Let’s Call Mormons ‘Nontraditional Christians’

Regardless of your use of "traditional" and "non-traditional" you continue to run from the original question. Mormonism is not Christianity by any definition other than the one that Mormons want to give it. Mormonism does not believe that Jesus Christ has always been God, rather that He was "created" and that this planet and universe are simply his domain. Mormons also believe that some will eventually achieve the same deity level as Jesus and that they will, in effect, become a God over their own little universe.

As Dr. Mohler has stated, this is a gospel contrary to what Jesus taught his disciples and to what they preached when starting the church, it is contrary even to the Roman Church, the Greek Church, the Russian Church, and all the churches of the Reformation, i.e. Protestants.

You have continually refused to keep on track and the only thing I can conclude from this is that you are afraid, for whatever reason, to simply state that Mormons believe they have the "real" truth and that it is what Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and those since have taught.

The final conclusion I have is that you believe that Mormonism cannot stand on its own without binding itself to the Christian Church, therefore you believe that you must connect yourself to the Christian Church in order to deceive others. If that is not the case, then why the desire to be connected.

NM: Regardless of your use of "traditional" and "non-traditional" you
NM: continue to run from the original question.

GS: Does he? It seems clear to me that his answer to the question of
GS: "Are Mormons Christian" is yes, but not orthodox ones. And there
GS: doesn't seem to be any honest way one can disagree with this
GS: without involving circular logic.

NM: Mormonism is not Christianity by any definition other than the one
NM: that Mormons want to give it.

GS: I don't think Mormons were the first or only ones to define
GS: Christianity as the worship of Jesus Christ as our savior.

NM: Mormonism does not believe that Jesus Christ has always been God,
NM: rather that He was "created" and that this planet and universe are
NM: simply his domain. Mormons also believe that some will eventually
NM: achieve the same deity level as Jesus and that they will, in
NM: effect, become a God over their own little universe.

GS: Indeed! And this makes our beliefs "nontraditional" if one were
GS: to judge it by orthodoxy.

NM: As Dr. Mohler has stated, this is a gospel contrary to what Jesus
NM: taught his disciples

GS: I don't think that is correct.

NM: and to what they preached when starting the church, it is contrary
NM: even to the Roman Church, the Greek Church, the Russian Church, and
NM: all the churches of the Reformation, i.e. Protestants.

GS: Possibly but beside the point.

NM: You have continually refused to keep on track

GS: You'd have to have a pretty tortured reading of Orson's essays to
GS: come to this rather bizarre conclusion.

NM: and the only thing I can conclude from this is that you are afraid,
NM: for whatever reason, to simply state that Mormons believe they have
NM: the "real" truth and that it is what Joseph Smith, Brigham Young,
NM: and those since have taught.

GS: I don't think that Mr. Card is "afraid" of stating that. More to
GS: the point is that it is tangential to the issue being discussed.

NM: The final conclusion I have is that you believe that Mormonism
NM: cannot stand on its own without binding itself to the Christian
NM: Church

GS: Again tangential. There is no need to "bind" or "stand alone",
GS: merely the need for clarification and edification.

NM: therefore you believe that you must connect yourself to the
NM: Christian Church in order to deceive others.

GS: There is no deception involved on the Mormon end.

NM: If that is not the case, then why the desire to be connected.

GS: I'm not sure how you are inferring a "desire to be connected" out
GS: a simple desire to have truth-in-advertising as it were.

Or maybe monotheistic Christians and polytheistic Christians, except for the really minor point that the former is redundant and the latter is internally inconsistent.

Bubba: Christians are monotheistic, not polytheistic. Trinitarianism is not tritheism. Try out John 17.3, 1 Cor 8.4, and James 2.19 for the views of Jesus and His followers. Mormons are admittedly polytheists.

Mike: There is no such thing as a non-creedal Christian, nor a non-creedal Mormon. Everybody has a creed. At least that's what "I believe."

The Orthodox and Catholic Churches split over the question of whether the Son "proceeds from" the Father or is eternally co-equal with Him. The condemnation of Mormons for believing God the Father has precedence over God the Son is a similar disagreement. It doesn't make Greek, Russian and Armenian Christians any less Christian.

The attack on Mormons for believing that God through the grace of Christ has the power to elevate some of His children to become like his Son in many ways is based on ignorance of the fact that divinization or theosis was the understanding of many early Christians about the nature of salvation and eternal life, and is still a central doctrine of the Orthodox Churches even today!

The claim that Mormons are "polytheists" because they worship the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as three separate persons is silly, because the Nicene Creed says exactly that. It insists that they are three separate persons. Jews and Muslims call the Christian belief in the Trinity "polytheism", since it is clearly different from their belief that God is a single entity. If you think the Father and the Holy Ghost were identical with the Jesus who hung on the cross, you are committing a heresy that the Nicene Creed was specifically designed to oppose. If you think Jesus does not have a body, even though he was born of Mary and died and was physically resurrected, you are likewise taking a position contrary to the Nicene Creed.

It is in fact amazing how people who condemn Mormon beliefs as "non-Christian" don't really understand the full breadth of what is accepted as "traditional Christianity."

What is even more ludicrous is that so many Evangelical Christians assert that all they need to do to be saved is make a one-time declaration of faith in Christ. They believe that anyone who believes the Bible has all the authority that anyone can get to be a preacher and to baptise. Yet when it comes to Mormons, they suddenly start making up extra requirements for salvation that they don't apply to themselves. Nobody stands up at a Billy Graham crusade and tells people "You must be able to recite the Nicene Creed before you can be received as saved or be baptized". If Evangelical Christians' salvation depended on their ability to correctly explain what the Nicene Creed says, and what it means and does not mean, most of them would flunk.

For that matter, why accept the Nicene and Chalcedon Creeds, but reject so many others that were enacted by the Catholic Church before the Reformation? Is the theory that the Catholic Church was valid and authoritative in the 4th Century, but lost its way and its authority after that? If so, you basically agree with Mormons that Christianity got off track sometime before the Reformation. Furthermore, it is hypocritical of Protestants to claim that they somehow inherited the mantle of legitimacy from the Catholic Church, even though it was off track, and that Protestants are now in position to anathematize other later reform movements. If the Catholic Church is not completely authoritative, where does Protestant authority come from? How can legitimate authority derive from an illegitimate source? If anyone with a Bible can assert authority, then how can Protestants tell later formed churches who also embrace the Bible that they have no authority?

If Southern Baptists want to excommunicate Mormons from Christianity, what about Catholics? Orthodox? Coptics? Methodists? Presbyterians? Congregationalists? United Church of Christ? Episcopalians? Unitarians? Dr. Mohler recently said that Baptists should respond to Pope Benedict's affirmation of Catholic primacy by asserting Catholic illegitimacy. Dr. Mohler has such a narrow definition of even "traditional orthodox Christian" that it excludes all the pre-Reformation churches as well as the post-Reformation churches, as well as many of the Reformation churches!

What about the Evangelical theologians who are now asserting the simple truth that the Neo-Platonic, pagan concept about a God without emotions (e.g. LOVE) is simply contrary to the Bible and a man-made doctrine that distorts the message of the Gospel? Through simple logic and study of the Bible they have come to the conclusion that the Catholic church had already lost its way in 325, which is exactly what Mormons believe. Those theologians are teaching at Evangelical seminaries and universities, and are "Christians" in good standing, so why should that be a reason to deChristianize Mormons?

A more fundamental issue is whether the entire idea of depriving someone of their rights as citizens, including the right to be elected to office, is a legitimate position for a true Christian to take. the rulers of the world in which Jesus and the early Church operated were pagans, not Christians, yet Christ did not call the government illegitimate and oppose its ruler over that. He did not even call for the ouster of the corrupt high priests who led the Jews. Nor did Peter, Paul or John or James after him. The early Christian church was established and grew for three hundred years under a non-Christian government system. It was not a stated goal of Christians to replace the rulers with Christians. Christians have lived for millenia in countries not ruled by Christians, and did not seek revolutions because of that. When Britain and France and Italy conquered nations, they did not do so in an effort to establish Christian rule, per se. "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's" is Christ's call to have dual loyalties, one to God in our religious beliefs and the other to the rulers of the nation in which we live. There is simply no imperative in the Gospel to seek to place Christians in power. That was Constantine's idea, and the mixing of religious office with political power was the root of the corruption that propelled the Reformation in response.

Christians, even if they don't think Mitt Romney is Christian, have no charter in the Bible to keep him from being elected. When the question is simply stated, Will I be free to be the Christian I want to be under this man as president, the answer is clearly Yes! On every political issue affecting Christians as Christians, Mitt Romney supports their views on how society should be structured and the laws enforced.

Conclusion: The notion that only "Christians" should be elected to office is NOT a Christian teaching rooted in the Old or New Testaments, nor in any of the Creeds. That is a wholly man-made conceit, that is NOT Biblical and therefore should be rejected by Christians as a doctrine they owe any allegiance to.

Umm...Orson Scott Card is doing well in this debate because he is talking about the big picture while Dr. Mohler is going for the trees. It is clear that OSC is not a Theological Technocrat. He is, however, an excellent life commentator. If want Theological nuances and toe to toe scriptural references then probably you are looking for a debate with Religion Professor like Dr. Robert Millet or Dr. Richard Bushman.

I'm kind of coming in to this late, but I've read over the blog entries and comments. I think something non-Mormons may not realize (maybe it was mentioned?) is that Mormons believe in continually progressing and learning. That's why they believe in a new dispensation (beginning with Joseph Smith) that brought more knowledge and truth to common knowledge on the earth. Mormons believe that God has not revealed all there is to reveal (yep, there's even more - a lot more). Perhaps this is a big difference? Do other Christians believe all the truth and knowledge we get to have has already been given? This seems like a big difference to me that hasn't been highlighted. Mormons believe there is a lot more truth to learn other than what was revealed in the past or than has been revealed today. That is why a living prophet and new revelation and more scripture is so important - to learn more of the stuff there is to learn. Mormons believe that God's plan for his children involves more than what has been revealed - that it involves constant progression in righteousness and understanding of truth.

I'm not really sure what people are expecting from Mr. Card. If you want him to prove all his beliefs with only the Bible and some traditions, that seems pretty silly to me when Mormons believe they need more than the Bible to learn all truth. Why have a Book of Mormon or a prophet if you can get it all from the Bible or some traditions? The Book of Mormon speaks often, and not kindly, about following blindly in traditions, and I think Christ shattered a few traditions in his time on earth as well. Christ was anything but traditional - no tradition was safe around him.

Reading through the comments on the blog I think the biggest misunderstanding is that most Christians think when Christ died, everything was finished. Everything anyone needed to know would be in the Bible. If that is the case, they may not understand that Mormons don't believe that. That's the main reason I'm posting a comment. That might clear things up, because I just realized this big difference, so maybe non-Mormons don't know it yet. I hadn't really realized (correct me if I'm wrong) that other Christians thought that everything they would ever need is in the Bible. Oh, and in traditions, too, apparently. Although I'm foggy on that.

So maybe that will help. Maybe not.

To all you who want there to be a dark cloud over Mormonism. Observe the wagon train yonder, see how it goes! The cloud picking up at the feet of the wagons, the cloud forming behind!

You are merely placing a cloud behind the great church. The church rolls on with the destination as its drive. The stage and eveyone in it dont give two farthings about the cloud.

So said Joseph Smith, the great man ..'The standard of truth has been erected, and no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing..'

Bless this great man's life and purpose!

Jim:

"Christians are monotheistic, not polytheistic. Trinitarianism is not tritheism. Try out John 17.3, 1 Cor 8.4, and James 2.19 for the views of Jesus and His followers. Mormons are admittedly polytheists."

THAT'S RIGHT. You have misread me or I may have miswrote, but I was trying to make that point.

Christians ARE monotheistic, so calling us monotheistic Christians would be accurate, but redundant.

I do believe that Mormons are polytheistic, but calling them polytheistic Christians would be a contradiction in terms.

I found this on another website as a response to the "10 Amazing facts about Mormons" that has been going around. I found #1 particularly interesting. As a Jew I find it amusing that 2 Christian sects are arguing about whether one is polytheistic. In Judaism we consider all Christians polytheistic because of their belief in a trinity. I think I'm going to start referring to my Christian friends as "closet polytheists".

Ten Amazing Facts about Christians

1. They are, for all intents and purposes, polytheistic, believing in one big God they call Jehovah, and many demigods called angels, who fly around doing Jehovah’s bidding. There is also an evil demigod named Satan who goes around whispering in peoples ears trying to make them do naughty things.

2. Jehovah ordered the genocide of the Canaanites because he promised their land to his worshipers. He became angry with his worshiper when this genocide was not performed completely.

3. Jehovah became a human (blasphemy) by magically, without sex, impregnating an innocent virgin girl with himself.

4. They worship a magician named Jesus who they believe could walk on water, turn water into wine, multiply bread and fish out of thin air, and raise people from the dead in zombie like fashion.

5. This Jesus also had magic spit and could cure blindness by applying his saliva to the eyes.

6. Jesus was killed by crucifixion but came back to life after 3 days in zombie like fashion and showed himself to his worshipers and allowed them to feel the gory holes in his hands, feet and side.

7. They participate in a cannibalistic practice where they eat bread and drink wine that they believe actually turns into Jesus the Zombie God’s flesh and blood.

8. Jehovah/Jesus often takes on another form, “the Holy Ghost,” which sometimes possesses his followers and makes them speak in strange languages or babble incoherently.

9. They believe something called the “rapture” will someday occur where all worshipers of the Zombie-God-Jesus will suddenly, without warning, fly up into the clouds and play harps for all eternity. The non-believers will stay on earth to be punished.

10. They believe that a majority of the people who have ever inhabited the earth will spend all eternity burning in a lake of fire and brimstone because they either did not get a chance or refused to worship the Zombie-God-Jesus. All Pagans, Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, and Zoroastrians who have ever lived will burn in this lake, no matter what kind of lives they have lead. A special place will be reserved for Mormons in this Hell because they misunderstood the nature of the Trinity.

Micah,

You're sick buddy. You seem to know a lot of Biblical facts, yet you know nothing of God; kinda like the blind man studying the eye and yet never able to actually see.

Faith my friend is beyond the tangible, scientific realm and until you exercise a particle of desire to find spiritual truth, you will forever remain in your physical ignorance.

With millions upon millions proclaiming the Diety of Jesus Christ, I would suggest you just try an experiment and start reading the Bible, but this time instead of looking for mere facts, stories, and fables with your mind, ask God to open your heart for spiritual understanding...you just might get the surprise of your life...

rotorhead,

The 10 amazing facts about Christians above weren’t my words. I found them at another blog:

papamarcsblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/more-on-10-amazing-facts-of-mormonism_14.html

It looks like the person who wrote it is a Christian himself who was trying to make the point that Mormonism is not the only religion that has weird beliefs. You can believe whatever you want and I respect that. Just don’t condemn Jews, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Moslems, or anyone else for having a different bizarre belief system than your own.

Micah,

Bravo...well said!

Let me point this out. Even at the basic level for being considered Christian, mormonism fails. Basically there needs to be a agreement with the Apostles Creed, and also the belief that the canon of scripture is what is essentially needed as far as information for salvation. Mormonism fails these tests completely. The book of mormon is more that a book of Doctrine that other denominations have, and also the incompatibility of thier beliefs with the tenants set forth in the Apostles Creed disqualify mormonism as being a part of the Christian family. Many faiths, even Islam could be called non traditionally Christian by the premise set forth by Mr. Card. Muslims believe in Christ, they believe also that he preached salvation, but the Koran supersedes the Old Testament and the Gospels to them, and alters Christianity. They also believe that Mohamed was the true last prophet, after Jesus. Incorporating Christian beliefs or having similarites in values does not make someone Christian. It is accepting the gift of salvation, which was paid for on the Cross by Jesus Christ, and accepting that Jesus was the one who could give that gift to you. In order to fully accept this gift from the father, you must know who the giver is, and accept the sacrifice of the son, and the Apostle's creed basically is the churches answer to that. There have been various historical heresies, and thus that is why this specific creed or statement of belief was developed centuries ago to boil down the faith to the minmum requirements:

believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Now in hopes to more further the debate and prevent it from going in circles. I have a truly honest question about the Protestant religions. From my experience talking to Protestant religions, they don't believe that there is one true church. But rather all the Protestant religions are true, and even Catholicism seemed to be in their list as well. (Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses, Muslims, etc... however are not included for some reason) Now I could just have been getting false concepts from these members, and I understand that. I also understand the notion that just because someone who isn't in a religion but truly believes in Jesus Christ and has faith will receive just as much mercy as anyone else. I am a firm believer of that too. However, I also believe that God has one set of commandments, and one way of doing things. This leads me to believe that two churches who argue over a doctrine cannot both be right. God would be contradicting himself in that case. I know that Protestant churches, at least over history had many issues over doctrine, that's why there are so many Protestant religions. So how can they be all right? And how can there not be "one" religion established by God?

I'm not asking this as a debate question really. I am honestly asking this for an answer to understand better. I apologize if my tone comes off wrong. You never know how someone is going to interpret your what you say when they can't hear your inflection of voice. Only interpret their own tone.

Bryan

P.S. I have grown to respect many people on this board through their responses and have learned a lot. I thank you all for that. Evangelicals and Mormons alike. I hope that if we met someday we would feel a brotherhood together and not have a rift of religious differences.

I am not a Mormon, but I attended BYU for 2 years. I was required to take a Mormon religion class every semester I was there. I aced every class. So, Mormons believe that if they are "good enough" in this life, they will become a god capable of starting their own universe. What part of this belief is Christian?

To all,

The question put forth on this thread is "Are Mormons Christians?" I think the answer to that question is up to God Himself, because He alone knows our hearts. I would not for one second put myself in a place to judge someone else who states that they follow Christ.

However, the real question is whether the doctrines of the LDS church are compatible with orthodox Christian doctrine. The answer to that question is no. Here is an example of Mormon doctrine that is definitely not Scriptural:

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).

Having children that 'worship and pray' to their parents is blasphemy, for only God is worthy of worship and praise.

I hope that clears this up.

Chief,

Come on...if God can inspire one prophet with scripture, why can't He inspire two on separate ends of the earth? If I call up my African friend and tell him that the shiny orb in the night sky is called the moon and he writes it down, in his own language, and passes that knowledge on to his son, etc. Then years later I call my friend in Indonesia and tell him the same thing and he writes it down in his own language and passes it on from his son to son, etc., and then some day in the future by some chance the two meet and compare notes...?? Do you see where I'm going here?
The Book of Mormon covers a period of from around 600 B.C. to just after 400 A.D., a long time to be separated from the "Chosen" Israelites and their prophets preceding the New Testament...Fortunately, they had with them the available "scriptures of the day" up to 600 B.C. to build upon, and yes, further revelation from God was given! Remember this all started by two families who were separated out by God just before the land of Israel was overrun and its people scattered by invading armies.

Sorry, GB, but I am not buying what you are selling. It all begins, continues, and ends with the fact that the god that you worship is not the same God or the same Spirit revealed in the pages of Scripture. Why do I say this? God is a spirit, an 'unquenchable fire' who lives in 'unapproachable light.' Not someone who was once a man on another planet. He is the only God in the universe (Isaiah 43:10, 44:6,8), there are no other gods up there. I know that the missionaries I talked to liked to use I Cor 8 to justify belief in other gods, but notice that Paul says 'so-called gods.' They are not really gods at all, but people worshipped them just the same. Just like a golden calf in the desert; just because you call it a 'god' does not make it one.

Also, I can never become like God, no matter how hard I try, what commandments I keep, and how much money I give the church. The idea that we can 'become just like God' is the oldest lie Satan ever told, and men and women have been falling for it ever since. How do I know this? Isaiah 55: 8-9
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"
declares the LORD.
9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

The idea that all people can be saved is also patently man-made; Scripture teaches plainly that the wicked will be cast into outer darkness, and even some who profess to believe in Jesus will be sent away (Matt 7). "Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" It is a nice idea to believe that no one goes to hell, but that clearly is not what the Bible teaches.
Matt 7: 13-14
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Joseph Smith was many things, but he was not a prophet, definitely not cut from the same cloth as Moses, Elijah, Isaiah et al. Placing faith in him is placing faith in the wrong person, because
Acts 4: 8-12
Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: "Rulers and elders of the people! If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, 10then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. He is
" 'the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the capstone. Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

The LDS also teaches that it was a glorious thing that Adam and Eve sinned, to lay the groundwork for the salvation yet to come. Yet to the Lord it grieved His heart, and it was not all just a part of the plan. Also, nowhere in Scripture does it talk about Adam being the archangel Michael, yet this is also taught by the LDS.

All that I can tell you, GB, is that when you look at the facts and doctrines of faith, Mormonism and Christianity are not the same, not even remotely. We use similar-sounding terms, but even the terms we use, like 'atonement' and 'salvation' do not mean the same thing for you and me. And those are not just errors or peculiarities of interpretation, but those definitions have eternal significance. Again, I am saying this in the spirit of love and bringing people back from the brink, because sincerely believing in a gospel that cannot save will not save. It's that simple. Again, many Mormons may have never heard of some of the peculiar doctrines espoused by the church headquarters, but they are there nonetheless, and I fear for the eternal salvation for any person who holds to them. Castigate me for that if you will, but I am motivated not by a spirit of 'you have to join my club to be saved' or 'i'm just anti-Mormon. I'm not, but I am opposed to teaching that is not scripturally sound, because it confuses the issues at hand and leads people out of saving relationship with the risen Christ. I don't care what church you belong to, just be sure of your salvation by believing in the One who can give it, not in 'gods' that cannot save.

Chief1989,

If you are sincere in your efforts of "...bringing people back from the brink"...then I say, read the Book of Mormon, then talk from a position of knowledge, not from a few talking points of anti-Mormon propaganda.

If you REALLY cared, I don't think you do, you would not be afraid of this challenge...

I've read the Bible, over and over and over and have found it wanting, beautiful, incomplete, peaceful, inconsistent, and I value it more than words can describe...I think I know what's there and I will drink mightily from it until I am no longer capable...God bless those whose sacrifice brought it to us!

GB,

I apologize for the tone of my last post. I do not want to get into a mud-slinging match. How I wish that we were in a position to discuss non-doctrinal issues like 'should we dance' or 'should we go to movies' or 'what kind of music should we play during worship service.' I also apologize if I have mis-stated anything about the book of Mormon. I want this to be an exchange of the truth, so I will be the first person to admit if I wrote something that was not accurate.

My purpose in reciting the BoM verses was not to discuss it's accuracy relative to the Bible. Interestingly, if all we were talking about was the Book of Mormon we might be having the discussions I pointed to above, because the BoM is more Christian than anything. The only doctrinal thing that I can really complain about is that the doctrine of works is set out in 2 Nephi 25, where the grace of God saves us "after all that we can do." I can't agree with that in light of Eph 2: 8-9. No, my purpose was to say that it speaks about things that were supposedly happening in North America that had not happened yet.

Now as I understand it, the Book of Mormon covers a time period from 600 B.C. to 400 A.D. Yet it talks about scimitars in Mosiah 9:16 (curved swords did not appear anywhere in the world until 500 A.D.), horses in I Nephi 18:25 (horses did not appear in North America until the early 1500's), elephants in Ether 9:19 (elephants were also brought over from Europe and Asia in the 1600s-1700s), honey bees and swarms of bees in Ether 2:3 (honeybees were introduced into North America by the Spanish in the 1500s), and it also talks about the people having things made of steel and silk, which the Jews did not have at that time.

It is also peculiar that the book of Mormon sets forth some doctrines that Christians would find familiar but which later Mormon doctrine would refute:

There is only one God - Mosiah 15:1,5; Alma 11:28; 2 Nephi 31:21
God indwells the righteous - Alma 34:36
The Trinity is one God - Alma 11:44; Mosiah 15:5; 2 Nephi 31:21
God is unchanging - Mormon 9:9,19; Moroni 8:18; Alma 41:8; 3 Nephi 24:6
God is spirit - Alma 18:24,28; 22:9,11
Hell is eternal - Jacob 3:11; 6:10; 2 Nephi 19:16; 28:21-23.

Again, the above doctrines are taught by the Book of Mormon, but they have been changed by later discourses from Mormon prophets, apostles, and other leaders into the doctrines that we are talking about now:

There are many gods - Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 5
The Trinity is 3 separate gods - James Talmage, Articles of Faith, p. 35. 1985.
God is increasing in knowledge - Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 120.
God has the form of a man - Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3.
Hell is not eternal - James Talmage, Articles of Faith, p. 55.

That is why we are having the discussion we are, GB. Instead of talking about should we baptize by sprinkling or immersion, or what color should the pulpit backdrop be, we are talking about issues that impact where we will spend eternity:

--Who is God, and what is He like?
--Who is Jesus, and what relationship does He have to God?
--Was Jesus Christ God come in the flesh?
--What do we believe about the Trinity?
--What does salvation mean?
--Where do works fit into the salvation question?

It breaks my heart, GB, that these issues divide us, not because I want them to, but because they do according to the Scriptures. And they are such pivotal issues when it comes to eternal destiny. According to the latest poll, 87% of Americans stated that they believe in god. Does this mean 87% of Americans will go to heaven? Do they believe in the same god, or are there all kinds of different 'gods' that people are holding onto? You see, that is such a vital question. To believe in God does not save you. James made that clear when he said "so you believe in one God? Good! Even the demons believe that-and tremble." You have to figure out who people mean when they say "God", and how does that belief impact or change the way they live their lives.

You are in my prayers, my friend, as are all people on this board. It says in Hebrews 11:6 "And 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."

May that be the legacy of this board, that it encourages people to earnestly seek Him and his gift of grace and eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Amen

Chief1989,

If you would like to have a reasonable conversation with me, I would like nothing less. I would have thought by now that you would have realized that your anti-mormon sources are unreliable.

I don't have a lot of time to continually point out the error of your ways, as it seems you are doing an anti-mormon data dump. It is an old debate tactic to distract from the fact that one is losing.

We can have a reasonable conversation and still agree to disagree.

As far as "The idea that we can 'become just like God' is the oldest lie Satan ever told, and men and women have been falling for it ever since."

I disagree and here is why.

Gen 3:4 "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:"

That was the first lie. And then, as the devil is wont to do, he covered his lie with a truth.

Gen 3:5 "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."

This part is true. We know this because of

Gen3:22 ¶ 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:

Notice that Adam and Eve were not condemned because they wanted to be as the gods, only because they transgressed the council of God.

Also notice that the plural "us" is used by God here to describe God. This is not the only place where the plural is used in the Bible to describe God.

I think a more fundamental question is this:

Does the Book of Mormon bring one closer to Jesus Christ or further?

Anyone who has read the book knows the amswer, and Chief clearly hasn't and doesn't.

Paul: The question begs to Be asked, what is the evidence for the book of Mormon to be true?

GB: What evidence do you have that Christ was resurrected? Do you believe the Bible because of “evidence” or because of the witness of the Holy Ghost? Some very good evidence for the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is the effect it has on the lives of people who study it and live by its principles. The only way for you to really know if it is true is you must; 1) read it, 2) ponder it in your heart, 3) ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if it is true. If you will ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, then he will manifest the truth of it to you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost you may know the truth of all things.

Paul: Where is the archeological evidence?

GB: It is a religious book not a history book. Its purpose is for the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations. It also says that if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

Here is some archeological evidence. http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=255

Paul: Are there any manuscripts dating back anywhere close to the the time when these events supposedly took place?

GB: We only have the original “printer's” manuscripts and portions of the original translation manuscript as far as I know.

Paul: The entirety of the the Bible is meta-narrative meaning that it has one central theme from beginning to end one purpose one goal, and everything in the Bible points to that one person, that person is God.

GB: I stated above the purpose of the Book of Mormon.

Paul: Does the book of Mormon agree with the Bible in all respects?

GB: It agrees with the correct interpretation of the Bible in all respects.

Paul, I covered such questions form Chief over on the following thread:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/blogalogue/2007/07/the-church-of-the-devil.html

This is also covered in detail at the following blogs and links:

www.truthrestored.townhall.com
www.fairlds.org
www.mormon.org

Chief,

Blogs I author or contribute to:

http://truthrestored.townhall.com/Default.aspx
http://angelslanding.townhall.com/Default.aspx

You are welcome to discuss these issues further there.

A wealth of evidence could be brought forth to prove
Mormonism is a man made religion, but one basic
premise stands out which is the very foundation of Mormonism,
the “apostasy.
Mormonism has its roots in the claim that a lone 14 year old boy, in search of truth, hikes into the woods near his home and is informed personally by Jesus Christ that there had been a universal apostasy and that God had chosen him to restore the true church.
The Mormon Church is built upon the idea there was a
total, complete apostasy from the truth taught by Christ and
His Apostles, and the true church along with any authority
from God had ceased to exist.
Mormon Scripture proclaims the LDS position by stating
that every church on the face of the earth is “wrong”; all their
creeds are an “abomination” in the sight of God; and all their
professors are “corrupt” (see Pearl of Great Price, Joseph
Smith History 1:19)."“I was answered that I must join none of them, for
they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed
me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his
sight; that those professors were all corrupt;...” (Joseph
Smith-History 1:19)
Apostle Orson Pratt, one of the original apostles of the
LDS church, defended the position of the Mormon Church
and said that worldly forces “prevailed” against the kingdom
of God and it ceased to exist:
“Jesus made his appearance on the earth in the
meridian of time, and he established his kingdom on the
earth. But to fulfill ancient prophecies the Lord suffered
that kingdom to be uprooted; in other words, the kingdoms of this world made war against the kingdom of
God, established eighteen centuries ago, and they prevailed
against it, and the kingdom ceased to exist.”
(Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p.125)
This un-Biblical concept is refuted by the proclamation
and promise of the Lord Jesus Himself when he boldly
asserted, “I will build my church; and the gates of hell
SHALL NOT PREVAIL against it” (Math. 16:18).
I Corinthians 3:11 says, “For other foundation can no man
lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” Can this foundation
collapse? Did Jesus tell the truth when He said He would
build His church?
Following Pentecost we find Jesus doing exactly what He
said He would do when 3,000 souls were saved after a single
sermon recorded in Acts, chapter 2. As the word spread, the
Lord “added to the church daily such as should be saved”
(Acts 2:47).
Although “some” would depart from the faith, the Apostle
Paul wrote, “Unto him be glory in the church by Christ
Jesus throughout all ages, world without end” (Ephesians
3:21).
The problem with Mormonism, is that the system teaches
that favor with God is only found in an organization. Membership,
baptism, etc., must be in this organization which is
the only one God endorses. The sad fact is that this encourages
people to seek the “true church” rather than to seek being right
with God.
The “true church” is not some denomination or organization,
but rather an organism, made up of Christians from all
ages. Those who have placed their trust in Christ and the
finished work at the cross are the ones who belong to the true
Church, which is the body of Christ. Only the Lord can add
to this Church and He is the one who builds and cares for it
(I Cor. 12:18, Eph. 1:22-23, & Eph. 5:29).
Since the very foundation of the Mormonism is in error,
it must be considered a man made religion and not from God.

References for the above quoted Chapter:

19 1 John 3:2.

20 "1 John," Matthew Henry's Commentary On The Whole Bible, Vol. VI, (Chester, 1721), as found at http://www.biblestudyguide.org/comment/matthew-henry/mh-complete/MHC00000.HTM

21 Origen, "Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, Chapter I," The Anti-Nicene Church Fathers.

22 St. Irenaeus, "Adv Haer III IV:38:4," The Anti-Nicene Church Fathers: "We are not made gods from the beginning; first we are mere humans, then we become gods." St. Maximus the Confessor : "Let us become the image of the one whole God, bearing nothing earthly in ourselves, so that we may consort with God and become gods, receiving from God our existence as gods." St. Athanasius, De inc.: "For the Son of God became man, that we might become God." St. Augustine: "He has called men gods that are deified of His Grace, not born of His Substance." St. Irenaeus, Adv Haer III: "The Word became flesh and the Son of God became the Son of Man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." St. Augustine of Hippo: "Let us applaud and give thanks that we have become not only Christians but Christ himself. Do you understand, my brothers, the grace that God our head has given us? Be filled with wonder and joy--we have become veritable Christs!" St. Thomas Aquinas: "The Only-begotten Son of God, wanting us to be partakers of his divinity, assumed our human nature so that, having become man, he might make men gods." St Basil the Great: "The highest of all things desired is to become God."

23 Jordan Vajda, "'Partakers of the Divine Nature': A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization" (master's thesis, Graduate Theological Union, 1998), 14

24 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 54.

25 Hans Küng, "Das Christentum, Wesen und Geschichte," C.II.6 (München: R. Piper GmbH & Co. KG, 1994): "Ja, wie soll die Erlösung des Menschen zu göttlichem Leben und die Gewissheit des Heils in Jesus gewährleistet sein, wenn Jesus nur ein Geschöpf [..] war? [..] Durch die Menschwerdung Gottes und die Gottwerdung des Menschen unterschied sich für Athanasios das Christentum sowohl vom Judentum wie vom Heidentum."

Paul said: This un-Biblical concept [the Apostasy] is refuted by the proclamation
and promise of the Lord Jesus Himself when he boldly
asserted, “I will build my church; and the gates of hell
SHALL NOT PREVAIL against it” (Math. 16:18).
I Corinthians 3:11 says, “For other foundation can no man
lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” Can this foundation
collapse? Did Jesus tell the truth when He said He would
build His church?

Mike's response: Here are a few Scriptures that support the concept of an apostasy of the church after Jesus ascent into Heaven.

Apostasy of the Early Christian Church
Isa. 24: 5 changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
Isa. 29: 13 this people draw near me with their mouth.
Isa. 60: 2 darkness shall cover the earth.
Amos 8: 11 a famine . . . of hearing the words of the Lord.
Matt. 13: 25 his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat.
Matt. 24: 5 saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many.
Matt. 24: 24 shall arise false Christs, and false prophets.
John 6: 66 his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
Acts 20: 29 shall grievous wolves enter in among you.
1 Cor. 11: 18 there be divisions among you.
Gal. 1: 6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him.
Gal. 3: 1 who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey.
2 Thes. 2: 3 shall not come, except there come a falling away first.
1 Tim. 1: 6 some having swerved have turned aside.
1 Tim. 4: 1 giving heed to seducing spirits.
2 Tim. 1: 15 all they which are in Asia be turned away from me.
2 Tim. 2: 18 Who concerning the truth have erred.
2 Tim. 3: 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power.
2 Tim. 4: 4 turn away their ears from the truth . . . unto fables.
Titus 1: 16 profess that they know God, but in works they deny him.
James 4: 1 From whence came wars and fightings among you.
2 Pet. 2: 1 false prophets also among the people.
2 Pet. 3: 17 being led away with the error of the wicked.
1 Jn. 2: 18 now are there many antichrists.
1 Jn. 4: 1 many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Jude 1: 4 certain men crept in . . . denying the only Lord God.
Rev. 2: 2 which say they are apostles, and are not.
Rev. 3: 16 thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot.
Rev. 13: 7 to make war with the saints.

In addition:
The link below is the table of contents of a Book on the Apostasy.
If you go to the link you can access each chapter of the Book. This outlines the reasons that Mormons believe that there was an apostasy.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/booksmain.php?bookid=42

Maxwell Institute Books

• Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy, by Noel B. Reynolds
Acknowledgments, by Noel B. Reynolds
About the Authors
Introduction: What Went Wrong for the Early Christians?, by Noel B. Reynolds
Inheriting the "Great Apostasy": The Evolution of Latter-day Saint Views on the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, by Eric R. Dursteler
"A World in Darkness": Early Latter-day Saint Understanding of the Apostasy, 1830–1834, by Richard E. Bennett, Amber J. Seidel
Modern Revelation: A Guide to Research about the Apostasy, by John W. Welch
The Concept of Apostasy in the New Testament, by James E. Faulconer
The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity, by John Gee
The Introduction of Philosophy into Early Christianity, by Daniel W. Graham, James L. Siebach
Divine Embodiment: The Earliest Christain Understanding of God, by David L. Paulsen
The Decline of Covenant in Early Christian Thought, by Noel B. Reynolds
Appendix A: Guide to Important Christian Documents and Writers for the Early Christian Church to the Reformation, by Barry R. Bickmore
Appendix B: Christian Councils, by Barry R. Bickmore, Adam W. Bentley
Appendix C: New Testament Evidences and Prophecies of Apostasy in the First-Century Church, by Noel B. Reynolds
Appendix D: Bibliographical Note on Latter-day Saint Writings on the Apostasy, by Ryan Christensen
Citation Index
Subject Index

Pau wrote:"A glimpse of the triune nature of God can be partially
understood by considering the states of water. Solid, Liquid,
and Gas. Each different, yet all share the same nature." Likewise,
Jesus is not “a God” but he is the “true God” (see John
1:1).

Read on in John, where he explains how we are to become "one" with God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Ghost! We all share the same nature, yet we are all different! But to become like our Father, in attitude, understanding and behavior, is what our very purpose upon this earth is because of that divine nature born within each of us!

The Son is subservient to the Father. The Holy Ghost is subservient to the Father and the Son.

Never does the Son pray to the Holy Ghost or submit his will to the Holy Ghost. The Son however says he will send the 2nd comforter. The Son prays to the Father and no one else. It is clear that perfect triune nature is a fabrication.

Paul,

Wow !!! You can cut and paste from anti-mormon sources.

Paul: . . . Joseph Smith gave a revelation . . . .

GB:SECTION 115
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Far West, Missouri, April 26, 1838,

JS didn't "gave" the revelation, the LORD "gave" the revelation "through" Joseph Smith the Prophet.

Why do anti-mormons always have to distort things?

Paul: A very basic teaching in Mormonism is, Jesus was born
in a so-called pre-existence to a “heavenly Mother” . . . .

GB: I challenge you to show me the phrase "heavenly Mother" in any LDS canon of scripture. If it isn't in our canon then it isn't "a very basic teaching".

Paul: However, when examining older LDS publications that
are less protective, there can be no doubt that this can only
mean that Mary could NOT have been a virgin when she gave
birth to Jesus.

GB: Oh really? How about the oldest LDS publication, the Book of Mormon.

1 Nephi 11:13 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white.
14 And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou?
15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.
17 And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.
18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.

Alma 7:10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

I think that these scriptures agree with what the Bible says about the matter.

Luke 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, 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.

Any thing more or less than this is strictly OPINION, nothing more. So anti-mormons take OPINION and try to twist it into official doctrine. Anything they can use to make us look bad. Which you basically admit with the following.

Paul: Because this doctrine is so offensive to orthodox Christians,. . . .Even without instruction from the Bible, it seems it would
be difficult indeed to escape ones’ own conscience if such a
detestable doctrine was willfully embraced.

“Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a
virgin, because he is the only person who ever had an
immortal Father.” (Mormon Doctrine, 26th printing,
1979, p.822)
This teaching is presented even clearer in the same volume
under the title, “ONLY BEGOTTEN SON”:
“These name-titles all signify that our Lord is the
only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words
is to be understood literally. Only means only; Begotten
means begotten; and Son means son. Christ was begotten
by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal
men are begotten by mortal fathers.” (Mormon Doctrine,
p. 546,547)
When Apostle McConkie states “in the same way”,
knowledgeable Mormons admit, (although frequently under
protest), that this means through the sexual act.

Paul: PS....No I have not read the entire book of Mormon ,

GB: Isn't it hypocritical to condemn a book you haven't read through. You apparently found no obvious contradictions or I am sure you would have let us know.

Paul: but I have read enough to gather that it is not from God.

