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."
“So pointing out differences in the 3 persons is not a denial of the trinity.”
The scriptures show the Father presides over the Son, there are therefore not co-equal as the creeds claim.
“You certainly won’t come across early writings claiming God the Father was a human being who conceived Jesus through intercourse with Mary.”
There is no doctrine of ours that claims the Father ever experienced mortality, and the virgin birth has always been our doctrine. You are spreading falsehoods about us.
““Show me where it states they are three persons in one being of one substance.”
well the first thing that comes to mind is “show where it doesn’t””
John 17
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, EVEN AS WE ARE ONE:
Are you going to seriously suggest that Christ was asking the Father to turn all his followers into a single being of one substance having several personages?
“They obviously worshipped “one” God, and they also worshipped 3 beings, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Yet they claimed these 3 beings were one God.”
And this does not conflict with our doctrines either. You are missing the point where our doctrines diverge and that is in HOW they are one, in what sense are they one God.
“The mormon boys informed me that the faith “died out” upon the death of the last apostle. I presumed they were referring to the Apostle John.
I asked them if they knew who Polycarp was? No. they didn’t.
Ignatius? No. Didn’t know him either.
Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John.”
Apostolic authority was gone when the apostles were gone. Polycarp and those that came after were not apostles and hence had no authority to lead the church or receive revelation for the church. We do not recognize them as authoritative sources of doctrine although what they wrote has historical interest as you can see in their writings over the centuries the gradual changes that took place as the church slowly fell into apostacy.
“The scriptures show the Father presides over the Son, there are therefore not co-equal as the creeds claim.”
I’m not sure what you mean by a claim to being “co-equal”, and I suspect we are not speaking the same language.
Maybe a good place to start would be you pointing out which phrases in which creeds you are referring to.
“There is no doctrine of ours that claims the Father ever experienced mortality, and the virgin birth has always been our doctrine. You are spreading falsehoods about us.”
I didn’t claim your belief is that the Father experienced “mortality” in the sense he experienced death.
It is my understanding that mormons believe the Father was once a human being - a man. Is this true or untrue?
I have also been informed mormons believe the Father had relations with Mary and conceived Jesus. True or untrue?
This information came from those who practiced the mormon faith.
“Are you going to seriously suggest that Christ was asking the Father to turn all his followers into a single being of one substance having several personages?”
of course not, and context is everything.
This was Christ’s prayer that his followers be united in faith after his departure.
He was comparing the unity that the trinity shares to the unity of faith in the Church. That is why He said he would send the paraclete after he went to the Father.
If I am to believe the mormon missionaries - this prayer of Christ was denied. The apostles must have been so incompetent? So lazy? such poor instructors, that the faith didn’t even survive one century.
“Apostolic authority was gone when the apostles were gone”
This simply is not true.
“Polycarp and those that came after were not apostles and hence had no authority to lead the church or receive revelation for the church.”
Again. Not true.
The apostles selected successors. The apostles traveled extensively and founded many churches.
They converted many - gentiles and jews to the faith and their disciples proceeded in the task of spreading the gospel.
These are the brave christians who were terribly persecuted by the bloodthirsty Roman emperors.
It is a shame their martyrdom and witness to the gospel would be denied.
“We do not recognize them as authoritative sources of doctrine although what they wrote has historical interest as you can see in their writings over the centuries the gradual changes that took place as the church slowly fell into apostacy.”
I much prefer the writings of early christians as providing reliable information regarding Christ, as compared to an 18th century glass-looker with a stone in his hat.
The mormon missionaries did not say the church “slowly” fell into apostasy.
They said it was dead and gone upon the death of the last apostle.
The books of scripture were not decided upon until long after that.
I am wondering why you have any regard whatsoever for the new testament.
whoops.
make that a 19th century glass-looker.
I am getting tired.
The baby has fallen back asleep...good night!
At the seed of Christianity, we have a promise that cannot be shaken. Our faith is not in men or human teachings, but in Christ Jesus, and we are given a seal of this in the Holy Spirit.
I did not grow up a follower of Christ, and spent most of my adult life actively fighting against Christianity.
