The "Church of the Devil"?

Pretty meaty stuff. I can see this going back and forth for a long time. My fear is that too much of the details will not be talked about with much rigor (from both sides).

I think it could be useful to delve into defining what something means to oneself.

It seems clear that to assign a belief in Jesus as divine to Mormons means that others must accept them as co-followers in Christ. Is that the correct sense of the problem? What is this different Jesus? Is it one that did not heal the sick? Or is there some additional belief that invalidates Christ's divinity that is very troubling to Orthodox Christians? If I say that the Word became Flesh as proof that God (the Son) changes is that too much of a different Jesus?

Very fascinating yet important items to discuss.

I don't think that's a correct assessment. Elsewhere, Dr. Mohler has pointed out that you can pull together the Pope, the primate of any of the Eastern Orthodox churches, and a leader in a mainline protestant denomination. They will all agree on certain points that one might consider fundamental to Christianity. This keeps them as subsets of "traditional Christian orthodoxy." They would certainly disagree on a great many things after that. But, they would agree on the starting points regarding the Trinity and Jesus Christ being fully God and fully man.

Mormonism, as he points out, doesn't agree at these starting points and does not agree anywhere else at all, either. As a result, I don't think one can consider Mormonism a subset of Christianity. There would have to be some significant and substantial commonality.

However, Dr. Mohler's problem stems from the fallacy that Mr. Card attempted to demonstrate in his first response. The "traditional, orthodox" Christianity that Dr. Mohler promotes is not the Biblical christianity.

Where in the Bible may one find the foundation for the various creeds adopted by man, one being adopted by a Pagan emperor. Anyone who has attempted to study early Christianity would know that there were a group of "Christians" who did not believe in the proposed Trinity, but that the Apostles and Bible teaches a doctrine that is presently taught by the Mormon Church. You will find more biblical passages that support the Mormon doctrine on the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. One should also consider that the Bible itself speaks of books that were not oncluded in our present Bible. Because they are not included in the binding of the Bible, are they not true?

This debate will continue to go on because these two bright men are not arguing the same issue. Mr. Card is attempting to show that Mormons hold the same values and beliefs as the "Christians" who walked and spoke with Christ and His Apostles. Dr. Mohler wants to show that Mormons are not "Christians" as defined by a group of priests and pagan emperors over a hundred years after Biblical revelation ceased.

Final thought: If God spoke to man for thousands of years through prophets and man (as shown by the Old and New testaments)and God is the same yesterday, today and forever, why has God seemingly changed His method (according to traditional, orthodox christianity)?

i would say that the definition of christ type religions is pretty simple. those that follow christ, and; or his teachings.
the bible is not hard to understand and we don't need people explaining it to us. i can really see the problem . and that is that those that are dedating the morman religion. have never read the morman bible.
for they would experience a really different christ. for he appears to the mormans after he died on the cross. and gave them the sermon of the mount.and was moved by thier love for him. and stayed with them. for they would not let him leave.
i met two young traveling preachers of the morman faith. some twenty years ago. and what was amazing was one of these fine young preachers was a navaho indian.and i posed a question for him. how could an ancient , proud race as the navaho indians . believe in the
morman religion?
well it seems that the mormans were visited by a great , white , yellow haired man. that taught them to live in harmony and to irrigate and grow crops. this enabled the navaho to be independent and peace loving. when this man left he said he would return somday.. and the navaho believe he will. so much so that they build their hogas with the door facing to the east. so they might see him when he returns....
again the bible is written so an eight year old child can understand, it.don't be afraid to read it . if god loves you . you will get your message from the written word.
god bless
you and yours

Elsewhere in the blogosphere I have seen references to “Creedal Christians” and “Mormon” or “LDS Christians”. That seems to me to be a reasonable compromise that both sides could agree upon. Jesus Christ is so central to the theology and worship of Mormons that to deny they are “Christians” just seems silly. What else is someone who worships Jesus Christ, if not Christian?

Yet Mormons would be the first to agree that the very foundation of their religion lies upon rejection of traditional Christian Creeds. In their place, Mormon theology is based upon modern revelation. Hence the real difference is between the creeds and modern revelation. That difference obviously results in completely different concepts of Jesus Christ, as both “Mormon Christians” and “Creedal Christians” agree.

Quote - "The Christian world, I discovered, was like the captain and crew of a vessel on the ocean without a compass, and tossed to and fro withersoever the wind listed to blow them. When the light came to me, I saw that all the so-called Christian world was groveling in darkness.
[Brigham Young, Journal Of Discourses; vol. 5; pg.73]

It strikes me as odd that any Mormon should wish to "ship-over" with the Christian Church when their key founders had such a low view of it.

Is Mr. Card repudiating his own "Prophets" & "Apostles"?"

The term "groveling in darkness" is referring to the fact that they were not being led by revelation as they had all pretty much claimed the canon to be closed and God was no longer speaking to man. This period is known as the DARK Ages, the Apostasy, or falling away. The Christian world was in darkness because the divine light of revelation was not present. This is what Brigham Young was referring to.

I thought I said this more clearly than I did. I might try again. It is not that the leaders of all different Christian (according to Mohler's definition) faiths will agree on every point. For example- in what manner are we justified? They would all probably answer the question differently. Actually, Robert Letham makes a good point about the distinctions between the Eastern and Western branches of Christianity in his book "The Holy Trinity." He said (paraphrase) that the Eastern Church doesn't simply answer the questions differently than the West did beginning with Calvin, Luther, and the Reformation. Rather, the Eastern Church asks entirely different questions. For example, the East focuses on Christ's resurrection as conquering death, which is the great enemy. The West views the enemy more as sin, and Christ's work was more important in conquering that. Now, that's a nuanced example because both sides look at sin and death as related problems, but the focus is different.

Still, starting from God's nature as one in essence and being, yet three distinct persons, they would agree. Similarly, they would agree that Christ is eternally God, begotten not made, and that he became fully man while remaining fully God. They can at least start from there. Of course, they don't agree on everything.

Also, please don't judge this according to the televangelists that are out there selling stupid pieces of cloth just to make a buck as a reference or standard for what a Christian is or should be.

I am the first to confess that I am not the most educated stick in the woodpile, but I sure can read. Which begs me to ask the question of how someone like Mitt Romney could possibly be taken seriously as a leader in any form of government, especially the Presidency, when he is a Mormon and has allegiance to the type of doctrine that the Mormons hold ear at heart that dark skinned people are a cursed people and filthy and not able to enjoy the promises of heaven? In the various books they hold dear, dark skinned people are considered less than white skinned people and anyone who has a relationship with a dark skinned person is said to be cursed with destruction. They even believe that white skinned people are very pleasant and joyous and allowed great blessings simply because they are white. Now, when you read Alma and understand the history of this country, you cannot help but hear the bells of Jim Crow and lynchings and segregation and denial of the right to vote coming all over again. As a white male, I have to further ask the question of who Mitt Romney is talking about when he speaks about family values and strong military and banding together? Will I be condemned by Mitt Romney for loving an Indian woman out of New Mexico and denied freedoms because I associate with a dark skinned person? Mitt Romney is a disaster waiting to happen and surely his counterparts in the Republican Party are just waiting for this Fall to jump his sorry butt on these issues and throw him completely out of the race. If they don't get him, Hillary will and surely Barak better speak up because the only thing Mitt Romney will look forward to doing is remaining true to his faith as he has publicly stated already. So don't believe everything these POLITICIANS are saying to you these days just to get themselves into a position of power where they can kill some more innocent people who just wanted to be left alone and exercise their own homegrown terrorism behind the lines while they wave the flag and of course whistle dixie at the same time but at a low volume. Members of the Mormon faith such as Mitt Romney are evil waiting to turn back the clock of our bloody and shameful past of racial hatred and separatism!!!!!

I find it very interesting that the President of a Baptist Theological Seminary appears to have repudiated the singularly most important theological contribution Baptists have made to Christian Theology--the doctrine of "soul competency" or "soul liberty." If the original historical Baptist radicals were here to read this, they'd think Mr. Mohler was sent by the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church to condemn them for heresy.

Mark stated: “The term "groveling in darkness" is referring to the fact that they were not being led by revelation as they had all pretty much claimed the canon to be closed and God was no longer speaking to man. This period is known as the DARK Ages, the Apostasy, or falling away. The Christian world was in darkness because the divine light of revelation was not present. This is what Brigham Young was referring to.”

Honestly Mark, that is the most pathetically ridiculous attempt at revisionism I think I may ever have witnessed! The "Dark Ages" existed from about 476 AD to approx. 1000 AD. Your 2nd President/Prophet, Brigham Young lived from 1801 to 1877. To anyone but the willfully blind, he is clearly speaking of his own opinion of Christendom in his own times!

The term "dark Ages" was coined to describe the deplorable ignorance and resultant suffering upon common humanity in those times due to the fact that following the fall of the Roman Empire, much of the Art & Literature of civilization was plundered, destroyed and lost to the Barbarians. What was rescued was generally kept in Monasteries and Churches. These literary sources of "illumination" (especially the Bible) were locked up in now dead languages such as Koine Greek, Hebrew, and Latin until Schools of learning could once again be established. As far as Christianity is concerned: It was not until men like Tyndale, Wycliffe, and Luther started translating the Bible into the common tongue that the spiritual "darkness" began to lift. The "revelation" never ceased to exist, it was yet present, though not commonly available. When that revelation was finally freed from those archaic languages and delivered to the common man, the "renaissance" occurred, and the Reformation began in earnest. "Apostasy"?... to be sure, there was some of that: But never entirely, nor finally. God always preserves His Word, and His Remnant. It was no "new" revelation which ignited the call for reform in the Church; but rather a now renewed acquaintance with the old. And it turned the "powers that be" on their heads.

YES my Mormon friend; the canon has long been closed, and no "new revelation" has been needed. We only need to know, understand and submit to it rather than reject it in favor of our own. And even if the canon were yet open; the "authoritative works" of Mormon Church could never withstand the Biblical test of what was acceptable to be received into it. (Deu 13:1-5;18:20-22; Isa 8:20; Jer 23:28) And neither could the character of Mormonism's so-called "prophets and apostles" stand up to those already known in the Scriptures.

Sorry, "No Sale"

Why is this so difficult? If one believes in Jesus Christ and His gospel, then he is a Christian. The Bible is one history that teaches of our Lord; the Book of Mormon is another history (here in America) that teaches of our Lord and His dealings with another group of people.

All churches have differences in belief and ways of accomplishing worship and following our Master.

I'm not a Utah Mormon but I believe Romney would make a wonderful President. He has the moral fiber that this country needs.

What we need is for God himself to come down and straighten this whole mess out. He could tell us what is right and who is wrong.I get the feeling though, that if he would do this, some would still reject his teachings as too radical a departure from what was traditional, orthodox and historical. Jesus and John the Baptist were killed for doing this. So was Joseph Smith.

Nate...excellent post.

I would encourage you to look in to the doctrine of salvation. What must be done in order to be saved? Faith alone? Faith and baptism? Christ was baptized to fulfill all righteousness despite not having a need to wash away any sins. Why was Christ baptized by John the Baptist and not just anyone? If John had the power to baptize unto reprentence, who today has such a power and where does one get it? From God? From going to school?

The Apostles performed baptisms for the dead (See 1 Cor. 15), who performs that today? Throughout the Bible, God has instructed men to construct temples to worship God, where are those temples today? The Savior established an organization with Prophets, Apostles, etc., where are the Prophets and Apostles today. If there was only supposed to be the original 12, then I ask why did Christ restore the group to 12 once again after Judas betrayed Him?

Who is man to say that God is forbidden from speaking to His children as He had done for thousands of years? Where in the Bible does it promote that revelation would seem to cease after thousands of years upon the death of the Apostles. If revelation did cease with teh end of the Bible, why do men follow the Creeds established by the Catholic Church hundreds of years after the Apostles as doctrine?

Where are the Priesthoods spoken of in the book of James? What did Paul mean regarding the restoration of ALL things? Who is the angel bringing the everlasting gospel? What did Isaiah mean when he prophesied of the truth speaking from the ground? Where is the temple on Mount Zion?

There are many questions that God may not have as yet revealed unto man, but to believe that the Bible is the end all, is well...actually sad. The "BIBLE" does not even contain all of the writings at that time...it wasn't compiled until a few hundred years after the death of the Apsotles.

Since the Nicene Creed, man has struggled with understanding who God and Jesus Christ are. The various churches today do not exactly agree either. Yet...Christ taught that to obtain everlasting life we must KNOW God the Father and His Son.

who do you guys think is better chris bosh or kevin garnett? lol

A reason why I worry for the state of the souls of Mormon's:

1) Stuart said, "Christ taught that to obtain everlasting life we must KNOW God
the Father and His Son."

With this I agree. If a person must know who Christ is in order to be saved. As
has been said many times in this debate, if a person trusts and believes in and
obeys a Christ who is Lemon Iced Tea Snapple, that person is not saved for he believes in, and trusts, and obeys a false Jesus. It is not just *any* Jesus who saves, (the "Lemon Iced Tea Snapple Jesus" cannot save) but our faith must be in a very specific Jesus. But which one?

2) Paul had a very specific Jesus in mind when he said the following:

“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.” 2 Corinthians 11:3-4

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so
say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9

The Lord Himself said,

“I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.” John 8:24

This goes to confirm that it indeed matters greatly who we believe Jesus to be iin order to be saved. We must believe in the Jesus that Bible proclaims, the specific Jesus that Paul preached. Those who believe in a "different Jesus" do it at their own peril.

3) If we are honest we will admit that the Jesus Paul preached varies greatly with the Jesus Mormonism preaches. Some major differences are that the Jesus Paul
preached is:

1) The Second Person of the Triune God
2) The one true God with no god formed before Him and no god formed after Him, from everlasting to everlasting He is God
3) The Creator of all things whether visible or invisible including Lucifer and
the rest of the angels as Nehemiah 9:6 and Psalm 148:2,5 so clearly states:

"Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens,
with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee." Nehemiah 9:6

"Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts... Let them praise
the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created." Psalm 148:2,5

Meanwhile, Mormons believe in a Jesus that is "different" in at least these 3 crucial regards. The fact is that there is the Jesus that the Bible proclaims (the One who is Creator of Lucifer) and the Jesus that Mormonism proclaims (the one who is brother of Lucifer). With that said,

4) Mormons believe in a "different Jesus". This is why I, and Christianity at large, worry for the state of Mormon's souls. According to the Bible those who believe in a different Jesus are "accursed" and will "die in their sins". Therefore I implore all Mormons on here to repent and trust the Jesus of the Bible! The Jesus proclaimed by The Church of the Brother of the Devil of Latter-Day Saints is a "different Jesus" that cannot save. The Jesus proclaimed in the Bible, preached by Paul, the Jesus who is Creator of all things including Lucifer, is the only One who can save and pardon sin. Repent and believe in Him for the full forgiveness of your sins. His death on the cross was sufficient to pay for all your sins once and for all! Otherwise, if you repent not, you will "die in your sins" as the Lord Himself said.

Thank you.

I think one very large question is being glossed over: do Mormons believe that Jesus is God? Not just the Son of God, or the Saviour, or Lord, but God Himself?

In the Scriptures, Jesus clearly identifies Himself as God ("I and the Father are One"; "I am"; "I am the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end"; John's gospel saying that the Word (Jesus) was God; Jewish culture's understanding of being the "Son" of God, making Himself equal with God).

This is not a creed, this is not an orthodoxy - these are Jesus' words about Himself. If Mormons answer this question in the negative (which they do), then the debate is over. If they answer it in the affirmative, then the debate can continue regarding other issues.

Letting Jesus set the starting question of this "test" of Christianity might be a good idea.

My husband is of the Mormons faith..which is a >christian faith. I myself am a Indepentent Pentecostal,which mean's i believe in 1 God and very expressive worship ,rather outloud or soft...but very expressive..as the Spirit come's upon me.I just feel some the dress codes like not wearings pants,> or watching a movie or tv are mind of men wanting control. Nothing in God's word to back it up...expect in the old Jewish law 1000s of yrs. ago...far as the dress code. I feel alot of my husband's beliefs are beautiful,and he feel's the same about my beliefs...for both of us...as each church are serving God in love. Godd ideal don't you think?

It is amusing that the Mormon beliefs match best what Jesus said. I guess some would favor Paul over Jesus! I side with the words of Jesus first and foremost.

Here is what Jesus said to Mary Magdalene after being resurrected:

John 20:17

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Notice closely. "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father". Christ's could not have his physical body defiled, because his physical body had yet to be in God's physical presence. If God the Father was not tied to the physical world, then why did Christ have to make sure his body was not defiled?

Also, notice Christ said after the occurrence of the Resurrection and to the first witness of his resurrection, he clearly stated his and our relationship with God. He tied these words to the hallmarks of Christianity and commanded Mary Magdalene to relay these precise words:

but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Those who deny what Jesus explicitly taught are not only arguing with Mormons but with Jesus himself! Jesus' command to witness of him was to say that "He ascended to his Father and our Father" and to "His God and my God". Sorry guys, the made of doctrine of Trinity is contrary to what Jesus taught!

Matthew Jacobs asks, "Do Mormons believe that Jesus is God?", and then answers by asserting "If Mormons answer this question in the negative (which they do)..." -- oops! Mormons answer it in the affirmative: we believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. Christ is Jehovah the Mighty God, Creator of the heavens and the earth and all things that in them are.

Stuart,

I will consider and attempt to answer your questions and pose some of my own later on tonight.

Looking forward to our exchange,
AC

I would like the critics to answer about the nature of Jesus only from the words of Jesus when he was upon the Earth and see what they come up with.