GB: IF that were true, THEN you should be encouraging everyone to read it so that they can come to the same conclusion as you. After all His sheep will know His voice.

To All,

We are back where we started. The whole crux of the matter, as to whether Mormonism can be considered a Christian faith, is the Book of Mormon and whether Joseph Smith is a prophet or not. The whole of the matter resides there.

We have discussed those points, ad nauseum, and gotten nowhere, as far as I can see. We both can pull out verses from Scripture to support our views, and the differences between us lies in the context and interpretation that we give those verses.

I have to say it is encouraging to see so many people who are passionate about their beliefs. We live, I believe, in the last age of the church before the Rapture, and that is the Laodecean age. Christ said of that church in Rev 3 "15I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth." The hallmark of the church during this age is apathy, so it is good to see people who have passion and have the ability to defend their beliefs.

I wish all of you well. I do have a copy of the Book of Mormon on my bookshelf, and I have read parts of it, though not all of it. Suffice it to say that there are too many inconsistencies for me to put any trust into it. I listed some of those inconsistencies above, and no one answered me as to why this was. Here is a recap:

"Now as I understand it, the Book of Mormon covers a time period from 600 B.C. to 400 A.D. Yet it talks about scimitars in Mosiah 9:16 (curved swords did not appear anywhere in the world until 500 A.D.), horses in I Nephi 18:25 (horses did not appear in North America until the early 1500's), elephants in Ether 9:19 (elephants were also brought over from Europe and Asia in the 1600s-1700s), honey bees and swarms of bees in Ether 2:3 (honeybees were introduced into North America by the Spanish in the 1500s), the Nephites had chariots in Alma 18:9 (over 1000 years before the wheel was introduced into the Western hemisphere), the word 'church' is used in 1 Nephi 4:26 in 600 B.C. ( about 650 years before the Day of Pentecost sermon by Peter), and it also talks about the people having things made of steel and silk, which the Jews did not have at that time."

If I have misrepresented any of these things, please let me know and I will issue a full public apology. There are other perplexing questions that I have (and I am not cutting-and-pasting from anti-Mormon sites, either!):

If the Book of Mormon is the 'restoration of the gospel', why does it not contain most of modern Mormon doctrine in it?
Why, indeed, is the BoM contradicted by Doctrines & Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, and how do you reconcile those differences?
[For instance, the BoM declares that there is one God, that the polygamy of David and Solomon was an abomination to God, that God indwells the righteous, that hell is eternal, that God is a spirit, and that the Triune God is one God. All of these statements, which agree with the Bible, have been changed over the years into what is now accepted modern Mormon doctrine; there are many gods, man can become a god, that God does not indwell us, that hell is temporal, that God was once a man and has a body of flesh and bones like we do, and that there is not one god in the godhead but three separate gods).

You see, if we were just talking about the Book of Mormon, our differences would probably be fairly minor. It is what has been added to the BoM that sets us so very far apart. The god that your presidents/apostles/council of 12 has espoused over the past 100 years is NOT the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who declared in Isaiah 43:10 that there were no gods before Him or after Him, that He alone is God. The Jesus that the LDS church teaches is not the Jesus of the Bible, who claimed deity for Himself and that "the Father and I are one" and "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was, I AM." The salvation that the LDS church teaches is not the salvation spoken of in the Scriptures, which is a free gift of God and is accomplished by grace through faith in Christ alone. In Galatians 3 Paul writes, "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." 11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith."[d] 12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." 14He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit." Yet modern Mormon apostles have continued to promulgate the idea of 'we are saved by grace through faith, after all that we can do.' In Isaiah 64 it states that all of our righteousness is like "filthy rags" before the Lord. I can try to obey the Law with all of my being, and it will not bring me one iota closer to God. Without faith in Christ, it is impossible to please God.

That is the whole point from the beginning of this thread. "Are Mormons Christians?" Some are, who do not hold to the later teachings of the church and are following Christ alone for their salvation. If the later teachings and allegiance to Joseph Smith come into play, then I would have to answer in the negative. But because we disagree so plainly on the nature of God, the nature of Jesus, and the way of salvation, I cannot call the Mormon church a Christian church. Am I happy about that? Not in the least. Do I rejoice over that fact? No, it really breaks my heart, quite frankly. There are many things that we can agree on and work together on, but that is one where the Scriptures will not allow me any leeway. I know that will anger some, offend some, and for that I am profoundly sorry. There was a poster above who said he or she doubted that I cared, and that is not the case at all. I simply cannot reconcile the Bible with what the LDS church teaches doctrinally; they are not the same gospel, and there is nothing I can do about that but speak the truth and pray for people's hearts and minds to be touched.

May God grant each of us wisdom and discernment in finding and following His will for us.

Chief: "Now as I understand it, the Book of Mormon covers a time period from 600 B.C. to 400 A.D. Yet it talks about scimitars in Mosiah 9:16 (curved swords did not appear anywhere in the world until 500 A.D.),
GB: Mosiah 9:16 And it came to pass that I did arm them with bows, and with arrows, with swords, and with cimeters, and with clubs, and with slings, and with all manner of weapons which we could invent, and I and my people did go forth against the Lamanites to battle.
Sorry no scimitars there. Nothing in the text indicates that “curved swords” were used.

Chief: horses in I Nephi 18:25 (horses did not appear in North America until the early 1500's),

GB: Horses in the Book of Mormon
The Book of Mormon mentions horses, yet these animals seem not to have been known to native Americans who greeted the Spaniards upon their arrival in the New World in the sixteenth century. Moreover, archaeological evidence for the presence of the horse in the pre-Columbian Americas is presently scant and inconclusive. How can this be explained? Careful consideration of this question begins with an examination of what the Book of Mormon says and does not say about horses.
Horses are mentioned only once in the land northward during the Jaredite period—that is, during the prosperous reign of King Emer around 2500 B.C. and before the great drought sometime in the third millennium B.C. (see Ether 9:19, 30–35). Since horses are not mentioned again in the Jaredite record, it is possible that they became extinct in the region north of the narrow neck of land following that time.
Horses were known to some Nephites and Lamanites from about 600 B.C. to the time of the Savior. They were found in the "land of first inheritance" during the time of Nephi, son of Lehi (see 1 Nephi 18:25), and in the land of Nephi during the days of Enos (see Enos 1:21). They were also utilized by at least some of the Lamanite elite during the days of King Lamoni in the same general region during the first century B.C. (see Alma 18:9–12). The text does not mention horses in the land of Nephi after that time. The only other region associated with horses was the general land of Zarahemla at the time of the war with the Gadianton robbers, just prior to the birth of Jesus Christ (see 3 Nephi 3:22; 4:4; 6:1). There is no indication in the text that horses were indigenous to that region. The Savior's reference to horses in 3 Nephi 21:14 is a prophecy of the latter days and need not be interpreted as referring to Nephite horses. In the Book of Mormon, horses are never mentioned after the time of Christ.
In short, the Book of Mormon claims only that horses were known to some New World peoples before the time of Christ in certain limited regions of the New World. Thus we need not conclude from the text that horses were universally known in the Americas throughout pre-Columbian history. Moreover, the Book of Mormon never says that horses were ridden or used in battle, although some passages suggest that at times they may have been used by the elite as a draft animal (see, for example, Alma 18:9; 3 Nephi 3:22).
Archaeological Considerations
Small herds of animals in a limited region sometimes leave no archaeological remains. We know that the Norsemen probably introduced horses, cows, sheep, goats, and pigs into Eastern North America during the eleventh century A.D., yet these animals did not spread throughout the continent and have left no archaeological remains.1 "It is probable," writes Jacques Soustelle, an authority on the Olmec, "that the Olmecs kept dogs and turkeys, animals domesticated in very early times on the American continent, but the destruction of any sort of bone remains, both human and animal, by the dampness and the acidity of the soil keeps us from being certain of this."2
Even if horses had been abundantly used and had been a vital element in the culture of Book of Mormon people (a claim never made by Book of Mormon writers), one cannot assume that evidence for this would be plentiful or obvious from the current archaeological record.
The study of fossilized animal remains from archaeological sites is known today as "zoo-archaeology." Zoo-archaeologist Simon J. M. Davis notes that the majority of bones found in archaeological sites are those of animals that were killed for food or other slaughter products by ancient peoples. It is rare to find remains of other animals in such locations. "Animals exploited, say, for traction or riding [such as horses], may not necessarily have been consumed and may only be represented by an occasional bone introduced by scavenging dogs." Thus "the problem of correlating between excavated bones and the economic importance of the animals in antiquity is far from being resolved."3 In fact, "One sometimes wonders whether there is any similarity between a published bone report and the animals exploited by ancient humans."4
The horse was the basis of the wealth and military power of the Huns of central Asia (fourth and fifth centuries A.D.). Nonetheless, according to S. Bokonyi, a leading authority on the zoological record for central Asia, "We know very little of the Huns' horses. It is interesting that not a single usable horse bone has been found in the territory of the whole empire of the Huns. This is all the more deplorable as contemporary sources mention these horses with high appreciation."5
The lack of archaeological evidence for the Hunnic horse is rather significant in terms of references to horses in the Book of Mormon. During the two centuries of their dominance, the Huns must have possessed hundreds of thousands of horses. If Hunnic horse bones are so rare, notwithstanding the abundance of horses during the Hunnic empire, how can we expect abundant archaeological evidence for pre-Columbian horses in the New World, especially given the scant and comparatively conservative references to horses by Book of Mormon writers?
A parallel example from the Bible is instructive. The biblical narrative mentions lions, yet it was not until very recently that the only other evidence for lions in Palestine was pictographic or literary. Before the announcement in a 1988 publication of two bone samples, there was no archaeological evidence to confirm the existence of lions in that region.6 Thus there is often a gap between what historical records such as the Book of Mormon claim existed and what the limited archaeological record may yield. In addition, archaeological excavations in Bible lands have been under way for decades longer and on a much larger scale than those in proposed Book of Mormon lands.
Possible Late Survival of Prehistoric Horses
Some native Mexican traditions suggest memory of the late survival of some species of horse in the New World. When Mexican peoples first encountered Spanish horses they compared them to deer. American Historian Hugh Thomas, in his seminal study of the conquest of Mexico, suggests that this association may have been partly based on native ancestral traditions that mentioned deer with tails and manes of hair. According to Thomas, "The Mexicans may have continued to think of these animals as deer. But perhaps some folk memory may have reminded them that there had once been horses in the Americas."7
Naming by Analogy
It is also possible that some Book of Mormon peoples coming from the Old World may have decided to call some New World animal species a "horse" or an "ass." This practice, known as "loanshift" or "loan-extension," is well known to historians and anthropologists who study cross-cultural contact. For example, when the Greeks first visited the Nile in Egypt, they encountered a large animal they had never seen before and gave it the name hippopotamus, meaning "horse of the river." When the Roman armies first encountered the elephant, they called it Lucca bos, a "Lucanian cow." In the New World the Spanish called Mesoamerican jaguars leones, "lions," or tigres, "tigers."
Similarly, members of Lehi's family may have applied loanwords to certain animal species that they encountered for the first time in the New World, such as the Mesoamerican tapir. While some species of tapir are rather small, the Mesoamerican variety (tapiris bairdii) can grow to be nearly six and a half feet in length and can weigh more than six hundred pounds. Many zoologists and anthropologists have compared the tapir's features to those of a horse or a donkey. "Whenever I saw a tapir," notes zoologist Hans Krieg, "it reminded me of an animal similar to a horse or a donkey. The movements as well as the shape of the animal, especially the high neck with the small brush mane, even the expression on the face, are much more like a horse's than a pig's [to which some have compared the smaller species]. When watching a tapir on the alert . . . as he picks himself up when recognizing danger, taking off in a gallop, almost nothing remains of the similarity to a pig."8
Other zoologists have made similar observations. "At first glance," note Hans Frädrich and Erich Thenius, "the tapirs' movements also are not similar to those of their relatives, the rhinoceros and the horses. In a slow walk, they usually keep the head lowered." However, when a tapir runs, its movement becomes quite horselike: "In a trot, they lift their heads and move their legs in an elastic manner. The amazingly fast gallop is seen only when the animals are in flight, playing, or when they are extremely excited." In addition, tapirs can "climb quite well, even though one would not expect this because of their bulky figure. Even steep slopes do not present obstacles. They jump vertical fences or walls, rising on their hind legs and leaping up."9 Tapirs can be domesticated quite easily if they are captured when young. Young tapirs who have lost their mothers are easily tamed and will eat from a bowl, and they like to be petted and will often allow children to ride on their backs.10
One could hardly fault Old World visitors to the New World for choosing to classify the Mesoamerican tapir as a horse or an ass, if that is what happened. Given the limitations of zoo-archaeology, and also those of other potentially helpful disciplines when probing many centuries into the forgotten past, it is unwise to dismiss the references in the Book of Mormon to horses as erroneous.
This Research Report was prepared by the FARMS Research Department and is based on the latest available scholarly research. It is subject to revision as more information on the subject becomes available. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the position of FARMS, Brigham Young University, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Report last updated August 2000
Recommended Readings
Hamblin, William J. "Animals." In Hamblin, "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon." Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/1 (1993): 193–95.
Sorenson, John L. "Animals in the Book of Mormon." In Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1985, 288–99.
——— "Plants and Animals." In "Viva Zapato! Hurray for the Shoe!" Review of "Does the Shoe Fit? A Critique of the Limited Tehuantepec Geography," by Deanne G. Matheny. Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6/1 (1994): 342–48.
——— "Once More: The Horse." In Reexploring the Book of Mormon, edited by John W. Welch, 98-100. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1992.
Notes
1. See Gwyn Jones, The Norse Atlantic Saga: Being the Norse Voyages of Discovery and Settlement to Iceland, Greenland, America, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 119; see also Erik Wahlgren, The Vikings in America (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1986), 124.
2. Jaques Soustelle, The Olmecs: The Oldest Civilization in Mexico (Garden City: Doubleday, 1984), 23.
3. Simon J. M. Davis, The Archaeology of Animals (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1987), 24.
4. Ibid., 23.
5. S. Bokonyi, History of Domestic Mammals in Central and Eastern Europe (Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1974), 267.
6. L. Martin. "The Faunal Remains from Tell es Saidiyeh," Levant 20 (1988): 83–84.
7. Hugh Thomas, Conquest: Montezuma, Cortés, and the Fall of Old Mexico (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1993), 178; see also Eugene R. Craine and Reginald C. Reindorp, eds. and trans., The Chronicles of Michoacán (Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 1970, 63–64.
8. Quoted in Hans Frädrich and Erich Thenius, "Tapirs," Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia, ed. Bernhard Grzimek (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company), 13:19–20.
9. Ibid., 20.
10. Ibid., 28–30.

Chief: elephants in Ether 9:19 (elephants were also brought over from Europe and Asia in the 1600s-1700s),
GB: The only place that elephants are mentioned in the Book of Mormon is in Ether 9:19 in approximately 2500 B.C. Thus any elephants existing upon the American continents need not have survived past about 2400 B.C. The critics, however, assure that the “elephant is not a native of America and never was its inhabitant” (Hyde, 226). In my paper regarding the Book of Mormon’s use of the term “ horse,” I presented evidence that sometimes animals disappear without a trace even though they are attested to in written documents. I add to this evidence the observation of Dr. Nibley:
Any naturalist would assume that the elephant has been extinct in western Asia for hundreds of thousands of years, for all the evidence the creature has left of itself: it is from written history alone that we receive the assurances that large herds of elephants roamed the temperate lands of Syria and the upper Euphrates as late as the XVIII Egyptian dynasty, when the Pharaohs hunted them for sport, and that elephants were used by the war-lords of central Asia well into the Middle Ages. In late antiquity the wild variety disappeared without a trace, due perhaps to a change in world climate. (Nibley, 1980, p. 217.)
There is at least some support for the Book of Mormon’s usage of the term “elephants.” First we have traditions. Sorenson explains that some “North American Indians have recounted legends of ‘great stiff-legged beasts who could not lie down’ and of an animal with a fifth appendage, which came out of its head. Possibly, tribes transmitted through oral tradition some vague remembrance of encounters with these ‘elephants’” (Sorenson, 1985, p. 298). Other Indian stories have been preserved as well.
Strong... reproduced a Naskapi account concerning a creature called Katcheetohuskw.... “When asked to describe the Katcheetohuskw, the informants said he was very large, had a big head, large ears and teeth, and a long nose with which he hit people” (italics supplied). “His tracks in the snow were described in their stories as large and round.” (Johnson, 4.)

Even as late as 1560 “the Italian cartographer Paula de Furlani drew a map, which is preserved in the British Museum, depicting elephants in the region of the Mississippi Valley.... On the way to the New World, Columbus stopped at the Canary Islands and observed: ‘Other Canarieans also inhabit the wild regions extending from Mount Atlas through the sands of Lybia, places covered with black dust and filled with serpents and elephants’” (Cheesman, 1984, 55).
Besides the traditions, five elephant effigies have been found in ancient Mexico (Wirth, 51). Dr. Verrill, a well-known (non-Mormon) archaeologist describes one of these figures as “‘so strikingly and obviously elephantine that it cannot be explained away by any of the ordinary theories of being a conventionalized or exaggerated tapir, ant-eater or macaw. Not only does this figure show a trunk, but in addition it has the big leaf-like ears and the forward-bending knees peculiar to the elephants. Moreover, it shows a load or burden strapped upon its back. It is inconceivable that any man could have imagined a creature with the flapping ears and peculiar hind knees of an elephant, or that any human being could have conventionalized a tapir to this extent’” (ibid). In the early 1900s two stone slabs were found at a ruin in Arizona which dated to approximately 1100 A.D. These tablets contained a pictograph of an elephant (Cheesman, 1984, 144-5).
The oral traditions, written records, and artwork depicting elephants lends strong support for the claim that the elephant existed in ancient America. Even more substantial support-- actual remains-- have also been discovered. Today all scholars agree that mastodons and mammoths (which are unquestionably elephants to zoologists) once lived in the Americas. The dispute today is how late they lived. According to the Book of Mormon they need not have lived later than 2400 B.C. Within recent years archaeological evidence has demonstrated that the elephant could very well have survived to such a late date. Butchered mastodon bones were recently discovered at one archaeological site which dates to shortly after the time of Christ. Another site, dating to approximately 100 B.C. has yielded the remains of a mammoth, a mastodon, as well as a horse (Sorenson, 1985, pgs., 297-8).
Some scholars have suggested that the elephant (mammoth or mastodon) lived later than hitherto believed. Ludwell Johnson, in an article entitled “Men and Elephants in America” published in Scientific Monthly, wrote that “Discoveries of associations of human and proboscidean remains [Elephantine mammals, including, elephants, mammoths, and mastodons] are by no means uncommon. As of 1950, MacCowan listed no less than twenty-seven” including, as noted by Hugo Gross, a “partly burned mastodon skeleton and numerous potsherds at Alangasi, Ecuador” (Johnson, 1).
Johnson goes on to explain that “There can no longer be any doubt that man and elephant coexisted in America.... Probably it is safe to say that American Proboscidea have been extinct for a minimum of 3000 years” (Johnson, 2). If the elephants had died off at least 3000 years ago, they would still have been well within range of the Jaredite era. And as noted above, some evidence indicates that the elephant may have survived in limited numbers for centuries later.
Chief: honey bees and swarms of bees in Ether 2:3 (honeybees were introduced into North America by the Spanish in the 1500s),
GB: Among the supposed Book of Mormon anachronisms is the mention of “bees” (Ether 2:3). One critic claims that bees “were first introduced [in the New World] by Europeans” (Key, 1). 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” (Warren 1963, 94). 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” (Wirth, pgs. 56-57).
Chief: the Nephites had chariots in Alma 18:9 (over 1000 years before the wheel was introduced into the Western hemisphere),
GB: So, you are saying that the wheel was “introduced” around 900 A.D. Who introduced it and what evidence do you have to support you assertion? Since Lehi and his family left Jerusalem in 600 B.C. (about the time of Jeremiah) they would have known about the wheel and chariots. After all they had large portions of the Old Testament including Isaiah.
Exodus 14:25 And took off their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily: so that the Egyptians said, Let us flee from the face of Israel; for the LORD fighteth for them against the Egyptians.
Jer 4:13 Behold, he shall come up as clouds, and his chariots shall be as a whirlwind: his horses are swifter than eagles. Woe unto us! for we are spoiled.
Isa 5:28 Whose arrows are sharp, and all their bows bent, their horses’ hoofs shall be counted like flint, and their wheels like a whirlwind:
Chief: , and it also talks about the people having things made of steel and silk, which the Jews did not have at that time."
GB: Since there has been a lot of criticism by some anti-Mormons about the steel-using Nephites, it might be useful to see what the Book of Mormon actually says about iron and steel.
There are two major fallacies in discussions on this topic. First is the problem of the hermeneutics of hyper-skepticism. Applying the same hermeneutical standard to other ancient texts creates some obvious absurdities I will describe shortly. Second is the semantic fallacy, which consists of arguing about the meaning of words rather than the reality the words are trying to depict. A single ancient reality can be described in a number of different ways. Ancient peoples often described their perceptions of reality differently than we do. These fallacies are omnipresent among many anti-Mormons.
Steel in the Text
Steel is mentioned only five times in the Book of Mormon, once in the Book of Ether (7.9), and four times in the Nephite records (1 Ne 4.9, 1 Ne 16.18, 2 Ne 5.15 and Jar 1.8). Of these, two refer to Near Eastern weapons of the early sixth century B.C. 1 Ne 4.9 states that the blade of Laban's sword was "of most precious steel." Nephi's Near Eastern bow was "made of fine steel" (1 Ne 16.18). The next two references are to steel among generic metal lists. The first is to the time of Nephi, around 580 B.C.:
"work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores" (2 Ne 5.15)
The second is from Jarom 1.8, around 400 B.C.:
"workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war--yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war"
Notice that these two texts are what is called a "literary topos," meaning a stylized literary description which repeats the same ideas, events, or items in a standardized way in the same order and form.
• Nephi: "wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel"
• Jarom: "wood, …iron and copper, and brass and steel"
The use of literary topoi is a fairly common ancient literary device found extensively in the Book of Mormon (and, incidentally, an evidence for the antiquity of the text). Scholars are often skeptical about the actuality behind a literary topos; it is often unclear if it is merely a literary device or is intended to describe specific unique circumstances.
Note, also, that although Jarom mentions a number of "weapons of war," this list notably leaves off swords. Rather, it includes "arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin." If iron/steel swords were extensively used by Book of Mormon armies, why are they notably absent from this list of weapons, the only weapon-list that specifically mentions steel?
Significantly, there are no references to Nephite steel after 400 B.C.
Putting all this together, we find the following:
• The steel sword is a Near Eastern weapon. It is imitated by Nephi in the first generation-although we are not sure if this imitation is of function, form or material-or all three.
• Steel swords are never again mentioned in the Book of Mormon after this first generation.
• Steel is mentioned once more, in 400 B.C., in a literary topos list, which is notable also for its failure to mention swords, steel or otherwise.
The minimalist and tightest reading of this evidence is that Nephi had a steel weapon from the Near East. He attempted to imitate this weapon-whether in function, form, or material is unclear. His descendants apparently abandoned this technology by no later than 400 B.C. Based on a careful reading of the text of the Book of Mormon, there are no grounds for claiming-as anti-Mormons repeatedly do-that the Book of Mormon describes a massive steel industry with thousands of soldiers carrying steel swords in the New World.
Linguistics Layers and Steel
An historical Book of Mormon would have at least seven different linguistic layers:
1. early nineteenth century American English;
2. Jacobean English of the KJV Bible;
3. Fourth century A.D. language of Moroni (Morm 9.33-34);
4. Mesoamerican language(s);
5. Hebrew of the sixth century B.C.;
6. Egyptian of the sixth century B.C.;
7. Jaredite language.
Even a person who rejects the historicity of the Book of Mormon must agree that linguistic levels one and two are found in the Book of Mormon. The one linguistic category we know was not used in the production of the Book of Mormon English text is twenty-first century scientific terminology, since this version of English did not exist in the 1820s.
A fundamental fallacy of critics of the Book of Mormon is that they ignore this linguistic complexity, conflating twenty-first century English categories and concepts with those of these other linguistic layers. If you want to make a serious argument against the Book of Mormon you must argue from pre-twenty-first century linguistic categories, or you are begging the question. It is quite pointless to argue that because the Book of Mormon does not correlate with early twenty-first century linguistic categories, that is somehow evidence that the Book of Mormon is ahistorical.
An important question is what, precisely, is meant by "steel" in the Book of Mormon. Based on linguistic layer two (Jacobean English of the KJV Bible), "steel" translates "nechushah/nechosheth" which is copper or bronze (often "brass" in KJV). Certainly the Book of Mormon does not refer to twenty-first century "steel," since the Bessemer steel process upon which modern steel-making is based was not invented until 1846.
By the time of Joseph Smith there was already serious linguistic disjunction between Hebrew, Jacobean English, and early nineteenth-century American English. In the KJV, the Hebrew nechosheth (and various cognates) translates into brass (or cognates) 144 times, fetters or chains 8 times (i.e to be "placed in copper" is a Hebrew idiom to be placed in fetters of nechosheth), steel 4 times, and copper once. The Hebrew term nechushah/nechosheth can describe copper or any largely copper-based alloy (Baumgartner, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament [Brill, 2001] 1:691). Note-and this is important-there is no single English term that can accurately translate Hebrew nechushah/nechosheth; furthermore, the Hebrew term covers at least three distinct categories in modern English: copper, bronze (copper and tin alloy) and brass (copper and zinc alloy). Note, finally, that in Joseph Smith's day there is a conflation between brass and bronze.
An interesting key to the problem is Nephi's steel bow (1 Ne 16.18). My assumption here is that this phrase is meant to describe the same weapon that is called a "steel bow" in the KJV Bible. (I think this is obvious whether Joseph Smith invented the text or it is ancient.) The phrase "bow of steel" occurs three times in the KJV: 2 Sam 22.35, Job 20.24, and Ps 18.34. In all cases it translates the Hebrew phrase qeshet nechushah, which modern translations consistently, and correctly, translate as "bronze." There is one other reference to "steel" in the KJV at Jer 15.12, also referring to bronze. The metal is apparently called "steel" in the KJV because bronze is "steeled" (strengthened) copper through alloying it with tin or through some other process. Likewise steel did not necessarily mean an iron-making process in Joseph Smith's day; its base meaning is hard or strong. Among the meanings of "steel" in Webster's 1828 dictionary is "extreme hardness." For the verbal form, one of the meanings is "to make hard or extremely hard," while one of the meanings of "steeled" is "hardened," "steeliness" means "great hardness," one of the meanings of "steeling" is "hardening," and one of the meanings of "steely" is "hard, firm." The term steel is still used this way in modern English, such as saying someone has "steely eyes" or a "will of steel." The concept of "steel" (the metal) seems to derive from "steel" meaning hard or strong, not the other way around.
At any rate, it is clear we should not necessarily presume that Book of Mormon steel is related to modern steel. Once again, it is necessary to examine these issues in their original linguistic, textual and cultural context to understand what the text is saying.
Steel in the Near East
According to R. Maddin1 there were two forms of ancient "steeling" iron:
• quenching
• carburizing through taking heated iron and hammering it and folding it so carbon molecules from the charcoals were beaten into the iron.
"By quenching, a process in which hot [note: not melted] iron is plunged into cold water, the iron could be made hard."2
Anciently, iron was never melted or cast in the Near East. The earliest known examples of casting liquefied iron are from China in the fourth century B.C. "Due to its high melting point (1540 degrees C), iron was never worked as a molten metal during the [Near Eastern] Iron Age… Iron had to be hammered, the blacksmith first having to consolidate a hot, spongy bloom of iron mixed with slag. By hammering out the slag he was able to produce a usable lump of iron. In order to use that iron, however, it was necessary to reheat the lump of iron and forge the hot metal to the desired shape."3
Note that the term "smelt" is never used in the Book of Mormon. This, again, is a modern conflation of ancient and modern concepts and practices.
Steel Among the Jaredites
Ether mentions making "steel" only once (Ether 7.9), only a few generations after Jared. It does not say how many swords were made. Anti-Mormons often assert that this necessitates a large-scale iron and steel industry. This interpretation is not required by the text. Ether does not make this claim in any explicit form. This is a classic example of the fallacy of hyper-skepticism. Considering a counter-example will help to illustrate the absurdity of this fallacy.
In the royal shaft graves at Alaca Hoyuk (Turkey) {circa 2500-2200 B.C.), a roughly nine-inch iron dagger with a gold handle was discovered.4 Tutankhamun (fourteenth century B.C.) had an iron dagger in his tomb. Applying the anti-Mormon fallacy (that insists a single example necessitates universal use) we would be required to insist that all Near Eastern soldiers from 2300 B.C. to 1300 B.C. had iron daggers.
The reality, however, is that these two daggers are unique before the eighth century B.C.5 Furthermore, "iron does not appear to have been produced in Egypt on a large scale until the end of the Third Intermediate Period."6
Thus, the assumption that a single reference to "steel swords" in Ether necessitates that all Jaredite soldiers in all ages had "steel swords" would, if consistently applied to the Near East, likewise require that these two examples of iron daggers mean that all soldiers in the Near East in all ages would have to also have iron daggers. But this was not the case. Critics employing the hyper-skepticism fallacy ignore the concept of elite weapons vs. common weapons and the issue of transformation of weapon types through time.
Imagine if we had not discovered the tomb of Alaca Hoyuk in Turkey, where an iron dagger from the twenty-third century B.C. was found. Imagine, further, that Tut's tomb had been plundered in antiquity, as had nearly all other pharaonic tombs. The result would be that there would be no archaeological evidence for iron/steel weapons before the eighth century B.C. Yet this would clearly be wrong. There is a single known Bronze Age royal iron dagger in Egypt when all other soldiers had weapons of bronze or flint, and that was discovered by sheer luck. Why should we reject the possibility of the existence of similarly unique or very rare royal metal weapons in Book of Mormon times when most of the commoners used stone weapons? To reject this possibility is blatant anti-Mormon special pleading.
Furthermore, Near Eastern peoples used hematite, magnetite and meteoritic iron, along with other types of iron ore. Did they have different words for what we in modern scientific English would consider different types of iron? As far as I am aware, they did not. Indeed, the earliest Egyptian word for iron was: "bi3 m pet" or "copper from heaven." That is to say, in archaic times they didn't even distinguish between copper and iron. For the early Egyptians, iron was a type of copper! Later they used the word "banpi" or "benpi" (which are probably contractions of "bi3 m pet"), and this term lasts until Coptic times in the word "benipe." Hebrew and other Near Eastern languages are precisely the same. There is only one term for all types of iron in the entire Bible, "barzal," which is cognate with Aramaic "parzal." Both of these are derived from the Akkadian "parzillu."
Thus, anti-Mormons insist that the Book of Mormon must be evaluated on the basis of modern metallurgical terminology and science, which has categories and distinctions completely foreign to ancient peoples such as the ancient Egyptians and Hebrews, who had a single term covering what now is divided into many different categories. If the failure of the Book of Mormon to match modern semantic categories on types of iron proves there were no Nephites, shouldn't the failure of the Hebrews and Egyptians to match modern semantic categories likewise demonstrate there were not Hebrews or Egyptians? Or is there a better alternative?
Another possibility is that Ether 7.9 is a "mythical" text, a recollection of an ancient heroic "golden age" when men had weapons of steel or iron. An example of this type of phenomenon is found in the Pyramid Texts (PT) of Egypt (circa 2400 B.C.) that describe thrones and implements of iron, which no pharaoh ever actually had. According to these texts, gods in heaven sit upon an "iron throne" which the king shares in the afterlife,7 the king receives an "iron scepter,"8 and the god Horus wears "iron bands on [his] arms."9 In the resurrection the king's bones will be made of iron,10 strong and everlasting, and the gates to the gods' celestial castle are protected by "doors of iron."11 Since we know the Egyptians in 2400 B.C. lived over a thousand years before the Iron Age, what are we to make of this? Should we insist, following anti-Mormon hyper-skeptical methodology, that the Egyptians didn't exist because they describe the widespread use of iron which archaeologically we know they did not possess? Or is this a tale of a great cultural hero miraculously making a unique weapon out of celestial materials-the "metal from heaven" (meteoric iron)?
Note, finally, that the Olmecs did, indeed, work iron. Several tons of worked iron have been discovered.12
Notes
1 R. Madden, "How the Iron Age Began," Scientific American 237 (October 1977): 131.
2 Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Vol. 2 (Oxford University Press, 2000): 182.
3 Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, 3:1514-1515.
4 Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, 83 #111.
5 There may be an iron dagger from Tell Asmar (Eshnunna) in central Iraq that may be from this period, but I haven't been able to track down the precise data yet.
6 Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Vol. 2 (Oxford University Press, 2000): 183.
7 PT 21, 424, 461, 483, 509, 536, 610, 667, 667A, 669, 689.
8 PT 665C.
9 PT 214.
10 PT 570, 684, 724.
11 PT 469.
12 See Richard A. Diehl, The Olmecs: America's First Civilization (Thames & Hudson, 2004), 93-94.

See I can cut and paste too.

What I find to be the most intriguing facet of this whole debate (I will admit I haven't read all 900 and some odd posts) is this:

WHAT IS AT STAKE IF MORMONISM ISN'T CHRISTIANITY?

Or to say it positively:

WHY DO MORMONS INSIST ON IDENTIFYING THEMSELVES AS CHRISTIANS?

This seems to be a fundatmental question, which nobody is discussing. We can argue all day long about whether or not "we are saved by grace after all we can do" (2 Nephi), or whether we are saved by grace apart from works (Ephesians 2).

The most important thing to me is answering the questions above because in it, it explains what in fact is at stake. If Christianity is TRUE then of course any deviation from the truth is now a false religion. If Christianity is NOT TRUE, then who gives a rip, right?

What I find fascinating is that both Mormons and Orthodox Christians start with the presumption that Christianity is the TRUE religion. The problem, however, is that both have very different sets of beliefs (and yes, I am an evangelical and have talked extensively with Mormon missionaries...they always agree with you on everything you say but always with a twist...ALWAYS).

I don't beleive any rational person would claim that Mormonism is not a deviation from Orthodox Christianity. Most thinking Christians and Mormons would also challenge their claims of the scriptures (which there are plenty of deviations from this as well). A deviation from the truth is no longer truth...it no longer serves as an exact representation and as such cannot be held up as a proponet of its teaching.

Now, this shouldn't matter to the Mormon but if in fact they want to classify themselves as Peculiar Christians, this is futile. The fact is, they continue to INSIST that they are Christians, instead of Mormons who believe in Jesus...WHY???

In the name of scholarship, we cannot discount that Orthodox Christianity IS Christianity...there is no other form of Christianity. It is organic and has grown from infancy and had its pains but its truth's have been stated over and over again here, namely that the Old Testament was the Old Covenant, the New Testament, the New Covenant, a continuation. After which there were apostles and churches and creeds and councils, THIS IS CHRISTIANITY, there was never another form of Christianity that didn't contain these elements.

I will use a very practical analogy to explain what I am talking about. Christianity is a continuation of Judeaism (some may say a cult, spin off, whatever word you want to use, it doesn't make a difference). The reality is...I AM NOT CLAIMING TO BE A JEW, I AM CLAIMING TO BE A CHRISTIAN. The apostles weren't trying to make themselves Jews, in fact dying at the hands of Jews for claiming something other than Judeaism.

It is important to understand this paradigm...I am sold out that Christianity is true and not Judaeism, which makes me a Christian. I beleive that what Jesus said was true, in fulfilling the Old Testament. I do not follow the Laws of Moses, I follow the law of Grace as expressed through Jesus. I am sold out that Christianity is the TRUE religion.

Why doesn't Mormonism have this same conviction? Why do they continually insist on being Christians (with a different set of beliefs). The reality is they are Mormons, not Christians and they SHOULD be proud of that fact. But they are not, they continually try and reason how they can claim to be Christians. This is beyond me, as a sold out Christian, I don't understand this futility.

Mike,

From dictionary.com

Chris·tian
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.
3. of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.
4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.
5. decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.
6. human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn't Christian.
–noun
7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.

Since Mormons by these definitions are Christians, why do you want to exclude them? To do so is a distortion of the language and a deception on your part. Why do you want to do that?

Sonia,

As I understand it, there are 4 canons that you have pointed out to the Mormon faith. What I find puzzling is why doctrines laid down in the 'main' canon, the book of Mormon, have been changed in the later canons, the D & C, pearl of great price, or articles of faith. Also, some of the core teachings of the church cannot even be found in the BoM. Maybe someone can explain it to me, but it is very peculiar to say the least.

As for the question Is Mormonism Christianity, let me use this analogy. I am a white male, as caucasian as they come. Let's say one day I want to be known as an African-American, perhaps to get access to a minority loan or grant, or to get a scholarship for one of my kids that is open to minority students only. So I call myself something that I'm inherently not. Now why can't I classify myself as an African-American? Because fundamentally, in my genetic makeup, I am not one. No matter how badly I want to be one, to tanning myself or painting myself with dark pigment, no matter how I act or where I go, nothing I do can change the fact that I am not an African-American, nor will I ever be.

Mormonism and Christianity are different fundamentally at their core. Now, as I have said before, salvation is a personal matter that is decided one-on-one with God. So if you, Sonia, as an individual person, ask me if you are a Christian or not because of your beliefs, I would say, 'you know, you certainly seem to be one to me. The Lord knows your heart, so He knows if you are or not.' If you can say in your heart of hearts that you believe He is Lord, you have confessed His name before men, and you believe that God raised Him up from the dead, then you are saved according to the Scriptures. Now you say, 'OK, then why can't you admit that Mormons are Christians?' And the reason is precisely this: the god and the jesus that the historical church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints worships are NOT the same God and Jesus that Paul is talking about in Romans 10 here. No matter how badly they want to be called Christians, they are not because of the doctrines held and studied and worshipped by the LDS church, which are far different that the doctrines held by Christians the world over, as to the nature of God, the nature and divinity of Jesus, the meaning and attainment of salvation, and the concept of sin and punishment. Those doctrinal differences are so great that we cannot say we worship, praise, and seek after the same things. Also, nowhere in the Bible is allegiance to Joseph Smith vital for salvation, but it is in the LDS teachings.

Now, most of the Mormon members who have been blogging will object to this. The several pairs of missionaries that I have spoken to over the last year certainly did (they keep sending new ones out; I wonder why the same guys don't come back?). They insisted that we were all talking about the same things. After all, don't we use the same terminology? Except they got very flustered when I said, OK, let's discuss what we mean by words and phrases like 'salvation', 'grace', 'atonement', 'deity of Jesus', 'is God man or spirit', 'heaven and hell', 'prophet', 'apostle', 'authority', 'priesthood', and what do things like justice, mercy, and judgment mean to believers. When we first start talking, and I identify myself as a Christian, they go right along and say things like 'we agree with everything you just said.' However, when we start talking about heavier doctrines, they go back to Moroni 10: 3-5 - it's like home base, I guess - and just ask if I would read the BoM and pray to see if it's the truth. When I start talking about Joseph Smith and let's examine his record, they go back to Moroni 10 - read, pray, and if the BoM is true, then obviously JS is a prophet, no matter how his personal history reads. Well, I have examined the callings of a number of the OT prophets, and I encourage all of you to do the same. Look at Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Jeremiah, Samuel, Amos, Obadiah, Habbakuk, Joel, Jonah, Daniel, David, Zechariah, Malachi, Joshua, et al. Look at how they were called into service by the Lord. They either start their books out "In such and such a year, when so and so was king of Judah, the word of the Lord came to me, son of so and so." In Moses case, God spoke to him through a burning bush, which was unusual, but the reality is that GOD SPOKE TO HIM. He did NOT tell him to wait a few years then go dig up some plates that will be written in a language ('reformed Egyptian', of which no Biblical or secular scholar has EVER found an example of, by the way) you do not know. Translate them and restore my church and my priesthood. That is a totally peculiar calling from how the Lord called ALL OF HIS OTHER PROPHETS over the 4,000 years of recorded religious history. When God wants someone to accomplish His purposes, especially when you look at prophet history, He uses more direct methods than what occurred in the life of JS. Also, another one of JS's translations, the Book of Abraham, has been proven, by the recovery of the papyrii sheets and subsequent translation by Egyptian heiroglyphics experts, to not be a book inspired by God but some text from a Book of Breathing, which is a modernised version of the Book of the Dead, a pagan document. Yet, it is still included in the Pearl of Great Price as a canon of Mormon scripture.

