Parchment & Pen Blog

Steve in Toronto says:

Like or Dislike: 0

I am enjoying you pod casts on Mormon’s and looking forward to how you will be handling the Jehovah’s witnesses. To me the two seem quite distinct. The Mormons seem quite clearly to be “off the map” and given what we know about the character of Joseph Smith there main challenge to Orthodox Christianity seems to be as a example of how venerable human being are to dramatic religious experience triggered (what seems to me to be) an obvious fraud. This is unsettling to me because the most effective argument for the resurrection of Christ has always seemed to me to be the rapid growth of the church in the face of first century persecution (I know the extent of persecution in the first century may be overstated). The success of the Mormons while not discrediting this argument undermines it to some degree (the rise of Islam offers similar challenges). The Jehovah witnesses however seem to me to be an entirely different kettle of fish. I have only a very superficial knowledge of the movement but they seem to be a modern manifestation of the ancient heresy of Aryanism. I have always wondered why the church felt it was necessary make the Nicene Creed rather than the Apostils creed the gold standard for Orthodoxy. While I must bow to the wisdom and authority of our church fathers the Nicene Creed seem entirely too confident in it assertions about the exact nature of the trinity and the murky politics that surround its adoption by the church are extremely unsettling. In short I have no problem pronouncing Mormons as a heretical cult but feel better calling Jehovah’s Witness “Heterodox” although I understand that technically speaking they are “classic” Heretics.

Kara Kittle says:

Like or Dislike: 0

The thing to remember is that Joseph Smith says all other churches and doctrines are wrong…according to the Presence…then I would assume that would make Christianity itself wrong in that worldview.

It clearly is interesting that the Smith family was not members of any church whatsoever until his mother, two brothers and sister were converted to Presbyterian during the religious revivals and they claimed no other belief prior to that. Joseph Smith says he was leaning toward Methodism until he revealed he had a vision. This is quite interesting in that no person in his family professed any belief whatsoever until the revivalism in that town. So Joseph went out to seek an answer. So it would beg the question, if he never had a knowledge in the first place of who Jesus was, naturally he would assume it was Jesus.

Two things strike me here…of all the people I have talked to and read about who have had striking visions as portrayed by Joseph Smith, there were some things that did and did not happen.

1:There was no call to conversion, regeneration or repentance upon seeing the presences.

2:He was told he was the only one worthy to make a new religion based not on the vision itself of giving a message to him by revelation, but of a written record….which makes me feel like he was in the same mind as another person venerated in history….Mohammed. Even Mohammed wrote things found in the Bible until he had to make the scheme bigger and bigger to make himself seem more the only true messenger.

Mormom is not Christianity any more than Islam is. Just because it borrows from the Bible does not make it Christian because so many cults do the same thing. The problem with what Joseph Smith did was that he did not include all of what the Bible says..and that is “if any one come preaching unto you anything different than what you have learned, count him accursed.”

Can Joseph Smith have seen visions? I don’t know, I won’t say Joan of Arc or Bernadette have not either. But he had to keep changing his to justify his own power and ego. And that is why I would consider him to be more Islamic than Christian. He was nothing more than the 1830s version of Mohammad.

Truth Unites... and Divides says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Paging Seth R., paging Seth R.! Mormonism is on code blue, where are you?

Leslie says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Michael, it might interest you that Mormons are in a big way “attacking” gullible people in Chennai, India. Sadly, many are unaware of this dangerous cult!

Truth Unites... and Divides says:

Like or Dislike: 0

CMP: “Is the Mormon faith a true representation of Christianity? No.”

Minnow: “What has been the most appealing about my conversations with these young men is that they have refrained completely fron any negative verbage toward other points of view. It is quite refreshing.”

Agree with CMP.

Lisa Robinson says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Minnow, if Mormons do not believe in who Christ is or his salvific work, how then can they be considered Christian? And if they do, how then can they be Mormon? One may have an incredible testimony of how they came to their faith but does that mean it is THE saving faith?

Minnow says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Lisa–Have the Latter Day Saints taught you about their faith? Or did you get what you know from some guy trying to sell a book? (And, I am NOT talking about the author of this blog!) Is Christianity really just a bunch of rules and doctrines and religious posturing…or is it modeling Christ. Maybe I don’t know where all the T’s are crossed and I’s are dotted but if I believe Christ is the Son of God, He came to earth to show the way back to the Father because of the Father’s great love, He lived a perfact life but took my sins upon himself, was crucified, was buried, rose from the dead, and lives having defeated death; if I realize that I desparately need a savior because I can’t possibly get it right on my own, if I begin to understand that the only reason I am able to love is because He first loved me, is that not enough to claim salvation?! Maybe Joseph Smith got too full of himself. Maybe Brigham Young had a wild hair or two but have you listened to some of what comes out of the mouths of “our” greats?! We have got to stop looking for reasons to exclude and reject and discount one another and start seeking places of conection. If we don’t figure out how to truly love the lost, as in have compassion for, care about, consider them worthy, then all our (witnessing) words will be about as effective and important as a clanging cymbal is to a sonata.

Truth Unites... and Divides says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Thank you very much.

Steve Martin, meet Minnow. Minnow, Steve Martin.

Kara Kittle says:

Like or Dislike: 0

First of all….God makes it very clear in His word…there is nothing to be relied upon extra-Biblical. The Mormon tenets say…the believe in the Book of Mormon and the Bible….as long as it is interpreted correctly….now if the Bible in Joseph Smith’s estimation is wrong in interpretation…leading to many false churches…then it would question the validity of the Bible…and Joseph Smith copied word for word from the Bible…except those parts that would contradict him. The Mormoms hold that tenet today and it is posted on their own website.

So when discussing with them their doctrines, ask them how they intend on becoming gods…they believe they will. It’s in their own D&C, BoM, Pearl of Great Price….it’s written and they ascribe to it.

They teach also that modern prophets can overturn words of revelation given by former prophets…so guess what….Joseph Smith can even be discounted…and yet he is called their savior at BYU. This comes not from just some little missionary riding his bicycle…this comes from their own Leadership. Ok God is fickle to them, changing his mind to suit them. But the Bible says God is unchanging.

So if you wonder why we are critical of Mormons being Christian…they are most definitely not because if they were they would not be in contradiction with the most basic beliefs.

1: The nature of God
2:The deity of Christ
3:They say Jesus had plural wives
4:They used witchcraft and recognized magick rituals still used today by Wiccans and other pagan religions. Even Alistair Crowley tried to interpret the Bible for his own gain.

So they have plural wives (some who were teen girls)
Another book written presented by an spiritual being
The Bible is insufficient in itself
Joseph is the only messenger

{The above qualifies it to be Islamic in nature}

They based on use of seer stone to translate
He searched for treasure using divining rods
He believed in Abraxas
He consulted and endorsed fortune tellers in the church

{The above qualifies it to be pagan and witchcraft in nature}

They can replace prophet words by new prophet words
they baptize themselves as proxy for dead ancestors
they publicly denounce what they secretly practice
they are secretive, deceptive and violent

{the above qualifies it as an evolving cult}

So there are the examples that make it not Christian at all.

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

I am an infrequent reader of this blog and a life-long Mormon. I often enjoy the insight in Michael Patton’s posts.

However, many of the comments on Mormonism reflect an incredibly ignorant view of Mormonism and LDS theology.

While I agree that there are radical differences between LDS and protestant theology I would disagree that Mormons are not followers and worshipers of Jesus Christ according to the bible.

Theology itself is extra-biblical explanation of diverse biblical texts and is open to all kinds of interpretations, including Mormon ones.

Kara Kittle, and Steve Martin, it seems you both are set on a quite bigoted and ignorant depiction of the LDS church based on fear, misinformation and prejudice. This sort of viewpoint reinforces stereotypes found in the Mormon community (and secular community) of wild-eyed, closed-minded, ignorant “born-again” Christians, that are only interested in people agreeing with their narrow interpretation of the world, and condemning all other perspectives. I think that these stereotypes do a disservice to your community and would hope that you would educate yourselves.

For a more open minded discussion of both LDS and Evangelical christianity I would recommend ldstalk.wordpress.com, a blog run by a devout evangelical christian.

steve martin says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jared C,

There are pretty rough comments (but true, I believe) at a discussion going on here:
http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/2009/03/07/mormonism/

I was hoping an intelligent LDS member would answer a couple of the charges.

Are you game, or know someone who is?

Thanks Jared!

– Steve M.

steve martin says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jared C,

Sorry.

Mormons do not believe Jesus IS God. But rather a notch below God.

steve martin says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jared C.,

You are wrong, once again. I know many Mormons. So are fairly close friends and have been in the LDS for a long time.

I regularly interact with Mormon missionaries, as they are quite active in my community.

You show me where Mormon doctrine says that Jesus is equal to God and I’ll eat my computer.

steve martin says:

Like or Dislike: 0

That last comment was originally made by Ike on my site.

I copied it from him verbatim.

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Steve, you may know Mormons, but you show all signs of being completely ignorant of Mormon understanding of God.

“You show me where Mormon doctrine says that Jesus is equal to God and I’ll eat my computer.”

Gospel of John, 1:1,

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the word was God.

LDS Article of Faith 8 “We believe the bible to be the word of God . . .

(Be sure to put some salt on the keyboard, it goes down better)

If the bible is not enough for you, the Book of Mormon explicitly refers to Jesus as the Eternal God.

But, if you think you have it all figured out. . . .

Bridget Jack Meyers says:

Like or Dislike: 0

I’m an evangelical Christian, I have a BA in classics with a minor in Hebrew from Brigham Young University, and Seth R. pointed me to this web site a few months ago. I’ve lurked but haven’t commented—oh, and I corresponded with Dan Wallace in the spring of 2003 a bit while I was at BYU, we were using his NT Greek Grammar book for our class on Johannine Writings. Pleased to meet you.

Jared C. pointed out this post to us at LDS & Evangelical Conversations, so here I am.

Regarding the OP:

Can individual Mormons be Christian? Only if their belief about who Christ is deviates from official Mormon teachings. In this case, they may be members of the Mormon Church yet hold a traditional view of Christ. Considering the paramount importance of the doctrine of the person of Christ in God’s self-revelation and considering all of the other false teachings of the Mormon Church it is incumbent upon the Mormon to leave the Church in search of a representation of a biblical and historic Church.

I respectfully disagree, for several reasons. For starters I believe in a certain degree of individual soteriological inclusivism a la C.S. Lewis’s Calormene warrior in The Last Battle, meaning I think it’s possible for people to have a saving relationship with Christ in spite of having some things wrong about Him. In fact, I think there are plenty of evangelicals out there who don’t properly understand the Trinity, their understanding of it has more in common with modalism than correct Trinitarian thinking, yet I wouldn’t write them off as unsaved because of it.

Two, I would much rather see the LDS church reform to orthodoxy from within than try to pick it apart one dissident at a time. Many things have changed about Mormonism in the last few decades. The more offensive parts of the temple ceremony were softened and/or removed in 1990 and 2005, more and more I meet Latter-day Saints who don’t believe God the Father used to be a man, and more often I meet Latter-day Saints who are focused on having a relationship with Christ and seem to understand salvation in terms of grace much moreso than works. Stephen Robinson and Robert Millet both represent a side of soteriological thinking within Mormonism that seeks to redefine LDS soteriology in terms of grace, and I’m just fine with that. In any case, the LDS church is never going to reform if the people who want to and are convicted to bring about that reform simply leave the church right away. Change takes time.

As to what Mormonism is, I classify it as a Christian heresy. I think saying it isn’t Christianity (it is a part of Christianity, if a heretical part) or calling it a cult is extremely pejorative and builds barriers to effective dialogue with Latter-day Saints. If you really need a neat label for it, “new religious movement” seems to be coming in vogue.

Some Mormons might not like being called a heresy or true Christianity, but the intelligent ones know that they teach the exact same thing about us. Apostasy, heresy, it’s the same concept. Each of us thinks the other is practicing a corrupt or incomplete form of Christianity.

And sorry Steve, but Jared is correct; your understanding of Mormonism is extremely elementary, though I don’t doubt you’re well-meaning. Just realize that you don’t know everything and you have a long way to go. As I told you on LDS & Evangelical Conversations, that list of quotes you’re spreading was plagiarized by your commenter Ike from Mormonism Research Ministry.

Minnow says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Thank you Jared C for your grace.

Truth Unites... and Divides says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Thank you CMP, Steve Martin, Kara Kittle, and Jason C. for sharing the Truth in love and with a beautiful tenor.

And even if some people with their misunderstanding and subjective perceptions of what genuine grace is prefer a lie told with what they think is “grace”, I think people are far better served and far better loved with a truth that these judgmental people judge as “harsh”.

An unwelcome truth is better than a loving lie.

Narrow gate, wide gate. The wide gate is inclusive and is a loving lie.

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jason C.

I may be a heretical Mormon, but I am still a Mormon and luckily most Mormons would never condemn me to hell. I am still far from accepting anything like Protestantism. I think that its really impossible to swallow, it often has a distorted view of God. Part of the reason I am completely turned off to your religion is the anti-intellectual approach that is often taken. While I disagree with a lot of CMP’s conclusions, I appreciate his reasoned approach.

Steve~ 1- Yes, Jesus is equal to God the Father.

2) Is Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit what is known as the Trinity?

YES (to those who believe in the extra-biblical doctrine of the trinity)However, Mormons believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God,

3) Is there anything at all that Christians need to be doing to work toward perfection that they may become Gods?

Yes. Repent and be baptized, love God and others.

Truth Unites… and Divides~

I don’t think what has been said about Mormons is particularly harsh, just distorted and incorrect.

The truth may divide, but you don’t seem to understand the truth about Mormonism, you seem to accept a caricature of the truth.

The truth may unite and divide, but distortions pretty much only divide. If all you care to do is alienate people then keep on shouting this sort of “truth”.

Truth Unites... and Divides says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jared C: “Part of the reason I am completely turned off to your religion is the anti-intellectual approach that is often taken.”

Thank you Jared very much. Thank you for saying “your religion”. I really appreciate the clarity because it puts in stark terms that Mormonism and Christianity are two DIFFERENT religions.

Thank you.

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

I think Mormonism and Protestantism are two different Christian religions.

minnow says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Bridget Jack Meyers–I appreciate your comments. Thank you for joining the conversation.
TU&D–I thank God you are not Him. To my ability to discern you neither represent truth not the heart of the One who is the Truth. Some of what you say may be accurate but it too often sounds like clanging cymbals and in general I am unable to hear due to the din.

Alma says:

Like or Dislike: 0

I stumbled across this blog last week, intending to return when I had a few minutes to draft a comment. Now, Sunday evening I find nearly 50 comments—only a couple of which a practicing Mormon could agree with. Mr. Patton’s claim that Mormons reject co-substantiality of the Father and the Son—and this (if true) somehow undermines the heart of “the scriptural gospel,” that Mormons misuse the theological lexicon, Mr. Martin’s woefully inadequate summary of LDS beliefs, and Ms. Kittle’s claim that God has made it clear that nothing outside the Bible can be accepted all seem to me to be merely apologetics by decree or fiat—lacking scriptural substance for support.

Minnow, I think you can count on those missionaries having a pretty solid comprehension of what Mormonism teaches.

Lisa, Mormons do believe in Christ’s salvific work and that He indeed is God. Claims to the contrary are false.

Alma

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Steve,

Mormonism is not “orthodox” christianity. Mormons consider orthodox christianity mistaken and distorted in many ways, just as the “orthodox” consider Mormonism distorted and mistaken.

That said, if you have any intellectual honesty you will understand Mormonism prior to ‘bashing’ it.

Why try to understand?

Because as co-followers of Jesus, we are all commanded to become one, to unite despite our differences. (I discuss this here
http://ldstalk.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/a-challenge-to-anybody-who-believes-in-the-bible-does-lack-of-unity-make-you-un-christian/)

People are prone to mistakes and distortions (the comments on this blog are a good example) but ignorant condemnation doesn’t seem to further the Christian cause of unity.

You might actually learn something about the Bible, God and spirituality by investigating how He is working with people who are outside your favorite group.

steve martin says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jared C.,

I am learning quite a bit.

(I’ll check out your link tomorrow – thanks)

But I have to say that what I am learning is antithetical to what I have learned from studying the Bible.

I am open to hearing more, and I will check out that page.

Thanks, Jared C..

minnow says:

Like or Dislike: 0

TU&D #44–My statement in its entirety #43 absolutely represents the quality of love in my heart. As gently as my humanity would allow I tried to let you know that the tone of your discourse got in the way of me being able to hear anything you had to say.
Steve Martin #46–The reason I began to comment on this topic is because the experience/conversation I was having with the LDS who came to visit me led me to believe they did believe Jesus is part of the God head and also believe His saving work on the cross is “enough”. So perhaps, just like protestant and Roman Catholic Christians, the LDS do not all agree about what they believe.

Scott Ferguson says:

Like or Dislike: 0

As long as we are engaging in Real Christian Detection, why don’t we turn this around and ask whether Roman Catholicism is a True representation of Christianity? They worship the Virgin Mary, don’t they? How about Seventh Day Adventists? Episcopalians? I bet we would have an equally lively discussion. It could be like watching a real live version of the inter-church council scene in Elmer Gantry.

Alma says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Truth Unites…and Divides cut and pasted Richard Abanes comments

Mormonism got started….

Your source is mistaken, TU&D; but since it’s someone else’s claim, I’ll defer responding to his claims until he shows up and is able to defend them.

Anyone who claims that Mormonism believes in a “perverted” Bible doesn’t have an elementary concept of LDS theology. They fail to realize that part of the LDS canon is the Holy Bible. I know all about the 8th Article of Faith, but before you cite it to me, produce a Christian who is willing to accept a Bible passage that he knows is translated incorrectly.

Alma

steve martin says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Alma,

Psalms 51:5

“In sin did my mother conceive me.” (original sin)

Look at the selfishness of any baby for confirmation.

St. Paul corrects (over and over) the idea that we need to do anything in addition to what Christ has done. He famously corrects Peter on this.

Thanks, Alma

steve martin says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Eclectic Christian,

Hey Mike!

Nobody has a great definition of the Trinity.

If anyone says they understand it, they are delusional.

We believe it. But we don’t understand it. Like the forgiveness of sins by a death on the cross. Who can understand how that works?

The sinner’s prayer is actual a dangerous thing (I believe). Not only for 6 year olds but for anyone.

This isn’t a business transaction (the Christian faith), but rather a relationship…started by , and continued by Jesus.

I’ll go and check your site. You ALWAYS have great stuff over there!

Thanks, Mike!

– Steve M.

Alma says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Cheryl,

The cut and paste from #26 would take more time than I have to adequately address. Generally I prefer not to respond to cut and pastes because the person who appropriated the material isn’t willing to discuss or defend it and generally responds by pasting more data from another web site.

The author (Bill McKeever) and I have personally spoken and I don’t see any benefit in writing out a lengthy response to his article from MRM–although I could probably cut and paste someone else’s response…

The second to the last sentence, however, does merit a reply. McKeever’s assertion is either dishonest or naive. Christians have taught the doctrine of theosis for centuries. Beginning with Christ, Peter, John, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian and Augustine all taught deification. Consider merely one of scores of similar quotations: “For we shall be even gods, if we, shall deserve to be among those of whom He declared, “I have said, Ye are gods,”(5) and, “God standeth in the congregation of the gods.”(6) But this comes of His own grace, not from any property in us, because it is He alone who can make gods.” (ANF Vol. III, Tertulliam, Against Hermogenes 480.) You might also search for an article by Robert Rakestraw called I think, “BECOMING LIKE GOD: AN EVANGELICAL DOCTRINE OF THEOSIS.”

Alma

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Cheryl,

I can’t really respond to pages of quotes with a couple of comments on the blog.

There is an entire website devoted to answering these sorts of questions and explaining Mormons non-traditional beliefs to those interested : http://fairlds.org/

I will tell you that Mormons believe a lot of things that are very different than Protestants (and Catholics and Orthodox). To understand the Mormon faith you really have to read what Mormons have to say about it. Others, while offering criticism, are generally interested in scare tactics that distort Mormon belief in order to make it look less appealing. This certainly could be done with almost any tradition.

However, once you understand Mormonism from a Mormon perspective you will probably realize that in important ways, they are not much different than other traditions.

What I can also tell you is that Mormons are very comfortable supporting their non-traditional beliefs with reference to the Bible. By trying to understand where we are coming from, you may open up your mind to what is actually in the Bible, rather than simply what you are told by preachers, websites, etc.

steve martin says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jared C.,

You’re getting warmer!

When you can say that He is the ONLY God, then maybe we’ll have something.

We need to remember that the devil believes that Jesus is God.

So, there is the question of trust in Him, for our righteousness and reconciliation with God.

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

“There’s no debate where the Mormon’s stand and where Orthodox Christianity stand.”

I agree, Mormons believe that “orthodox” Christians have an incomplete and/or errant theology, and vice/versa.

I don’t think that is a matter of debate. However, reading the comments above I find numerous misrepresentations, misunderstandings and intentional distortions of Mormon belief. If you really want to understand and evaluate Mormonism, you should do it on its own terms.

The beliefs of the thief on the cross were surely far different than the average Evangelical Christian today. . . if he was saved shouldn’t you be open to salvation and grace extending to other divergent beliefs?

I don’t really care if you consider Mormons Christians or not, I am interested in opening people’s minds beyond their closed-minded views of God.

Mormonism is based on finding out the truth from God directly. I am sure He is willing to sort this stuff out for those that seek wisdom from Him. I doubt he cares much for the squabbling over doctrine. But that is only what I get from reading the Bible.

steve martin says:

Like or Dislike: 0

And Jesus said to them,

“If you have seen me, you have seen the Father. I and the Father are one.”

steve martin says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Cheryl U.,

I couldn’t agree more. Well said.

– Steve M.

Brian says:

Like or Dislike: 0

“However, reading the comments above I find numerous misrepresentations, misunderstandings and intentional distortions of Mormon belief.”

-Where? Which ones?

“If you really want to understand and evaluate Mormonism, you should do it on its own terms. ”
-I have done so on it’s own terms. That’s my point, these theological, scientific, and textual errors are facts, directly from the LDS church. What makes you think I haven’t given accurate LDS positions? Perhaps you mean I can only understand Mormonism if I first become one? Sorry, but a burning in the bosom is shaky grounds to build one’s life around.

“The beliefs of the thief on the cross were surely far different than the average Evangelical Christian today. . . if he was saved shouldn’t you be open to salvation and grace extending to other divergent beliefs?”
-The thief believed one concept, he was a sinner, Jesus was God and could forgive him.

“I don’t really care if you consider Mormons Christians or not, I am interested in opening people’s minds beyond their closed-minded views of God. ”
-Having an open mind is commendable, but being gullible is not. The great Aaron Tippin said it “You’ve got to stand for something, or you’ll fall for anything”.

“Mormonism is based on finding out the truth from God directly.
I am sure He is willing to sort this stuff out for those that seek wisdom from Him. I doubt he cares much for the squabbling over doctrine. But that is only what I get from reading the Bible.”
-You’re almost right…..except the large problematic doctrines of the LDS church aren’t in the Bible, not even the KJV.

