This thread is the continuation of a rather complex conversation I was having with several posters in the politics forum. Since we had gotten so far off topic, however, johnb was gracious enough to break this section off so we could continue our conversation in the appropriate forum.
As the title suggests, this thread is primarily designed to explore the topic of whether the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints qualifies as a Christian religion. Other topics will most likely be discussed as well, and I welcome anyone who seeks questions or has something pertaining to the religion that they would like to know, to ask them here and I will do my best to answer them.
In the previous thread, I had been asked about my spiritual heritage and whether I had always been a Mormon. I said that I was baptized at eleven (in 1997) and that my father was an Atheist and my mother had been a Methodist. The following post was a response to my answer:
Gunslinger, thanks for you openness, and candor. I am not a lifetime Christian. About 30 years ago I became interested. Where I am now is, I only profess Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour. I serve Him, and Him alone.
Raised and baptized Catholic, married, having baptized my children as Catholics. BUT, even at the age of 30, I had never read a Bible, nor had I ever studied a Bible. But I did believe in God. Had no real knowledge of Him, but I did believe in Him.
After life had knock me on the seat of my pants, not so much financially, but emotionally, mentally, and spiritually, when I was about 40 then, I told myself, "son, you need more than what you think you need, or want, something is missing." Small things began to point me in the direction of the Bible; something I may have heard on the radio; or a small pamphlet I read; or at times a few Christian horsemen talking at the racetrack. Let me reveal my environment at the time this began.
I was divorced, I was a professional harness racing trainer, and driver, running a public stable. Had a new girl-friend every week, was drinking moderately, gambled, but never smoked, or did drugs. I had started collecting books about the age of 25. Had collected some 4000 books when I left my wife. Sold 90% of them, all the others, I stored at my friends home. I had no idea what books had not been sold, or what remained.
What was left?
Most of the 400 that remained in my collection were Hebrew, Greek Lexicons, Commentaries on the Bible, English dictionaries, etc. most pre-dated 1850. I found a little humor in the fact, when I sold off my collection, nobody wanted these. A question I often ask myself, "did God have his hand in this?" I can look back 29 years later, and say, "Yes."
My first introduction to religion was the Jehovah Witnesses. The reason is, my whole immediate family had gone from Catholic to Jehovah Witnesses. Let me brush past this: I never became one. Why? I am an inquisitive person, always asking questions.
I had considered joining them, but before I did, I went to the library and checked out several books on the history of the Jehovah Witnesses; studying their founder, Taze Russel, and including what they had done up to about 1980. Didn't like what I read. So I needed to have another door opened for me.
One day I decided to take everything I could find that had any information concerning Jesus Christ, as in Bibles, Greek, Hebrew, and English dictionaries, even had some books on Critical studies in the Scriptures published 1823. I then locked myself down for 1 year until I knew the who, why, where, and what of Jesus Christ; this is all I studied. Then I spent the next year studying the Holy Spirit. Now I knew who God was, and from here it was easy.
My point; We all have a tendency to be influenced by others in one way or another. Sometimes its because of personalities, appearance of sincerity, supposed knowledge, a hug, a word, or what-ever. But most of these come from insincere good salesman, they working for an organization; and many selling a defective product.
Buying and selling horses for 28 years taught me about these people. Life has taught me that most people are not as honest, and sincere as they appear to be. To me, most Lawyers, Politicians, and religious leaders fall into this category. It seems they have a problem with the truth, or they themselves have been sold a bill of good, having come to believe it.
I have found a great deal of dishonesty in the so called Christian community. I found it safer to check out everything there is to be checked out, rather them believe everything they teach, or say to me. We need to be careful; our eternal soul, and the souls of others are at stake. Who can we trust? Being I know Jesus, and understood the work of the Holy Spirit, and my own motives, I started on my journey.
Using the Bible alone, that is except for some good Greek, Hebrew, and English dictionaries to give me an understanding of words as they were meant when the Scriptures were written; and maybe 4 or 5 commentaries, some old, some new; used only to compare what I was reading in the Bible, to how others have understood these things.
Any outside sources such as in the Watch Towers, book of Mormon, Koran, Zen, Scientology, etc. are not to be used. No influence peddlers, no Jim Jones, David Korish's, or Applewhite's.
I don't know you very well, but you seem to be intelligent, willing to debate, and discuss things. You are direct in answering questions, and hopefully can think for yourself. I guarantee you, if you go into a study like I did, using the Scriptures alone as your foundation, trusting God, using your common sense, and listen with your heart, you will come to an understanding very similar to mine.
I have met people that I had never studied with, nor did we even read the same books. One thing we had in common, we used the Scriptures as the foundation. And we agreed on the most basic, fundamental rudiments, and principles of the Scripture. This told me, there is only one teacher, that being the Holy Spirit. Now compare this to the Jehovah Witnesses, or even the Mormons. Without using their printed material, there is no way anyone could draw the same conclusions they have drawn, "NONE."
For example, lets say the Bible is your foundation, and you are not going to use and outside source. Lets take Rev.22:18-19. I know Mormons use the K.J.B. as I do also. Read the two verses, and ask yourself, "How does using the Book of Mormon not give the idea of a head on collision with what the Bible instructs us to do, or not do?"
Some will say, "Oh that not what that verse means," or, "What we are telling you is a new revelations," or "that's their opinions," etc. What they are really telling you is, "Your not smart enough to understand this on your own, let us explain it to you. Now the hook has been baited, and the fish is about to be caught. Trust the Scriptures, trust God, and trust common sense, and the Scriptures will speak to you.
Sorry, I did not mean for this to be so long, nor am I attempting to preach to anyone.
Phil LaSpino
I will answer in the following post and get this conversation started.
Hey gunslinger
Just wondering in your study of LDS have you heard the name Sidney Rigdon?
Just wondering in your study of LDS have you heard the name Sidney Rigdon?
Sidney Rigdon? Yes of course. He was part of the original First Presidency along with Frederick Williams and Joseph Smith.
To LaSpino, Thank you for your well thought out response. You have articulated your position very clearly, and I am in agreement with you that matters of religion should not be taken lightly. I wholeheartedly agree that one should seek earnestly those things pertaining to matters of the Spirit.
That being said, there are a few things you have mentioned that I'd like to respond to specifically.
Any outside sources such as in the Watch Towers, book of Mormon, Koran, Zen, Scientology, etc. are not to be used. No influence peddlers, no Jim Jones, David Korish's, or Applewhite's.
I don't know you very well, but you seem to be intelligent, willing to debate, and discuss things. You are direct in answering questions, and hopefully can think for yourself. I guarantee you, if you go into a study like I did, using the Scriptures alone as your foundation, trusting God, using your common sense, and listen with your heart, you will come to an understanding very similar to mine.
Here you bring up some very good points about man's ability to be swayed by the actions of others, thus leading us to accept a system of belief we would not have otherwise. You specifically mention that you used only the Holy Bible for your source of information, and that all others should be shunned. You mention the Watch Tower, the Book of Mormon, the Koran, etc. The problem I have here, though, is that something must have made you accept the Holy Bible as the word of God, and not something else. How were you able to know that that particular book of scripture was correct, and no other ones were? In other words, you already had a preconceived notion that the other books were false and that the Bible represented pure, unadulterated truth. How did you come to that realization? The only way this method works is if you have already made the conscientious choice to accept the Bible as absolute truth. Don't you think the same argument you use to discredit these other books can be used against the Bible as well? Don't get me wrong, I know the Bible is scripture, but a Muslim, for example, would start out with the assurance that the Qu'ran represented the only truth and would thus shun the Bible.
I have met people that I had never studied with, nor did we even read the same books. One thing we had in common, we used the Scriptures as the foundation. And we agreed on the most basic, fundamental rudiments, and principles of the Scripture. This told me, there is only one teacher, that being the Holy Spirit. Now compare this to the Jehovah Witnesses, or even the Mormons. Without using their printed material, there is no way anyone could draw the same conclusions they have drawn, "NONE."
For example, lets say the Bible is your foundation, and you are not going to use and outside source. Lets take Rev.22:18-19. I know Mormons use the K.J.B. as I do also. Read the two verses, and ask yourself, "How does using the Book of Mormon not give the idea of a head on collision with what the Bible instructs us to do, or not do?
I am in agreement with you in that the best, and in fact, the only teacher is the Holy Spirit. It was by this member of the godhead that I gained a testimony of God the Father and of the Holy Bible. But here's the other thing, it was also by his witness that I gained a testimony of the church and of the Book of Mormon. In fact, in the Book of Mormon, there is something called Moroni's Promise, which in essence asks the reader to ponder the words in this book and ask God if they are not true. And if they do so with a sincere heart, desiring to know the truth, asking in perfect faith, the Holy Ghost will manifest the truthfulness unto them. So it is by the same messenger that we claim to be Christ's church. You can disagree with our assessment, and clearly you do, but you almost act as if people join the church without ever seeking to learn of its truthfulness.
I am also familiar with that passage from Revelation, but fail to see how that is applicable here. Those scriptures are not stating that the Bible is all of God's word; to do so is essentially placing limitations on God, saying that he cannot speak up again if he wishes it. Furthermore, when it says to not add or subtract from this book, it is referring specifically to the Book of Revelation. Remember, the Bible was not written starting with Genesis and ending with Revelation. Each book was written independent from one another by different authors and was later compiled into one volume. The book of Deuteronomy also contains such a warning, and by this logic, one must disregard every book in the Bible except the first five.
If you do not believe the Bible to be the true Word of God...then there is nothing we can say here to change your mind. If you can get to the point of trusting in God's Word (the BIBLE) and only the Bible...then, we can help you see...
Christians trust in the Bible alone, and in Jesus alone for truth and salvation; if you believe in the Book of Morman and other writings, then you should only claim the title Morman...since that is where you place your faith.
If you do not believe the Bible to be the true Word of God...then there is nothing we can say here to change your mind. If you can get to the point of trusting in God's Word (the BIBLE) and only the Bible...then, we can help you see...
Well then, I should be good. I do indeed believe the Holy Bible to be the Word of God.
Christians trust in the Bible alone, and in Jesus alone for truth and salvation; if you believe in the Book of Morman and other writings, then you should only claim the title Morman...since that is where you place your faith.
I'm curious, can you show me anywhere in the Bible where it says you must only follow the Bible in order to be a follower of Christ? If not, I don't see how it is fair to say someone is not a Christian when their use of additional scriptures is in no way prohibited by the Bible.
And by definition, I can claim the title of Christian, since I place my faith in Jesus Christ and accept him as my Savior.
: the_last_gunslinger Sun Jan 22, 2012 - 20:15:31
If you do not believe the Bible to be the true Word of God...then there is nothing we can say here to change your mind. If you can get to the point of trusting in God's Word (the BIBLE) and only the Bible...then, we can help you see...
Well then, I should be good. I do indeed believe the Holy Bible to be the Word of God.
Christians trust in the Bible alone, and in Jesus alone for truth and salvation; if you believe in the Book of Morman and other writings, then you should only claim the title Morman...since that is where you place your faith.
I'm curious, can you show me anywhere in the Bible where it says you must only follow the Bible in order to be a follower of Christ? If not, I don't see how it is fair to say someone is not a Christian when their use of additional scriptures is in no way prohibited by the Bible.
And by definition, I can claim the title of Christian, since I place my faith in Jesus Christ and accept him as my Savior.
The Bible alone; Jesus Christ the Son of God...God in the flesh...born of the virgin Mary...not the brother of satan...not a man who became a god...so on and so forth...which perverts the Bible...and what Christians believe.
: the_last_gunslinger Sun Jan 22, 2012 - 20:15:31
And by definition, I can claim the title of Christian, since I place my faith in Jesus Christ and accept him as my Savior.
But, do you accept Jesus Christ as who He is, God the Son?
The Bible alone; Jesus Christ the Son of God...God in the flesh...born of the virgin Mary...not the brother of satan...not a man who became a god...so on and so forth...which perverts the Bible...and what Christians believe
Again, where does it say that a true follower of Jesus Christ must only use the Bible? If the Holy Bible itself does not contain any such statement, how can one deny someone the title of Christian?
I also believe Christ to be the Son of God, in fact, we take that much more literally than you do. The Bible claims that Jesus is the Son of God, sent to do the will of his father, which is his God. But even if the Bible does not support my belief in the nature of God, again show me where salvation will be denied to me if I do not understand what God is made of. According to most Christians even, they claim that all one must do for salvation is to accept Christ as your savior. I do that. Are you now saying that one must actually know what kind of substance comprises God in order to gain entry to heaven?
Similarly, we believe Christ was born of the Virgin Mary. Nowhere have I stated differently. But again, referring to Christ as the Brother of Satan is meant to be a misleading description. They are brothers in the sense that God created both. You clearly believe that God and Christ have always been co-eternal with one another, which is okay. But our doctrine in terms of their sibling relationship in no way lessens Christ's status, nor does it enhance Satan's. I've pointed it out before, but this is as silly as me claiming that you worship Satan's Father, since you believe he was created by God.
But, do you accept Jesus Christ as who He is, God?
I believe Christ to be what the Bible says he is, what his apostles testified he is...what Christ himself said he was. And that is the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father, sent to earth to be our savior, to do the will of the Father. He is God in that all the attributes needed for Godhood are inherent in him, perfect love, compassion, wisdom, truth, justice, etc. Yet we believe that the father and the son are individual personages.
: the_last_gunslinger Sun Jan 22, 2012 - 20:27:55
But, do you accept Jesus Christ as who He is, God?
I believe Christ to be what the Bible says he is, what his apostles testified he is...what Christ himself said he was. And that is the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father, sent to earth to be our savior, to do the will of the Father. He is God in that all the attributes needed for Godhood are inherent in him, perfect love, compassion, wisdom, truth, justice, etc. Yet we believe that the father and the son are individual personages.
To say that Jesus is
the Son of God is to say that He is God. The Father, the Son and the Holy Sprit together comprise the One True God. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. Indivisible and yet distinct.
Do you accept Jesus Christ as God?.
To say that Jesus is the Son of God is to say that He is God
I fail to grasp this concept. If Jesus is God, how then can he also be the Son of God? It's one of those weird mysteries I've never been able to unravel.
The Father, the Son and the Holy Sprit together comprise the One True God. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. Indivisible and yet distinct.
Do you accept Jesus Christ as God?.
I accept what the Bible says about him, that he is the Son of God. We also believe him to be the God of the Old Testament, Jehovah, acting under the direction of God. In Christ is embodied all the traits needed for Godhood, but he is NOT God the Father. The title of God is in reference only to the Father, for as Christ stated, 'the father is greater than I.' They are separate personages united in purpose, not in substance. God the Father is the supreme ruler of creation, and Jesus Christ is his Son, subservient to him. Christ himself said that the father is his God. But the father, son and Holy Ghost together comprise what we call the 'Godhead,' which is one God, but one in purpose, not in substance.
: the_last_gunslinger Sun Jan 22, 2012 - 20:47:46
To say that Jesus is the Son of God is to say that He is God
I fail to grasp this concept. If Jesus is God, how then can he also be the Son of God? It's one of those weird mysteries I've never been able to unravel.
The Father, the Son and the Holy Sprit together comprise the One True God. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. Indivisible and yet distinct.
Do you accept Jesus Christ as God?.
I accept what the Bible says about him, that he is the Son of God. We also believe him to be the God of the Old Testament, Jehovah, acting under the direction of God. In Christ is embodied all the traits needed for Godhood, but he is NOT God the Father. The title of God is in reference only to the Father, for as Christ stated, 'the father is greater than I.' They are separate personages united in purpose, not in substance. God the Father is the supreme ruler of creation, and Jesus Christ is his Son, subservient to him. Christ himself said that the father is his God. But the father, son and Holy Ghost together comprise what we call the 'Godhead,' which is one God, but one in purpose, not in substance.
Well, right there is the problem, is it not? You have not truly accepted Jesus Christ if you have rejected Him as Who He truly is, God. You want to be accepted as Christian, but you reject what is foundational to Christianity.
These two areas alone are reason enough as to why LDS will never be accepted, by Christianity, as Christian. The deity of Jesus Christ and the truth of the Trinity are non-debatable. They are foundational to Christianity. The rejection of these truths are deal breakers. Sorry.
Well, right there is the problem, is it not? You have not truly accepted Jesus Christ if you have rejected Him as Who He truly is, God. You want to be accepted as Christian, but you reject what is foundational to Christianity.
But see, I haven't rejected who he truly is. Did he not claim to be the Son of God? Did not his apostles testify to this fact? Of course they did, and I believe this. I believe what the Bible says about him, that he is the Son of God, my Savior.
These two areas alone are reason enough as to why LDS will never be accepted, by Christianity, as Christian. The deity of Jesus Christ and the truth of the Trinity are non-debatable. They are foundational to Christianity. The rejection of these truths are deal breakers. Sorry.
I never questioned Christ's divinity in any way. In fact, I specifically stated that all the qualities needed for Godhood are imbued in him. That most definitely is non-debatable. But the Trinity, that's a different matter. In my opinion, nowhere does the Bible espouse the concept of the Trinity as accepted by most Christians. I dare say that it says the exact opposite. There are too many scriptural pitfalls for me to accept it. Like I mentioned before, how can Jesus be both God and the Son of God? That is an equation that does not make sense. Furthermore, if the father and son are both equally "One God" why is it that Christ specifically said that the Father is His God? These do not sound very Trinitarian to me. So using the Trinity as a litmus test when biblical evidence is scant at best, to determine if someone is Christian is altogether flawed. Furthermore, to say that one must now know and understand God's physical makeup means that salvation is no longer predicated on accepting Christ as you savior. Case in point, most Christians believe that to be saved, one must only accept Christ as his personal savior. I have done that. So I should be good, right? Except it really takes more than that; you also have to not believe in additional scriptures, not accept certain doctrines and understand the substance God is made out of.
We both know the problems that exist, and they cannot be wiped away as easily as changing the word "deity" to "divinity".
The fact is that for LDS to be Christian it would have to give up everything that makes it LDS. A suicide of sorts. That's what it would take to be accepted by Christianity as Christian. That's just the way it is. If you want to be part of the club you have to play by the club rules. The good news for you is that we do take converts to our side...come on over.
Quote of ChristNUWell, right there is the problem, is it not? You have not truly accepted Jesus Christ if you have rejected Him as Who He truly is, God. You want to be accepted as Christian, but you reject what is foundational to Christianity.
These two areas alone are reason enough as to why LDS will never be accepted, by Christianity, as Christian. The deity of Jesus Christ and the truth of the Trinity are non-debatable. They are foundational to Christianity. The rejection of these truths are deal breakers. Sorry.
Quote of GunslingerBut see, I haven't rejected who he truly is. Did he not claim to be the Son of God? Did not his apostles testify to this fact? Of course they did, and I believe this. I believe what the Bible says about him, that he is the Son of God, my Savior.
I never questioned Christ's divinity in any way. In fact, I specifically stated that all the qualities needed for Godhood are imbued in him. That most definitely is non-debatable. But the Trinity, that's a different matter. In my opinion, nowhere does the Bible espouse the concept of the Trinity as accepted by most Christians. I dare say that it says the exact opposite. There are too many scriptural pitfalls for me to accept it. Like I mentioned before, how can Jesus be both God and the Son of God? That is an equation that does not make sense. Furthermore, if the father and son are both equally "One God" why is it that Christ specifically said that the Father is His God? These do not sound very Trinitarian to me. So using the Trinity as a litmus test when biblical evidence is scant at best, to determine if someone is Christian is altogether flawed. Furthermore, to say that one must now know and understand God's physical makeup means that salvation is no longer predicated on accepting Christ as you savior. Case in point, most Christians believe that to be saved, one must only accept Christ as his personal savior. I have done that. So I should be good, right? Except it really takes more than that; you also have to not believe in additional scriptures, not accept certain doctrines and understand the substance God is made out of.
I have never read the Book Of Mormon but I have read the Bible. The Bible is very clear on who will be saved. I have listed a few verses below that seem clear to me:
Jn.3:16
16 "For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. 17 God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him.
Acts 16
29 The jailer called for lights and ran to the dungeon and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 Then he brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
gunslinger...appreciate your dialogue..
Question: When you asked "God the Eternal Father if the Book of Mormon is true" ( Moroni 10:3-5)
How did He convey this "truth" to you?
I ask this because in the "Introduction" of the Book of Mormon I find that "by the same power
( "of divine witness" )
that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, that Joseph Smith is the revelator and prophet in
these last days, and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord's kingdom
once again established on the earth, preparatory to the second coming of Messiah."
Now, that is a considerable amount of information to take in and comprehend with only the verification
of one man, Joseph Smith, who has written that "on the evening of the ....twenty-first of September
[ 1823 ] etc., a personage appeared at my bedside standing in the air, for his feet did not touch the floor."
Mr. Smith elaborates on the clothing of this "personage," and goes on to report that
"He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me etc."
Spending many years in a Charismatic church as a young man I listened to many men testify of
"God speaking to them." In fact, you could shake a bush and some starry eyed evangelist would fall out
with a new revelation. Usually, they had one hand on my billfold in revelating...
Now, for sure, I never heard a revelation like the one reported by Joseph Smith unless it was by Mohammad
where he had contact with God through the angel Gabrel; and after 42 years of dictation in
a cave outside of Mecca, in the Arabic tongue, the world now has the Qu'ran and millions of the Muslim faith.
From a skeptic, I ask, IF I am not in "The Church of Latter-day Saints" I am not in the "Lord's kingdom"
would this be correct in your understanding of the Book of Mormon?
Will not hurt my feelings, I have been informed by a Muslim that I am a "Infidel" and a Baptist that I am "lost."
: mrhide Sun Jan 22, 2012 - 22:07:23
Quote of ChristNUWell, right there is the problem, is it not? You have not truly accepted Jesus Christ if you have rejected Him as Who He truly is, God. You want to be accepted as Christian, but you reject what is foundational to Christianity.
