acts 13: 48 ordained to ETERNAL LIFE.
Rom. 2: 7 seek for . . . immortality, ETERNAL LIFE.
Rom. 5: 21 grace reign through righteousness unto ETERNAL LIFE by Jesus.
ETERNAL LIFE IS A GIFT OF GOD
Ro 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
you should use ALL sctriptures on a topic
posted August 6, 2007 at 4:02 am
Bryan,
When I am tired. As I am now. Your post seems even more incomprehensible than it actually is.
I’ll deal with this later.
I have a busy week on tap.
My son-in-law is having open heart sugery on Thursday to repair a mitral valve and replace an aortic valve.
My middle Son is leaving with his wife to mive to Indiana to Go tho Purdue University.
My oldest son is moving his family into a new house.
My wife is up north helping them all to get ready.
Tuesday morning I have to take my dog in th ethe vets to have him put down.
With all these things on my mind I am more thankful than I can tell you for the priecless gift of the Son of God, and for the restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ on th eearth in our day.
If you want ot add some prayers for my son-in-law, that would be nice. My son-in-law’s name is Blake.
I believe that God hears yours as much as he does mine. He loves both of us.
posted August 6, 2007 at 7:22 am
of course I will pray. I also have family members who are ill. eight family members died of cancer the last one in January, and I have a spot on one of my kidneys that I need to watch, A brother who is mentally ill, a sister who is a drunk, I had to but my dog down because he had cancer, Not to mention other family problems.
NO, matter how you twist the facts smith did NOT restore any lost gospel. The LDS claim the church is built on “revelation” based on Matthew 16 So lets see the context.
NIV through-out
Mt 16:13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples,
Notice Jesus asks a question
“Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
What did they say.
Mt 16:14 They replied,
“Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah;
and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
Jesus asks them
Mt 16:15 “But what about you?” he asked.
“Who do you say I am?”
Notice Peters answer and Jesus response
Mt 16:16 Simon Peter answered,
“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Mt 16:17 Jesus replied,
“Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was
not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
So the ONLY “revelation” was to PETER to WHO Jesus WAS. Now notice HOW Jesus continues. to say the Church is built on a ROCK that is CHRIST.
Mt 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
So Jesus is the Rock of the church NOT Peter
1Co 10:4, Mt 7:24-27, Mt 16:18, Ro 9:33, 1Pe 2:8.
PLUS we have the faithful Christians who have died for the LIVING Church
FOXE’s BOOK of MARTYRS
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/martyrs/index.htm
or do LDS think NOTHING of these faith Christians, even today around the world Christians die for the faith.
PLUS what does Jesus say
Jn 8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins;
if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be ,
you will indeed die in your sins.”
NO-WHERE in the bible is Jesus taught to be the brother of satan NONE of the faith church fathers taught it, oh you will tell me about. Lactantius(c. 250 -c. 325) BUT you do know that he
“”His views led to his posthumous condemnation as a heretic”"
http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/lactantius.php
not to mention it is NOT in the bible along with other LDS theology NOT found in the bible. So once again LDS theology is NOT christian.
posted August 6, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Posted by: | August 5, 2007 9:56 AM “the problem with “pre-existing matter” that mormons seem to forget or ignore is carbon-dating. IF matter is “eternal” then carbon-dating would be useless because ALL the carbon would be GONE and we would have a DEAD universe,”
GB: You obviously don’t understand what “carbon-dating” is and is not.
posted August 6, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Posted by: | August 6, 2007 7:22 AM {Mt 16:17 Jesus replied,
“Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was
not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
So the ONLY “revelation” was to PETER to WHO Jesus WAS. Now notice HOW Jesus continues. to say the Church is built on a ROCK that is CHRIST.}
GB: Sorry, no “ONLY” in that verse. Your assumption is without foundation.
How does the ROCK (Jesus) lead His church? Through REVELATION to His Apostles and Prophets.
Posted by: | August 6, 2007 7:22 AM {Mt 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
So Jesus is the Rock of the church NOT Peter
1Co 10:4, Mt 7:24-27, Mt 16:18, Ro 9:33, 1Pe 2:8.}
GB: Agreed.
posted August 7, 2007 at 9:01 am
Posted by: | August 5, 2007 9:56 AM “the problem with “pre-existing matter” that mormons seem to forget or ignore is carbon-dating. IF matter is “eternal” then carbon-dating would be useless because ALL the carbon would be GONE and we would have a DEAD universe,”
GB: You obviously don’t understand what “carbon-dating” is and is not.
You probably have seen or read news stories about fascinating ancient artifacts. At an archaeological dig, a piece of wooden tool is unearthed and the archaeologist finds it to be 5,000 years old. A child mummy is found high in the Andes and the archaeologist says the child lived more than 2,000 years ago. How do scientists know how old an object or human remains are? What methods do they use and how do these methods work? In this article, we will examine the methods by which scientists use radioactivity to determine the age of objects, most notably carbon-14 dating.
Carbon-14 dating is a way of determining the age of certain archeological artifacts of a biological origin up to about 50,000 years old. It is used in dating things such as bone, cloth, wood and plant fibers that were created in the relatively recent past by human activities.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm
the LDS problem stll exists with “pre-existing matter”
posted August 7, 2007 at 9:11 am
“Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was
not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
So the ONLY “revelation” was to PETER to WHO Jesus WAS. Now notice HOW Jesus continues. to say the Church is built on a ROCK that is CHRIST.}
GB: Sorry, no “ONLY” in that verse. Your assumption is without foundation.
How does the ROCK (Jesus) lead His church? Through REVELATION to His Apostles and Prophets
ANSWER
my answer was in context with scriptures.
So Jesus is the Rock of the church NOT Peter
1Co 10:4, Mt 7:24-27, Mt 16:18, Ro 9:33, 1Pe 2:8.}
YOU SAID GB: Agreed.
you agreed that Christ is the ROCK of the church, you have also failed to answer why LDS claims “REVELATION” has anymore authority then Muslims buddhist etc or for that matter a Christian “REVELATION” that LDS theology is WRONG
posted August 7, 2007 at 10:05 am
Posted by: | August 5, 2007 9:56 AM “the problem with “pre-existing matter” that mormons seem to forget or ignore is carbon-dating. IF matter is “eternal” then carbon-dating would be useless because ALL the carbon would be GONE and we would have a DEAD universe,”
GB: You obviously don’t understand what “carbon-dating” is and is not.
in Psalms 102 that the universe will grow old and wear out but God will never grow old God ALONE is eternal.
Ps 102:25-27 “Of old You founded the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
26 “Even they will perish, but You endure; And all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed.
27 “But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end.
Ps 90:2 Before the mountains were born Or You gave birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.
posted August 7, 2007 at 10:43 am
You obviously don’t understand what “carbon-dating” is and is not. And you continue to show your ignorance.
Carbon 14 occurs in nature at a current percentage of the over all carbon. Carbon dating assumes this percentage is a constant. It is absorbed into bone and tissue during the living process. Carbon 14 goes through nuclear decay at a known rate. It loses 2 neutrons and becomes carbon 12. In the process the number of carbon atoms is not reduced nor is mass decreased outside of the law E equals mc squared.
SO you statement “ALL the carbon would be GONE and we would have a DEAD universe,” is a very ignorant statement.
Nowhere have you shown anything that would supports you suppositions.
posted August 7, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Isa 51:6 Lift up your eyes to the heavens, look at the earth beneath; the heavens will vanish like smoke, the earth will wear out like a garment and its inhabitants die like flies. But my salvation will last forever, my righteousness will never fail.
Heb 1:10 He also says, “In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.
Heb 1:11 They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment.
Heb 1:12 You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.”
Tell me. IF the LDS gods needed preexisting matter is not this preexisting MORE IMPORTANT then the LDS gods. it seem that without “preexisting matter” the LDS gods could do nothing.
Just how did the “first” LDS god come into being? did this “preexisting matter” create the first LDS god, would not that make the “preexisting matter” a GOD and far far more IMPORTANT the the LDS gods.
It seem that the LDS gods are NOT gods after all.
posted August 8, 2007 at 3:49 am
Bryan,
How did God exist outside of time? How did he make everything out of nothing? Isn’t he reliant upon his creations to give him glory?
Can you show me matter that once existed that no longer exists?
Can you show me annihilated matter? Can you explain to me why God created evil, since he created everything that was created. When a garment wears out, is the material that it is made of no longer in existence, or does it simply change inot some other form? Can you prove that “in th ebeginning” in the scripture above refers to the beginning of everything? Since we both agree that God is eternal, how did God come to be?
Dear Bryan,
Faith is required for any system of belief. I will answer your questions when you answer mine.
posted August 8, 2007 at 10:23 am
Bryan,
How did God exist outside of time? How did he make everything out of nothing?
Answer
I wish I knew.
question
Isn’t he reliant upon his creations to give him glory?
Answer
NO. a God who is “reliant” or “needs” something from his creation is not a God.
question
Can you show me matter that once existed that no longer exists?
Can you show me annihilated matter?
Answer.
can you show me “preexisting matter”
question
Can you explain to me why God created evil,
Answer
God ALLOWS evil by the FREEWILL of His creation.
question
since he created everything that was created. When a garment wears out, is the material that it is made of no longer in existence, or does it simply change inot some other form?
Answer
Do you always ask stupid question.
question
Can you prove that “in th ebeginning” in the scripture above refers to the beginning of everything? Since we both agree that God is eternal, how did God come to be?
Answer
HOW did “preexisting matter” come to be.
Dear Bryan,
Faith is required for any system of belief. I will answer your questions when you answer mine.
Or.
Dear Bryan,
Since I really have no answers. I will just ask stupid questions and avoid the topic
posted August 10, 2007 at 1:14 am
Bryan, I find your repetition of the term “your gods” more than a bit condescending. Mormon scripture does talk of “gods” creating the Earth, but not in a polytheistic way, but rather in the same sense that the Bible says “let US go down and WE will make man in OUR image”. You obviously do not understand the plurality of God (i.e. the Godhead (in Biblical terms), or in your terms, the Trinity). You cannot imply that Mormons are polytheists without including yourself in the same category.
What I do find interesting is that some on this board have suggested that a church calling or position are the “works” that save. That is simply not the case. The works that save are the internal struggles aganst sin. I don’t particularly struggle with planning a Sunday school lesson, or attending the temple, but I do struggle every day with making myself an example of Christ, so that I will be like him when I meet him. I hope you can see the difference, and if you cannot, then perhaps you should not try to define the Mormon concept of salvation, because you cannot (or choose not to) explain it correctly.
posted August 10, 2007 at 8:13 am
1. IS THERE MORE THAN ONE TRUE GOD?
The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that there is only one True and Living God and apart from Him there are no other Gods Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 43:10,11; 44:6,8; 45:21,22; 46:9; Mark 12:29-34.
By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that there are many Gods (Book of Abraham 4:3ff), and that we can become gods and goddesses in the celestial kingdom (Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-20; Gospel Principles, p. 245; Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p. 130). It also teaches that those who achieve godhood will have spirit children who will worship and pray to them, just as we worship and pray to God the Father (Gospel Principles, p. 302).
http://www.irr.org/mit/Is-Mormonism-Christian.html
you clearly have no idea what the trinity is
Perichoresis is a Greek term used to describe the triune relationship between each person of the Godhead. It can be defined as co-indwelling, co-inhering, and mutual interpenetration.
ONE God who is Father Son and Holy Spirit, ONE ESSANCE of ONE GOD
The One God creates,, 1Co 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. Isa 37:16 “O LORD Almighty, God of Israel, enthroned between the cherubim, you alone are God over all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth. Ps 96:5 For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the LORD made the heavens. Jer 10:11 “Tell them this: ‘These gods, who did not make the heavens and the earth, will perish from the earth and from under the heavens.’ ” Jer 10:12 But God made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding.
Because of this Perichoresis of the One God, it is made clear that the ONE God is our savior in the following scriptures, 1Ch 16:35, Ps 65:5, 68:19, 79:9, 85:4, 1Tim 2:3, Titus 1:3, 2:10, 3:4, God our Savior, Then notice this, 1Tim 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, Jude 25 to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.
The trinity idea can be seen in the following. Titus 3:4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, Titus 3:6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, The Father send the Son, Jn 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 1Jn 4:10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Ro 3:25 God presented Him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—
WAS GOD ONCE A MAN LIKE US?
The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that God is Spirit (John 4:24; 1 Timothy 6:15,16), He is not a man (Numbers 23:19; Hosea 11:9; Romans 1:22, 23), and has always (eternally) existed as God — all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere present Psalm 90:2; 139:7-10; Isaiah 40:28; Luke 1:37.
By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that God the Father was once a man like us who progressed to become a God and has a body of flesh and bone (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22; “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!” from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-347; Gospel Principles, p. 9; Articles of Faith, p. 430; Mormon Doctrine, p. 321). Indeed, the Mormon Church teaches that God himself has a father, and a grandfather, ad infinitum (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 373; Mormon Doctrine, p. 577).
http://www.irr.org/mit/Is-Mormonism-Christian.html
posted August 10, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Bryan,
Good post.
I will tell you why I think the subject of ‘modern revelation’ is so dangerous, with the following 3 examples:
1) Transfer of the Melchizedek priesthood from Peter, James, and John to Joseph Smith
First, the earliest accounts (found in various journals and the 1833 Book of Commandments) make no mention of angels or resurrected first century apostles. The earliest accounts state that the Holy Spirit led Joseph Smith to baptize and bless Oliver Cowdery, who then returned the favor. This was the source of the apostolic and priesthood blessings – not angels or resurrected apostles. One of the three witnesses, David Whitmer, later said that it wasn’t until 1834 or 1835 that he first heard the story include any mention of angelic visitation. Grant H. Palmer, a BYU graduate and three-time director of the LDS Institutes of Religion in California and Utah, confirms that the earliest accounts are devoid of any mention of angelic visitation. His theory? “It may be more than a coincidence that in February 1835 when the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles was organized, the detail regarding Peter, James, and John was added to the revelations. It was sometime between January and May 1835 that Peter, James, and John were first mentioned as the restorers of apostolic keys to Joseph and Oliver. This new link of succession undoubtedly bolstered President Smith’s and Assistant President Cowdery’s authority in the eyes of the new Quorum of the Twelve and the church.”
2) Racism in the LDS
The Book of Mormon teaches that African Americans are inferior and loathsome, — uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind according to Mark E. Peterson (xref 2 Nephi 5: 21-23, 2 Nephi 30:6, and 3 Nephi 2:15)– it does state that they may eventually be saved. However, even in Heaven, they will be servants to others. Also, in the Pearl of Great Price (another Mormon canon of scripture), it is forbidden for anyone who has even a distant ancestor who was black to hold the priesthood. The children born of such “mixed” marriages could also never hold the priesthood. In the 1960′s and 70′s, there was a groundswell of opinion against racism by many Americans who recognized the centuries of injustice against African-Americans. It was an era of desegregation and agitation for civil rights. The U.S. Internal Revenue Service threatened LDS’s tax exempt status because of the church’s discrimination against African-Americans. Additional opposition came from sports groups which threatened to cancel events with the LDS’ Brigham Young University. Anti-Mormon religious groups promoted boycotts of church businesses and of Utah tourism.
The matter of racism was instantly resolved when church received a new revelation from God. On 1978-JUN-6, LDS leaders announced that “all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color.” Racism within the church was immediately terminated. Male African-Americans are now regarded as full members of the LDS and are eligible for consideration for ordination. Black women remain excluded, as are all other women.
3) Polygamy (or polygny, which specifically means one man and two or more wives; there was no practice of a woman with multiple husbands) in the LDS
Polygamy was a very important doctrine in the early LDS. It was vital for exaltation to godhood for men, and monogamy was considered evil (see Journal of Discourses volumes 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8). I believe that most Mormons today think that Joseph Smith had but one wife, Emma, but the Mormon writer Todd Compton, in looking at all of the evidence, concluded that Smith had at least 33 wives; some he married secretly without Emma knowing. Some Mormons also believe that Smith’s second and subsequent wives were elderly widows who needed protection, but Compton found that in fact most of his wives were young, and he married at least one girl who was only 14 at the time. It is also believed that “such a small percentage practiced it means that polygyny really was an insignificant part of Mormon history and doctrine.” In fact, it was a core practice of the early LDS Church, and remains an identifying practice among many Fundamentalist Mormon groups today.
The Federal government took a dim view of polygyny, and in 1862 passed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy act, making it a criminal offense to have more than one spouse. Here is a timeline of events moving forward from there:
1874: In a test case, George Reynolds, Brigham Young’s secretary, volunteered to be charged under the Morrill Act. The Church had claimed that the federal government had no jurisdiction to regulate marriage and other internal church practices. They also claimed that the act was a violation of Mormons’ First Amendment rights. He was found guilty, given a two year jail sentence, and ordered to pay a $500 fine.
1879: The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Reynold’s conviction. They declared that the Morrill Act was constitutional, that the government had a right to enforce marital standards, and that polygyny was a barbarous practice.
1880: LDS leader Wilford Woodruff submitted a revelation he had received from God to church president John Taylor and the Twelve Apostles. God promised retaliation against anyone who seeks “…to hinder my People from obeying the Patriarchal Law of Abraham…your enemies shall not prevail over you.” 5 (This religious law authorized plural marriages.)
1882: The federal Edmunds Act amended the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Law of 1862 to make it more punitive. It canceled the citizenship rights of polygamous Mormons. They were no longer allowed to vote, run for public office, or serve on a jury.
1887: Wilford Woodruff recorded in his journal that “…scores of the Leading Men of the Church [are] in prison and the Presidency and Twelve & many others in Exile for obeying the Law of God.” The federal government passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act as a supplement to the Edmunds Law. This authorized the government to disincorporate the Church and to confiscate its assets.
1889: Wilford Woodruff, now president, received a revelation from Jesus Christ who promised that he would protect the church’s practice of polygamy from attacks by the federal government.
1890: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government could deny the right to vote or hold office to all Mormons who practiced the Law of Abraham, or who merely believed in plural marriage. Later in the year, they ruled that the Edmunds-Tucker Act was constitutional, and that the federal government could repeal the LDS church charter and dissolve the church. The situation had reached a critical point in the Utah territory
When the federal government announced that they would start to seize the temples, the LDS Church decided to obey the law. At that time, the Church received a revelation from God that changed church beliefs and practices. The fourth president of the Church, Wilford Woodruff, issued a manifesto (called the “Great Accommodation”) on 1890-SEP-24. It suspended the solemnization of new plural marriages for an indefinite interval.
Woodruff wrote, in part,
“And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.”
U.S. President Cleveland issued a statehood proclamation for Utah on 1896-JAN-4, six years after the manifesto was declared. Although no new polygamous marriages were conducted after the 1920′s, existing plural marriages continued to receive strong support from the Church.
——————————————–
People can all believe what they want to believe, but you know and I know that in neither of the federal cases, concerning ordaining blacks and polygyny, that the church in neither case received a ‘revelation from God’ concerning the reversal of what had been accepted doctrine and practice within the church. The First President, his counselors, and the quorum made shrewd political moves in both instances to head off what probably would have been a financial disaster. To say that these moves were precipitated by a godly revelation was inherently dishonest to the masses of lay Mormons. This seems especially so concerning polygyny, because Woodruff had supposedly had a revelation from Jesus himself in 1889 that the practice would be protected! Then God reverses Himself one year later and says don’t do it? I just find that patently absurd. Scripture teaches us, “Is God a man, that He would change His mind?” and “See, has He not spoken, and has it not come to pass?” God is just not fickle like human beings are, and the fact is that most of these ‘revelations’ are not Divine in origin at all, but serve a very temporal (and usually financial) purpose.
That is the problem with having an open canon and allowing ‘modern revelations.’ You can dictate your own policy by saying, “God told me to do this or that.” Without the foundation of Scripture to back up those words, they hold no authority or legitimacy. If I am considered a prophet, and my words are considered to be as authoritative as Scripture, what a hold I could have over all of you! That is why I think the office of Apostle is past, and why I still search the Scriptures to make sure that what I hear from the pulpit, the classroom, the TV/radio, wherever, is true. That is the only way.
Finally, do I believe that God speaks to us today? Absolutely! He can speak to me in dreams or visions, or through a person He sends my way, or in a song or sunrise or crash of the ocean surf. He speaks to us through His word, His preachers and teachers, His Holy Spirit, and His creation. And He always testifies about Himself, who He is, what He has done for us, and what He wants us to do for Him. He is constantly giving us guidance and wisdom about how to live our daily lives, and He rejoices in our victories and mourns but comforts when we fall. And His Spirit convicts us of our trespasses, but then He gently guides us back onto the right path. God speaks to us wonderously, day in and day out, and He does it His way, not through systems in offices that had their purpose in days of old but have no place today. We are told that, because of what Jesus did, we can now come boldly before the throne of grace. Who needs more than that?
posted August 10, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Well, Bryan. I see you know the anti-Mormon view of the Godhead. I hope one day you actually understand the LDS view.
posted August 10, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Chief1989 very very good post. you should join http://www.myspace.com alot of mormon groups to debate with.
B said
Well, Bryan. I see you know the anti-Mormon view of the Godhead. I hope one day you actually understand the LDS view.
answer
this IS from your own teachings
By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that God the Father was once a man like us who progressed to become a God and has a body of flesh and bone (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22; “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!” from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-347; Gospel Principles, p. 9; Articles of Faith, p. 430; Mormon Doctrine, p. 321). Indeed, the Mormon Church teaches that God himself has a father, and a grandfather, ad infinitum (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 373; Mormon Doctrine, p. 577).
Do you deny your own teachings ??
posted August 10, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Doctrine and Covenants 130:22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.
Jesus said (Jn 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.
What did the Son do?
He was born of a woman. Lived as a mortal man. Died. Was resurrected to a body of flesh and bone (Luke 24:36-43), never to die again.
So now we know that Jesus Christ has a body of flesh and bones. We also know that He is in the express image of His Father and is separate from the Father in person.
Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
So Jesus Christ, the second member of the Godhead and a God Himself, was born, lived, died, and was resurrected to a body of flesh and bones (which He still has and will have forever).
And you think that is unreasonable to believe that God the Father did the same thing?
posted August 10, 2007 at 5:59 pm
the point mormons miss and fail to understand is WHO Christ was BEFORE His incarnation.
NIV throught-out
Here we see Christ as VERY GOD putting ON FLESH
Phil 2:5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Phil 2:6 Who, being in very nature God,did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
Phil 2:7 but made himself nothing,taking the very nature of a servant,being made in human likeness.
Phil 2:8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross!
As I showed in another post Christ is the “LORD Alimighty” of the OT, and being fully God, Christ had ALL the powers of God, was GOD WITHOUT a body of FLESH AND BONES.
to say that this verse means God the Father has a flesh and bone body is to twist the scripture.
Jn 5:19 Jesus gave them this answer: “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.
Jesus clearly said
Jn 4:24 God is spirit,
So john 5:19 is talking about WORKS that Jesus was doing. notice verse 17
Jn 5:17 Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.”
posted August 10, 2007 at 7:13 pm
GB,
I believe that what Jesus was talking about in John 5 was divine works. Look at the whole passage:
16So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. 17Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.” 18For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
19Jesus gave them this answer: “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him even greater things than these. 21For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.
Jesus said that the Father is “always at His work to this very day, and I too am working.” I don’t think it means that since Jesus saw God born in the flesh to a woman, He would do that, too. Jesus explained God’s essence just a chapter earlier in John:
23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”
Nowhere in Scripture that I have found does it say that God had a body of flesh, or had ever been a man before He was glorified. If He had parents, and they had parents, where did that cycle begin? That oft-quoted passage in Genesis, “Let us make man in our image” has to do with character, not flesh. God was saying ‘let us make man like us, so that our holiness and character will be reflected in him.’ Matthew Henry puts it like this:
“Man was made last of all the creatures: this was both an honour and a favour to him. Yet man was made the same day that the beasts were; his body was made of the same earth with theirs; and while he is in the body, he inhabits the same earth with them. God forbid that by indulging the body, and the desires of it, we should make ourselves like the beasts that perish! Man was to be a creature different from all that had been hitherto made. Flesh and spirit, heaven and earth, must be put together in him. God said, Let us make man. Man, when he was made, was to glorify the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Into that great name we are baptized, for to that great name we owe our being. It is the soul of man that especially bears God’s image. Man was made upright, Ec 7:29. His understanding saw Divine things clearly and truly; there were no errors or mistakes in his knowledge; his will consented at once, and in all things, to the will of God. His affections were all regular, and he had no bad appetites or passions. His thoughts were easily brought and fixed to the best subjects. Thus holy, thus happy, were our first parents in having the image of God upon them. But how is this image of God upon man defaced! May the Lord renew it upon our souls by his grace! (Ge 1:29)”
posted August 10, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Chief: Nowhere in Scripture that I have found does it say that God had a body of flesh, or had ever been a man before He was glorified.
GB: I wonder if you even read my posts.
Luke 24:36 ¶ And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
43 And he took it, and did eat before them.
Very plain and clear, God has a body of flesh and bone.
Can you show me a scripture that states plain and clear that God doesn’t have a body of flesh and bone?
posted August 11, 2007 at 9:02 am
GB you completely ignore the following scriptures.
Here we see Christ as VERY GOD putting ON FLESH
Phil 2:5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Phil 2:6 Who, being in very nature God,did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
Phil 2:7 but made himself nothing,taking the very nature of a servant,being made in human likeness.
Phil 2:8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross!
Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.
NOTICE the word “”"BECAME”"”
Jn 1:14 The Word became flesh
PLUS you completely take Luke 24 out of context.
1) it is JESUS, NOT God the Father.
2) Phil 2:5-8 talks about God PUTTING ON FLESH. it says “”MADE in human likeness”" Along with John 1:1,14, John 4:24
3) Question. HOW did the Holy Spirit become GOD WITHOUT a body of flesh and bones.
It says
Heb 12:29 for our “God is a consuming fire.”
Can you show me a scripture that states plain and clear that God the Father HAS a body of flesh and bone in heaven.
the bible uses Anthropomorphic language
Manifesting in human form. It is from the Greek “anthropos” meaning “man” and “morphe” meaning “form.” In biblical theology, God is described in anthropomorphic terms; that is, in human terms with human attributes. For example, God has hands and feet in Exodus 24:9-11 and is loving (1 John 4:8).
Read things NOT found IN scriptures is read INTO scriptures things NOT FOUND in them and is NOT WISE.
posted August 11, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Latter-day Saints agree that Christ is the word, and that he is the pre-existant Jehovah, God of the Old Testiment, and so all your statemts above are correct. But, you are neglecting that God the Father send the word (and the word was WITH God). Jesus is God and the Father is God, but they are separate beings. So, yes God the Son became Flesh, but not God the Father.
posted August 11, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Latter-day Saints agree that Christ is the word, and that he is the pre-existant Jehovah, God of the Old Testiment, and so all your statemts above are correct. But, you are neglecting that God the Father send the word (and the word was WITH God). Jesus is God and the Father is God, but they are separate beings. So, yes God the Son became Flesh, but not God the Father.
So the LDS teachings “God the Father has a body of flesh and bones” is wrong then
posted August 11, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Bryan: Here we see Christ as VERY GOD putting ON FLESH
Phil 2:5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Phil 2:6 Who, being in very nature God,did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
Phil 2:7 but made himself nothing,taking the very nature of a servant,being made in human likeness.
Phil 2:8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross!
Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.
NOTICE the word “”"BECAME”"”
Jn 1:14 The Word became flesh
GB: Sorry Bryan I could not find the phrase “VERY GOD” any where in scripture do you have a reference.
To quote you “Read things NOT found IN scriptures is read INTO scriptures things NOT FOUND in them and is NOT WISE.”, what ever you mean by that.
Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Nothing in those scriptures contradicts our position that God the Father and Jesus Christ both have bodies of flesh and bone. In fact you are confirming our position. Jesus with a body of flesh and bone is in the form of God the Father therefore God the Father must also have a body of flesh and bone.
Bryan: PLUS you completely take Luke 24 out of context.
GB: How so? It states quite clearly that Jesus (who is God) has a body of flesh and bone.
Bryan: 1) it is JESUS, NOT God the Father.
GB: That is true and no where have I said otherwise. But Jesus Christ is a God just like His Father and Jesus Christ has a body of flesh and bone just like His Father.
Bryan: 2) Phil 2:5-8 talks about God PUTTING ON FLESH. it says “”MADE in human likeness”" Along with John 1:1,14, John 4:24
GB: Thank you for verifying my point.
Bryan: 3) Question. HOW did the Holy Spirit become GOD WITHOUT a body of flesh and bones.
GB: That question, although interesting, is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Bryan: It says Heb 12:29 for our “God is a consuming fire.”
GB: 1 Jn. 1: 5 . . . declare unto you, that God is light, . . .
1 Jn. 4:16 . . . God is love; . . .
So what is your point?
Bryan: Can you show me a scripture that states plain and clear that God the Father HAS a body of flesh and bone in heaven.
GB: Yes I can, in fact I already did.
D & C 130:22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.
Bryan: the bible uses Anthropomorphic language
Manifesting in human form. It is from the Greek “anthropos” meaning “man” and “morphe” meaning “form.” In biblical theology, God is described in anthropomorphic terms; that is, in human terms with human attributes. For example, God has hands and feet in Exodus 24:9-11 and is loving (1 John 4:8).
GB: It also says God has a face, a finger, back parts, and a mouth.
posted August 11, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Bryan: . . . But, you are neglecting that God the Father send the word (and the word was WITH God). Jesus is God and the Father is God, but they are separate beings. So, yes God the Son became Flesh, but not God the Father.
GB: That is correct. God the Father, when He sent the Word, already had a body of flesh and bone.
Bryan: So the LDS teachings “God the Father has a body of flesh and bones” is wrong then
GB: Sorry but your logic is lacking. Your conclusion is unsupported.
posted August 11, 2007 at 11:24 pm
GB,
You are neglecting John 4:24, where Jesus says, “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”
And Numbers 23:19 – “God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?”
And Isaiah 31:3 – “But the Egyptians are men and not God; their horses are flesh and not spirit. When the LORD stretches out his hand, he who helps will stumble, he who is helped will fall; both will perish together.”
God the Father is a spirit, who is an “unquenchable fire” and who lives in “unapproachable light.” Jesus the Son was one with the Father, and then took on human flesh to become the Son of Man. He now stands at the right hand of God the Father, as attested to by Stephen just before he was stoned to death. [Acts 7:35 - "But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God."] The Holy Spirit is just that, the Spirit of God that Jesus sent to sanctify believers to Himself. One God, three persons. But God the Father was never a ‘spirit-child’ born to parents, He never had a body of flesh and bones (sorry, but I don’t recognize the Doctrines & Covenants as scripture), and He is not just an exalted man who now can rule and populate His own world. He is the King of the Universe (the old Hebrew prayer for food always started out, “Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe”) who has neither beginning nor end, and there are no other Gods up there with him. Isaiah 43:10 makes this abundantly clear.
That is the God that I worship; the Lord of Hosts, Lord God Almighty, the Ancient of Days, God our Father who art in heaven. The Psalmist said, “Your righteousness reaches to the skies, O God,
you who have done great things.
Who, O God, is like you?
I rest my case. Your witness…
posted August 12, 2007 at 12:59 am
“He now stands at the right hand of God the Father, as attested to by Stephen just before he was stoned to death.”
Really, so he has legs? He has a right hand and a left hand?
If God is sprit, and Jesus was resurrected, then where is Jesus’ body? Did he leave it on the moon on his way back to heaven? Why was he resurrected at all if the body is so vile and useless? Why would he say he was less than his father, and then be resurrected? Could his resurrection actually have made him more like his Father? Seems you have a lot of unanswered questions. God is Spirit, but He is also Flesh and Bone (as Jesus showed the apostles). We are also spirit or we could not worship him in spirit.
posted August 12, 2007 at 8:37 am
Bryan: . . . But, you are neglecting that God the Father send the word (and the word was WITH God). Jesus is God and the Father is God, but they are separate beings. So, yes God the Son became Flesh, but not God the Father.
GB: That is correct. God the Father, when He sent the Word, already had a body of flesh and bone.
Answer
SHOW me in scriptures a CLEAR scripture God the Father has a BODY. what you are doing is SEEING THINGS in scriptures things NOT FOUND and IMPOSSIBLE to support. Further you have NO idea how Christians understand the trinity.
Perichoresis is a Greek term used to describe the triune relationship between each person of the Godhead. It can be defined as co-indwelling, co-inhering, and mutual interpenetration.
I suggest a book, its about 100 pages, “Making Sense of the Trinity: Three Crucial Questions” by Millard J. Erickson (Paperback – May 1, 2000)
The One God creates,, 1Co 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. Isa 37:16 “O LORD Almighty, God of Israel, enthroned between the cherubim, you alone are God over all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth. Ps 96:5 For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the LORD made the heavens. Jer 10:11 “Tell them this: ‘These gods, who did not make the heavens and the earth, will perish from the earth and from under the heavens.’ ” Jer 10:12 But God made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding. We see
The Father creates, Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 1Co 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
The Son creates, Jn 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. Col 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. Heb 1:8 But about the Son He says, “Your throne, O God, Heb 1:10 He also says, “In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.
The Holy Spirit creates, Ge 1:2…the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. Job 33:4 The Spirit of God has made me; the breath of the Almighty gives me life. Ps 104:30 When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth.
We see the words of Jesus, Jesus says He is truth, Jn 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth Later Jesus says God’s word is truth, Jn 17:17 Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. Jesus is the Word, Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Jn 1:14 The Word became flesh In John 14:8-11, Here it shows the interpenetration of the Father and the Son. Jn 14:8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” Jn 14:9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Jn 14:10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Jn 14:11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. Wen Jesus prays He says that God is in Him, Jn 17:21…Father, just as you are in me and I am in you Jn 17:23 I in them and you in me. Jesus sanctifys Himself, Jn 17:19 For them I sanctify myself,
Because of this Perichoresis of the One God, it is made clear that the ONE God is our savior in the following scriptures, 1Ch 16:35, Ps 65:5, 68:19, 79:9, 85:4, 1Tim 2:3, Titus 1:3, 2:10, 3:4, God our Savior, Then notice this, 1Tim 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, Jude 25 to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.
It was Jesus who died on the cross, Jn 19:30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. Jesus had the authority to lay down His own life, Jn 10:17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. Jn 10:18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
We also see the work of Holy Spirit in renewing christians, Jn 3:5 Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Jn 3:6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. Jn 3:7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ Jn 3:8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
The trinity idea can be seen in the following. Titus 3:4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, Titus 3:6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, The Father send the Son, Jn 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 1Jn 4:10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Ro 3:25 God presented Him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—
Jesus did the work of God by the Holy Spirit of God, Mt 4:1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit, Lk 10:21 At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, Mt 3:16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. Mt 12:28 But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God,
With the Perichoresis of the one God, they all experienced the cross, God the Father and God the Holy Spirit because of the indwelling of each, they as ONE God knew the cross because it is not possible for God to divide Himself, what one feels the other feels as well. Although not directly experiencing that suffering as their own, did experience the Son’s experience of it, thus also suffering vicariously. With this view we see God brings the sufferings of the world on Himself.
This article done with the help of, Making Sense of the Trinity
once again my friend may I suggest that you do not understand the christian teaching of the trinity. ONE GOD who is ONE ESSANCE ONE SPIRIT of ONE GOD who is Father Son and Holy Spirit. They are three separate distinct personages, BUT NOT personages as in, John Mark and Matthew are 3 persons,that would make three gods which is NOT supported by the bible. It was said. Some things one has to take on faith.
posted August 12, 2007 at 9:19 am
B said
“He now stands at the right hand of God the Father, as attested to by Stephen just before he was stoned to death.”
Really, so he has legs? He has a right hand and a left hand?
Answer
Ac 7:55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.
Ac 7:56 “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”
This is saying to the crowd listening that Jesus IS GOD. You do notice verse 57. Stephen`s vision supported Jesus claim and angered the Jewish leaders
Mt 26:64 “Yes, it is as you say,”Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Mk 14:62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Lk 22:69 But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.”
Ac 7:57 At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him,
it also say
Heb 12:29 for our “God is a consuming fire.”
If God is sprit, and Jesus was resurrected, then where is Jesus’ body? Did he leave it on the moon on his way back to heaven? Why was he resurrected at all if the body is so vile and useless? Why would he say he was less than his father, and then be resurrected? Could his resurrection actually have made him more like his Father? Seems you have a lot of unanswered questions. God is Spirit, but He is also Flesh and Bone (as Jesus showed the apostles). We are also spirit or we could not worship him in spirit.
Answer
Jn 14:28 “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
Jesus said this while ON EARTH BEFORE His resurrection. So while Jesus while being FULLY God HUMBLED Himself, see scriptures.
Phil 2:6 Who, being in very nature God,did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
Phil 2:7 but made himself nothing,taking the very nature of a servant,being made in human likeness.
Phil 2:8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross!
While God the Father was in heaven and fully God. So when Jesus said this. “for the Father is greater than I” it was true at that time. NOW Jesus prayed
Jn 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
Jesus is NOT a lesser” God the God the Father, they each have DIFFERENT roles in salvation. The Father Sends the Son, The Son saves us from sin, the Holy Spirit seals the christian for eternal life. the ONE GOD who is Savior.
NOTICE, LORD, GOD, HOLY ONE your Savior
Isa 43:3 For I am the LORD, your God,the Holy One of Israel, your Savior;
Isa 48:17 This is what the LORD says— your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: “I am the LORD your God,
Isa 54:5 For your Maker is your husband—the LORD Almighty is his name—the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer;he is called the God of all the earth.
Isa 55:5 Surely you will summon nations you know not, and nations that do not know you will hasten to you,because of the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel,
Isa 60:9 Surely the islands look to me; in the lead are the ships of Tarshish,bringing your sons from afar, with their silver and gold,to the honor of the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel,
Hab 1:12 O LORD, are you not from everlasting?My God, my Holy One, we will not die.O LORD, you have appointed them to execute judgment; O Rock, you have ordained them to punish.
The ONE God our Savior
1Ch 16:35 Cry out, “Save us, O God our Savior;
Ps 65:5 You answer us with awesome deeds of righteousness, O God our Savior,
Ps 68:19 Praise be to the Lord, to God our Savior, who daily bears our burdens.
Ps 79:9 Help us, O God our Savior, for the glory of your name; deliver us and forgive our sins for your name’s sake.
Ps 85:4 Restore us again, O God our Savior, and put away your displeasure toward us.
1Ti 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,
1Ti 2:3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior,
Tit 1:3 and at his appointed season he brought his word to light through the preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior,
Tit 2:10 and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.
Tit 3:4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared,
Jude 1:25 to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.
Perichoresis is a Greek term used to describe the triune relationship between each person of the Godhead. It can be defined as co-indwelling, co-inhering, and mutual interpenetration. The ONE God who is a trinity, Sends His Son to save us and seal by the Holy Spirit for salvation.
So once again the LDS READ INTO scriptures things NOT in them such as “God the Father has a body of flesh and bones”
posted August 12, 2007 at 2:23 pm
You quote Jn 14:28 “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.”
and then you say “Jesus is NOT a lesser God the God the Father”
So what am I to believe? And you say Mormonism is confusing.
posted August 12, 2007 at 4:13 pm
You quote Jn 14:28 “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.”
and then you say “Jesus is NOT a lesser God the God the Father”
So what am I to believe? And you say Mormonism is confusing.
Answer
Jesus said this WHILE IN THE FLESH Phil 2:6-8 So what is So confusing. Jesus NOW is FULLY GOD. How can ONE ESSANCE of ONE God have in Himself something “lesser” then God
posted August 12, 2007 at 9:29 pm
So, Jesus was not fully God when he was on Earth? Another confusing statement. So he was less than God but now he isn’t less than God and because he is now fully God he doesn’t need prophets? Then why was Paul chosen as a special witness to Christ? Why was he called as a prophet?
Plain and simple. God works through prophets. They act as God’s representatives of Jesus Christ on Earth, because Jesus Christ is not here. Peter, James and John were given the keys of the kingdom. Why? Because they were to continue the work of the Lord after he left. If there was no need for prophets, then they would not have needed those keys, and Paul would not have had the vision, and his words would not be canon. But they were, and his words are, so I believe in prophets. You do to, but you choose to diminish their role just to spite Joseph Smith.
posted August 13, 2007 at 8:59 am
So, Jesus was not fully God when he was on Earth? Another confusing statement. So he was less than God but now he isn’t less than God and because he is now fully God he doesn’t need prophets? Then why was Paul chosen as a special witness to Christ? Why was he called as a prophet?
Answer.
I NEVER said said Jesus was NOT fully God on earth. How can God “STOP” being God, it is IMPOSSIBLE.
Mt 1:23 “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”—which means, “God with us.”
So once again. While FULLY GOD, The LORD ADDED flesh and WILLINGLY came in ALL HUMAN WEAKNESS Phil 2:6-8, an example would be. A rich king one day put on poor mans cloths and went amoung his people. He was still the king but because he was wearing poor man’s cloths no one knew who he was. So The LORD hid his glory as God in human flesh and had the weakness of the flesh. He was STILL FULLY God but He hid his glory from others
Jn 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
NOW Jesus IN heaven NO LONGER has to hide His glory as FULLY GOD.
God does NOT need prophets. WE NEED TRUE prophets from God.
Why was Paul called.
You will have to ask God.
If I may guess God called Paul because of Paul’s education
Phil 3:5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee;
Paul Called by God
Gal 1:11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up.
Gal 1:12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
Gal 1:13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.
Gal 1:14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.
Gal 1:15 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased
Gal 1:16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man,
Gal 1:17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.
Gal 1:18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.
Gal 1:19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.
Gal 1:20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.
Gal 1:21 Later I went to Syria and Cilicia.
Gal 1:22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ.
Gal 1:23 They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.”
Gal 1:24 And they praised God because of me.
Joseph Smith and LDS Theology is PROVEN to be FALSE. NO-WHERE in the bible do we find LDS teachings such as. Jesus being the brother of satan. God the Father has a body of flesh and bone and grandfather gods to infinite regression, God was once a man who learned to be god.
posted August 13, 2007 at 11:54 am
Chief: You are neglecting John 4:24, where Jesus says, “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”
GB: Not at all!
John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
God is a Spirit with a body of flesh and bones. You are a spirit with a body of flesh and blood. IF you can “worship him in spirit” and you have a body of flesh and blood, THEN He can be a Spirit with a body of flesh and bone.
Chief: And Numbers 23:19 – “God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?”
GB: So have you changed your position about God being able to lie?
You earlier claimed that God didn’t “repent” only changed His mind, now you are saying that God can’t change His mind. Which is it?
I never said that God is a mortal, fallible, weak man. And having a body of flesh and bone doesn’t make Him one. Is Jesus a mortal, fallible, weak man? I think not.
Chief: God the Father is a spirit, . . . Who, O God, is like you?
I rest my case. Your witness…
GB: I am still waiting for a scripture that plainly and clearly states that God the Father doesn’t have a body of flesh and bones.
There is no question that Jesus Christ has a body of flesh and bone.
Heb 1: GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 WHO BEING THE BRIGHTNESS OF HIS GLORY, AND THE EXPRESS IMAGE OF HIS PERSON, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; (emphasis mine).
Jesus Christ looks EXACTY like His Father. His Father therefore MUST have a body of flesh and bone also.
posted August 13, 2007 at 1:35 pm
To All,
I think we have entered the world of the absurd, using semantics and circular logic to try and prove points.
GB, no one is debating that Jesus had, and still has, a body of flesh and bones. Why is that important? So we could relate to Him on a personal level, one that is easier for the mortal mind to understand than dealing with a transcedent God who is spirit (John 4:24 – that is the Scripture that EXPRESSLY tells us the nature of God’s existence). Jesus is God, was with God in the beginning, and God was pleased to have the “fullness of the deity” dwell in His body (Colossians 2:9).
You are correct, GB, when the Bible talks about God’s right hand (the right hand is the hand of AUTHORITY. Hebrew men laid their right hands on their firstborn sons to pass on the birthright. That is why Jesus is said to be standing at the Father’s right hand, because God has given Him all authority in heaven and on earth. A FIGURATIVE, not a LITERAL statement!). God is also said to have a face (“may the countenance of the Lord shine upon you”), which is used to describe God bestowing favor on men. When the people sinned, God says “I will hide my face from you”).
I do find it interesting that Moses, when he desired to see God’s glory, was only allowed to see that glory receding from him because he would die if he saw God “face to face.” [Exodus 33: "19 And the LORD said, "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 20 But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.""] Yet Joseph Smith saw both the Father and the Son face to face? Was he greater than Moses? I don’t think so.
Jesus talked to the people in parables. Why, because He loved a good riddle? No, because He could relate the truths about the kingdom of God in words the people could understand. The same thing is true of God the Father. People can relate to a face and hands. It’s harder to relate to “an unquenchable fire.” So God in His wisdom inspired the Biblical authors to use language that is easier to understand, and used symbols, metaphors, and illiterations that mortal men can relate to. To quote that great poet Kevin Cronan, “If you want someone to understand you, you have to talk to them in their own language.” (REO Speedwagon, 157 Riverside Avenue). That is what God did, He spoke to us in language we could understand. However, Scripture is clear that God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are entirely spiritual beings, and only Jesus has had a body of flesh. He now has a resurrection body, a glorified body that is eternal and will never wear out. We also are promised glorious resurrection bodies (in I Cor 15), but the difference between Jesus and us will be that the fullness of the deity of God dwells in Jesus’ body, and it does not and it will not in us. Some believe that we can achieve godhood because we are told in Scripture how we can “be like” Jesus. But Jesus was referring to the fact that our corruptible bodies will pass away, and we will be raised in the resurrection incorruptible. That is, WE WILL HAVE ETERNAL RESURRECTION BODIES THAT WILL NOT WEAR OUT, DECAY, OR DIE. BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE WILL BE ‘LIKE HIM’ IN GODLY POWER AND MIGHT!! He is God; we are not, and we never will be, no matter how many ordinances and temple rites and rituals we follow, no matter if we have a temple marriage, no matter if I give the full tithes and am the best person I can be. You and I can NEVER achieve godhood, and we will never be JUST LIKE God and Jesus. Period.
posted August 13, 2007 at 2:43 pm
“But Jesus was referring to the fact that our corruptible bodies will pass away, and we will be raised in the resurrection incorruptible. That is, WE WILL HAVE ETERNAL RESURRECTION BODIES THAT WILL NOT WEAR OUT, DECAY, OR DIE. BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE WILL BE ‘LIKE HIM’ IN GODLY POWER AND MIGHT!! He is God; we are not, and we never will be, no matter how many ordinances and temple rites and rituals we follow, no matter if we have a temple marriage, no matter if I give the full tithes and am the best person I can be. You and I can NEVER achieve godhood, and we will never be JUST LIKE God and Jesus. ”
That is the biggest lie of Satan right there. The Bible is very clear. Not only will be be physically like Jesus, but we will inherit everything he has. EVERYTHING. We will sit on HIS throne an be JOINT HEIRS with him. We will have everything that God the Father has given to His son Jesus Christ. That is the great promise of the scriptures, and to deny that is to deny the power of salvation.
Gen. 1: 26 (Moses 2: 26) let them have dominion.
Gen. 3: 22 (Moses 4: 28) man is become as one of us.
Lev. 19: 2 (1 Pet. 1: 16) be holy: for I . . . am holy.
Ps. 8: 5 thou hast made him a little lower than the angels.
Ps. 8: 6 madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands.
Ps. 82: 6 ye are gods, and all of you are children of the most High.
Matt. 5: 48 (3 Ne. 12: 48) Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father.
Luke 24: 39 spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
John 10: 34 (Ps. 82: 1-8; D&C 76: 58) Is it not written in your law . . . Ye are gods.
Acts 17: 29 we are the offspring of God.
Rom. 8: 17 heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.
2 Cor. 3: 18 changed into the same image from glory to glory.
Gal. 4: 7 if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
Eph. 4: 13 Till we all come . . . unto a perfect man.
Heb. 12: 9 be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live.
1 Jn. 3: 2 when he shall appear, we shall be like him.
Rev. 3: 21 him that overcometh will . . . sit with me in my throne.
See also: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/m/29
posted August 13, 2007 at 5:20 pm
B,
No, I haven’t fallen for a lie from Satan. You, however, I believe, are being deceived in a very dangerous way. Read Revelation 20-22. When the new heaven and new earth come, God says, “Now the dwelling of God shall be with man; I will be their God, and they will be my people.” Jesus says He will make us pillars and priests in the temple of God – however, if we are just like Him, why would we need to worship Him any longer? What does it mean to be a co-heir with Christ? If my king says, “come up here and sit with me on my throne”, does that automatically make me a king, too, with ALL of his authority and ALL of his power? Nonsense! God is God, and you and I are mortal men. We will have glorified bodies after the resurrection, but we will not achieve godlike power and authority. That, my friend, is Satan’s BIGGEST LIE EVER! Why do I say that? Because that’s why Satan fell! Listen to Isaiah 14:
” 12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
16They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
17That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?
18All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house.
19But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.
—————–
B, did you notice what Lucifer said in verse 14? I WILL BE LIKE THE MOST HIGH!!!! Yet he was cast down for having such pride. My friend, I fervently pray that you give up this idea that you can become JUST LIKE God – it can’t happen and it won’t happen, and every person who has aspired to that has been cut down. Isn’t it enough that we get to spend eternity in glory with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Isn’t it enough that now we see in part, then we will see in full, and all of the mysteries of the universe will be explained? Isn’t it enough that you can bask in your Savior’s presence 24/7? Why aspire to be just like Him? You aren’t, and you can’t, and that is such a dangerous thought to have. I pray, my friend, that you will find Jesus sufficient for you, and not achieving godlike status.
posted August 13, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Posted by: | August 12, 2007 8:37 AM SHOW me in . . . This article done with the help of, Making Sense of the Trinity
GB: All that is interesting, but is irrelevant to the subject at hand.
Posted by: | August 12, 2007 8:37 AM once again my friend may I suggest that you do not understand the christian teaching of the trinity.
GB: I understand the doctrine of the trinity and I don’t believe it is Biblical therefore I don’t believe it.
Posted by: | August 12, 2007 8:37 AM They are three separate distinct personages, BUT NOT personages as in, John Mark and Matthew are 3 persons,
GB: They are but they are not? What kind of reasoning is that?
Posted by: | August 12, 2007 8:37 AM that would make three gods which is NOT supported by the bible.
GB: Apparently you do not understand the unity described in John 17.
Posted by: | August 12, 2007 8:37 AM It was said. Some things one has to take on faith.
GB: That is true but this isn’t one of them.
posted August 13, 2007 at 10:09 pm
“FULLY GOD”?
Is this that in the Bible?
posted August 13, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Posted by: | August 13, 2007 8:59 AM WE NEED TRUE prophets from God.
GB: That is true.
Posted by: | August 13, 2007 8:59 AM Joseph Smith and LDS Theology is PROVEN to be FALSE.
GB: You haven’t proven anything yet.
Posted by: | August 13, 2007 8:59 AM NO-WHERE in the bible do we find LDS teachings such as. Jesus being the brother of satan.
GB: You can’t prove he isn’t.
Posted by: | August 13, 2007 8:59 AM God the Father has a body of flesh and bone
GB: I already showed it to you.
Posted by: | August 13, 2007 8:59 AM and grandfather gods to infinite regression, God was once a man who learned to be god.
GB: I bet you can’t find any of that in LDS canon.
posted August 13, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Chief, of course God will still be God, and we will still worship him, but we will be given all power and all knowledge. Look at the story of the fall.
Genesis 3:
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
God says you will die if you eat the Fruit.
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.
Now satan say a lie and a truth. Lie: Ye shall not surely die. Truth: Your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
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.
Truth: Their eyes were opened.
8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in 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.
9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
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:
Truth: Adam and eve have become “as one of us”, in other words gods.
23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
So, we know that having truth and knowledge makes us gods. We do not supplant God, but we do become gods. Adam and Eve still needed Jesus Christ to overcome death, and if they (and we) are worthy of Christ’s gift, we will have eternal life, i.e. be gods. So you see, the lie is that we would not die, not that we could not become gods. It is interesting because they are tied together. Eternal life comes through Christ so he opens the door for us to fully be one with God.
posted August 13, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Chief: GB, no one is debating that Jesus had, and still has, a body of flesh and bones.
GB: So we are in agreement that God has a body of flesh and bone. Good.
Chief: Why is that important? So we could relate to Him on a personal level, one that is easier for the mortal mind to understand than dealing with a transcedent God who is spirit
GB: Your opinion.
Chief: (John 4:24 – that is the Scripture that EXPRESSLY tells us the nature of God’s existence).
GB: John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Note that in the KJV cited above, the word “is” is italicized. This is because the King James translators have inserted it on their own—it is not present in the Greek text from which the translation was made.
Also you should be aware that the indefinite article (“a”, as in “a dog” or “a spirit”) does not exist in Greek. Thus, the addition of the word “a” in English occurs at the discretion of the translators.
This leaves two Greek words: theos pneuma—“God spirit”. The word pneuma, which is translated spirit, also means ‘life’ or ‘breath’. The King James Version of Revelation 13:15 renders ‘pneuma’ as life. Thus “God is life,” or “God is the breath of life” are potential alternative translations of this verse.
Also, if God is a spirit and we have to worship him in spirit, do mortals have to leave our bodies to worship him?