In any case, I do not care what the Mormon church calls itself, really, as long as it does not call itself a Christian church, because it most decidely is not. Why do I care about making this point? Because if someone wants to know the pathway to life, I share the Gospel with them, then tell them to get involved with a Bible-believing church so that their faith can be fed and grow and bear fruit for the kingdom. If they say, 'Hey, I'll go to this church, it says it's Christian' but it preaches a false gospel, I have done harm, maybe irreparable harm, to that person. So if that person asked me if it was OK to go to the Mormon church, I would have to point him to another church, because to me the Mormon church is not a Christian church. It uses the same words and some of the same scriptures as Christian churches, but the words and deities are different in their meanings, and those changes are significant enough to cause Christians to have to deny that Mormonism equals Christianity. It simply isn't so.

And GB, people were first called Christians because they were "Christ followers." That is the historical definition. But if the Christ I proclaim and the Christ you proclaim are fundamentally different, as the Jesus' of Christianity and Mormonism are, then that definition loses meaning. Again, I can call myself an African-American, and if I color myself darker, I can actually look more like one. But fundamentally, in the core of my being, I am not one. You can look and sound like a Christian, but if the Jesus worshipped is not the Christ revealed in Scripture the definition becomes meaningless.

[A footnote - if you look at the early presidents and apostles of the Mormon church, the word "Christian" was a dirty word to them, one that they wanted no part of:

Journal of Discourses 5:73--"When the light came to me I saw that all the so-called Christian world was groveling in darkness."

Journal of Discourses 8:99--"With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world."

Journal of Discourses 6:25--"What! Are Christians ignorant? Yes, as ignorant of the things of God as the brute beast."

Orson Pratt (Mormon Apostle)--"..all other churches are entirely destitute of all authority from God; and any person who receives baptism of the Lord's supper from their hands highly offend God, for he looks upon them as the most corrupt of all people" (The Seer, pg 255)

Heber C. Kimball (First Counselor to Brigham Young)--"Christians - those poor, miserable priests Brother Brigham was speaking about - some of them are the biggest whoremasters there are on the earth..." (Journal of Discourses 5:39)
--------------------------

Again, I truly wish we were talking about cosmetic differences, and that in doctrine and beliefs we had unity. But if you study Mormonism for long, you will find that its beliefs are not compatible with orthodox Christianity, or with being called 'Christian' at all. They just do not worship the same deities, no matter how hard they protest. Mormonism actually has more in common with Islam than it does with Christianity:
-Only one God
-Salvation by works
-Founder visited by an angel to receive the 'scriptures'
Joseph Smith - the angel Moroni
Mohammed - the angel Jabreel
-Followers believe in Jesus, but the latest prophet is the most important.
-Have the Bible as one of their scriptures, but both believe scriptures have been corrupted and later book (BoM and Quran) are more 'accurate'

I know that no one likes to have their beliefs questioned or assailed. I have been on the receiving end as well, and it is normally not a pleasant experience. In the end, all I can say is this; there is only one person who will sit in judgement of us all, and it is not me. I only ask that people look at all of the facts and evidence, search the scriptures for answers, and don't rely on a 'testimony' to see if what they are following is true. Our feelings can lie, and just because something seems right to me doesn't mean it is. Truth is found in the words of Scripture and in the person and works of Jesus Christ, and nowhere else.

May God bless us, every one...

Chief: What I find puzzling is why doctrines laid down in the 'main' canon, the book of Mormon, have been changed in the later canons, the D & C, pearl of great price, or articles of faith.

GB: That is a bald assertion. You should provide examples so that they can be discussed.

Chief: And the reason is precisely this: the god and the jesus that the historical church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints worships are NOT the same God and Jesus that Paul is talking about in Romans 10 here.

GB: That is a bald assertion. You should provide examples so that they can be discussed.

Chief: When God wants someone to accomplish His purposes, especially when you look at prophet history, He uses more direct methods than what occurred in the life of JS.

GB: Do you even know how God made the initial contact with Joseph Smith? Apparently not.

Chief: Also, another one of JS's translations, the Book of Abraham, has been proven, by the recovery of the papyrii sheets and subsequent translation by Egyptian heiroglyphics experts, to not be a book inspired by God but some text from a Book of Breathing, which is a modernised version of the Book of the Dead, a pagan document. Yet, it is still included in the Pearl of Great Price as a canon of Mormon scripture.

GB: You source for this is way behind. This canard was refuted back in 1968.

Chief: In any case, I do not care what the Mormon church calls itself, really, as long as it does not call itself a Christian church, because it most decidely is not.

GB: So what do you say one must do/say/believe to be Christian? Since you apparently have usurped the throne of God and become the judge in this matter.

Chief: Because if someone wants to know the pathway to life, I share the Gospel with them, then tell them to get involved with a Bible-believing church so that their faith can be fed and grow and bear fruit for the kingdom.

GB: The LDS church meets that criterion.

Chief: And GB, people were first called Christians because they were "Christ followers."

GB: The LDS church meets that criterion.

Chief: They just do not worship the same deities,

GB: You have yet to show that we don't believe in and only worship God, the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost, which is One Eternal God (One as in united in purpose and perfection, see John 17).

Just because we, like Paul of old recognize the existence of lesser gods doesn't mean that we worship them, because we don't. And nowhere in our canon of scripture (that includes the Bible) does it say or indicate that we do.

Chief: I only ask that people look at all of the facts and evidence, search the scriptures for answers, and don't rely on a 'testimony' to see if what they are following is true.

GB: I only ask that people look at all of the facts and evidence, search the scriptures, ponder them, and pray for the witness of the Holy Ghost, the Testator of truth.

Billy,

Why don't YOU 'jettison' the idea that "...the Holy Bible self-testifies as sole authority..." or at least have the courage to show where it says it is infallible...

Mike,
The dictionary is certainly a valid means of defining the term Christian, a group of learned men looking at traditional as well as current usage of the word. You're defining it by a traditional Christian creed, a group of learned men determining the meaning via debate and the use of philosophic language. The point of Joseph Smith's epiphany was for God to reveal to modern man knowledge that had been lost, especially the nature of He and His Son. To get the nature of God completely wrong was an abomination, because it is necessary to know God in order to follow his edict of becoming perfect as He is.
In Joseph Smith's time there were numerous, "restorationists," those who were seeking to restore Christianity to its former truths, authority and ordinances. Joseph Smith, at the age of 14, was not seeking to restore Christianity, he wanted to know for himself which of the denominations he should join. His vision was a remarkable answer to a prayer of faith, a vision he recounted simply a number of times over the ensuing years, and was treated with derision by some, acceptance by others and ignored by most. He was not seeking to become a prophet, but was called to it by God, just like prophets in the OT.
The real question here is not whether the LDS can be lumped together with other Christian denominations, but did Joseph have his first and subsequent visions restoring truth, authority and ordinances in the modern era. Was he directed to an ancient record by another heavenly messenger and were those plates translated by the gift and power of God into what is known as the Book of Mormon. If these things are true then traditional Christianity does not contain the fullness of the gospel and Christians everywhere need to re-think there belief systems. It's a hard thing and hence the resistance we see here.
When I read the posts of Mike and Chief1989, among others, I see the same things that have been written for 180 years about Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the LDS church, the same tired things I heard regularly in southern California 30+ years ago when I served my mission there. In the meantime the LDS church continues to grow and move forward. I've often asked myself the question, "Why can't the Christian churches leave the LDS alone and go about promoting there own faith in a positive manner?" It has occured to me that the answer to that may be economic. Mike and Chief have formed their opinions about the LDS church, not from the LDS church, but from those who earn a part, if not all, their income by attacking the LDS faith. A cottage industry has grown up around anti-Mormonism, and it's often fed by pastors, ministers, etc. who stand to lose members of their flocks to the active proselyting by LDS missionaries. Each member of a congregation lost to the LDS church is a drop in income for that church and minister. Thus, the long-held tradition of anti-Mormonism among many Christian denominations, but especially the Evangelicals.
And what has been the response to the ongoing anti-Mormonism by the leadership of the LDS church? Silence. There are no official rebuttals from Salt Lake City, no organized debates or other forums to bash the attackers.
Just the continued, consistant growth of the church worldwide by delivering the message of the restoration. That message is, God speaks again to man through prophets, His authority is restored, a church has been organized to administer the ordinances, and at the heart of all this is a testimony of Jesus Christ, that He lives and invites all who choose to come to Him. We don't worship Joseph Smith anymore than you worship the apostle Paul, we worship God and His Son, Jesus Christ. We recognise Joseph as the instrument God used to restore lost truth and authority.
Do we have differences with traditional Christian dogma, absolutely, the basic disagreement is the truths we hold to be correct with regards to the nature of God and Jesus Christ have come to man in our time by revelation, not debate.
Regards,
BW

I have another question:

A large part of this blog has been spent trying to say who or what is a Christian. Fine. I get that. Mormons accuse Christians of trying to disenfranchise them from the moniker "Christian." However, if all Mormons want to be known as Christians, why do the missionaries continue to attempt to proselytize even after you've identified yourself as a Christian? If you are Christians and we are Christians, once we've identified ourselves, shouldn't your missionaries say, "Amen, brother! Keep spreading the faith, and we will, too. See you later!"? Why do they continue to try and get me to read the Book of Mormon if we are all Christians, and I have already indicated to them that I follow Jesus?

I think some of you are going overboard with the 'persecute the poor Mormons' complex.

Paul,

Thanks! I enjoyed that. I and all Christians owe an unpayable debt of gratitude to these hero's. I am sure there are countless others, unknown, who likewise gave their all for the "cause of Christ"! I honor their memories and pray daily to live worthy of their legacy of faith, and hope I too will have the courage of conviction to stand for truth in my lowly sphere of influence.

The fact remains, neither Tindale, Wycliff, Bede, Erasmus, Coverdale, nor Cromwell, et al, nor the Bible itself, declared the Bible infallible. That is a modern day Christian dogma designed to close the heavens.

Paul,

That is all very interesting but the fact remains, the Bible doesn't declared itself to be infallible. And Calvin isn't infallible either.

Apparently Joseph Smith isn't infallible either. Because Joseph gave varying and conflicting versions of his First Vision experience.

I guess the fact that the Bible claims to be the Word Of God means nothing 2 Timothy 3:16
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"
Inspiration in the mean original Hebrew literally means God Breathed.

There are some things in this world that require faith in the the Living God who is Jesus Christ

Paul,

You seem to be lost in a never ending loop...

Of course Joseph Smith was infallible...he was a man. Only Jesus Christ was (is) infallible.

2Tim 3:16. If that's the best you can come up with to show the Bible is infallible, then I rest my case. The Bible, unfortunately has some error in it, missing scripture as originally given and yes, through whatever intent, it has some "changed" doctrine.

1. I refer you to Genesis 6:6. Why would an all knowing (Omnipotent) God ever have need to "Repent"? Did He not know man was going to become evil and corrupt and therefore He would need to destroy the earth with a flood? Or was He just winging it?

2. If the "Trinity" (a word not found in the Bible) were a true doctrine, then I would have to ask, Who was minding the universe when Jesus was a little baby in Mary's arms? Did your "three in one" (solid, gas and liquid) separate?

3. Luke 3: 21-22 "Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, and the HOLY GHOST descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased." Can you explain this manifestation of THREE separate beings all at the same time as being "ONE" God? In your world can God appear together as three separate entities and still be ONE?

Again, we are suffering from a lack of logic and a desire to be contentious. I find it startling that I have been accused of so many things personally, I haven't gotten into personal attacks on this blog, the problem is that everyone here is overtaken with emotion and can't comprehend the LOGIC.

To Mike Bennion who claims that because the Nazarenes wanted to be known as Jews, they are therefore Jews (to be honest, I wasn't quite sure what he was trying to say in these statements but am quite confident that they are not Jews because they simply want to be), I say again that Judaeism is defined by the thousands of years of tradition and history associated with it. If there is a deviation from these facts, they no longer can claim to be building on what has been laid as the "foundation" of Judeaism.

The real problem is, Mormons seem to have a problem with this! I am not being viscious in my reasoning here, read these postings and you will see that it is not enough to believe in the Mormon tradition. All I am trying to explain is that by associating yourself as a Christian, it NECESSARILY entails that you are building on the foundation of those who have gone before you, who are ALSO Christian (this is where the term Orthodoxy is relevant).

The question is again, Does Mormonism Build on This Same Foundation? The answer is NO. As an Orthodox Christian, do I care, YES. The reason is that your doctrines are a deviation from traditional Christianity. This is a matter of tradition and history and theology for that matter. You believe in Christ through the Mormon tradition NOT the Christian tradition. That is a simple fact.

I will use another anology (and try not to talk in circles like other anologies I have read, which seem to not have a definitive POINT). If I all of a sudden decide I want to be and Arab Muslim but decide not to pray 5 times a day, don't learn Arabic, don't face Mecca (I am not praying anyway), decide not to travel to Mecca (Haj). Can I really claim to be an Arab Muslim? By what standard are we as a people supposed to evaluate my claim? On the basis of tradition, culture, the Qu'ran, etc...

I will say again, there is nothing with my personal belief that I am in fact and Arab Muslim, but I should not react indignant when someone who was raised in that tradition decides to question my claims.

What is more, to the gentleman who claims that there is an economical facet to this argument I will simply say, as a layperson, I have no stake in the economy of the church, and especially (since I attend a non-denominational church) have no stake in my church "losing money". This is absolutely absurd to make a general statement like this. My motivation is purely theological and soteriological. I genuinely believe (as you do), that you are wrong in your theology.

I should also ask the question, is your motivation for doing mission economical in nature? Are you simply trying to win people for the sake of money? If so, you should reevaluate whether that is Biblical and Book of Mormonical. If not, why the charge that all we care about is money, while you too are suffering from the same desires, namely to spread what you perceive to be the truth irregardless of economical concerns (which is absurd). If economical concerns were true, why is the gospel growing in the most poor places in the world? (you must be able to substantiate your claims...just for the future...it doesn't work to make assertions, that is what they call "drive-by", and while it gets people on here to say AMEN, YEAH, WHOOHOO, it really doesn't add to the intelligent conversation).

Sorry that should read "You still didn't answer the question . . "

GB,

In fact I have answered that question OVER and OVER again. My motivation is that I perceive the Mormon view of Christ as a perversion of the traditional/foundational/historical/theological and is subsequently deficient in its claims to be "Christian". In life there are unfortunate realities, one of them as that there are "absolutes" when it comes to determining and evaluating claims. They must be based on every one of those tenets I mentioned above and more. A claim is made, fine, we must back it up. My contention is that Christianity is not simply believing in some FORM of Christ, it is an adherence to the faith tradition upon which his church was built (not Church traditions, faith traditions, and all the mess that went with it, just as any growing organism has its trials).

My motivation (I will say it again) is theological and soteriological (I get the feeling you don't read the posts with any scholarship as I have made this abundantly clear many times). If salvation differs in one from another (which we would agree that they do, otherwise we will fall back into the "Mormons" trying to convert "Christians" TO "Christianity", which is a self-defeating approach), then there has to be a distinction made in terms of order to avoid confusion, this seems to me a basic principle.

What is more, since there is a difference in SUBSTANTIVE teachings between the traditions, this is where I am confused on the insistance of Mormons to be identified as Christians. In the same way, my substance is different than that of the Jews and therefore will not desire to be associated as a Jew.

Further, the practical reasons abound for wanting a distinction and my whole argument is that BOTH SIDES ALREADY HAVE ONE but the Mormons maintain that Christians are just persecuting them. It is never occured that THIS IS THE REASON. The persecution is in scholarship, and if it is carried out any differently, I cannot condone that, however, I will continue to fight the scholarly battle of logic for the sake of educated reasoning and a desire for standards to be upheld so as to not confuse truth with perversity (on all levels, not just in this argument).

Very Interesting Arguments Indeed; however, The major points concerning the Trinity, Faith Alone, and so forth are very misrepresented here.

1/ Do the mormons believe in the Trinity the way the Bible teaches it?

The answer would have to be no, since mormons do not believe in the Deity of Christ. They believe that Jesus is a God, but not The God. This statement goes back way before Christians, but back to the Jews. "Here O Israel, The Lord our God is One Lord." There are numerous verses in the bible to support the fact that Jesus is The God, not just a god. The issue goes deeper and shows a misunderstanding of what man is and his nature. If Jesus was not God, but a created being He could not have died and paid for the sins of His people (True Christains not just professing.) If Jesus is not God, we are still damned. Only God himself can fulfill His own Law, and pay the price for it. God's law demands eternal punishment, therefore only an eternal being could pay for it on behalf of others. The mormon misinterpretation of the Bible in John 1 is on purpose, and no reputable Greek Scholar would back up the position. The same in Matthew when Christ is tsalking to the Pharisees about Abraham rejoicing to see His day. "Before Abraham was, I AM" is the correct interpretation. The tense and verbage that the mormon church uses has been stated by Greek Scholars as Non-existent. to say "Before Abraham Was, I have Been" is a major twisting of scripture, and the words "ego eimi" have been translated in all other instances to I AM, but in this one case is not is foolishness.

The whole biblical narrative of the Jews and Christ also support the fact the Jesus is God. The whole reason they crucified Him was because according to the preceeding passage in Matthew, when He made that statement, they knew what He meant, they knew He was saying that He was the same God who spoke to Moses out of the burning bush. That is why they crucified Him, for blasphemy.

2/ The mormon doctrine of 2 Nephi 25:23: "It is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." is not what Christ taught.

Works has never been, nor ever will be a way of salvation, whether it be fully works, or Christ and works. Eph 2:8 "By grace you have been saved by faith, not of works unless any man shall boast." so what should I believe? The Bible or Joseph Smith? a proven liar and cheat.

First. What work could I do? Second. When Isaiah says all of my work are like filthy rags, how can I then rely on my works? Third. Working for salvation makes God my debtor.

Romans 4:4 "Now to him who works, his wages are not counted as a gift, but his due." God is debtor to no man. God owes no man anything. Man deserves Hell, but has been given a gift by the grace of God, how can he then work for it. Ten thousand eternities could never pay it off. It even states that if we work for it we will get our wage. The wage could never repay the debt of one sin. So God will not be owing to any man and the man who works will get the reward of his works, and the works are filthiness, what good are they? They have their place which I will show later.

Romans 4:5 "And to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness." By these two scriptures alone I am to believe that I cannot work to be justified, but must believe, and the alone added 6to faith alone, simply states Nothing else, not works, not good living, not not doing anything wrong.

Romans 3:10-18 would also disprove "after all we can do" because it plainly says we can't do anything anyway.

Rom 3:10 as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one;
Rom 3:11 no one understands; no one seeks for God.
Rom 3:12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one."
Rom 3:13 "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips."
Rom 3:14 "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
Rom 3:15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
Rom 3:16 in their paths are ruin and misery,
Rom 3:17 and the way of peace they have not known.",
Rom 3:18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes."

This no-one and all means everyone, you, me, everyone. 3:12 "no one does good, not even one." So what is the all I can do?

3/ Having disproved works as a base for salvation, do they have their place? Yes - How?

Good works are only done by True Christians, not just those who say they are Christians. What is a True Christian? Ah the crux of the matter. A True Christian is a regenerated person, led by the Holy Spirit to become a child of God. A Christian is not someone who says they are a Christian, but exhibits the characterstics the Bible says a True Christian is.

What good is a profession of "I am a Christian?" Nothing!!!! It is the actions that are the proof of Christianity, but not just all actions. not the actions made in the flesh, but with the fruits of the Spirit. Galatians 5 lists them, Love, Joy, Peace..... The mormon doctrine (and some others) that we are all God's Children is not biblically correct either. Rom 8:14 "For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God."

Most so-called Christians today (my term Christian is what the bible says a Christian is)
Rom 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.
Rom 8:7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.
Rom 8:8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Rom 8:9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
Rom 8:10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Rom 8:11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
Rom 8:12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh.
Rom 8:13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
Rom 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
Rom 8:15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!"
Rom 8:16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
Rom 8:17 and if children, then heirs--heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

Most people who call themselves Christian today, are not Christians in the sense of this passage. The profess, but don't confess. If 75% of Americans are Christian, why do we have abortion on demand? Why do we not have the death penalty for murderers? Why do we have the gay marriage debate? Why do we not allow prayer in schools? Why do we not allow the ten commandments in schools? why are Christian beliefs excluded while muslim and other beliefs are allowed reign? Simple, What the people call Christian today is not Christian! but even more important than moral, is if mormons are Christians in the true sense of the word, why do they not believe in the deity of Christ? why do they believe you can work for your salvation? Why do they believe in polygamy? why do they misinterpret and publish scripture to fit their beliefs? Why do they add a new testament or covenant to Jesus Christ who in Hebrews is the mediator of one covenant, a new covenant, a new covenant in His blood.

The cantradictions are numerous between the Bible and the book of mormon. Which can you believe. the Bible has been around longer, and every day more of its statements are proven true historical fact. The satetemtns of Joseph Smith himself contradict what God says about certain things. Joseph Smith said He had a vision of the Father and the Son; however, John 1 says no man hath seen the Father at any time, save the Son who declares Him. Not even Moses could see God, only his hindparts, and he glowed so that he had to cover his face, how then should I believe Joseph Smith? The mormon church even says that they are the true church after the church had been corrupted. Yet Christ himself say the gates of hell will not prevail against the church, so how could it have been corrupted?

4/ Hebrews says that "God in times past and in various ways spoke to us through the prophets, but in these last days has spoken to us by His Son." If God's Son has spoken, who can speak after Him? Who can bring out something new after God? Why would God use all of the prophets then spoken himself, why would He go back to using prophets after He spoke himself?

Conclusion:
The mormon religion can not be called Christian because they do not hold to what the bible simply and plainly says about what we are to believe concerning God. How Salvation is accomplished and applied. Who God is.

Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel (MARONI) from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone (Jospeh Smith)is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

It is a different Gospel and is not Christian, and should not be called Christian even if they try to use the same terminology Christians use.

CRI.org

Final, I have no doubt in my mind that some are decieved by the teachings of the mormon church and are sincere in their beliefs, but to be sincere in what is wrong is to be sincerely wrong. I will pray for myself that I am not deceived, and for those that are."

TwentyFirstCenturyPuritan

I am open to talk or converse with anyone on this or any other Theological matter. My only rule is if you cannot support your beliefs by the Holy Bible, I would not waste yours or my time.

robertdhall3@hotmail.com

Twentyfirstcenturypuritan,

You need to "read" all that has been written in this trail of postings, then you will see that your major points have already been addressed, ad nauseum...

I also suggest that if you want to "Preach to the Choir" because you choose not to converse with others who believe the Bible fallible, you've come to the wrong forum...you need to go back to your Sunday school class and have them admire your profound knowledge of theological demagoguery...

Otherwise, buck up and take your lumps with the rest of us!

RD,

I notice that you are quick to point out how Puritan's points have been discussed ad nauseum, however, nobody has even attempted a criticism of my points. Perhaps you can enlighten me with your wisdom on these matters, or at least address the issues I have brought to light over the last 2 days.

Everyone seems to argue that those who bring up the same points should take time to read but then they too regurgitate the same points over and over again. My goal was to come at it from another angle, and nobody seems to want to have a civilized argument on these points.

Just want to get some dialogue going on logical matters instead of emotional ones.

Many Critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have claimed that Joseph Smith used a manuscript written by Solomon Spalding as the basis for the Book of Mormon. In making this claim, these Critics have resorted to the wrongful use of parallels in historic analysis, thus undermining their credibility as serious, and objective, analyzers of history and religion. In fact, Fawn Brodie, an avowed critic of the LDS Church, in her book, "No Man Knows my History", gives several good reasons why she thinks the theory has no basis.

The theory was originally given credance by "Doctor" Philastus Hurlbut who collected affidavits from residents of Ohio who had heard Spaulding read his manuscript and they thought the Book of Mormon sounded similar. When Spalding's manuscript was shown to them, they could see that there were major differences, so then they claimed that Spalding wrote a later manuscript. Spalding's manuscript was lost for many years. When it was found and published in 1884 it was obvious that the only way the theory could be maintained was to maintain that there was a second manuscript.

Dr. Walter Martin, another avowed critic of the LDS Church, takes the Spaulding theory one step further. He was so convinced that the Spalding manuscript was the source of the Book of Mormon that he has supported the outlandish effort to prove that an unknown scribe of the Book of Mormon was actually Spalding. His assertion will also be dealt with below.

I will review the theory in 8 areas:

1. The Original affidavits
2. 
   Non-Hurlbut affidavits
3. 
   Spalding's Manuscript
4. 
   "Second" Manuscript and connection
   to Book of Mormon
5. 
   Manuscript found in Hawaii
6. 
   Conclusive Proof that 1884 find is the "Second"
   manuscript
7. 
   Handwriting Analysis Blind Alley
8. 
   Appendix B from No Man Knows My History

It can clearly be seen that the affidavits were written by Hurlbut, since the style is the same throughout. It may be noted also that although five out of the eight had heard Spaulding's story only once, there was a surprising uniformity in the details they remembered after twenty-two years. Six recalled the names Nephi, Lamanite, etc.; six held that the manuscript described the Indians as descendants of the lost ten tribes; four mentioned that the great wars caused the erection of the Indian mounds; and four noted the ancient scriptural style. The very tightness with which Hurlbut here was implementing his theory rouses an immediate suspicion that he did a little judicious prompting. (Brodie 1963, 423-4)

The most striking aspect of the early claims unquestionably related to the proper names. Here, however, the coincidence of memory was even more suspect. Of some 300 potential names, Hurlbut's witnesses all used the same handful of specific examples. Most cited "Nephi" and "Lehi." Two witnesses (John and Martha Spalding) added "Nephites" and "Lamanites," and only three additional names were mentioned even once-"Laban," "Zarahemla" and "Moroni," (The last two by the witness who remembered the humorous passages). Despite the elapsed decades, all recalled identical spellings for these odd-sounding names, spellings which matched exactly those found in the Book of Mormon. A corollary claim that Spalding wrote in a "scripture style" was illustrated with the same unanimity. Everyone who recalled specific wording cited "and it came to pass," with "now it came to pass" a distant second. Not surprisingly, nearly everyone acknowledged that his memory had been refreshed by a recent reading of the Book of Mormon.(Bush 1977, 44)

The Mormons replied with books and pamphlets of their own, such as Parley P. Pratt's Mormonism Unveiled in 1838 and Benjamin Winchester's The Origin of the Spaulding Story in 1840. Winchester quoted another of Spaulding's neighbors, one Jackson, who had read Spaulding's manuscript and maintained "that there was no agreement between them; for, said he, Mr. Spaulding's manuscript was a very small work, in the form of a novel, saying not one word about the children of Israel, but professed to give an account of a race of people who originated from the Romans, which Mr. Spaulding said he had translated from a Latin parchment that he had found." (Brodie 1963, 427)

And an early historian of western New York, writing in 1851, said: "It is believed by all those best acquainted with the Smith family and most conversant with all the Gold Bible movements, that there is no foundation for the statement that the original manuscript was written by a Mr. Spaulding of Ohio." (Brodie 1963, 430)

Brodie comments, "This surmise may have been true, though there was no signed statement swearing to it. But it seems more likely that these witnesses had so come to identify the Book of Mormon with the Spaulding manuscript that they could not concede having made an error without admitting to a case of memory substitution which they did not themselves recognize." (Brodie 1963, 424-425)

Two people closely associated with Spaulding in Pennsylvania have supplied affidavits about the similarities between his manuscript and the Book of Mormon. They made some latter statements which are suspect because they greatly enlarged their memory of the manuscript. However, if we ignore those statements and stick with what they first reported we can be more sure that they are not influenced by continued association with the Book of Mormon and the Spaulding controversy. First of all from Joseph Miller who spent "spent many evenings in the Spalding home (tavern), often listening to the retired preacher read his novel." (Cowdrey, Davis, Scales 1977, 67)

These papers were detached sheets of foolscap. He said he wrote the papers as a novel. He called it the "Manuscript Found," or "The Lost Manuscript Found." He said he wrote it to pass away the time when he was unwell; and after it was written he thought he would publish it as a novel, as a means to support his family.

Some time since, a copy of the book of Mormon came into my hands. My son read it for me, as I have a nervous shaking of the head that prevents me from reading. I noticed several passages which I recollect having heard Mr. Spaulding read from his "Manuscript." One passage on the 148th page (the copy I have is published by J. 0. Wright & Co., New York) I remember distinctly. He speaks of a battle, and says the Amalekites had marked themselves with red on the foreheads to distinguish them from the Nephites. The thought of being marked on the "forehead with red was so strange, it fixed itself in my memory. This together with other passages I remember to have heard Mr. Spaulding read from his "Manuscript."

Those who knew Mr. Spaulding will soon all be gone, and I among the rest. I write that what I knew may become a matter of history; and that it may prevent people from being led into Mormonism, that most seductive delusion of the devil. From what I know of Mr. Spaulding's "Manuscript" and the book of Mormon, I firmly believe that Joseph Smith, by some means, got possession of Mr. Spaulding's "Manuscript," and possibly made some changes in it and called it the "Book of Mormon." (Cowdrey, Davis, Scales 1977, 67-69)

I recollect quite well Mr. Spalding spending much time in writing on sheets of paper torn out of an 0ld book, what purported to be a veritable history of the nations or tribes, who inhabited Canaan when, or before that country was invaded by the Israelites under Joshua. He described with great particularity, their numbers, customs, modes of life, their wars, strategems, victories, and defeats, &c. His style was flowing and grammatical, though gaunt and abrupt; very like the story of the ' Maccabees" and other apochryphal books in the old bibles. He called it "Lost History Found," -- "Lost Manuscript," or some such name; not disguising that it was wholly a work of the imagination, written to amuse himself, and without any immediate view to publication. I read, or heard him read, many wonderful and amusing passages from different parts of his professed historical records; aud was struck with the minutences of his details, and the apparent truthfulness and sincerity of the author. Defoe's veritable Robinson Crusoe, was not more reliable! I have an indistinct recollection of the passage referred to by Mr. Miller, about the Amelekites making a cross with red paint on their foreheads to distinguish them from enemies in the confusion of battle, but the manuscript was full of equally ludicrous descriptions. After my removal to Wheeling in 1818, 1 understood, that Mr. Spalding had died, and his widow had resorted to her friends in northern Ohio, or western New York. She would naturally take the manuscript with her. Now it was in northern Ohio, probably in Lake or Ashtabula county, that the first Mormon prophet, or imposter Jo. Smith lived, and published what he called the "Book of Mormon," or the "Mormon Bible." It is quite probable therefore, that with some alterations, the "Book of Mormon was in fact the "Lost Book," or "Lost History Found," of my old landlord, Solomon Spalding, of Amity, Washington County, Pennsylvania. (Cowdrey, Davis, Scales 1977, 77-78)

The writings of Solomon Spalding, proved by Aaron Wright, Oliver Smith, John N. Miller and others. The testimonies of the above gentlemen are now in my possession. D. P. Hurlbut (Spalding 1885, 9)

Fond Parents
I have received two letters the 10th jan 1812 the last mentioned Mr. Kings dismission from you, which no doubt is great trial to you Christian Minister is great loss to any to any people - - - - teaches us the uncertainty of all sublinary enjoyments & where to place our better trust & happiness (Spalding 1885, 105)

This Manuscript does not purport to be "a story of the Indians formerly occupying this continent'" but is a history of the wars between the Indians of Ohio and Kentucky, and their progress in civilization, &c. It is certain that this Manuscript is not the origin of the Mormon Bible, whatever some other manuscript may have been. The only similarity between them, is, in the manner in which each purports to have been found -- one in a cave on Conneaut Creek -- the other in a hill in Ontario county, New York. There is no similarity of style between them. As I told Mr. Deming, I should as soon think the Book of Revelations was written by the author of Don Quixotte, as that the writer of this Manuscript was the author of the Book of Mormon. (Spalding 1885, 7)

From Henry W. Silver: "Based upon that examination, it is my conclusion that the handwriting of the twelve pages from I Nephi of the Book of Mormon (the unknown scribe) is definitely not the same as that of Solomon Spaulding." (Brown 1984, 20)

From Howard C. Doudler: "As I stated in my report dated March 4, 1977 of some writing similarities and letter charateristics appeared both in the manuscript and the Book of Mormon. I now contribute these similarities to the writing style of that century. I have found writing and letter dis-similarities that are unexplainable and are not attributed to individual writing variations of the same writer. It is my conclusion the handwriting in the name of Solomon Spalding is NOT the author of the unidentified pages, listed as Q-1 thru Q-9 in this report of the Book of Mormon" (Brown 1984, 37)

The Spalding theory will probably never die. It has no basis in fact and will be discarded by anyone who seriously examines the issue. Fawn Brodie made a study of the theory and concluded that it had no basis. She listed the whereabouts of Sidney Rigdon during the period before the Book of Mormon was published. But, because she didn't account for every single month, some authors have used this as a pretense to give the theory some life. I am including the following appendix from Brodie's book, No Man Knows My History.

THE SPAULDING-RIGDON THEORY

THE SPAULDING RIGDON theory of the authorship of the Book of Mormon is based on a heterogeneous assortment of letters and affidavits collected between 1833 and 1900. When heaped together without regard to chronology, as in Charles A. Shook's True Origin of the Book of Mormon, and without any consideration of the character of either Joseph Smith or Sidney Rigdon, they seem impressive. But the theory is based first of all on the untenable assumption that Joseph Smith had neither the wit nor the learning to write the Book of Mormon, and it disregards the fact that the style of the Book of Mormon is identical with that of the Mormon prophet's later writings, such as the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price, but is completely alien to the turgid rhetoric of Rigdon's sermons.

Protagonists of the theory do not explain why, if Rigdon wrote the Book of Mormon, he was content to let Joseph Smith found the Mormon Church and hold absolute dominion over it throughout the years, so secure in his position that he several times threatened Rigdon with excommunication when Rigdon opposed his policies. But most important, there is no good evidence to show that Rigdon and Smith ever met before Rigdon's conversion late in 1830.There is, on the contrary, abundant proof that between September 1827and June 1829, when the Book of Mormon was being written, Rigdon was a successful Campbellite preacher in northern Ohio, who if conniving secretly with Joseph Smith, three hundred miles east, was so accomplished a deceiver that none of his intimate friends ever entertained the slightest suspicion of it.

The Spaulding theory was not born until 1833, four years after the Book of Mormon was completed. In June 1833 Philastus Hurlbut was excommunicated from the Mormon Church in Kirtland, Ohio. Shortly afterward he learned that some citizens of Conneaut, Ohio, had detected in the Book of Mormon a resemblance to an old manuscript written more than twenty years earlier by Solomon Spaulding, a Dartmouth College graduate and ex-preacher, who had hoped to publish it and solve his financial embarrassments. Huribut interviewed these people in August and September 1833. They told him that Spaulding, now deceased, had lived in Conneaut from 1809 to 1812, and that he had written a historical novel about the American abcrigines from which he had occasionally read them extracts. Spaulding had moved to Pennsylvania, where he died in 1816.