Alma says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Cheryl wrote:

In my understanding the difference in Mormon belief and Protestant Christian belief, is that we don’t believe that we become in essence God as it seems that the Mormons do.

I’m not sure I understand why you include the words “in essence.” We don’t become God, we become gods. He grants to us His nature and we become as He is. “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:2)

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. (Philippians 2:5-6)

And we certainly don’t believe that God was ever a man as we are now as is quoted in # 26 above. That is totally at odds with what we read in the Bible.

Surely you recognize that God (Jesus Christ) was once a man. He was born of the virgin Mary and lived a sinless life and was crucified for our sins. Is it that difficult to believe that Jesus told us, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever he the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.” (John 5:19) Do you really believe that passage?

nd another major area of difference in belief … is the Mormon belief as stated in quite a few quotes I have read that Jesus is the brother of Lucifer, (Satan). That is totally contrary to any understanding we have of Scripture.

I think it’s entirely consistent with scripture. While you could attend LDS Church services for years and probably never hear Jesus referred to as the “spirit brother of Lucifer”–that’s generally the battle cry of critics of Mormonism.

I have over 2000 LDS books in e-text. They represent most of the doctrinal teachings of Mormonism. I did a search in those books for the following terms “Jesus, spirit, Satan or Lucifer.” There were about 40 hits where those terms appeared within the same paragraph, but only four applied to this discussion. Four references (one was responding to critics of Mormonism) in 160 years of publications indicates that this concept is barely on the doctrinal radar screen for Mormons.

However, I believe it is defensible from the Bible. We do believe that we belong to the family of God; (Ephesians 3:15) that He is the Father of spirits (Hebrews 12:9, Acts 17:29), and Jesus is the firstborn spirit child of God (Colossians 1:15). We believe that in that family of God, some of his children rebelled against him and became fallen angels–including Lucifer (2 Peter 2:4). Sons of the same Father are brothers.

Alma

steve martin says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Alma,

I’m starting to wonder if Mormons have a grasp of Mormonism.

From everything here, and everyone’s else’s comments on other sites and from my Mormon friends, I have to conclude that it is another ladder climbing religion.
A little bit of God and a little bit of me.

To be fair, many Christians think along those lines also.

But that too, is not Christian.

Christianity is all about God’s work on the cross for us. That fact that we respond to Him after He has made us His own, is neither here nor there.

We all respaond to Him differently and in varying degrees of earnestness and sincerity. Again, totally beside the point.

Jesus Christ is God and He is the Savior and the savior needs no helo from us.

He doesn’t save us because we help Him, He saves us in spite of our efforts to help Him!

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Alma,

If the title page of the Book of Mormon states that Jesus Christ is the eternal God, why did Joseph Smith say, as quoted above, “We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.” Can he have it both ways? Those sound like two totally contradictory statements.

mbaker says:

Like or Dislike: 0

If what I am understanding from Mormon teachings is correct
(and my husband is a former Mormon turned Christian) they believe the only way a woman and children can enter into heaven is from her husband’s belief, and his right standing in the church when he dies. Her husband then literally calls her up from the grave.

How then can that can coincide with the death of Christ on the cross being sufficient for all humankind?

Brian says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Alma,

“everything” I wrote was in error. That’s simply
Current Research on Native American genetics are NOT composed in any manner with that of the tribes of Israel. This is not proving a negative, it’s proving the origins of the Native Americans, who were not from the Middle East, but East Asia.

In addition, Archeaology has ZERO, not one iota, of evidence for the existance of the peoples, places, monetary systems, etc. purported to exist in North America in the BOM. However, we have monumental evidence of the tribes, tools, and culture of ancient Native Americans. None of them colloborate the BOM. Again, not an arguement from silence or a negative.

On the other hand, Archeaology has discovered the ancient civilizations of Sodom and Gomorrah, Nineveh, David’s kingship. Evidence colloborates the monies and tools used and written about in the OT and NT. The Garden of Eden? Manna? Come on! Modern science affirms the validity of much of the OT and NT, and does just the opposite for the BOM. That there are some things still undiscovered by archeology doesn’t negate the existing evidence.

Your assertion that the LDS church has always held the belief that Christ is one and the same as God the Father, in essence, is just baffling. There are already numerous posts on this thread directly from LDS sources that confirm otherwise. I suppose we could just stay here, I’ll say it is, you’ll say it isn’t, until we’re blue in the face. It’s already a matter of record.

steve martin says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jared C.,

A lot of things about God don’t make sense to our rational mind.

A fish swallowing a man and then spitting him out three days later…alive?

A man waklking on water?

The blind seeing again?

The raising of the dead?

All our sins being forgiven by a death of a man staked to wood and left to die?

Can one make perfect sense out of these things?

God’s ways are not our ways, and some things of God are just not meant for our rational minds to grasp.

That is where faith comes in.

Kara Kittle says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jared C.
You would call me ignorant and misinformed when I told you plainly it was on the website for LDS? And it is written in the BoM, Pearl of Great Price, Times and Seasons, Family Home Magazine, Doctrines and Covenants. So how can I take out of context a sentence repeated?

The only reason you call me bigoted is because you have no other recourse. You cannot say I am telling the truth because that would make Mormon prophets liars. You cannot say I am lying because that would make you have to justify your beliefs. So what is left? You calling me a bigot. Do you think I should show you tolerance or acceptance? Which should I do, when it the very Bible that your leaders tell you to follow (but only certain parts) says “If ANYONE comes teaching something DIFFERENT than what you have learned, count him ACCURSED”. And “Try the spirits to see if they be of God”.

You show me outside of your “testimony” that it is true, you teach it is because your spirit is in agreement. So let’s see here….

Your spirit is in agreement with an man who hid wives to avoid his wife from knowing…that’s adultery and deception…so is the average Mormon in agreement with that?

Your spirit is in agreement with using seerstones to translate an extra-Biblical book….so the average Mormon is in agreement with using witchcraft to translate?

Your spirit is in agreement with teaching God was a fleshly man, contrary to the Bible..so the average Mormon is in agreement with being contrary to the Bible?

Your spirit is in agreement with those spirits…interesting…

So far let’s see…lying, deception, veiled doctrine, changing at whim, witchcraft, but the one important thing is this…from the Book of Amos “How can any two walk together except they be in agreement?”

So before you call me bigoted and narrow minded consider this, why did your Brigham Young marry a teen girl, get her pregnant under the auspices of the church and leave her to tend to her children in poverty on occasionally visiting her? You think you should be exempt from scrutiny any more than what Joseph Smith did himself? He questioned us first, then walked away from the true God and created a new religion that satisfied….get this….his own flesh…and you can say today that I am wrong, but until you denounce Joseph Smith, you walk in agreement with him.

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Kara,

This is what I find totally ridiculous, inaccurate and false:

From comment 17:

” they publicly denounce what they secretly practice
they are secretive, deceptive and violent”

“They used witchcraft and recognized magick rituals still used today by Wiccans and other pagan religions.”

These comments are similar to the anti-christians who say that the Bible is a immoral, violent and racist book.

These statements are bigoted and narrow-minded because they mischaracterize Mormonism simply to make it “scary” or appear evil. Mormons aren’t, in general evil, the church is not a cult, we don’t brainwash people etc.

Mormons do believe some radically different things about God, mankind and our purpose on earth, but many of these beliefs can be supported by the Bible. This is, of course, worthy of a lot of debate and explanation.

Regarding your “Spirit in agreement” idea. I respect Joseph Smith, his life and teachings and I think he did a pretty good job, I recognize he had his faults, but I believe that God will forgive a lot of sins, even the really, really bad ones. Don’t you?

Even if Joseph was terribly wrong about the Bible or God, he did profess Christ and rely on his saving sacrifice, this is absolutely clear in his teachings and his life. Isn’t grace sufficient for him?

Kara Kittle says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Ok, you say, even if Joseph Smith is terribly wrong on the Bible….is that not a red flag? You put your faith in someone who could be “terribly wrong” about the very Bible who clearly defines who Jesus is?

You put your faith in some who could be “terribly wrong”, and this person who said God was a man like you and I?

Perhaps he was “terribly wrong” about Moroni giving him a translation.

Let me give you some Bible, which you say you believe…

Jeremiah 14:14
Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.

Seerstones are divination as are diving rods…which Brigham Young
measured for the temple in Salt Lake City.

I would think before you put your faith in the teaching of someone who could be “terribly wrong”, you should make sure he’s not teaching out of his own imagination from the deceit of his heart.

Matthew 7
13Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Oh no….he could have been terribly wrong…

Let’s see what your faith is based on

President Joseph Smith
1st President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
June 16, 1844
Meeting in the Grove, east of the Temple
Sunday Morning
“I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years. ”

http://www.moroni10.com/General_Conference/Joseph_Smith_Final_Talk.html

Elohim is indeed the trinity, but these three are one
1 John 5
5Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

6This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

These Three are ONE. How much more plainer can John be?

So if your Holy Ghost is telling you something contrary to the Holy Ghost of the Bible…then is that not something to think about?

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Here is the second part of the comment I tried to make yesterday (except for correcting an error I had made):

And Jesus Christ did not, according to the Bible, progress to godhood as stated here: “Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus Christ attained godhood (see Christology) and that he marked the path and led the way for others likewise to become exalted divine beings by following him (cf. John 14:3). http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/godhead/Godhood_EOM.htm

Jared C, you said above that we needed to understand Mormon thought from a Mormon perspective and we would maybe see that it is true to the Bible. I’m sorry, but the more I am reading on Mormon sites, the more I realize how extremely different Mormonism is from Protestant Christianity and how very far it seems to stray from the Bible in many very serious ways.

Kara Kittle says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Cheryl
This is a good website, it has transcribed speeches of every LDS prophet
http://www.moroni10.com/General_Conference/prophets_first_last_talks.html

Just for clarification so Jared does not think we are muddying the waters by not knowing anything….these are actual words by the actual men…and very interesting too I might add…this is what Wilford Woodruff said in his final speech

President Wilford Woodruff
4th President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
April 1898
69th Annual General Conference
Sunday Overflow Session

“In April, 1838, while in the town of Kirtland, in walking across the street I met two men who held the Apostleship. They said to me, “Brother Woodruff, we have something that we want you to join us in.” Said I, “What is it? “We want another Prophet to lead us.” “Whom do you want?” “We want Oliver Cowdery. Joseph Smith has apostatized.” After listening to them, I said to them: “Unless you repent of your sins you will be damned and go to hell, and you will go through the fulness of eternal damnation, and all your hopes in this life will pass before you like the frost before the rising sun. You are false. Joseph Smith has not apostatized. He holds the keys of the kingdom of God on earth, and will hold them until the coming of the Son of Man, whether in this world or in the world to come.” I am happy to say that those men did repent pretty soon, turned to the Church, and died in it.”

Who hold the keys? I think it is great blasphemy to say Joseph Smith holds the keys considering the Bible says it is Jesus who holds them. That in itself is irreverant, and blasphemous. And so if Joseph Smith holds the keys for them…is he also going to defeat death by resurrecting himself by his own power?

steve martin says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Kara,

Good points! Points that make my point even more clear.

Luther was in a corrupt church that was corrupting the gospel of Jesus Christ.

At the risk of life and limb, he set out to reform the church. They kicked him out, and the Reformation was born.

If there were some strong Mormons who would do the same thing in Salt Lake, who knows what would happen.

Someone needs to say it, “The Emperor has no clothes!”

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Thanks for the link, Kara. I will have to check it out when I have more time than I do tonight.

Alma says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Brian, it seems to me that you’re prone to making sweeping generalizations as though they were fact. I suggested you provide some valid sources behind your assertions, but it seems you’re not interested. I’ll reiterate that your claims about the Book of Mormon were false—perhaps that’s why you elected not to address my challenge to you to verify them?
“everything” I wrote was in error. That’s simply Current Research on Native American genetics are NOT composed in any manner with that of the tribes of Israel. This is not proving a negative, it’s proving the origins of the Native Americans, who were not from the Middle East, but East Asia.
Actually, Brian, that isn’t current research on genetics. It’s a naïve and overly simplistic conclusion from data that can’t demonstrate what you’re claiming. You claim that Native American genetics are not composed in any manner with that of the tribes of Israel. Can you tell me how many of the “tribes of Israel” have been tested genetically? Where did they get the DNA donors? Since all of the tribes except Judah and a smattering of Benjamin and Levi disappeared 2,600 years ago when they were carried off by the Assyrians into …Asia—how were these “current researchers” able to make any findings at all related to those missing tribes? The Book of Mormon claims that the Nephites and Lamanites were of the tribe of Manasseh. How did they do it? Did the 10 tribes return and I missed it?

The Book of Mormon claims to be a history of two ancient migrations from Asia to the western hemisphere. It does not claim to chronicle all the ancient inhabitants of the western hemisphere or give their genealogies. It does claim to give a history of about 25 Israelites and their descendants who left Jerusalem 2600 years ago.
Some scientists think that if these 25 people actually arrived in America 2600 years ago, native Americans would have DNA that matches populations of present day Jews. They have tested the mtDNA of some native Americans and some Jews and have not found a connection—concluding that they have proved a negative.
I think that is really bad science and even worse logic. That would be like comparing the DNA of residents of Hong Kong with that of people in England –two thousand years from now–to see if two dozen British citizens immigrated to Hong Kong.

In addition, Archaeology has ZERO, not one iota, of evidence for the existence of the peoples, places, monetary systems, etc. purported to exist in North America in the BOM. However, we have monumental evidence of the tribes, tools, and culture of ancient Native Americans. None of them corroborate the BOM. Again, not an argument from silence or a negative.

How exactly is that not and argument from silence?
On the other hand, Archaeology has discovered the ancient civilizations of Sodom and Gomorrah, Nineveh, David’s kingship. Evidence colloborates the monies and tools used and written about in the OT and NT. The Garden of Eden? Manna? Come on! Modern science affirms the validity of much of the OT and NT, and does just the opposite for the BOM. That there are some things still undiscovered by archeology doesn’t negate the existing evidence.

Sorry Brian, but neither Sodom nor Gomorrah haven been definitively identified. As Wikipedia notes: “The historical existence of Sodom and Gomorrah is still in dispute by archaeologists.” But let’s assume for a moment that all of the cities you list above have been discovered. By that you seem to conclude that their existence validates the Bible—and conversely, the absence of specific Book of Mormon sites invalidates the Book of Mormon. Let’s examine that premise.

Does the fact that the Mississippi River can be located on a map validate Huckleberry Finn as an authentic history? Mormons have a book of scripture written in Ohio, Missouri, Illinois and Utah. I don’t suppose you think that validates the book of Doctrine and Covenants. That’s because the existence or the non-existence of identifiable sites is irrelevant to the validity of a text. Otherwise you wouldn’t write “Come on!” when asked about the Garden of Eden.

Your assertion that the LDS church has always held the belief that Christ is one and the same as God the Father, in essence, is just baffling. There are already numerous posts on this thread directly from LDS sources that confirm otherwise. I suppose we could just stay here, I’ll say it is, you’ll say it isn’t, until we’re blue in the face. It’s already a matter of record.

It’s no wonder you find it baffling. I’m astonished you think that’s what I wrote. I have never, ever claimed that Christ is one and the same as God the Father. Of course the posts on this thread confirm otherwise. Just what part of my message gave you that idea?

Alma

steve martin says:

Like or Dislike: 0

One of the things that cracks me up about those who are endeavoring to become more godly, is the fact that they are failing miserably.

I always want to ask them, “When are you going to start!”

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Well,

I am glad to hear protestants are absolutely right about who Jesus is, and what he said and did, and what it means. You should stay away from Mormonism like the plague, they might give you the theological cooties, open your mind too much, or make you think a bit.

Considering we have four very different accounts of Jesus life, I suppose I should ask which Jesus you believe in.

The Jesus of Mark who never claimed to be God

or the Jesus of John, who did claim to be God.

I suppose Mark must be in hell now since he just didn’t seem to believe in the right Jesus.

We should commit Mark to the flames because it is completely unbiblical, terribly wrong, and depicts Jesus in a false light.

I am glad you believe in the “true” Jesus who is kind, loving, and forgiving, unless you happened to believe in how he was depicted in the Book of Mark, then his grace is not sufficient. I feel so bad for all those poor pseudo Christians who died before John was available to set the record straight.

DOWN WITH MARK the false Evangelist, the deceiver!!!! He lead so many to hell. . .

Truth Unites... and Divides says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jared C: “You should stay away from Mormonism like the plague, they might give you the theological cooties, open your mind too much, or make you think a bit.”

Jared C., I ask you to consider the diametric opposite of what you’re suggesting. I.e., YOU should stay away from biblical, historical Christianity like the plague, they might give you the theological cooties, open up YOUR mind too much, or make YOU think a bit.

Jared C: “I suppose Mark must be in hell now since he just didn’t seem to believe in the right Jesus.

DOWN WITH MARK the false Evangelist, the deceiver!!!! He lead so many to hell. . .”

Jared C., are you being sarcastic?

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Sorry about my typos in the comment above. The incident of Jesus forgiving sins is in chapter 2.

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Cheryl,

Mark is the oldest Gospel, If he wanted people to think Jesus was God the Father, wouldn’t he have said it explicitly (Like John did?)

I suppose Mark just didn’t know the “real” Jesus. He should have read the bible and did more theology. Too bad he was too busy writing the Bible.

Ultimately my point is that multiple views of Jesus are both inevitable and completely biblical. The New Testament is not a single view of Jesus.

You seem to think that you have to have a single view of Jesus in order to be Christian, a certain view formulated over the 100-200 years after Jesus was crucified. Since Mark had a very different view of Jesus than John, I can accept that that historical view may qualify you all as Christians, even though it is quite different than the view we find in Mark.

By analogy, I can consider you Christians even though you believe that Jesus has some unimaginable relationship with his Father that cannot really be explained that makes them a single “essence”. I can’t see that the view is either biblical or even that it makes sense but I can accept that you hold it sincerely and that Jesus is just and loving enough not to send you to hell for believing such strange things.

But Maybe the “Mormon” Jesus is simply more forgiving and loving than the Trinitarian Jesus. I suppose that remains to be seen.

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Steve,

I know what you mean!

Jared C,

Jesus said that He and the Father are one and that if we have seen Him, we have seen the Father. Maybe that is the “unimaginable relationship”with the Father that you talk about. And I guess that is what I would probablycall one essence.

Brian says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Alma,

Does not the BOM state that white skin is “pure and delightsome” and that brown skin is “filthy and loathsome” or that “Lamanitish” people who accept the Mormon gospel can hope to have their skins turned white”? As such the LDS “forefathers” promoted this exclusion for over 100 years.
Although I guess you’re right, it wasn’t edited out of the BOM as I had asserted. I guess I should have said the LDS doctrine was edited by special revelation to correct these errors.

That said, the revisions of the BOM, in Grammer, spelling, king names, etc, should not be necessary if Every letter were given by God”.

We’re all limited by time and space on this blog, so yes, I made some sweeping statements. None of which have been shown yet to be false. In fact the opposite is true.

Kudos to you and your Mormon apologists though for your attempts to invalidate the DNA study. Perhaps I will take the time later to post to the study. Admittedly, I dont have it in front of me.

While true that the existence of the MS doesn’t validate Huck Finn being true…….Huck Finn IS fiction isn’t it? Does it purport to be fact? Does it ask the reader to give their heart and soul to the river kid? You’ve reversed the logic. Huck Finn is a fictional story within a real world context. The BOM is a “Factual” story with no evidence to support it. The BOM requires facts, Huck Finn does not. Still looking for the Iota of evidence. While the evidence for the veracity of the Bible isn’t exhaustive yet, it’s pretty darn strong and plentiful. (Yes a sweeping statement).

“This is doctrine from the Book of Mormon–published one month before Joseph Smith organized the Church of Jesus Christ. The title page declares that Jesus Christ is the eternal God. Many other passages contain similar language. Towards the end of the book, there is an account of Jesus appearing to the people and declaring that He (Jesus Christ) is the God of Israel. So you see, Brian, this isn’t an evolution of doctrine; it was foundational to the Church.”

THis is your quote, yet we’ve shown you, from your LDS documents the official position of the LDS church that Christ is not God, but a god. A product of the Father, and not pre-existing and eternal.

Again, you’re entire position is that our positions are mislead and uninformed. Yet we’ve heard no evidence to the contrary.

And by the way, the link to the “First Edition” BOM doesn’t help. This online version is un-managed, and can in no way be confirmed to be “THE” first edition. In fact, on the Main page reads “Online edition edited in 1994″. To be fair, it could very well be THE first Edition, word for word, but this is an internet copy, not authoritative. In fact, that Mosiah 21:28 uses Mosiah’s name and NOT Benjamin’s means this online edition is NOT in fact the 1st edition.

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Do you believe that the Lord And Savior died willingly on a cross, shed His blood and cried out in the agony of being separated from God?
Mormons say yes, which is part of the reason we don’t think he is of the same “essence” as his father. How can you cry out at being separated when you are not separated? (seems like nonsense to me)

Do you believe in three days, He rose bodily from the tomb, neatly folded his grave clothes and then walked out of it?

Mormons believe Jesus was resurrected from the dead and conquered death and hell.
No idea who folded his grave clothes.

Do you believe that He was visited by Mary Magdalene and told her to go tell the brethren that He was risen, and then presented Himself to the disciples where Thomas said “My Lord and my God”?

Mormons believe the bible….this was in the bible.

Do you believe He walked with the two men on the Road to Emmaus?

See above.

Do you believe that He stood on the side of the Galilee and called to the disciples who were fishing to come and dine, and prepared a meal for them and ate fish with them, after he was risen?

Yes, if the resurrected Jesus is eating fish, he doesn’t seem much like a Spirit. . . .

Do you believe that before he ascended into heaven bodily, in front of 500 witnesses, that He said to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them whatever He has commanded to do so?

Mormons believe the bible.

Do you believe that He now sits at the right hand of God?

Yes, Mormons do, Do evangelicals. It seems that they don’t believe he sits on the right hand of God because they don’t believe God can sit nor do they believe he has hands, despite what Stephen saw. I suppose Stephen was a deceiver like Joseph, undermining people’s belief in the Trinity. Of course he was being stoned at the time, so he did not have a lot of reason to lie.

But the crux of the whole matter is this…did Jesus die on the cross after the cruel whipping, and the crown of thorns placed on his head and stripped naked so soldiers could gamble for his robe all for you to believe that it was insufficient without Joseph Smith?

This is a ridiculous statement and bears no resemblance to Mormonism. I can accept that church leaders said all the things quoted above but this conclusion is totally at odds with all of that. Evangelicals often strike me as having blinders on that prevents them from seeing anything in the Bible that disrupts their devotion to Sola Scriptura and Sola Fida. The blinders also seem to prevent them from not jumping to these sorts of strange conclusions.

Kara Kittle says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Now you are beginning to reach out even though you might be trying to disprove me, you are actually proving…

Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani…My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me?