One Commentary insists:
That God is spirit is not meant as a definition of God’s being—though this is how the Stoics [a branch of Greek philosophy] would have understood it. It is a metaphor of his mode of operation, as life-giving power, and it is no more to be taken literally than 1 John 1:5, “God is light,” or Deuteronomy 4:24, “Your God is a devouring fire.” It is only those who have received this power through Christ who can offer God a real worship.
Also in Deut. 4: 28 And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.
Indicates that God can see, hear, eat and smell; He would need physical eyes, ears, mouth and nose.
Chief: . . . That is why Jesus is said to be standing at the Father’s right hand, because God has given Him all authority in heaven and on earth. A FIGURATIVE, not a LITERAL statement!).
GB: More opinion. There is no reason that cant be “LITERAL”. So that is just more of your opinion.
Chief: I do find it interesting that Moses, . . . he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”"]
GB: And yet verse 11 says that Moses did see God face to face.
Ex 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses FACE TO FACE, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.
Numbers 14:14 And they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land: for they have heard that thou LORD art among this people, that thou LORD art seen FACE TO FACE, and that thy cloud standeth over them, and that thou goest before them, by day time in a pillar of a cloud, and in a pillar of fire by night.
Deu 5:4 The LORD talked with you FACE TO FACE in the mount out of the midst of the fire,
Deu 34:10 ¶ And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew FACE TO FACE, (emphasis mine)
Chief: Yet Joseph Smith saw both the Father and the Son face to face? Was he greater than Moses? I don’t think so.
GB: More opinion.
Chief: Jesus talked to the people . . . is what God did, He spoke to us in language we could understand. However, Scripture is clear that God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are entirely spiritual beings, and only Jesus has had a body of flesh.
GB: More opinion. And no scripture.
Chief: . . . but the difference between Jesus and us will be that the fullness of the deity of God dwells in Jesus’ body, and it does not and it will not in us.
GB: Is this more opinion or do you have some scripture to back up this statement.
Chief: . . . BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE WILL BE ‘LIKE HIM’ IN GODLY POWER AND MIGHT!!
GB: Apparently just more opinion.
2 Pet 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the DIVINE NATURE, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. (emphasis mine)
Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
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. (emphasis mine)
Gal 4:7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, THEN AN HEIR OF GOD THROUGH CHRIST. (emphasis mine)
John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 AND THE GLORY WHICH THOU GAVEST ME I HAVE GIVEN THEM; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, THAT THEY MAY BE MADE PERFECT in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. (emphasis mine)
Chief:He is God; we are not, and we never will be, no matter how many ordinances and temple rites and rituals we follow, no matter if we have a temple marriage, no matter if I give the full tithes and am the best person I can be. You and I can NEVER achieve godhood, and we will never be JUST LIKE God and Jesus. Period.
GB: O ye of little faith.
Matt 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Mark 9: 23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.
posted August 14, 2007 at 8:33 am
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/contents
93:29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.
33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;
“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22. Compare with Alma 18:26-27; 22:9-10)
Doctrine and Covenants 130:22
22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not ddwell in us.
It would seem that the LDS god NEEDS the universe to exit other wise even the LDS god will die when the universe dies
Doctrine and Covenants 131:7-8
7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by bpurer eyes;
8 We cannot asee it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.
According to Orson Pratt (September 19, 1811 – October 3, 1881) was a leader in the Latter Day Saint movement and an original member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles.) in his writings “The Pre-Existence of Man” The Seer 1 (September 1853)He wrote that
“the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father; and again, He was begotten by still more ancient Father; and so on, from generation to generation, from one heavenly world to another still more ancient, untill our minds are
wearied and lost in the multiplicty of generations and successive worlds. ”
“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345)
Since the LDS teach that the universe never had a beginning in time, this view implies that there are an infinite number of mormon gods, each one whom had another god as his father. The particular God who is the god of our earth is just one link in an infinite chain of mormon gods
if God had a beginning like a man WHO created him infinite regression of created events is not possible. it does not answer the fist cause
Isa 43:10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.
Isa 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD,and apart from me there is no savior
Isa 44:6 “This is what the LORD says—Israel’s King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last;apart from me there is no God.
Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other;apart from me there is no God.I will strengthen you,
Isa 45:21 Declare what is to be, present it— let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past?Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no God apart from me,a righteous God and a Savior;there is none but me.
and if your book of mormon says this, that he is the same
“”yesterday, today, and forever”" HOW can he say this because it is NOT true if he was a MAN like US
Morm. 9: 9,
9 For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?
Lets not forget this verse from the Book of mormon which says
“”there is NO God beside me”" So once again HOW casn the mormon god be go if he was once a man and their is NO other god but him so WHO created him if he is the only god
Moses 1: 6
6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all.
So HOW can the mormon god exist even your own book denies infinite regression. HOW can the mormon gods be god if the NEEDED a god BEFORE them to create them. WHO created your “FIRST” mormon god, BUT HOW can he be a god if he is “CREATED”
posted August 14, 2007 at 8:56 am
GB
You quoted “Mark 9: 23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.”
Note this verse does not say that all things are to be believed?
posted August 14, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Bryan, I see you are trying to imply that God is somehow diminished in the LDS faith, but that is not the case. Joseph Smith described eternity like a ring, and that anyhing with no end cannont have a beginning, and so it is with God. He is eternal and therefor has no end and no beginning. But, we know that Jesus Christ did go through a mortal existance, and yet he was God. How do you reconsile these two? It’t not an easy answer, but Mormons do believe that all spirit matter is eternal, and as such, we are eternal, and God did not (nor could he) create us from nothing, but rather, as the word “create” means to form or mold (look it up), God did create us. God also created Adam’s body from the dust of the Earth. Does that diminish his creative power?
So, God is eternal, and will always be God, has always been God, regardless of the interesting and faciniating ideas on eternal progression. God made it very clear that he was not to be diminished, and Mormons could still look at the mysteries of the origins of God without diminishing Him. Perhaps one day you can open your eyes and have enough faith to look beyond the traditions of man and see a little deeper into God’s purpose. Just like the Pharases at the time of Jesus, you are so afraid of truth, that you will try to destroy that which you perceive as blasphemous. Do your scriptures not say, ye are gods?
posted August 14, 2007 at 5:32 pm
B,
If you are quoting the passage in John 10, you are not reading the whole thing. We have already discussed the “ye are gods” thing. Jesus was citing Psalm 82:6, in which David was discussing magistrates, and how they acted directly on behalf of the Lord. Jesus is talking about judging others, not people becoming gods.
As far as God being diminished in Mormon theology, that is a concern of mine, also, and one of the reasons I feel burdened in my spirit for people of that faith. The book of Mormon holds God and Jesus in high regard, for the most part, but later Mormon ‘scriptures’ deviate radically from the concept of an eternal God and a Son who is also God and was with Him from the beginning. Talking about God being once a man, now exalted and glorified, robs God of glory and honor. Talking about God having parents and a wife and begetting spirit children, including Jesus and Lucifer, robs God of glory and honor. Talking about how men can be exalted and achieve godlike status and rule and populate their own planets robs God of glory and honor. Talking about Jesus being a spirit-child of God and a brother of Lucifer, robs God and Jesus of glory and honor. Talking about general salvation, a temporal punishment for most sinners, and baptizing the dead for salvation out of the interim spirit world robs the cross of most of its power. And reaching out to others and teaching them these doctrines violates Galatians 1: 6-9. I know you have heard that argument many times, and you have a ready defense for it. It does not in any way diminish the fact that the gospel revealed in the 3 Mormon scriptures, especially the D&C and PGP, differ radically from the Gospel Paul had preached to the Galatian churches. His warning, and other warnings in Scripture about following the teachings of man, are not to be taken lightly.
B, you give what seems to me to be a sincere and intelligent defense of your beliefs. I commend you for that. There is no doubt that the Mormon people that I have met here in my city make great neighbors, are very personable, and are people that strive to do the right things. That is what makes saying things like the above so hard – it would be so much easier to write if I was dealing with a bunch of uneducated, boorish heathens. But I have to stay true to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and this is why I am stirred in my spirit to post on this thread. In the last days, Jesus predicted that many would fall away on account of false teachings and false prophets, that there would be people who worked signs and wonders and would deceive even the elect, if that were possible. We were created to have fellowship with the Lord and to bring Him praise and worship, and what we believe about Him MATTERS TO HIM! That is why I say the things that I say, not to belittle your beliefs or cast aspersions on a whole group of people. God says in His word that He wants everyone to come to a knowledge of the truth – He created the door to salvation through the death and resurrection of Christ, but He will not force anyone through that door. Instead, He says, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. Whoever hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and dine with him, and he with Me.” I pray that you open the door to the Biblical Jesus, the Jesus who has healing in His wings.
Take care and God bless you and yours…
posted August 14, 2007 at 6:15 pm
GB (sigh),
I wish you would take a step back from your legalism and look at the content. You remind me of someone who, in conversation with someone else, is not really listening but is already formulating their response.
About the use of anthropomorphic passages in the Bible, take a look at this from Reasoning from the Scriptures:
“G. B. Arbaugh, in his classic volume Revelation in Mormonism (1932), has documented in exhaustive detail the progress of Mormon theology from Unitarianism to polytheism. His research has been invaluable and available to interested scholars for over sixty years, with the full knowledge of the Mormon Church. In fact, the Mormons are significantly on the defensive where the peculiar origins of the “sacred writings” are involved or when verifiable evidence exists that reveals their polytheistic perversions of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is extremely difficult to write kindly of Mormon theology when they are so obviously deceptive in their presentation of data, so adamant in their condemnation of all religions in favor of the “restored gospel” allegedly vouchsafed to the prophet Joseph Smith. We must not, however, confuse the theology with the person as is too often the case, for while hostility toward the former is scriptural, it is never so with the latter.
Continuing with our study, Apostle Orson Pratt, writing in The Seer, declared:
“In the Heaven where our spirits were born, there are many Gods, each one of whom has his own wife or wives, which were given to him previous to his redemption, while yet in his mortal state” (p. 37).
In this terse sentence, Pratt summed up the whole hierarchy of Mormon polytheism, and quotations previously adduced from a reputable Mormon source support Pratt’s summation beyond reasonable doubt. The Mormon teaching that God was seen “face to face” in the Old Testament (Exodus 33:9, 11, 23; Exodus 24:9–11; Isaiah 6:1, 5; Genesis 5:24, etc.) is refuted on two counts, that of language and the science of comparative textual analysis (hermeneutics).
From the standpoint of linguistics, all the references cited by the Mormons to prove “that God has a physical body that could be observed” melt away in the light of God’s expressed declaration, “Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live” (Exodus 33:20).
Exodus 33:11 (face to face) in the Hebrew is rendered “intimate,” and in no sense is it opposed to verse 20. Similar expressions are utilized in Deuteronomy 5:4, while in Genesis 32:30 it is the Angel of the Lord who speaks, not Jehovah himself. The Old Testament is filled with theophanies (literally, God-appearances), instances where God spoke or revealed himself in angelic manifestations, and it is accepted by all Old Testament scholars almost without qualification that anthropomorphisms (ascribing human characteristics to God) are the logical explanation of many of the encounters of God with man. To argue, as the Mormons do, that such occurrences indicate that God has a body of flesh and bone, as “prophet” Smith taught, is on the face of the matter untenable and another strenuous attempt to force polytheism on a rigidly monotheistic religion. Progressing beyond this, another cardinal Mormon point of argument is the fact that because expressions such as “the arm of the Lord,” “the eye of the Lord,” “the hand of the Lord,” “nostrils,” “mouth,” etc., are used, all tend to show that God possesses a physical form. However, they have overlooked one important factor. This factor is that of literary metaphor, extremely common in Old Testament usage. If the Mormons are to be consistent in their interpretation, they should find great difficulty in the Psalm where God is spoken of as “covering with his feathers,” and man “trusting under his wings.” If God has eyes, ears, arms, hands, nostrils, mouth, etc., why then does He not have feathers and wings? The Mormons have never given a satisfactory answer to this, because it is obvious that the anthropomorphic and metaphorical usage of terms relative to God are literary devices to convey His concern for and association with man. In like manner, metaphors such as feathers and wings indicate His tender concern for the protection of those who “dwell in the secret place of the Most High and abide under the shadow of the Almighty.” The Mormons would do well to comb the Old Testament and the New Testament for the numerous metaphorical usages readily available for observation. In doing so, they would have to admit, if they are at all logically consistent, that Jesus was not a door (John 10:9), a shepherd (John 10:11), a vine (John 15:1), a roadway (John 14:6), a loaf of bread (John 6:51), and other metaphorical expressions any more than “our God is a consuming fire” means that Jehovah should be construed as a blast furnace or a volcanic cone.
The Mormons themselves are apparently unsure of the intricacies of their own polytheistic structure, as revealed in the previously cited references from Joseph Smith, who made Christ both the Father and the Son in one instance, and further on indicated that there was a mystery connected with it and that only the Son could reveal how He was both the Father and the Son. Later, to compound the difficulty, Smith separated them completely into “separate personages,” eventually populating the entire universe with his polytheistic and polygamous deities. If one peruses carefully the books of Abraham and Moses as contained in the Pearl of Great Price (allegedly “translated” by Smith), as well as sections of Ether in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Discourses of Brigham Young, the entire Mormon dogma of the preexistence of the soul, the polygamous nature of the gods, the brotherhood of Jesus and Lucifer, and the hierarchy of heaven (telestial, terrestrial, and celestial—corresponding to the basement, fiftieth floor, and observation tower of the Empire State Building, respectively), and the doctrines of universal salvation, millennium, resurrection, judgment, and final punishment, will unfold in a panorama climaxing in a polygamous paradise of eternal duration. Such is the Mormon doctrine of God, or, more properly, of the gods, which rivals anything pagan mythology ever produced.”
This is why, when interpreting Biblical passages, you have to examine the language, context, and let Scripture interpret Scripture.
posted August 14, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Chief, I don’t see how the teaching that I can be a “Joint Heir with Christ” is somehome diminishing Him. His whole mission was to save us. To diminish our reward is to diminish His work. Ye are gods, not idols, or false gods, but genuine real life gods. “Their eyes were opened”, “They have become as one of us” Don’t you see, it is a progression to perfection, and Jesus himself was accused of what you accuse me of. But Jesus was right. We are (potentially) gods! But Jesus and the Father get all the glory, and that will never change:
“And this according to the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, to whom be all glory, both now and forever. Amen.” – D&C 20:4
Now to hit on another point, which is to illustrate that LDS doctrine is more Biblical than traditional doctrines:.
You mention preaching to the dead as a bad thing, but Jesus did that very thing:
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him. – 1 Peter 3
This along with the NT practice of baptism of the dead is ample evidence that our practice is not only acceptable to God, but instituted by Him. This along with dozens of other LDS doctrines point me to Christ, and are in perfect harmony with the Bible.
Let me repeat that. LDS doctrine is in perfect harmony with the Bible. It is not in harmony with historic Christianity, but that is because THAT is the doctrines of man. Look to your own history. Why would God remove apostles in favor of bickoring bishops? I cannot follow any religion that does not believe in the authority of prophets.
I have read the Book of Mormon. I have prayed to God to know if I should believe it, and I have been given a stron spiritual witness from the Holy Ghost that I cannot deny. I know that that book is true. Just as you know that Jesus is God, so do I know that fact, as well as his mission and ministry to the inhabitants of the New World. He lives and he is the God of all men. Please, look into your heart, find the truth of that book and its message. Open your heart to the posibility that God has more in store for your afterlife than simply worshiping him. He wants you to become something greater. He has no need for worship. He died for you, so that you may be made perfect through him.
posted August 14, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Chief: I wish you would take a step back from your legalism and look at the content. You remind me of someone who, in conversation with someone else, is not really listening but is already formulating their response.
GB: I wish you would take a step back from your anti-mormonism and look at the content. You remind me of someone who, in conversation with someone else, is not really listening but is already formulating their response. You continually fail to address issues and points I make because you are busy looking for your next copy and paste job from another anti-mormon source.
Chief: About the use of anthropomorphic passages in the Bible, . . .
GB: So you admit that they exist and are many, and yet you don’t believe them. You would rather believe the philosophies of the Greeks.
Chief: About the use of a. . . rivals anything pagan mythology ever produced.”
GB: So to sum up your comment then, the Bible doesn’t mean what it says when chief disagrees with it what it says. And when it isn’t clear and plain it means what chief wants it to mean. And chief knows more about what mormons believe than mormons do.
So we are back to because Chief says so. Sorry but you lost your credibility a while back.
Chief: This is why, when interpreting Biblical passages, you have to examine the language, context, and let Scripture interpret Scripture.
GB: So when are you going to follow your own advise?
Latter-day Saints believe God has a body in human form simply because our scriptures and our prophets unanimously testify on this point. In other words, if we want to know what kind of being God is, who better to believe than those who have actually seen Him?
There are multiple Biblical examples, such as:
•the prophet Ezekiel, who described his vision of God by saying he saw “high above all, upon the throne, a form in human likeness?” (Ezekiel 1:26, New English Bible.)
•Stephen, whose last words were, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God?” (Acts 7:56.)
•John, who saw God sitting on the throne in heaven (Revelation 4:2)?
•Moses was not allowed to see God’s face in one vision (God was angry at the Israelites at the time), but God said he would “cover thee with my hand while I pass by; and I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen” (Exodus 33:22–23).
•Moses did see God previously, however: “the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend” (Exodus 33:11).
•Jacob “wrestled a man” one night in the wilderness, and after this encounter “Jacob called the name of the place Peniel [Hebrew for “the face of God”]: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved” (Genesis 32:24–32).
Some of these references may refer to visions of God the Son, but some of them, like Stephen’s and John’s, certainly refer to the person of the Father.
Edmond LaB. Cherbonnier of Trinity College (a non-Mormon scholar) summarizes this phenomenon as follows:
“In short, to use the forbidden word, the biblical God is clearly anthropomorphic (i.e. “in the form of man”)—not apologetically so, but proudly, even militantly.”
Christopher Stead (another non-Mormon scholar) of the Cambridge Divinity School agrees that
“The Hebrews…pictured the God whom they worshipped as having a body and mind like our own, though transcending humanity in the splendour of his appearance, in his power, his wisdom, and the constancy of his care for his creatures.”
The LDS doctrine of God’s embodiment rests primarily on eyewitness testimony. We believe God has a body in human form because everyone who has seen Him has described Him in this way.
Obviously, most other Christians interpret the Bible differently than we do on this point, and they put forward several standard objections to this kind of “anthropomorphism.” However, these objections do not hold up under close scrutiny. This will be shown for several common objections to the LDS doctrine, most of which can be found in a tract published by Catholic Answers, Inc., entitled, Does God Have a Body?
Objection: “Being ‘in the image of God’ means humans have a rational soul.”
“And God said, Let us make man in our image [Hebrew tselem], after our likeness [Hebrew demuth]” (Genesis 1:26). This statement in the first chapter of the Bible seems pretty clear to Latterday Saints. However, our fellow Christians will often say that this is to be interpreted figuratively, in the sense that humans have “rational souls,” which set us apart from the animals. But consider the words used to describe Adam’s son Seth, just a few chapters later: “And Adam lived an hundred thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness [Hebrew demuth], after his image [Hebrew tselem]; and called his name Seth” (Genesis 5:3).
Adam was created in God’s image and likeness, and one of Adam’s sons had Adam’s image and likeness. Exactly the same words were used to describe both scenarios by the same prophetic author. Either Adam looked like God, or Seth was the only one of Adam’s sons who possessed a “rational soul.” If there is a good reason to interpret one passage in one way, and the other in another way, the critics must provide it. Only a prior commitment to refusing to see man in the form of God (or God in the form of a man) would lead one to interpret the terms differently.
Objection: “The Bible also says God has wings, etc. ”
Of course, it is true that the Biblical writers employed numerous metaphors when talking about God. However, just because some statements about God are metaphorical doesn’t mean that every statement is. When the Psalmist speaks of God covering us with His feathers, and giving refuge under His wings, the metaphor is completely clear. As Jesus said, “How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” (Matthew 23:37.) Exactly what is the metaphorical interpretation of God’s “back parts” that Moses saw? When Stephen reported his vision, the text gives no clue as to any metaphorical interpretation; he simply reported what he saw, as did the others.
Objection: John 4:24 says, “God is a Spirit.”
There are several problems with this objection. First, Paul wrote, “But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit” (1 Corinthians 6:17). To say that God is “a spirit” is grammatically equivalent to the statement that a man joined to the Lord is “one spirit,” and yet, Christians obviously have bodies as well as spirits.
Second, there are no indefinite articles (“a” or “an”) in ancient Greek, so the passage can be translated “God is a Spirit” or “God is Spirit.” Most modern translations have chosen the latter, because John’s statement “God is Spirit” is parallel to two passages in his first epistle, “God is light” (1 John 1:5) and “God is love” (1 John 4:8). In context, all of these passages seem to be referring to God’s activity toward men rather than to the nature of His “Being,” and of course we would never say that God is “a love” or “a light.”
Furthermore, Christopher Stead of the Cambridge Divinity School (another non-Mormon scholar) explains how such statements would have been interpreted within ancient Judaism:
“By saying that God is spiritual, we do not mean that he has no body … but rather that he is the source of a mysterious life-giving power and energy that animates the human body, and himself possesses this energy in the fullest measure.”
It must always be remembered that the Bible was written by Hebrews, and the New Testament writers were all Jews. The Hebrews consistently pictured God in human form.
As another commentator noted:
“That God is spirit is not meant as a definition of God’s being—though this is how the Stoics [a branch of Greek philosophy] would have understood it. It is a metaphor of his mode of operation, as life-giving power, and it is no more to be taken literally than 1 John 1:5, “God is light,” or Deuteronomy 4:24, “Your God is a devouring fire.” It is only those who have received this power through Christ who can offer God a real worship.”
Finally, Latter-day Saints do not believe that “spirit” is incorporeal (i.e. “without substance”), and neither did the earliest Christians.
The great Protestant historian, Adolf von Harnack, wrote,
“God was naturally conceived and represented as corporeal by uncultured Christians, though not by these alone, as the later controversies prove.”
For instance, the great Christian writer, Tertullian (ca. 200 A.D.) wrote,
“For who will deny that God is a body, although ‘God is a Spirit?’ For Spirit has a bodily substance of its own kind, in its own form.”
Why did Christians start believing otherwise?
J.W.C. Wand, a historian and former Anglican bishop of London, writes that one of the Greek philosophical schools (Neoplatonism), which was popular in the days of the Roman Empire, exerted a particular influence in this respect.
“It is easy to see what influence this school of thought [Neoplatonism] must have had upon Christian leaders. It was from it that they learnt what was involved in a metaphysical sense by calling God a Spirit. They were also helped to free themselves from their primitive eschatology and to get rid of that crude anthropomorphism which made even Tertullian believe that God had a material body.”
Objection: Christians have always believed that God is an unchangeable, simple, immaterial spirit essence.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. Origen (circa A.D. 225) wrote,
“For it is also to be a subject of investigation how God himself is to be understood—whether as corporeal, and formed according to some shape, or of a different nature from bodies—a point which is not clearly indicated in our teaching.”
Origen (who did not believe in corporeality) nevertheless admitted there was considerable confusion among Christians of that era about this very question, but why?
Origen gives us another clue in a sermon on the book of Genesis:
“The Jews indeed, but also some of our people, supposed that God should be understood as a man, that is, adorned with human members and human appearance. But the philosophers despise these stories as fabulous and formed in the likeness of poetic fictions.”
The Jews, and Christians who followed the standard Jewish interpretations, believed that God had a body in human form. Why did Origen reject this? Simply because the philosophers thought it was silly. For instance, the Middle Platonist philosopher Plutarch wrote the following:
“Socrates and Plato held that (God is) the One, the single self-existent nature, the monadic, the real Being, the good: and all this variety of names points immediately to mind. God therefore is mind, a separate species, that is to say what is purely immaterial and unconnected with anything passible [i.e. changeable].”
Another Greek philosopher, Empedocles (ca. 444 B.C.) claimed that God
“does not possess a head and limbs similar to those of humans…[He is] a spirit, a holy and inexpressible one.”
Greek converts to Christianity wanted to make their faith more appealing to people in their own culture, and so they adopted a definition of God from the Greek philosophers, whose thought was widely respected at the time. The temptation is always there to make one’s faith more popular by “modernizing” it, but the Apostle Paul had warned against exactly this kind of thing. “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Colossians 2:8). What was the “philosophy” current in Paul’s day? Greek philosophy. Similarly, Father Jean Daniélou, a Catholic historian and later a Cardinal, wrote that,
“If we now examine the forms of thought and philosophical systems current at the time when Christianity first made its appearance in the world, it is clear that they were by no means ready to assimilate this Christian conception: on the contrary, they were wholly antagonistic thereto.”
However, within a few generations that had all changed, and philosophy ruled Christian theology. Latter-day Saints understand this process as one consequence of the Great Apostasy.
Objection: John 1:18 says, “No man has seen God at any time.”
Some mainstream Christians object that the passages in the Bible that describe God’s human form must be taken figuratively, because Jesus said, “No man has seen God at any time” (John 1:18). Similarly, God told Moses, “there shall no man see me, and live” (Exodus 33:20). Of course, God said that to Moses right before he told him that He would pass by so Moses could see His “back parts,” but not his face (Exodus 33:21–23), and God was angry at the time, so it may have been a special circumstance. Still, this presents an odd problem, considering the number of times the Bible reports that people did see God. Samuel Meier, Associate Professor of Hebrew and Comparative Semitics at Ohio State University, writes of this problem:
“A deity’s physical manifestation is seen by human beings. The appearance of gods and their involvement with humans are common motifs in ancient Near Eastern and classical mythology. That similar phenomena are found in the Bible seems problematic at first, for a persistent tradition in the Hebrew Bible affirmed that death comes to any human who sees God (Genesis 16:13; Genesis 32:30; Genesis 24:10–11; Genesis 33:20; Deuteronomy 5:24–26; Deuteronomy 18:16; Judges 6:22–23; Judges 13:22; cf Exodus 20:19; Isaiah 6:5). In most of these contexts, however, the narration undermines this sentiment by depicting the pleasant surprise of those who survive. The text presents this perspective as a misperception to which human beings subscribe, for no humans in the Bible ever die simply because they have seen God. On the contrary, throughout the Bible God wants to communicate intimately with humans. The problem of how God can adequately show himself to humankind without harm is a conundrum that is never really resolved in the Bible.”
Latter-day Saints can harmonize these passages with those that describe visions of the Father by referring to Moses’ vision of God, as described in the Pearl of Great Price. “And he saw God face to face, and he talked with him, and the glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure his presence … [Moses said] For behold, I could not look upon God, except his glory should come upon me, and I were transfigured before him” (Moses 1:2,14). An identical solution is offered by Peter in an early (second or third century) Jewish Christian work called the Clementine Homilies:
“For I maintain that the eyes of mortals cannot see the incorporeal form of the Father or Son, because it is illumined by exceeding great light … For he who sees God cannot live. For the excess of light dissolves the flesh of him who sees; unless by the secret power of God the flesh be changed into the nature of light, so that it can see light.”
In the same document, another conversation between Peter and Simon Magus is reported:
“And Simon said: ‘I should like to know, Peter, if you really believe that the shape of man has been moulded after the shape of God.’ And Peter said: ‘I am really quite certain, Simon, that this is the case … It is the shape of the just God.”
The point of these passages is not that no one has or will have a vision of God’s person, but rather that men cannot see God as He is. We must be changed and protected by the grace of God to withstand His presence, and even then we cannot fully comprehend His majesty. However, this will not always be the case. As John further wrote, “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” (1 John:3).
Conclusion: Does God have a body? Obviously the issue cannot be settled by quoting a couple Bible verses and declaring victory. Ought we to interpret the testimony of the prophets at face value, as the ancient Jews and Jewish Christians would have? Or should we rather accept the definition of God which Christians have borrowed from the Greek philosophers?
Latter-day Saints are inclined to accept the prophets’ witness, since LDS doctrine holds that all may receive revelation from God on such matters for themselves.
Clearly, though the Biblical writers and early Christians believed that God had a body. This belief changed only gradually as Greek philosophy made its influence felt.
posted August 14, 2007 at 11:37 pm
GB,
Dude, did I not tell you to take a chill pill on the legalism? I cite an article by someone else, but you attribute it to me and say “So to sum up your comment then, the Bible doesn’t mean what it says when chief disagrees with it what it says. And when it isn’t clear and plain it means what chief wants it to mean. And chief knows more about what mormons believe than mormons do. So we are back to because Chief says so. Sorry but you lost your credibility a while back.”
I clearly marked the paragraph by quotations and said this is an excerpt from Reasoning from the Scriptures.
It is not about me, and never has been about me. I’m giving my opinions, just like you, not pronouncing sentence. If you can’t handle the rational exchange of ideas, I’m sorry, but please don’t attribute things to me that I don’t claim for myself.
Have a good night…
posted August 15, 2007 at 12:05 am
Cheif, we are all being civil. GB just wants you to understand that Mormons are not ignorant of their beliefs. The concept of the coproreal being of God is just one example where scholarship and study matches with the testimony of modern prophets. We want you to examine our beliefs, and even if you are not convinced of the validity of our claims, at least you should come away with a respect and understanding of them and why we choose to believe them.
posted August 15, 2007 at 12:15 am
B,
I appreciate that fact. Anyone who reads these threads can see that. I objected to the fact that GB thinks I have my own translation that fits what I want it to say. Nothing could be further from the truth. I understand LDS theology better than you think. I think sometimes I have not responded with the clarity that I would like, and that is my fault entirely. Do I think I am going to convert every Mormon who reads this thread to embrace orthodox Christianity? Heavens, no! What I would like to think is that we are planting seeds to have people go back and do a spiritual inventory of their beliefs, and make sure they know why they believe what they believe and that what they believe is the true way to salvation. As I told GB and nowandlater before, I truly am not an anti-Mormon, but I am an advocate of the truth. I try to speak what God has revealed to me as the truth in love; sometimes I’ve been successful, and sometimes I haven’t. That is not God’s fault but mine alone.
Have a great evening…I am turning in.
posted August 15, 2007 at 12:51 am
“Do I think I am going to convert every Mormon who reads this thread to embrace orthodox Christianity?”
I seriosuly doubt you will convert any of them. GB’s arguments have been thorough and solid. It should give any reader of this forum pause to think. Hopefully a few will decide to read the Book of Mormon and decide for themselves if Mormonism is right for them. But supressing true LDS beliefs or misrperesenting them, or denying historical and biblical evidence that supports LDS theology is simply unacceptable and un-Christlike. I hope the next time someone asks you if Mormons belive God has a body, you point them to GB’s research willingling, or better yet, have them read the Book of Mormon. I doubt you will.
posted August 15, 2007 at 12:53 am
Oh, and why would you convert Mormons to orthodoxy when they already have a firm testimony of Jesus Christ?
posted August 15, 2007 at 3:29 am
Chief said:
I truly am not an anti-Mormon, but I am an advocate of the truth. I try to speak what God has revealed to me as the truth in love; sometimes I’ve been successful, and sometimes I haven’t. That is not God’s fault but mine alone.
Mike Bennion:
Yet you quote Walter Martin’s “Kingdom of the Cults” on another thread, and are a proponent of the Spaulding Theory of the Book of Mormon as originated by two fo the original anti-Mormons Philastus Hurlbut, and E.B Howe. And you seem to think it justifiable that Joseph Smith was murdered because the Nauvoo City Council ordered a newspaper destroyed. If it quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.
posted August 15, 2007 at 11:12 am
Chief1989,
Since you seem more active on this thread…I will ask you here:
If it is true, as Paul says, FAITH is to hope for things which are NOT seen, but which are true [Heb.11:2] and that JESUS said, “…Have faith in God.” [Mark 11:22]; and again from Paul, “…for whatsoever is NOT of faith is Sin.” [Romans 14:23]; then…
How exactly does that reconcile with your statement, “…if you can find me a shred of scientific or archaelogical evidence to back up the BoM, I’ll take a serious look at it. Otherwise, it goes on the shelf…”?
Which is it for you? Evidence or Faith before you will accept truth? I think if you truly examine your statements you will find you are LESS a man of FAITH and more a man seeking for a SIGN, for, “Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe…” [John 4:48]. God’s way is that “..signs shall follow them that believe…” not the opposite.
posted August 15, 2007 at 2:02 pm
From Posted by: Bryan | August 14, 2007 8:33 AM
Bryan: According to Orson Pratt (September 19, 1811 – October 3, 1881) was a leader in the Latter Day Saint movement and an original member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles.) in his writings “The Pre-Existence of Man” The Seer 1 (September 1853)He wrote that
“the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father; and again, He was begotten by still more ancient Father; and so on, from generation to generation, from one heavenly world to another still more ancient, untill our minds are wearied and lost in the multiplicty of generations and successive worlds.”
GB: I doubt that he only wrote one paragraph on the subject. Can you provide the entire article so that all can know the context surrounding that statement? Or did you just copy and paste it from an anti-mormon source? I have found that anti-mormon sources rarely provide the context.
Bryan: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345)
GB: I am waiting for the rest of the discussion. What good is that statement without the complete presentation of his position? Again where is the context? Perhaps he was taking about Jesus Christ (God the Son). How would we know without the context? Is this also just another copy and paste from another anti-mormon source?
Bryan: Since the LDS teach that the universe never had a beginning in time, this view implies that there are an infinite number of mormon gods, each one whom had another god as his father. The particular God who is the god of our earth is just one link in an infinite chain of mormon gods
GB: “implies”? How so?
“infinite number of mormon gods” ? You really are being ridiculous.
Bryan: if God had a beginning like a man WHO created him infinite regression of created events is not possible. it does not answer the fist cause
GB: May I be so bold as to summarize you contentions.
1) The “mormon god” changed.
2) Mormon theology “does not answer the fist(sic) cause”
Bryan, you sit arrogantly and smugly in a glass house. Your god of Greek philosophy also changed. He (or is it “it” because “he” implies the possession of male sex organs?) sat (not to imply the possession of a back side wherewith to sit) in darkness and nothingness back through your “infinite regression” for eternity. While sitting in this darkness and nothingness for eternity, at some point in the infinite progression he CHANGED and decided to create (out of nothing no less) a finite universe. What caused him to CHANGE from being satisfied with doing nothing sitting in darkness and nothingness to suddenly doing something? What is your first cause? What caused your god of Greek philosophy to change?
posted August 15, 2007 at 6:22 pm
BringItOn,
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with Paul’s assertion, and with the Hebrews writer’s exposition on faith in chapter 11. But faith also has to be rooted in solid, tangible evidence.
Case in point – the Apostles
After Jesus’ death but before His resurrection, they were hiding in the upper room with the windows and doors locked “for fear of the Jews.” Why? Their leader had just been killed, and they supposed they would be next. Suddenly, 40 days after Jesus is resurrected, the apostles are out on the streets in Jerusalem boldly proclaiming the Gospel, even under threats of imprisonment, punishment, and death. And indeed, all of the Apostles except for John died as martyrs.
Now the question I put to you is this:
What changed these frightened men, who had all scattered in Gethsemane and abandoned Jesus, into roaring lions of the faith? Was it just their faith in Jesus? Did they go out boldly preaching BEFORE or AFTER they had evidence that Jesus had risen from the dead, even though He had told them several times that the Christ must suffer, die, and then be raised again?
Faith is a wonderful, wonderful thing, but you have to believe first before you can have faith. I have to believe Jesus is who He says He is before I can have saving faith in Him. If you have ever talked to an unbeliever, the questions they ask are akin to this: why should I believe you? What makes Jesus any more valid of a savior than Mohammed, or Buddha, or any other religious leader? How do you know what you believe is true? What evidence can you give me that you aren’t just believing old wives’ tales and myths and legends? Have you ever heard someone say the Bible is just a bunch of stories written by men so they could subjugate women?
That is why solid evidence in archaelogy is so helpful. Because if the names in the book are true, and the events it describes are true (there are extra-biblical historical sources of witnesses to the deaths of both John the Baptist and Jesus), and the places it mentions are real places, then we have a foundation of dialogue that can lead that person to put their faith in Christ. However, if I can’t prove one thing from the Biblical text, and just ask the person to read it and pray to God for a testimony to see if its true, that is being disingenuous. “You just have to take it on faith” is a weak defense of the Gospel, for Peter told us to have an answer for anyone who asks on the hope we have within us.
posted August 15, 2007 at 7:14 pm
GB,
You berate Bryan on his “greek” god. Fine. I must then take you to task on the Jesus revealed in the book of Mormon, for he is not the same Jesus revealed in Scripture.
Take a look at what happened at Calvary:
First, the Biblical Texts:
Matthew 27:50-54 – Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.
Mark 15:37 – And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost. And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.
Luke 23:44-47 – And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst. And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.
John 19:30 – When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
The word, earthquake, is used here to state that the earth shook. It must not have been severe, because John doesn’t even mention it. Luke indicates that people stood by as the earth shook and the sun went into eclipse for three hours. There is one clear thing. NO ONE DIED, except for the three people on the crosses. At His resurrection on the third day, graves were opened and some Saints were resurrected to walk into the city.
When Jesus looked down on His accusers and executioners, did He lash out at them, curse them, or bring down fire from heaven on their heads? No, He looked up and said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” That is the Jesus revealed in the Bible.
Now let’s look at the Book of Mormon’s treatment of Calvary:
3 Nephi 8: 5-25 – 5 And it came to pass in the a*thirty and fourth year, in the first month, on the fourth day of the month, there arose a great bstorm, such an one as never had been known in all the land.
6 And there was also a great and terrible tempest; and there was terrible athunder, insomuch that it did bshake the whole earth as if it was about to divide asunder.
7 And there were exceedingly sharp lightnings, such as never had been known in all the land.
8 And the acity of Zarahemla did take fire.
9 And the city of aMoroni did bsink into the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof were drowned.
10 And the earth was carried up upon the city of aMoronihah, that in the place of the city there became a great bmountain.
11 And there was a great and terrible destruction in the land southward.
12 But behold, there was a more great and terrible destruction in the land northward; for behold, the awhole face of the land was changed, because of the tempest and the whirlwinds, and the thunderings and the lightnings, and the exceedingly great quaking of the whole earth;
13 And the ahighways were broken up, and the level roads were spoiled, and many smooth places became rough.
14 And many agreat and notable cities were bsunk, and many were cburned, and many were shaken till the buildings thereof had fallen to the earth, and the inhabitants thereof were slain, and the places were left desolate.
15 And there were some cities which remained; but the damage thereof was exceedingly great, and there were many in them who were slain.
16 And there were some who were carried away in the awhirlwind; and whither they went no man knoweth, save they know that they were carried away.
17 And thus the face of the whole earth became deformed, because of the tempests, and the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the quaking of the earth.
18 And behold, the rocks were rent in twain; they were broken up upon the face of the whole earth, insomuch that they were afound in broken fragments, and in seams and in cracks, upon all the face of the land.
19 And it came to pass that when the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the storm, and the tempest, and the quakings of the earth did cease—for behold, they did last for about the space of athree bhours; and it was said by some that the time was greater; nevertheless, all these great and terrible things were done in about the space of three hours—and then behold, there was cdarkness upon the face of the land.
20 And it came to pass that there was thick darkness upon all the face of the land, insomuch that the inhabitants thereof who had not fallen could afeel the bvapor of darkness;
21 And there could be no light, because of the darkness, neither candles, neither torches; neither could there be fire kindled with their fine and exceedingly dry wood, so that there could not be any light at all;
22 And there was not any light seen, neither fire, nor glimmer, neither the sun, nor the moon, nor the stars, for so great were the mists of darkness which were upon the face of the land.
23 And it came to pass that it did last for the space of three days that there was no light seen; and there was great mourning and ahowling and weeping among all the people continually; yea, great were the groanings of the people, because of the darkness and the great destruction which had come upon them.
24 And in one place they were heard to cry, saying: O that we had repented abefore this great and terrible day, and then would our brethren have been spared, and they would not have been bburned in that great city Zarahemla.
25 And in another place they were heard to cry and mourn, saying: O that we had repented before this great and terrible day, and had not killed and stoned the prophets, and cast them out; then would our mothers and our fair daughters, and our children have been spared, and not have been buried up in that great city aMoronihah. And thus were the howlings of the people great and terrible.
3 Nephi 9: 1-15 – 1 And it came to pass that there was a avoice heard among all the inhabitants of the earth, upon all the face of this land, crying:
2 Wo, wo, wo unto this people; wo unto the inhabitants of the whole earth except they shall arepent; for the devil blaugheth, and his angels rejoice, because of the slain of the fair sons and daughters of my people; and it is because of their iniquity and abominations that they are fallen!
3 Behold, that great city Zarahemla have I aburned with fire, and the inhabitants thereof.
4 And behold, that great city Moroni have I caused to be asunk in the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof to be drowned.
5 And behold, that great city aMoronihah have I covered with earth, and the inhabitants thereof, to hide their iniquities and their abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come any more unto me against them.
6 And behold, the city of Gilgal have I caused to be sunk, and the inhabitants thereof to be buried up in the depths of the earth;
7 Yea, and the city of Onihah and the inhabitants thereof, and the city of Mocum and the inhabitants thereof, and the city of aJerusalem and the inhabitants thereof; and bwaters have I caused to come up in the stead thereof, to hide their wickedness and abominations from before my face, that the cblood of the prophets and the saints shall dnot come up any more unto me against them.
8 And behold, the city of Gadiandi, and the city of Gadiomnah, and the city of Jacob, and the city of Gimgimno, all these have I caused to be sunk, and made ahills and valleys in the places thereof; and the inhabitants thereof have I bburied up in the depths of the earth, to hide their wickedness and abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up any more unto me against them.
9 And behold, that great city Jacobugath, which was inhabited by the people of king Jacob, have I caused to be burned with fire because of their sins and their awickedness, which was above all the wickedness of the whole earth, because of their bsecret murders and combinations; for it was they that did cdestroy the peace of my people and the government of the land; therefore I did cause them to be burned, to ddestroy them from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up unto me any more against them.
10 And behold, the city of Laman, and the city of Josh, and the city of Gad, and the city of Kishkumen, have I caused to be burned with fire, and the inhabitants thereof, because of their wickedness in casting out the prophets, and stoning those whom I did send to declare unto them concerning their wickedness and their abominations.
11 And because they did cast them all out, that there were none righteous among them, I did send down afire and destroy them, that their wickedness and abominations might be hid from before my bface, that the blood of the prophets and the saints whom I sent among them might not cry unto me cfrom the ground against them.
12 And amany great destructions have I caused to come upon this land, and upon this people, because of their wickedness and their abominations.
13 O all ye that are aspared because ye were more brighteous than they, will ye not now return unto me, and repent of your sins, and be converted, that I may cheal you?
14 Yea, verily I say unto you, if ye will acome unto me ye shall have beternal life. Behold, mine carm of mercy is extended towards you, and whosoever will come, him will I receive; and blessed are those who come unto me.
15 Behold, I am Jesus Christ the Son of God. I acreated the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are. I was with the Father from the beginning. bI am in the Father, and the Father in me; and in me hath the Father glorified his name.
In the Bible, the death of Christ brought reconciliation; the veil in the temple was rent in two, the tombs of the saints were opened, and Jesus said “It is finished” meaning the sacrificial life He had led had fulfilled its purpose in atoning for the sins of the world. However, in the Book of Mormon, Jesus brought death and destruction with him to the Cross. The above citations from 3 Nephi, Chapters 8 and 9, details the events testifying of Christ’s crucifixion. It describes the desolation of the great city of Zarahemla by fire, and the city of Moroni “did sink into the sea and the inhabitants thereof were drowned… the earth was carried up upon the city of Mornihah…there was great and terrible destruction in the land southward……terrible destruction in the land northward….the highways were broken up….many great and noble cities were sunk and many burned and many shaken till the buildings thereof had fallen to the earth…..all these great and terrible things were done in the space of three hours.” 3 Nephi, Chapter 9, tells of further wrath as the Lord also destroyed the cities and inhabitants of Gigal, Onihah, Mocum, Jerusalem, Gadiandi, Gadiomnah, Jacob, Gimgimmo, Jacobugath, Laman, Josh, Gad, and Kishkumen. (a total of 16 major cities)
Who did all this killing to testify of our Lord’s atonement on Calvary? 3 Nephi 9:15 reveals the murderer of approximately 2 million innocent inhabitants of the Book of Mormon lands, “Behold, I am Jesus Christ the son of God. I created the heavens and the earth and all things that in them are.” He adds, (in verse 21), “behold, I have come unto the world to bring redemption unto the world to save the world from sin.” I guess the easiest way was to kill almost every living creature; at least the vast majority of that portion of his “other sheep have I.” This Jesus in the BoM was a god of wrath, exercising some form of Old Testament Judgment by the one who was supposed to be the end of the law.
Which Jesus would you rather have, GB? The Biblical Jesus who cried out to His Father, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing”? Or the Jesus who destroyed the righteous with the unrighteous here in America? By my way of reckoning, pretty simply, we see two different Jesus” here.
That is why I continue to insist that the Christ of Mormonism, the Christ that many sincere, devout people on this blog maintain that they follow and try to obey, is not the same Christ of the Bible. 2 Cor.11:3-5 tells us that there will be those who would teach a different Christ. Paul says of them, “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ”. So there is a Biblical warning about those who would bring the doctrine of another Jesus and a simple test. Does the Book of Mormon pass that test? No.
From what I have heard from Mormon missionaries and what I have read from ex-Mormons, Mormons have a difficult time understanding what actually happened at Calvary. For example, when I talked to the missionaries in my house, they were adamant that atonement was made in the Garden of Gethsemane. In the LDS pamphlet, WHAT THE MORMONS THINK OF CHRIST, the problem is identified. In the section, The Blood of Christ (page 22 in the 1976 edition), we read:
“Christians speak often of the blood of Christ and its cleansing power. Much that is believed and taught on this subject, however, is such utter nonsense and so palpably false that to believe it is to lose one’s salvation. For instance, many believe or pretend to believe that if we confess Christ with our lips and avow that we accept him as our personal savior, we are thereby saved. They say that his blood, without any other act than mere belief, makes us clean. What is the true doctrine of the blood of Christ? Salvation comes because of the atonement, and the atonement was wrought through the shedding of the blood of Christ. In Gethsemane Christ sweat great drops of blood from every pore when he conditionally took upon himself the sins of the world, and then the shedding of his blood was completed upon the cross.”
The LDS teaches, and professes in its statement of faith, Article 3, “We believe that through the atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel (The laws and ordinance of the gospel, according to the LDS prophet.. ed) .”
The Bible clearly teaches another Christ and another Gospel from the one espoused in LDS theology:
Colossians 2:13-15 – And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
Ephesians 2:13-17 – But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
Hebrews 10:11-20 – And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh.
From reading in the History of the Church, in the early LDS church there was a more orthodox Christ preached. But, when Joseph began to teach the strange doctrines of this different Christ, one without the redemptive powers, the church could no longer deal with the reality of the blood of Calvary and its full redemptive work. That was when the church removed the red wine from the communion table and went to water. This act literally washed away the reality of the blood from its basically Christen converts. The same holds true today. To me, it seems that the cross and the blood of Christ have become strangers to the orthodox LDS church.
posted August 15, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Bryan, you sit arrogantly and smugly in a glass house. Your god of Greek philosophy also changed. He (or is it “it” because “he” implies the possession of male sex organs?) sat (not to imply the possession of a back side wherewith to sit) in darkness and nothingness back through your “infinite regression” for eternity. While sitting in this darkness and nothingness for eternity, at some point in the infinite progression he CHANGED and decided to create (out of nothing no less) a finite universe. What caused him to CHANGE from being satisfied with doing nothing sitting in darkness and nothingness to suddenly doing something? What is your first cause? What caused your god of Greek philosophy to change?
Posted by: GB | August 15, 2007 2:02 PM
Answer
The context of each statement is clear, the mormon gods are not god. I see no reason for you to be upset with your own teachings.
It seems you know nothing of the christian God. being male or female is a CREATED matter, God is neither
it say. In the beginning was God. God did NOT sit in
“darkness and nothingness back through your “infinite regression” for eternity”
this would indicate that “darkness and nothingness” is SOMETHING that was with God for God to sit in.
God does NOT change in His MORALALITY and HIS NATURE IN Himself. deciding to create something is NOT a change of His nature or His Holiness.
posted August 15, 2007 at 7:56 pm
“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22. Compare with Alma 18:26-27; 22:9-10)
Doctrine and Covenants 130:22
22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.
It would seem that the LDS god NEEDS the universe to exit other wise even the LDS god will die when the universe dies
Doctrine and Covenants 131:7-8
7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by bpurer eyes;
8 We cannot asee it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.
GOD THE FATHER: Joseph Smith explained, “I am going to tell you how God came to be God. 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. He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did” (LDS History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 305).
How did the Holy Spirit become a God withOUT a body
God has always been God (Psalm 90:2; 93:2; 102:26-27; Jer 10:10; Rom 1:23; 1 Tim 6:16; Isaiah 46:9-10; 48:12; 57:15; Heb 7:16)
posted August 15, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Having a body is not a requirement for being God, but it is the nature of God, and a gift to us through Christ’s resurrection. Jesus Christ was God from the beginning. But he was destined to have a body. and as you (or anther non-LDS poster said) Jesus still has a body. So GOD HAS A BODY. LDS have no issue woth the verses you post, because God has always been God. He is without end, so he is without beginning. You are really good at twisting Mormon theology, I will give you that.
posted August 15, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Bryan: It seems you know nothing of the christian God. being male or female is a CREATED matter, God is neither
GB: So we should call your god an “it” and instead of father we should use the term parent. Right?
Bryan: it say. In the beginning was God. God did NOT sit in
“darkness and nothingness back through your “infinite regression” for eternity”
this would indicate that “darkness and nothingness” is SOMETHING that was with God for God to sit in.
GB: So then you don’t believe that darkness is the absence of light, but rather light is the absence of dark? So light existed before your god created dark. So your god sat in light and nothingness. Oh wait your god couldn’t sit in nothingness because he, oh I mean “it” hadn’t created nothing yet. So it sat in light and plenty until it created the nothing first and then out of that nothing it created the universe. Why did it not use the plenty to create the universe with?
Bryan: God does NOT change in His MORALALITY . . .
GB: I can agree with that.
Bryan: . . .and HIS NATURE IN Himself. deciding to create something is NOT a change of His nature or His Holiness.
GB: Oh, but obviously, it is a change of nature, to go from being comfortably indolent to suddenly working hard for a full 6 days.
And what was your first cause?
posted August 15, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Bryan: It would seem that the LDS god NEEDS the universe to exit other wise even the LDS god will die when the universe dies
GB: So you are saying that the universe is going to die. Can you back up that assertion with scripture? And if the universe dies does everything in it die as well?
posted August 16, 2007 at 12:36 pm
The concept of entropy, that energy is running down,
Ps 102:25 In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.
Ps 102:26 They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded.
Isa 51:6 Lift up your eyes to the heavens, look at the earth beneath; the heavens will vanish like smoke,the earth will wear out like a garment and its inhabitants die like flies. But my salvation will last forever,my righteousness will never fail.
Heb 1:10 He also says, “In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.
Heb 1:11 They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment.
2Pe 3:7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.
2Pe 3:12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat.
Everything NOT born God will perish
posted August 16, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Bryan,
Nowhere in those scriptures does it say anything about the “universe”.
Also you fail to understand the laws of thermodynamics. Entropy has to do with the dissipation of energy and the decrease in order. The laws of conservation of energy and mass dictate that energy is not “running down”.
posted August 16, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Trying to use the laws of phyisics to prove Mormonism false? Ironic, considering that those same laws says that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, only altered. This is exactly what Joseph Smith taught in the 1830s.
posted August 16, 2007 at 11:03 pm
B,
I am just starting a Bible study on Galatians, and I came across a commentary by David Guzik (he is the Director of the Calvary Chapel Bible College in Siegen, Germany). In expositing Paul’s words to the Galatians in chapter one, especially where Paul is defending the gospel he originally preached in Galatia, Guzik has the following insights. He says beautifully what I tried to say clumsily yesterday in a defense of the Bible as God’s Word:
“False doctrine was a real problem in the Galatian churches, and their false doctrines robbed God of some of the glory due to Him. By emphasizing the rightly recognized glory of God and His plan, Paul hopes to put them more on the right track.”
