Posted on 10/08/2007 7:49:32 AM PDT by colorcountry
Not only is Mormonism a Christian faith, it is the truest form of Christianity, said speaker after speaker on the first day of the 177th Semiannual LDS General Conference. LDS authorities were responding to the allegation that Mormonism isn't part of Christianity. Made by different mainline Protestant and Catholic churches and repeated constantly during coverage of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, the claim is based on Mormonism's beliefs about God, its rejection of ancient ideas about the Trinity still widely accepted, and the LDS Church's extra-biblical scriptures. "It is not our purpose to demean any person's belief nor the doctrine of any religion," said Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland in the afternoon session. "But if one says we are not Christians because we do not hold a fourth- or fifth-century view of the Godhead, then what of those first [Christians], many of whom were eye-witnesses of the living Christ, who did not hold such a view either?"
{snip}
The day's sermons included many familiar themes, including the importance of faith, the need for pure thoughts and actions, avoiding pornography reaching out to neighbors and eliminating spiritual procrastination. Hinckley talked about the destructive nature of anger in marriages, on the road, and in life, urging Mormons to "control your tempers, to put a smile upon your faces, which will erase anger; speak with words of love and peace, appreciation and respect."
Go to the ex-Mormon websites and READ it.
(They can't ALL be lies; can it?)
Uh...
...what misrepresentations would that be?
(I keep typing 'he' and others say 'she' - will you clear THIS up? ;^)
Oh?
Has she(?) done this?
All I've seen is statements of how LONG she'd been a member.
If you do not start showing more love and higher thinking; you’ll get a picture of a bunny in a ________!
From what I've seen, they belittle your faith in your Prophets® and the things they've proclaimed over the years.
You guys have been COMMENDED for your 'faith in Christ' and have wondered why you've clung all this other added stuff.
Speaking of communion, can any fellow walk in off the street into an LDS organization meeting house and partake of communion with the LDS members?
Speaking of communion, can any fellow walk in off the street into an LDS organization meeting house and partake of communion with the LDS members?
Likewise, no one seems to challenge, what the Holy Ghost and the Apostles said in ACTS:
Ok; NOW I know which gender thou be!
AMEN!!!
John 6:28-29
28. Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
29. Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
Anyone who ADDS to this 'requirement' is saying, "I do NOT believe what Jesus has plainly said."
We believe, as you might know, that Christ Jesus is physically, literally, and fully present in the Holy Sacrament of the Altar. All the pomp flows from that theological premise: we decorate our churches, vestments, and vessels because they are consecrated to the service of God, and because they literally contain God in a more real sense than even the Jewish Temple contained Him.
And, as you know, Protestants do NOT believe the bread and the wine turn into the actual Body and Blood of Christ.
How an annual reminder meal of God's salvation ever got turned into a 'every time you enter the doors ritual' escapes me.
I contend that the B of M is a fair novel, a fabrication look-alike to the Bible, containing much lifted from the Bible, but soiled by the fabrications of the whole if one tries to claim it is scripture from God; add some leaven to dough and it will leaven the whole loaf ... in this case add some falsehood to the truths from Isaiah, etc. and the whole work is collectively untruth. God does not deal in untruth. Asking if something is untrue is a way to exclude God answering directly. Now take a look at what the Bible teaches regarding truth (not untruth, that is the purview of the father of lies who knows how to twist and dissemble so that the unlearned --study to show thy self approved-- fall into traps):
James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. ... Notice how James doesn't say 'ask if something is untrue' or 'ask if it is not true.' Wisdom is not 'delineating what is untruth'; wisdom is knowing The Truth for to know The Truth you are freed from the untruth because it cannot stand in the light of Truth.
I have prayed the faulty prayer dictated to me by Mormon missionaries more than two decades ago, then I began reading the B of M. I got an 'answer' all right, a very negative one; not an answer directly tied to the truth or falsehood of the B of M, a very clear rebuke for asking something that has at its root the implication that God has not provided sufficiently for me a new faither in Christ Jesus. Satan used that trick with Eve, implying that God had left out something vital to Eve and Adam. It took a mature Christian to explain to me why I got a rebuke. Thankfully, he was there to guide me at a time when confusion was growing. Again I declare, at the root of Mormonism is the demonic lie that that which Jesus said would not be defeated by the gates of hell, was actually defeated for a season of approx. 1700 years, and in need of 'restoration' with a lying, adulterous, treasure divining false prophet who fabricated materials he claimed were 'from God' and even rewrote the Bible to try and fabricate prophesies of his 'coming in these latter days.' THAT great heresy that God has lost or left off something vital is the same lie sown by Satan in the Garden!
Mormonism Apologists will often try to counter the above assertion by pleading to look at the fruits of Mormonism in adherents of that religion. I have yet to read a Mormonism Apologist explain to me the difference between fruit of the spirit and fruit of the striving flesh. They can cite Bible verses which enumerate fruit of the spirit, but they haven't a clue how that is evidenced in contrast with fruit of the flesh striving 'to do all that they can do' to earn exaltation. It is a huge blind spot for Mormons ... they cannot fathom that good works are not fruit of the spirit so they strive to do 'the good works that God has ordained for us to walk in' but they accomplish all they can without the indwelling Holy Spirit as author of fruit so they believe they are acting 'godly' in their behavior cited as good fruit but is actually fruit of the flesh as show to pretend God is bring that fruit out of them.
Fruit of the Spirit is a very individual thing authored by the indwelling Holy Spirit as the transformational work Jesus taught us to comprehend through the teachings of the Apostle Paul whom He chose to unfold that great mystery! The natural mind cannot produce righteousness in the natural man/woman. The natural mind can imitate, but it cannot produce that which ONLY GOD can create. The Blood of Christ cleanses the human spirit throne of 'self' and then the Holy Spirit of God comes to reside there, transforming the one believing in Jesus by the renewing of the mind of the soul. [Jesus gave notice of this relationship of spirit and soul when he spoke of 'let the dead go bury the dead'.]
Faith is an action word, not static. I can 'believe' I have a truck in the driveway that will take me to the store, but until I pick up the keys, walk out to the truck and insert the key and try the engine, I have a 'not yet living faith'. James tried to explain the contrast in the letter he wrote. He failed because his mind was steeped in 'works of the law'. James failed to explain it as the entire rest of the Bible teaches because James himself couldn't release his mind from the 'authority of the law' --and the contrast is in the Bible for our edification, to show what is not the 'believed God and it was counted for him righteousness.' Faith is better understood by seeing it as 'to faithe', an action term.
ONLY the human soul with the Holy Spirit indwelling the human spirit will have fruit of the Spirit. Oh, it's no secret that lots of leafy show gets paraded out as 'fruit of the spirit', but there are no figs there so the showy tree is accursed; the truth in the Bible teaches that fruit of the spirit is individual and internal, first, then it flows out for the world to witness as that listed in the Bible. Jesus even illustrated this principle with a fig tree He cursed for not having fruit but lots of leafy show, with the parable of the lamps and oil, and the sower and the seed.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Faith is a thing; faithe is a life being lived by direction form the source of Life. Deliverer faith is something, some One, Who comes in the minute one believes Jesus is the Christ and God has raised Him from the dead. Delivering faith is a day-by-day leaning upon the promise of God to transform the faither. Fruit of this transformation is first individually internal, then it manifests outwardly from the new 'flesh' (read self) God's Holy Spirit is gestating by His work; faithe is not 'all that we can do', it is all that He does in use to transform us. We are to submit, He will transform.
We have our Church precepts too, but we are most certainly not a "works" religion in the sense that you can get to heaven just by *doing* stuff or just by being Catholic. If you do all the stuff (go to Mass, receive the sacraments) but your heart is dead to God's grace, then all the rites you participate in will not only NOT get you to heaven, but they could be a sacrilege (i.e. receiving Communion with mortal sin).
And as far as just being Catholic getting you to heaven, well, the best evidence that we don't believe that is to read Dante's Inferno and see how many bishops and Popes he put in hell!!
ping if you’re so inclined
This is a debate for another thread. But some research on the history of the Christian liturgy might be interesting for you. The bottom line is that the Eucharist only turned into an "annual reminder meal" quite late in history--namely, after the Reformation.
And I wouldn't say Protestants are unified in your view, I might add. You might want to ask any devout Lutheran and Anglican friends how often they have Communion, and what they believe about the Sacrament. The answer might surprise you!
Isn’t that funny? You, Elsie, are a he and I am a she.
Thank you so much for that post. Honestly it brought tears to my eyes. I am so blessed to be in Christ! His spirit has done wonders in my life that no ordinance of “laying on of hands” ever accomplished.
I wish Mormons understood the difference between spirit and flesh. Ordinances, covenants and rites do NOT do anything unless they be a reminder of what Christ has done in your life. Otherwise they are demonic attempts to persuade yourself that your fleshly partaking of oaths actually do anything.
“None of these make any sense except to view the Father and Son and separate individuals.
Separate *persons*. Not separate beings.”
A person is a being, there is no such thing as a being consisting of more than one person, no such arrangement is taught in the Bible.
Disagree? Tell me what functional difference there is between two individual persons and one being consisting of two persons. What can one do that the other can’t? How could an objective observer tell the difference and where is that difference displayed in the actions of Christ and/or the Father?
“The Scriptures are...let me say this again....not a FULL and COMPLETE manual of Christianity...There’s a lot of stuff they simply didn’t cover.”
I agree, reading the NT is basicly reading other people’s mail, only getting one part of the conversation and no discussion of things already known to both sides.