Genesis 1
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Do you notice that Day and Night are capitalized, meaning proper names? Pay close attention….

John 1:
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

So, we have established by the KJV, which you yourself say you believe says Jesus was God and was with God…hmmm…

Another interesting example we can use is….my husband and I are one flesh…how can this be if we are two different people with two different minds but we are one flesh because the Bible says we are.

What is most interesting is I said verses from the Bible that you rejected and then said you believe in the Bible…so you are really picking and choosing what fits into Mormon?

Psalm 119
105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

Again word and light being used in same sentence.

Psalm 119
160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Luke 2
29Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:
30For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
31Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;
32A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

Simeon again using the word light when referring to the baby Jesus at his circumcision.

John 17
1These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
4I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
5And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
6I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

Jesus said…the glory he had with the Father before the world was?

They were eternal together.

you said “This is a ridiculous statement and bears no resemblance to Mormonism. I can accept that church leaders said all the things quoted above but this conclusion is totally at odds with all of that.”

Who’s quote is at odds? And you are comfortable accepting your own leaders would speak heresy and never question it? Should I directly quote what Wilford Woodruff said? OK.

President Wilford Woodruff
4th President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
April 1898
69th Annual General Conference
Sunday Overflow Session

In April, 1838, while in the town of Kirtland, in walking across the street I met two men who held the Apostleship. They said to me, “Brother Woodruff, we have something that we want you to join us in.” Said I, “What is it? “We want another Prophet to lead us.” “Whom do you want?” “We want Oliver Cowdery. Joseph Smith has apostatized.” After listening to them, I said to them: “Unless you repent of your sins you will be damned and go to hell, and you will go through the fulness of eternal damnation, and all your hopes in this life will pass before you like the frost before the rising sun. You are false. Joseph Smith has not apostatized. He holds the keys of the kingdom of God on earth, and will hold them until the coming of the Son of Man, whether in this world or in the world to come.” I am happy to say that those men did repent pretty soon, turned to the Church, and died in it.”

Matthew 16
15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Who gave Joseph Smith the keys? When were they given to him?

President Howard W. Hunter
14th President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
October 1994
165th Semiannual General Conference
Priesthood General Session
“A man who holds the priesthood has reverence for motherhood. Mothers are given a sacred privilege to “bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of [the] Father continued, that he may be glorified” (D&C 132:63).

But Jesus said the Father was glorified in the Son…?

What I want to know is this…even if Joseph Smith was “terribly wrong” then why do all your leaders even to the one you have now all make reference to him?

You can say all you want about believing in the Bible, but until you actually do, you will learn it is sufficient.

Kara Kittle says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jared,
You are most definitely forgiven. At least we can now begin to talk. As you may have found out, I am a hard-liner when it comes to my faith. The Spirit leads into all Truth.

And by definition of who Jesus is, nothing is true if it is contrary to His nature and His character. God does not lie, and Jesus does not lie so the Holy Ghost would never lead into another direction.

When you speak of baptism of the Holy Ghost, it could be a different meaning we believe in the indwelling of the Spirit. We believe in laying on hands…but we do that for prayer for the sick also.

I believe in Jesus, but to the conviction of my heart made through confession. To me, He is personal. He abides in me. We have fellowship because He was invited into me. This is how the Spirit works. I communicate with Him, I meditate on Him and His words. The realness of Him is real, but He would still be real without any help from me.

Have the mind of Christ. Have the spirit of Christ. And above all, take on Christ. We can never become Him, but we can become like Him.

Jesus as the Word of God can never be contrary to God. It is impossible. As God is holy, loving, just, full of mercy, He is just as righteous and jealous.

Jesus is close to us all…He said Behold, I stand at the door and knock, it any man opens up to me, I will come in unto him and sup with him. This is the fellowship we have by the Spirit.

Shall I share with you two examples of my Jesus and how He communicates with me?

One time I woke up in the morning and was hearing a voice saying “Trust Jesus”. This was speaking to me all morning. As I sat to read my Bible, suddenly I heard very clearly my friend call my name. I got on the phone to see what was wrong. She lives in Ft. Smith Arkansas over 800 miles from me. She was so distraught she was calling out to be healed. Well I decided that I must go see her. I heard again, “trust Jesus”. So I told my husband I had to go and I did.

Well around West Memphis I happened to be praying and the presence of the Lord came into my car and told me to feed His sheep. At that moment I noticed a man walking on the side of the interstate. I knew this was unusual and it was hot out…heat index was 114. I drove down to the next exit to turn around and came back, having to make a new turn around before I could get in the right direction. I stopped and picked him up. He was an older African-American man, very tired and thirsty. He drank the warm water in the bottles I had bought previously.

I drove until the next town and stopped to buy food. He did not eat it. We began talking on the way, he told me he was on his way to Oklahoma City, which was farther than what I was going. But our conversation was about the Lord. It became night and I finally got to the Fort Smith exit and told him I would have to let him off there. I noticed the lightning of a rain storm approaching and offered him an umbrella, which he turned down saying he did not need. I offered him cash money which he turned down also saying he did not need. We prayed before he left the car and as he walked down the road in front of my headlights, the back of his shirt said “Trust Jesus”. I cried because I knew the realness of Jesus.

The second thing is when my house was on fire. I had been sleeping. It was 4 am and I heard a crash somewhere in my house that woke me up. I jumped from bed to open my bedroom door thinking someone was in my house. I closed the door to turn on the light and dress and then opened the door again. The light went out as a cloud of smoke hit my face.

Not knowing what to do I went to the bathroom close to me and got a wet towel. Then realizing my house was on fire, I called out loud “Lord you said if I call on you in the day of my trouble, you will answer me” and His voice spoke back and told me to crawl to the back door. I could see a man holding my burning ceiling up and as I made it to the kitchen it fell behind me. I had no shoes on, it was February 16, 1999, there was two feet of snow on the ground. I lived in Celina Ohio at the time.

I made it out, and when I came around the front of the house, I realized the front door was unlocked and my coat and boots were just inside the front door. I was able to retrieve them and then as I was going to find help, two men in a white pickup truck stopped and called 911 for me. In the span of time, it was 10 minutes and my house was burning. But I today still know the man who held my ceiling for me until I escaped.

There is no one who can tell me I don’t know who Jesus is. His realness saved my life and confirmed to me His word.

Jared, that is why I am so firm in what I believe. And I know that there are many other people out there who have also met with Jesus in an intimate personal way.

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

(I got the qoutes screwed up above, part of the quote is 1 Corinthians 13, and part of it is just me, I am sure you can tell the difference )

Kara Kittle says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jared,
That was very nice of you. The verse you were referring says “but when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away with”, in the KJV.

Jesus has not come back in like manner as He went away, according to Matthew 28. But to think if we have seen Him now by the Spirit, how much more glorious will it be face to face?

We are confident that we may not see His reappearing in our lifetime, He still will come again. But the point is to be prepared always. We don’t have issues with your testimonies, it’s just that as we hold our own preachers, teachers, prophets, evangelists and apostles…which is called in some circles the 5 fold ministry, we hold them to the scrutiny of the Bible. So we would not do any less for anyone else.

Many times people have come to me and said God said this or that. I have to do what the Bible says and try the spirit to see if it is of God. And if it is not, I am in danger if I receive it. But it is my responsibility to do the testing.

Even when it comes to books. And should I do the same thing for the Bible to see if a verse I am reading, that the understanding I am getting is also from God? Yes, because I am human, and subject to making mistakes. So I qualify it, not through extra-Biblical means, but the Bible itself in other passages. If I have trouble with something Paul says, I go to find out what Jesus said about it. And the Bible says “out of the mouth of two or three witnesses” So I apply that to my study. What did Jesus say? Then I go from there. I don’t blindly take a verse and believe only in that one.

The Bible is more than a book of stories. It becomes living when you read it. Because all of the words were given by inspiration of the Holy, Living God.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you knew about my pastor’s wife, she grew up Mormon but now is born-again Pentecostal. She has been for over 25 years now. She has said there are some things the Mormons hold as social value are beneficial. But Jared, I will ask you this, not to be offensive or downgrading…can you be a Christian without the BoM?

I hope you will at least think about it. You seem to be a nice person and that is good. Perhaps I came off as combative, but I think it is part of who I am. I should apologize if anything I said was not said in grace and humility. For that I do say I am sorry.

steve martin says:

Like or Dislike: 0

I think the Bible goes to great lengths to extinguish the idea of your good works counting for ANYTHING when it comes to your realtionship to God.

The BOM fans the flames of that natural tendency to take on the self-justification project.

I think that the life of faith in the work of Christ alone for our salvation is hard enough without throwing gasoline on the fire of our humanistic ascendency project.

Michael L. says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Before I start my quick yet lengthy response, we do well to all read Gal 6:1 before writing any blog entry. At least we can be gentle and loving while trying to converse. Reading this entire thread, it seems at least we all accept the Bible as the word of God, so that one should be easy.

Now for the more difficult part.

I was fortunate enough to work for a company where the IT data center was located in Orem, UT. And hence I have had the extreme pleasure, to this day, to converse, meet and “shoot the breeze” with a lot of members of the Church of LDS. I even have a copy of the Book of Mormon on my bookshelf, and yes.. I read it cover to cover, even though it’s been a while (I had to pull it back out for this entry).
I would like to emphasize that most of the people I worked with are still friends of mine and I have thoroughly enjoyed working with them. They had an attitude, demeanor, approach and work ethic I wish I could find in a lot of other Christians. Besides my penchant for coffee, which meant I had to make my own each time while being in Orem, we got along great.. and still do.

So, I am not ready to make a judgment on whether you are a Christian or not, but then again, neither will I make that judgment on other “Christians” I know. “Judgment is mine” said the Lord and I for one know I am not him . Further more, Matthew 7 is probably one passage I like a lot. Combined with 1John 1, in which I realize I myself am far from perfect, I’ll refrain from judging, but love you all the same.

I would kindly ask Jared C, or Alma (who I deduce are defending the Church of LDS as being Christian), to answer the following questions with simple “yes” or “no”. Over my years of conversing with some the very good Mormon friends mentioned above, they shared they have been taught to answer “I believe in the Bible” when not knowing how to exactly answer a question with “Yes” or “No”. It is an escape clause. So Jared C and Alma, please refrain from using it, I would much appreciate it.

For anyone else on this blog.. go for it.. it’s only 10 questions.

1) If you were to find a contradiction between the Bible and any of the following three books to wit, the book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price. Would you admit the Bible is correct while the others are wrong ?
Please don’t respond that this is a hypothetical question and refuse to answer. If someone showed me a gospel (gospel of Thomas, gospel of Judas, Apocalypse of Peter, you name it) and which are btw. much older than any of the three mentioned above, and this document contradicted the Bible, I would unequivocally take the Bible as truth above any other. So… Yes or No ? Bible over any of the other three ?
2) Is Adam the same person as Michael, also known as the prince, the archangel ?
3) Do you, yes or no, accept the existence of telestial, terrestrial and celestial heavens.
4) Can a woman, yes or no, reach the celestial heaven without her husband
5) Can anyone who is not a member of the LDS reach the celestial heaven
6) Are Jehovah and Elohim one and the same
7) Do you believe in the virgin birth eg. no physical being besides Mary was required for the birth, eg Elohim did not have sex with Mary
8) Is Jesus a created being or has He existed forever since before the start of time ? (I will take “Created” or “Forever” as an answer instead of “Yes” or “No”)
9) Is there only one God for the entire world, galaxy, universe, all the planets, start, comets and everything in it ?
10) Can I ever gain equal footing with God ?

So feel free to post it something like
1) Yes
2) No
3) …etcetcetc….

Depending on these answers… you may or may not have a solid understanding of what we nowadays call Christianity. I will reply once I have received (and digested) some of your answers. I will also give you mine so you at least know where I stand on some of these. Fair is fair…

And please, rest assured, regardless of how you answer, I do still care, love you and would be more than happy to share a drink (Btw.. the favorite drink of one of my friends is Caffeine Free Dr.Pepper.. and he got me hooked on it too by now).

Yours in Him

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Steve,

I don’t think you really know what is in the Book of Mormon:

Here is an example: Mosiah 3: Coming from a prophet speaking around 124 B.C.:

17 And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.
18 For behold he judgeth, and his judgment is just; and the infant perisheth not that dieth in his infancy; but men drink damnation to their own souls except they humble themselves and become as little children, and believe that salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.
19 For the natural bman is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, ksubmissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.
20 And moreover, I say unto you, that the time shall come when the knowledge of a Savior shall spread throughout every nation, kindred, tongue, and people.

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Someone asked a question way back in comment # 81 that I don’t believe has ever been addressed here. It involved what they understand of the Mormon belief that a husband has to call a wife up or she will not be resurrected. I read several quotes from Mormon leaders of the past that said that she will never be able to get to the Celestial Kingdom if her husband doesn’t do this for her.

I would like to know, as the original commenter did, how this fits in with Jesus being sufficient for all for salvation?

Truth Unites... and Divides says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Michael L. has lovingly produced a simple, clear test for Mormons to clarify their theology. If you’re Mormon, please take the test (first) and answer the questions as requested.

John C.T. says:

Like or Dislike: 0

I only know a little about Mormonism, but I don’t get why they would want to be known as Christians in the sense of being assoicated with other American churches because 1 Nephi 14:10 states, “And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.” I assume, therefore, that I belong to the whore of all the earth.

regards,
John

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Hi again Alma,

Your anwer to # 7 above doesn’t necessarily seem to be the answer all Mormons give to this question. I have read on another website a discussion on this same question that took place between a Mormon and a non Mormon. The Mormon there very stoutly said that only a Heavenly Father with flesh and blood could have produced life with Mary. He said it was not possible for a spirit to do so. Now in all fairness he did say that these were his views and not necessarily those of the church but that he belived they were were consistent with the views of the church. But then again, I have read quotes from Mormon leaders in the past that I cant read in any other way but that they are saying that God the Father had sex with Mary.

You also stated that a Mormon woman can reach the Celestial heaven without her husband. That has certainly not always been the teaching of the Mormon Church. The Apostle Charles Penrose, the Apostle Erastus Snow, and William Clayton, secretary to Joseph Smith are all quoted as saying otherwise. http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/resurrectwife.htm Are those things no longer believed by the Mormon Church?

I am also really curious to know why Mormons believe that Adam is the same person as Michael the archangel? I see absolutely no indication of that in the Bible whatsoever.

And lastly, you say you would believe Mormon Scripture over the Bible because it is not possible to know the original text. Why then has the book of Mormon been changed many times and you can still accept it? As I understand it Joseph Smith claimed that the BOM had been given him directly from God and was the most correct of any book on earth. Then why all of the changes since then? That doesn’t sound very reliable to me.

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jared C,

Would you please do me, and maybe all of us, a favor, and tell us what you see as our narrow, strange, unbiblical definition of who a Christian is?

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Would you please do me, and maybe all of us, a favor, and tell us what you see as our narrow, strange, unbiblical definition of who a Christian is?

I have yet to hear a biblical definition from anybody here. In essence, what I hear is, “Mormons don’t interpret the Bible in the same way we do, therefore they can’t be Christian”

It may be true that Mormons believe all kinds of crazy things, but so do a lot of people you consider “Christians” Are Catholics Christian? Are eastern Orthodox Christian, how about Coptics? They all believe things that you would consider “unbiblical” Since I have not seen any bible-based definition of who is a disciple of Christ on this post. It seems that the definition is fluid, i.e. if somebody believes something that strikes you as unbelievable they must not be “Christian”.

Michael L.

I think your questions are irrelevant to the discussion, unless you can show me how they tie into your definition of who is a true disciple of Jesus.

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jared,

I tried to post this comment before your last one and my computer went nuts for a minute and it didn’t get sent.

I had originally posted this in a comment up above and this is still probably my biggest concern:

“I would like to make a comment on the question you asked in your last paragraph above to Kara. Second Corinthians 11:4 speaks of someone preaching another Jesus, another gospel and the possibility of receiving another Spirit. And Galatians chapter one speaks of another gospel than the one Paul was preaching.

My concern here is that even if Joseph Smith professed faith in Jesus, the Jesus that the Mormons seem to believe in is so different than the one that we find in the Bible that I think He would very well qualify as another Jesus.

If the Jesus believed in isn’t the real Jesus, can that Jesus save Joseph Smith or any one else? Only the real Jesus as He has shown Himself is able to save.”

The differences I am aware of at the moment that concern me–there may be more, I don’t know–are the fact that the Mormon Jesus hasn’t always been God but was once a man that attained to Godhood, the Mormon Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer, and the Mormon Jesus was not born by the Holy Spirit coming upon the Virgin Mary. Those things alone make me think we are not talking about the same Jesus here. We are using the same name, yes, but those things give such a different understanding of who Jesus is that He is not at all the same person in my mind.

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

2 Corinthians 11 says nothing about the definition of who is as disciple of Jesus, It says nothing about “another Jesus”.

The “another Jesus” idea is basically a red herring to me that dodges the biblical definition of Chrisitianity and substitutes some derivative theological test, that most Christian churches in the world do not agree with.

There is nothing in anything Jesus said that gives that sort of theological test in order to become one of his followers. It is clear from the Gospels that you can have very different views of who Jesus was and still be “true followers”. i.e. Mark’s Jesus is different from John’s Jesus for example. Matthew felt the need to completely revise, edit and add to Mark.

The person we are talking about is precisely the same person, i.e. the person described in Matthew,Mark, Luke and John. We may disagree on his attributes, and the meaning of his words, but we are following the same words. Saying that it is a “different” Jesus is not logical or biblical, its just away of remaining safe within your own theological cocoon.

Michael,

Indulge me first!

Michael L. says:

Like or Dislike: 0

LOL Jared C.

I love it ! OK, here’s the deal.

I have to run and pick up a child at school. If, by the time I make it back to my house (count about an hour or so), you haven’t responded, I will post my answer and reasoning. But do note, I will not grant you the chance to answer the questions after my answers. It kinda like waiting for the Trivia answers before answering the Trivia question.

And btw.. you would not be the first and not the last to answer the questions. Alma did so earlier as well.

In Him

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jared,

Regarding comment 48: Being saved is another term for being a Christian and being one that will go to Heaven after this life. If we have to watch our doctrine closely to accompish that, then we can’t accept for ourselves something that we believe to be completely diiferent than what we believe to be true doctrine. THAT is why a doctrine about Jesus that varies vastly from our understading of Him is of great concern to us.

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Hey Jared,

Seems like I’m not the only one that doesn’t think we are talking about the same Jesus. A very high up in your own church has apparently said the same thing:

“In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints ‘do not believe in the traditional Christ.’ ‘No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.’” (LDS Church News Week ending June 20, 1998, p. 7).”

http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/mormonism/hinckley-says-mormons-believe-different-jesus

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Great point Michael L!

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Kara,

I found that if you have more than one link in your post it goes to moderation. Is that maybe why you are having probems?

Kara Kittle says:

Like or Dislike: 0

I discovered that cheryl, ty

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Michael,

I read and understand your response. And, again, I fully accept that Mormons and Protestants have very different views of Jesus. I don’t know that they are much more different than Mark;s view was from John’s or Paul’s, but very different. Jews also disagree strongly about who Jesus was, however, it doesn’t make any sense to say that they believe in a “different” Jesus. Its doesn’t fit in with how we talk about anything else. You and I may have a different view of Barack Obama, but we don’t believe in different Obama’s. The “different Jesus” talk is just nonsense. It only makes sense to say that we believe very different things about the same man, Jesus of Nazareth.

Mormons believe that God has the ability and the prerogative to reveal new things about Himself, even if those things are not in the Bible. It really makes no sense whatsoever to think that the Bible is all God has to say on any subject. Again, believing that is not a biblical idea.

However, you still have yet to give me a biblical explanation of where Jesus said that if you didn’t believe in the Trinity, or sola scriptura, or some other peculiar protestant doctrine, then you are not saved and not Christian. Give it to me in HIS words if you can, for some reason I am not going to trust your opinions on this subject.

Cheryl said: “Can you tell me where in those Gospels you get the idea that Jesus was once a man that attained to Godhood?”

Wasn’t that the entire point of the Gospels?

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Cheryl:

” I guess you vastly disagree with some of your own Mormon leadership then on this area regarding if the Mormon Jesus is a different Jesus? ”

You misunderstand what Gordon Hinkley was saying.

Mormons absolutely believe and worship the Jesus of the bible, believe he is the Eternal God, creator of heaven and earth.

HOWEVER, you are still dodging. Where in the bible does it rule out Mormons as Christian? Where does Jesus give the criteria of his true followers? All you are saying is that we disagree on interpretation of the Bible, but you have yet to show me any BIBLICAL definition of “disciple of Christ.”

It would seem that as bible believers, we could go to the Bible, find out what Jesus said about the issue and make our analysis form that. What you are doing is going to the extra-biblical conclusions first, then finding that Mormons are not on the same page, and then putting words into Jesus’ mouth.

Where does Jesus distinguish his true disciples from others? Doesn’t he give qualities of his true disciples? Can’t we trust that He would give sufficient criteria himself and that Matthew, Mark, Luke or John would have somewhere recorded it? If He did not give clear criteria on who his followers were, why do you think you can be so confident as to who is “really” christian?

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jared,

You say I misunderstand what Hinckley is saying. Here again is his quote, “”In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints ‘do not believe in the traditional Christ.’ ‘No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.’” (LDS Church News Week ending June 20, 1998, p. 7).

He says, “The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak.” What is to misunderstand? Sounds perfectly clear to me.

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jared,

I am not dodging. My whole point is that if you are following a different Jesus than the one the Bible speaks of, what difference does it make if we discuss the Biblical criteria for following the true Jesus or not? The Bibles criteria for the true followers of Jesus refer to the Jesus spoken of in the Bible. You can follow a different Jesus all you want using the Bible’s criteria but you will still be following a DIFFERENT Jesus.

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jared,

I wrote my last comment before your reading your last one.

You said, “Well, Mormons don’t believe that the traditions adequately describe Jesus because more recent revelation gives us a clearer picture of Him.

Hinckley is speaking of the Jesus of the Bible.”

That is where we totally disagree. We believe that the “more recent revelations” don’t agree with the Jesus of the Bible at all–that some of them, like the ones I spoke of in comment # 62 above downright contradict the Bible.

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Where in the Bible does it say you have to agree with everything said in the Bible in order to be a Christian. . . I have never seen anything like that. That is why Mormons can consider protestants Christian even when they believe in things that do not make any sense in view of the bible (i.e. the trinity).

We radically disagree on what the bible means, we have beat that dead horse. However, I have yet to see a BIBLICAL answer to the question. You simply ASSUME that Jesus rejects people that don’t get theology right.

Kara Kittle says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jared,
There is no simple way to discuss this without long passages. So I will try my best to keep it simple.

John 1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

John 10
My sheep know my voice and follow me, and a stranger they will not follow.

Ephesians 4
one Lord, one faith, one Baptism

Rev. 21
3And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
6And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
7He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

Jesus said His people know his voice, they won’t follow another, He is Lord. There is only one faith, one baptism. There is no other theology acceptable if it changes who He is.