“Is not according to man: In contrast to the different gospel brought by others, Paul’s message was a revelation from God. Paul’s message was not a man’s attempt to reach up and understand God; it was God’s effort to bow down and communicate with man.
i. Men may have many marvelous things to teach us, but God’s revelation has all things which pertain to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3); now more than ever, the world does not need the good advice and wisdom of man, it needs a revelation from God.
ii. Did Paul’s message ? the message of the Bible ? really come from God, or is it a fine achievement of man’s spiritual and moral search for God? If Paul’s gospel, the message of the Bible, really came form God, then it is the most important fact in the world. If it is just a human invention or achievement, then it is the most dangerous lie in the world.
iii. There isn’t any shortage of people who claim that they have a revelation from God. But we have to be careful to not regard a message as being from God if it isn’t. How can we know that the Bible is really from God and not man?
iv. First, we know that the Bible is reliable, accurate and trustworthy as an ancient document. We know this because the text itself is reliable (we know this from the study and comparison of ancient manuscripts). And we know this because archaeology has consistently confirmed and supported the Biblical record, and has never contradicted the Bible. People, places, and events in the Bible are repeatedly verified by archaeology.
v. Second, we know that the Bible is unique, and special among all books ever written. It is unique in its continuity, being written over 1600 years, over 60 generations, by more than 40 authors, on three different continents, in different circumstances and places, in different times, different moods, in three languages, concerning scores of controversial subjects, but it speaks with one united voice. It is unique in its circulation, being the most published and popular book ever. It is unique in its translation, being the first book translated, and having been translated into more languages than any other book. It is unique in its survival, having survived the ravages of time, manual transcription, persecution, and criticism. It is unique in its honesty, dealing with the sins and failures of its heroes in a manner quite unknown among ancient literature. It is unique in its influence, having far and away a greater influence on culture and literature than any other book in existence.
vi. Third, the Bible is a book of predictive prophecy, literally fulfilled. For example, there are some 300 prophecies concerning the Messiah that were exactly and literally fulfilled by Jesus, such as His birth at Bethlehem, His manner of death and burial, and so forth. Another example is that the Bible describes the rise of four successive world empires (Babylonia, Persia, Greece, Rome) with such accuracy that all critics can do is claim that the passage was actually written after the events happened.
vii. Fourth, the Bible is a book that has profoundly changed the lives of millions, irrespective of their race, class, era, sex, locale, age, or social status.
viii. One might look at all this evidence and still say, “It doesn’t prove that the Bible came from God.” The point is granted; but it does give us a reason to believe that it did. In the end, believing the Bible is from God is a step of faith. But it is a step of intelligent and informed faith, not a leap of blind faith.”
———————–
When we contrast the Bible to the Book of Mormon, we encounter some problems.
Reliability Test – We don’t really know that the BoM is reliable, accurate, and trustworthy as an ancient document. Of the text itself, the only possible surviving piece of manuscript, the “Anthon Transcript”, has many symbols on it but I believe it has been declared “undecipherable.” Archaelogy has not supported the BoM at all, and there are no known records or artifacts from any of the people, places, or events listed in it.
Uniqueness – Since it is relatively young, this is harder to measure. However, in its 177-year history, the BoM has undergone 3,913 changes to the text, with words added, changed, or deleted that change the message of the text. It was written by one author, translated over a period of 3 years, was written in one language (reformed Egyptian), one one continent. It speaks to many of the subjects the Bible speaks to. It is too young still to comment on its survivability and influence. It has survived persecution and criticism, but there has been some change to the text due to that criticism (specifically on racism and the Lamanites).
Predictive Prophecy – I cannot speak intelligently on prophecies from the Book of Mormon, so someone more learned than I will have to chime in here.
Changed Lives – Mormons tend to be looked at as good neighbors and good, family-oriented people, so I will not attempt to undermine the influence it has had for many people.
Still, when confronted with this comparison and asked to make an informed, intelligent decision on which book should be considered more trustworthy and likely to contain God’s word, I believe the hard, factual evidence points to the Bible.
posted August 17, 2007 at 1:27 am
Cheif, you are showing your ignorance once again. 3913 changes sure sounds like a lot, but have you even looked at what those changes were, and who made them? The vast majority of changes were spelling, puntuation and grammatical errors. Others were typesetting errors, many of which were corrected by Joseph Smith himself. Others like the removal of many of the “And it came to pass” were done for brevity. Interestingly enough that phrase is a common hebrew single word and actually points to the hebraic roots of the text (some good scholarly study on that aspect of the text by itself).
Now, let’s get to the point. You have not read the book. You have no right attacking a book on “textual changes” or any other point, if you refuse to even open it.
I on the other hand have read the Bible many times. I also agree that it is a miracle that we have the book today. But, I find it equally amazing that you can read how “False doctrine was a real problem in the Galatian churches, and their false doctrines robbed God of some of the glory due to Him. By emphasizing the rightly recognized glory of God and His plan, Paul hopes to put them more on the right track.”
Given the fact that the church was falling prey to false doctrines even with the apostles there to correct things, that you actually believe that after the apostles were gone, that suddenly it all became true doctrines, and for 2000 years things have been perfectly understood. That is simply preposterous.
It wasn’t until God chose to reveal himself to a 14 year old boy that true doctrines would be restored to the Earth. But you still are so stuborn in your beliefs that you refuse to even read the Book of Mormon with any sense of sincerity, and that is what makes my heart ache.
posted August 17, 2007 at 5:01 am
Chief,
You remind me of another person I spoke with who said, when I asked, that he had read “parts of the Book of Mormon”. I pressed him, asking which parts, he was vague about it for quite a while. Finally he told me this:
“When I started to read it, the BOM before, I think I got through the testimony of the witnesses, and thought that to be a) boring and b) more importantly questionable. I didn’t buy it. With that combination, I stopped reading.”
This was my response to him:
I can’t believe this! You didn’t even BEGIN the Book of Mormon! You read, according to your account, the title page, the introduction and part of the testimony of the witnesses. In other words, your scholarship is so vast and impressive that you are taking to task a 534 page book by reading THREE PAGES OF INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL.
Pardon me sir, but how can you question my faith on such scanty evidence?
If you haven’t even personally read it you are taking the word of someone else about the changes. Since I have read the book and the records containing the changes I am in context and you are not. How can I take you seriously?
Do your own research. Read for yourself. You haven’t even addressed the only part that you partially read! And your reason? Because you, presonally “thought” it was 1. “boring” and 2. “questionable”.
Well, I have read it multiple times, and I find it compelling, magnificent, complex, challenging, enlightening, and of God.
I think you should agpologize, and read the Book before you make any other comments about it.
posted August 17, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Mike,
Was I in error on anything I said above?
As for the BoM, I made it through the Intro, witnesses, all the way to 3 Nephi. You want to know why I stopped there? 3 Nephi 9:12-15. That is when I knew for certain the the Book of Mormon was not from God, and that the Jesus revealed in its pages was the not the Jesus I revere and worship as the SAVIOR of mankind.
3 Nephi 9: 12 – and “many great destructions have I caused to come upon this land, and upon this people, because of their wickedness and abominations.”
Why do I find this text so disturbing? Didn’t God cause all kinds of death and destruction in the Old Testament for the very same reasons? Yes, He did. But after all of that, He was instituting a new covenant. 3 Nephi 9 takes place during and after the crucifixion of Christ. This same Christ, who looked down from the cross onto His accusers and said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” is then supposed to have come over to the BoM lands, killed 2 million people and caused “many great destructions.”
3 Nephi 9:15 identifies the being causing so much calamity among “noble” peoples and cities – “Behold, I am Jesus Christ the Son of God. I created the heavens and the earth, all things that in them are. I was with the Father from the beginning. I am in the Father, and the Father in me; and in me hath the Father glorified his name.”
Sounds like the Biblical Jesus, right? But what did Jesus do when He arose from the tomb in the Bible? Take revenge on His enemies? Scourge the planet of evil? Cause cities to sink into the depths and cause the land to fall on them? In 3 Nephi there are over 16 cities recorded to have been destroyed, and all the inhabitants thereof. Does that sound like the same Jesus who suffered in the Garden, spoke not a word while being punched, kicked, whipped, and spit on? Who did not speak a word at His trial while all manner of false witnesses came forward and accused Him of vile things? The same Jesus who allowed Himself to be nailed on a cross, and allowed the sins of the entire world to be heaped on his shoulders? Not to me, Mike.
B, I have a right and a Biblical imperative to address false doctrine when I see it. That is what I am doing here. As for apostles, see my post on another thread. In 2 Cor 8:23 a meaning for the word apostle is given, “one who is sent.” Any Christian who has gone out of his way to spread the good news of the Gospel can thus be termed an “apostle.” God did not remove apostles from the earth 1600 years ago; indeed, they turned the world upside down and changed western civilization forever.
You believe that a 14-year old boy was visited by God with the intention of restoring the gospel. If that is what you must believe, than so be it. But if you are basing your faith in the BoM because a little boy had a vision and, being an uneducated lug came up with this book, I would say your faith does not have enough to stand on. But that is between you and God. But the gospel was here all along, it never left, and the Holy Spirit has been present on the earth since the Day of Pentecost. If that gospel which Paul preached was still here, then any other gospel has to by definition be a false gospel. Read the Book of Galatians again. It will open your mind to God’s truth about his purposes and His work through His Son to free us from falsehoods.
I apologize, Mike, if my post hit a nerve, but I do not apologize for its tone or its content. I posted facts, and the fact of the matter is the 3,913 changes to the text of the BoM DO NOT INCLUDE the myriad changes it has undergone for punctuation, grammar, and the like. That is a proven FACT. I can cite you a huge number of verses where the changes to the text in fact changed the meaning of the passage. It was not “But it shall come to pass”, either. The fact of the matter is that the BoM has no external reliability, so there is no informed decision you can make on its trustworthiness. You either have to simply believe it or not.
It is not my wish to cause anyone pain. But the truth must be told, and only the truth can truly set us free.
May the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.
posted August 17, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Chief, you again make outrageous claims with no references of cooroborating evidence. In fact, every point you have made without giving even one reference to your “facts”. You said “the fact of the matter is the 3,913 changes to the text of the BoM DO NOT INCLUDE the myriad changes it has undergone for punctuation, grammar, and the like. That is a proven FACT” But I happen to know for a fact,that you are wrong. Here are my references. Where are yours?
http://fairlds.org/apol/ai282.html
You are so hardened in your idea of what Jesus would or would not do, that you dismiss truth because God would never do such things. Perhaps if the story of Abraham’s near sacrifice of Isaac was not published and it was found today, you would call it heresy too. Or if the story of Jesus throwing out the money changers was not recorded, or if we found another testiment that said Jesus visted the Americas. You see, the Book of Mormon calls this attitude “stiffneckedness” and you have a very serious case of it. You do not struggle with your faith becuase anything that doesn’t fit with what you believe, you just dismiss without any struggle, prayer or thought. It’s a nice comfprtable life, but it doesn’t bring you closer to God. You dismiss Joseph Smith because you find it impossible for God to choose an ignorant farm boy to be His prophet, but what was God to do? If he went to the Pope, do you think the Pope would suddenly tell everyone that they were believing in the wrong things for so long. If God came to you directly and told you that you had it all wrong, you would also dismiss Him. That is why I fear for your soul.
posted August 17, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Chief,
3 Nephi 9: 12 – and “many great destructions have I caused to come upon this land, and upon this people, because of their wickedness and abominations.”
Sounds a lot like the Great Flood of Noah doesn’t it. Or how about the destruction and loss of life described in Revelations. God warns and fore warns (through His prophets of course) before He brings destruction on the wicked.
It makes me question whether you really read from the beginning through 3 Nephi. For if you had you would have seen the Biblical pattern of warning and fore warning prior to destruction of the wicked.
So, if this is your greatest hang up against the BoM, then again you have no case.
posted August 17, 2007 at 9:03 pm
B
Book of Mormon (1830 ed.), 1 Nephi p. 25 — Changes the phrase “the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God, to read in modern versions, the mother of the Son of God. Later, on the same page the original phrase “the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father” now reads “the Lamb of God is the son of the eternal Father.” compare to: 1 Nephi 11:18
This reflects Joseph Smith’s changing doctrine of the nature of God.
That’s not a grammatical error we’re lookin at!!
posted August 17, 2007 at 9:06 pm
GB
“3 Nephi 9: 12 – and “many great destructions have I caused to come upon this land, and upon this people, because of their wickedness and abominations.”
Sounds a lot like the Great Flood of Noah doesn’t it.(LOL NOT) Or how about the destruction and loss of life described in Revelations.”
It’s in past tense so its not referring too future events in revelation
and it in no way sound like the Flood!!!
posted August 17, 2007 at 10:44 pm
YoMama wrote:
Book of Mormon (1830 ed.), 1 Nephi p. 25 — Changes the phrase “the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God, to read in modern versions, the mother of the Son of God. Later, on the same page the original phrase “the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father” now reads “the Lamb of God is the son of the eternal Father.” compare to: 1 Nephi 11:18
This reflects Joseph Smith’s changing doctrine of the nature of God.
Respose:
Actually, it doesn’t. Smith did change the text to clarify the meaning. Mormon’s have always taught that scripture speaks of Jesus Christ as the “Father”, but not Heavenly Father. Remember, this verse was written in OT times, and as such, their context was that Jesus was the “father” in the sense that he created the earth. But Smith felt it was more clear to refer to him in the NT standard which is as the “son of the father”. Mormons have always taught that Jesus is refered to in both ways all throughout the scriptures, so if we are trying to change doctrine, we are really bad at it. But I hope you understand the purpose of the change. It was to take OT ideas and make them fit more with NT terminology.
posted August 17, 2007 at 10:55 pm
YoMama,
You are new to this thread. I suggest that you take the time to read all the previous postings so you will be able to make an intelligent contribution to the discussion here.
Your comments “(LOL NOT)” and “It’s in past tense so its not referring too future events in revelation and it in no way sound like the Flood!!!” are intellectually vacuous and totally unconvincing. You should try to engage your brain so you can support your position with scripture, reason and other documented sources.
posted August 17, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Here is a link for further information on the changes in the various editions of the Book of Mormon:
http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.3933737ad2ff28132eb22a86942826a0/?vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1de42f2324d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____
posted August 18, 2007 at 2:35 am
GB said:
YoMama,
You are new to this thread. I suggest that you take the time to read all the previous postings so you will be able to make an intelligent contribution to the discussion here.
Your comments “(LOL NOT)” and “It’s in past tense so its not referring too future events in revelation and it in no way sound like the Flood!!!” are intellectually vacuous and totally unconvincing. You should try to engage your brain so you can support your position with scripture, reason and other documented sources.
Mike Bennion says:
Amen
posted August 18, 2007 at 1:19 pm
B
I looked at the site you sent me to, found it interesting.
One the scriptures Mormons use to support the idea of the great apostasy is 1Timothy 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
According to that Scripture we are in the last days as Mormons define it that would also make Hebrews 1 correct as well:
1Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.
Notice verse 2 In these last days God speaks to us by Jesus
I ask you If God speaks to us by Jesus who is our High priest forever why do we need prophets?
posted August 18, 2007 at 1:47 pm
B
I want to thank you for posting that link I went there and now I know that Mormonism and Christianity are incompatible. I have read the Book of Mormon and sincerely prayed and never got an answer. I wondered why, but now I know why, I wasn’t praying to the one true God. I’ve been up all night looking at the site and have come to the conclusion that I need the the Jesus of the Bible. Because it’s impossible for me to earn the forgiveness of my sin, but Jesus paid the price for sin on the cross.
I am now justified by grace alone, through faith in Jesus Christ.
Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works,so that no one may boast.
I thank God that He works in mysterious ways and can even use something that is not of God to reveal truth to sinners.
Peace to you all, I don’t know who you are but I will pray for you as best I can, that The Lord of Glory would open your eyes to the wonders of His matchless Grace.
posted August 18, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Todd, you clearly do not understand LDS theology, and you are using typical anti-Mormon rhetoric to justify your decicisions. The old argument of grace/faith/works is simply misunderstood and misrepresented by “Christians” for their own gain. If you don’t want to make the effort to find the truth, that’s fine, but don’t expect Jesus to save you when you have done nothing to learn the truth (about Jeuss and Mormonism).
posted August 18, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Ever find it curious that anyone or anything that doesn’t comply with Mormon beliefs is labeled ANTI-MORMON. It’s as if they believe that only Mormons can be saved. OH WAIT, that is what Mormons believe!!!
B:”If you don’t want to make the effort to find the truth, that’s fine, but don’t expect Jesus to save you when you have done nothing to learn the truth”
It seems that for you faith is not enough, that for you what Jesus accomplished on the Cross was not enough, that we somehow have to repay God for all the wrongs we have done in our lives, Thus our work’s do not glorify God but glorify ourselves, as if to say to God look what I DID to pay for my sins. Everything exists for the Glory of God! God is the Center and the Reason that everything exists! But you would rather glorify man than God, To not give God the glory in everything and I do mean everything that we do is treason against God.
posted August 18, 2007 at 4:53 pm
YoMama,
What!!! is with!!! the !!! three exclamation marks!!!?
posted August 18, 2007 at 6:30 pm
To Todd:
In my opinion, you are disingenuous…if in fact, you REALLY read the Book of Mormon, then it should be very easy to succinctly explain to me what the prophet Lehi meant by “For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things.”
Answer that if you dare, or expose yourself as the fraud I believe you are.
I always get a good chuckle when an “anti-Mormon” such as YoMama, tells me just what I believe…wow, thanks…I was really confused!!!
regards…
posted August 18, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Ooops…
I meant this posting for Tedd…sorry, I took it from B’s posting…
posted August 18, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Tedd: I have read the Book of Mormon and sincerely prayed and never got an answer.
GB: IF that were really true, THEN you would be encouraging everyone to read it also so that they could have the same experience.
I’m just saying.
posted August 18, 2007 at 10:26 pm
GB:
Actually since I DO NOT believe the book of mormon to be true but I believe the Bible to be true, I encourage people to read the Bible and let God’s Words speak to their hearts.
Why would I encourage people to read something false and pray for a feeling to know whether it is true or not. That’s like a single person asking God to reveal to them whether they are married or not it makes no sense. The book of mormon does not and cannot stand on it’s own merits.
posted August 19, 2007 at 1:41 am
Todd said:
I want to thank you for posting that link I went there and now I know that Mormonism and Christianity are incompatible. I HAVE READ THE BOOK OF MORMON AND SINCERELY PRAYED and never got an answer. I wondered why, but now I know why
Then Todd Said:
Actually since I DO NOT believe the book of mormon to be true but I believe the Bible to be true, I encourage people to read the Bible and let God’s Words speak to their hearts.
WHY WOULD I ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO READ SOMETHING FALSE AND PARY FOR A FEELING TO KNOW WHETHER IT IS TRUE OR NOT. That’s like a single person asking God to reveal to them whether they are married or not it makes no sense. The book of mormon does not and cannot stand on it’s own merits.
Mike Bennion:
OOPS!!! (Notice that I used YoMama’s trademark triple !!!’s)
I see a wee contradiciton here.
James in the Bible clarifies your problem.
James 1:6 But let him ASK IN FAITH, NOTHING WAVERING. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
7 For LET NOT THAT MAN THINK THAT HE SHALL RECEIVE ANY THING OF THE LORD.
And Moroni further clarifies:
Moroni 10:4 “…and if ye shall ask WITH A SINCERE HEART, WITH REAL INTENT, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
After comparing the above two posts I have some reservations about your “sincerity” and your “real intent”.
It you did in fact read the Book of Mormon, I’m supposing your reading
was short on pondering. That’s what happened to me. The first time I read it nothing happened. Well, I “took no thought save it was to ask” (see theD&C) I just thought if the words just passed in front of my eyes that was all the effort needed.
I honestly don’t know how many times I have read the Book of Mormon since. Probably between ten and fifteen times, with some section intensively studied perhaps hundreds of times. I have read the Bible with the same intensity. Every time I read the Book of Mormon, God finds a new way to take my breath away. That Book is astounding. And the Bible is so rich because of it. The testimony of Jesus Christ in Both Books brings tears to my eyes and light to my mind and joy to mny heart.
If I were to guess how Todd prayed, it probably went something like this: “Dear God, is the Book of Mormon true? Of course I know it’s not, but if I ask then I can demonstrate my credentials to the Mormons.”
It almost worked Todd, until you made that second post which showed your true disposition as far as the Book of Mormon is concerned.
posted August 19, 2007 at 11:39 am
Tedd,
Your silence to my question above speaks volumes to your integrity…
posted August 19, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Sorry to see YoMama leave, and just when it was starting to get interesting…
Thanks to Mike B., GB, et. al. for your tenacity and supporting back-up.
I am now FURTHER convinced that “Orthodox Christianity”, as discussed in this forum, are devout believers raised up and taught to WORSHIP the BIBLE, (leather, paper and ink) to the detriment of realizing John 17: 3 “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” To suggest in any manner or form that the Bible has errs, contradictions, or incompleteness, is blasphemy and a direct attack on their god (idol); they just can’t go there or their whole house of cards tumbles. Mormonism is just that threat…and they are waging war against it!
I have family members who came into this COUNTERFEIT gospel of incompleteness, after having been raised Agnostic and after years of discussion, debate, and even bible bashing (sorry I was young and foolishly zealous then), we have amicably gone our separate ways, both in the hope that God will enlighten us [all] with the truth.
As I’ve said before, they ARE, mostly, fine examples of Christian ideals and God bless them for their sincere efforts; but they could have so much more if not for their rigid hold to many incomplete beliefs. I do look forward to ‘post-earth life’ Missionary service, when I get to see the “light” finally come on! Not for the “I told you so”, but for the change not unlike Saul to Paul had on the road to Damascus when they too will say when confronted by the Savior’s rebuke, “I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.” (Acts 9:5) My prayer is that they too will stop “kicking against the pricks” and altogether be converted to the TRUE Gospel of Jesus Christ. All they have to do is knock…He will answer!
posted August 20, 2007 at 9:27 am
THE HISTORIC ALLIANCE OF CHRISTIANITY AND SCIENCE, By Kenneth Richard Samples
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/christianscience.shtml
Biblical Forecasts of Scientific Discoveries by Dr. Hugh Ross
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/forecasts.shtml
posted August 20, 2007 at 9:38 am
the scriptures I posted about the universe IN context teaches the universe is growing OLD and God will but it to an END. I would think that the mormons gods could not do this because they did NOT create the universe Ex Nihilo. just think of ALL the problems the mormon gods would have.
1) would the “other gods” agree.
2) HOW would they create a new universe if they destroyed everything.
3) Would they have enough “preexisting matter” to go around for all the “new” gods.
4) if the mormons say “preexisting matter” is always being “created” WHO is creating this “”"preexisting matter”" so their would be enough to go around, but the this would be “Creation Ex Nihilo”, but since Mormons do NOT believe this would their be a “civil war” for the “”preexisting matter”"
posted August 20, 2007 at 11:22 am
Bryan: the scriptures I posted about the universe IN context teaches the universe is growing OLD and God will but it to an END.
GB: Wrong again there Bryan. The scriptures you posted NEVER mentioned the “universe”.
Bryan: I would think that the mormons gods could not do this because they did NOT create the universe Ex Nihilo. just think of ALL the problems the mormon gods would have.
GB: Since the universe isn’t going to be destroyed, your statements are irrelevant.
Bryan: 1) would the “other gods” agree.
GB: Your lack of understanding of John 17 never ceases to amaze me.
Bryan: 2) HOW would they create a new universe if they destroyed everything.
GB: See above.
Bryan: 3) Would they have enough “preexisting matter” to go around for all the “new” gods.
GB: Since there is infinite “preexisting matter”, there is no problem.
Bryan: 4) if the mormons say “preexisting matter” is always being “created” WHO is creating this “”"preexisting matter”" so their would be enough to go around, but the this would be “Creation Ex Nihilo”, but since Mormons do NOT believe this would their be a “civil war” for the “”preexisting matter”"
GB: More stellar logic and reason from Bryan!!! /Sarcasm off.
Bryan,
You have failed to answer my questions.
1) Why did your god of Greek philosophy change?
2) What caused the change? Or in other words what is your first cause?
I am still waiting.
posted August 20, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Bryan:
the scriptures I posted about the universe IN context teaches the universe is growing OLD and God will but it to an END. I would think that the mormons gods could not do this because they did NOT create the universe Ex Nihilo. just think of ALL the problems the mormon gods would have.
1) would the “other gods” agree.
Mike Bennion:
See John, chapters 14 to 17. Those who become like God become ONE with him. they think alike, they all share the same thoughts, the same goals, the same love, and do the same work as God. Moses 1:39,
“For this is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.”
Bryan:
2) HOW would they create a new universe if they destroyed everything.
Mike Bennion:
Any destruction is a reordering of matter, matter is not capable of being anihilated. The “stuff” you are made of, does not go out of existence when you die, does it?
Bryan:
3) Would they have enough “preexisting matter” to go around for all the “new” gods.
Mike Bennion:
Bryan, there is an infinite supply of matter. There is enough and to spare.
Bryan:
4) if the mormons say “preexisting matter” is always being “created” WHO is creating this “”"preexisting matter”" so their would be enough to go around, but the this would be “Creation Ex Nihilo”, but since Mormons do NOT believe this would their be a “civil war” for the “”preexisting matter”"
Mike Bennion:
Mormons don’t say pre-existing matter is being created Ex Nihilo as you apparently believe, God organizes pre-existing matter into the varieties of vegetable, mineral and animal matter that exists in the apparent universe. Again, God has revealed that matter is 1. infinite, 2. eternal, 3. Not capable of anihilation.
You, Bryan, need to study the doctrines of Mormonism much more carefully, if you are to discuss them intelligently. Until then, you run the risk of looking foolish to those who have paid the price of study.
Mike
posted August 22, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Here is an interesting article from Religioustolerance.com regarding New World Archaelogy. It is fairly even-handed in its handling of the topic, presenting both sides of the equation.
THE RESTORATION MOVEMENT AND NEW WORLD ARCHAELOGY
Quotations:
“There are extensive and impressive evidences for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as an ancient document dealing with real people and places, contrary to the endlessly and mindlessly repeated mantras of anti-Mormons.” Statement by Jef Lindsay 18
“Archeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemisphere’s past and the society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon.” Statement by the National Geographic Society 6
“…faith in the scriptures—whether the Bible or the Book of Mormon—must rest upon something other than scholarly consensus and archaeological evidence… Ultimately, God will reveal what is true in such matters and we must trust him for our answers.” The Newsletter of the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), 1997-OCT
“It can be stated definitely that there is no connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the Book of Mormon. There is no correspondence whatever between archeological sites and cultures as revealed by scientific investigations and as recorded in the Book of Mormon, hence the book cannot be regarded as having any historical value from the standpoint of the aboriginal peoples of the New World.” F.H.H. Roberts, Jr, Smithsonian Institution, 1951
“As long as Mormons generally are willing to be fooled by (and pay for) the uninformed, uncritical drivel about archaeology and the scriptures which predominates, the few L.D.S. experts are reluctant even to be identified with the topic.” J.L. Sorenson, Brigham Young University, 1966
Overview:
The Book of Mormon describes migrations of people from the Middle East to Central America, and further describes some features of their civilizations in the New World. If the Book is accurate, archaeologists would expect to find numerous pieces of hard evidence in Central America that confirm the presence of these societies: metal objects; writing in Hebrew and Egyptian, remains of old-world plants, animals from Palestine, etc. Some hard evidence has been found in the past. However, they have all been subsequently shown to be pious forgeries. To date, no actual evidence to confirm the Book of Mormon has been found, although many LDS believers have faith that it will be uncovered in the future. A popular saying in the field of archaeology is that no evidence of existence is not evidence of non-existence.
The Book of Mormon and its archaeology
The Book of Mormon describes three migrations of people from the Middle East to America. 1 The first occurred circa 2247 BCE, at approximately the time of the Tower of Babel as described in Genesis 11:1-10. 2 At that time, God “confused the language of all the [peoples of the] earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.” [RSV] “All the earth” would presumably include the Americas. These people, the Jaredites, eventually died out circa 600 BCE with a massive battle at Hill Comorah in what is now upper New York State.
The second and third migrations occurred circa 600 BCE, between the times of the Assyrian and Babylonian victories over the Israelites. The immigrants:
“established huge civilizations that stretched from sea to sea,
wrote extensively using Hebrew and Egyptian,
domesticated horses and cattle,
cultivated many Old World plants,
traveled in chariots, and
smelted many metals, including iron and steel.” 1
The Book of Mormon also discusses:
Gold and silver coins used by the Nephites. Their monetary system was based on the value of barley.
Domesticated species of animals: cattle, oxen, sheep, swine and goats. 5
Fighting with bows, arrows, and metal shields.
Temples, synagogues and sanctuaries for worship.
One group, the Nephites, kept the Law of Moses. The other group, the Lamanites abandoned the beliefs of the Israelites. Because of their unbelief and idolatry, the “Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.” (2 Nephi 5:21). A major battle occurred between the Nephites and Lamanites at the Hill Comorah in 385 CE.
If the Book of Mormon is true, then there would be certain logical consequences:
Studies of the blood types, facial shape, and genetic makeup of modern-day Native Americans would show that they were related closely to the ancient Israelites, and thus to present-day Jews. Some DNA evidence among a minority of Native Americans has been found that shows the likelihood of a migration of individuals from Europe and Asia Minor to America. However, their arrival date in the new world was about 10,000 BCE or earlier. Thus, the migration is unrelated to activities in the Book of Mormon. No evidence has been found for a migration during the time span that the Book discusses. 18
Archaeologists could go to the remains of ancient Native American towns, excavate down to the levels that were active between 600 BCE and 385 CE, and uncover evidences of Nephite or Lamanite writings, domesticated horses, old world plants, chariots, inscriptions, metal objects, etc.
Excavating the Hill Comorah should reveal countless artifacts left by the hundreds of thousands of soldiers who died there in two major battles.
One would expect names from the Book of Mormon to be present in inscriptions left by the Nephites or Lamanites. Thomas Ferguson wrote:
“The important thing now is to continue the digging at an accelerated pace in order to find more inscriptions dating to Book-of-Mormon times. Eventually we should find decipherable inscriptions … referring to some unique person, place or event in the Book of Mormon.” 16
Quite a few pious forgeries have been planted and “discovered.” However, no convincing evidence was ever found that has been accepted by non-Mormon archaeologists.
Sponsored link:
Thomas Stuart Ferguson:
In 1952-OCT, Ferguson, a lawyer, organized the New World Archaeological Foundation (NWAF). He was a devout believer in the LDS faith, and thus in the validity of the Book of Mormon. He reasoned that if the validity of the Book could be proven, then countless individuals would flock to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), as the true Christian church. He was convinced that the Book of Mormon was an accurate historical document and that it would be relatively easy to uncover artifacts to prove its validity. The NWAF was initially funded directly by the LDS. As each year passed, the Foundation’s scientists were unable to find any evidence that would support the Book of Mormon. The LDS church reorganized the NWAF under Brigham Young University in 1960. As of 1999, it consists only of a director and assistant, active in only one excavation. 14
In a book review, Duwayne Anderson commented:
“In 1993 Michael D. Coe, professor of anthropology at Yale University, summarized the situation by saying: ‘I have seen no archaeological evidence before or since that [1973] date which would convince me that it [the Book of Mormon] is anything but a fanciful creation by an unusually gifted individual living in upstate New York in the early nineteenth century.’ ”
Ferguson eeventually became convinced that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction, whose contents bear no relationship to the reality of Native American civilization prior to 385 CE. The NWAF “failed to find evidence to prove the Book of Mormon, and the man who organized it…ended up losing his faith in the church.” 17
Other observations skeptical of the Book of Mormon:
DNA evidence: Genetic and blood testing studies have found that Native Americans are related closely to the inhabitants of Siberia and not to the ancient Israelites, as the Book of Mormon states. Thomas W. Murphy, 35, is chairperson of the anthropology department at Edmonds Community College in Lynnwood, WA. He wrote a chapter in the anthology “American Apocrypha” in which he uses genetic data to discredit the Book of Mormon’s claim that American Natives are heathen descendents of ancient Israelites. The essay is taken from his doctoral dissertation at the University of Washington. He faced a church disciplinary council on 2002-DEC-8 at which he might have been excommunicated for his beliefs. It was cancelled shortly before it was to have been taken place. More information. 19,20
Finding of artifacts: “No unusual artifacts have ever been found at or around Hill Comorah.” 4 No evidence of the remains of domesticated animals have been found prior to the European invasion in the late 15th century. Similarly, there is no evidence of barley or any other old world plants in North America at that time. “…Bows and arrows…were not invented in America until A.D. 1000.” Although there are remains of Natives who made use of meteoric iron and native copper, there are no indications that Natives smelted metals during the time interval covered by the Book of Mormon. There are no indications of the remains of sanctuaries, temples or synagogues. One would not expect to find synagogues, because none are known to have existed in the Middle East until after the Babylonian exile – decades after after the second emigration, as described in the Book of Mormon.
Inscriptions: Some Mormons have promoted some records and inscriptions such as the “Bat Creek Stone, the Kinderhook Plates, the Newark Stones and the Phoenician Ten Commandments.” All were pious forgeries. 5 No names of individuals mentioned in the Book of Mormon have every been found in ancient inscriptions.
Comments by scientific groups: The National Geographic Society maintained in 1998 that: “Archeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemisphere’s past and the society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon.” 6
The Smithsonian Institution prepared a form letter in 1996. It seems to have been in response to a rumor that the Smithsonian had used the Book of Mormon as an archaeological guide book. Their letter says, in part: “Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book [of Mormon].”
“The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central and northeastern Asia.”
“…none of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre-Columbian times. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, camels before 1492.”
“Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared…None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars.”
Material in support of the Book of Mormon
Many devout Mormons reject the findings of skeptics; they believe that the Book of Mormon is an accurate portrayal of life in the New World prior to 385 CE. 9,10,18 Some writers have found indicators of its validity:
With his limited education, the Mormon founder Joseph Smith could not have written the Book of Mormon because its extensive use of Hebraic names and expressions would have been beyond his ability to write.
Some LDS researchers see bodily features among Amerindians that agree closely with inhabitants of Palestine.
“The Book of Mormon [sic] patterns of seasonal warfare, festival celebrations at certain times of the year, religious gatherings, travels, kingship coronations, political turmoil as well as warfare, the keeping of records, natural calamities” all agree with the archaeological record. 11
Some examples exist that prove the existence of the horse in North America during the pre-Columbian period.
Some native languages in ancient times had a word for “metal.” It is reasonable to assume that they actually used metal if they had a word for it.
“…horned incense burners, models of house types, wheel-made pottery, cement, the true arch, and the use of stone boxes” have been found both in Mesoamerica and the ancient Near East. These might indicate some form of contact between people in the two areas.
Some LDS researchers believe that: The city of Nephi, mentioned in the Book of Mormon, might have been the ancient city of Kaminaljuyu — the location of the modern city of Guatemala City.
El Cerro Vigia, a hill in southern Mexico, may be the Hill Comorah.
Some authors have commented about the missing data in the archaeological record:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because no artifacts have been found that support the Book of Mormon, that is no proof that future artifacts will not be found which verify the book.
The term “horse” in the Book might really have referred to a deer that people rode.
The Book of Mormon does not say that all the natives in the New World were either Lamanites or Nephites. There may have been many more natives who entered America via the Bearing Strait, and left records in their blood type, facial characteristics and genes — perhaps swamping the contributions of the Lamanites and Nephites.
References:
Duwayne Anderson, “A tragedy of truth found and rejected,” Amazon.com book review
“Scofield Reference Bible,” Oxford University Press, Page 18-19.
Stan Larson, “Quest for the gold plates: Thomas Stuart Ferguson’s archeological search for the Book of Mormon,” Signature Books, (1998), Page 70. An account of an unsuccessful search to validate the Book of Mormon. Read reviews or order this book safely from the Amazon.com online book store
J.R. Farkas & D.A. Reed, “Mormonism: changes, Contradictions and Errors,” Baker Books, (1995), Page 155. (Out of print).
L.C. Scott, “The Mormon Mirage,” Zondervan, (1979), Pages 77 to 85.(Out of print).
National Geographic Society, letter to Luke Wilson, Institute for Religious Research, 1998-AUG-12. Available online at: http://www.irr.org/
National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, letter to the Institute for Religious Research, 1997-SEP-28
B.L. Metcalfe, Ed., “New approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology,” Signature Books, (1993), Page 131 to 132. A series of essays by Mormon scholars into whether the Book of Mormon is ancient religious scripture or a 19th century writing by Joseph Smith, Read reviews or order this book
Kerry A. Shirts, “Mormonism Researched” at: http://www.cyberhighway.net/ This is an enormous list of articles which support the validity of the Book of Mormon.
Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, (FARMS) at: http://www.farmsresearch.com/ The publish a newsletter, and have a selected annotated bibliography on publications dealing with the Book of Mormon.
“Letter to the editor of The Ancient American (unpublished)”, 1994-JUN-1. At: http://www.cyberhighway.net/
D.J. Johnson, “Archaeology,” at: http://www.mormons.org/
“Book of Mormon Evidences,” at: http://www.lds-index.org/
New World Archaeological Foundation has a web site at http://www.lib.byu.edu/
J.L. Sorenson, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 1966-Spring, Pages 145 to 149).
Thomas Ferguson, “One Fold And One Shepherd,” Page 263.
Jerald & Sandra Tanner, “Archaeology and the Book of Mormon” from “The Book of Mormon, Chapter 5″ at: http://www.utlm.org/
Jeff Lindsay, “Evidence for the Book of Mormon,” at: http://www.jefflindsay.com/
“Mormon Church May Penalize Grad Student,” Associated Press, 2002-NOV-30, at: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/
Thomas W. Murphy, “Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics;” part of Dan Vogel & Brent Metcalfe, Eds., “American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormons,” Signature Books, (2002). Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store
posted August 23, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Chief,
Thanks for posting the article.
Now if everyone will read the LDS as well as the non-LDS links listed they can then go ask God what he thinks.
I have listed a link below that summarizes the LDS posistion. I won’t post the whole thing here. If someone really wants and needs to know they will take the time to go there.
http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeological_Evidence_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.html
Chief, I have read most if not all of these links at one time or another. Nothing I have read there has altered my basic belief in the truth of the Book of Mormon.
If someone disagrees that is their privilege. But that doesn’t change a thing.
posted August 23, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Mike,
I agree with you. Archaelogical evidence is not theological proof, and the absence of evidence does not necessarily prove the non-existence of something.
That is one of the mysteries of God. We are left to find some things out on our own as we explore and grow in our faith. I posted the article so people could see the information, and maybe it would spur someone on to do more of his/her own research.
Good night, now!!!
posted August 24, 2007 at 3:25 am
Chief:
That does seem to be the pattern doesn’t it?
I am all for people doing their own research.
Have a great day my friend,
posted August 24, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Hello,
I am interested in mormonisms’ rejection of the ex nihilo theory. I know that mormons believe God doesn’t create out of nothing ,but does that also mean that he couldn’t even if he wanted to?
Any reply would be greatly appreciated.
Thankyou,
Chelsea-
posted August 25, 2007 at 12:24 am
Chelsea,
That conversation is going on next door on “the Church of the Devil” thread.
posted September 8, 2007 at 11:35 am
Heaven: Where the Pain May be Keener than Physical Torture?
Mormon apostle John Widtsoe in Understandable Religion, p. 89:
Now, it may be contended that a judgment, with some degree of salvation for all, encourages the sinner to pursue his dark ways. Not so. However generous the judgment, it is measured by our works. Our punishment will be the heavy regret that we might have received a greater reward, a higher kingdom, had our lives conformed more nearly to truth. Such remorse may yield keener pain than physical torture.
Christian pastor John Piper in Life As a Vapor, p. 19-21:
I can’t keep eternity out of my mind. Life is short and eternity is long. Very long. It is a long time to regret a wasted life.
Which raises the question: Is there regret in heaven? Can regret be part of the ever-increasing, unspeakable joy of the age to come, purchased by Jesus Christ (Romans 8:32)? My answer is yes. I am aware of promises like Revelation 21:4, “He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” But I don’t think this rules out tears of joy, and it may not rule out regretful joy.
Why do I think this? I do not see how we will be able to worship Christ and sing the song of the Lamb without a clear memory of the glorious, saving work of Jesus Christ and all that it involved. According to Revelation 5:9, the saints will sing “a new song, saying, ‘Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.’” But ransomed from what? Will we have forgotten? This song and this memory will make no sense without the memory of sin. And the memory of sin will be hypocritical without the confession that it was our sin that Jesus died for.
It is inconceivable to me that we will remember our sin for what it really was, and the suffering of Christ for what it really was, and not feel regretful joy. The intensity of our joy in grace will be fed by the remembrance of our unworthiness. “He who is forgiven little, loves little” (Luke 7:47). But this does not mean we should sin so “that grace may abound” (Romans 6:1). The holiest will be the happiest. But it does mean that regret will not ruin heaven. There will be kinds of joys, and complexities of happiness, and combinations of emotions in heaven of which we have never dreamed.
But all this leaves me trembling that I not throw away the one short life that I will look back on for all eternity. Just think of it. You have one life. One very short life. Then an eternity to remember. Does not the suffering in this world seem inexplicable to you? Is not this great, global (and intensely personal) suffering a call to magnify the mercy of Christ by how we respond? Is not suffering a seamless fabric, stretching into eternity for unbelievers? And therefore, are not Christians the only people who can respond with helpful relief to the totality of misery? Unbelievers may relieve some suffering in this vapor’s breath of life on earth. But beyond that they are no help at all.
Shall we not then live our lives—and prepare for heaven—by strategizing in all our vocations, and with all our talents and all our money, to relieve suffering (now and forever) for the glory of Jesus? The twentieth century was the bloodiest and cruelest of all centuries. Man is not getting better. But God will hold us accountable in the age to come not for what others have done. He will call us to account for what blood-bought hope freed us to do for others in the name of Christ. We will give joyful and tearful thanks in that day for the grace that covered our sin and the grace that caused our love.
Sure sounds a lot different than the hellish heavens of Mormonism!
posted September 8, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Javden, the covenant breaker, should have time in eternity to find out whether regret is that powerful.
posted September 8, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Mike
I get it, since you can’t attack the message you just attack the messenger how very GB-ish of you.
posted September 8, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Javden, (the pot) calls the kettle black.
The message is material that I have covenanted not to comment on specifically.
You are certainly respectful of the message of others aren’t you?
Now about that aplogy…
posted September 8, 2007 at 7:59 pm
I once read in The Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith — History regarding the events leading up to Joseph Smith’s First Vision. As Joseph told the story, he talked about his confusion over which church was correct in the things they taught. Or, he wondered, were they all wrong? Joseph said all the different “religionists” were “endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others” (1:9). He found himself in the midst of a “war of words and tumult of opinions” (1:10). He wrote,
“…unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible” (1:12).
Yet appeal to the Bible he did. Joseph said when he came across James 1:5,
“Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know,… At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs…So, in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God, I retired to the woods to make the attempt” (1:12-14).
Joseph had the idea that his spiritual questions could not be settled by an appeal to the Bible due to the propensity of men to interpret the text in different (incorrect) ways, but for some reason he believed he could correctly and adequately interpret James 1:5. It was Joseph’s personal interpretation of this verse from the Bible that sent him into the woods to ask God which church he should join.
But Joseph fell victim to his own fears. He did not correctly interpret James 1:5, and so he looked for his answers in the grove, rather than in God’s Word.
The context of James 1:5 places James’ instructions for seeking wisdom into a very specific situation. James wrote:
“Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him” (James 1:2-5).
Here James was writing to encourage Christians who were in the midst of suffering intense persecutions for their faith. Against all human wisdom, James told them they were to joyfully recognize their trials as beneficial to their faith. If they had trouble understanding how this could be, James said, they were to ask God for the wisdom to understand His plan in their suffering. Christian theologian John Calvin (1509-1564) commented on this passage:
“As our reason, and all our feelings are averse to the thought that we can be happy in the midst of evils, he bids us to ask the Lord to give us wisdom. For wisdom here, I confine to the subject of the passage, as though he had said, ‘If this doctrine is higher than what your minds can reach to, ask of the Lord to illuminate you by his Spirit; for as this consolation alone is sufficient to mitigate all the bitterness of evils, that what is grievous to the flesh is salutary to us; so we must necessarily be overcome with impatience, except we be sustained by this kind of comfort.’ Since we see that the Lord does not so require from us what is above our strength, but that he is ready to help us, provided we ask, let us, therefore, learn, whenever he commands anything, to ask of him the power to perform it” (Calvin’s Commentaries XXII::281-2).
Joseph Smith decided that the Bible could not provide answers to his questions. Though the Bible is the very Word of God, though God commands us to “Be diligent to present [ourselves] approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15), and though God confirms “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17), Joseph disregarded it all.
Having the form of godliness, Joseph did make “an appeal to the Bible.” He chose a verse, removed it from its context, and subsequently pursued a course not supported by scripture. Joseph sought answers apart from God’s revealed Word and in due time came to fulfill the woeful role of FALSE PROPHET.
posted September 8, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Javden said:
Joseph had the idea that his spiritual questions could not be settled by an appeal to the Bible due to the propensity of men to interpret the text in different (incorrect) ways, but for some reason he believed he could correctly and adequately interpret James 1:5. It was Joseph’s personal interpretation of this verse from the Bible that sent him into the woods to ask God which church he should join.
God says:
See also Prayer
Gen. 5: 24 Enoch walked with God.
Gen. 6: 3 (Moses 8: 17) My spirit shall not always strive with man.
Gen. 18: 22 Abraham stood yet before the Lord.
Gen. 39: 2 Lord was with Joseph.
Ex. 3: 8 I am come down to deliver them.
Ex. 6: 3 I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac.
Ex. 25: 22 I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee.
Lev. 9: 5 congregation drew near and stood before the Lord.
Deut. 4: 29 if . . . thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find him.
2 Chr. 15: 4 when they . . . sought him, he was found of them.
Job 27: 9 Will God hear his cry when trouble cometh upon him.
Ps. 82: 1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty.
Prov. 1: 28 shall they call upon me, but I will not answer.
Isa. 1: 15 many prayers, I will not hear.
Isa. 9: 12 his hand is stretched out still.
Isa. 55: 6 Seek ye the Lord while he may be found.
Isa. 59: 2 your iniquities have separated between you and your God.
Jer. 11: 11 though they shall cry unto me, I will not hearken.
Jer. 29: 13 ye shall seek me, and find me.
Micah 3: 4 shall they cry unto the Lord.
Zech. 7: 13 they cried, and I would not hear.
Matt. 7: 7 Ask, and it shall be given you.
John 14: 6 (D&C 132: 12) no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Acts 17: 27 they should seek the Lord, if haply they might.
Rom. 10: 12 Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Heb. 10: 22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith.
Rev. 3: 20 open the door, I will come in to him.
Gen. 4: 26 (Gen. 21: 33; Rom. 10: 3; Mosiah 4: 11; Ether 2: 14; Moses 6: 4) then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.
Gen. 12: 8 builded an altar . . . called upon the name of the Lord.
Gen. 20: 7 he shall pray for thee.
Gen. 25: 22 (1 Sam. 10: 22; 1 Ne. 16: 24; Alma 27: 7) went to inquire of the Lord.
Num. 21: 7 Moses prayed for the people.
1 Sam. 12: 23 I should sin . . . in ceasing to pray.
2 Kgs. 19: 4 lift up thy prayer for the remnant.
2 Kgs. 19: 20 That which thou hast prayed to me . . . I have heard.
2 Kgs. 20: 2 turned his face to the wall, and prayed.
2 Chr. 7: 14 pray, and seek my face.
2 Chr. 15: 4 when they . . . sought him, he was found.
Ps. 55: 17 Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray.
Prov. 15: 29 he heareth the prayer of the righteous.
Isa. 56: 7 (Matt. 21: 13; Mark 11: 17; Luke 19: 46) make them joyful in my house of prayer.
Jer. 29: 13 find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.
Dan. 6: 10 prayed, and gave thanks.
Joel 2: 32 whosoever shall call on . . . the Lord shall be delivered.
Jonah 2: 7 my prayer came in unto thee, into thine holy temple.
Matt. 5: 44 (Luke 6: 28; 3 Ne. 12: 44) pray for them which despitefully use you.
Matt. 6: 5 (3 Ne. 13: 5) they love to pray . . . that they may be seen.
Matt. 6: 6 pray to thy Father which is in secret.
Matt. 6: 7 when ye pray, use not vain repetitions.
Matt. 6: 8 Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask.
Matt. 6: 9 (Luke 11: 2; 3 Ne. 13: 9) after this manner therefore pray ye.
Matt. 7: 7 (3 Ne. 14: 7; D&C 4: 7; D&C 6: 5; D&C 66: 9) Ask, and it shall be given you.
Matt. 14: 23 (Mark 6: 46) he went up into a mountain apart to pray.
Matt. 17: 21 (Mark 9: 29) this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
Matt. 18: 19 if two of you shall agree . . . as touching any thing that they shall ask.
Matt. 19: 13 brought . . . little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray.
Matt. 21: 13 My house shall be called the house of prayer.
Matt. 21: 22 (Mark 11: 24) whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing.
Matt. 23: 14 (Mark 12: 40; Luke 20: 47) hypocrites . . . for a pretence make long prayer.
Matt. 24: 20 (Mark 13: 18) pray ye that your flight be not in the winter.
Matt. 26: 39 fell on his face, and prayed.
Matt. 26: 41 (Mark 14: 38; Luke 22: 40, 46; 3 Ne. 18: 15; D&C 31: 12) Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation.
Mark 11: 25 when ye stand praying, forgive.
Mark 13: 33 Take ye heed, watch and pray.
Luke 2: 37 served God with fastings and prayers.
Luke 5: 33 disciples of John fast often, and make prayers.
Luke 9: 29 as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered.
Luke 11: 1 Lord, teach us to pray.
Luke 18: 1 (D&C 88: 126; D&C 101: 81) men ought always to pray, and not to faint.
Luke 18: 10 Two men went up into the temple to pray.
Luke 21: 36 watch ye therefore, and pray always.
Luke 22: 32 prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.
John 14: 13 (John 16: 23; D&C 88: 64) whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do.
John 15: 7 ask what ye will, and it shall be.
John 17: 9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world.
John 17: 20 Neither pray I for these alone.
Acts 6: 4 we will give ourselves continually to prayer.
Acts 6: 6 when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.
Acts 13: 3 fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them.
Rom. 8: 26 know not what we should pray for . . . but the Spirit.
Rom. 12: 12 in tribulation, continuing instant in prayer.
1 Cor. 11: 13 is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered.
1 Cor. 14: 15 I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding.
Eph. 6: 18 Praying always with all prayer.
Philip. 4: 6 by prayer . . . let your requests be made known.
Col. 3: 17 do all in the name of . . . Jesus, giving thanks to God.
Col. 4: 12 labouring fervently for you in prayers.
1 Thes. 5: 17 (Alma 34: 27) Pray without ceasing.
1 Thes. 5: 23 I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless.
1 Tim. 2: 8 I will therefore that men pray every where.
James 1: 6 (D&C 42: 68; D&C 46: 7) let him ask in faith, nothing wavering.
James 4: 3 ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss.
James 5: 14 let them pray over him, anointing him with oil.
James 5: 16 fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
1 Pet. 3: 7 giving honour unto the wife . . . that your prayers be not hindered.
1 Pet. 3: 12 his ears are open unto their prayers.
1 Pet. 4: 7 be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.
1 Jn. 3: 22 whatsoever we ask, we receive.
1 Jn. 5: 15 whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions.
Rev. 5: 8 full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
I believe the Bible, what does Javden believe?
posted September 11, 2007 at 7:15 pm
James 1:1 Makes it look like James is talking not to a body of nearby Christian’s. I take the term “twelve tribes in dispersion” to mean those of the tribe of Israel that were not in Jerusalem and that their specific locations and beliefs were not so easily known. The whole context of James, makes me feel that he was actually trying to talk to the converts of Paul who were drifting away from the concepts that Christ taught. Paul’s teachings seemed to lead people to believe that works didn’t matter and that faith did. James masterfully points out that “faith without works is dead”. I think both James and Peter seemed to be irritated with Paul about several matters, and James “big bone to pick” was how apparently some of Paul’s followers acted like works didn’t matter as long as they believed or said they believed.
posted September 11, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Doug,
Please see my comments concerning Paul, Peter, and James on the “Mormonism is a Sincerely False Gospel” thread. I think that will clear it up for you.
About works, Paul and James are talking about two different kinds. In Romans, Paul was addressing people who thought that by doing good works they could GAIN salvation. By contrast, James was talking to Christians who apparently were inactive, and made the point that good works were a RESULT of salvation. In fact, James may have been trying to correct a misunderstanding that people had of the saved by grace through faith doctrine. There are still a lot of people today who think, once they are baptized and make a public confession, their Christian life is complete. They don’t understand that confession, baptism, and repentance are JUST THE START of the Christian life!
-Paul stated no one is JUSTIFIED by good works
-James stated that people who had been JUSTIFIED by Christ’s blood should manifest good works in their lives
In other words, no man can do RIGHTEOUS works unless and until Christ’s RIGHTEOUSNESS has been imputed to him through saving faith.
Have a great evening!
posted September 12, 2007 at 11:04 am
Sorry, but someone has to stand up for the original writers. It seems clear from my re-reading of James this morming, that he is not talking about works that are the result of salvation, but WORKS THAT ARE NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. James says, “when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown”, “he who…perseveres…he shall be blessed in his doing”,”can his faith save him? (the implied answer is “no”), “…justified by works and not by faith alone”, etc., etc., etc.. Also, just a few pages later Peter says, “having PURIFIED YOUR SOULS BY YOUR OBEDIENCE to the truth…”, and,”For the time has come for judgement to begin with the household of God (the believing Christians?)and if it begins with us, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God”. I believe the implication is that Peter is saying that it won’t be good on the day of judgement for those who believe, but don’t actually do.
Maybe I’m making too big of a deal out of this, since I do agree that James and Peter don’t act like faith is unnecessary, only that faith without the necessary corresponding action is worthless. Maybe there isn’t that much differnce between the view point of those who say it has to be a special kind of faith that would only be evidenced by works and those who say you need faith and works. Either way it seems that faith and works are necessarily there. Maybe we are arguing over definitions when the substance is not in anyway different.