These two areas alone are reason enough as to why LDS will never be accepted, by Christianity, as Christian. The deity of Jesus Christ and the truth of the Trinity are non-debatable. They are foundational to Christianity. The rejection of these truths are deal breakers. Sorry.
Quote of GunslingerBut see, I haven't rejected who he truly is. Did he not claim to be the Son of God? Did not his apostles testify to this fact? Of course they did, and I believe this. I believe what the Bible says about him, that he is the Son of God, my Savior.
I never questioned Christ's divinity in any way. In fact, I specifically stated that all the qualities needed for Godhood are imbued in him. That most definitely is non-debatable. But the Trinity, that's a different matter. In my opinion, nowhere does the Bible espouse the concept of the Trinity as accepted by most Christians. I dare say that it says the exact opposite. There are too many scriptural pitfalls for me to accept it. Like I mentioned before, how can Jesus be both God and the Son of God? That is an equation that does not make sense. Furthermore, if the father and son are both equally "One God" why is it that Christ specifically said that the Father is His God? These do not sound very Trinitarian to me. So using the Trinity as a litmus test when biblical evidence is scant at best, to determine if someone is Christian is altogether flawed. Furthermore, to say that one must now know and understand God's physical makeup means that salvation is no longer predicated on accepting Christ as you savior. Case in point, most Christians believe that to be saved, one must only accept Christ as his personal savior. I have done that. So I should be good, right? Except it really takes more than that; you also have to not believe in additional scriptures, not accept certain doctrines and understand the substance God is made out of.
I have never read the Book Of Mormon but I have read the Bible. The Bible is very clear on who will be saved. I have listed a few verses below that seem clear to me:
Jn.3:16
16 "For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. 17 God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him.
Acts 16
29 The jailer called for lights and ran to the dungeon and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 Then he brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Question: When you asked "God the Eternal Father if the Book of Mormon is true" ( Moroni 10:3-5)
How did He convey this "truth" to you?
It was a slow process at first. I'm not saying I had a testimony when my family first converted; I was eleven and barely knew what one was. It comes over time. I would pray over those things that concerned me, and most often my prayers were answered. Sometimes by a strong sense of the Spirit, a feeling so hard to describe it's nearly impossible. Sometimes I might get a stroke of inspiration and find the answer to what I'm looking for in an unusual source. And sometimes the answers just come, thoughts that I know I did not have on my own.
I've also had a handful of true spiritual experiences, ones I consider too sacred to share on a public forum. These things were more than me trying to interpret feelings, they were visible to the naked eye, wholly unmistakable as to what they were and from whom did they come.
I ask this because in the "Introduction" of the Book of Mormon I find that "by the same power
( "of divine witness" )
that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, that Joseph Smith is the revelator and prophet in
these last days, and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord's kingdom
once again established on the earth, preparatory to the second coming of Messiah."
Now, that is a considerable amount of information to take in and comprehend with only the verification
of one man, Joseph Smith, who has written that "on the evening of the ....twenty-first of September
[ 1823 ] etc., a personage appeared at my bedside standing in the air, for his feet did not touch the floor."
Mr. Smith elaborates on the clothing of this "personage," and goes on to report that
"He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me etc."
A fair concern. I could see why someone would want to pass off Smith's visions as inauthentic. He was just a man, after all, and he could have had ulterior motives for starting a religious movement. It wouldn't be the first time someone did that. But what set's Smith's account apart from others is the presence of witnesses. If you look near the front of the Book of Mormon, there is the Testimony of the Three Witnesses and the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses. The former is an account by David Whitmer, Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery, where they were not only shown the gold plates upon which was written the Book of Mormon, but were also introduced and conversed with that same angel that appeared to Smith. All three were eventually excommunicated from the church for apostasy, but they never relinquished their testimony. Cowdery, for example, even gave up editorship of a respectable newspaper because he reaffirmed his testimony as true. And he later sought out the church in Utah and was re-baptized, though he never held a high position of leadership again.
And the eight witnesses are eight people whom Joseph Smith showed the plates to. So along with Smith, there was a total of twelve people who saw the plates and four who beheld the angel Moroni. Plus, if you read the Doctrine and Covenants, most of the revelations given to Joseph Smith occurred in the presence of another. These stories illustrate to members that it was not just a story concocted by Smith, unless he convinced so many other people to join in on such a conspiracy. From an outsider's perspective, these testimonies don't mean much, and I would not expect them to convince anyone, on their own, that the church is true. But to us it illustrate the important concept of the law of witnesses. But I should make it clear, the strongest witness comes not by reading these testimonies, but it comes by the Spirit.
From a skeptic I ask, IF I am not in "The Church of Latter-day Saints" I am not in the "Lord's kingdom"
would this be correct in your understanding of the Book of Mormon?
Will not hurt my feelings, I have been informed by a Muslim that I am a "Infidel" and a Baptist that I am "lost.
This is kind of right, but I wouldn't put it quite like this. The Book of Mormon speaks of two churches, the church of the Lamb of God, and the Church of the Devil. Some people have speculated that this is referring to the LDS on the one hand, and everyone else on the other. This, however, is not an official stance. In fact, the Church of the Devil is talking about anything set up to oppose the kingdom of God, anything immoral, of the world, etc. Most Christian churches would not qualify as the church of the devil, for even though we believe their doctrine to be errant, they are clearly forces for good, teaching godly principles.
Now we do believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is God's kingdom on earth, complete with Priesthood authority and an open channel with Heavenly Father. But those who are not members are in no way condemned to hell. I don't know how familiar you are with LDS beliefs concerning heaven, but we believe in three levels, or kingdoms where each person will go according to his worthiness. The highest level, the Celestial Kingdom, is probably the equivalent of when other Christians talk about Heaven. Here we live eternally with both the father and the son. Those who go here are baptized members of the church who magnified their callings, lived the best they could, endured to the end, etc.
The middle level, the Terrestrial Kingdom is a place where you will behold the glory of the Son, but not of the Father. Here are those members of the church who were lukewarm in their convictions. They were baptized members, but were lax in their responsibilities. Also here are those who rejected the church while on earth, but were still good people, living as how they thought God wanted them to.
The lowest level, the Telestial Kingdom is reserved for murderers, liars, thieves, etc. Essentially the unrepentant. In time, even they may gain forgiveness, but only in the lowest level of heaven, where they will behold the glory of the Holy Ghost, but not of the father and son.
And then there is outer darkness, the final destiny of Satan and his Angels. The only people who will find themselves here are those who knew the church was true, gained that knowledge by the power of the Holy Spirit, were made partakers of that Spirit, but willingly rejected it, those who, if able, would crucify Christ again, putting him to an open shame. There is no forgiveness for them as they are lost, becoming sons of perdition.
Hope this helps clarify a few of these things.
Unless you can show me a scripture that says a person can create a Jesus in their own imagination, place their faith in their own imaginary Jesus, and then claim to be a Christian because of their faith in their imaginary Jesus...unless you can show me a scripture that says that....then I will stick with what I have written, as it is written.
The scriptures do not say that. Fortunately, we do not do that either so we should be good.
Unfortunately, you use the doctrine of the Trinity to reject me as Christian, when that doctrine is not Biblical. As stated before, I believe Christ to be the Son of God, as the Bible says. I believe he is the Redeemer and have accepted him as my savior. I don't recall anywhere in the Bible where it says I must accept the doctrine of the Trinity to be saved.
Gunslinger
The traditional Christian view is not 3 in one "substance" but 3 separate persons God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. They being one in purpose and mind. How does the LDS view differ from that. ( At the risk of being called non Christian I will admit that my view is not orthodox and more closely resembles Barton W. Stone) I also do not make the traditional view of the "trinity' a test of fellowship nor do I believe it is a salvation issue. The part that I do believe is a salvation issue is that Jesus was both man and God that He is eternal and has always existed and created all things.
So the question is are there 3 Gods separate persons making up one Godhead one one God and 2 somehow lessor beings? Or are we children of a lessor God?
Gunslinger
The traditional Christian view is not 3 in one "substance" but 3 separate persons God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. They being one in purpose and mind. How does the LDS view differ from that. ( At the risk of being called non Christian I will admit that my view is not orthodox and more closely resembles Barton W. Stone) I also do not make the traditional view of the "trinity' a test of fellowship nor do I believe it is a salvation issue. The part that I do believe is a salvation issue is that Jesus was both man and God that He is eternal and has always existed and created all things.
So the question is are there 3 Gods separate persons making up one Godhead one one God and 2 somehow lessor beings? Or are we children of a lessor God?
Three distinct beings as one in purpose and mind is the exact doctrine of the church. Sometimes we are said to believe in a social trinity, the father son and holy ghost comprise one God in that they are perfectly united in truth, righteousness, justice and mercy. Yet at the same time, The Father is God, and Jesus Christ is his Son, and is subservient to him. For example, when we pray to God, it is God the Father we are praying to, in the name of Jesus Christ.
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 07:46:09
Unless you can show me a scripture that says a person can create a Jesus in their own imagination, place their faith in their own imaginary Jesus, and then claim to be a Christian because of their faith in their imaginary Jesus...unless you can show me a scripture that says that....then I will stick with what I have written, as it is written.
The scriptures do not say that. Fortunately, we do not do that either so we should be good.
Unfortunately, you use the doctrine of the Trinity to reject me as Christian, when that doctrine is not Biblical. As stated before, I believe Christ to be the Son of God, as the Bible says. I believe he is the Redeemer and have accepted him as my savior. I don't recall anywhere in the Bible where it says I must accept the doctrine of the Trinity to be saved.
I use the doctrine of the Trinity to disqualify LDS as Christian, which is the question of the OP. The rejection of Jesus Christ as who He is, God the Son, the second Person of the Trinity, is a rejection of the real Jesus Christ, and of course to reject the real Jesus Christ is to reject any hope of salvation.
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 07:54:17
Gunslinger
The traditional Christian view is not 3 in one "substance" but 3 separate persons God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. They being one in purpose and mind. How does the LDS view differ from that. ( At the risk of being called non Christian I will admit that my view is not orthodox and more closely resembles Barton W. Stone) I also do not make the traditional view of the "trinity' a test of fellowship nor do I believe it is a salvation issue. The part that I do believe is a salvation issue is that Jesus was both man and God that He is eternal and has always existed and created all things.
So the question is are there 3 Gods separate persons making up one Godhead one one God and 2 somehow lessor beings? Or are we children of a lessor God?
Three distinct beings as one in purpose and mind is the exact doctrine of the church. Sometimes we are said to believe in a social trinity, the father son and holy ghost comprise one God in that they are perfectly united in truth, righteousness, justice and mercy. Yet at the same time, The Father is God, and Jesus Christ is his Son, and is subservient to him. For example, when we pray to God, it is God the Father we are praying to, in the name of Jesus Christ.
There are not three beings. There is One God, One Being, comprised of three Persons.
There are not three beings. There is One God, One Being, comprised of three Persons.
Actually, I don't believe this is biblical. Maybe we're having some difficulty understanding each other's terminology, though. I use being and personage interchangeably. In your opinion, what does it mean to be "One Being, but three persons?"
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 08:10:10
There are not three beings. There is One God, One Being, comprised of three Persons.
Actually, I don't believe this is biblical. Maybe we're having some difficulty understanding each other's terminology, though. I use being and personage interchangeably. In your opinion, what does it mean to be "One Being, but three persons?"
Actually, this is the only biblical understanding of the Trinity, it is the Christian understanding. I understand your terminology very well, it is simply wrong. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, together comprise the One True God. Three distinct Persons, yet indivisibly One.
Actually, this is the only biblical understanding of the Trinity, it is the Christian understanding. I understand your terminology very well, it is simply wrong. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, together comprise the One True God. Three distinct Persons, yet indivisibly One.
I would obviously contest this fact. The Bible in no way teaches the Trinity. If it did, I'd really like to know what this verse means:
JOHN 20:17
Jesus said 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.If the Father and Son are both God, how then can the father be God to the Son?
I understand the point you are trying to make with the Trinity, but the biblical evidence against it is overwhelming. I just cannot place my faith in the Ecclesiastical councils that took place hundreds of years after Christ's death. I place my faith in the Bible. It is from there I derive such doctrine.
Gunslinger
I for one do not reject you on your views of the Godhead. It is a complicated issue and IMO not a salvation issue. My difficulty is with the Book of Mormon itself. The reason I ask about Sidney Rigdon was he was at one time a young prodigy of Alexander Campbell and brought the restoration theology of re establishing the lost church with him. He was the spokesman for the LDS and believed by many to have revised the book of Mormon before the second printing. Like Point made I have difficulty with modern day claims of speaking to and with God. I have a sister that belies this now and is quite insane. Not a slam on her just a statement of fact. From all I know from real history about Joseph Smith and Rigdon I have to reject the claim of God and the angel appearing to Smith.
Hear is the real question. If the New Testament reveals the Son of God as the savior of the world and how one can be part of His kingdom what do we need another book for? Heb. 1
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 08:35:01
Actually, this is the only biblical understanding of the Trinity, it is the Christian understanding. I understand your terminology very well, it is simply wrong. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, together comprise the One True God. Three distinct Persons, yet indivisibly One.
I would obviously contest this fact. The Bible in no way teaches the Trinity. If it did, I'd really like to know what this verse means:
JOHN 20:17 Jesus said 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.
If the Father and Son are both God, how then can the father be God to the Son?
I understand the point you are trying to make with the Trinity, but the biblical evidence against it is overwhelming. I just cannot place my faith in the Ecclesiastical councils that took place hundreds of years after Christ's death. I place my faith in the Bible. It is from there I derive such doctrine.
I am not here to debate what is not debatable, there are already threads for that. The fact that Jesus Christ is fully God
and fully man, is another foundational truth of Christianity that is a stumbling block to all others who would claim the the title of Christian. It is meant to be. It is another of the many disqualifiers for LDS.
Heb 1
God's Final Word: His Son
1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.
In addition the apostles were told that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth. That leaves no more truth to be revealed. Therefore no need for another book.
Where is my logic flawed?
Gunslinger
I for one do not reject you on your views of the Godhead. It is a complicated issue and IMO not a salvation issue. My difficulty is with the Book of Mormon itself. The reason I ask about Sidney Rigdon was he was at one time a young prodigy of Alexander Campbell and brought the restoration theology of re establishing the lost church with him. He was the spokesman for the LDS and believed by many to have revised the book of Mormon before the second printing. Like Point made I have difficulty with modern day claims of speaking to and with God. I have a sister that belies this now and is quite insane. Not a slam on her just a statement of fact. From all I know from real history about Joseph Smith and Rigdon I have to reject the claim of God and the angel appearing to Smith.
Hear is the real question. If the New Testament reveals the Son of God as the savior of the world and how one can be part of His kingdom what do we need another book for? Heb. 1
I don't mind criticism on this front as much. You are at least doubting the veracity of an admittedly hard to accept occurrence. I am familiar with the theories involving Sidney Rigdon as co-author/co-conspirator. In my research, however, there is no evidence that Smith and Rigdon knew each other prior to the publication of the Book of Mormon. As to a second edition, I cannot say. I'm not familiar off the top of my head on what changes have been made from edition to edition. It's my understanding that most of them are typing or grammatical errors, rather than theological ones.
It is your prerogative to reject such claims, I just don't see why it is easy to assume that prophets in the Bible could speak to God, but no more. To me, this is putting limitations on God. If he wants to raise up a prophet and instruct him, that is within his right to do so. And like I mentioned before, this point might be stronger if not for the presence of witnesses who also testified of what they saw. Sure, they could have all been involved in some mass conspiracy, but I fail to see the point in that.
Your question of why we need another book is a good one, but I might ask you why we have more than one gospel. Essentially it is another testament of Jesus Christ. I can't remember where, but the Bible speaks of truth coming from the mouths of two or three witnesses. The Holy Bible is one, the Book of Mormon is another. To us, it gives more credence to the story of Christ if there is another book of scripture about him. Just like in a court trial, the prosecutor's position is enhance with the more witnesses he has. And on another note, the Book of Mormon serves as a reminder that God remembers all his followers, that he provided spiritual guidance to all, not just those in and around Jerusalem. It also serves as a testament of Joseph Smith's prophetic calling. If the Book of Mormon really is an ancient record of God's dealing with the early Americans, then Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet of God.
Heb 1
God's Final Word: His Son
1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.
In addition the apostles were told that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth. That leaves no more truth to be revealed. Therefore no need for another book.
Where is my logic flawed?
This is pretty interesting, my sister, for her Sunday School class had to study Hebrews one. At least I'm familiar with it, then.
First, I'd like to point out that this passage says that God has spoken to us in the latter-days through his son. It in no way says that there will be no prophets. In fact, when a prophet receives a personal visitation, it is of the Son, not the Father, so that is still true. And at other times, it comes by virtue of the Holy Spirit, which you've pointed out in this scripture.
The apostles were indeed told that the Spirit would guide them in all truth, but that does not mean God intended for the Apostles and prophets to cease. If that were the case, no more apostles would have been called after the Twelve. If the apostles were not meant to continue, why call Mathias to fill Judas's vacancy? Why was Paul called as an apostle? Furthermore, if there is no need for further prophets, why then does revelation speak of two prophets who will come in the last days?
Even the book of Amos (3:7) states
Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.It is clear that God works through his prophets. They are there to keep his followers on the path of repentance. God is not a God of confusion, and as such, he has provided channels by which new information may be received. There is a saying in the church that Noah was not saved from the flood by the revelations of Adam. Essentially, our times and needs are different now, and what is contained in the Bible may not provide guidance on topics we are dealing with today. The Bible says nothing about cloning, for example, nor does it say anything about the social, economic or technological times in which we live now. Thus, it is essential we have open communication from God to help us navigate areas not explicitly covered in the Bible.
I am not here to debate what is not debatable, there are already threads for that. The fact that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, is another foundational truth of Christianity that is a stumbling block to all others who would claim the the title of Christian. It is meant to be. It is another of the many disqualifiers for LDS.
So you use the Trinity as a disqualifier, even in light of such passages that blatantly contradict the concept of the Trinity? Let's say that you are right, that the Trinity is biblical. Are you then saying that God will keep me out of heaven because I interpreted his being differently, when even you must realize that it is not so clear cut?
I'll ask again. Does the Bible at any time say one must accept the Trinity in order to be saved?
Gunsliger you really did not answer the basic question. If the apostles were led into all truth about the Son of God and salvation why would we need another book? Do we need to look for one where God revealed Himself to those in China, or Alaska or Africa? Why do I need to know this?
You have admitted that there have been revisions for grammatical errors. So God gave His revelation but could not communicate it in proper English? From what I have studied of Joesph Smith he was almost illiterate.
From real history he was killed by a nob that included men among his own followers because of his polygamy views. some of his "wives" were married to other men and some of the men that killed him said he was trying to make their wives his wives. This is clearly adultery and continued until Utah wanted to become a state and Brigham Young had a new revelation that ended the official practice although several splinter groups still continue to this day. It seems like very a convenient time for a "new revelation.
Was God wrong when he revealed this to Joseph Smith or when he made the new revelation to Young?
Can you see why traditional Christians reject the B of M?
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 09:07:36
I am not here to debate what is not debatable, there are already threads for that. The fact that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, is another foundational truth of Christianity that is a stumbling block to all others who would claim the the title of Christian. It is meant to be. It is another of the many disqualifiers for LDS.
So you use the Trinity as a disqualifier, even in light of such passages that blatantly contradict the concept of the Trinity? Let's say that you are right, that the Trinity is biblical. Are you then saying that God will keep me out of heaven because I interpreted his being differently, when even you must realize that it is not so clear cut?
I'll ask again. Does the Bible at any time say one must accept the Trinity in order to be saved?
The Trinity is a very clearcut foundational truth of Christianity. The reason it is a stumbling block to you is because it is supposed to be, it is how we weed out the imposter's from the real deal.
It is one thing to be ignorant, or simply unaware, those are not disqualifiers. What is a disqualifier is to consciously reject the God who is; and the God who is, is the God who reveals Himself as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
You are perfectly free to just create your own God, your own Jesus, and then bow down and worship what you have created. But, God calls that idolatry, because that is what it is. The question that Jesus asks of every man, woman and child today is the same question He asked 2000 years ago, "who do you say that I AM?". If you do not know Jesus Christ as God, then you do not know Jesus Christ.
Chirstnu
Where does the scripture make a proper understanding of the man made doctrine of the trinity a salvation issue? There are many things I find wrong with the LDS but a difference in understanding of the trinity is not sufficient to reject them.
: ChristNU Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 09:25:29
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 09:07:36
I am not here to debate what is not debatable, there are already threads for that. The fact that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, is another foundational truth of Christianity that is a stumbling block to all others who would claim the the title of Christian. It is meant to be. It is another of the many disqualifiers for LDS.
So you use the Trinity as a disqualifier, even in light of such passages that blatantly contradict the concept of the Trinity? Let's say that you are right, that the Trinity is biblical. Are you then saying that God will keep me out of heaven because I interpreted his being differently, when even you must realize that it is not so clear cut?
I'll ask again. Does the Bible at any time say one must accept the Trinity in order to be saved?
The Trinity is a very clearcut foundational truth of Christianity. The reason it is a stumbling block to you is because it is supposed to be, it is how we weed out the imposter's from the real deal.
It is one thing to be ignorant, or simply unaware, those are not disqualifiers. What is a disqualifier is to consciously reject the God who is; and the God who is, is the God who reveals Himself as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
You are perfectly free to just create your own God, your own Jesus, and then bow down and worship what you have created. But, God calls that idolatry, because that is what it is. The question that Jesus asks of every man, woman and child today is the same question He asked 2000 years ago, "who do you say that I AM?". If you do not know Jesus Christ as God, then you do not know Jesus Christ.