From Solomon Spaulding's brother, John, Hurlbut obtained an affidavit, of which the significant portion read as follows:

I made him a visit [in 1813)... and found that he had failed, and was considerably involved in debt. He told me that he had been writing a book, which he intended to have printed, the avails of which he thought would enable him to pay all his debts. The book was entitled the "Manuscript Pound," of which he read to me many passages. It was an historical romance of the first settlers of America, endeavoring to show that the American Indians are the descendants of the Jews, or the lost tribes. It gave a detailed account of their journey from Jerusalem, by land and sea, till they arrived in America, under the command of NEPHI and LEHI. They afterwards had quarrels and contentions, and separated into two distinct nations, one of which he denominated Nephites and the other Lamanites. Cruel and bloody wars ensued, in which great multitudes were slain. They buried their dead in large heaps, which caused the mounds so com\mon in this country. Their arts, sciences and civilization were brought 'into view, in order to account for all the curious antiquities, found various parts of North and South America. I have recently read the Book of Mormon, and to my great surprise I find nearly the same historical matter, names, etc. as they were in my brother's writings. I well remember that he wrote in the old style, and commenced about every other sentence with "and it came to pass" or "now it came to pass;' the same as in the Book of Mormon, and according to the best of my recollection and belief, it is the same as my brother Solomon wrote, with the exception of the religious matter. By what means it has fallen into the hands of Joseph Smith, Jr. I am unable to determine. JOHN SPAULDING

I was personally acquainted with Solomon Spaulding, about twenty years ago. It was at his house a short time before he left Conneaut; he was then writing a historical novel founded upon the first settlers of America. He represented them as an enlightened and warlike people. He had for many years contended that the aborigines of America were the descendants of some of the lost tribes of Israel, and this idea he carried out in the book in question. The lapse of time which has intervened, prevents my recollecting but few of the leading incidents of his writings; but the names of Nephi, and Lehi are yet fresh in my' memory, as being the principal heroes of his tale. They were officers of the company which first came off from Jerusalem. He gave a particular account of their journey by land and sea, till they arrived in America, after which, disputes arose between the chiefs, which caused them to separate into different bands, one of which was called Lamanites and the other Nephites. Between these were recounted tremendous battles, which frequently covered the ground with the slain; and their being buried in large heaps was the cause of the numerous mounds in the country. Some of these people he represented as being very large. I have read the hook of Mormon, which has brought fresh to my recollection the writings of Solomon Spaulding; and I have no manner of doubt that the historical part of it, is the same that I read and heard read, more than twenty years ago. The old obsolete style, and the phrases of "and it came to pass," etc., are the same. MARTHA SPAULDING

I formed a co-partnership with Solomon Spaulding for the purpose of rebuilding a forge. . . . He very frequently read to me from a manuscript which he was writing, which was entitled the "Manuscript Found.". . . This book represented the American Indians as the descendants of the lost tribes, gave an account of their leaving Jerusalem, their contentions and wars, which were many and great. One time, when he was reading to me the tragic account of Laban, I pointed out to him what I considered an inconsistency, which he promised to correct; but by referring to the Book of Mormon, I find to my surprise that it stands there just as he read it to me then. Some months ago I borrowed the Golden Bible. . . . I was astonished to find the same passages in it that Spaulding had read to me more than twenty years before, from his "Manuscript Found." Since that time, I have more fully examined the said Golden Bible, and have no hesitation in saying that the historical part of it is principally, if not wholly taken from the "Manuscript Found." I well recollect telling Mr. Spaulding that the so frequent use of the words "And it came to pass," "Now it came to pass," rendered it ridiculous. HENRY LAKE

I boarded and lodged in the family of said Spaulding for several months. I was soon introduced to the manuscripts of Spaulding, and perused them as often as I had leisure. He had written two or three books or pamphlets, on different subjects; but that which more particularly drew my attention, was one which he called the "Manuscript Found." From this he would frequently read some humorous passages to the company present. It purported to be the history of the first settlement of America, before discovered by Columbus. He brought them off from Jerusalem, under their leaders, detailing their travels by land and water, their manners, customs, laws, wars, etc. He said that he designed it as an historical novel. . . . I have recently examined the Book of Mormon, and find in it the writings of Solcmon Spaulding, from beginning to end, but mixed up with Scripture and other religious matter, which I did not meet with in the "Manuscript Found." Many of the passages in the Mormon book are verbatim from Spaulding, and others in part. The names of Nephi, Lehi, Moroni, and in fact all the principal names are brought fresh to my recollection by the Gold Bible. When Spaulding divested his history of its fabulous names, by a verbal explanation, he landed his people near the Straits of Darien, which I am very confident he called Zarahemla. They were marched about the country for a length of time, in which great wars and great bloodshed ensued, he brought them across North America in a northeast direction. JOHN N. MILLER

I first became acquainted with Solomon Spaulding in 1809 or 10, when he commenced building a forge on Conneaut Creek. When at his house, one day, he showed and read to me a history he was writing of the lost tribes of Israel, purporting that they were the first settlers of America, and that the Indians were their descendants. Upon this subject we had frequent conversations. He traced their journey from Jerusalem to America, as it is given in the Book of Mormon, excepting the religious matter. The historical part of the Book of Mormon, I know to be the same as I read and heard read from the writings of Spaulding, more than twenty years ago; the names more especially are the same without any alteration. . . . Spaulding had many other manuscripts, which I expect to see when Smith translates his other plate. In conclusion, I will observe, that the names of, and most of the historical part of the Book of Mormon, were as familiar to me before I read it as most modern history. AARON WRIGHT

All his leisure hours were occupied in writing a historical novel, founded upon the first settlers of this country. He said he intended to trace their journey from Jerusalem, by land and sea, till their arrival in America, give an account of their arts, sciences, civilization, wars and contentions. In this way, he would give a satisfactory account of all of the old mounds, so common to this country. During the time he was at my house, I read and heard read one hundred pages or more. Nephi and Lehi were by him represented as leading characters, when they first started for America. Their main object was to escape the judgments which they supposed were coming upon the old world. But no religious matter was introduced as I now recollect. . . When I heard the historical part of it [the Book of Mormon] related, I at once said it was the writings of old Solomon Spaulding. Soon after, I obtained the book, and on reading it, found much of it the same as Spaulding had written, more than twenty years before. OLIVER SMITH

I have lately read the Book of Mormon, and believe it to be the same as Spaulding wrote, except the religious part. He told me that he intended to get his writings published in Pittsburgh. NAHUM HOWARD

Before showing me his manuscripts, he went into a verbal relation of its outlines, saying that it was a fabulous or romantic history of the first settlement of this country, and as it purported to have been a record found buried in the earth, or in a cave, he had adopted the ancient or scripture style of writing. He then presented his manuscripts, when we sat down and spent a good share of the night in reading them, and conversing upon them. I well remember the name of Nephi, which appeared to be the principal hero of the story. The frequent repetition of the phrase, "I Nephi," I recollect as distinctly as though it was hut yesterday, although the general features of the story have passed from my memory, through the lapse of 22 years. He ~attempted to account for the numerous antiquities which are found upon this continent, and remarked that, after this generation had passed away, his account of the first inhabitants of America would be considered as authentic as any other history. The Mormon Bible I have partially examined, and am fully of the opinion that Solomon Spaulding had written its outlines before he left Conneaut.*

However, the affidavits were arresting, and Huribut knew it. He visited Spaulding's widow in Massachusetts and offered her half the profits for permission to publish the manuscript. She told him that "Spaulding had a great variety of manuscripts" and recollected that one was entitled the "Manuscript Found," but of its contents she "had no distinct knowledge." During the two ears she had lived in Pittsburgh, Spaulding had taken the manuscript to the office of Patterson and Lambdin, she said but whether or not it had been returned was uncertain.

She gave Hurlbut permission to examine Spaulding's papers in the attic of a farmhouse in Otsego County, New York; but he found there only one manuscript, which was clearly not the source for the Book of Mormon. This was a romance supposedly translated from twenty-four rolls of parchment covered with Latin, found in a cave on the banks of Conneaut Creek. It was written in modern English and was about 45,000 words long, one sixth the length of the Book of Mormon. It was an adventure story of some Romans sailing to Britain before the Christian era, who had been blown to America during a violent storm.

Hurlbut showed this manuscript to Spaulding's neighbors, who, he said, recognized it as Spaulding's, but stated that it was not the "Manuscript Found." Spaulding "had altered his first plan of writing, by going farther back with dates and writing in the Old Scripture style, in order that it might appear more ancient." This surmise may have been true, though there was no signed statement swearing to it. But it seems more likely that these witnesses had so come to identify the Book of Mormon with the Spaulding manuscript that they could not concede having made an error without admitting to a case of memory substitution which they did not themselves recognize.

Hurlbut, at least, was certain that Spaulding had written a second manuscript. Eber D. Howe, Hurlbut's collaborator, now wrote to Robert Patterson, the Pittsburgh printer mentioned by Spaulding's widow. He replied "that he had no recollection of any manuscript being brought there for publication, neither would he have been likely to have seen it, as the business of printing was conducted wholly by Lambdin at that time." The partnership of Patterson and Lambdin had not in fact been formed until January 1, 1818, two years after Spaulding's death.

Disappointed in this source, and unable to get any confirming evidence from Joseph's neighbors in western New York, Hurlbut had to be content with insinuating that Sidney Rigdon, who had once lived in Pittsburgh, was somehow responsi ble for getting the Spaulding manuscript into Joseph Smith's hands.

Howe now purchased Hurlbut's affidavits for five hundred dollars and published them in his Mormonism Unvailed. At once the Mormons challenged Howe to produce the Spaulding manuscript, but he did not even produce the one Hurlbut had uncovered, which shortly disappeared. Some writers insinuated that Hurlbut had sold it to the Mormons for a fabulous sum; actually it lay buried in Howe's files, which were later inherited by L. L. Rice, who followed Howe as editor of the Painesville Telegraph. Rice eventually went to Honolulu and there discovered the manuscript among his papers. He forwarded it to Joseph H. Fairchild, president of Oberlin College, who placed it in the college library. The manuscript contained a certificate of its identity signed by Hurlbut, Wright, Miller, and others, and bore the penciled inscription "Manuscript Story" on the outside. Its discovery was jubilantly hailed by the Mormons, who held that the Spaulding theory was now proved groundless. The manuscript was first published by the Reorganized Church in Lamoni, Iowa, in 1885.

Many writers, however still believed that a second Spaulding manuscript was the true source of the Book of Mormon, and labored indefatigably to prove it. Before examining their evidence, it should be noted that if, as seems most likely, there was only one Spaulding manuscript, there were certain similarities between it and the Book of Mormon which, though not sufficient to justify the thesis of common authorship, might have given rise to the conviction of Spaulding's ncighbors that one was a plagiarism of the other. Both were said to have come from out of the earth; both were stories of colonists sailing from the Old World to the New; both explained the earthworks and mounds common to western New York and Ohio as the result of savage wars. John Miller had spoken of "humorous passages" in Spaulding's work, which would certainly apply to the "Manuscript Story," but not to the utterly humorless Book of Mormon.

Other features, like the scriptural style, the expression "it came to pass," and the proper names, seem too definite to be questioned. But it should be remembered, as President Fair-child pointed out in his analysis of the problem, that "the Book of Mormon was fresh in their minds, and their recollections of the 'Manuscript Found' were very remote and dim. That under the pressure and suggestion of Hurlbut and Howe, they should put the ideas at hand in place of those remote and forgotten, and imagine that they remembered what they had recently read, would be only an ordinary example of the frailty of memory.

It is significant that five of Hurlbut's witnesses were careful to except the "religious" matter of the Book of Mormon as not contained in the Spaulding manuscript, and the others stated that "the historical parts" were derived from the Spaulding story. The narrative Hurlbut found had no religious matter whatever, but the Book of Mormon was permeated with religious ideas. It was first and foremost a religious book. The theology could not have been wrought by interpolation, since practically every historical event was motivated either by Satan or the Lord.

If, on the other hand, Hurlbut was right and there were actually two Spaulding manuscripts, one might reasonably expect stylistic similarities between the Book of Mormon and the extant manuscript, since the latter was full of unmistakable literary mannerisms of the kind that are more easily acquired than shed. Spaulding was heir to all the florid sentiment and grandiose rhetoric of the English Gothic romance. He used all the stereotyped patterns - villainy versus innocent maidenhood, thwarted love, and heroic valor - thickly encrusted with the tradition of the noble savage. The Book of Mormon had but one scant reference to a love affair, and its rhythmical, monotonous style bore no resemblance to the cheap cliches' and purple metaphors abounding in the Spaulding story.

After the publication of Howe's book, affidavits popped up here and there, usually solicited by preachers anxious to discredit Joseph Smith. The Mormons replied with books and pamphlets of their own, such as Parley P. Pratt's Mormonism Unveiled in 1838 and Benjamin Winchester's The Origin of the Spaulding Story in 1840. Winchester quoted another of Spaulding's neighbors, one Jackson, who had read Spaulding's manuscript and maintained "that there was no agreement between them; for, said he, Mr. Spaulding's manuscript was a very small work, in the form of a novel, saying not one word about the children of Israel, but professed to give an account of a race of people who originated from the Romans, which Mr. Spaulding said he had translated from a Latin parchment that he had found."

Spaulding's widow was visited again in 1839, when she was seventy years old, by a preacher named D. R. Austin, who published her signed statement in the Boston Recorder on April 19 of that year. She showed an astonishing enlargement of memory over her previous statement to Hurlbut, relating that the historical romance written by her husband had been given to his "acquaintance and friend" Robert Patterson, who was "very much pleased with it" and promised to print it. She stated also that Sidney Rigdon was connected with the press at this time and had every opportunity to copy the manuscript.

Rigdon's angry denial was published in the Boston Recorder on May 27, 1839: "If I were to say that I ever heard of the Rev. Solomon Spaulding and his hopeful wife, until Dr. P. Hurlbut wrote his lie about me, I should be a liar like unto themselves. Why was not the testimony of Mr. Patterson obtained to give force to this shameful tale of lies? The only reason is, that he was not a fit tool for them to work with. . .

Two Mormons, Jesse and John Haven, now interviewed Spaulding's widow, who denied having written the letter and stated that Austin had merely asked her a few questions, taken notes, and apparently written the letter himself. Both Spaulding's widow and daughter admitted in this interview that the manuscript they knew was an "idolatrous" not a religious story.

When Spaulding's daughter was seventy-four years old, she was interviewed, and stated that she remembered vividly hearing her father read his manuscript aloud, although she was only six years old at the time. "Some of the names that he mentioned while reading to these people I have never forgotten. They are as fresh to me as though I heard them yesterday. They were 'Mormon,' 'Maroni,' 'Lamenite,' 'Nephi.'" One is led to doubt the reliability of this memory, however, by another statement in this interview: "In that city [Pittsburgh] my father had an intimate friend named Patterson, and I frequently visited Mr. Patterson's library with him, and heard my father talk about books with him." Patterson, it will be remembered, denied knowing Spaulding at all.

Spaulding's daughter remembered seeing the manuscript in her father's trunk after his death, and stated that she had handled it and seen the names she had heard read to her at the age of six. She admitted, however, that she had not read it.

If the evidence pointing to the existence of a second Spaulding manuscript is dubious, the affidavits trying to prove that Rigdon stole it, or copied it, are all unconvincing and frequently preposterous.

First there is no evidence that Rigdon ever lived in Pittsburgh until 1822, when he became pastor of the First Baptist Church. Robert Patterson, Jr., son of the Pittsburgh printer, conducted an exhaustive research among the old settlers of the vicinity to try to establish the truth of the Spaulding theory. This was in 1882, sixty-six years after Spaulding's death. Many were familiar with the theory and believed it, he said, but few could give first-hand information. Rigdon's brother-in-law, not a Mormon, and Isaac King, an old neighbor, swore to him that Rigdon did not go to Pittsburgh before 1822. Mrs. Lambdin, widow of Patterson's partner, denied any knowledge of Rigdon, as did Robert P. DuBois, who had worked in the printing shop between 1818 and 1820.

One woman, who had worked as mail clerk in Patterson's office between 1811 and 1816, stated that she knew Rigdon and that he was an intimate friend of Lambdin's, but that this was clearly untrue is evidenced by the statement of Lambdin's widow that she had never heard of Rigdon. Another old settler claimed that Spaulding told him the manuscript had been spirited away and that Rigdon was suspect, but this statement is in conffict not only with the facts of Rigdon's life, but also with the accounts of Spaulding's wife and daughter, who made no mention of a lost manuscript and held that the "Manuscript Found" had been carefully preserved in the trunk.*

Patterson senior never left any statement that incriminated Rigdon, although the two men knew each other casually in Pittsburgh after 1822. In the 1870's and 1880's, when anti-Mormonism was most bitter in the United States, there was a great outcropping of affidavits such as those solicited by the younger Patterson. All were from citizens who vaguely remembered meeting Spaulding or Rigdon some fifty, sixty, or seventy years earlier. All are suspect because they corroborate only the details of the first handful of documents collected by Hurlbut and frequently use the very same language. Some are outright perjury.

James Jeifries wrote on January 20, 1884: "Forty years ago I was in business in St. Louis. . . . I knew Sidney Rigdon. He told me several times that there was in the office with which he was connected, in Ohio, a manuscript of the Reverend Spaulding, tracing the origin of the Indians from the lost tribes of Israel. The manuscript was in the office several years. He was familiar with it. Spaulding wanted it published, but had not the means to pay for the printing. He (Rigdon) said Joe (Joseph) Smith used to look over the manuscript and read it on Sundays. Rigdon said Smith took the manuscript and said, 'I'll print it,' and went off to Palmyra, New York." (Wyl: Mormon Portraits, p. 241) Forty years previous to 1884 would have been the year of Smith's assassination. Rigdon never lived in St. Louis, nor did Joseph Smith ever visit Ohio before 1831.

The tenuous chain of evidence accumulated to support the Spaulding-Rigdon theory breaks altogether when it tries to prove that Rigdon met Joseph Smith before 1830. There are ambiguous references to a "mysterious stranger" said to have visited the Smiths between 1827 and 1830. But only two men ever claimed that this was actually Rigdon. Abel Chase on May 2, 1879 (fifty-two years after the event) stated that in 1827

-- "as near as I can recollect" -- when he was a boy of twelve or thirteen, he saw a stranger at the Smith home who was said to be Rigdon. And Lorenzo Saunders on January 28, 1885 (fifty-eight years after the event) stated that he had seen him in the spring of 1827 and again in the summer of 1828.: Yet Saunders himself admitted his recollection came only after thirty years of puzzling over the matter and hunting for evidence. And it is highly probable that both men were actually remembering Rigdon's first appearance in Palmyra in late 1830. No other of Joseph's neighbors ever made any effort to connect the Ohio preacher with the Book of Mormon events. And an early historian of western New York, writing in 1851, said: "It is believed by all those best acquainted with the Smith family and most conversant with all the Gold Bible movements, that there is no foundation for the statement that the original manuscript was written by a Mr. Spaulding of Ohio."

ACTIVITIES OF RIGDON, NOVEMBER 2, 1826-NOVEMBER 14,1830
 

November 2

Marriage of Smith and Giles (performed by Rigdon

December 13

Above marriage recorded.

1827

January

Held meeting at Mantua, Ohio.

February

Funeral of Hannah Tanner, Chester, Ohio.

March

Held meeting at Mentor, Ohio.

April

Held meeting at Mentor, Ohio.

(gap of possibly one month and half)

June 5

Marriage of Freeman and Waterman.

June 7

Above marriage recorded

June 15

baptized Thomas Clapp at Mentor, Ohio.

July 3

Marriage of Gray and Kerr

July 12

Above marriage recorded

August 10

Above marriage recorded.

August 23

Met with Mahoning Association, New Lisbon, Ohio.

(gap of one month and a half)

October 9

Marriage of Sherman and Methews.

October 20

At Minsiterial Council, Warren, Ohio.

November

Held meeting at New Lisbon, Ohio.

December 6

Marriage of Wait and Gunn

December 12

Above marriage recorded.

December 13

Marriage of Cottrell and Olds.

1828

January 8

Above marriage recorded

February 14

Marriage of Herrington and Corning.

March 31

Above marriage recorded.

March

Instructed theological class, Mentor, Ohio.

March

Visited Walter Scott at Warren, Ohio.

April

Conducted revival at Kirtland, Ohio.

May

Met Campbell at Shalersville, Ohio.

June

Baptized H. H. Clapp, Mentor, Ohio.

(gap of possibly two months)

August

At Association, Warren, Ohio.

September 7

Marriage of Dille and Kent,.

September 18

Marriage of Corning and Wilson

October 13

Above marriages recorded.

(gap of possibly two months and a hlf)

1829

January 1

Marriage of Churchill and Fosdick.

February 1

Marriage of Root and Tuttle.

February 12

Above marriages recorded.

March

Meeting at Mentor, Ohio.

April 12

Meeting at Kirtland, Ohio.

May

Baptized Lyman Wight.

(gap of possibly one month and a half)

July 1

Organized church at Perry, Ohio.

August

Baptized Mrs. Lyman Wight.

August 7

Met with church in Perry, Ohio.

August 13

Marriage of Strong and More.

September 14

Above marriage recorded.

September 14

Marriage of Atwater and Clapp.

September

Held meeting at Mentor, Ohio.

October 1

Marriage of Roberts and bates.

October 7

Last two marriages recorded.

October

At Perry, Ohio.

November

Held Meeting at Wite Hill, Ohio.

December 31

Marriage of Chandler and Johnson.

1830

January 12

Above marriage recorded.

(gap of possible two months)

March

At Mentor, Ohio.

(gap of two months)

June

At Mentor, Ohio.

July

Held meeting at Pleasant Valley, Ohio.

August

Met Campbell at Austintown, Ohio.

(gap of two and one half months)

November 4

Marriage of Wood and Cleaveland.

November 11

Above marriage recorded.

November 14

Rigdon baptized by Oliver Cowdery.

The above chronology is a rearrangement of one compiled by the Reorganized Church and appearing in the Journal of History, Vol. III, pp. 16-20, with additional information from Hayden: Early History of the Disciples in the Western Reserve.

Alexander Campbell, who knew Rigdon intimately, described his conversion to Mormonism with great regret in the Millennial Harbinger, attributing it to his nervous spasms and swoonings and to his passionate belief in the imminent gathering of Israel. But of the authorship of the Book of Mormon he wrote bluntly: "It is as certainly Smith's fabrication as Satan is the father of lies or darkness is the offspring of night."

Rigdon denied the Spaulding story throughout his life. When his son John questioned him shortly before his death, he replied: "My son, I can swear before high heaven that what I have told you about the origin of that book is true. Your mother and sister, Mrs. Athalia Robinson, were present when that book was handed to me in Mentor, Ohio, and all I ever knew about the origin of that book was that Parley P. Pratt, Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith and the witnesses who claimed they saw the plates have told me, and in all my intimacy with Joseph Smith he never told me but one story, and that was that he found it engraved upon gold plates in a hill near Palmyra, New York, and that an angel had appeared to him and directed him where to find it. . . ."

Chief said:
You say that millions have proved that the BoM is true to themselves. Let me ask you a question: in Mormon 9:9, the angel Moroni "reads" Heb 13:8 and James 1:17, but how could he when the NT never reached America? Remember, the BoM is supposed to fill in the years between Malachi and Matthew, but the NT hadn't even been written yet and Moroni is reading it?
Also, Helaman 12:25-26, written 6 B.C. says, "we read," quoting 2 Thess. 1:9 and John 5:29, 90 years too early. Again, the Scripture passages cited were not even written yet.

Again, I cannot put credence in a book that is not historically or theologically accurate

Mike's Response: Several Possibilities

1. The Spirit of God can speak the same words to people in different locations.

2. Jesus himself brought New Testament concepts and language to the Nephites when he appeared to them. (see 3rd Nephi) The New Testament writers would have heard these things from Jesus and so would the Nephites.

3. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi manuscriprts have shown that many of the phrases and themes that were thought to be original to Paul and the other apostles cmae from older sources, that would have been available to Book of Mormon writers throught the Brass Plates that they took with them.

Support for this is in the link below:

http://www.mormonfortress.com/bible5.html
"Matthew Roper who reviewed the Tanner’s list of so-called New Testament plagiarism concludes that most of the Book of Mormon texts cited by the Tanners could just as easily be drawn from the Old Testament by the Nephites. In fact many of these citations are equal to or closer to Old Testament passages than New Testament passages. (Roper, 1991, 174-81.)"

"Several years ago the critics claimed that the phrase “faith, hope, and charity” from Moroni 7:44-46 was lifted from 1 Corinthians 13:13. Dr. Nibley, however, demonstrated that THE WHOLE PASSAGE, which scholars have labeled “the Hymn to Charity,” was shown early in this century by a number of first-rate investigators working independently (A. Harnack, J. Weiss, R. Reizenstein) TO HAVE ORIGINATED NOT WITH PAUL AT ALL, BUT TO GO BACK TO SOME OLDER BUT UNKNOWN SOURCE: Paul is merely quoting from the record. (Nibley, 1989, 216.)"

Eyewitness accounts by many of those who scribed for Joseph or watched the process state that JOSEPH HAD NO WRITTEN MATERIALS OR NOTES IN THE ROOM when he translated. When one considers the feat of Joseph Smith writing 534 pages of material without notes, his memory would have had to be more than phenominal indeed. See a quote form the same link as above:

"The scholars at FARMS have observed the “extensive, intricate consistencies within the Book of Mormon. Passages tie together precisely and accurately though separated from each other by hundreds of pages of text and dictated weeks apart.” (FARMS Updates, Oct. 1987.) FARMS notes for example that Alma 36 quotes 21 words verbatim from 1 Nephi 1:8, and that Helaman 14:12 quotes 20 words from Mosiah 3:8. And of course as many a critic has noted, the Book of Mormon quotes Isaiah at length. SUCH INTERNAL CONSISTENCY AND LENGTHY QUOTES WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE WITH QUICK MEMORIZATIONS OF SELECTED BIBLE VERSES, such a feat would require either inspiration or a fantastic memory."

and this:
It is a well-known fact that 2 Nephi in the Book of Mormon quotes virtually the same teachings of Isaiah as recorded in the Bible. The TWO RECORD ARE NOT EXACT MATCHES, however, the Book of Mormon does have some variant readings of the Isaiah text. If Joseph Smith was simply copying from the KJV, then when the alterations? Hebrew scholar, John Tvedtnes, has studied these changes and has demonstrated that the BOOK OF MORMON VARIENTS ACCORDS WELL WITH OTHER ANCIENT ISAIAH TEXTS, and often provide a superior reading to our KJV Bible (Tvedtnes, 1984, 165-77). Tvedtnes notes, for instance, that the longer 1QIsa, scroll from Qumran (DEAD SEA SCROLL) “SUPPORTS THE BOOK OD MORMON ISAIAH TEXT IN A NUMBER OF CASES.”

Too bad I can't spell

Mike,
I went back a ways on this thread and found what I think is your first post and you asked the question: WHY DO MORMONS INSIST ON IDENTIFYING THEMSELVES AS CHRISTIANS?

GB: The simple answer is because we believe in Jesus Christ and to claim that we are not Christians gives the false impression to the world that we don’t believe in Jesus Christ. I for one, don’t like to give that false impression.

You go on for a bit then you state this;”In the name of scholarship, we cannot discount that Orthodox Christianity IS Christianity...there is no other form of Christianity.” I think this could be classified as an assertion.

And what about this one; “After which there were apostles and churches and creeds and councils, THIS IS CHRISTIANITY, there was never another form of Christianity that didn't contain these elements.” This also is an assertion.

Then there is this one;”Christianity is a continuation of Judeaism.” That is your opinion. But I disagree.

Mike: The apostles weren't trying to make themselves Jews, . . .

GB: They didn’t need to because they were already Jews.

Mike: . . . in fact dying at the hands of Jews for claiming something other than Judeaism.

GB: I disagree. They were being killed because they claimed that Judeaism had fallen into apostasy and that Christ not only restored true Judeaism but was also the fulfillment of messianic prophesies.

Mike: I beleive that what Jesus said was true, in fulfilling the Old Testament. I do not follow the Laws of Moses, I follow the law of Grace as expressed through Jesus. I am sold out that Christianity is the TRUE religion.

GB: I agree (with a minor caveat that our understand of the “law of grace” may be different).

Mike: Why doesn't Mormonism have this same conviction?

GB: We do (again with a minor caveat that our understand of the “law of grace” may be different).

Mike: Why do they continually insist on being Christians (with a different set of beliefs).

GB: We believe that we have the true “Christianity” as taught by Jesus Christ. We understand that you believe in Jesus Christ as you understand him, so we would never try to deny you the title of “Christian”. We expect the same courtesy from you.

Mike,

I have started reading the book of Mormon cover to cover, and I will be finished with it in a few days. I will attempt to do this with an open mind.

I am intrigued by a couple of things that are said right off the bat. In the introduction, it is said that both the Nephites and Lamanites are part of the civilization that came over from Jerusalem in 600 B.C. The Lamanites survived, and became the 'principal' ancestors of the American Indians.

Then, Moroni, who was a man and the son of Mormon, appeared to Joseph Smith as a 'glorified and resurrected being.' Several people on this thread have identified Moroni as an 'angel.' What is he, exactly? In the Scriptures, angels are created beings, the 'heavenly host' that is separate from the creation of man.

Questions that a scholar more intelligent than I would think of in reading this introduction are these: Is there DNA evidence to link Jews to Native Americans? (This would be necessary if the Lamanites, who came over from Jerusalem, were principal ancestors.) And why would the plates be inscribed by Moroni, a Nephite and a Jew, in ancient Egyptian heiroglphics? Wouldn't he have used Aramaic or Hebrew as the language?

Chief: . . . . What would be your advice to him?

GB: I would advise him (and help him) to find the closest LDS congregation and their meeting time. I would recommend he attend a service, and after which request to be put in contact with the missionaries. I would also make myself available to answer questions and to help in any way possible.

Let me ask you a question. Suppose you have a co-worker that lives in a different city than you do. He states that he recently has become interested in God, but is confused about what church to go to to figure things out. What would be your advice to him?

This question wasn't to me but I felt like answering anyway
The first thing I would do is tell him to go to the Bible.
The next thing I would do is share with him my personal testimony about how Jesus died on the cross for my sin, so that I could have a personal relationship with God. I would also tell him that God desires a personal relationship with him but sin prevents that, but God out of the abundance of his love for him died on the cross to pay the price for his sin and then rose three days later, and in order to have that personal relationship with God you must place your faith and trust
in Jesus Christ and what He did on the cross.

Hi Other Mike,

Actually, knowing GB as I do, he wouldn't say, "Cause I say so"
He would asy that he asked God and God told him it was that way.

I would say the same thing. James 1:5 would say the same thing
Jesus says the same thing, "seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you, Waht man is there who if his son doth ask for bread will give him a stone, how much more will the Father in Heaven give unto them that ask him."

We asked. God answered. We know. You can ask too. You don't have to take our word for it. You don't have to ask. You can go on claiming that we are wrong. You can say and do anything you like. that doesn't change the fact that GB and I and others like us have asked God and God has answered us. Do what you want.

GB,

If by straw man you mean a summation of the logic of your comments, then yes, it is a straw man.

Forget that I put GB:, in front of the comments, mine was supposed to be a mock discussion, much in the form of Plato's writings. It was illustrative of what you were saying in your post.

For what it is worth, I appreciate that you must attack my methods and not the contect because:

there is no arguing on the point that Mormonism is not built on the foundation of Christianity as it has been established over thousands of years.

there is no arguing that Christianity proper and Mormonism have differing beleif systems

there is no arguing that the traditions of each establishment are different

there is no arguing that the interpretation of Biblical doctrines differ

there is no arguing that Christianity is not Judaism, nor does it want to be and serves to illustrate the same difference between Mormonism and Christianity

there is no arguing that merely claiming to be a Christian does not make you one

there is no arguing that Christianity was established for 1,800 some odd years before this supposed truth was revealed to Joseph Smith

It is on these points, and many many others, that an argument can very easily be posited and won that Mormonism is NOT Christianity.

I am fairly confident that we can have a theological argument as well, but since everyone in here continues to try and fight out those ideas, I wanted to discuss these issues and nobody here has a defense other than to say,

Mike: WHY DO MORMONS INSIST ON BEING CALLED CHRISTIANS

Everyone else: Because I am one and because I believe that my form of Christianity is the true form, even though it goes agaist all historical/theological and foundational evidence to the contrary, I still believe in the Jesus of the Bible (and subsequent books, oh and the Bible is not accurate)

You have not convinced me otherwise, and I like you will continue to try and convert those people I have interaction with, to the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

If you sat down at the dinner table and had butter and margarine sitting in front of you, you may think they are one in the same. Until you taste them, one is the original and the other is fake, passing itself off as the other. And only one has the buttery goodness that you are seeking. Margarine may look like butter but it is is nothing but a bunch of scrap, formulated by an industry trying to market it as the next best thing. I prefer the goodness of butter. And I won't ever conclude that they are the same because they look like it.

Mike: there is no arguing on the point that Mormonism is not built on the foundation of Christianity

GB: an assertion.

Mike: there is no arguing that Christianity is not Judaism, nor does it want to be and serves to illustrate the same difference between Mormonism and Christianity

GB: another assertion.

Mike: there is no arguing that merely claiming to be a Christian does not make you one

GB: Not sure what you mean there.

Mike: there is no arguing that Christianity was established for 1,800 some odd years before this supposed truth was revealed to Joseph Smith

GB: another assertion.

It sounds like your mind is closed. So why would I want to engage you in conversation?

This is one long blog, fun, exciting, frustrating, no one answers questions even when they think they do. Here's my opinion (and yes, I've read the blog and dredged through the cut and paste, re-cut and paste, re-re-cut and paste, 70 X 7, but I forgive you), all religions that believe in Christ are christian, except one. That of the Church of Joseph (oops, sorry) Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. And the only reason they are not christian is obvious, it makes them too much like real christians. Real christians go about their business quietly, saving themselves quietly until a false christian (mormon) comes up, then they can rant and rave and announce their impending doom without letting them get a word in edgewise (to do that would be disasterous, do you know how long dem mormons can talk?!) But I digress. Only one thing, I read in here, from both sides, that God is unchanging. So, unchanging means one truth. I'm pretty sure one truth means one gospel. One gospel means one church. In the old and new testament God gave gospel and lead his church through prophets and apostles. So, let's find the church that preaches an unchanging God, one with apostles and prophets. Oh yeah, and that church has to accept Christ as the only one who can save. There is only one truth, so let's all pray, as James admonishes, that we can find His truth and His church, so we can be true followers of Christ. I am a nontraditional christian.

-Matt crackback

Those are not assertion, what it is with you and this assertion bit...I have been asking all along for somebody to ASSERT a viable argument against my assertions, without which, I claim them to be facts. You see the problem is when one makes assertions, which of course that is what I am doing, you are making assertions when you argue points, the difference is I am doing it in a context of a LOGICAL PROGRESSION. You seem not to like the logic because it proves you wrong.

I would like for you discount any one of those points, with a logical argument and then we will debate on whether my ASSERTIONS are right or not, the thing is, nobody has yet, everyone just keeps playing the "because I said so" card.

And what am I close minded about? The idea that Mormons are Christians? Of course I am...that is why they call this a debate, I am not here to preach tolerance of perverse thought and inclusion of all ideas in order to make people feel warm and fuzzy. I am here to debate why I think Mormonism is a perversion from Christianity and shouldn't referred to as Christians.

If you have a problem with this idea, I guess that is the first step in saying we can't have a debate. I don't mind, however, I thought the purpose of this interaction was to have a dialogue on why you should be referred to as a Christian. The problem is there is something called the 'burden of proof', you may have heard of this, it is a philosophical term. It means that if you are making a claim (that goes against what the standard assumption of whatever truth claim you are positing) then you must PROVE that your position is true. I haven't seen that being done, in fact, you haven't even engaged the content of these assertions, you just keep saying that you either agree or disagree. You have the burden of proof, I am simply waiting for someone to refute the things that you keep saying I am asserting, with something other than, "I don't agree".

How do you debate without making assertions? I am making a claim, and asking you to respond. Your responses have been lacking, that is my whole point, I have rebutted you each time you have responded to my claims, and never has their been a substantive answer. Again, I take that as a victory, you see it as being assertive, I take that as a compliment.

Mike,

You're digging yourself in a hole buddy...

You have made the BOLD assumption that the Bible is true...PROVE it?

If you take away the element of "Faith" you missed the boat! Paul says, "Now faith is the substance [assurance] of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Heb. 11:1

And Faith in Jesus Christ, my friend, is what this is all about! That He came to earth, atoned for the sins of mankind, was crucified, and rose on the third day a glorified and victorious Savior...Can I PROVE it, nope, but I know it with all my heart!

Chief,

I'm sorry, I wasn't going to post again, but I just couldn't keep away. You see, it would be absurd for Hinckley, Kimball, Young and the others to NOT claim to be prophets, because God called them. No, no, not on the phone, silly (though that would be something, wouldn't it, to get a call on the phone from.... oh, sorry, just reminiscing...), called them through revelation (that thing that those prophets received a long time ago, remember, God=no change). Sorry, I'm way off topic, that's why this is my last post. Ummm, GO CHRISTIANS!!!!
Matt Crackback

Mike,

Ok...you got me! I guess I was a bit confused by your earlier posting that YOU wanted only to talk points that could be PROVEN...like the Bible? (Sorry for being facetious here).

Anyway, unless someone from the "orthodox Christian" community can answer the "infallibility of the Bible" question...there really is nothing more to discuss and I will end my postings. You are quick to condemn Mormons belief in continuing revelation from God because it is unprovable, yet hold tenaciously to the unproven presumption of the Bible's infallibility, in fact, you MUST believe it infallible to maintain your orthodoxy, otherwise, your entire world would crumble!

Fianlly, the sum total difference between YOU and US is that WE do not depend entirely upon the Bible for God's teachings, although We appeal to it to prove that the truths received through the restoration of the gospel are the same yesterday, today, and forever. YOU believe in a God that WAS, and WE believe in a God that IS!!

Stay well my friends...

Chief1989 posted:
"There are huge problems with Joseph Smith and the way he was called (was any other prophet in the entirety of Scripture called in such a weird way?)"

Hmmm. I can think of several. Moses out tending his flocks and the Lord appears to him in a "burning bush." Zacharias seeing an angel in the temple and being struck dumb. Or maybe when Saul sees the Lord on the road to Damascas, and those with Saul do not see Him. What about events in the lives of prophets that may have had little to do with the way they were "called," but that they claimed happened to them? Jonah getting swallowed by a big fish, the Lord telling Noah to build an ark. The list goes on.

Josh Knight,

Thanks for you comments, Josh. I made the comment a number of posts ago that, while some prophet's callings were unusual, the Lord spoke directly to them (out of the burning bush came the Lord's voice, Jesus appeared directly to Saul and gave Him the gospel, angels appeared to Gideon and Zacharias and gave them the word of the Lord, etc.). He never asked them to go find His word and dig it up. He did not ask them to come back once a year for four years while He delivered the same message to them, then deliver some plates written in an unfamiliar language that would need translating, and then those plates were to be given back and taken out of this world. The Lord spoke to Moses, to Abraham, to Noah, to Samuel, to Isaiah, to Jeremiah, to Amos, to Jonah, etc. directly, without using such a roundabout way to deliver His message. That was why I was confused by the circumstances surrounding the events regarding Smith. It just seems so much more secretive and circuitous than the Lord revealed in the Bible normally operated.

Anyway, I come to this thread today with a little different perspective than before. My wife was diagnosed with cancer, so when something like that happens, it kind of changes the way you look at things, and things you thought were important do not seem so pressing now. I find that I don't want to get caught up in things like priesthood and authority and things that, in the greater cosmic scheme of things, probably don't matter that much to God nowadays and won't really determine whether someone goes to heaven or not. I find that I want to think about these kinds of things:

Hebrews 10: 19-23
19Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. 23Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful.

James 4: 8a
8Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you.

James 4: 10-12
10Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.
11Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. 12There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

Philippians 4: 6-8
6Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. 7And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
8Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

Ephesians 6: 18
18And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.

Romans 8: 26-28
26In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. 27And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will. 28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

Everyone here on this board is in my prayers, and I ask that you include me and my wife Jill in yours. May God bless you all and keep you this day, sealed by His Spirit until the glorious return of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Question for Mormons

Does special revelation from God have greater authority than written Scripture or do they have the same authority?

Because it seems to me that if you have to have special revelation from God to know whether the Book Mormon is true or not, then that special revelation from God has greater authority than the Scripture itself.
After all you do believe in continuing revelation right?

A friend of mine has seven children, and he is always admonishing them "do not do anything that will soil the family name. Wear our name with pride, and do not do anything that would bring it shame."

Believers in Christ wear the name "Christian", and are sealed with the Holy Spirit. Therefore, let us make sure that we are not and won't be doing anything that will bring dishonor to that name.

I leave you with this:

Revelation 22
18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
20He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

21The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

Amen and amen

Chief, My prayers are with you and your wife. I understand the gravity of the situation. My son-in-law is undergoing open heart surgery next Thursday to repair or replace two valves. He is 22 and he and my daughter were married last December.

I am comforted by the knowledge God has given me that families are forever.

God bless you,

Mike

Question for Mormons

Does special revelation from God have greater authority than written Scripture or do they have the same authority?

Because it seems to me that if you have to have special revelation from God to know whether the Book Mormon is true or not, then that special revelation from God has greater authority than the Scripture itself.
After all you do believe in continuing revelation right?

Mike's response: Yes we do. The Bible is in accord with this as in James 1:5.

http://fairwiki.org/index.php/Open_canon_vs._closed_canon

God is superior even to His Word

The Bible is an important record of God's message to humanity. However, the Bible—or any other written text—cannot be the focus of the Christian's life or faith. Only One deserves that place: God.

One non-LDS Christian author cautioned believers from placing the Bible 'ahead' of God:

It is possible, however, to stress the Bible so much and give it so central a place that the sensitive Christian conscience must rebel. We may illustrate such overstress on the Bible by the often-used (and perhaps misused) quotation from Chillingworth: “The Bible alone is the religion of Protestantism.” Or we may recall how often it has been said that the Bible is the final authority for the Christian. If it will not seem too facetious, I would like to put in a good word for God. It is God and not the Bible who is the central fact for the Christian. When we speak of “the Word of God” we use a phrase which, properly used, may apply to the Bible, but it has a deeper primary meaning. It is God who speaks to man. But he does not do so only through the Bible. He speaks through prophets and apostles. He speaks through specific events. And while his unique message to the Church finds its central record and written expression in the Bible, this very reference to the Bible reminds us that Christ is the Word of God in a living, personal way which surpasses what we have even in this unique book. Even the Bible proves to be the Word of God only when the Holy Spirit working within us attests the truth and divine authority of what the Scripture says. Faith must not give to the aids that God provides the reverence and attention that Belong only to God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Our hope is in God; our life is in Christ; our power is in the Spirit. The Bible speaks to us of the divine center of all life and help and power, but it is not the center. The Christian teaching about the canon must not deify the Scripture.[1]
To argue that the canon is closed effectively seeks to place God's written word (the Bible) above God Himself. Some have even called this practice "bibolatry" or "bibliolatry." Critics are effectively ordering God not to reveal anything further, or refusing to even consider that He might choose to speak again.