When you do this then the question becomes is Orthodox Christianity Christian?

Athol...thaks for going to the website and reading the various quotes you cited.

I think next you should read the BIBLE and you will see that the Mormon beliefs you are aghast with are actually the same teachings of the Bible.

Just to make it short...go to:

Psalms 82:6
John 10:34 (on this one read the few verses before and after for context then ask yourself who is more like the jews and who is more like Christ in that scripture?)

Which unique Mormons belief invalidates that Christ is the only begotten Son of God?

crickets....

crickets....

The answer is none!

Also, if you look at the Mormon hymns that vast majority since our inception worhips Jesus! We have always worshipped him!

I neglected to write it in the paragraph about Christ's primary work, though I was thinking it. I also think that his primary work was not simply the demonstration of God's righteousness but also to die in order to pay the debt of sinners and to rise again, conquering death. In other words, to fulfill the law and conquer sin and death.

I'd say the whole debate is moot; it's a matter of faith. In the end, God is going to decide who is/was Christian and who isn't/wasn't. Until then, all anyone can do, really, is think things through and do their best to follow Christ and his teachings - whatever they believe those to be.

Regardless of the Christianity of Mormonism or the alleged apostasy of either 'traditional orthodox Christianity' or of Mormonism, everyone I've read here seems to agree on two things:

1) God is not a limited being (however He may be defined by us).

2) Belief in Jesus (whatever the details of that belief may be) is central.

Past those points, everything is just the details. If you go to any congregation of Jesus-believing people (Mormon, Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic, what-have-you), and asked each person there about their ontological beliefs in Jesus were, you would get a different answer.

I believe the substance of this debate is all a matter of faith, and I believe that questions concerning matters of faith and belief aren't going to be answered - as in, we aren't going to know, if anyone, is right or wrong - until the end of days.

Until then, I choose to respect the Mormon faith and hold to my own faith, because I believe that all who seek God will find Him. I don't think that verse is open to interpretation. I believe I have sought him and am in the process of finding him. I also believe the same of everyone who has posted here.

I also believe it's not our place to decide who is Christian and who isn't. It's our place to love our neighbor and - through that love - trust that they are seeking God as best they can when they tell us that is what they are doing.

But I also hold that this kind of dialogue is one of the best ways to explore the nature of faith and of belief. I think its an awesome thing how civil this has stayed and how well-spoken everyone has been. I'm glad I found this thread.

/alan

The Holy Bible is in God's hands - what goes in or stays out is in His hands.

Jesus claims God-hood in the gospels.

Since that time, everyone has had to ask themselves "who do you think Christ is"

Christianity is based on faith, one thing to have faith in is that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are one.

Mormons don't believe this, therefore they are not Christian, or Christ followers.

What Mormonism presents is nothing new concerning the trinity, and just because other people were trying to define Christ's nature years ago does not mean they were Christian. Islam states Christ was a prophet, Buddhists say Christ is an enlightened one. More important is to listen to who Christ says He is.

Honest question...

In order to distinguish the historical biblical Jesus from the Mormon Jesus, maybe we can from now on, refer to him as "The Brother of Lucifer" as opposed to the biblical Jesus who is "The Creator of Lucifer and all things". So this is my question, would it be fair to call the Mormon church, "The Church of the Brother of the Devil of Latter-day Saints"?

Alan, a couple of posts up, states that the whole debate is moot because this is a matter of "faith." The post goes on to describe a post-modern concept of faith - whatever is faith for you is your truth. This whole debate is like trying to make red become blue and blue become red. Each color is distinct. Mormon theology and traditional orthodox Christianity are distinct. God is defined in distinct ways in each theological framework. The same is true for Jesus.

Jesus told us clearly why he came, "...for this this I came into the world, to testify to the truth." John 18:37 "What is truth?" was Pilate's classic response. That is question for us today. Pick your truth. I'll go with traditional orthodox Christianity - and I have read "The Book of Mormon," "The Doctrine and Covenants," and "The Pearl of Great Price." I've visited a Mormon temple and know about Mormon underwear. I believe in the truth that Jesus came to teach which in broad terms has been systematized in the creeds of the church. (Both Mormons and traditional Christians systematize basic beliefs - we would drown in the details if we didn't.)

Choose your system, state your beliefs, but don't try to say that all beliefs are true. Stand up and be proud to be a traditional Christian or a Mormon or a Hindu or whatever, just don't give me that post-modern "can't we all just get along" whishy-washy-ness.

Yes. If they had some believed in the Book of Mormon. I would say they would be misguided Mormons nonetheless.

Question for the Mormons...

"Imagine if a man starts a "new" religion based off Mormonism. He asserts than an angel visited him and told him that Joseph Smith's true revelation was lost and he will restore it. The restoration is as follows:

-Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Trinity.
-Man cannot become gods.
-The Father was never a man.
-Christ is not the brother of the Lucifer but rather His Creator.
-Disregard the false books put forth by the apostate LDS church.
-The lost message given through Joseph Smith for the people was "Read your Bible and pray."

Would it be OK if the followers of this "new" religion promoted themselves as Mormons? They believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God and they even believe in Joseph Smith. Are they Mormons?"

Wait let me get this clear. You are telling me that if a "prophet" starts a new religion that says:

-BoM is false, as is Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants etc.
-Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Trinity
-The Father was never a man
-Historical Traditional Orthodox Christianity is correct
-And he says that the true revelation given to Joseph Smith was: Look to Christ, read your Bible and pray.

Are you saying that those who follow the new revelation and new restoration by this prophet would still be considered Mormons?

Very interesting.

Sorry i was away at lunch and missed so much.

First, AC...I was waiting until this evening but here you go. The answer to your question is NO...and why...because it goes contrary to the teachings of the BIBLE. I could go on...but there is no need to. The BIBLE does not teach the "One is substance," never has and despite orthodox chrisitianity never will!

Second. If you want to refer to the "Mormon Christ" in such a way then I will respond to you as the "Brother of the Devil, formerly known as AC." I may even give you a symbol in case you want to simply go by such a thing.

Where in the BIBLE does it say that Christ created Lucifer? Did Christ create you? If so, shouldn't he be our Father? Seriously, has no one ever had a family member that turned against the principles of their family. Remember people, Job and the book of revelations teaches us that there was a war in heaven.

Third. If the teachings of Jopseph Smith are to be thrown away, then you should do the same with a majority of the BIBLE, because the teachings of Joseph Smith are consistent with Biblical teachings.

Fourth. Not once has anyone cited any scripture to show any truth to the Trinity doctrine. Maybe someone could use Christ's baptism...oh wait, Jesus must have been throwing his voice to have the voice of the Father seem to come from heaven while Christ stood in the river with John. Or maybe the crucification...oh wait, Christ was talking to Himself again when he was commending His Spirit to the Father or asking forgiveness for the Romans who knew not what they were doing. Or, as has been mentioned earlier, use the appearance of Christ to any of His diciples after the ressurection. Oh wait, Christ told Mary Mag. that He had not yet ascended to the Father, or to the disciples when He said He goes to prepare a place for them in His Father's many mansions.

Any response, brother of Lucifer, formerly known as AC?

someone saying they are God means one thing if they are saying it to a Hindu, another thing if they are saying it to a Buddhist, and yet another thing if they are saying it to a Jew.

We need to keep the Judeo concept of God in mind when interpreting what Jesus claimed about His nature, substance, purpose, mission, etc.
and this interpretation needs to be consistent with the First Commandment - there is one God.

If Mormon's or others don't accept the trinity, then Jesus is at best a demi-god and at worst mere human. This doesn't fit with how God defines Himself.

P.Nielsen: Satan is anti-creation, anti-love, anti-truth, anti-Love. Yes God created him, as God created all things, but to say God is the mastermind of evil would be to say that God is divided against Himself.

Anyway the point AC was making is that if Jesus is not God, yet He is more powerful than a human, somewhere around as powerful as an angel, well then it would be sort of analogous to perceive Him as being like a brother of Satan who likewise is created, is more powerful than a human etc.etc. It was a joke first, and an interesting thought second.

Wonderful post P. Nielsen.

Want anotehr reason why we promote only the core Christian values taught in the BIBLE...because Mormons were tired of having a so-called Christian nation persecute them, steal their property, and murder their leaders.

Remember the Prophets of the BIBLE did not always preach openly, neither did the Apostles...why.. because people persecuted them!

Wait you have added things and have changed the apples to apples dynamic.

....

Back to the real world for a second.

Mormons emphatically believe the Bible is true! Translation of it could be an issue and it is an absolute essential requirement that Holy Spirit is used to interpret it all times, because various interpretations are still possible when using only the reasoning of man.

Mormons view is that inspiration and revelation from God is always greater than just the philosopy Sola Scriptorium alone. Jesus said that the Holy Ghost will leads us to all truth we take that literally and we hold that as the highest standard. It should however conform, match and makes sense in relationship to what God has revealed, but ultimately we do suscribe that living revelations which eminates from Jesus Christs to guide us.

Bottomline, we put Jesus through the power of the Holy Ghost at the head of our revelation to help us interpret the Bible, and all of other scriptures.

Mormons believe that all of the righteous will become Joint-Heir with Christ in the most concrete sense possible as it states in Romans 8 and in Revelations.

Orthodox Christians don't believe this. Again, is Orthodox Christianity Christian?

First. Jesus is Jehovah, the God of the OT. Jesus said that we, including Himself, are able to have all that the father hath.

Second. I know that your only biblical scripture is the Father and I are one, but how about you continue to read in the Bible where Christ then states that the Apostles can be ONE with Christ as He is ONE with the Father. Is heaven one giant substance?

Third. Buddhists say what...you forgot to finish your illogical thought. However, it was a clever way of attempting to delfect the fact that you have no Biblical support.

Jason....please try to explain the Trinity and use examples from the BIBLE. I am personally tired of relying simply on a Pagan Emperor who thought he was the Sun God while encouraging the adoption of the Trinity Doctrine.

Ps. 82: 6
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
Matt. 5: 48
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
John 10: 34
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Acts 17: 29
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.
Rom. 8: 17
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
Gal. 4: 7
7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
Heb. 12: 9
9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of fspirits, and live?
1 Jn. 3: 2
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
Rev. 3: 21
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

-----
-----

thank you NowandLater...Biblical scriptures rather than words from a compromise presided by the Sun God.

JEHOVAH translates into I AM I AM. Or more literalling I AM BECOMING (male tense), I AM BECOMING (female tense). It is Jesus speaking as the Word who later becomes Flesh.

You are correct jason...and the same person went by Jesus in the new Testament. That is why the OT prophets predicted that God would come and save the people (you can read about it a lot in Isaiah) and how he was the creator of the world. Then you read in the NT that Jesus fulfilled those prophecies. Look at John 10:33.

If the Pagan Creed was based on the Bible, give me some scriptural basis??

Help! I have scoured my Bible and can't find the word "Trinity" in it! I can't even find the word "Bible" either!!

Chapter and verse please. I am in jeopardy of spending eternity in HELL!!

PS: John chapter 8 has me all confused. Is Jesus confused about his relationship to his father, I mean himself, or his son? If Jesus is confused, no wonder I am.

Thx jason.

First. The Philippians quote goes on to show you that Jesus is a God.

Second. Matthew scripture shows that they are three separate people. Unless that is the origin of Me, Myself, and I.

John 8:58- Further proof that Christ was Jehovah.

John 10:30: For the upteenth time, One is what? Being? No..purpose? Likely! That is why we can become ONE with Christ as well.

John 10:38- Read a bit farther and see that we can be in Christ as He is in us. I don't think that means being the same single substance. See John 17:22.

JASON...Read 1 John 5:7 = For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. .... WHOA. WAIT!!! Any explanation?

Why can no one understand Christ when he uses the term gods...God is a title.

The Bible follows the idea that the Firstborn gets the birthright, which was everything that a father has. Christ is the FIRST (being the Firstborn) and therefore an heir to all that the Father has. One of the things that the Fatehr has is Godhood! By following the gospel of Jesus Christ (faith and works), we can become joint-heirs with Christ. Therefore, like Christ, we can achieve Godhood and become Gods.

I apologize Jason...I thought you had read the previous comments today. here is a paste job:

Since the fall of Adam, Christ is the advocate between God and mankind, that is why it was Christ who was to perform the GREATEST of all SACRIFICES! Jehovah has authority to speak on the Father's behalf because the Father gave him such authority, such a concept should not be difficult.

There are many times where Jehovah (Jesus) is speaking as the Father. I know you are about to mock such a thought, but you may want to read the BIBLE, where Jehovah tells Moses that Aaron will speak on his behalf. Jehovah then says that Moses would be like God and Aaron would be his prophet. The key to it all, is AUTHORITY.

That is why the Jews asked Jesus, on what authority do you speak such things. Christ then asks them on what authority did John the Baptist perform his work. AUTHORITY is essential and in the BIBLE the AUTHORITY of GOD is the priesthood. Aaron and his sons had such authority, that is why only those with that authority could go before the Holy of Holies in the temple. That is why James speaks of two priesthoods: that of Aaron and that of Melchisedek (the priest who Abraham paid tithes to).

Question Jason: Where is God's authority today? Aaronic and Melchezidek?

Atleast the Pope claims to have the Aaroinc priesthood, but he does not claim to have the melchizedek priesthood. Joseph Smith had BOTH priesthoods restored to the Earth, according to Peter's prophecy that in the latter day there would be a "restoration of all things."

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. (Articles of Faith 8)

It takes quite a few verbal gymnastics to present a believer in the New Testsament as entirely non-Christian. A person without training in theological exegesis might get the impression that Mormon acceptance of the New Testament would qualify them as at least some kind of Christian.

In order to magnify the provisional acceptance of the New Testament into a claim that the Mormons worship a "different Jesus" than the New Testament, it's necessary to ignore parts of what the New Testament itself says, nearly all what the Book of Mormon says, and the difference between the New Testament itself and theological interpretation of it.

From the Book of Mormon:
For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who creigneth, who was, and is from all deternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty fmiracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the gblind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases. (Mosiah 3:5)

And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son (Mosiah 15:1-2)

...for behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one. (3 Ne 11:27)

Trinitarian Christians tend to become uncomfortable about the disctinctions among the persons of the Trinity in passages such as where the voice of God introduces Jesus as His Beloved Son at Jesus baptism and on the Mount of Transfiguration, of Stephen's vision where he saw the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God, or the ppassage in John 17:20-22 where Jesus prayers for his followerers to be one even as he and the Father are one.

On the other hand, Mormons tend to get a little uncomfortable with distinctly trinitarian-flavored language in the Book of Mormon. The differences between New Testament teaching about Christ and Book of Mormon teaching about Christ are perhaps not as great as they are sometimes made out to be.

Alright...sorry I was about to leave when I saw this. The Mosiah scripture demonstrates the previous idea that Christ could represent the Father, since he subjected His flesh to the will of the Father. Remember his words in the Garden while he was suffering for all of our sins "Thy will be done!"

The 3 Nephi scriptures coincides with the Biblical scriptures, they are not one in being. The same as the Biblical teaching that upon marriage, man and woman become one flesh. It is not one in being, but one in purpose!!

Understanding God and his economy from the Bible is like finding puzzle pieces and assembling them in the best way we can. Unfortunately, a lot of pieces are missing, forcing us to extrapolate and interpolate to fill in the gaps.

Did God create Heaven? If so, where did he live before he created it? Did God create Satan? How then can he be called perfect if he created the most evil being of which we have knowledge? What does the title "god" mean? How is it that Christ, the Father, and the Holy Ghost are one? Why is Christ called both the Father and the Son? Who are the angels? Why did God create us? Why did Christ bother with the resurrection if that isn't really his form or nature? Why did he invite us to become one with Him, as he is one with his father? Why did Christ have to suffer to atone for our sins -- he's God, why can't he just forgive us? Why did he have to die on the cross? What is death? Why doesn't he talk to prophets today the same as he did throughout the Bible? Why should preachers preach to get gain -- isn't that priestcraft? Did Christ preach for monetary gain?

What Joseph Smith was called by God to do was to provide a lot more of the puzzle pieces, making a far more complete picture inasfar as we are able to comprehend or live in accordance with it. When some speak of "a different Christ" in Mormonism, they appear to imply that to arrive at the Jesus of Mormonism, one must subtract significant aspects from the Jesus of the New Testament and substitute different aspects that are contradictory. But that's not at all correct. What the revelations to Joseph Smith accomplished was to fill in the gaps, to add to what was already known of Christ.

Of course there's the single-substance trinity issue that seems to be the core of the "debate" here, but that has been adequately demonstrated to be a post-Biblical construct, and not really a genuine puzzle piece at all.

Dear Brother Mohler:

Are you allowed to use the Bible in this Debate? If so, I would show from Scripture what Biblical & Christian orthodoxy is and how the Mormon's do not match up to Biblical Christian orthodoxy.

In Jesus Christ,
Rick T.

Wow, from the length and energy indicated by these postings I can see why the LDS folks feel a bit outside of things. Many electrons were sacrificed just in the couple of days over this one. Here's a thought...

My wife has a theory - in response to name droppers everywhere - It is not very interesting to hear about who you know or with whom you say you are associated. It is much more impressive to have that famous person or renowned group say they know or are associated with you. So to answer the question, Who decides is aperson or group is Christian - ask the one whose title is being tossed around so lightly. Short of doing that, our own answers are just sneezes in a hurricane.