Amen! Then they write a new book, make a list of rules, add a few heavens, put on garments, add satan as Jesus brother, even say that God asked satan and Jesus for a plan of salvation...and God chose the plan that Jesus came up with, on and on and on...then call themself Christians ::frown::
Gunsliger you really did not answer the basic question. If the apostles were led into all truth about the Son of God and salvation why would we need another book? Do we need to look for one where God revealed Himself to those in China, or Alaska or Africa? Why do I need to know this?
I'm not sure how else to answer it. The Book of Mormon is considered another Testament of Jesus Christ. It's primary purpose for us is to strengthen the testimony of the Holy Bible, and serve as a witness to Smith's prophetic calling. Like the Bible, it teaches great truths about Christ and I believe man, following its precepts will be better for it. I still don't see how this is any different than the four gospels. Why do we need four of them? Wasn't one sufficient?
You have admitted that there have been revisions for grammatical errors. So God gave His revelation but could not communicate it in proper English? From what I have studied of Joesph Smith he was almost illiterate.
First off, though God revealed the meaning of the characters on the plates, I don't believe that he literally guided Smith's hands to make sure that he put commas in the right place. But even so, most of the error were typographical, meaning that they occurred during printing. Machines make mistakes and to say that a book of Scripture cannot be true if there are grammatical mistakes is erroneous, since numerous Bibles have also been printed with such errors.
From real history he was killed by a nob that included men among his own followers because of his polygamy views. some of his "wives" were married to other men and some of the men that killed him said he was trying to make their wives his wives. This is clearly adultery and continued until Utah wanted to become a state and Brigham Young had a new revelation that ended the official practice although several splinter groups still continue to this day. It seems like very a convenient time for a "new revelation.
Was God wrong when he revealed this to Joseph Smith or when he made the new revelation to Young?
This is the first time I've heard that other members were part of the mob. Is it true? Could be, but it is of little consequence. It's true Smith was a polygamist, and whether that order came from God or not, I really don't know. Nor does it concern me. I don't know whose wives he was married to, or if he took others. There is so much disagreement on all sides that I don't let that concern me. All I do know is that if he was married to other's wives, it would have been for the sole purpose of being sealed for eternity. There has been extensive research by the detractors of the church to prove that Smith was an adulterer, but to this day, despite multiple DNA testings, they can only verify that Joseph Smith had children only with his wife, Emma. So at this pint, there is no proof that these other marriages were anything but platonic.
In regards to the new revelation abolishing plural marriage, I see nothing out of line with God sending a revelation when it serves his people best. If God desired for Utah to become a state, and he no longer required plural marriages, I think it's perfectly reasonable him ending the practice. I will just point out, though, that it was not Brigham Young who ended it; it was Wilford Woodruff.
Can you see why traditional Christians reject the B of M?
: Johnb Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 09:30:02
Chirstnu
Where does the scripture make a proper understanding of the man made doctrine of the trinity a salvation issue? There are many things I find wrong with the LDS but a difference in understanding of the trinity is not sufficient to reject them.
The denial of the Trinity, is absolutely sufficient to disqualify LDS as Christian.
The denial of the Trinity, is absolutely sufficient to disqualify LDS as Christian.
Would you care to show me the scriptural passage that states this?
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 09:35:36
The denial of the Trinity, is absolutely sufficient to disqualify LDS as Christian.
Would you care to show me the scriptural passage that states this?
Do you believe that the Bible has enough information in it for man to enter the highest heaven possible within the LDS religion?
Amen! Then they write a new book, make a list of rules, add a few heavens, put on garments, add satan as Jesus brother, even say that God asked satan and Jesus for a plan of salvation...and God chose the plan that Jesus came up with, on and on and on...then call themself Christians Frowning
Having a new book of scripture does not disqualify someone as a Christian. The Bible itself does not claim that the Bible is all there is...How could it? It hadn't even been compiled yet. We also did not make a list of rules. Most of these 'rules' are found in the Bible. I'm not sure why you'd have a problem with them. And with multiple levels of heaven, first it is referenced in the Bible, plus, it just makes logical sense. God is a God of mercy and justice. He rewards us according to our works, as stated in the Book of Revelation. This necessitates varying degrees of reward. We are not all good enough to obtain the highest heaven, nor are we all wicked enough to be cast into hell. You are dealing in absolutes here.
I know your ire for our church doctrine, but still, none of these things can disqualify someone as being Christian.
I guess I'll ask this: What does it take to gain salvation in the kingdom of God? And: Give me your best definition of what a Christian is. Maybe we can work systematically through these here, see where that gets us.
I'd like to see a "scriptural passage" about the Magic Underwear...
: Thankfulldad Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 09:38:26
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 09:35:36
The denial of the Trinity, is absolutely sufficient to disqualify LDS as Christian.
Would you care to show me the scriptural passage that states this?
Do you believe that the Bible has enough information in it for man to enter the highest heaven possible within the LDS religion?
I would also be interested in seeing the answer to this question.
Also can one be a Christian without the book of Mormon?
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 09:41:13I guess I'll ask this: What does it take to gain salvation in the kingdom of God? And: Give me your best definition of what a Christian is. Maybe we can work systematically through these here, see where that gets us.
Hearing the true gospel message: which is that Jesus (God in human flesh) died on the cross for our sin, trusting in Jesus alone for Salvation, He is the narrow door, the only way, no one come to the Father but by Jesus. Salvation is easy because it cost God so much; living the Christian life can be hard, and thank God that it is...God creates in us a new heart, a new creation in Him. From Salvation to Sanctification...it is God working in our life; as we trust Him...
A Christian trusts in Jesus alone for Salvation; and believes the Bible is the perfect infallible Word of God without error...
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 09:35:36
The denial of the Trinity, is absolutely sufficient to disqualify LDS as Christian.
Would you care to show me the scriptural passage that states this?
It is the orthodox position of the Christian church, hammered out long ago by the greater Christian community under the guidance of the Holy spirit. Christianity rejects those who reject the Trinity, because God has revealed Himself as such through the entirety of His written word.
: OldDad Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 09:44:45
I'd like to see a "scriptural passage" about the Magic Underwear...
::giggle::
Gunslinger, finally found this section. 74 year old Dino, sorry. I will not reply to anyone but you, and your comments.
Let me lead off with this question. "Why are you interested in the Bible, as in purpose, and end product? What is it your seeking? If my question is not clear, I will try to re-word it.
Example. We buy a plot of land, lumber, electrical, and plumbing supplies, to do what? To build a home so we can move into it. Not to please our relatives, or neighbors, or to show off any skills we possess, but to have a place for you, and your family to live.
Phil LaSpino
Gunslinger, finally found this section. 74 year old Dino, sorry. I will not reply to anyone but you, and your comments.
Let me lead off with this question. "Why are you interested in the Bible, as in purpose, and end product? What is it your seeking? If my question is not clear, I will try to re-word it.
Example. We buy a plot of land, lumber, electrical, and plumbing supplies, to do what? To build a home so we can move into it. Not to please our relatives, or neighbors, or to show off any skills we possess, but to have a place for you, and your family to live.
Phil LaSpino
I was in the process of answering your PM, when I realized you posted. Glad you found the forum.
I think I know what you're asking, and I think the answer is a complex one. First and foremost, I believe the Bible to be the Word of God. I believe that my relationship with Christ is enhanced when I attempt to live by the standards set forth there. The current President of the Church, Thomas S. Monson, in the most recent Ensign Magazine, wrote an article titled "Living the Abundant Live." I think at my core, this is my goal, to live a life of spiritual abundance, to be inspired by the words and deeds of the savior, to do my best to live my life in a manner pleasing to Him.
I hope this answers your question.
My problem with modern day revelation is verification....the early church verified the word with "signs."
When Jesus sent his apostles out with the Gospel ("go teach, etc") They had the "promise" of John 14:14,
"Anything you ask in my name I will do it."
He never expected men to believe without verification. After all, they were sent into
a world of Greek mystery religions of Homer and Hesiod, Socratice,
Plato's dualism: metaphysical, epistemological, and anthropological was believed.
Note Paul's discussion on Mars hill with the philosophers ( Epicureans and Stoic ) in Athens (Acts 17:17).
Paul said, the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commands all men to repent; because he
has appointed a day, in which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he has raised
from the dead." "Righteousness" is an action that takes place in the mind of God, would you agree?
God worked special miracles by the hands of Paul ( Acts 19:11 ). These miracles were worked to verify
God's message.......My friends in the charismatic churches fail to verify their revelation.
Islam is not supported by miracles.
Not to be disrespectable, I have not seen the evidence if miracles in Mormonism and as I understand in
Salt Lake City the Mormon Church claims the "Twelve Apostles."
Catholicism claims the Papacy as the succession of Peter. They too, cannot verify.
Oh yes, they too claim to have seen visions, crying statues and portraits...
Fact is, when called upon to cause "the blind to see, the lame to walk, the leapers cleansed, the deaf
to hear, and the dead raised ( Luke 7:22 ) the modern day pope fails miserably.
It is one thing to report that the Spirit reveals Himself today outside the Word, but quite another to verify as in
Mark 16:20; Acts 5:12; 14:3; 1 Cor. 2, 4,5; Heb. 2:4.
Paul calls the New Testament "the Spirit that gives life" ( 2 Cor. 3:6 ).
Has this claim been rescinded by the Mormon Church?
If not, why would Joseph Smith claim that "the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on
earth and the keystone of our religion, and a man would be nearer to God by abiding by its precepts,
than by any other book" ( Introduction )?
Would this not take an act of the Holy Spirit to rescind this revelation by Paul that he verified by signs?
: Thankfulldad Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 09:49:01
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 09:41:13I guess I'll ask this: What does it take to gain salvation in the kingdom of God? And: Give me your best definition of what a Christian is. Maybe we can work systematically through these here, see where that gets us.
Hearing the true gospel message: which is that Jesus (God in human flesh) died on the cross for our sin, trusting in Jesus alone for Salvation, He is the narrow door, the only way, no one come to the Father but by Jesus. Salvation is easy because it cost God so much; living the Christian life can be hard, and thank God that it is...God creates in us a new heart, a new creation in Him. From Salvation to Sanctification...it is God working in our life; as we trust Him...
A Christian trusts in Jesus alone for Salvation; and believes the Bible is the perfect infallible Word of God without error...
Amen
It is the orthodox position of the Christian church, hammered out long ago by the greater Christian community under the guidance of the Holy spirit. Christianity rejects those who reject the Trinity, because God has revealed Himself as such through the entirety of His written word.
This is exactly why I doubt this doctrine. It was a position, "hammered out long ago" in various councils where people debated the very nature of God. Accepting these creeds, in my opinion, is accepting extra biblical writings for doctrinal clarification.
I still contest that the Trinity is not to be found in the Bible. No one can answer yet how Christ can be the Son of God, if he IS God. Nor can anyone tell me how the Father can be the Son's God, if they are both One God.
Hearing the true gospel message: which is that Jesus (God in human flesh) died on the cross for our sin, trusting in Jesus alone for Salvation, He is the narrow door, the only way, no one come to the Father but by Jesus. Salvation is easy because it cost God so much; living the Christian life can be hard, and thank God that it is...God creates in us a new heart, a new creation in Him. From Salvation to Sanctification...it is God working in our life; as we trust Him...
A Christian trusts in Jesus alone for Salvation; and believes the Bible is the perfect infallible Word of God without error...
I have accepted that Jesus died on the Cross for our sins, and I too trust in Jesus alone for salvation. I'm good on those two points. What I contest, however, is the unbiblical doctrine of the Trinity. Nowhere can this doctrine be espoused in its entirety, and nowhere does it say that belief in the Trinity is essential for salvation. Would you agree on that point?
And again, where is it written that the Bible alone is sufficient for salvation? The Bible certainly makes no such assertions. And considering that the Bible as we know it was not compiled until long after Christ's death, under what authority do you claim the Bible is all there is?
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 10:48:33
It is the orthodox position of the Christian church, hammered out long ago by the greater Christian community under the guidance of the Holy spirit. Christianity rejects those who reject the Trinity, because God has revealed Himself as such through the entirety of His written word.
This is exactly why I doubt this doctrine. It was a position, "hammered out long ago" in various councils where people debated the very nature of God. Accepting these creeds, in my opinion, is accepting extra biblical writings for doctrinal clarification.
I still contest that the Trinity is not to be found in the Bible. No one can answer yet how Christ can be the Son of God, if he IS God. Nor can anyone tell me how the Father can be the Son's God, if they are both One God.
When you trust in the Bible alone as the Word of God without error; listen to what God tells us...it becomes clear that Jesus was the one true God; and that the Trinity is truth. Your denial of this clears the way...that the LDS are not Christian.
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 10:52:16
Hearing the true gospel message: which is that Jesus (God in human flesh) died on the cross for our sin, trusting in Jesus alone for Salvation, He is the narrow door, the only way, no one come to the Father but by Jesus. Salvation is easy because it cost God so much; living the Christian life can be hard, and thank God that it is...God creates in us a new heart, a new creation in Him. From Salvation to Sanctification...it is God working in our life; as we trust Him...
A Christian trusts in Jesus alone for Salvation; and believes the Bible is the perfect infallible Word of God without error...
I have accepted that Jesus died on the Cross for our sins, and I too trust in Jesus alone for salvation.
Then why the need for the Book of Morman...why???
: Johnb Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 09:47:10
: Thankfulldad Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 09:38:26
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 09:35:36
The denial of the Trinity, is absolutely sufficient to disqualify LDS as Christian.
Would you care to show me the scriptural passage that states this?
Do you believe that the Bible has enough information in it for man to enter the highest heaven possible within the LDS religion?
I would also be interested in seeing the answer to this question.
Also can one be a Christian without the book of Mormon?
To the first question, I believe the Bible contains the pure, unadulterated message of the gospel of Jesus Christ. That is, He is the Son of God, sent down to Earth by the Father to be the redeemer of mankind, and that salvation is offered to all those who believe in him and call upon his name. What I think the Bible lacks is clarification on some issues. Specifics are missing. Like baptism, the Bible makes it clear that it is essential, but does not give specifics of how it is to be done. Also, though I believe that the Bible speaks of eternal marriage when Peter was given the power to bind on earth and in heaven, the Bible alone does not make that explicit, so it is essential to have clarification on that issue.
As for Johnb's question, it is certainly possible to be a Christian without accepting the Book of Mormon. Nearly everyone on this website is a Christian if they trust in Christ as their savior and strive to live according to his principles.
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 10:48:33
It is the orthodox position of the Christian church, hammered out long ago by the greater Christian community under the guidance of the Holy spirit. Christianity rejects those who reject the Trinity, because God has revealed Himself as such through the entirety of His written word.
This is exactly why I doubt this doctrine. It was a position, "hammered out long ago" in various councils where people debated the very nature of God. Accepting these creeds, in my opinion, is accepting extra biblical writings for doctrinal clarification.
I still contest that the Trinity is not to be found in the Bible. No one can answer yet how Christ can be the Son of God, if he IS God. Nor can anyone tell me how the Father can be the Son's God, if they are both One God.
Lol. Now that's truly hilarious, a Mormon not accepting something that is "based on extra biblical writings". Lol.
Nonetheless it is not a doctrine based on extra biblical writings, it is based on the written word of God.
I am not going to debate the truth of the Trinity with you here. But, as I already said, the answer to your question lies in another foundational truth of Christianity, that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man.
Then why the need for the Book of Morman...why???
One of my favorite passages in the Book of Mormon deals with this question. I have quoted it below:
2 Nephi 29:7-11
7 Know ye not that there are more anations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the bisles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the cearth beneath; and I bring forth my dword unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?
8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the atestimony of btwo nations is a cwitness unto you that I am God, that I remember one dnation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two enations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.
9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the asame yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my bwords according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one cword ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my dwork is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.
10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my awords; neither bneed ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.
11 For I command aall men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall bwrite the words which I speak unto them; for out of the cbooks which shall be written I will djudge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 11:04:04
9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the asame yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my bwords according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one cword ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my dwork is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.
Wow...this is pure blasphemy! Jesus said (on the cross)..."it is finished"; He came...completed the work...and, we now can rest in Him!
Sorry, this is just another reason why...the LDS are NOT Christians...
Lol. Now that's truly hilarious, a Mormon not accepting something that is "based on extra biblical writings". Lol.
Nonetheless it is not a doctrine based on extra biblical writings, it is based on the written word of God.
I am not going to debate the truth of the Trinity with you here. But, as I already said, the answer to your question lies in another foundational truth of Christianity, that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man.
As a Mormon, it's perfectly normal for me to accept not Biblical sources. Keep in mind, I said "Non-Biblical." I can accept the Book of Mormon also (as well as the D&C and Pearl of Great Price) because they, too are scripture. But for someone who believes the Bible to contain all there is to know, someone that claims the Trinity is perfectly spelled out in the Bible, why then would you accept the writings of men, non-biblical, non-scriptural writings. And if the Bible was so clear on the Trinity, why then did they hold a council to try and pin down the doctrine?
Wow...this is pure blasphemy! Jesus said (on the cross)..."it is finished"; He came...completed the work...and we now can rest in Him!!!
Sorry, this is just another reason why...the LDS are NOT Christians..
I see no contradictions here. Christ's work was finished, the work of the salvation of souls. But that doesn't mean God and Christ are not ever going to do anything ever again, does it? If it is finished is taken as literally as you are, then God must not answer prayers. What would be the point? He claimed that it is finished, that there is no work to do. Clearly this is not what is meant here. Your interpretation of "It is Finished" would indicate that there will be no second coming, no answer to prayers, no more working of God with man. Is that what you are implying here, or am I misreading this?
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 11:08:51
Lol. Now that's truly hilarious, a Mormon not accepting something that is "based on extra biblical writings". Lol.
Nonetheless it is not a doctrine based on extra biblical writings, it is based on the written word of God.
I am not going to debate the truth of the Trinity with you here. But, as I already said, the answer to your question lies in another foundational truth of Christianity, that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man.
As a Mormon, it's perfectly normal for me to accept not Biblical sources. Keep in mind, I said "Non-Biblical." I can accept the Book of Mormon also (as well as the D&C and Pearl of Great Price) because they, too are scripture. But for someone who believes the Bible to contain all there is to know, someone that claims the Trinity is perfectly spelled out in the Bible, why then would you accept the writings of men, non-biblical, non-scriptural writings. And if the Bible was so clear on the Trinity, why then did they hold a council to try and pin down the doctrine?
You do nothing to help your case for inclusion within Christianity, by further clarifying that what you believe is not what Christians believe. What you describe is why LDS is not Christian.
My problem with modern day revelation is verification....the early church verified the word with "signs."
When Jesus sent his apostles out with the Gospel ("go teach, etc") They had the "promise" of John 14:14,
"Anything you ask in my name I will do it."
I'm in agreement. The true church has miracles and signs. The LDS church has these. I've seen it myself. Not asking you to accept my accounts, but I am safe in the knowledge of what I personally have witnessed.
God worked special miracles by the hands of Paul ( Acts 19:11 ). These miracles were worked to verify
God's message.......My friends in the charismatic churches fail to verify their revelation.
Islam is not supported by miracles.
I'm confused here, do you believe miracles can still take place today or not? To me, the LDS church has been verified by miracles. Many journals from early members of the church recount such miraculous happenings as casting out devils, of healing those who are near death. At the building of the first temple in this dispensation, the followers were overcome by an almost pentecostal outpouring of spirit, where many miracles were wrought. And as if that were not enough, as I've stated earlier, I have witnessed these miracles for myself, leaving no doubt that the LDS church is a miracle-working entity.
You do nothing to help your case for inclusion within Christianity, by further clarifying that what you believe is not what Christians believe. What you describe is why LDS is not Christian
.
How so? I stated that it is not essential for me to believe the Bible to be the sole Christian authority, and I claimed that the Trinity likewise is not essential for inclusion within the body of Christian believers. I have asked for biblical evidence speaking to the contrary and no one has been able to supply any. So I ask this, under what authority are you claiming LDS are not Christians? The litmus test you are putting forth is not supported by the Bible.
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 11:12:40
Wow...this is pure blasphemy! Jesus said (on the cross)..."it is finished"; He came...completed the work...and we now can rest in Him!!!
Sorry, this is just another reason why...the LDS are NOT Christians..
I see no contradictions here. Christ's work was finished, the work of the salvation of souls. But that doesn't mean God and Christ are not ever going to do anything ever again, does it? If it is finished is taken as literally as you are, then God must not answer prayers. What would be the point? He claimed that it is finished, that there is no work to do. Clearly this is not what is meant here. Your interpretation of "It is Finished" would indicate that there will be no second coming, no answer to prayers, no more working of God with man. Is that what you are implying here, or am I misreading this?
Listen, the work of salvation was completed on the cross...period! Any work that God does through believers is that of sanctification, love...spreading the good news of the competed work of salvation through Jesus Christ (God) on the cross. That work continues...but, there is NO further work in and of ourself for us being saved...or rewards of a HIGER HEAVEN, or several heavens depending on us. The salvation work is done, complete, perfectly done through Jesus (God with us)...
Bottom line...do you believe there is one heaven, one plan of Salvation (found only in the Bible)...and that Jesus FININSHED this work of Salvation for us?
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 11:19:58
You do nothing to help your case for inclusion within Christianity, by further clarifying that what you believe is not what Christians believe. What you describe is why LDS is not Christian
.
How so? I stated that it is not essential for me to believe the Bible to be the sole Christian authority, and I claimed that the Trinity likewise is not essential for inclusion within the body of Christian believers. I have asked for biblical evidence speaking to the contrary and no one has been able to supply any. So I ask this, under what authority are you claiming LDS are not Christians? The litmus test you are putting forth is not supported by the Bible.
The placing of the book of Mormon on the same level as The Bible is as grievously heretical as any error in your teaching that you could possibly have hoped to add to the conversation. You prove our point well.
The placing of the book of Mormon on the same level as The Bible is as grievously heretical as any error in your teaching that you could possibly have hoped to add to the conversation. You prove our point well.