The question is, who has authority to ‘fill in the blanks’. I seriously question the wisdom of relying on councils of men assembled by a pagan emperor for doing that. I also see no wisdom in relying on traditions passed on that really are nothing more than hearsay that may have little resemblance to the original message. God’s pattern has been to call prophets and have his living prophets lead his people by revelation.
“I have no idea how one can make that claim, considering the church was *founded* by those apostles and passed on *their* teachings as preserved in the Scriptures.”
I assumed by ‘church’ you meant the Catholic Church. I don’t see the Catholic Church as being the same as the church was originally founded by the apostles.
Even so, Matthew was written by Matthew, not by the church. Likewise each other book in the NT has it’s own individual author. That is just a fact. I’m grateful to the Catholics for preserving what they did of their writings, but they don’t get credit for writing them in my book and I wish they had preserved more, and preserved them better.
“Second of all, there were tons and tons of spurious/apocryphal writings floating around in the 2nd century.”
And also there were people going about altering legitimate manuscripts too. When you consider that the vast majority of Biblical manuscripts date to the period AFTER all this, it makes it legitimate to question how pure the manuscripts we have really are. http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/1999GeeJ.html
“So how did we end up with the particular books we ended up with? ... By comparing the doctrine that was *in* those Scriptures with what those same bishops had always taught.”
By relying on the wisdom of men and a politicized process where there were many disagreements and debates, not on revelation from God.
“Whether you realize it or not, everytime you even use the word “Scriptures” you are relying on the authority of the Church that defined those Scriptures once and for all.”
No I’m not. I don’t consider the Catholic Church to have any authority to declare something as scripture or not as scripture. The word of God is the word of God independent of what Catholics say of it, for or against. I don’t need Catholic ‘authority’ to validate the Bible, or the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenant, or Pearl of Great Price. IMHO, the authority to declare something scripture or not rests in the living prophet and apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
“Now for some strange reason, you want to say that the Church apostasized early on, and that its teaching was not right on the Trinity. Yet you accept its teaching on the Scriptures.”
There is good reason to assert there was an apostacy, partly because the Bible says it would happen. If you want to read a good book or two on it, try these, the full text of each is online at the link:
THE GREAT APOSTASY
Considered in the Light of Scriptural and Secular History
by James E. Talmage
http://www.cumorah.com/etexts/greatapostasy.txt
and
Restoring the Ancient Church:
Joseph Smith and Early Christianity
by Barry Robert Bickmore
http://www.fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/
Also, we don’t accept the Catholics view of the Scriptures, we don’t hold the Bible to be perfectly infallible and complete, and we don’t accept the idea of a closed cannon. We don’t use a Catholic Bible, but the KJV. We also view it as more important to have a true and living prophet of God than to have the records of dead prophets. A living prophet can restore anything lost from historical records, but a Bible without a prophet is prone to being misinterpreted.
“If an Apostate Church decided wrong on the Trinity, then it decided wrong on the Scriptures as well,”
That doesn’t logical flow from the premise. Being wrong in some things doesn’t mean they must be wrong in every thing. The BoM testifies of the Bible and confirms the truth of it, it also helps to restore many of the plain teachings that have been lost.
“and you have no reason to consider the Gospel of St. John any more canonical than, say, the Shepherd of Hermas or the Gospel of Judas.”
You overlook that we have a living prophet of God and are not dependent on Catholic authority to validate anything.
“if the pagan Greeks got something right, bully for them!”
And if the early church imported false Greek ideas, shame on them.
“Really? The Church fell apart BEFORE the Gospels?”
No, before the Nicean creed and other creeds of that era. That is the ‘stuff’ I was talking of. Sorry for the confusion.
“And by the way, the Bible does say the Church is infallible. “For you are Peter.....and upon this rock [petra], I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” It also calls the church of the living God “the pillar and ground of the truth”.”
Neither of those say the church was infallible. You captialize ‘church’ in you quote from Matt 16, but that is wrong, it is a reference to the people following Christ, not the the organization they attach themselves to. Those individuals who know Jesus is the Christ by revelation (just as Peter knew it to be so) will not have the gates of hell prevail against them, meaning they will not go to hell after his life.
Also, the verse from 1Tim you reference describes the current state of the church, with no promise it would always remain like that. As the church adopted false teachings and changed the very ordinances of the gospel, it ceased to be ‘the church of the living God’.
All I know is what the Book says:
“you can’t judge the Church to be heretical, unless you yourself know what is heretical. But we maintain that you can’t actually know what is heretical without the Church.”
God the Father and Jesus Christ personally appeared to Joseph Smith and informed him that all the churches at that time had gone astray and called on him to restore the fullness of the gospel.
Do you really think someone should reject what Christ personally said to them if the Catholic Church disagrees? That would put the Catholic Church above Christ! Even if you don’t believe in that specific incident, you should at least be able to see in that how someone does not need the Catholic Church to know heresy from truth. If you don’t, you deny the reality of revelation and power of God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.