Ronda! that was beautiful, thank you for that. My husband is a convert, and he converted after we were married. i would have lived my whole life with him no matter what. All i have to say is that as long as i follow the example of Christ i will be al right.
remember the story in the bible the priest in the temple abotu to stone a women, "let the least of these cast the first stone?" how about we all just worship in our own way and when we get to heaven we will ask who is wright and who is wrong. how much you wanna bet that when we get there we willnot only not have to ask but it wont matter. Why? BECUASE WE MADE IT TO HEAVEN!!!!!
God bless you all
cant we all just get along

Hello, all.

I have spent far too much time on this forum, and must move on to other pursuits. (Gasp! I heard the cheers from here. But I still may have a few loose ends. What? Now groans? Pah.)

However, I do have an appeal to make to you that you can accept or reject as your prudence directs. I would like to appeal to your honor, and I have absolutely no doubt that there is plenty of honor among you.

One thing that I have seen frequently on this forum is one claim or another that a doctrine did not exist until a specific time, usually several hundred years after Christ.

Now, I know that Mormons believe there was an apostasy, and I am not even building up an argument against the apostasy, but I am appealing to you to give these things proper scrutiny. I believe that Truth matters to you, so you shouldn't be afraid of the Truth that proper scrutiny will provide. No one who is confident in their faith should ever fear Truth.

So when certain doctrines come up, and someone says, "Oh, that wasn't a doctrine until 482 A.D." I would ask you to pose the question--at least to yourself, "How do we know that?" In earlier posts I already explained that when the Councils of the Catholic Church officially articulated doctrine, they were clarifying doctrine that already existed. All of these doctrines were clarified as a result of a heretical idea causing confusion about them. So the Church stepped in to authoritatively affirm the doctrine as it was given to them in the Deposit of Faith. But in every case where a doctrine was articulated in a Council, the doctrine was already there.

It has been a common apologetic tactic among the Protestants to say that these doctrines were "invented" at those times. But I appeal to anyone reading this to ask the question: "How do we know this is when it was invented?" The Truth should not scare you, and it is not like finding out a few doctrines did indeed exist before those times will shatter the apostasy idea. I'm just asking that you give Truth a chance.

Again--I don't want to make a big argument out of this. I am not presenting an argument here--I am appealing to you for rigor and scrutiny. I am appealing to your honor in allowing the Truth to be known.

And if there are a bunch of posts giving their refutations, I would appeal to you to not just accept their word as Gospel. Read the texts of the Early Church Fathers. Study the people and the thoughts of those who were actually there. But, most of all, don't assume that the doctrine did not exist if you really have no tangible reason to think so.

God bless you all, and I hope to meet you all with joy in the final resolution of this before the One True Christ.

Also, there has been some confusion on this forum regarding Catholic authority, so I thought the following explanation that I posted under a previous article would be valuable here, as well.

It should be clarified that Catholic authority includes three things. It includes Holy Tradition (the Deposit of the Faith), the Magisterium (the Pope and the College of Bishops), and the Holy Bible.

None of these things can override the others. The intended meaning of the Bible is inerrant, and the Pope does not have the authority to override that meaning. He also doesn't have the authority to contradict the Deposit of Faith. He and the Magisterium do have the protection of the Holy Spirit in matters of doctrine and Sacraments. It is in this context that Catholic authority interprets Scripture.

The Bible also supports the other two. Paul tells us to hold fast to the Traditions that he teaches--both written *and* unwritten--and he also tells us (as quoted earlier) that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. (Some translations say "pillar and bulwark.")

All three are a complete and harmonious authority established by Jesus Christ Himself, and preserved by His Church and His inspired writers.

Preexisitng God before the creation of the COSMOS is the salient point.

Jesus the Christ True God and True Man, perfect God and perfect man, fully God and fully man, The Grand Architect Of The Universe, The Light of The World, the preexisting everlasting eternal creator redeemer and sustainer of the cosmos.

http://moelder.freeservers.com

Mohler's comments are spot on. Mormon historically have declared Christianity as "of the devil." Here are just a few teachings from LDS Church leaders:

"What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world"
- Prophet Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.270

"...all the priests who adhere to the sectarian religions of the day with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels."
- Prophet Joseph Smith , The Elders Journal, Joseph Smith Jr., editor, vol.1, no.4, p.60

"With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world."
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 8:199

"The Christian world, so-called, are heathens as to the knowledge of the salvation of God"
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 8:171

"Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell. The eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and then kicked on to the earth."
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 6:176

"Christians—those poor, miserable priests brother Brigham was speaking about—some of them are the biggest whoremasters there are on the earth, and at the same time preaching righteousness to the children of men. The poor devils, they could not get up here and preach an oral discourse, to save themselves from hell; they are preaching their fathers' sermons —preaching sermons that were written a hundred years before they were born. ...You may get a Methodist priest to pour water on you, or sprinkle it on you, and baptize you face foremost, or lay you down the other way, and whatever mode you please, and you will be damned with your priest."
- Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, 5:89

But let's pretend for a moment that we don't know anything about Mormon History or their declared doctrine. Just focus on the warm and Christian-looking Mormon Church of today.

1. What other Christian church requires the participation in Masonic temple rites for exaltation?

2. What other Christian church insists on a testimony of the Book of Mormon?

3. What other Christian church teaches its members that wearing church-made underwear is "an outward sign of an inward commitment to Jesus Christ?"

4. What other Christian church claims the writings of Joseph Smith in the Doctrine and Covenants are actually the words of Jesus Christ, even though they contradict the New Testament?

5. What other Christian church has temples closed to the public, where adults are "washed and anointed" while almost naked, to be cleaned from "the blood and sins of this generation?"

6. What other Christian church gives you a secret new name, signs and handshakes that are required in order to "pass the sentinels and guardians" in order to return to the presence of God?

7. What other Christian church has as part of its scripture, actual revelations from God demanding the practice of "The Law of Abraham" which is described as plural marriage and is the only way to achieve exaltation? (See D&C 132)

8. What other Christian church practices proxy baptisms of dead relatives and recognizes such baptism for dead people as valid?

9. What other Christian church has as a requirement of faith a belief that Jesus Christ literally visited pre-Columbian America and mercilessly killed men, women and children and then bragged about it? See: http://www.i4m.com/think/lists/mormon_terrorism.htm

10. What other Christian church requires a belief that Jesus and God are identical twins that literally visited Joseph Smith, telling him that ALL Christian churches are of the devil?

The clear answer is that IF the Mormon Church is Christian, it is unlike ANY OTHER Christian church. It is so far from what all other Christian churches practice and teach, that it is in a class by itself.

Comparing LDS Beliefs with First-Century Christianity

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=93

Can any of you answer this in one sentence without running off at the mouth?
Mormons- What constitutes being a "Christian"?
Catholics- What constitutes being a "Christian"?
Baptists (or Evangelicals in general)What constitutes being a "Christian"?
Athiests- What constitutes being a "Christian"?

Thank you to P. Nielsen and Bill Kirkpatrick for your thought out responses to my questions. They were very helpful. You're explanation for separating the cultural failures of men like Brigham Young and Joseph Smith from their religious teachings is helpful. I think Christians should be able to identify with these shortcomings. Jonathan Edwards, considered by many to be the greatest American theologian ever, owned slaves. Martin Luther wrote some anti-semitic polemic (although this is probably because he was a hot-head and was upset that they didn't respond so quickly to the gospel as he suspected they would). Still, God has used broken vessels for great things for the advance of His kingdom. Paul was a murderer of Christians before his conversion. Peter lacked faith in many ways as God prepared and chastened him for his great work. Even now, he uses men with great shortcomings to display his power. I think it should give Christians hope (it certainly gives me hope) that we can be used by God for great things despite our obvious shortcomings. His grace is made perfect in weakness. I rejoice that by using weak and humble(d) men for His work, He is glorified. This is ever more important- that God be lifted up and men would become self-forgetful.

This is also what makes the gospel so sweet. Knowing what kind of frail people we are, prone to wander, given to error, and born in sin (we might differ on that belief?), that Christ redeemed us is a wonderful thought. So I can't simply discount a man like Joseph Smith or Brigham Young because we might assert that they were great sinners and hypocrites. God has used men and women like that for his purposes, and if I would use those reasons to discount them, I must discount myself and everyone else as well. So, while we differ in beliefs, and I disagree with Smith and Young and Mormon theology, I think it is important that we do not use their past wrongs as evidence against them.

I do have one point to make. Bill, you mentioned that revelation has been integral in correcting Mormons while in their error. I wonder why this might have been so restricted to the Mormons? Wouldn't God have used revelation similarly to correct any Christian wandering from the truth long before the 1800's? I know that this is impossible to answer since no one knows the mind of God, nor can we presume to know why He might give, take, or do anything He pleases. I think Job gives that message pretty clearly. So, I suppose, if revelation was necessary, He might have desired to withhold it until many years later.

But what I think regarding this, is that the gospel is powerful and able to correct our wandering and misgiving without further revelation. Christians generally believe that the Christ is God's final revelation (the NT documents being that which bear witness to him). We also believe that with the closing of the Canon of scripture, nothing more was needed. I would focus on this: that nothing more than the gospel is necessary to correct us in our error.

For example, Brigham Young made racist statements. Certainly, he was a product of his times. Luther did the same. Jonathan Edwards owned slaves. These problems might have been solved by carefully thinking through the gospel. God said to Abraham in His covenant with him that He would make Abraham a great nation and bless all the nations of the earth through him. Similarly, Christ said he must be lifted up and that he would draw all men to himself (since every single man and woman does not come to Christ, I suppose this must be more appropriately understood as all men in the sense of race). In Revelation, men from every nation, tribe, and language worship around the throne. If the gospel makes no distinction according to race, color, nationality, etc., than Christians are out of step if they make such distinctions. So, when Paul rebuked Peter for not standing against the message of the Judaisers that anyone who would become a Christian must be circumcised, essentially become Jewish, Paul asked him if they were preaching the same gospel. Since they both believed and preached the same message, Paul then told him that what he was doing was not in accord with the gospel.

There are other examples of how the gospel corrects our errors. For example, and I know this is not a very "modern" idea, but the Bible teaches that women are to submit to their husbands. This reflects Christ who submitted to his Father, even to death on the cross. It is not a submission that demeans them, but rather it is an honor because it is an opportunity to exalt Christ. Similarly, husbands are exhorted to love their wives as Christ loved the church. That is, Christ laid down his life for the church. The gospel shows us how husbands are to love their wives even to the point of death for them. The gospel shows us how wives ought to act toward their husbands (children to their parents too!). So when we reject this and seek to do otherwise, one might say, you are not acting in accord with the gospel.

When it comes to soteriology, the gospel is still right there to correct us. In our day, many believe that all will go to heaven, or that the only requirement is sincerity. The gospel teaches that there is no other name by which men are saved but Jesus name.

So, much of where we differ, I think, stems from our differing belief regarding the necessity of further revelation. I think the gospel as it has already been revealed is sufficient.

Thank you again for your responses. Sincerely,
William Brown

Norman Doering,

That's somewhat of a low blow. John Shelby Spong is not a Christian by any stretch of the imagination. That's an entirely different problem altogether though. If you want Dr. Mohler's opinion on Spong, I would suggest that you simply go to www.almohler.com and type the name into the search box. I don't know if or what he has written about Spong, but I assure you it won't be a favorable critique. In any case, by Mohler's definition in his essays, what you just quoted certaily excludes Spong from Orthodox Christianity. There's actually a better quote out there in which essentially denies every central tenet of Christianity in a single paragraph. It's shocking and frightening that he's considered an influential Christian leader by some. But I hardly think that Spong is a good example to use to prove that Mohler would exclude everyone in the world from Christianity. He's pretty extreme.

Catholics- What constitutes being a "Christian"?

Part of the problem here is this notion that a few words can sufficiently represent "What constitutes being a Christian." Christianity *means* something--something rather expansive, and the extent of it's nature is much bigger than a simple definition.

But I've beaten that dead horse enough. Those who would take me seriously about that are already taking it seriously.

Let me see if I can put myself into the shoes or mindset of an Evangelical:

Belief in Jesus Christ constitutes salvation. End of story. Therefore if an Evangelical states that a Mormons believe in Jesus Christ, then that same Evangelical would have to admit that a Mormon is saved. An Evangelical however can not state that because they believe the Mormon faith is false.

How do they reconcile these two things they observe? They put a huge emphasis that the Mormons believe a different Jesus. The maximize any inkling of difference between the two concepts of Jesus between the faiths. So in their minds, a Mormons belief of Jesus is not a belief of a saving Jesus.

--------------
Okay, not let me try to (imperfectly) communicate the idea of faith in Jesus within the Mormon faith:

Mormons do not feel threatened if others declare faith in Jesus. Mormons believe that ALL of mankind will be saved from Hell (except those who willfully with full knowledge reject Jesus Christ). In the Mormon view, they feel in a sense Evangelicals are right -- confession that Jesus is the Christ saves one from Hell. However, as we read in Phillipians 2:11 "And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Mormons believe universally everyone (except those noted above) who has died, currently living, or yet to be born will confess this and thus will be saved from Hell --- They will be resurrected and they will dwell in the heavens without any works done on their part except the confession.

In the Mormon view, there is however another kind of Hell. Where we are spiritually seperated from God and must get to him as close as we can. Confession of Jesus is the starting point and this is where we part ways with the Evangelicals. Mormons believe that through the Holy Ghost we must internalize Christ within ourselves. We believe that Christ we will proactively work with us through his mercy. Baptism washes us clean. The Gift of the Holy is a blessing to have the divine right of God's spirit with us. Our weekly sacrament services focuses on remembering Jesus. The work of the Temple helps us too internalize Christ like attributes within us even more.

So us Mormons would have ZERO, ABSOLUTELY NO problem with anyone who confessed to be a believer in Jesus. But on the other hand we would have no idea if that person has internalized Jesus in their hearts (Luke 12: 34). That would be up to Jesus to decide.

Bob wrote:

As soon as someone can show evidence for the theory that a mormon president will increase mormon converts then it would make sense to start a discussion about whether that is a reason not to vote for the most (otherwise) well-qualified candidate. Until then this is the stupidest argument and discussion. I'm not sure why I just wasted 2 minutes on it myself.

I'd say that electing George W. Bush, whom so many consider corrupt and want impeached, probably has hurt the evangelical movement. If Mitt is any good as president he'll make Bush look even worse. And Jimmy Carter wasn't all that great either. Their best president was the very new-agey Ronald Reagan.

Dear William Brown,

You are welcome. You said: "So, much of where we differ, I think, stems from our differing belief regarding the necessity of further revelation. I think the gospel as it has already been revealed is sufficient."

Sounds about right to me. I am just not so confident in my own ability to understand the gospel as taught in the Bible, nor interpret it correctly. I am just too prone to make mistakes. I believe that God's spirit is absolutely necessary to even begin to undertake such an endeavor of interpretation and understanding. In other words, I need *new* revelation to even know whether or not I am understanding the *old* ones the way God wants me too (including whether or not God thinks the Bible is sufficient for our day).

Best,
P. Nielsen

nowandlater wrote:

Belief is so personal. It sounds silly. Did we all become Masons, Catholics, Unitarians, Lapsed Jehovah Witnesses (Dwight Eisenhouser), Heretics (Lincoln), or Deists (Jefferson) because in many cases we have historically elected those types of presidents? No.

It's not about lots of people adopting the beliefs of our presidents, it's about reputation and prestige for your identity group. Mohler wrote:

I am concerned that a Mormon in the White House would do much to serve the worldwide missionary cause of Mormonism. I do not worry that a President Romney would push that agenda from the White House. My concern is more about symbolism and perception. My concern is that of a Christian who does not believe that Mormonism is Christianity.

"symbolism and perception" -- I think that really means "reputation and prestige for your identity group" -- he can say "we fundy Christians are the nations rulers" and he doesn't want Mormons and atheists in the presidents club. Sort of like rooting for the home team.

It's not going to work for him if he gets another fundy like George W. Bush.

AC well said.

Stuart asked, "Where is the Trinity even mentioned in the Bible?"

This is how we arrive at the Trinity...

The Bible teaches that there is one and only one God. Here are some verses that make that point super crystal clear:

"You believe that there is one God. You do well." James 2:19

"The LORD our God, the LORD is one" Deuteronomy 6:4

"Before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there be after Me." Isaiah 43:10

"I am the First and I am the Last; besides Me there is no God." Isaiah 44:6b

"I am the LORD, and there is no other; there is no God besides Me." Isaiah 45:5

With this fundamental and foundational knowledge that from everlasting to everlasting there is ONLY ONE God, neither was there a God formed before this ONE God, neither will there ever be another God formed after this ONE God firmly in place we see that Bible also says that:

The Father is God:

"Grace be to you, and peace from God the Father" Galatians 1:3a

The Son is God:

"the Word was God" John 1:1c

The Holy Spirit is God:

"Spirit of God" Romans 8:11

So while the Bible CLEARLY proclaims these 3 distinct Persons as "GOD" AT THE VERY SAME TIME it is made abundantly clear that "there is one God". 1 Timothy 2:5a and "and there is no other" Isaiah 45:5.

**Anybody who denies that the Father is God and that the Son is God and that the Holy Spirit is God is also violating Scripture.

**Anybody who says there is more than 1 God violates all the Scriptures that MAKE IT OH SO CLEAR that there is ONLY ONE God.

**Yet anybody who denies that there are distinctions between the Father and Son and Holy Spirit (for example the Son prayed to the Father etc) is also violating Scripture.

The way the whole thing haromizes is as follows:

The Father is not the Son neither is He the Holy Spirit. The Father is God.
The Son is not the Father neither is He the Holy Spirit. The Son is God.
The Holy Spirit is not the Father neither is He the Son. The Holy Spirit is God.