I keep hearing such sentiments, yet no one can illustrate how. Why is it heretical? Again, where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is all there is?
Listen, the work of salvation was completed on the cross...period! Any work that God does through believers is that of sanctification, love...spreading the good news of the competed work of salvation through Jesus Christ (God) on the cross. That work continues...but, there is NO further work in and of ourself for us being saved...or rewards of a HIGER HEAVEN, or several heavens depending on us. The salvation work is done, complete, perfectly done through Jesus (God with us)...
Oh, I most certainly agree that the work of salvation was finished on the cross. I never said otherwise. My point was that it is not out of line when the Book of Mormon claims that there is more work to be done from now until the end of the earth. The passage I quoted never stated that there is more to salvation than what Christ did on the cross, only that God's work is not finished. You yourself have even admitted that God has more work to do in terms of sanctification. That is most likely what the Book of Mormon is saying. So we are actually in agreement here.
Still, this does not mean that we are automatically saved. If that were the case, why did Christ give us commandments to keep? Why are we told that we are to be judged and rewarded according to our works? How could we be rewarded according to our works if there are no distinction in rewards? And even if I am in error believing in multiple levels of heaven, are you saying such a belief will keep me out of heaven?
Bottom line...do you believe there is one heaven, one plan of Salvation (found only in the Bible)...and that Jesus FININSHED this work of Salvation for us
I actually do believe this. There is only one heaven, but there are different levels of heaven, depending on your righteousness. I also believe in one salvation, found only in the Bible, but echoed also in the Book of Mormon, which serves as an additional testament. And yes, I believe Jesus finished the work of salvation on the cross, but that does not mean God no longer works among men, nor do I believe that means we are alleviated of any responsibility to live a righteous life.
Sorry, bad sense of direction. Someone should have left me a trail of bread-crumbs.
OK, you explained your objectives for now, in this life.
You wrote, "I believe the Bible to be the word of God."
On this we agree. Question, "Do you believe it to be the only word, the final word of God to us? Could you find the way to your personal salvation in the Bible alone?"
In my previous post, what I meant is, what is your hope after you leave this life?
Let me expand on the question. What have you garnished, what Biblical understanding do you have concerning your eternity? Heaven, hell, judgments, rewards, etc.
My hope is the resurrection of the body made perfect, united as a whole man, body, soul, and spirit; to be with the Lord for eternity, in a place He has prepared for all those who love Him.
Only through Him can I achieve this, there is no other way, no church, no individual, and surely not by my own works, only through Him, and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit can any man finish the race of life, and receive the reward of eternal salvation.
Our love for Him now, today and our faith in Him drive me to spread His gospel of truth, it being a light unto all men, and with the help of the Holy Spirit, we can all grow daily in faith, love, and spirit.
Did not mean it to sound like a sermon. Before I push the post button, I looked at a few of your comments to others who are questioning your faith in Morminism. I hope your not going to paint yourself into a box because of something you said to others. I would prefer an open mind concernig the Scriptures, and the who's, why's, where's and when's came be filled in later.
Phil LaSpino
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 11:36:56
Listen, the work of salvation was completed on the cross...period! Any work that God does through believers is that of sanctification, love...spreading the good news of the competed work of salvation through Jesus Christ (God) on the cross. That work continues...but, there is NO further work in and of ourself for us being saved...or rewards of a HIGER HEAVEN, or several heavens depending on us. The salvation work is done, complete, perfectly done through Jesus (God with us)...
Oh, I most certainly agree that the work of salvation was finished on the cross. I never said otherwise. My point was that it is not out of line when the Book of Mormon claims that there is more work to be done from now until the end of the earth. The passage I quoted never stated that there is more to salvation than what Christ did on the cross, only that God's work is not finished. You yourself have even admitted that God has more work to do in terms of sanctification. That is most likely what the Book of Mormon is saying. So we are actually in agreement here.
Still, this does not mean that we are automatically saved. If that were the case, why did Christ give us commandments to keep? Why are we told that we are to be judged and rewarded according to our works? How could we be rewarded according to our works if there are no distinction in rewards? And even if I am in error believing in multiple levels of heaven, are you saying such a belief will keep me out of heaven?
Bottom line...do you believe there is one heaven, one plan of Salvation (found only in the Bible)...and that Jesus FININSHED this work of Salvation for us
I actually do believe this. There is only one heaven, but there are different levels of heaven, depending on your righteousness. I also believe in one salvation, found only in the Bible, but echoed also in the Book of Mormon, which serves as an additional testament. And yes, I believe Jesus finished the work of salvation on the cross, but that does not mean God no longer works among men, nor do I believe that means we are alleviated of any responsibility to live a righteous life.
You are not the typical morman; most deny all of what I stated...and believe that they must work their way to heaven...
You wrote, "I believe the Bible to be the word of God."
On this we agree. Question, "Do you believe it to be the only word, the final word of God to us? Could you find the way to your personal salvation in the Bible alone?"
I would have to disagree with this assessment. Why does the Bible have to be the only set of scriptures for our benefit? It certainly hasn't always been that way. What would you have said to Christians living prior to the fourth century, when the New Testament had not yet been compiled? Since the Bible itself makes no mention that it is all there is of God's word, the only way someone can reach such a conclusion is through extrabiblical means.
In my previous post, what I meant is, what is your hope after you leave this life?
Let me expand on the question. What have you garnished, what Biblical understanding do you have concerning your eternity? Heaven, hell, judgments, rewards, etc.
My hope is the resurrection of the body made perfect, united as a whole man, body, soul, and spirit; to be with the Lord for eternity, in a place He has prepared for all those who love Him.
I don't think my hopes are that dissimilar. I hope to be resurrected, body and soul, and live eternally with the Father and Son. But I would add also that I hope to be sealed for eternity to my family.
Only through Him can I achieve this, there is no other way, no church, no individual, and surely not by my own works, only through Him, and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit can any man finish the race of life, and receive the reward of eternal salvation.
I am mostly in agreement with you. Christ is the only way to salvation; I alone can do nothing to save myself. I would disagree about not needing a church, though. I believe that certain ordinances must be performed for salvation-baptism, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, etc. These things can only be done by the authority of the Holy Priesthood and I believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the only organization that has this authority. The Bible even says that one cannot take this power upon himself, he must be called of God as was Aaron.
Our love for Him now, today and our faith in Him drive me to spread His gospel of truth, it being a light unto all men, and with the help of the Holy Spirit, we can all grow daily in faith, love, and spirit.
This is commendable. I feel exactly the same.
You are not the typical morman; most deny all of what I stated...and believe that they must work their way to heaven...
If any Mormon says that they believe their works alone will get them into heaven, they are not representative of true LDS doctrine. Surely, we believe works are part of the equation. In James we hear that faith without works is dead. So we believe by acting righteously, our faith is made complete. Bear in mind, though, we believe that had Christ not died on the cross for our sins, we would be entirely without hope. So it is indeed Jesus Christ whom we rely on for salvation. We just believe works are needed to exemplify our faith. How can one have faith in Christ or actually love him if he keeps not the commandments he has given?
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 11:30:22
The placing of the book of Mormon on the same level as The Bible is as grievously heretical as any error in your teaching that you could possibly have hoped to add to the conversation. You prove our point well.
I keep hearing such sentiments, yet no one can illustrate how. Why is it heretical? Again, where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is all there is?
Really? No one can illustrate it for you? Then why do you remain where no one can give you the answers you seek. If your institution were Christian should it not already know, accept and be able to explain these things that are foundational to Christianity to you? If it were Christian?
This is quickly becoming circular, and you are only digging the hole deeper that you put yourself in. Like I said before, for LDS to be Christian it would need to give up all that makes it LDS. Anything short of that simply will not do. You are working in the wrong direction by defending your heretical beliefs, the only solution is to turn around and head in the right direction.
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 12:01:39
You are not the typical morman; most deny all of what I stated...and believe that they must work their way to heaven...
If any Mormon says that they believe their works alone will get them into heaven, they are not representative of true LDS doctrine. Surely, we believe works are part of the equation. In James we hear that faith without works is dead. So we believe by acting righteously, our faith is made complete. Bear in mind, though, we believe that had Christ not died on the cross for our sins, we would be entirely without hope. So it is indeed Jesus Christ whom we rely on for salvation. We just believe works are needed to exemplify our faith. How can one have faith in Christ or actually love him if he keeps not the commandments he has given?
Ok...so now you admit works are part of the equation ::frown::
No...Christians believe the gift of salvation is free; and Jesus finished the work on the cross...we recieve Him by faith given to us by His Spirit...and now He works through us for His purpose, which is to love God with all our hearts and to love our neighbor as ourself.
No...Christians believe the gift of salvation is free; and Jesus finished the work on the cross...we recieve Him by faith given to us by His Spirit...and now He works through us for His purpose, which is to love God with all our hearts and to love our neighbor as ourself.
In your opinion, what does "faith without works is dead" mean? What does it mean when Christ said those who love him keep his commandments? Are you insinuating you can get to heaven if you don't love Christ? I'm sure that's not what you mean, but I don't know how else to interpret your negative attitude about good works.
Also, Revelation specifically says we will be judged according to our works. What does that mean?
One final point also, in your opinion, do you believe you will be kept out of heaven because you did good works? If not, why does it matter?
Really? No one can illustrate it for you? Then why do you remain where no one can give you the answers you seek. If your institution were Christian should it not already know, accept and be able to explain these things that are foundational to Christianity to you? If it were Christian?
But that's the things, those doctrines you claim to be essential to Christianity are not in the Bible. You claim that the Trinity is essential, yet have not been able to illustrate that such a belief is required. If it is indeed a foundation of Christianity, don't you think Christ would have made such a claim in the Bible? And still, as I asked before, if it is so obvious, why was there the need for a council of Catholic bishops to get together and vote on who God is? And why, if you place your faith only in the Bible, do you accept as doctrine the creeds voted on by men?
This is quickly becoming circular, and you are only digging the hole deeper that you put yourself in. Like I said before, for LDS to be Christian it would need to give up all that makes it LDS. Anything short of that simply will not do. You are working in the wrong direction by defending your heretical beliefs, the only solution is to turn around and head in the right direction.
I apologize for my circular reasoning; wasn't aware I was doing it. Part of the problem seems to be, though, that you are imposing your own definition of what constitutes a Christian, yet even the Bible does not support your position. According to biblical definition, I am one since I accept Christ as my savior.
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 12:28:52
Really? No one can illustrate it for you? Then why do you remain where no one can give you the answers you seek. If your institution were Christian should it not already know, accept and be able to explain these things that are foundational to Christianity to you? If it were Christian?
But that's the things, those doctrines you claim to be essential to Christianity are not in the Bible. You claim that the Trinity is essential, yet have not been able to illustrate that such a belief is required. If it is indeed a foundation of Christianity, don't you think Christ would have made such a claim in the Bible? And still, as I asked before, if it is so obvious, why was there the need for a council of Catholic bishops to get together and vote on who God is? And why, if you place your faith only in the Bible, do you accept as doctrine the creeds voted on by men?
This is quickly becoming circular, and you are only digging the hole deeper that you put yourself in. Like I said before, for LDS to be Christian it would need to give up all that makes it LDS. Anything short of that simply will not do. You are working in the wrong direction by defending your heretical beliefs, the only solution is to turn around and head in the right direction.
I apologize for my circular reasoning; wasn't aware I was doing it. Part of the problem seems to be, though, that you are imposing your own definition of what constitutes a Christian, yet even the Bible does not support your position. According to biblical definition, I am one since I accept Christ as my savior.
Your continued denials of what is foundational to Christianity only support and confirm the validity of our rejection of LDS as Christian.
Your continued denials of what is foundational to Christianity only support and confirm the validity of our rejection of LDS as Christian.
Yet you fail to utilize scriptural support for this opinion. If my understanding of the nature of God is wrong, if my belief in additional scriptures is wrong, show me in the Bible if those things are enough to keep me from claiming the title of Christian. If you cannot, then you are relying on definitions not found within a biblical context, using sources other than scripture.
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 12:39:15
Your continued denials of what is foundational to Christianity only support and confirm the validity of our rejection of LDS as Christian.
Yet you fail to utilize scriptural support for this opinion. If my understanding of the nature of God is wrong, if my belief in additional scriptures is wrong, show me in the Bible if those things are enough to keep me from claiming the title of Christian. If you cannot, then you are relying on definitions not found within a biblical context, using sources other than scripture.
You fail to recognize that these are not debatable opinions, but factual truths revealed by the Holy Spirit, through Gods written word, to His church. His
Christian Church. The same Holy Spirit confirms their truth in me. If He is not doing the same for you, then there is obviously a disconnect somewhere. Guess where it is?
You fail to recognize that these are not debatable opinions, but factual truths revealed by the Holy Spirit, through Gods written word, to His church. His Christian Church. The same Holy Spirit confirms their truth in me. If He is not doing the same for you, then there is obviously a disconnect somewhere. Guess where it is?
If they are not debatable, then why are they not in the Bible? On what basis are they non-debatable? You have never been able to show in the Bible where these beliefs are prerequisites for salvation. I have posted scriptures that blatantly contradict the notion of the Trinity, yet you will not tell me how else it is to be interpreted. These are foundational Christian truths only as you interpret it.
I in no way want to disparage someone else's spiritual experience, but you almost act as if I have claimed these things without that same spirit. It is also by the witness of the Holy Ghost that I came to know of the truthfulness of the church.
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 12:53:30
You fail to recognize that these are not debatable opinions, but factual truths revealed by the Holy Spirit, through Gods written word, to His church. His Christian Church. The same Holy Spirit confirms their truth in me. If He is not doing the same for you, then there is obviously a disconnect somewhere. Guess where it is?
If they are not debatable, then why are they not in the Bible? On what basis are they non-debatable? You have never been able to show in the Bible where these beliefs are prerequisites for salvation. I have posted scriptures that blatantly contradict the notion of the Trinity, yet you will not tell me how else it is to be interpreted. These are foundational Christian truths only as you interpret it.
I in no way want to disparage someone else's spiritual experience, but you almost act as if I have claimed these things without that same spirit. It is also by the witness of the Holy Ghost that I came to know of the truthfulness of the church.
You have quoted scriptures that prove only that you do not understand the meaning of the scriptures you quote. Is God divided? Does He reveal one truth to one individual and an opposite view to another? If my views disagreed with the revealed truth of God given to
His church, I should think it would give me pause to question my views, instead of demanding the Christian church change to meet my own views.
You have quoted scriptures that prove only that you do not understand the meaning of the scriptures you quote. Is God divided? Does He reveal one truth to one individual and an opposite view to another? If my views disagreed with the revealed truth of God given to His church, I should think it would give me pause to question my views, instead of demanding the Christian church change to meet my own views.
How am I misinterpreting it? You claim that the Father and the Son are one "Being" One God. Yet the scripture I posted has Christ himself claiming that the Father is His God. How can the father and the son both be the one true God, if the father is the son's God? How can this be twisted to fit a trinitarian viewpoint?
If my views disagreed with revealed truth, I'd certainly take pause. Trouble is, I don't believe mine do. I've read through the Bible numerous times with the same conclusion. The Trinity doctrine to me sounds like it was invented to explain how both the father and the son are divine if there is only one God. The apostles of the New Testament never seemed to have reached the conclusion adhered to by Trinitarians. When Christ asked Peter who it was he believed him to be, he answered,
Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. (Matt. 16:16) And for this answer, Jesus praised Peter. My answer is the same as Peter's; I testify that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Peter did not say that Jesus is God, or that he is of one substance with God, or that part of God came down to earth while another part stayed in heaven. He testified that Jesus is the Son of God. This is where my faith is placed, and in this, I am perfectly in harmony with what the scriptures say.
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 13:09:01
If my views disagreed with revealed truth, I'd certainly take pause. Trouble is, I don't believe mine do.
If your beliefs disagree with the foundational truths of Christanity, it is your beliefs that need to change, not Christianity.
If your beliefs disagree with the foundational truths of Christanity, it is your beliefs that need to change, not Christianity.
As I've already stated, my beliefs are not in conflict with Christianity. Does not the Bible claim Christ to be the Son of God? It does, as do I. One cannot come to a Trinitarian doctrine by reading the Bible alone. Only by accepting the creeds voted on by men has this doctrine come forth.
If you truly feel I am erring in my interpretation of the above scripture, I would like to know how else I am to look at it. How else can the father be the god of his son while the son is the same god as the father?
Phil asked, "Do you believe it to be the only word, the final word of God to us? Could you find the way to your personal salvation in the Bible alone?"
Gunslinger replied, "I would have to disagree with this assessment. Why does the Bible have to be the only set of scriptures for our benefit?"
Phil replies, "Lets tackle this question first. "You asked, "Why does the Bible have to be the only set of scriptures for our benefit?" Now that is a good question, so I would reply, "Why not?"
If we were to go out into the religious world and ask every/any leader of every/any denomination, "Is your Catechism; is your, Book of Mormon; is your Watchtower; is your Koran; is your book on Scientology; is your expositor; is your books on New Age; etc., God inspired? I am sure everyone of them would say yes. Of course there going to say yes. And to each of these, I would ask them what I had asked you earlier.
How can anyone justify their claims of adding these new teachings when Scripture states, Rev.22:18-19, we are not to add, or subtract from this book, meaning the Bible. If anyone does add, or take away, they will suffer the curses of God. How does anyone get around these verses.
Is God the author of confusion? Does he say one thing and mean another?
When we read the superscript, and the first verse of Revelation, we see,
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God (the Father) gave him." These words clarify with the article "The," that this is it, there will be no other revelation coming from the Father concerning His Son, to anyone. And it closes with the instruction of not to add, or take away.
What distinguishes the N.T. gospel from others books, or documents? Each of these N.T. letters, was written by men, including Paul who were eye witnesses to Jesus Christ having been raised from the dead. This distinguishes true apostiles from those apostiles, who falsely claim to be apostiles.
John's Revelation came from the Father, to His Son, to John. This supports, Heb.1:1, "God (the Father) at sundry (various) times and in divers (many way) spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets. Hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son (Jesus,) when He (the Father) hath appointed heir of all things."
These self appointed apostiles, and prophets are false, each having, and teaching another gospel.
As far as the 4th century goes, there were individual letters circulating, as well as oral communications, by the apostles themselves, and those who knew them. The apostles wrote to the Jews, Paul wrote to the churches in Corinth, Philippi, Ephesis, Rome. And I would suppose copies were made, and sent to the many churches over the centuries.
They had to be, this is why we have them today. Gathering them all together later, has no bearing whatsoever that they were/had not been circulated in the Christian community of that day. Also, most Christian's were being hunted down by the authorities. Many dispersed to other countries, and therefore spreading the good news of Jesus Christ.
Phil LaSpino
Phil asked, "Do you believe it to be the only word, the final word of God to us? Could you find the way to your personal salvation in the Bible alone?"
Gunslinger replied, "I would have to disagree with this assessment. Why does the Bible have to be the only set of scriptures for our benefit?"
Phil replies, "Lets tackle this question first. "You asked, "Why does the Bible have to be the only set of scriptures for our benefit?" Now that is a good question, so I would reply, "Why not?"
If we were to go out into the religious world and ask every/any leader of every/any denomination, "Is your Catechism; is your, Book of Mormon; is your Watchtower; is your Koran; is your book on Scientology; is your expositor; is your books on New Age; etc., God inspired? I am sure everyone of them would say yes. Of course there going to say yes. And to each of these, I would ask them what I had asked you earlier.
Fair assessment. I'm sure most feel that their works are God-inspired.
How can anyone justify their claims of adding these new teachings when Scripture states, Rev.22:18-19, we are not to add, or subtract from this book, meaning the Bible. If anyone does add, or take away, they will suffer the curses of God. How does anyone get around these verses.
I've already explained what that scripture means in Revelation. It is in direct reference to that book of prophecy. It could not have meant the entire Bible because it had not yet been compiled. As I've said before, Deuteronomy also warns against adding to God's word. Are we to reject all the rest of the Bible?
Is God the author of confusion? Does he say one thing and mean another?
Clearly no.
When we read the superscript, and the first verse of Revelation, we see,
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God (the Father) gave him." These words clarify with the article "The," that this is it, there will be no other revelation coming from the Father concerning His Son, to anyone. And it closes with the instruction of not to add, or take away.
I don't see how the use of the word 'the' means there will be no more. If taken literally, one would have to accept that Revelation is not only the last but the only revelation of Jesus Christ. Besides which, doesn't the book of Revelation specifically mention two prophets coming in the last days?
What distinguishes the N.T. gospel from others books, or documents? Each of these N.T. letters, was written by men, including Paul who were eye witnesses to Jesus Christ having been raised from the dead. This distinguishes true apostiles from those apostiles, who falsely claim to be apostiles.
The apostles of the church are likewise special witnesses to Christ. Keep in mind Paul did not actually serve with Christ during his ministry. He saw Christ in a vision. His experience can be likened to Joseph Smith's, then, in that they became apostles--or special witnesses--by beholding the resurrected Christ.
John's Revelation came from the Father, to His Son, to John. This supports, Heb.1:1, "God (the Father) at sundry (various) times and in divers (many way) spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets. Hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son (Jesus,) when He (the Father) hath appointed heir of all things."
Someone else already pointed this verse out, but nowhere does it say that there are going to be no more prophets. It just said that things are revealed through Jesus Christ. If you read the D&C, you will notice that the revelations given to the Prophet Joseph Smith came through Christ.
These self appointed apostiles, and prophets are false, each having, and teaching another gospel.
If they are indeed self-appointed, they are false. I obviously do not believe this to be the case regarding our General Authorities.
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 13:18:59
If your beliefs disagree with the foundational truths of Christanity, it is your beliefs that need to change, not Christianity.
As I've already stated, my beliefs are not in conflict with Christianity. Does not the Bible claim Christ to be the Son of God? It does, as do I. One cannot come to a Trinitarian doctrine by reading the Bible alone. Only by accepting the creeds voted on by men has this doctrine come forth.