Jesus said if you try to go up any other way (because He is the Door) then you are a thief and a robber. Moroni was another way. Brigham Young said Joseph Smith was another way. Gordon Hinkley said there is another way.

There is only one Jesus Christ, this one Jesus Christ is the Word, He is God, He is man, He was, and is and is to come. This Jesus Christ cannot change. It is blasphemy to change the very nature and character of Jesus then use that changed description to build a religion around that difference.

Jared, please if you love Jesus then accept who He is from the Bible. Please search the Bible to discover just who He is. If you say you are my brother in Christ, then you know I have a Bible commandment to exhort you in the faith. I deeply and humbly ask you to see Jesus as He is written in the Bible.

Acts 1
1The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
2Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
3To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
4And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
5For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
6When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
7And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
8But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
9And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

This Jesus that went away is coming back as He went. Not another kind, not another description, not one with a different nature and character, not one contrary to the word. This is the one we are to be looking for.

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Alma,

You said, “Whoever your correspondent was who claimed that God had “flesh and blood” was mistaken. It is doctrine that resurrected beings do not have blood in their bodies.”

I did make a mistake, it was “flesh and bones”, not flesh and blood. However, that doesn’t change the point being made that the Father had sex with Mary.

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Alma,

Even if it is true in Mormon doctrine that a woman can enter the Celestial Kingdom withought her husband calling her forth, that is again not a doctrine that is found anywhere in the Bible. In the Bible each one stands totally on his own before God as a believer or an unbeliever and no one has to depend on another person in any way for that.

This points up again one of the great differences between us. We accept only the Bible as our standard while you accept many other books and teachings also.

mbaker says:

Like or Dislike: 0

The cross of Christ is not central to the Mormon doctrine as the teachings of Joseph Smith are. Baptism for the dead is a case in point that negates each believers need to personally come to the cross of Christ in repentance BEFORE they die, in order to be saved. If I can just be baptized by those left alive after I’m gone, why would on earth would the world ever have needed the sacrifice of Christ for sin in the first place?

That to me is the central point in separating the two belief systems, one which cannot be adequately explained away.

Michael L. says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jared,

Once again, thank you for your response. Some comments
1) “Traditional Christianity holds that Jesus, God and The Holy Spirit are three personages of equal power and glory.” Correction: Father, Son and Spirit. If so, absolutely
2) “I disagree that traditional Christianity is truly monotheistic”. You may disagree but for 2,000 years Christians have held this belief. Anyone who doesn’t, I would call non-Christian.
3) “Do you grasp for the unbiblical, completely unexplainable doctrine of the Trinity, or do you explain their unity in terms of what Jesus said in the scriptures.” The Trinity is a human and therefore not perfect, attempt at reconciling the view of ONE God in three persons. When Augustine wrote his “De Trinitate”, around 400 CE, the concept was already quite prevalent in Christian environments. The fact that the Word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible itself does not make it less true for the Christian faith. The concept itself is quite prevalent all througout the new Testament.
4) “This is why Muslims consider them polytheistic.” False. I work with a lot of them and have firsthand experience. Even though they only accept Jesus as a good prophet, and they don’t understand how we can call Christ God, they do accept we are mono-theistic. They just believe that our attempt at explaining it is not very convincing.

As long as you see Jesus Christ in a poly-theistic perspective, which you still haven’t admitted, you will have a different opinion. Just like Muslims have a different perspective since they don’t accept the deity of Christ. You accept the deity of Christ, but as just ONE of the DIFFERENT deities. And that is a non-Christian approach.

In addition, which would go back for instance to question #1 in my little shortlist. When you believe and accept that in the afterlife you can become a god (small or capital G), that you can raise people from the dead, that you will have an entire “planet” or “system” to rule, etc.. those are EXTRA biblical concepts. And adhering to EXTRA biblical concepts is what makes Mormonism non-Christian.

When Luther mentioned “Sola Scriptura” it was exactly that same concept he opposed. We have misused the term. Luther protested the fact that the Roman Catholic church in the 1500′s was using a lot of extra biblical material to guide people. Since the reformation we have rejected that as being truly Christian.

All 10 questions highlight that you have a worldview influenced by extra-biblical material and accept more than Scripture as truth.

In Summary, Christianity would say
“Christ Alone”, not others such as other prophets.
“Scripture Alone”, not other writings
“Grace Alone”, not other works, actions and activities.

This post is about whether or not Mormonism is a true representation of Christianity. Not about whether someone from LDS can be saved. Doesn’t mean right or wrong. But stop calling yourself a Christian. It’s a non-nonsensical debate. Just like I can’t call myself a Mormon.

We can always start a separate post on “What does it take to be saved ?” I know MCP had a post previously on whether gays, etc.. can be saved. But I couldn’t find it.
Or another post on “The differences in interpretation on the nature of Christ” and let’s invite some Muslims, Jews, BUddhists and even a Zoro-astrianist to it. Now THAT would be a great debate.

In Him

mbaker says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jared,

Can you provide specific scriptural back up for this statement you made?

“Baptism for the dead was commanded by God.”

Thanks.

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Here is the circle we are running in.

1. Evangelicals say Mormons aren’t christian because they don’t follow “traditional” christian beliefs

2. Mormons disagree, we believe we have the “correct” interpretation of the Bible, and that Evangelicals are limited by their traditional notions rather than what the Bible really says.

3. We have a never-ending discussion about why we have the correct interpretation.

We are not going to resolve this gap. Mormons will always believe that Protestantism is severely limited and blind to the full truth and Protestants will always think Mormons are extra-biblical. Mormons will tell you the only way to find the truth is to search diligently from all sources and listen to the Spirit rather than tradition.

Believe me, I have heard all of these arguments dozens of times and I have made a real effort to understand where Evangelicals are coming from, but until you do the same your arguments will be wildly off the mark.

However, we don’t have to agree on theology in order to come up with a “Christian” definition of Christianity i.e. a definition of Christianity coming from Jesus, not something that is derivative from other people’s commentary or tradition.

I am open to hearing anything that Jesus had to say on the subject and an explanation of that.

I am not saying you can’t come up with your own definitions of “Christian”, I am just saying they will not be “Christian” definitions unless they come from Christ. We may not interpret what Jesus had to say on this subject precisely the same but I think its worth going there first to seek common ground.

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Cheryl asked: “Can you provide specific scriptural back up for this statement you made?

“Baptism for the dead was commanded by God.”

The practice originated from Joseph Smith reading the bible in 1 Corinthians 15:29 : Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

And

John 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

He then asked God what this was all about and received revelation to start the practice within the Temple:

Doctrine and Covenants section 127:

And again, I give unto you a word in relation to the baptism for your dead.Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning your dead: When any of you are abaptized for your dead, let there be a brecorder, and let him be eye-witness of your baptisms; let him hear with his ears, that he may testify of a truth, saith the Lord;

So, God revealed to Joseph Smith that it is his will that his Church start doing this again.

Hope that helps.

Michael L. says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jared C

Once again thank you. Your three points are exactly correct. And I am glad we got there.

One thing though: “I am just saying they will not be “Christian” definitions unless they come from Christ.”

If you can point out where Christ mentioned that we should accept
1) Other prophets besides Him
2) Other statements outside of His words
3) The notion that there are multiple levels in Heaven
4) That Jesus and Michael were the same person
5) That Lucifer was his brother
…
Until such time, I would say you believe a bunch of things that Christ never mentioned…. so where does that leave you as a Christian according to your own understanding ?

It’s not what you believe about Christ that’s the crux of the challenge. It’s all the OTHER stuff you believe that is contradictory to what Christ said. That is what makes in non-Christian. It becomes a “Christ Plus” kind of faith. And that is against what Christ himself taught us.

I hope you see the challenge in that.

Yours in Him
Mick

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Mick,
“Until such time, I would say you believe a bunch of things that Christ never mentioned…. so where does that leave you as a Christian according to your own understanding ?”

I think your reasoning is a bit silly, EVERYBODY believes things that Christ never mentioned.

We only have a very scant record of the things Jesus said and they are focused on very few topics. My point is that we should look at those topics first before we create derivative definitions of who is a disciple of Jesus.

Jesus said “By this shall men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another”

I think that has to be the start of any definition of Christianity.

For my view on the subject see this post:http://ldstalk.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/are-evangelicals-really-christians/

As for the list, which is still totally beside the point:

1) Other prophets besides Him – You are kidding right? are you saying we need to disregard everything in the Bible but the quotes from Jesus?

2) Other statements outside of His words – See above.

3) The notion that there are multiple levels in Heaven – Paul spoke of this to the Corinthians. Jesus himself gave a vision of this to Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon.

4) That Jesus and Michael were the same person – Mormons don’t believe this, we believe that Michael and ADAM were the same person. You are thinking of Jehova’s witnesses.

5) That Lucifer was his brother- Jesus is the son of God, Lucifer is the spiritual child (creation) of God. This could be seen as a “brotherly” relationship.

…

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

http://ldstalk.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/are-evangelicals-really-christians/

Michael L. says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Second try. If it appears twice, my apologies:

Jared C.

Thank you for the reply, and I absolutely stand corrected on Nr 4. I meant Adam and Michael as you point out. It was btw question 2 on my questionnaire in post 129. Now that I have indulged you, I think it’s fair you would come back with your answers

Your reply to the third point is exactly the challenge:

“Jesus himself gave a vision of this to Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon. ”

Mormons accept that. I don’t. Why ? Because the BIBLE warns me against it.
Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 6, 1John 4 and throw in 2Peter 2 for good measure.

It’s non-biblical.

Would you say that a Catholic who adheres to the “infallibility of the Pope” is correct ? After all, popes have been around a lot longer than Joseph Smith.

I hope you see the point. The challenge I see is that Mormons see Christ through the colored spectacles of Joseph Smith. Just like Catholics see Christ through the pontifical glasses, Muslims see Christ through Mohammedan glasses, etc.

If there are any things in those glasses that contradict the Scriptures, I believe they’re wrong and non-Christian.

And btw I grew up in a very strong Catholic country. No protestants around, no Mormons. So my glasses were very much tainted at one time.

I invite you to throw away the glasses, start afresh and take the Bible first, then match it against other writings. Read some other stuff like Athanasius, Augustine, Polycarp, etc… They’ve been around much longer than popes or Joseph Smith. If then there’s discrepancies, the book you adhere to will define who you are. If it’s Scripture, Christian. If it’s another book… something else.

Now, do I believe stuff that’s not in the Bible. Absolutely ! But theological things ? I hope not, lest someone points them out to me !

God Bless

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Mick,

I don’t take anything you have said personally. You seem to be pretty reasonable, even if I disagree

You are welcome over at ldstalk.wordpress.com

The head Blogger is an Evangelical but we don’t have enough Evangelicals over there as it is.

1) If you were to find a contradiction between the Bible and any of the following three books to wit, the book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price. Would you admit the Bible is correct while the others are wrong ?

No,

2) Is Adam the same person as Michael, also known as the prince, the archangel ?

Yes

3) Do you, yes or no, accept the existence of telestial, terrestrial and celestial heavens.

Yes,

4) Can a woman, yes or no, reach the celestial heaven without her husband

yes

5) Can anyone who is not a member of the LDS reach the celestial heaven

yes

6) Are Jehovah and Elohim one and the same

no

7) Do you believe in the virgin birth eg. no physical being besides Mary was required for the birth, eg Elohim did not have sex with Mary

not sure what happened there.

Is Jesus a created being or has He existed forever since before the start of time ? (I will take “Created” or “Forever” as an answer instead of “Yes” or “No”)

Forever

9) Is there only one God for the entire world, galaxy, universe, all the planets, start, comets and everything in it ?

Not sure

10) Can I ever gain equal footing with God ?

No

Kara Kittle says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jared,
As much as this has been interesting and informative, I will have to wait for a much more pleasant conversation. We all know that your Jesus and our Jesus are different.

I will leave you with this weblink and if you still disagree, then disagree with someone who used to be Mormon.

http://www.lifeafter.org/

We will continue to remain Christian, and we will defend it, but we really don’t have to as we have a great Defender for us.

The challenges we presented were that Joseph Smith was a liar. We have shown you from the Bible and Mormon sources that he was. We have shown that the lies are perpetuated from prophet to prophet using Mormon sources. We have challenged every book created by LDS and you have fallen back on them every time.

What more can we say to you? Nothing, because now it is up to you. You heard the truths of the Gospels and rejected them when they contradicted the BoM.

If there is no more than I can say, I will say the foundation of the Mormon church is based on half-truths, outright lies, false revelations and evolving doctrine.

But you Jared, should I offend you? No, not in who you are as a person. But I shall offend your church. If your leader were in front of me right at this moment, I would call him a liar because he perpetuated lies. He continues to teach a lie.

Jared, this is not intended to be cruel or condescending but I will stand in defense of the Gospel. I have to lift Jesus up so that He may draw all men unto Him.

2 Timothy 3

1This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
8Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
9But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their’s also was.
10But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,
11Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.
12Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
13But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Don’t stray away from the scriptures already taught by Jesus. Extra-Biblical is wrong.

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Sorry Kara, dumb question. It’s rather in plain site when I looked again.

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

I think I need to get a proof reader. I don’t seem to do so well at times myself!

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Kara,

I looked at the site, it is filled with distortions. It is anti-mormon propaganda, not unlike the anti-Christian propaganda out there.

You don’t offend me, I appreciate you sharing your experiences.

I trust in God that If you diligently seek him you will find, I find that He hangs out with some Mormons, I am not surprised that he hangs out with some Evangelicals as well,

I do think all of this contention regarding who has it “right’ is not really what Jesus was after at all. But I know the traditions you are coming from, born in violence and contention, so I don’t suppose I can’t expect any more.

I will leave you with the definition of Christianity that I believe in, and the way to find the “true” Jesus:

John 14:21
Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?”

Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. “

Those who “keep his Word” will dwell with God and will be guided by him. I think following any “prophet” true or false at times distract you from following the teachings of Jesus (whether it be Peter, Paul, Mark, John or Joseph Smith) I think the prophet, pastor or leader you follow is not particularly relevant if you, at the same time, put into practice the teachings of Jesus. God will be at home in you.

By my estimation, Joseph Smith appears as inspired as any Biblical author I have read. I think that even if he was heretical, if you follow his teachings in D&C 121 and put into practice the Sermon on the Mount, you are going to be a Christian and will be entitled to have God dwell with you. Not only that, I have seen and felt the presence of God in Mormons, in Mormon Churches and after praying in the name of the “Mormon” Jesus. What better witness can I have then from God?

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Kara said,

” But Jared, if your Mormon leaders are themselves confessing they do not worship Jesus of the Bible, then what Jesus are they following?
If it is not Jesus of the Bible, then why use His quotes. If it is Jesus of the Bible then it is in serious error to change His message.

Why would Brigham Young tell people that Joseph Smith is above Jesus of the Bible?”

These are distortions. Brigham Young never proposed that Joseph Smith was above Jesus.

Mormons worship the Jesus of the Bible, we don’t worship the traditional notion of Jesus, which is NOT in the Bible. If you read the quotes in context you will understand that Mormons believe the Bible is the Word of God, but we interpret it differently than traditions. The Traditional Jesus, Trinity, etc. are derivative of the Bible, hashed out theological definitions that have been decided upon in an extra-biblical context.

I know we are going to disagree on how you see the Jesus of the Bible but Mormons and Evangelicals are still looking at the same Man.

I don’t know what to tell you. The way you come to an understanding of the truth about God is to ask Him in Faith. I have seen hundreds who have found Jesus in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and received answers from God. I know that does not sit well with some, but I can’t really deny that it is happening. Just as I cannot deny that you have had experiences with Jesus. That is why I can say with confidence some LDS are christians and some Evangelicals are Christians even though they don’t at all agree about how to interpret the Bible.

The actual experiences of people tells me that theology must not be that important to Jesus.

Aaron says:

Like or Dislike: 0

I think saying it isn’t Christianity (it is a part of Christianity, if a heretical part) or calling it a cult is extremely pejorative and builds barriers to effective dialogue with Latter-day Saints

Shouldn’t this be more about accurate meaning of words than whether the usage of accurate terms upsets Mormons who want to avoid negative connotations? We need negative language to describe negative things.

And I’m not willing to let every new religion that is parasitical on existing foundations of Christianity distort basic Christian language without an ideological and rhetoric fight. That’d be irresponsible.

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

John,

I think you seem to have a pretty fair and accurate view of LDS belief. LDS do believe that Christ has existed for eternity, but we also believe all spirits have had an eternal pre-existence.

There is certainly a very different paradigm here.

I think the only reason for you to accept our paradigm over the traditional one is if you believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

That is really the crux of the differences. If Joseph Smith was a prophet he would have the ability and authority to correct previous theological errors. If he wasn’t, he is shifting the paradigm on his own.

LDS will tell you the way to find out if Joseph Smith was a prophet, is to examine the Book of Mormon, compare it with the Bible and ask God if the Book is “true”.

John C.T. says:

Like or Dislike: 0

I meant “exchanges” above; i.e., all the comments, not just the one’s by Jared.

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

I would just like to remind everyone that the first use of the word “Christians” was actually in the book of Acts in the Bible. It was used to describe the disciples at that point.

So is it fair to call any group “Christian” which significantly varies in understanding on fundamental doctrines from the standard of the Bible that those folks were going by, whether those folks are Mormons or some other group?

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

I like this quote from Brigham Young:

” here is the doctrine, here is the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the revelations that have come through Joseph Smith the Prophet. I have never seen him, and do not know his private character. The doctrine he teaches is all I know about the matter, bring anything against that if you can. As to anything else I do not care. If he acts like a devil, he has brought forth a doctrine that will save us, if we will abide it. He may get drunk every day of his life, sleep with his neighbor’s wife every night, run horses and gamble, I do not care anything about that, for I never embrace any man in my faith. But the doctrine he has produced will save you and me, and the whole world; and if you can find fault with that, find it.” -

I think the doctrine brought forth by Joseph Smith clarifies and makes sense of the Bible more than that brought forth by Catholic and protestant theologians centuries ago.

Ultimately, the evidence for me that God is ok with Mormons is that the Spirit is alive and working miracles within Mormonism. This does not prove that Mormonism is theologically correct, but it does prove, to me, that God probably does not care if they are incorrect.

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jared,

I’m not at all convinced that the presence of miracles proves anything. Here is some food for thought. The two verses below are from the Bible and the last two quotes are from Mormon sites:

Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

And here are the thoughts of some Mormon writers:

Satan Imitates the Gifts of the Spirit
“Satan can imitate the gifts of tongues, prophecy, visions, healings, and other miracles. Moses had to compete with Satan’s imitations in Pharaoh’s court (see Exodus 7:8–22). Satan wants us to believe in his false prophets, false healers, and false miracle workers. They may appear to be so real to us that the only way to know is to ask God for the gift of discernment. The devil himself can appear as an angel of light (see 2 Nephi 9:9).

Satan wants to blind us to the truth and keep us from seeking the true gifts of the Spirit. Mediums, astrologers, fortune tellers, and sorcerers are inspired by Satan even if they claim to follow God. Their works are abominable to the Lord (see Isaiah 47:12–14; Deuteronomy 18:9–10). We should avoid all associations with the powers of Satan.”
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=32c41b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=c7e97befabc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____

And from “Miracles–The Encyclopedia of Mormonism”
“Although God brings about marvelous events to bless humankind, it is known that not every spiritual manifestation necessarily comes from God” (TPJS, pp. 202-214; Rev. 13:13-14; see also Sign Seeking).
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Miracles

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

(Here is the end of my comment with the second link.)

And from “Miracles–The Encyclopedia of Mormonism”
“Although God brings about marvelous events to bless humankind, it is known that not every spiritual manifestation necessarily comes from God” (TPJS, pp. 202-214; Rev. 13:13-14; see also Sign Seeking).
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Miracles

I’m sorry about my forgetfullness here and any confusion it has caused.

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Cheryl, Divides,

Its pretty obvious that you think Mormonism is false. I disagree with you, I don’t think you are getting very far with the pages of quotes. I have read most of this stuff before, much worse as well. I am sure I could make a better case against Mormonism than you are making now.

But. speaking of the “true representation of Christianity”

Tell me, how should I go about finding the truth, from your perspective?

How should I go about finding out that people like you are the true christians and the devoted Mormons that I have grown up with are hell-bound idolators?

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

If I do that, will I recognize that you are the true Christians?

Who says that I am trying to be a god?

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Good morning Jared,

There is a verse in the Bible, Jude 3 that says, (in part), :”I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.”

This faith was once for all, (or once as some have translated it), delivered to the saints, and they are to contend for it–for that faith–because people were coming in and corrupting it. A faith once for all given doesn’t sound to me like there is more to be given close to 2000 years later. It sounds pretty cut and dried to me that what was given then was it.

By the way, I find it quite interesting that one of the ways this faith was being corrupted was by poeple that were, “denying the ONLY Lord God”. (verse 4) Sounds to me strangely like what Mormonism is doing with their claims to multiple gods!

Now I will agree with you that in the end no amount of discussion is likely to convince any one of the truth. The only One that is ultimately going to convince someone is the Holy Spirit. The only trouble is, the Holy Spirit is supposedly convicting people of the truth of two very conflicting belief systems here. Since truth is truth–God can’t lie–obviously somebody has it very wrong here!
Are you sure you are willing to stake your eternal well being on the conviction that the Mormon Church is right? I’m certainly not. I’m going to stick to “the faith that was once delivered to the saints.

(

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

“Since truth is truth–God can’t lie–obviously somebody has it very wrong here!”

My guess is that we are all very wrong in some way. But the Jesus I believe in is a pretty understanding and merciful person, I suppose he is going to overlook a lot of our doctrinal mistakes, even the really, really big ones.

If he is willing to forgive me of murder or rape, I think he will forgive me (or you) of sincere heresy?

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Cheryl,
You said: ” A faith once for all given doesn’t sound to me like there is more to be given close to 2000 years later”

However, there were things that they didn’t know back then for example:

1 John 3:2 ~ Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

Mormons believe that God revealed more details about what it is to be children of God and what we shall be through Joseph Smith.

We believe in that same faith delivered once and for all, the core doctrine is very simple and the same as that found in the Bible.

John C.T. says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jesus and his disciples taught about our need for salvation as arising from the entry of sin into the world. Christ Jesus is also recorded as laying down two aspects of our response: (1) a mental assent to and commitment to certain propositions about him, and (2) repentence from our old allegiance to this world/sin and concomitant new allegiance to Christ.