Yet they are NOT 3 Gods. They are ONE GOD.

Stuart commented about the risen Christ, "Seems weird that Christ, being a memebr of the Holy trinity of orthosox chrisitianity, ate fish with them. What a sight to see a material fish be eaten by a spirit."

I'm not even exactly sure what that means. The resurrected Christ had a body with bones and flesh.

Stuart asked, "Can you explain Revelations 1:6?"

Sure.It says, "To Him who loved us and washed[a] us from our sins in His own blood, 6 and has made us kings[b] and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. "

It says that the Christ of the Bible (The Creator of Lucifer not the brother of Lucifer) loved us and washed us from our sins (those who repent and trust the Christ of the Bible). He has made us kings and priests to His (Christ's) God and Father through His atonement. And to Him be the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

Finally Stuart asked, "However, tell me what biblical doctrines, that doesn't include the Pagan emperor's Trinity doctrine, the Mormons do not seem to follow"

Calling the Trinity pagan doctrine is calling God's revelation of Himself pagan, a HUGE blasphemy. Besides denying the OH SO CLEAR biblical doctrine of the Trinity... Mormons believe in a different Jesus than the one the Bible proclaims which means they are not even saved. Also, they preach "another gospel" that Paul warns us about in Galatians which makes them accursed. This "other gospel" is one that includes a different Jesus and also promotes salvation by works.

Stuart, my friend, it comes down to these two things:

1) You and I believe in TWO different Jesuses and TWO different gospels.

The Jesus that I believe in is the Second Person of the Trinity who is the one and only true God who is the Creator of all things including Lucifer.

The gospel that I believe in is that there is nothing good in and of myself. I deserve the wrath of God and eternal hell. But that God's Son, the Second Person of the Triune God, died on my behalf and purchased my salvation with His own blood. As Revelation 1:6 says Jesus the Creator of all things including Lucifer, has loved me and washed me from my sins in His own blood. There is no works that earn my salvation or contribute to it. It was a gift of God that I did not deserve and cannot earn. After saving me has put His Spirit inside of me that I should live a fruit bearing life for His glory. My good works are a RESULT and CONSEQUENCE of the salvation He has already given me by grace.

2) If your Jesus (brother of Lucifer) and your gospel (salvation by grace through faith, AFTER ALL YOU CAN DO) are true, then what will happen to me? I go to a lesser heaven? Big deal.

But if the Jesus that I believe in (Creator of Lucifer) and the gospel that I believe in (salvation by grace through faith, not of works) is true, then what will happen to you? You will burn in hell eternally.

That is why I beg you once more: Repent of all your sins including the good works you think you can add to salvation and belief in a different Jesus.... and turn to the Jesus of the Bible (the Second Person of the Trinity) to save you! Forsake your evil thoughts and ways and turn to the true Christ and He will abundandtly pardon and justify you. Or else you will perish.

"symbolism and perception" -- I think that really means "reputation and prestige for your identity group" -- he can say "we fundy Christians are the nations rulers" and he doesn't want Mormons and atheists in the presidents club. Sort of like rooting for the home team.
-----------------
-----------------
I doubt Al thinks that way. I think he fears that Mormon missionary work would be supercharged. But, I think he is dead wrong, because he is overlooking the fact that become a Mormon is for the weak-minded is nearly impossible. You really got to believe or you are easily dissuanded from doctrinal attacks or personal commitment issues (no alcohol, pre-marital sex, belief in the Book of Mormon, etc.). A Mormon president does not make that easy to swallow for the weak-minded. In fact, I fear, that the press would make it harder in some respects, because they would color things unfairly.

TB asked:
Mormons- What constitutes being a "Christian"?

I can't speak for all Mormons - only myself, but for me it simple.

A Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.

The problem is that there exists a disagreement on these teachings (why else are there so many Christian demoninations). This is less a problem for myself than others, because I believe there is some Truth in all religions, and I respect anyone who is sincerely trying to do what is right. Unfortunately, religion can also be used to justify evil actions, but I will let Christ judge what is in people's hearts.

What is interesting, is that Mormon's (primarily Mitt Romney) are not being criticized for their actions, but their personal beliefs. It all feels very un-American.

I don't have a problem with people who view Mormon's as peculiar. But when people tell me I am not a Christian, it is not much different than telling me I belong to a Cult. It just feels like bigotry. If they want to make a distinction, then that is fine. Non-Creedal or Unorthodox Christiian are two examples that seem to fit.

The incredible ease with which the Mormon Tabernacle choir, and other Mormons, misappropriate for their own glory hymns and songs written by devout trinitarian Christians exposes both their audacity and duplicity - which are very much at the core of this whole discussion. Songs INDISPUTABLY intended by passionate monotheistic Christians to praise and worship God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, in harmony with what Dr. Mohler describes as the "historical orthodox Christian faith" have routinely been hijacked by Mormons and falsely presented as though they endorsed their essentially polytheistic religion. This is plainly an abuse of the sincere intent of the hymn writers and shameful behavior on the part of Mormons. But the same pattern of misrepresenting authorial intent is also demonstrated when the Mormons proof-text the Bible. Their out-of-context method of manipulating the Bible is the same as that used by JW's, only they each claim to "prove" virtually opposite points. The Jewish-Christian Scriptures, our Bible, are thoroughly and uncompromisingly monotheistic. Ask any devout Jew, read the Jewish rabbinical writings, read the the early Church fathers, or best of all, read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation IN CONTEXT, not in the out-of-context proof-texting manner ALWAYS used by Mormons. We now have the outstanding scroll of Isaiah from Qumran which predates the birth of Jesus and, like all the Bible, is emphatically monotheistic (read, for example, Isaiah 43:10ff.) proving that post-biblical writers did not invent monotheism - not that there was ever in any doubt among orthodox Christians and Jews. Mormons would be outraged if anyone quoted Mitt Romney out of context the way they do the Holy Scriptures. They are clearly trying to hijack the Bible and the "Christian" label using the audacious and duplicitous methods they have long used to steal so very many Christian hymns.

Let me get this straight:

If I sing "the Lord is my Shepherd" which is word for word Biblical text, then somehow it is dishonest because I don't agree with a concept that is NOT word for word in the Bible?????

You guys are impossible to please!!!!!

I refer to you, Caesarea called Cornelius, from Acts 10.

He had NO IDEA about THEOLOGY or CREEDS. He was a Roman PAGAN who prayed earnestly and yet still God answered him. He did have to do any formulation of Diety. He didn't have to figure out the trinity or one in substance. He had no clue!!!! Yet God heard him! More important is our heart and sincerity then correct doctrinal formulations. Mormons think that the heart is the most important, doctrinal formulations are not the most preeminent --- a concrete Jesus is more important than an abstraction.

Also, even after talking to God's Angel, this Roman soldier kneeled at Peter's feet as if he was God. He still HAD NO CLUE! The angel didn't bother to apply a litmus test on him. Yet we have those here who wish to do so at the expense of one's love in their heart for Jesus!

On January 1, 2000, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued the following declaration. Titled "The Living Christ," this declaration bears witness of the Lord Jesus Christ and summarizes His identity and divine mission:

"As we commemorate the birth of Jesus Christ two millennia ago, we offer our testimony of the reality of His matchless life and the infinite virtue of His great atoning sacrifice. None other has had so profound an influence upon all who have lived and will yet live upon the earth.

"He was the Great Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Messiah of the New. Under the direction of His Father, He was the creator of the earth. 'All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made' (John 1:3). Though sinless, He was baptized to fulfill all righteousness. He 'went about doing good' (Acts 10:38), yet was despised for it. His gospel was a message of peace and goodwill. He entreated all to follow His example. He walked the roads of Palestine, healing the sick, causing the blind to see, and raising the dead. He taught the truths of eternity, the reality of our premortal existence, the purpose of our life on earth, and the potential for the sons and daughters of God in the life to come.

"He instituted the sacrament as a reminder of His great atoning sacrifice. He was arrested and condemned on spurious charges, convicted to satisfy a mob, and sentenced to die on Calvary's cross. He gave His life to atone for the sins of all mankind. His was a great vicarious gift in behalf of all who would ever live upon the earth.

"We solemnly testify that His life, which is central to all human history, neither began in Bethlehem nor concluded on Calvary. He was the Firstborn of the Father, the Only Begotten Son in the flesh, the Redeemer of the world.

"He rose from the grave to 'become the firstfruits of them that slept' (1 Corinthians 15:20). As Risen Lord, He visited among those He had loved in life. He also ministered among His 'other sheep' (John 10:16) in ancient America. In the modern world, He and His Father appeared to the boy Joseph Smith, ushering in the long-promised 'dispensation of the fulness of times' (Ephesians 1:10).

"Of the Living Christ, the Prophet Joseph wrote: 'His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying:

" 'I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father' (D&C 110:3–4).

"Of Him the Prophet also declared: 'And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!

" 'For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—

" 'That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God' (D&C 76:22–24).

"We declare in words of solemnity that His priesthood and His Church have been restored upon the earth—'built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone' (Ephesians 2:20).

"We testify that He will someday return to earth. 'And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together' (Isaiah 40:5). He will rule as King of Kings and reign as Lord of Lords, and every knee shall bend and every tongue shall speak in worship before Him. Each of us will stand to be judged of Him according to our works and the desires of our hearts.

"We bear testimony, as His duly ordained Apostles, that Jesus is the Living Christ, the immortal Son of God. He is the great King Immanuel, who stands today on the right hand of His Father. He is the light, the life, and the hope of the world. His way is the path that leads to happiness in this life and eternal life in the world to come. God be thanked for the matchless gift of His divine Son" (Ensign, Apr. 2000, 2–3).

nowandlater, you assume much when you say that Cornelius had NO IDEA about THEOLOGY or CREEDS. Nowhere does the Bible teach this. It is just as possible that Cornelius had knowledge of Jewish religion - Romans were not stupid - in fact, they were very religious allowing the religions of their conquered to be practiced (along with all others). More importantly is the fact that God TOLD Cornelius to send for Peter. This is in line with God's Providence ensuring the salvation of His elect.

Joel Cannon, you wrote that "He (Jesus) taught the truths of eternity, the reality of our premortal existence." I may have missed this, where in the Bible did Jesus teach that we existed prior to being born? You're going to have to help me with this.

"nowandlater, you assume much when you say that Cornelius had NO IDEA about THEOLOGY or CREEDS. Nowhere does the Bible teach this. It is just as possible that Cornelius had knowledge of Jewish religion - Romans were not stupid - in fact, they were very religious allowing the religions of their conquered to be practiced (along with all others). More importantly is the fact that God TOLD Cornelius to send for Peter. This is in line with God's Providence ensuring the salvation of His elect."

Ah..no...He kneeled down in front of Peter as if he was God. He was screwed up in his thinking. Peter corrected him.

I find it curious that an Angel was someone that was NOT able to instruct theology? If an Angel visited you, wouldn't you think one's insight into theology would someone be greater???? In this case it didn't happen. This just shows you that God cares about concrete world first and then he clears up theology as one goes along!

We are PROUD MEMBERS of THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS...I sugget if you have questions that you go to these sites for more understanding... http://www.lds.org AND http://mormon.org....
Maybe these will help explain our beliefs. WE DO BELIEVE IN GOD AND JESUS CHRIST....Try to understand before you judge...you may just be surprised....May you be Blessed in all you do in your life and I wish you peace and happiness...Sincerely, Laura

Here is a question for Baptists that I have never gotten a concise answer on.

From what I gather of Baptist theology salvation is attained by accepting the Lord Jesus Christ as your Personal Saviour and as the Son of God and as God. (Though I am not phrasing it very gracefully). In the Baptist faith there is no sacrament, there is no penance, there is not rite for which salvation is dependent upon. (If I am wrong feel free to correct me, that is just the understanding I have had from many theological discussions with Baptist friends and not-so-friends). If this is true, why do Baptists always have a bone to pick with Mormons?

Mormons believe in the three necessary tenets for Salvation under Baptist Theology, that Christ is 1)their personal Saviour, 2) the Son of God and 3) God. While they might believe that Jesus and the Father are separate, it does not lessen the Divinity of Christ in their theology. Given this, Mormons have as much claim to Salvation as Baptist.

The only counter I have had to this from a Baptist Friend is, "But Mormons do not believe in the true Jesus" or "Mormons do not believe in the Trinity". Mormons and Baptists tend to go back and forth on the concept of saved by grace or works. Baptist strongly believe in salvation by grace and grace alone. I find a quagmire here for Baptist. Suddenly salvation is determinant not just on the mantra of confession stated above (the three points), but on a proper knowledge of the nature of Christ. Attaining the proper knowledge sounds a lot like a work to me. Grace is conditioned on knowledge instead of faith.

Assuming that the three points are fulfilled and Mormons, with all their false doctrine in the eyes of Baptists, are heirs of Salvation through Jesus Christ, why is man trying to distinguish who are and are not Christians. If Christ has saved a man is that man not a Christian, a child of Christ as well.

Will quoting Robert Letham:

Actually, Robert Letham makes a good point about the distinctions between the Eastern and Western branches of Christianity in his book "The Holy Trinity." He said (paraphrase) that the Eastern Church doesn't simply answer the questions differently than the West did beginning with Calvin, Luther, and the Reformation. Rather, the Eastern Church asks entirely different questions. For example, the East focuses on Christ's resurrection as conquering death, which is the great enemy. The West views the enemy more as sin, and Christ's work was more important in conquering that. Now, that's a nuanced example because both sides look at sin and death as related problems, but the focus is different.

The LDS doctrine is actually a reconciliation of these two ways of seeing. We believe that "as in Adam all die even in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Cor 15:22) But we also believe that Those who show faith in Jesus Christ by keeping his commandments, become one with Him and the Father. John Chapter 17. Thus Christ overcomes death for all who ever lived, live now, or will live. And He overcomes Sin for those who love him and keep his commandments.

AC made this comment on July 7, 2007 7:45 PM

"That is why I beg you once more: REPENT OF ALL YOUR SINS INCLUDING THE GOOD WORKS you think you can add to salvation and belief in a different Jesus.... and turn to the Jesus of the Bible (THE SECOND PERSON OF THE TRINITY) to save you! Forsake your evil thoughts and ways and turn to the true Christ and He will abundandtly pardon and justify you. Or else you will perish. (Emphasis Mike's)

Mike's response:

AC, you said: "REPENT OF ALL YOUR SINS INCLUDING THE GOOD WORKS you think you can add to salvation"

So you actually believe that Jesus and Peter taught us to sin, by doing good works, in light of the scriptures quoted below? And by the way, isn't repentence a work? oooh....is that evil too?

John 14:15 if ye love me, keep my commandments.
John 14: 21 that hath my commandments, and keepeth them.
John 15: 10 if ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love.
John 15: 14 my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command.
Eph. 6: 2 Honour thy father and mother . . . the first commandment with promise.
1 Tim. 1: 5 end of the commandment is charity.
1 Jn. 2: 3 we know him, if we keep his commandments.

Mark 16: 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.
Luke 3: 21 Jesus also being baptized.
Luke 7: 30 rejected the counsel of God . . . being not baptized.
John 3: 5 Except a man be born of water . . . he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Acts 2: 38 Repent, and be baptized every one of you.
Acts 10: 48 commanded them to be baptized.
Acts 22: 16 be baptized, and wash away thy sins.
Titus 3: 5 saved us, by the washing of regeneration.
1 Pet. 3: 21 baptism doth also now save us.

AC You said: "the Jesus of the Bible (THE SECOND PERSON OF THE TRINITY)"

I thought the trinity was ONE. John 17 might give you an out here.
Three persons, one in power, majesty, might, love, purpose. I see all that in these Biblical verses. I don't even see the word "trinity" in the Bible. But I believe that God is "one" as defined by John 17.

AC said: "turn to the true Christ and He will abundandtly pardon and justify you. Or else you will perish."

Jesus said: Mark 16: 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

Peter Said: Acts 2: 38 Repent, and be baptized every one of you.

Mike says: I have turned to the true Christ. He's the one who commands me to do works that AC calls evil. Who's Jesus would you rather follow?

The problem with any organized religion is that they argue about how to practice faith in the God and his Son that they believe in. Mormons, Catholics, Baptists, Anglicans, Lutherans, First Christians, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc., etc., think they are the utimate Christians. Does God and Jesus really care as long as we follow His teachings?
I compare this debate with the those whose aim is to destroy any who will not follow their ideology...as seen in the Middle East. Mormans support "One Nation Under God". "Nuff said!"

Anyone who reads the Book of Mormons knows the it has alot of the what is said in the Bible wriiten in it too.
As for a Mormon President , He can't do much more harm to our country as past presidents have done.
I'm not a Mormon but I have the Book of Mormons along with the Bible.

"For nowandlater who erroneously posted way on back that "Mary Did you Know" was written by Meril Osmond. Mark Lowery, Christian comedian and singer would be very interested to know that the song he wrote years ago is now being credited to someone else. I believe that is called plagarism. It is possible that Merrill heard the version that Michael English sang and decided to re-record it for the Mormon public. For the record, Mark Lowery wrote it and Michael English sang it. Check copyrights to verify what I just said. - yes, I went to the youtube sight and listened to it. It is without a doubt the song that Mark Lowery wrote."

My apologies, I look at Donny and Merril's record and saw the song there. I had no idea that Mark Lowery wrote it.