But, if you think there really is a meaningful differnce, read on.
It would probably be best for those who want to call themselves Christians to catalogue all quotes attributed directly to Christ and see what his own words were on the matter. Though I have read through the N.T. and made notes in margins about that type of stuff, I think I’ll start again and see what words from Christ’s own mouth have to say on the matter and see where the source material leads. I’ll let you know how it comes out, though it will probably take a few days.
I have done this on the trinity concept and found far more examples from Christ’s own mouth that seem to indicate that he and God the Father are separate beings, with separate wills, separate knowledge, separate duties, and that God the Father is superior in the sense that he is the one that “sends”, “gives”, “grants”, “judges”, “raises”, etc.. From that exercise, I found several references that also supported the trinity concept, but not many in comparison to the separate individuals type concept. Got side tracked here, sorry, since that would be another endless argument.
Perhaps to give the Mormon blog readers something to chew on, since I seem to be hitting the “traditionalists” hard. Why don’t you try read through the N.T. and find every refernce that talks about our relationship to God the Father (as in parent-child) and see how well it supports your literal “spirit child” view point or whether there is better support for a “spiritually adopted” view.
Once again, for both groups, don’t bring your previous bias to the table. Read James, or Peter or the Gospels and see what each author says, without looking to commentary or your church’s creeds and doctrines. In this way you will likely come closest to the “original intent”. Just like reading my post and not interpreting it by your biases or someone else’s would be the best. So many of those who have been schooled in religion or politics or some other belief system, no longer read for themselves or think for themselves, but read to find proof of what they already believe. This is a false sort of study and if they happen upon any truth it will only be by chance that they grab it. It is meaningless in the search for truth to not be open minded enought to honestly search and analyze. Go to the source. If you wonder if you can be truly honest with yourself. Find someone unindoctrinated (maybe even a child) and read the source together and without “priming their pumnp” ask their interpretation. I can assure you that this type of interpretation will often contradict the theories propounded by the “sophisticated”.
posted September 12, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Doug,
Does James Contradict Paul?
James 2:14-26 and Romans 3:27-4:5
What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? 17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. 18 But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” 19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. 20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? 22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,” and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.
Romans 3:27-4:5 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. 31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law. 4:1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.
God’s Word Does not Contradict Itself
We believe that the Bible is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16). It is the very word of God, written. Therefore, we believe that the Bible is true and coherent. It does not teach us things that are false. It does not contradict itself. We believe this because Jesus Christ has made himself real to us and has shown himself to be the trustworthy Son of God. He has taught us that the Scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:35). He commissioned apostles to teach the church and promised to lead them into all truth (John 16:13). And he has given us his Spirit to open our eyes to see reality for what it is (1 Corinthians 2:14-15). So we have come to receive his Word as the very Word of God (1 Thessalonians 2:13), free from error and contradiction, because God is true and not a God of confusion.
The Ambiguity of Words
But this does not mean that there are no problems for us in the Bible. We are finite. We are sinful. We are culturally biased. And language itself can confuse us when different words carry the same meaning, and when the same words carry different meanings. Take the simple English word “rock.” It might mean a stone, or a kind of music, or something you do in a rocking chair, or a man’s name. Or take the Greek word zelos which can be “jealousy” in a bad sense or “zeal” in a good sense. So if someone says to you, “I think we should strive to overcome all zelos in our lives,” before you agree or disagree what should you ask him? You should ask him to define the term zelos. Or consider an Englishman saying, “Let’s play football this afternoon,” to which you respond, “No, I’d like to play soccer.” What a waste if you spent the afternoon arguing about which you should play, when the word “football” to an Englishman, and the word “soccer” to an American mean the same thing.
So the same words can have different meanings. And different words can have the same meanings. This is true in the Bible as well as in all other books and conversations. Jonathan Edwards came to the end of one of his journal entries after arguing that the phrase “moral duty” was a redundancy, since “every duty whatsoever is a moral duty.” And the last sentence is a sigh of resignation to the world of words: “O, how is the world darkened, clouded, distracted, and torn to pieces by those dreadful enemies of mankind called words!” (Miscellany #4). Of course, that’s an overstatement, and while words are at times maddening, they are also a precious means of communicating.
But we do feel like Edwards sometimes when trying to solve problems in the Bible. The inspiration of the Word of God is like the incarnation of the Son of God. When the Son of God became a human being he became vulnerable to abuse and death. When the Word of God became human language, it became vulnerable to ambiguity and misunderstanding.
Apparent Contradiction between Paul and James
All of that introduction is simply to set the stage for the apparent contradiction between Paul and James on the doctrine of justification by faith.
Last week I made a case from Romans 4:1-5 for the truth that we are justified by faith alone, not by works. You can already see it, for example, in Romans 3:28, “We maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law;” and especially in Romans 5:5, “To the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.” So God’s verdict of not guilty and his imputing his own righteousness to us in Christ at the beginning of the Christian life is by faith alone, with nothing else commending us to God. We trust his free grace to forgive us and acquit us and count us as righteous because of the work of Christ. That’s how we get started in the Christian life – justified by faith alone.
Now you have just heard the verses in James that seem to contradict that. Let’s note them again. James 1:21, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?” And James 2:24, “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” So you see that James not only says that a person is justified by works, but he also denies that justification is by faith alone. At least he uses words that, on the face of it, in isolation, seem to mean something very different from Paul.
Does James Refute Paul or an Abuse of Paul’s Teaching?
So the key question here is: Does James aim to refute the doctrine of Paul that justification is by faith alone, which would mean there is a massive contradiction in the Bible? Or does James aim to refute an abuse of Paul’s teaching and bring a corrective for the churches he was writing to? I want to try to show you that James is not contradicting Paul here but teaching something compatible with Paul’s teaching and correcting a misuse of Paul’s teaching.
Paul was very aware that his teaching of justification by faith alone was being distorted and misused by those who said, “Well, if we are justified while we are ungodly by faith alone, and this magnifies the grace of God, then let’s just keep sinning, because we are secure anyway and God’s grace will get more glory.” You can see this, for example, in Romans 3:8, “And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), ‘Let us do evil that good may come’? Their condemnation is just.” So he knows he is being slandered: “Paul teaches that the more evil you do the more good comes of it, because God’s grace is glorified in justifying the ungodly.”
Or consider Romans 5:20. Paul says, “The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more.” Paul knows what some are saying, “Well, if grace abounds where sin increases what shall we say?” Romans 6:1, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?” That’s what they were saying, “Let’s continue in sin that grace may increase.”
Now Paul has answers to this kind of superficial distortion and abuse of his teaching. He has answers in virtually all his letters to show how good works and love necessarily flow from real justifying faith. For example, in Galatians 5:13 Paul says, “You were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.” So we have a wonderful freedom from the commandments of God as a means of justification. But does Paul then just lay the works of love on top of that freedom as a layer of legal duty? You got a good start through justification by faith alone, but now there is another way, besides faith, to do what you ought to do and become a loving person?
Faith Works through Love
No. Look at Galatians 5:6, a crucial text in seeing Paul and James in harmony with each other. “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.” So when Paul dealt with the abuse of his doctrine of justification by faith alone, he said: It’s not added works like circumcision that will win God’s favor. What then? It is “faith working through love.” Notice very carefully what he says. What counts with God? “Faith.” But what kind of faith? Faith that “works through love.” He does not say that what counts with God is “faith” plus a layer of loving works added to faith. He says that what counts with God is the kind of faith that by its nature produces love. But it is faith that gives us our right standing with God. The love that comes from it only shows that it is, in fact, real living, justifying faith.
Now that, I think, is what James was trying to get across to his churches. Loveless faith is absolutely useless; and anybody that comes along and says “We are justified by faith alone, and so you don’t have to be a loving person to go to heaven” is not telling the truth.
Let’s see how James corrects this distortion of Paul’s teaching. Here’s where you have to watch out for words – what does James mean by the words he uses? Even when his words may seem to be in conflict with Paul, is the meaning in conflict?
James’ concern is with a kind of counterfeit faith that does not produce love. This faith cannot justify anybody. Verse 14: “What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?” You see his concern. “Can that faith save him?” Such faith is not going to save. What kind of works is James interested in? The same kind Paul is – the works of love. Verses 15-16: “If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,’ and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?” So James’ concern is that people have real saving faith, not counterfeit faith. And the difference is that the real faith produces loving behavior.
He has three ways of describing this counterfeit faith. First in verse 17, he says it is dead: “Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.” It is dead faith. If faith does not “work through love” as Paul said, it is dead. Second, in verse 19 he says, “You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.” There is a faith that even devils have, namely, belief in right doctrine. The faith that justifies and works through love is not simply belief in right doctrines like, “God is one.” Devils can be orthodox at the intellectual level. They believe. But it doesn’t save them. So there is dead faith and devil faith. Third, he says in verse 20, “But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?” So there is useless, idle, ineffective, vain, empty faith.
So there are three ways in this passage that James talks about faith to show that the faith he says cannot justify is a faith that Paul would totally agree cannot justify – dead faith, devil faith, and useless faith -faith that has no vital life that works through love.
Abraham as an Example for Both Paul and James
Now how does James make his case from the life of Abraham – which was what we saw Paul doing in Romans 4? Well, he does it like this. He takes two events in the life of Abraham. The first (in James 2:22) is from Genesis 15:6. God promises Abraham a great host of descendants though his wife is barren. Verse 23 cites Abraham’s faith from Genesis 15:6: “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” That is exactly what Paul does with that event and that verse (Romans 4:3). One thing is reckoned as righteousness: faith. Abraham believed God and it was reckoned as righteousness. Faith, not works, was reckoned as righteousness.
But then James notices that in Genesis 22:1 “God tested Abraham” by commanding him to offer up his son Isaac. What was God testing? He was testing his faith. What was he looking for? He was looking for the kind of obedience or works that shows Abraham’s faith was not dead faith or devil faith or useless faith. So the issue in James 2:21 (where Abraham offers Isaac) is not the first act of justification that put Abraham in a right standing with God. The issue is the test: was Abraham’s faith the living kind of faith that produces the “obedience of faith” or the dead kind that has no effect on life?
“Justification by Works” Defined by Paul and by James
So when James says in verse 21 that Abraham was “justified by works” he has a meaning in mind different from Paul’s when Paul denies that a man is justified by works (Romans 3:28; 4:2; 4:5). James is answering the question: Does the ongoing and final reckoning of Abraham’s righteousness depend on works as the necessary evidence of true and living faith? James’ answer to that question is Yes. And Paul’s answer is also Yes, in Galatians 5:6 (the only thing that counts is “faith working through love”). If you ask James and Paul, “How does an ungodly person get right with God and receive the righteousness of God in Christ as a gift?” both James and Paul would answer with the words of James 2:23: “Trust God (trust Christ) and that faith alone will be reckoned as righteousness.”
But if you ask them, “Does justification as an ongoing and final right standing with God depend on the works of love?” Paul is going to say, “No, if by works you mean deeds done to show that you deserve God’s ongoing blessing (the point of Romans 4:4).” And James is going to say, “Yes, if by works you mean the fruit and evidence of faith like Abraham’s obedience on Mount Moriah.” And Paul is going to say, “I agree with the James, based on his definitions.” And James is going to say, “I agree with Paul, based on his definitions.”
So when Paul renounces “justification by works” he renounces the view that anything we do along with faith is credited to us as righteousness. Only faith obtains the verdict, not guilty, when we become Christians. Works of any kind are not acceptable in the moment of initial justification. But when James affirms “justification by works” he means that works are absolutely necessary in the ongoing life of a Christian to confirm and prove the reality of the faith which justifies.
For Paul, “justification by works” (which he rejects) means “gaining right standing with God by the merit of works.” For James, “justification by works” (which he accepts) means “maintaining a right standing with God by faith along with the necessary evidence of faith, namely, the works of love.”
To put it yet another way: When Paul teaches in Romans 4:5 that we are justified by faith alone, he means that the only thing that unites us to Christ for righteousness is dependence on Christ. When James says in James 2:24 that we are not justified by faith alone he means that the faith which justifies does not remain alone. These two positions are not contradictory. Faith alone unites us to Christ for righteousness, and the faith that unites us to Christ for righteousness does not remain alone. It bears the fruit of love. It must do so or it is dead, demon, useless faith and does not justify.
The glory of Christ in the gospel is not merely that we are justified when we depend entirely on Christ, but also that depending entirely on Christ is the power that makes us new, loving people. Depending entirely on Christ is how we are justified and how we are sanctified. Paul struck the one note. James struck the other. Both are true and together they bring Christ the glory due his name.
posted September 12, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Doug,
I appreciate the fact that you seem to be really digging for the truth. You are right in the fact that sometimes we let other people do our thinking for us. Now, there are still a lot of things in Scripture that I don’t understand, so I lean on people who have devoted their lifetimes to the diligent exposition of the Word for wisdom. In the end, though, it is the Holy Spirit that gives understanding to Scripture. You can read Wesley, Luther, Spurgeon, Ignacius, Tertullian, Augustine, Calvin, et al to your heart’s content, but if the Spirit is not living in you, you will not understand what is being read.
The argument of faith vs. works is as old as the church itself. The issue at hand ultimately, though, is salvation. Are works necessary for salvation, or are works a byproduct of salvation? That is the question.
Remember the rich young ruler? He went up to Jesus and greeted Him by saying, “good Teacher…” Jesus then replied, “Why do you call me good? No one is good – except God alone.” Mark 10:18
If no one is good, how can our works be any good? The Psalmist laments that “”There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” Psalm 14:1-3
Isaiah says that our righteousness is like “filthy rags” before the Lord. Can any one of us change that by doing “good” works? Not according to Paul, who in Romans 3 writes that,
“19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
Righteousness Through Faith
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.”
See that? “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” You can never do enough “works” to be justified! Therefore, what Peter and James are talking about in their epistles cannot be the doctrine of SALVATION BY WORKS. This is a man-made concept that is not supportable by Scripture. Instead, we are saved by the doctrine of SALVATION BY GRACE.
What is the correlation between works and grace through faith, then? It is this: Jesus was a DOER. He didn’t just SAY He had faith, He SHOWED He had faith. That is what James and Peter are trying to get at. To put it in modern terms, they are telling us that if we Talk the Talk, we had better Walk the Walk. Doing good works, works that are motivated by the love of Christ and the Holy Spirit dwelling within us, is the outward sign to a lost world of the inner salvation residing in the Christian. It is the proof, if you will, that the love you say you have inside you is real. Works cannot save you, but if you profess saving faith in Christ and don’t have works, you can be legitimately questioned as to whether your professed faith is real or not.
And in doing works, you have to take Jesus’ warning in Revelation 2 to the church in Ephesus to heart. They were doing wondrous works, but Jesus said “yet I have this against you; you have left your first love.” He threatened to take their lampstand away if they did not repent. So our works, once we have been saved, should not be to gain the praise of men, nor should it be prideful that we are doing such wonderful things, but always in the spirit of doing the will of Christ.
God bless, and have a great day!
posted September 13, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Doug and Chief;
I have read and re-read both of your last posts many times. Maybe because I am watching from the sidelines, I get the view that you are both in complete agreement with each other.
To me you both are making the same argument using different viewpoints.
I think that the most beautiful scripture that explains the position of works and faith is Paul’s; 1 Corinthians Chapter 13.
I have taken the liberty of replacing the word “charity” with the words “the pure love of Christ”
1 THOUGH I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not “the pure love of Christ”, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not “the pure love of Christ”, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not “the pure love of Christ”, it profiteth me nothing.
4 “the pure love of Christ” suffereth long, and is kind; “the pure love of Christ” envieth not; “the pure love of Christ” vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
8 “the pure love of Christ” never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13 And now abideth faith, hope, “the pure love of Christ”, these three; but the greatest of these is “the pure love of Christ”.
May we continue in our quest for mutual understanding with “the pure love of Christ” is my prayer in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.
Stan
posted September 13, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Stan,
In regards to the arguments made by Chief and I, I don’t think that we are in agreement and I doubt that Chief thinks so either, but I truly appreciate your admirable and charitable attempt at harmonizing us. I do agree that there may not be a hair’s breadth difference on “faith and works” if Chief agrees that works are always a necessary part of that type of faith in order to obtain the salvation that James talks about, but that will be for Chief to state.
I really appreciated your use of Paul’s “charity” scripture. I hadn’t read the latest on this “thread” when I was writing on another one and you will notice that I used that scripture there. I years ago stopped hoping for spiritual or mystic signs, but I think this “charity” thing is at least a fun coincidence(perhaps more?)). Because of my all too wordy post on that alternate thread, I will just point people to that thread on this blog if they are interested, because I’m already probably too boring for people to want to read.
I will sign off with this final – lets be far less dogmatic – more honest with ourselves in our studies – stop believeing so blindly in books, blogs and pulpits and just quietly and carefully study the best sources. I really believe that often you can see decent reasons for the differences in doctrinal philosophies. If we are open minded enough to see these, humble enough to put away our egos and charitable enough to realize that charity itself is “the more excellent way”, we would be happier and the world would be better. We would understand more doctrine and what is more important, we would understand each other better. Its not to say that there may not be an ultimate truth, in fact in that same chapters, it seems fun to point out that Paul said that he only “knew in part”. In the end though, I doubt that anything in the pursuit or arguing of that ultimate truth is going to excuse us from being charitable.
Thanks for all your input. I wish you all well. Thanks again Stan for getting us back to what is important.
Bye
P.S. To Stan:
My biggest fear in defining Charity/Love as “the pure love of christ” is that “of” can make us think that it requires loving just christ as compared to everyone. If you mean by “love of christ” the type of love that christ had, then I have no objections whatsoever.
P.S. to Chief:
Thanks for your explanation and attempt to help me understand your view point. Mine still remains. In fact, the very fact that it took that long to explain your view point and that you still needed to harmonize and add extra words to those of James’ in order to change James’ original words to fit your’s and possibly Paul’s view point makes my point that such a doctrine should not be held dogmatically. It seems that any doctrine found in original sources that can’t stand on its own without serious dispute, without lengthy commentary or without contradiction from other equally reputable sources, should not be held or preached dogmatically. It should be studied as an interesting philosophy but not held to rigidly or require others to hold to it rigidly.
posted September 15, 2007 at 1:20 am
Chief et al,
Although I can’t speak for Doug, I can clearly say from his posting that he is NOT implying that we are saved by works…of course, no practicing LDS member believes that…so bury that axe.
We firmly declare that it is the Grace of Jesus Christ, and ONLY His Grace that will ultimately save anyone into the Kingdom of heaven. That said, He puts conditions on “Who” will receive that Grace. And that my friend is where we part paths…
The Mormons attest that Jesus Christ will act as advocate to the Father only for those who He has put His stamp of approval upon…and that will require much more than believing and acknowledging that Jesus is the Christ; for as told in the New Testament, even the devils ‘believe’ and acknowledge that Jesus is the Son of God!
It is by Faith, Repentance, Baptism by Immersion and the reception of the Gift of the Holy Ghost that we get Christ’s ‘seal’ of approval. And once obtained, there is NO guarantee it will remain, only upon a life of commitment to Him will that be so…recognizing that ALL men sin and fall short of His glory…but his Grace is sufficient for the truly penitent, humble follower of Christ, who remains “faithful” to the end of his days…
Can one win a race who quits half way through? Can one graduate college who completes only part of the requirements? Can one qualify to be a joint heir with Christ, if he tires of the Christian way and turns to another?
Faithful, means more than “I believe!” It means I will DO (that’s the works Mormons refer to) all within my power to emulate the Savior, obey all of His commandments, and hold true to the end…and when I fall down, I brush off the dirt (repent), get up, and get moving in the right direction again…the Grace of Christ will always envelope just such a person…so I believe, so I testify!
Good night…
posted September 18, 2007 at 4:20 pm
QF,
I have read your comments, and find them for the most part to be sensible and insightful. However, I must disagree with your statement that “It is by Faith, Repentance, Baptism by Immersion and the reception of the Gift of the Holy Ghost that we get Christ’s ‘seal’ of approval. And once obtained, there is NO guarantee it will remain, only upon a life of commitment to Him will that be so..”
Do you realize that is almost exactly what the Muslims believe? In Islam, every person is assigned two angels. One angel keeps track of “good” deeds, and the other one marks down the “bad” ones. At the end of a person’s life, these two angels compare notes, and if the good deeds outweigh the bad, its on to paradise! But if the bad outnumber the good, well…
I do not totally agree with “once saved always saved,” because I think that reading the NT gives several examples where believers turned away and left the faith, “piercing themselves with many sorrows.” Consider this passage from I Corinthians 3:
“10By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. 11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.”
In Christianity, the goal is, once you have been justified, to keep growing and maturing in your faith until you die. There is no retirement from Christian service! However, there are people who seem to plateau or get stuck in a certain level. There are those who never progress out of spiritual infancy, and those who kind of stick their lives on ‘cruise control.’ And then there are those who diligently seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and these are the folks we would call mature Christians. Does God condemn those who do not keep maturing? Does He damn to hell people who have sincerely converted but then do not grow as they should? Does he jettison the lives of saints that did not reach their full potentials in Christ? I don’t think so. Those folks will not have much authority or be put in charge of much in heaven, and they will lose out on rewards in heaven, but they will still be saved. “If you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” No mention of keeping works there.
posted September 18, 2007 at 4:46 pm
QF,
Jesus spoke to this when He gave His parables about the master and the servants. The servants who were faithful with the master’s “property” down here on earth (His Word) were given great authority in heaven. Those who did little were given little, and those who hid the Word away and did nothing with it were condemned.
By putting a burden of “committing a life to Him” on people, you are adding the law to faith. God especially loves people who WILLINGLY do His will, above those who do it out of fear. Remember tithing? It was a command in the OT, but in the NT God gave a new understanding -
2 Corinthians 9:6-8
“6Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. 7Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. 8And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work.”
I heard it put his way by James McDonald: “There are 3 phases to our relationship with God in the Christian walk; duty, desire, and delight. Duty is young, immature spirituality, where the person heeds the commands of Christ out of fear, and his or her Christian service is based on feelings of obligation. Desire is the phase where a person is growing in their faith, and the promises of God speak to their heart. Their Christian service is based not on fear but on wanting to love God back for the gratitude they feel for their salvation. Delight is the highest phase, where it is a joy to be about the things of the Lord, and every opportunity to express the love of Christ welling up inside you is seized with thanksgiving and worship.”
Many people get stuck in Duty and Desire, and never progress up to delight, because they let the busyness of this world rob them of peace and joy, or they selfishly cling to fulfilling their own wants and needs instead of looking after the needs of others. Those kind of people are the “Sunday” Christians, or the people who go to worship services intermittently. If they have accepted Christ as their Savior, they are saved, but they won’t have a lot to show for it when they pass on to the next life, and their giving an account for their lives before the judgement seat of Christ will be brutal.
Calvinists use TULIP as the basis of their doctrine, with the I being the “irresistable grace of God.” Their belief is that once you have been called, you cannot resist or deny the grace of God in your life. I do not happen to agree with this philosophy, because I have seen plenty of good Christian people resist His grace, thereby missing out on numerous blessings that God surely wanted to shower them with. It’s a sad thing to witness, but I have done the same thing from time to time, so I can’t really throw too many stones.
Have a great day, my friend!
posted September 18, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Chief,
Thanks for the reply.
If you read my comments outside of the LDS “Whole” perspective that is woven in these many threads already posted, then I can understand your protestation. But your ending sentences make me wonder if you are in fact reading or just skimming the postings.
You said, “Does He damn to hell people who have sincerely converted but then do not grow as they should? Does he jettison the lives of saints that did not reach their full potentials in Christ? I don’t think so. Those folks will not have much authority or be put in charge of much in heaven, and they will lose out on rewards in heaven, but they will still be saved. “If you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” No mention of keeping works there.”
QF: LDS doctrine does not believe that. It is the fundamentalist of modern day Christianity that claim it’s either Heaven or Hell. You say you can “…[kind of] get into heaven, but will not have much authority…” depending on what [works]? How are those judged who lose out on rewards but still make it into heaven, if not by their works inspired by their belief and faith? I clearly outlined that we believe it is the Grace of God and only His grace that will save us, yet you still flipped back to works? I don’t understand that. Works is a manifestation of the Glory of God…it is also how we keep the commandments…abstaining from this, feeding the poor, clothing the naked, healing the sick, etc., etc., etc. To believe that Works of Godliness are insignificant is to deny the power of God Himself…For He is ALL about works, primarily working out man’s salvation.
So, in summary, you believe you can get into heaven, but not enjoy all the rewards of heaven, depending on your heart? Did I get that right? Please explain what you mean by “…reaching your full potentials in Christ?” Is that manifest in anyway other than…Works? The following are just a few of the many scriptures found in the New Testament showing that Faith and Works go hand in hand and certainly have much importance to the True believer…and ultimately, to their final destination.
Matt. 13: 58 (Mark 6: 5) he did not many mighty works.
John 5: 36 (John 10: 25) works which the Father hath given me to
finish.
John 9: 3 works of God should be made manifest in him.
John 10: 25 works that I do . . . bear witness of me.
John 10: 38 though ye believe not me, believe the works.
John 14: 12 works that I do shall he do also, and greater works.
Rom. 4: 6 God imputeth righteousness without works.
2 Tim. 4: 14 (D&C 138: 59) Lord reward him according to his works.
Titus 1: 16 they know God, but in works they deny him.
James 2: 14 though a man say he hath faith, and have not works.
James 2: 17 faith, if it hath not works, is dead.
James 2: 22 by works was faith made perfect.
James 2: 24 by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
1 Jn. 3: 8 that he might destroy the works of the devil.
Rev. 2: 23 give unto every one of you according to your works.
Rev. 2: 26 keepeth my works unto the end.
Rev. 14: 13 (D&C 59: 2) their works do follow them.
posted September 18, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Chief says:
and their giving an account for their lives before the judgement seat of Christ will be brutal.
Mike Bennion:
Please elaborate. If they are saved why will it be brutal?
posted September 18, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Mike,
Great question! Have you ever had a stern lecture from your father, or a coach? You know he’s not going to kill you, but that doesn’t make the dressing down any more fun. If you look at Paul’s words, he says that that person’s works will be burned up and he “will suffer loss.”
“Brutal” may have been a bad choice of words on my part, but it won’t be pleasant. The judgment seat of Christ is not the White Throne judgment spoken of in the last chapters of Revelation, but it is the judgment where believers will all give an account of how they used their gifts and spent their lives. Some will receive great reward, some moderate rewards, some small ones, and some will get in with all of their works burned up, as one who has escaped the flames. I can’t imagine that that would be very much fun, having your life examined and everything that you did was tossed out as not having been profitable for the kingdom.
That is what I meant.
Have a great evening!
posted September 19, 2007 at 5:37 pm
So you believe in a gradation of rewards based on the works a believer has accomplished?
posted September 20, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Mike,
Yes. Let me ask you a question: Do you believe Jesus when He told us to not lay up treasures for ourselves here on earth, where they will most certainly be destroyed, but instead to lay up for ourselves treasures in heaven, where they will last forever?
Do you believe Jesus when He spoke the Parable of the Ten Minas in Luke 19? “I say to you, to everyone who has, more will be given. But as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away.”
Mike, please let us be clear. I do not believe in any way, shape, or form that our works do anything to gain our salvation. I do believe, and the Scriptures back me up, that we are rewarded for those good deeds that we do. The requirement, I believe, for a good deed is one that is motivated by the love of Christ in our hearts. If I try to do things hoping to win brownie points with God, those works would in all liklihood not be considered good.
One thing that I don’t know is what shape the rewards will come in. Paul talks about jewels in our crowns. I personally believe that the more faithful we are on earth, the more responsibility or authority we will have in the life to come. There will be governance here on earth in the thousand-year millenial reign of Christ, and then after that…? That is my personal opinion.
Have a great day, my friend!
posted September 20, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Chief,
One more time…
Thanks for the reply.
If you read my comments outside of the LDS “Whole” perspective that is woven in these many threads already posted, then I can understand your protestation. But your ending sentences make me wonder if you are in fact reading or just skimming the postings.
You said, “Does He damn to hell people who have sincerely converted but then do not grow as they should? Does he jettison the lives of saints that did not reach their full potentials in Christ? I don’t think so. Those folks will not have much authority or be put in charge of much in heaven, and they will lose out on rewards in heaven, but they will still be saved. “If you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” No mention of keeping works there.”
QF: LDS doctrine does not believe that. It is the fundamentalist of modern day Christianity that claim it’s either Heaven or Hell. You say you can “…[kind of] get into heaven, but will not have much authority…” depending on what [works]? How are those judged who lose out on rewards but still make it into heaven, if not by their works inspired by their belief and faith? I clearly outlined that we believe it is the Grace of God and only His grace that will save us, yet you still flipped back to works? I don’t understand that. Works is a manifestation of the Glory of God…it is also how we keep the commandments…abstaining from this, feeding the poor, clothing the naked, healing the sick, etc., etc., etc. To believe that Works of Godliness are insignificant is to deny the power of God Himself…For He is ALL about works, primarily working out man’s salvation.
So, in summary, you believe you can get into heaven, but not enjoy all the rewards of heaven, depending on your heart? Did I get that right? Please explain what you mean by “…reaching your full potentials in Christ?” Is that manifest in anyway other than…Works? The following are just a few of the many scriptures found in the New Testament showing that Faith and Works go hand in hand and certainly have much importance to the True believer…and ultimately, to their final destination.
Matt. 13: 58 (Mark 6: 5) he did not many mighty works.
John 5: 36 (John 10: 25) works which the Father hath given me to
finish.
John 9: 3 works of God should be made manifest in him.
John 10: 25 works that I do . . . bear witness of me.
John 10: 38 though ye believe not me, believe the works.
John 14: 12 works that I do shall he do also, and greater works.
Rom. 4: 6 God imputeth righteousness without works.
2 Tim. 4: 14 (D&C 138: 59) Lord reward him according to his works.
Titus 1: 16 they know God, but in works they deny him.
James 2: 14 though a man say he hath faith, and have not works.
James 2: 17 faith, if it hath not works, is dead.
James 2: 22 by works was faith made perfect.
James 2: 24 by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
1 Jn. 3: 8 that he might destroy the works of the devil.
Rev. 2: 23 give unto every one of you according to your works.
Rev. 2: 26 keepeth my works unto the end.
Rev. 14: 13 (D&C 59: 2) their works do follow them.
posted September 20, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Mike asked:
So you believe in a gradation of rewards based on the works a believer has accomplished?
Chief’s answer:
Yes.
Mike:
So do I.
Chief:
Let me ask you a question: Do you believe Jesus when He told us to not lay up treasures for ourselves here on earth, where they will most certainly be destroyed, but instead to lay up for ourselves treasures in heaven, where they will last forever?
Mike:
So the Bible teaches and so Latter-day Saints believe.
Chief:
Do you believe Jesus when He spoke the Parable of the Ten Minas in Luke 19? “I say to you, to everyone who has, more will be given. But as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away.”
Mike:
Indeed I, and all Latter-day Saints, do.
Chief:
Mike, please let us be clear. I do not believe in any way, shape, or form that our works do anything to gain our salvation.
Mike:
Nor do I Chief. Without Christ there is no salvation.
Chief:
I do believe, and the Scriptures back me up, that we are rewarded for those good deeds that we do.
Mike:
As do I. Once Christ’s great work of Salvation is done, and our Salvation is assured, then we do what He asks us to do. We would not have power to do the works he commands if he had not died for us and atoned for our sins. But having accomplished that, he has empowered us to keep his commandments and given us the agency to choose whether we will.
Chief:
The requirement, I believe, for a good deed is one that is motivated by the love of Christ in our hearts. If I try to do things hoping to win brownie points with God, those works would in all liklihood not be considered good.
Mike:
As you spoke elsewhere of motives, I believe that sometimes people must start where they are. I don’t think Paul, on the Road to Damascus was originally motivated by love. I think there was a good measure of fear mixed in. But once the Savior pointed things out to Paul, he (Paul) went and was baptized and proceeded to do what God asked, and I believe that he came to love doing good for the glory of God. I believe that we must all come to that point as well if we are to be pleasing to God.
Chief:
One thing that I don’t know is what shape the rewards will come in.
Mike:
Latter-day Saints believe that we have been given further understanding of what Paul spoke of in 2nd Corinthians:
2 Cor. 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
And what he spoke of in 1st Corinthians:
1st Cor 15:40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star cdiffereth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
Chief:
Paul talks about jewels in our crowns. I personally believe that the more faithful we are on earth, the more responsibility or authority we will have in the life to come.
Mike:
I heartily concur.
Chief:
There will be governance here on earth in the thousand-year millenial reign of Christ,
Mike:
Yes, there will.
Chief:
and then after that…? That is my personal opinion.
Mike:
The parable of the talents is applicable here:
Matt 25:14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
15 And unto one he agave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.
19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee RULER OVER MANY THINGS: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be ctaken away even that which he hath.
30 And cast ye the UNPROFITABLE SERVANT INTO OUTER DARKNESS: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Have a nice evening,
Mike
posted September 21, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Chief/Mike,
What a beautiful exchange.
In an attempt to clarify;
Chief:
”Let me ask you a question: Do you believe Jesus when He told us to not lay up treasures for ourselves here on earth, where they will most certainly be destroyed, but instead to lay up for ourselves treasures in heaven, where they will last forever?”
Stan’s answer:
I think it is obvious here is that the first treasures spoken of here are worldly goods and even worldly good deeds. In my opinion, the treasures that Jesus tells us to lay up for ourselves, are the good deeds that we must do for others, by our desire to follow Jesus Christ and His example to us.
It all goes back to 1 Corinthians 13. It is all about Charity. Doing something for someone else because you want to exemplify your pure love for Jesus Christ by doing what He would do if He were here.
Chief, the Latter-Day-Saints are taught by their leaders to live Christ like lives 24/7. We know and acknowledge that our works will never save us from our sins. Only Jesus Christ can save us.
We also believe, just as you stated, “Paul talks about jewels in our crowns. I personally believe that the more faithful we are on earth, the more responsibility or authority we will have in the life to come.”
Sorry Chief your belief is more LDS doctrine than that of traditional Christianity.
But, yes you are correct, your responsibilities and authority in heaven will be dependent on how faithful you were, in doing the works of Jesus Christ, in mortality. IE The parable of the talents.
In my past I have had the question put to me, “If Mormons believe that the Terrestrial, and Telestial kingdoms are glories from God, why do you try so hard by doing works?”
My answer to them is, by my doing good works in this life, I am able to feel the joy that I imagine that I will feel when I meet Christ. I try to live my life like; Matthew 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Chief as I have stated before, I am a convert to the church. I see the scripture Matthew 25:40 as being a major part in the lives of 99% of the LDS people that I know.
Chief, There is a daily email disbursement called Gems. It is an attempt to share what other LDS people are doing and bring reported by newspapers throughout the world.
To get gems paste; http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.bd2ccc415f271e718ce424a2942826a0/?vgnextoid=37a89b5ffdc54010VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD&vgnextfmt=tab2&locale=0&sourceId=3c2fae75d5129010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____
into your browser’s address bar.
If you read these short posts for a month, you will get a much better picture of what we are doing, as a people, to serve Jesus Christ.
I love and respect you and your desire to inform and learn.
Stan
posted September 27, 2007 at 9:48 am
I was married to a Morman for 46 years. We are now divorced and I feel free of his domination for the first time. He knew he was right about everything spiritual. He was not open to any ideas unless they came from church leaders. He believed that what people had done in the pre-life determined their status here on earth. I found much of what he believed arrogant and uncaring although many of the Mormans we mixed with were pleasant and caring of each other and others. But always from their position as the “true church”. They never gave up on me although I was happy in my own spirituallity. I was born and raised in a religion which is full of people who make mistakes and are human but this church brought into the world Francis of Assisi, Clair of Assisi, Mother Theresa, Dr. Theresa of Avila, humble and rich alike this people have impacted the world. I am happy to be the Christian who helps end poverty and hunger and disease.
posted September 28, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Patricia said:
I found much of what he believed arrogant and uncaring although many of the Mormans we mixed with were pleasant and caring of each other and others. But always from their position as the “true church”. They never gave up on me although I was happy in my own spirituallity.
Mike:
I’m sorry for your difficult experience. It sounds as if the man, rather than the doctrine was what you found “arrogant and uncaring”.
posted September 28, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Patricia,
I wonder if the wife of Judas Iscariot would have found the religion preached by Jesus “arrogant and uncaring” in their day? Would that have negated His teachings as being true?
I’m sorry you allowed yourself to remain in an arrogant and uncaring marriage for 46 years. I have to wonder why?
posted October 6, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Attacking the victim will not help your cause. Underneath all the frosting lies the true nature of the unrelenting war against those who believe differently than you.
posted October 6, 2007 at 10:23 pm
John,
I am truly sorry for the difficulty suffered by Patricia. No attack involved. I must say, however, that the experiences I have had have been so different from Patricia that I can’t see it as typical of all or even the majority of members of the Church.
posted October 7, 2007 at 12:45 pm
John,
So long as you continue looking for the mote in others, the beam in your own eye will blind you to the truth.
posted October 9, 2007 at 6:27 pm
QuickFix, I am also troubled about your post,
QuickFix posted “I’m sorry you allowed yourself to remain in an arrogant and uncaring marriage for 46 years. I have to wonder why?”
QuickFox, your post seems like such a harsh statement, Patricia did not say uncaring towards her at all. Because he assumed he was always right may have made him arrogant. Patricia said that his internal belief’s made him arrogant, and uncaring.
The big questions for Patricia are, did you join the church? If you did join, did you have a strong testimony of its truth?
These questions are of real importance because, if Patricia answers no to either question, then the problem may just be over religious differences. True he may have been a jerk in his non-religious life as well, but, Patricia never said.
What she said was, “He knew he was right about everything spiritual. He was not open to any ideas unless they came from church leaders.”
That indicates clear division on religious beliefs. A sure path to problems.
But, Patricia, I do commend you for sticking with your marriage at least till the children were raised.
I am a convert to the church, my wife and I have been married for 44 years. I remember the first time I went into family therapy. I asked how long it was going to take to fix our problems(meaning hers). Five years latter I finally learned that my attitude of “always being right” was a major problem. Because I joined the church and gained a strong testimony, religion has never been a problem between us. Our problems usually revolved around the children, foster children, and to a lesser degree the grand-children that we raised.
For our children it was “wait until your father gets home”, then, when I got home, I was told to punish so-and-so. We also had the normal parenting problem of often not being together, so the children knew how to manipulate us.
The second time around, and after I was “cured”, we raised two of our grand-children and did a much better job.
Stan
posted October 9, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Stan,
Maybe I got it wrong, but when she said, “I was married to a Morman for 46 years. We are now divorced and I feel free of his domination for the first time…I found much of what he believed arrogant and uncaring”, I couldn’t help but put “free of his domination…” together with “…arrogant and uncaring…” as consistent with his religious involvement and strain on the marriage. I’ve had some experience counseling part member families and usually (not always) the non-member translates, “magnifying your calling” into the spouse being uncaring, unfeeling, not loved because they choose “the church” over me and such. It is difficult at best to align two separate religious belief systems in a marriage…but even more so with LDS part member families due to the one-sided level of “commitments” made. As time passes these feelings of resentment build until the marriage strains and a choice is demanded by the one feeling “left out”…Your God, or Me, which is it going to be? Or, something to that effect.
Again, not having both sides to the story…I remain…wondering why? I’m sure there is much more to the story than finally being free of a Mormon’s 46 year domination, and arrogant and uncaring religious beliefs.
regards,
QF
posted October 10, 2007 at 3:55 pm
QF, you are certainly correct when you posted “I’ve had some experience counseling part member families and usually (not always) the non-member translates, “magnifying your calling” into the spouse being uncaring, unfeeling, not loved because they choose “the church” over me and such.”
Even in my marriage, where my wife’s ancestors go back to knowing the prophet, my wife often complained about the time I spent in my callings. Most of her complaints came during a period when she was inactive.
Now that she reactivated herself, the complaints have disappeared even though my current calling takes more of my time.
I also agree that there is much more to the Patricia’s story.
Stan
posted October 10, 2007 at 9:37 pm
After reading many posts, there seems to be such an overpowering connection in attitude when it comes to LDS beliefs.
i find it interesting that the blog was about Christians and Mormons, but it seems like every blog is one Christian arguing with one Mormon. Back and Forth. i realize that is a vague statement, but no one seems to get anywhere. i wonder what is the goal?
I think that Patricia had a clear meaning in her statements about her marriage. Although i appreciate the acknowledgement of “sticking with it” don’t you think that Stan and QF are a little chauvenistic? It almost sounds like what you both are agreeing on is that Patricia had the issue, because her husband was doing the right thing, being in a Mormon religion. I am a woman, and i will tell you that it is one thing that bothers me A LOT about Mormonism and its’ beginnings is how men are so totally justified, glorified, and if a woman does well, maybe she gets to be the goddess of their universe. And when polygamy was still practiced, wasn’t it recorded that Smith was given a revelation that he was to take other wives, and that if his wife Emma didn’t honor that revelation from God, she would surely suffer in Hell, and if any virgin or woman who was told she was to be joined to smith resisted, she would surely suffer as well? It is such a male dominated, woman subservant role-type religion, that it wreaks. Why would God make demands like that? What purpose did it serve? I have read on other pages of the same blog that at least Mormons’ understand what God is doing, what his purpose is. So what is God’s purpose in these revelations of Smiths?
posted October 11, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Posted by: | October 10, 2007 9:37 PM, whomever you are…
Unfortunately, you’ve got your facts all screwed up…your feminist anger is clouding your thinking.
What was God’s purpose in giving Hagar to Abraham to wife while married to Sariah? Was that not polygamy? If you believe the bible, you have to acknowledge that “He who makes the Law, can change the Law” if and when it pleases Him…period. With your line of thinking…even God is Chauvenistic.
QF
posted October 12, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Posted by: | October 10, 2007 9:37 PM,
Spoken like a true feminist with a chip on her shoulder…
I think you might be surprised to find out that God is no respector of persons…male and female made He them…equal…but with different roles…
You should open your eyes to is love for you and all women…If anything, I think He holds women a step up from men!
Stay well,
QF
posted October 13, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Quikfix; i am not a feminist—-far from it. i have been in a marriage over 18 years and have a very homemakerish role. but i do believe in respect for a woman and the job she does as a man’s helpmate. the blogs i read sounded like you and the other guy were picking on a woman who got out of a bad marriage, finally felt free, described the man as arrogant and whatever else, and you both, instead of holding her in any form of esteem explained away what he did as being about your church.
Women usually don’t get the credit due them. What about the 60 years she spent with him, probably the children she raised and fed everyday? Women sacrifice a lot in marriages and child rearing. They should be respected. Do you love your mother? What if you saw your father treating her badly, Mormon or not, would you step in if she was hurting and miserable, or would you suggest she wasn’t understaning what he needed to do to serve the church? Serving one’s church doesn’t justify treating someone else with out respect, and making them feel like she did. After 60 years she deserved some respect. i feel sorry for her that she spent that much time being unhappy, but i am happy for her now, and i do wish her well.
posted October 14, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Posted by: | October 13, 2007 7:32 PM
It would be nice to put a handle on your posts. No name seems so impersonal.
You posted “Quikfix; i am not a feminist—-far from it. i have been in a marriage over 18 years and have a very homemakerish role. but i do believe in respect for a woman and the job she does as a man’s helpmate. the blogs i read sounded like you and the other guy were picking on a woman who got out of a bad marriage, finally felt free, described the man as arrogant and whatever else, and you both, instead of holding her in any form of esteem explained away what he did as being about your church.”
For at least myself, I was not picking on Patricia at all. I was simply pointing out that a part-member family in the LDS faith has a very poor track record of success. The odds are even worse when the non-member is antagonistic against the teachings of the church.
Patricia has not responded as to her belief system other than Christian.
Membership in the church takes a lot of time. My wife complained about the time I spent in my callings when she was inactive. My current calling requires more time now then ever before. She does not complain at all now. I think it is because she is active, involved, and spends a lot her time doing the work of the Lord.
Our marriage now is stronger than ever, because we are both doing the work of the Lord and we appreciate the efforts what we both put into helping others.
You posted “Women usually don’t get the credit due them.”
In my opinion that is an absolutely true statement.
You posted “What about the 60 years she spent with him, probably the children she raised and fed everyday? Women sacrifice a lot in marriages and child rearing. They should be respected.”
Actually it was 46 years. But again your post is very true. We men, are taught in our Priesthood meetings to honor, respect, help, etc, etc, and most of all to put our wife’s needs before our own. Patricia’s ex-husband may have missed those lessons.
We get them at least 15 times a year.
I state again, Patricia’s post did not say that his arrogance went beyond his belief system.
You posted “Do you love your mother? What if you saw your father treating her badly, Mormon or not, would you step in if she was hurting and miserable, or would you suggest she wasn’t understaning what he needed to do to serve the church?”
Neither of my parents are members, but, if my mother’s actions were not respectful of what my father thought he needed to do for his own personal spirituality, I would expect my father to do what he needed to do despite the objections of my mother. Each partner needs to respect the beliefs of the other.
We had a couple in our ward where both were members. For some reason the wife wanted to go to a local Christian church. He went to church with her, taught in their Sunday School and then he came to our ward if the meeting times did not conflict. I once asked John what he taught in their Sunday School classes. He said watered down basic Mormon doctrines and they loved it. I doubt that they knew John was a Mormon. This went on for at least fifteen years before John died.
What we are discussing here has nothing to do with being male or female. In my ward we have several men who are not now, or were not members at the time. In fact I will include my own father-in law who was an inactive member at the time. These men were so much into their own needs that they tried to restrict their wives’ involvement in their church assignments. My mother-in-law was both Primary President and later Relief Society President. Both callings require a lot of time. My father-in-law made life hard for her if she spent too much time on her callings. It is very important here to point out again, that he was inactive at the time. Another dear friend of mine who was not a member at the time, did the same thing to his wife.
After a period of many years both of these men became active in the church. They both repented of their, what I will call “evil”, ways. After these two men got involved in the Lord’s work, they became massive supporters of their wives. It would have been real easy and very correct for their wives to say that their husbands were abusing them, the same way Patricia said that her husband disrespected her religious opinion.
You posted “ Serving one’s church doesn’t justify treating someone else with out respect, and making them feel like she did.”
I am not confident from Patricia’s post, that the lack of respect that you are assuming, is actually his not acquiescing to her religious beliefs.
You posted “After 60 years she deserved some respect. i feel sorry for her that she spent that much time being unhappy, but i am happy for her now, and i do wish her well.”
She deserved respect from the day they were married and every day thereafter.
Because of the lack of information here, and Patricia’s lack of involvement, I will make another assumption. I would guess that during most of their marriage that he was not an active member of the church.
Because he probably wasn’t active in the church, the difference in their religious beliefs wasn’t a factor in their mariage. Remember she posted “He knew he was right about everything spiritual. He was not open to any ideas unless they came from church leaders.” And, “I found much of what he believed arrogant and uncaring.” She did not include, financial decisions, moving decisions, child rearing decisions,etc, etc, she only said religious differences.
From my above assumptions, I would also assume that she wasn’t that unhappy in the marriage until religion became a factor.
Stan
posted October 16, 2007 at 3:28 pm
QF,
Not to nitpick here, but you err when you ask the question: what was God’s purpose in giving Hagar to Abraham? If you go back and read the text, you will see that it was Sarah’s idea, not God’s.
Genesis 16: 1 Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian maidservant named Hagar; 2 so she said to Abram, “The LORD has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family through her.” Abram agreed to what Sarai said. 3 So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. 4 He slept with Hagar, and she conceived. When she knew she was pregnant, she began to despise her mistress. 5 Then Sarai said to Abram, “You are responsible for the wrong I am suffering. I put my servant in your arms, and now that she knows she is pregnant, she despises me. May the LORD judge between you and me.” 6 “Your servant is in your hands,” Abram said. “Do with her whatever you think best.” Then Sarai mistreated Hagar; so she fled from her.
If you read through this, you will notice that not once in this passage do either Abraham or Sarah inquire of the Lord to see if this is His will, or a way in which the covenant can be fulfilled. And if you read in Galatians 4, Paul writes that we are children of the free woman (Sarah) and not the bondservant (Hagar). This was a glaring example of man trying to work out God’s will without trusting fully in the Lord to do what He promised He would do.
Just for edification….
posted October 16, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Chief,
Are you saying that God changes the rules to cover the err of his prophets? By any clear definition, Abraham consenting to lie with Hagar while married to Sarai is adultery for him and fornication for Hagar…doesn’t matter that Sarai approved of the act.
If you read later in Chapter 20 of Genesis…you see a very similar situation but reversed. Sarah was taken by Abimalech thinking she was Abraham’s sister. God intervened by visiting Abimalech in a dream and stating he was dead…he then clearly proclaimed his innocence. “God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man’s wife.
4 But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation?
5 Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this.
6 And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.
7 Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine.
8 Therefore Abimelech rose early in the morning, and called all his servants, and told all these things in their ears: and the men were sore afraid.
9 Then Abimelech called Abraham, and said unto him, What hast thou done unto us? and what have I offended thee, that thou hast brought on me and on my kingdom A GREAT SIN? thou hast done deeds unto me that ought not to be done.”
If Adultery and fornication were not considered “GREAT SINS”, then why would he have a need to proclaim his innocence of such a deed with Sarah? And, if God would appear in a dream to warn a King against such a GREAT SIN, why would He not warn His own Prophet against committing such an act?
Either Abraham and Hagar’s act was sanctioned by the Lord and we don’t have “the rest of the story” or God is not unchangeable as He declares and administers his judgements capricously. I believe the former.
King David suffered the loss of his family, kingdom and possibly his soul by his adultery with Bathsheba and subsequent attempt at a cover-up by sending her husband to be killed in battle…yet Abraham goes on to receive the COVENANT and favored status of the Lord AFTER lying with Hagar and bringing forth an illegitimate child…Ishmael.
Herein is one more, and I might add of many, proofs that the Bible IS missing crucial information…
My God will never reward egregious sin with blessings…so in this case I have to assume God was behind Sarai’s actions with Hagar…for His Divine purposes…
QF
posted October 17, 2007 at 11:46 am
QF,
You bring up a good point, but I file this under the “God can turn an evil thing into a good thing”, just like he did for Joseph and his brothers. Joseph told his brothers that when they sold him into slavery, “you meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.”
God did rescue Hagar and Ishmael, but they were cast out from among Abraham and his family. And in that day, Ishmael would not be considered illegitimate, as it was common practice for barren women to give their handmaidens to their husbands to produce an heir. It was more a cultural thing, but I think we can realize that God was not behind Sarah and Hagar’s actions because Ishmael was not the child of promise.
posted October 17, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Chief,
I don’t think God’s chosen people were culturally aduterers and fornicators. God is the law giver and he who makes the laws can ‘change’ them, amend them or completely abolish them, according to His perfect knowledge and understanding.
To believe that polygamy was not biblical is to close a blind eye to many examples: to wit:
Gen. 25: 1-10 “Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.” No where do we learn that Sarah was dead before this took place.
2 And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.
3 And Jokshan begat Sheba, and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim.
4 And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah.
5 ¶ And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac.
6 But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.
7 And these are the days of the years of Abraham’s life which he lived, an hundred threescore and fifteen years.
8 Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people.
9 And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, which is before Mamre;
10 The field which Abraham purchased of the sons of Heth: there was Abraham buried, and Sarah his wife.” From this verse it “appears” Sarah followed Abraham into the grave, but despite this…I point out that he had many children from his concubines. (another name for plural marriage or polygamy). Unfortunately, it is often difficult to separate the “sanctioned” polygamy from that condemned of God in the Scriptures. But, in the least you have to admit it did occur. And just ONE sanctioned of God means He could, if He so chose, sanction others.
Think of Jacob with Rachael, Leah, and many others…If these plural wives were not sanctioned of God, then in the very least He didn’t care…So, zooming foward to 1830′s…if Joseph Smith introduced Polygamy as a “restored’ doctrine…so logic demands that in the least, God didn’t care…and as with Abraham and Jacob and many others…it can not be used as ground for proving he was NOT a prophet! Of course, I believe it was “sanctioned” of God; and although terminated in 1890, I expect it very well might come back…but that will be up to The Law Giver Himself!
From the Dictionary:
con·cu·bine [kong-kyuh-bahyn, kon-] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a woman who cohabits with a man to whom she is not legally married, esp. one regarded as socially or sexually subservient; mistress.
2. (among polygamous peoples) a secondary wife, usually of inferior rank.
3. (esp. formerly in Muslim societies) a woman residing in a harem and kept, as by a sultan, for sexual purposes.
Just for edification
QF
posted October 18, 2007 at 11:32 pm
QF,
Of course polygamy does occur in the Bible. I will not refute that at all. The question for us is: is that God’s will for us, or was it something He was against but men screwed up and misinterpreted His wishes? There are a lot of other things in the Bible that God is not particularly pleased with, either;
1) Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery. I doubt that God condones or “doesn’t care” about siblings doing this to each other.
2) Lot’s daughters got him drunk and had children by him. Their two sons would be the founders of nations that would vex the Israelits for centuries, the Moabites and the Ammonites.
3) Moses struck a rock to bring water to the complaining Israelites, and as punishment he was not allowed to go into the promised land.
Moral of the story: Just because something is in the Bible doesn’t necessarily mean God condones, commands, or blesses it.