The Mormon understanding of these concepts seems to be significantly different from what is in the Bible. For example, in Alma 12 it is written that

“24 And we see that death comes upon mankind, yea, the death which has been spoken of by Amulek, which is the temporal death; nevertheless there was a space granted unto man in which he might repent; therefore this life became a probationary state; a time to prepare to meet God; a time to prepare for that endless state which has been spoken of by us, which is after the resurrection of the dead.
25 Now, if it had not been for the plan of redemption, which was laid from the foundation of the world, there could have been no resurrection of the dead; but there was a plan of redemption laid, which shall bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, of which has been spoken.
26 And now behold, if it were possible that our first parents could have gone forth and partaken of the tree of life they would have been forever miserable, having no preparatory state; and thus the plan of redemption would have been frustrated, and the word of God would have been void, taking none effect.
27 But behold, it was not so; but it was appointed unto men that they must die; and after death, they must come to judgment, even that same judgment of which we have spoken, which is the end.
28 And after God had appointed that these things should come unto man, behold, then he saw that it was expedient that man should know concerning the things whereof he had appointed unto them;”

The above passage indicates that God intended for sin to occur in order that his plan of redemption would occur and so that we could be put through a probationary period. That is substantially different from the teachings of Jesus, who came to save the sinners, save the lost. In the Bible God did not intend for us to sin; it was not his will that we sin. Furthermore, life here is not probation for, and preparation for the life to come. Jesus taught that the world is fallen because of sin and that his return is delayed in order that there is more time for more people to become children of God; he did not teach that we are in probation.

Again, contrast Nephi 10:21 “Wherefore, if ye have sought to do wickedly in the days of your probation, then ye are found unclean before the judgment-seat of God; and no unclean thing can dwell with God; wherefore, ye must be cast off forever.” The Mormon concept is one of probation and measuring of our cleanness of our life during our probationary period. However, Christ taught that he was the all sufficient answer for our sins and that when Christians appear before the judgment seat, our sins will not matter in the least in relation to our salvation. It won’t matter if we have done wickedly in the days of our probation, it will only matter if Christ claims us as his sheep. God will, as is written, give out rewards that relate to what we have done, but those rewards are given out to those who are saved on the basis of what Jesus has done; the rewards do not pay for or offset any of our sins.

Personally, I’m glad that I’m not on probation while on earth. Of course, the apostle Paul recognized that this could lead to lawlessness and great sin “. . . should we sin that grace may abound? No . . .” However, if we have given our allegiance to Jesus and are thus filled with His Spirit, we will abound instead in the fruits of the Spirit. It is far better, IMHO, to be saved solely on the basis of what Jesus has done, rather than on what I did during probation.

As a reference for my previous post re the unity of God in Mormon conception, D & C 130: “22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.”

I think the above is important, because part of what Jesus requres belief in is a specific relationship between Him and the Father–a relationship that (at least in my reading so far) Mormons deny.

regards,
John

Truth Unites... and Divides says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jared C. asks: “Tell me, how should I go about finding the truth, from your perspective?

How should I go about finding out that people like you are the true christians and the devoted Mormons that I have grown up with are hell-bound idolators?”

How about reading material by former Mormons who are deeply knowledgeable about Mormonism?

Here’s an online resource here.

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

John said:

“I think the above is important, because part of what Jesus requres belief in is a specific relationship between Him and the Father–a relationship that (at least in my reading so far) Mormons deny.”

Where does Jesus require this? I can’t find this in any of his teachings in the Gospels.

Truth Unites... and Divides says:

Like or Dislike: 0

“I have read all of that stuff before,”

You have honestly read *ALL* of the Tanner’s material before?

What did you think of their testimony?

Excerpts: Statement by Jerald Tanner. I was born and raised in the Mormon Church, and before I was eight years old I felt that it was the only true church. I remember being told that a certain man who was excommunicated from the church was possessed with the devil. I can recall walking past this man’s house and being afraid of him because I firmly believed that he was possessed of the devil. I believed that a person would almost have to be possessed of the devil to leave “the true church.” My conviction was so strong that I was shocked to hear a boy in Sunday school say that he didn’t know for certain that the church was true. I felt that it was strange indeed for a person to be a member of the Mormon church and yet not know it was the only true church. I believed very strongly that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and that I belonged to the only true church. When I was about eighteen years old I had to face reality. I can remember that the first time I saw David Whitmer’s pamphlet, An Address to All Believers in Christ, I threw it down in disgust. After throwing it down, however, I began to think that perhaps that was not the right way to face the problem. If David Whitmer was wrong in his criticism of Joseph Smith, surely I could prove him wrong. So I picked up the pamphlet and read it through. I found that I could not prove David Whitmer wrong, and that the revelations Joseph Smith gave had been changed. I later went to Independence, Missouri, and saw a copy of the original Book of Commandments, which confirmed David Whitmer’s statement that the revelations had been changed. Since that time I have found more and more proof that the church in which I was raised is in error. The most important thing that I found, however, was not that the church was in error, but that I myself was in error. I found that I was a sinner in need of a Saviour. The Mormon church had taught me good morals, but they had not taught me much concerning the power of Christ that could change my life. There was much talk about Joseph Smith, but very little talk about Christ. Consequently, I began to think I had the power within myself to overcome sin. I didn’t see how much I needed the help of God to overcome it. So I turned from one sin to another until I was deeply in bondage to sin. I found no help in the Mormon church; they were too busy preaching about the glory of the church, Joseph Smith, etc. They were too busy singing “praise to the man who communed with Jehovah” and “We thank thee O God for a prophet” to tell me about the Saviour I needed so badly. They were too busy talking about missions, tithing, the welfare plan, etc., to talk about the Christ.

Statement by Sandra Tanner. Since I was born and raised in the Mormon church, and am a great-great-grandchild of Brigham Young, I had very strong ties to the Mormon faith. I was about seventeen before I ever attended another church. As a teenager my life centered around the Mormon church. Because I was active and paying my tithing I thought I was in pretty good standing with God. I knew I sinned but I felt my activity in church would somehow outweigh what I did wrong. I believed (as the Mormons teach) that I was inherently good. I had no fear of God’s judgment. Besides the things that were wrong in my own life, I began to have doubts about my church. Could it really be the only true church? Was polygamy really right? Why couldn’t the Negro hold the priesthood? Was temple marriage really so important? Why were its rites kept such a secret? Did God actually command Mormons to wear special under-garments? I had many questions going through my mind.

When I started college I enrolled in the Mormon Institute of Religion class. I started asking questions in class, trying to find answers to my doubts. But one day my institute teacher took me aside and told me to please stop asking questions in class. There was a girl attending the class who was thinking of joining the church and I was disturbing her with my questions. What a surprise! I had hoped to find answers to the many things that were bothering me and now I had been silenced.

Shortly after this I met Jerald and we began studying the Bible and Mormonism together. As we studied I began to see the contradictions between the Bible and the teaching of the Mormon church. I had grown up thinking that Brigham Young was one of the greatest men that ever lived. He was always presented to me as such a holy man—God’s prophet, seer, and revelator. Then Jerald had me read some of Brigham Young’s sermons in the Journal of Discourses on blood atonement. I was shocked! I knew what Brigham Young was saying was wrong but I couldn’t reconcile these sermons with the things I had always been taught concerning him. I knew these were not the words of a prophet of God.

Jerald also showed me the changes that had been made in Joseph Smith’s revelations. The thought kept coming to me that if God had actually given those revelations to Joseph Smith why would they need rewriting? Surely the Creator of the universe could say it right the first time!

“Is that how I am going to find out if you guys are really Christian, by reading how a bunch of former Mormons tear down the LDS Church? “

If you understand what they’re saying, it’ll help *YOU* understand whether *YOU* are really Christian.

“Seems the absolute wrong approach, even if I discover that Mormonism is bad, I can’t see how that gives your brand of Christianity look any better.”

Since you claim that Christians who’ve never been Mormon distort the teachings of Mormonism, then former Mormons should have greater credibility with you.

And if you discover that Mormonism is bad and wrong, then that should at least motivate you to move away from it towards something that is good and right and truthful. A good first step. Moving away from error.

Kara Kittle says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jared,
If I can prove to you the interwoven pagan theologies that make up Mormonism, would you at least look into it? Because there is so much the Mormon elders do not wish you to know and I can see why.

One question I have is this though, did Joseph Smith ever repent of witchcraft? This is fundamental to know. Please don’t say you think he did, but show us a speech directly by him that denounces it. He certainly covers it up by saying “when he was young” and “but didn’t make any money at it.” I know the Mormons now are told to stay away from it, but that came from later apostles. But I can prove that Mormonism is an amalgamation of witchcraft philosophies.

Just hang around, later today you will have it because there is so much information it will be hard to compile it at this one time.

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Divides,

Divides,

I have read this book by the Tanners.

I recognize that there are discrepancies in the historical record, Joseph Smith was a flawed individual, and that the text of revelations has changed over time in some cases.

If your path to God is THE path, how can I know that? After I have read all of the former Mormon stuff (and I have read every major argument against Mormonism) What do I do next?

What I am interested in is the path to understanding why you think you have got it right, vs. all of the other interpretations of scripture out there?

Mormonism may be “wrong” but why are you right, and how can I tell?

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

“But I can prove that Mormonism is an amalgamation of witchcraft philosophies. ”

That’s not possible, its not. Whether or not Joseph Smith believed in magic, Mormonism itself is as magical as any other bible-based faith.

Kara Kittle says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jared,
Did you dig deep enough? Did you know before he had the “vision”
that Joseph Smith read the accounts of Captain Kidd in the Pacific and this is verified by eyewitnesses, including his own cousins.

Moroni is the capital city of Comoro in the Grand Comoros Islands of Madagascar. A place where Arab pirates siezed on gold shipments. Moroni is an Arabic word which means “place of fire”. Joseph Smith not only was into treasure digging but hired crews and Brigham Young even made the statement that gold and silver grow like hair.

Now get this…the island was ruled by….12 sultans…could this be the Quorum of 12? We seem to be getting closer. Now it is accepted that reformed Egyptian is actually Arabic, that is accepted now. So imagine this…a treasure hunting captain of a ship buries his treasure after debarking on an island named…Comorah…

Some years later a young boy reads these tales of Captain Kidd, and in a treasure hunting zeal…co-incidentally makes mention of a being named after a city already known to the French in 1572.

Interesting. And you might say, what does this have to do with Joseph Smith? A Judeo-Christian speaking God names an angel an Arab name?

This is one example.

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Hi again Jared,

You asked some questions of someone in a comment above:

“If your path to God is THE path, how can I know that? After I have read all of the former Mormon stuff (and I have read every major argument against Mormonism) What do I do next?

What I am interested in is the path to understanding why you think you have got it right, vs. all of the other interpretations of scripture out there?

Mormonism may be “wrong” but why are you right, and how can I tell?”

I think the first advice I would give anyone in your place that was asking those questions would be this:

If you are truly looking for answers, I would recommend going back and reading the Bible again in a version that hasn’t been translated by Mormons. (My favorite is the New American Standard Bible version.) Read it as if you are reading it for the very fist time, trying to lay aside all the added revelations and teachings that have come through Joseph Smith and those since him. Read it with an open mind as if it may indeed be the final authority God has given us with no new revelations needed to further understand who God is, etc. There is a verse in the Bible that speaks of it being “living and active.” It is God’s Word and He can speak powerfully to us through it. You may be surpirsed at what you discover by doing this one thing alone.

Truth Unites... and Divides says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Michael L: “As long as you adhere to the statement that we have the same belief, faith and that Mormons are the true Christians, we are delusional and can not have a serious theological debate. Any discussion becomes pure speculation on words, terminology and an exercise in translation or grammar. But not theology. Stop calling yourself Christian”

Jared: “My point is that we should look at those topics first before we create derivative definitions of who is a disciple of Jesus.

I think that has to be the start of any definition of Christianity.”

This is obviously a faulty starting point because it merely begs the question. I.e., the Mormon absurdly assumes that which is to be proven.

As Michael L. has kindly demonstrated, Mormons are not Christians, and therefore your citation of what Jesus said does not apply and could not apply for any so-called “start of any definition of Christianity.”

Truth Unites... and Divides says:

Like or Dislike: 0

My question is who fits Jesus’ definition.

NOT Mormons.

“Only those who believe in the real Biblical God and Jesus Christ have legitimately can use the name “Christian.” The Mormon prophets historically have openly ridiculed those of us who believe in the God, Jesus and Holy Spirit that the Bible reveals.

One question that I would ask all Mormons to ask themselves is this: “If I accept you as a Christian, will you accept me as a Mormon?” Would you accept me as a Mormon if I reject Joseph Smith and all the LDS prophets as being prophets of God. If I do not believe in the Book of Mormon or the LDS Scriptures, baptisms for the dead, the temple endowments, the LDS gospel. . .would you accept me as a Mormon? If I were a Mormon and rejected the LDS church’s teachings would I in fact be a Mormon?

And suppose that I started a new religion which was totally different in doctrine from the LDS church, to the extent that I even denied the true identity of who was the LDS god, would you think me to be a Mormon? The answer is obviously, you would not. In like manner, when Mormonism denies the Bible and every Christian doctrine do you think that biblical Christians should accept Mormons as Christians? Again the answer is very obvious, no we will not. You cannot legitimately claim to be Christians when you refuse to accept what the Bible teaches and a true Christian believes.

I would implore Mormons to honestly and openly examine their teachings about God and Jesus Christ and who the Bible defines as being a Christian. There is no benefit in calling yourself a “Christian” when biblically you are not.

Excerpted from here.

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Regarding my comment # 54 above, my last sentence needs to be changed to say, “Seems to me that these facts alone, if they are indeed correct, would raise way more than “a reasonable doubt” on the validity of Mormonism.”

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Cheryl,

I read that article and many others along the same lines.

Divides,.

You still are not giving me anything Biblical. You are saying:

1)You are only a Christian if you have our understanding of Jesus
2) You don’t have our understanding of Jesus
Therefore 3) you are not Christian.

This is simply saying “I am right, you are wrong”.

I get that. I don’t see the point in repeating it.

My question, again, is where did JESUS HIMSELF say any of this? ?

All I get is recycled anti-mormon arguments in response.

If your definition of Christianity is so bullet-proof, why can’t you come up with a clear statement from Jesus that you are right.

I am reading the bible and I can’t find where he says anything like what you are saying. I am certainly open to being enlightened.

John,

I appreciate the quotes, tell me how I get from those quotes to a definition of Christianity or to understanding if my understanding is false?

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

” Jared, you don’t realize just how much Jesus loves you. And He said He did outside of the BoM. I for one have a great deal of care for you because from the first moment you entered into the discussion you have always answered. Jared, we are striving for your soul now. We are calling out for you to hear the words of Jesus.”

I am striving for my own soul, I hear and love the words of Jesus, I believe that God is love.

I do appreciate what you have told me and what you have said to me.

If I stand before Jesus and say that I believed in the Book of Mormon an Joseph Smith, is that enough to send me to Hell?

Is he going to ask me if I believed that he was inexplicably part of the same substance with his father before he shows me any of his love?

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Some of comment 258 was a response to Cheryl.

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

By the way Jared, I gave an answer to some questions that you asked about how you could know whether Mormonism is wrong and you are right. I didn’t answer your questions lightly and I answered them as I would answer one who was truly looking for answers.

Have you given what I said any thought? You have not commented.

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Divides:

“The God of Mormonism is not the God of Christianity, but a finite, resurrected man with a physical body who lives on the planet Kolob. ”

This is a false distortion, not one Mormon I have ever met believes this.

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jared,

I’m sorry, but your answer in comment 64 seems to be quite circular to me. First you say that you don’t think J. Smith received his revelations directly from God without his own interpretations being mixed in. And you don’t think of the Bible any differently. After all, “People are people, and prophets are people too.”

In the next breath you say, “What the Spirit of God will back up I can consider from God, what it won’t I can consider to be misguided.” You are “people” too right? If the prophets chosen by God can get what God says wrong, how in the world do you think you are going to be sure of getting it right?

mbaker says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jared,

It seems to me, if you are indeed a lawyer, you would want a jury to decide the case strictly based upon the evidence. As a Bible believing Christian I would require much more proof that 2000 years of Christian belief can be changed on the word of one 13 year old boy called Joseph Smith.

Presenting it through the eyes of facts is where I can see there is a big difference between what Jospeh Smith claims happens, for which there were no witnesses, and the overwhelming historical, as well as biblical evidence, and accounts by hundreds of eyewitnesses that all the events in the Christian Bible took place.

Joseph Smith’s vision has no such backup. Yet, you claim that this account is more real reliable than the Bible’s. As a juror, I would not accept that as a strong enough evidence on which to decide a verdict.

Whereas, the Bible that Christians believe is the word of God was written over thousands of years, and despite the attempts to disprove it, every part of it has been discovered so far, even in different parts of the middle east, does not change.

It says that on the testimony of two or three witnesses a matter is established. This is a tenet of law in a court of law as well. Joseph Smith is unable to provide that, and therefore to me, as a Christian, what he claims remains strictly circumstantial, and therefore I would find it very questionable source, even as a non-Christian, based upon anything but circumstantial evidence.

God bless.

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Regarding comment # 64, remember I said, “Way more than a reasonable doubt”. Emphasis on the WAY MORE.

Changing stories and duplicity (to whatever degree this article was accurate–and you agreed some of it was) coming from the very founder of a religion cast way more than a little bit of doubt on its valididty to me.

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

mbaker,

You claim that there are “accounts by hundreds of eyewitnesses that all the events in the Christian Bible took place.”

I have not seen more than 4 accepted accounts of the history of Jesus’ life. (matthew, Mark, Luke and John) and three of these seem to be created largely based on one single account, i.e. The Gospel of Mark.

However, there are, in fact, hundreds of much more recent accounts that the events that defined Joseph as a prophet actually happened.

I think the evidence is equally strong, and equally weak.

I am more likely to accept a witness that was interviewed and cross examined over the course of their life, and where we have a record of that cross-examination, than I would accept the testimony of a witness where no such cross examination took place.

There are dozens of witnesses to the prophecies of Joseph Smith and the events of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, and these accounts were tested over the course of the witnesses lives.

Hence, I don’t think Christian’s (evangelical or Mormon) get very far trying to argue their case in the same way you would argue a case at law.

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Cheryl,

I may be wrong but don’t you believe in the Trinity?

Doesn’t the doctrine of the Trinity consider Jesus and God totally different persons?

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

May I ask exactly how the doctrine of the Trinity fits into the conversation right now? Maybe I can answer your question better if I know what you are really asking.

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Cheryl,

you said: ” I’m not arguing that point. My point is, and always has been, that Mormonism’s belief system is in many ways very fundamentally different than ours. So different as to turn the Father and Jesus into totally different beings.”

From my point of view, the orthodox also believe that Jesus and God are different persons but of the same substance in some inexplicable way. That is the mystery of the Trinity.

I think you are trying to say that you have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian. I can’t see how this is a biblical definition.

I understand your point and I fully agree with your point. However, being different brings us no closer to deciding who is “REALLY” Christian.

Saying that most Christians believe the way you do is false, Most who claim to be Christians are not Evangelicals . Saying that Mormons are different than historical Christianity does not get you there because the history of Christianity is filled with divergent beliefs that were politically established, not established specifically by God. The Catholic Church is the origin of orthodox belief, yet you reject their authority. I think the Catholic arguments seem stronger than yours if you are using history to decide what is the true representation of Christianity.

If you want to convince the outsider, who believes in the biblical teachings of Jesus, that you are the true Christians all I am saying is that you need to start there and only there. Otherwise it is extremely easy to dismiss your belief system in the same way you dismiss Mormonism.

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jared, (regarding # 79)

Remember, I told you the best way I know how the way I believe you can put that to a very personal test. But you still haven’t, as far as I have seen anyway, commented on what I said there at all. You keep asking that we give you a way to find out if we are right or not, but when I did, you have seemingly ignored it.

And when I said most Christians, I was referring to most Evangelical or Protestant Christians. I’m sorry I was not clear on that. And yes, we believe differently on some things too–just as you as Mormons do. But nothing so big as changing the very nature of who God is.

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Cheryl,

Sorry I didn’t respond specifically (there is a lot being said). Tell me the comment # you are referring to and I will try to respond to the personal test you speak of.

Kara Kittle says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jared,
You asked in comment 259 “If I stand before Jesus and say that I believed in the Book of Mormon an Joseph Smith, is that enough to send me to Hell? ”

Yes Jared.

Revelation 21:27
27And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

Revelation 22:15
15For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

Psalm 40:4
4Blessed is that man that maketh the LORD his trust, and respecteth not the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies.

2 Thessalonians 2
1Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
13But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
14Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
16Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace,
17Comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work.

Jared, the foundation Joseph Smith laid out for the Mormon Church was founded on falesehood, not according to the Christian people, but according the very Bible you claim to read and love. He made a lie.

He might have been called prophet, but he was a false prophet. He committed adultery, he committed idolatry, and he was a sorcerer. These are things we have proven to you over the course of this discussion.

Jared, every one of us must believe this epistle. When Joseph Smith made himself greater than Jesus, he became as any other cult leader. You must believe the Gospel to be saved, pure and simple.
If God were to give special grace to Joseph Smith, then He must give the same grace to Mohammad, Buddha, Jim Jones, David Koresh…and you name it. No one can exalt themselves above Jesus, no one.

And that is where we are at. The Book Of Mormon, a collection of translations and revelation by Joseph Smith. Either believe the Gospel or believe the BoM.

Jared, you might be offended at this. I gave you truth from the Bible and it is your choice to believe it or not. But if you believe the Bible then you must accept what it says. There is hope Jared but that hope is ONLY found in Jesus.

Joseph Smith is quoted “God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil–all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, NOR JESUS EVER DID IT. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet . . . ” (History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 408-409)

Read it Jared, what does it say? What did Joseph Smith say here?
Please open your eyes to what he did. He made himself greater than Jesus, and then told Mormons if they don’t believe him then they are not going to heaven.

He perverted the Gospel.

Galatians 1

1Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
2And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
3Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
4Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
5To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
6I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Let Joseph Smith be accursed because he preached another Gospel. So you tell me Jared, where do we stand?

If I choose to believe another revelation, if I choose to believe outside the epistles, if I choose what is contrary to the Gospel then I face the judgment for it. I had to make the choice one day whether I was going to live with Jesus or without Jesus, I chose Jesus.

2 Timothy 1:12
12For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.

Jared, you asked me the question and I answered it with the Bible and will not back down. There is hope for you, if you will just turn to the Bible and really believe it. God did not author the BoM. The Holy Ghost does not signify it. God is not contrary to Himself. God does not lie. Do you believe in Jesus? Then learn of Him from the Gospel because He is not in the BoM at all. That was just another
being that Joseph Smith called Jesus.

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Kara,

The quote that you are relying on does not at all say that Joseph considered himself higher than Jesus. If you think that then you are reading it out of context. No Mormon that I have ever known or ever heard of considers Joseph Smith anywhere equal to Jesus.

If you want to hear the background to the quote (as opposed to reposting it) I suggest you read here:

http://www.fairlds.org/Mormonism_201/m20117b.html

however, even if Joseph Smith was a liar as you say, does that make me a liar or whoremonger? Does Jesus hold Joseph Smith’s sins against me?

Also,

I disagree with you that the Spirit is not present among mormons. . . I can’t see how you could possibly know that the Spirit is not in Mormon meetings where they gather together in Jesus’ name.

His presence through the Spirit in these contexts is perhaps the only real reason I have to believe he is God.