Mormons believe as God was they are,, as God is,, they will become,,,,,,,,,,As my belief as a Christian,, I believe who God was I will never be as He is I will never become, HE changes not He is the same yesterday today and tomorrow,,,,,,,,,I was never created to become Him,,,,,,,,,,I was created to ultimately worship and praise him.. the Saying as God was we are and as God is we will become, is to close to a conversation that the serpent had with Eve in the garden....As a christian my belief, that scripture acknowledges as being true, is that I am not, nor will I ever be God,,,,,,,,,,,

I remember reading in the bible where the modern day scholars of Jesus time were arguing and debating over issues they believed kept people out of heaven or at the least disapproval from God. I love the manner in which Jesus handled them. Remember?

The Church of Jesus Christ boasts many members with wonderful hearts. I lived in Utah for 10 years as a single parent mom with 3 children while I went back to college for both my undergraduat and graduate degrees.

My neighbors the Mormon's were wonderful to me and my children. While I am not Mormon and was baptized a Seventh Day Adventist when I was 14 I still repspect and love the people who so kindly favored my children during some of the roughest times of my life. Many a time when I could barely keep food on the table, a roof over our heads and deal with a car broken down did my kindhearted neighbors step up to the plate and assist me. You see they believe the widowed and the fatherless are to be watched over by the church like it says in the bible. When the local bishop kindly offered to take my youngest son to his tee ball games when I could not attend I was over joyed my son would not miss out on his favorite sport just because mom could not be in two places at one time.

I was emotionally and spiritually supported by my beloved Mormon friends while many of my Christian friends were not empathetic or concerned one way or another, lukewarm at best and indiffernt for the most part. My own church members also stepped up to the plate in the form of extending offers of rides and taking my children on outings with the church however we are addressing my mormon friend's and thier religion. Deciding whether or not they are Christians based upon intellectual determinations rather than by biblical standards....I believe the Bible says "by their fruits..."

Anyone can belong to the "right" church...only the followers of Jesus whose behaviors show the fruits of the spirit truly know Jesus. This makes them Christians by the good books definitions. It is so simple a child can understand it. Thank heavens the 12 disciples were not required to have graduate degress to follow Jesus or we might not be having this discussion right now.

Be Blessed In All You Do!

Kay

Loveandkindess are not a weakness, they are wisdom in action.

“Rotorhead”,

“As I have read your blog postings I am amazed at the one lacking element...Charity or the pure love of Christ in the definition of a Christian. I am no trained theologian, but I do know that the Apostle Paul, who I believe was a true Christian affirmed that if we had not Charity we were nothing, including a Christian.”

I am glad you believe Paul to be a true Christian.

You mistake Christian charity with indifference. Paul indeed called on us to be charitable.

Paul also warned us to beware the savage wolves who taught false doctrines.

Paul also said those who preach another Gospel are anathema and accursed.

Having Christian charity does not mean letting error passing itself off as Christianity go unchallenged. The bulk of the writings of the New Testament after the Gospels warn of dealing with false teachings. Talk of being a Christian is one thing, but given what mormon authorities have taught over the years and in light of what goes on in mormon temples, mormonism stands at direct odds with Biblical teachings.

Mr. Card raised the question in his post, who gets to define “Christian”? Well, Jesus Christ does and He has in His Word, and if you deny what His Word teaches, then you forfeit the right to call yourself a Christian.

Someone earlier mentioned Satan in the garden of Eden.

Well, what does "Satan" translate into? It translates into "The Accusser". He was the one who accussed God.

If one reflects upon the most damaging sins in our society then one can see how accusatory they sound.

Accusatory things like this which cause even good people to fall:

Why should I wait to have sex before I get married, you are stopping me from finding out if I am compatible?

Why should I repent and change my life? No one, not even Jesus can understand me.

That old fool man who claims to be a man of God, why should I listen to him? I know more than him about my own life.

The Bible is just old history. It can’t help my life today.

The Jews need to give back our lands. They lie, kill, and murder, we want our lands back.

An Accusser routinely short-circuit steps and think of the leave out charity. To them the ends justify the means.

Satan, told them they could acquire knowledge from the fruit of the tree of Knowledge Good and Evil and be like God, but he left very crucial elements. Knowledge of good and evil did not bring them the fruit from the Tree of Life. Man good know all that is good and evil, and yet he still builds the nuclear bomb and uses it. Such knowledge falls short of Life! Likewise man could design precise doctrinal formulations about God, but yet he can still fall short. Even the devils know precisely who Jesus is but yet they fall short.

Don’t get me wrong, misunderstanding doctrines can be a stumbling block, but as we see "just" partaking of the Tree of all Knowledge of Good and Evil DOES NOT lead to the Tree of Life. There is is something more than that. Something more piercing. Something more essential. What is it? It is a pure heart. It is the pure love of Jesus Christ. It is charity. All else fails. Even if one spoke with the toungue of angels expounding with perfect clarity on the Bible and doctrine, it is all naught compared to the charity and love of Jesus Christ. To us Mormons, we feel everything is focused on that and to acquiring that.

Below is an exerpt from this link. Feel free to look it over.

http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Latter-day_Saints_aren%27t_Christians#Saints_claim_to_be_Christian_only_recently.3F

Saints claim to be Christian only recently?
This claim is absurd. The critics depend on their audience not knowing much about LDS history for this claim. Enemies and members of the Church have long known that Church members consider themselves "Christian" (italics added in all cases):

1830
“They call themselves the church of Christ, and the only church of Christ. All professing Christians who do not adhere to their system, they consider as formalists; ‘having the form of Godliness, but denying the power’”.[3]
1831
“Old Joe . . . and several others . . . admitted [that the new faith] was an improvement in Christianity”.[4]
1832
The Mormonites “say the Millennium is soon to commence and that Christ is to come personally and take up His residence with them. . . . In its general principles this sect entirely coincide with others which have from time to time sprung up in Christendom”. [5]
1833
There is “a civil war between the Mormonites and their brother Christians”. [6]
1834
"Brother Joseph . . . went on to show the brethren how wicked and unchristianlike such conduct [among them] appeared before the eyes of truth and justice”.[7]
1835
“the doctrine promulgated by the ‘latter day Christians’ in the newly discovered Bible”.[8]
1836
“This morning a minister from Conne[c]ticut by the name of John W. Olived called at my house . . . . [He] asked me wherein we differ from other Christian denomination[s]”.[9]
1836
“they have the appearance of being devout Christians. . . . They call themselves ‘Latter-day Saints,’ and profess to be the only true church, to have the only gospel order, consisting of apostles, elders, bishops, etc., etc., which several orders of the Christian hierarchy have been distinctly brought to light in the Book of Mormon”.[10]
1837
“a large society of Christians who style themselves ‘Latter-day Saints’ or Mormons.” (Painesville Republican, vol. 1, no. 31, 15 June 1837).
1838
"The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it".[11]
1839
"This sect took its rise, A. D. 1830, in the county of Ontario, and State of New York. In April of that year, the society was organized as a Christian Church".[12]
1839
The Mormons “were singing a hymn as other good Christians are wont to do . . . . [One of them offered] a very good Christian prayer . . . . [which petitioned that the Mormons might have] Christian fortitude.” (Peoria Register and North-Western Gazetteer, vol. 3, no. 17, 27 July 1839)
1840
“We want no religion but pure Christianity”.[13]
1840
The citizens of Nauvoo are “a people, professing to be Christians.” (Quincy Whig, vol. 3, no. 13, 25 July 1840).
1840
The Mormons retain “many truths which are held in common by different denominations of Christians.” (The Alton Telegraph, vol. 5, no. 46, 14 November 1840).
1841
“I understood from [the Mormons] as follows, . . . that they did not discard the Bible as used by other Christian sects”.[14]
1842
“the great Christian city of Nauvoo”.[15]
1842
Mormons “are Christians in the fullest sense of the term, believing in the Old and New Testaments.” (The New York Herald, vol. 7, no. 419, 16 May 1842).
1842
Mormons are described as – “A Christian sect in Illinois.” (Alton Telegraph and Democratic Review, vol. 7, no. 25, 18 June 1842; emphasis in original).
1842
"All these letters and documents [about the Mormons] disclose a most extraordinary movement in human affairs. What they mean we can hardly tell, but is it not time for some great religious revolution, as radical as Luther's, to take place in the Christian world?...Unlike all other Christian sects, they adopt at once all the modern improvements of society, in art and literature; and from their singular religious faith give the highest enthusiasm to the movement at large. There is nothing odd, or singular, or absurd about them.” ("Wonderful Progress of Joe Smith, the Modern Mahomet.—Spread of the Mormon Faith, and a New Religious Revolution at Hand," N.Y. Herald (17 June 1842); emphasis added).[16]
1842
"Mr. Whitney then asked if we acknowledged any to be Christians except those who embraced our doctrines and joined our church." (Orson Hyde letter, Times and Seasons, vol. 3, no. 18, 15 July 1842, 849).
1843
"So far we are agreed with other Christian denominations. They all preach faith and repentance. The gospel requires baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, which is the meaning of the word in the original language—namely, to bury or immerse".[17]
1843
Joseph Smith, in a public discourse, compared the Mormons to other denominations of Christians. (New York Spectator, vol. 46, no. 46, 23 August 1843).
1844
The Mormons are “calling themselves Christians . . . . Christians, as they claim to be.” (The Warsaw Signal, NS no. 4, no. 121, 6 March 1844).
1844
“The [Saturday] Courier should for the sake of truth and consistency, strike its flag of neutrality in RELIGION, while it wages a war of extermination against the Mormons; the only sect in Christendom, who in this nineteenth century can exhibit the irresistible evidence of martyrdom, in support of its cause”.[18]
1853
Now, we ARE believers in the Bible, and in consequence of our unshaken faith in its precepts, doctrine, and prophecy, may be, attributed "the strangeness of our course," and the unwarrantable conduct of many towards this people. Come, my brother Presbyterian; come, my brother professors of every persuasion of long standing and popular distinction in the world, who are dubbed with the word "ORTHODOX;" come, we are all good Christians; I find no fault with you—why should you find fault with me?[19]
1854
“Mormonites . . . . call themselves Christians, it is true” (The Daily Globe, vol. 6, no. 261, 5 October 1854).
1859
We, as Christians, are divided and subdivided into many systems varying in doctrinal points. This one says, "I am right;" and that one says, "I am right;" another rises up and varies, more or less, from the doctrines of the Church he has left, and says he is right.[20]
1861
"…who is there that was not startled when he heard that a sect, affecting to be Christian beyond all other sects, which had sprung up in broad day from admidst the civilization of the United States…"[21]
1863
Should you ask why we differ from other Christians...Are all this people, in the Scriptural sense, Christians? They should be. Do they all serve God with an undivided heart? They should. Many of them do, seeking daily to do his will.[22]
1864
The Latter-day Saints differ from their Christian brethren.[23]
1866
Now, we as Christians desire to be saved in the kingdom of God.[24]
1866
President B. Young preached a very interesting and instructive discourse, in which he showed that professing Christians believe all that the Jews believe, which appertains to life and salvation, and have accepted principles in advance of the Jews, including faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; and that the Latter-day Saints receive all believed in by other professing Christians, appertaining to life and salvation, accepting, as a part of their religious faith, principles in advance of them which are taught in the Scriptures. He touched upon the history of the Jewish people, showing the penalties which they had incurred by disobedience to the commandments of God, and pointing to the promises made to the patriarchal fathers concerning them. And deduced that if the condition of professing Christians is to-day better than that of the Jews, for believing more of the revelations of God, so the condition of the Saints is preferable to that of the other inhabitants of Christendom, in accepting all the revelations which the Lord has been pleased to give. [25]
1866
"On one occasion one of the native brethren who had been persecuted, claimed his rights as a Swiss citizen, and the question was brought up in the Swiss Congress, Are the 'Mormons' Christians? After some discussion, the conclusion was arrived at that they were, and must accordingly be protected."[26]
1870
Have you embraced truth, Latter-day Saints? Have you anything different from other Christians?[27]
1871
If you should have visits here from those professing to be Christians, and they intimate a desire to preach to you, by all means invite them to do so. Accord to every reputable person who may visit you, and who may wish to occupy the stands of your meeting houses to preach to you, the privilege of doing so, no matter whether he be a Catholic, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Baptist, Free-will Baptist, Methodist, or whatever he may be; and if he wishes to speak to your children let him do so. Of course you have the power to correct whatever false teachings or impressions, if any, your children may hear or receive. I say to parents, place your children, as far as you [p.196] have an opportunity to do so, in a position or situation to learn everything in the world that is worth learning. You will probably have what is called a Christian Church here; they will not admit that we are Christians, but they cannot think us further from the plan of salvation as revealed from heaven than we know them to be, so we are even on that ground, as far as it goes.[28]
We are preaching to the people far and near; our Elders are traveling through the earth; strangers are coming here, and we are declaring to them that the Gospel of the Son of God is true. Whether they believe or not, it is no matter. That book (the Bible)contains the words of the Almighty…. I know of the bright promises which he gave to his disciples anciently. I live in the possession of them, and glory in them and in the cross of Christ, and in the beauty and holiness that he has revealed for the salvation and exaltation of the children of men. I do wish we would live to them, and may the Lord help us. [29]
1872
We, as Christians, believe in God, in Christ and in his atonement, in repentance and obedience, and in receiving the Spirit.[30]
"we take the liberty to believe the Bible, which our fellow Christians, generally throughout the world, profess to believe in…”[31]
“We are looking for him [i.e. Second coming of Christ]. The Christians of all denominations expect that he will appear in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. The Latter-day Saints expect this in common with all other Christians.”[32]
1876
These are only a few reflections, when we take into consideration our Christian religion.[33]
Brother Cannon speaks of Christians. We are Christians professedly, according to our religion.[34]
“How shall we, as Christians, reconcile these words of our Savior with the reception everywhere given by the world to Messrs. Moody and Sankey? They are, professedly, Christian ministers, yet they are largely entertained by the world, extolled by the world, and apparently loved by the world….”[35]
“But Joseph Smith reiterates the Savior’s promises. He has no fear of being proved a false teacher. He professes to be a Christian minister called and sent of God….”[36]
“Immediate revelation was the life of primitive Christianity, and when that ceased to be given to men, Christianity waxed feeble, waned and died. With the restored Gospel came immediate revelation, and Christianity was born again upon the earth.”[37]
1881
We are a Christian community; we believe in God and in Jesus Christ...[38]
1892
"What a singular sort of ‘Christian community’ that must be that will not tolerate an unorthodox Christian society in its midst!”[39]
“The insinuation in this [written attack on the LDS by a Protestant minister in SLC] is to the effect that a ‘Mormon’ is not a Christian, and the ‘Mormon’ religion is not a Christian religion, and further that the Supreme Court of the United States has virtually so decided…. But if a ‘Mormon’ is not a Christian then there are no Christians in America…. A member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is at least as fairly entitled to the appellation of a Christian as a member of the Presbyterian Church”[40]
“[with reverence to Revelation 1. 12] We accept—as all Christians do—that God inspired the words ‘to see the voice.’”[41]
1907
If it be true Christianity to accept Jesus Christ in person and his mission as divine; to revere him as the Son of God, the crucified and risen Lord, through whom alone mankind can attain salvation; to accept his teachings as a guide, to adopt as a standard and observe as a law the ethical code he promulgated; to comply with the requirements prescribed by him as essential to membership in his Church, namely, faith, repentance, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost,—if this be Christianity, then are we Christians, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Christian church.[42]
1956
We are not Catholic, Protestant, nor Jewish, and yet this disclaimer should not be taken to mean we are not Christian. You who heard the powerful address of President Clark this morning will know that we are Christians, for central to everything we believe and teach is our faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. We are grateful for our Judeo-Christian heritage, for the Holy Bible which we accept without reservation as the word of God, except as to some errors that have crept in through translations.[43]
Clearly, the Church has "claimed" to be Christian for a long time, and even hostile critics realized it. To insist that this is a new, public relations move is false.

"Mormons believe as God was they are,, as God is,, they will become,,,,,,,,,,As my belief as a Christian,, I believe who God was I will never be as He is I will never become, HE changes not He is the same yesterday today and tomorrow,,,,,,,,,I was never created to become Him,,,,,,,,,,I was created to ultimately worship and praise him."

Wow. Sounds like a lot of fun. If that works for you, great. Enjoy. But I have to tell you - with absolutely no sense of shame - that I rather like the version of God as more than just an object of worship. I like the idea of a loving Heavenly Father who raises his children up, to reach their full potential, and who created children whose potential is so much greater than anything you could possibly imagine.

Instead of feeling as if God's glory is threatened by man's unlimited potential, I think it does greater justice to the benevolence and wisdom of God as well as to his magnificence as Creator. Is God lessened by the fact that humanity is now spread out across the globe, that men have landed on the moon, that we can split atoms and clone sheep? Was God more majestic when men struggled with fire or lived in caves?