Closed canon is not a Biblical doctrine

The idea of a closed canon is not a Biblical doctrine. The Bible bears record that God called prophets in the past. Why could He not—indeed, why would He not—continue to do so?

Ironically, it would seem that the only way to know that there can be no extra-Biblical revelation is via revelation: otherwise, decisions about God's Word are being made by human intellect alone. Yet, since the Bible does not claim that it is the sole source of revealed truth, the only potential source of a revelation to close the canon would be extra-Biblical. Thus, those who insist on a closed canon are in the uncomfortable position of requiring extra-Biblical revelation to rule out extra-Biblical revelation![2]

Throughout Biblical history, the canon was clearly not closed. New prophets were called, and new authoritative writing was made. It would seem strange for this to cease without revelatory notice being given that God's practices were about to change.

Scriptural interpretation requires revelation

Even if one were to grant that the Bible contains all necessary teachings, it is clear from Christian history that the Bible can be interpreted in many different ways by sincere readers. What else but additional, on-going revelation can settle legitimate questions of interpretation and application of God's word? Are we to rely on human reason alone to do so? Does this not in essence turn to an extra-Biblical source for information about divine matters?

Conclusion

The doctrine of a closed canon and the end of authoritative revelation is not found in the Bible. To insist upon this doctrine is to place a non-Biblical doctrine in a place of pre-eminence, and insist that God must be bound by it. Such a doctrine would require the very revelation it denies to be authoritative. Even the proper interpretation of Biblical teachings requires authoritative revelation, which are necessarily extra-Biblical.

Critics are free to hold these beliefs if they wish, but they ought not to criticize the LDS for believing extra-Biblical doctrines when they themselves insist upon the non-Biblical closed canon.

Endnotes
Floyd V. Filson, Which Books Belong in the Bible? (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1957), 20–21.
Joseph Smith made this observation in Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected by Joseph Fielding Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976), 61. ISBN 087579243X.

non-Mormon Mike:
It is unfortunate that people like Rotorhead come into this forum and spout the same propaganda that they accuse the other side. He gives no reasoning why "the other side" needs to prove the Bible is true in order to have a conversation, especially since not one point in my argument was dependant upon this supposed truth. While I do agree that the Bible is infallible, the issue at hand is whether or not, in light of the tradition, that is Christianity, that Mormonism can be recognized as Christian. And again, no response.

Mike Bennion:
Rotorhead is simply suggesting that the same difficulty in proving the Book of Mormon is true, cna be demonstrated by attempting to prove the bible true. After all is said and done, there must still be a leap of faith in both cases. There has been enough written by the LDS posters here to demonstrate the “plausibility” that the Book of Mormon could be true. If we have missed something, and I’m sure we have, the links we listed cover those assertions. We are happy to show the evidence. But in the final analysis. Whether one wishes to learn the truth of the Bible or the Book of Mormon, or the lack thereof, One must still consult a higher power, the author of the Book, God. You can ridicule this. You can call it “running to Mama” as Chief did. But the gift of Faith is not proof to anyone but the person who receives it.

The Bible tells us to ask, to seek, to knock, to pray, and promises answers.

non-Mormon Mike:
The burden of proof is a heavy thing, and one in which I understand you wouldn't want to address because, you simply cannot and shouldn't want to, it is a losing battle.

Mike Bennion:
I don’t need to. I only need to present the evidence the best I can. Testify that I have been given the truth, and then ask you to Ask God about it. If you choose not to, then it is your responsibility and not mine.

Non-Mormon Mike:
In the meantime, us Evangelicals will continue to refer to you are you truly are, Mormons, because you beleive in Christ through the Mormon tradition and there is a difference. If you continue to be ashamed of being Mormons, you must resolve that in your own conscience.

Mike Bennion:
Oh I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as restored through Joseph Smith. It is the power of God unto Salvation. Yes there is a difference. But I will not denigrate your belief by saying that you are not a Christian. You believe that Jesus Christ is God and that he died for our sins, and that we are saved by his mighty works. I call htat Christian. You call me whatever you want. It doens’t change my love for or personal relationship with my Savior.

non-Mormon Mike:
I am frustrated by this continued logical suicide evident in these arguments and an insistence on circling the issues with emotional arguments and unsubstanitiated attacks and reasoning.

Mike Bennion:
Oh Pulease! I don’t think that I have made one post that isn’t documented. And substantiated by multiple sources. If I recall, you wanted Mormons to stop quoting the same things over and over. And use ” logic”. And then when Mormons stopped quoting and used “logic” you complained that their post were “unsubstantiated” and emotional. Maybe if you would answer and acknowledge the assertions and the sources we would stop quoting them. And telling you that the Bible tells us to Pray and ask God for answers is not emotional. It is a fact that the Bible recommends asking God when we seek wisdom.

Non-Mormon Mike:
My hope was to have a dialog and while you charge us "evangelicals" of being so hateful and stubborn,

Mike Bennion: Show me where I have charged you or any evangelical of any such things. If you make assertions that challenge my beliefs I will defend them. I will not hestitate to tell you that I disagree with you, but I will not call your character into question.

Non-Mormon Mike: I have had no real dialogue but rather continued attack, not dealing with the issues.

Mike Bennion: and I have had no real replies to the many lengthy posts and links that I have posted, so you want dialogue?. Please be my guest. We can do it here, or at my Blogs.
www/truthrestored.townhall.com or www.angelslanding.townhall.com

non-Mormon Mike:
Good luck fighting this fight in this manner, I don't think you will ever win.

Mike Bennion:
I’m not fighting to win. I am testifying as I have been commanded to do. You can do whatever you want with what I tell you.

Mike: Exactly my point all along, Jesus didn't claim a "new" religion but the the Apostles and subsequent founders of the faith did not insist and calling themselves JEWS!

GB: Did you really mean that?

Without Grace we cannot be saved. I don't think there are any Mormons who would disagree to this. To say that we can live our lives in any way shape or form without regard to laws and commandments makes a mockery of everything Jesus taught.

If we don't live our lives the way that Jesus taught (i.e. obeying his commandments) would we be comfortable in his presense after this life?

I feel if a person truly has faith in God and in the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross, he would live his life according to "Christian Principles."

What sense would there be if a terrible person who has "faith" makes it to heaven, when a truly charitable one goes to hell? Where's God's mercy in that?

Paul,

Read John Chapters 14= 17 carefully, paying particular attention to those who are Branches of the Vine (Christ) If they do not do his will they are cut off from the vine and have no life in and of themselves. Jesus and his Apostles spend much of their time teaching what is necessary to abide in the vine. These are works that are the fruit of faith. They are centered in the vine, Christ, because it is he who commands them and his will and the Father's which we pray to do.

A true Christian will obey the commands of God.
God has said that those who do not his will shall be cut off of the vine by the Father. It is very clear that the works are necessary, Centered in Jesus and our Fatih in Him, yes, but one does not remain on the vine (i.e. Christian and able to draw nourishing Salvation form Christ) without them. This seems like a clearly stated requirement
by Jesus himself.

Jesus teaches how we are saved

1"I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. (John 15:1-4 NIV)

Jesus says that the branches that are cut off are those that "bear no fruit" that is, they do not do the works Jesus commands. Even those disciples that do his works will be tried and tested to allow them to grow and do even more. Once a branch is cut off from Christ, due to a lack of faith manifested by failing to keep his commandments, it cannot live or bear fruit apart from him.

5"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. 8 This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples. (John 15:5-8 NIV)

The Bible: John 15:5 Without me you can do nothing.

Mike Bennion: Agreed

Paul:This is the conclusion and application of the whole parable.

Mike Bennion: Yes

Paul: So long as we are separate from him, we bear no fruit that is good and acceptable to God, for we are unable to do anything good.

Mike Bennion: The key words "without him" Jesus says:
4REMAIN in me, and I will REMAIN in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. (John 15:4 NIV)

You not only extenuate this statement, but destroy its substance, and, indeed, altogether evade it; for, though in words you acknowledge that we can do nothing without Christ, you foolishly imagine you possess some power, which is not sufficient in itself, but, being aided by the grace of God, co-operates that is, works along with it; you cannot endure that man should be so much annihilated as to do nothing of himself. But these words of Christ are too plain to be evaded so easily as they suppose. Your doctrine is, that we can do nothing without Christ, but that, aided by him, we have something of ourselves in addition to his grace. But Christ, on the other hand, declares that we can do nothing of ourselves. The branch, he says, beareth not fruit of itself; and, therefore, he not only extols the aid of his co-operating grace, but deprives us entirely of all power but what he imparts to us. Accordingly, this phrase, without me, must be explained as meaning, except from me.

These verses just prove what I stated earlier

Half of my comments went missing in my last post.

Jesus didn't say "I will cause you to remain in me" He said. "Remain in me" Jesus is using the imperative form of the verb remain. The imperative requires action on the part of those being commanded. Jesus use of the imperative, assumes th epower to act on our part.

Paul: You not only extenuate this statement, but destroy its substance, and, indeed, altogether evade it; for, though in words you acknowledge that we can do nothing without Christ, you foolishly imagine you possess some power, which is not sufficient in itself, but, being aided by the grace of God, co-operates that is, works along with it;

MIke Bennion: So does Jesus State and So does Paul:

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth agood bfruit; but a ccorrupt tree bringeth forth devil 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 bhewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, bLord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but HE THAT DOETH THE WILL of my Father which is in eheaven.

8 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.
9 THOSE THINGS WHICH YE HAVE both LEARNED , and RECEIVED, and HEARD, and SEEN in me, DO: and the God of peace shall be with you.
• • •
12 I know both how to be abased, and I know how to bound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.
13 I CAN DO ALL THINGS IN CHRIST WHICH STRENGTHENETH ME.

Rom. 2: 13 doers of the law shall be justified.
James 1: 22 be ye doers of the word.

I feel comfortable with the scriptural support parovided fo rmy beliefs.

Paul: you cannot endure that man should be so much annihilated as to do nothing of himself.

Mike Bennion: Paul is trying to read my mind. I think no such thing. But as noted above the Bible supports the capacity of men to do righteousness.

Paul: But these words of Christ are too plain to be evaded so easily as they suppose.

Mike Bennion: It appears that the plainess of Scripture supports me rather than you. It may be you who are being selective and evasive.

Paul: Your doctrine is, that we can do nothing without Christ, but that, aided by him, we have something of ourselves in addition to his grace.

Mike Bennion: As shown above this is bible doctrine. We have power to act, as a result of the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

Paul: But Christ, on the other hand, declares that we can do nothing of ourselves. The branch, he says, beareth not fruit of itself; and, therefore, he not only extols the aid of his co-operating grace, but deprives us entirely of all power but what he imparts to us.

Mike Bennion: Paul's assertion is not supported by the Bible.
Luke 10: 19
19 Behold, I GIVE UNTO YOU POWER to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
Acts 8: 19
Rev. 2: 26
26 And HE THAT OVERCOMETH, and KEEPETH MY WORKS unto the end, TO HIM WILL I GIVE POWER over the nations:

Note that Jesus does not say, "Him that I cause to Overcome" or "him that I cause to keep my works" Jesus says "Him that overcometh" him that "keepeth my works". This presupposes agency on the part of men.

Paul: Accordingly, this phrase, without me, must be explained as meaning, except from me.

Mike Bennion: Either phrase is about the same. We are all agreed that Jesus is the moving cause that allows men to do good that counts.
But Jesus still commands men to do good. If men were incapable of doing good and thus exercising agency, there would be no need for Jesus to issue commands. He would save or damn who he wills. And there would be nothing men could do. There would be no choice.

The Bible, however, says that just the opposite is true. Men can choose.

Deut. 30: 19
19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore CHOOSE life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

Josh. 24: 15
15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, CHOOSE you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

Philip. 1: 22
22 But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall CHOOSE I wot not.
Heb. 11: 25
25 CHOOSING rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;

It is obvious that Paul the Apostle could decide for himself whether to be saved or not. Paul chooses whether to "remain" on the vine.
Jesus gave him power to choose. this power is granted unto men because of Jesus great sacrifice.

Paul: These verses just prove what I stated earlier

Mike Bennion: The Bible verses above, when taken in context with John chapters 14 and 15, do not support your assertion.

Paul,

You and Non-Mormon Mike are both Hypocrites.

You condemn Mormons for substantiating their position with "Modern Day Scripture" as being unprovable and not of God, and then you quote Bible Scripture to substantiate your positions, without proving its legitimacy.

What gives YOU the right to claim the title Christian, determine its definition, decide who fits that definition and claim sole authority for validating what is and what isn't written communication from God?

How dare you challenge another's Faith simply because you lack it yourself.

John oh John,

Which Scripture from the Bible do I a Mormon believe is wrong?
I challenge you to subsantiate this totally false and outrageous statement.

Using the scripture, "with God nothing is impossible" I can maintain that it is not impossible for God to speak again to a 14 year old boy and restore His kingdom agian on the earth.

It is a very good all purpose scripture.

I see that at least 'Mike's' true Anti-Mormon colors are finally showing...

If you can't win the argument based on the strength of your position, then resort to ridiculing past and present LDS leaders to deflect the reader attention away from sound doctrine.

Examples: Do you people really believe Joe Smith was for real?....
Reading about his background, he sounded like a real
loser.
or, To "The Joe Smith follower..." The reader will note that
the flippant use of the familiar Joe is a rather nice
touch, especially since Joseph Smith ALWAYS went by the
name Joseph.
Mike's Example: "Man them some good pictures of Joseph Smith,
extremely unflattering, you think they would have gotten his
'good side'".

I challenge ANY supposed "traditional Christian" to post an example of Mormons resorting to ridicule to any of their Bible beliefs, or church leaders they hold in high regard...Can't do it can you...so much for your definition of a "True Christian"! As for you Mike, now that you have been unmasked...time to move on.

No, I definitely do NOT believe that Mormons are Christians. In my opinion, this religion was based upon the man who founded it and not the real Jesus Christ. The Bible tells us that many shall come in

I once was a Morman, they are wonderful people, just misguided.
On a Sunday morning while attending"Sunday School" the Bishop reading from the great Pearls of Price, announced that "Save Joseph Smith no one could come closer than Jesus Christ". He was saying Joseph Smith was better than Christ!
They are very secretative about how they go around with the Book of Morman, and are EXTREMELY well versed in the Christen Bible.They use scriptures from the Bible to ensure you that they are believers in Christ. Not as Christens believe, but as the Mormans believe.
To make a very long story short, I left before that session was over, and have never been back. I was excumucated after a very long attempt to redeem me.
They have their own bible, and anyone knows that in the last chapter of Revelation, last verse chapter 22, it reads that " if anyone takes
away or adds anything
to this book of prophsey God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and the holey city which are described in this book."
That is a very clear statement to me that the book of Morman is in this catagory. So just take heed to these words, they are frin "God"
Thank You,
Donna Johnson

Dear Donna,

I wonder how long you were actually in the Church.
There are a number of things that suggest that your stay was rather short.

Donna:
I once was a Morman, they are wonderful people, just misguided.

Mike Bennion:
I am a Mormon. the Mormons around me are wonderful people.
I'm afraid you may be a bit misguided.

Donna:
On a Sunday morning while attending"Sunday School" the Bishop reading from the great Pearls of Price, announced that "Save Joseph Smith no one could come closer than Jesus Christ". He was saying Joseph Smith was better than Christ!

Mike Bennion: Now here, Donna, we have several problems:
1) There is no such verse in the Pearl of Great Price.

If you had been a Mormon longer than say a few months you would know this.

2) There is a verse in the Doctrine and Covenants that is probably the one you are referring to. You put quotes around the following words:
"Save Joseph Smith no one could come closer than Jesus Christ". You don't put quotes around something if it is not a direct and exact quotation. That leads people who read what you put quotes around as being genuine. That is not what the verse says. Here is the real quote:

D&C 135:3 "JOSEPH SMITH, THE PROPHET AND SEER OF THE LORD, HAS DONE MORE, SAVE JESUS ONLY, FOR THE SALVATION OF MEN IN THIS WORLD, THAN ANY OTHER MAN THAT EVER LIVED IN IT. In the short space of twenty years, he has brought forth the Book of Mormon, which he translated by the gift and power of God, and has been the means of publishing it on two continents; has sent the fulness of the everlasting gospel, which it contained, to the four quarters of the earth; has brought forth the revelations and commandments which compose this book of Doctrine and Covenants, and many other wise documents and instructions for the benefit of the children of men; gathered many thousands of the Latter-day Saints, founded a great city, and left a fame and name that cannot be slain. He lived great, and he died great in the eyes of God and his people; and like most of the Lord’s anointed in ancient times, has sealed his mission and his works with his own blood; and so has his brother Hyrum. In life they were not divided, and in death they were not separated!" (emphasis mine)

3) the verse says that ONLY JESUS has done more for men on the earth than Joseph, not that Joseph is greater than God.
You make it sound like Mormons worship Joseph Smith and don't believe in and worship Christ. This is absolutley, completerly and totally false. Did I mention that it's not true?

You are either guilty of not getting your facts straight in ignorance, (and you better get them right so you don'y look foolish), or you knoew that the verse didn't say what was in your quotation marks, and you are deliberately mis-representing the Church. If this is the case,you don't represent your cause well by lying.

Donna:
They are very secretative about how they go around with the Book of Morman,

Mike Bennion:
Actually if you read this blog you will notice that we challenge all those on the blog and everywhere to read the Book. The problem is that most of those opposed to the Church would rather criticize the Book than read it. I think they would like to keep the Book secret.

Donna: and are EXTREMELY well versed in the Christen Bible.They use scriptures from the Bible to ensure you that they are believers in Christ.

Mike Bennion:
I believe the word you are looking for is, assure, rather than ensure.
Yes we are well versed on the Bible. We wonder why many of the Christians who oppose us and say thgat the Bible is all we need, don't quote from it as widely, extensively and completely as we do. We find that the Bible supports the things that we believe. Yes we do believe in Christ.

Donna: Not as Christens believe, but as the Mormans believe.

Mike Bennion: I would make the statement this way:
Mormons believe the scriptures in the bible and in the Book of Mormon that teach that Jesus Christ is our Savior and redeemer. We do not believe the additional Creeds written later that modify the plain meaning of The Bible. We wonder why Traditional Christians accept extra-biblical Creeds when they claim that the Bible is all that is needed.

Donna: To make a very long story short, I left before that session was over, and have never been back. I was excumucated after a very long attempt to redeem me.

Mike Bennion: The word is spelled, excommunicated.
I would guess that you asked to have your name removed form the records of the Church. This would have the same effect of removing you from membership. People are "excommunicated" when they break some of the basic commandments of the church, these are usually moral rules or apostasy.

Donna: They have their own bible,

Mike Bennion: We have the Bible that the Christian world accepts as scriture. We also believe the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price to be scripture. We also know enough about them to quote them correctly.

Donna:
and anyone knows that in the last chapter of Revelation, last verse chapter 22, it reads that " if anyone takes
away or adds anything
to this book of prophsey God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and the holey city which are described in this book."

Mike Bennion: Then most of the original Apostles were cursed. Because they wrote some of the Books of the Bible after John listed this curse in Revelation. Also the Entire Old and New Testaments after Deuteronomy fall under the curse because Moses said basically the same thing there.

Deut. 4: 2
2 Ye shall not aadd unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Also I note with interest that Neither the Deuteronomy or Revelations
verses say anything about God not adding to or taking from his word. God can do whatever he wants. Since Mormons claim that god spoke these things there is no problem logically. The curse donesn't cover God adding to or taking from. Now the Creeds of Christianity, which are not in the Bible and are used by Christians who claim the Bible is al;l that we need, could fall under the curse.

Donna: That is a very clear statement to me that the book of Morman is in this catagory.

Mike Bennion: It is crystal clear that the Book of Mormon, being revealed by God is not under the curse mentioned, and is thus nowhere near the category.

Donna: So just take heed to these words, they are frin "God"

Mike Bennion: Does Donna mean the words in Revelation or her words?
We already showed how Revelation does not curse the Words of God.
If Donna meant her own words, then she is in trouble. the curse is on her.

Thank You,
Donna Johnson

You're quite welcome.
Mike Bennion

My ? is why so many mormans speak so much about J Smith, where is JESUS ?

Lonnie,

If your question is sincere, then reading this below will answer it; it's from the Book Of Mormon, central scripture of the Mormons (Mormon is spelled with an "o" not an "a"):

"Nephi’s words are true—They testify of Christ—Those who believe in Christ will believe Nephi’s words—They shall stand as a witness before the judgment bar. Between 559 and 545 B.C.

1 And now I, Nephi, cannot write all the things which were taught among my people; neither am I mighty in writing, like unto speaking; for when a man speaketh by the power of the Holy Ghost the power of the Holy Ghost carrieth it unto the hearts of the children of men.
2 But behold, there are many that harden their hearts against the Holy Spirit, that it hath no place in them; wherefore, they cast many things away which are written and esteem them as things of naught.
3 But I, Nephi, have written what I have written, and I esteem it as of great worth, and especially unto my people. For I pray continually for them by day, and mine eyes water my pillow by night, because of them; and I cry unto my God in faith, and I know that he will hear my cry.
4 And I know that the Lord God will consecrate my prayers for the gain of my people. And the words which I have written in weakness will be made strong unto them; for it persuadeth them to do good; it maketh known unto them of their fathers; and it speaketh of Jesus, and persuadeth them to believe in him, and to endure to the end, which is life eternal.
5 And it speaketh harshly against sin, according to the plainness of the truth; wherefore, no man will be angry at the words which I have written save he shall be of the spirit of the devil.
6 I glory in plainness; I glory in truth; I glory in my Jesus, for he hath redeemed my soul from hell.
7 I have charity for my people, and great faith in Christ that I shall meet many souls spotless at his judgment-seat.
8 I have charity for the Jew—I say Jew, because I mean them from whence I came.
9 I also have charity for the Gentiles. But behold, for none of these can I hope except they shall be reconciled unto Christ, and enter into the narrow gate, and walk in the strait path which leads to life, and continue in the path until the end of the day of probation.
10 And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good.
11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness.
12 And I pray the Father in the name of Christ that many of us, if not all, may be saved in his kingdom at that great and last day.
13 And now, my beloved brethren, all those who are of the house of Israel, and all ye ends of the earth, I speak unto you as the voice of one crying from the dust: Farewell until that great day shall come.
14 And you that will not partake of the goodness of God, and respect the words of the Jews, and also my words, and the words which shall proceed forth out of the mouth of the Lamb of God, behold, I bid you an everlasting farewell, for these words shall condemn you at the last day.
15 For what I seal on earth, shall be brought against you at the judgment bar; for thus hath the Lord commanded me, and I must obey. Amen."

Posted by: Mike | July 31, 2007 1:09 PM “Christianity is a continuation of Judeaism (some may say a cult, spin off, whatever word you want to use, it doesn't make a difference). “

Posted by: Mike | August 2, 2007 2:27 PM “My whole point in bring up the discussion about the Apostles not trying to identify themselves as Jews (ANY LONGER) was that they were NOT the same religion, they had differing doctrines and histories (the Christian history was just beginning). . . .they weren't trying to claim Judaism Reformation, no, in fact, they followed Jesus and his claims and started a new religion altogether. there is no arguing that Christianity is not Judaism, nor does it want to be . . .”

Posted by: mike | August 3, 2007 11:50 PM “Exactly my point all along, Jesus didn't claim a "new" religion but the the Apostles and subsequent founders of the faith did not insist and calling themselves JEWS!”

Posted by: mike | August 4, 2007 10:15 PM “I will say, yes I meant what I said, however, and this is goes to further my point all along, the Apostles didn't have to claim to be Jews, they were NATIONALLY because they were raised in the tradition. They were not ,however, Jews religiously ANYMORE. . . . . They knew, as did the Romans who classified these people, that this religion was different, at least in so far as they realized that Christ was the fulfillment of prophecies and it ceased to be Judaism when the Jews rejected them.”

Posted by: Mike | August 3, 2007 1:01 PM “I am frustrated by this continued logical suicide evident in these arguments and an insistence on circling the issues with emotional arguments and unsubstanitiated attacks and reasoning.”

ChooseLife

Very ingenious way of saying that your prophets can make up Scripture as they go even if it disagrees with your Book of Mormon.

But why would God reveal something to one of your prophets, and then turn around and reveal something to another one of your prophets that disagrees with what He told the first prophet?
Apparently your god can't make up his mind.

Repost!!!

CHOOSELIFE

ONCE AGAIN You cannot prove that Book of Mormon is true other than to tell me to pray to God and He will show me whether it true or not.

I have several problems with that first of all your own Scripture contradicts itself let me explain:
William A. Morton wrote in an Mormon pamphlet, "Now, once we become thoroughly convinced that the Book of Mormon is true, it will, as I have said solve any theological problem that may confront us. Do we want knowledge concerning God, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost? We can get it in the Book of Mormon. Would we know concerning the pre-existence of spirits - the fall of man and the atonement - the
principles and ordinances of the Gospel of Christ - the state in which spirits of men live between the time of death and the resurrection - we can find it in the Book of Mormon" (Why I Believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God, pp. 4-5).

But, the Book of Mormon does not solve the theological issues Morton mentioned! It either contradicts those Mormon doctrines or it says nothing at all about them! For example:

1. Mormons teach that God the Father has a tangible body of flesh and bones (Doctrines & Covenants 130:22). But, Alma 18:26-28 in the Book of Mormon says God is "a Great Spirit."

2. Mormons teach that Christ was born of Mary and "an immortal, or resurrected and glorified Father" God (Articles of Faith, pp. 472-473). But Alma 7:10 in the Book of Mormon says that Mary was "overshadowed and conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost."

3. Mormons believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three different Gods (Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370). But II Nephi 31:21 in the Book of Mormon says that these three are one God!

4. Mormons believe that men can become gods and that God was once a man (Articles of Faith, p.430). But, Mormon 9:9 and 19 in the Book of Mormon say, "God is the same yesterday, today, and forever - an unchangeable being." The Book of Mormon never says that God was once a man or that men can become gods.

5. Mormons believe there are innumerable gods (Pearl of Great Price Abraham 4-5). But in Alma 11:26-31 in the Book of Mormon, Amulek claims an angel told him there was only one God! The Book of Mormon teaches only one God.!

6. Mormon Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, "I never speak of the part Eve took in the fall as a sin, nor do I accuse Adam of a sin (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. I, p. 114). But Mosiah 3:19 in the Book of Mormon says, "For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit..." Isn't an enemy of God guilty of sin? II Nephi 2:21 also says, " All men... were lost because of the transgression of their parents" (Adam and Eve).

7. Milton R. Hunter wrote, "The atoning blood of the man of Galilee washes away the sins of all mortals who through faith, repentance, and baptism, and through living every other Gospel principle to the best of their ability, have done everything within their power to bring about their own redemption" (Gospel Through Ages, p. 178).

But, Mosiah 4:2-3 in the Book of Mormon shows that all the people who cried, "O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins - received a remission of their sins" without baptism or any other personal effort being put forth! Verse 8 says that there are no other conditions whereby man can be saved. Thus, the Book of Mormon does not solve nor clarify Mormon doctrine.

On other important Mormon doctrines, such as the pre-existence of spirits, the Book of Mormon says nothing at all (except pertaining to Christ and Satan). Nor does the Book of Mormon say anything about the great Mormon doctrines of eternal progression, eternal intelligences, authority or priesthood necessary to act for God, dark skinned individuals having dark skin because they were not valiant in pre-existence and therefore cursed as to the Mormon Priesthood (until 1978), genealogies, baptism for the dead, celestial marriage, wearing of sacred underwear, three heavens, a temporary hell, men becoming gods or that God was once a man, a plurality of gods, and so on. Yet, the Book of Mormon is repeatedly called the "fulness of the everlasting gospel" (Doctrines & Covenants 20:9; 27:5; 42:12). Thus, these doctrines cannot be part of the "fulness of the gospel," or else "fulness" does not mean "fulness"!

The Book of Mormon is called the "fulness of the gospel" even though only one-third of the "gold plates" were translated by Joseph Smith (Journal of Discourses, Vol.III, p. 347). Did God inspire men to keep a sacred record which was two-thirds irrelevant? Even the prophet Mormon said in III Nephi 26:6-8, "And now there cannot be written in this book even a hundredth part of the things which Jesus did teach unto the people. But behold the plates of Nephi do contain the more part of the things which He taught the people. And these things have I written, which are a lesser part of the things He taught the people."

Notice the 99/100 of what Jesus taught was not recorded on all the gold plates abridged by Mormon (vs. 11). If this is true, could one-third of the plates translated into the Book of Mormon contain the "fulness of the gospel"?

The Book of Mormon gives no new information concerning Christ or His gospel - except that He personally came to America to preach the gospel after telling His disciples "go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15). If there is no new information in the Book of Mormon, why do we need it? But if it does contain a new or different gospel, it falls under the curse of Gal. 1:8-9! Thus, if the Bible is the word of God, there is no need for the Book of Mormon

Do you have any credible (external) evidence for why I should believe the Book of Mormon to be true?

Either your book of Mormon is contradicted by the words of your prophets and The doctrine & Covenants and The Pearl Of Great Price and
The Bible or it isn't.
It seems to me that it that your book of is not true

You said "90% of Mormons recognize the fallacy of your arguments because we believe in "living" prophets as more authoritative, yes, even than 'written' scripture"

OH REALLY since when is the words of a prophet more authoritative than the Word Of God, excuse but I think I'll take the Word of God(The Bible not the book of Mormon because you can't prove the Book of Mormon to be true)

Apparently you do have a changing belief system

You are one who follows dead prophets namely Joseph Smith, While I on the other hand follow the Word of God.

If you can't answer my questions I can understand that, but please don't insult my intelligence

ChooseLife

I make more sense than what you understand

When the words of your prophets go against what is already written in Scripture there is cause for concern.Because something has to be wrong something has to be right. The book of Mormon and your prophets cannot both be right because they contradict each other in what they teach. The book of Mormon says one thing your prophets say another either the book of Mormon is wrong or your prophets are wrong. And yet this what you claim how can this be?
Can a square be a square and a circle at the same time I don't think so
It's a simple law of nature two things cannot contradict each other and both be right.

There is only truth!!!

I'm sorry my brother Joseph And I share the same computer those last 2 comments were from me.
Goodnight everyone, Paul

An interesting article concerning Biblical Inerrancy and Infallibility:
It is long, for which I apologize, but it is good reading!!

-------------------------------
Inerrancy and Infallibility of the Bible
Editor's Note
Inerrancy regarding the Bible is rather different than what a lot of people think it is! Skeptics can easily show many differences in wording between different (English translations of) Bibles. They also seem to know a list of Verses in the (modern English language) Bible that seem to contradict otherwise known details or even itself. Therefore, they claim that Inerrancy is not true of the Bible.

If the actual subject at hand was the modern English-language Bible, they might be right. But scholars never really claim that ANY modern Bible is absolutely inerrant. They claim that the Original Manuscripts were! If it is accepted that God Inspired the writing of the Books of the Bible, then to claim otherwise would imply that either He made or permitted mistakes in the Bible or that He is nowhere near as all-knowing as we believe He is. So, the claim of Inerrancy in the Bible is only made regarding the Original Manuscripts. As far as anyone knows, all of those Original Manuscripts have long since disintegrated, and only Scribe-made copies of any of them still exist, so the claim of Inerrancy regarding the Original Manuscripts is probably beyond any possible proof.

Massive scientific research on around 20,000 old Scribe copied Manuscripts, has resulted in a number of tiny refinements regarding the source Greek and Ancient Hebrew texts. See the BELIEVE presentation on Bible for more on that. The current texts are believed to be extremely close to what the Original must have been.

The Original Greek or Ancient Hebrew words often have a number of different translations into English, which is the central reason why there are a large number of English Versions of the Bible. All of them are translated from the very same Greek and Ancient Hebrew texts. See the BELIEVE presentations on Literal Translation and on History of the Bible for more on that.

No formatting existed in the Original texts. Even though some modern Ministers insist that their Bible is Inerrant perfectly, regarding every punctuation mark, that is not true. Until at least 900 AD, no punctuation marks were included in the Scriptural texts. There were no Verse or Chapter numbers until centuries after that. Actually, prior to about 900 AD, the texts were written in Scriptua continua, where there were no spaces between words or sentences, no capitalization and no punctuation. It must have been extremely hard to read. See the BELIEVE presentation on Translating the Bible to get some idea about all that.

In any event, skeptics and critics might be correct regarding some minor errors about details in modern English Bibles, but their criticism is claimed to not apply to the Original Manuscripts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inerrancy and Infallibility of the Bible
Advanced Information
The question of authority is central for any theology. Since Protestant theology has located authority in the Bible, the nature of biblical authority has been a fundamental concern. The Reformation passed to its heirs the belief that ultimate authority rests not in reason or a pope, but in an inspired Scripture. Thus, within conservative Protestantism the question of inerrancy has been much debated.

BELIEVE
Religious
Information
Source
web-site
Our List of 1,000 Religious Subjects
E-mail
The two words most often used to express the nature of scriptural authority are "inerrant" and "infallible." Though these two terms are, on etymological grounds, approximately synonymous, they are used differently. In Roman Catholic theology "inerrant" is applied to the Bible, "infallible" to the church, particularly the teaching function of pope and magisterium. Since Protestants reject the infallibility of both the pope and the church, the word has been used increasingly of the Scriptures. More recently "infallible" has been championed by those who hold to what B B Warfield called limited inspiration but what today is better called limited inerrancy. They limit the Bible's inerrancy to matters of faith and practice, particularly soteriological issues. Stephen T Davis reflects this tendency when he gives a stipulative definition for infallibility: the Bible makes no false or misleading statements about matters of faith and practice. In this article the two terms shall be used as virtually synonymous.

Definition of Inerrancy
Inerrancy is the view that when all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether that relates to doctrine or ethics or to the social, physical, or life sciences.
A number of points in this definition deserve discussion. Inerrancy is not presently demonstrable. Human knowledge is limited in two ways. First, because of our finitude and sinfulness, human beings misinterpret the data that exist. For instance, wrong conclusions can be drawn from inscriptions or texts. Second, we do not possess all the data that bear on the Bible. Some of that data may be lost forever, or they may be awaiting discovery by archaeologists. By claiming that inerrancy will be shown to be true after all the facts are known, one recognizes this. The defender of inerrancy argues only that there will be no conflict in the end.

Further, inerrancy applies equally to all parts of the Bible as originally written. This means that no present manuscript or copy of Scripture, no matter how accurate, can be called inerrant.

This definition also relates inerrancy to hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the science of biblical interpretation. It is necessary to interpret a text properly, to know its correct meaning, before asserting that what a text says is false. Moreover, a key hermeneutical principle taught by the Reformers is the analogy of faith, which demands that apparent contradictions be harmonized if possible. If a passage appears to permit two interpretations, one of which conflicts with another passage and one of which does not, the latter must be adopted.

Probably the most important aspect of this definition is its definition of inerrancy in terms of truth and falsity rather than in terms of error. It has been far more common to define inerrancy as "without error," but a number of reasons argue for relating inerrancy to truth and falsity. To use "error" is to negate a negative idea.

Truth, moreover, is a property of sentences, not words. Certain problems are commonly associated with views related to "error." Finally, "error" has been defined by some in the contemporary debate in such a way that almost every book ever written will qualify as inerrant. Error, they say, is willful deception; since the Bible never willfully deceives its readers, it is inerrant. This would mean that almost all other books are also inerrant, since few authors intentionally deceive their readers.

Some have suggested that the Bible itself might help in settling the meaning of error. At first this appears to be a good suggestion, but there are reasons to reject it. First, "inerrancy" and "error" are theological rather than biblical terms. This means that the Bible applies neither word to itself. This does not mean that it is inappropriate to use these words of the Bible. Another theological term is "trinity." It is, however, more difficult to define such words. Second, a study of the Hebrew and Greek words for error may be classified into three groups: cases of error where intentionality cannot be involved (e.g., Job 6:24; 19:4), cases of error where intentionality may or may not be involved (e.g., 2 Sam. 6:7), and cases where intentionality must be involved (e.g., Judg. 16:10 - 12). Error, then, has nothing to do with intentionality.

Admittedly, precision of statement and measurement will not be up to modern standards, but as long as what is said is true, inerrancy is not in doubt.

Finally, the definition states that inerrancy covers all areas of knowledge. Inerrancy is not limited to matters of soteriological or ethical concern. It should be clear that biblical affirmations about faith and ethics are based upon God's action in history. No neat dichotomy can be made between the theological and factual.

Arguments for Inerrancy
The primary arguments for inerrancy are biblical, historical, and epistemological in nature.

The Biblical Argument
At the heart of the belief in an inerrant, infallible Bible is the testimony of Scripture itself. There is some disagreement as to whether Scripture teaches this doctrine explicitly or implicitly. The consensus today is that inerrancy is taught implicitly.
First, the Bible teaches its own inspiration, and this requires inerrancy. The Scriptures are the breath of God (2 Tim. 3:16), which guarantees they are without error.

Second, in Deut. 13:1 - 5 and 18:20 - 22 Israel is given criteria for distinguishing God's message and messenger from false prophecies and prophets. One mark of a divine message is total and absolute truthfulness. A valid parallel can be made between the prophet and the Bible. The prophet's word was usually oral, although it might be recorded and included in a book; the writers of Scripture communicated God's word in written form. Both were instruments of divine communication, and in both cases the human element was an essential ingredient.

Third, the Bible teaches its own authority, and this requires inerrancy. The two most commonly cited passages are Matt. 5:17 - 20 and John 10: 34 - 35. Both record the words of Jesus. In the former Jesus said that heaven and earth will pass away before the smallest detail of the law fails to be fulfilled. The law's authority rests on the fact that every minute detail will be fulfilled. In John 10:34 - 35 Jesus says that Scripture cannot be broken and so is absolutely binding. While it is true that both passages emphasize the Bible's authority, this authority can only be justified by or grounded in inerrancy. Something that contains errors cannot be absolutely authoritative.

Fourth, Scripture uses Scripture in a way that supports its inerrancy. At times an entire argument rests on a single word (e.g., John 10:34 - 35 and "God" in Ps. 82:6), the tense of a verb (e.g., the present tense in Matt. 22:32), and the difference between a singular and a plural noun (e.g., "seed" in Gal. 3:16). If the Bible's inerrancy does not extend to every detail, these arguments lose their force. The use of any word may be a matter of whim and may even be an error. It might be objected that the NT does not always cite OT texts with precision, that as a matter of fact precision is the exception rather than the rule. This is a fair response, and an adequate answer requires more space than is available here. A careful study of the way in which the OT is used in the NT, however, demonstrates that the NT writers quoted the OT not cavalierly but quite carefully.

Finally, inerrancy follows from what the Bible says about God's character. Repeatedly, the Scriptures teach that God cannot lie (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18). If, then, the Bible is from God and his character is behind it, it must be inerrant and infallible.

The Historical Argument
A second argument for biblical inerrancy is that this has been the view of the church throughout its history. One must remember that if inerrancy was part of the corpus of orthodox doctrine, then in many discussions it was assumed rather than defended. Further, the term "inerrancy" may be a more modern way of expressing the belief in the English language. Nevertheless, in each period of the church's history one can cite clear examples of those who affirm inerrancy.
In the early church Augustine writes, "I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error."