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Its almost as if many Evangelicals are saying that you can make all kinds of mistakes regarding theology and still claim the redeeming blood of Jesus. . as long as those mistakes weren’t also taught by Joseph Smith.

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Also, I think everybody is justified in being skeptical of Joseph Smith’s claims, (as we should be skeptical of Paul’s claims to visions and authority)

However Paul is not saying every angel that shows up must not be from God. Paul obviously believed that angels and visions, and even Jesus himself can appear and tell us the truth.

Truth Unites... and Divides says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jared: “the possibility of the existence of an inhabited planet called Kolob is more believable and has more scientific backup than the the possibility that there was a worldwide flood.”

Jared, please provide believable scientific evidence for the inhabited planet called Kolob.

Thanks.

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jared you said in comment # 283 to please let you know the number of the comment that you hadn’t answered. It was #249.

Thanks. And you are right–there is a lot being said.

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Thanks Jared for your response. And I am praying for you that He will truly speak to you.

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Cheryl,

I like that quote. reminds me of this one:

“. . Beware concerning yourselves, to give adiligent bheed to the words of eternal life. For you shall live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God. ”

have a good night yourself.

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Divides,

This might have been caught in moderation but.

According to scientists, there are likely over 10,000,000 habitable worlds in this Galaxy alone. Given the entire universe the probability of millions of inhabited worlds is close to 100%

I am going to call one of those Kolob.

See link below for more info.

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Hi Jared,

You have several times stated this idea, quoted from one of your comments above, “Therefore, to me, agreeing on the description of the nature of God, seems a strange qualification for Christianity.”

I am posting a couple of definitions here from the Thayer’s Lexicon and then I am going to quote a couple of Bible verses where those definitions are applicable.

only–Greek monos (Strong’s G3441)

1) alone (without a companion), forsaken, destitute of help, alone, only, merely

true–Greek alethinos (Strong’s G228)

1) that which has not only the name and resemblance, but the real nature corresponding to the name, in every respect corresponding to the idea signified by the name, real, true genuine

a) opposite to what is fictitious, counterfeit, imaginary, simulated or pretended

b) it contrasts realities with their semblances

c) opposite to what is imperfect defective, frail, uncertain

2) true, veracious, sincere

And here are the Scripture verses:

John 17:3 “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

I John 5:20 “And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, [even] in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.”

Please note carefully that in these verses eternal life is linked with knowing the ONLY TRUE God. And please note again the definition of true and also the definition of Only given.

From these two verses, it seems to me that it is really a vital matter of eternal life and death to understand who this God really is.

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

John,

I agree, its off the subject.. . however the point was that it is very likely that God put life elsewhere, as Mormons believe, and therefore it seems strange to ridicule this particular LDS belief, as Divides was doing.

Cheryl,

I agree with you that knowing God is the key. However knowing God and “agreeing on the description of the nature of God” are two very different things.

From what I have read, God is known not through assenting to some creed. I think if you asked 30 Protestants or Catholics 25 of them would not give the theologically correct answer as to what the Trinity is. They would give some modalistic answer. However, those that “walk in the light” and endeavor to follow Jesus would have an understanding of God regardless of what their theology was.

John 1:1 “God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. ”

In John 17:3 it tells us “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

Here is says that there is the one and only God, and then it separately mentions Jesus Christ. If God the father is the only God, why would

I think this is all very unclear when you read all of the new Testament as a whole. I think its perfectly reasonable to consider Jesus a separate being from God, and it may be reasonable to consider him somehow joined at the ‘substance”. However, even if you believe in the trinity, this is simply an assent to a mystery. Since we have no experience or reference point to intellectually understand or scientifically investigate, we simply cannot explain the of God (we can barely explain the nature of the human mind).

Therefore I think it is off-track to focus on certain creeds when discovering God or discovering who is a Christian.

There are plenty that walk in the light that will readily admit they can’t explain God in human terms (who can?)

I Corinthians 2 seems most instructive on this:

” However, as it is written:
“No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him”— but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

From what I have read, this seems the only reasonable path to understanding God, and I don’t think this Spiritual understanding is going to give you any particular theological competence. I am sure you know Godly people that just don’t get theology.

I think that it is clear that the New Testament explains that we can know God without being able to explain God. When you read a particular description of God, it will ultimately end in mystery. So I think its strange that we are arguing so stridently about which mystery is the most accurate.

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Jared,

I think maybe you are missing my point. That definition of true I gave above as in “true God”, makes it very plain to me that John is speaking about the real and actual God–God as He really is not some God that we have made up in our imaginations or some other version of God that has been taught to us. To know the real and actual God is what gives us eternal life. And I agree, we can’t understand or know all about Him, much is mystery. But we must know Him as He has revealed Himself to us in His Word, the Bible.

These definitions of “know” and “understand”, again from Thayer’s seem to make it quite plain that there is a mental knowing or understanding involved in this whole process as well. As a matter of fact, the Greek word translated here as “understanding” is often translated as “mind” elsewhere in the New Testament.

(Strongs G1271) Thayer’s Lexicon definition of “understanding”

1) the mind as a faculty of understanding, feeling, desiring

2) understanding

3) mind, i.e. spirit, way of thinking and feeling

4) thoughts, either good or bad

(Strong’s G1097) Thayer’s Lexicon definition of “Know”

1) to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel

a) to become known

2) to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of

a) to understand

b) to know

3) Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman

4) to become acquainted with, to know

Kara Kittle says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Cheryl.
Obviously Jared is grounded in his belief. He claims to have the basic knowledge of Christianity. He does not want to accept the Bible descriptions of God, he just wants to hold onto the Mormon description.

The Bible in Truth. Not a man made fantasy. The Bible is accurate, and certainly the Mormon founders refused to believe the accuracy of the Bible. But one thing Jared does not understand is this, as much as he want the BoM to be accurate, it is not and can never be.

Jared will not accept evidence from Mormon sources. Just because a book contains words lifted from another book does not make it true. The BoM has been proven unequivocally untrue historically and doctrinally. But the Articles of Faith of the LDS says they accept the Bible to be accepted as long as it is accurately translated and yet never once requiring the same of the BoM.

So then Jared, if you believe the Bible as long as it is accurate…who told you which parts were accurate? Do you throw out the rest of the Bible if it is not compatible? How can you prove to me the BoM is accurate? You show me proof, and if you say because Joseph Smith said so, then you know what my answer will be. So I challenge you Jared, prove to me it is accurate. You require my Bible to be so, therefore I require that of the BoM.

If you say because the words mirror those of the Bible, we know it was plagiarized. So find another route. Take Joseph Smith away from the equation and then prove it.

You prove to me the angel Moroni exists. You prove to me God was a man (which is Hinduism). You prove to me God approves of plural wives (which is Islamic). You prove to me God approves of translating the BoM by seerstone (which is witchcraft). You prove to me all these men were successors of the Aaronic priesthood (which you have to be Levite to be, not Ephraimite). You prove to me the order of Melchizedeck (twice mentioned in the Bible, one was King of Salem and other was Jesus). You prove to me where one apostle in the LDS denounced all these fallacies, then I will believe you.

Michael L. says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Sorry for the late responses, I was enjoying a little vacation time with the kids. Lots of reading tonight

John CT
#280: Michael L. hasn’t convinced me, and I’m not a Mormon. Unless Michael has copyrighted the word “Christian”, Jared is free to call himself whatever he want

I definitely do not have that copyright and it’s definitely not my purpose to convince anyone. But perhaps share my perspective on the matter at hand and hopefully the Spirit can use the seed planted.
On the other hand, let’s assume someone who has never heard of Christ, Christianity or anything similar is now exposed to the Mormon Church and teachings. And then becomes a member and finally meets a Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or similar. Would this person then be able to say he is part of the same belief and religion ? That, I believe, is the topic of this discussion.

Jared
# 282
Or would someone who “does what Christ teaches” , sold all his goods, picked up his cross, loved his neighbor, yet does not believe he is a sinner in need of a savior, or accept the divinity of Christ, would that person be able to call himself a Christian ? After all, he’s doing what Jesus told him to do and he is a “follower of Jesus”.

It’s not what you like to call yourself. It’s what comes as part of the package. Just like the “I’m an American” example I started off with.

Once again, has nothing to do on whether Mormons can be believers, followers of Christ or justified (Being Saved). But their belief system is not what I would call “Christianity”.

Jared asked the question as well on whether God would judge him for believing in Joseph Smith. Kara gave a pretty solid answer in post #285 on that.

I would rather ask this. “How can a created being, a BORN being, a being that you call ‘your brother’, save you ?” We all know only God can save you. And I am afraid He won’t necessarily have mercy on those that reject Christ for who He was or “follow Him” in actions, but not in Spirit. Once again, glad it’s not my call. But afraid and praying for a lot of people (which Jared btw includes you too now and a lot of RC’s from my youth and direct family)

Jared,
#290
Yes they do. I pointed it out as part of the Gospel Principles study material in an earlier post. I also have had quite several of my friends, who are LDS members, explain to me that you do believe that Jesus was an eternal Spirit somewhere, like you believe we all are hence he is your brother, but that it took a physical act of “the Father” to bring him into human form. Hence the play on words of created or born. You’re correct it didn’t take the physical act for Christ to be created, but it did take the act for Him to be born.

#296
There is no Biblical definition of Christianity. Search as you may. Christ came to show us the way. It’s actually why the earliest Christians called themselves “Followers of ‘The Way’”. They didn’t use a cross as a symbol since it was such a horrific symbol of death (compare it with using an electrical chair as a symbol today ??), but used a fish.
But this doesn’t mean that in the 21st century the word “Christianity” doesn’t have a connotation with it. Like it or not.
The Bible does teach us on what it takes to be made “righteous with God”. And believing Christ is NOT God, is not part of that equation. I think I mentioned that pretty solidly in your blog.

#305
That’s 1 John 1:5 and following you’re quoting Not John 1:1 Sorry.. just happens to be my favorite book. Read on where it mentions blasphemy against the Spirit and the antichrist stuff

I think I’m caught up, but unless there’s more direct questions or rebuttals to me, I think Kara and Cheryl are doing an excellent job at helping Jared out on his quest.

Jared,
If there’s any question you may have, please don’t hesitate. I will be praying for clarity (Whatever way that may lead you).

In Him
Mick

Seth R. says:

Like or Dislike: 0

TUAD wrote (waaay back at the beginning):

“Paging Seth R., paging Seth R.! Mormonism is on code blue, where are you?”

Sorry I’m late. Been insanely busy at work and something had to give.

I will try to read through the entire thread sometime, but for now, a few thoughts with respect to the original post only. Sorry if I duplicate anything Jared C. (hi Jared) has already covered.

CMP’s main point is that Mormons cannot be considered Christians because they reject “the Trinity.” Leaving aside the issue of whether belief in the Trinity is a requirement for the “Christian” label, let’s just focus on: do Mormons believe it or not?

Ask your average Mormon and you’ll get a “no” answer. Most lay Mormons (and our leaders chosen from among the laity) have a rather negative view of the word “Trinity” and will vehemently reject the term with respect to their own belief. You can probably even find some appropriately condemnatory statements from LDS leadership on the word if you look.

So, there you are. Plain as day – Mormons reject the Trinity. Right?

Well, not quite.

Whenever you are dealing with Mormon rhetoric that appears harsh to Protestant or Catholic ears, you have to step back and ask what the Mormon is question is really responding to.

In the case of the Trinity, ask the Mormon what he thinks the Trinity means.

With a little probing, you’ll quickly find out that he thinks it is equivalent with modalism. You know that idea there is numerically one divine being who simply wears different hats at different times. One day he has his “Father” hat on, but the next day – whoops! he’s got his “Jesus” hat on now. And then the day after – the “Holy Spirit” hat. Mormons tend to find this notion repugnant, and they tend to equate the word “Trinity” with the idea of a modalistic God.

So good news for Mormons – traditional Christians don’t believe in that either. At least the informed ones don’t. Modalism is roundly condemned in traditional Christian circles as a heresy. So, actually, Mormons and other Christians ought to be on the same page here. We both believe in three beings. So far so good.

Say what you want about Mormons – you certainly can’t accuse them of being modalists. So we can pause now for a brief moment of unity and kumbaya singing.

OK, all done with that. What about the idea of “One God?”

This is where the problems start. You will definitely find Mormons who are tri-theists (the idea of three divine beings who are merely playing on the same team). I’ll admit that right up front. You’ll even find highly tri-theistic rhetoric from LDS authorities.

First point I’d like to make on this score is that a lot of the LDS tri-theistic rhetoric is a direct response to perceived modalism among traditional Christians. Most Mormons are under the perception that the vast majority of traditional Christians are modalists. So our rhetoric can sometimes be unduly tri-theistic in an attempt to compensate for all that “gooey modalism” in the other camp.

It doesn’t help matters when a lot of the Protestant counter-cult movement, in response to PERCEIVED Mormon tri-theism overcompensates with rhetoric that sounds alarmingly modalist. We just keep overcompensating for each other. This is a very real risk that we run with interfaith dialogue that is primarily apologetic in nature. We are so concerned with refuting or distancing from our opponent, that we lose sight of the truth.

It’s like a dysfunctional young married couple where the dad is more laid back with the kids and the mother is more strict. Each parent keeps overcompensating for the deficiencies of the other parent. Dad becomes more and more lax to “make up” for how strict mom is being, while mom becomes more and more up tight to compensate for her “irresponsible” mate. Meanwhile the kids suffer from whiplash and end up playing mom and dad off each other.

So I’m suggesting that the tri-theism of Mormonism can often be more artificial than it is real. Not saying it’s not there, but keep open to the possibility that we aren’t as tri-theistic as we first appear.

But is the Mormon God really One God?

With qualifications, yes, actually. But not in the same way many Christian theologians mean it. One thing I’ve found in my interfaith discussions is that the question of whether God is “One” is really a rigged question when coming from many Christian apologists. What they really mean is “”is God one substance?”

Philosophical curiosities like “substance” and “homioousis” (however you spell that) are not, and never have been of much concern to Mormons. We find them to be overly-complicated, extra-biblical, and ultimately nonsensical. So if you’re going to nail us to the wall and demand to know if we support the idea that Father, Son and Spirit are all “one substance,” we’ll be forced to say no. We do not believe they are “one essence” or “one substance.” We find such concepts utterly at odds with the explicit biblical language requiring three beings.

But we do believe in a profound unity of Father, Son and Spirit. At least, according to our accepted scriptures, we are supposed to. There are several passages in both the Book of Mormon and other Mormon scriptures that demand a unified One God. It even explicitly speaks of the Father, Son and Spirit being “One God.” So “One God” is certainly a requirement of Mormon scripture.

To be honest, I think many Mormons actually unduly underplay this part of their own scriptures. I spoke earlier about how apologetic-motivated explications of doctrine can distort. Many Mormons are just as concerned with boundary maintenance as their Protestant counterparts. This can lead them to downplay their own verses emphasizing unity in the Godhead. It’s probably the same impulse that leads Evangelical scholars to pretend the New Testament verses about theosis aren’t there.

The Father, Son, and Spirit that I see in Mormon scripture may be distinct beings, but they are profoundly and radically unified. They are one in will, purpose, thought, and love.

I have actually been greatly aided in my understanding of the “threeness” and “oneness” of God by the work of other Christians in this respect. Particularly, the new “Social Trinitarian” model that is being advocated by several current Christian scholars. Social Trinitarianism posits that the unity of God is a unity of love called “perichoresis.” A love so profound and consuming that the Father, Son and Spirit literally “indwell” within each other in love. As a Mormon, I have no problem with this concept whatsoever.

So, am I a Trinitarian?

Depends. Do you consider Social Trinitarianism valid or not? If you are willing to at least countenance Social Trinitarian claims, then you might find that Mormons are not quite so far “out there” as you think. I can tell you that I know of several Mormon scholars who are all but endorsing the Social Trinitarian model.

Long post. Hope it’s been helpful.

Seth R. says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Well, admittedly Michael, I limited myself solely to the issue of Trinity. I actually think Trinity is one of the less problematic divides between Mormons and the rest of the Christian world.

The ontology of God and humanity is a much stickier and intractable subject. But one battle at a time.

John C.T. says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Seth, you are correct. The level of discussion has not been high, but I don’t really expect that at blogs. I find that blog discussion frequently parallels talk radio–which is definitely not academic. However, some learning often does take place.

Very interesting post #343 on trinity. The majority of non-LDS Christians (at least those who understand the concept to some extent), would concur that the one substance doctrine is an essential defining aspect of traditional Christianity (I’m avoiding the word “orthodox” and “heretical” because who is who depends on which side of the fence one stands; from my vantage point you’re the heretic, but of course vice versa).

You mentioned on the “liars” thread that the Bible has errors. Which ones do you perceive as among the most problematic?

regards,
John

Seth R. says:

Like or Dislike: 0

John CT,

I’m reluctant to go into a list of problems with the Bible for a couple reasons:

1. I believe in the Bible.

2. I don’t consider throwing stones to be a particularly effective method of declaring the Gospel.

You can read a lot of the changes, and controversies surrounding the Bible by reading the modern scholarship – Bart Ehrman seems to be the most accessible stuff on the subject at the moment. Jared C. already covered a few problems above. I’m not going to do a rehash of it.

Suffice it to say, I do not consider ANY of the changes made to the Book of Mormon to be significant and none of them are any more significant than changes similarly made to the Bible. If you count every difference in every punctuation mark in every edition of the Book of Mormon, the result is well over 100,000 changes. But far and away, the vast majority of those changes are nothing more than punctuation and spell corrections. For example, the word meet — meaning “appropriate” — as it appears in 1_Ne. 7:1, was spelled “mete” in the first edition of the Book of Mormon, published in 1830. (This is a common error made by scribes of dictated texts.) “Mete” means to distribute, but the context here is obvious, and so the spelling was corrected in later editions.

This is were our critics get their vaunted “100,000 changes” accusation – grammar and punctuation.

Other changes were a little more significant, but still inconsequential at the end of the day. Some of these typographical errors do affect the meaning of a passage or present a new understanding of it, but not in a way that presents a challenge to the divinity of the Book of Mormon. One example is 1_Ne. 12:18, which in all printed editions reads “a great and a terrible gulf divideth them; yea, even the word of the justice of the Eternal God,” while the manuscript reads “the sword of the justice of the Eternal God.” In this instance, the typesetter accidentally dropped the s at the beginning of sword.

The current (1981) edition of the Book of Mormon has this notice printed at the bottom of the page opposite 1 Nephi, chapter 1:

“Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith.”

There are surprisingly few meaningful changes to the Book of Mormon text, and ALL of them were made by Joseph Smith himself in editions published during his lifetime. These changes include:

* “the Son of” added to 1_Ne. 11:18; 1_Ne. 11:21, 1_Ne. 11:32, and 1_Ne. 13:40.
* “or out of the waters of baptism” added to 1_Ne. 20:1.
* “white” changed to “pure” in 2_Ne. 30:6.
* “Benjamin” changed to “Mosiah” in Mosiah 21:28 and Eth. 4:1.
* “Words missing in Alma 32:30″ Alma 32:30-31

The historical record shows that these changes were made to clarify the meaning of the text, not to alter it.

Here is a side by side comparison of the changes made to the passage in Alma 32:30 for instance:

1830 edition of the Book of Mormon:

[Alma 32:30] But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, and then ye must needs say, That the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. [Alma 32:31] And now behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness

1981 edition of the Book of Mormon:

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow. 31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.

So this is where our critics get their accusation of the Book of Mormon being a flawed and much-corrected book. One has to ask – where’s the beef? There’s not a single change made to the Book of Mormon that is any more significant than changes made to the Bible. Which is to say – not at all.

Like the Book of Mormon, most of the changes made to the Bible text were harmless spelling and grammar corrections. Nothing to get excited about at all. Other changes APPEAR at first to be possibly substantive, but turn out to be mostly irrelevant.

My remarks about changes in the Bible had one purpose only – to warn other Christians against throwing stones when they live in glass houses. I’ve been burned before when I went overboard in attacking the Christian faith of someone who was attacking my Mormon faith and was rightly reprimanded for it by a good friend of mine. These sorts of affairs tend to end up as circular firing squads. So I’m reluctant to start shooting in this one.

Seth R. says:

Like or Dislike: 0

John, that’s actually a much more complex question than you were probably thinking. It speaks to several related issues:

1. Prophetic infallibility
2. Scripture inerrancy
3. How God communicates with us generally

First off, there is no Mormon doctrine of prophetic infallibility. We believe that prophets are human and not everything they say or do is perfect. Thus, we simply believe that when Joseph Smith and his scribes wrote the Book of Mormon, they made typos. Pretty simple.

Secondly, there is no Mormon doctrine of scripture inerrancy. We believe scripture – ALL scripture can and does contain human error. The mind and will of God can never be adequately expressed by the frail mechanisms of human language. For starters, to have an inerrant Bible and an inerrant Book of Mormon, you’d need a perfect language to write it in. Since we do not have such a language, the record is and will always be – by necessity – flawed.

This is actually consistent with our scriptures. Here are a few Book of Mormon passages relating to the issue:

1 Nephi 19: 6
6 Nevertheless, I do not write anything upon plates save it be that I think it be sacred. And now, if I do err, even did they err of old; not that I would excuse myself because of other men, but because of the weakness which is in me, according to the flesh, I would excuse myself.

2 Nephi 33: 4
4 And I know that the Lord God will consecrate my prayers for the gain of my people. And the words which I have written in weakness will be made strong unto them; for it persuadeth them to do good; it maketh known unto them of their fathers; and it speaketh of Jesus, and persuadeth them to believe in him, and to endure to the end, which is life eternal.

Mormon 8: 17
17 And if there be faults they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that condemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire.

Mormon 9: 31-33
31 Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.
32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.
33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

And finally…

Ether 12: 23-26
23 And I said unto him: Lord, the Gentiles will mock at these things, because of our weakness in writing; for Lord thou hast made us mighty in word by faith, but thou hast not made us mighty in writing; for thou hast made all this people that they could speak much, because of the Holy Ghost which thou hast given them;
24 And thou hast made us that we could write but little, because of the awkwardness of our hands. Behold, thou hast not made us mighty in writing like unto the brother of Jared, for thou madest him that the things which he wrote were mighty even as thou art, unto the overpowering of man to read them.
25 Thou hast also made our words powerful and great, even that we cannot write them; wherefore, when we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words.
26 And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools mock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness;

I think these passages of scripture make it quite clear that even the original gold plates that Joseph translated from were flawed from the beginning, being a joint effort by both God and human beings. LDS doctrine has never claimed the Book of Mormon to be perfect or inerrant.

Finally, LDS doctrine rejects Calvinist notions that God meticulously controls every aspect of the universe. We believe that God is capable of such absolute control, but that he has voluntarily relinquished that control in order that we might be truly free to choose him. The notion that God would step in with some sort of mind-control and manipulate the pen of Joseph Smith, or Paul the Apostle, or Isaiah to produce a perfect document is utterly foreign to Mormon thinking. We believe that God works with free human beings. Even when those free human beings are writing God’s own holy word, he will not step in and force a human mind or a human hand without that person’s consent.