But God is a merciful God, and He freed me from those bounds of sin. I have been sealed with the Holy Spirit, died to the world through Christ, and have seen the promises of God fulfilled though that same Spirit.
Mens words do not shake me. There are deeper seeds than theirs in my heart, and I have seen those seeds bear fruit. I affirm that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, Savior, Messiah, and rightious Lord. May God give me the strength to run the race well even unto the end.
I have had the privilege of meeting people from around the world who have come to Christ. We have been from different (or no) denomination, have had different native languages, and come from very different socio-economic backgrounds... yet the God through His Word has spoken to us equally. You speak of ‘what our teachers’ have taught us. Our teacher has been God, through His Word, tested by the Holy Spirit within a body of believers. He is the only good teacher.
You place much store in theologians and people. But men can only affect your body. There is One who has power over both your body and your soul.
The divisions you seek so hard to find are in your own heart. I do not say this to criticize you, but to remind you that there will be a judgment by One who sees the heart of men.
May Our Lord's peace and grace be with you, and may He lead you to paths of righteousness.
(Grig posted)As I hope you are observing, anti-Mormons are founded in defending several doctrines that didn’t exist among the apostles and early Christians. To do this they sneer and smear evidence from the early Christian leaders and the Bible that they can’t address on a factual basis.
Where have I ‘sneered or smeared evidence’? In each case I have attempted to post as much direct evidence as possible, so that people might see for themselves and judge what is truth.
How is it that when I talk of a priesthood of all believers after Christ, you bring up evidence from the periods before Christ (see your post 622 where you speak of Nachon)? Either this demonstrates gross misunderstanding on your part, or a deliberate disregard for truth. Now you speak of others ‘snearing and smearing’, when in fact you do the same through this last post.
For shame Grig.
If I have misappropriated evidence of any kind, please let me know and you will have my immediate apology.
“So, at the very least, we can agree that there were differing opinions as to the very nature of the Godhead way back then.
YES! It is called heresy! Earth to Reno!
“Now, what makes the creeds the right interpretation, especially in relation to John 17:22-23 & given the fact that no revelation was claimed for the creeds? They relied on their own wisdom.”
So you say that they relied on their own wisdom. You don’t
know that any more than the man in the moon! Ha!
“Are you really willing to base your whole beliefs on THEIR interpretation”
NO! Obviously! Your post makes it appear you can not look
past a preconceived idea that ignores historical context.
Reno, did you ever buy that systematic theology? The church
history volume? You would benefit greatly, if you really
want to understand these things. Otherwise, you are just going
in circles.
best,
ampu
OK, I respect your opinion, but how do you know the creeds weren’t heresy?
I will look at the systamatic theology that you talk about out of curiosity, but if this is what leads you to your beliefs & how you think, I’m dubious to say the least. Ever going to answer the question re: John 17:22-23?
“You: It was a factual, well referenced article on the single specific topic we were discussing.
No it wasn’t. “
Geez, why not just clap your hands over your ears and go ‘la la la I can’t hear you la la la’?
“I addressed the pertainent points as I said I would.”
It looks more to me like you didn’t understand what points were pertinent. Nor did you directly address anything said by the many non-Mormon scholars in the article I posted.
“Arrogant insults will get you nowhere.”
Challenging you to address the content of an article is neither arrogant or insulting.
“You: Of course, but what makes your POV any better than mine?
The Bible does.
You can’t just declare yourself right because you believe yourself right.
I declare the Bible to be right.”
It sounds like you fail to draw a distinction between the actual text of the Bible (what it says) and the interpretation you have been taught to attach to the text. Just because it is possible to create an interpretation of the Bible that supports the doctrines you accept doesn’t mean those doctrines are in fact correct or that they match what the writer intended you to take from it.
Our understanding of the scriptures is likewise consistent with our doctrine, so again, what makes your interpretation of it any better than ours? On what basis do you think someone should choose between two internally consistent faiths that conflict with each other?
“the jesus you declare to be the Christ is a false jesus, a created being and not the Eternal Divine Second Person of the Triune God.”