The two great Reformers, Luther and Calvin, bear testimony to biblical infallibility. Luther says, "But everyone, indeed, knows that at times they (the fathers) have erred as men will; therefore I am ready to trust them only when they prove their opinions from Scripture, which has never erred." While Calvin does not use the phrase "without error," there can be little question that he embraced inerrancy. Of the writers of the Gospels he comments, "The Spirit of God . . . appears purposely to have regulated their style in such a manner, that they all wrote one and the same history, with the most perfect agreement, but in different ways."

In modern times one could cite the works of Princeton theologians Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge, A A Hodge, and B B Warfield as modern formulators and defenders of the full inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture.

The biblical and historical arguments are clearly more important than the two that follow. Should they be shown to be false, inerrancy would suffer a mortal blow.

The Epistemological Argument
Because epistemologies differ, this argument has been formulated in at least two very different ways. For some, knowledge claims must, to be justified, be indubitable or incorrigible. It is not enough that a belief is true and is believed on good grounds. It must be beyond doubt and question. For such an epistemology inerrancy is essential. Inerrancy guarantees the incorrigibility of every statement of Scripture. Therefore, the contents of Scripture can be objects of knowledge.
Epistemologies that do not require such a high standard of certitude result in this argument for inerrancy: If the Bible is not inerrant, then any claim it makes may be false. This means not that all claims are false, but that some might be. But so much of the Bible is beyond direct verification. Thus, only its inerrancy assures the knower that his or her claim is justified.

The Slippery Slope Argument
Finally, some see inerrancy as so fundamental that those who give it up will soon surrender other central Christian doctrines. A denial of inerrancy starts one down a slope that is slippery and ends in even greater error.

Objections to Inerrancy
The arguments for inerrancy have not gone unchallenged. In what follows, responses by those who object to each argument will be given and answers will be offered.

The Slippery Slope Argument
This argument is both the least important and most disliked by those who do not hold to inerrancy. What kind of relationship exists between the doctrine of inerrancy and other central Christian doctrines, they ask, that the denial of all inerrancy will of necessity lead to a denial of other doctrines? Is it a logical relationship? Is it a causal or psychological relationship? On close examination, none of these seems to be the case. Many people who do not affirm inerrancy are quite clearly orthodox on other matters of doctrine.
What has been said to this point is true. It should be noted, however, that numerous cases do support the slippery slope argument. For many individuals and institutions the surrender of their commitment to inerrancy has been a first step to greater error.

The Epistemological Argument
The epistemological argument has been characterized by some as an example of overbelief. A single error in the Bible should not lead one to conclude that it contains no truth. If one finds one's spouse wrong on some matter, one would be wrong to conclude that one's spouse can never be trusted on any matter.
This objection, however, overlooks two very important matters. First, while it is true that one error in Scripture would not justify the conclusion that everything in it is false, it would call everything in Scripture into question. We could not be sure that everything in it is true. Since the theological is based on the historical and since the historical is open to error, how can one be sure that the theological is true? There is no direct means for verification. Second, while the case of the errant spouse is true as far as it goes, it does not account for all the issues involved in inerrancy. One's spouse does not claim to be inerrant; the Bible does. One's spouse is not omniscient and omnipotent; the God of the Bible is. God knows everything, and he can communicate with man.

The Historical Argument
Those who reject inerrancy argue that this doctrine is an innovation, primarily of the Princeton theologians in the nineteenth century. Throughout the centuries the church believed in the Bible's authority but not its total inerrancy. The doctrine of inerrancy grew out of an apologetic need. Classical liberalism and its growing commitment to an increasingly radical biblical criticism made the orthodox view of Scripture vulnerable. Therefore, the Princeton theologians devised the doctrine of total inerrancy to stem the rising tide of liberalism. This represented a departure from the views of their predecessors in the orthodox tradition.
Calvin, for example, speaks of God "accommodating" himself to man in the communication of his revelation. Calvin also says that the Bible's teaching does not need to be harmonized with science, and that anyone who wishes to prove to the unbeliever that the Bible is God's Word is foolish.

These objections to the historical argument do not do justice to the evidence. They fail to reckon with the host of clear affirmations of inerrancy by Christian theologians throughout the church's history, only a few of which were given above.

Moreover, the treatment of figures like Calvin is unfair. While Calvin talks about accommodation, he does not mean accommodation to human error. He means that God condescended to speak in language that finite human beings could understand. In one place he says that God spoke only baby talk. He never implies that what God said is in error. On matters of science and proof, the same sort of thing is true. Calvin nowhere says that the Scriptures cannot be harmonized with science or that they cannot be proven to be the Word of God. He felt rather that such an exercise is futile in itself because of man's sin. Hence, he relied on the testimony of the Holy Spirit to the unbeliever. The problem is in man, not in the Scriptures or the evidence for their origin. The theologians of the church may have been wrong in their belief, but they did believe in an inerrant Bible.

The Biblical Argument
A common objection to the biblical argument is that the Bible nowhere teaches its own inerrancy. The point seems to be a subtle one. Those who make this point mean that the Bible nowhere says "all Scripture is inerrant" in the way that it teaches "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (11 Tim. 3:16). While it is true that no verse says explicitly that Scripture is inerrant, biblical inerrancy is implied by or follows from a number of things the Bible does teach explicitly.
Another objection is that inerrancy is unfalsifiable. Either the standard for error is so high that nothing can qualify (e.g., even contradictions have difficulty in qualifying), or the falsity or truth of scriptural statements cannot be demonstrated until all the facts are known. The doctrine of inerrancy is not, however, unfalsifiable in principle; it is unfalsifiable only at present. Not everything that bears on the truth and falsity of the Bible is yet available. How then is it possible to affirm so strongly the doctrine of inerrancy now? Should one be more cautious or even suspend judgment? The inerrantist wants to be true to what he or she thinks the Bible teaches. And as independent data have become available (e.g., from archaeology), they have shown the Bible to be trustworthy.

Another criticism is that inerrancy fails to recognize sufficiently the human element in the writing of Scripture. The Bible teaches that it is a product of human as well as divine authorship. This objection, though, underestimates the divine element. The Bible is a divine - human book. To de-emphasize either side of its authorship is a mistake. Furthermore, this criticism misunderstands man, implying that humanity requires error. This is false. The spokesmen of God were human, but inspiration kept them from error.

The objection has been raised that if one uses the methods of biblical criticism, one must accept its conclusions. But why? One need accept only the methods that are valid and the conclusions that are true.

Finally, it has been objected that since the original autographs no longer exist and since the doctrine applies only to them, inerrancy is meaningless. The identification of inerrancy with the original autographs is a neat hedge against disproof. Whenever an "error" is pointed out, the inerrantist can say that it must not have existed in the original autographs.

Limiting inerrancy to the original autographs could be such a hedge, but it need not be. This qualification of inerrancy grows out of the recognition that errors crop up in the transmission of any text. There is, however, a great difference between a text that is initially inerrant and one that is not. The former, through textual criticism, can be restored to a state very near the inerrant original; the latter leaves far more doubt as to what was really said.

It might be argued that the doctrine of inerrant originals directs attention away from the authority of our present texts. Perhaps inerrantists sometimes fail to emphasize the authority of our present texts and versions as they should. Is the remedy, however, to undercut the base for their authority? To deny the authority of the original is to undermine the authority of the Bible the Christian has today.

P D Feinberg
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)

Bibliography
For inerrancy
D A Carson and J D Woodbridge, eds., Scripture and Truth; N L Geisler, ed., Inerrancy; J W Montgomery, ed., God's Inerrant Word: An International Symposium on the Trustworthiness of Scripture; B B Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible; J D Woodbridge, Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers / McKim Proposal.

Against inerrancy
D M Beegle, Scripture, Tradition and Infallibility; S A Davis, The Debate About the Bible; J Rogers, ed., Biblical Authority; J Rogers and D McKim, The Interpretation and Authority of the Bible.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, see:
Infallibility

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The individual articles presented here were generally first published in the early 1980s. This subject presentation was first placed on the Internet in May 1997.
This page - - Inerrancy and Infallibility of the Bible - - is at http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/inerranc.htm
This subject presentation was last updated on 12/31/2006 15:10:25

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright Information

Send an e-mail question or comment to us: E-mail

The main BELIEVE web-page (and the index to subjects) is at http://mb-soft.com/believe/indexaz.html

I thought the article was well written and factual. I am a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and I am extremely happy to be a member of Jesus Christ's church here on this earth. It means so very much to me to have the gospel of Jesus in my life. I truly believe that He came to earth to atone for our sins,because we are all sinners, and needed a redeemer to save us. He is my personal Savior, and I am not ashamed to say it to anyone. I love him for saving my soul. Without Him, we would all be doomed to death and hell for eternity,and that would be a horrible state to be in for eternity. The love of God in giving us his son to atone for us shows me and the world that God truly does love us. God is love. I hope those of you who do not have the Lord in your life, will realize that you have an emptiness in your soul that only the Lord God,Jesus Christ can fill. I say this in love to my fellowman.Amen.

Accept Joseph Smith and His Successors as "God's Mouthpiece"???

President Joseph Fielding Smith said, "Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground" (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. I, p. 188). Note that it is Joseph Smith, not Jesus Christ, upon which Mormonism stands or falls. Joseph Fielding Smith also said that there is "no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith... No man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (Ibid., pp. 189-190). Mormon scripture commands, "Give heed unto all his (Joseph Smith's) words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me. For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith" (Doctrine & Covenants 21:4-5).

LDS scripture also says, "Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world than any other man that ever lived in it" (Doctrine & Covenants 135:3). And Brigham Young said, "No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. From the day that the priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith Junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are - I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent. He holds the keys of that kingdom for the last dispensation" (Journal of Discourses, Vol. VII, p. 289). Also, the Mormon "Church News" declared, "No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith" (Deseret News, "Church News," November 2, 1968, p. 14).

Many Mormons believe that Joseph Smith will even come again! Brigham Young said, "Joseph Smith, Junior, will again be on this earth dictating plans and calling forth his brethren to be baptized" (Journal of Discourses, Vol. VII, p. 289). President Heber C. Kimball also said, "When Joseph comes again, will brother Brigham be removed? No, never. Brother Joseph is ahead; brother Brigham is after him" (Journal of Discourses, Vol. V, p. 19).

Thus, Joseph Smith is indispensable to the Mormons. But the Bible warns: "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man and maketh flesh his arm and whose heart departeth from the Lord" (Jer. 17:5). And Paul declared, "There is one God and One mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (I Tim. 2:5). Was Joseph Smith a man? If Joseph Smith was a man, to trust in him is to be accursed! If Jesus Christ is the only Mediator, Joseph Smith cannot also be a mediator who grants consent or a passport to those entering the celestial glory.

But, Doctrine & Covenants 43:3-4 declares that Joseph Smith had power to appoint his successors in the prophetic office. Doctrine & Covenants 68:4 says, "And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation."

General Authority Theodore A. Tuttle said, "Our salvation is contingent upon our belief in a living prophet and adherence to his word. He alone has the right to revelation for the whole church... the greatest of all scripture which we have in the world today is current scripture. What the mouthpiece of God says to His children is scripture" (Deseret News, "Church News," April 7, 1973, p. 11).

President Harold B. Lee quoted Mormon Prophet Heber J. Grant, saying, "Brethren, keep your eye on the President of this church. If he tells you to do anything and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it. But you don't need to worry: the Lord will never let His mouthpiece lead this people astray" (Ensign, October, 1972, p. 7). If that statement is true, then why wasn't is also true of the church Jesus established which Mormons claim went into apostasy? Mormons claim their church is a "restoration" of the church just like it was in the New Testament. If it is, then the New Testament church could not be led astray either!

Why did the Lord warn about false prophets if the Mormons do not need to be concerned about them? A ward teacher's lesson by President J. Ruben Clark said, "When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction it should mark the end of controversy" (Improvement Era, June, 1945, p. 354). If the thinking has been done when Mormon leaders speak, God should have given them all the brains, since the other Mormons do not need to think! Jesus warns about "blind leaders of the blind" and says, "if the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch" (Matt. 15:14).

For note: yes I know that some of the sources quoted are part of the LDS canon, but they are the words of your prophets are they not. Your Doctrine & Covenants is part of your LDS canon this is what it says concerning prophets. Doctrine & Covenants 68:4 says, "And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation."

First to Paul or Joseph or whomever you are,

I agree with mostly everything your wrote...what's the question? If my assertion that we believe in "living" prophets is correct...it stands to reason, we believe what they say when "...moved upon by the Holy Ghost."

If you read my earlier posting to Chief1989, it is quite clear that since there are no "Original Manuscripts" of any of the Bible writings to turn to for any scholarly examination...then to proclaim it as inerrant is to be folly in deed. But, if on the other hand, God provided us a prophet to discern what was and what wasn't true in the Bible, now that sheds a whole new light on its incredible spiritual value...we continue to go in circles here...either Joseph Smith is who he claimed he is, a man inspired by God to restore "original" truths, or he isn't...because I and millions of others accept that he is doesn't men you have to...believe who, how or what you may! As Gamaliel, a celebrated Jewish teacher of Saul once said, "...Refrain from these men [Mormons], and let them alone: for if this [their] counsel or this [their] work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God." (Acts 5:38-9).

Next to Matt,

You presume that Mormons accept the writings of Stephen E. Robins as anything more than his own scholarly opinion...no where that I can find, did he claim to have been "...moved upon by the Holy Ghost..." when writing this...so, all that he has stated may or may not be accurate. It would be no different if I put all these postings I've recently written here in a book form and then you quoted from them as though they were statements ALL Mormons believed in...simply to substantiate your position that "...this is what Mormons believe!"...absurd don't you agree?

No where did I state that Stephen E. Robinson was a prophet, but what he say does reflect an accurate statement about what Mormons believe about the Godhead does it not, if I am wrong please correct me.

Oh I will
be praying for ya that maybe one day God will open your eyes!!

Matt,

Since so many of your kind insist on telling me and other Mormons just what we believe, I will open up a window for you to peek into just what we REALLY believe...and I think I can safely say that I speak for ALL Mormons when I say this...
The first statement will answer your question as to OUR belief of the Godhead...the others might provide you other insights.

Here is what ALL Mormons truly believe:

1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

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

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.

5. We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

6. We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

7. We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.

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

9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

10. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.

11. 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.

12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

13. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Well, now you've seen our "dirty little secret beliefs". Feel free to spread them around to all your friends at parties, little league games, and even over you pulpits...the truth is finally out!

Ray

Because the Christ that Mormons profess and the Christ that Christians profess are not the same. They may look like it on the surface but underneath they are completely different. Read some of my earlier posts.

ChooseLife

Is this what you believe about your prophets?

First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Sixth: The prophet does not have to say "Thus saith the Lord" to give us scripture.

Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

Eighth: The prophet is not limited by men's reasoning.

Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.

Tenth: The prophet may be involved in civic matters.

Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.

Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the —follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer.

Those are all nice, but that is not all you believe. Do you not also believe in baptism for the dead. Do you believe in a literal Hell?

Also did Joseph Smith not say "I have more to boast about than ever 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, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I."

Also did Joseph Smith not say "I have more to boast about than ever 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, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I."

I think he did somewhere along the line. But Paul in the bible also said something very similar to that. When read it context we know that Paul was boasting of the things that the Lord had done through him. Not the things that Paul had done himself. Joseph Smith was doing the same thing. He even mentioned Paul's speech when he said that quote. Joseph Smith was using it to prove a point that the Lord did these things through him in my opinion. That said, even if Joseph Smith was boasting and is guilty of pride, then it just goes to prove what we've been saying all along. Joseph Smith was just a man. And an imperfect man at that. He was not lying in that quote either. I'm not sure what there is to reproach with that actually. But anti-mormons love to use it.

I researched and found the sources to what I have referred to. Paul was boasting the many different things that he suffered in 2 Corinthians 11. Joseph Smith read these scriptures and said "As Paul boasted, I have suffered more than Paul did. I should be like a fish out of water, if I were out of persecution." Then he went on after some other stuff to say the above quote. This is found in History of the Church vol. 6 Page 408-409.

Again, even if you don't believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet, you cannot contend with history and all the accounts of the persecution he went through. He was not lying. So I'm not sure how this quote is supposed to reproach him.

Try reading the whole speech that he gave in the history of the church instead of copying an out of context quote from a website and maybe it will be explained to you.

Well, it's been fun but high school starts tomorrow so I gotta go
I'll leave you with this:

If you would ask me why I don't believe in Mormonism, I would have to say
they place faith in the words of their prophets over their scripture, and their prophets tend to contradict each other and change their views on doctrines because of cultural issues. Culture tends to dictate their beliefs on some doctrines not all but some. Their belief in works for salvation takes away from what was accomplished on the Cross, as if God dying on the Cross for my sins was not enough. Their belief that God was once a man and became a God and we to can become gods if we adhere to all the laws of Mormonism. Don't let them fool you on this they won't tell you they believe this but they do.

A little Word about what I believe about God
The Foundation of All Redemptive History

The foundation of all redemptive history is this sentence: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). Therefore, we confess at the beginning of our creed: "I believe in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth." By this we mean that God created out of nothing everything that is not God. Nothing but God the Son and God the Spirit is co-eternal with God. There is one God and therefore one ultimate origin of all that is. "For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever!" (Romans 11:36). But since he is one God in three persons we also believe—as the Scriptures teach—that "Christ is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 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" (Colossians 1:15, 16; cf. 1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:1; Hebrews 1:2). God the Father through the Son created out of nothing everything that is not God. The great mystery of creation is how something can come from nothing. Yet Paul writes in Romans 4:17 that "God calls into being things that are not as though they were." "God commanded and they were created," the psalmist says (Psalm 148:5). God addresses his command to nothingness, and even nothingness obeys his voice and becomes something (cf. Hebrews 11:3). If you ever start to doubt the Word of God think on this: God can issue a command that is so powerful that if nothing is there to obey, the word itself brings forth its own obedience through creation out of nothing.

If all that is not God came into being at the word of God, then it follows that every second of our existence is owing to the word of God. The biblical teaching is that no creature has a principle of ongoing existence in itself apart from God's perpetual preservation. Hebrews 1:3 says that Christ "reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power." If God should ever cease to address your body and soul with the command, "Be!" you would cease to be. The only barrier between you and nothingness is the word of God. Have we even begun to plumb the depths of that saying, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4, Deuteronomy 8:3)!

Since the same divine word that brought all things into being also holds them in being moment by moment, the Scriptures do not treat creation as a finished act. But the appearance of every new life is seen as God's creation. Psalm 104:29, 30 says of the animals, "When thou (God) hidest thy face, they are dismayed; when thou takest away their breath, they die and return to their dust. When thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created and thou renewest the face of the ground." The same thing is implied about every human, too, when Ecclesiastes 12:1 says, "Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth," and when Isaiah says, "Woe to him who strives with his Maker, an earthen vessel with the potter! Does the clay say to him who fashions it, 'What are you making?' or 'Your work has no handles?'" (45:9). In other words, we all relate to God as creator just as much as if we had been the first person made from the dust of the ground. It does not matter that we have come largely from the union of sperm and egg and the multiplication of cells through nutrition and molecular activity, because all these processes are so completely governed by the all-preserving word of God that we are as much clay in the potter's hand as was Adam.

So the biblical doctrine (or if you prefer the biblical picture of God) before us is this: God the Father, through the agency of his eternal Son, created out of nothing all that is not God by his word of command, and by that same word he upholds all things, so that the emergence of every new being is his peculiar creation.
God Owns All Things Absolutely

Now what are the implications for our life today of this amazing picture of God. I will mention only three. First, if God is the creator of all things out of nothing, then he owns all things and all people absolutely. The Scripture infers ownership from creation. Psalm 95:5, "The sea is his for he made it." Psalm 89:11, "The heavens are thine, the earth also is thine; the world and all that is in it, thou hast founded them." Psalm 24:1, "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein." God owns all things absolutely. We may think of ourselves as owners only in relation to other people. That is, they have no right to take certain things from us without compensation. But in relation to God we own nothing, absolutely nothing, and he has every right to dispose of us all our so-called possessions exactly as he pleases. This means that with regard to our possessions we are stewards or trustees of God's estate, and with regard to ourselves we are slaves of the Almighty. It is very wrong to think that a tithe of our income belongs to God and 90% belongs to us. It is all God's absolutely, and we have no rights to dispense it in any way but what pleases its Owner. The doctrine of creation implies that we should ask of every expenditure: Am I by this purchase achieving the purposes of my Creator?

Not only does God own our possessions, he also owns us absolutely. We are the clay and he is the potter and he may do with us exactly as he pleases (Psalm 29:16; 45:9). "Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me thus?' Has the potter no right over the clay?" (Romans 9:20–21). The answer is: Yes, the potter has absolute right over the clay. Take your spiritual temperature here. If this is sweet to you and you readily submit to God's ownership, it is the mark of grace and maturity in your life. But if this is offensive to you and you resent the thought of God having an absolute right to do with you as he pleases, it is a mark of the flesh and of need for repentance. For the very essence of the flesh is brazen self-assertion, the will to be autonomous, the desire to assert one's rights over against God and determine one's own life. But the rise of saving faith is markedly the collapse of our rebellion against the rights of our Owner. The marrow of saving faith is the laying down of the arms of self-determination; it is total surrender to the will of our Creator, our owner.
Everything Exists for the Glory of God

A second implication of the doctrine of creation is that everything that exists has a purpose, a goal, a reason for being. If God did not create the world, then any man's goal is as good as another. There are no absolutes and everything is aimless and absurd. The only meaning in life is what you arbitrarily create by doing your own thing. But if God did create the world, then it has an absolute purpose and goal, for God is not whimsical or frivolous. Nor is his purpose ever in jeopardy, for he says in Isaiah 46:10, "My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose."

The ultimate purpose of God in creation was and is to display his glory in all its fullness. According to Numbers 14:21, God's intention to fill the earth with the glory of the Lord is as certain as his very existence. He says in Isaiah 43:7, "I created Israel for my glory." And in Ephesians 1:12 rebellious creatures are brought back to God for this purpose: "to live for the praise of his glory."

Since God created everything, he owns everything; everything we have and are belongs to God. Therefore, we must ask of every expenditure and every act, "Does this achieve the purpose of my Owner?" And now we know what this purpose is and so we must ask, "Does this purchase or this act or this attitude display God's glory?" Thus the second implication of the doctrine of creation is that God has a purpose in creation, to display his glory, and therefore the purpose of all his creatures is to join him in that aim. That's why we exist.
We Are Dependent on Our Creator for Everything

The final implication of this doctrine that I want to mention is simply this: If we are creatures, we are totally and utterly dependent on our Creator for everything. We are weaker than the weakest baby apart from him, because apart from him we fly into nothingness. Every breath we take, every calorie of energy we expend, every good intention we fulfill is a gift from our merciful Creator, who owes us nothing. So the lesson is clear: you can't glorify God as the all-sufficient Creator and Sustainer unless you turn and become like little children who gladly depend on their Father for everything.

And with that we close this circle. The foundation of all redemptive history is that God the Father, through the agency of his eternal Son, created out of nothing all that is not God by his word of command, and by that same word he upholds all things so that the emergence of every new being is his peculiar creation. Therefore, God owns everything that exists. We and all our so-called possessions are his to do with as he pleases. What pleases him is the achievement of his ultimate purpose to fill the earth with his glory. Therefore, the all encompassing life-goal of every creature should be to display the value of God's glory. But since we are helpless and absolutely dependent on God for everything, the only way this can be done is by becoming like little children who are not anxious for anything, but entrust their souls to the faithful Creator (1 Peter 4:19).

Mormonism takes away from the God of the universe and instead gives us a cheap imitation, If you want know your purpose in life it's this you were created for the Glory of God. I would suggest you read the Bible and see what God says for yourself. A good translation I would suggest is the ESV. Don't let Mormons tell you that you need a prophet to reveal to you the Word of God. God has given us His Word so that we can see for ourselves what He says.

Respond however you like.....

Just a quick comment, if God was the Son and the Holy Ghost and himself at the same time, when the Son went back to the Father did he cease to be? Was he absorbed back into the Original Father, being an offshoot. And was the Son a man? Then went back to being God, so could a man be God?

As an astrophysicist, I can't help but respond to Matt's post:

"If God created the heavens and the earth (and most creationists would argue he did it in roughly 6000 years, hence 6 days of creation) and He created everything outside of himself because He has always existed, what do you believe He was doing in the eons of time BEFORE He got the idea to create the heavens and the earth?"

First of all, I firmly believe that the earth is much much older than 6000 years, but that's not the aspect I will to reply to, as it is a long and completely separate discussion from the point I wish to explain. (Besides, your tone suggests to me that you do not believe in a 6000 year old earth either, and there is no point in "preaching to the choir" so to speak.)

It is a misconception, pure and simple, to believe that there were "eons of time" before God created the universe. Time is a construct of the universe itself, and is not immutable or unchangeable. Science has shown us that the flow of time can be altered by strong gravitational fields, or by very high velocities (approaching the speed of light, which is a universal constant). To say that God exists outside of our universe (which is a necessity, if He created it to begin with) is, thus, to say that God exists outside of the confines of space, time, mass, energy, or any of the physical constructs of our universe.

It is difficult for our limited brains to conceive of existence without time, but at the very least, please try not to limit God by the confines of our universe. In other words, God was not, say, sitting around watching time go by second by second, eon by eon, and suddenly got bored and thought "hey, why don't I create a universe?" Time is not a limitation of God. It did not exist until he created the universe. So asking "what was God doing before he created the universe?" (Or, in my mind as a physicist, "what was God doing before the Big Bang?") is a meaningless question. "Before" implies a previous moment in time, but time did not exist before the Big Bang.

Incidentally, this has always been one of the things that has always rung true for me about the God of the Bible, who defines Himself as "I AM." Even before science came to the conclusion that time itself is simply a construct of the universe, God defined himself as a self-existing entity that exists outside of the limitations of space or time. God doesn't even define himself to say "I existed back then, I exist now, and I'll exist in the future" because that would imply that He experiences the passage of time, just as we do. But any God who created the universe must exist outside it. So, to paraphrase very very loosely (I apologize I don't remember the verse) God said something like "back then, right now, and in the future, I AM" defining Himself to exist at all times at once, or, in other words, to exist outside of the confines of time.

So God is not sitting in heaven watching the world unfold moment by moment. That too would require Him to be confined by the passage of time. Even now he knows everything that happened, everything that is happening now, and everything that will ever happen, because the limitation of time is meaningless to Him. It is this very nature of God that makes him God.

So what would you have the Bible say about God before the universe? How can we possibly imagine existence without time? It is hard-wired too deeply into our feeble human brains. The clearest, most concise explanation that can be given is simply "in the Beginning," that is, "back before God created time, an epoch which our brains cannot possibly comprehend..."

Sorry for the long rant. It happens sometimes when I get talking about common misconceptions about the laws of physics, and the truly glorious interconnections between findings of modern science and ancient Biblical understanding.

To the astrophysicist,

I think your analogy is as non-sensical as an inerrant Bible; granted entertaining...

"Jesus Christ, the same Yesterday, and to day, and for ever." Heb 13:8

You may think you know a lot about "laws" governing the universe...but, in the grand scheme of spiritual things...you're just a babe in diapers, like the rest of us!

Now, use your brain and explain Heb. 13:8 for me. If He is the same "always"...how does He turn into God the Father and God the Spirit in the Triune? Doesn't that mean He has to NOT be something else during that time? Oh, this time thing is so...limiting.

Lastly, if there was a creation...and there was...then there had to be something before that...and before that...and before that...if that's not a form of "time", well...

Well,

There is nothing to say to that kind of logic..."it remains one the mysteries of God..."

If it is a "Mystery" then how do you affirm, he wasn't a man on another world?

Because He created the entire universe. Sense He was already God He had no need to go live on a world so that he could become God. If He was a man who became God, who created Him and why aren't we worshiping that other being. Because to tell you the truth I would rather worship the One True God who was, who is, and who is to come, than a creature who became a God. Or are you implying that God didn't create the universe?

AgnosticForSure

You said: If God operates outside of the realm of time, then by physical laws, He must also operate outside of the universe since most scientists agree there are bounds to the universe. Where would other dimensions fit into God's all-powerful, all-knowing plan?

Can God be bound by the rules of His own Creation? I thought the whole idea of God being God Is that there are no limits to to his power or to His ability, He created physical laws so why is He bound by them? He's not.

This is a question that I posted a couple of weeks ago that no one ever answered:

"A large part of this blog has been spent trying to say who or what is a Christian. Fine. I get that. Mormons accuse Christians of trying to disenfranchise them from the moniker "Christian." However, if all Mormons want to be known as Christians, why do the missionaries continue to attempt to proselytize even after you've identified yourself as a Christian? If you are Christians and we are Christians, once we've identified ourselves, shouldn't your missionaries say, "Amen, brother! Keep spreading the faith, and we will, too. See you later!"? Why do they continue to try and get me to read the Book of Mormon if we are all Christians, and I have already indicated to them that I follow Jesus?"

If someone tells me they are Baptist, or a Methodist, or a Presbyterian etc. etc. and that he or she believes in Jesus and is saved, I don't try to convert them over to my particular belief system. In the same way, if our doctrinal differences are not that great, which has been a consistent message from LDS members on this thread, then why are you attempting to proselytize "fellow" believers? If we are members of the same religion, then we should have unity and join together to fight for causes that are dear to both of us.

I think the root of that is that Mormons want to be called "Christians" to gain a better standing in mainstream America. After all, Christian (although that is losing ground year after year) is a nicer word to most Americans than Mormon. So to gain better acceptance, I can understand completely that Mormons would want to be called Christians. However, the thing that strikes me is that I don't know if Mormons really consider orthodox Christians, who have held to the traditions and teachings of the church down through the years, really Christian or not. It is an interesting paradox: you want to be included in the conversation when 'Christian churches' are discussed, but you don't really consider those other churches to be 'Christian' because they don't have the authority or apostolic succession that the LDS claims for itself, so they can't really be considered to be Christian in the view of the LDS.

Interesting...

Greg,

Thanks for your comments. They are heartfelt and I appreciate them. The one question that I really want answered hasn't been answered. If Mormons are Christians, and orthodox Christians are Christians, why do Mormon missionaries keep trying to proselytize? I don't know why, and I would really like to hear from anyone who thinks they do.

I found your last paragraph very interesting. I'd like to think that someone who is a Christian at heart will be saved, regardless of what membership in a church body he or she has. If I'm right, I'll be in heaven with my Savior and all of the saints who have gone on before. If Mormonism is right, I should still be in Terrestrial heaven, and the Son's presence is there. So I'm good with that.

P.S. I was going to ask you what you consider the 'fulness of the Gospel' to be, but it's Friday night, let's let that one lie.

Have a great weekend...

Greg

Your statements are confusing: you say that being a christian means you are saved and you do consider other churches to be christian, but then you don't know if they are saved or not

Your statements: Christian != saved. We have no doubt that the vast majority of Baptists, Lutherans, etc. and other evangelicals are Christians

:We *do* consider those other churches to be Christian.

:Will they be saved? I honestly don't know. Are they Christians? Without a doubt

Perhaps we need to discuss what being Christian really means since you seem to think there are so many ways to God.

Chief,

We are apostate that is why, some goliath (must have been to carry around 8x7 golden tablets, which would be in excess of 200 lbs) walking around in holy undergarments (well I don't know if he was actually considered a priest) declared that God (who according to Joseph and Brigham was actually Adam) was a MAN (a physical one) who walked the 'earth' and became God ("God" is actually from the planet Kolob). He also declared that he found some scrolls in a language never before seen or documented, and contained within them was the revelation that Jesus (who is a product of God having sex with Mary and actually atoned for sins in the Garden of Gethsemane, oh and is also the brother of Lucifer) came to America and visited the native americans who were actually jews (even though there is DNA evidence to prove otherwise) who left on a big boat (actually more like a clam) 4 thousand years ago (though there is no historical record of this either).

There actually is no heaven as you beleive it, instead you populate your own planet upon glorification , but this doctrine may have been changed, I am not current on the infallible prophets who continually change church doctrines (over 65,000 changes to Book of Commandments/Doctrine of Covenants, 3000 to book of Mormon, which would seem to indicate they are very much fallible). You may even get to go to the moon where people live for up to one thousand years (whatever happened to Neil Armstrong...he must be OLD).

You also don't believe in all of the non-evidence of places, people, animals and cities from the Book of Mormon which have never been substantiated by any archaeological evidence or all of the prophecies of Joseph Smith which never happened. I wouldn't worry though, if you don't believe in Mormonism they will baptize you from the dead into the Mormon church when you die.

The one thing I wouldn't do if I were you is become a Mormon and then leave the church, you will turn black and wrinkly, with gray hair, just like the devil...I would NOT do this if I were you.

So...you may want go home and read the Book of Mormon and pray to God to show you that it is right, that way you can believe in all of these outlandish claims. Then you can come on here and declare to be a Christian, even if Mormon church leaders throughout history declared the opposite. It doesn't matter what history says, obviously, you just need to have faith, and ALOT of it to believe in all of this, but I am confident that God will show you if you just read the Book of Mormon and pray to God.

Did I mention that you should read the Book of Mormon and pray that Adam/God (whatever you want to call him) shows you the truth about Satan's brother? If not you should do so because the truth about the Jesus who only beat out Satan as being the Savior of us is because he was so righteous while living on earth(good thing too, i wouldn't want that black, wrinkly thing to be my savior) is found in believing in the Book of Mormon. So read it and pray. Read the Book of Mormon and pray. That's all I can say.

If faith is based on archaeology, then we are all doomed. Where is Noah's Ark? Where is any historical record of Moses? Where is one single word written by Jesus Christ? There are plenty of historians who will debate you on the validity on the very existance of Jesus, or if the Gospels were really authored by who they are claimed to be authored by. I have faith. I would hope you would too, because if not, when someone finds the "bones of Jesus", you can either believe or dismiss, but regardless faith will take you to heaven.

B,

Please tell me that you are kidding? Where is there any historical record of Moses? Do you know anything about archeology and historical evidence (be it internal or external)? I won't even bother to get into many specifics, though I could very easily, suffice it to say this...you will be hard pressed to find historians who will not teach what is commonly referred to as the Old Testament (and New Testament) as historical fact (they doubt the miracles and theological claims but there has never been one example of contradictory evidence against the geological/societal claims of the New Testament). The Old Testament has been corroborated by archaeological evidence and the dead sea scrolls among other things. Both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible are the best documented historical books EVER.

I would ask you if you believe in Ancient Greece and if so on what basis. If not, we can lock you up in a loony farm because no thinking person would ever doubt based on archaeological evidence (such as the Parthenon) and the fact that there are writings and manuscripts that verify this that Ancient Greece is a figment of our historical imaginations. I wonder if you realize the disparity between manuscripts between Ancient Greece and Ancient Israel. I would hate to tell you about the disparity between those and the New Testament (plent of people doubt the truth, there are nuts all over the place who say the holocaust didn't happen, rational people who know how investigate historical evidence know the difference and there are no valid claims against the New Testament on its historical accuracy of people and places). If you want specifics on numbers I would be happy to provide those.

Moving on, I cannot even believe you could make such a claim about Jesus:

Where is one word written by Jesus? Have you ever read the New Testament? If not, there are many words in there, I suggest you check them out. Now you will say Jesus didn't write them himself, I am sure, that is the next logical response. That is true, however, Jesus doesn't have to write words in order for them to be his, this is why there are "tests" historians use to verify claims of "followers" and on this basis there is substantial evidence that the words of Jesus are his words (you don't have to believe what they say, but you must believe they are his. In fact, most ancient writings about kings and leaders are never written by their "hand", this is why they had scribes).

On this point, most religions all of the world corroborate this very fact. Hindu's, Buddhists and Muslims are believe that Jesus existed and was a great teacher, the only real 'skeptics' are the Humanists, Materialists, Secularists because Jesus' words speak against there very way of life and much the same as you see in modern politics and theology, these people are militant against anything that goes against their "way of life".

What is more, I don't know what kind of faith you have, obviously not in the Jesus of the Bible. This is based on the fact that you don't believe Jesus' words in the Bible and you don't believe in the resurrection of Christ from the dead. Christ rose from the dead therefore there are no "bones". They will never find them. Faith will get you to heaven (as you say) if you believe in the Truth. I don't have confidence that a general faith is enough. I am sold out that the scriptures are true and that Jesus is what the historical words claim.

Is my faith in archeology? Of course not. And I would never claim such a thing. You actually have gone off on a tangent of my previous comments. The point I was making was that MY FAITH TRADITION is corroborated by archaeological evidence unlike the Mormon tradition. For 2000 years, there have been documented theologians, churches, cities, artifacts which show that my faith tradition is the true Christian tradition, on this point, it is the burden of proof of the Mormon tradition to show that those 2000 years were a mere apparition.

B,

You are mistaken,there is much evidence for a great flood about 4000 years ago, it actually is a better explanation for the geologic record than evolution can explain. That and to mention that over 80% of ancient civilizations on this earth have a similar story.

Concerning the history of Moses, I have no doubt that the Old Testament speaks of him and we have the record of the Old Testament. Who knows what Moses would have been called in the Egyptian household? And why would they name him in the first place? Just because there is a gap in Egyptian literature not naming Moses we shouldn't conclude that he wasn't real.

You call me condescending, I call you cynical. We are not called to have faith in a God who doesn't rule the earth and all history. I believe in the historical record of the Bible and my faith is strengthened by the fact the archeology backs up my claims. We should rely on Christian apologists, who spend their lives fighting the up hill battle of scholarship in an environment with people who hate Christianity and who' only goal is to disprove them, not strive for the Truth. Evolution is the biggest lie of all time, to which there has never been a shred of evidence. You may have heard in the news, just a few days ago that there was yet another set back. There were bones of two species of man (previously thought to be and evolutionary jump), next to each other dated at the same time. So these supposed "men" lived next to each other at the same time period, this shows that evolution's theory is struggling, yet we continue to teach it as fact. It actually sounds very familiar to...FAITH! Well at least that is settled, both world views must rely on faith, and I have it in the God who rules, who ruled over history and will continue to rule and be strengthened by any findings which verify that.

I apologize if I came across as condescending, my goal was simply to uphold the true findings of archeology and how it serves to strengthen the faith of the Saints, as we live in a world who are consistently trying to suppress the truth.

> Your statements are confusing: you say that being a christian means you
> are saved

No, I did not say that. I apologize for using programming conventions.
!= means "not equal".

Greg

I have lived in Salt Lake City for over 15 years and I have to say that the Mormon Church is one of the finestwell organized churches in the World. The People in the church are well intentioned and generally very good people. That said, they believe in mono-theism, the belief in more than one God. In fact they teach that they will become Gods of their own worlds. They will play on words and tell you that they will become a God but that one God will still rule over all the other Gods. They tend to try and back off and deny things like "Mother God" which is published in earlier home study guides printed by the LDS church. They have huge genealogy libraries that are for them to pray and baptize the dead into heaven. This is in direct conflict with what the Bible teaches about the dead. They are to be left alone. They believe that Lucifer was Jesus brother when the bible teaches that he was a fallen angel. They don't believe in a literal Hell, just different levels of heaven. No worry...someone will just pray you into a higher heaven. They believe there are certain sins that can't be forgiven, murder for instance, which is contradictory to Bible teachings. Several archeologists have left the church because they could not find anything backing up the ancient civilizations written about specifically in the book of Mormon. In fact,there are no third party records or writings that record or prove these civilizations ever existed yet the LDS faithful blindly follow. The Mormon church is doing wonderful things helping people in this life and leading many to the church. Satan is the father of lies , he creates many seemingly good church organizations so as to deceive many. The Mormon church tries to convince the public that they are Christian but their Jesus is not the same Jesus of the Bible and they are certainly not even close to basic tenants held by the Christian churches around the world. Yes, vary good people with vary bad doctrines. I pray that many people in the Mormon church will look for impartial third party sources and be honest in their conclusions. Sadly, they wont, they will cling to these demon doctrines until death. Pray for the Mormons they really are good people that deserve better.