If you truly feel I am erring in my interpretation of the above scripture, I would like to know how else I am to look at it. How else can the father be the god of his son while the son is the same god as the father?
Excuse me? Your beliefs do not conflict with Christianity? Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that? I think that is what we refer to as "magical thinking".
Round and round we go, where we stop....
Once again, God is comprised of three distinct but indivisable Persons; God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. This
is the Christian belief. The second Person of the Trinity is God the Son.
Once again, Jesus Christ is God the Son, who became fully man, but never ceased to be fully God. That is what Christians call the hypostatic union. Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, the Godman. This is where your mind goes off the deep end, and shuts down, ignoring this reality. A reality that is another foundational truth of Christianity, and that is also the answer to the question you keep coming back to.
Excuse me? Your beliefs do not conflict with Christianity? Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that? I think that is what we refer to as "magical thinking".
Of course I do not believe my beliefs conflict with Christianity. If I thought they did, I would not be LDS.
Round and round we go, where we stop....
Once again, God is comprised of three distinct but indivisable Persons; God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. This is the Christian belief. The second Person of the Trinity is God the Son.
I also believe they are distinct persons. The rest of what you say, in my opinion, contradicts what the Bible says about Christ.
Once again, Jesus Christ is God the Son, who became fully man, but never ceased to be fully God. That is what Christians call the hypostatic union. Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, the Godman. This is where your mind goes off the deep end, and shuts down, ignoring this reality. A reality that is another foundational truth of Christianity, and that is also the answer to the question you keep coming back to.
Again, if all three comprise one God, how can the Father be the God of the Son? This clearly states that the Father is God, and that Christ is his Son. This is what I believe. This is what's written in the Bible. I do not subscribe to what Man says God is in the voted on creeds.
And also, it is your belief that the father and son are co-equal, correct? If this is so, why then would Christ say that the Father is greater than he is? How can one be greater than the other if they are both equal?
The Trinity just does not hold up to biblical scrutiny in my opinion.
: ChristNU Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 13:42:53
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 13:18:59
If your beliefs disagree with the foundational truths of Christanity, it is your beliefs that need to change, not Christianity.
As I've already stated, my beliefs are not in conflict with Christianity. Does not the Bible claim Christ to be the Son of God? It does, as do I. One cannot come to a Trinitarian doctrine by reading the Bible alone. Only by accepting the creeds voted on by men has this doctrine come forth.
If you truly feel I am erring in my interpretation of the above scripture, I would like to know how else I am to look at it. How else can the father be the god of his son while the son is the same god as the father?
Excuse me? Your beliefs do not conflict with Christianity? Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that? I think that is what we refer to as "magical thinking".
Round and round we go, where we stop....
Once again, God is comprised of three distinct but indivisable Persons; God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. This is the Christian belief. The second Person of the Trinity is God the Son.
Once again, Jesus Christ is God the Son, who became fully man, but never ceased to be fully God. That is what Christians call the hypostatic union. Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, the Godman. This is where your mind goes off the deep end, and shuts down, ignoring this reality. A reality that is another foundational truth of Christianity, and that is also the answer to the question you keep coming back to.
Exactly...the Jesus the LDS confess faith in is NOT the Jesus of the Bible...no matter how they hard they try to explain it!
I say...why do they even want to be considered Christian.......just call them selves Mormons ::smile::
I don't believe one word of the Book of Mormon...not any writings from them; I want my clear distance from them...and I am Christian!
Exactly...the Jesus the LDS confess faith in is NOT the Jesus of the Bible...no matter how they hard they try to explain it!
I would dispute this. Who does the Bible say Christ is? Again look at the testimony given by Peter...He is the Son of God, the Savior. Mormons believe this, therefore there is no conflict with LDS teachings and Biblical teachings.
I say...why do they even want to be considered Christian.......just call them selves Mormons Smile
I don't really care that much if others say I am not Christian...I know I am and God knows I am, that is what's really important. What annoys me is their reasoning for rejecting us as Christian. They use a non-biblical test to determine such, relying on the creeds of men, the logic of men. I've challenged others to post scriptures that claim that the Bible is the Only Word of God, and to show me where not believing in the Trinity will bar me from entry into heaven. No one has been able to yet.
I don't believe one word of the Book of Mormon...not any writings from them; I want my clear distance from them...and I am Christian!
This is clearly your choice. I do believe in the Book of Mormon and the General Authorities of the church, and I too am a Christian!
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 13:54:58
And also, it is your belief that the father and son are co-equal, correct? If this is so, why then would Christ say that the Father is greater than he is? How can one be greater than the other if they are both equal?
Indeed He humbled Himself, and became as a servant. God the Son humbling Himself to function as a man, in order to redeem mankind. What a God we have! Thank you Jesus!
Indeed He humbled Himself, and became as a servant. God the Son humbling Himself to function as a man, in order to redeem mankind. What a God we have! Thank you Jesus!
This...doesn't make any sense.
According to your view, both the father and the son are both God, are both co-eternal, co-equal, one being. But God the Son, who is also the same God as God the Father, came down in human form, humbled himself so the man that is still fully God, still co-eternal, is now somehow less than the part of God that is still in heaven--God the Father?
Then they can't be co-eternal if one is less than the other.
I will reply to two of your comments.
gunslinger wrote, "I don't see how the use of the word 'the' means there will be no more. If taken literally, one would have to accept that Revelation is not only the last but the only revelation of Jesus Christ. Besides which, doesn't the book of Revelation specifically mention two prophets coming in the last days?
Phil replies, "The definitive article is of the utmost importance. It points to one very specific person, or thing. The indefinite article, "An, or a, makes reference to one of many. You need to study this, it may be one of the single most important things you ever examined. I have studied it fully, it does make a very big difference.
You wrote, "The apostles of the church are likewise special witnesses to Christ. Keep in mind Paul did not actually serve with Christ during his ministry. He saw Christ in a vision. His experience can be likened to Joseph Smith's, then, in that they became apostles--or special witnesses--by beholding the resurrected Christ."
Phil replies, "I am amazed how much you have to rely on the book of Mormon. Tell me, What person who has fathered a new religion has not claimed to have had some kind of vision of Jesus Christ, or Mary, or an angel, or whatever?
Is Joseph Smith to be His own witness? We do now know if Paul was not at the cross when Jesus was crucified? Crucifications were for a public display, having large crowds present. There is no evidence in the Bible that Paul did not witness His death, is there?
The big difference between Paul, and Joseph Smith is, Paul lived in those very days. How does Joseph Smith know what Jesus looked like? It could have been a fallen angle claiming to be Jesus, I don't know, and neither does anyone else. What I am sure of, Scriptures teach that there would be no further Revelation.
How can anyone be drawn in by claims no-one can prove, or disprove? All of Scriptures have a witness, or witnesses.
But to claim that Paul did not see Jesus die, would be a private interpretation, or opinion of Scriptures. An opinion (note indefinite article, "an," one of many opinions) based on no evidence, conjecture.
I can see one great, and maybe an insurmountable problem. Your knowledge of the Mormon faith, any you have apparently never studying the Bible without some form of input, great, or small coming from their literature.
Phil LaSpino
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 14:14:26
Indeed He humbled Himself, and became as a servant. God the Son humbling Himself to function as a man, in order to redeem mankind. What a God we have! Thank you Jesus!
This...doesn't make any sense.
According to your view, both the father and the son are both God, are both co-eternal, co-equal, one being. But God the Son, who is also the same God as God the Father, came down in human form, humbled himself so the man that is still fully God, still co-eternal, is now somehow less than the part of God that is still in heaven--God the Father?
Then they can't be co-eternal if one is less than the other.
There you go again, parts? There are no parts. God is One. No parts, no separation.
In the Christian view it is the Father, the Son
and the Holy Spirit who together are the One Eternal God.
Jesus was never less than God at any time during the 33 years of His earthly life.
I will reply to two of your comments.
gunslinger wrote, "I don't see how the use of the word 'the' means there will be no more. If taken literally, one would have to accept that Revelation is not only the last but the only revelation of Jesus Christ. Besides which, doesn't the book of Revelation specifically mention two prophets coming in the last days?
Phil replies, "The definitive article is of the utmost importance. It points to one very specific person, or thing. The indefinite article, "An, or a, makes reference to one of many. You need to study this, it may be one of the single most important things you ever examined. I have studied it fully, it does make a very big difference.
But, if it truly was "THE" revelation, wouldn't it be such at the exclusion of any other revelation contained within the Bible? If there are others, it cannot be "the" revelation, meaning the only one.
You wrote, "The apostles of the church are likewise special witnesses to Christ. Keep in mind Paul did not actually serve with Christ during his ministry. He saw Christ in a vision. His experience can be likened to Joseph Smith's, then, in that they became apostles--or special witnesses--by beholding the resurrected Christ."
Phil replies, "I am amazed how much you have to rely on the book of Mormon. Tell me, What person who has fathered a new religion has not claimed to have had some kind of vision of Jesus Christ, or Mary, or an angel, or whatever?
Why wouldn't I rely on the Book of Mormon? I consider it scripture. That would be like me saying you rely too much on the New Testament. Of course you do; it's considered God's word.
As for the veracity of Smith's claims, I'll answer that a little further down. Suffice to say, we do not rely solely on his accounts. There were witnesses that also saw what he saw. That is the major difference between his claims and others. It's one thing to claim to have seen an angel. It's wholly another to then introduce that angel to three other people.
Is Joseph Smith to be His own witness? We do now know if Paul was not at the cross when Jesus was crucified? Crucifications were for a public display, having large crowds present. There is no evidence in the Bible that Paul did not witness His death, is there?
There is no evidence Paul was there one way or the other, I suppose. But does that matter? If Paul was not at the crucifixion, does that alter his status one way or the other?
The big difference between Paul, and Joseph Smith is, Paul lived in those very days. How does Joseph Smith know what Jesus looked like? It could have been a fallen angle claiming to be Jesus, I don't know, and neither does anyone else. What I am sure of, Scriptures teach that there would be no further Revelation.
This is an unfair standard you are setting up for the church. How can you prove anything? How do you know that the four gospels weren't meant merely as morality tales? How do you know if Paul really saw Christ, or if he just wanted to claim the title of apostle? How do you know the Bible was written by inspired prophets? How do you know Satan isn't behind it as a grand scheme? As with anything, we know by faith. That's all we really have.
How can anyone be drawn in by claims no-one can prove, or disprove? All of Scriptures have a witness, or witnesses.
Absolutely. Have you never looked in the front of the Book of Mormon? The Testimony of the Three Witnesses? Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer each were shown the brass plates and each one conversed with the Angel Moroni. There is also a Testimony of the Eight Witnesses, eight individuals who did not see the angel, but beheld the brass plates. So there were witnesses to the restoration. And read through the Doctrine and Covenants. Almost every revelation or angelic visitation given to Joseph Smith happened in the presence of another. this is what separates his stories from others. Could they all be fabricating it? Possibly. But the likelihood is less when others are present.
But to claim that Paul did not see Jesus die, would be a private interpretation, or opinion of Scriptures. An opinion (note indefinite article, "an," one of many opinions) based on no evidence, conjecture.
I can see one great, and maybe an insurmountable problem. Your knowledge of the Mormon faith, any you have apparently never studying the Bible without some form of input, great, or small coming from their literature.
I've studied the Bible extensively. I just do not see what you see.
There you go again, parts? There are no parts. God is One. No parts, no separation.
I don't understand what you mean here. You believe that God came down to earth as Christ. You also believe God stayed in heaven as the Father. How can this be unless he separated himself somehow?
In the Christian view it is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit who together are the One Eternal God.
They are one, yes, one in purpose, not in substance.
Jesus was never less than God at any time during the 33 years of His earthly life.
If Jesus is not less than God, why did he claim he was? We have already established that Christ considered the Father to be his God. We have also established that Christ stated that the Father is greater than he is. Therefore, Christ is less than God. The Bible's pretty explicit on this one.
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 14:44:54
There you go again, parts? There are no parts. God is One. No parts, no separation.
I don't understand what you mean here. You believe that God came down to earth as Christ. You also believe God stayed in heaven as the Father. How can this be unless he separated himself somehow?
In the Christian view it is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit who together are the One Eternal God.
They are one, yes, one in purpose, not in substance.
Jesus was never less than God at any time during the 33 years of His earthly life.
If Jesus is not less than God, why did he claim he was? We have already established that Christ considered the Father to be his God. We have also established that Christ stated that the Father is greater than he is. Therefore, Christ is less than God. The Bible's pretty explicit on this one.
I never said that God "stayed" in heaven, or that God came "down" to earth, and I never would. You are projecting your own assumptions onto me and calling them what I believe. You are arguing with yourself.
No, they are not only one in purpose or objective, that would be monadic monotheistic. Jesus' revelation of God is clear: "I and the Father are one;" not "I and the Father have one purpose or goal." The oneness refers to essence and relation, not to
functional or teleological intent.
"We" have established little except that there is much you do not yet know.
No, they are not only one in purpose or objective, that would be monadic monotheistic. Jesus' revelation of God is clear: "I and the Father are one;" not "I and the Father have one purpose or goal." The oneness refers to essence and relation, not to functional or teleological intent.
True, Christ did say that I and the Father are one." But that does not refer to one in essence. Remember, Christ also instructed his disciples to be one. John 17:20-21 says:
Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. Here Christ is praying that his disciples have the same unity he has with his Father. I doubt you are saying that all of Christ's disciples are of one substance, so the alternative must mean that their unity is on one will and purpose.
I never said that God "stayed" in heaven, or that God came "down" to earth, and I never would. You are projecting your own assumptions onto me and calling them what I believe. You are arguing with yourself.
If I have misconstrued your beliefs, I apologize. So you don't believe God came to earth in the flesh? Maybe you need to specifically lay out what the Trinity is, according to your viewpoint so I can make sure I am not in error. It was my belief that you were saying that the Father and Son are both God. The son came to earth, the father did not. What does this mean, then, if I am wrong in my characterization?
"We" have established little except that there is much you do not yet know.
I think I've shown that I have a working knowledge of the Bible. What you have failed to show is how the father and son are equal, if the father is greater, and how both can be God, when the father is God to the Son. Both of these are in direct conflict with the Trinity, yet you refuse to explain another plausible explanation other than the one that I have put forth. Tell me, then, how are these passages to be viewed in a Trinitarian context?
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 16:03:59I think I've shown that I have a working knowledge of the Bible. What you have failed to show is how the father and son are equal, if the father is greater, and how both can be God, when the father is God to the Son. Both of these are in direct conflict with the Trinity, yet you refuse to explain another plausible explanation other than the one that I have put forth. Tell me, then, how are these passages to be viewed in a Trinitarian context?
Always learning (knowledge), but never coming to the truth of God's Word; very common for one decieved, and not having the faith given to Him by God.
When once you recieve the God of the Bible in your heart; all things will be made clear...Jesus is knocking at the door of your heart, I sense you are almost there, and willing to let Him in ::smile::
Jude
3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God's holy people. 4 For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
: Johnb Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 17:12:27
Jude
3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God's holy people. 4 For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
Amen brother! The LDS deny Jesus Christ our ONLY Sovereign Lord...who is indeed; God Almighty! They deny the power of the Cross, in which Jesus died and rose again...and has covered all our sins and finished the work; only God could do that...certainly not a created man, or a brother of satan ::frown::
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Jan 23, 2012 - 16:03:59
No, they are not only one in purpose or objective, that would be monadic monotheistic. Jesus' revelation of God is clear: "I and the Father are one;" not "I and the Father have one purpose or goal." The oneness refers to essence and relation, not to functional or teleological intent.
True, Christ did say that I and the Father are one." But that does not refer to one in essence. Remember, Christ also instructed his disciples to be one. John 17:20-21 says: Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Of course Jesus is referring to His being one in essence with God the Father, why do you suppose they picked up stones to try and kill Him for blaspheme? Those who knew their Bible understood very well what He was proclaiming.
No, Jesus is not saying we can be one in essence with God in John 17. On the contrary, Jesus was obviously referring to relational oneness. This is actually a very good passage that relates to the Trinitarian nature of God.
Jesus was praying that His followers, all Christians, would function in a relational oneness in the one Body of Christ, in like manner as He and the Father functioned in relational oneness in the Oneness of the Trinitarian Godhead. Christians have the privilege of participating in the inter-
relational oneness of the Triune God.
I never said that God "stayed" in heaven, or that God came "down" to earth, and I never would. You are projecting your own assumptions onto me and calling them what I believe. You are arguing with yourself.
If I have misconstrued your beliefs, I apologize. So you don't believe God came to earth in the flesh? Maybe you need to specifically lay out what the Trinity is, according to your viewpoint so I can make sure I am not in error. It was my belief that you were saying that the Father and Son are both God. The son came to earth, the father did not. What does this mean, then, if I am wrong in my characterization?
I have specifically laid out what the Trinity is numerous times already. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are not, and have never been, separate. God is One.
"We" have established little except that there is much you do not yet know.
I think I've shown that I have a working knowledge of the Bible. What you have failed to show is how the father and son are equal, if the father is greater, and how both can be God, when the father is God to the Son. Both of these are in direct conflict with the Trinity, yet you refuse to explain another plausible explanation other than the one that I have put forth. Tell me, then, how are these passages to be viewed in a Trinitarian context?
Your "working knowledge" needs work.
Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man. Stop, and ponder that for a minute. The reason you do not understand is because you reject the foundational truths of real Christianity.
Dad: "Amen brother! The LDS deny Jesus Christ our ONLY Sovereign Lord...who is indeed; God Almighty! They deny the power of the Cross, in which Jesus died and rose again...and has covered all our sins and finished the work; only God could do that...certainly not a created man, or a brother of satan."
I have not gotten this from gun slinger's comments...From the "Introduction" in the book of Mormon:
As a Mormon, gun slinger has "asked God the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if the Book of Mormon is true."
How is this accomplished in the Mormon belief?
Again from the "Introduction."
"By the divine witness of the Holy Spirit" that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world."
Is this not three identities in ONE?
gun slinger has admitted he believes "the New Testament is the word of God."
This verifies that he believes in John 15:26-27. "When the Advocate is come, whom
I will send unto YOU (apostles) even the Spirit of truth, which proceeds from the Father,
he shall testify of me:
And YOU shall be my witness, because you have been with me from the beginning" ( John 15:26-27 ).
A "witness" in the biblical sense, would be one who had been with Jesus "from the beginning,"
or as Paul revealed his credentials in 1 Corinthians 9:1 "Am I not an apostle,
have I not seen the Lord etc."
This narrows the field down to those as credentialed "witnesses" does it not?
In John 17:17-20 we read a statement made by Jesus that would cause me to NOT to believe in
"The Testimony of The Three Witnesses" and "The Testimony of the Eight Witnesses." ( Introduction ).
In His high priestly prayer, Jesus asked the Father to sanctify the men which were given to him
by the Father with the truth. He then prays for those which will believe on him "through THEIR word."
This is the only record in the new testament which authorizes men in how to believe on Him.
If The Book of Mormon is true, then we must consider that John 17:20 is not true.....
causing a domino affect of Jesus' high priestly prayer and the New Testament as "truth.".
Gunslinger
Here is the question I have. (If you have answered it elsewhere forgive me.) Do you believe one can be a Christian without the BofM?
Now as to the claim that Joseph Smiths "wives" were platonic and just for eternity. (Sorry but that line is impossible to believe)
What is the purpose of eternal marriage when the NT clearly teaches there will be no marriage in the here after.
Matt 22
25Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
26Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
27And last of all the woman died also.
28Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
29Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
This is repeated in all 3 gospels.
: Johnb Tue Jan 24, 2012 - 16:26:06
Now as to the claim that Joseph Smiths "wives" were platonic and just for eternity. (Sorry but that line is impossible to believe)
What is the purpose of eternal marriage when the NT clearly teaches there will be no marriage in the here after.
Matt 22
25Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
26Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
27And last of all the woman died also.
28Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
29Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
This is repeated in all 3 gospels.
Boy...this blows their temple ritual wedding ceremony for eternity in their celestial kingdom right out of the water ::frown::
Sorry for the delay, everyone. I just got back from classes and I'll try to get to as many questions here as possible.
Now as for the following:
Gunslinger
Here is the question I have. (If you have answered it elsewhere forgive me.) Do you believe one can be a Christian without the BofM?
I definitely believe it is possible to be a Christian without accepting the Book of Mormon. Rejecting this book only means that you are not a Mormon. For me, all it takes to be a Christian is to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God--however you may interpret it--and that you accept him as your savior. Nearly everyone on this board believes as such, and I consider them all to be Christian. It's not my place to try and determine who is and is not one. So as long as they meet the above criteria, I classify someone as such.
: the_last_gunslinger Tue Jan 24, 2012 - 19:01:48
Sorry for the delay, everyone. I just got back from classes and I'll try to get to as many questions here as possible.
Now as for the following:
Gunslinger
Here is the question I have. (If you have answered it elsewhere forgive me.) Do you believe one can be a Christian without the BofM?
I definitely believe it is possible to be a Christian without accepting the Book of Mormon. Rejecting this book only means that you are not a Mormon. For me, all it takes to be a Christian is to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God--however you may interpret it--and that you accept him as your savior.
Yep...that is all it takes; yet you like billions of others want to believe (the lie)...that there is something more ::frown::
Gunslinger
The obvious question is: If I can be a Christian and go to heaven without the B of M why do you want or need it??
Boy...this blows their temple ritual wedding ceremony for eternity in their celestial kingdom right out of the water
Not really.
Looking at that specific passage, it is important to note that it is referencing a specific example. I'm not sure if it was meant to be applied to all cases.
And look at the next part; it says that in the resurrection, none will marry or be given in marriage. It specifically says
In the Resurrection. It says nothing about dissolving marriages that occurred prior to the resurrection, nor does it say there will be no marriage after it.