The trinity you declare is a false doctrine created by uninspired men with no authority from God and no access to revelation. Yes, we’ve already established we disagree, just repeating it over and over isn’t going to benefit anyone.
“Joseph Smith plagerized entire chapters of Isaiah and claimed they were given to him, and you know it....the writers of the NT cite the OT, not insert whole chapters claiming they came from them as Joey Smith did.”
You clearly have no idea what is in the BoM. There are lengthy quotations from Isaiah, and the prophet quoting him SAYS he is quoting it from Isaiah. There is no attempt to pass it off as anything other than that.
See for yourself:
1Nephi 19
23 ...but that I might more fully persuade them to believe in the Lord their Redeemer I did read unto them that which was written by the prophet Isaiah; for I did liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning.
24 Wherefore I spake unto them, saying: Hear ye the words of the prophet, ye who are a remnant of the house of Israel, a branch who have been broken off; hear ye the words of the prophet, which were written unto all the house of Israel, and liken them unto yourselves, that ye may have hope as well as your brethren from whom ye have been broken off; for after this manner has the prophet written.
2 Nephi 6:5 And now, the words which I shall read are they which Isaiah spake concerning all the house of Israel...
2 Nephi 11:8 And now I write some of the words of Isaiah, that whoso of my people shall see these words may lift up their hearts and rejoice for all men. Now these are the words, and ye may liken them unto you and unto all men.
2 Nephi 25:1 Now I, Nephi, do speak somewhat concerning the words which I have written, which have been spoken by the mouth of Isaiah. For behold, Isaiah spake many things which were hard for many of my people to understand; for they know not concerning the manner of prophesying among the Jews.
You have accused falsely.
Also, it was clearly not copied from the Bible. Of the 478 verses of Issiah quoted, the text of nearly half the verses differs from what is in the KJV. Those changes are legitimate translational difference when you compare those variation with existing Issiah manuscripts, not random alteration. For Joseph to deliberately craft something like that, this poor, uneducated farm boy would need access to several different Issiah manuscripts and have the ability to translate them. It would be silly to suggest that introducing random changes would produce such a result. You can read about the details of this here: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=2
“Anyone is free to live in deception by following those false books of Mormonism.”
Sneer and smear. Is that all you have?
“Because the Mormon jesus was “begotten” as Mormonism has taught from it’s inception, that the Mormon jesus was “begotten” as Bringem Young said, “In the same manner as any man begets any child”, by the Mormon god having sex with his celestial wives, and even taught that the Mormon god had sex with Mary too to produce the baby jesus.”
Instead of trying to tell me what my religion teaches, why don’t you actually listen to someone who has studied and live it far more than you have. Is there something wrong with a husband and wife having children? Is that ‘dirty’ and ungodly in your eyes? I think you would have a hard time support that idea from the scriptures. We belive that Heavenly Father is the Father of all spirits, it says so Heb 12:9.
Christ was begotten as a spirit in the begining, as a spirit he was Jehovah, the God of Isreal in the OT. When it was time for him to take on mortal flesh, Mary concieved by a miracle brought about by the power of the Holy Ghost. She was a virgin and had no sexual relations of any kind until after she gave birth to Christ. The BoM teaches a virgin birth as well:
1 Nephi 11
13 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white.
14 And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou?
15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.
16 And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God?
17 And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.
18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.
19 And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look!
20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.
21 And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!
Now we teach that the result of that miracle was that Christ was conceived of a virgin in such a way that he was literally the son of God, literally begotten of God even though there was no physical relationship. In modern terms, half his DNA coming from Mary, half from Heavenly Father. We also teach that everything that came after conception proceeded naturally, morning sickness, cravings, stretch marks, contractions, etc. etc. Our critics like to look at sermons about the literal sonship of Christ and take bits out of context to misrepresent them as a denial of the virgin birth. Don’t be mislead by such lies.
“In Christianity, “begotten” does not mean, “created” as Mormonism teaches, it refers to the Father sending the Son.”
We believe that begotten means begotten. Christ spirit was begotten of the Father in the beginning, his body was begotten by a miracle that caused a virgin to conceive his physical body as the literal, biological child of Heavenly Father.
“CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT, is the key. Those passages refer to the humanity of Christ, not His Deity.”
You say ‘context, context, context’ what you you give is interpretation, interpretation, interpretation. Nothing in and around the text of those passages imposes the distinction you assert, you are reading that in because doing so is required to make it conform to your doctrines. The Father presides over the Son, even to the end of the world:
1Cor 15
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Christ delivers up the kingdom to God the Father who shall rule over all, including Christ.
“The Father also refers to the Son as God.”’
The Father never said that Christ was HIS God, Christ said the Father IS his God, that puts the Father above the Son (which is what terms like Father and Son imply anyway).
“Wrong again. The Apostles taught the Eternal nature of Christ as the Eternal Second Person of the Triune God, as did the early church, specifically, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Athenagorus and many others who were contemporaries and disciples of John the Beloved and of Saint Paul.”
His eternal nature and membership in the Godhead are not at issue here, the manner in which he is one with the Father is the issue. Show me where in the Bible the apostles teach that they are three persons combined in to one being, show me where they discuss this ‘one substance’ claim. I’ve asked several times and looked for it myself. It is not there, the ideas come from man, not from the text of the scriptures.
“Once again, the dictionary does not define who is a Christian, God’s Word the Bible does.”
The dictionary defines the meaning of words, the word ‘Christian’ is correctly used to describe anyone who accept Christ as the Son of God and Savior. That is a fact and rejecting it just makes you look silly. God will judge which Christians followed Christ correctly what which went astray (not the theologians who created your doctrines), but that doesn’t alter the meaning of the word.
“Many heretical groups of whom Mormonism is in alignment with tried to call themselves “Christian” too, but found out upon death, just as Mormons will, that they placed their faith in a false god and a false jesus who can neither save nor ever existed.”
Oh, so you’ve take a little trip to the afterlife and back to see the fate of dead Mormons?
It is not too late for you to accept and follow God’s chosen prophets instead of rejecting them, and by extension rejecting Christ who called and sent them.
Was an answer given to this question? It's a biggie.
“For the record, I discern the doctrine of the Trinity in this single verse:”
That just it though, it isn’t stated there, you ‘discern’ it there. That is interpretation, and it is likely that how you have been taught plays in big role in what you discern from the scriptures.
“I’m not sure what you mean by a claim to being “co-equal”, and I suspect we are not speaking the same language.”
Could be. That phrase isn’t really part of our lexicon so I suggest those who use it and believe it be the ones to clarify what they mean by it. If they mean equal in power and authority, then I would agree, but not equal in dominion since the Father presides over the Son.
“It is my understanding that mormons believe the Father was once a human being - a man. Is this true or untrue?”
By human I took it as meaning mortal as we are now.
We believe that the Father has an physical, tangible body that is perfected and immortal. It is like the body we shall have after the resurrection and like the body Christ rose from the grave with. The Father is human in appearance (ie: humanity is literally in the image and likeness of God) and our spirit is begotten of Him. We have no idea of the biology of a perfected immortal body.
Christ went from being a pre-mortal spirit with no body (Jehovah) to mortal man having a mortal body (Christ) to being immortal and perfected as the Father is. Christ did all this without ever ceasing to be divine or perfect or sinless. We have no doctrine that says the Father also did such a thing. Some have speculated that based on taking John 5:9 very literally but it is not doctrine.
Given that orthodox Christians accept that Christ walked the earth being ‘fully man’, and given their ideas about the trinity, I have a hard time understanding their objections to the idea.
“I have also been informed mormons believe the Father had relations with Mary and conceived Jesus. True or untrue?”
Absolutely untrue. We believe in the virgin birth, always have, and the BoM teaches it as well.
“This information came from those who practiced the mormon faith.”
They were flat out wrong.
Reno,
The volume of systematic theology and the volume of
Church history are for your benefit in understanding
the issues you are raising on these threads. They
are the background information as well as sources
for basic answers to some of your questions.
Look, for years, people would say to me on FR threads,
“Yes, but have you read Atlas Shrugged?” Well, I
hadn’t. Finally, I realized it was worth reading
for my own edification (in a capitalist sense).
I did. I am suggesting to you that if you wish to
be conversant on these issues and have some depth
to your points, this is basic information you should
know. It is not an insult to you. It is very worthy
of the investment of your time. Most of the answers
to questions you raise here are there in one volume
you could refer to (and they are typically reference
books and not the kind of book you read cover to cover).
Second point... I do not draw my personal faith from
the creeds. At times, I sense you believe Christians’
faith revolves around creeds? I’ve yet to meet my
first “creedal Christian”.
Third point... John passage. It doesn’t say a word that
is contradictory to Christian belief. It has been discussed
by others extensively already on the mormon threads. It
seems pointless for me to re-post that which is available
for all to see.
Have a good day,
ampu
PS - as an aside, included in the courses I took in seminary
a gem called, History of Doctrine. We took each major Christian
doctrine and traced it through from the OT through the time
of Christ, through the Church Fathers and up until the
year I graduated. Then we would go back and take the next
Christian doctrine and do it all over. Then the next. It was
a treat!
What I realized is that some doctrines are arrived at because
we know what cannot be true (from scripture) and what the
possible correct answers are. That is where original languages
are often very useful.
Sometimes we hold a doctrinal position because out of all
the possible choices, one answers the most questions and
raises the fewest problems.
“of course not, and context is everything.
This was Christ’s prayer that his followers be united in faith after his departure.”
He prayed that they be one JUST AS HE AND THE FATHER ARE ONE. The context clearly demonstrates that Christ was using his oneness with the Father as the model for the oneness that he wanted to exist among his followers. Christ and the Father of of one heart, one mind, one purpose etc. etc. They are not ‘one being’.
“If I am to believe the mormon missionaries - this prayer of Christ was denied. The apostles must have been so incompetent? So lazy? such poor instructors, that the faith ddn’t even survive one century.”
People have their freedom to choose and the poor choices of one person are not the fault of anyone else. Do you take Judas’ betrayal as a sign that Christ was deficient somehow? Do you think that only bad parents have kids that go astray? How about you try praying the every Mormon in the world convert to your church, do you think that will override our freedom to choose for ourselves?
““Apostolic authority was gone when the apostles were gone”
This simply is not true.”
Someone who has apostolic authority is an apostle.
““Polycarp and those that came after were not apostles and hence had no authority to lead the church or receive revelation for the church.”
Again. Not true.”
And you base your claim on what exactly? Did Polycarp claim to be an apostle? Did he assert that he had the right to receive revelation on behalf of the whole church? Did he claim to have received any such revelation? If so why is not in the NT?
“The apostles selected successors.”
Yes, men like Paul who where then ordained as apostles.
“The mormon missionaries did not say the church “slowly” fell into apostasy.
They said it was dead and gone upon the death of the last apostle.”
They oversimplified things. The loss of apostolic authority is certainly a defining event in the apostacy and it did effectively sunder the church from God but the church began falling away before the apostles were all gone. Much of the NT records the efforts of the apostles to combat the growing apostacy taking hold, and even after they were gone the remaining organization strayed further and further away from the truth. Given what is going on in some Protestant faiths, I think it is still going on in some places.
“I am wondering why you have any regard whatsoever for the new testament.”
Because they were written by apostles and prophets of God.
See post #657 ...
“Grig, with all due respect, the text is clear.”
Yes, and nowhere does it say in any wording that one becomes endowed with any kind of priesthood simply by being a believer. It also clearly lays out that one must be called and ordained as Aaron was and give several examples of church leaders (including Christ) ordaining individuals.
Be honest with yourself and look at what I posted objectively. The whole idea never even existed before the Reformation when it became necessary to establish some kind of claim to authority separate from the authority claimed by the Catholics.
I have no fear of standing before God to be judged, I hope to see you there too, and I hope that by that time you will have ceased to put your faith in the interpretations of men and accept the true prophets that God has called in these latter days.
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.