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."
Great question Osage. the answer, absolutely not! I base my beliefs on study, reasoning, & taking it before the Lord as described above. Therefore I don’t have to rely on my own intellect or that of others for the basis of my beliefs. Really, isn’t that the only SURE way to find truth?
Good question.
Clarification is badly needed in this dialogue of yours. There are two levels of "equality." On the one hand, there is pre-eminence...meaning that a president of the US is deemed as "greater" than a "mere" bureaucrat. But frankly, we in the West no longer primarily think in aristocratic mindsets. We think more in egalitarian ways. A bureaucrat's life is of no less value or sanctity than a president's life (no matter how much you may harbor vs. say, the IRS).
Anyway your convo begs for clarification as to which point. I mean, when Christ referenced His Father as being "greater," He wasn't saying he was more of a god than He was (I mean that's like saying someone is more "pregnant" than another); or that His Father was already God whereas Christ was some mere God wannabe.
And besides, when it comes to pre-eminence in our relationship with Jesus our Lord, who was the Original Servant in this relationship? (Why, He was). Does that mean we are "greater" than Him just because He served us first?)
Grig says: Christ said...he was not ‘good’ but there was none good but God the Father...
An outright lie because YOU are the one who inserts "Father" into the text when it's not there. (Go ahead, look up Matthew 19:17; Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19). Instead, what Jesus said is that there is "No one...good except God alone." (Lk 18:19 and Mark 10:18) Matthew says "There is only One who is good" (Matt 19:17).
Why is this distinction important? Well you, Mr. Grig, are the one who presumes that Jesus doesn't see Himself as that "One." Jesus often talked about Himself in a third-person sort of way, often referring to Himself as "the Son of man." People who do that are usually at both extremes...either extremely prideful like the "Jimmy" character on one Steinfeld show; or extremely humble like Jesus Christ.
Jesus simply asks "Why do you call me good?" to question the assumption that this man he was talking to thinks men in general are good. He was directly challenging the false worldview of this man about men; He was NOT impugning His own character (I mean you're not going to tell us Jesus was wicked or evil, are you?) If not, then you are deliberately twisting the meaning of this passage to try to pile up proof texts. Stop it. Repent. I don't think the Son of God appreciates hearing your opinion that "he was not 'good'"...such statements are not beneficial to your short and long-term spiritual health.
Christ said that God the Father was his God.
Well, yes, a forsaken Son citing an Old Testament passage on the cross was one point in time and eternity where the previous and ensuing unity of the "Godhead" was disrupted, as also when he descended into hell. But Jesus is only defined by the cross and by his descent into hell.
Christ said he did not know the date of the second coming, that only the Father knew.
So you're now telling us that if your earthly father knows something you don't know, that you're a dog? Or an animal? Or something less than the substance of humanity? (Try again) Besides, it's almost like, Grig, you've deliberately avoided reading Phil. 2:6-7: "Christ Jesus, Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness."
Well, oops, Grig, there goes your wonderment as to where to find "Where do the Scriptures even reference...'substance'?"...the early English word given to the discussion of the nature of God was "substance." I suppose "nature" would have been fine also.
I mean, Grig, if you were a prince in my kingdom and I sent you to another part of the world to save some wolfpack from species extinction; and you got down on all fours and howled so that they would identify with you...that would be an example of royalty not grasping his throne--not grasping royal rule, but becoming like a wolf to save the wolves. And if, for some reason, as you were howling, you failed to bark out the time I as King would send you back for a second time, it wouldn't make you any less of a Prince; any less human; any less equal to the King. Everybody back at the castle would still regard both of us as royal rulers.
The apostles taught that Christ increased in wisdom and in favor with God...
OK, Grig, let's try this same application to your family that you're trying to impose upon the Son of God these many years after his run on earth as Jesus. Let's say you have a young son. You tell me, "Hey, C, isn't it great the way he has increased in wisdom and favor with me?" So my response, if I was imitating you, would be, "Wow, G, what are you saying? Are you telling me that because you don't see him as equal to you in wisdom and grace that your son is less than human...that he's still a human wannabe?"
And you say, "When did I say that?"
"Well, says I, (in my best Grig voice), aren't you saying that because he is less mature than you are in wisdom and favor, that he is less than you--less equal than you?"
"Well, again, when did I say that? My son has the same status as a human being that I do. He has the same inalieble rights that I do. He has the same sanctity that I do. He is humanity, like I am. We are one as the same family. We are the same flesh & blood substance."
I mean, look at humanity the way God does...this "equality" measurement you have is topsy-turvy to God's idea. In God's thinking, the 99 are left to search for the one. The least of these is greatest. The last is first. The leader is servant to all. You somehow assume that humility is the mark of only some lowly beast. I mean, it's almost like you expected the diapered Jesus to come out hurling lightning bolts at demons when He decidedly came as a suffering servant.
and that he was exalted after his resurrection...
I have a Biblical quiz for you? Whose power raised Jesus? The Father's? The Holy Spirit's? Jesus' own power? (Interesting question, wouldn't you say?) I have the feeling based on how you've worded everything else, that you assume it was the Father's power. Right? Well if you quote any number of Paul's passages (1 Cor; 2 Cor; Eph; Rom; Col.; Gal; and even several from Luke in Acts and also several verses from John 5) you would be correct.
But guess what? The power of the Holy Spirit also raised Jesus. (see Romans 1:4-5; 8:11; 1 Pet. 1:18; 3:18; 1 Th. 4:17). And guess what again? Jesus prophesied that He would raise his body: "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." (John 2:19, 21) "...I lay down my life--only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again." (John 10:17-18) Three-in-one resurrection power. (Sounds trinitarian to me)
...and that he was an heir of God, inheriting power glory and dominion from the Father.
More foundationless assumptions. Question: Do you have to be poor, penniless, and powerless to be an heir? I mean, can't an heir be someone who is just as wealthy as the one transferring the estate?
The scriptures are clear that the Son obeys the Father, not the other way around, the Father presides over Christ.
Look at Phil. 2:8: "And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death--even death on a cross." Look at Heb. 5:8: "Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered..."
So, according to Scripture, Jesus not only obeyed the Father, he obeyed death. He obeyed the cross. He obeyed suffering. He became our servant in death. He became our servant on the cross. He became the suffering servant. He became our servant-substitute in death; He became our servant-substitute on the cross; he became the suffering servant-substitute for us.
So question time: Does Jesus' obedience to the cross make him lower than it? Does the fact that death and the cross presided over Jesus make the cross an implied object of worship?
What about in marriage? Wives are supposed to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22, 24). Does than mean, according to your line of thinking, that women are "less equal" than men? Isn't the fact that husbands, being that they are to give up themselves for their wives (Eph. 5:25), mean that men play the role of servant-leaders? Does that servanthood & sacrifical submission make them less than their wives in any way?
I meant to say, "But Jesus is NOT only defined by the cross..."
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. II Cor 2:6-16
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. - Matthew 22:29
He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. - John 12:48
His eyes [were] as a flame of fire, and on his head [were] many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. – Revelation 19:12-13
I [am] he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. – Revelation 1:18
For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. - Col 3:3
Are you willing to base many or most of your beliefs on a man named Joseph Smith?
What part of no is wiggling? My beliefs are based on what I stated. Perhaps a better question would have been, do I believe in the teachings of Joseph Smith? Yes. But the basis for my beliefs is not Joseph Smith.
I will warn you, I’ve seen your postings before & if your intent is to get me in the sandbox, try it on someone else b/c I’m not game. If you would like to have a reasoned discussion, I’m all for it. Deal?
What are you going to do next....turn me into the police?
LOL!!
Are you really willing to base your whole beliefs on THEIR interpretation?
I proceeded to ask you....the following.
Are you willing to base your whole beliefs on a man, named Joseph Smith?
It's my position that your beliefs are GROUNDED, FOUNDED and GROOMED to Joseph Smith's interpretations. Am I wrong?
After all he IS the founder, the creator of mormonism...Isn't he?
As stated my warning was based on your track record w/ others in the past. It seems as though the sandbox is where you’re headed. Have fun.
reno,
“I too, match those things that I learn w/ the scriptures & find no disparities whatsoever. The Godhhead for example, there are many scriptures such as John 17:22-23 that match up very well w/ my beliefs. “
Therein is where you go off the cliff friend.
You take what you know of Mormonism and go to the Bible
to try to find verses that support it. Exactly backwards...
Even Rev. Sun Myung Moon goes to the Bible with his belief
that he is the reincarnation of Christ and finds
scriptural support. He prays too, btw.
Telescopes have a correct end to view through. There is also
a correct way to approach scripture. It is the difference
between Isogesis and Exogesis.
The Godhead is not what Mormonism teaches Reno.
I’ve spoken in generalities to you Reno because of the
questions you’ve asked. I’ve waited to see what you would
do with what you were given here on these threads. So far,
it appears to me the answer is, “not a lot”.
Heat and kitchen come to mind..........
Thanks for that......
IMHO you do exactly what you accuse me of doing, not looking at all the available works & then working the process to find truth. Can I conclude that your feeling is that the bible is the word of God & that’s it? What if there really is more, would you know, would you look into it?
I can only conclude that you fail to answer my questions b/c you realize there are contradictions in your argument such as w/ John 17:22-23. Could that be kind of like trying to find verses in the bible that support your argument to the exclusion of all others?
I’ve asked you to cite specifics where my posts contradict the bible & all you can come up w/ is that you wanted to see what I would do? To each his own. Is that how you go about systematic theology? I don’t think that’s what it teaches. Systematic theology is not the focus on one theory to the exclusion of all others in the deliberative process.
At this point it would seem we’ve reached a point where this will be a one sided conversation w/ me answering all & you answering nothing. Not quite what I was looking for. Thanks anyway.
He needed Mary to bring Christ into the world, he created Adam and Eve as male and female, married them and commanded them to have kids before the Fall happened.
Does that make you a blowhard because you can’t provide a legitimate critique on your own?
First, let me set the stage. The verse which follows is spoken by Jesus to His disciples just before His ascension, thus we may discern that this promise is an everlasting promise indeed!
Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. [King James Version]American Standard Version
Bible in Basic English
Darby's English Translation
Douay Rheims
Noah Webster Bible
Weymouth New Testament
World English Bible
Young's Literal Translation
From the teaching by Jesus, in His words, He tells His disciples and us down through the ages that He, as He is about to ascend into Heaven, will never leave them or us or forsake them or us even unto the end of the world. By His Holy Spirit He has kept this promise. The founding principle of Mormonism as taught by Joseph Smith and the Mormon church ever since Smith’s time is that somehow this promise failed and God had to ’restore’ what Jesus promised He would never allow to His Church. That ‘restoration necessary’ is the greatest lie and therefore contradiction to the Bible one can dig from Mormonism.
Oh really? At what point in time do you think that we think Christ was not divine?
Now you are twisting what I said. I did not say Mormons don't claim Jesus is Divine. I said, rightly, that Mormons preach a false jesus who is a created being, with a beginning, who was created as a spirit being by the Mormon father god by having celestian sex with one of his many celestial wives. Please try not to misrepresent what I say.
“The Trinity was believed and taught from the beginning.” That’s not what the historical record shows.
Of course it shows that.
The idea of there being 3 persons in one being or one substance is not found in the scriptures or earliest Christian writings.
Of course it is. The Apostles and the early church believed and taught it. In fact it took several councils and many, many years to actually codify it. If it was clearly taught from the start and so widely accepted, it shouldn’t have taken more than one afternoon. It was a matter of hot debate, controversy, and even violent disagreement.