Scott:

I agree we need to pray for them that they would meet the God of the Bible

GB,

From the Watchman Expositor (this is not chief saying it is so, so please do not attribute this to me):

"Joseph Smith and the Biblical Test of a Prophet
written by James Walker

Millions of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints pray to receive a "testimony" of the truthfulness of the Church and believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God. They base this knowledge largely on a Book of Mormon passage, Moroni 10:4, that if you ask sincerely ask God "if these things are not true he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost."

Mormons reason that the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, the LDS Church, and Joseph Smith can be "tested" according to Moroni 10:4. In fact, verse five indicates by this test, "ye may know the truth of all things."The problem with a subjective test of this sort is that many religions have followers that are sincere and pray.The Moslems pray five times a day facing Mecca and they have a sincere testimony that Mohammed was a true prophet and the Koran the word of God. Likewise, Jehovah's Witnesses believe in prayer and their "anointed" followers are convinced that they have the testimony of God's Spirit that their organization is true.

The Bible makes it clear that there are other spirits besides the Holy Spirit who can be very "seducing" and even teach "doctrines" (1 Timothy 4:1). This is why 1 John 4:1 warns: "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try [Greek dokimazo "test"] the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." Testing the spirits is necessary because of "many false prophets" in the world. What is the test for a prophet?

Biblical Test for a Prophet
The test for a prophet is found in Deuteronomy 18:20-22. This scripture teaches that a prophet must be tested by checking his prophecies. Also. Jesus said, "Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."This is not telling us to examine a prophet's good works. Many false prophets have led moral lives. The fruit of a fig tree is its figs. The fruit of a prophet is his prophecies. One false prophecy (even if some true prophecies are given) and that person is a false prophet. It does not matter how sincere he or his followers are. It does not matter how often his followers pray or what feelings they seem to receive in answer to their prayers. He is a false prophet.

This is one way a person can decide if Jeane Dixon is a true prophet not by praying about her, but checking her prophecies. Many of them have not come true. A false prophet never says to you, "I am a false prophet. Follow me!" He will appear to be a true prophet. This is part of the "sheep's clothing."

Does Joseph Smith Pass the Test?
The fruit of a prophet is his prophecy. Before testing some of Joseph Smith's prophecies, it is important that we classify types of prophetic statements dealing with future events.

First, there are open-dated predictions. These are prophecies that are given no certain time frame in which to be fulfilled. An example is found in History of the Church, Vol. 2 p. 182. In this prophecy Joseph Smith predicts in 1835 that, "the coming of the Lord, which was nigh--even fifty-six years should wind up the scene." Although the Lord did not return by 1891, it should be noted that Joseph Smith said fifty-six years should wind up the scene. Something could have happened to upset the original time schedule. Therefore this prophecy alone does not make Joseph Smith a false prophet.

A second type of prediction that is quite common is the self-fulfilling prophecy. One sample is located in Doctrine and Covenants 37:1. In this revelation, the Lord instructs Joseph not to translate any more until he goes to Ohio. To make this prophecy come true, Joseph Smith had only to cease translating for a few months.

A third type of prophecy Joseph Smith gave is the conditional prophecy. One such prediction is preserved in Doctrine and Covenants 40:16-18. Here it is foretold that if the people of Ohio repent, they will not be severely judged of the Lord. This is conditional upon their repentance. If Ohio is severely judged, they did not sufficiently repent. If they are not judged, they must have repented before God.

Although most of Joseph Smith's prophecies are of the first three types, there is a fourth type of prediction that can be found. This is the close-dated unconditional prophecy. Although relatively few of Joseph Smith's prophecies are of this type, they are extremely important because they make it possible to put Joseph Smith to the Biblical test of a prophet.

One such prophecy is found in Doctrine and Covenants Section 114. This two-verse prophecy, given April 17, 1838, is a set of instructions to David W. Patten, then one of the LDS twelve Apostles. He was to prepare to go on a mission with the other eleven (Apostles) into "all the world." According to the revelation, the mission was to take place "next spring" which would give the prophecy a "closed-date" somewhere around April or May of 1839. Less than three months later, the "twelve" were given a specific date to leave (April 26, 1839) and one of the apostles, Thomas Marsh, was instructed to stay behind to "publish my word." (Doctrine and Covenants Sectiono 118).

The date of April 26, 1839 came and, as History of the Church records, "The Brethren arrived at Far West, and proceeded to transact the business of their mission." (Vol. 3 p.336). However, David W. Patten was not part of that mission. David Patten was not present because he had died in October of 1838.

History of the Church reports: "Captain Patten was carried some of the way in a litter, but it caused so much distress that he begged to be left by the way side. he died that night" (Vol. 3, p. 171). Rather than going on a mission with the Twelve next spring, as Joseph Smith had prophesied in 1838, Patten died before the next year even came. This could not be a reference to a "mission" in the spirit world after death because Joseph Smith was specific that he was to go "unto all the world" (not the Spirit World) and he was to be with the "twelve." (Doctrine and Covenants 114 emphasis added).

Some have suggested that David Patten could have apostatized from his calling. In other words, God called him to go on the mission but because of sin or faithlessness he fell from the calling. There are two problems with this explanation. The God of the Bible is all-knowing and He knew that Patten was going to die (Acts 1:18). Also, Patten did not fall away from the Church. After Patten's death, Joseph Smith wrote, "Brother David Patten was a very worthy man, beloved by all good men who know him. He was one of the Twelve Apostles, and died as he had lived, a man of God, and strong in the faith of a glorious resurrection." (History of the Church Vol. 3, p. 171).

TEMPLE IN INDEPENDENCE
A second example of a close-dated unconditional prophecy is preserved in Doctrine and Covenants Section 84. In this revelation given on September 22 and 23, 1832, Joseph Smith foretold of an LDS temple to be built in Independence, Missouri. The prophecy specifies that the city of "New Jerusalem" including the temple was to be constructed, "beginning at the temple lot which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri" (verse 3). Joseph Smith placed a time limit on the new temple saying, "which temple shall be reared in this generation. For verily this generation shall not all pass away." (verses 4 and 5). The generation of 1832 has passed away. Obviously there is no one who was alive in 1832 which is still alive today. The temple was never built. At this time there are still no LDS temples in the entire State of Missouri, much less Independence. Shortly after Joseph Smith gave this prophecy while in Kirtland, Ohio, the Mormons in Independence were being driven out of the state (History of the Church Vol. 1, chapter 31). Later, a splinter group called The Church of Christ (or Hedrickites) claiming to be the "true" followers of Joseph Smith, came into possession of the actual site on which the temple was to be built.

In the prophecy this site was called the "temple lot." Granville Hedrick, the first leader of this group, received a revelation to return to Independence where by 1869 they purchased the original "temple lot." (see Divergent Paths of the Restoration, by Steven L. Shields). Both the Latter-day Saints and the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS) have attempted unsuccessfully to obtain the property. Currently, the Hedrickites have about 3,000 members, but they have been unable to or unwilling to build the temple. The RLDS are in the process of completing a temple across the street from the temple lot within sight of the spot where the corner stone was laid. Nonetheless, even if Hedrickites or the LDS were to build the temple today, the prophecy would be false because the generation that was alive in 1832 has all died.

Some Mormons have attempted to stretch the meaning of "this generation" to include more than those that were alive in 1832 when the revelation was given. They try to make the word generation mean an era possibly centuries long. What Joseph Smith meant by "generation" was clearly explained by Apostle Orson Pratt. In a lecture given in Salt Lake City during General Conference, Apostle Pratt attempted to play down the claims of some that Doctrine and Covenants section 84 was a false prophecy. This sermon was delivered in 1871 just two years after the Hedrickites gained possession of the "temple lot."

Apparently, there were some who already believed this was a false prophecy as early as 1871. After all, it had been thirty-nine years since the revelation was given and hopes were beginning to fade. To silence these "objectors," Apostle Pratt delivered this sermon in which he specifically explained what Joseph Smith meant by the term "generation." He first quotes the prophecy (Doctrine and Covenants 84) then he explains: "Here then we see a prediction, and we believe it. "Yes! The Latter-day Saints have as firm faith and rely upon this promise as much as they rely upon the promise of forgiveness of sins. a temple will be reared on the spot that has been selected, and the corner-stone of which has been laid, in the generation when this revelation was given." Then Apostle Pratt rebukes the doubters saying, "But says the objector, `thirty-nine years have passed away.' What of that? "The generation has not passed away; all the people that were living thirty-nine years ago have not passed away; but before they do pass away this will be fulfilled." (Journal of Discourses Vol. 14 p. 275).

Orson Pratt had no idea that over 100 years after he was to make this bold claim that the "temple lot" would still stand empty. He said he and his hearers could be as sure of this as their own salvation. He was wrong.

His statements do, however, clarify what was meant by Joseph Smith when he said "generation." Rather than guessing at what was meant, here is a definitive explanation by a General Authority who was alive when Joseph Smith made the prediction. Because this sermon was delivered from the Tabernacle in Salt Lake City in General Conference by an Apostle, it can be counted as trustworthy.

Latter-day Saints are sincere when they testify that Joseph Smith is a true prophet. Unfortunately, one can be sincerely wrong. Doctrine and Covenants 114 and 84 are false prophecies and, according to Deuteronomy 18, this makes Joseph Smith a false prophet.

So I guess that Jesus was a false prophet for calling Judas Iscariot to be an Apostle and promising that he would "sit on twelve thrones with the twelve judging the house of Israel" (Matt chap 19)

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/patten.htm

Did Joseph Smith Prophesy Falsely Regarding David Patten?
Question: Why did Joseph Smith prophesy that David Patten would go on a mission (D & C 114:1), yet six months later Patten was dead? Isn't this just another example of a false prophet making a false prophecy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D & C 114 was not a prophecy, it was a mission call. Joseph Smith, under the inspiration of the Lord, issued a call for David Patten to go on a mission the following spring. This call by revelation is not a prophecy that David would serve a mission, but an admonition to set all his affairs in order so that he may perform a mission. Although Patten was killed, his affairs were in order when he died so that his family could endure his absence. This alone indicates the Lord's foreknowledge of Patten's death. And who knows but that Patten served that mission call on the other side of the veil?

In any event, Patten's death would not change the instructional nature of that call. Joseph Smith declared that: To the "great Jehovah . . . the past, present, and future were and are, with Him, one eternal 'now'" (History of the Church, Vol.4, p. 597). The Savior does know all that will happen to us individually, but he still gives agency to us and to others who impact on our lives, which usage often precludes what would have happened if the Lord's will were done on earth as it is in heaven.

There are several Biblical parallels to David Patten's mission call, such as the calling of Judas as an Apostle. As one of the Twelve Apostles, Judas was promised by the Lord that he would sit on twelve thrones with the others and judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28). Judas, of his own choice (unlike David Patten) never fulfilled this promise of the Lord. This doesn't make the Lord a false prophet in the case of Judas. Nor were the Lord and His prophet, Joseph Smith, mistaken in the case of David Patten.

The Lord knocks at the door and gives the promise or opportunity. Whether we open the door and respond in a way to reap the potential blessing is up to us, and in many cases, up to the righteousness of others. In David Pallen's case, extenuating circumstances prevented him from serving an earthly mission: a mob killed him. To understand the case of David Patten, one might study D & C 124:49, which states if "their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings."

> What do mormons beleive about Jehovah's Witnesses? If extra-biblical
> prophets are possible, they must be right too.

Uh, no. That is specious reasoning at best.

Mike,

I appreciate your comments. However, I have to question D&C 124, because it makes it sound like men can foil the plans of God. If God wills something to happen, can you or I disrupt His plans? If so, your God is too small. The God I worship says this, "I will send my word out, and it will not return to me void, but will accomplish the purposes for which I set it."

Chief,
This is another example of your behavior that makes me question whether you are reading and understanding my post. Your response was interesting and agreed with my position for the most part but on the one part that it disagreed with me it failed to address the issue I raised. So again I wonder if you have read and understand my position.

To help you out here I will repost the unaddressed portion.

GB: Jesus said in Matt 24:29 ¶ Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34 Verily I say unto you, THIS GENERATION SHALL NOT PASS, TILL ALL THESE THINGS BE FULFILLED.

By the standard you are putting forth Jesus Christ is a false prophet.

No more specious arguments,
I think Chief has gone the way of some of the non-mormon christians I have encountered lately when they confront an informed Latter-Day Saint. I think it is because they have been so mis-informed about us by those they had trusted. The pattern is 1)talks Bible scripture, 2)gets shown that their Bible knowledge is lacking, 3)sees belief structure has very week foundation, 4)panics, 5)goes on anti-mormon attack, 6)loses sense of reason (if it existed in the first place), 7)and becomes contentious while denying it. I question his sincerity. He use to continually say how sincere he was (I think mostly to convince himself because in his heart he knew his actions spoke otherwise). But I have sensed a slight improvement in his attitude of late. I only hope it is real and continues.

Only if you are unafraid of truth can you really find it. Right now he is being ruled by his fear.

Chief, it is not my intention to "impungn your character." It is merely my intention to point out how your attempt at dialogue has slipped into a pattern that many have become familiar with when discussing these matters with Evangelical Christians. If pointing out this pattern impugns your character, perhaps you should adopt a different tack when witnessing to those whose beliefs differ from yours.

Again, you attack from tired, old anti-Mormon saws without: a) reading previous refutations on this board of your attacks, and b) reading any of the historical material offered to guide you in your independent analysis.

"I will issue you a case in point: the Spaulding theory," or rather, your continued attack from that shaky ground and retreat without considering the evidence against.

Chief: "What they DON'T say is that the manuscript found in 1884 is of a novel called 'Manuscript Story', and that Spaulding's relatives gave testimony that he had written several different books. The story in question, 'Manuscript Found', has been lost so that further scrutiny is impossible."

Please refer to the post above by nowandlater | August 1, 2007 5:57 PM
which has the unfortunuate copy/paste of "The Spaulding Theory Debunked," by Russell Anderson.

I will specifically draw your attention to what recorded history has to say about the original affidavits Dr. Hurlbut elicited, and the "second manuscript" theory that you put forward, namely that "Manuscript Story," is not the same as "Manuscript Found."

IF you read these passages, you will find that the theory that the Book of Mormon was originated by Spaulding has been handily disposed of by historians (even those with a grudge against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) without the deception that you attribute to FARMS and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Chief: "So we are really talking about two entirely different manuscripts, but you would not know that from the LDS side unless you dug much deeper into the issue."

Actually, that argument was implicit in your bringing up the Spaulding connection, and it was dealt with the first time you mentioned it (see referenced post above).

But, you would have known that from the LDS side if YOU had dug past the surface into the issue...

Chief: "I have enjoyed reading your posts."

And I have enjoyed reading yours.

Chief: "GB has presented good arguments, as well, but I find most of his posts are too legalistic to be of value."

Legalistic? Do you perhaps mean logical? Just sayin'...

Chief: "We can sit here and argue all day about the Spaulding theory, Scripture references, polygamy, light skin/dark skin, archaelogy, but those are just dances around the real issue."

And it appears that's what's been going on for days. :-)

Chief: "The core issue to all of these threads is: Is Joseph Smith a prophet, and is the book of Mormon true?"

I agree that those are questions that each of us need to address individually. But the core issue of these threads is: "Are Mormons Christians," or to put it another way, "Do Mormons believe Jesus Christ is the Redeemer of mankind?"

Mormons say, "Yes. He is our Redeemer and Savior. He is the author and finisher of our faith. He is the foundation of our religion."

Other Christians say, "No. They believe in more than is taught in the Bible. Therefore they cannot believe in the same Jesus Christ."

What does it take to bridge this difference in definition? An open, honest, factual look at the issues you bring up is a good start. I often find that much of what is preached against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is neither open, nor honest, nor factual.

Chief: "If the answer is yes, then Mormons are Christians and we can all gather around and sing a couple choruses of kumbaya."

I posit that Mormons are Christians because of Jesus Christ, not Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon. But that just takes us back to the definitional dispute.

Chief: "If not, then we have serious issues. And it takes more than a 'testimony' to settle them."

Issues of salvation? Doesn't that take Jesus Christ to settle them? Isn't that what traditional and non-traditional Christians believe?

And we're back to the definitional dispute...

Chief: If the answer is yes, then Mormons are Christians and we can all gather around and sing a couple choruses of kumbaya.

GB: Actually I was thinking along the lines of "Come come ye saints".

GB,

"Well-refuted" and "disproved" are two different terms, and whether or not the claims have been well-refuted is often-times in the eye of the beholder. We each bring our own suppositions and biases to the discussion. Of course the LDS church is going to object to any analyses that contradict its positions. I have read some of the refutations, and they don't hold water. Why? Because of definition of terms, for one. It's very interesting that you cling to extreme literal translations of certain Bible passages (ye are gods, let us make man in OUR image, sitteth at the RIGHT HAND of God, what of those who are baptized for the dead, etc.) but then ignore others (God is spirit, there are no other gods yea I know not one, even if we or an angel preach another gospel to you let him be accursed, in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God, do not add or take away anything from this book, etc.).

I have never questioned your honesty or your character. But even you would have to admit, I think, that someone can honestly and sincerely hold beliefs that are not the truth. It doesn't matter how sincere you are if what you hold to is false.

As of 2006, there are an estimated 15 million Mormons. Those are 15 million souls who are precious to God, but who I believe have been deceived by the preaching of a false gospel. Jesus Christ is the central issue, and it is my belief that the LDS teaches a different Jesus than the Jesus who has revealed Himself through the Holy Bible. If that is in fact true, then the Jesus you hold to cannot save. THAT is why I post on this board. Not to attack or to ridicule, but to proclaim the Jesus that is the one who can redeem you through the shedding of His precious blood on the cross. If that offends you, I am sincerely sorry, but I cannot and will not suppress the truth just to save someone's feelings, not when I believe that person's eternal salvation is at stake.

May the grace and peace of the one true God and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, be with you and keep you this day.

Chief: Of course the LDS church is going to object to any analyses that contradict its positions.

GB: Actually the LDS church is so busy focused on the three fold mission of the Church, that it doesn't waste time worrying to much about what mischief its detractors are up to. It is individual members or groups of members that provide the apologetics and the scholarly research to support it.

Chief: it is my belief that the LDS teaches a different Jesus than the
Jesus who has revealed Himself through the Holy Bible. If that is in fact true, then the Jesus you hold to cannot save.

Of course it is the same Jesus. We may believe different things about
Him, but it is the same being. Our Jesus, your Jesus, the only Jesus,
is who we worship, regardless of your spin.

My guess is that anti-Mormons, such as yourself, are so vociferous for
one main reason. In the evangelical view, both they and us are saved
because of both of our acceptance of Jesus Christ as lord and savior
and the grace he has granted us. However, in the Mormon view,
evangelicals are lacking the fullness of the gospel and may not be saved.

So, faithful Mormons are saved regardless of whether the Mormon view is correct, while non-Mormons may not be. The niggling doubts you have, though will never admit, make you worried that maybe, just maybe, the
Mormons have it right. You want to believe with all your heart that
they are wrong, but you can't fully. You hope that they will present
an argument one day that you can acknowledge as leading to the truth
of Mormonism, or that someone like you will one day present an argument
that Mormons will acknowledge as leading to the falsehood of Mormonism.
You wan't those niggling doubts removed, one way or the other, so that
you can know if you are saved.

Mormons know that even if Mormonism was somehow wrong that we are saved
anyway because our faith in the lord Jesus Christ and his grace. I
think non-Mormons find this very frustrating.

What I have outlined above is what I firmly believe is the reason that
anti-Mormons are so vociferous. Does it apply to you, personally
Chief? Probably, though I don't expect you to admit it.

Gregory:
Of course it is the same Jesus. We may believe different things about
Him, but it is the same being.

Jesus:
"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" (Mat 16:15)

Without getting into detail, it is not enough to just believe things about Jesus...plenty of people beleive correct things about Jesus but there is only one truth about Jesus. I for one am not in the least bit afraid that Mormonism may be right and for you to make that claim is absurd and I can very easily say the same thing about why you are consistently trying to be identified as Christians.

With that aside, that is not how you argue or debate, namely by making ridiculous assertions as to our fear of you being right. I mean come on, go back to school and learn debating techniques once again, all this does is soil your whole argument from anyone taking you seriously. (What is more...this is a logical fallacy referred to as "an appeal to fear", look it up if you wish, I can also classify you bringing this up as a Red Herring, since you wish not to divulge the issue but change it). We wish to have an intelligent conversation, these accusations have no place here.

Gregory:
Mormons know that even if Mormonism was somehow wrong that we are saved
anyway because our faith in the lord Jesus Christ and his grace. I
think non-Mormons find this very frustrating.

The Apostle Paul:
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! (Galatians 1)

Your reasoning sounds very suspect to what the Apostle Paul warned about? Perhaps this is the reason Christians argue with you? No, that couldn't be it...it is too hard to actually debate the issues, it is much easier to to throw in Red Herring's.

Gregory:
The reason we want to be identified as Christians is because we are Christians. We have accepted Jesus as our Lord and Savior. (paraphrase)

Mike:
You assume that the definition of Christian is to accept "some form" of Christ (no matter how different he is) and his gospel (no matter how different it is) as the deciding factor of who is a Christian? You can read my posts from before too (as I did yours) but suffice it to say that this is not an acceptable way to determine Christianity. People beleived in David Koresh to be Jesus, were they "Christians". What about Jehovah's Witnesses? What about Hitler? What about Bishop Spong from the Anglican church? You must reconcile these problems.

The reason why Christians fight as that we assume (as did Jesus and the Apostles) that there is more to it than mere lip service. It requires an assention to and fulfilling of certain doctrines. A certain lifestyle choice. A certain morality and moral code. ETC... To simply say you are Christian because you "are" has no place in actual debate. Perhaps you should start out by defining your terms before beginning a debate. Under your definition I would have to conclude that you are Christians but isn't this also some sort logical fallacy? Oh yes, that is right, you are begging the question! You are assuming that which you are trying to prove. The issue on this blog is to prove why you should be referred to as Christian, but your assumption that you are Christian is your only basis for belief (at least at the present...the point is, we have a contention with your assumption and your merely beleiving it doesn't make it so).

curous: I can very easily say the same thing about why you are consistently trying to be identified as Christians

Greg: Read my post on this thread dated August 10, 2007 3:37 PM

curious: With that aside, that is not how you argue or debate, namely
by making ridiculous assertions as to our fear of you being right.

Greg: Correct! I wasn't offering it as a point of argument or debate,
merely an observation.

curious: (What is more...this is a logical fallacy referred to as "an appeal to fear", look it up if you wish)

Greg: I did and it doesn't qualify since it wasn't offered as point to be made.

curious: I can also classify you bringing this up as a Red Herring,
since you wish not to divulge the issue but change it.

Greg: Not trying to change it either. It is an observation. Nothing more.

curious: These accusations have no place here.

Greg: I think I can agree with this. I had a epiphany that I wanted to
share. In retrospect, there are better places for it.

curious:

Greg: That talks about the one who preaches, not those who listen.

curious: You assume that the definition of Christian is to accept "some form" of Christ (no matter how different he is) and his gospel (no matter how different it is) as the deciding factor of who is a Christian?

Greg: Yes, though I think the "some form of" qualification borders on circular logic.

curious: You can read my posts from before too (as I did yours) but
suffice it to say that this is not an acceptable way to determine Christianity.

Greg: According to you. Many, including non-Mormons, would disagree.

curious: People beleived in David Koresh to be Jesus, were they "Christians"?

Greg: I don't know. Believing that Christ has returned when we can now all agree he hasn't neither makes one, nor makes one not, a
Christian.

curious: What about Jehovah's Witnesses?

Greg: I don't know enough about them to answer.

curious: What about Hitler?

Greg: Same answer.

curious: What about Bishop Spong from the Anglican church?

Greg: Ditto

curious: You must reconcile these problems.

Greg: I see no problems.

curious: It requires an assention to and fulfilling of certain doctrines. A certain lifestyle choice. A certain morality and moral code. ETC

Greg: Are you sure? Doesn't grace cover it? Sounds like works. You must reconcile this problem.

curious: To simply say you are Christian because you "are" has no place in actual debate.

Greg: Agreed, but since no one has actually said that, it seems a moot point.

curious: Under your definition I would have to conclude that you are Christians but isn't this also some sort logical fallacy? Oh yes, that is right, you are begging the question! You are assuming that which you are trying to prove.

Greg: I *am* assuming Mormons are Christians because I know it to be the truth. However, I wasn't trying to prove that Mormons are Christian in that particular post, so it wasn't "begging the question".

curious: The issue on this blog is to prove why you should be referred
to as Christian

Greg: Agreed and my post was most probably off-topic in that I wasn't trying to prove that then.

curious: but your assumption that you are Christian is your only basis
for belief (at least at the present...the point is, we have a contention with your assumption and your merely beleiving it doesn't make it so).

Greg: I can assure you that my belief that I am a Christian is just as strong as yours that you are. Mormons aren't wandering around wondering if they are Christians. It is a given for them because of our acceptance of Jesus Christ as lord and savior.

Greg: What is your basis of belief that you are a Christian?

1 And now, behold, I say unto you, that ye ought to search these things. Yea, a commandment I give unto you that ye search these things diligently; for great are the words of Isaiah.
2 For surely he spake as touching all things concerning my people which are of the house of Israel; therefore it must needs be that he must speak also to the Gentiles.
3 And all things that he spake have been and shall be, even according to the words which he spake.
4 Therefore give heed to my words; write the things which I have told you; and according to the time and the will of the Father they shall go forth unto the Gentiles.
5 And whosoever will hearken unto my words and repenteth and is baptized, the same shall be saved. Search the prophets, for many there be that testify of these things.
6 And now it came to pass that when Jesus had said these words he said unto them again, after he had expounded all the scriptures unto them which they had received, he said unto them: Behold, other scriptures I would that ye should write, that ye have not.
7 And it came to pass that he said unto aNephi: Bring forth the record which ye have kept.
8 And when Nephi had brought forth the records, and laid them before him, he cast his eyes upon them and said:
9 Verily I say unto you, I commanded my servant Samuel, the Lamanite, that he should testify unto this people, that at the day that the Father should glorify his name in me that there were many saints who should arise from the dead, and should appear unto many, and should minister unto them. And he said unto them: Was it not so?
10 And his disciples answered him and said: Yea, Lord, Samuel did prophesy according to thy words, and they were all fulfilled.
11 And Jesus said unto them: How be it that ye have not awritten this thing, that many saints did arise and appear unto many and did minister unto them?
12 And it came to pass that Nephi remembered that this thing had not been written.
13 And it came to pass that Jesus commanded that it should be written; therefore it was written according as he commanded.
14 And now it came to pass that when Jesus had expounded all the scriptures in one, which they had written, he commanded them that they should teach the things which he had expounded unto them.

3 Nephi chapter 23

Christ is my Lord and Savior.

curious: "Gregory: Of course it is the same Jesus. We may believe different things about Him, but it is the same being.
Jesus:
'But what about you?' he asked. 'Who do you say I am?' (Mat 16:15)"

Well put, curious. But I wish that you would finish the exchange you begin to quote between the Savior and Peter (Mat 16:16-19.

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints also answer your query, "Jesus is the Christ (the Messiah as prophesied in the Old Testament), the Son of the living God." We also say that flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto us, that is, no one "convinced us" with logic or words, but God the Father has revealed it to us personally, like Peter. And it is this personal testimony of the divinity of Jesus Christ and his role as the Savior and Redeemer of all of God's children that is the foundation of the Church of Jesus Christ. We also say that the keys to bind and loose on earth (priesthood authority see Hebrews 5) that were given to Peter are on the earth today and are freely available to those called as Aaron. Heb 5:4.

I'm curious, curious. You rail on Greg for simply stating that Mormons want the rest of Christianity to stop falsely claiming that we do not believe in Jesus Christ and you say that he does not offer an acceptable way to determine Christianity. Are you willing to chastise others who claim, "Mormons are not Christians because we say they aren't."?

If the definition of what a Christian is relies on "an assention to and fulfilling of certain doctrines. A certain lifestyle choice. A certain morality and moral code. ETC ..." then we need to explore these further. Dr. Mohler and others seem content to claim that it came down to acceptance of the Nicene Creed as the basis of belief. But this poses problems for Evangelical Christians and other Protestants who claim that all doctrine comes from the Bible, yet use these extra-biblical sources to define their doctrine. Extra-biblical sources are okay ... except for Mormons. Is that what this is about?

Greg

Call me stupid, But are you saying that it doesn't matter to God what we believe ABOUT Him so long as we believe in Jesus?

John: "Call me stupid, But are you saying that it doesn't matter to God what we believe ABOUT Him so long as we believe in Jesus?"

Wow. Perhaps I read your question wrong! Perhaps some proper use of commas or better phrasing would clarify.

Do you mean to ask:

"And do you believe that it matters, in reference to salvation, what you believe about God?"

or

"And do you believe that it matters what you believe about God in reference to salvation?" in other words, "Does it matter what you believe about God and how to attain salvation?"

Or, was this a cunningly crafted question with both meanings to ensnare the answerer no matter the given answer?

Chief1989: "I said that modern LDS theology is incompatible with the Christian tradition we see laid down in the Book of Acts."

I am in the process of rereading the Book of Acts. Everytime I read this book I keep saying to myself, "Wow! It seems like I am reading a mirror image of how the LDS church operates today."

Right there in chapter 1 we read about how a new apostle was chosen to replace Judas. The apostles met together, discussed the need to call a new apostle, presented the names of two individuals who they felt met the qualifications, and prayed to God ask whom He would choose. Chapter 1 doesn't give the details of Matthias's ordination but we can assume it was done in the same manner described elsewhere in the Book of Acts (laying on of hands).

That is exactly how new apostles are chosen in the LDS church today. One of our apostles died just a few days ago. I understand that the Quorum of 12 Apostles meets in the Salt Lake temple every Thursday, so the process described in the Book of Acts could be going on right now, for all I know. The LDS church will have a General Conference in about 6 weeks and probably a new apostle will be announced then.

How are new apostles chosen in your church, or the "traditional Christian churches" Dr. Mohler refers to? Do they even have any apostles? Do they believe that we should have living apostles today? Are they following the "Christian tradition we see laid down in the Book of Acts of the Apostles"?

In subsequent chapters we read about how the apostles preached faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism. They baptized and gave others the authority to baptize. The Holy Ghost was conferred on new converts by the laying on of hands by those who had authority. Over and over again we can read about the church growing and spreading under the direction of the apostles. We see the principles of priesthood authority in action. Are the "traditional Christian churches" Dr. Mohler refers to following these "Christian traditions we see laid down in the Book of Acts of the Apostles"?

In chapter 10 we read about how Peter received a vision in which God revealed to him that the time had arrived to take the gospel to the Gentiles. Before that, the apostles thought they were supposed to preach only to the Jews. This was a new revelation to them. This is just one example of continuing revelation that we can read bout many times in the Book of Acts. Do the "traditional Christian churches" today believe in continuing revelation? Are they following this "Christian tradition we see laid down in the Book of Acts of the Apostles"?

CB

Greg,

I apreciate that you realize making that "observation" about us being fearful was not necessarily the best idea. Unfortunately though it was offered in a forum of debate and really was taken as a premise of argumentation. Thanks for clearing that up.

Now Greg, hopefully we can further in our discussions than other have because I have some legitimate questions as to the logic of this whole argument.

1. There is a substantive difference between "traditional" Christianity and Mormonism.

2. Throughout history, when a new "idea" came along concerning religion it had to be "tested" on certain criterion (in fact this is the case for any "theory" that is proposed). This is why there are Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims and then there are the Dru's (and more recent the B'Hai). There has never been a question as to the claims of these "sects" but traditionally they are different and as such for classifacation purposes are referred to differently.

3. The mere fact that Mormonism claims to be Christian isn't sufficient in that it requires us to define Christianity to its most general sense (which would then include ANY claim by any person to be Christian as true...both you and I would disagree with these claims).

4. Why isn't it enough to be a Mormon (which rightly understood is a person who believes in the Jesus of the Mormon tradition). I am not trying to split hairs here, I am recognizing the difference between traditional Christianity and Mormonism (they are not even close to being similar) and realizing that defining them both the same creates confusion and contradiction. If you were to confront people in the country (most of them being raised in some form of Orthodox Christianity), and say you beleive in Jesus, you will not find them argumentative (because of the way you package it). However, this argument is by nature theological and philosophical which demands that we address these logical and theological issues in an academic fashion. The two don't mix and for sake of reason we must redefine who we are or who you are (am I not right here?).

To be sure, if you are Christians WE ARE NOT and if we are YOU ARE NOT (at least in theological terms which is what this argument is all about). That is the ultimate reality...the question again is: Did the onset of Mormonism make "Christianity" void? This a substantial undertaking for you and I will say it again, the burden of proof is in your corner. In order to to discern the facts, we cannot resort to what we think but rather the Words of Christ himself along with the words of the Apostles who were with him and to whom he gave authority to build the church as well as (in a very small way) tradition. And each of us depends on these things in one fashion or another (you are equally as influenced by the historical tradition of the prophets for example as we are in our teachers and pastors).

> This is why there are Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims

And are they not both properly referred to as Muslims, in addition to Sunni or Shi'ite?

What is the difference between that and there being Orthodox Christians and Nontraditional Christians?

If I pull the wings off of a butterfly is it a "wingless butterfly" or is it no longer a butterfly since the definition of butterfly mandates wings?

Greg

Greg,

And this is also the definition which must include Hitler, Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, B'Hai and a myriad of other people who are clearly NOT Christians. We don't define Christianity by those who CLAIM SOMETHING. This is exactly why we can never move beyond this point because you don't want to talk about why and how we should define Christianity. I will say right now that of course I think I am right and of course you think you are right. I am challenging your definition of Christianity, and you only respond with "don't challenge my definition". If I am debating on a specific aspect of your premises, you cannot resort to this sort "non-logic" prove to me that your definition is the correct one. I am laboring to show you that mine is right. Why can't you do the same? Why is the very, very general definition the right one? And do we do of all the other people who also made those same claims? Is this just a buffet style religion, you pick and choose those things which you want to pick? I don't beleive that this is EVER the right way to determine the truth. We must have classifications and criterion for determing claims, what are yours and what should mine be. This is not a relativistic debate, and you are turning it in to one. Relativism is logical suicide, don't get involved with this sort of debate. Debate me on my definition of Christianity as I am you and show me why my definition is wrong and yours is right. Otherwise I will have to admit along with you the Hitler was a Christian because he claimed to be a protestant. That is not acceptable to me (and it shouldn't be to you).

You also dodged my questions, so I repeat them here:

And are they not both properly referred to as Muslims, in addition to Sunni or Shi'ite?

What is the difference between that and there being Orthodox Christians and Nontraditional Christians?

A Christian is that person which believes in the Jesus of the Bible (He who was born of a true virgin by the miraculous conception of a baby by the Holy Spirit of God) and exhibits fruit as a result of being born again by the Holy Spirit, who lives within those whom God has granted regeneration. This Holy Spirit, who is a member of the God-head (3 persons, 1 being which was clearly taught and understood by the Apostles) also works through our life to bring about fruits of the spirit, which testify to the saving work of God in the lives of those who truly believe. Justification is the fruit of this regeneration, whereupon, a believer is given the righteousness of Christ (2 Corinthians 5) as he took upon our sin and died for it on the cross (Colossians 2). There is nothing within us which merits our saving worth but only that which Christ (who is God) has done through his sinless life and obedience to death on the cross on our behalf (Ephesians 2, Titus 3:5). We will continue to work out our salvation through the power of this Holy Spirit which Christ himself promised (John 14) would come and only by His strength. We will die someday and be glorified and so live with Christ. This person must also accept the Word of God and the revelation found therein to be sufficient and believe in the "once for all" nature of this revelation (Jude 3) which implies that the church which was built upon the foundation of the Apostles (Ephesians 2) is the true church and that no additional revelation is necessary by God to teach us anything new, only that which is done by the personal enlightenment by the Holy Spirit through the Scriptures (2 Tim 3:16, John 14, 1 Timothy 4:16). It is the job of this regenerate believer to test all spirits (1 Thessalonians 5) and to discern what is true and false about purported teachings. This is to be done in light of what the scriptures say (2 Timothy 3:16) and we are to discount any of those teachings which do not hold up to the truth of the Bible because they have become conceited by thinking they know a new way of understanding the God of the Bible (1 Tim 6:3, Galatians 1) instead of trusting that which God has set forth in His Word (who is Christ, John 1).

As we can see...we have some problems when it comes to our definitions, which is why we have to discuss the differences.

Oh, and by the way...

The real question that should be asked is,

Is today's Orthodox Christian, still a "True" Christian?

I personally, don't think so! I think YOU worship a false god, one who is without body, parts or passions. One who is so small he can dwell in your heart, yet so large he fills the universe. One who is three, but not three, only one! The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, the Holy Ghost eternal, and yet they are not three eternals but One eternal. One who is NOT of the Bible; but who is man-made because man lost the truth...

I am disappointed that the discussion topic got hyjacked by the phrase "christian orthodoxy" which then allowed Mr. Card to ver off on his excellent comments. I suspect the bottom line has not been explored. Is the mormon faith consistant with the new testament or not?

Bring it On,

First of all you show your lack of knowledge as to history, I really don't understand why the Bible would have to define the word "Christian" and one would suggest that by doing so would be circular (much like the way most Mormons one here say that the Bible's own affirmation of its inerrancy is not sufficient to show that it is inerrant). I guess this only works when it benefits you. However, with that aside, I will answer your question on definition but again you have reduced it to its most general sense which is theologically absurd because we know that Christ himself put restraints on who would make it to heaven for instance (many will call me "Lord, Lord" and I will say away from me I never knew you-Jesus). So, here we see that Christ himself understood that there are people who claim to be under the Lordship of Christ and won't be granted eternal life with him (could this be the Mormons? And maybe thats why you are so fearful and insistent on being called Christians??? (Just a line of reasoning I picked up from an earlier debater on here).

Now, I do think it is funny that you are so confident that the Book of Mormon defines what in 1800 was long understood to be the case. There are a myriad of sources by which you can turn to see Christianity defined (pagan sources because this is the actual origin of the Word and it is HERE THAT YOU WOULD EXPECT TO FIND IT! By the time the Apostles were done circulating letters is about the time when the term "Christian" became extremely prevalent so this is actually a testament to the authority of the letters, for if it was defined in the Scriptures and widely used, you can be rest assured that it had been changed by later writers to show it. But it is NOT there and therefore gives me more cause to believe in the authenticity of their writings.

I don't know what other question I didn't answer of yours? Are you asking about the Protestant/Catholic/Church of Christ babble you were referring to? If this is the question you want answered I will say, whoever ascribes to the aforementioned definition I provided would be considered a Christian, this is true no matter what "denomination" one is connected with.

What is more, you are stating the obvious by telling this blog that you don't think Orthodox Christianity is real Christianity anymore...isn't that the basic premise of this whole argument? I am glad that you made us aware of why we are debating, I was starting to loose sight. Let me ask you...in what century did Christianity cease to be Christian? I mean, it was Christian for some time wasn't it? If not then why did it take so long for the "real" one to come along? I mean I guess we should be glad that Joseph Smith came so that he could correct what Jesus said about what would take place and replace HIS EVERLASTING PRIESTHOOD...whew...I almost thought that the last 2000 years of history was the building of the church he promised but no...actually it was a mere apparition, until Joseph Smith got it right, not even Jesus got it right.