Here is a sermon by Dr. Neil Chadwick about polygamy. I think you will find it interesting:
———————————————————————–
Is Polygamy Biblical? – Genesis 4:17-26
A Sermon by Dr. Neil Chadwick
As you know, I have traveled to India several times to provide encouragement and training for pastors. It was on my second trip in 1990 when we had a spare day after had completing our final seminar in New Delhi and we took that day to travel by train to Agra, the city that is host to the famous Taj Mahal.
When we arrived, a horde of peddlers and hawkers greeted us, and among them a man who spoke English quite well and who offered his services as a tour guide around the city. We accepted, and soon were being driven to the site of the magnificent white marble building originally erected as a tomb in honor of the deceased wife of a wealthy emperor.
The cousin of our guide drove the car, and our host sat in the front passenger seat, while I and my assistant occupied the back seat. Soon small talk began and I was asked by this 40-year-old Muslim man, “Do you have a family?” “Yes.” “How many children do you have? “Four.” “How many wives do you have?” Then I thought, if he can ask questions, so can I, so I returned the same questions. To the last question he laughed and said, “Oh, I only have one – that’s all I can afford.”
This week our national news has been focused on a home grown polygamist, Warren Jeffs, a 50 year old western cult leader who not only practices, but promotes polygamy by arranging for multiple wives, many of them young teenage girls. As a polygamist himself, Jeffs has at least 40 wives, and has fathered over 60 children by them – 4 years ago he took over the leadership of the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (FLDS) church from his father.
According to some reports, members of Jeffs’ church, called “Warrenites,” believe him to be a prophet, and also believe that their men must marry at least three wives in order to ascend to heaven. One problem with this is this, if the number of male and female births are nearly the same, where will all these extra women come from? The answer given by the FLDS is, “Get rid of the young men.” Authorities believe as many as 1,000 teenage boys have been forcibly separated from their families, and expelled from their faith and community for just this purpose. When older men were judged to be disobedient to the prophet, these men were also expelled and their wives and children arbitrarily assigned to other “faithful” men.
Of course, what has raised the interest and ire of the American people is that the number of underage girls — some as young as 13 being given to older men — has dramatically increased into the hundreds since Warren Jeffs took over the leadership of this church which dominates two small cities in a secluded area on the Arizona/Utah border.
Also this week, in a conversation with my son, Ted, he told me about a situation in Israel where a pastor instructed a member of his congregation not to talk or teach the idea that polygamy was acceptable, and permitted according to the Bible. This man immediately left the congregation. This got me to thinking. Isn’t it true that polygamy is in the Bible, and therefore defensible and acceptable?
Of course the first logical answer to the question is that, just because something is reported in the Bible, doesn’t mean it is acceptable in the sight of God. You remember the joke about the depressed man who went to the Bible for encouragement and immediately found the verse, “Judas went out and hanged himself.” When he flipped to another page, his eyes fell on the command, “Go thou and do likewise.” Suicide is in the Bible; does that legitimize it? Incest is in the Bible; child sacrifice is in the Bible. And, oh my goodness, foot washing is in the Bible!
Also, note these points:
In the Creation story of the Bible, it tells us that God created them male and female, not that He created male and females. It says, God created man, and then woman; it doesn’t say that He created man and then women.
When the Bible describes marriage, it says, in both Old and New Testaments, “A man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24) It does not say, “a man shall cleave unto his wives”! When Paul cited this scripture, he said “The two will become one flesh.” He did not say, “The three shall be one flesh” (I Corinthians 6:16)!
So when did this idea of multiple wives get started?
Adam had one wife. Noah and Job, clearly men of faith who found favor with God, each had one wife. On the other hand, look at the trouble caused when Abraham, in a manner of speaking, took a second wife when Sarah agreed – actually suggested – he father a child by her servant, Hagar. Ishmael was born, and there has followed a long history of animosity between the offspring of these two women.
One of the Patriarchs, Jacob, had two wives, but look at the jealousy and rivalry that existed between them – surely not a picture of a happy home.
In the New Testament, the Pastors Timothy and Titus were given clear instructions that the men appointed for leadership should be the “husband of but one wife.” (I Timothy 3:12; 3:2; Titus 1:6) What do you do with that?
The proponents of polygamy counter with this argument, “This instruction is just for leaders in the church – they are held to a higher standard.” But this just isn’t logical because according to I Peter 5:3, leaders are supposed to be examples to the flock. (“. . . not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.” – NIV) The implication is that they are to present an example that others would follow, so wouldn’t we expect that the others would follow the example and also have only one wife? Besides, if only the leaders were monogamous, and the rest of the members were polygamous, where would future leaders come from?
We are also informed by Isaiah that in the end times, evidently so many men will have been eliminated through wars, that “In that day seven women will take hold of one man and say, ‘We will eat our own food and provide our own clothes; only let us be called by your name. Take away our disgrace!’” (Isaiah 4:1) This certainly is not polygamy by divine mandate, but by human desperation.
In the first book of the Bible, we learn that polygamy got its start in the godless line of Cain, not in the godly line of Seth. According to Scripture, the first polygamist was Cain’s great-great-great-grandson, Lamech.
The fourth chapter of Genesis (verse 19) tells us that Lamech had two wives, Adah and Zillah. Interestingly, the name of his first wife means “ornament,” suggesting a superficial attraction, and the second comes from a word which means “shade” – the second wife was but a shadow of the first.
Between these two wives, four children were born, three boys and a girl.
Jabal represents the pursuit of wealth through increased possessions.
Jubal developed music, not as worship, but as entertainment in leisure and diversion – we know that the earliest music was for two main purposes, the celebration of romance and war. Only much later, under David, did music become employed for the purposes of worship.
The third son of Lamech, Tubalcain, was a worker in bronze and iron, first used in the making of tools, but very soon, used in the making of weapons.
The one girl in the family was named Naamah, which means “the beautiful” – this is in contrast to the name given to the first woman, Eve, which means “the living.”
Following the identification of all of Lamech’s family members, there is included in the passage what may have been lyrics to a rather strange song:
“I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for injuring me.
If Cain is avenged seven times, then Lamech seventy-seven times.”
More correctly, the verb “kill” should be translated in the future tense – “I will kill.” In the song, probably set to music by his one son, Jubal, Lamech, proud of the weapons created by his other son, Tubalcain, boasts that he will avenge (10-fold more than Cain) anyone who harms him; perhaps he’s saying this to his wives to give them a sense of security. The Bible quotes God saying, “Vengeance is mine.” (Romans 12:19) Evidently Lamech wasn’t willing to accept that – he would take revenge into his own hands, and do even better than God.
In contrast to this ungodly line of Cain, the Godly line of Seth, Adam and Eve’s third son, is described in Genesis 4:26, “At that time men began to call on the name of the Lord.”
So yes, polygamy is found in the Bible, but obviously practiced among men whose hearts were not turned toward God. Godly men are not polygamists.
But, you say, what does all this have to do with us? We’re not polygamists!
Two things.
First, current events such as the news account of the FLDS church beliefs gives an open door for us to witness for the Lord. Nearly everyone has heard about Warren Jeffs, and are appalled at what his so-called church represents. We can take this opportunity to explain that the teaching of this group is not compatible with the Bible, and that true believers do all they can to strengthen homes, not tear them apart.
Secondly, we must become more proactive in establishing strong monogamous marriage relationships. It’s not good enough just to stand back and criticize the wrongs we see in others; we must show them the right by the examples of our own lives.
What’s wrong in America isn’t merely that 10,000 people are following the dictates of a severely misguided terroristic cult leader. What’s wrong with America is that millions of men are failing to fulfill their God given role of providing selfless, strong, emotional, spiritual as well as financial security for their own wife and children. Too many men have lost their way. They have neglected their families in pursuit of their own pleasures; they have abused their wives, often with hurtful words, sometimes even with physical violence. Men, let’s not waste our energy pointing the finger at those of our gender who are dividing their affection among multiple wives, but rather, let us get down to business loving the one special woman through whom God has so blessed our lives. That is our sacred duty.
Today God is searching for leaders, not merely leaders for organizations, but leaders of conscience, leaders of influence, men and women who will become outstanding in representing a righteous, godly, loving, peaceful and joyful lifestyle that will be attractive to others and cause them to want to follow.
At one point the Apostle Paul invited the people of his day to “Follow me as I follow Christ.” (I Corinthians 11:1) Are we willing to issue the same invitation?”
———————————————————————–
QF, the above points illustrate why I do not view polygamy, or polygny more exactly, as a Biblical doctrine. If it does come back into vogue in the LDS, it will not (in my opinion) be because the Lord has commanded it. It would be very hard to keep a strong, vibrant family going with more than one man and one woman at the center of it. I’m sure you disagree with that, but that is my take on what the Bible has to say about polygamy. I can’t get over the fact that there is not one COMMAND that says “Thou shalt take to thee more than one wife.” And I think that there are enough statements in both the Old and New Testaments that make it clear polygamy is not a Christian doctrine. You would practice it at your peril.
Anyway, have a good evening!
posted October 21, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Chief,
You’re attempt at obfuscation is somewhat disingenuious. Of course we agree, the Bible is rich in both examples of ‘Righteous’ behavior and ‘evil’. Contrast is a wonderful teaching technique.
But, you never answered my question…one generated from your earlier comment: Did you really mean to say that God’s chosen people were cultural Adulterers and Fornicators?
If not, then Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and others must have been given “special” dispensation of God to practice pluaral marriage (NOT polyandry). To what end? The Book of Mormon is clear on this teaching:
“For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” (Book of Mormon pg. 121)
The Lord, through His prophet is condemning the practice of multiple wives that had entered the church at this time WITHOUT God’s specific permission…which permission He only gives when He determines the need to “…raise up seed unto me…” but short of that specific and direct permission…He states it is an abomination! Period! And those who practice it without His permission are under great condemnation.
So please explain to me your understanding of God’s “chosen” people being cultural Adulterers and Fornicators?
QF
posted October 25, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Two views of the Fall
Mormonism and traditional Christianity view the acts of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden very differently.
According to Mormonism:
To the first man and woman on earth, the Lord said, “Be fruitful, and multiply” (Moses 2:28; see also Gen. 1:28; Abr. 4:28). This commandment was first in sequence and first in importance. It was essential that God’s spirit children have mortal birth and an opportunity to progress toward eternal life. Consequently, all things related to procreation are prime targets for the adversary’s efforts to thwart the plan of God.
When Adam and Eve received the first commandment, they were in a transitional state, no longer in the spirit world but with physical bodies not yet subject to death and not yet capable of procreation. They could not fulfill the Father’s first commandment without transgressing the barrier between the bliss of the Garden of Eden and the terrible trials and wonderful opportunities of mortal life.
For reasons that have not been revealed, this transition, or “fall,” could not happen without a transgression—an exercise of moral agency amounting to a willful breaking of a law (see Moses 6:59). This would be a planned offense, a formality to serve an eternal purpose…
It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality. Her act, whatever its nature, was formally a transgression but eternally a glorious necessity to open the doorway toward eternal life. Adam showed his wisdom by doing the same. And thus Eve and “Adam fell that men might be” (2 Ne. 2:25).
…Informed by revelation, we celebrate Eve’s act and honor her wisdom and courage in the great episode called the Fall (see Bruce R. McConkie, “Eve and the Fall,” Woman, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1979, pp. 67–68)…
Note the different perspective and the special wisdom of Eve, who focused on the purpose and effect of the great plan of happiness: “Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient” (Moses 5:11). (Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, “‘The Great Plan of Happiness’,” Ensign, 11/1993, pages 72-73)
Contrast Mormonism’s “celebration” of the “glorious necessity” of the Fall with the event as understood according to traditional Christianity:
Genesis 1:26-7 introduces us to the original divine pattern for man’s life. He was the image-bearer of God… God originally made man to reflect his holy character and his position as bearing rightful rule over all his creatures. In that respect he is like God.
It is an amazing thing to think of man set in the world in order to be God’s personal representative upon the earth. The opening chapters of Genesis breathe something of this quiet spirit of wonder. Man is given creative powers (Gen. 1:28); he exercises dominion (Gen. 1:26); like God he is a creative workman (Gen. 2:15).
But in Genesis 3 something happens in each of these areas to distort God’s gracious plan. A virulent disease begins to spread through the whole of man’s life from the first moment of his sin. He hides from God in the garden (Gen. 3:8-10); his relationship with his wife, and hers with him, is distorted into one of ugly, back-biting recrimination (Gen. 3:13-17); the ground is cursed and man’s daily labour becomes a burden rather than a pleasure (Gen. 3:17-19). All this is sad enough, but it is accompanied by a change in the image of God.
…We might well be justified in thinking that there could be no greater disaster than that the likeness of God should be exterminated. But in fact there is. What if the image of God, in which his greatness and glory are reflected, becomes a distortion of his character? What if, instead of reflecting his glory, man begins to reflect the very antithesis of God? What if God’s image becomes an anti-god? This, essentially, is the affront which fallen man is to God. He takes all that God has lavished upon him to enable him to live in free and joyful obedience, and he transforms it into a weapon by which he can oppose his Maker. The very breath which God gives him thousands of times each day he abuses by his sin. The magnitude of his sin is also the measure of his need of salvation. The wonder of God’s saving purpose lies in the fact that he longs more than we imagine to restore what has been lost. But the old creation must pass away, and a new one be established; what was lost in Adam must be restored in Christ… (Sinclair B. Ferguson, The Christian Life, pages 11-13)
Summarized, according to these two views, the Fall was either:
a glorious necessity that opened the door to eternal life (i.e., Godhood); or
a sin that opened the door to a virulent disease distorting the image-bearers of God into ugly anti-gods.
In the Mormon view the disobedience of Eve and Adam is described as courageous “wisdom” deserving of “honor” for the transgressors.
In the biblical view, the disobedience is recognized as “sin” resulting in a broken relationship with God, marital discord, and discontent with what was once satisfying daily labor. As Christian theologian R.C. Sproul put it,
“Because of their disobedience, Adam and Eve became fugitives from even the gaze of God. We have been running ever since.”
Conversely, in the Mormon view the Fall was a positive disobedience. Yes, it brought about “pain, suffering, sin, evil and death” on earth, but “without the Fall…the whole plan of salvation would have been frustrated.”
An LDS author wrote,
“In contrast to most readers of the Bible, we believe that Adam and Eve both should be commended for what they did to bring about the Fall.” (Robert J. Woodford, “‘In the Beginning’: A Latter-day Perspective,” Ensign, January 1998)
And 10th LDS Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith explained,
“When Adam was driven out of the Garden of Eden, the Lord passed a sentence upon him. Some people have looked upon that sentence as being a dreadful thing. It was not; it was a blessing. I do not know that it can truthfully be considered even as a punishment in disguise.” (Doctrines of Salvation 1:113)
When considering the Mormon view of the Fall in light of the biblical view, I can’t help but think of God’s Word through Isaiah:
Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter!
(Isaiah 5:20)
posted October 26, 2007 at 5:03 am
Anon:
Mormonism and traditional Christianity view the acts of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden very differently.
Mike:
Yes they do. And the LDS beliefs are closer to the first century Christian doctrines than is the “traditional orthodox” version of the Fall described by Anon below: His view accords more with the fourth and fifth century doctrines that were influenced by the non-Biblical creeds of “orthodox” Christianity. The link below demonstrates this truth.
http://www.fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/chap04.html
Anon:
According to Mormonism:
To the first man and woman on earth, the Lord said, “Be fruitful, and multiply” (Moses 2:28; see also Gen. 1:28; Abr. 4:28). This commandment was first in sequence and first in importance. It was essential that God’s spirit children have mortal birth and an opportunity to progress toward eternal life. Consequently, all things related to procreation are prime targets for the adversary’s efforts to thwart the plan of God.
When Adam and Eve received the first commandment, they were in a transitional state, no longer in the spirit world but with physical bodies not yet subject to death and not yet capable of procreation. They could not fulfill the Father’s first commandment without transgressing the barrier between the bliss of the Garden of Eden and the terrible trials and wonderful opportunities of mortal life.
For reasons that have not been revealed, this transition, or “fall,” could not happen without a transgression—an exercise of moral agency amounting to a willful breaking of a law (see Moses 6:59). This would be a planned offense, a formality to serve an eternal purpose…
It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality. Her act, whatever its nature, was formally a transgression but eternally a glorious necessity to open the doorway toward eternal life. Adam showed his wisdom by doing the same. And thus Eve and “Adam fell that men might be” (2 Ne. 2:25).
…Informed by revelation, we celebrate Eve’s act and honor her wisdom and courage in the great episode called the Fall (see Bruce R. McConkie, “Eve and the Fall,” Woman, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1979, pp. 67–68)…
Note the different perspective and the special wisdom of Eve, who focused on the purpose and effect of the great plan of happiness: “Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient” (Moses 5:11). (Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, “‘The Great Plan of Happiness’,” Ensign, 11/1993, pages 72-73)
Mike:
Anon’s statement of the LDS doctrine of the Fall is mostly correct.
Anon:
Contrast Mormonism’s “celebration” of the “glorious necessity” of the Fall with the event as understood according to traditional Christianity:
Mike:
Yes. Let’s.
Anon:
is 1:26-7 introduces us to the original divine pattern for man’s life. He was the image-bearer of God… God originally made man to reflect his holy character and his position as bearing rightful rule over all his creatures. In that respect he is like God.
Mike:
God himself explains how man has become as God:
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:
Anon:
It is an amazing thing to think of man set in the world in order to be God’s personal representative upon the earth. The opening chapters of Genesis breathe something of this quiet spirit of wonder. Man is given creative powers (Gen. 1:28); he exercises dominion (Gen. 1:26); like God he is a creative workman (Gen. 2:15).
Mike:
Yet Adam and Eve have no children until after the Fall. Why is that do you suppose, if God gave them these creative powers?
Anon:
But in Genesis 3 something happens in each of these areas to distort God’s gracious plan. A virulent disease begins to spread through the whole of man’s life from the first moment of his SIN.
Mike:
Show me in Genesis 3 where God or anyone else describes the Fall as a “sin”. Since a sin requires knowledge of good and evil, how can one “sin” before one partakes of the Tree of KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL? One can certainly “transgress” or break the law, but one cannot sin. God preserves Adam and Eve’s agency by giving tow conflicting commandments. 1. Multiply and replenish the Earth, and 2. Do not partake of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Anon:
He hides from God in the garden (Gen. 3:8-10); his relationship with his wife, and hers with him, is distorted into one of ugly, back-biting recrimination (Gen. 3:13-17); the ground is cursed and man’s daily labour becomes a burden rather than a pleasure (Gen. 3:17-19).
Mike:
The only way to become like God is to learn by experience the Good from the Evil. Once the fruit is partaken of and mortality is launched. Man is now subject to trials, hunger, pain, disease and death. Man recieves the bitter so that he can learn to prize the sweet. How else could we learn. “Sweet are the uses of adversity” as Shakespeare said.
2nd Nephi 2:5-25
5 And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever.
6 Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.
7 Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered.
8 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.
9 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.
10 And because of the intercession for all, all men come unto God; wherefore, they stand in the presence of him, to be judged of him according to the truth and holiness which is in him. Wherefore, the ends of the law which the Holy One hath given, unto the inflicting of the punishment which is affixed, which punishment that is affixed is in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the eatonement—
11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.
12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.
13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.
14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.
15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden efruit in opposition to the gtree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.
16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.
17 And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God.
18 And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.
19 And after Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit they were driven out of the garden of Eden, to till the earth.
20 And they have brought forth children; yea, even the family of all the earth.
21 And the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh; wherefore, their state became a state of probation, and their time was lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto the children of men. For he gave commandment that all men must repent; for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents.
22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.
23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.
24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.
25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.
Anon:
his is sad enough, but it is accompanied by a change in the image of God.
Mike:
The sadness of the change of God’s image occured when uninspired men wrote the extra-Biblical creeds that altered the truths of the Bible and taught it as truth. The irony of this is these Creedal doctrines, that supplanted the Bible doctrines are defended by people who say that the Bible is inerrant and perfect, who say that Mormons are a cult for adding to the Bible, and yet they add the Creeds to the Bible, and call it doctrine when it isn’t even in the Book that they claim to be inerrant and complete. If it’s complete why are you using credds to define th edoctrines contained therein?
Anon:
…We might well be justified in thinking that there could be no greater disaster than that the likeness of God should be exterminated. But in fact there is. What if the image of God, in which his greatness and glory are reflected, becomes a distortion of his character?
Mike:
And this appears to be what happens with the Creeds.
Anon:
What if, instead of reflecting his glory, man begins to reflect the very antithesis of God? What if God’s image becomes an anti-god?
Mike;
The plain meaning of John 17.A unity of joy, love, knowledge, power and majesty is lost as the Creeds twist and distort the simple meaning.
Anon:
This, essentially, is the affront which fallen man is to God. He takes all that God has lavished upon him to enable him to live in free and joyful obedience, and he transforms it into a weapon by which he can oppose his Maker. The very breath which God gives him thousands of times each day he abuses by his sin. The magnitude of his sin is also the measure of his need of salvation. The wonder of God’s saving purpose lies in the fact that he longs more than we imagine to restore what has been lost. But the old creation must pass away, and a new one be established; what was lost in Adam must be restored in Christ… (Sinclair B. Ferguson, The Christian Life, pages 11-13)
Mike:
Indeed, the old “traditional orthodox” creedal, extra-Biblical doctrines must be put away as God restores his truth to Earth once more.
Anon:
Summarized, according to these two views, the Fall was either:
a glorious necessity that opened the door to eternal life (i.e., Godhood); or
a sin that opened the door to a virulent disease distorting the image-bearers of God into ugly anti-gods.
Mike:
And the link above shows what 1st century Christians believed: The first, not the second.
Anon:
In the Mormon view the disobedience of Eve and Adam is described as courageous “wisdom” deserving of “honor” for the transgressors.
Mike:
A view shared by early Christians.
Anon:
In the
biblical view, the disobedience is recognized as “sin” resulting in a broken relationship with God, marital discord, and discontent with what was once satisfying daily labor.
Mike:
Latter-day Saints find no justification for a group of people who use extra-Biblical creeds to define their doctrine, to call that doctrine the “Biblical View”. It is the Traditional Orthodox Creedal View.
Anon:
As Christian theologian R.C. Sproul put it,
“Because of their disobedience, Adam and Eve became fugitives from even the gaze of God. We have been running ever since.”
Mike:
Since Anon claims that Mormons are a cult because they claim additional scripture, why does he quote extra-Biblical material? Isn’t the inerrant text of the bible sufficiant for him?
Anon:
Conversely, in the Mormon view the Fall was a positive disobedience. Yes, it brought about “pain, suffering, sin, evil and death” on earth, but “without the Fall…the whole plan of salvation would have been frustrated.”
An LDS author wrote,
“In contrast to most readers of the Bible, we believe that Adam and Eve both should be commended for what they did to bring about the Fall.” (Robert J. Woodford, “‘In the Beginning’: A Latter-day Perspective,” Ensign, January 1998)
And 10th LDS Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith explained,
“When Adam was driven out of the Garden of Eden, the Lord passed a sentence upon him. Some people have looked upon that sentence as being a dreadful thing. It was not; it was a blessing. I do not know that it can truthfully be considered even as a punishment in disguise.” (Doctrines of Salvation 1:113)
Mike:
Thanks fo rthe good quotes. Put them with the scriptures from the Bible and Book of Mormon above and you have consistency and truth.
Anon:
When considering the Mormon view of the Fall in light of the biblical view, I can’t help but think of God’s Word through Isaiah:
Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter!
(Isaiah 5:20)
Mike:
Funny, that’s the scripture I think of when I think about the doctrine of the trinity as found in the extra-Biblical Creeds of traditional orthodox Christianity.
posted October 26, 2007 at 11:10 am
Anon: In the biblical view, the disobedience is recognized as “sin” . . .
GB: Could you provide chapter and verse that says that partaking of the fruit was a “sin”?
posted October 29, 2007 at 6:19 am
GB
Since when is disobeying God considered not sinning?
Since when can we disobey God and not sin?
posted October 30, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Anon:Since when is disobeying God considered not sinning?
Since when can we disobey God and not sin?
GB: So, I take it from your response that you couldn’t find, anywhere in the Bible, where it calls partaking of the forbidden fruit a “sin”. Could it be that it isn’t anywhere in there? I think so.
Anon: “Since when is disobeying God considered not sinning? Since when can we disobey God and not sin?”
GB: When the one doing the disobeying is doing so in ignorance. Sin requires knowledge. Prior to partaking of the fruit Adam and Eve didn’t know good from evil therefore they disobeyed in ignorance. That is called a “transgression” not a “sin”.
Thus the doctrine of “original sin” is a false doctrine made up many years after the departure of the Apostles.
Just more evidence of a complete apostasy from the true doctrine taught by Jesus and His Apostles.
posted October 30, 2007 at 6:38 pm
GB
Are you saying that they were ignorant of what God had told them?
God told them not to eat of the fruit of the tree, they had knowledge of what God had told them, yet they disobeyed God, after they ate of the tree they hid from God because they knew what they did was wrong. I would not call this ignorance, would you. Ignorance would imply they did not know that God did not want them to eat from the tree.
1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Romans 5
1Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
2By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
3And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
4And patience, experience; and experience, hope:
5And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
6For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
7For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
8But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
If there were a complete apotasy there would have been no Christians in that period of time, right.
posted October 31, 2007 at 10:49 am
> If there were a complete apotasy there would have been no Christians in
> that period of time, right.
Wrong. The apostasy doesn’t mean there weren’t any practicing Christians, just that the true Gospel, and the true priesthood, were lost.
posted October 31, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Gregory
Are you referring to the Gospel message of Jesus Christ that He died on the Cross for our sins? Or what Gospel are you referring to?
posted October 31, 2007 at 4:21 pm
I’d much rather know who I am responding to. Would you please include your name?
posted October 31, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Gregory
Call me Anon
posted November 1, 2007 at 10:41 am
> Call me Anon
No, thank you.
posted November 1, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Gregory
Well too bad
posted November 1, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Anon: 1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
GB: So sin is a transgression, does that mean that all transgression is sin. NO!
Besides John wasn’t talking about partaking of the apple now was he.
Rom 5:12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
So, by Adam and Eve’s partaking of the fruit and the resulting fall, sin entered the world. Still no statement that partaking of the fruit was a sin.
14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
A very clear statement “Adam’s transgression”. Notice it didn’t say “Adam’s sin”. Still no statement that partaking of the fruit was a sin.
Anon: God told them not to eat of the fruit of the tree, they had knowledge of what God had told them, yet they disobeyed God, after they ate of the tree they hid from God because they knew what they did was wrong.
GB: After they partook of the fruit they had knowledge of good and evil and only then were aware of the wrongness of what they had done. Only then were they conscious of their guilt.
So I am STILL waiting for the “original sin” scripture.
In the future I will ignore your posts unless you provide a name.
posted November 2, 2007 at 3:34 pm
To all misguided souls,
My guess is, short of a personal visitation from the Savior Himself, the vast majority of TOC’s will never accept Mormons as part of their brotherhood of Christ.
That’s too bad, but, really irrelevant and of no significant consequence to the LDS religion in general. No more than the Jews failing to accept their King was back in the meridian of time.
The similarities between the days of Jesus Christ trying to bring men to the one and only true God and the LDS trying to bring souls to Christ is uncanny. Just substitute “Jews” of that day with “TOC’s” of today and it matches almost perfectly. The hardened hearts, closed minds and religious prejudices of the Savior’s day, is thriving today with the self-proclaimed TOC’s…masked in the illusion of scriptural insight and ‘special’ favoritism of God…but truly dead to the things of the Holy Ghost…
From Paul’s angelic visitation and subsequent conversion to Joseph Smith’s angelic visitation and conversion…only the Spiritually in tune can ever understand the TRUE things of the Spirit not found in leather and ink.
So, there really is no expectation that even a small minority will ever accept the fullness of God’s restored truth…for straight is the gate and narrow the way, and few there be that find it…!
Matthew 7:
“13 ¶ Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
15 ¶ Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall aknow them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a ccorrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 ¶ 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.
22 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?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” KJV
But, for those few, how glorious will be the day of His coming and our subsequent Resurrection!! Thanks be to God for Joseph Smith, the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for personal and Apostolic revelation…and for a country that allows the free expression of religion…we truly live in marvelous times.
TooMuch
posted November 4, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Gregory; The original sin was that Adam and Eve disobeyed God, and partook of the fruit of the tree of life. That was the original sin. i am not sure what you are trying to make of it. are you trying to discredit the Bible?
posted November 4, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Anonymous:),
If he won’t, I will. Your so called infallible Bible is causing thousands if not hundreds of thousands to abandon the One and only True God.
You have subsitituted ink and paper for God…you have abandoned God to worship the Bible!!
posted November 5, 2007 at 10:48 pm
anonymouse,
The doctrine of orginal sin is false. No such phrase is found in your “inerrant”, “sufficient” and “complete” Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does it use “sin” to describe Adam and Eve partaking of the fruit.
Just more proof of an apostasy.
posted November 6, 2007 at 1:26 am
your book, GB, is from a man that CLAIMED to see Christ, and by just that one act alone would imply that Jesus lied when he said how He would come again.
You really sound to me, like a radical that needs to be right. i am just saying that it makes no sense, and there is no proof of what Mormonism is based on. I am not saying that Mormon’s are bad people, i just feel they are misled. Why? i believe what Christ said, and what God had Man write down in the Bible as our guide.
The Holy Bible was not written by one man, i would remind you of that.
I would also remind you of the time spans in which it was written.
No one will absolutely know for sure until the end of this life. i feel it is all important to believe that Christ was who He said He was though. It is one thing to say you believe He is the Son of God, and another to believe that God and Jesus are seperate beings, that Jesus and Satan are brothers, that God lives on Kolob, that Jesus was a man on His way to becoming a god, just to name a few.
The Book of Mormon would have more clout if it did not go against every single thing that was first layed down by the church. Becuase Smith supposedly was given the real truth, that everything was wrong, i have valid questions. If God would show up after 1800 years to a 14 year old boy, what was happening at that time that was more serious that it should be then instead of before. Why all the other things first, before now (or then as the case may be).
And whomever called my remarks snide, i laugh at that. it seems like there is a lot more snide remarks on here than mine. Get tougher, or get off.
posted November 6, 2007 at 9:30 am
Anonymous:),
You raise legitimate. although, misguided but easily answered questions…but only to one who has ‘ears to hear.’
You have been exposed to some of the “contentious” aruguments against a restoration without balancing the facts. When you want something so badly, sometimes it becomes convenient and safe to accept conjoining ideas of others despite their inaccuracy and or deceit.
You say the BoM would have more clout if it did not go against “every single thing that was first layed down by the church.” Yet you are clueless as to just what the BoM claims because instead of reading it, you use scripted counterpoints from others…? Why would that be? Clearly, you (and I’m not condemning you…it’s “human” nature) find it self-assuring to “believe” Mormonism is this weird off-shoot counterfeit of Christianity…without really investigating if it REALLY might be from God.
It’s impossible, undesirable, and inconvenient for some to investigate new truths that might occur outside or independent of the Bible. I hope I don’t shatter your world by stating that the Bible doesn’t have a monopoly on Truth…Phillipians 4:8 states,
“Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.”
I don’t believe the Apostle Paul had the Bible when he wrote this…so he must have been referring to ANY and ALL writings, sayings, actions, traditions where these jewels of wisdom and truth could be found. God has inspired many, many, many men and women throughout the ages…and very little can is written down in the Bible.
Further, to the Thessalonians, Paul stated in Chapter 5:21 “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” Again, not having the Bible when he wrote to these church members…he was admonishing them to sift through the teachings available in their day…and to “…hold fast that which is good.” A cursory glance at something or outright dismissal of others is NOT what he meant by “Prove all things…”
All Mormon bloggers, with rare exception, are challenging ANY and ALL to just READ the Book of Mormon and determine for yourself, outside of the modern day prejudices and religious bias’, whether or not there are teachings and doctrines in it that are things pure, lovely, of good report, or it be of any virture…in other words, PROVE to yourself if these things are NOT! It you do this, God will let you KNOW and you won’t have to rely on someone else’s experience or disbelief…it’s always up to you to decide.
posted November 6, 2007 at 10:03 am
Excellent points TooMuch.
I don’t think you would mind if I borrow them for another discussion I am having.
If I am wrong let me know.
GB
posted November 6, 2007 at 3:16 pm
GB,
If it will help, have at it…I claim no profundity or exclusive insights…
posted November 7, 2007 at 12:31 am
Too Much; Jesus’s Bible was the Old Testament. Look at MT;2;15, 2;17, 2;23,13;14, 13;35, 26;54,26;56,27;9, MK, 13;4, 14;49, LK, 4;21, 18;31, 24;44, zjn 18;9, 19;24,19;28, 19;36, Ac 1;16, Ro 13;8, Jas 2;23
Throught these prophets, Jesus clearly states how He is to FULFILL the Holy Word. There was a Holy Bible, and it was and is Jesus’ Bible.
That is the only point i need to show.
posted November 9, 2007 at 12:34 am
So, here are some verses quoted above, and no one wants to dispute them yet? That is odd, considering…
posted November 9, 2007 at 10:22 am
OCS,
I actually found your post a little humorous. You quote the New Testament to show that the Old Testament was Jesus’ “Bible”.
The New Testament wasn’t assembled and added to the Old Testament to create the Bible until after 300 AD.
Jesus didn’t have any of the scriptures that you quote.
posted November 9, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Ahh, but i disagree GB. Jesus said He came to fulfill the word. What word would He have meant if it was not the Prophets from the old Testament ? God Knew the old and New Testament before it was even written, and had a hand in it. Jesus Is God, He is the second of the GodHead. Jesus was asked by His disciples about the traditions of the jew only eating “clean” things, among other issues. What did Christ say about that? He said not to put them down for it (my words) and to respect it, although it was no longer necessary to have these rituals in obedience, since He came and changed all once and for all.
So, In one way i see what you are trying to say. It is not like Jesus carried around the Old Testament in hand, He just knew the Word, and what was followed in the faith of God before His appearing on the earth. He was prophesized as coming though. He was to be the savior. How did The Prophets claim a savior to come? Only One way, God Himself.
posted December 5, 2007 at 12:53 am
Almost a month and no answer
posted December 5, 2007 at 10:52 am
The only questions I see in your post are rhetorical. What question would you like answered?
posted December 5, 2007 at 5:10 pm
How can Jesus be second if he is the “same Substnce” as God. And yes, he fulfilled the Word, but the word is not the prophets. Prophets were still called, all the apostles were prophets.
posted December 7, 2007 at 1:17 am
Erik; can you be a little clearer please?
posted December 7, 2007 at 1:18 am
Prophets were called then in Jesus church. Prophets are called now in Jesus church. The way Jesus set up his church then is how it should run now with 12 apostles and so fourth. God is literally Jesus’ father, so God the father and Jesus are two distinctly different beings like all of natures fathers and sons made of the same substance yet two different beings. They work as a team with the holy spirit to form the God head. If you can’t grasp that perspective you can’t understand what it is that Mormons AKA The Church of Jesus Christ believe.
posted December 9, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Ty; The problem that most Christians have with Mormonism is the fanatical changes that they claim in God’s Word more than anything.
1. Jesus and Satan are brothers
2. Satan wanted to be the savior, but God chose His other son Jesus, and cast out Satan.
3. Adam and Eve didn’t sin, it was a necessary transgression so we could pro-create.
4. God lived on a star named kolob.
5. men may become gods themselves if they reach the highest level of the celestial kingdom.
6. Joseph Smith saw the face of God and Jesus, and lived to tell about it.
7. Smith restored the church because of a total apostacy.
8. about 800 years before Christ, there were tribes that came across the ocean to the Americas to escape Egyptian rule.
9. One of these tribes called the Nephites survived and buried golden plates for the day when Smith would be called to reveal them.
10. Smith was given the book of Abraham and other “true” gospels formerly lost so he could restore what God’s church really was.
11. Smith was the only person able to decipher Egyptian hyrogliphics, and it was done by placing a seer stone in a hat, he put his face in the hat to block out light, and each page would appear, he would translate, and it would disappear when he correctly translated it.
12. He lost the middle section of the BOM and had to re do it. (note; how can one lose such an important thing that was from God Himself?)
i think i could go on, but i believe it unnecessary.
posted December 9, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Sure OCS,
But first, are you the same substance as I. Yes, but are we the same, no. I just find too many verses that point to God being a separate person as Jesus. 1) This makes sense in the context of God baring witness of his son. The mere fact that throughout the New Testament Christ refers to God as his Father.
2)If they are the same then why does Christ say, not my will but thine be done? If they were the same, wouldn’t it be one will? And if there are two “will” doesn’t that scream 2 people?
3) If they are the same substance how could God with draw his spirit from Christ on the cross, My God why hast though foresaken me.”
4) There is no verse in the Bible that states that.
That’s good for now.
Erik
posted December 9, 2007 at 9:27 pm
In response to OCS’s 14 dictatums
I’m not seeing the problem with #8. God lead Moses out, why not the nephites?
1) DO you believe that God created everything? iF so then he created Satan. He also created Jesus. In our denition 2 individuals of the same creator are brothers.
2) Rev. 12 is clear that there was a War in Heaven and Satan was cast out. The reason for the War was that Satan wanted the glory for himself. This is evident as the first thing that Christ had to do iin him ministry was withstand the temptation of worshipping Satan.
3) Transgression and sin are pretty much the same. We believe that they sinned, disobeyed God when they partook of the fruit. But remember, they were in an innocent state.
7) So what do you call the state of the Christian movement after the apostles died. Every Christian denomination came about after thiers deaths. Besides didn’t Christ say he would have one church?
9-11) You have to have faith in God, that he would not leave believers along without a prophet. It’s sad that you can’t see how necessary a prophet is.
12) All prophets are still human. Aaron built the golden calf. Jonah tried to run from God. Paul, well he had a lot to change. Peter was preaching circumcision. etc..
It Goes back to faith and knowing what Gods plan is. He wants us to be happy. He wants to best for us and wants to give us all that he has, that’s why he gave us his son. When you realize this fact, things start to become more clear.
4) You have to believe in modern revelation.
5) Why not? Christ said “Know ye not that ye are gods?” Romans 8:17 and Gal. 4: 7 states that we will be joint heirs with Christ. Rev. 3:21 states that we will sit with him in his throne. 1 John 3: 2 “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 dsee him as he is.”
If we are to be joint heirs and “like him” doesn’t that suggest that we can be Gods. And again, why not?
6)I few verses to ponder: Gen. 32: 30 I have seen God face to face.
Ex. 19: 11 Lord will come down in the sight of all the people.
Ex. 19: 21 charge the people, lest they break through unto the Lord to gaze.
Ex. 24: 11 nobles of the children of Israel . . . saw God.
Ex. 33: 11 Lord spake unto Moses face to face.
Deut. 34: 10 Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.
Judg. 13: 22 We shall surely die, because we have seen God.
1 Kgs. 11: 9 Lord . . . had appeared unto him twice.
Job 19: 26 in my flesh shall I see God.
Isa. 6: 5 mine eyes have seen . . . the Lord.
Matt. 5: 8 blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Acts 7: 56 I see . . . the Son of man standing on the right hand.
Heb. 12: 14 holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord
Unless they lied, there must be a way to see God, or rather, God has a way to show himself. Also, if he is all-powerful, than why can’t he do it?
7)
posted December 10, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Erik; You take things out of context; the classic “ye are gods” in context of the Bible is referring to heads of the households, leaders etc. You need to read the Bible as it was written, not how a man that came along 1800 years later says it was “really” meant.
The points i made are things that i have learned about Mormon faith since i joined these blogs months ago.
Mormonism contradicts Christianity.
God told Adam and Eve to go and multiply way before Satan entered the picture.
You put Jesus and satan on the same level with God when you call them brothers, or created by God like all of us, and in that sense we are all brothers.
Satan is an angel of God, a decieving and evil angel. Another Mormon earlier on these blogs said satan was like a crazy uncle. How can a Mormon minimize the wrongs and problems that satan has done to us, that he tries to lead us AWAY from our Heavenly Father, that he was so evil that he could not be in God’s presence anymore and was cast out. That he tempted Jesus 3 times, and Jesus was victorious, IS victorious against him, and Jesus told satan to get behind Him, and that he was not to test God? Is that all lost and forgotten?
Here is the deal; the only way to get a Mormon’s attention is with shock. They ask questions and say things that are totally deceptive and offensive. They name call and have no [respect] for TOC’s. But they expect [it] in return. Why is that?
In an earlier post i said the same thing i repeat now; The burden of proof is on Mormons. Tell me why you believe Smith was a true prophet, and why i should believe he was too?
posted December 11, 2007 at 11:39 am
> Erik; You take things out of context; the classic “ye are gods” in
> context of the Bible is referring to heads of the households, leaders
> etc.
So “gods” is a euphemism for head of households? That’s quite a stretch.
> You need to read the Bible as it was written, not how a man that came
> along 1800 years later says it was “really” meant.
Methinks YOU need to read the Bible as it was written.
> The points i made are things that i have learned about Mormon faith
> since i joined these blogs months ago.
No, you continue to point out some things that have been refuted? Why? Why do you knowingly lie about the things members of the LDS faith believe?
> Mormonism contradicts Christianity.
Uh, no. Mormonism IS Christianity.
> God told Adam and Eve to go and multiply way before Satan entered the
> picture.
Yes.
> You put Jesus and satan on the same level with God when you call them
> brothers,
No, we put Jesus and Lucifer on the same level as each other, as spirit children of our Heavenly Father.
> or created by God like all of us, and in that sense we are all
> brothers.
Yes, you’re getting it!
> Satan is an angel of God, a decieving and evil angel.
We don’t disagree. Pre-mortal spirit children of our Heavenly Father are angels.
> Another Mormon earlier on these blogs said satan was like a crazy
> uncle. How can a Mormon minimize the wrongs and problems that satan
> has done to us,
I don’t know, why don’t you ask him? Or are you trying to paint us all by what one has said? That would be disingenuous of you.
> that he tries to lead us AWAY from our Heavenly Father, that he was
> so evil that he could not be in God’s presence anymore and was cast
> out.
And took a third of the Heavenly Host with him.
> That he tempted Jesus 3 times, and Jesus was victorious, IS
> victorious against him, and Jesus told satan to get behind Him, and
> that he was not to test God? Is that all lost and forgotten?
Nope, that is what we believe as well.
> Here is the deal; the only way to get a Mormon’s attention is with
> shock.
Is that why you lie?
> They ask questions and say things that are totally deceptive and
> offensive.
PKB
> They name call and have no [respect] for TOC’s.
You are mistaken and trying to paint with too broad a brush again.
> But they expect [it] in return. Why is that?
We should all expect respect. There has, at times, been a lack of it on both sides.
> In an earlier post i said the same thing i repeat now; The burden of
> proof is on Mormons.
And we cannot definitely prove our religion is true to you or anyone else. Only the Holy Ghost can do that, but you deny his power and are lost.
> Tell me why you believe Smith was a true prophet,
His prophecies have come true or still can, and the Holy Ghost has testified that he is a true prophet of God.
> and why i should believe he was too?
Because it is the truth, truth that you would know if you read our scriptures and prayed about them with a contrite spirit. We can’t do this for you and you seem unable or unwilling to do it for yourself. For that, we feel sorrow.
posted December 12, 2007 at 4:16 pm
OCS,
The Jewish people would never, never, never, refer to themselves, ie. the heads of households as Gods. Lord, yes. but never God. It is nowhere in the Bible or any other text.
I’ve read the Bible. The problem I have with you is that you don’t seem to believe the whole Bible. I was discussing this last night in a study group. The Bible is the word of God and perfect by your standards. Everything in the Bible has to agree with itself. Otherwise a house divided and all.
We do not put Satan on the smae plane as Jesus. You are imagining that. You just fail to see the Biblical logic for the claim due to the negative connotations you have placed on it. Again, you misunderstood the crazy uncle analogy. We know that Satan’s only purpose now is derail the plan of God. WE BELIEVE THAT!!
We call names? How many times have you erroneously used the term cult?
Smith was prophet because he did things that no uninspired mortal could do. The Book of Mormon, realizing that everything in the Bible had merit, restoring doctrines that were lost or simply ignored. I don’t expect you to believe, but I do hope that you see that the rpinciples that he taught are 100% true.
posted December 12, 2007 at 5:17 pm
I hope future LDS bloggers here will stop responding to OCS…his comments are embarassing true Christians…and should be entirely ignored. I recommend keeping exchange of ideas and beliefs open with YS however…
posted December 14, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Great!!
It looks like we’ve at least chased OCS off of this thread…let him spew forth his ignorant putrid elsewhere.
posted December 14, 2007 at 6:31 pm
RotorHead,
Your behavior is truly deplorable. To quote a euphemism “What would Jesus do?”
posted December 14, 2007 at 7:45 pm
James,
You mean like chasing off the money changers in the temple?
posted December 14, 2007 at 10:06 pm
You didn’t chase me off, Rotorhead, MUCH to your chagrin i would imagine.
Erik all i can say is that i am not sure what you refer to as jewish people never referring to themselves as gods. God said there was no other god, not any that He knew. No, not any.
Mormons love to use the Psalms vs. 82:6 but leave out vs. 7, which clearly states who these gods were. They were the rulers and heads of the households of the times. Jewish or not. The religous leaders of the day WERE who was being spoken about, and they were also warned that they would fall. It is the classic example that many use to show how the LDS religion takes vs. out of context, to make it fit their doctrines. I would remind you that since God said there are NO OTHER GODS~ NOT BEFORE OR AFTER ME. So, how does one explain, as a Mormon, the belief that a Mormon will one day, if he does everything correct, get to inherit a universe and be the god of that universe? One can go back over these blogs and see for themselves the beliefs of Mormons, and how they even contradict themselves in their own belief.
One says Jesus and Satan were not brothers, and another says they were in a way. What is it? Do Mormons believe they were brothers or not? It is so clear that Christians that know the Word of God, do not dispute each other, and yet Mormonism only lets out little floods of knowledge at a time, so one is constantly trying to earn little “pearls of great price.” Sorry about that, but it is what it is.
posted December 15, 2007 at 3:49 am
No RotorHead, Jesus said love your foes. Bless them that curse you and do good to them that spitefully use you. I love you RotorHeard. I pray to Christ Jesus that you find your way. Amen
posted December 15, 2007 at 2:11 pm
James,
I wasn’t aware we were foes…but alas, I’m usually the last to know these things.
I pray for you as well. Maybe instead of heated debates as to who is and who isn’t Christian, we could better spend our time deciding how to act more like Christians…? just a thought.
posted December 16, 2007 at 6:38 pm
OCS and James,
Can either of you explain to me what is meant by this statement in 1 John 4:12 “No man hath seen God at any time.”
thanks,
posted December 16, 2007 at 11:58 pm
God’s love is made complete in us when we love fellow Christians.
God live’s in us, and His love is shown when we love fellow Christians.
I am not sure why you chose this verse. Are you LDS and making a statement? James has said he loves his fellow bloggers. I have nothing against any man. I do however hate false prophets because they fool others and lead them away from God. If i only make a person question why one would come onto these blogs and point out the differences, instead of taking the stand, “we are hated and that is why” then maybe they would see. But i don’t know any personal stories and what their lives have been like. Maybe they have been ridiculed, or maybe even mocked. I cannot control how someone takes what i write on these blogs. I write what i know to be the truth of the Bible, and how when compared to Mormonism, It shows how they differ, and I for one, can see that Christianity is way closer to God, than the claims of Mormonism. I understand why LDS defend their faith, but I only ask that the question how authentic it really is before they make up their minds that it is the only way to God. I feel it is a faith that will lead to destruction. I believe those were also Dr. Mohler’s words. I will be on here less and less because i am tiring of the run around that verbally keeps happening. There are very few questions willingly answered by LDS, and without answers as to how and why they believe Mormonism to be the real truth, it is then futile and a big waste of time. It is amazing to me at how venomous and actually hateful that a mormon blogger can be. I don’t get the phyche one’s mind would be in, to treat someone caliming to be Christian so verbally bad, as if an idiot, just because I ask questions, valid in my mind, that are about the doctronal differences. I have been put on a whole other plane of the “type of person” I really am, that i have a dark heart, etc.
No worries to me, I have a lot of confidence, and i know who i am and better yet, I am saved.
At my reunion, there was a friend who was Mormon that, as kids we were friends. Now, the friend stood back and was rather smug, never saying a word, and actually ignoring about everyone there. It was sad, but their choice. They actually alienated themselves from the rest of us. I probably will never know for sure if it was their faith, and wanting to stay away from non-Mormons, but it was actually the conclusion I came to.
Mormonism is like a club, and they don’t like any other way but to be exclusive. After all the blogs I have read, the general belief seems to be that on judgement day they will enjoy a higher status than anyone else, and it will be a sad day for the rest of us.
If any Mormon cares to, they should ask a Christian who is aware of Mormon beliefs and knows the difference what the Holy Bible says about Non-Christian faiths. God provided the answers from the beginning. We may not understand what He knows we are not capable of understanding, but He does love us, and has always been in control. It is not my job to convert someone, but only to witness. God recieves the glory. I don’t say anything on these blogs that i do not believe to be true.
If it is easier for a mormon to call me a liar, rather than explain why their faith differs in certain areas and how they come to understand what they believe is the only real truth.
posted December 17, 2007 at 2:45 am
OCS,
Christ said that a person who hates another is guilty of murder in the eyes of God. Any kind of hate is not Christ like. Christ told us that we should love all the world and not just those who love us in return. We are even to love our enemies he said. If you love only someone who loves you then what do you gain?
posted December 17, 2007 at 11:12 am
> There are very few questions willingly answered by LDS, and without
> answers as to how and why they believe Mormonism to be the real
> truth, it is then futile and a big waste of time.
Uh, OCS, we have told you time and again how we know that the LDS faith is the real truth. We have read the BoM, PoGP, and D&C and prayed about them with a contrite spirit and have received an answer from the Father through the witness of the Holy Ghost. Against this, no gainsay can mean anything for they are naught against the power of God.
posted December 17, 2007 at 4:50 pm
In the same breath Gregory, you would deny that I have received the witness of God. How can you deal with that other than to say that I am either a liar or have been deceived. If then those charges are made, could I not say the same about you? If you know, and if I know, then there lay a contradiction. One of us actually hasn’t received a real Witness. You would say that yours is real and I would say that mine is real, but one of us must be wrong. You take it as an article of faith, where I take it as a matter of Biblical reference.
posted December 17, 2007 at 5:26 pm
James or should I say OCS?
posted December 17, 2007 at 5:42 pm
> In the same breath Gregory, you would deny that I have received the
> witness of God.
Only in regards to the validity of LDS scriptures, other than the Bible.
> How can you deal with that other than to say that I am either a liar
> or have been deceived.
It is by your own admission that you haven’t read all of the scriptures, so you have no foundation on which to ask our Heavenly Father about the truth of them.
> If then those charges are made, could I not say the same about you?
If you had done as I have, we would both be on the same page, so the point is moot.
> If you know, and if I know, then there lay a contradiction.
No, only from the flawed premise you outlined above.
> One of us actually hasn’t received a real Witness. You would say that
> yours is real and I would say that mine is real, but one of us must
> be wrong.
No, see my explanation above.
> You take it as an article of faith, where I take it as a matter of
> Biblical reference.
I trust in Christ, for he is the author of my faith. I read the scriptures and prayed to the Father in the name of the Son and received the witness of the Holy Ghost. You could do, if you would set aside your pride.
posted December 17, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Was that some kind of cheesy smear?
So now I am not credible because I am pretending to be two separate blogger? Nice try RotorHead. LOL!
James or should I say OCS? Whatever.
posted December 17, 2007 at 7:00 pm
You assume that I have not read the Book of Mormon. LOL
posted December 17, 2007 at 8:13 pm
> You assume that I have not read the Book of Mormon. LOL
Whoops! Did you forget that you told us outright that you had not read it? Here is what you said:
> One must simply read them and as they say “pray with a sincere heart
> and God will testify of their truth.” As a person who has spent much of
> his life studying the Bible, I cannot do this.
But, then again, you didn’t actually claim to have read the Book of Mormon, you just implied it with your statement. How very deceitful and typical of a TOC with shaky faith.
posted December 18, 2007 at 1:50 am
James; Don’t let these guys get to you. No you are not me, and vice versa. They have no respect for God, Jesus, or Christians in general. They are an arrogant bunch of close minded followers of a false religion. As Christians, we can point out the truth, and the rest is up to God. He will either call them or not.
I know I am saved because i believe in God’s Holy Words and the Promise of Jesus. Jesus died on the cross for you and I. The blood He shed on the cross IS our salvation. We know it is by nothing we are capable of doing ourselves.
Mormonism is a totally different religion. There is no attempt by any Mormon yet to try to say or point out how they are Christian, but rather slanderous attempts to point out their own opinions that traditional Christianity is wrong, evil if you will. In your heart, where Christ lives, do you honestly think that they deserve anymore than our caring and compassion? Erik on either yesterdays or the days before blog posted something that “they teach their 4 year olds” so i could maybe understand. Yeah, it was a burn like i am stupid. But they have been taught that mainstream Christianity is not to be believed, that we are evil, that we only want to destroy their church (and by the sounds of it, for no good reason). The powers working here are the principalities spoken of in the Bible. Be thankful that if even for a short time, God called on us to join these blogs for His purpose. We know we are not going convert anyone, we also know that there is no respect aimed at us. i got tired a long time ago of trying to be so respectful to disrespectful people. It has nothing to do with being a Christian or not at that point as far as i am concerned. I sometimes feel like i am speaking with a bunch of snot nosed disrespectful, teenagers that are very full of themselves, thinking they have it all figured out and they don’t need anyone. You know what i am saying?