But let me ask this, then...am I to understand it that the "Orthodox" Christian stance is that we will not be with our families in Heaven? That seems kind of depressing, and far from what most would consider heaven.
: Thankfulldad Tue Jan 24, 2012 - 19:10:40
: the_last_gunslinger Tue Jan 24, 2012 - 19:01:48
Sorry for the delay, everyone. I just got back from classes and I'll try to get to as many questions here as possible.
Now as for the following:
Gunslinger
Here is the question I have. (If you have answered it elsewhere forgive me.) Do you believe one can be a Christian without the BofM?
I definitely believe it is possible to be a Christian without accepting the Book of Mormon. Rejecting this book only means that you are not a Mormon. For me, all it takes to be a Christian is to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God--however you may interpret it--and that you accept him as your savior.
Yep...that is all it takes; yet you like billions of others want to believe (the lie)...that there is something more ::frown::
Um, I never stated otherwise. According to this definition, a definition you apparently seem to agree with, I am a Christian, since I accept Christ as the Son of God, and my personal Savior. If this is all it takes, why, then, are Mormons excluded from being called Christian? This is central to our theology.
: the_last_gunslinger Tue Jan 24, 2012 - 19:55:53
: Thankfulldad Tue Jan 24, 2012 - 19:10:40
: the_last_gunslinger Tue Jan 24, 2012 - 19:01:48
Sorry for the delay, everyone. I just got back from classes and I'll try to get to as many questions here as possible.
Now as for the following:
Gunslinger
Here is the question I have. (If you have answered it elsewhere forgive me.) Do you believe one can be a Christian without the BofM?
I definitely believe it is possible to be a Christian without accepting the Book of Mormon. Rejecting this book only means that you are not a Mormon. For me, all it takes to be a Christian is to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God--however you may interpret it--and that you accept him as your savior.
Yep...that is all it takes; yet you like billions of others want to believe (the lie)...that there is something more ::frown::
Um, I never stated otherwise. According to this definition, a definition you apparently seem to agree with, I am a Christian, since I accept Christ as the Son of God, and my personal Savior. If this is all it takes, why, then, are Mormons excluded from being called Christian? This is central to our theology.
The better question...if the Bible gives us all we need to have eternal life; why the book of Mormon?
The better question...if the Bible gives us all we need to have eternal life; why the book of Mormon?
The short answer is: Because the Bible is incomplete. The Holy Bible contains fully the gospel message, that is, Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that he died for our sins. But much of the more mysterious parts of the Bible are difficult to understand.
As for why we need the Book of Mormon? It serves to strengthen the testimony of the gospel message. Two witnesses are better than one, wouldn't you agree? It also serves as a reminder that God loves and knows all of his children; it shows that he did not leave the rest of the world in spiritual darkness, without divine guidance. And it also stands as a witness to the prophetic mission of Joseph Smith. As such, it is the keystone of the Mormon faith. If the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is God's church. If the Book of Mormon is false, then the entire religion cannot stand. In my opinion, the Book of Mormon's primary objective is to serve as a witness of Jesus Christ and of His church. But more importantly, as does the Bible, this book of scripture can help bring you closer to God. By following its precepts, listening to its stories, one can gain an abundance of life. I've read through it multiple times and with each successive reading, I feel closer to God. That by itself is reason enough to read it.
But I guess I can pose a similar question to you? Why the need for four gospels? Isn't one enough? Mathew already testifies of Jesus Christ, why do we then need Mark's testimony as well? And, if the Bible as compiled is sufficient, why then did Christ himself quote from other books not contained within the Bible?
Of course Jesus is referring to His being one in essence with God the Father, why do you suppose they picked up stones to try and kill Him for blaspheme? Those who knew their Bible understood very well what He was proclaiming.
My purpose for bringing this up is to show that Christ proclaiming that he and his father are one in no way means definitively that they are one in essence, since he used the very same phrasing to describe the way in which all members are to be one, one in purpose, not essence.
Jesus was praying that His followers, all Christians, would function in a relational oneness in the one Body of Christ, in like manner as He and the Father functioned in relational oneness in the Oneness of the Trinitarian Godhead. Christians have the privilege of participating in the inter-relational oneness of the Triune Go
d.
That was my point. Christ wanted his followers to act as one, in purpose, being unified. I'm just trying to explain that this is the oneness shared by the Father and the Son; they are not one in substance or essence.
I have specifically laid out what the Trinity is numerous times already. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are not, and have never been, separate. God is One.
I realize that you have laid out what the Trinity is, the problem is that it makes no sense, nor is there sufficient scriptural evidence for it to be used as a litmus test for salvation or for being considered Christian. I don't believe you intended to say that God separated, exactly, but if the Father and Son are both fully God, but they are separate personages themselves, in different locations, it becomes difficult to really know what that even means.
Your "working knowledge" needs work. Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man. Stop, and ponder that for a minute. The reason you do not understand is because you reject the foundational truths of real Christianity.
The Trinity did not become the foundation of Christianity until the fourth century. If it is so foundational, it seems as though a prophet, an apostle, Christ himself would have shown such a belief. They do not. I do not reject the foundation of Christianity, the foundation is that Jesus is the SON of God, not God himself. It is a logical impossibility to be your own Son. Furthermore, as I've already illustrated to you, by Christ's own words, the Father and Son are not equal. Christ proclaimed that the father was greater than he was. To say that they are both equal still would be like saying that 5=7. You have to see why it's difficult to accept that the father and son are both One God, when the son, Jesus proclaimed rather boldly that the Father is "His God." I'll ask this. How can it be that the Father and Son are equally "One God" when the Father is Greater than the Son, and God to the Son? This defies any semblance of logic.
: the_last_gunslinger Tue Jan 24, 2012 - 20:15:59But I guess I can pose a similar question to you? Why the need for four gospels? Isn't one enough? Mathew already testifies of Jesus Christ, why do we then need Mark's testimony as well? And, if the Bible as compiled is sufficient, why then did Christ himself quote from other books not contained within the Bible?
To witness of the Life of God on this earth in the person of Jesus Christ; to prove that He walked this earth, died for our sins, rose again...this proves that He was God and has finished the work.
Anyone who adds to this makes God a liar; I trust the God that rose again...and gives us His Spirit. I am not just close to Him...He is in me; His love and life is in me for eternity. Through Him...all things are made clear as we "give ourself up", abandon, yield...as we love Him, He lives through us...the fruits of the Spirit. It is all Him, He saves us, He gives us faith, He gives us His love, wait......He is the love, He is the faith, He is the hope that lives in and through us...His children.
Rules, codes, abstaining from, rituals, garments...will all perish with us, because they are based on human commands and teachings....but lack any value at restraining sensual indulgence.
Hey...I have a Bible verses that speak to this!
Colossians 2:20-23...Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21"Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? 22These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.
Value for restraining...is through the Holy Spirit and in no other way: you blasphemy God, by rules...codes...you take away what He can do for you and through you. He does not give us the power, He is the power...not to abstain; but to love one another. Love does no harm to a neighbor...therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
To witness of the Life of God on this earth in the person of Jesus Christ; to prove that He walked this earth, died for our sins, rose again...this proves that He was God and has finished the work.
Exactly! This is exactly what the Book of Mormon does.
Anyone who adds to this makes God a liar; I trust the God that rose again...and gives us His Spirit. I am not just close to Him...He is in me; His love and life is in me for eternity. Through Him...all things are made clear as we "give ourself up", abandon, yield...as we love Him, He lives through us...the fruits of the Spirit. It is all Him, He saves us, He gives us faith, He gives us His love, wait......He is the love, He is the faith, He is the hope that lives in and through us...His children.
Certainly,anyone who adds to this is attempting to make God a liar. And I am in agreement, men should not add to God's word, that's partly why I reject such notions as the Trinity, doctrines concocted by Men who voted on them in councils. They added to God's word, most definitely.
But God certainly is allowed to add to his word himself, isn't he? To say that he can no longer give us scripture or speak to us is placing limitations on God. I believe God is without limitations, and can give us all the scripture he wants. And I will eagerly read them.
Rules, codes, abstaining from, rituals, garments...will all perish with us, because they are based on human commands and teachings....but lack any value at restraining sensual indulgence.
Hey...I have a Bible verses that speak to this!
Colossians 2:20-23...Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21"Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? 22These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.
The problem with this verse, is that it is speaking specifically to the "Principles of this world." Clearly, those are not important. But rules that come from God, why that is a different matter. If God tells us to abstain from coffee, for example, that is not a principle of the world, that is a commandment of God, and only the foolish blatantly ignore God's commandments.
I've brought it up in our previous correspondences and I'll do so here, since I've never gotten a response. If rules and commandments are not needed, why then did Christ tell his disciples to keep the commandments if they wish to enter into heaven? Why did he say "If you love me, keep my Commandments?" Certainly, you believe we should love the Lord, and we show it by obeying him. And further, Revelation specifically says that we will be judged according to our works. If works are of no consequence, why then are we judged based on them? And then there's James's "Faith without works is Dead" speech. How can dead faith save us? It cannot, therefore works are essential to making our faith complete.
Value for restraining...is through the Holy Spirit; no other way...you blasphemy God, by rules...codes...you take away what He can do for you and through you. He does not give us the power, He is the power...not to abstain; but to love one another. Love does no harm to a neighbor...therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
So now I "blaspheme" God? Let me ask you this, say we are wrong, and not a single good work is required of us. Are you saying that God will hold it against us because we tried too hard to be good? Will that keep someone out of heaven?
Gunslinger
2 points.
On the question of marriage. In all 3 gospels it is talking about a woman who's husband died and obeying the law she married his brother this happened 7 times then she died. These marriages took place here on earth not in heaven. The ask who's wife she would be and were told there would be no marriage in heaven. This is a clear passage and does not apply to just a specific example. Like wise if a man has more than one wife the answer is the same there will be no marriage in heaven. Yes there will be relationships in heaven but different than here. I don't know how God will handle the problems like how will I not grieve over those close to me that are not there.
The attempt to continue the sexual relations of this life in heaven is a clear indication that the B of M is from the mind of Joesph Smith and the doctrine is clearly lifted by Sidney Rigdon from the Campbells.
Second point
I have actually read he B of M and found it to be almost comical in places. It IMO clearly does not add anything to the bible and therefore is of no value in my walk with Christ.
: the_last_gunslinger Tue Jan 24, 2012 - 20:44:13
So now I "blaspheme" God? Let me ask you this, say we are wrong, and not a single good work is required of us. Are you saying that God will hold it against us because we tried too hard to be good? Will that keep someone out of heaven?
Yes...that is what I am saying; your good works will only gain you hell...
We need the Holy Spirit of God working in our life. And the only way we can receive the Holy Spirit is by receiving Jesus Christ and trusting in Him alone for salvation. Everything points back to the cross where Jesus finished the work; God...in human flesh died for our sins...was made sin...on our behalf...and shook the foundations of Hell...because His work was now complete.
Then...He rose again; I put my full trust in Jesus who was raised from the dead. My life is His, I love Him...and He lives in me; my salvation is secure...eternal life is mine...and it is not because of me or any good works that I do. It is all Him; and His works through me...it is never a question of what can I do for God...but, am I any value to God. Can I move myself to the back corner of my heart...and leave impressions of Him? Those intimate with Jesus...will never leave impression of themself, or their works...rather, His love flows from them...as Jesus helps Himself to them, NOW those works...have value!
2 points.
On the question of marriage. In all 3 gospels it is talking about a woman who's husband died and obeying the law she married his brother this happened 7 times then she died. These marriages took place here on earth not in heaven. The ask who's wife she would be and were told there would be no marriage in heaven. This is a clear passage and does not apply to just a specific example. Like wise if a man has more than one wife the answer is the same there will be no marriage in heaven. Yes there will be relationships in heaven but different than here. I don't know how God will handle the problems like how will I not grieve over those close to me that are not there.
In relation to my interpretation, I could be wrong on it being a specific example, but that does not affect the efficacy of my position. The verse you posted clearly states that they will not be married in the
resurrection. On top of that, we have no idea what the specifics of this marriage was. Maybe the wife was not sealed to any of the husbands by someone holding the Priesthood.
You seem to be in agreement with me that there will be a continued relationship; as far as I'm concerned, this is a semantics issue. Why does it matter if it's literally called marriage, or whether it's called something else. Either way, the message is clear. "Families can be Together Forever." I'd hardly think a loving God would tear asunder such loving relationships.
The attempt to continue the sexual relations of this life in heaven is a clear indication that the B of M is from the mind of Joesph Smith and the doctrine is clearly lifted by Sidney Rigdon from the Campbells.
Well, if we want to get technical, the Book of Mormon does not reference eternal marriage. One needs to read the Doctrine and Covenants to familiarize himself with it. I also feel that I should point out that, to my knowledge, it says nothing about sexual relations, only that we will have eternal increase. Members of the church can't even agree on what exactly that means. Personally, I don't think "having an increase" will be the same in heaven as it is on earth.
And that old tired theory that Rigdon wrote the religious parts of the Book of Mormon is considered laughable by most historical experts. Rigdon had never even seen a Book of Mormon until the missionary Parley P. Pratt personally gave him one on October 15th, 1830. Every single account affirms that no bond was formed between Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon until after the church was founded and the Book of Mormon was already published. You also have Cowdery's testimony, who was with Smith when he translated the Book of Mormon. There are simply too many witnesses for this to be plausible.
This theory didn't arise until 1834 when Philastur Hurlbut put it forth, as a way of explaining how an unlearned farm boy was able to write such a complex text. He claimed a connection between Rigdon and a lost Solomon Spaulding manuscript believed to be the basis for this theory. But once this manuscript turned up, Hurlbut decided against publishing it because it "did not read as he expected." This theory fell apart shortly thereafter, and it is considered highly un-credible.
Second point
I have actually read he B of M and found it to be almost comical in places. It IMO clearly does not add anything to the bible and therefore is of no value in my walk with Christ.
It's fine if it did not work for you. However, I am probably correct in assuming you went into it with a heavy bias against it. I doubt it gets a fair chance when the reader does not give it a chance of being true.
For me, the experience is different. It brings me closer to Christ, I feel his love more abundantly, it brings to me a joy beyond compare, and for that reason alone, it is well worth it.
But I definitely do not thing it is comical. I could never think scripture is comical.
: the_last_gunslinger Tue Jan 24, 2012 - 20:27:06
Of course Jesus is referring to His being one in essence with God the Father, why do you suppose they picked up stones to try and kill Him for blaspheme? Those who knew their Bible understood very well what He was proclaiming.
My purpose for bringing this up is to show that Christ proclaiming that he and his father are one in no way means definitively that they are one in essence, since he used the very same phrasing to describe the way in which all members are to be one, one in purpose, not essence.
Jesus was praying that His followers, all Christians, would function in a relational oneness in the one Body of Christ, in like manner as He and the Father functioned in relational oneness in the Oneness of the Trinitarian Godhead. Christians have the privilege of participating in the inter-relational oneness of the Triune Go
d.
That was my point. Christ wanted his followers to act as one, in purpose, being unified. I'm just trying to explain that this is the oneness shared by the Father and the Son; they are not one in substance or essence.
I have specifically laid out what the Trinity is numerous times already. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are not, and have never been, separate. God is One.
I realize that you have laid out what the Trinity is, the problem is that it makes no sense, nor is there sufficient scriptural evidence for it to be used as a litmus test for salvation or for being considered Christian. I don't believe you intended to say that God separated, exactly, but if the Father and Son are both fully God, but they are separate personages themselves, in different locations, it becomes difficult to really know what that even means.
Your "working knowledge" needs work. Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man. Stop, and ponder that for a minute. The reason you do not understand is because you reject the foundational truths of real Christianity.
The Trinity did not become the foundation of Christianity until the fourth century. If it is so foundational, it seems as though a prophet, an apostle, Christ himself would have shown such a belief. They do not. I do not reject the foundation of Christianity, the foundation is that Jesus is the SON of God, not God himself. It is a logical impossibility to be your own Son. Furthermore, as I've already illustrated to you, by Christ's own words, the Father and Son are not equal. Christ proclaimed that the father was greater than he was. To say that they are both equal still would be like saying that 5=7. You have to see why it's difficult to accept that the father and son are both One God, when the son, Jesus proclaimed rather boldly that the Father is "His God." I'll ask this. How can it be that the Father and Son are equally "One God" when the Father is Greater than the Son, and God to the Son? This defies any semblance of logic.
And everything you have written here is the very reason that Christianity will never accept LDS as Christian. You asked if LDS was a Christian religion, the answer is no. It is a religion, but it is not Christian...and your very words explain why that is so. It doesn't matter if it is logical to you. All that matters is that you must believe in the real Jesus Christ of Christianity not the imaginary Jesus of LDS in order to be one of us, in order to be a Christian. That's just the way it is.
Yes...that is what I am saying; your good works will only gain you hell...
Wait, so God punishes you for doing good? My goodness, that does not sound like a loving God at all. But just to humor me, tell me where in the Bible it says someone goes to hell for doing good works.
We need the Holy Spirit of God working in our life. And the only way we can receive the Holy Spirit is by receiving Jesus Christ and trusting in Him alone for salvation. Everything points back to the cross where Jesus finished the work; God...in human flesh died for our sins...was made sin...on our behalf...and shook the foundations of Hell...because His work was now complete.
Agree with most of it, only I believe Jesus is the Son of God. Other than that it seems right.
Then...He rose again; I put my full trust in Jesus who was raised from the dead. My life is His, I love Him...and He lives in me; my salvation is secure...eternal life is mine...and it is not because of me or any good works that I do. It is all Him; and His works through me...it is never a question of what can I do for God...but, am I any value to God. Can I move myself to the back corner of my heart...and leave impressions of Him? Those intimate with Jesus...will never leave impression of themself, or their works...rather, His love flows from them...as Jesus helps Himself to them, NOW those works...have value!
This is a good testimony you gave of your relationship with Christ. I think what you fail to see is that I also have a solid relationship. I know I am not going to hell because I have the audacity to do good works. I am still curious how you interpret scriptures that explicitly state that works are needed. If they are not, why are we judged based on them then? And again, can dead faith save us?
And everything you have written here is the very reason that Christianity will never accept LDS as Christian. You asked if LDS was a Christian religion, the answer is no. It is a religion, but it is not Christian...and your very words explain why that is so. It doesn't matter if it is logical to you. All that matters is that you must believe in the real Jesus Christ of Christianity not the imaginary Jesus of LDS in order to be one of us, in order to be a Christian. That's just the way it is.
Yet you fail to give biblical support for your position. If I am wrong, show me how God can be his own son. Show me, according to the Trinitarian interpretation, how the father and son are one god, if the Father is God to the Son. Tell me how they are co-equal if Christ proclaimed that the Father is greater than he is? How can someone who is greater be equal?
I do believe in the real Jesus of Christianity, the Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus that proclaimed he is the Son of God, come to do the will of his Father, who is greater than he is. My position is the Biblical position. You disagree, but can give no evidence to support your claim.
: the_last_gunslinger Tue Jan 24, 2012 - 21:30:11
And everything you have written here is the very reason that Christianity will never accept LDS as Christian. You asked if LDS was a Christian religion, the answer is no. It is a religion, but it is not Christian...and your very words explain why that is so. It doesn't matter if it is logical to you. All that matters is that you must believe in the real Jesus Christ of Christianity not the imaginary Jesus of LDS in order to be one of us, in order to be a Christian. That's just the way it is.
Yet you fail to give biblical support for your position. If I am wrong, show me how God can be his own son. Show me, according to the Trinitarian interpretation, how the father and son are one god, if the Father is God to the Son. Tell me how they are co-equal if Christ proclaimed that the Father is greater than he is? How can someone who is greater be equal?
I do believe in the real Jesus of Christianity, the Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus that proclaimed he is the Son of God, come to do the will of his Father, who is greater than he is. My position is the Biblical position. You disagree, but can give no evidence to support your claim.
If you believed in the real Jesus Christ of Christianity, you would know He is God. All of your protests against Him will not serve you well when you stand before Him....but still,
you will bow your knee to Him as God.
: the_last_gunslinger Tue Jan 24, 2012 - 21:24:43
Yes...that is what I am saying; your good works will only gain you hell...
Wait, so God punishes you for doing good? My goodness, that does not sound like a loving God at all. But just to humor me, tell me where in the Bible it says someone goes to hell for doing good works.
We need the Holy Spirit of God working in our life. And the only way we can receive the Holy Spirit is by receiving Jesus Christ and trusting in Him alone for salvation. Everything points back to the cross where Jesus finished the work; God...in human flesh died for our sins...was made sin...on our behalf...and shook the foundations of Hell...because His work was now complete.
Agree with most of it, only I believe Jesus is the Son of God. Other than that it seems right.
Then...He rose again; I put my full trust in Jesus who was raised from the dead. My life is His, I love Him...and He lives in me; my salvation is secure...eternal life is mine...and it is not because of me or any good works that I do. It is all Him; and His works through me...it is never a question of what can I do for God...but, am I any value to God. Can I move myself to the back corner of my heart...and leave impressions of Him? Those intimate with Jesus...will never leave impression of themself, or their works...rather, His love flows from them...as Jesus helps Himself to them, NOW those works...have value!
This is a good testimony you gave of your relationship with Christ. I think what you fail to see is that I also have a solid relationship. I know I am not going to hell because I have the audacity to do good works. I am still curious how you interpret scriptures that explicitly state that works are needed. If they are not, why are we judged based on them then? And again, can dead faith save us?
You base your faith on a man Jesus; a brother of satan...a Jesus that earned godhood through what he did; that faith is dead already!
We base our faith on a living God, Jesus...who was raised from the dead and has given us His Spirit; our faith is alive through the narrow door Himself! He is the faith we have, the works we have...it is all HIM.
You will not see me say I did this or I did that or I earned my way by my good works...sorry friend; your faith is as dead as the works you proclaim...