Thus a flawed Bible or a flawed Book of Mormon is not a matter of great concern to me. What flaws are there in the Book of Mormon, I deem to be not significant enough to lose faith in the book as a whole. I feel similarly about the Bible.

Truth Unites... and Divides says:

Like or Dislike: 0

CMP: “Is the Mormon faith a true representation of Christianity? No.

Can individual Mormons be Christian? Only if their belief about who Christ is deviates from official Mormon teachings. “

Michael L.: “As long as you adhere to the statement that we have the same belief, faith and that Mormons are the true Christians, we are delusional and can not have a serious theological debate. Any discussion becomes pure speculation on words, terminology and an exercise in translation or grammar. But not theology. Stop calling yourself Christian”

“This post is about whether or not Mormonism is a true representation of Christianity. Not about whether someone from LDS can be saved. Doesn’t mean right or wrong. But stop calling yourself a Christian.”

——-

Thank you CMP and Michael L. for your definitive and clarifying declarations.

mbaker says:

Like or Dislike: 0

I rather expected that you were an Open Theist. I have had many exhaustive conversations with them, and one I have become friends with, although he knows better than to try to exegete a whole new religion out of the few verses which might possibly apply. So I understand exactly what you believe.

I should also tell you it is useless to argue Calvinism or Aminianism with me, because I can accept neither one as being completely correct. This is a post comparing Christianity and Mormonishn. They are not the same either.

Yes, we need folks to speak God’s word, but prophets, no. The apostles were not prophets like those who rule the LDS church nowadays, in the capacity of high priests, they were men who were appointed to be bearers of the Good news of Jesus Christ, whom John the Baptist prophesied would come after Him. They were teachers of the doctrine laid down by the cornerstone of the church itself – Christ. They did not preach obscure man-made philosophies. In fact, they repeatedly warned that anyone who did preach another gospel was to be avoided.

There is mention of two witnessess appearing in the last days, but none whatsoever of Joseph Smith. One would certainly think if the message he carried was so important there certainly would have been at least one biblical mention of his name, as another prophet to come with a different message which would, in effect, be a different gospel. Yet all we have is the word of a 13 year boy.

Not enough for me.

Seth R. says:

Like or Dislike: 0

“a different message which would, in effect, be a different gospel.”

Yeah. Good thing Mormonism isn’t “a different Gospel” right?

It will be easier to debate with you if you would at least pretend that I actually believe in my religion, and start talking to me rather than using me solely as an example for other Christian readers here.

One thing needs to be clarified here before we proceed further.

The conventional Mormon narrative is that Jesus came – established true Church – left it to his apostles – apostles died – Priesthood authority lost along with certain spiritual gifts – Apostasy – Joseph Smit – Restoration of Jesus’ true Gospel.

That’s it, in a nutshell.

I think this narrative, while serviceable, doesn’t really have a lot of nuance and needs a bit of adjustment in light of what we know about the history of Christianity.

My own view is that Jesus’ apostles never were completely successful in setting up the “True Religion.” Jesus didn’t do it, because Church-building was not his mission to begin with. Instead it was delegated to the apostles to manage as best they could. At this, the apostles succeeded in some ways and failed in others.

For instance, the apostles were never in a position to reclaim the temple from the Jews. When the temple was destroyed, any possibility of doing so was lost. Thus the temple component of Christianity was lost. If the temple could have been claimed for Christ, I fully expect Peter would have done so and Christian ritual today would look that much closer to Mormon ritual. But they couldn’t – so no temple for early Christianity. Now today, people try to rewrite history and lamely claim why we never needed a temple in the first place.

Another thing, the apostles were interested primarily in spreading the word of Jesus as far and wide as they could. They paid little attention to the business of Church-building. This was instead delegated to the local Bishops (or the equivalent). Part of the reason for this is that the apostles appear to have been laboring under the mistaken notion that Jesus would be returning in glory in their lifetimes. There would be plenty of time to clean up the organization at that time (or it would no longer matter), so they tended to neglect the Church organization. Paul made some valiant attempts – which is why we have his Epistles today. But he was ultimately defeated by an impossible geographic reality. There was no way to successfully police the doctrine, practice, and organization of the Church given limits of transportation and communication.

I consider the death of the apostles a contributing factor to the “Great Apostasy.” But just a contributor. I feel the process of apostasy was already in full swing during the ministry of the apostles, as Paul’s panicked letters to different corners of the Church make fairly plain. I also feel that the disputations occurring among the apostles show that even they didn’t always have a perfect grasp of the task they had been left to accomplish.

My assertion is that true Christianity completely collapsed in the first and second centuries. After that, people started trying to salvage something from the wreckage – most of our New Testament source manuscripts date to after that time. Gradually, as Christians were forced to defend themselves from Roman critics, a greater awareness of surrounding learning and philosophies took root in the early Christian Church. People started couching their religious arguments in the terminology of the surrounding Greek intellectual framework.

Unlike many of my fellow Mormons, I do not consider the adoption of Greek philosophy into the Christian church to be a unqualified negative. Frankly, the state of early Christian orthodoxy was an utter mess. If something hadn’t been done at Nicea, it’s entirely possible the entire thing would have faded away just like Roman paganism did. The infusion of Greek philosophy into Christian theology probably saved the religion from a long slow death.

But it came at a real price. My view is that the entire traditional Christian ontology of God has been deeply flawed for the past 2,000 years as a result of its dependence on neoplatonist assumptions about reality. Why do concepts like “essence,” “substance,” and the distinction between created and uncreated even matter? Why is having a physical form a limitation? Why is an “Unmoved Mover” even a philosophical necessity? Why is the eternity of matter so objectionable?

All of these things are not products of an unbiased reading of the Bible. They are purely the concerns of Greek philosophy.

Don’t get me wrong – Greek philosophy was pretty nifty and all. But that doesn’t make it God’s own referee.

Now, what did Joseph Smith “restore?”

Ask a sampling of Mormons, and chances are they’ll indicate he restored the Christianity of the apostles.

I respectfully disagree.

What Joseph Smith did, was restore the true pattern of the One Religion that has held true (with interruptions) throughout human history from Adam on down. Many people point out that Mormonism is actually a remarkably Old Testament sort of religion, and I agree with them. Joseph didn’t just restore Peter and Paul’s religion. He restored Abraham and Moses’ religion as well. The one true pattern of religion that has endured throughout history.

Many Mormons think that Joseph Smith’s job was to recreate a carbon-copy of Peterine Christianity. I think this is wrong-headed. Aside from the fact that modern day Mormonism does not resemble Peter’s Christianity much in structure, one has to ask the question why you would want to restore Peter’s Christianity in the first place. Peter’s Christianity was, frankly, a hopeless mess of competing authority structures, undisciplined ritual and practice, and rival personalities.

You don’t want to recreate that!

No, what you want to do is fix that!

This was Joseph’s mission – to restore the true order of God’s kingdom on earth – to restore the temple – to restore the Priesthood – to re-establish the human ritual interface with God.

God has always interacted with his children via ritual. The current Protestant rejection of ritual as a component of worship is primarily a backlash against perceived Catholic excesses, but that doesn’t mean ritual wasn’t the proper way to connect with God to begin with.

There is a gaping hole in modern Christianity on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem where the Dome of the Rock now sits. Joseph Smith’s mission was to fill that hole. And he did.

Seth R. says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Well John,

Do your really want to project a Puritan sexuality onto God?

I cannot speak to Hugh Nibley’s analysis here.

I do know that Mormonism does away with the Puritan disgust with sex (or at least attempts to). We do not associate it with the Original Sin (in fact, we do not ascribe to the common view of Original Sin at all). We do not hold to the misogynist notions that Eve somehow introduced sin into the world with the apple as an image for sexuality. We feel that when constrained within the bonds that God has decreed, sexuality is a beautiful thing – the closest thing, in fact, to a human approximation of the power of God.

We affirm that gender is eternal. And yes, there is a very, very undefined doctrine of a Heavenly Mother in there as well (mostly not talked-about by lay Mormons). We do believe that God is, in some sense at least, a sexual being.

Does this require crass images of some heavenly baby-making machine. Of course not. And we find such crass imagery offensive. We have no idea what the mechanism was for our Father and Mother to create spirit children. Did it involve sex? Or just a powerful symbolic expression of love?

I honestly have no idea.

The picture is complicated by the modern Mormon tendency to pick up on the sexual baggage of their repressed Protestant neighbors. It is also complicated by the ever-present need to keep the powerful and potentially destructive nature of sexuality under tight reign. Mormons are not, and have never been “free love” people. We have always – at all stages of our church history – advocated that sex be restrained by covenant before God.

And just a note for the uninformed reading this – no, we do not practice mortal polygamy anymore. Not that I feel any need to apologize for historic polygamy in the LDS Church, but it’s best that everyone keep firmly in mind what the LDS Church is today.

John C.T. says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Thanks Seth. I knew very little about Mormonism and the similarities and differences between it and traditional Christianity. Now I know a great deal more. Not that I’m converting or anything, but it helps to hear things first hand from a believer in it, rather than second or third hand.

regards,
John

Seth R. says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Asking for a formalized codex containing all of Mormon Doctrine is asking the wrong question.

Mormonism is a relatively young religion, and like early Christianity does not have the most developed approach to theology. Like most early religions, the focus is more correct practice rather than correct theological belief. Mormonism is more focused on orthopraxy than orthodoxy. So to ask us for a go-to source for orthodoxy is asking the wrong question because honestly, most Mormons aren’t all that bothered about orthodoxy and questions of orthodoxy. Questions of practice and community concern us more.

That said, here are the sources of Mormon doctrine, in order of importance:

1. Canonized scripture. Currently this Entails the Holy Bible (we use the KJV), the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants.

A book does not become canonized in the LDS Church until it has been presented to the entire membership of the Church and sustained as such. I believe the last time this occurred was in relation to some passages in the Doctrine and Covenants. All other sources of doctrine must be tested against this canon.

2. Statements of living prophets (this includes the President of the Church and the other Apostles) spoken officially to the Church and disseminated to the Church.

The current vehicle for doing this is the official magazine of the LDS Church (“The Ensign” in the US and “The Liahona” elsewhere). General Conference addresses (in their final published form) are a good example. Official declarations such as the recent “Proclamation on the Family” are another good example.

3. Doctrine as disseminated in official LDS study materials – such as the teachers guides for youth classes, or Gospel Doctrine handbooks.

You have to be careful to constantly reassess these sources against numbers 1 and 2 however. Especially in light of #2 since Church manuals have been known to become outdated in some respects years before new updates are budgeted for. For instance, you might find an old quote from a long dead apostle in a current Church study guide that presents a certain spin on the question of “grace vs. works.” But you have to read that quote in light of the more recent statements made by living General Authorities. The famous “Church Handbook of Instructions” disseminated to LDS local leadership also falls into this category. Statements made on the LDS Newsroom website would also fall into this category.

4. Doctrine as presented by past prophets and apostles.

The Journal of Discourses – that document Evangelicals are always mining for radioactive Brigham Young quotes – falls into this category. Even old Joseph Smith quotes can fall into this category – although his prestige within Mormon belief often prevents his quotes from falling out of favor so quickly. The idea is that the LIVING prophet takes precedence in guiding the present-day Church. Old quotes do not always stand the test of time. Brigham Young’s Adam-God idea being a prime example. No one in the LDS Church really knows what Brigham meant by those quotes, they seem to conflict with what we know of canonized LDS scripture, and even Brigham Young himself seemed to contradict the notion on occasion in his own statements. Thus the doctrine was discarded.

This is not overly concerning from a Mormon perspective. We never claimed our prophets were infallible to begin with. Nor did we ever claim they were exempt from being tested against the scriptures, or even against plain common sense. Prophets in the Mormon tradition are always subject to a great many checks and balances. Those who expect to find a theological dictator with an iron-grasp over the beliefs of the membership will be disappointed (or pleasantly surprised). The LDS Church appears authoritarian on the outside, but in reality, it is surprisingly democratic.

5. Books apostles write in their spare time, and statements made by General Authorities that were never meant for Church-wide dissemination.

The most obvious example is apostle Bruce R. McConkie’s landmark book – “Mormon Doctrine.” It’s an invaluable resource and shows a great deal of care and scripture cross-referencing. It’s a resource I use all the time. And most of the time, it gets the doctrine right. Most of the time….

McConkie’s fellow apostles and even the President David O. McKay specifically asked McConkie not to publish the book. They did not want a single apostle giving the impression that he was speaking definitively for Mormon doctrine. The title of the book certainly didn’t help matters. McConkie disregarded the advice and published it anyway. After a few years of circulation, McConkie was forced retract certain incendiary remarks about Catholics and his own theories about the eternal status of certain racial groups.

It’s a dang useful book and will give a lot of insight. But you’ll get a warped view of Mormonism from McConkie if you don’t test it against the doctrinal sources that are higher in priority and status.

Another book example along these lines is Spencer W. Kimball’s book – “The Miracle of Forgiveness.” Another good book that has become something of gold mine for Evangelicals wishing to proof-text how Mormons are obsessed with works at the expense of grace. I personally think the book is a bit dated and due for another book to come along and unseat it. Kimball wrote it as an apostle, not as President of the Church (which gives it less status than something that the President would have written).

Books written by apostles really should not be viewed as binding – merely persuasive. Sort of like rabbinic commentary on the Torah in the Jewish tradition.

6. Here you have all the other LDS books published. They aren’t published by General Authorities which means they will have varying force and persuasiveness depending on the author. Hugh Nibley has a lot of cachet in some circles. In others Robert Millet or Stephen Robinson might be highly regarded. In yet others, you might have lay LDS gushing over the latest Chicken Soup for the Soul-style offering from a popular LDS author from the youth speaking circuit or what have you. The “Encyclopedia on Mormonism” actually falls into this category. It had a lot of scholarly input and I believe they were being as careful as they possibly could in their pronouncements. But it is still not the final word.

All of these sources are best viewed with a highly critical eye.

That’s the best I can do for a summary for you.

I hope it’s becoming clear to the readers here that defining the limits of Mormon doctrine is more of an art than a science.

I don’t consider this a bad thing. I’m sure others here disagree with me, but I like the flexibility and natural adaptivity that is built into the LDS interface with doctrine. It makes for a religion that is far more exciting to me than any of the alternatives.

Seth R. says:

Like or Dislike: 0

I might as well point it out since someone else is bound to:

I’ve already mentioned Brigham Young’s cryptic remarks about Adam being somehow, in some sense, “God.” Evangelicals usually like to dredge this one up as proof of idolatry or polytheism or some such.

But the fact is, his remarks on the subject are extremely vague and cryptic. He never really explained them satisfactorily, and Brigham’s own teachings in other places seem to directly contradict the read that counter-cult ministries attempt to take on it.

Then there is the further factor to add in that prophets do not always speak “as prophets.” If Joseph Smith were to remark to his wife one day “Emma, you burnt the toast” would anyone here consider this the “Word of God?”

No, it’s just Joseph the man talking.

Another easy example is the silly little argument I’ve heard some counter-cult ministries bring up that Joseph Smith prophesied of moon-men. I use this example because it provides a good illustration of how Mormonism has been distorted over the years by counter-cult arguments.

First off, when you look at the sources for this supposed belief of Joseph’s, you find they are all second or even third hand accounts – sometimes of dubious reliability. You find that there is no evidence whatsoever, that he “prophesied” anything of the sort. And you find little reliable evidence that he even made any statement whatsoever of the subject. It seems quite clear that if Joseph Smith did ever say anything about the moon being inhabited, it was simply him expressing his own opinion or speculation (belief in the moon being inhabited was a common conceit in the 1800s and was held by some rather notable men whom we all respect very much today).

So, when the sheer sensationalism is stripped away, you are left with nothing more than an idle campfire speculation that some Joseph Smith groupie took, distorted in his own mind, and then reported later as some big revelation.

Simply put – there’s nothing there, “there.”

It gets tougher when a prophet seems to be declaring actual doctrine. But in that instance, you have to ask again whether he is truly putting it out as doctrine for the entire church, or again, if he is just sharing his own speculations and opinion for a limited audience. A lot of the most sensational counter-cult gotcha quotes are acquired from simple statements of personal opinion and where never meant to be doctrinal in the first place.

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

MBaker asked:
“So what is where is that Mormons themselves divide the two, and how does the church discern the difference?”

Ultimately it is the Spirit of God confirming the doctrine or not to the average Mormon or Mormon leadership.

Michael L. says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Interesting to see this topic got new life somehow.

Since I got quoted by TUAD, I guess I’ll need to stay tuned again

Seth R,
Thanks for jumping in on this. There’s some very good explanations in what you just posted. Indeed a lot of it is clearer than what I have seen on this blog before. Thanks for that.

I want to clarify what I said in those quotes. For more on my stance, scan the posts with my name. I think we also interacted a little bit on ldstalk, so you may remember.

The question on this post is really on whether the Mormon faith is a good representation of Christianity.

You admitted that Joseph Smith came to restore the Christian faith after the apostasy. Meaning there are fundamental things that needed restored. Whether that be true or not, it led to a faith that is in my opinion and from what I have read and understood, fundamentally different from what we call Christian today.

My main argument: The major Christian faiths, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant, all adhere to the mystery of the Trinity and accept the Nicean creed in most of its form. I know there’s some minor differences (filio-que clause and all that), but that doesn’t detract from the core.

You are more than welcome to debate that we are wrong, that the writings of the Early Church Fathers were mingled with Greek philosophy, etc.. Nonetheless, the Trinity is part of what is called The Christian Faith. I agree not all Christian understand it quite correctly, you can argue that some adhere to modalist points of view, etc.. Admittedly, I don’t fully comprehend it either, hence I called it “the mystery of the Trinity”.

But I do know the Mormon faith does not accept the Trinity as One God in Three persons. It’s Three persons, operating as one. As such, due to the differences restored by Joseph Smith, the Mormon Faith is not an accurate representation of it.

To give a similar reasoning: You can make the argument that Islam is a good representation of Christianity because they were “Corrected” thanks to the revelations given to Mohamed. Hence their interpretation of who Christ is and what he was and did is the correct interpretation, so therefore they are the “true” Christians. You can quickly see the argument doesn’t hold one bit.

With all due respect, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart, the Mormon faith is too different to be called an “Accurate representation of Christianity”. I know quite a few Mormons personally and have a tremendous respect for them and we talk to each other quite amicably. I used to work with a datacenter in Orem and was fortunate enough to travel there quite a lot. So please trust me when I mean that I do have respect for your beliefs and faith. Definitely for your education, which is far higher than mine and even higher when considering the average Evangelical.

All that being said, we can always have a continuing discussion on who’s right or who’s wrong and why. And basically.. it’s not going to matter since only God knows and we have to recognize that we are limited. But we have to get to that common understanding that there is a huge gap between what we believe.

As you point out, there’s commonalities as well. But the core is what really matters and that’s where we differ.

Hope this clarified.
In Him
Mick

Seth R. says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Michael,

I have never felt anything but respect from you in your comments. And yes, I do remember our other interactions.

To address your question though… I do think we’re very different from what’s already established in worldwide Christianity and what is accepted. No question there. But I also think your argument basically comes from a sort of status quo position. Christianity is what it is and any attempt to broaden or evolve the concept of Christian should be automatically rejected.

That’s not a position a typical Mormon is going to be able to accept I’m afraid (I imagine that isn’t a surprise to you).

mbaker,

Good question. Where do you draw the line?

This is a difficult question in any religion, not just Mormonism. The problem is that people often join a religion because it provides answers, it provides certainties. This is one of the major draws and attractions of, I think, any religion. Mormonism is no exception. It proposes to answer some pretty big questions and thrives in areas that traditional Christianity remains uncertain or tentative on – such as what we did before birth and what we will do after death.

So here I am saying that maybe the answers aren’t as clear cut as we were all hoping when we signed up. What’s up with that?

I can only respond that I think we run into trouble when we try to make the certainties in a religion more extensive than they really are. Mormonism has some definite certainties – God’s love for us, the reality of Christ’s Atonement and that God still interfaces with his children. But you get beyond these core certainties and you’ll find that God, like a good parent, has left us a bit of room to roam. Depending who you are, that can be exciting or terrifying (or a little of both).

A big problem in the LDS Church today, just according to me, is a certain complacency and smugness that has crept in. We think we have it all figured out, because we assume that our religion has nailed down a lot of things that it really doesn’t. This kind of thinking is exactly where the fundamentalist mindset comes from. The desire to remove the guesswork, pin God in a corner and force him to give us a straight answer. We don’t want a Bible that we have to think about and question. We want the Bible to act like the assembly instructions on that bicycle we bought for our kid last Christmas. We want it plain as plain, black and white, no room for guesswork or questions.

There is a scripture on this point in the Book of Mormon actually and it states that it is a “slothful servant who must be commanded in all things.” But we really are wired this way. We want shortcuts. Yes or no. We don’t want to have to work at our belief.

The same sorts of motivations are at work when people follow or criticize the Mormon prophets.

If Brigham Young said it, does that mean it’s always true? Well a lot of counter-cult ministries would say yeah – if Brigham Young said it, that means that any faithful Mormon must believe it, and if he doesn’t, that means he rejects Young’s prophetic calling. Black and white. No guesswork required.

But I think most of us agree that’s a bit extreme. Even assuming Brigham Young was a prophet (as LDS do), it can’t be true that EVERY last little thing he said was the word of God, and if it can be demonstrated false, that refutes his “prophet” status.

But if you simply discount everything Young said as “just his own opinion” then the force of his prophetic call is greatly reduced, is it not?

I think Brigham Young himself gave a few guidelines. He himself stated that his pronouncements were only to be considered doctrinal if he declared them as such, and had them disseminated to the membership of the Church. That alone eliminates a lot of things he said when looking for what is binding. But I think even Young himself was not as careful about the distinction as he probably needed to be. This is why a firm grasp on the Book of Mormon, Bible, D&C and PoGP is so crucial. You have to have a frame of reference from which to accept or reject what a prophet says.

The problem is when you reach one of those areas where different members reach different conclusions about the scripture and use differing authorities to back up their conclusions. For example, my dad and I disagree on whether Mormon doctrine demands the view that there was no death in the world before the Fall of Adam.

My father has LDS authorities to marshal in defense of his views. One notable one is Bruce R. McConkie whom I already mentioned. McConkie plainly declares that the was no death before the fall.

I disagree with this view because I don’t take the scriptures as presenting us with firm guidelines on that particular issue. Nor do I see much utility in the scriptures declaring that aspect of world history. I also look at the scientific evidence in favor of an earth that just doesn’t seem to match up with that viewpoint. I also read certain key verses and symbolic in nature. Then I read official statements from the LDS First Presidency stating that the LDS Church takes no position on issues such as evolution. I ponder all this, and it seems to me that McConkie is simply overreaching in his analysis. So my dad and I disagree.

But is this a problem? As a practical matter, I don’t think it is. No death before the fall really isn’t that big a deal in the big scheme of things. But there are doctrinal questions that are a bigger deal. Was God ever a “sinful man” who “grew to become God?”