Listen to me though as a fellow Christian; I love the Lord Jesus, I believe in the Holy Trinity, I have been a Christian since i can remember. I do not boast in my works, they are not for any other reason but to bring glory to God. I choose to do that by example rather than saying “Hey look at me…I did A, B, and C! That should convince you i am a Christian.” God doesn’t see it that way. None of us have any right to boast at all. We have recieved a gift that cost the greatest price of all. We either accept it, or we don’t.
Mormon’s can squirm, smirk, insult, whatever makes them feel like they are not losing power. But we know who really has the power. They fight a lost cause. And i am afraid for them that they will pay the ultimate price.
If you stay on these blogs though, get used to being called names, and never getting a straight answer. You just won’t. But it is okay, at least they are learning the doctrinal differences, where maybe before they didn’t know any different. They can call it evil, or they may tuck it away to be questioned later. I am not going to worry about it. They are big boys and like me, have the right to their beliefs.
Just know that other Christians are with you, you are not alone. And we at least agree on our basic doctines. I can read 2 or 3 different descriptions of how Mormons understand one single doctrine.
I don’t know how many times i have tried to say i have no ill will and usually that is ignored. It is easier to not like someone claiming Christ if you can make them look bad. Just hang in there and keep posting. I am learning from you too. I think you have a profoundly deep understanding of the Bible, and God’s Spirit.
Have a Holy Holiday, and remember that Jesus is with you always. OCS
posted December 18, 2007 at 12:14 pm
> They have no respect for God, Jesus, or Christians in general.
Another lie.
> They are an arrogant bunch of close minded followers of a false
> religion. As Christians, we can point out the truth, and the rest is
> up to God. He will either call them or not.
How do you know what the truth is?
> I know I am saved because i believe in God’s Holy Words and the
> Promise of Jesus.
So does Satan.
> Jesus died on the cross for you and I. The blood He shed on the cross
> IS our salvation. We know it is by nothing we are capable of doing
> ourselves.
Yep and that is what we believe, also.
> Mormonism is a totally different religion. There is no attempt by any
> Mormon yet to try to say or point out how they are Christian, but
Other than the fact that we worship Christ as our lord and savior? Hmmmm, I guess you can stick your fingers in your ears and sing “la, la, la” whenever someone points out that you are wrong.
> rather slanderous attempts to point out their own opinions that
> traditional Christianity is wrong,
Not wrong, incomplete, and needlessly tied to extra-biblical creeds.
> evil if you will.
Sorry, no. We don’t think Christians are evil. But thanks for your attempted deception anyway.
> In your heart, where Christ lives, do you honestly think that they
> deserve anymore than our caring and compassion?
Does anyone?
> But they have been taught that mainstream Christianity is not to be
> believed,
I addressed this above.
> that we are evil,
No, OCS, we don’t teach this at all. This would be your second outright lie in this post.
> that we only want to destroy their church (and by the sounds of it,
> for no good reason).
Most don’t.
> The powers working here are the principalities spoken of in the
> Bible. Be thankful that if even for a short time, God called on us to
> join these blogs for His purpose.
His purpose is to lie? I don’t think it was God, then.
> We know we are not going convert anyone, we also know that there is
> no respect aimed at us.
Y’all certainly get more than you give.
> i got tired a long time ago of trying to be so respectful to
> disrespectful people.
Oh, the irony.
> It has nothing to do with being a Christian or not at that point as
> far as i am concerned. I sometimes feel like i am speaking with a
> bunch of snot nosed disrespectful, teenagers that are very full of
> themselves, thinking they have it all figured out and they don’t need
> anyone. You know what i am saying?
PKB
> Listen to me though as a fellow Christian; I love the Lord Jesus,
I don’t doubt this.
> I believe in the Holy Trinity,
At your own peril. Perhaps you would like to step in and answer the challenge that I put to James. What about the parts of the Bible that make it clear that the trinity isn’t correct?
> I have been a Christian since i can remember. I do not boast in my
> works, they are not for any other reason but to bring glory to God.
Neither do we.
> I choose to do that by example rather than saying “Hey look at me…I
> did A, B, and C! That should convince you i am a Christian.” God
> doesn’t see it that way. None of us have any right to boast at all.
> We have recieved a gift that cost the greatest price of all. We
> either accept it, or we don’t.
Agreed.
> Mormon’s can squirm, smirk, insult, whatever makes them feel like
> they are not losing power. But we know who really has the power.
Yes, we do.
> They fight a lost cause.
Christ’s cause is not a lost cause and I am sorry you think so.
> And i am afraid for them that they will pay the ultimate price.
You fear from ignorance. Take the Mormon Challenge.
> If you stay on these blogs though, get used to being called names,
And calling them, too. And lying. And being disrepectful. Remember it is TOCs who are challenging our faith. TOC faith is only brought up in contrast.
> and never getting a straight answer.
Lie number 3.
> You just won’t. But it is okay, at least they are learning the
> doctrinal differences, where maybe before they didn’t know any
> different.
I can’t speak for all, but I knew them already. I was a TOC longer than I’ve been a member of the LDS faith.
> They can call it evil,
But we won’t, and haven’t.
> or they may tuck it away to be questioned later.
Out answers come from the spirit of God.
> I am not going to worry about it.
Sure you are. You are going to sit there and fret and post the occasional lie or piece of misinformation and still think you are doing God’s will.
> They are big boys and like me, have the right to their beliefs.
> Just know that other Christians are with you, you are not alone. And
> we at least agree on our basic doctines. I can read 2 or 3 different
> descriptions of how Mormons understand one single doctrine.
And yet you won’t provide an example to dispute.
> I don’t know how many times i have tried to say i have no ill will
> and usually that is ignored.
Do you want to know why it is ignored, OCS? Because people will judge you for your actions. And your actions on this blog have been despicable. We find your claims of “no will will” to be grossly disingenuous.
> It is easier to not like someone claiming Christ if you can make them
> look bad.
Look in the mirror there, bud.
> Just hang in there and keep posting. I am learning from you too. I
> think you have a profoundly deep understanding of the Bible, and
> God’s Spirit.
> Have a Holy Holiday, and remember that Jesus is with you always. OCS
Merry Christmas to all.
posted December 18, 2007 at 12:39 pm
James,
I’m glad I could be of some comic relief for you…you seemed very tense in your postings. Afterall, this is only a debate that you and OCS have turned into Anti-Mormon attacks…but don’t fret, we can take it…LDS love to stand up for truth and righteousness.
Merry Christmas
posted December 18, 2007 at 1:52 pm
This is a post that I made earlier today on the “Let’s call Mormons Non-Traditional Christians” thread. (While OCS had moderated his tone over there he is certainly being his normal ranting self here. However, I thought this might demonstrate the way he works, so I post it here as well for the edification of all.)
Mike
Dear OCS,
Since your tone has moderated slightly since the other day, I will take the time to answer a couple of your points.
Please understand that I bear you no ill will. I try to restrict my comments to what people on these posts actually say rather than passing classifying them as “bigots” or other such labels.
You and YS are both missing the point of Mouw’s quote. I did not make any comments about everthing being “pie in the sky” between Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals. I did not comment at all on the post. I pasted it verbatim from beliefnet. I am not under any illusion that Richard Mouw has come over to the Mormon point of view. The reason I posted it is to make the point that many people make the mistake of telling Mormons what they believe without asking them what they believe. You and YS are guilty of this. We may have been guilty of it as well. I can guarantee you that if you really want to convince anyone that you have the truth, you will have to approach it more the way Richard Mouw did it in that speech. You will not impress me by telling me that my religion is “demonic”, for example.
Here is a prime example from your latest post that illustrates you making a statement about what I believe and then commenting on it, without asking me if I, in fact, believe it.
OCS:
What i find sad and unsettling Is that Mormonism takes glory away from Christ in that they believe He is savior only in the sense that he saves mankind from physical death only.
Mike:
Do I believe that Jesus Chrsit is the Savior only in the sense that he saves me from physical death only? No, absolutely not. Did you take time to ask me if I believe it before putting those words in the collective Mormon mouth? No, you did not. You will not make much headway in these types of discussions with Mormons when you do it this way.
And, OCS, don’t lie. That is not a way to impress us either. The quotes from you below show how you have done this.
OCS today:
Oh, and by the way, since i and other Christian bloggers on here keep getting accused of using anti-Mormon literature, i thought you might be interested in the name of it. The Holy Bible, That is the name of my anti mormon literature i use. k?
OCS today, very next paragraph:
One more thing that maybe a Mormon could answer for me. I read in a book written by an ex mormon who went through the early century being Mormon, and she knew Warren Jeffs grandfather. She claims that they are blood decendents of Joseph Smith. Is this true? If it is, How does the Mormon church defend leaving the basic beliefs of the original teachings of Smith, and for being a revered prophet of the Mormon church, how do they feel about Warren Jeffs and what he is going through? Is there any animosity towards him? Would the church stand up for him as a descendent of the first prophet?
OCS from earlier in this thread:
The Mormon Church has had to answer since day one. they are not legitimate when compared to what the Holy Bible, which is to say, God’s Word, says. Smith had more than a hundred false claims. That is enough to make him a false prophet. He was murdered and took out 3 men with him. He only had family members and one that married into his family as witnesses to his writing the Book of Mormon. they only saw him with a seer stone and a hat to block the light. What a paradox, wouldn’t you say?
He translated the book of mormon according to his witnesses, by visions of what the Egyptian papyrus symbols were meant to mean, but when they were translated by experts many years later, they had nothing to do with Abraham.
So should we believe a man as such that Smith was? He had a horrible reputation, his “witnesses” were related to him, there is no physical proof, even of the land where certain things supposedly took place. We live in the here and now, and that is part of what mormonism declares.. That God would change His mind. That He didn’t get it right the first time. That without any kind of evidence that in this day and age could be proven, and a papryus that WAS proven as mistranslated, Mormons would still argue they are right, and we as Christians are wrong. They have nothing to compare what is right to what is wrong. So how do they know other than the words of Smith and the elders of their church. The elders do have something to gain. They get to play special in God’s eyes, and declare to others without question, what God now wants. Any man, especially satan, would love that power, wouldn’t they? If they really didn’t believe in a loving God, or a savior?
Mike:
I didn’t know that all the information in the preceding paragraph was in the Bible. Is it really? Come on OCS! Aside from the fact that the information you put here is inaccurate, (which I pointed out in earlier posts), I know the source of the information. I have read anti-Mormon literature extensively. I know where you get this stuff. You called it “history books” earler in theis thread and said that since they were all in agreement they had to be right. When I asked you to give us specific citations so that we could check them out, you never responded.
One of the few things that YS and I agree on (other than that Jesus is the Christ), is that you should, indeed “cite your sources”. Don’t lie and say that the aonly source of your information is the Bible when you and I and all of us know that it is not. that won’t impress us much either.
posted December 18, 2007 at 3:38 pm
OCS,
>Just know that other Christians are with you, you are not alone. And >we at least agree on our basic doctines. I can read 2 or 3 different >descriptions of how Mormons understand one single doctrine.
Really? Then why are there so many Christian denominations? Even within these denominations people call themselves Calvanists or universalists, ect.
You say we differ, but I say otherwise. No other church is as united in believe. I know that what will be taught in church Sunday will be the same thing taught in Brazil, Japan and Utah. I know that what is taught from the prophets and apostles is true, one truth. Now as you encounter others they may say things a little differently, but only because 1) they don’t understand 2) they have yet to learn for themselves 3) you took the wrong message away from what they were saying.
My reason for joining this debate is not to convert anyone, but rather to see the doubts that are out there and research for myself for future missionary events with friends and family. I have heard a few “new” ones, but they always come back as misinterpretations or cherry-picking of the prophets words. I feel that too much sissy-fighting as my kids would call it, is going on. I propose that no post be made without a scripture to back it up or pose a question. This will keep this going using something we can all agree is truth.
To keep with that sentiment.
Gen CHAPTER 6
7 And I will take you to me for a apeople, and I will be to you a bGod: and ye shall cknow that I am the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.
Gen. 17: 8.
8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
Ex. 29: 45 (45-46).
Deut. 29: 13.
13 That he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.
Notice the use of the letter “A” in those two verses and the “their”. Why does he say this? To me it’s like the definition of God in these verses is not what I normally think of. Thought?
posted December 20, 2007 at 2:00 am
Gentlemen; someone that lies does so with intentions of just that. I say nothing that i don’t believe to be truthful. So, If you want to call me a liar over and over to discredit the questions i ask about your faith, based on what i know, and where i get it from, go ahead. It is unfair of you, but i get the feeling you don’t play fair.
The problem is you are on a blog, that is debating whether or not Mormons are Christian, and there are Christians on here showing you where Mormonism differs greatly from the Bible. Only unlearned people, that don’t know the word of God, are going to be fooled into what you are trying to make me look like. The only one i care about is the Lord, My Savior, and He knows my heart. He knows i am not lying about anything. If i have misinformation, instead of calling me a liar, why not point out why the literature is a lie? Why not dispute the biblical verses i use as a guide, instead of stating it another lie from me and dismissing it? I am sure it is the easier way, but it doesn’t do much for proving your own points.
Dispite all the negativity, i keep coming back because i enjoy the debate. It helps us all learn and understand each others beliefs. But, when you personally attack someone you don’t even know, and paint a picture of someone in such a way that it is false, then who is really the liar? Are you describing me because you know me, or becuase you don’t like what i have come to understand? And do you really feel very good acting like that? Is there justice for you in some way, some points you will earn, or what? Who are you really defending, yourself, or Christianity?
posted December 20, 2007 at 7:58 am
OSC
I disagree, you state that we differ from the Bible, but you have yet to show one scripture that differs the Christ’s church from the Bible, not a single one. You have given your interpretation of scripture, but that’s about it. I work 80 hours a week and I have missed much of the debate, so feel free to fill me in.
Some topics already discussed: God one or three – New Testament says 3, and very clearly….I know there are more, but I’m tired and have to sleep.
Erik
posted December 20, 2007 at 9:41 am
OCS,
you stated, “But, when you personally attack someone you don’t even know, and paint a picture of someone in such a way that it is false, then who is really the liar?”
Does that mean you vilify Joseph Smith because you personally know him or that you are simply a liar?
posted December 20, 2007 at 11:38 am
Sorry, OCS, but I calls them as I sees them. You say that the LDS Church teaches that mainstream Christianity is evil. This is an out-and-out falsehood, not a matter of opinion. You occasionally play at being magnanimous and wholesome, but your usual tactics bely your words.
posted December 20, 2007 at 1:55 pm
OCS:
HMMMMMMMMMM I have my own opinions on who fits the descriptions above of Bigotry, especially the non-tolerant part.
Mike:
I am cetain that you do. I myself go by the words people speak and how well they research their facts before they write or speak.
The fact is that you, my dear OCS, have long and often misstated and buchered both LDS history and doctrine on these threads as shown by the documentation that I have listed in response to your numerous posts. I won’t say what that makes you, but there are only two options:
1. very ignorant
2. intentionally duplicitous
posted December 20, 2007 at 1:58 pm
OCS:
Gentlemen; someone that lies does so with intentions of just that. I say nothing that i don’t believe to be truthful. So, If you want to call me a liar over and over to discredit the questions i ask about your faith, based on what i know, and where i get it from, go ahead. It is unfair of you, but i get the feeling you don’t play fair.
Mike:
The fact is that you, my dear OCS, have long and often misstated and buchered both LDS history and doctrine on these threads as shown by the documentation that I have listed in response to your numerous posts. I won’t say what that makes you, but there are only two options:
1. very ignorant
2. intentionally duplicitous
posted December 20, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Greg,
As I and many other LDS have pointed out…OCS is either multipersonality or out right devious…a wolf in sheep’s clothing whose true nature comes out when stripped…ravenous, vindictive, and self preserving…
posted December 21, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Wow, i am not really surprised, but you seem to all be pretty judgemental about my intentions and who I even am as a person. All I can say is I cannot control what you think of me, whether you like what I have to say or not, (I have a feeling you would be very shocked and ashamed of yourselves if you did know who I am), I am neither ignorant, nor duplictious. but you have the right to your opinion.
I feel you all have a double standard. You have the right somehow in your minds, to say what you think, but damn others with a different opinion about what you believe.
I am only trying to point out differences interjected with my own opinions. You all have interjected your own opinions. Is it really okay in your minds to be so defensive as to make such harsh and false claims based on what you have read on these blogs?
Anyone on here a profiler? I would be curious to see what a Mormon profiler would say about who I am.
Believe it or not, If you see hatred towards any man, you are just plain wrong. I hate false teachings about Christ, and people being led astray, as i have said before. What is so wrong about that? Don’t you all feel the same? Or is it okay to hate because someone believes differently to you?
Oh by the way, Anyone want to point out where I said I hate you, Mike, or I hate you Gregory, Or I hate you Erik? I didn’t think so.
posted December 23, 2007 at 12:03 am
OCS,
How you feel about us is immaterial.
What you actually post is what we know about you.
Your statements of “fact” have been demonstrated to be incorrect and/or uninformed.
Acurracy is necessary to believability.
You are not accurate, and thus you are not believable.
Mike
posted December 25, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Well, Mike I am not the only one to post different things that, from what I understand, are also read by others on here that are traditional Christians. I am not the only one that has posted some of the same beliefs. You can say they are lies, that I have butchered your faith. Well, why not tell me what exactly I was misinformed about? Instead of generalities which seem to be a favorite among LDS responders, why not tell me what i have wrong, exactly what verses or beliefs i am supposedly lying about, and tell me what it really is? That is the only way to correct it. Mike, i will say this; I don’t know how you have been treated in life in relation to your faith, but don’t assume that all I want to do is trash someone. Not my intention. You can believe what you want, but i promise it is not my intention to be hurtful, insulting, disrespectful to a person,….
What I don’t believe and what I DO have an issue with, whether or not it matters, is the basic belief of Mormons. It is the root, or foundations. Yes, I have stated what I think of Smith. Yes, I have stated I believe it is blasphemous to claim that Christ and satan are spirit children of God, and that Jesus is the only begotten son under that premise. As a Christian I do believe He is God’s only begotten Son, born of a virgin, The Holy Trinity is infinite, and my mind is finite and so I have trouble understanding how or imagining the 3 being one, but I believe the Bible has enough supporting vs. that I personally accept the Trinity theory.
I am a traditional Christian, but I am non-denominal. I believe Jesus’ teachings, and I believe He fulfilled the prophecies of a Savior. I also believe in a personal relationship with Jesus.
More than once on these threads (to keep it easy) you or another Mormon has said it is after all you have done, that Christ’s blood saves you. LDS have said way more than many times at least, that “[it]is after all we can do,…” speaking of salvation.
So Mike, tell me, Is that a lie? If I am a liar, and that is my intentions, why would I not lie about it all? I find that you among some bloggers in particular want to throw out cheap words to discredit what I have learned. It is confusing to me to say the least, and to use the least harsh adjective I can, when what i am answering or pulling out to be questioned as a part of the belief system of Mormons, why I get called a liar, as if my intentions are negative.
Can we please come to an understanding that it is not my intention to lie, to decieve, to mock. I am not LDS and that is true, but it doesn’t mean that i want anything more than to question what I see as a false religion. Isn’t that part of why LDS become members? Mike, you sound more on the side of TOC’s being decieving, and wicked. Misinformed, etc.
This is the rub Mike; We both have a different faith, and they are like oil and water. There are things that APPEAR similar. But even saying that you believe Jesus is you savior takes on a different meaning when you put Jesus on the same level as a child of God and satan, and all of us on that level for that matter, then there is a major discrepency and it is not going to be a simple matter of “okay, I will call you a Christian”. A quick analogy: “I have never read the Bible or studied it, but I believe whatever it says”. So Mike, This is an analogy, not my belief, so please no ridicule or joking that I feel that way, but I have heard that from many people in my day. Lazy people that have no desire to learn the word of God, and feel it is okay to just say “I believe what the Bible says”.
When you put me in a category that is just plain wrong, you are doing exactly what you accuse me of. The difference is this; You know what you are doing, and doing it on purpose. I would NEVER, NEVER try to teach someone a false word of our Lord and Savior. EVER. I however, do not believe that Smith felt the same way. I do not know what his intentions were, but I have read some of his history. By the books I have read on him, which seem to all have a similar background if not exact, he was not a super stand up guy. And his own church that he even bragged about, did apostasize from the original beliefs and doctrines. Not all, but a lot.
In closing, I want to say Merry Christmas, and I pray that whatever the reasons are that we ended up on these blogs, we both have learned from each other, and that tolerance would be the remaining thing. Whether or not we agree with each others personal beliefs. K?
Merry Christmas Mike; OCS
posted January 1, 2008 at 3:54 am
I wrote OCS a long reply but it was held for review.
I’ll have to try later.
Mike
posted January 3, 2008 at 12:56 am
OCS,
Here are at least two places where you have been inaccurate in your statements concerning LDS History.
You gave false information concerning the Pearl of Graet Price and the Joseph Smith Papyri. I corrected your inaccurcies and gave documented cited sources, several days later you repeated the same inaccurate information as if you hadn’t even read the documentation that showed your information was clearly untrue.
You said that Joseph Smith’s wife, Emma, left him over Polygamy. This is untrue. She was his wife and remained with him until his death on June 27, 1844.
I quoted several other places where you gave inaccurate information that demonstrated either your ignorance of the facts, which I hope was the case, or your deliberate misstatement of the facts.
Mike
posted January 3, 2008 at 11:56 am
I thank God that we were given freedom to choose. He had a purpose in all His creation, and rather than create man and be a puppeteur, He gave man the freedom to choose who he would serve and what he would believe. His gave us His word to read and study (all scripture is given by inspiration of God). If we choose to follow anyone other than Christ and His teachings, we will be held accountable to God. I find peace in knowing that God will judge me on every aspect of what I have choosen to believe, and how I apply that faith to how I live. Words mean nothing if our actions don’t support what we say we believe. We can learn from each other. I choose to listen to what others believe, and try to understand where they are coming from, but in the end, I will make my choice and they will make their choice and we can still live in harmony as long as we do not try to “force” our beliefs on each other. Throughout the Old Testament, we find the “righteous Pharisees” judging others bases on their interpretation of God’s word and even used it to crucify Christ! We believe, as Christians, that we are to share the “good news” of our Savior and have a deep concerns for others we believe as “lost” (something only God will judge in the end). If we are wrong in that belief and faith, God helps us, and in the end, He will judge us on all matters….but, most of all, how we treat one another. Christ never “forced” anything on anyone, but taught by a loving spirit to those He encountered, and encouraged all to believe on Him, to follow His teachings, and to love one another. In return, He promised life everlasting. My bible tells me that there is only one way to the Father….through the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ as redeemption for my/our sins, to be baptised in Christ, and to follow no man but Him (not Joseph Smith, the Pope, a priest, Watchtower teachings,a preacher, no one…)no one, but Christ). We are warned that Satan is a master of disguise and deceat….he will come among us as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, alluring us with the desires of our hearts, so yes, we must know Christ and His teachings to know what to look for, and be on guard. Each of us that have studied God’s Holy word are to “put on the armour of God”, and be warriors in the faith. It is a battle….a battle between good and evil….between God and Satan. God tells us to choose who we will serve….you cannot serve two masters. Satan was a creation of God…an Archangel who chose to compete with God over power, but does not have the power of God, he cannot be all knowing and everywhere as God is with His followers. We are told in God’s word that we are living in Satan’s world here on earth. God’s domain is heaven and Satan can never again enter into Heaven’s gates. We live in this world, but are not to be of this world…separate unto God Himself and His service to one another. The most difficult thing for man to learn is to be “humble”….and admit that we are nothing on our own without Christ. Christ came to serve, as is our desire to serve others. Our power is the Holy Spirit within us, and our faith in Christ..that He is who He said He is and can do what He says He can do…and no one else. Smith, the Pope, Martin Luther, Wesley….great men,…..but only men. When any man believe he has “the truth” outside of Christ who is truth, then we have conflict with God Himself. We are to be followers of Christ only, who gave life. Some world religions are based on “works”, some on hatred of anyone who does not share their thinking, and ,yes, we who call ourselves Christians follow only Christ because in our hearts that is what is right for us and we are called to “share” what we believe….not force it upon anyone. Every man must choose for himself. I respect that right for you and others, and can only hope that you choose to respect my right to do that for myself. I do not even consider trying to force anyone to believe as I do, and will listen to your views and respect your right to make that choice for yourself. How much better our lives would be, and there could be peace, if only we respected one another enough to allow for each other’s individuality. We all come from such different backgrounds, social levels, nationalities, and life experiences and such diverse thinking, but there is no reason we cannot live in peace and harmony. The real challenge is to love those that disagree and who are unloveable…to forgive others when we feel wronged. Amazingly, when we pray for others, including our enemies, we find a “freedom” to forgive and go on with life and not allow them to take ownership of our time,thoughts, and energy. Anger,hate,resentment,retribution for wrongs only enslave us to those who have wronged us in some way. Disagreements over who is right and who is wrong in what we believe only hurts us in the end if we choose to allow it space in our minds and heart. What a waste!!!
Unfortunately, it is when corporations/government often interfers and becomes a dictatorship, power and greed take over, and someone thinks they are right and forces their beliefs on others…whether in government, school, church, or personal relationships….peace is lost, disagreements erupt into fanatical thinking and all pay a price. King Solomon prayed for wisdom….wise man to pray for wisdom.
It begins in the home….and it begins with you and me. We can make a difference. Idealist? Yes. Possible? Yes,if man would only humble himself and respect his neighbor. Whatever one chooses to give out to others will come back to him 10 fold…I choose kindness, love and respect for my fellowman. That’s the choice that gives me peace, and hope.
posted January 3, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Donna,
You said exactly what I’ve been hoping to hear from TOC’s. Thanks for your insightful perspective. ONe of my Articles of Faith states it this way:
“We claim the privilege of worshiping 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.”
If everyone would leave it at that instead of ‘attacking’ another’s beliefs, we would be much closer to acting like Christians…
Free will, free agency, choosing for ourselves…that’s what it is all about. It’s ok to hear another’s beliefs…but when we start to try and cram down our own beliefs on another…well, it’s then that we’ve just switched teams from good to bad…
posted January 8, 2008 at 11:35 am
MIke; i may not have read your comments. If it doesn’t show up on the immediate page, i sometimes don’t go back, so it was not intentional.
The information i write, is written in books about the Mormon faith, so i find it hard to believe you are right, and the rest are wrong if it is written repeatedly, by different authors. Emma Smith was one of the first to break off and start an offshoot Mormon faith that didn’t follow the polygamous ways. From my understanding, she was not happy with Joseph’s polygamous ways. I also understand that Joseph had his brother Hyrum (or someone close to him) deliver the letter to Emma which told her that God had given him (Smith) a revelation that he must take other wives. It is also written that she (Emma) did not like it, nor did she believe it. The letter that was printed in the book i read, said that the revelation promised damnation to Emma if she didn’t allow God’s servant Joseph to take multiple wives.
Polygamy was a source of contention in the Mormon church, and that is not made up by me.
One common sense question I would like to ask you is what you think i would have to gain from lying? I don’t understand your logic, or paranoid response.
i don’t have any false expectations about what these blogs will or will not accomplish. It is just a debate.
I find it confusing that someone could possibly believe in the things that Smith claimed as truth.
I was looking at my globe, and I also cannot believe that there were men that left (or escaped) Egypt, or the middle east, wherever they came from, and survived on a boat across the ocean. There were no globes or maps back then, and even Columbus who lived in the years around 1500AD, thought the world was flat. The so called lehi, or whatever their names were, had to build a big ship, and get it to the big ocean after crossing the red sea, and the Mediterranean sea. Columbus had many, many problems surviving his voyage. There is not anything in any history book supporting the mormon claim that there were travelers that landed, and they were middle eastern.
I find it hard to believe that these same people spoke Jesus’ name some 800 years before His birth. Mary didn’t even know until the Angel told her.
I find these, among other facts, very hard to believe in the least.
My perogative.
It is just crazy sounding to me. very made up.
And then there are the other things I have read written by Smith that I find very atrocious and self serving. I believe that Mormonism is evil. Based on what I understand about it. I see nothing divine in it at al for that matter.
posted January 8, 2008 at 1:53 pm
OCS:
Mike; i may not have read your comments. If it doesn’t show up on the immediate page, i sometimes don’t go back, so it was not intentional.
Mike:
OCS, the comments were on the same thread on the same blog. Your failure to read all my comments does not excuse you making inaccurate statements. I have pointed them out to you. Your proper course is to apologize and be more careful of your sources. this will add credibility to your posts. As of now that is something they lack.
OCS:
The information i write, is written in books about the Mormon faith,
Mike:
The Books you read are critical of the church. I have asked you repeatedly to cite the specific sources you are quoting from so that we can discuss the relative merits of their assertions. this you have refused (or been unable to do) despite our repeated requests that you do so. Making undocumented accusations does not make them true nor lend any credibility whatsoever to your assertions.
OCS:
so i find it hard to believe you are right, and the rest are wrong if it is written repeatedly, by different authors.
Mike:
Since you have not yet cited the “different authors” we have only your word. Secondarily, there have been many books written by many authors that agree on assertions that have been proved later to be false. Simple repetition of a false statement by more than one author does not make it true. Your logic here, if we can call it that, is flawed.
OCS:
Emma Smith was one of the first to break off and start an offshoot Mormon faith that didn’t follow the polygamous ways.
Mike:
Emma did not “start” an offshoot of the Mormon faith. Others started it. Emma remained in Nauvoo and some of her children were part of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (now called the Community of Christ). You stated, earlier, that she left Joseph.
This is simply untrue. You saying so are in error. If this is a sample of the information that you are reading, it is no wonder that you are inaccurate in your statements.
OCS:
From my understanding, she was not happy with Joseph’s polygamous ways.
Mike:
From your statements, your understanding is limited. Whether Emma was not happy with something has no bearing on its truth or falsity.
OCS:
I also understand that Joseph had his brother Hyrum (or someone close to him) deliver the letter to Emma which told her that God had given him (Smith) a revelation that he must take other wives. It is also written that she (Emma) did not like it, nor did she believe it. The letter that was printed in the book i read, said that the revelation promised damnation to Emma if she didn’t allow God’s servant Joseph to take multiple wives.
Mike:
Which book? Your assertions are again undocumented. Was it Hyrum of someone else? You see that your statements are vague. At least nail down your facts before making statements.
OCS:
Polygamy was a source of contention in the Mormon church, and that is not made up by me.
Mike:
Many true doctrines in the Bible have been sources of contention. that does not make them untrue.
OCS:
One common sense question I would like to ask you is what you think i would have to gain from lying? I don’t understand your logic, or paranoid response.
Mike:
Your obvious motive is to discredit the LDS Church, which has been your stated object. I need go no further for a motive. Plaease explain what is “paranoid” about my response? I know the word sounds impressive, but you might be wiser in choosing your adjectives. I didn’t simply claim that you lied. I showed where you had been inaccurate in your statements. I also gave you the benefit of the doubt by stating that these were inaccuracies rather than lies, and that either you were misinformed and ignorant or you were lying. Your refusal to apologize but rather to justify, makes me wonder which of the above it really is.
OCS:
i don’t have any false expectations about what these blogs will or will not accomplish. It is just a debate.
Mike:
For someone to debate effectively it is helpful if they make accurate, documented assertions with properly cited sources.
OCS:
I find it confusing that someone could possibly believe in the things that Smith claimed as truth.
Mike:
That isn’t my problem. That is yours.
OCS:
I was looking at my globe, and I also cannot believe that there were men that left (or escaped) Egypt, or the middle east, wherever they came from, and survived on a boat across the ocean.
Mike:
Then you don’t believe that Thor Heyerdahl and his associates made the voyages from Polynesia to South America and between Egypt and the Caribbean Islands in the 20th century, even though they did it on the rafts Kon-Tiki and Ra II. I have read the books and seen the rafts in the Kon-Tiki Museum in Oslo, Norway. So obviously men can and did make such a trek in our won time and survived, despite your disbelief.
OCS:
There were no globes or maps back then, and even Columbus who lived in the years around 1500AD, thought the world was flat.
Mike:
This is irrelevant to the discussion.
OCS:
The so called lehi, or whatever their names were, had to build a big ship, and get it to the big ocean after crossing the red sea, and the Mediterranean sea. Columbus had many, many problems surviving his voyage. There is not anything in any history book supporting the mormon claim that there were travelers that landed, and they were middle eastern.
Mike:
I thought you knew all about the Mormons from all the (still undocumented) sources that you have read. Don’t you know what the Book of Mormon peoples were called? Since Heyerdahl and crew made said voyages in our day there is indeed support for such voyages being not only possible but probable. We have also cited hundreds of sources showing possible linguistic and historical connections between the old and new worlds, none of which you have dealt with.
OCS:
I find it hard to believe that these same people spoke Jesus’ name some 800 years before His birth. Mary didn’t even know until the Angel told her.
Mike:
So you don’t believe in prophecy. What else is new? So such prophets as Isaiah and Jeremiah could not have prophesied of things to come, according to your thinking, and yet you say that you accept the Bible as the word of God…hmmmm? When the wise men came from the east and Herod found out that a child was to be born that would be King of the Jews, he asked his counselors where the child would be born. they read from the scriptures that the child would be born in Bethlehem. But according to your thinking they could not have known that in advance.
I think maybe you should abandon the Bible since it believes in such things that you abviously disagree with.
OCS:I find these, among other facts, very hard to believe in the least.
My perogative.
It is just crazy sounding to me. very made up.
Mike:
Then Thor Heyerdahl and the Bible are “just crazy sounding and made up”, by your logic.
OCS:
And then there are the other things I have read written by Smith that I find very atrocious and self serving.
Mike:
And of course you don’t quote them or give a source, but just add this to give the impression that you know more than you are saying. By the way, “atrocious” is another very impressive and high sounding word.
OCS:
I believe that Mormonism is evil. Based on what I understand about it. I see nothing divine in it at al for that matter.
Mike:
You, as always, have your right to your won personal opinion, uninformed and based on undocumented and inaccurate information though it may be.
posted January 8, 2008 at 2:18 pm
OCS,
Once again you demonstrate your lack of faith in God. Do you not think that God could guide a people to the American continent. It’s not like Columbus had any better technology than what Nephi and Lehi may have had. Sails and wind, that’s all it took for both. You claim that there is no evidence, but so much points to many similarities. The writing is in cueniform, which is the same type of writing the Egyptians used. Jewish HLA typing has also been found in Mexico. So not much evidence is out there, but is religion and the belief in God and His gospel about evidence. What you and everyone else needs to look at is what doctrinal differences there are, and there are several. What converted me to the church was that the Church of Jesus Christ demonstrated every characteristic of the church and every gospel principle outlined in the Bible. Anything less than that is imperfect and not of CHrist. Not saying that it is bad or that the Spirit will not try and help those people out, but it is of man and man’s attempt to understand God.
posted January 8, 2008 at 11:48 pm
I have total faith in God, it is you Erik, and Mike for 2 examples, that have more faith in Joseph Smith, than you do in God.
I find it interesting that your arrogance Mike, is so clear. I owe you no apology, for i said nothing to you to apologize for. The World isn’t about you, and neither am I. I don’t know about you, literally speaking, and i will keep my personal opinion of you to myself, unlike you who think you have the right and are priveledged enough to say what you think of someone you don’t know. I will give you this clue: You haven’t figured me out yet, so you might want to let go of your ideas of what i am about, and if it matters that much to you, start over.
I would not be very bright if i didn’t question an odd faith that is inconsistent with Christianity as I have always known it. I don’t believe in praying over a book written by someone i think was self serving, and seeing how i ‘feel’ about it. I do have a deeper understanding of the Holy Bible than you do though, which I think is obvious. If you would take the time, you could go back and read the verses I quoted which are in conflict with how Mormons understand the bible and what it says. One of the first things said by LDS, is that you believe in the bible as long as it is translated correctly. And you believe you know the correct translation based on what Smith said happened to him? Many thelogians, many studied men who spend their lives reading and translating to make sure that it is translated correctly, and you would argue they are wrong about a lot of the Bible and how they translate it, but believe that a man that put on rock glasses, stuck his face in a hat, and described words that appeared to him is the truth, and that he started the reformation of the true church?
I have had many discussions with my pastor about some of the things i have learned on these blogs about the Mormon belief, and believe me, it isn’t like we walked away “feeling” good about it, or that it was of God.
For feeling so strongly about your faith, you sure seem to have to do a lot defending of it. Does that ever enter your mind? And why would you want to follow a belief that you have to defend so hard? You know why you have to defend it? Simple; it does not resemble Christianity, but it claims to be the only true church on the face of the earth. All that seems to keep happening is a slam of others that don’t buy it, and then like a pack of dogs would do, there is a so called ganging up on certain Christian bloggers that make you angry. You aren’t going to win any converts that have knowledge of the Lord, only people that don’t know Jesus. You also make it like joining a club or an organization as people have to “earn” their way through. When LDS say that we all “have to work out our own salvation” you diminish the work that Christ did on the cross, and demean the value in it. At the same time, I find it arrogant that you or anyone else would think you could possibly be good enough to make it on your own, and use Christ’s blood as a back up.
Hey, I am a Christian because I am a sinner. I cannot help but be a sinner in this earthly body. I have no other hope than Christ, because it is the way it is. I try to live a Christ like life, I strive to treat others with love, and respect. I try to treat others as I would want to be treated. But, in no way would i ever think i was good enough to work it out on my own. You cannot either. If we could, then Jesus would not have needed to die for our sins.
I don’t believe we can fully understand the capacity in which we are loved by God, but I would say this, Would you give your child to a bunch of sinners to be crucified, so that they could be with you again? among those sinners being people that are arrogant and self centered and self serving? And when i say “be with God again” i am NOT saying that we lived with God before we came to be. He knew us before we were born, but not because we lived in Heaven with Him.
Mormons use text and leave out the most important parts, the parts that clarify what is meant, but it serves their theories and supports what they want people to believe. Mormonism is very self serving. Mormons are arrogant in their belief because they believe they are the only ones that have favor in God’s eyes. They are the only ones that have the right for blood atonement. I could go on and on, but it would be redundant since it has all been said before.
You have the feedom to believe what you want, but you really should respect someone elses opinion, even if it differs from your own, and not be so arrogant as to think you always need an apology, like you are above all of this somehow.
posted January 9, 2008 at 12:04 am
OCS,
Next time you have one of your discussions with your Pastor about questions on these blogs, ask him how much income he will get if his congregation converts to Mormonism?
posted January 9, 2008 at 4:13 am
OCS:
I have total faith in God, it is you Erik, and Mike for 2 examples, that have more faith in Joseph Smith, than you do in God.
Mike:
If you didn’t have prophets and apostles in the Bible you wouldn’t even know about the matchless Savior and Redeemer of the World, Our Savior, Jesus Christ, whom we worship with all the love and devotion that we posess. If you don’t believe in the concept of Prophets and revelation perhaps you should cast away the Bible as it is filled with both.
I don’t have faith in Joseph Smith, I have faith in Jesus Christ and in his ability to answer prayers through the Holy Ghost. It is in this way that I know that what he has revealed in the Bible is the word of God. It is in this same way that I know that what he has revelaed in the Book of Mormon and other scritpture in our day is also the word of God.
OCS:
I find it interesting that your arrogance Mike, is so clear.
Mike:
I am happy to let the readers judge who is arrogant as well as who is informed and accurate and cites sources.
OCS:
I owe you no apology, for i said nothing to you to apologize for.
Mike:
You misstated the facts, and gave inaccuracies that you claimed were true. You failed to cite your sources on these things and continue to refuse to give the names and authors and publishers of the books that you claim to know these things from.
I really don’t care whethe you apologize or not. It’s no skin of my nose. If you want to continue to appear ignorant and obtuse that is certainly your perogative.
OCS:
The World isn’t about you, and neither am I.
Mike:
I’m glad to know that you are not about me. What a relief!
OCS:
I don’t know about you, literally speaking,
Mike:
And even less about my religion based on your continued unacknowledged inaccuracies.
OCS:
and i will keep my personal opinion of you to myself,
Mike:
So then the fact that you consider me arrogant you will keep to yourself, kinda like Huckabee didn’t call Mitt names but if he had these are the ones he would use. I get it! I see a trend here.
OCS:
unlike you who think you have the right and are priveledged enough to say what you think of someone you don’t know.
Mike:
I have not said anything about your character traits or my opinion of you personally. I have simply pointed out that you are:
1. Inaccurate in a number of your statements about Mormonism.
2. Not citing sources of the Books that you claim to quote.
3. Unapologetic about 1 & 2.
This is not an opinion about you. These are facts–verifiable facts.
These are your actions. It has nothing to do with your character.
OCS:
I will give you this clue: You haven’t figured me out yet, so you might want to let go of your ideas of what i am about, and if it matters that much to you, start over.
Mike:
My dear fellow, I am not trying to “figure you out”. Whatever you think about yourself, your motivations are demonstrated by your stated words and your actions. These are the items I am pointing out.
OCS:
I would not be very bright if i didn’t question an odd faith that is inconsistent with Christianity as I have always known it.
Mike:
I suppose that’s what many of the Saducees and Pharisees thought about the religion taught by Christ. “It is inconsistent with (Judaism) as (they had) always known it.”
OCS:
I don’t believe in praying over a book written by someone i think was self serving, and seeing how i ‘feel’ about it.
Mike:
Your opinion is your privilege. It is still uninformed and undocumented and , well, just your opinion, for whatever that is worth.
OCS:
I do have a deeper understanding of the Holy Bible than you do though, which I think is obvious.
Mike:
Well, now I will express my opinion. It is not at all obvious. And if you want to go back you will find that I have covered a wider range of Bible verses than you. That, by the way, is a fact.
OCS:
If you would take the time, you could go back and read the verses I quoted which are in conflict with how Mormons understand the bible and what it says.
Mike:
I did, when I was looking for the various times that you mistated and misquoted LDS doctrine and beliefs. It is difficult for you to use Bible verse to show conflict with LDS doctine when you don’t even know enough about that doctrine to even know the name of the People of Lehi who made the voyage that you thought impossible but was made in our own day. (Thor Heyerdahl….remember?)
OCS:
One of the first things said by LDS, is that you believe in the bible as long as it is translated correctly.
Mike:
Do you wnat to show me where I have disputed Bible verse based upon incorrect translation?
OCS:
And you believe you know the correct translation based on what Smith said happened to him?
Mike:
Actually I know true doctine based upon th eanswers to prayer that God has given me. I know these things independent of any other human being for the Holy Ghost has taught me the truths of God, and I know for myself.
OCS:
Many thelogians, many studied men who spend their lives reading and translating to make sure that it is translated correctly, and you would argue they are wrong about a lot of the Bible and how they translate it,
Mike:
Well, gosh OCS, since there are hundreds of tranlations and at least dozens of English editions of the Bible, each of which differs form the others, I would assume that some versions are closer to correct than others.
OCS:
but believe that a man that put on rock glasses, stuck his face in a hat, and described words that appeared to him is the truth, and that he started the reformation of the true church?
Mike:
Sure and I reckon that you swallow that story about an angel appearing to Mary, or about Elisha hitting the river with Elijah’s robe and making a dry path, or the one about Moses turning a stick into a snake. If you believe the Bible, you believe in things at lest as incredible. To quote Jesus, you “strain at a gnat, but swallow a camel.”
OCS:
I have had many discussions with my pastor about some of the things i have learned on these blogs about the Mormon belief, and believe me, it isn’t like we walked away “feeling” good about it, or that it was of God.
Mike:
Well if your pastor is as ill informed as you about Mormonism I, for one am certainly not surprised.
OCS:For feeling so strongly about your faith, you sure seem to have to do a lot defending of it.
Mike:
So if I feel strongly about my faith I’m supposed to keep quiet when folks like you use inaccuracies and misstatements in an attept to discredit it? Oh well, now that really makes sense.
OCS:
Does that ever enter your mind? And why would you want to follow a belief that you have to defend so hard?
Mike:
I wonder if anyone ever asked Peter or Paul such a question.
OCS:
You know why you have to defend it?
Mike:
Yep.
OCS:
Simple; it does not resemble Christianity,
Mike:
Nope. that’s not it. It does not resemble traditional trinitarian Christianity. But then the gospel Jesus taught didn’t resemble traditional Judaism either. That’s why Jesus and Peter and Paul had to defent it so hard. I guess, by your definition, anything that someone defends hard is false. Does that meam that Jesus was not telling the truth?
OCS:
but it claims to be the only true church on the face of the earth.
Mike:
Actually that is what God claims for it. In Jesus’ day he said that salvation was only in him. I reckon that really riled the other Jews who though he had some nerve to claim that only he had the truth.
OCS:
All that seems to keep happening is a slam of others that don’t buy it, and then like a pack of dogs would do,
Mike:
It may “seem” like that to you. Oh and thanks for the non-judgemental and opinionated language (“like a pack of dogs”).
OCS:
there is a so called ganging up on certain Christian bloggers
Mike:
“so called” by who?…You I guess. Does that mena that you are inaccurate in your calling it “ganging up? Just curious.
OCS:
that make you angry.
Mike:
You don’t make me angry. You are only hurting your own cause be being inaccurate and failing to cite your sources.
OCS:
You aren’t going to win any converts that have knowledge of the Lord, only people that don’t know Jesus.
Mike:
Actually a number of people that I have taught have been baptized. And fine Christ believing folk they are. I didn’t win them. The truth as bourne by the witness of the Holy Ghost won them.
OCS:
You also make it like joining a club or an organization as people have to “earn” their way through. When LDS say that we all “have to work out our own salvation” you diminish the work that Christ did on the cross, and demean the value in it.
Mike:
Luke 14: 14
14 And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.
Acts 24: 15
15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.
John 5:28-29
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
You know, by golly it sure sound to me like the bible says that our works make a difference.
OCS:
At the same time, I find it arrogant that you or anyone else would think you could possibly be good enough to make it on your own, and use Christ’s blood as a back up.
Mike:
I would find it arrogant too, if that is what we believed. But since your statement of our belief here is inaccurate (again) and you persist in inaccurate beleifs about the Momons, I gusess tha is you rproblem, not mine.
OCS:
Hey, I am a Christian because I am a sinner.
Mike:
I am a Christian because I love the Savior and accept his great work on my behalf, which I could not have done had he not been here.
OCS:
I cannot help but be a sinner in this earthly body. I have no other hope than Christ, because it is the way it is.
Mike:
No disagreement in Mormon doctine on this.
OCS:
I try to live a Christ like life, I strive to treat others with love, and respect. I try to treat others as I would want to be treated.
Mike:
Would you like it if other people mistated your beliefs and said insensitive and inaccurate things about them? Is persisting in making inaccuate statements and refusing to apologize after they have been pointed out to you “Christ like”?
OCS:
But, in no way would i ever think i was good enough to work it out on my own.
Mike:
Nor would Mormons, and your saying that we do is inaccurate.
OCS:
You cannot either. If we could, then Jesus would not have needed to die for our sins.
Mike:
Correct.
OCS:
I don’t believe we can fully understand the capacity in which we are loved by God,
Mike:
I am certain that is true.
OCS:
but I would say this. Would you give your child to a bunch of sinners to be crucified, so that they could be with you again? among those sinners being people that are arrogant and self centered and self serving?
Mike:
I don’t know. Would you? I suppose if we are trying to be like Jesus we had better learn to try to posess that kind of Charity, even if we continue to fall short.
OCS:
And when i say “be with God again” i am NOT saying that we lived with God before we came to be. He knew us before we were born, but not because we lived in Heaven with Him.
Mike:
Caught yourself just in time there, after painting yourself into a doctrinal corner! Whew!
OCS:
Mormons use text and leave out the most important parts, the parts that clarify what is meant,
Mike:
Would Jesus make such an undocumented statement?
OCS:
but it serves their theories and supports what they want people to believe.
Mike:
Would Jesus make such a judgement, in light of his caution to take care in judging?
OCS:
Mormonism is very self serving.
Mike:
Nice unsubstantiated opinion.
OCS:
Mormons are arrogant in their belief because they believe they are the only ones that have favor in God’s eyes.
Mike:
It would be arrogant if that is what Mormons believed. But Mormons don’t. You have again misstated our belief and failed again to substatiate your opinion with any logic or evidence whatever.
OCS:
They are the only ones that have the right for blood atonement.
Mike:
Ditto.
OCS:
I could go on and on, but it would be redundant since it has all been said before.
Mike:
And with the same level of documentation and accuracy too, or lack of same, I might add.
OCS:
You have the feedom to believe what you want,
Mike:
Thank you.
OCS:
but you really should respect someone elses opinion,
Mike:
All opinions are not of the same worth. There are a number of non-LDS people whose opinions I very much respect. These are those who document their statements and take great pains to make their assertions about my religion as accurate as possible. They often even ask Mormons themselves what Mormons beleive before launching into a polemic. When they misstate a belief and it is pointed out to them and facts are given to back up the correction, they apologize and make an increased effort to get it right the next time. These people have opinions worthy of respect.
OCS:
even if it differs from your own, and not be so arrogant as to think you always need an apology, like you are above all of this somehow.
Mike:
As I said earlier. Whether you apologize or not has no bearing on my present or future happiness. Since your opinions are based on an inaccurate understanding of my beliefs, they are of no consequence to me anyway. I am simply explaining to you that if you wish your opinions to be respected they had better be based on an accurate restatement of LDS doctrine and practice. If you want to appear foolish, go ahead, knock yourself out.
posted January 9, 2008 at 5:37 pm
The fact that I have to defend my faith on a daily basis only confirms more to me that it is true. Did Christ ever attack, no. But all those influenced by Satan sure did. I only have to defend it because people want to take the easy way out or do not understand the scriptures.
You think it an abomination that we have Christ’s name in His church, but your rational is ridiculous. We ARE Christians, followers of Christ. We believe in the true Christ. The Son of God, not an extension or a budding off of God. That is what the Bible teaches. I don’t know how many times we are going to have to go over this, but every priciple we believe in is supported over and over b the Bible. We have prophets and apostles as Christ’s church has. Does yours? If it doesn’t it doesn’t fit the pattern set up by Christ. IF that is mieeing then what else is?
God works through our feelings as well as through our thought. If you don’t believe that, you are believing something not of the Bible, and thus from Satan. Since we have a prophet that continues to receive revelation we have more of an understanding and yes, more than the Bible. Remember, everything was not written in the Bible.
The fact is the the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is Christ’s true church. It’s doctrine has stod the test of time and continues even stronger.
posted January 10, 2008 at 10:50 pm
blah, blah blah…. Mormonism is a false cult, not even deserving of respect. go ahead and follow Smith and see where it gets you….
posted January 11, 2008 at 12:47 am
My, what an erudite response OCS.
You keep pitching those slow balls across the plate.
posted January 11, 2008 at 12:49 am
I will follow the Savior, Jesus Christ, as he has commanded me to do, and it will get me home safe.
posted January 11, 2008 at 6:55 am
OCS:not even deserving of respect
I think all God’s children deserve respect, Mormons included. If you disagree, OCS, I would strongly advise you to study the gospels more closely. What building people choose to pray in matters much less to God than how we carry out the commandments God told us to keep.
posted January 11, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Andrew before you make your comments, you might want to find out why Mormonism is seen as false. If you think that a religion that believes that Jesus and satan are brothers, that god chose jesus instead of satan, (who really wanted to be the savior) and cast him out with 1/3 of his angels, if you believe that a kid named Joseph Smith saw jesus and god standing side by side with his own eyes and they told him that the church had apostasized and he was to start the true new church, the only one that would save people, if you can believe (knowing this is just the tip of the iceberg) that mormons are praying to the same God that Christians pray to, and it doesn’t matter who they think Jesus is, well—-sorry. I disagree. I believe i said that [the religion of mormonism] is not deserving of respect. i said nothing about fellow human beings. Mormonism is blasphemous. I am not the only Christian who believes THAT, my friend.
posted January 11, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Andrew,
Disregard most of what OCS says, because he loves to present half truths and some whole truths then throw on an evil cloud to may somthing wonderful look ugly.
We really don’t care what he and other Christians that don’t know the scriptures but spreads it thick, think. We are bouyed up by the same Bible that they claim to believe wholeheartedly.
Jesus was the son of God. Jesus was created by God, thus the Father. God created everything, including Satan. Creations, by our human definitions are sons or daughters. So Satan was a Son as well. Two sons with the same father equals brothers.
Why couldn’t God have visited a 14 year old boy. Was he incapable. We know Christ visited others to give a calling ie Paul.
Also know that I am very, very arrogant. I’m a surgeon, it’s my nature.
posted January 11, 2008 at 8:06 pm
OCS, I disagree with a lot of other people’s beliefs. But why should I select the Mormons for special treatment? I don’t believe God cares what church you belong to.
Personally, I could care less what Joseph Smith did or didn’t do, or whether Mormons think he’s a prophet or not, or how many wives they have, or what symbols they use in their temples or whatever. It’s their church, and what they get up to in it all seems basically pretty harmless.
posted January 11, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Andrew or whoever you really are; i hate double negatives or double positives. by saying you could care less, you really are saying you do care. Get your cliches right. I know you are a mormon and i bet you are actually a blogger who got kicked off of here earlier.