Gunslinger
When I was a CoC preacher I met a LDS guy and in our discussions I thought "wait this guy is stealing my lines". Example We did not establish a church but restored the church of the first century. The theology of restoration was clearly lifted from the Campbells and other RM folks that predated the B of M and your church. That with the fact that Rigdon was the vice president and official spokesman for the Smith movement.
I would not say that starting nearly every passage in a book with "It came to pass... and in many places clearly takes KJV language and slightly changing stories is proof of it being from God. It fails every traditional test of a canon type book.
gunslinger: "Um, I never stated otherwise. According to this definition, a definition you apparently seem to agree with, I am a Christian, since I accept Christ as the Son of God, and my personal Savior. If this is all it takes, why, then, are Mormons excluded from being called Christian? This is central to our theology."
Very astutely put gunslinger.....9 out of 10 on this forum will tell you that is how they accepted Christ.
Thankfuldad wrote:
We need the Holy Spirit of God working in our life. And the only way we can receive the Holy Spirit is by receiving Jesus Christ and trusting in Him alone for salvation. Everything points back to the cross where Jesus finished the work; God...in human flesh died for our sins...was made sin...on our behalf...and shook the foundations of Hell...because His work was now complete.
ChristNU wrote:
I do believe in the real Jesus of Christianity, the Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus that proclaimed he is the Son of God, come to do the will of his Father, who is greater than he is. My position is the Biblical position. You disagree, but can give no evidence to support your claim.
As I read it, gunslinger agrees with both quotes....gunslinger's "belief" is his support that Jesus is the Son of God,
and his personal Savior. His answer runs parallel with Thankfuldad and ChristNU's testimony.
Standing in the alley throwing rocks at one another over who believes the most is rather a
futile expedition in sub conscious feed back.
Now Gunslinger I will get some flaming arrows in my direction. I reject the Bof M and everything it stands for. I believe it is a false prophecy from a delusional man who sought power and used religion to fulfill his carnal sexual desires.
All that being said I can not say those in the LDS who truly accept Christ as their savior are not Christians any more than those today that have delusions of actually talking with God. It is not my place to judge what error God will or will not accept.
I do wish you could see the B of M in the light of real history and become a better servant of Christ. It was difficult for me to understand the error of the group I was with in their claims that they had restored the NT church and only their members were actually Christians.
: pointmade Wed Jan 25, 2012 - 06:07:38
gunslinger: "Um, I never stated otherwise. According to this definition, a definition you apparently seem to agree with, I am a Christian, since I accept Christ as the Son of God, and my personal Savior. If this is all it takes, why, then, are Mormons excluded from being called Christian? This is central to our theology."
Very astutely put gunslinger.....9 out of 10 on this forum will tell you that is how they accepted Christ.
Thankfuldad wrote:
We need the Holy Spirit of God working in our life. And the only way we can receive the Holy Spirit is by receiving Jesus Christ and trusting in Him alone for salvation. Everything points back to the cross where Jesus finished the work; God...in human flesh died for our sins...was made sin...on our behalf...and shook the foundations of Hell...because His work was now complete.
ChristNU wrote:
I do believe in the real Jesus of Christianity, the Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus that proclaimed he is the Son of God, come to do the will of his Father, who is greater than he is. My position is the Biblical position. You disagree, but can give no evidence to support your claim.
As I read it, gunslinger agrees with both quotes....gunslinger's "belief" is his support that Jesus is the Son of God,
and his personal Savior. His answer runs parallel with Thankfuldad and ChristNU's testimony.
Standing in the alley throwing rocks at one another over who believes the most is rather a
futile expedition in sub conscious feed back.
First of all that is not my quote, but gunslinger's. Second, apparently you are unaware of the Jesus of LDS and/or the Jesus of Christianity...my Jesus. Otherwise you could never make the statement that his answer runs parallel to my testimony. We are not throwing rocks, we are correcting the erroneous beliefs that gunslinger has been indoctrinated into with the truth.
If you believed in the real Jesus Christ of Christianity, you would know He is God. All of your protests against Him will not serve you well when you stand before Him....but still, you will bow your knee to Him as God
I don't believe in the real Jesus? Really? I've already stated that I believe Jesus is the Son of God, my Savior. This is the Jesus I believe in. Are you saying that this is inaccurate?
apparently you are unaware of the Jesus of LDS and/or the Jesus of Christianity...my Jesus. Otherwise you could never make the statement that his answer runs parallel to my testimony. We are not throwing rocks, we are correcting the erroneous beliefs that gunslinger has been indoctrinated into with the truth.
Again, you throw out vague accusations of me believing in a different Jesus without any scriptural support. I have given ample scriptures to support my position. You are clearly free to disagree with my interpretation, but if you do, you should be able to give me the "correct" interpretation. Like how two personages can be equal if one is greater than the other. Or how the Father and Son are both "One God" if the Bible plainly states that the Father is God to the Son.
You base your faith on a man Jesus; a brother of satan...a Jesus that earned godhood through what he did; that faith is dead already!
Aside from being the Spirit brother of Satan (which I've already pointed out is as valid a criticism as saying you worship Satan's father) this is not what we believe. Tell me when I said that Jesus earned his Godhood, because I do not remember ever stating such. Our belief is that Christ was foreordained to be the Savior before he came to earth, that he was born of the Virgin Mary, that he was raised to adulthood, established his church, lived a sinless life, took upon him the sins of the world, was crucified four our sake, was buried, rose on the third day and ascended to the Father where he is now in full glory. How is this any different than what you believe?
We base our faith on a living God, Jesus...who was raised from the dead and has given us His Spirit; our faith is alive through the narrow door Himself! He is the faith we have, the works we have...it is all HIM.
Which is exactly my viewpoint. Again, we seem to agree on most issues raised. You are establishing what you think we believe about Jesus and about good works and arguing against those.
You will not see me say I did this or I did that or I earned my way by my good works...sorry friend; your faith is as dead as the works you proclaim...
Right. We cannot "earn" our way into heaven. We can only obtain entry because of the acts of The Son, in taking upon himself the sins of the world. That does not mean he doesn't want us to do good works, though. I've shown scriptures that support this. Why are we judged by our works if they are not needed? What's the point of judgment?
And even if you are correct in your assertion, all that you have shown is that works don't matter. Nowhere does the Bible say that one goes to hell for doing good works. If it does, I'd really like to see that passage.
: the_last_gunslinger Wed Jan 25, 2012 - 07:38:27
If you believed in the real Jesus Christ of Christianity, you would know He is God. All of your protests against Him will not serve you well when you stand before Him....but still, you will bow your knee to Him as God
I don't believe in the real Jesus? Really? I've already stated that I believe Jesus is the Son of God, my Savior. This is the Jesus I believe in. Are you saying that this is inaccurate?
apparently you are unaware of the Jesus of LDS and/or the Jesus of Christianity...my Jesus. Otherwise you could never make the statement that his answer runs parallel to my testimony. We are not throwing rocks, we are correcting the erroneous beliefs that gunslinger has been indoctrinated into with the truth.
Again, you throw out vague accusations of me believing in a different Jesus without any scriptural support. I have given ample scriptures to support my position. You are clearly free to disagree with my interpretation, but if you do, you should be able to give me the "correct" interpretation. Like how two personages can be equal if one is greater than the other. Or how the Father and Son are both "One God" if the Bible plainly states that the Father is God to the Son.
I have no doubt whatsoever that you do in fact believe in the LDS Son of God, the problem is
that Son of God is only the fictional construct of a disturbed human mind. You have given ample scriptural support for your lack of understanding of the very scriptures you quote.
For those who seem to be in the dark about what LDS actually believe, here is a small sample courtesy of CARM:
Mormonism teaches that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones (D. & C. 130:22) and that Jesus is a creation. It teaches that he was begotten in heaven as one of God's spirit children (See the Book, Jesus the Christ, by James Talmage, p. 8). This is in strict contrast to the biblical teaching that he is God in flesh (John 1:1, 14), eternal (John 1:1, 2, 15), uncreated, yet born on earth (Col. 1:15), and the creator all (John 1:3; Col. 1:16-17). Jesus cannot be both created and not created at the same time. Though Mormonism teaches that Jesus is God in flesh, it teaches that he is "a" god in flesh, one of three gods that comprise the office of the Trinity (Articles of Faith, by Talmage, pp. 35-40). These three gods are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This is in direct contradiction of the biblical doctrine that there is only one God (Isaiah 44:6,8; 45:5). (http://carm.org/is-mormonism-christian)
When I was a CoC preacher I met a LDS guy and in our discussions I thought "wait this guy is stealing my lines". Example We did not establish a church but restored the church of the first century. The theology of restoration was clearly lifted from the Campbells and other RM folks that predated the B of M and your church. That with the fact that Rigdon was the vice president and official spokesman for the Smith movement.
Except Joseph Smith had not met Rigdon or the Cambelites when the LDS movement began. Remember, Smith's story started in 1820. All of the theology had not yet been revealed, but the concept of the restoration was clearly espoused in the First Vision with Christ's proclamation that he should join none of the sects because they were wrong. Not only that, but the Bible even predicts a great apostasy and a restoration.
But even if some tenets of the restoration movement were found in an earlier organization...so what? The church has never claimed that all truth had been taken from the earth. In fact, it is taught that all church's have some truth. The Campbells may have just been right on there being a falling away from New Testament principles. But to say the church is wrong because an earlier group had similar stances would seriously jeopardize the validity of Christianity itself. The concept of a god or demi-god being born of a virgin and preaching salvation is echoed in countless other religious traditions, like ancient Egypt. Or in Hindu traditions, the God Vishnu came to earth as a mortal named Krishna, to minister to the people, which sounds an awful lot like the Traditional Trinitarian view of God.
I would not say that starting nearly every passage in a book with "It came to pass... and in many places clearly takes KJV language and slightly changing stories is proof of it being from God. It fails every traditional test of a canon type book.
I don't know if you've ever tried creative writing before, but I do this from time to time, and looking through my work, I find interesting patterns of phrases that I use over and over again. For all we know it is a stylistic feature of the writer. Or it could have been a grammatical issue of the time and culture.
Also, claiming that using King James English proves it is not of divine origin shows a profound lack of understanding in the translation process. God wasn't literally telling Joseph Smith, word for word, what to write. He was only given power to understand what was being said and he was free to put it into his own words. The KJV was the most popular Bible at the time, the one most people were familiar and comfortable with. It would make sense to write the Book of Mormon similarly. After all, it was the only translation of the Bible that most knew, going back several generations.
A little more enlightenment:
Mormonism teaches the following non Christian, non biblical doctrines. (Note that all the documentation is taken from Mormon writers and Mormon scriptures.)
God used to be a man on another planet, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321; Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 345; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333)
God resides near a star called Kolob, (Pearl of Great Price, p. 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, p. 428).
"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's..." (Doctrines and Covenants 130:22).
God is in the form of a man, (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 3).
"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see," (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345).
After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345-347, 354.)
There is a mother god, (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443).
God is married to his goddess wife and has spirit children, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 516).
The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. "That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man," (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35.).
In contrast to these teachings, Christianity and the Bible teaches that God has always been God and was never a man (Psalm 90:2). The Bible no where says he lives near another star or that the Father has a body of flesh and bones -- which Christ contradicted in John 4:24 and Luke 24:39. We do not have the potential of becoming gods because there are no gods formed (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5). The Trinity is one God (Deut. 6:4), not three. (http://carm.org/mormonism)
Now Gunslinger I will get some flaming arrows in my direction. I reject the Bof M and everything it stands for. I believe it is a false prophecy from a delusional man who sought power and used religion to fulfill his carnal sexual desires.
All that being said I can not say those in the LDS who truly accept Christ as their savior are not Christians any more than those today that have delusions of actually talking with God. It is not my place to judge what error God will or will not accept.
I do wish you could see the B of M in the light of real history and become a better servant of Christ. It was difficult for me to understand the error of the group I was with in their claims that they had restored the NT church and only their members were actually Christians.
This is your prerogative. I doubt that you would reject everything. After all, it testifies of the divinity and mission of Jesus Christ. We can agree on that point, at least.
I would dispute the notion that it is a false prophecy from a delusional man, of course. And to say that he sought to satisfy his carnal desires is wholly without evidence. Again, there is no evidence that he has had children from any marriage but that to his wife, Emma.
It is commendable that you do not choose to try and determine who is and is not Christian. I believe that only God can determine this, and those who proclaim others are not are essentially speaking for God.
I appreciate your concern about the Book of Mormon. I simply disagree. I know it is the Word of God, and that's all that matters on that account. I have sought the Spirit in determining if it was true, and I have gotten that confirmation. And as I've said prior, I don't believe one needs to be a member of the church to be Christian.
God used to be a man on another planet, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321; Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 345; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333)
This has been
God resides near a star called Kolob, (Pearl of Great Price, p. 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, p. 428).
"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's..." (Doctrines and Covenants 130:22).
God is in the form of a man, (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 3).
"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see," (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345).
After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345-347, 354.)
There is a mother god, (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443).
God is married to his goddess wife and has spirit children, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 516).
The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. "That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man," (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35.).
In contrast to these teachings, Christianity and the Bible teaches that God has always been God and was never a man (Psalm 90:2). The Bible no where says he lives near another star or that the Father has a body of flesh and bones -- which Christ contradicted in John 4:24 and Luke 24:39. We do not have the potential of becoming gods because there are no gods formed (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5). The Trinity is one God (Deut. 6:4), not three. (http://carm.org/mormonism)
I need to point out that unless it is contained within the four standard works, it is not official. Mormon Doctrine contains the opinions only of Bruce Mckonckie and does not represent the opinions or beliefs of the church as a whole.
Putting this aside, however, even if these doctrines are official, and even if they are wrong, how does this affect salvation, if all that is needed is to accept Christ as one's savior? If this is truly all it takes, then it doesn't matter how much error is contained in other doctrine. This thread is on determining if the LDS church is a Christian one, and none of these doctrines can be used to exclude them from such a community.
I have no doubt whatsoever that you do in fact believe in the LDS Son of God, the problem is that Son of God is only the fictional construct of a disturbed human mind. You have given ample scriptural support for your lack of understanding of the very scriptures you quote.
Wait, are you saying that Jesus being the Son of God is the construct of a delusional mind? I'm pretty sure that the Bible supports this doctrine. Even a cursory reading shows that my position is the strongest one.
If I sum up your beliefs about the relationship between the father and the son, you first attach a different definition to Son, apparently claiming that Jesus was intentionally misleading with his characterization of himself so as to construct a confusing theological riddle that couldn't be solved until a bunch of uninspired men held a council and voted on this position. You then claim that the Father and Son are co-equal and co-eternal. Then I showed you how explicit the Bible is when Christ himself proclaimed that the Father is greater than he is. If there are two personages, and one is greater than the other, then by definition they cannot be equal. Again, you are essentially proposing that 5=7. This is more than a matter of what's logical, this is simple math. And finally, you propose that the Father and Son are both the "One True God." Yet Jesus Christ clearly said that the Father is his God. If they are together both the One God, how can one be the God of the other? These scriptures pretty much obliterate your misunderstanding of what the scriptures say about Christ and God.
Whoa ChristNU...
The New Testament says, "For with the heart man believes unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scriptures say, Whosoever believes on him shall not be ashamed, For whosoever shall call upon the name
of the Lord shall be saved" ( Romans 10:10 ff )
You are judging this man ( gunslinger ) under false pretences. He has admitted "belief" and "confession."
According to this young man he has asked the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ if the book is true?
He has gained the divine witness from the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world.
Just how many more hoops is gunslinger to jump through to satisfy all you good Christians
who claim to have the Holy Spirit? Are you more "holier" than he by the mere asking?
Is it that your feelings and experiences are more prudent than his?
Just reading through the many posts, he has shown a scholarly exegesis of the New Testament
and displayed more patients than Job with many of your insults. The man "believes" so lighten up.....
Smile, God loves ya....
: the_last_gunslinger Wed Jan 25, 2012 - 09:36:21This thread is on determining if the LDS church is a Christian one, and none of these doctrines can be used to exclude them from such a community.
Actually, you are wrong again; these doctrines go against the foundation of Christianity. To be a Christian, you must reject the Book of Mormon; and accept the Word of God (Bible) as pure, complete and without error....period!
If one adds to it...God will add to them the plagues revealed in His Word...
You are a Momon...please leave it at that; it reflects the book in which you place your faith.
: pointmade Wed Jan 25, 2012 - 09:43:49
Whoa ChristNU...
The New Testament says, "For with the heart man believes unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scriptures say, Whosoever believes on him shall not be ashamed, For whosoever shall call upon the name
of the Lord shall be saved" ( Romans 10:10 ff )
You are judging this man ( gunslinger ) under false pretences. He has admitted "belief" and "confession."
According to this young man he has asked the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ if the book is true?
He has gained the divine witness from the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world.
Just how many more hoops is ginslinger to jump through to satisfy all you good Christians
who claim to have the Holy Spirit? Are you more "holier" than he by the mere asking?
Is it that your feelings and experiences are more prudent than his?
Just reading through the many posts, he has shown a scholarly exegesis of the New Testament
and displayed more patients than Job with many of your insults. The man "believes" so lighten up.....
Smile, God loves ya....
You made your point...but does nothing to help this young man...
Actually, you are wrong again; these doctrines go against the foundation of Christianity. To be a Christian, you must reject the Book of Mormon; and accept the Word of God (Bible) as pure, complete and without error....period!
If one adds to it...God will add to them the plagues revealed in His Word...
You are a Momon...please leave it at that; it reflects the book in which you place your faith.
I'll ask again. Where does the Bible say that one must accept the Holy Bible as the pure, complete and without error word of God? I'll answer this for you: It is not in there anywhere. The Holy Bible was not even compiled during the time of Christ; how can this be a prerequisite for salvation or for being considered a follower of Christ. So on what basis do you make this claim, since it is not in the Bible.
I'll also agree with you, no one can add to God's word. But are you willing to say that you will put limitations on God, saying that he cannot speak up and give us more scripture?
I am a Mormon, true, I'm also a Christian. I place my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, not in any particular book.
: the_last_gunslinger Wed Jan 25, 2012 - 09:36:21
God used to be a man on another planet, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321; Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 345; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333)
This has been
God resides near a star called Kolob, (Pearl of Great Price, p. 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, p. 428).
"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's..." (Doctrines and Covenants 130:22).
God is in the form of a man, (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 3).
"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see," (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345).
After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345-347, 354.)
There is a mother god, (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443).
God is married to his goddess wife and has spirit children, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 516).
The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. "That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man," (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35.).
In contrast to these teachings, Christianity and the Bible teaches that God has always been God and was never a man (Psalm 90:2). The Bible no where says he lives near another star or that the Father has a body of flesh and bones -- which Christ contradicted in John 4:24 and Luke 24:39. We do not have the potential of becoming gods because there are no gods formed (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5). The Trinity is one God (Deut. 6:4), not three. (http://carm.org/mormonism)
I need to point out that unless it is contained within the four standard works, it is not official. Mormon Doctrine contains the opinions only of Bruce Mckonckie and does not represent the opinions or beliefs of the church as a whole.
Putting this aside, however, even if these doctrines are official, and even if they are wrong, how does this affect salvation, if all that is needed is to accept Christ as one's savior? If this is truly all it takes, then it doesn't matter how much error is contained in other doctrine. This thread is on determining if the LDS church is a Christian one, and none of these doctrines can be used to exclude them from such a community.
Oh, these are only the tip of the iceberg, as you must know. What it affects is whether or not LDS is Christian or not, and it is not. And if you believe in the fictional Jesus of the LDS, and not in the real Jesus of Christianity, that is what affects salvation.
: the_last_gunslinger Wed Jan 25, 2012 - 09:54:26
Actually, you are wrong again; these doctrines go against the foundation of Christianity. To be a Christian, you must reject the Book of Mormon; and accept the Word of God (Bible) as pure, complete and without error....period!
If one adds to it...God will add to them the plagues revealed in His Word...
You are a Momon...please leave it at that; it reflects the book in which you place your faith.
I'll ask again. Where does the Bible say that one must accept the Holy Bible as the pure, complete and without error word of God? I'll answer this for you: It is not in there anywhere. The Holy Bible was not even compiled during the time of Christ; how can this be a prerequisite for salvation or for being considered a follower of Christ. So on what basis do you make this claim, since it is not in the Bible.
I'll also agree with you, no one can add to God's word. But are you willing to say that you will put limitations on God, saying that he cannot speak up and give us more scripture?
I am a Mormon, true, I'm also a Christian. I place my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, not in any particular book.
And round and round and round we go; you know my answer...so, with a heavy heart...we are done with this discussion.
Dad: "You made your point...but does nothing to help this young man...
You really did not answer my questions dad......
On what grounds do you stand that superseeds gunslinger's belief in Jesus?
Tell me, just when and how did you receive the Holy Spirit?
Luther's "faith only"? Calvin's election? Augustine's infusion of faith?...I'm listening.
And round and round and round we go; you know my answer...so, I with a heavy heart...we are done with this discussion.
Exactly. You make bold claims, I challenge you to prove it through the scriptures. You cannot. I believe my point has been made.
: the_last_gunslinger Wed Jan 25, 2012 - 09:42:36
I have no doubt whatsoever that you do in fact believe in the LDS Son of God, the problem is that Son of God is only the fictional construct of a disturbed human mind. You have given ample scriptural support for your lack of understanding of the very scriptures you quote.
Wait, are you saying that Jesus being the Son of God is the construct of a delusional mind? I'm pretty sure that the Bible supports this doctrine. Even a cursory reading shows that my position is the strongest one.
Nice try, well not really. I am saying that the fictional LDS Jesus is the construct of a disturbed human mind.
: pointmade Wed Jan 25, 2012 - 09:59:30
Dad: "You made your point...but does nothing to help this young man...
You really did not answer my questions dad......
On what grounds do you stand that superseeds gunslinger's belief in Jesus?
Tell me, just when and how did you receive the Holy Spirit?