If you want to quote verses out of Genesis, consider these:

"And God said, Let us make man IN OUR IMAGE, AFTER OUR LIKENESS: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man IN HIS OWN IMAGE, IN THE IMAGE OF GOD created he him; male and female created he them." (Genesis 1:26-27)

"This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, IN THE LIKENESS OF GOD MADE HE HIM; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and BEGAT A SON IN HIS OWN LIKENESS, AND AFTER HIS IMAGE; and called his name Seth:" (Genesis 5:1-3)

When I read such words, I don't get bent out of shape. I don't cry, "Blasphemy!" I revel in the dignity this gives to mankind. I'm reminded of the words of the Psalmist:

"When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet." (Psalms 8:3-6)

With such an excellent legacy comes great responsibility. Not surprisingly, the Bible couples man's dignity with his obligation to follow divine counsel:

"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. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, AND WILL MULTIPLY THEE EXCEEDINGLY." (Genesis 17:1-2)

When I read these words, I imagine a good man being raised beyond his own sense of self - and the limitations of his time and place - to be tutored, trained, perfected and tried. This is what I think it means to "walk with God." Not surprisingly, similar words are spoken of regarding Noah:

"But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. These are the generations of Noah: Noah was A JUST MAN AND PERFECT IN HIS GENERATIONS, AND NOAH WALKED WITH GOD." (Genesis 6:8-9)

A similar type of training was conducted with Noah's ancestor, Enoch, who is only spoken of briefly but whose mention is spectacular:

"And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah: And ENOCH WALKED WITH GOD after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters: And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: And Enoch WALKED WITH GOD: and he was not; for God took him." (Genesis 5:21-24)

I really like that "walk with God" stuff. It reminds me of Native Americans, living close to the ancestors, accepting their tutelage as they try to live the spiritual life. Big surprise, then, that Moses would remind the children of Israel, "Thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God." (Deuteronomy 18:13)

No wonder that Solomon, in his temple dedication, reminded the people of his day, "Let your heart therefore be perfect with the LORD our God, to walk in his statutes, and to keep his commandments, as at this day." (1 Kings 8:61) Ironically, they were words that Solomon, himself, should have listened to:

"And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites." (1 Kings 11:3-5)

Notice, here, that "perfect" isn't synonymous with "flawless." Men are men. As Paul spoke of the weakness of the flesh, there are always human frailties and fallibilities. The point is to struggle through it. If the covenant were offered only to those who were literally "perfect," nobody would qualify for, as Paul points out, "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)

Still, human frailty is not an excuse for decadence. As Paul went on to say:

"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection." (Romans 6:1-5)

So, even when one is struggling in other areas, a person who is honest and sincere in his faith may find the grace he needs to continue the walk. As we learn in the book of 1 Kings. Speaking of King Asa, it says:

"And also Maachah his mother, even her he removed from being queen, because she had made an idol in a grove; and Asa destroyed her idol, and burnt it by the brook Kidron. But the high places were not removed: nevertheless Asa's heart was PERFECT with the LORD all his days. And he brought in the things which his father had dedicated, and the things which himself had dedicated, into the house of the LORD, silver, and gold, and vessels." (1 Kings 15:13-15)

When Job is first introduced, we are told: "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. (Job 1:1)

Lest we attribute this to an editor's note or a translator's error, the text even has God speaking of Job as follows:

"And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?" (Job 1:8)

"Perfect," as we come to see it used here, is not about flawnessness so much as sincerity, a point even Job, himself, makes clear:

"If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse. Though I were perfect, yet would I not know my soul: I would despise my life." (Job 19:20-21)

As the Psalmist makes clear, "perfection" is to be found in abiding by the divine tutorials of a Perfect God who knows the end from the beginning. He begins as follows:

"I will love thee, O LORD, my strength. The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower. I will call upon the LORD, who is worthy to be praised: so shall I be saved from mine enemies."

He continues with the trials of those who walk with God:

"The sorrows of death compassed me, and the floods of ungodly men made me afraid. The sorrows of hell compassed me about: the snares of death prevented me. In my distress I called upon the LORD, and cried unto my God: he heard my voice out of his temple, and my cry came before him, even into his ears."

He describes the deliverance of those who call upon God:

"Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations also of the hills moved and were shaken, because he was wroth. There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it. He bowed the heavens also, and came down: and darkness was under his feet....Yea, he sent out his arrows, and scattered them; and he shot out lightnings, and discomfited them. Then the channels of waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were discovered at thy rebuke, O LORD, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils."

But in acknowledging the saving hand of the Lord, the Psalmist also acknowledges the covenant relationship:

"He sent from above, he took me, he drew me out of many waters. He delivered me from my strong enemy, and from them which hated me .... he delivered me, because he delighted in me. The LORD rewarded me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands hath he recompensed me. For I have kept the ways of the LORD, and have not wickedly departed from my God."

Lest we consider him boastful in this, the Psalmist explains:

"For all his judgments were before me, and I did not put away his statutes from me. I was also upright before him, and I kept myself from mine iniquity. Therefore hath the LORD recompensed me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands in his eyesight."

Echoing the Beatitudes that Jesus would deliver in his Sermon on the Mount, the Psalmist says:

"With the merciful thou wilt shew thyself merciful; with an upright man thou wilt shew thyself upright; With the pure thou wilt shew thyself pure; and with the froward thou wilt shew thyself froward. For thou wilt save the afflicted people; but wilt bring down high looks."

The Psalmist then turns back to God, acknowledging his hand and his grace:

"For thou wilt light my candle: the LORD my God will enlighten my darkness. For by thee I have run through a troop; and by my God have I leaped over a wall. As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him. For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God? It is God that girdeth me with strength, and maketh my way perfect." (Psalm 18)

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I speak of walking with God and of striving to be perfect. It's not about hubris or ego. It's about accepting the gift provided, which is the way by which a person can rise above their own mortal limitations through the grace and guidance of a loving Heavenly Father.

As the Psalmist later rejoices:

"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. (Psalms 19:7-10)

Not surprisingly, the Psalmist says: "Though I walk in the midst of trouble, thou wilt revive me: thou shalt stretch forth thine hand against the wrath of mine enemies, and thy right hand shall save me. The LORD WILL PERFECT THAT WHICH CONCERNETH ME: thy mercy, O LORD, endureth for ever: forsake not the works of thine own hands." (Psalms 138:7-8)

As Johnny Cash would later sing, "I'm just a chunk of coal, O Lord, but I'm going to be a diamond someday."

This is why, in Jesus's Sermon on the Mount, he caps the whole thing with the line, "48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48)

It's why, when approached by a young man with great possessions, one who had followed the commandments all his days, "Jesus said unto him, IF THOU WILL BE PERFECT, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." (Matthew 19:21)

Mormons don't look at Christianity as the mere acceptance of the proposition that Jesus is the Christ. They see it as a journey, a refiner's fire, where men are called to leave behind their old ways and take up the great adventure of learning to follow the path of the Master.

Mormons don't consider it accidental that Jesus called men to walk with him, disciples who were then sent out as apostles, to invite others to take on the path.

They also don't consider it accidental that as Christ walked on water, Peter would want to do so as well, but could only do so through the power of Christ. When he tried to do it himself - and lost faith - he was sank like a rock. But with Christ's outstretched hand, he could do impossible things.

To the Corinthians, Paul said, "Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." (1 Corinthians 1:1)

In a later epistle, Paul would say:

"I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities."

This sets up a very interesting discussion about the refining and perfecting process of tribulation:

"And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: FOR MY STRENGTH IS MADE PERFECT IN MY WEAKNESS."

From this experience, Paul came to the following conclusion:

"Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong." (2 Corinthians 12)

Paul ends up telling the Corinthians, "Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you." (2 Corinthians 13:11)

To the Ephesians, Paul explains the purpose of the Church: "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; FOR THE PERFECTING OF THE SAINTS, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, UNTO A PERFECT MAN, UNTO THE MEASURE OF THE STATURE OF THE FULNESS OF CHRIST." (Ephesians 4:11-13)

To the Colossians, Paul spoke of "warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; THAT WE MAY PRESENT EVERY MAN PERFECT IN CHRIST JESUS." (Colossians 1:28)

To that end, Paul sends the postscript: "Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ, saluteth you, always labouring fervently for you in prayers, THAT YE MAY STAND PERFECT AND COMPLETE IN ALL THE WILL OF GOD." (Colossians 4:12)

In Paul's tutorials to Timothy, he reminds him that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: THAT THE MAN OF GOD MAY BE PERFECT, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Mormons are fond of James 1:5 ("If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God") but sometimes forget the tutorial in verses 3 and 4: "Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. BUT LET PATIENCE HAVE HER PERFECT WORK, THAT YE MAY BE PERFECT AND ENTIRE, WANTING NOTHING."

Peter, himself, prayed that "the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, MAKE YOU PERFECT, stablish, strengthen, settle you." (1 Peter 5:10)

My favorite of these passages comes from John's epistles:

"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and IT DOTH NOT YET APPEAR WHAT WE SHALL BE: but we know that, when he shall appear, WE SHALL BE LIKE HIM; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure." (1 John 3:2-3)

I really love the discussion going on in this Blogalogue. Either side must represent the most important of the Fruits of the Spirit which is Love. I agree with Dr. Mohler. Mormons unfortunately have rejected Traditional Christian Orthodoxy, (lets predate that to before the Catholic Church and place traditional Christianity where it originated.. at Jesus Christ, or the first churches of the Book of Acts). Mormon teachings also emphasize that they are from the Old Testament Priestly line of Aaron, the Aaronic Priesthood or later established by Peter, James and John the Melchizedek Priesthood. Those are facts... here are some more. At Mormon.org the character of Joseph Smith is a lie. The shame of the story is that the man was a murderer, molester, rapist, thief, cheat, and often instigated riots against authority. (Christians; Biblical should be submitting to authority, doesn't always happen, but Biblically) The website claims that his death at the hands of a mob interrupted his run for Presidency where his cause was 'just and noble' for the betterment of religious activity in America. The problem with the above is that the man was arrested for a crime, not major (Violating the Freedom of the Press) His death is then viewed as him being martyred. He fired the shots, that killed people in that mob, now according to the tenants of Mormonism, he can't go to the Celestial Kingdom, yet I have heard he is the 'Expception'. My Question is this, why would this man be chosen to complete a Testament already deemed complete, then be given the special authority to basically do whatever he wants at seemingly no punishment? If I am inaccurate in that please correct me. I am ordering at the moment the Book of Mormon, I am going to be attending the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Dr. Mohlers Seminary) I have a high interest in this topic, however, even after attempting to get through the Book of Mormon the very first page talked about the 'completeness of the Bible' Using that term 'Complete' why then is there any need by their own admission for 'Another Testament of Jesus Christ'?
Hoping that people would see the True Gospel of Jesus through all of this
~Joshua~ (Kurly if you're replying to this post)

My opinion on this is that in the Christian bible (KJV)where it states that not one "jot or tittle" (a jot is the line crossing the T and a tittle being the dot over an i or j) shall be changed. When used here a "jot or tittle" means even the smallest detail. So, it says that not even the smallest detail should be changed in the Christian law.
Now the way I understand it, John Smith (opinion - John Smith? - sounds like an alias of someone who wants to hide their real name) was given these "golden plates" that "added" to the laws of God. Also, why did these "plates" conveniently disappear? I know it is said that the world was not ready for them; so why did they show up in the first place.
ALSO, when John Smith first had them he had to run with them to avoid some people who wanted to intercept him and John Smith fought them off. I hope he didn't put the plates down where one of the others could have taken them. But tell me how a man tuns such a long distance (I have heard distances of up to three miles) unless he is in great shape. I do not believe that even ANY of the runners today could take that much extra weight and run for even a mile at an even pace and make it.

In other words, Mormonism is (in my humble opinion) just another "cult" that has sprung up to take advantage of people who are lost.
If people are lost, just let them pray and God will answer.

"The shame of the story is that the man was a murderer, molester, rapist, thief, cheat, and often instigated riots against authority"

Ah, that is inaccurate very much so.

Let's take just one example.

You say he murdered? Why? Because when the Mob started shooting into the cell he fired back? So self-defense is murder? I think if you are going to use such criteria to evaluate the man, then I don't think it will be at all accurate! We make no claims that he was Jesus but we also know he was a very good man.

I think those who wish to say that Mormons are not Christian, I think the most effective thing to say is:

While in their hearts they maybe Christian by their acts and worship, their doctrine is such a stumbling block that they are blinded by that they do not understand the doctrinally true nature of Jesus and his totality.

I would disagree with that statement, because I do think that our doctrine is the most correct. But I don't think you can honestly argue with us about our love and commitment to the Savior.

Here is the text of our Sacrament from our weekly worship service. We take this very, very, seriously and somberly. We do it, word for word and every week without fail. When we miss it, it is for me, one of the worse feelings in the world. It is our spiritual bread manna:

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

O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

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

O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this water to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

Ummm, so wanting to be accurately described as Unorthodox Christian means that Mormons are joining other Churches?

Card didn't ask to join churches, just be accurately described. If accurately describing us means that suddenly we are Protestants or Catholics or Greek Orthodox, then I did not see that leap in the argument.

Let's be clear the inaccurate assertion that the Church of the Devil in Book of Mormon means Christian, is way off base. It is on base to say those who use the Church to get monetary gain, political power, and prestige is of the devil. Those who only draw close their lips to God but their hearts are far from God are of the Devil. Even some regular Mormons who abuse their positions would fall under that category.

Also, what is so awful about unique truth claims? Many sects of Christianity have unique truth claims. They claim to be the ONLY true Church of God. Why do the Mormons get singled out for this claim? I don't think that is fair.

About the "adding and subtracting from the word" scripture in revelations. I can't seem to make that make sense. First of all, that "ultimatum" was given in Deut. 4:2. I think everyone believes at least in the books of the bible after Deut. 4:2. Otherwise we'd all be Jewish and following t he law of Moses. Oh... and Christ would not be who he says he is... because he added to the worlds and scriptures that came after Deut. 4:2.

Second of all... when John wrote the book of Revelations, the bible didn't even exist. The bible was compiled years later. (325 AD at the Council of Nicaea)So how could John have been speaking of adding and taking from the bible when the bible did not even exist? Maybe he was talking about all the revelations that he knew of at the time... and he took a guess or had revelation that they would be compiled into one book and that his book of revelations would be deemed the last book. So maybe that's a good explanation. Except that John knew of other writings that were divine as well. 1 Corinthians is actually the second letter written to the Corinthians. Where is the first one? What about all the books that are referenced to in the bible as scripture... are those not considered a "jot or a tittle?"

Many scholars even believe that the book of Revelations was not the last book the John wrote. That would be a pretty self incriminating statement if he really meant it to mean that revelation has ended.

Last of all, the Protestant canon and the Catholic canon in don't even match up. The Protestant Bible or canon contains 66 books. And the Catholic Bible contains 73. Well... that means that to Catholics, Protestants aren't Christian because they have removed from the bible. And to Protestants, Catholics aren't Christian because they have added to the bible just as the Mormons have. (https://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/bible/prcot.stm) These are some interesting questions. What did John really mean in his book?

What I like most about the exchange between Dr. Mohler and Mr. Card is the desire for respect and candor shown on both sides. Both attributes are essential for any meaningful dialogue. Even with them, there are real obstacles to communication because of differing theological worldviews. People on either side of the debate often think, "Why would they say that?" because they think certain things are naturally implied, but the other side doesn't. I hope most of these unstated assumptions can be brought out into the open, so that misperceptions can be cleared up.

As a believing Mormon, these are some points I'd like to understand better about Dr. Mohler's views:

1. What does he think the Mormon belief in an apostasy of the Christian church means?

(E.g. does he think we believe all Christians are going to hell? He certainly dwells on this point a lot, and apparently draws harsher and more rigid conclusions from our scriptures than we do. I want to know what those conclusions are.)

2. How would he define "Christian as defined by Christ at the last judgement"? Would this be the same as the definition of "Christian as defined by traditional Christian orthodoxy"?

(I get the impression that Dr. Mohler uses "Christian" to mean "those who are saved", as well as "those with traditional orthodox belief"; and that the latter is a prerequisite for the former. I don't think all this would be a concern for him if he didn't think salvation was on the line. I suspect that he is really arguing the issue "Who is saved and who is damned?" -- not as a hidden agenda, but as a natural outgrowth of what he thinks it means to be Christian. Is this correct?)

3. Does he think that an orthodox view of God and Christ is necessary for a truly worshipful attitude toward them?

(Dr. Mohler implies that while we use Christian terms and refer to Christ a lot, it only comes down to "merely thinking well of Jesus". This baffles me. He apparently does not accept our assertions that we not only believe in Christ as the Son of God and the Savior, we also commit our lives to following him, and look to and rejoice in his Atonement as the only means of forgiveness from our sins. I understand why he would think we are heretical in our doctrine. I do not understand why he would think we are shallow or insincere in our discipleship.)

4. How can he believe that "the Jesus of the Book of Mormon is not the only begotten Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, or the one through whose death on the cross we can be saved from our sins"?

(To see how frequently the Book of Mormon teaches those concepts, just look in its index under "Jesus Christ--Only Begotten Son", "Jesus Christ--Son of God", "Jesus Christ--Death Of", "Jesus Christ--Resurrection Of", "Jesus Christ--Savior", "Jesus Christ--Redeemer", and "Godhead" (for references to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost). Because of this, when I read the quote above from his first post, I could only conclude -- like Mr. Card -- that Dr. Mohler had not read the Book of Mormon. On learning in his second post that he had read and studied it, I was dumbfounded. I don't even know how to ask about its underlying assumptions. I really do hope Dr. Mohler explains his thinking on this more. Unlike the comments about Mitt Romney, this is pertinent to the assigned topic.)

I do not expect Dr. Mohler or Mr. Card to change each other's minds. What I hope for is an example of people who listen to each other closely in order to understand, rather than listening to look for ways to counterattack. I do hope for breakthrough moments where either may say, "Oh now I understand your concern!", and move on to change how they think and speak of the other's views. Even this much will take a lot of patience and good will on both sides.

Mike Bennion puts forth: "I challenge anyone to find 'the completeness of the Bible,' mentioned by QuestforChrist784."

The words don't appear verbatim. However, under INTRODUCTION, first paragraph, we find: "The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness [sic] of the everlasting gospel."

According to this description, the BoM contains the fullness of the everlasting gospel.

"...as does the Bible..."

Therefore, the Bible contains the fullness of the everlasting gospel.

I believe this is what QuestforChrist784 was alluding to. This leads me to a few sincere questions: How can one book contain the fullness of an account (and by definition be the complete picture), and yet another book be said to contain the same "fullness?" Logically, this cannot be so. Either one is the complete picture, or the other is. Otherwise, an accurate statement should read: The two books together contain the fullness of the gospel.

By Joseph Smith's own accounting, "...the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” If this is so, then why is the Bible even necessary in the Mormon's religious construct? Why not just suffice with the BoM?

Regards,

JN

To "Voice Crying Out", Et Al,

You seem an honest seeker of truth...

My own explanation of Why there are two books (Bible and Book of Mormon) having the "fulness" of the Gospel is simply because God plays no favorites in this world...He loves ALL His children and wants them ALL to have access to the power of His Son Jesus Christ's Atonement. The Bible is proof that He communicated that love to His children through prophets of the "Old World" or eastern hemisphere. The Book of Mormon is proof that He communicated that love to His children through prophets of the "New World" or Western hemisphere. The fact that Joseph Smith stated that the Book of Mormon was "...the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book..." was simply his way of saying that unlike the Bible or other ancient writings, the words of the Book of Mormon were directly translated from their original into English thereby eliminating any translation errors that you find going from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to German, etc., etc., and finally to English. So... as far as the Bible is "translated" correctly, it does contain the word of God and what a blessing it has been to the world. You have to admit though, that even in modern Christiandom, there are different versions of the Bible due to "someone" trying to "interpret" the Hebrew, the Greek, etc. into modern english...if you do a comparison of these different versions, there are substantive differences...

I challenge anyone professing to be a follower of Jesus Christ, if they have the courage, to read the Book of Mormon for themselves BEFORE condemning it to heresy???? It will be time well spent, I promise.

rotorhead

THE HOLY TRINITY and THE DEITY OF JESUS THE CHRIST

Faith Alone - Free Grace Alone - Christ Alone - Holy Scripture Alone

Every explanation of the Holy Trinity is an explanation of the Deity of Jesus The Christ. If one is going to trust God some understanding of God is essential.

Upon encountering those who consider themselves Christian and those who may be seeking the Lord I find that most do not give a clear or even rudimentary explanation of the Holy Trinity a complete understanding of which can only come through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Once I am able to see the awakening of a desire to discuss the subject and move beyond a rudimentary discussion of Holy Scripture into the miraculous work of the disciples of the first centuries, from whom much valuable study and supporting information on the Holy Trinity can be found in the old creeds, I find it difficult to get to that information with a pilgrim once the word Catholic is mentioned.

I find myself struggling with the Anti-Catholic bigotry, slander of the Theotokos and Jewish Supremacy of those deluded by End-Time Heretics, rather than discussing how effective the Athanasian Creed can be in refuting the early Gnostic statements which are repeatedly raising an ugly Anti-Christian head.

The confusion about the Holy Trinity opens a window for cultic leaders to mislead new pilgrims about the nature of God superficially using scripture having a hidden agenda to promote some other non-biblical practice and promoting a Church much like we find described in Ezekiel Chapter 8.

http://moelder.freeservers.com/TheHolyTrinityandTheDeityofJesusTheChrist.html

JN said:

Mike Bennion puts forth: "I challenge anyone to find 'the completeness of the Bible,' mentioned by QuestforChrist784."

The words don't appear verbatim. However, under INTRODUCTION, first paragraph, we find: "The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness [sic] of the everlasting gospel."

Mike's response:

Then don't be intellectually dishosnest by putting ' 's around the words completeness of the Bible.

I don't have time to respond to the Fullness of the Gospel topic now. I'm on the way to work. I'll address that later this evening.

Mike

The struggle to define Christianity and preserve its truth has mostly disappeared, and because there is no more fight to cling to what it is true, historical Christianity is almost lost in this world. As evangelicals, our fight is to cling to the historic Jesus, the real Jesus of Nazareth because without facts, we (evangelicals) claim nothing superior to Mormons or any other faith/religion. Without historical truth, we have nothing in which to put our faith (our faith is not a blind faith). In one of the earliest Christian creeds Paul records that Jesus died, was buried, rose from the dead, appeared to the disciples, 500 brothers at one time, and to James and Paul (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). If these claims were false or exaggerated, there would be numerous people who could have questioned the supposed eye-witnesses of the Christ. Two of the gospel writers walked with Christ, and the other two (Mark and Luke) recorded their gospels from testimonies of apostles. Luke labors diligently to support these gospel events with real historical places, people and other events. My point is this, if this same Jesus, who did miracles, died, and rose again is the historical Jesus then any claims about Jesus contrary to the ancient records of Jesus are false and evil. Therefore, if the Book of Mormon claims that Jesus was born in Jerusalem (Alma 7:10) yet ancient texts record Jesus being born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1), we know that the Book of Mormon is not a supplement the Bible nor is it Scripture. Rather the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible, and therefore, the "Jesus" of the book of Mormon is not the true historical Jesus. If the Bible says that Jesus ascended and would return in the same manner (Acts 1:11), then when the Mormons claim that Jesus went to America, we know that Mormonism is not historical and is therefore not real. The historical Jesus did not go to America. If Mormons contradict ancient Biblical records of who Jesus was, His nature and purpose, then the Book of Mormon is false. In conclusion, to trust the "Jesus" of the Book of Mormon for salvation is to trust a fictional person, an idol. If one trusts the historical Jesus, the Jesus of the Bible, then he is trusting the real Person who came, lived a sinless life, died on a cross, was buried, rose again, and presented Himself alive with many proofs (Acts 1:3, it was not hearsay!). Biblical and historical Christianity is based on the historical Jesus Christ, and therefore, Mormonism is not Christianity.

Mike Bennion's response to JN/VoiceCryingOut's post July 9, 2007 4:26 AM:

"Then don't be intellectually dishosnest [sic] by putting ' 's around the words completeness of the Bible."

By this, I'll assume you were referring to QuestforChrist784's original post and not my attempt to clarify what he/she was questioning about the Book of Mormon. Certainly nothing in my post was intellectually dishonest.

I look forward to your response to my original post.

Regards,

JN

To Luke Hinton,

Hello! I enjoyed your post. Your historical approach is very similar to what most Mormons use. We appeal to the same scriptural accounts you did as historical witnesses to Christ's life, miracles, death, resurrection, and appearances.

Regarding your first objection: In the Book of Mormon, the Nephite people constantly and consistently refer to the place their ancestors came from as "the land of Jerusalem". (To see this, go to http://scriptures.lds.org/ and do a search on "land jerusalem", searching in the Book of Mormon.) So when Alma 7:10 says Christ "shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers", it is specifying the part of the world, not the particular town. Even those Nephites who doubted the prophecy used the same language: "It is not reasonable that such a being as a Christ shall come; if so ... why will he not show himself unto us as well as unto them who shall be at Jerusalem? Yea, why will he not show himself in this land as well as in the land of Jerusalem?" (Helaman 16:18-19)

I am not sure what your second objection exactly is. We do not believe Jesus sailed to the new world during his life, if that's what you mean. He appeared to the Nephites after his resurrection and ascension to heaven. We believe the angels' word in Acts 1:11 will be fulfilled (probably in the Second Coming), but that does not exclude other appearances, such all the ones mentioned by Paul in 1 Cor 15. Are you saying that Christ's appearance to the Nephites contradicts the Bible because the Bible does not mention it? This is no more troublesome than the fact that the two nativity accounts in Matthew and Luke do not refer to each other -- some scholars conclude that they are therefore not historical, but we don't.

Regards,
Bryan

Eric Withers it appears that Jesus has a different take on Psalms 82 than you.

Jn 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.
30 I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

You say "Any honest evaluation of this Psalm reveals that when psalm 82 refers to the "gods," it is actually referring to those who are judges or rulers in their day."

Yet Jesus said "If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;"

Something about what Jesus said seems incompatible with what you said.

I am reposting this question I posted before because no one has addressed it. How does this account fit under the Trinity lense? Why is Jesus not being touched such a big issue? Please attempt to explain. Remember this is His first appearance after resurrection. I don't think these are throw away words are ideas but are very Germaine to this discussion.

----
John 20:17 "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."
----
Jesus' description is clear here. Abstraction to make it fit the Trinity doctrine just creates confusion. If the Trinity doctrine is clear here please illustrate how.

Also, can someone from the Orthodox camp, please explain to me why Jesus couldn't be "touched" if the physical universe was not somehow relevant to God the Father? If you could only answer this question of mine that would be very useful for your argument

nowandlater,

Consider this comment out of context, because I haven't but skimmed the above comments, and I really don't know where you are coming from.

I examine the verse you present, and two things strike me. One is "What a mysterious thing for Jesus to say." I really don't know the meaning of it, and it would take me some time to see if there was any Catholic exegesis for it. With or without the exegesis, it is a very interesting thing for a Trinitarian to ponder, and some deep insight may come of it that brings him closer to our Lord Jesus Christ.

The second thing that strikes me is that there seems to be this notion that we can know everything there is to know about the Trinity, and if we don't understand something, there must be something wrong with what we think. This is pure positivism. (Though, due to your vagueness about it, I'm not sure it speaks for you.) I would reject any positivist approach to anything. You cannot know and understand everything about anything--even simple things, like gumdrops or shoehorns. Positivism is dead. The common debater simply hasn't caught up, yet.

But to step out of a philosophical mode for a moment, I don't think it is difficult for the common man to realize that the Trinity is a deeply mysterious thing far beyond his simple comprehension or that of his philosophical friends, and that there are any number of things that will always be a mystery about it. It is a puzzle that we can learn about (this being one opportunity), but it is not a puzzle we will ever solve until and unless we meet the Trinity face-to-face.

You have presented us a puzzle piece. You have presented us a puzzle piece that fits somewhere in this endless and eternal puzzle, and you have asked us where it goes. But we are not gods, and we do not have the vision that can tell you where it goes. If we are lucky, the Church may provide some elucidation on how it fits in the eternal puzzle, but that would take some research. It would not surprise me if there was no such explanation available, because the Church does not have absolute and complete understanding of everything. There are limitations to its ability to see.

I am not sure if that is a satisfactory answer from one with Orthodox (Catholic) orientation, but as you see, it is not a very satisfactory question for us.

There does seem to be a point of contention behind your question, and you have not been forthcoming with explaining it. (Unless I'm missing something). If you would state the point of contention directly, perhaps we could examine it with more satisfaction for you.

Cheers,
Silly

"I agree that if Christ was here today, many of you would be screaming crucify him along with the Mitt Mormons!"

Ignoring the false comparison with Mitt, I would say that if any individual was not trembling with abject humility in genuine fear of the possibility that he would be among those screaming for Christ's crucifixion, then that person has not reached the necessary humility to be a good Christian. (Note: I did not write "to be a Christian.")

Thank you Silly Interloper,

Basically, you are saying it is a mystery and we should not suppose anything more or less than that.

The point I wish to make, is to argue against the point of view that God the Father has no absolute relationship with the physical. As evidence Christ could not be touched until he met with the Father. It is a hole in the Trinitarian view that God the Father is only 100% spirit. If purely spirit, then why was it an issue for Christ that his body was defiled?

It is a puzzle piece, I agree. But I would argue it is a most significant piece which can not be easily dismissed because it is Juxtaposed with the Resurrection of the Savior, one of the hallmarks of Christianity. I cannot easily except this as just idle words from the Savior. I think it is related to our understand of God. God the Father has a physical component. Whether it is minimal or maximal based on this account, I will concede, is up for debate. But one must look at this account and honestly say that it does open up the possibility significantly that a spirit only personage of God the Father may not be the best description or possibility of God the Father.

Further, I think this account is interesting because, Jesus Christ is conveying the idea, at the very minimum, to Mary M. that his relationship to God the Father is as Mary's to God. That view is totally compatible to Mormon thought. It is no way foreign. Thus we say that scripturally, the New Testament is shown be supportive of this view not atagonistically agaisnt it.

Let me sum up me argument as simple as I can.

Trinitarian view is that God the Father is 100% divorced from the physical world. However, in this account, God the Father is influenced by a physical act on the Son. Therefore the "absolute" trinitarian view is flawed and should be modified to take into account the God the Father is physically influenced.

Mike's quote:

"Then don't be intellectually dishosnest [sic] by putting ' 's around the words completeness of the Bible."

JN's response:
By this, I'll assume you were referring to QuestforChrist784's original post and not my attempt to clarify what he/she was questioning about the Book of Mormon. Certainly nothing in my post was intellectually dishonest.

I look forward to your response to my original post.

Regards, JN

Mike's response:
Yes I was referring to Questfor Christ784's comment.

JN's comment to which Mike will now respond:
The words don't appear verbatim. However, under INTRODUCTION, first paragraph, we find: "The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness [sic] of the everlasting gospel."

Mike's response:

If we are to consider what the "fulness of the everlasting gospel" means, we must define it as Joseph Smith would define it. since he was the instrument through which the Book of Mormon came.

In the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church, Section 42 we find these explanatory verses:

"12 And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall TEACH THE PRINCIPLES OF MY GOSPEL, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the FULNESS OF THE GOSPEL.
13 And they shall observe the covenants and church articles to do them, and these shall be their teachings, as they shall be directed by the Spirit.
14 And the Spirit shall be given unto you by the prayer of faith; and if ye receive not the Spirit ye shall not teach.
15 And all this ye shall observe to do as I have commanded concerning your teaching, until the FULNESS OF MY SCRIPTURES is given.
16 And as ye shall lift up your voices by the Comforter, ye shall speak and prophesy as seemeth me good;
17 For, behold, the Comforter knoweth all things, and beareth record of the Father and of the Son."

From the reference above we glean the following understanding about what Joseph Smith understood the meaning of the "fulness of the gospel to be.

1. The PRINCIPLES of the gospel contain the fulness of that Gospel.
2. "The fulness of the Gospel" is not the same thing as the "fulness
of my scriptures".

So Joseph Smith would tell you that using the term "fulness of the scriptures" would not restrict God from adding scripture, according to D&C 42.

so what are the principles of the Gospel?

The 4th Article of Faith, found in the Pearl of Great Price, gives a definition of the first principles:

"4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost."

In several places these principles and ordinances are referred to as the "DOCTRINE OF CHRIST"

Two treatments of this doctrine are in the Book of Mormon:

First, Nephi's teaching in @nd Nephi 31 and 32:

2 "Wherefore, the things which I have written sufficeth me, save it be a few words which I amust speak concerning the doctrine of Christ; wherefore, I shall speak unto you plainly, according to the plainness of my prophesying.
3 For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding.
4 Wherefore, I would that ye should remember that I have spoken unto you concerning that prophet which the Lord showed unto me, that should baptize the Lamb of God, which should take away the sins of the world.
5 And now, if the Lamb of God, he being aholy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!
6 And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water?
7 Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments.
8 Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove.
9 And again, it showeth unto the children of men the straitness of the path, and the narrowness of the agate, by which they should enter, he having set the example before them.
10 And he said unto the children of men: Follow thou me. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, can we follow Jesus save we shall be willing to keep the commandments of the Father?
11 And the Father said: Repent ye, repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son.
12 And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do.
13 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.
14 But, behold, my beloved brethren, thus came the voice of the Son unto me, saying: After ye have repented of your sins, and witnessed unto the Father that ye are willing to keep my commandments, by the baptism of water, and have received the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, and can speak with a new tongue, yea, even with the tongue of angels, and after this should deny me, it would have been better for you that ye had not known me.
15 And I heard a voice from the Father, saying: Yea, the words of my Beloved are true and faithful. He that endureth to the cend, the same shall be saved.
16 And now, my beloved brethren, I know by this that unless a man shall endure to the end, in following the example of the Son of the living God, he cannot be saved.
17 Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost.
18 And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive.
19 And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow apath, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.
20 Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of bhope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eeternal life.
21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the away; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen."

Second, Christ's teachings during his appearance to the Nephites:
3rd Nephi 11
32 "And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.
33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.
34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.
35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost."

37 "And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.
38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.
39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.
40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.
41 Therefore, go forth unto this people, and declare the words which I have spoken, unto the ends of the earth."

The "fulness of the gospel", then consists of the "doctrine of Christ"

1. Faith in Jesus Christ
2. Repentence
3. Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins
4. Receipt of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands
5. Endurance to the end in righteousness

By doing these things a person is cleansed and becomes "perfect in Christ" and is thus able to receive all other revelation and ordinances necessary to lay hold on Eternal life, given by the grace of Jesus Christ.

Mike

"This statement says that Jesus has to travel distance so that he can be with God the Father and that his state of being able to be touched will change. Repeat "Distance", that is a physical, tangible, property. If God the Father was present and of the same substance, then Jesus would have needed no requirement of travel of expiration of time to be with the Father."

From an Orthodox perspective, that is a radically literalist and materialist view. To us it is really an odd way to want to interpret something. It reminds me of the atheist Richard Dawkins' misguided ridicule of the Ascension because it required movement into the atmosphere, which we know has only gas and clouds, not heaven, and we know that he will suffocate once he exits the atmosphere. (I don't remember his exact argument, but it was something close to that.) It exhibits a way of thinking that is quite alien to us.

I think you are reading too much into the Trinitarian doctrine. It is my hunch that the 100% spirit approach has worked its way into some arguments supporting the Trinity, but that it is not actually part of the divine revelation of the Trinity. (I am open to be disabused of this speculation, but I would expect due rigor before accepting it.) The doctrine informs us that they are One God in Three Persons. They are consubstantial, which means "one in being." They have distinct relationships with each other as divine Persons in their Oneness-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is much more that can be said about them, but in all the words I have heard from pulpit, the Catechism, and all the explications I have read from the Church, I am not familiar with these ideas of 100% Spirit or the opposing physical nature of God.