Erik, i couldn’t care less that you are a surgeon. Is that supposed to impress me? the astronaut that wore the diaper all night to get to her married boyfriends lover was smart too, but had no common sense. Arrogance is not a gift, and not something i would brag about. If i were you. It only works if someone is impressed by that. Erik; one more thing that said a mouthful; Jesus was not a created being. He is God and that is a big disagreement. You cannot worship the true Lord and not believe He and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the same.
There, you said it yourself.
Oh, by the way. I run a national company. I am the cco. so can I be arrogant as well?
posted January 12, 2008 at 4:13 am
i hate double negatives or double positives. by saying you could care less, you really are saying you do care. Get your cliches right.
You call it a cliche. I call it a colloquialism. What has my grammar or lack of it to do with religion?
I know you are a mormon
How? Because if I wasn’t, I’d bash Mormons too? The flaw in your logic is that most Christians don’t agree with you. Most Christians assume Christ’s injunctions to peace, loving thy neighbor and doing as you would be done by apply to all God’s children, even God’s Mormon children. Most Christians think there is no place for hatred and discrimination, especially between fellow advocates for Jesus.
posted January 12, 2008 at 9:18 am
OCS,
If Jesus wasn’t created, then why did he refer to GOD as His father? A Father is a creator. God the Father and Christ are separate, indpendent beings, this is so clear in the scriptures.
posted January 12, 2008 at 10:06 am
First time I read this blog. Lays out my feelings and beliefs very well. Congratulations to the Democrat, Science Fiction Mormon. Could Harry Reid actually be this sensible?
posted January 16, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Erik;
The conception of Jesus was a miraculous event. No Father of flesh and bones was involved. An Angel told Mary, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” Luke 1:35
In Strong’s Concordance, the description of Overshadow, Greek, [episkiazo] – “to invest with miraculous influence.”
To fulfill prophesy, Mary had to be a virgin at the time of His birth: “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son….” Matt. 1:18-25, Isa 7:14
Jesus became the Son of God;
These verses in the Holy Bible should help you to understand;
John 1:1 John 1:14a Col 2:9 Phil 2:6 John 10:30-33 John 14:9 Phil 2: 7,8
Scripturally, Jesus is called “The Word.”
“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us….”
Still, “…in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”
Jesus, being first “…in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” For this, he was accused of blasphemy.
Jesus explained,”…he that hath seen me hath seen the father….” In Jesus, God became man, taking “…upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death….”
“Son” describes Jesus’ relationship with the Father in his messianic role: “You are my son, Today I have become your Father.” Heb 5:5
Scripture makes it clear that this does not make him anything less than God: “And they shall call his name EMMANUEL, which being interpreted is GOD WITH US.” (not a god with us) Matt 1:23b
Conclusion: “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself….” 2 Cor 5:19
And about the atonement in the Garden of Gethsamane
Luke 22:44 says that Jesus suffered in the garden: “…his sweat was AS IT WERE great drops of blood.” A little different than he did sweat great drops of blood.
Col. 1:20,22 Reconciliation (sacrifice for sin) came through the blood on the cross: “And having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself….In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight.”
Gal. 6:14 Because the blood of His cross reconciles us to God, “…God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
THE CROSS REPRESENTS HIS VICTORY OVER DEATH:
1 Cor 1:18 “FOR THE PREACHING OF THE CROSS IS TO THEM THAT PERISH FOOLISHNESS; BUT UNTO US WHICH ARE SAVED IT IS THE POWER OF GOD.”
That last verse is thrown in because Mormons do not believe the practice of using symbolic crosses in their architecture of their buildings etc.
posted January 17, 2008 at 4:46 am
OCS:
Erik, The conception of Jesus was a miraculous event.
Mike:
Yes it was.
OCS:
No Father of flesh and bones was involved.
Mike:
Your scriptural citations below do not support this assertion.
OCS:
An Angel told Mary, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” Luke 1:35
Mike:
Two separate things here: 1. The Holy Ghost. 2. The power of the Highest. Also this verse does not speciafy the nature of God, “the Highest”. It doesn’t say that he is or is not a being posessing flesh and bone. Jesus, however, in John 5 says that he does nothing but what he has seen the Father do. The Son took upon him flesh and bone, and he does only what he has seen the Father do.
OCS:
In Strong’s Concordance, the description of Overshadow, Greek, [episkiazo] – “to invest with miraculous influence.”
Mike:
No argument here.
OCS:
To fulfill prophesy, Mary had to be a virgin at the time of His birth: “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son….” Matt. 1:18-25, Isa 7:14
Mike:
LDS doctrine holds that Mary was, indeed, a virgin, as the bible teaches. OCS and others keep trying to assert that Mormons believe that God “had sex” with Mary. This is not LDS doctrine and it is nowhere stated as such. This is a mistatement of LDS doctrine.
OCS:
Jesus became the Son of God;
These verses in the Holy Bible should help you to understand;
John 1:1 John 1:14a Col 2:9 Phil 2:6 John 10:30-33 John 14:9 Phil 2: 7,8
Scripturally, Jesus is called “The Word.”
“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us….”
Mike:
There is nothing here that Mormons would disagree with. And there is nothing here that states that the Father has no body of flesh and bone.
OCS:
Still, “…in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”
Jesus, being first “…in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” For this, he was accused of blasphemy.
Mike:
OCS would use the two scriptures above to claim that Jesus is the only member of the Godhead with a body. And yet here Jesus takes upon him the “form of God” and becomes equal with God. It appers that to be equal with God one would have to take upon him flesh and bone, according to these scriptures.
OCS:
Jesus explained,”…he that hath seen me hath seen the father….” In Jesus, God became man, taking “…upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death….”
Mike:
This just sounds like thae old expression “you’re the spittin’ image of your Dad.” That doesn’t mean they are the same person. It means they look alike. And Jesus did humble himself by becoming a man, but then was resurrected and took upon him again a body of flesh and bone, now glorified and perfected. And remember that Jesus does nothing but what he sees the Father do.
OCS:
“Son” describes Jesus’ relationship with the Father in his messianic role: “You are my son, Today I have become your Father.” Heb 5:5
Scripture makes it clear that this does not make him anything less than God: “And they shall call his name EMMANUEL, which being interpreted is GOD WITH US.” (not a god with us) Matt 1:23b
Mike:
Son describes Jesus relationship with his Father in every role. This is not the only scripture where the Father/Son relationship of God and Christ are expounded upon. Mormons find no argument with the “God with us” scripture. John 17 makes it clear how Jesus is one with the Father and the Holy Ghost. This chapter says nothing about the unity being of “one substance” that phrase is nowhere found in the Bible, but it is in the creeds. Unity of purpose, power, majesty and love, thought and authority are taught by the Bible, but not unity of substance.
OCS:
Conclusion: “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself….” 2 Cor 5:19
Mike:
And because of John 17 this does not mean that God being in Christ precludes the Father being a seperate individual as to his person.
God is in Christ because Christ has become as God, has become one with God in the ways treated above. But not as to substance.
OCS:
And about the atonement in the Garden of Gethsamane
Luke 22:44 says that Jesus suffered in the garden: “…his sweat was AS IT WERE great drops of blood.” A little different than he did sweat great drops of blood.
Col. 1:20,22 Reconciliation (sacrifice for sin) came through the blood on the cross: “And having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself….In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight.”
Gal. 6:14 Because the blood of His cross reconciles us to God, “…God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
THE CROSS REPRESENTS HIS VICTORY OVER DEATH:
1 Cor 1:18 “FOR THE PREACHING OF THE CROSS IS TO THEM THAT PERISH FOOLISHNESS; BUT UNTO US WHICH ARE SAVED IT IS THE POWER OF GOD.”
That last verse is thrown in because Mormons do not believe the practice of using symbolic crosses in their architecture of their buildings etc.
Mike:
Here is what the Latter-day Saints actually beleive about the Atonement of Christ, his blood shed for us and the cross upon which he died:
Ten
His Blood Will Redeem Us: The Atonement According to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
by Edward T. Jones
In the preface of their book, Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson claim that their book is written to help meet the needs of those who “have sought a resource that compares the teachings of the Mormon leaders, both past and present, with those of the Bible.” They also claim that in preparing that resource they “have purposely made an effort to not alter the meaning of any quote” and invite their readers to check out the context of any quotation which they provide, to determine its accuracy.1 They claim to have “studied this movement for a great portion of our lives,” and “our experience has shown that far too many Latter-day Saints have not taken the time to do an in-depth investigation into the history and doctrines of their faith.”2 They claim “the student of Mormonism still needs to carefully weigh what LDS leaders have said and are saying, since it gives us an idea of what kind of men they really are. For example, if certain LDS leaders continually make irresponsible comments, we must take that into consideration.” The emphasis here is between what former LDS leaders said (i.e., nineteenth century) and what current leaders are saying (i.e., twentieth century). They make this abundantly clear when they write “the current presentation given by LDS Church leaders is much different than earlier years. When Joseph Smith began his new religious movement in 1830, there was no great effort to meld or compromise the teachings of the Mormon Church with those of nineteenth-century Christianity. Instead, early leaders prided themselves on their uniqueness and they boldly and publicly proclaimed their differences. They made little or no effort to associate with what they considered ‘apostate Christendom.’3
Messers McKeever and Johnson need to understand that the rule they have established here is a two-edged sword: what the Christians said in the early days (Bible and Church Fathers) and what Christians are saying today can also be checked, and double checked, against accuracy and agreement. If the differences become apparent, can we also state that we will then have “an idea of what kind of men [modern Christian apologists] really are”? Furthermore, if certain (unnamed) LDS leaders are making irresponsible statements, then doesn’t one have the obligation to determine exactly from whose viewpoint they are to be considered irresponsible: the LDS church, or mainstream Christian apologists? If they are irresponsible from the LDS standpoint, then they ought to be ignored, as not representing the true position of the LDS Church on that particular point of doctrine or practice. If they are irresponsible from the point of view of mainstream Christians, then…
Well, I guess that is what this review is really all about: to determine if the LDS position is as consistent with, or perhaps more consistent with, the Bible teachings, as those of mainstream Christianity today. McKeever and Johnson seek to emphasize ‘alleged’ differences between the early LDS Church leaders and those of more current venue. This amounts to a bias on their part, because they assume, and want their readers to assume, that such a difference actually exists, and that the difference is significant, that it indicates an ‘apostasy’ of the LDS Church from its beginning to the present day. The only way they can make this position valid however is to ignore statements from both time periods, statements which, when made, indicate that there is no such division.4 It is the observation of this reviewer that what most evangelical writers wish to see is a Mormon Systematic Theology, a volume that will give answers to all their gospel questions, and explain Mormon doctrine in a very neat and concise manner. What they fail to recognize (or choose to ignore, since they have studied the subject for so long!) is that letters written to a son-in-law do not hold the same authority within the Church as a talk given at a General Conference, which in turn does not hold the same authority as the words of canonized scripture.
This review of their chapter on the Atonement will seek to present the LDS position, not in a ‘favorable’ light, but in an accurate one. And that is what is needed most here: accuracy and honesty. Those who would bear false witness against another person or Church are seriously condemned by the Savior, and if Messers McKeever and Johnson have studied The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as thoroughly as they claim they have, then they are certainly guilty of bearing false witness. They claim that their book “is the result of our concern for those who belong to the LDS faith as well as for those Christians who want to better understand the beliefs of their Mormon friends, relatives, and neighbors.”5 As this review will indicate, those friends, neighbors and relatives of the LDS Church will not have gained any real insights into the LDS faith by reading this book. Indeed, they will have been seriously misled regarding what the Latter-day Saints truly believe.
The point of their preface is to indicate that the LDS Church began as an enemy of Christianity, but has recently made an attempt to become more mainstream. They ask: “Can an individual or organization willfully deny or distort the basics of the Christian faith and still be considered Christian?” Without going into the question of what constitutes “the basics of Christian faith,” much less the question of who it is who speaks authoritatively for “the Christian faith,” one thing is certain: McKeever and Johnson do not speak authoritatively for either “the Christian faith” or for the LDS faith. This review seeks to determine what the proper LDS belief is regarding the Atonement of our Savior Jesus Christ. It should be indicated at the outset that if Messers McKeever and Johnson understand the Christian belief on this subject they do not exhibit such understanding; if they understand the LDS belief on that subject, then they have distorted it, often beyond recognition. Such distortion can only be considered deliberate, with malice of forethought, as they claim that in the writing of their book they have been “moved with the same compassion felt by the LDS missionaries and lay members who attempt to defend what they believe to be true.” This, of course, has nothing to do with why missionaries are sent into the world; they go to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to defend it against others’ attacks. Most missionaries are totally unaware of anti-Mormon literature, at least for a month or two.6 In 1902 George Teasdale, of the Quorum of the Twelve, discussed the Great Mandate of Mark 16:15–6 to preach the gospel to all the world, teaching them to believe and be baptized. Elder Teasdale asked, and then answered, the question: to believe what? “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, in the atonement, in the resurrection, in holding communication with the heavens, in the spirit of revelation, in putting our trust in God, in doing good, in fulfilling our individual missions, and being in obedience to the principles of the Gospel.” That is what the missionaries were expected to be teaching as they went out into the world.7 One would wish that Messers McKeever and Johnson had written a book detailing what they believe to be the true teachings of Jesus Christ, rather than an outright attack on the beliefs of others. Their approach to others’ beliefs says much about their own.
Centrality of the Atonement in LDS Thought
This is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me. And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross.8
McKeever and Johnson begin their discussion of the atonement by stating that mainstream Christians and Latter-day Christians “both accept the atonement of Christ.” In thus stating it they seriously understate the position of the Church of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith, the founding prophet, stated that “the fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.” Those appendages include the gift of the Holy Ghost, power of faith, enjoyment of the spiritual gifts, restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth.9 The atonement of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is the central fact of all LDS theological teaching. Almost one hundred years ago LDS historian and theologian Brigham H. Roberts wrote that the atonement
is the very heart of the Gospel from whose pulsations the streams of both spiritual and eternal physical life proceed. It is the fact which gives vitality to all things else in the Gospel. If the Atonement be not a reality then our preaching is vain; our baptisms and confirmations meaningless; the eucharist a mere mummery of words; our hope of eternal life without foundation; we are still in our sins, and we Christian men, of all men, are the most miserable. A theme that affects all this cannot fail of being important.10
In 1917 President Joseph F. Smith delivered an official statement on principles of government in the Church, which included the following statement: “A man who says he does not believe in the atoning blood of Jesus Christ who professes to be a member of the Church…but who ignores and repudiates the doctrine of the atonement… [I say that] the man who denies that truth and who persists in his unbelief is not worthy of membership in the Church.”11 In 1924 General Conference Heber J. Grant, then President of the Church, stated that “any individual who does not acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the Redeemer of the world, has no business to be associated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”12 Fourteen years later President Grant was just as emphatic: “We want it distinctly understood that we believe absolutely in Jesus Christ, that He was the Son of God, and that He did come to the earth with a divinely appointed mission to die on the cross as the Redeemer of mankind. We do not believe that He was just a ‘great moral teacher,’ but that He is our Redeemer.”13 Elder Bruce R. McConkie has stated that the “atonement of Christ is the most basic and fundamental doctrine of the gospel.”14 Speaking with reference to all who call themselves Christian, which obviously included the Latter-day Saints, Brigham Young stated that “the moment the atonement of the Savior is done away, that moment, at one sweep, the hopes of salvation entertained by the Christian world are destroyed, the foundation of their faith is taken away, and there is nothing left for them to stand upon.”15 Howard W. Hunter, of the Quorum of the Twelve, taught that “nothing is more important in the entire divine plan of salvation than the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. We believe that salvation comes because of the Atonement. In its absence the whole plan of creation would come to naught.”16 Twenty-five years ago Elder Gordon B. Hinckley reminded the Saints that:
No member of this Church must ever forget the terrible price paid by our Redeemer who gave his life that all men might live—the agony of Gethsemane …[or] the cross, the instrument of his torture… This was the cross on which he hung and died on Golgotha’s lonely summit. We cannot forget that. We must never forget it, for here our Savior, our Redeemer, the Son of God, gave himself a vicarious sacrifice for each of us.17
Elder John K. Carmack, in April 2001 General Conference, took it to a more personal level: “Christ’s Atonement is the central doctrine, but of even more comfort and benefit has been how wonderfully accessible and individual His mercy and help have been to me personally.”18 The significance of the atonement was also brought out by the first prophet of the restoration, Joseph Smith, who wrote regarding:
The condescension of the Father of our spirits, in providing a sacrifice for His creatures, a plan of redemption, a power of atonement, a scheme of salvation, having as its great objects, the bringing of men back into the presence of the King of heaven… The great plan of salvation is a theme which ought to occupy our strict attention, and be regarded as one of heaven’s best gifts to mankind.19
AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT: GETHSEMANE AND THE CROSS
McKeever and Johnson state that there are two main areas of disagreement between traditional Christians (as represented by McKeever and Johnson, at least), and the Church of Jesus Christ. These have to do with what it accomplished by the atonement and where it took place. The second issue seems to be the bigger of the two problems, at least for McKeever and Johnson, so it will be dealt with first.
McKeever and Johnson begin by stating that “Mormon leaders have taught that this atoning sacrifice began in the Garden of Gethsemane.”20 they then quote President Benson and Elder McConkie to the effect that the major portion of the atonement took place in the Garden.21 From this they conclude that one of the major themes of the LDS faith is that the atonement “took place primarily in the Garden”22 (which ought to lead one to conclude that it took place ‘secondarily’ somewhere else: perhaps the cross?) Despite the ambiguity of these statements McKeever and Johnson rather strangely write that “if Mormons doubt that their church emphasizes the importance of Gethsemane today” they should consider a statement from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, which they then quote. Again, this statement indicates that it took place “primarily” in the Garden.23 Even though the two passages quoted from Elders Benson and McConkie are unequivocal about the significance of the Garden for the atonement, all the other LDS passages quoted by McKeever and Johnson are just the opposite: they are totally equivocal. And for good reason: the Latter-day Saint leaders, including the two they cite, do not in any way restrict the atoning sacrifice of our Savior to the Garden. But they definitely consider the atonement to have had its beginning there. McKeever and Johnson write that the Garden of Gethsemane is only mentioned twice in the scriptures, apparently to suggest that anything mentioned so infrequently must not be of much value. They need to realize that the concept that “the Word was made flesh” is mentioned only once; would they therefore reject its significance also?24 Is it insignificant that ‘Calvary’ occurs only at Luke 23.33, and that there is absolutely no warrant for it in the Greek?25 It is also significant, as Leon Morris has written, “to find that, apart from the crucifixion narrative [in the Gospels]…Paul is the only New Testament writer to speak about ‘the cross.’”26 Furthermore, a recent addition to the literature about the cross in the New Testament points out that even in Paul it is not used frequently. His first two letters, the two to the Thessalonians, make no mention of the cross or the crucifixion. Nor do the last three letters make any reference to the cross (i.e., II Corinthians, Romans, and II Timothy).27 Murphy-O’Connor refers to nine “fragments of traditional teaching” which appear in Paul’s letters. These help to determine “the common doctrinal base that Paul shared with the rest of the early church… Not a single one of these formulae that he inherited from his Christian environment mentions the crucifixion.” Our source goes on to indicate that only two of them “formally state that he died.” Therefore, in the others it must be inferred by the fact that He was resurrected from the dead.28
These statements are not cited in order to devalue in any way the importance of the cross, either for McKeever and Johnson or for the Latter-day Saints. It is important to realize however that the cross is not necessarily as significant a concept in the scriptures as they would like it to appear. Leon Morris agrees with Murphy-O’Connor that aside from the writings of Paul, there are not many references in the New Testament to the ‘death’ of Jesus; indeed: “We would imagine that there are many New Testament references to the death of Christ. But, outside of Paul, there are not.”29 And in this context it is important to remember that Paul’s writings comprise less than one-fourth of the New Testament writings. Father Murphy-O’Connor also writes “during the first Christian centuries, the cross was a thing accursed. No one professed allegiance to Christ by wearing a cross.” He indicates that it was only after Constantine lifted the ban against Christianity in general, and forbade crucifixion in particular, that a “new, more pleasant meaning for the cross was facilitated.” But, he concludes, “even after the cross had been widely accepted as a symbol, there was a consistent refusal to accept its reality. Only two crucifixion scenes survive from the fifth century… The situation remains unchanged until the twelfth century.”30 These comments are not intended to devalue the cross or the blood shed there, only to place these events in their proper context within sacred scripture. Despite the fact that Gethsemane is mentioned only twice in the scriptures, it has nevertheless engendered an enormous amount of secondary literature. A study on the study of the passion narratives published in 1989 identified seven books dealing specifically with Gethsemane during the previous 100 years and more than 100 articles. That represents a significant amount of discussion on something seemingly of no account!31
Messers McKeever and Johnson are so determined to make Latter-day Saint writers look so ‘un-Christian’ that they quote those portions of LDS statements which contain the information they want their readers to know, but only that much. Such contextual selectivity is a form of bearing false witness. For instance, they quote the following from Lorenzo Snow, in 1893:
The time approached that He was to pass through the severest affliction that any mortal ever did pass through. He undoubtedly had seen persons nailed to the cross, because that method of execution was common at that time, and He understood the torture that such persons experienced for hours. He went by Himself in the garden and prayed to His Father, if it were possible, that this cup might pass from Him; and His feelings were such that He sweat great drops of blood, and in His agony there was an angel sent to give Him comfort and strength.32
This quotation is meant by McKeever and Johnson to indicate that the LDS teaching on the atonement is that it took place “primarily in the garden.” What they fail to do, however, is read further into the talk given by Elder Snow. He stated in the same talk that “when Jesus went through that terrible torture on the cross, He saw what would be accomplished by it; He saw that His brethren and sisters—the sons and daughters of God—would be gathered in, with but few exceptions—those who committed the unpardonable sin. That sacrifice of the divine Being was effectual to destroy the powers of Satan.”33 Clearly the cross was important in President Snow’s soteriology.
They quote President Ezra Taft Benson to the effect that “it was in Gethsemane that Jesus took on Himself the sins of the world.” Had they but taken the time to seek out the entire article from which this statement is taken they would have noticed that Elder Benson continues by referring to “the glorious Atonement of our Lord which extended from Gethsemane to Golgotha.”34 Even without having sought out the original text, they could have determined the incorrect judgment they made of President Bensons position. They could have quoted from the same volume the quotation immediately preceding the one they cited: “In Gethsemane and on Calvary, He worked out the infinite and eternal atonement. It was the greatest single act of love in recorded history. Thus He became our Redeemer.”35 The atonement is clearly defined as having encompassed both the Garden and the cross. The cross is not in the least devalued or neglected. Had there been no death on the cross, whatever it was that happened in the Garden would have been superfluous. With the cross, the events in the Garden have meaning and significance.
Again, they quote Bruce R. McConkie: “it was in Gethsemane that ‘he suffered the pain of all men… [and] took upon himself the sins of all men…” What they fail to quote, from the same source and on the same page, is this:
In some way, incomprehensible to us, Gethsemane, the cross, and the empty tomb join into one grand and eternal drama, in the course of which Jesus abolishes death, and out of which comes immortality for all and eternal life for the righteous.36
In point of fact, Elder McConkie writes in the same place regarding the darkness that surrounded the crucifixion: “Could it be that this was the period of his greatest trial, or that during it the agonies of Gethsemane recurred and even intensified?”37 Elsewhere Elder McConkie is very clear. In speaking to students at BYU he said: “We are saved because God sent his Son to shed his blood in Gethsemane and on Calvary that all through him might ransomed be. We are saved by the blood of Christ.”38 As far back as 1948, in October General Conference of that year, Elder McConkie, then a Seventy, stated:
As I understand it, our mission to the world in this day, is to testify of Jesus Christ. Our mission is to bear record that he is the Son of the Living God and that he was crucified for the sins of the world; that salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through his atoning blood… We believe that he came into the world with the express mission of dying upon the cross for the sins of the world; that he is, actually, literally, and really the Redeemer of the world and the Savior of men; and that by the shedding of his blood he has offered to all men forgiveness of sins conditioned upon their repentance and obedience to the gospel plan.39
In yet another place Elder McConkie wrote; “What then are the sacrifices of the true Christian? They are unending praise and thanksgiving to the Father who gave his Only Begotten Son as a ransom for our sins; they are everlasting praise to the Son for the merits and mercies and grace of his atoning sacrifice.”40 In his article on “Atonement of Christ” in his Mormon Doctrine, a book that McKeever and Johnson claim to have read, Elder McConkie begins by quoting several scriptural passages. Some of these will be abridged here:41
“This is the Gospel…that Jesus came into the world to be crucified for the world, and to bear the sins of the world.”42
“My Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross.”43
“Behold [the Holy Messiah] offereth himself a sacrifice for sin.”44
“as in Adam, or by nature, they fall, even so the blood of Christ atoneth for their sins… There shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ… Salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ.”45
They also quote Elder Marion G. Romney that it was in the Garden of Gethsemane “that he suffered most.” What they fail to quote is the rest of the talk, wherein he states that “we cannot of ourselves, no matter how we may try, rid ourselves of the stain which is upon us as a result of our own transgressions. That stain must be washed away by the blood of the Redeemer.”46 Three years previously Elder Romney stated, “through repentance he may bring himself within the reach of the atoning blood of Jesus Christ, so that thereby he may be cleansed from the effects of his transgressions and obtain forgiveness of them.”47
The Cross
Messers McKeever and Johnson need to understand that the significance of Christ’s death on the cross is of major importance to the members of the Church of Jesus Christ. It is found frequently in the Book of Mormon, as well as in modern scripture, and is frequently spoken of by all of the Prophets since Joseph Smith. Some of those statements follow immediately:
In his vision of the birth, ministry and crucifixion of the Savior Nephi, in the Book of Mormon, writes: “I, Nephi, saw that he was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world.”48
Jacob wrote “we would to God…that all men would believe in Christ, and view his death, and suffer his cross and bear the shame of the world.”49
Following His death and resurrection in Jerusalem the Savior appeared to His disciples in the New World. There He reported that “my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works.”50
In modern revelation it was reported “Jesus was crucified… for the sins of the world.”51
In the revelation known as the Vision, the Prophet Joseph Smith learned that “this is the Gospel, the glad tidings…that He came into the world, even Jesus, to be crucified for the world, and to bear the sins of the world.”52
It is not without significance that the vision regarding the redemption of those who had lived prior to the birth of the Savior, received by President Joseph F. Smith in 1918, came directly as a result of his meditation on the meaning of the atonement. He writes: “I sat in my room pondering over the scriptures; and reflecting upon the great atoning sacrifice that was made by the Son of God, for the redemption of the world; and the great and wonderful love made manifest by the Father and the Son in the coming of the Redeemer into the world; that through his atonement, and by obedience to the principles of the gospel, mankind might be saved.” After the vision had closed, President Smith continued: “And so it was made known among the dead, both small and great, the unrighteous as well as the faithful, that redemption had been wrought through the sacrifice of the Son of God upon the cross.”53
This is a principle that has been taught from the beginning of the Church down to the present day by its leaders. Joseph Smith taught that God “foreordained the fall of man; but all merciful as He is, He foreordained at the same time, a plan of redemption for all mankind. I believe in the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and that He died for the sins of all men.”54
John Taylor, one of the first members of the Quorum of the Twelve, and the third President of the Church, taught that “it was necessary that [Christ] should give up his life a sacrifice for the sins of the world.”55
President Wilford Woodruff stated in 1889 that “the Savior came and tabernacled in the flesh, and…laid down His life as a sacrifice for sin, to redeem the world.”56 Two years later President Woodruff stated on behalf of the membership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that “we believe also in the atonement wrought by the shedding of Christ’s blood on Calvary; that it is efficacious for all the race of Adam for the sin committed by Adam, and for the individual sins of all who believe, repent, are baptized by one having authority, and who receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of authorized hands.”57
In 1892 George Q. Cannon of the Quorum of the Twelve stated with reference to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “we believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Redeemer of the world, and that through His death and atonement we are redeemed.”58
In 1896 a Methodist minister living in predominantly LDS Evanston, Wyoming, wrote that the Latter-day Saints “believe in the New Testament scriptures, the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the atonement for sin secured by his death. Their ritual consecrating the bread and water for the sacrament shows this, as do also the sermons of their preachers.”59 His information is apparently based on personal exposure to the Latter-day Saint preachers, as well as to their sacramental ritual (Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper). It is a valuable testimony that their leaders actually taught what is here being quoted.
In 1904 Hyrum M. Smith of the Quorum of the Twelve taught that Christ “was crucified for the sins of the world and His blood was shed for the redemption of mankind.”60
James E. Talmage wrote that in order “that the supreme sacrifice of the Son might be consummated in all its fulness, the Father seems to have withdrawn the support of His immediate Presence, leaving to the Savior of men the glory of complete victory over the forces of sin and death.”61
In 1921 Rudger Clawson of the Quorum of the Twelve stated “the atonement made upon Mount Calvary was the supreme sacrifice ever made in all the world.”62
In 1921 Heber J. Grant made reference to “the atoning blood of Jesus Christ… Jesus is the Redeemer of the world, the Savior of mankind, who came to the earth with a divinely appointed mission to die for the redemption of mankind.”63 He repeated that reference to His “divinely appointed mission to die for the sins of the world” in 1925.64 Thirteen years later President Grant reaffirmed that same belief, that “we believe absolutely in Jesus Christ… and that He did come to the earth with a divinely appointed mission to die on the cross as the Redeemer of mankind.”65 In 1929 President Heber J. Grant wrote that Christ “died on Calvary for each one of us.”66
The First Presidency, in their Christmas message for 1931, referred to the fact that the world was “redeemed through the shedding of His blood.”67
Joseph L. Wirthlin, of the Presiding Bishopric, stated in October 1948 General Conference that the emblems of the sacrament (eucharist) provided a “deep and lasting impression of what the mission of the Lord Jesus Christ means and what his great sacrifice on the cross did for all of us.”68
In 1949 George F. Richards, President of the Quorum of the Twelve, referred in General Conference to “his death upon the cross, of which it can be said in truth, that as a gift to mankind it was the greatest ever given; a sacrifice, the greatest ever made; a service, the greatest ever rendered; a demonstration of love such as is possessed only by the Gods.”69
Six months later J. Reuben Clark of the First Presidency, also in General Conference, stated that “the central point in the great plan framed in the Grand Council of heaven before the world was formed, was the redemption from the mortal death brought by the Fall… His whole earthly career was pivoted about his atoning sacrifice, his crucifixion and resurrection.”70 Later in the same conference he referred to “the cross when the Son of Man was offering himself as a sacrifice for the sins of the world…”71
President Spencer W. Kimball stated, “In the meridian of time came the Son of God, born of an immortal father and a mortal mother, and as he climbed crucifixion’s hill, he carried that Adamic penalty, and as the nails through his hands and feet, and the spear in his side, drained from his body all of his precious blood in this, his voluntary sacrifice, he neutralized and paid for all the Adamic sins.”72
In 1975 Gordon B. Hinckley, then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, stated that “no member of this Church must ever forget the terrible price paid by our Redeemer who gave his life that all men might live—the agony of Gethsemane, the bitter mockery of his trial, the vicious crown of thorns tearing at his flesh, the blood cry of the mob before Pilate, the lonely burden of his heavy walk along the way to Calvary, the terrifying pain as great nails pierced his hands and feet…. This was the cross on which he hung and died on Golgotha’s lonely summit. We cannot forget that. We must never forget it, for here our Savior, our Redeemer, the Son of God, gave himself a vicarious sacrifice for each of us.”73 In 1986 he bore his testimony thusly: “I believe that through His atoning sacrifice, the offering of His life on Calvary’s Hill, He expiated the sins of mankind, relieving us from the burden of sin if we will forsake evil and follow Him. I believe in the grace of God made manifest through His sacrifice and redemption, and I believe that through His atonement, without any price on our part, each of us is offered the gift of resurrection from the dead…. I worship Him as I worship His Father, in spirit and in truth. I thank Him and kneel before His wounded feet and hands and side, amazed at the love He offers me.”74 In April 1993 General Conference he stated “the heaviest price of all was paid by the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of the world. He gave His life on Calvary’s cross for the sins of all mankind.”75 In 1995 he stated that “nothing done before or since has so affected mankind as the atonement wrought by Jesus of Nazareth, who died on Calvary’s cross and rose from the grave the third day as the living Son of the living God, the Savior and Redeemer of all mankind.”76 Elsewhere he stated that “in the greatest act of human history, He allowed His quivering flesh to be nailed to the cross and lifted up in an act of atonement for each of us…. Nothing, nothing is of greater significance in all the history of the world than that atoning sacrifice of the Son of God.”77 In the 1996 Christmas message he wrote that Christ “condescended to come to earth and give His life on Calvary’s cross for each of us.”78
In 1998 Vaughn J. Featherstone of the Quorum of the Twelve wrote “the marks in His hands and feet are constant reminders to worthy Christians that we are on His errand… We are His; we were bought with His blood. His atonement and redemption mean everything in heaven and earth to us… These wounds in [His] hands and feet (D&C 45.51)…are the absolute and indisputable signs that Jesus is the Christ, the Only Begotten of the Father, the Shepherd of the flock, the Redeemer of the world. We will know Him and fall down before Him in exquisite relief and gratitude, wetting the earth with our fallen tears, for we will know that we are His beloved and that because of Him we have been redeemed from the Fall and from our sins.”79
Is it really possible, after viewing all these statements, from both modern scripture and from modern prophets, to say that Latter-day Saints do not believe that the death of Christ on the cross was efficacious for all mortals? Several of the works cited above were cited (and presumably read) by McKeever and Johnson, and others were clearly available to be read by them if they had so chosen. Either they failed to avail themselves of the opportunity to read these works, or they ignored what they read (and we need to remember that they claim to “have studied this movement for a great portion of our lives”). This latter possibility is a clear evidence of bearing false witness. The truth was before them and they falsified it by ignoring it. We can only agree with them when they write that “we would be remiss if we ignored the many statements that have come forth from these leaders.”80 They have indeed been remiss! And in their ignorance of these passages, they have continued to falsify the Gospel to those who will read their book.
The Blood
It is also clear from what McKeever and Johnson write elsewhere that they are unclear about the LDS attitude towards the blood shed by the Savior. In discussing “Christianity’s definition of atonement” they quote from Leon Morris that “because Christ’s blood was shed, all who believe in him have access into the very holiest of all.”81 Later McKeever and Johnson point out “Hebrews 9.22 states that there is no remission of sins without the shedding (not sweating) of blood.”82 The parenthetical comment in this last quotation is a referral back to McKeever and Johnson’s comment that “the New Testament says nothing about this phenomenon [of 'sweating great drops of blood'] having any role in the atonement.”83 Our authors then quote from several New Testament passages which refer to the fact that Christ died, or died on the cross, for us.84 It should be clear from the LDS references cited above that these Biblical passages also are all accepted by the Latter-day Saints. They believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross to redeem humankind. He shed His blood for us. Many of those earlier statements refer to the blood that was shed by Him. LDS apologist Michael Hickenbotham has written that “Latter-day Saints emphatically affirm our reliance on the atoning blood of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, as attested to in the Bible,” and then refers to Colossians 1:14, 1 Peter 1:18–19, 1 John 1:7, and Revelation 7:14. He then refers to those references found in the Book of Mormon: 1 Nephi 12:10; Mosiah 3:7, 11, 4:2; Alma 5:21, 27, 21:9, 24:13, 34:36; Helaman 5:9; Ether 13:10; and Moroni 4:1; 5:2; 10:33; and in modern scripture: D&C 20:40; 27:2; 76:69; and Moses 6:62. He then continues:
Even the sacrament prayer for the administration of the water affirms the symbolism of the atoning blood. It states in part: “…bless and sanctify this water to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them.”85
King Benjamin in the Book of Mormon taught “salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ.”86 King Benjamin lived long before the Savior was born; sometimes this has led to criticisms from our enemies. Cullen Story of Princeton Theological Seminary, in a recent article on Justin Martyr, has referred to what he calls Justin’s use of the “prophetic perfect.” In his discussions with Trypho on the correct interpretation of Isaiah 53:7 Justin, according to Story,
wanted Trypho and his friends to understand that the prophetic Spirit could and did speak “as if the passion has already occurred” Sometimes, he explained, the prophetic Spirit “has spoken concerning the things that are going to occur, uttering them as if at that time they were occurring or even had occurred.”87
D&C 45:3–4 has the Lord speaking: “Listen to him who is the advocate with the Father, who is pleading your cause before him—saying: ‘Father, behold the sufferings and death of him who did no sin, in whom thou wast well pleased; behold the blood of thy Son which was shed, the blood of him whom thou gavest that thy self might be glorified.’” There are many other statements regarding the shedding of Christ’s blood, and its relationship to His redeeming sacrifice. Some of those statements from the Church leaders are:
Joseph Smith made reference to “the atonement and mediation of Jesus Christ; by whose blood they have a forgiveness of sins.”88 He also taught that “God…prepared a sacrifice in the gift of His own Son who should be sent in due time, to prepare a way, or open a door through which man might enter into the Lord’s presence, whence he had been cast out for disobedience… It must be shedding the blood of the Only Begotten to atone for man; for this was the plan of redemption; and without the shedding of blood was no remission.”89 In 1840 M.L. Davis wrote a letter to his wife outlining some of the things he had heard the Prophet state in a public sermon. He said that Joseph Smith expressed “his total unbelief of what is termed original sin. He believes that it is washed away by the blood of Christ, and that it no longer exists.”90 Brigham Young later reaffirmed this position: “We must believe that this same Jesus was crucified for the sins of the world, that is for the original sin, not the actual individual transgressions of the people; not but that the blood of Christ will cleanse from all sin, all who are disposed to act their part by repentance, and faith in his name. But the original sin was atoned for by the death of Christ.”91 George Laub recorded in his journal in 1844 that the Prophet taught “Jesus Christ left his blood to atone for the sins of the world.”92 One of the principles of the LDS faith is enunciated by the Prophet (and by Brigham Young, the second President of the LDS Church) as stated above by M. L. Davis: that original sin had been done away with in the death of Jesus Christ. The absence of original sin means that the baptism of infants is not necessary. The Book of Mormon is clear on this matter: “Little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world.”93 D&C 29:46 says “little children are redeemed from the foundation of the world through mine Only Begotten.” Joseph Smith referred to children as “having been redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb.”94 In 1917 Hyrum G. Smith, the Patriarch of the Church, stated that “through the blood of his atonement [little children] shall come forth in the morning of the resurrection with his saints.”95
Brigham Young stated that “the Latter-day Saints believe…that Jesus is the Savior of the world; they believe that all who attain to any glory whatever, in any kingdom, will do so because Jesus has purchased it by His atonement.”96
In 1882 Heber J. Grant, then of the Quorum of the Twelve, encouraged the Saints to “read the revelations given upon the subject and you will find that all mankind, except those who have had the testimony of Christ and rejected it, denying the blood of Christ, will ultimately be saved.”97
That same year John Taylor published his book entitled Mediation and Atonement. After quoting Colossians 1:12–15 he wrote that this passage teaches us “that our redemption is obtained through the blood of Jesus.”98
Joseph F. Smith, in 1895 as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, referred to the conditions that Adam “had to be redeemed from by the blood of Christ.”99 A week later, at the Juab Stake Conference in Nephi, Utah, Elder Smith stated that “by the redeeming blood of Jesus Christ, he, Adam, was redeemed from the fall and the power of Satan…and we are indebted for our redemption to Jesus our Lord, and our Deliverer.”100
Francis M. Lyman of the Quorum of the Twelve stated that “Jesus Christ shed His blood for our sins—not for His own, for He was immaculate and without blemish—and He laid down His life that you and I should be redeemed from that death which had come upon us because of the fall of Adam. By His death are we redeemed. By His blood are we cleansed from the conditions of the fall.”101
In 1901 Rudger Clawson of the Quorum of the Twelve stated that “the souls of men are so precious in the sight of God that he gave to the world his Only Begotten Son, that by the shedding of his blood he might draw all men unto him.”102
In 1916 Anthon H. Lund of the Quorum of the Twelve stated that the bread and wine “are simply emblems of his body and blood” and that the wine “represented his blood that was to be shed for the remission of sins.”103
In 1937 Charles A. Callis of the Twelve testified that Christ’s “blood atones for all our sins, through obedience to righteousness.”104
In 1949 when Alonzo A. Hinckley of the Quorum of the Twelve learned that he had a terminal illness he wrote a letter to the First Presidency of the Church. Part of that letter was read at the October 1949 General Conference. He said, in part: “As to the future, I have no misgivings. It is inviting and glorious, and I sense rather clearly what it means to be saved by the redeeming blood of Jesus Christ.”105
A year later Marion G. Romney of the Twelve stated that “through repentance he may bring himself within the reach of the atoning blood of Jesus Christ, so that thereby he may be cleansed from the effects of his transgressions and obtain forgiveness of them.”106
Robert Millet, Professor of Religion at BYU, has recently written about the regeneration of fallen man. He states, “the renewal of which we speak is a conversion from worldliness to saintliness, from being lured by the lurid to being enticed by holiness. It comes to us by virtue of the cleansing blood of Jesus and through the medium of the Holy Ghost, who is the Sanctifier.”107
All the above statements from scripture and prophets ought to convince even the most casual observer that the Latter-day Saints do indeed believe that the death of Jesus Christ on the cross was a major component of the redemption wrought by our Savior. It should also be evident that the shedding of His blood was an integral part of that atoning sacrifice.
posted January 17, 2008 at 6:10 pm
I witness to Mormons on a regular basis. The big difference in Mormonism and Christianity is Christ. The Mormons believe that Jesus was created and the Bible says that Jesus created everything. Mormonism is truly the fulfillment of the Pauline warning about following another Jesus. Mormon’s speak “mormoneese” they use the same words as Christians like “Jesus” but their “Jesus” isn’t the Jesus of the Old Testement and New Testement.
The Biblical Jesus is God with us, the creator of all. The Mormon Jesus is a created being. These two aren’t the same person and this is a HUGE theological gulf to try and blend together. Mormons believe that if they jump thru all of the Mormon hoops and become “exhalted” and become “Gods” (capital G used in Gospel Principles 1988 pg. 290) Also Mormons preach that they will be with their familys forever in “heaven.” But if a Mormon’s son does all the right Mormon things and becomes “exhalted” won’t he then become “God” on his planet that he is to re-populate with his “Godess” wife with “spirit children” isn’t he away from his parents? The two should be seperate “Gods” on different planets. Mormonism is a CULT and will never be accepted as a Christian doctrine. We as Christians need to understand this convoluted doctrine in order to be able to cut thru the double speak and witness to these lost souls.
posted January 17, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Mike; I have to say, that was very cool to read. And I don’t mean that sarcastically. It gave me a lot of insight into what LDS believes and I cannot help but wonder, after all this time, why no one else posted it.
We do still have doctrinal differences in our beliefs. I believe that the beginning of the atonement started in the garden of course, because Jesus did pray “Father, take this cup from me, but THY will be done.” Those are not Christ’s exact words, but mine, and what He said.
I believe the suffering in the garden is the type of suffering when one knows what is coming. If someone, like Alonzo Hinkley knew he had a terminal illness, he probably suffered knowing he was going to die, but he had faith that he was going to be with God again. No matter how I may read the Gethsamane verse, I still believe that Christ did not sweat great drops of blood. Does it really matter in the end? I don’t know, mainly because we agree (finally) on one doctrinal thing; Christ’s blood. Now, What that Blood atoned for, may also be a different belief. Was it Adam’s sin, or was it sin of everyone who lives? Did we sin before we came here to earth (LDS believe in pre-exsistence with God) and so it was necessary to send one of us, namely the firstborn, to be the sacrifice? Why, or what, does LDS doctrine say about why God would create sin and an answer for sin at the same time? That does not make sense. The Bible to me, and God’s Word however, does make more sense to me. That God created Adam and Eve, told them to go and multiply, Eve believed the serpent and “bit”. So the fall of Man occured. What do LDS say about Abraham and Isaac? Does LDS realize the connection between God and Christ, and Abraham and Isaac? Does LDS see the difference between the lamb of God, and a ram? The act of obedience by Abraham? What do they (LDS) say about those happenings in relation to Christ?
posted January 18, 2008 at 3:03 am
OCS:
Mike; I have to say, that was very cool to read. And I don’t mean that sarcastically. It gave me a lot of insight into what LDS believes and I cannot help but wonder, after all this time, why no one else posted it.
Mike:
Thanks. I’m glad it was helpful.
OCS:
We do still have doctrinal differences in our beliefs.
Mike:
No doubt about that.
OCS:
I believe that the beginning of the atonement started in the garden of course, because Jesus did pray “Father, take this cup from me, but THY will be done.” Those are not Christ’s exact words, but mine, and what He said.
Mike:
I think we are in agreement here.
OCS:
I believe the suffering in the garden is the type of suffering when one knows what is coming. If someone, like Alonzo Hinkley knew he had a terminal illness, he probably suffered knowing he was going to die, but he had faith that he was going to be with God again.
Mike:
While I agree with you that this is part of the suffering, I believe that it was not simply anticipatory, but an actual result of Christ somehow taking our sins directly upon himself in a way that I don’t believe we can comprehend,(at least not in this life). I believe that God experiences time differently from us. I know that the passion of Christ took some hours as mortal human beings measure time. I do not know how long it took to actully work out Christ’s infinite atonement.
Did he nee, perhaps, to experience, by proxy, everything that we have suffered because of our sins? I don’t know, but the possibility fills me with awe as to his courage and strength to accomplish it all.
OCS:
No matter how I may read the Gethsamane verse, I still believe that Christ did not sweat great drops of blood.
Mike:
While I read it differently than you I certainly would allow you to think however you wish. I realize that my acceptance of the way I think is based on additional revelation. I know that you do not accept that. But that is a separate issue.
OCS:
Does it really matter in the end? I don’t know,
Mike:
Nor do I.
OCS:
mainly because we agree (finally) on one doctrinal thing; Christ’s blood.
Mike:
Well we have probably always agreed on that. Sometimes we have been so busy defending against what we percieve as inacurate assertions that we have not had time to get this deep into doctrine.
OCS:
Now, What that Blood atoned for, may also be a different belief. Was it Adam’s sin, or was it sin of everyone who lives?
Mike:
LDS doctrine holds that it was to reverse the effects of the fall of Adam and to atone for the sins of men.
OCS:
Did we sin before we came here to earth (LDS believe in pre-exsistence with God)
Mike:
Or as the Bible asks through the disciples to Jesus, “Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
OCS:
and so it was necessary to send one of us, namely the firstborn, to be the sacrifice?
Mike:
LDS doctrine would hold this to be essentially true.
OCS:
Why, or what, does LDS doctrine say about why God would create sin and an answer for sin at the same time? That does not make sense.
Mike:
LDS doctrine does not claim that God created evil. LDS doctrine asserts that both good and evil are eternal principles that are not “created” at all. They and all matter have always existed in some form. This paradox, is actually more the problem of those who postulate creation Ex Nihilo, (out of nothing), than of the LDS doctrine of Creation “Ex Materia” (The organization of preexistent matter).
OCS:
The Bible to me, and God’s Word however, does make more sense to me.
Mike:
OCS, this is an example of your making an assertion about LDS doctrine and then drawing a mistaken conclusion based upon the original incorrect assertion. That is, you assert that LDS doctrine holds that God created evil. LDS doctrine does not claim this to be true. therefore your conclusion is necessarily mistaken. Can you see what I have been talking about? I just want you to be acurate as to your understanding so that your conclusions will be more reasoned.
OCS:
That God created Adam and Eve, told them to go and multiply, Eve believed the serpent and “bit”. So the fall of Man occured.
Mike:
The serpent told one lie and one truth, which combined created a false understanding in Eve. He said that Eve would not die. That was untrue. JHe said that Eve would be like God knowing good and evil. This was true. God said so later in Genesis. The end result was that the serpent lied, but Satan can use the truth, combined with lies to bring about his desired ends.
OCS:
What do LDS say about Abraham and Isaac? Does LDS realize the connection between God and Christ, and Abraham and Isaac?
MIke:
We absolutely see Abraham and Isaac as a type and shadow of the relationship shared by God and Chrsit.
OCS:
Does LDS see the difference between the lamb of God, and a ram? The act of obedience by Abraham? What do they (LDS) say about those happenings in relation to Christ?
Mike:
Types and Shadows of Jesus Christ
by Lenet Hadley Read
Latter-day Saints believe that many events, persons, and objects in the Old Testament and other scriptures were “types” or foreshadowings of Jesus Christ. Jesus taught, for instance, that manna had anticipated him, the true heavenly bread (John 6:30-35), and that Jonah’s three days in the fish signified his death and burial (Matt. 12:38-41).
Paul affirmed that the water produced from a rock by Moses pointed to the spiritual nourishment to come through Jesus (Ex. 17:6; 1 Cor. 10:4); furthermore, he asserted that the first Adam prefigured Jesus, the second Adam, who brought life to his spiritual offspring in contrast to Adam who brought death (Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:45). Similarly, the inheritances of Ishmael and Isaac foreshadowed differences between the old covenant and the new (Gal. 4:22-31).
According to Hebrews 7:15, the Messiah came “after the similitude of Melchizedek,” (Hebrew, “King of Righteousness”) who prefigured the roles of priest and king. The genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1:2-17 was written to prove that Jesus was both descended from and foreshadowed by David as king over Israel. Some LDS leaders have taught that the lives of many prophets have served as types of Christ (McConkie, pp. 448-53).
Prototypes and intimations can also be found in the symbolism of ancient Israel’s sacred ceremonies. For example, the scapegoat and purification rites of the Day of Atonement signify Christ’s salvation wrought by suffering and death (Heb. 9:7-14). Further, the Feast of Tabernacles, with its harvest and light associations, teaches of the Messianic reign (2 Bar. 29:4-8; John 8:12).
Book of Mormon passages add impetus to the notion of scriptural types. Amulek observed that “the whole meaning of the [Mosaic] law…point[ed] to that great and last sacrifice…[of] the Son of God” (Alma 34:14). Moreover, Abraham’s offering of Isaac was called a “similitude of God and [the sacrifice of] his Only Begotten Son” (Jacob 4:5). God showed to ancient Israel “many signs, and wonders, and types, and shadows…concerning [Christ's] coming” (Mosiah 3:15). The prophet Alma called the liahona a God-given compass, a “type” of Christ, who guides toward eternal life (Alma 37:38-46). In the broad sense, “all things…given of God…unto man, are the typifying of [Christ]” (2 Ne. 11:4).
The Pearl of Great Price also teaches that all creation bears record of Christ (Moses 6:63). This includes the sun, which points to him, the light of the world (see D&C 88:5-13). Similarly, every revealed ordinance exhibits a symbolic linkage to one element or another of Jesus’ ministry. For example, just as the daily sacrifices of Jerusalem’s temple foreshadowed Christ’s sacrifice (Heb. 7:26-28), so Latter-day Saints see gospel ordinances as pointing to him and to the way back into his presence.
Bibliography
McConkie, Bruce R. The Promised Messiah, pp. 374-453. Salt Lake City, 1978.
Read, Lenet H. “Symbols of the Harvest: Old Testament Holy Days and the Lord’s Ministry.” Ensign (Jan. 1975):32-36.
Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 2, Jesus Christ, Types and Shadows of
Copyright © 1992 by Macmillan Publishing Company
posted January 18, 2008 at 8:48 am
Mike: Mormonism is a CULT
Here we go with the name calling again! Is it any surprise the mormons all get so frustrated with you people and respond in kind? Call the Episcopalians anything that rude, and I’ll respond forthrightly too!
Anyway, what is a “cult” exactly, apart from a conveniently sinister word for a church you want to insult?
And please don’t try to sway me with a load of doctrines that you’ve clearly quoted out of all context. I’m smart enough to know when I’m being manipulated, and I resent it.
posted January 18, 2008 at 9:44 am
And OCS, even if you have been misunderstood by those who accuse you of name-calling, you’re not much better by endorsing those who do indulge in petty jibes. A bit like Saul holding the cloaks of those who stoned Stephen.
OCS: I cannot help but wonder, after all this time, why no one else posted it
Because they’re not like you people, maybe? Or maybe because it’s not true? 500 people don’t even mention it, but you take it as gospel at the first opportunity! You are determined to find fault with the LDS church, aren’t you? This, no doubt, is why 100 Mormons can deny your accusations, and you still keep uttering them with the confidence of the truly Christian.
As the judge said: “No need for a trial; you look guilty to me.”
posted January 18, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Mike and OCS,
I will try to be as plain, clear and simple as I can be so that you can not misinterpret or “spin” LDS beliefs.
If we, LDS, were completely aligned to YOUR beliefs, we would have no need for the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, continuing revelation, Prophets and Apostles, and ordained Priesthood. We are neither obligated nor desiring to explain our beliefs to fit your definitions. We merely correct your falsehoods, misstatements, errs and bald-faced lies about what we belief.