BringItOn,

You have it right - somewhat. When you said that God promised to never leave us alone, you are spot on. I believe He accomplished that a little differently than you, though. The disciples were upset because Jesus said He was leaving them - but then He said "I will send the comforter", that is, the promised Holy Spirit.

The role of the prophet is to prophesy - to foretell or predict, to make inspired declarations of things yet to come, to indicate beforehand. Can you give me some examples of what the last few Mormon "living prophets" have prophesied about? Have they added any new revelations to the Mormon canon of scriptures?

One thing about prophets - in the Bible, there are numerous verses pointing to an abundance of prophets being about. Obadiah was hiding 100 prophets while Elijah was fighting against Ahab and Jezebel. Daniel and his contemporaries were in Babylon, while Ezekiel and his were in Palestine. There wasn't ever a pattern where it followed that one guy had to be the prophet living at that time, and then he passed that on to the next guy, and so on. There could be hundreds of prophets in lands adjacent to where the main ones cited in Scripture were. Same thing in the new testament - prophets were in the churches all over the area of Rome, Greece, Turkey, Asia Minor, and the Middle East.

A "prophet" can refer to anyone who is in close communion with God through the Holy Spirit. This is a gifting that operates in the life of the believer and is given to whoever the Holy Spirit desires to give this gift to. Even the LDS Bible Dictionary, under the entry for "Prophet" states: "in a general sense a prophet is anyone who has a testimony of Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost."

And to apostles - in the strictest form, it referred to those who had seen Christ in the flesh and were given authority to act in His name. However, one has to be very careful about claiming this mantle of authority, because Paul says there will be three things that will indicate apostolic authority - signs, wonders, and miracles:

2 Cor 12:12 -The things that mark an apostle—signs, wonders and miracles—were done among you with great perseverance.

Acts 2: 43 - Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles.

Hebrews 2: 3-5 - 3how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. 4God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

What miraculous signs and wonders have the Mormon apostles done, to prove that they have the testimony of God through the Holy Spirit?

Many Mormons may be surprised to know that Christian churches can also be said to have apostles and prophets in them, in a general sense, operating in the life and ministry of the Church. For the Christian, an apostle can refer to anyone who is ‘sent fourth’. This is the meaning of the word in 2 Corinthians 8:23, for example. So in one sense, Christian missionaries can be also be called "apostles". So then, God did not abandon His church from 400AD-1821AD; there were apostles and prophets there all along.

Let me ask this question: Can a woman be a prophet in the LDS? Why or why not?

I will leave you to meditating upon this information.

Curious,

Thank you for at least admitting you believe "BEYOND" the Bible. You said, "I really don't understand why the Bible would have to define the word "Christian"" to which I would reply, you and others have been ranting for days that Mormons are NOT Christians and yet you have failed in the least degree to AUTHORITATIVELY define a Christian. You claim an inerrant bible that is the 'complete' word of God, and argue the nit-noid distinctions of 'being a Christian' yet have to turn outside the Bible to define the very cause you claim. You ignore the "fruits" of a follower of Christ, as mere chance and nonessential 'works', stating only an exact and correct belief in Christ will save you.

I was merely pointing out the value of additional God given direction, counsel, and instructions as a telling indication of His great Love for all of His Children. He has revealed that He has NOT left us alone to grope about blindly among each other defining, and deciding what IS and what ISN'T His mind and will. When in doubt, turn to His Divinely appointed spokesman, the Prophet! That's what they did in Old Testament times, that's what they did with Jesus, that's what they did after Jesus, until the last authoritative spokesperson was hunted down and butchered...hence, the need for a RESTORATION as foretold in Amos to wit, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord. And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it." Amos 8:11 Until, "...the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." Acts 3:21. That should answer your question as to when Christianity ceased to be Christian.

Chief and Curious,

The joy of Religious freedom, is just that. Although, I could spend days in 'point-counterpoint' with you, I believe it would prevail in nothing more than in days having passed...

I am grateful there are people like you throughout the world proclaiming Jesus Christ. It has done much for ultimately building the kingdom of God on the earth.

Mormons have no argument with you. We simply say, come bring what you have to the table and see if we can add to it...

We profess Jesus is the Christ; Lord of Lords, King of Kings...I pray that you and others reading this will heed this counsel as found in the Book of Mormon...if you feel you all ready are...great!!!

"Wherefore, beloved brethren, be reconciled unto him through the atonement of Christ, his Only begotten Son, and ye may obtain a resurrection, according to the power of the resurrection which is in Christ, and be presented as the first-fruits of Christ unto God, having faith, and obtained a good hope of glory in him before he manifesteth himself in the flesh."

If in good conscience you believe you are following Jesus Christ, ever open to the promptings of the Holy Spirit...well, then, you are indeed in a wonderful place...

God bless.

I'm going to skip over the heaven and hell questions for now, but I want to address this:

Chief: "6) If all men are saved, what reasons would I have to lead a moral life, seeing that someday I can inherit eternal life even by being a "bad" person?"

I'm afraid that you misunderstand what is taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints about whether all men are "saved." To address this, I offer a quote* from Dallin H. Oaks, who is a member of the Quorum of Apostles (that is, he is a special witness of Jesus Christ), and whom we sustain as a prophet, seer, and revelator, in an address given at a General Conference to the worldwide Church:

"As Latter-day Saints use the words 'saved' and 'salvation', there are at least six different meanings. According to some of these, our salvation is assured—we are already saved. In others, salvation must be spoken of as a future event (e.g., 1 Cor. 5:5) or as conditioned upon a future event (e.g., Mark 13:13). But in all of these meanings, or kinds of salvation, salvation is in and through Jesus Christ.

First, all mortals have been saved from the permanence of death through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. 'For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive' (1 Cor. 15:22).

As to salvation from sin and the consequences of sin, our answer to the question of whether or not we have been saved is 'yes, but with conditions.' Our third article of faith declares our belief:

'We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel' (A of F 1:3).

Many Bible verses declare that Jesus came to take away the sins of the world (e.g., John 1:29; Matt. 26:28). The New Testament frequently refers to the grace of God and to salvation by grace (e.g., John 1:17; Acts 15:11; Eph. 2:8). But it also has many specific commandments on personal behavior, and many references to the importance of works (e.g., Matt. 5:16; Eph. 2:10; James 2:14–17). In addition, the Savior taught that we must endure to the end in order to be saved (see Matt. 10:22; Mark 13:13).

Relying upon the totality of Bible teachings and upon clarifications received through modern revelation, we testify that being cleansed from sin through Christ’s Atonement is conditioned upon the individual sinner’s faith, which must be manifested by obedience to the Lord’s command to repent, be baptized, and receive the Holy Ghost (see Acts 2:37–38). 'Verily, verily, I say unto thee,' Jesus taught, 'Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God' (John 3:5; see also Mark 16:16; Acts 2:37–38). Believers who have had this required rebirth at the hands of those having authority have already been saved from sin conditionally, but they will not be saved finally until they have completed their mortal probation with the required continuing repentance, faithfulness, service, and enduring to the end."

It seems that somewhere, other Christians have dropped the requirement for baptism and enduring to the end, and decreed that salvation is instant and eternal at the date and time you make the vocal declaration.

So the question I have always had for other Christians is, "If a man confesses his sins vocally and accepts Jesus Christ, and is 'saved' at that instant, what reasons would he have to lead a moral life, seeing that someday I can inherit eternal life even by being a 'bad' person?"

I forgot the footnote to my previous post.

* I know that I have railed against others for merely copying and pasting on here. It is truly a pet-peeve of mine because it: 1) induces laziness on the part of the poster (are you sure it is etirely on point?), and 2) induces the 'post-skipping coma' on the part of the reader (are you sure it is entirely relevant, and not extraneous?).

This talk by Elder Oaks was one of my favorites, and I feel that the passage directly addresses your question, Chief. Enjoy!

GB,

Please stop babbling with your non-arguments...you are seriously in need of a philosophy class or something. If you are going to infer that my definition in in error, which I would suspect you would because it leaves you out, I want to know what it is and where it is. I find your posts to be in error so please don't respond to mine if you have nothing substantive to offer.

GB

Can you tell me the reason for your faith?

GB,

See here is the thing which is really going to tick you off...you see the English is somewhat vague and may be able to be taken a different way. However, the Greek, where it is revised from, says something completely different...the word 'Halax' actually means a once event...you can actually get this by reading other occurrences of the same word. Those being 1 Peter 3:18 and Hebrews 9:26-28 (among others)

26For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now ONCE in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

27And as it is appointed unto men ONCE to die, but after this the judgment:

28So Christ was ONCE offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Now we would all agree that Christ only offered to bear sins ONCE (ON THE CROSS, OR GARDEN WHICHEVER)...and that man only dies ONCE, and that he only suffered ONCE for sins. These readings of the other occurrences of these words does not bear out the reading which you are giving to it.

Concerning the idea of Apostles and Prophets...you can refer to Chief's post on this just recently. We actually believe in prophets and apostles but they DO NOT give NEW REVELATION. Rather they proclaim the Word of God to awaken within their culture a new realization of the things of God. This is uniform in every age but never entails anything new about he character of God, rather deepening what has been given by God in NEW ways.

I also agree with Chief's idea of an Apostle being a "witness" to those who have no witness. This has been my opinion of an Apostle after studying church history, theology and seeing the occurrences of this word in the Greek all over the New Testament.

YoMama,

No confusion here...except that is with your comment???

GB

"Now it is quite clear that the current “Christian church” as many have described here doesn’t have a central or general authority to keep false doctrine from entering into the congregations. One needs to ask, why?"

Hmmm? I guess the Bible doesn't count. I guess God must have given it to us dumb folk to use as a paperweight.

Question

During the supposed Great Apostasy where there any Christians? if there weren't any how do you explain the likes of John Calvin, Martin Luther, Jonathan Edwards, David Brainard, John Wesley, George Whitfield, William Carey ect.

Bring It On,

I would also like ANY of the archaeological evidence which substantiates any of the history purported by the mormons. ANY, geographical findings, any artifacts which verify Reformed Eqyptian? Anything? I mean come on, I understand that you must have faith but is God not the God of history? And if this were true there would be something, right?

Curious asked:
I would also like ANY of the archaeological evidence which substantiates any of the history purported by the mormons. ANY, geographical findings, any artifacts which verify Reformed Eqyptian? Anything? I mean come on, I understand that you must have faith but is God not the God of history? And if this were true there would be something, right?

Mike Bennion answers:
Characters in the authentic Anthon transcript(s) have been reported on two "Mexican seals made of baked clay" dating from no later than 400 B.C. NON-LDS ARCHAEOLOGISTS have remarked on this "hitherto unknown writing system" which "closely resemble various oriental scripts ranging from Burma and China to the rim of the Mediterranean," which if authentic "would almost surely be...an instance of transpacific contact during the Preclassic [pre-A.D. 400]." Other examples of the same script may also have been found between 1921 and 1932.[6] This is currently an area requiring more research.

Anonymous, "New Light: "Anthon Transcript" Writing Found?," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 8/1 (1999): 68–69. ; citing David H. Kelley, “Cylinder Seal from Tlatilco,” American Antiquity 31 (July 1966): 744–746 and John A. Graham’s comments on Hanns J. Premm, “Calendrics and Writing,” in Observations on the Emergence of Civilization in Mesoamerica, ed. Robert F. Heizer and John A. Graham (Berkeley: University of California Archaeological Research Facility, 1971), 133.

“physical similarities, cultural and linguistic ties and archeological and molecular data all indicate a Siberian/Asiatic origin for Native Americans, not a Hebrew one.”

1 Leavitt, Marshall and Crandall, “The Search for the Seed of Lehi: How Defining Alternative Models Helps in the Interpretation of Genetic Data,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 36:4, Winter 2003, p. 134.

It has long been accepted that Native Americans were from Asianic descent, which would explain a character on a pot the "resembles" something from the Asianic World.

I have now spent some time reading the articles and comments from the gallery and would like to comment...

I am a "non-traditional" christian in that I have been raised in the LDS (mormon) church, and have the distinction of having several generations before me also be mormons from the time of the original gathering of the saints with Joseph Smith. My forefathers crossed the plains, endured all kinds of persecution, and finally settled in Utah, where Brigham Young then asked them to come to Canada and they ended up in Southern Alberta, Cardston in particular, where they built a Temple and raised their families in the faith they sacrificed so much for. This does not mean that I accept the faith without finding out for myself, there are some hard won values and beliefs behind me there.

To Curious,
I find it interesting that you have to argue so hard for your point of view. Who exactly are you trying to convince? Us or you that our faith is wrong, that we are not who we say we are, and you have the correct way of thinking? Perhaps instead of trying to argue, you should be asking God... I have always found that those who have to argue so hard, have difficulty with what they are saying and are not as confident in what they believe as what they say they do.

This does not mean that you do not believe what you say, only that you seem to think that we should also believe you simply because you are saying it. This is also not to say that you can't back up what you're talking about, those who want to can find anything in the Bible and have it back up what they are saying. The problem I find is that things are taken out of context when that is done and the WHOLE of the concept is lost.

We as members of the LDS church are not asking you to believe us in what we say, we are asking you to talk to God and see what HE has to say. Despite the fact that we all have the word of God in the Bible (and for us also the Book of Mormon), the Bible was written by men and as readers of the Bible, we need to remember that men also translated it to the best of their ability. They did a good job, but they were still men. If you really want to know the truth of things, ask the one person who knows it all... God... He would love to tell you.

To Mike Bennion,
You also argue too hard, why are you so intent on making Curious believe you? You know better than that, and although you don't argue as hard as he does, you seem intent of proving to him that he's wrong. As Orson Card says, "Born-again Christians and Mormons agree on this: God is alive and working in the world, and his Spirit touches the lives of the faithful, offering guidance, comfort, and even miraculous intervention." Allow Curious his beliefs, and understand that he cannot or will not listen to anything else at this time. It is apparent that Dr. Mohr is a theologian with an academic bent on the situation, he is of the same mind as the mobs that so persecuted the members of our church. We don't believe the same as he does therefore we are not only wrong, but should be forced to believe as he does.

I personally appreciate the thoughtful way that Orson Scott Card presents his point of view without an attitude of "you have to believe me because I say so." I find Dr. Mohr's attitude one of trying to make me believe him because he says so, and since he's probably better educated than the average person, his word should be taken as gospel. The fact that he has a Doctorate would seem to lead him to believe that he is right and there is no room for argument. I dispute this as there are those of us who have as much, or more, education as he does and still believe in the LDS (mormon) faith. I find no reason to argue with him, he thinks he's right and all others are wrong, there is nothing to argue.

However, a thoughtful and reasonable discussion can be instructive to all, but an open mind must be kept. Throughout my life I have come to understand that all other religions have some truth, and although they concentrate on those things alone, they encourage kindness and goodness to be forefront in our lives. I have read some of the works of Mohammed, Budha and others and they may not have been Jesus Christ, but they did preach kindness to others, a searching of the soul to find the right way, etc. Something can be learned from all the religions of the world if we but seek that knowledge out.

I have a strong belief in the truth of the LDS (mormon) church, and I will tell that to others. I do not think Curious is going to change his mind, nor do I think Mike Bennion, GB, or anyone else is going to change theirs, but as academic as this has become it seems to me we have lost the one thing needed in this discussion... what does the Lord think? Ask him and see what he tells you, it may be more instructive than an academic argument about where people have come from, how they got here and who they are descended from. Don't worry, we'll know it all on the other side and probably have a good chuckle while we're at it.

I look forward to seeing what happens now and will check in on this discussion from time to time just to satisfy my curiousity. Thanks for this excursion from my daily grind.

Terisa :)

Terisa said:
To Mike Bennion,
You also argue too hard, why are you so intent on making Curious believe you? You know better than that, and although you don't argue as hard as he does, you seem intent of proving to him that he's wrong. As Orson Card says, "Born-again Christians and Mormons agree on this: God is alive and working in the world, and his Spirit touches the lives of the faithful, offering guidance, comfort, and even miraculous intervention." Allow Curious his beliefs, and understand that he cannot or will not listen to anything else at this time.

Mike Bennion says:
Dear Terisa,
I think perhaps you do not understand my purpose. I am not offended that you read me thus. Curious can think anything he wants to think.
There are those who comment of these threads, like Chief and Curious, or like GB and I. We, as a rule have made up our minds about the way things are.

There are others who come to read with out comment. Some have made up their minds as well, others are not sure. Some are seeking.
It is for them that I comment.

I know as you do, that in the final analysis, there must be a leap of faith in making any decision concerning religion. I have experienced the certitude that the Spirit of God brings to mind and heart. If you have read other posts that I have made you would know that I have born witness of this.

I believe as do some other members of the Church that sometimes it is important to at least let those who are searching know that there are responses to the assertions made by people like Curious. And that those assertions are not as strong as they may seem at fist glance.

I have made some very good frieinds on these and associated threads. Some of these disagree with me completely about religion. But they have come to respect my method og response and I have come to respect theirs. We pray for each other. There is a gentleman in Virginia that goes by Va Daddy, he and I and others have had a long conversation on another website. He has a little boy that was recently in the hospital with an infection. I expressed my concern and prayed for his family. Chief, who also comments on these threads, has a wife who has been diagnosed with cancer. I have made his family a matter of prayer as well. I just returned this week from Utah, where my son-in-law underwent open heart surgery. Both Chief and Va Daddy prayed for my family. If I knew that Curious needed my faith and prayers I would offer them to Curious as well.

I have no animosity toward any of those who hold a point of view opposiong mine. I will however, reserve the right to provide a robust defense of those things that I hold sacred.

Regards,
Mike

Curious.
You provided the definition and I quote “the word 'Halax' actually means a once event”.

Once has many meanings as you well know. From Dictionary.com (because it is so convenient).
once
–adverb
1. at one time in the past; formerly: I was a farmer once; a once powerful nation.
2. a single time: We ate there just once. We go to a movie once a week.
3. even a single time; at any time; ever: If the facts once become known, it will be just too bad.
4. by a single step, degree, or grade: a cousin once removed.
–adjective
5. former; having at one time been: the once and future king.
–conjunction
6. if or when at any time; if ever.
7. whenever; as soon as: Once you're finished, you can leave.
–noun
8. a single occasion; one time only: Once is enough.
—Idioms
9. all at once,
a. simultaneously: The children were running, screaming, and throwing things all at once.
b. suddenly: All at once the rain came down.

10. at once,
a. at the same time; simultaneously: Don't all speak at once.
b. immediately; promptly: Tell him to come at once!
11. once and again, repeatedly: He has been told once and again not to slam the door.
12. once and for all, decisively; finally: Let's settle this problem once and for all. Also, once for all.
13. once in a while, at intervals; occasionally: She stops in to see us once in a while.
14. once or twice, a very few times; infrequently: I've seen her in the elevator once or twice.
15. once upon a time, at some unspecified past time, esp. a long time ago: Once upon a time, in a faraway land, there lived a prince and princess.

The number one definition is quite clear that it doesn’t preclude the event from happening again. The only time that it can mean a one time only occurrence is with the use of modifying words like “only”, “just”, “not more than”.

curious: ..what I am saying is that your wanting to interpret that word as once, in a series of possible subsequent occurrences is incorrect.

GB: And you are not. However the definition clearly allows for a series of subsequent occurrences.

curious: That word means from its context (as seen in the other instances I mentioned), ONCE FOR ALL.

GB: That is only your opinion and it is contrary to the definition that YOU initially PROVIDED. Nowhere in the definition that YOU PROVIDED does it say “once for all” or any thing like it. I find it very interesting that you are trying to read meaning into a word that isn’t there and clearly isn’t in the definition YOU PROVIDED.

Curious: Jesus did not die more than ONCE FOR ALL,

GB: I agree with the sentence ‘Jesus did not die more than ONCE.’ It is interesting that you add “for all” to that sentence, because doing so, adds absolutely nothing to the meaning of ‘once’. It only defines who it is that Jesus died for. The key words in that sentence are ‘not - more than’. They control the number of times the event can occur.

Curious: he did not suffer for the sins of man more than ONCE FOR ALL, etc.

GB: See above.

Curious: .. I read your post, I didn't agree with it which is why I wrote my last post.

GB: So we can agree to disagree. Fine.

Curious: I reread your post, you were clear but unfortunately your assessment is erroneous.

GB: That is a statement of opinion, for clearly you haven’t shown me to be in error.

Terisa,

You say:
I find your need to have 'evidence' distressing as we are still discovering things that 'prove' the Bible, yet you profess a belief in the Bible and in Christ. Why can the Book of Mormon not be true? Just because we haven't discovered all you think we should have doesn't mean it's not true. What about the scrolls and books that were deliberately left out of the Bible because they didn't fit into the popular belief of what Christ was at the time it was formally put together centuries ago? We know now that several books that would have explained a lot more were left out. Some have been found and translated, but still not included even in today's versions.

Why do Mormons not include these books as part of the Mormon canon?

Terisa,

Keep praying for your friend. God has a timetalbe for everyone.

If you think I'm "robust" you should see some of the other posters.

I have the site bookmarked already along with many others.

my blog is at www.angelslanding.townhall.com

You can request info form me on my e-amil listed there and I can give you various links.

Mike

As a devout Pagan who chooses to acknowlege the Divine Spirit in Her female form I am amazed at the ability of people to base their faith on old books and the words of men who are able to make a living by talking about things which cannot be proven, demonstrated or logically understood. My faith comes from a daily interaction with the Goddess and many decades of examining other faiths, reading their sacred texts and listening to their followers. The more I study the more I see the inconsistancies and the obvious hypocrisies in the followers of the Yahwehists. The fact that Romney believes in magic golden tablets and the idea that Native Americans are actually Jews makes me understand that his intellect consists of the ability to speak and convince others to be led without debate or understanding of what they are doing, but quite frankly it should be obvious that at the time Mormonism was being fabricated there were many similar packaged faiths being fabricated and sold and all of them had the reasoning that since the Pastor was divinely inspired nobody could question them and all power and welath flowed to and through them. We're not talking religion here, we're talking con artists. The Mormons happen to be one of the few that lasted this long. Romney might make a great school administrator but he'd be as bad a President as Bush is. I'll stick to the Lady of the Beasts and Vegetation. No secrets there, just understanding.

This is ridiculous, Mormons are not Christians, just as Jews are not Muslims. It is absurd to think otherwise and I don't know why we are even fighting this battle. Get over it, you are Mormons, why can't you have your heritage and I have mine, this is never going to fly so just face it. There are too many things that you believe that are wacked out and clearly not Christian, so why do you want to continue to claim this tag, this is why we fight, not because we think you are wrong, because we beleive in something and it is not what you beleive, and there is nothing wrong with that except that you are trying to mesh the two.

looking in,

I don't disagree with you, but you might want to temper your arguments with grace and humility. Clubbing people over the head rarely earns dividends.

Folks, the gist of the matter is this: when Joseph Smith started Mormonism, he was not seeking to come alongside the Christian churches already present, and he was not claiming to be another sect of Christianity. By saying that all of the churches' creeds were an "abomination" and that their professors were "all corrupt", he fired a shot across the bow of the orthodox Christian churches. He wasn't interested in JOINING them, he was interested in SUPPLANTING or REPLACING them. This is evident by his teachings that the LDS is the "one and only true church", and by the fact that the LDS does not recognize participation in the sacraments of other Christian churches because they don't have the "authority" of the LDS. If you read a post by CB elsewhere on this thread, he finally came out and admitted that he regarded the Christian faith as a COUNTERFEIT religion.

So the question really isn't "Are Mormons Christians?" The question, in the minds of the LDS leadership, is "Are the Latter-Day Saints the only TRUE Christians?" That is why there is not a spirit of accomodation between our faiths. Mormons may say that orthodox Christians are 'Christians' in a loose sense, but I don't think that they really believe that. The LDS teaches that other Christians do not have the fullness of the truth, the authority of apostolic and priestly succession, and do not have the benefits of modern prophecy and revelation. So in the end, we can discuss doctrinal points all we want, but the end game isn't are we both right or not. The end game comes down to one religion holds the truth, and one doesn't. Therefore we can't all be Christians, not in the theological sense of that word.

I would like to get OSC's opinion on whether the term "Mormon" is rightly applied to the various offshoots of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, polygamous or otherwise. (It is the official position of Salt Lake that only their church gets to call itself Mormon.)

When OSC considers why the Salt Lake church doesn't want the Manti church calling themselves "Mormons," then he will understand why Evangelicals don't want Mormons calling themselves "Christians."

I have read several of these posts. I always find these discussions interesting. There are always several misrepresentations of views and many things taken completely out of context and used to refute another persons claims. One such statement took a few scriptures out of the Bible to refute the Mormon claim that we can all become gods. So, in the same spirit, I give you the following scripture from the Bible (I could find a lot more to support my point...but I don't have time right now to look them up).

Matthew 5:48 - Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

This was said by Jesus in the sermon on the mount. He tells us to be perfect. We know for a fact that this is impossible...but then why would Jesus tell us to do something that is impossible? Because maybe with His help, it is possible?

Many think the Mormon belief is blasphemous but the same could be said about the orthodox Christian belief in that it puts hard limits on what God can do for us. Under that belief, we are limited. But under the Mormon belief, due to God's unlimited power, mercy, grace, etc, He can make us into something that we have no chance of becoming ourselves.

The problem is that the same passages of scripture in the Bible can be interpreted in many different ways. But I would like to hear an interpretation from an orthodox Christian of the scripture above.

John: . . . we can never be perfect . . .

Bible: Gen 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

Gen 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

Deu 1:13 Thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God.

Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

2 Cor 13:11 Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one cmind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.

2 Tim 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Heb 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

James 1:4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.

Jesus commanded us to be perfect. How can we become perfect? I think this passage from from the Book of Mormon explains it very beautifully:
"Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God." (Moroni 10:32)

CB

Amen. It is about time. I am tired of hearing about the "non-Christian" Mormons. They are some of the most active Christians I have ever met.

Hey, James, thanks for your ignorant fulfillment of Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law)!

I'd take the time to address your individual arguments/rants/paranoia/misperceptions, but that would require the expenditure of more effort than you put into gaining your "knowledge" of the LDS faith, such as it is. I'll let your post be its own worst enemy. Others may choose to wrestle this particular pig, but I'll stay safely out of the mud.

Greg

Chief,

Regarding perfection: It cannot come outside of a covenant relationship wioth Christ. His perfection is necessary to override our imperfection.

Moroni 10:32 Yea, COME UNTO CHRIST, and be PERFECTED IN HIM, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are PERFECT IN CHRIST, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.
33 And again, if ye by the grace of God are PERFECT IN CHRIST, and deny not his power, then are ye SANTIFIED IN CHRIST by the GRACE of God, through the shedding of the BLOOD OF CHRIST, which is IN THE COVENANT of the Father unto the REMISSION OF YOUR SINS, that ye become HOLY, WITHOUT SPOT.

I'm a lifelong Mormon and Canadian and am watching the American presidential race with great interest. I thought a Canadian perspective might be interesting. I am particularly reminded of the race in 2000 where the Liberal leader Jean Chretien was pitted against Conservative newcomer Stockwell Day, an evangelical christian. Day faced all the same antireligious rhetoric that Romney now faces. For example at a public meeting in Vancouver one of the Liberal members of parliament, Hedy Fry, shouted this to a cheering crowd:

"We have a country in which a man decides that it is up to him to take his religion and use it, and abuse his political power by making all Canadians believe, as he said, that Jesus Christ is the God of the whole universe . . . That is an insult to every Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, everybody else who believes in other religions."

Professions of religious beliefs are anathema in Canadian politics. Apparently Chretien was ok, since, while he is a Catholic he's not a very good one (ironic, since his name is french for "Christian"). Is this the kind of philosophy we want governing our political choices? By the way, Day won the Conservative leadership but the country didn't flock to the evangelical churches and no Muslims or Buddhists were harmed. In fact Day only lasted a short time because he turned out to not be a very capable leader - a much more pertinent subject for consideration by the electorate than his wacky religious beliefs.

Every religion looks like madness if you look at it deeply enough, but as Card often points out, any scientist relies as much on theories of the unknown and guesswork - faith, even - in his or her philosphies. Mormon doctrine is no more bizzare than Baptist or Catholic or Bhuddist doctrine. Perhaps a little more adventurous in exploring the logical extensions of core beliefs, but it should be pointed out that much of what is presented by oponents as core beliefs are actually only speculations and not taught as absolute precepts. And, by the way, while many Mormons would vote for Romney simply because he's a Mormon (just as many blacks would vote for Obama because he's black), the church leaders go out of their way NOT to endorse any candidate, but do endorse participation in the political process and due diligence in identifying and assisting the candidate you think will represent you best.

When I was a young man an acquaintance invited me to a Bible study group he attended. I participated in the discussion (and frankly knew the New Testament better than most of the "traditional Christians" there) and afterward this fellow said to me "I had no idea that Mormons could hold such informed and rational views about the Bible". Last Sunday I attended a Sunday School class discussing the second missionary journey of Paul, reading and discussing passages from Acts. As far as I can recall, none of the discussion would have been out of place in any traditional Christian church. Really.

Addressing Steve Blockage and his entry of Aug. 21 at 9:49pm
Steve,
I just read your entry today. Would you be so kind as to address my entry of Aug 16th at 7:50am ? I apologize but I really need some real detail here. I've yet to find anyone willing to tackle these types of sources head on when discussing the Mormon view of the Trinity.

Jesus said "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." John 13:35 (English Standard Version).

If you have love for others, and try to follow Christ, I think you are a Christian. Let's quit bickering over the theological details and just love each other.

My, how do all my posts get so long?! I can't for the life of me say what I think in quick an concise words! Sorry guys. :)

Brian,

"1)Do you believe that Jesus atoned/died for the sins of the world.
2)Do you believe in the bible.
3)Do you believe that you can only be saved through the intermediary of Jesus?"

\\\

1)The Jesus that is the "spirit" brother of Satan? The Jesus that appeared in pre-America?

2)The Bible that YOU Mormons think contains things incorrectly tranlated, unles it supports J. Smith?

3)Who was "voted in" by a council of the gods, over Satan to be the intermediary between a god (with the name Elohim) of "this" world and we people born in a heavenly realm and fleshly-deposited on "this" planet?

C'mon man, Mormonism is not Christian.

From dictionary.com (because it is convenient).
Chris•tian
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.
3. of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.
4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.
5. decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.
6. human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn't Christian.
–noun
7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.

Since Mormons by these definitions are Christians, why do you want to exclude them? To do so is a distortion of the language and a deception on your part. Why do you want to do that?

Acts 28:22, Bryan Stiles:

I'm not sure that Bryan is being way to simplistic in his analysis. An experience I had seems to support his take on the issue.

A couple of devout Southern Baptists I was speaking with held firmly to the Triune Trinity doctrine and asserted repeatedly that that makes the divide between Mormons and other Christians too wide.

When I pressed them on what the Trinity meant, they gave the fuzzy "Three united" language. Then, when a Catholic colleague chimed in and said three united in the same substance, but different manifestations, these good Southern Baptists dissented. One suggested that from his study and what he had been taught he understood it to mean that they were three separate but united in purpose (sound familiar?). He even gave an analogy of his family: he, his wife, and his daughter are three separate beings; but they have the same name (his last name), and they are united in their goals as a family. Not only does that not comport with what the Nicene Creed teaches, but it is nearly identical to what Mormons believe about the Godhead. Wow!

Now, either his church is apostatizing from the SBC (which, although possible, I doubt it, because he attends one of the largest Baptist mega-churches in the South); or, by his own study he came up with this understanding despite what the SBC holds to in its official doctrine.

Either way, I think most average, man-on-the-street Christians may not fully believe what their church as a whole teaches or clings to. I think that the concept of the Trinity may be one of those issues that, for most people, unless they just take their minister's word for it, does not comport with what they have learned from the Bible. Of course, their ministers have studied the issue in detail using sources outside the Bible, and can feel confident that their understanding is correct. But the average Christian relying on their study of the Bible alone has a difficult time making that leap to extra-Biblical doctrine like the Nicene Creed, again, unless they just take their minister's word for it.

No more Specious arguments,
Thank you for your insightful post.
I wonder if Dr. Mohler holds Mormons to a different standard than he would hold members of his own denomination. Would these Baptists you describe be 'destined for Hell' in his eyes? They are denying "traditional Christian Orthodoxy" are they not?

NMSA,

I don't know the answer to your question. In my church, adherence to the Nicene Creed is not a requirement. When we are baptized, we make the confession that "I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of Living God, and my Savior." The person baptizing then says, "Based upon your confession of faith, I now baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the remission of your sins and the gift of that Holy Ghost."

To tell you the truth, I think that most people would give you a puzzled look because they would have no idea what the Nicene Creed is!

I also cannot speak for exactly what the different denominations put forth as their basic doctrines. We list our foundations of faith right in the bulletin, so anyone coming in can see what our church believes right up front.

The reason that I asked that question is this: I was sprinkled in the Presbyterian church, but my further biblical studies indicated that the baptizo spoken of in the New Testament was immersion, not sprinkling. So I wanted to get baptized and re-affirm my faith in Christ. I went through a whole course in baptism, then went forward to give my confession before the congregation. Nowhere in that 6-week course was any mention given of any personage that confirmed my status before God except for Jesus. Of course I recognize the prophets and apostles as critical to the transmission of God's word down through the ages, but I never had to agree that Moses was God's prophet, or that John the Baptist, Peter, Paul, or anyone else was, either. The fact is that my faith and my eternal salvation rests on the person, works, and ministry of only one person, Jesus Christ. If I wanted to transfer my church membership to another body of believers, and I was looking at non-denominational Christian churches, the fact that I am immersed and continue to confess Jesus as my Lord and Savior would be the only facts they would want to know in order to consider my application for membership. If I was to go to a Baptist or Methodist or Lutheran church, I don't know what else would be involved.

Morman church investigator

http://www.youtube.com/watch?V=85U9GYO2bik

I read this hoping to learn the actual DIFFERENCES between Mormon and Baptist belief. No such luck. All Mr. Card said was We are totally different from Christians, but we should still be considered Christians. Why? You compare your disagreements with the reformation, but Catholics and Protestants actually have a lot in common. We disagree on a lot and a discussion like this would quickly cover some of this disagreements. I would like to know what Mr. Card did cover the details of any of Morman's disagreements with other Christians. It seems like you have to join the club BEFORE you find out what you're signing up to. Why not spell it out? Why not openly say Mormon's Disagree with XYZ and here's why? Baptist could easily say "We don't pray to Mary because..." or "We don't obey the Pope because...". Such a discussion could easily deteriorate into trivial debate, but experts would be able to focus on the root differences between Protestants and Catholics. I was hoping to learn the root differences between Protestants and Mormons, but got nothing of the sort.

I feel that Mr. Card's unwillingness to clearly point out a specific difference is very telling. I suspect that like Dr. Mohler said, the difference would be so great that there would be no common ground left for anyone to say we members of the same religion. Broadening the work "Christian" so much that both Mormon and Protestants could fit in would make the word meaningless to anyone that heard it, because it would cover two completely different religions.

two corrections my post is on the 16th not the 21st and
http://www.cornerstone1.org/trin-gp.htm is the correct source

Leigh Anne Petersen,

Let's not muddy the waters by confusing evangelicals that the Community of Christ church is anything close to the Restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons)...

That would be akin to saying Protestants are Catholic.

Agreed! It may be true that Mormons and we are about as alike as Baptists and Catholics...no disagreement! But the Original point still stands. That Evangelicals often put the teachings of Paul "about" Jesus way far and ahead in the sermon than the teachings Jesus himself thought were important...the Kingdom of God, discipleship, loving God, neighbor and enemy, compassionate service.....need I go on?

Wyse,

For hundreds of years scholars thought that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written somewhere in the 100-200AD range. However, modern scholarship has rendered their writings to be of more ancient origin, somewhere in the 45-65AD range. The last book of the Bible, Revelation, has now been given a date of around 90AD. The apocryphal books, which enjoyed some recent exposure due to the book and movie "The Da Vinci Code", are the ones that were generally written after 200AD, including the 'gospel' of Thomas and the 'gospel' of Philip. But the books and letters in the New Testament are now known to have originated in the first century AD, giving much more credence to their testimonies of the teachings of Christ.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJlox2SLcHE The magic of Mormonism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG0XKVbgK9g Archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J86PXBEzx7A The first Vision
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQsfpYGY4cc Prophecies of Joseph Smith
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfrOKNhfhY4 Character of Joseph Smith

Mormons are as close to nontraditional Christians as Muslims are.

Do Mormons believe that Adam is God? NO!!

Do they believe that Mary wasn't a Virgin, but Adam (who is also God) came and had sex with her? NO!!

Do normal Christians believe that they will become Gods in the afterlife, or that there is only one God? Yes!! That is what the Bible teaches.

Fred, you should read the posts on this blog site before posting. It will prevent you from looking stupid. Again!

Chief,
Is telling the truth a christian response?

Chief,

You have to forgive us if we get a bit impatient with bomb throwers like Fred.

They are more interested in shouting loudly than in understanding.

The first rule is:
If you repeat the assertion of someone's belief to them would they agree with you that that is indeed what they believe?

Fred fails this rule.

I have had some blog threads where that is what I did, when the accusations got particularly nasty, and it was clear that discussion and mutual understanding was not the intent of theposters in question.

The debate hasn't even begun to get started check out the "Mormonism is not Christianity" thread

One of the oldest Christian creeds known today is the Apostles’ Creed. The Apostles of the early church didn’t formulate the creed; rather, the Apostles’ Creed, compiled later, is comprised of a brief summary of the Apostles’ teachings. This creed, as well as other Christian creeds, is sometimes recited as a formal statement of belief. The Apostles’ Creed reads,

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

*The word “catholic” refers not to the Roman Catholic Church, but to the Christian church of the Lord Jesus Christ as a whole.

Mormonism is an anti-creedal system of belief. Joseph Smith, Mormonism’s first prophet, began the formulation of his church based on a claimed vision and command from God the Father and Jesus Christ. According to the canonized account of Joseph’s First Vision, when the two Divine Personages appeared to Joseph he asked them which Christian church was correct, which one he should join. Joseph said,

“I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt” (Joseph Smith – History 1:19).

An “abomination” is defined in the dictionary as “a thing that causes disgust, hatred or loathing.”

My question is, specifically what teachings in the Apostles’ Creed do Mormons think God finds loathsome or disgusting? Don’t Mormons claim to also believe all the points of the Apostles’ Creed?

LDS author Stephen Robinson says they do. In 1997 he co-wrote a book in which he endeavored to promote a better understanding among evangelicals regarding some key doctrinal issues of Mormonism. Dr. Robinson, then a BYU professor, claimed he was “fairly representative of contemporary LDS orthodoxy. I am not aware of any rift between myself and Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or Gordon B. Hinckley…” Given that, Dr. Robinson’s remark about the Apostles’ Creed was surprising. He said,

“I should probably make exception here for the Apostles’ Creed, which Latter-day Saints could affirm if allowed to define ‘holy catholic church’ as ‘true Christianity,’ as I believe Evangelicals also define it.” (How Wide the Divide, 219, fn. #8)

So help me understand this. According to Mormonism, is the Apostles’ Creed an abomination to God or isn’t it? And if it is, how could–and why would–Latter-day Saints affirm it?

I believe you missed the whole point of my post!
Maybe you're ignoring it I don't know.

Quickfix

You hate me how very UNchristian. But what can I expect after all didn't Jesus say Luke 21:17 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake.