I went here hoping to see LDS threads, but found none.
Wazzup?
: John T Tue Sep 07, 2010 - 17:46:28
I went here hoping to see LDS threads, but found none.
Wazzup?
Hi and welcome John T. The Mormon or LDS forum is rather new and has not drawn posters at this point. You ask if you're lost and I would think that depends upon your adherence to God's word.
Please feel free to post your message but realize that there will be responses probably countering your understanding of scripture. I look forward to discussion with you and it's good to have you in Jesus' name.
Thanks for the information.
Would you suggest that I take a hot topic from CARM or Walter Martin, and ask it here to populate the thread?
BTW Will you consider making any exceptions to the belief in supporting the Nicene Creed for Mormons to be able to post here, only?
Dear John T, I'm not sure the direction your posts will take so I would just post them on the Mormon Forum to begin and if considered more prosperous to general discussion or theology we can move it there and leave a "Moved to" notice on the previous forum. Thanks.
: John T Tue Sep 07, 2010 - 17:46:28
I went here hoping to see LDS threads, but found none.
Wazzup?
Hi , and I have seen some LDS sites and yes you are lost in this forum , sorry , because I would like to see how you can handle the bible . dan p
Hi John. When some different forums were set up as not traditional theology, we have yet to have any Mormons post on it.
: dan p Wed Oct 06, 2010 - 18:22:31
: John T Tue Sep 07, 2010 - 17:46:28
I went here hoping to see LDS threads, but found none.
Wazzup?
Hi , and I have seen some LDS sites and yes you are lost in this forum , sorry , because I would like to see how you can handle the bible . dan p
Actually, I was hoping to debate some of the LDS people. I am a grace-saved, Bible believing Christian. Surely that is something that the LDS people are not.
Actually, I was hoping to debate some of the LDS people. I am a grace-saved, Bible believing Christian. Surely that is something that the LDS people are not.
Hi, John. I'm not much for debate, but answering sincere inquiries is something I do very well, though I'm not sure into how much detail I can go without violating terms of service. But for people curious about beliefs, I've got no problem giving factual statements regarding practices and policy.
On a bit of a side note, I'm not sure I can agree with the assertion that LDS are not Bible believing Christians, but I guess it depends on your own personal interpretation.
Not really.
You need to first define "Christian" and then "Bible believing".
I define the word "Christian" as it was first used in Antioch, and later refined (325) in the Nicene Creed.
I define Bible-believing" as believing in the 66 books comprising the Old and New Testaments as the full and complete revelation of God's word.
: John T Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 13:27:04
Not really.
You need to first define "Christian" and then "Bible believing".
I define the word "Christian" as it was first used in Antioch, and later refined (325) in the Nicene Creed.
I define Bible-believing" as believing in the 66 books comprising the Old and New Testaments as the full and complete revelation of God's word.
Certainly a definition of Christian is important, and I think my definition would be more inclusive than your. Truth is, I don't know if it's my place to try to determine how "Christian" someone is. It is impossible for me to know the contents of their heart, and impossible for me to judge their standing before Christ. I've known people professing to be Christians but acted anything but. Likewise, I've known atheists who were some of the most spiritual people I've ever met. For me, the only requisite for being considered Christian is a belief in Christ; that is the only empirical fact available to us. Any other definition comes from the interpretations of Man.
And I may be mistaken, but I don't believe anywhere in the Bible that it says one must accept the 66 books found within and nothing else. To say someone is not a Bible believing Christian when they wholeheartedly accept the Holy Bible as scripture is disingenuous at best. Fact is, we do believe in all sixty-six books, so we are most definitely Bible believing. I don't think accepting other scriptures means we no longer accept the Bible.
: the_last_gunslinger Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 14:00:19Fact is, we do believe in all sixty-six books, so we are most definitely Bible believing. I don't think accepting other scriptures means we no longer accept the Bible.
You may be sincere in this; however, I live in Utah...and this is not what is preached by Mormans here. The book of Morman is what they believe. The Bible is only a good book...with some good thoughts.
: Thankfulldad Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 14:06:34
: the_last_gunslinger Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 14:00:19Fact is, we do believe in all sixty-six books, so we are most definitely Bible believing. I don't think accepting other scriptures means we no longer accept the Bible.
You may be sincere in this; however, I live in Utah...and this is not what is preached by Mormans here. The book of Morman is what they believe. The Bible is only a good book...with some good thoughts.
Well, let me just state that if this assertion is correct, then the Mormons there are in error. the Holy Bible is considered one of our standard works, and is official canon. The eight Article of Faith reads as such:
"
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."
We clearly believe in the Bible and accept it as God's word.
: the_last_gunslinger Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 14:10:59
: Thankfulldad Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 14:06:34
: the_last_gunslinger Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 14:00:19Fact is, we do believe in all sixty-six books, so we are most definitely Bible believing. I don't think accepting other scriptures means we no longer accept the Bible.
You may be sincere in this; however, I live in Utah...and this is not what is preached by Mormons here. The book of Mormon is what they believe. The Bible is only a good book...with some good thoughts.
Well, let me just state that if this assertion is correct, then the Mormons there are in error. the Holy Bible is considered one of our standard works, and is official canon. The eight Article of Faith reads as such:
"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."
We clearly believe in the Bible and accept it as God's word.
And only the King James Version...which can be tough to translate; which, if you translate differently then Your Church Apostles...look out because you are wrong. Their way or the highway...
Friend...please find a good Bible Church; the LDS...are not the way to Heaven (even if you have a few to choose from)...
Gunslinger, welcome to the forum! I am curious about something that someone told me and whether it is true.
According to official LDS doctrine, does the Church regard the Bible as inerrant? I was told that, out of the four books that LDS use, that the Bible is the only one that is not considered inerrant. Is this true?
And only the King James Version...which can be tough to translate; which, if you translate differently then Your Church Apostles...look out because you are wrong. Their way or the highway...
Friend...please find a good Bible Church; the LDS...are not the way to Heaven (even if you have a few to choose from)...
And I appreciate your concern, I really do. I understand that most people don't contend against the LDS church out of some misplaced hatred (though some probably do). Most are genuinely concerned with the spiritual wellbeing of their neighbor. Their evangelizing efforts have at their heart, the same goal as our own, that is, to bring people closer to Christ, and I respect any such efforts done in sincerity.
Yes, we do use the King James version, which personally is my favorite version out there. I'm not sure the reasoning, only that it creates a sense of uniformity. Our scriptural passages have been memorized and used in lectures and sermons for our entire history. Our church is highly standardized to ensure that we are firmly united, and to lessen the chances of misinterpretation. Our structure is one of the things that really draws me to the church, and I think having a unified version of the Bible, respected by most Christians only enhances this.
I understand the concept of being wary of apostles interpreting scripture, but try imagining it from our perspective. We believe the current apostles hold the same position in the church that Peter, James, John and Paul did. They are considered special witnesses of Christ. If you lived during the 1st century and one of these apostles instructed you on the meaning of a particular verse or doctrine, would you not listen to what he has to say? We trust that they are led by the Holy Spirit, and we are given the opportunity to pray for ourselves and gain a testimony of their teachings, to see whether they are of God or not. I also believe that scriptures can only be interpreted one way in most instances. And if our apostles really are called of God (not asking you to believe this, but for the sake of argument) then it would be in my best interest to listen as they speak for God, if moved by the Holy Spirit.
: the_last_gunslinger Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 14:35:27
And only the King James Version...which can be tough to translate; which, if you translate differently then Your Church Apostles...look out because you are wrong. Their way or the highway...
Friend...please find a good Bible Church; the LDS...are not the way to Heaven (even if you have a few to choose from)...
And I appreciate your concern, I really do. I understand that most people don't contend against the LDS church out of some misplaced hatred (though some probably do). Most are genuinely concerned with the spiritual wellbeing of their neighbor. Their evangelizing efforts have at their heart, the same goal as our own, that is, to bring people closer to Christ, and I respect any such efforts done in sincerity.
Yes, we do use the King James version, which personally is my favorite version out there. I'm not sure the reasoning, only that it creates a sense of uniformity. Our scriptural passages have been memorized and used in lectures and sermons for our entire history. Our church is highly standardized to ensure that we are firmly united, and to lessen the chances of misinterpretation. Our structure is one of the things that really draws me to the church, and I think having a unified version of the Bible, respected by most Christians only enhances this.
I understand the concept of being wary of apostles interpreting scripture, but try imagining it from our perspective. We believe the current apostles hold the same position in the church that Peter, James, John and Paul did. They are considered special witnesses of Christ. If you lived during the 1st century and one of these apostles instructed you on the meaning of a particular verse or doctrine, would you not listen to what he has to say? We trust that they are led by the Holy Spirit, and we are given the opportunity to pray for ourselves and gain a testimony of their teachings, to see whether they are of God or not. I also believe that scriptures can only be interpreted one way in most instances. And if our apostles really are called of God (not asking you to believe this, but for the sake of argument) then it would be in my best interest to listen as they speak for God, if moved by the Holy Spirit.
Then just stick to the Bible...focus all your energy there; and see how it differs from the LDS belief system.
: Catholica Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 14:27:19
Gunslinger, welcome to the forum! I am curious about something that someone told me and whether it is true.
According to official LDS doctrine, does the Church regard the Bible as inerrant? I was told that, out of the four books that LDS use, that the Bible is the only one that is not considered inerrant. Is this true?
Hi, I almost didn't see your post. I'd be glad to answer.
We don't hold the Bible to be inerrant like most Christians do, though inerrancy means different things with us. We do believe that some parts of the Bible may have been altered or changed, rather by careless translation or by wicked men hoping to imbue that sacred text with their own conception of what one should believe. We also believe that, due to some misunderstanding of certain biblical text, errancy comes about. So even if it is literally written accurate, misinterpretation can mar its true meaning. That's not to say we don't believe the Bible to be the word of God, just that we believe it may be incomplete, although it's mostly right, enough so that we place a tremendous amount of faith in it.
As for the second part of the question, I'm not sure if there's anything official that answers that, but it's commonly held that any of them may contain some error. In regard to The Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith said it was the "most correct book," not that it was perfect. It stands to reason that the Book of Mormon (again, for the sake of argument) is true, that it would be more complete since it was translated only once, as opposed to hundreds of times. But the chance for error is still prevalent, in fact, the Book of Mormon has had some minor edition, correcting primarily grammatical mistakes and clarifying passages that were ambiguous. Same goes for the other books, I suppose.
: the_last_gunslinger Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 14:45:48
: Catholica Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 14:27:19
Gunslinger, welcome to the forum! I am curious about something that someone told me and whether it is true.
According to official LDS doctrine, does the Church regard the Bible as inerrant? I was told that, out of the four books that LDS use, that the Bible is the only one that is not considered inerrant. Is this true?
Hi, I almost didn't see your post. I'd be glad to answer.
We don't hold the Bible to be inerrant like most Christians do, though inerrancy means different things with us. We do believe that some parts of the Bible may have been altered or changed, rather by careless translation or by wicked men hoping to imbue that sacred text with their own conception of what one should believe. We also believe that, due to some misunderstanding of certain biblical text, errancy comes about. So even if it is literally written accurate, misinterpretation can mar its true meaning. That's not to say we don't believe the Bible to be the word of God, just that we believe it may be incomplete, although it's mostly right, enough so that we place a tremendous amount of faith in it.
As for the second part of the question, I'm not sure if there's anything official that answers that, but it's commonly held that any of them may contain some error. In regard to The Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith said it was the "most correct book," not that it was perfect. It stands to reason that the Book of Mormon (again, for the sake of argument) is true, that it would be more complete since it was translated only once, as opposed to hundreds of times. But the chance for error is still prevalent, in fact, the Book of Mormon has had some minor edition, correcting primarily grammatical mistakes and clarifying passages that were ambiguous. Same goes for the other books, I suppose.
Thanks for the answer!
Out of curiosity, do you know, or can you point me to a reference, as to which verses of the Bible the LDS Church states contain error?
Then just stick to the Bible...focus all your energy there; and see how it differs from the LDS belief system.
I think this is what a lot of people don't understand about members of the church. It's not like we completely ignored the Bible when we decided to join. When my family converted back in 1997, my Mom, who at the time was a Free Methodist, had some serious reservations about the LDS faith and she spent endless nights searching the Bible, trying to prove it wrong. Instead, just the opposite happened. See, we don't believe the Bible contradicts our teachings, otherwise I doubt we'd have very many members at all.
: the_last_gunslinger Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 14:51:39
Then just stick to the Bible...focus all your energy there; and see how it differs from the LDS belief system.
I think this is what a lot of people don't understand about members of the church. It's not like we completely ignored the Bible when we decided to join. When my family converted back in 1997, my Mom, who at the time was a Free Methodist, had some serious reservations about the LDS faith and she spent endless nights searching the Bible, trying to prove it wrong. Instead, just the opposite happened. See, we don't believe the Bible contradicts our teachings, otherwise I doubt we'd have very many members at all.
I belong to Grace Community Bible Church in Draper, Utah; there, we have many ex-mormans that have breathed a sign of relief that Jesus paid the price for their sins and their salvation is sucured by the Blood of Jesus...that Jesus finished the work there.
Peace...through Jesus, His blood, THE CROSS...and so on...
What is your view of the Cross of Jesus?
Thanks for the answer!
Out of curiosity, do you know, or can you point me to a reference, as to which verses of the Bible the LDS Church states contain error?
This is kind of a hard thing to support, because we believe a majority of the error lies in subtraction from the book, rather than addition. So it's pretty hard to point out error in lost passages. For instance, take Mathew 16:19 which reads:
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.We believe the true meaning of this passage is lost, and that it is a reference of the sealing power of the Priesthood, the power to bind families together, so that they may be bound here and in heaven.
Similarly Hebrews 7:3
Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. This was in reference to Melchizedek, and the King James Version seems to imply it was he who was without father or mother. We believe that it was not Melchizedek that was without mother or father, without descent, but rather the Priesthood which he held.
There are other obvious examples of error such as the differing accounts of Judas's death, but those kinds of errors are fairly inconsequential and we have received no revelation telling us which account is correct.
What is your view of the Cross of Jesus?
I suppose it's not too dissimilar to your own view. We believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that he lived a sinless life, carried out the atonement, was crucified and took upon him the sins of the world. As such, he overcame death, and allowing for the salvation of all men. Through his sacrifice, by the grace of God, all men will overcome physical death and be resurected.
: the_last_gunslinger Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 15:26:13
What is your view of the Cross of Jesus?
I suppose it's not too dissimilar to your own view. We believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that he lived a sinless life, carried out the atonement, was crucified and took upon him the sins of the world. As such, he overcame death, and allowing for the salvation of all men. Through his sacrifice, by the grace of God, all men will overcome physical death and be resurected.
Was satan the son of God also?
Was God once like you and I?
Was satan the son of God also?
Was God once like you and I?
In answer to your first question, according to our beliefs, yes. Though I don't see how it's that different from traditional Christianity, only we believe in a more literal interpretation of "children of God." Most Christians believe that the angels were created by God, and Satan was once an angel. The mechanics of how he came to be, or how he was created, in my mind, is a semantics issue.
As for your second one, it's a difficult theological question, and I'm not sure I'm equipped to answer this, not without completely botching our official stance. I think that it might be possible for God to have once been like us, while still being eternal, as long as we stretch the definition of eternal a little. I guess the safest answer I can give is that we don't know. It's one of those theological mysteries that us as mortals can't wrap our minds around, much like your belief in the Trinity.
: the_last_gunslinger Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 15:36:16
Was satan the son of God also?
Was God once like you and I?
In answer to your first question, according to our beliefs, yes. Though I don't see how it's that different from traditional Christianity, only we believe in a more literal interpretation of "children of God." Most Christians believe that the angels were created by God, and Satan was once an angel. The mechanics of how he came to be, or how he was created, in my mind, is a semantics issue.
As for your second one, it's a difficult theological question, and I'm not sure I'm equipped to answer this, not without completely botching our official stance. I think that it might be possible for God to have once been like us, while still being eternal, as long as we stretch the definition of eternal a little. I guess the safest answer I can give is that we don't know. It's one of those theological mysteries that us as mortals can't wrap our minds around, much like your belief in the Trinity.
Man...get back to your Bible ::smile::
Hi Gunslinger, and thanks for answering our questions.
In the introduction of my "Book of Mormon," the following statement is made.
The Book of Mormon is a volume of the holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God's dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fullness of the everlasting gospel.
Question - if one is the fullness and don't say what the other says, how can they both be the fullness..
Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Galatians 1:9 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.
2 Nephi 29:9-10 . . Because I have spoken one word, ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another: for my work is not yet finished. . - (10) Wherefore, because that ye have a bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.
In Colossians 1.25-26, Paul states "Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; 26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:"
The word "fulfill" according to the Strongs concordance is as follows -
4137 plhrow pleroo play-ro'-o
from 4134; TDNT-6:286,867; v
AV-fulfil 51, fill 19, be full 7, complete 2, end 2, misc 9; 90
: Thankfulldad Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 15:42:59
: the_last_gunslinger Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 15:36:16
Was satan the son of God also?
Was God once like you and I?
In answer to your first question, according to our beliefs, yes. Though I don't see how it's that different from traditional Christianity, only we believe in a more literal interpretation of "children of God." Most Christians believe that the angels were created by God, and Satan was once an angel. The mechanics of how he came to be, or how he was created, in my mind, is a semantics issue.
As for your second one, it's a difficult theological question, and I'm not sure I'm equipped to answer this, not without completely botching our official stance. I think that it might be possible for God to have once been like us, while still being eternal, as long as we stretch the definition of eternal a little. I guess the safest answer I can give is that we don't know. It's one of those theological mysteries that us as mortals can't wrap our minds around, much like your belief in the Trinity.
Man...get back to your Bible ::smile::
Yes gunslinger
After that last answer please....get back to your Bible
Yes gunslinger
After that last answer please....get back to your Bible
I'm not sure which part of my response brought on this comment. Isn't it true that Mainstream Christians believe Satan was created by God?
As for the other statement, I claimed ignorance on the topic. It's something that was taught by Joseph Smith, but I haven't studied it enough to give a thorough answer.
As for larry2's post, I'll get to that as soon as I can. Right now I'm also working on a final essay for a Literary Theory class, and to answer your question, it'll probably take a little time to compose, especially with this stupid essay I've got to finish tonight.
And I'm always happy to answer honest inquiries, so long as they are conducted with respect.
: the_last_gunslinger Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 16:35:32
Yes gunslinger
After that last answer please....get back to your Bible
I'm not sure which part of my response brought on this comment. Isn't it true that Mainstream Christians believe Satan was created by God?
It doesn't take much around this forum to get people to spout vitrol.
I don't like using the term "Mainstream Christians" because its divisive and really I'm not sure that most people would say that I fit that term. So I will speak for the Catholic Church, and perhaps a Mainstream Protestant can confirm what they believe.
We believe that Jesus was
not created by God, but rather existed
as God from the beginning, that is, Jesus always was, is, and always will be divine. We believe that at the incarnation, Jesus, who was "the Word", the second person of the one Trinitarian God, became flesh, became man.
We believe Satan was created by God an angelic being who is not divine nor human, as were all angels. They do not share the divine intellect or divine nature, but are completely separate, unique beings. We believe that for an instant God gave all the angels a choice over whether to serve him for eternity. Satan and a third of the angels in heaven chose not to serve God, and they were cast out of heaven and are now properly called demons, with Satan as their prince.
So the difference between Jesus and Satan are that:
Jesus
is God,
was not created,
was, is, and always will be divine, and
became incarnate.
Satan
is not God,
was created,
never was, is not, and never will be divine, and
never became incarnate.
We believe Satan was created by God an angelic being who is not divine nor human, as were all angels. They do not share the divine intellect or divine nature, but are completely separate, unique beings. We believe that for an instant God gave all the angels a choice over whether to serve him for eternity. Satan and a third of the angels in heaven chose not to serve God, and they were cast out of heaven and are now properly called demons, with Satan as their prince.
Yes, I was pretty sure this was the standard view amongst non-Mormon Christians. I still believe that the two sides are essentially arguing semantics, however. Is Satan the son of God also? It depends on how one defines "son." As related to humans, a son is 'created' by a mother and a father. In regards to God, how he created his angels is anyone's guess; some have erroneously claimed that the LDS church teaches that God had sex with a heavenly mother, who is eternally pregnant, but to my knowledge, nowhere is it written of how they created their spirit children. I don't believe it works the same way as it does on earth. And if it's a matter of merely creating them, then our beliefs are almost identical. Now when we're talking about Christ's relationship to the Father, I can see some pretty clear diversions, but the question was whether or not Satan was a son of God, and again, it depends on how you define "son."
Hi, larry2, sorry for my delayed response. I'll try tackling your question to the best of my abilities.
In the introduction of my "Book of Mormon," the following statement is made.
The Book of Mormon is a volume of the holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God's dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fullness of the everlasting gospel.
Question - if one is the fullness and don't say what the other says, how can they both be the fullness..
This is a very good question, and in order to understand the answer, we must first define what the "gospel" is compared to the "theology" that accompanies it. The specific doctrines and practices are only offshoots of the actual gospel, and it is important to note that the Book of Mormon does not claim to contain every single point of doctrine. Now if you would be so inclined to allow me to quote from the Book of Mormon a rather good description of what the "gospel" is:
Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.
And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—
And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.
And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world.
And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father.
And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men. And for this cause he fulfilleth the words which he hath given, and he lieth not, but fulfilleth all his words.
And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end. -3 Nephi 27:13-19
Here lies the true gospel of Jesus Christ, that he is the Son of God, sent to do the Father's will, that he took upon him the sins of the world that whoever believes in him and endures to the end shall have everlasting life, that the true followers will be given the gift of the Holy Ghost, and that by the power of the atonement, all may be made clean so that the faithful and repentant may gain entry into heaven. That's the gospel, and both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach these things. The gospel then is that Christ atoned for our sins, and both of these books contain this message in its fullness.
Thanks Gunslinger for your effort in answering this question, but I must ask why you resort to the "Book of Mormon" to explain scripture of the "KJV" if they are both the same?
To me the time line you present as "Enduring to the end" does not apply to present day Christianity. We are saved by grace through faith, it is a gift of God, and not of works, lest any man should boast. Does enduring suggest a work to you? This portion of scripture may not mean the same to you as it does to me, but those that endure to the end of the tribulation will be physically saved from death and enter into the thousand year reign of Christ over the earth which has become known as the millennium.
You said: "Here lies the true gospel of Jesus Christ, that he is the Son of God, sent to do the Father's will, that he took upon him the sins of the world that whoever believes in him and endures to the end shall have everlasting life.
The actual quote of your KJV bible is Matthew 10:22 ". . .he that endureth to the end shall be saved." I'm not sure where you stand on the different applications of the word "Saved," because it does mean different things. For instance we read John 3:16, "John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Do you have everlasting life? 1 John 5:13 "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life . ." Gunslinger, do you believe you now possess eternal life?
You see, the "Book of Mormon" does change this. 2 Nephi 31:20 says "Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, 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 eternal life."
Knowing you have eternal life, and ye shall have eternal life sure are not one and the same thing.
Blessings in Christ Jesus.
Thanks Gunslinger for your effort in answering this question, but I must ask why you resort to the "Book of Mormon" to explain scripture of the "KJV" if they are both the same?
Why did I resort to the Book of Mormon? Simple, really. I had been engaged in a similar debate on another website from a person who wanted to know why the Book of Mormon is lacking many key LDS doctrines if it proclaims the fullness of the gospel. Since it was focused exclusively on the BoM, I quoted from it, and I had those passages handy. I'm not sure, off the top of my head, where I could find them in the Bible.
To me the time line you present as "Enduring to the end" does not apply to present day Christianity. We are saved by grace through faith, it is a gift of God, and not of works, lest any man should boast. Does enduring suggest a work to you? This portion of scripture may not mean the same to you as it does to me, but those that endure to the end of the tribulation will be physically saved from death and enter into the thousand year reign of Christ over the earth which has become known as the millennium.
We also believe that it is by grace that we are saved according to faith, but that faith is incomplete if not accompanied by works. Our works are not done so that we may boast of our accomplishments. We are told in the Bible that if we love Christ, we will keep his commandments. That is the primary reason for works. We most definitely do not believe we can earn our way into heaven. Without Christ's sacrifice, our works mean nothing.
Enduring could be a work, depending on how you define it. Then again, accepting Christ could, by some, be considered a work, since you actually have to do something. But it more accurately means to endure trials. When bad things befall you, put your faith in Christ, do not lose sight of the gospel message because you fall on hard times. Do not forsake the church or God because you are suffering a crisis of faith. If you truly put our faith in God, you will be able to endure any trials that come your way. Failing to endure to the end may imply a complete falling away from God, in which case, salvation may be at stake.
The actual quote of your KJV bible is Matthew 10:22 ". . .he that endureth to the end shall be saved." I'm not sure where you stand on the different applications of the word "Saved," because it does mean different things. For instance we read John 3:16, "John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Do you have everlasting life? 1 John 5:13 "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life . ." Gunslinger, do you believe you now possess eternal life?
This is where things get tricky, as we do have some differing views on salvation and everlasting life. When you speak of being 'saved' that equates to our belief in the highest level of heaven, the Celestial Kingdom, where you will dwell in the presence of both the father and the son. For us, there is a distinction between everlasting life, and exaltation. By virtue of Christ's sacrifice, all will be resurrected and receive a level of glory, in at least one of the degrees of heaven. Exaltation, though, requires a deeper commitment, it requires that one receive the fullness of the gospel, that one be baptized by someone holding proper priesthood authority, that one receive the gift of the Holy Ghost in like manner, that one enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, and that one be faithful, enduring to the end.
I know I have eternal life; what remains to be seen is to what degree of glory I will enter. We all will be judged according to our works written in the Book of Life, and we will then be assigned a kingdom of glory. I've got a long ways to go if I hope to enter into the presence of God, however.
I truly commend you on these questions. They are very good and well thought out. I'm really enjoying the chance to answer them.
Gunslilnger, I'm happy you enjoy discussing biblical concepts, for I have many questions. The following excerpt is taken from a pamphlet I wrote concerning salvation at the following two links which many of my questions will come from, and possibly countering the doctrines of LDS you quote.
Salvation with Security - Part One
http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/theology/salvation-with-security-part-one/msg594337/#msg594337
Salvation with Security - Part Two
http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/theology/salvation-with-security-part-two/msg594338/#msg594338
SALVATION
First - It is provisional. If you accept Jesus as your savior, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9-10) "If you say with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved, (10) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."
Second - When you become saved, it is at this time that you are born again and have overcome the penalty of sin, or become saved from the great white throne judgment and the resulting lake of fire. (Repeating John 5:24), "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." In (Romans 8:1) "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus."
Third - The working out your own salvation referred to in (Philippians 2:12) is learning to overcome the habit of sin in our lives. This is the experiencing part of our salvation and is another step in our growth as a Christian. (2 Peter 1:5-7) tells us to "Add to your faith virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness and charity." To realize this growth in our lives, we must learn to begin counting our old man dead. (Romans 6:6) "Knowing this, that our old man (The Adamic nature) is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
: the_last_gunslinger Thu Dec 08, 2011 - 15:43:20
We believe Satan was created by God an angelic being who is not divine nor human, as were all angels. They do not share the divine intellect or divine nature, but are completely separate, unique beings. We believe that for an instant God gave all the angels a choice over whether to serve him for eternity. Satan and a third of the angels in heaven chose not to serve God, and they were cast out of heaven and are now properly called demons, with Satan as their prince.
Yes, I was pretty sure this was the standard view amongst non-Mormon Christians. I still believe that the two sides are essentially arguing semantics, however. Is Satan the son of God also? It depends on how one defines "son." As related to humans, a son is 'created' by a mother and a father. In regards to God, how he created his angels is anyone's guess; some have erroneously claimed that the LDS church teaches that God had sex with a heavenly mother, who is eternally pregnant, but to my knowledge, nowhere is it written of how they created their spirit children. I don't believe it works the same way as it does on earth. And if it's a matter of merely creating them, then our beliefs are almost identical. Now when we're talking about Christ's relationship to the Father, I can see some pretty clear diversions, but the question was whether or not Satan was a son of God, and again, it depends on how you define "son."
Jesus is not even a literal Son but a means by which we can understand His relationship to the Godhead in terms of human understanding
So the actual question is this
Is Satan like Jesus in any way
The answer is no, Satan is a created being and Jesus is not
Using the term son obfuscates the understanding and blurs the delineation between The Godhead and that which has been Created by the Godhead....if that makes any sense
John 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
Colossians 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
There is no comparison whatsoever that can be made between Jesus and Lucifer before he fell and Satan after his rebellion
Jesus is God
Satan is not God or a god
There should be no confusion whatsoever in this matter
Jesus is not even a literal Son but a means by which we can understand His relationship to the Godhead in terms of human understanding
I don't understand this reasoning. If Jesus is literally God, why does he not say that, rather than claiming numerous times that he is the "Son of God?"
So the actual question is this
Is Satan like Jesus in any way
The answer is no, Satan is a created being and Jesus is not
They are nothing alike other than that they both came from God. Claiming that Satan is Christ's spirit brother in no way lowers the status of Christ, nor does it enhance Satan's position.
Jesus is God
Satan is not God or a god
There really isn't any argument from my perspective. Jesus is God, in that he exhibits all the traits of God, and is united in perfect truth and harmony and righteousness. We disagree on what this means, of course, as I believe that Jesus actually is the Son of God, and as Christ stated in the Bible, "the father is greater than I."
And you are most correct in your second statement. Satan is not God, or a god. He is a fallen angel, a demon.
I don't understand this reasoning. If Jesus is literally God, why does he not say that, rather than claiming numerous times that he is the "Son of God?"
Because the Gospel is not given according to the wisdom and understanding of men. Therefore trying to understand it on the basic of human wisdom leads one into understanding through one's intellect rather than by The Holy Spirit whom is also God.
And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand
Luke 8:10Even though you see the words, even though you hear the words they cannot be understood without the Holy Spirit.
Ask Him to reveal the scriptures to you, ask Him to show you in the scriptures who Jesus is, ask Him to explain the Trinity to you.
If you are sincere and you really desire to know, the Holy Spirit will open your understanding to see Jesus as He is
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
John 14:9Jesus is not speaking figuratively as you or I would be saying the same thing. However even on a human level that is a powerfully strong statement.
When you have seen me, you have seen my father...think about it!
Powerful, even on a human level, that is an extremely bold thing to say, so bold most of us could not say it referring to our human fathers much less God...
...but here we have The Lord Jesus telling His disciples when they have seen Him they have seen Father.
This means Jesus is all the God any of us will ever see...period!
Here's why
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
For he is The Brilliance of his glory,
The Image of his Being, and upholds all things by the power of his word; and he in his Essential Being has accomplished the purification of our sins, and he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.
Hebrews 1:3You can look it up in another translation, most of the same the same thing but I just happen to like the wording of this one especially for the sake of this discussion.
Jesus is the Image of God
Digressing into human wisdom;through science we know
When people look at you or I what they see is an image...that's all vision really is, light bounces off an object or a person, hits the back of our retina, flips it upside down and wala ....we see an image!
In addition
When people look at you or I, they don't really see you or I because you and I are hidden within the outer tent of flesh called our body.
In other words
There is no way a person can literally see the essence of another person by looking at them. The body is just a tent a, vessel, a vehicle in which we inhabit during our time on earth....an earth suit so to speak.
Jesus is the image of God, the perfect reflection of God, the exact representation, the exact imprint of His nature, whom expresses the very character of God in other words Jesus is perfectly one with God in the way we are perfectly one with ourselves
John 1:3-51In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
I'll just leave you with this and for the rest you'll just have to pray for yourself and ask The Holy Spirit to show you Jesus
And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
Once you recognize Him you will see Him as God, then you will never need to see Him again and will never doubt again that Jesus is God come in the Flesh
Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Now just what did Jesus do to be called the Son of God? He made Him of no reputation and became man, even though He is the One that created everything; including Satan.
Philippians 2:6 Who (Jesus), being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Philippians 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Christ the Creator.
Colossians 1:14-19
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood (Jesus), even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him (Jesus) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
gospel...Larry2...Amen and God Bless you both ::smile::
Because the Gospel is not given according to the wisdom and understanding of men. Therefore trying to understand it on the basic of human wisdom leads one into understanding through one's intellect rather than by The Holy Spirit whom is also God.
So Christ intentionally gave us a misleading riddle, so we would have to pray about the truth? I think that, if the Trinity was correct, it would be much more understandable if Jesus actually told us what it meant. He wouldn't routinely refer to himself as the only begotten son of God, someone who does, not his will, but the will of the father who sent him.
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
Is there any indication that he is not speaking figuratively? To me, this verse doesn't even espouse trinitarianism, it sounds more like modalism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a trinitarian believe that the father and the son are separate personages, yet both are fully God? Maybe it would be easier to discuss if I knew exactly what your definition of what the Trinity is.
Jesus is the Image of God
This may be true, but Genesis also states that God made man in His image. Therefore, human kind is also in the image of God. That does not mean that we are also God.
Jesus is the image of God, the perfect reflection of God, the exact representation, the exact imprint of His nature, whom expresses the very character of God in other words Jesus is perfectly one with God in the way we are perfectly one with ourselves
This actually doesn't sound terribly different from LDS doctrine. I've heard our beliefs described as a "social trinity," and I actually like that term. We believe also that Christ is the perfect reflection of God, fully embodying those qualities needed for godhood. We simply believe that this unity, this oneness is in purpose and will, not one in substance.
Quotes of Gunslinger
We don't hold the Bible to be inerrant like most Christians do, though inerrancy means different things with us. We do believe that some parts of the Bible may have been altered or changed, rather by careless translation or by wicked men hoping to imbue that sacred text with their own conception of what one should believe.
That's not to say we don't believe the Bible to be the word of God, just that we believe it may be incomplete,
In regard to The Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith said it was the "most correct book," not that it was perfect
QUESTION FOR GUNSLINGER
Out of curiosity, do you know, or can you point me to a reference, as to which verses of the Bible the LDS Church states contain error?
This is kind of a hard thing to support, because we believe a majority of the error lies in subtraction from the book, rather than addition. So it's pretty hard to point out error in lost passages. For instance, take Mathew 16:19 which reads:
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven.
We believe the true meaning of this passage is lost, and that it is a reference of the sealing power of the Priesthood, the power to bind families together, so that they may be bound here and in heaven.
There are other obvious examples of error such as the differing accounts of Judas's death, but those kinds of errors are fairly inconsequential and we have received no revelation telling us which account is correct.
[color=green]To Gunslinger from mrhide
I am going to try and sum up the points that I have the most interest in:
1 Mormons and You believe in the Bible but that it has errors that are consequential
2 The Book of Mormon is the "most correct book
I am going to try and sum up the points that I have the most interest in:
1 Mormons and You believe in the Bible but that it has errors that are consequential
2 The Book of Mormon is the "most correct book
Quote of mrhide
It is also interesting that the Mormons believe that the errors in the Bible are from errors that lie in subtractions. It is going to be hard sell to get Christians to believe that God would allow subtractions from His word for so many centuries which would result in so many people being deceived. How does the Mormon religion explain the credentials for those that claim that the bible has subtractions?
Reply by GunslingerLet me make this clear: in their purest forms, as they came from the pen of ancient prophets, the Bible was perfect. But wicked men were in charge of this thing, they altered or subtracted things to fit more with their view. It's not that God allowed them to as much as it is that God gave everyone free will, and it was through this free will that someone could make the decision to alter the Bible.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by credentials, though. If you mean those church leaders that teach the Bible could have errors, their credentials are that they are prophets and apostles of God.
To Gunslinger
This is all going to boil down to what we believe. You can believe that God would allow the "Wicked men altered or subtracted things to fit their view
To Gunslinger
This is all going to boil down to what we believe. You can believe that God would allow the "Wicked men altered or subtracted things to fit their view
Reply by Gunslinger
I'm curious. How do you think God would have prevented wicked men from altering his word? Would he have killed them? Would he have literally written the book itself?
REPLY by Mrhide
It does not matter how I think that God would have prevented wicked men from altering His word. What does matter is that the word of God says. The word of God says He prevented wicked (those that conspired to crucify Jesus) men from altering His truth for the offer of salvation for all mankind (Christ's sacrificial death on the cross)
Reply by Gunslinger
It's not that God is unproductive of His word; it's that the wickedness of Man reached such a point that no one had the authority to act for God.
God does not need the authority of mankind to protect His truth
Reply by Gunslinger
I don't see also how someone's status of an apostle is predicated on whether they claim that parts of the Bible are incorrect. That's an accepted fact by nearly all reputable scholars. One need only look to conflicting accounts of Judas's death or Paul's vision to see that.
The way that Judas died does not change any significant Christian doctrine.
Would you mind specifying exactly which scriptures are incorrect that are SIGNIFICANT in changing significant Christian doctrine such as repentance, forgiveness, salvation, grace, etc?
Reply by Gunslinger
if you believe that God is so protecting of His word that he would not allow it to be altered, wouldn't he also be protective of it enough so that it is plain enough to avoid all the contention and conflicting interpretations of the Bible?
God protects His truths but does not take away mankind's free will to interpret even if those interpretations are conflicting of the Bible. This point of God not takeing away mankind's free will to interpret is demonstrated in scriptures; in Matthew 19:7-8, this scripture reveals that mankind's (Pharisees) free will was not taken away. The Pharisees interpreted the word of God through Moses to justify thier harsh and unloving treatment of wives. Jesus corrected them.
Matthew 19
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
It does not matter how I think that God would have prevented wicked men from altering His word. What does matter is that the word of God says. The word of God says He prevented wicked (those that conspired to crucify Jesus) men from altering His truth for the offer of salvation for all mankind (Christ's sacrificial death on the cross)
And the Bible also says that there was to be a famine of hearing the word of the Lord, when the true gospel message would not be found on earth. This fits nicely into the theory that men changed the Bible.
God does not need the authority of mankind to protect His truth
Clearly. I never said that. But Mankind does need the authority of God to preach his truth. No one on earth had the Priesthood at this time; so no one was authorized to speak for God.
The way that Judas died does not change any significant Christian doctrine.
That's irrelevant. If God was going to ensure his Word (the Bible) was perfect, why would he allow inconsistencies of any kind? It weakens the stance of the Bible. Surely a God that would make sure his Word is unaltered has within his power the ability to ensure complete accuracy, down to the minutest detail.
Would you mind specifying exactly which scriptures are incorrect that are SIGNIFICANT in changing significant Christian doctrine such as repentance, forgiveness, salvation, grace, etc?
As I've stated earlier in this thread, most of the changes are in either subtraction or misunderstanding. Take Christ's words to the Apostle Peter, when he gave unto him the power to bind on earth and in heaven. This is a pretty vague statement, and on reading the Bible alone, no one could accurately come up with the intent behind it. Through modern revelation, however, we know that this is in relation to eternal marriage, that marriages bound on earth by the Priesthood are also bound in heaven.
I need to make this explicitly clear, though. I in no way intend to disparage the Bible. It is of tremendous value and I believe the important parts of salvation are contained therein. But it is still in need of clarifications which can only come from additional scriptures and an open channel with God. If that were not so, all men would reach the same conclusion if they read the same text.
God protects His truths but does not take away mankind's free will to interpret even if those interpretations are conflicting of the Bible. This point of God not takeing away mankind's free will to interpret is demonstrated in scriptures; in Matthew 19:7-8, this scripture reveals that mankind's (Pharisees) free will was not taken away. The Pharisees interpreted the word of God through Moses to justify thier harsh and unloving treatment of wives. Jesus corrected them.
Exactly. God does not take away free will. So if the wicked had risen in power, heck, even if they are merely misguided with good intentions, they have the free will to alter things to fit their vantage point. Remember how the Bible came into being: various texts being collected from all over, being put to a vote and being included in the present canon. The men who made these decisions were not prophets of God, had no God-given authority to make this call. So why is it so surprising that some things may have been lost?
Mrhide QuoteIt does not matter how I think that God would have prevented wicked men from altering His word. What does matter is that the word of God says. The word of God says He prevented wicked (those that conspired to crucify Jesus) men from altering His truth for the offer of salvation for all mankind (Christ's sacrificial death on the cross)
By Gunslinger
And the Bible also says that there was to be a famine of hearing the word of the Lord, when the true gospel message would not be found on earth. This fits nicely into the theory that men changed the Bible
No it does not fit nicely. A famine of hearing the Bible is entirely different than "Changed the Bible