In a matter seperate from the Trinitarian doctrine is our understanding of the Eucharist. The substance of the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. The divinity of Jesus Christ consists (if "consists" makes sense here) of the Holy Trinity, so we believe that God the Father and the Holy Spirit are also present in the Eucharist.

That presents us with a much larger discussion about form and substance and the nature of the Eucharist. If the substance of the Trinity is there, does that mean it is physical? I don't know. It is a mystery. More than a mystery-it is a gift. I will not shun this magnificent gift by being intolerant of God's mystery.

Ok, I can see that you have faith in the view of the Trinity. I can't argue with that. What I would argue with is the notion the nature of God is a mystery. Yes I know God's ways are higher than man's. However, I would argue that God asks us to know him fully. If the Trinity is incomprehensible even by the spirit then we can not know him fully.

"Ok, I can see that you have faith in the view of the Trinity. I can't argue with that. What I would argue with is the notion the nature of God is a mystery."

Why? You, as a mere human, expect to have God's omniscience of Himself?

"Yes I know God's ways are higher than man's. However, I would argue that God asks us to know him fully."

That may or may not be true. You don't have to know your wife in every existential way possible in order to love her and have a relationship with her. I lean against it because we would have to be infinite beings ourselves to really know Him, and Catholicism does not believe that we will be gods equal to the One. If it is true, it is what we have to look forward to in heaven. It is what we Catholics call, the Beatific Vision.

To be honest, it is quite an astounding and implausible notion to me that a finite human being could know God fully in this life.

"If the Trinity is incomprehensible even by the spirit then we can not know him fully."

Not now we can't. Clearly not. Even if we were "fully" informed intellectually with the best language possible, I don't think that information would even scratch the surface of knowledge and comprehension of His infinite and eternal Being.

Cheers,
Silly

Oops! I accidently outed my first name! (I prefer Silly. It's far more accurate.)

I don't disagree that we can understand God to some degree because we are (in some very mysterious way) made in His image. The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks directly to that. Extrapolating that into the notion that we can know God fully and omnisciently is an entirely different proposition. (From the language of your last post, I get the feeling you are conceding that?)

It's way past my bedtime.

Cheers,
Mark

Silly Interloper: I concur with your treatment of nowandlater's comments and questions, and appreciate the spirit with which you wrote. I also appreciate your side explanation of the Eucharist and how it relates to the Holy Trinity. You explained that bit in a way that I've never heard before. It has added to my understanding of Catholic doctrine, for which I'm thankful. (I'm a Christian...Protestant, non-denominational. As such, I don't hold with the concept of transubstantiation. However, I certainly appreciate the significance it holds for my Catholic brethren.)

Mike Bennion and Rotorhead: Thank you for your answers to my questions. You've both added to my knowledge and understanding of Mormon doctrine, for which I'm thankful.

Now to anyone reading this who doesn't understand how Orthodox Christians can believe in the Trinity (that is, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. One God - three personages.). I'm sure most have heard the analogy to H2O. H2O exists in 3 distinct states: liquid (water), solid (ice), and gas/vapor (steam). Which is H2O? They all are. One substance - three states.

I prefer this analogy: I'm a mother, I'm a daughter, I'm a therapist.

As a mother, I care for my children, love them, teach them, provide for them, feed them, clothe them, discipline them, comfort them, protect them, nurture them.

As a daughter, I love my parents, honor them, seek their counsel, obey them, reflect their values in the way I live and raise my own kids, pattern my marriage after theirs (some of it, anyway! lol), etc.

As a therapist, I listen to my patients, counsel them, guide them, instruct them, correct them, comfort them.

I am a mother. I am a daughter. I am a therapist. Which is me? I am all of these, separately and together. I have distinct roles to play in different arenas of life, with a distinct purpose for each. But none can be separated from that which is essentially me. Being a mother doesn't take away from the fact that I'm a therapist. Being a therapist doesn't take away from the fact that I'm a daughter. I am each...and all. One person - three roles.

Hope this helps.

This discussion is so very frustrating.

BOTTOM LINE... A Christian is anyone that believes in JESUS CHRIST as the SON of GOD and who's Sacrifice allows our sins to be forgiven...Period! Everything else is what divides us in our various Christian Organizations. Since the "LDS" or "Morman" faith believe's in the above listed definition...they ARE CHRISTIANS.

Granted, you may argue over which "CHRISTIAN" organization is "RIGHT" or has the most "RIGHT" but that is an argument that only GOD will reveal upon our meeting Him.

Let us stop fighting and start coming together to overcome those religions that would kill us for our announcing that we are Christians!

Respectfully Submitted,
Chris Delany

Let's see...satan and Jesus are brothers...as God is we can become...as we are God once was...hmmmn...I just can't seem to find that anywhere in the Bible...can't seem to find those heretical teachings anywhere except in the disturbed mind of Joseph Smith and then regurgetated by all those "prophets" after him. Christian? I don't think so...

These words of Christ Jesus says that we are to be one with Him. JUST LIKE is He is one with the Father. Because of Jesus the gulf between man and God can be bridged. If we are true to that unity, we become like God and Jesus in total unity. So the Mormon view IS expressly Biblical. Deny that? Then deny the words of Christ.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
John 17: 11-23
11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be bone, as we are.
12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is blost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.
14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
16 They are not of the aworld, even as I am not of the world.
17 Sanctify them through thy btruth: thy word is truth.
18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, bFather, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

JESUS JESUS THE CHRIST IS PREEXISTENT AND UNCREATED:

Robert P. Lightner wrote in his book EVANGELICAL THEOLOGY concerning the preexistence of Jesus the Christ,

Quote.
........."that the birth of the Son of God did not signal his beginning. He always existed as God's Son before He was born of Mary. He always was as eternal as God himself. When evangelicals refer to the preexistence of Christ, They mean He existed eternally as the second person of the Godhead.

The claim for Christ's pre‑existence is based on ample biblical upport. Every support for the Savior's Deity is also support for his eternal pre‑existence. The Doctrine of the Trinity provides a strong support for the timeless existence of Christ. The statements, that he is God, and always was, stand or fall together.

Names and titles of Christ used in the Old Testament lend strong support for His eternal preexistence. Jesus the Christ is as eternal as the god whose names were assigned to him in his preincarnate state. For example, Christ is called, "Jehovah our righteousness" (Jer. 23:5‑6; 1 Cor 1:30).

Therefore the Son is as eternal as God Himself. Hundreds of years before Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit, Isaiah called the Son yet unborn "the mighty God, the everlasting Father" ( Isa. 9:6).
End Quote.

http://moelder.freeservers.com/TheHolyTrinityandTheDeityofJesusTheChrist.html

Nowandlater....Seriously, I think you mad your point that LDS hymns sing of Christ and Praise Him as the Son of God, your additions are tedious!

OHHH and why hasn't an "orthodox" Christian explained what happens to us mere mortals upon our death and resurrection (which I imagine orthodox Christians still believe in)..what is the ressurection? do we become part of the one substance of God? If not, then how can one use to support the trinity the scriptures that Christ and the Father are one, when Christ says that man may become one with Him as He is one with the Father?

Stuart,

A good way to evaluate what one worships is to examine their songs of praise. I am just providing the ample proof. Please ignore them if you wish.

Let's compare apples to apples. From the same time period.

1841: Baptists Argue that Slavery is Biblical
Southern delegates to the Triennial Convention of the American Baptist Foreign Mission Board "protested the abolitionist agitation and argued that, while slavery was a calamity and a great evil, it was not a sin according to the Bible." [J.G. Melton, The Encyclopedia of American Religions, Volume I, Triumph Books, (1991), Volume II, Page 5.]

1866: Catholic Church Responds to Thirteenth Amendment
Response says slavery is not contrary to the natural and divine law. "Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons. It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given. The purchaser should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue or Catholic faith of the slave." (Instruction 20, June 1866)

1833: Free People of Color Editorial Published
W.W. Phelps publishes a controversial editorial in the Evening and Morning Star titled "Free People of Color." It outlines procedures for the migration of free blacks to Missouri.

Missouri is a slave state that beat any free black crossing into or out of Missouri with 10 lashes on his or her bare back. Needless to say the Missourians react very negatively to the editorial and reprint part of it in the St. Louis newspapers. This is a spark that leads to much violence against the Mormons and is one of the factors leading to the Mormons eventual expulsion from the state.

Well written Ben.

Could I get some clarification? Is there ONE substance that is called God? And there are 3 separate portions of that ONE substance that are different? How can Christ be sitting on the "right hand"of the Father if He is the same substance? Strange that you admit that Christ ascended with a physical body, because according to the Trinity, God (which includes the Jesus portion) is spirit w/o body, parts or passions, correct? How do you coicide the two?

I think the bapstim and the Commission demonstrates that they ae three spearate beings!!! First, the location of the three were different? Second if the trinity is true, couldn't one just baptize in God's name?

I think you might be misguided on the LDS doctrine of salvation. First, man is SAVED only by the grace and actions of Jesus Christ. Man can not add one bit to his salvation. Salvation is the resurrection and the forgiveness of sins, which was and may only be accomplished through the Savior who submitted to His Father's Will and not His own.

However, if you read 1 Cor. 15, you will see that there are varying levels of heaven. Another area is when Christ says there are many mansions. The highest is compared to the Sun, which has also been used in the Bible to describe the presence of the Father. LDS doctrine (D&C 76) states that that highest level is eternal life. In order attain that level we must follow Chirst who did state "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is Perfect." That is why Christ taught that we must BELIEVE AND FOLLOW him. Look at the parable of the rich man, who beleived but was unwilling to follow the Savior. Also, one demonstrates their faith through action: Obeying commandments, such as baptism, etc. Ex: What happened to the followers who falsified their tithe to Peter? They beleived enough to pay a portion, but they were not obedient.

Ben, I will never tire in trying to follow the commandments of my Savior and Father. I am not yet perfect, that is why I need to depend on my Savior, who was perfect!

Why did God get rid of temples? Baptism for the dead? Tithing? The priesthood? Prophets and Apsotles? Revelation?

Nice job nowandlater...maybe orthodox Christians wil actualyl take a moment to learn their own doctrines before Casting the first stone!!

Eric...what you may not have known...was the Joseph Smith ran for President in 1844 on the platform of freeing the slaves, how does that coincide with orthodox christian view that Jospeh Smith wrote the BOM that you cite from?

Actually, if you read the OT, you will find stuff very similar. Sadly, like many things the Bible is not as clear as the BOM. Maybe it was the hundreds of years of revision and translations. If you don't think there are some mistakes in the BIBLE, then explain how God, being perfect and all knowing, can repent!!?

Point number one. Racism has plagued humanity for all ages since from the beginning of time.

Number two, the Bible has numerous references of racism. It was a product of the time not a product of God. Just one example, is where Noah says that children of Ham will be slaves.

Number three, the reference you mentioned from the Book of Mormon is commentary from the writer. He is not quoting words verbatim from the Lord which he does later in the chapter.

Number four, racism was not only present in the Old World, it was present in Ancient America as well. This does not shock us, but rather it is proof that the Book of Mormon is a product of ancient times.

Number five, within the same Book of Mormon you have this:

2 Nephi 26:12 ... he inviteth them ball to ccome unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, ebond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

Correction >>>> Huge typo

Number two, the Bible has numerous references of racism. It was a product of the time not JUST a product of God. Just one example, is where Noah says that children of Ham will be slaves.

Yadda yadda,

This is so boring and so unnecessary, the jockeying back and forth between those who firmly believe that they are right and others are wrong.

I will say this: for the Mormons to be considered Christian they must hold to Christian beliefs and doctrines. There is no way around it anymore than one could claim to be Buddhist yet not believe in Buddhist doctrines.

There may be those in Mormon churches who have received the Lord Jesus Christ into their life, there may be but that doesn't change the fact that the Mormon church has been shown to believe in nonChristian doctrines and books. Polygamy also places the Mormon church in disrepute and rightly so. Just because Jacob had two wives doesn't mean he was right to do so.

Jacob didn't trust in GOD sufficiently and didn't adhere to having one wife. Laban tricked him but still Jacob should have acted righteously but he didn't.

I say to those who are in the Mormon church, before you declare yourselves to be Christians you should darn well make sure that you know what being a Christian means. It isn't attending church and thinking that Jesus is a wonderful man and teacher; it is accepting that the Lord Jesus is both Man and GOD, that there is a triune aspect to GOD which means there is GOD, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

You may object to Catholic doctrines such as papal infallibilty, by all means, I too agree that the pope is not infallible but ultimately the Catholic Church is closer to the truth than the Mormon church (no, I am not a Catholic).

What is important is knowing the Lord, accepting that you are a sinner in need of redemption and salvation (everybody is a sinner regardless of how good they have been or have tried to be) and asking Jesus to come into your life and to change you into the person GOD wants you to become.

What does GOD want you to become? A fully moral being, someone who never lies, never hates, never does wrong and is always loving. Impossible? Yes, but possible by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and yet none of us will be perfected this side of Heaven.

"[I]f you believe that the Book of Mormon is a true revelation, then you have to agree with this:

'For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.' - 2 Nephi 5:21

You will never find anything like that in the Bible."

========================

No. You'll find worse. Consider Numbers 34:7-18:

7And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.

8And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.

9And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.

10And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.

11And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.

12And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.

13And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.

14And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.

15And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

16Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.

17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

NOW THAT'S SOME PRETTY COLD STUFF.

As for the blatant racism of 2 Nephi 5:21, the simplest explanation for any racist statement is that the person making the statement was racist.

In fact, there's much evidence that the Nephites of the Book of Mormon struggled with racism and an attitude of superiority. Their mythology - that God had darkened the skins of the Lamanites because the Lamanites were so evil - was both ignorant and self-serving. On the other hand, as the Nephites had a long memory of being attacked by the Lamanites, it was a story that remained very popular among the Nephites.

Jacob, the younger brother of Nephi, used this prejudice to argue that the Nephites were not as superior as they thought:

5 Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father—that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them.
6 And now, this commandment they observe to keep; wherefore, because of this observance, in keeping this commandment, the Lord God will not destroy them, but will be merciful unto them; and one day they shall become a blessed people.
7 Behold, their husbands love their wives, and their wives love their husbands; and their husbands and their wives love their children; and their unbelief and their hatred towards you is because of the iniquity of their fathers; wherefore, how much better are you than they, in the sight of your great Creator?
8 O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.
9 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers.
(Jacob 3: 5-9)

Now honestly, can you find such metaphysical abstractions anywhere in the pages of the Bible? (And how can you square it with such simple and clear statements as "My Father is greater than I" in John 14:28, or Stephen seeing Christ on the right hand of the Father in Acts 7:56?) This is the work of a committee of philosophers, not revelation to apostles and prophets. But this standard, crafted amid heated debate centuries after the time of Christ, is held up as a definitive statement of Christian faith by some of the same people who claim that the Bible alone is sufficient for salvation, and that no one can add to scripture. If the Bible is sufficient, we don't need the creeds. And if we open the door to the need for further revelation and doctrine beyond those of the Bible, then we need to look for prophets from God, not contentious committees steeped in Hellenistic thought. And that's why it's so great to have the restored Church of Jesus Christ on the earth again - complete with a restored and pure knowledge of the nature of God.

In my opinion, there is clear evidence that today's "mainstream" view of God's nature is closer to the teachings of ancient non-Christian philosophers than it is to the understanding of the early Jews and Christians of Bible times. A good analysis of this issue comes from Barry Bickmore (FARMS Review of Books, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2000, pp. 275-301, with the following excerpt taken from pp. 278-280):

Finally, here is an interesting passage, including some information from early Christianity, from Alonzo Gaskill's article, "Maximus Nothus Decretum: A Look at the Recent Catholic Declaration regarding Latter-day Saint Baptisms," FARMS Review of Books, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2001, pp. 175-196):

Roman Catholic scholars (including the church's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) are not ignorant of the history behind the development of trinitarian theology or the patristic proclamations acknowledging the distinct individuality of the Father and Son. Rather, they traditionally view the evolution of the church's doctrine of God as a positive move toward a more philosophical and sophisticated model. In the subordinationist spirit of John 14:28 (see Matthew 19:16-17;24:36; Mark 13:32; and John 17:21), the Catholic saint Justin Martyr indicates that Jesus simply carries "into execution" the Father's "counsel," publishing "to men the commands of the Father and Maker of all things."[22] Justin argues further:

I shall attempt to persuade you . . . that there is . . . another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things - above whom there is no other God - wishes to announce to them. . . . He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things, - numerically, I mean, not (distinct) in will. For I affirm that He has never at any time done anything which He who made the world - above whom there is no other God - has not wished Him both to do and to engage Himself with. . . . He who is called God and appeared to the patriarchs is called both Angel and Lord, in order that from this you may understand Him to be minister to the Father of all things.[23]

Similarly, Irenaeus, who is considered by Catholics to be at the "orthodox center" in his teachings,[24] also indicates that the Father is superior to the Son.[25] One contemporary scholar declares that until about the year a.d. 300 "every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism."[26] [emphasis mine] Indeed, one scholar notes that "subordinationism was pre-Nicene orthodoxy."[27]

While Catholics accept fathers such as Justin, Irenaeus, and others who explicitly tended toward a subordinationist view of the Godhead, they also accept the baptisms of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which is also clearly subordinationistic in its pneumatology. . . . How, therefore, the Catholic magisterium can deny the validity of Latter-day Saint baptisms because of subordinationistic issues is mind-boggling.