WE EMBRACE THE BIBLE as the word of God. We study, preach and strive to live by the doctrines contained therein. But we know there is more completeness of doctrine than that found in the Bible. Just because you interpret the Bible incorrectly, does not mean we have to. As John Wycliffe, Martin Luther, William Tynsdale, John Calvin and many, many other pre-1800′s reformers and world religious leaders all recognized that current Christianity was NOT the same as that taught by Christ and His Apostles, so do we proclaim. And in world places where Christianity was not, God provided inspiration, courage and vision over the centuries that has helped literally, millions to become more civil and ethical…names like Buddha (Gotama) born in 563 B.C., Confucius born in 551 B.C., as well as Mohammed, born in 570 A.D. all come to mind as “inspired” teachers and leaders who have elevated man towards deity.
God is the Father of our spirits, that part of us that gives our mortal body life, vibrance, intelligence, light and knowledge. We are literally His children, and He loves us. We lived as spirit children of our Father in Haven before we were born on this earth. We were not, however, like our Heavenly Father, nor could we ever become like Him and enjoy all the blessings that He enjoys without the experience of living in mortality with a physical body. God’s whole purpose—His work and His glory—is to enable each of us to enjoy all His blessings. He has provided a perfect plan to accomplish His purpose. We understood and accepted this plan before we came to the earth. In the scriptures God’s plan is called a merciful plan, the plan of happiness, the plan of redemption, and the plan of salvation.
Jesus Christ, at least the one LDS believe in, is central to God’s plan. As God’s only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, through His Atonement, fulfilled His Father’s purpose and made it possible for each of us to enjoy immortality and eternal life. Satan, or the devil, is an enemy to God’s plan.
Agency, or the ability to choose, is one of God’s greatest gifts to His children. Our eternal progression depends on how we use this gift. We must choose whether to follow Jesus Christ or follow Satan.
We are physically separated from God during life on earth, but He wants every one of His children to find peace in this life and a fulness of joy in His presence after this life. He wants us to become like Him. What Father wouldn’t want the very best for their children?
Under the direction of the Father, Jesus Christ created the earth as a place for us to live and gain experience. In order to progress and become like God, each of us had to obtain a body and be “tested” during a time of probation (delay in consequences for choice) on the earth. While on the earth we are out of God’s physical presence. We do not remember our pre-earth life. We must walk by faith rather than by sight—else the “test” would be frustrated.
Knowing man would not always make the “best” of choices, our Heavenly Father chose Jesus Christ to be our Saviour and Redeemer. The atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ made it possible for us to overcome the effects of the Fall, brought about by Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, whereby man was spiritually and physically removed from the presence of God. All of the prophets since the world began have testified of Jesus Christ as our Redeemer.
We will all suffer physical death, but Jesus Christ overcame the obstacle of physical death for us. When He died on the cross, His spirit became separated from His body. On the third day, His spirit and His body were reunited eternally, never to be separated again. The reuniting of body and spirit is called resurrection and is a gift promised to each of us. Because of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, we will all be resurrected regardless of whether we have done good or evil in this life. We will have a perfect, immortal body of flesh and bones (not blood which is mortal) that willl never again be subject to disease, pain, or death. The resurrection makes it possible to return to God’s presence to be judged but does not guarantee that we will be able to live in His presence. To receive that blessing, we must also be cleansed from sin.
God sent His Beloved Son, Jesus Christ, to overcome the obstacle of sin in addition to the obstacle of physical death. We are not responsible for the Fall of Adam and Eve, but we are responsible for our own sins. God cannot look on sin with any degree of allowance, and sin prevent us from living in His presence. Only through the Savior’s grace and mercy can we become clean from sin so that we can live with God again. This is possible through exercising faith in Jesus Christ, repenting, being baptized, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end.
To fulfill the plan of salvation, Christ paid the penalty for our sins. He alone was able to do that. He was called and prepared in pre-earth life. He was the literal Son of God in the flesh. He was sinless and completely obedient to His Father. Though tempted, He never gave in to temptation. The Atonement included His suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane and His suffering and death on the cross, and it ended with His Resurrection. Though He suffered beyond comprehension—so much so that He bled from every pore and asked whether it were possible that this burden be lifted from Him—He submitted to the Father’s will in a supreme expression of love for His Father and for us. This triumph of Jesus Christ over spiritual death by His suffering and over Physical death by His Resurrection is called the Atonement.
In paying the penalty for our sins, Jesus did NOT, however, eliminate our personal responsibility. We must show that we accept Him and that we will follow His commandments. Only through the gift of the Atonement can we return to live with God.
As we rely on the Atonement of Jesus Christ, He can help us endure our trials, sicknesses, and pain. We can be filled with joy, peace, and consolation. All that is unfair about life can be made right through the Atonement of Jesus Christ.
OCS…my head spins with glee at this knowledge of Jesus Christ and the entire Plan of Happiness…hence, RotorHead.
posted February 15, 2008 at 4:07 pm
I was surfing the web and came across this website
Rotorhead
you wrote:And in world places where Christianity was not, God provided inspiration, courage and vision over the centuries that has helped literally, millions to become more civil and ethical…names like Buddha (Gotama) born in 563 B.C., Confucius born in 551 B.C., as well as Mohammed, born in 570 A.D. all come to mind as “inspired” teachers and leaders who have elevated man towards deity.
Surely you’re joking right, They all come to my mind as false prophets who led people away from not towards God.(I would classify Joseph Smith in this category)
posted February 15, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Joker,
You speak as one so narrow minded as to believe God loves you more than He loves the Buddist, Hindu or Muslim. Surely, you are joking, right!
Put in proper context…anything that is good, honorable, uplifting and enlightening is of God…anything of the opposite is of satan.
One is led to God in steps. Just because you were born blessed to have the knowledge of Christ on the American continent does not make you “specially” privileged towards truth.
How dare you put yourself above another less fortunate than you. You who have the Bible should know better than anyone that God is no respecter of persons. Shame, shame shame on you.
posted February 16, 2008 at 12:31 am
TheTruthofIt
I’m confused do you believe in universalism? Are saying that all roads lead to the one true God just some roads are longer than others?
Matthew 7
12Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
13Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
The Bible seems to suggest that there is only one way.
Yes I am blessed to have grown up in a Christian home with God fearing Bible believing parents, and I thank God for it every day. It breaks my heart to know that there are hundreds of millions of people all over the world (and people just down the street)who are going to die and spend eternity in Hell, because they don’t know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and have a personal relationship with God Almighty. (Yes He is the Creator of the universe)
I believe you said: Put in proper context…anything that is good, honorable, uplifting and enlightening is of God…anything of the opposite is of satan.
This is what the Bible says;
Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
Even good things can be sin if done for the wrong reasons
1 Corinthians 10:31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. ( I consider this a command from God, do you?)
posted February 16, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Joker,
Once again, you profess to be the “all knowing” mind and will of God because you interpret the Bible as it should be interpreted and everyone else is wrong.
Believe as you will, but don’t PRETEND to espouse your narrow interpretations as being God’s. You don’t have the authority to speak for God, period!
Your brand of Christianity is exclusionary by distortion at best. You take the verses of the bible (many out of context I might add) to fit your own sense of entitlement. Even your own posting suggests elitism a postmark of all intolerant fanaticism, “Yes I am blessed to have grown up in a Christian home with God fearing Bible believing parents, and I thank God for it every day.” You might as well have finished your statement by adding,…”Too bad you weren’t and will go to Hell, sucks to be you!” So you would include the millions and millions of humans who have died behind totalitarian walls never having had the opportunity to hear of the bible, let alone Christ, all babies, the mentally challenged, etc. etc, etc, are all destined to hell because YOU have decided so…wow. No wonder Christians are being persecuted and martyred all across the globe…who would want to hear the message of such intolerance and harsh judgement.
The truth of it is..
I think you will find in the end, that the joke is on you…and at that time, it won’t be a laughing matter.
posted February 16, 2008 at 1:30 pm
TheTruthofIt
Christianity is by it’s nature exclusive John 14:6 Jesus said to them I am the Way the Truth and the Life no one comes to the Father except through me. I didn’t make it exclusive God did, there is only one way and His name is Jesus.
The fact that I’m saved doesn’t mean that I lord it over everyone. It grieves my soul to see and hear about people dying not knowing about Jesus and I take every opportunity I have to tell others about Jesus and His wonderful love for them.
As for your comment: No wonder Christians are being persecuted and martyred all across the globe…who would want to hear the message of such intolerance and harsh judgement.
John 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
John 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
Luke 21:17 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake.
Mark 13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
Matthew 24:9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.
Matthew 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
That is why Christians are dying all over the world because they love Jesus and want to see others come to know Him.
posted February 17, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Joker,
You confuse persecution for proclaiming the truth with persecution for elitism. If one has not had the “opportunity” for accepting Christ as their Savior for lack of knowledge (see Romans 10) how can they be held accountable and NOT be saved? “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? …So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
Your brand of Christianity is NOT from Christ. He desires ALL to be saved, not just those few privileged to be born in a bible believing family…and He has set up provisions for that…it’s called the “Good News”…it’s called The Gospel of Jesus Christ where ALL, yes even those who died as babies, those who were killed in their youth, war, etc. ALL will have the chance to accept or reject Jesus Christ as their Savior whether in this life or the next, it matters not. That my friend, is the message of The Restored Gospel through a Prophet of God in the Latter days…not the “dead” gospel of elitism you preach.
posted February 17, 2008 at 10:07 pm
TheTruthofIt
My bad I thought that you were implying that the Christians who are being persecuted and martyred across all across globe are intolerant, judgmental, bigots (that last word is mine not your’s ,but that is what you’re implying is it not)
If you want to accuse me of being intolerant, because I say that Jesus is the only way to God. (Not Buhddah, Confucious, Mohhamhed, Joseph Smith or anyone else). Go right ahead because I’ll stand on God’s Holy Word (the Bible) and proclaim to everyone I meet that they need Jesus Christ in their lives because He is the ONLY WAY TO GOD there is NO OTHER WAY.
by the way
Hebrews 1
1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:
I’ll take The Gospel Of Jesus Christ (not the Mormon version but the real deal straight from the Bible) over the so called restored gospel of Mormon prophets anytime.
One more thing do you even know what the “Good News” is?
posted February 25, 2008 at 12:56 pm
TheTruthofIt
I figured by now you would have answered my question “do you even know what the “Good News” is?
Surely you know the answer right!
posted February 25, 2008 at 4:01 pm
The good news is that Jesus Christ has made a perfect atonement for mankind that will redeem all mankind from the grave and reward each individual according to his/her works.
posted February 25, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Joker,
Here again you are wrong.
“How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?”
The bible even points out that learning of Christ is an incremental process for some. Not all are so favored as you seem to think you are.
“Good News”? Of course. This means that not just YOU will have the opportunity to accept Christ. ALL will have that option…despite your exclusionary elitism.
posted February 25, 2008 at 10:37 pm
theTruthofIt
Apparently you don’t like the Fact that Jesus is the only way!
GET OVER IT!!!!!!!
Jesus said it that settles it!
John 14:6 (King James Version)
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Since Jesus is the only way the then that’s who people need to hear about!
posted February 26, 2008 at 12:25 am
Joker,
What don’t you understand about “All will have the opportunity to accept Christ”? That includes the Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu and TOC. Some are led to Christ via threads of truth woven in various religious tapestries; but ultimately, they too will be given the “Good News”. Just because many will take a different path to hear of Christ than you did does not mean YOU have to condemn them to hell for it. You seem one of the most intolerant of all…but then, you hold exclusive rights to truth don’t you? LOL
posted February 26, 2008 at 5:48 am
theTruthofIt
Do you believe in Jesus as you Lord and Savior?
posted February 26, 2008 at 11:30 am
Truthofit
If one can come to a saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ through anyone but Jesus Christ prove it!
Give me an example of someone whose faith in Confucious gave them a saving faith in Jesus. NO, How about Muhammad After all Joseph Smith compared himself to Muhammad.
On October 14th, 1838 Joseph Smith equated himself with Muhammad. As reported by another Mormon historian, in a speech given to “every able-bodied Mormon in Caldwell County” Missouri, the Prophet said,
“If the people will let us alone we will preach the gospel in peace. But if they come on us to molest us, we will establish our religion by the sword. We will trample down our enemies and make it one gore of blood from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean. I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘Alcoran or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us — ‘Joseph Smith or the Sword!’” (Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 230-231. See History of the Church 3:167)
Though the LDS Church questions whether Joseph actually said this, Ms. Brodie based her report on the affidavits of seven different men, two of whom were LDS Apostles. The actions of the Mormons over the following days indicate Joseph probably said — and meant — what he was accused of. Hearing reports of “disturbances” in Daviess County, a non-Mormon committee went to investigate. They reported back,
“‘that much more had been done by the Mormons than the people of this county had been informed of.’ …Millport and Gallatin were almost entirely in ashes, Peniston’s horsemill had been torn down and its parts scattered, and nearly all the Daviess settlers had been driven from the county, their possessions seized, and their homes burned.” (Stephen C. LeSueur, The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri, 136)
No again, How about Buddah maybe he’ll lead you to Christ. No, how about Scientology, Moonies, Athiests, NO, NO, NO,
Only through Jesus are we saved don’t like it, TAKE IT UP WITH GOD.
Why don’t you ask God why Buddah, Muhammad, Confucious, Joseph Smith, Tom Cruise etc. can’t save anyone
posted February 26, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Joker,
Your pseudonym is very appropriate…you are a real joker! You are so intent on getting your narrow views across that you miss entirely the meaning of much of mine and others who post here.
You want an example of a person brought to Christ, incrementally…search no further! My own journey to Christ began with searching through truths I discovered in Vishnu, and Buddha. My mind was opened to the possibilities that man was not the center of the universe and that perhaps there was more to life than just living and dying for myself. I learned of beautiful things that enriched my then rather self-centered life. Later, I was introduced to the Bible by a wonderful traveling evangelist whose own firebrand zeal taught me of Christ. I then accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior and determined to study all I could about Him and His ways. Time passed and my life was again enriched beyond what I then knew possible. But the more I read the bible the more I found that many were interpreting it their own way. In fact, much of what was being preached over the pulpit was not even in the Bible! I bounced around wondering why such differences among so many professing a knowledge of the bible? I was left wanting and began drifting away until the most wonderful thing happened to me. I was introduced to the “fullness” of Christ’s gospel as found in His restored church…The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I have been richly blessed ever since…I discovered who I really was, my purpose for life and death and the marvelous tapestry woven by Jesus Christ to bring us ALL back to God! So the only thing I have to “…take up with God” as you put it, is my deepest gratitude and love for Him and His Son.
There you have it. One man’s journey to Christ…there are literally millions of stories like this on continents across the globe…YOU my friend have no corner on the market of God’s love…it is freely available to Buddhist, Hindu, Agnostic and Atheist alike…if they are willing to follow the Spirit’s gentle promptings. And you don’t have to SHOUT in their faces that they are going to hell either!!!
posted February 26, 2008 at 5:59 pm
theTruthofIt
Thank You for proving my point that it was through hearing about Jesus Christ that you got saved.
No I do not have the corner of the market on God’s love but it is only through Jesus Christ that one can be saved. but you won’t get saved by following the teachings of Buddha, Muhhamed, or anyone else but Jesus.
posted February 26, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Glad I could help…afterall, “proving your point” is what it’s all about, right?!
PS. You still just don’t get it. Your arrogance is the exact thing that turns so many “seekers” of truth away from investigating Jesus Christ. Despite your worst efforts, they will eventually find Christ. But, still, YOur kind would rather condemn than enlighten. You would much prefer a confrontation by shoving a bible in one’s face rather than suffer any personal indignity in the name of Christ to lift another to God…I’ve been away from your kind many years now and I still heat up when directly faced with your type of hypocrisy (I’m working on overcoming it)…you know what I mean…you would love to lead modern day “Crusade” and either convert the world to YOUR beliefs or eliminate them all together… Oh, to have lived in the days of Joseph Smith and to have been a part of those glorious “tarring and feather” parties, not to mention abuses to all those good for nothing Mormon women…
You don’t happen to have any blood relation to Lilburn Boggs do you? You know the reprobate Governor of Missouri who issued the infamous “Extermination order” against US citizens. “The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state, if necessary, for the public good.” Now that’s what YOU would call religious freedom at its best!!!
posted February 26, 2008 at 8:16 pm
You don’t even know me, so on what basis do you call me a hypocrite?
Because I want people to know about Jesus Christ
posted February 26, 2008 at 9:07 pm
hyp·o·crite [hip-uh-krit]
–noun
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.
You’re right I don’t know YOU just your persona; so I concede that item 1 above applies and I’m not sure item 2 does.
YOu pretend on these blogs to be the Christian Moral Compass by which all others need to adjust. Yet, even the most elementary Christian knows that your rhetoric against LDS (specifically Joseph Smith) is far from the Savior’s Beatitudes as found in Matthew:
3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
I don’t judge your misguided opinion of Joseph Smith, but your misrepresentation of the entire LDS faith. That is the “hypocrisy” to which I refer. You claim to be Christian, yet you verbally revile and persecute another for their religious beliefs (LDS, Buddhists, Muslims, etc.). The Savior “INVITED” all to come unto Him with love and long suffering, never once did he attack another’s religious beliefs…He only corrected those who had corrupted His own Jewish religious practices; after all He was the one who gave the house of Israel the Law of Moses, etc.
If I met you on the street, you’re probably an outwardly fine person, it’s the internal religious bigot that bothers me most. Your cavalier “My way or the Highway” portrayal of Christianity is pure hypocrisy.
Don’t ever forget, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God”, that even includes you.
posted February 26, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Dear theTruthofIt
I don’t know what kind of of person does not want to see people come to know Jesus. I am willing to stand up and tell others about Jesus, apparently you are not.
Are you afraid you’re going to hurt someone’s feeling by telling them they need Jesus.
When have verbally I reviled Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, etc.
Matthew 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 33But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
It saddens me to know that you are afraid to stand up for Jesus Christ saying that you want see others saved but then say we shouldn’t tell people about Jesus. When the only way you came to Christ is because someone told you about Jesus, you hypocrite.
I can only hope that Christ doesn’t deny you.
posted February 27, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Mike Bennion, GB, Dennis, Rotorhead, Eric, et al LDS,
Drive on. As for me, I weary of leaning into the wind…
Stay well and “Brethren, adieu”.
posted February 27, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Truthofit; did you know that the word Adieu being french, was not used until well after Christ died? I know the reason you say “Brethren, adieu” is because it is in the Book Of Mormon in Jacob 7:27; “…Brethren, adieu” The earliest development of french from Latin was about 700 AD. So, that was so ‘profound’, how you signed off. But the truth of it is that it has no bearing on being right, and you are giving up. Why? is it too much for you? think how much more your savior gave for you.
Joker is only pointing out what he knows to be true in the Bible and what is known as traditional Christianity. Mormons seem to think they are the ones that have the market on the real truth.
Maybe leaning into the wind is your sign?
I guarentee you that any Christian on these blogs is only about getting you to join another club. It is about the right word of God though. Remember that the books of the Holy Bible were written thousands of years ago, and from actual writings that were found and translated by men and women who have studied greek and Hebrew. The actual languages the schrolls were written in. You sound like you think that everyone else is wrong.
Remember that satan is the father of all lies.
Why is it that Mormons see themselves ‘against’ Christians? That Is one thing that truly boggles the mind. The blog is whether or not Mormons are Christian. Mormons on here seem to want to be called or at least acknowledged, as Chritian. So, how is it that a mormon would want to be acknowledged as Christian, but yet make fun of a traditional Christian and get offended when someone else speaks of Christianity aside from what mormonism teaches?
Mormonism wants all of us to believe they believe in the same Jesus. Saying alone that Jesus and satan are both created beings by God the Father, and therefore are brothers is bad enough. That is not even close to anything in the Holy Gospels and the only person in two thousand years to say that it was really that way, was Smith. So, since the ball is in the Mormon court right now, and everyone is so apologetic, (which seems to be unreciprocated) why should any single person believe it to be true? Our feelings our not enough about the truth of anything biblical. We cannot trust in our own feelings. It says that in scripture. And yet Mormons continually tell us that if we would only pray and listen we would know. I know that I have always had a personal relationship with God, and He has never let me down. I have had very horrible things happen in my life, and yet, my faith in God has not wavered. So, because I am not Mormon, does that mean that when the Lord leads me a certain way that I am wrong in listening?
I can say this for sure and with no doubt; I strongly know in my heart that Mormonism is a wrong and false gospel. I want to say it as loud as I can to try to help others who may fall into the trappings of men. Men who want power and respect by using God as a means to their ends. People in this church are told things so different from any gospel ever before, then told the reason being a total apostacy, and that God really meant their way and not to listen to any other Christian claims than Smith. they are told that the KJB is the only source other than their own to pay attention to, but only as it is translated correctly. What is correctly? Guess! It is how the BoM, D&C, PogP, and Journals say is the correct translation.
How can anyone logically trust what a man that totally changed the gospels, and has been proven false more than once, was an adulterer, and even shot people on his way out? He ‘married’ women that were already married. How is that biblical?
My point is this; no tears for the person standing up for Mormonism as a group. One should however support Jesus, which is not what Mormons do. How do they not? they call Jesus the created son of God who also created a son named Lucifer. we obviously do not believe in the same Jesus.
posted February 28, 2008 at 1:00 pm
OCS,
With all due respect, I think you are looking at things in the wrong light. We, as members of the Church of Jesus Christ would love to cooperate and explore religion with TOCs. The problem is not with us, but with others that refer to us as a cult. Really, how would that make you feel. Defensive? We do believe in the same Jesus. It has already been shown through the scriptures that Satan was created by God the Father. It is 100% clear that Jesus is the Son of God (thus created) and so the 2 are, by the very definition brothers. You can try are deny it, but the Bible doesn’t lie. You have problem with the word “adieu”. This is quite juvenile. When doing a translation, what do you do, take one word and find the equivalent word or one that the populace will understand. Everyone knows what adieu meant in the 1800s. It, though of French origin, is essentially an English word.
posted February 28, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Erik
God the Father
Mormon scripture declares, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also, but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us” (D. & C. 130:22). One reason the LDS teach that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones is because they believe that is the way Joseph Smith saw God in 1820 (see P. of G.P. J. S. History 1:16-17). LDS also believe that God became God through the process of “eternal progression,” and that men today can become gods by the same process which is explained by Milton R. Hunter this way:
In the first stage, man was an eternally existent being termed an intelligence…. The next realm where man dwelt was the spirit world. According to Mormon concept eternally-existing intelligences were clothed with spirit bodies in the mansion of their Eternal Father… numerous sons and daughters were begotten and born of heavenly parents into that eternal family in the spirit world… There in the spirit world they were reared to maturity, becoming grown spirit men and women prior to coming upon this earth…Following his stay in the spirit world, man comes on earth… Here he receives a physical body and undergoes the experiences of mortality… Eventually, however, mortal death comes upon all. The eternal spirit goes to the spirit world to await resurrection and judgment… There they shall be assigned to the glory that they have merited… some will receive telestial glory; others terrestrial, while those who are recorded in ‘the Lamb’s book of life’ will enter celestial glory. There some of them will become angels, and others priests and Kings, or in other words Gods (G.T.A., pp.127-129).
Hunter also said, “Our Eternal Father has attained His position of exaltation and Godhood by obedience to the great law of progression” (Ibid., p. 12).
W. Cleon Skousen, a former BYU professor, wrote:
Through modern revelation we learn that the universe is filled with vast numbers of intelligences, and we further learn that Elohim is God simply because all of these intelligences honor and sustain Him as such…. But since God ‘acquired’ the honor and sustaining influence of ‘all things’ it follows as a corollary that if He should ever do anything to violate the confidence or sense of justice’ of these intelligences, they would promptly withdraw their support, and the ‘power’ of God would disintegrate…. ‘He would cease to be God.’ Our Heavenly Father can do only those things which the intelligences under Him are voluntarily willing to support Him in accomplishing (The First 2000 Years, pp. 355-356).
Is it really possible for the eternal, omnipotent (all powerful) God to lose His throne and “cease to be God?” The Bible says He is “from everlasting to everlasting” (Ps. 90:2). Thus, the LDS god must be a different god!
LDS Apostle James Talmage wrote, “We believe in a God who is Himself progressive, whose majesty is intelligence; whose perfection consists in eternal advancement – a Being who has attained His exalted state by a path which now His children are permitted to follow, whose glory it is their heritage to share. In spite of the opposition of the sects, in the face of direct charges of blasphemy, the church proclaims the eternal truth: ‘As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be’” (A. of F., p. 430).
Joseph Smith also declared, “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!…. I am going to tell you how God came to be God. 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… he was once a man like us… and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves…” (T. of P.J.S., p. 345-346).
Joseph Smith did not identify the man who was exalted and became God. But, Brigham Young, the second LDS prophet said, “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 Archangel, 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” (J. of D., Vol. 1, p. 50, emphasis is in the original). For more information on this doctrine of Adam being God, see J. of D., Vols. III, p. 319; IV, p. 1; V, pp. 331-332; D. of S., Vol. I, pp. 74-75.
Joseph Fielding Smith, the tenth LDS prophet wrote, “It is true that Adam helped to form this earth. He labored with our Savior Jesus Christ. I have a strong view or conviction that there were others who assisted them. Perhaps Noah and Enoch; and why not Joseph Smith, and those who were appointed to be rulers before the earth was formed?” (D. of S., Vol. I, pp. 74-75).
Milton R. Hunter, who was assigned to write the G.T.A. on behalf of the LDS General Authorities, also said, “Mormon prophets have continuously taught the sublime truth that God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar to that through which we are now passing… He became God – an exalted being – through obedience to the same eternal Gospel truths that we are given opportunity today to obey” (G.T.A., p. 104).
And LDS Apostle Orson Pratt said, “The Gods who dwell in the Heaven from which our spirits came, are beings who have been redeemed from the grave in a world which existed before the foundations of this earth were laid. They and the heavenly body which they now inhabit were once in a fallen state. They were exalted also, from fallen men to Celestial Gods to inhabit their Heaven forever and ever” (The Seer, p. 23).
Pratt also said, “We were begotten by our Father in Heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father; and again He was begotten by a still more ancient Father, and so on, from generation to generation, from one heavenly world to another still more ancient, until our minds are wearied and lost in the multiplicity of generations and successive worlds” (Ibid., p. 132).
Joseph Smith said, “Our text says, ‘God hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father ‘ (Rev. 1:6). …If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also” (T. of P. J. S., pp. 370, 373; M.D., p. 577).
Just where the first God came from is an unanswered mystery to LDS, much like where life and motion came from is a mystery to the evolutionist. In fact, “eternal progression” is a form of evolution applied to God! The LDS do use a few Bible verses to try to make this doctrine appear to be Christian. For example, they use John 14:9, saying that Jesus Christ had a body of flesh and bones, so God the Father also had a body of flesh and bones. But, John 14:10-11 says that Christ is in the Father and the Father is in Christ. If verse 9 means that the Father has a body of flesh and bones because the Son does, how can these two bodies be inside of each other? LDS also use John 5:19 to try to show that God the Father was once a Savior of a world and had to die and be resurrected much like Christ did for this world. But, that verse is not about God the Father being a Savior of some other world. It says that Christ did the same miracles that God the Father did; therefore, He should receive the same honor (verse 23).
LDS try to support their claims of a “flesh and bones” God by saying He created man in His own image (Gen. 1:26-27). But, God was not created in the image of man! Just because man has a body of flesh, blood, and bones does not mean that God is made of the same material. The statue, or image, of Abraham Lincoln in the Lincoln Memorial is 19 feet tall and made of white Georgia marble, but was President Lincoln 19 feet tall with a body of white marble? Obviously, “image” does not mean “made of the same material” or “made the same size.” Furthermore, Joseph Fielding Smith said, “We know that Jesus our Savior was a Spirit when this great work (creation) was done. He did all these mighty works before he tabernacled in the flesh” (D. of S., Vol. I, p. 75). That statement shows that man could not be created in the physical image of the Lord because He created man when He was a Spirit, before he had a physical body!
LDS say Luke 24:39 shows Jesus has a body of flesh and bones and since Jesus was “the express image” of the Father (Heb. 1:3), the Father must also have a body of flesh and bones. But, Col. 1:15 says that Christ “is the image of the invisible God.” Just before Jesus’ reference to His body of flesh and bones, He “vanished out of their sight” (Luke 24:31). A body “as tangible as ours” (D. & C. 130:22) cannot just vanish. But, Christ’s resurrected body was also a spiritual body (I Cor. 15:44-45).
The Bible declares that God is an invisible Spirit and that no man has ever seen Him (see Ex. 33:20; John 1:18; 4:24; 5:37; Col. 1:15; I Tim. 1:17; 6:16; I John 4:12, 20). These verses show that Joseph Smith could not see God. But, God did reveal Himself in the form of a man or in a theophany in the Old Testament which was recorded by the writers in anthropomorphic terms or by describing God in human form as in Ex.33:9, 11, 23; 24:9-11; Gen. 5:24; and 6:5-9. LDS often claim that God has a physical body because the Bible speaks of “the arm of the Lord,” “the eye of the Lord,” “the hand of the Lord,” and so on. Using that same logic, we might conclude that God is a “bird” according to Ps. 57:1 and 91:4. Or He might be a blast furnace (Deut. 4:24 and Heb. 12:29)!
Mormonism did not always teach a “flesh and bone” god. Even though the D. & C. 130:22 says, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s,” Joseph Smith earlier defined God as follows:
There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things – by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible; whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space – They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fullness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image;… and is called the Son because of the flesh (Lectures on Faith, Lecture Fifth, p. 53).
Notice that in this lecture Joseph Smith said God the Father was a personage of spirit while Jesus Christ was called the Son “because of the flesh.” Thus, Smith did not believe that both the Father and Son had bodies of flesh and bone at the time he wrote that in 1835! But, LDS today claim that Joseph Smith discovered that both God the Father and the Son have bodies of flesh and bone when he saw them in his First Vision in 1820!
According to D.H.C., Vol. II, p. 180, Joseph Smith had the Lectures on Faith published in the D. & C. in 1835. But, in 1921, they were deleted because the LDS found that it was difficult to teach that God the Father had a body of flesh and bones with this contradiction in their same book of scripture.
In Rom. 1:22-23, Paul warns of those who will try to make God in the image of corruptible man which leads to immorality and brings God’s judgment upon them. The Bible portrays God as an infinite being who is not a man, exalted or not. It is impossible to reconcile the following verses with the LDS teaching that God is a changing, progressing man: “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent” (Num. 23:19); “for I am God, and not man” (Hos. 11:9); “I have made the earth, and created man upon it” (Is. 45:12); These things hast thou done and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee and set them in order before thine eyes (Ps. 50:21).
The following verses teach that God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient; no god or man with a tangible body of flesh and bones could be omnipresent: Rev. 19:6; Deut. 4:39; Ps. 139; Pr. 15:3; Jer. 23:24; Acts 17:27; Ps. 33:6; Heb. 11:3; John. 1:3. The Bible also teaches God is unchangeable and eternal: Deut. 33:27; Ps. 41:13; 90:2; 106:48; Is. 40:28; Jer. 10:10; Mal. 3:6; Col. 1:17; I Tim. 1:17; Heb. 13:8; James. 1:17. Even the B. of M. denies that God is a glorified man in these verses: II Nephi 2:14; 9:20; 11:7; 29:7; Jacob 2:21; 4:9; Mosiah 2:23; 4:21; 5:15; 7:27; 13:34; Alma 18:28, 32; 22:10; 26:35; Mormon 9:9-11, 17, 19; Ether 3:15; I Nephi 9:6; Moroni 7:22; 8:18. See also D. & C. 20:12, 17. Mormon doctrine is again contradicted by Mormon scripture.
posted February 28, 2008 at 5:55 pm
> Why is it that Mormons see themselves ‘against’ Christians?
We don’t, for that would put us against us.
> Mormons on here seem to want to be called or at least acknowledged,
> as Christian.
Acknowledged. Or, more to the point, to not have our Christianity denied.
> So, how is it that a mormon would want to be acknowledged as
> Christian, but yet make fun of a traditional Christian and get
> offended when someone else speaks of Christianity aside from what
> mormonism teaches?
I don’t see where any Mormon posters have been offended by utterances of non-Mormon Christianity.
> Mormonism wants all of us to believe they believe in the same Jesus.
There is only one Jesus.
> Saying alone that Jesus and satan are both created beings by God the
> Father, and therefore are brothers is bad enough.
And yet is Biblical.
> That is not even close to anything in the Holy Gospels
Isn’t it? The Bible says that God created Satan. It also says that Jesus Christ is his son, the first of all creation. They have the same creator. They are brothers to us all.
> and the only person in two thousand years to say that it was really
> that way, was Smith.
You mean *other* than the writers of the Bible itself?
> So, since the ball is in the Mormon court right now
Is it? If you say so.
> and everyone is so apologetic, (which seems to be unreciprocated)
This statement is self-contradictory.
> why should any single person believe it to be true?
For their salvation.
> Our feelings our not enough about the truth of anything biblical.
Agreed, but no one is asking that for them to rely on mere feelings. The witness of the Holy Ghost is much more profound. Praying to God and receiving an answer is the ONLY way the truth of the scriptures (including the Bible) can be made manifest.
> We cannot trust in our own feelings. It says that in scripture.
A moot point, given the above.
> And yet Mormons continually tell us that if we would only pray and
> listen we would know.
More than pray and listen, correct? Reading the scriptures and pondering them and asking of God with a contrite spirit.
> So, because I am not Mormon, does that mean that when the Lord leads
> me a certain way that I am wrong in listening?
Not at all.
> I can say this for sure and with no doubt; I strongly know in my
> heart that Mormonism is a wrong and false gospel.
To me you seem as one who proclaims with surety that the earth is flat. One who, when orbiting the earth from space, refuses to look out of the window for fear that it will contradict his conviction. Those of us on the ground can try to coax you over the comm-link to open your eyes and face the earth, but you steadfastly refuse. That is how I see you and your refusal the read, ponder, and pray about the Book of Mormon. You have the tools at hand to confirm its truth, but not the will.
> I want to say it as loud as I can to try to help others who may fall
> into the trappings of men. Men who want power and respect by using
> God as a means to their ends.
Power and respect?
> People in this church are told things so different from any gospel
> ever before,
Not true. It is much closer to the original gospel as explained by Mike time and again.
> then told the reason being a total apostacy,
The one foretold in the Bible.
> and that God really meant their way and not to listen to any other
> Christian claims than Smith.
And yet, we only have formed a belief if what Smith hath wrought by the powerful witness of the Holy Ghost.
> they are told that the KJB is the only source other than their own to
> pay attention to, but only as it is translated correctly. What is
> correctly? Guess! It is how the BoM, D&C, PogP, and Journals say is
> the correct translation.
The Journals are not scripture and the BoM and PoGP don’t mention the Bible.
> How can anyone logically trust what a man that totally changed the
> gospels,
Changed them back to how they were originally, as can be verified by the Bible itself.
> and has been proven false more than once,
Not his prophecies, not one.
> was an adulterer,
A red herring.
> and even shot people on his way out?
And defended himself and those with him while being martyred?
> He ‘married’ women that were already married. How is that biblical?
Temporal vs. eternal.
> My point is this; no tears for the person standing up for Mormonism
> as a group. One should however support Jesus, which is not what
> Mormons do.
Of course we do. To say otherwise is ignorant.
> How do they not? they call Jesus the created son of God who also
> created a son named Lucifer.
Only because the Bible proclaims this as well. BTW, Lucifer is YOUR brother, too.
> we obviously do not believe in the same Jesus.
There is only one Jesus. To say otherwise is ignorant.
posted February 28, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Gregory; We are not angels, we are created after God’s image. Angels are not created after God’s image. It makes them seperate. Lucifer is an angel (albeit a bad one) so no, i disagree he is my brother. I also am not Christ’s brother. I am in awe and I worship Him as my God and Savior. I am not even close, or ever will be, to His glory and abilities.
There is only one Jesus, but your description is very different. So Is He really the same Jesus? Same name maybe, but the definition is very different.
Besides the obvious, that we believe He died for our sins, tell me how He is the same in mainstream Christianity, and Mormonism.
Erik; the issue I have with the word Adieu is that it is French, and was spoken by a man who lived almost 1,000 years before Christ was even born, and French was not spoken for almost 1,000 years after Christ. Answer me this? Why in the world would Smith use a French word in his translation? Why? It makes no sense. Why would he choose French as the translation of saying goodbye?
posted February 28, 2008 at 9:36 pm
No, the author used a word that means “farewell” in his language. Now when someone is translating, they have the option of using many words that have the same meaning. Some have greater significance and emotional meaning. As Joseph was translating, the word that he was to translate was probably a bit more emotionally charged. To an English speaker, the use of such a foreign, yet very famiiliar word places emphasis on that emotionality.
A question for your, are we spirits created by God the Father?
posted February 29, 2008 at 12:46 pm
> Gregory; We are not angels
And I never claimed otherwise.
> we are created after God’s image.
Yes, it says so in the Bible.
> Angels are not created after God’s image.
No? Where is your Biblical support for this assertion?
> It makes them seperate. Lucifer is an angel (albeit a bad one) so no,
> i disagree he is my brother.
This I will address in a following post.
> I also am not Christ’s brother. I am in awe and I worship Him as my
> God and Savior. I am not even close, or ever will be, to His glory
> and abilities.
You imply a false dilemma, that we can’t be Christ’s brother as we worship him as God and Savior and are not close to His glory and abilities.
> There is only one Jesus, but your description is very different.
My description is that He is the firstborn of creation, the only begotten son of God, our Heavenly Father, the savior of mankind and He whom we worship thusly. Is that not your description?
> So Is He really the same Jesus? Same name maybe, but the definition
> is very different.
Really? You don’t agree with the definition above?
> Besides the obvious, that we believe He died for our sins, tell me
> how He is the same in mainstream Christianity, and Mormonism.
I never claimed that mainstream Christians (read TOCs) believe all of the same things about Him that Mormons do. But what we believe is Biblical and what they believe isn’t (those darn creeds!).
posted February 29, 2008 at 3:04 pm
So Erik; the very complaint I have heard for the need to add other supportive scripture over the Bible, has been that the correct translations have been lost through the years. It seems a little confusing that Smith can translate using a French word because it is emotionally charged, and that translation is okay, but not translations from the Holy Bible. There has been a lot of debate about how things are worded. Did anyone ever question why Smith would use a word that was French, when he was not french, and could have used any number of “Farewell” words? Seems to me he was translating exactly what he was being shown. So why would he choose his own word to slip in there? Another bothersome thing is how he could have lost a whole section of doctrine from God. How could he be so careless if it truly was the Word of God? Why wouldn’t the angel show him where he left it? He showed him where Gold plates were left thousands of years before. Not only the French word, but what about these ancients calling themselves christians almost 1,000 years before Jesus was born? Mary didn’t know what Christ’s name was going to be, and yet they used the term coined when the church was first established after His crucifixtion.
Gregory; You irritate me for some reason. No we are not angels. Show me where it says in the Bible that we are. Show me where it says that angels were created in God’s image. In fact show me in the Bible where it speaks of the fight to be the savior of the world, and lucifer’s plan being not chosen.
I don’t know why you seem to have such an issue with the creeds. Any church I have ever gone to says nothing of them. But, it never matters which church it is, the basics are there. The Worship of the Lord, communion, passages from the Holy Bible. etc. There is not enough of a difference to alarm me. Mormonism however is alarming to me.
If It doesn’t say it in the Bible, then I will not believe it. If where you get these doctrines in in Mormon teachings, then you can believe them without me. I just don’t feel at all, that the Holy Spirit has any desire to put me into a Mormon Church.
And If you would read the Holy Bible, you would find the verses that say first comes the natural, and then the spiritual. Also the question posed to Job by God Himself, asking Job where he was when the world was being created. If you choose to ignore verses like these, then yeah, you could go off on a tangent that we are spirit before we come here. No where ever in my life, has any pastor of any church taught something like that. I have a feeling they probably see Mormonisms’ teachings as sacreligous. Just a guess.
You get frustrated and come across very rude most of the time, and yet you feel justified. Is it because we are on a blog? You don’t have to be face to face, so anything goes? If you want respect for your belief, try respecting someone elses instead of being patronizing all the time.
posted February 29, 2008 at 6:12 pm
> Gregory; You irritate me for some reason.
k, sorry.
> No we are not angels.
Again, agreed.
> Show me where it says in the Bible that we are.
The Bible doesn’t says that we are, but rather were.
> I don’t know why you seem to have such an issue with the creeds.
They are extra- and anti- Biblical. If I were to go back to being a non-denominational protestant Christian, I would still reject the creeds.
> Any church I have ever gone to says nothing of them.
To be honest, none that I have ever been to have made mention of them, either. However, I have attended protestant churches where the trinity was discussed and the trinity comes from the creeds, not the Bible.
> But, it never matters which church it is, the basics are there. The
> Worship of the Lord, communion, passages from the Holy Bible. etc.
> There is not enough of a difference to alarm me. Mormonism however is
> alarming to me.
Why when we also use the basics you mentioned above?
> If It doesn’t say it in the Bible, then I will not believe it.
And yet you believe in the trinity.
> I just don’t feel at all, that the Holy Spirit has any desire to put
> me into a Mormon Church.
Nor would I expect Him to until you have shed your ignorance.
> And If you would read the Holy Bible,
I’ve read it cover to cover four times now.
> you would find the verses that say first comes the natural, and then
> the spiritual.
And you would also have verses such as:
Jeremiah 1:5 – 5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
(Notice three key words here: knew, sanctified, and ordained. The wording itself indicates that God literally knew Jeremiah and was familiar with his spiritual attitudes and abilities. In addition, God sanctified Jeremiah, a description not of foreknowledge but of an actual event with participants present. The process of sanctification, or setting something apart as holy, by definition requires that something (such as Jeremiah himself) be present to be set apart. Likewise, the act of ordaining a person—in this case a prophet—requires that the individual be present. These acts—sanctification and ordination—are not mental exercises, but actual events.
“This question was hotly debated by Christians of late antiquity, and the faction of the Church which was bitterly opposed to preexistence gained the upper hand. By the sixth century belief in preexistence was declared heresy. All of this is quite astonishing in view of the clear and repeated biblical evidence for preexistence.” — William de Arteaga, Past Life Visions: A Christian Exploration (New York: Seabury Press, 1983), 127, as quoted by Brent L. Top in The Life Before (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988), 25.)
Ephesians 1:4 – 4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love
John 9:2 – And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
(How could he have sinned before he was born if he was not pre-existent?)
> If you choose to ignore verses like these, then yeah, you could go
> off on a tangent that we are spirit before we come here.
If you choose to ignore verses like I listed, then yeah, you could go off on a tangent that we don’t exist until our mortal birth.
> No where ever in my life, has any pastor of any church taught
> something like that.
Then their knowledge of the gospel of Christ is incomplete.
> I have a feeling they probably see Mormonisms’ teachings as
> sacreligous. Just a guess.
Probably, but this has no bearing on whether or not they are true.
> You get frustrated
The only thing that truly frustrates me here is for things to be brought up time and again (pre-existence, for example) when we have already covered them in-depth with Biblical support and then someone acts like they never read it.
> and come across very rude most of the time,
Do I? That is not usually my intention.
> and yet you feel justified.
Justified about what?
> Is it because we are on a blog? You don’t have to be face to face, so
> anything goes?
Surely not anything. BTW, I use no pseudonym here. I have accountability.
> If you want respect for your belief, try respecting someone elses
> instead of being patronizing all the time.
I can respect another’s beliefs without agreeing with them. Or is the mere act of disagreeing showing disrepect?
I’ll leave you with one last thing regarding us being the brothers and sisters of Christ. John 20:17 – “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” Romans 8:29 – “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate dto be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.”
So Jesus IS brother to us all.
And this ties into Job 38:7 – “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”
So we, as sons of God, shouted for joy before the founding of the earth.
posted March 1, 2008 at 3:39 am
Gregory A. Swarthout
I’ve noticed you like the term “red herring” a lot would you please give me you r definition of “red herring”
On a separate note is there any evidence to support the idea of pre-existent matter?
posted March 1, 2008 at 3:41 am
Oh and could you please give your definition in lay-mans terms
posted March 1, 2008 at 10:38 am
OCS,
Does God speak English or French or Hebrew? He speaks to the people and reveals things to them in a language that they will understand. Do you understand the word adieu? So did everyone else that was going to read the Book of Mormon at the time Joseph translated it. You seem to be getting hung up on a word. A WORD!! If this makes the BOM false then what about this series of verses.
1 Sam 16: 14 But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him.
15 And Saul’s servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee.
16 Let our lord now command thy servants, which are before thee, to seek out a man, who is a cunning player on an harp: and it shall come to pass, when the evil spirit from God is upon thee, that he shall play with his hand, and thou shalt be well.
So does God send evil spirits? If so then something is really screwed up. Or mabey the translators got something wrong. Well if that is the case then the whole Bible can’t be trusted under your logic. The word adieu looks insignificant compared to such a doctrinal glitch don’t you agree?
BTW, I need to acknowledge that I appreciated your concern about my wife’s pregnancy. I think I wrote something back in one of the other posts or was scrolled through too fast. I feel that you are one of the more thoughtful posters, that is why I value your commentary. I am here to learn and have very little time to do so. When I put some good scripture studying to finding the Biblical answers to queries I would like a response. Sorry if I seem pushy. And with that I’ll repost my question.
posted March 1, 2008 at 10:45 am
You bring up a very hot topic and fascinating point. John 10: 30 is the verse I believe. Taken at face value, you definitely have a point. But Christ consistently spoke in metaphor-like speech. He explains what he means in using the word “one” in John 17:
10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
AND
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be cone in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
The use of “one” clearly speaks not of one substance, but rather of unity. This is consistent with scriptural language. Example Gen 2:24 Adam and Eve shall “be one flesh.”
Somebody also brought up that Christ stated that the Father was greater than He. Here’s another thinker for you, if Christ and God the Father were “one” why did Christ pray to the Father? Why did he say “my God, my God why hast thou foresaken me” If they are one, how could he forsake Himself.
Jesus and Satan as brothers. Much of this has to do with definitions. To be brothers, all two individuals have to have is the same Creator. Jesus was the Son of God, both spiritually and physically. God the Father was also the Father of all Spirits:
Ps. 82: 6 (Rom. 8: 16) you are children of the most High.
Eccl. 12: 7 spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
Isa. 42: 5 he that giveth . . . spirit to them that walk therein.
Hosea 1: 10 Ye are the sons of the living God.
Zech. 12: 1 formeth the spirit of man within him.
Acts 17: 29 we are the offspring of God.
Heb. 12: 9 in subjection unto the Father of spirits.
I separate this last verse out for emphasis. God is the father of all spirits. But Satan is an angel? And it is Satan’s dark angels that fell with Him (the 3rd part in Rev 12) that are devils and tempt us to sin right? Well what exactly are those angels/devils:
Matt 8: 16 When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and chealed all that were sick:
Those evil spirits=devils=fallen angels. More references:
Ps. 78: 49 trouble, by sending evil angels among them.
Isa. 8: 19 Seek unto them that have familiar spirits.
Matt. 8: 16 cast out the spirits with his word.
Matt. 8: 28 there met him two possessed with devils.
Matt. 10: 1 gave them power against unclean spirits.
Matt. 12: 45 seven other spirits more wicked than himself.
Mark 1: 23 man with an unclean spirit.
Mark 1: 34 cast out many devils.
Mark 3: 11 unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down.
Mark 5: 8 Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit.
Mark 9: 25 he rebuked the foul spirit.
Mark 16: 17 In my name shall they cast out devils.
Luke 6: 18 vexed with unclean spirits.
Luke 9: 55 know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
Acts 8: 7 unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out.
Acts 16: 18 Paul . . . said to the spirit, I command thee . . . to come out.
Acts 19: 15 evil spirit . . . said, Jesus I know.
1 Tim. 4: 1 giving heed to seducing spirits.
2 Pet. 2: 4 God spared not the angels that sinned.
1 Jn. 4: 1 try the spirits whether they are of God.
Jude 1: 6 angels which kept not their first estate.
So if God is the Father of all spirits, and those unclean angels of which Satan is one, are spirits, then God is their Father as well. Thus making Satan a son (rebellious) and by relation a brother to Christ. Angels are nothing more than spirits, they can be good or bad.
I hope that was clear. You are correct, Christ is far superior to Satan, but not by the fact of his lineage, but by his obedience and loyalty to His Father.
So do you now see that Angels and Spirits are used as synomyns?
posted March 3, 2008 at 10:56 am
> I’ve noticed you like the term “red herring” a lot
It’s a logical fallacy TOCs like to use.
> would you please give me you r definition of “red herring”
Something that is beside the point of the discussion. Usually intended to draw attention away from a weak argument.
posted March 4, 2008 at 12:21 am
John 9:2 – And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
(How could he have sinned before he was born if he was not pre-existent?
Posted by: Gregory A. Swarthout | February 29, 2008 6:12 PM
Gregory; This is an excellent example of taking a biblical verse out of context (the whole discussion of what was going on) and by doing so making it look like something not meant.
Here is the scene; Jesus is being questioned by his disciples about a blind man, wanting to know who sinned that this man was being punished?
In the next verse, 3, Jesus answers them, “Neither this mannor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. 5 While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”
Explanation:
A common belief in jewish culture was that calamity or suffering was the result of some great sin. But Christ used this man’s suffering to teach about faith and to glorify God. We live in a fallen world where good behavior is not always rewarded and bad behavior not always punished. Therefore, innocent people sometimes suffer. If God took suffering away whenever we asked, we would follow him for comfort and convenience, not out of love and devotion. Regardless of the reasons for our suffering, Jesus has the power to help us deal with it. Wehn you suffer from a disease, tragedy, or disability, try not to ask, “why did this happen to me?” or “what did I do wrong?” Instead, ask God to give you strength for the trial and a clearer perspective on what is happening.
So as you can see Gregory, in it’s whole context, this verse is quite different than stopping where you did with it. With all due respect, how do you justify the difference put before you with this? Do you still disagree, and believe that it truly is only about the first part by itself, and it was meant to prove pre-exsistence, even though the next words were Jesus’ own explanation to His disciples?
Erik;
As far as the Angels being spirits, and synonymous on the same level as we are, I am still disagreeing. In Hebrews 1: 1-14
1; In the past god spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.
5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father?” (Psalms 2:7 also says Christ is called “Son of God, a titlen never given to an angel.
Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”?
6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him. 7 In speaking of the angels he says, “He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire.” (Psalm 104:4 Angels are important but are still only servants under God.)
8 But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your Kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy. (Psalm 45:6 Christ’s Kingdom is forever)
10 He also says, “In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. 11 They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. 12 You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.” (Psalm 102:25 Christ is the Creator of the World.)
13 To which of the angels did God ever say, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet?” (Psalm 110:1 Christ is given unique honor by God.)
14 Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?
Angels are God’s messengers, spiritual beings created by God and under his authority. They have several functions: serving believers, protecting the helpless, proclaiming God’s messages and executing God’s judgement.
The Writer of Hebrews quotes from the Old Testament repeatedly in demonstrating Christ’s greatness in comparison to the angels. This audience of first-century jewish Christians had developed an imbalanced belief in angels and their role. Christ’s Lordship is affirmed without desrespect to God’s valued angelic messengers.
In light of these scriptures, I don’t see how it can be misunderstood that Angels are created in the image of God, as we are. If we are to inherit along with Christ, then there must be a seperation of angels and us being created in his image. We are not meant to do the job of an angel. They are special creatures of the Lord, but we are not angels first, or last. We are not ever angels. we are created in God’s image to worship and serve Him in a different way.
Not to keep beating a dead horse; but Erik, have you wondered if any of the scribes around Smith asked him what Adieu meant? You have made your self clear on the subject, but like any type of mystery, I do not understand why he would use that word. And in light of the fact that French was not developed until almost 1,000 years after the birth of Christ, I find it interesting and suspicious that he would translate an emotionally charged good-bye with a word that would not have been in the language he was translating. It may have been Smith’s choice, but still I am very intrigued by it’s meaning. There has to be something more to it that just a flip choice of words to say good bye.
Jesus spoke in parables, and every word held meaning. We spend our lives trying to understand and learn. Same with prophets. Well, if Smith is truly a prophet, why has no one wondered why he would choose that word.
posted March 4, 2008 at 11:12 am
> Do you still disagree, and believe that it truly is only about the
> first part by itself, and it was meant to prove pre-exsistence
I never claimed that the verse could existed in a vacuum and was meant to prove pre-existence. It quite obviously was NOT put there to prove pre-existence. However, that doesn’t negate the idea that someone thought it was possible that this man sinned before he was born.
Of course, this was just one example among several.
posted March 4, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Your stance that Christ was not like the angels is noted. But are you like Jesus? I know that I’m not even lose in a spiritual or physical sense. Does that mean that he is not my Elder Brother? No! Interestingly, Paul in the first chapter of Hebrews says that Jesus is greater than the angels, but let’s have a look of the next chapter.
Heb 2 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, ecrowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
So which is it? And what exactly is this placement of lesser and greater based on? Having a body? Spiritual progression? Diety?
You claim that angels were not created in the image of God, but what exactly does that mean. If you say the physical, then you have just admitted to God being a corporeal being. If you say the spirit, then there is nothing in the Bible that states that the spirit of the angels is different from your’s and mine or God’s for that matter.
And this goes along with the Biblical doctrine that existed as spirits before we had our bodies. Non-bodied beings = Spirits = angels (see post earlier for dozens of references)
Great verse I just came across
Psalms 104: 4.
Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:
Angels are spirits once again.
Luke 20: 34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, n