I don’t think that question is quite so big a deal as many of the Christians I debate with seem to think it is, but it certainly isn’t unimportant. It speaks to the nature of the God we worship. And you’ll find Mormons who believe God was, and you’ll find Mormons who are adamant that he wasn’t. Both agreement and disagreement with the “sinful man” idea exist within the LDS Church. How do you draw the line here and say whether God being a sinful man is definitely “in” or “out” as a doctrine?

The answer is that you don’t. The clarification we need is not forthcoming so far. And it is never any Mormon’s place to condemn a doctrine that the Lord has chosen to remain silent or ambiguous on. People are free to hold a surprising diversity of beliefs within the LDS Church. That’s why it’s so important for any Christian who wishes to engage Mormonism to engage the individual Mormon and not the broad conceptual categories he brings to Mormonism. We have very different beliefs from person-to-person. I myself am considered quite eccentric in certain Mormon circles. So you can’t take me as representative of the average Mormon. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that doctrinally, the average Mormon is more an assumption than a reality.

So I don’t think I have much satisfaction for you here.

But there is one final Mormon doctrine you need to be aware of – the idea of “by common consent.”

The LDS Church operates on the basis of being sustained and supported by its membership. We rely on members to contribute time and money to the work. We have a lay ministry. As a result, there is a firm notion in the LDS Church that each member has a solemn obligation to study out each assertion and teaching of the LDS Church for herself and pray to God for a witness of it. This is not about asking God for warm fuzzies. It involves a serious program of study and pondering. We exercise every resource available to us to determine whether something in the LDS Church is something we can sustain. And then we pray for a witness. If the witness is not forthcoming, then we need not believe that doctrine or teaching.

So if you’re looking for a dividing line for LDS doctrine, maybe that’s it – direct confirmation from God. That’s really the best I can do for you on the gray areas where there isn’t a clear choice to make.

Joseph Smith and moon-men is a pretty cut and dried example where we obviously don’t have to hop on board.

The recent Proclamation on the Family is a pretty cut and dried example of something we Mormons are supposed to support.

The role of evolution in the earth’s creation and what God was doing before we happened along? Gray areas where you could go either way based on the criteria I listed above. Your only recourse is prayer and personal study.

If you’re going to think about Mormonism in a serious way, it is not a religion where you can just “consult the manual” and get a quick and dirty answer. We all take responsibility for our own witness. I think the biggest weakness of the fundamentalist mindset is that the fundamentalist refuses to take such responsibility for his own witness.

Sorry, but life’s rough that way and I don’t have a clear answer for you.

Seth R. says:

Like or Dislike: 0

I didn’t say that Mormonism isn’t clear on anything and that everything depends solely on personal spiritual witness. But it is an additional method of arriving at truth within the religion.

I also don’t think it’s entirely clear that Christianity itself avoids this same problem. The sheer diversity of belief within the Christian community seems to demonstrate this.

Michael L says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Seth R

Although I agree with several of your statements, there’s a danger in that path.

I agree with
The desire to remove the guesswork, pin God in a corner and force him to give us a straight answer. We don’t want a Bible that we have to think about and question.
We often like to do that because we want God to conform to us, not the other way around. We’re arrogant in that we like to figure it all out and pat ourselves on the shoulder.

Christianity is what it is and any attempt to broaden or evolve the concept of Christian should be automatically rejected
Another very valid point. I do think Christian debate can enrich our faith and bring us closer to God. Understand Him.. not on this side. Closer ? Absolutely. I know I’ve grown a lot stronger in my faith trying to reason through things.

Gray areas where you could go either way based on the criteria I listed above. Your only recourse is prayer and personal study
As I mentioned before, I think, I agree that there are several “Gray” areas in which we can somewhat agree to disagree. I like the adagio of The main thing is that the main thing remains the main thing

And here is where we enter the slippery slope. What do we define as The Main Thing ?

For Christianity, I believe that the understanding of Christ, His role, His deity, His substitutionary atonement, His physical resurrection are core elements that are the main thing. Once we get to different conclusions about that, we are no longer discussing the same faith.

Whether one thinks he was just a great teacher as some humanists do, or a prophet like Islam does, or a Spiritual Son of the Father who is a brother of Lucifer and came up with a better plan of salvation; these are fundamental interpretations or beliefs on who Christ was. And once you diverge from the following below, I think you’re out of the Christianity path

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

I know you’ll might use the “Son of God” item in there, but it clearly states ONLY, which contradicts the doctrine of Lucifer being his brother. Or at least I understand it to be doctrine.

In addition, we believe Christ is fully God. Not some form of progression from a Spirit Child. DC 93, especially 12-14 are challenging in this respect. Those passages almost sound like some form of “Adoptionalism”. And it was refuted by the Early Christian Fathers even before the council of Nicea

Finally, the Mormon doctrine on the Trinity being three persons united in purpose, is close to the early idea of Nestorianism, which was condemned at Chalcedon. I know you can argue this was part of the apostasy, so I admit it’s a pretty weak argument

In conclusion, I do sincerely appreciate you trying to set us straight and I do know a lot of us need to let go of our knee-jerk reactions against the Mormon faith. And it that respect, your posts are quite educational. On the other hand, I still have not seen or read or heard anything that would repudiate my statement.

Perhaps you can clarify for me whether DC 93 is part of accepted Mormon doctrine or whether it falls into one of the “grey” areas. It may help me see whether or not I should change my position.

In Him
Mick

John C.T. says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Seth and Michael L are correct on the flexibility in Christian doctrine–even the RC’s allow that protestants are saved and part of the people of God though not part of the true church. And we would count in the Eastern Orthodox. And charismatics and pentacostals too, even though there are cessationist protestants who believe that many of the gifts no longer exist in church life. And there are several theories of the atonement, which are ususally described as being complementary rather than contradictory.

The late Johannes Cardinal Willebrands, longtime head of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, was fond of saying, “Christ and the Church are coterminous.” I take that to mean that, if one is in a living relationship with Christ, one is also in relationship with his Church, for body and head cannot be separated. Therefore communities of faith outside the Catholic Church are “ecclesial” communities, but not part of the True Church. The Lumen Gentium says that non-Catholics who are baptized and believe in Christ are in a “certain but imperfect communion with the Catholic Church.”

So how much do we have to have wrong before we are no longer part of the traditional Christian faith (by traditional, I mean what’s been around for several hundred or thousand years in terms of key doctrines).

Outside we would definitely have to place Muslims, although they claim to worship the God of Abraham and believe that Jesus was a prophet. That is not enough, as is evident in the defrocking of Ann Holmes Redding, an Episcopal priest who converted to Islam but kept being a priest because she personally saw no conflict. After Redding remained firm in her belief that she was called to both faiths, her Bishop (Wolf) said in fall 2008 that a church committee had determined that the priest “abandoned the Communion of the Episcopal Church by formal admission into a religious body not in communion with the Episcopal Church.”

Wolf barred Redding from functioning as a priest for the next six months, and said that unless Redding resigned her priesthood or denied being a Muslim during that time, the bishop would have a duty to defrock her. The Rev. Kendall Harmon, the canon theologian with the Diocese of South Carolina said that “what’s at stake is central to the church,” “To be a Christian is to be a Trinitarian and worship Jesus. If we’re not clear on that, we have nothing to offer in our witness.”

Redding does not believe that God and Jesus are the same, but rather that God is more than Jesus. And she believes that Jesus is the Son of God insofar as all humans are the children of God, and that Jesus is divine, just as all humans are divine — because God dwells in all humans.

It’s interesting that the “Arizona Republic” newspaper has reported that illegal immigrant Latinos overwhelmingly are raised Catholic, but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is aggressively reaching out to them by touting the religion’s heavy focus on family and community, pillars of the Mormon faith that are also at the center of Hispanic culture. As a result, Mormon church leaders report that Latinos are joining the Mormon Church at a greater rate than members of any ethnic group, even Anglos.

I did not know that when Brigham Young left Illinois for the Western North America, the region he ended up in was part of Mexico and portions of where they settled are still part of Mexico today. In fact, it’s estimated that there are more than a million Mormons in Mexico.

regards,
John

mbaker says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Seth to mbaker :”All that theology stuff can be left to the philosophers.”

I’m surprised at you, Seth, especially as a declared Open Theist, a religion which nowadays primarily follows leadership of religious philosophers like Dr. Greg Boyd. Your remark also sounds like a glib flip off reply of an extreme charismatic when asked what he believes, and he cannot present any real evidence, except that which is based upon his own personal experience.

Christians lead lives of service as well as Mormons, but that neither proves or disproves our religion, because it all rests with the work of one person – Jesus Christ. Many atheists do good works too, and live upstanding lives. So orthopraxy, in and of itself, is not sufficent evidence that Mormonism is valid Christianity.

And here’s an example of why Joseph Smith’s ‘theology’ is of paramount importance to Mormonism: it is his story of the golden tablets they present when missionaries come to the door, not the gospel of Jesus Christ! So, in the important issue of evangelism, to make the claim that the atonement is of primary importance to Mormon belief is not correct, if you are presenting orthopraxy as a valid argument. Mormon missionaries do not practice what you said above is preached regarding the atonement.

They present an alternative belief and call it a ‘restored’ gospel, but in actual practice it is replacement theology, based upon the experiences of LDS prophets, rather the person and atoning work of Jesus Christ.

So, like philosophy and theology, restoration and replacement are two entirely different things.

mbaker says:

Like or Dislike: 0

I don’t want to gang up on the Mormons here either, because that is not my intention, but I agree with Mick that no definitive answer has been presented so far for Mormonisn to be considered Christian, since it is just not just doctrine in question here, but the person of Christ Himself, who has been redefined by their prophets.

I think that is the real crux of the matter.

cheryl u says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Seth,

I have not actively been participating in this conversation for a long time now although I have been following it all of the time.

You made the statement above, “No, we don’t elevate the words of Joseph Smith above those contained in the Bible. ”

I have a question regarding that comment. I guess I am not sure just what you mean by that. I know several Mormon folks earlier in this conversation, when asked, said that if Mormon doctrine and the Bible contradict each other, they would believe that the Bible is the one in error. In my mind, that is elevating Joseph Smith, or another Mormon responsible for the doctrin in question, above the Bible. Can you please explain? Maybe this is another area where there is a great difference in the way things are looked at among various Mormons?

mbaker says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Actually Seth, I appreciate your attempts of explanation, but here’s the crux of the matter to me:

You cannot restore something unless you follow it’s original plan. You can replace it, however, by making a copy of it. Now here’s where I see that applying here.

The replacement for the Bible, which has been agreed upon through thousands of years as God breathed, is the three golden tablets, from which the Book of Mormon is transcribed.

The Mormon church claims these tablets are a ‘restored gospel’, yet the gospel didn’t need restoration, sinful man does.

Now, mysteriously, a 13 year old boy comes out of the woods with a story which proclaims God gave him a different version of Christianity, and the Jesus who was originally proclaimed by God Himself and the event witnessed by His apostles, as the ONLY begotten Son of God, is now in Mormonism placed into the status of brotherhood with Lucifer, his evil brother. His place in the Trinity is considered quite different than God’s original plan. He’s given ‘junior’ status in Mormonism, rather than full fledged membership in the Trinity.

That is replacement theology, because Jesus has been demoted, and redefined as a lesser God than the original.

I will not be particpating any longer in this discussion because there is no real evidence being presented here that Jesus hasn’t been changed from the Christ of the Bible, so you have lost my interest.

The word of a 13 boy, with no witnesses simply isn’t enough for me.

God bless, and thanks for your input.

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Mick asked:
” If only God can forgive sins, for which there is enough evidence in both OT Scripture and in 1st century Jewish tradition and orthodoxy; and if Christ was not fully God, how could it be that He is indeed sufficient for the forgiveness of your sins ? ”

The answer seems pretty straightforward. Mormons believe that Jesus is Jehovah, i.e. the God that forgives sins in the O.T.

He is that I AM.

So he can forgive sins since he is God. Even prior to His coming he was acting as his Father in relation to his children on Earth. On earth he did nothing for himself, just what his Father wanted.

So the answer is Jesus was “fully” God (even before he came to earth as a Man) but he was not the same as his Father whom he considered to be greater than himself.

Seth might have another answer.

Seth R. says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Mormon thought typically identifies Jehovah (Yahweh) as synonymous with Jesus Christ. In Mormon parlance, the Father is identified as Eloheim, and the Son is identified as Jehovah. The figure communicating with the children of Israel and others in the Old Testament is not the Father, but the Son.

Our scriptures flatly state that Jesus was with the Father “from the beginning.”

Often, our Protestant critics make the mistake of claiming that Mormons believe that Jesus is a “created being.”

This is absolutely not true. Jesus is not a “created being” in Mormon theology for the simple fact that there is no such thing as a created being in Mormon theology. All matter is eternal in Mormon theology. When we read Genesis 1 about God “creating” everything, we see no reason to conclude it was an ex nihilo creation (in fact the truer reading of the original Hebrew suggests more a dividing or organizing than an ex nihilo “bang”).

We believe that God “created” the world in the same sense that an artist creates a painting. Not ex nihilo. But more a matter of bringing order from a pre-existing chaos. We likewise do not believe that human beings were ever created out of nothing. We believe that all of us are co-eternal with God. What God did was give spiritual form to us.

So Jesus cannot be a “created being” for Mormons in the way most Christian apologists mean the term.

So was Jesus ever “organized” into a spirit form by God?

Mormon theology can go either way on this point. You are allowed within Mormon theology to conclude that Jesus was so organized by the Father. But I have read some fairly compelling articles from Mormon scholars that our scriptures demand that Jesus be considered to have always been with the Father and was not so organized. I myself am agnostic on the question.

But I would ask – why is this such a concern to you?

It seems to me a little late for you guys to be objecting Jesus being a contingent being when your own theology already posits a Jesus who was contingent in that he was born of a woman. That’s a contingent being folks.

So the objection here is puzzling to me. You’ve already made Jesus a contingent being at one stage of the game, what’s the problem with him being contingent at another stage of the game?

And like Jared, I do consider the Son to be subordinate to the Father. I think Jesus himself made that more than clear in the Four Gospels.

Could Jesus forgive sins?

Yes.

The Son was perfectly united with the Father. This gave him all the power he needed to do what had to be done. In fact, it gave him all power period.

What happens when you unite a finite set with an infinite set?

You get an infinite set.

Jared C says:

Like or Dislike: 0

So are you implying that Kirk Cameron is a true representation of Christianity?

Or are you saying the Kirk Cameron may be a closet Mormon. . .

I suppose I have to check out that debate.

Michael L. says:

Like or Dislike: 0

See… we managed to elevate the discussion a little and then Jared and Jack have to jump in and distract us with this Kirk Cameron stuff…. sjjjjeeeesssss…..
Seth.
Been real busy since last night. It’s Maundy Thursday (which yes.. even though I’m not a Catholic is still an important enough day to remember).. so it may be Saturday before I can react on your latest post. Perhaps over lunch I can find some “spare” time.

Passages that come to mind quickly Deut 6:4
More importantly.. Gen 24:12 “O Lord God of my master Abraham”. In Hebrew it’s the words Yahweh Elohim..

יהוה and אֱלֹהִים right next to each other (hope the Hebrew characters show up). Indicating one and the same.

But the question you raise is an interesting topic. However it would somehow start to lean towards a poly-theistic approach. And as far as I know Christianity, just like any Judaic faith, is strictly mono-theistic.

How do we overcome that discrepancy ? Or you defute the Mormon faith as being poly-theistic ?

In Him
Mick

PS:I do have a challenge with the subordination concepts as well, but it’ll have to wait.

Seth R. says:

Like or Dislike: 0

John CT

The idea that a single “Big Bang” started everything in existence is a notion that is about 30 years out-dated in the community of physicists.

The more common view is of a universe of repeated expansion and collapse, of which the “Big Bang” is just the most recent event. Modern physicists are more likely to posit an infinite universe. The ones who still claim that the Big Bang was the absolute beginning, are typically traditional Christian apologists.

Besides, modern string theory shoots so many holes in your assertion there, that I don’t see how there can be any confidence left in it.

As to your other point…

Ah yes, the old Kalam Infinity argument.

The problem with this argument is that it artificially segments an set that was never meant to be segmented and then argues from it own artificial assumptions.

Zeno’s Paradox is, I think sufficient to destroy any confidence in Kalam Infinity as either a proof for God, or as a proof of a finite universe.

Imagine that I wish to reach out and touch my computer screen.

According to Zeno’s paradox, the space between me and my computer screen is infinitely segmentable. For instance, in order for my finger to reach the screen it must first travel half the distance to the screen. Right?

Once it has traversed that half of the distance, it must also traverse another half of the distance. Then another half. Then another half.

Do you dispute that all these steps and portions must be traversed (even if quickly and instantaneously)? I mean, logically, every distance I’ve mentioned so far has to be traversed in order for my finger to touch the screen. Right?

By this logic, my finger can never reach the computer screen. Because, before it can do so, it must first traverse every last half-step in the entire set (the mathematical set being the distance between my hand and the screen). Since the set is composed of infinite steps or progressive stages, my hand can never reach the screen.

Just like we can never arrive at “now” until we traverse each and every one of the steps preceding us.

But fortunately, I can reach out, traverse infinity and arrive at my computer screen. Just like we can traverse infinity and arrive at now. The problem with Kalam infinity is that it ARTIFICIALLY segments something that was never meant to be segmented in the first place.

And all you have to do to disprove it is reach out and touch your computer screen.

Infinity lies ahead of us and behind. And there is no real logical reason why it should not be so.

Michael L says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Seth

Lunch break Couple of quick comments.

Your example of the TV monitor (Zeno’s paradox) is easily discredited as well. The matter is not on whether something finite can be divided into a number of infinite segments. Of course it can. Mathematics itself has the perfect example in “Pi”.

The question is on whether or not something material can be infinite in itself. Meaning it has not beginning nor end. I can agree with your statements on the Big Bang and that most modern scientists will lean towards and “ever expanding and contracting universe”. Yet the question remains where did it come from ? Can something material come out of nothing ? Even if it has been expanding for a long, long, long while and perhaps was contracting before then and will do so again, it still doesn’t explain where it came from ?

The purpose of Kalam is not to segment something like your example, or like Zeno’s paradox. The purpose is to demonstrate that you cannot arrive at a given point without having a starting point. In the example given, you cannot arrive at half without knowing where you started from to measure what half is. That’s what denounces Zeno’s paradox. Kalam says that you cannot arrive at now if the material world is infinite since you do not have a starting point. Hence if it has a starting point, the question is where it came from.

Or at least that’s my paraphrased understanding of Zeno and Kalam.

But back to what this means for God, if God exists before anything material exists, He himself has to be infinite. Not very, very, very old.. but infinite. And that, combined with the fact that we believe that Christ is the same as God, would make Christ infinite. Not just very, very, very old as I believe the Mormon doctrine would explain it.

Your last post is surprising to me. I thought the Mormon doctrine specifically said that (paraphrasing.. I’ll have to look it up tonight or when I have more time)

“Jahweh and Elohim are different persons, with a different physical body, yet united in purpose”.

If they are different persons, even though united in purpose, doesn’t that make them different Gods ?

For instance, a platoon of soldiers is united in purpose, yet each and every soldier is quite distinct in person. It doesn’t make them one.

We strongly believe in one God, one essence. It’s the mystery of the Trinity. And yes that word came from the Early Church Fathers because the Bible speaks to that all throughout and we couldn’t (and still can’t) quite figure out how one can have three persons yet be one. But it’s what we believe. You can call this one essence a derivative of Greek Philosophy, and I will accept that, but until we find a better way to explain this mystery, I’m ok with that.

Alternatively it would mean accepting that either
a) they are different physical persons, which is poly-theistic and poses problems how one could create the world (Gen 1:1 says Elohim) and the other save the creation (Yahweh aka Christ)
or
b) It would mean they are physical and therefore finite, which would mean that they had to come from somewhere, which means someone had to create them, which means there’s another “Uber Gott” somewhere.

Feel free to correct me on either one of these two conclusions.

In Him
Mick

John C.T. says:

Like or Dislike: 0

Seth says: “The idea that a single “Big Bang” started everything in existence is a notion that is about 30 years out-dated in the community of physicists.”

??

It is currently the undisputed status quo. Both the steady state and expanding and contracting universe theories have been discredited as not having any mathematical or physical grounding. Current theories regarding multiple universes are acknowledged as speculative and not susceptible to scientific proof. The bouncing universe (expanding and contracting; i.e., bouncing in and out of existence) falls prey to eventual entropy in that each bounce has to be smaller than the one before and also falls prey to the infinity argument. The eventual “heat death” of the universe was acknowledged already in the 19th century when the second law of thermodynamics was developed. That law states that every physical process is in an inevitable decline toward complete entropy (no organized energy). Theories like the bouncing universe were popular in the 70′s (when I voraciously read science stuff), but were abandoned as untenable. So Seth’s contention is 30 years out of date.

In fact, the present state of cosmology on this point is aptly summarized by Paul Davies, “Today, few cosmologists doubt that the universe, at least as we know it, did have an origin at a finite moment in the past. The alternative – that the universe has always existed in one form or another—runs into a rather basic paradox. The sun and stars cannot keep burning forever: sooner or later they will run out of fuel and die.” (Paul Davies, “The Big Bang – And Before,” The Thomas Aquinas College Lecture Series, Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, Calif., March 2002.) Also read “The Arrow of Time, Entropy, and Universe Origins”, by Andreas Albrecht, Paul Davies at http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/tabid/68/id/5512/Default.aspx P. Davies has a PhD in physics from University College London (1970)and is theoretical physicist, cosmologist, astrobiologist, author and broadcaster. He now works as a College Professor at Arizona State University, where he is setting up a research institute that will examine fundamental concepts in science. Davies previously held academic appointments in the UK, at the Universities of Cambridge, London and Newcastle upon Tyne.

Furthermore, in 2003 Arvind Borde, Alexander Vilenkin, and Alan Guth were able to prove that any universe which has on average been globally expanding at a positive rate has a past boundary and therefore cannot be infinite in the past. Vilenkin stated, “Cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” Also, “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” (Alex Vilenkin, Many Words in One: The Search for Other Universes (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006), p. 176.

I wouldn’t consider any of these guys typical Christian apologists. Nor would I consider something published in the 21st century to be out of date.

BTW, your comment on the Kalam argument is not a defeater of that argument.

regards,
John

Michael L says:

Like or Dislike: 0

YEAH ! What John C.T. said !

Sorry … not a math-wiz nor a physicist.. over my head on those. But I will read the articles.. never too old to learn.

But from a lay perspective, I always understood that Kalam tried to demonstrate that the universe and time cannot be infinite, since you would never arrive at the Now without a begin point. Not to demonstrate that things can’t be segmented infinitely. But I’ll re-do my homework.

Back to my more lay argument that even if the universe is contracting / expanding, etc… where did it come from ? Nothing material can be infinite.. it just doesn’t make sense. I don’t need a PhD in physics to convince me of that. It can be old. Very, very, very old (and I’m ducking all the projectiles that are heading my way