Re: Is the LDS a Christian Religion

[the_last_gunslinger]

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.

[Johnb]

Hey gunslinger
Just wondering in your study of LDS have you heard the name Sidney Rigdon?

[the_last_gunslinger]

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.

[the_last_gunslinger]

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.

[Thankfulldad]

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. 

[the_last_gunslinger]

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.

[Thankfulldad]

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.

[ChristNU]

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_last_gunslinger]

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.

[the_last_gunslinger]

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.

[ChristNU]

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?.

[the_last_gunslinger]

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.

[ChristNU]

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.

[the_last_gunslinger]

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.

[ChristNU]

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.

[mrhide]

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?

[pointmade]

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."

[ChristNU]

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?

[the_last_gunslinger]

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.

[the_last_gunslinger]

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.

[Johnb]

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?  

[the_last_gunslinger]

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.

[ChristNU]

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.

[ChristNU]

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.

[the_last_gunslinger]

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?"

[ChristNU]

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.

[the_last_gunslinger]

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.

[Johnb]

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

[ChristNU]

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.

[Johnb]

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?

[the_last_gunslinger]

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.

[the_last_gunslinger]

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.

[the_last_gunslinger]

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?

[Johnb]

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?

[ChristNU]

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.