Luther's "faith only"? Calvin's election? Augustine's infusion of faith?...I'm listening.
Simply put; I realize I am saved...by believing.
God Bless...I am moving on ::smile::
Oh, these are only the tip of the iceberg, as you must know. What it affects is whether or not LDS is Christian or not, and it is not. And if you believe in the fictional Jesus of the LDS, and not in the real Jesus of Christianity, that is what affects salvation.
I understand that most do not accept these doctrines. That's pefectly okay. I also don't accept everything the leaders have said. There are things in that post that I don't agree with. I am also willing to concede that most of these doctrines are not found in the Bible. But that's not really the point. My point is that the Bible claims that one must accept Jesus Christ as his savior...I have done that. Nowhere does it say someone's salvation is in jeopardy because he or she accepts these doctrines.
I also would like to know, based on the scriptures, how we believe in a fictional Jesus. We believe he is the Son of God and the Savior. That's what the Bible testifies and we accept this. So with this in mind, how are we not Christian?
: pointmade Wed Jan 25, 2012 - 09:43:49
Whoa ChristNU...
The New Testament says, "For with the heart man believes unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scriptures say, Whosoever believes on him shall not be ashamed, For whosoever shall call upon the name
of the Lord shall be saved" ( Romans 10:10 ff )
You are judging this man ( gunslinger ) under false pretences. He has admitted "belief" and "confession."
According to this young man he has asked the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ if the book is true?
He has gained the divine witness from the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world.
Just how many more hoops is gunslinger to jump through to satisfy all you good Christians
who claim to have the Holy Spirit? Are you more "holier" than he by the mere asking?
Is it that your feelings and experiences are more prudent than his?
Just reading through the many posts, he has shown a scholarly exegesis of the New Testament
and displayed more patients than Job with many of your insults. The man "believes" so lighten up.....
Smile, God loves ya....
Wow, just wow.
: the_last_gunslinger Wed Jan 25, 2012 - 10:05:23
Oh, these are only the tip of the iceberg, as you must know. What it affects is whether or not LDS is Christian or not, and it is not. And if you believe in the fictional Jesus of the LDS, and not in the real Jesus of Christianity, that is what affects salvation.
I understand that most do not accept these doctrines. That's pefectly okay. I also don't accept everything the leaders have said. There are things in that post that I don't agree with. I am also willing to concede that most of these doctrines are not found in the Bible. But that's not really the point. My point is that the Bible claims that one must accept Jesus Christ as his savior...I have done that. Nowhere does it say someone's salvation is in jeopardy because he or she accepts these doctrines.
I also would like to know, based on the scriptures, how we believe in a fictional Jesus. We believe he is the Son of God and the Savior. That's what the Bible testifies and we accept this. So with this in mind, how are we not Christian?
You mean you understand that most Christians do not accept that the Son of God is a created being? Well, That is very "understanding" of you.
Simply put; I realize I am saved...by believing.
God Bless...I am moving on Smile
And that is terrific. I'm glad that you have such a testimony. I'm only asking that we can be brothers in Christ. We accept him as our Savior, as the Bible says. Just because we believe some different things about him does not mean we can't be united in our faith, despite theological differences.
You mean you understand that most Christians do not accept that the Son of God is a created being? Well, That is very "understanding" of you.
This again is irrelevant. I believe Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior. That is what the Bible says we must do in order to be a follower of Christ. Nowhere does it say one must believe a set list of particular doctrines to be considered a Christian.
: the_last_gunslinger Wed Jan 25, 2012 - 10:14:52
You mean you understand that most Christians do not accept that the Son of God is a created being? Well, That is very "understanding" of you.
This again is irrelevant. I believe Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior. That is what the Bible says we must do in order to be a follower of Christ. Nowhere does it say one must believe a set list of particular doctrines to be considered a Christian.
It is irrelevent that the Son of God that LDS teaches and that you believe in is a created being?? Thats your answer?? Then when you say that you believe in the Son of God, that too is irrelevent.
It is irrelevent that the Son of God that LDS teaches and that you believe in is a created being?? Thats your answer?? Then when you say that you believe in the Son of God, that too is irrelevent.
What's irrelevant are the specifics of Christ that, according to the Bible, salvation is not predicated upon. The Bible says that one must call upon Christ as his savior, proclaiming him to be the Son of God. That's it. It does not say, on top of that, that one must believe a laundry list of things about Christ.
And I clearly believe in the Son of God, as the Bible says as much. You appear to want to ignore this. The Bible is clear on who Jesus Christ is, and it is not how you describe him. Your version of God was a man made doctrine birthed in a council where they voted on the very nature of God. It is only at this point that the doctrine of the Trinity became part of the traditional Christian's doctrine. This is where you seem to place your faith.
: the_last_gunslinger Wed Jan 25, 2012 - 10:10:38
Simply put; I realize I am saved...by believing.
God Bless...I am moving on Smile
And that is terrific. I'm glad that you have such a testimony. I'm only asking that we can be brothers in Christ. We accept him as our Savior, as the Bible says. Just because we believe some different things about him does not mean we can't be united in our faith, despite theological differences.
1John 5:20...We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know Him who is true. And we are in Him who is true...even in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.
Friend...Jesus is the true God...He is eternal life; God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son...He who has the Son has Life. But, this Life can only be found in JESUS THE TRUE GOD.
My faith rests there; yours rests in a faith not of God...but of man. You can argue until you are blue in the face...but, this does nothing to change the difference in our faith.
So...again with a heavy heart; I am once again done with this merry go round...my brothers are found in Jesus Christ our God our Eternal Life.
: ChristNU Wed Jan 25, 2012 - 08:40:49
A little more enlightenment:
Mormonism teaches the following non Christian, non biblical doctrines. (Note that all the documentation is taken from Mormon writers and Mormon scriptures.)
God used to be a man on another planet, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321; Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 345; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333)
God resides near a star called Kolob, (Pearl of Great Price, p. 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, p. 428).
"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's..." (Doctrines and Covenants 130:22).
God is in the form of a man, (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 3).
"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see," (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345).
After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345-347, 354.)
There is a mother god, (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443).
God is married to his goddess wife and has spirit children, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 516).
The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. "That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man," (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35.).
In contrast to these teachings, Christianity and the Bible teaches that God has always been God and was never a man (Psalm 90:2). The Bible no where says he lives near another star or that the Father has a body of flesh and bones -- which Christ contradicted in John 4:24 and Luke 24:39. We do not have the potential of becoming gods because there are no gods formed (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5). The Trinity is one God (Deut. 6:4), not three. (http://carm.org/mormonism)
These were written and taught by "the prophet Joesph Smith" but is not what mormons teach and believe. Then you don't have much faith in your prophet!
: the_last_gunslinger Wed Jan 25, 2012 - 10:30:39
It is irrelevent that the Son of God that LDS teaches and that you believe in is a created being?? Thats your answer?? Then when you say that you believe in the Son of God, that too is irrelevent.
What's irrelevant are the specifics of Christ that, according to the Bible, salvation is not predicated upon. The Bible says that one must call upon Christ as his savior, proclaiming him to be the Son of God. That's it. It does not say, on top of that, that one must believe a laundry list of things about Christ.
And I clearly believe in the Son of God, as the Bible says as much. You appear to want to ignore this. The Bible is clear on who Jesus Christ is, and it is not how you describe him. Your version of God was a man made doctrine birthed in a council where they voted on the very nature of God. It is only at this point that the doctrine of the Trinity became part of the traditional Christian's doctrine. This is where you seem to place your faith.
That's not exactly accurate gungslinger. The Trinity and especilly the belief that Jesus Christ as God were around way before the Council of Nicaea. If we are to remain to true to the history of the Christian faith, the Council only had to even address Christ's divinity because a bishop named Arius formed a party that officially denied such. Furthermore you can't claim that the Council of Nicea is where Christ's divinity and the Trinity was born because we know that with regards to this topic the clergy of the Catholic Church weren't developing the doctrine; they were arguing the two points that were already wdespread. That's why its called the Arian Controversy, meaning a dispute between an oppsing school of thought i.e. triniatrianism.
Read Jn 1: 1.
"The word[Jesus] was with God, [Theos] and the word [Jesus] was God [Theos]".
If Jesus isn't God [Theos] Then God isn't God [Theos], You can't have it both ways.
Now look at Gen 1: 26.
" God [Elohm, Plural] said let US [Plural] make man in OUR [Plural] image after OUR [Plural] likeness.
God introduced Himself as Plural, [Three in one].
Gen 1: 1.
In the begining God [Elohim Plural] created.."
The Bible teaches God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
Your problem is, You believe the mormon misunderstandings rather than the Bible.
Gen 1:26 supports my position, not yours. Let US make man in OUR image. If the father and son are numerically one, how are we to understand this? Is God talking to himself?
I know what Elohim means, and I agree with it, just differently. The father and the son were both involved with creation. They can both be seen as God from a certain perspective. Jesus Christ is the one who created the heavens and the earth under the direction of the father. He is the God of the Old Testament. The father and son are both God in that they share all the attributes needed to be God, perfect love, mercy, justice, etc. Yet they are separate beings. The Bible clearly teaches this. You seem to reject the most basic Christian doctrine, that Jesus is the Son of God. This is what I believe, yet you do not.
That's not exactly accurate gungslinger. The Trinity and especilly the belief that Jesus Christ as God were around way before the Council of Nicaea. If we are to remain to true to the history of the Christian faith, the Council only had to even address Christ's divinity because a bishop named Arius formed a party that officially denied such. Furthermore you can't claim that the Council of Nicea is where Christ's divinity and the Trinity was born because we know that with regards to this topic the clergy of the Catholic Church weren't developing the doctrine; they were arguing the two points that were already wdespread. That's why its called the Arian Controversy, meaning a dispute between an oppsing school of thought i.e. triniatrianism.
The idea may have been present before the council, but it seemed to have become officially codified at the Council of Nicaea. I don't pretend to be an expert on ancient Christian history, and I think I'd lose an argument on that subject as you probably know a considerable amount more than I do on the subject. However, I think there is ample proof that, at the very least, there were numerous ideas about the nature of God prior to the Nicaea that were not Trinitarian, nor would they be considered orthodox today. Even some of the Early church fathers like Irenaeus and Tertullian did not seem to subscribe to this exact model. Both believed that God had not always been a Trinity, but had "put forth a son" at some point. And the latter figure borrowed many of his ideas from stoicism, believing God to be a material being.
All that being said, I still find it difficult to accept what men who were not prophets or apostles of God say about God's nature, especially since in the Bible, not only is Trinity not mentioned, but no follower of Christ ever puts forth the Nicaean definition.
With all this in mind, I find it a little offensive when people use this to establish who is and is not Christian. Even if we were 100 percent in the wrong, I find no place in the Bible that says salvation is predicated on knowing what God is made of. So I think that's my biggest gripe.
If you knew the Bible you would know that God the Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God....I THOUGHT YOU SAID YOU BELIEVED THE BIBLE??.
I think you have been telling me porkies.
So do you think the Bible was mistaken when it said that Jesus was the Son of God? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's pretty hard to be your own son.
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Feb 20, 2012 - 17:21:31
That's not exactly accurate gungslinger. The Trinity and especilly the belief that Jesus Christ as God were around way before the Council of Nicaea. If we are to remain to true to the history of the Christian faith, the Council only had to even address Christ's divinity because a bishop named Arius formed a party that officially denied such. Furthermore you can't claim that the Council of Nicea is where Christ's divinity and the Trinity was born because we know that with regards to this topic the clergy of the Catholic Church weren't developing the doctrine; they were arguing the two points that were already wdespread. That's why its called the Arian Controversy, meaning a dispute between an oppsing school of thought i.e. triniatrianism.
The idea may have been present before the council, but it seemed to have become officially codified at the Council of Nicaea. I don't pretend to be an expert on ancient Christian history, and I think I'd lose an argument on that subject as you probably know a considerable amount more than I do on the subject. However, I think there is ample proof that, at the very least, there were numerous ideas about the nature of God prior to the Nicaea that were not Trinitarian, nor would they be considered orthodox today. Even some of the Early church fathers like Irenaeus and Tertullian did not seem to subscribe to this exact model. Both believed that God had not always been a Trinity, but had "put forth a son" at some point. And the latter figure borrowed many of his ideas from stoicism, believing God to be a material being.
All that being said, I still find it difficult to accept what men who were not prophets or apostles of God say about God's nature, especially since in the Bible, not only is Trinity not mentioned, but no follower of Christ ever puts forth the Nicaean definition.
With all this in mind, I find it a little offensive when people use this to establish who is and is not Christian. Even if we were 100 percent in the wrong, I find no place in the Bible that says salvation is predicated on knowing what God is made of. So I think that's my biggest gripe.
You claim you're not knowledgable but loosely throw around the names Irenaeus and Tertullian.lol I appreciate the humiliy but when you mentioned stoicism you entered a world of knowledge that is pretty much forgotten by the norms that fill our forums here.
I will say that I understand your frustration when it comes to not being called Christian for not adhering to the traditional Trinity. Our site is very diverse and you don't have to pass a history test to come in and fellowship with us. Many who do fellowship here are not well-versed in Christian history mainly because most of them are Protestants who come from church homes who focus more on the living of the faith rather than the study of it. You don't need to know the historic background of the Christian faith to lead good and wholesome Christian lives so most people do not.
Though, if you ever want to get into Sacred Scripture in depth when it comes to the Trinity I'd love to dialogue with you. I bunked with a Mormon at Army basic training in Oklahoma a few years back. I understand you guys have a special preference for the KJV Bible. Maybe we can do a compare and contrast with the KJV and the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price sometime.
You claim you're not knowledgable but loosely throw around the names Irenaeus and Tertullian.lol I appreciate the humiliy but when you mentioned stoicism you entered a world of knowledge that is pretty much forgotten by the norms that fill our forums here.
I only claimed I wasn't an expert, never said I was entirely bereft of knowledge on the subject ::smile::
I've got a passing familiarity with stoicism because I've had a ton of Humanities classes and I've got a small collection of philosophy books, but I am in no way proficient and as I've said, I don't think I know enough to carry out a lengthy historical discussion.
I will say that I understand your frustration when it comes to not being called Christian for not adhering to the traditional Trinity. Our site is very diverse and you don't have to pass a history test to come in and fellowship with us. Many who do fellowship here are not well-versed in Christian history mainly because most of them are Protestants who come from church homes who focus more on the living of the faith rather than the study of it. You don't need to know the historic background of the Christian faith to lead good and wholesome Christian lives so most people do not.
This is good to hear. I've actually found this site to be quite tolerant of other viewpoints. I've been on others before who moderate individuals differently merely because of the faith to which they subscribe. I don't see too much of that here.
The frustration part is mostly born of the fact that, by at least most Protestant definitions, Mormons would be Christians. I've been told over and over that all you need to do is believe Christ to be the Savior, repent of your sins and accept him into your life. We do that, but then the goal posts are moved on us and we must now accept these doctrines, understand this passage in such a way and reject this teaching or that teaching. People can think we are Christians or not, but I'd appreciate it if they were at least consistent with their definition.
Though, if you ever want to get into Sacred Scripture in depth when it comes to the Trinity I'd love to dialogue with you. I bunked with a Mormon at Army basic training in Oklahoma a few years back. I understand you guys have a special preference for the KJV Bible. Maybe we can do a compare and contrast with the KJV and the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price sometime.
Sounds cool. I've debated dozens of times on the concept of the Trinity, and I don't know if I'm any closer to understanding it than I was in 2002 when I first found out that this was a widely held Christian belief. I am better, though at realizing the difference between modalism and trinitarianism. For the longest time, I thought the latter was the former.
But yeah, I don't mind exploring this concept with others in a more friendly environment. I'm not particularly great at debates, nor do I actively seek them out. So if this sounds like something you'd like to do, I'm all for it.
You really don't know the Bible..DO YOU??.
Although Jesus was God, Jn 1: 1. Tim 3: 16. 1 Jn 5: 7.
He never operated as God, He operated as the Son of God, He left His God side in heaven when He came to earth to save us.
Phil 2: 5--8.
You've got to be kidding me right? You're saying that God is in heaven, then decided to send himself down in mortal form, but broke a part of himself off so some of his godliness was left in heaven...My goodness, this is a convoluted doctrine. God is not the author of confusion, keep in mind, and this is downright confusing.
It also defies the laws of logic. How is he God's son, if he is God? That's an impossibility. You can't be your own son.
You really really don't know the Bible..DO YOU?? Even though I have shown you.
God is one God manifested in three persons.
The Hebrew word and meaning for "God" is,..."Elohim".
Elohim is the verb and is plural, God is the subject and is singular.
Elohim can also mean "gods" meaning more than one. A cursory look through scholarly resources will show that there is tremendous ambiguity in the Bible as to what the word "Elohim" means in certain instances. Some versions of the Bible translate the word into "Angels" or Powers."
Even so, it doesn't make sense mathematically. If there is one God, how can he be plural? Are you saying that 1=3?
One God manifested in three persons.
Where does it say that in the Bible? Is there any verse that definitively says that there is one god manifest in three persons?
Jesus Was God but didn't operate as God. The un-regenerated human mind cannot understand it, The is the reason why you can't understand it.
1 Tim 3: 16, says it is a great mystery.
You are making this doctrine look incredibly foolish. So Jesus is God, but he left his "God" part in heaven to fulfill a different role? This sounds like a desperate attempt to reconcile the Trinity with what the Bible actually teaches. I'll ask you this, if Jesus is God, why did he never claim this? In fact, if he is God, why did Christ himself say that he is subject to the Father? If the two are co-equal, how can one be greater than the other? And why would Christ call the Father his "God" if they are both God?
Your problem is, You don't believe the Bible....You have been telling me porkies..NAUGHTY.
Why do you continually lie and attempt to defame me? Show me one place where I said I didn't believe in the Bible. Since I said no such thing, knock it off, it's obviously not true and you look incredibly foolish making such a claim.
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Feb 20, 2012 - 17:11:02
Read Jn 1: 1.
"The word[Jesus] was with God, [Theos] and the word [Jesus] was God [Theos]".
If Jesus isn't God [Theos] Then God isn't God [Theos], You can't have it both ways.
Now look at Gen 1: 26.
" God [Elohm, Plural] said let US [Plural] make man in OUR [Plural] image after OUR [Plural] likeness.
God introduced Himself as Plural, [Three in one].
Gen 1: 1.
In the begining God [Elohim Plural] created.."
The Bible teaches God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
Your problem is, You believe the mormon misunderstandings rather than the Bible.
Gen 1:26 supports my position, not yours. Let US make man in OUR image. If the father and son are numerically one, how are we to understand this? Is God talking to himself?
I know what Elohim means, and I agree with it, just differently. The father and the son were both involved with creation. They can both be seen as God from a certain perspective. Jesus Christ is the one who created the heavens and the earth under the direction of the father. He is the God of the Old Testament. The father and son are both God in that they share all the attributes needed to be God, perfect love, mercy, justice, etc. Yet they are separate beings. The Bible clearly teaches this. You seem to reject the most basic Christian doctrine, that Jesus is the Son of God. This is what I believe, yet you do not.
God, Elohim in Gen 1: 26, The US & OUR is refering to,
God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy GHost.
Jesus is God, Jn 1: 1--3.
The Holy Ghost is God, Acts 5: 3--4.... Se also 1 Jn 5: 7.
You belief is different from the Bible's.
: the_last_gunslinger Tue Mar 13, 2012 - 08:09:21
Even so, it doesn't make sense mathematically. If there is one God, how can he be plural? Are you saying that 1=3?
One God manifested in three persons.
The Trinity is one of the hardest parts of the bible to understand because it deals with God, God, and God; and none of those things are understood by man. To man 1=3 is wrong. One man is not three men. But we aren't dealing with men when we speak of the Trinity, we speak of God.
This is the same God that created the universe and everything in it. He created physics, math, and everything you man will ever learn about science. He created a home planet for us at the perfect distance from our Sun to heat us, with enough spin to cool us, with a moon close enough to create waves, and enough oxygen for us to breathe, and everything else we don't even see that goes into us having life. His power and knowledge is beyond anything we can ever dream of. For us to say that one God doesn't equal three God(s) is absurd. We don't know that. We can't know that.
God is God.
Jesus was the son of God. He was a different entity as God (He prayed. You don't pray to yourself do you?) and yet he was OF God.
The Holy Spirit is the spirit of God in our hearts and minds. It is OF God, yet it is not the same entity as the God we know.
All three of those things are different entities. There is God, the father of Jesus and the creator of all things. There is Jesus, the son of God and the sacrifice made to death on our behalf. There is the Spirit, the living word of God in our hearts we can all hear and feel in our lives.
All three of those things may very well be ONE and the SAME; we don't know. God's math is much more complicated than we realize. We don't even understand the math behind things as simple as gravity, how could we know the math behind something as complex as what is and is not God?
To us, 1=1. To God it may also equal all sorts of things.
The more important question here isn't "are they the same entity or not" but "what does the name and number of God matter?" God is God, you are you. Do your part, live right, and you'll have a place in Heaven to ask Him yourself some day. That is what matters.
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God's curse!" (Gal. 1:8,9)
I find it very interesting that Paul mentions an "angel from heaven" preaching "another gospel". Moroni (an angel from "heaven") led
Joseph Smith to some golden plates, which led to the "Book of Mormon"
sub-titled "another testament of Jesus Christ".
The Book of Mormon is "another Gospel", and Paul's prophecy has been fulfilled.
No. It is anti-Christian.
It contradicts the Biblical Jesus, the Biblical God the father and the Biblical gospel.
I mean, come on, kolob, blood atonement, polygamy, masonic temple rites and oaths, many Gods ( ie: Deities ), you can become a Deity of your own planet, heavenly father having a body of flesh and bones, Jesus produced by natural, physical means, heavenly father once being a man on another planet earning His way to BECOME one God among many Gods?!?!