Only because of the opposition from cults and heretical groups such as the Arians and Gnostics who are the forerunners of Mormonism. See, Mormon heresies are not new at all, Satan keeps recycling the same old lies. “You are making the mistake of confusing the coining of the term, “trinity”, which codified the doctrine” No, I’m looking for evidence in the scriptures of the specific ideas in the creeds unique to trinity and not seeing them. “We have Ignatius, Athenagorus, Polycarp, Justin Martyr and the Church fathers teaching the Triune Nature of God from the Scriptures just as the Apostles did.” The apostles and the earliest of church fathers did not teach of three persons in one being of one substance. There is overlap between subordinationalism and trinity in that both hold there to be a Father, Son and Holy Ghost as individual persons, and that they are one God, but how they are one is the difference. Statements asserting the ideas common to both can not legitimately be claimed to be statements in support of the trinity, you need statements asserting the unique aspects of it but such statements don’t show up for some time down the road. The article I posted reference many non-Mormon scholars who evaluated what they said and concluded that subordinationalism, NOT the trinity was initially the orthodox view. “Greek philosophy holds no such concept at all.” You are harming your credibility. “Wikipedia is not credible at all, any idiot and most do, can write anything they want there.” Look a little closer, that wasn’t Wikipedia. Instead of trying to shoot the messenger, deal with the facts.
“The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.”
And because I fear God, I have no reason to fear his judgment.
“So far, you have quoted extensively (though very selectively... single sentences on the most part) from early believers, and have made repeated reference to your ‘apostles’, councils, and approval of ‘prophetic’ statements by men.”
I’ve quoted scripture, the word of God, both ancient and modern, all from God’s prophets and apostles.
“I have referenced Christ and the word of God.”
and then read things into it not in the text.
“Which of us has put their trust in men, and which in Jesus Christ?”
I’m sure we won’t agree on that now, but we will some day.
“It does not say a ‘priesthood of all believers’, true.”
It also doesn’t say that one has priesthood simply because they are a believer. You interpret those verses to mean that, but it is not stated and it is not the only way to interpret those verses.
“It talks of a priesthood made up of all who have been given “new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead”.”
1 Pe 2:4-5 talks of the church (spiritual house), it being composed of believers (living stones) and it (the church) also having the priesthood of God. It is logically flawed to go from that to concluding that believers all have the priesthood just because they believe.
“Each believer in Christ is called by God”
I’m talking about being specifically called to the priesthood by revelation, as was Aaron some time AFTER he was a believer in God.
“This is clearly talking about ordination by God of a HIGH PRIEST, not a priest. He then goes on to talk about how Christ fulfills this role.”
“And thou shalt put them upon Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him; and shalt anoint them, and consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office.” (Ex 28:41)
Ex 40:15 And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office:
So, in other words, a high priest is ordained the same as a priest (ie: Aaron). Hardly surprising, why should one priesthood holder need ordination and others not? I also posted NT verses about elders and others being ordained. There is no exemption from ordination specified for any office, even apostles were ordained.
“This type of cheap debating trick to try to discredit others is not how one arrives at truth. Kindly stop trying to sow doubt and confusion by such ungodly methods. Lies and confusion are the tools of Satan, not God.”
No attempts to lie, deceive or confuse here. Just a poor mortal trying to express himself as clearly and honestly as he can in spite of his imperfection.
“Once again I ask you... are you deliberately trying to sow confusion, or are you truly so blind that you cannot see what has been freely given?”
I am deliberately trying to impart the truth of God to you. I can see you POV, but in all honesty I don’t accept it as correct.
“Understanding scripture requires the Holy Spirit. If you have hardened your heart so much that you can no longer hear His voice, then there is little use continuing this discussion.”
I have sought the confirming witness of the Holy Ghost in these things by praying to God in the name of Christ for it. God has answered me, I hear his voice and follow as best I can.
She is not a member of the Godhead, only the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are. We do not worship her or pray to her, in truth we hardly know anything more than she exists.
Oh, so you’ve take a little trip to the afterlife and back to see the fate of dead Mormons?
I don't have to, the Bible says what the fate of those who follow a false jesus and false prophets is.
Philippians 3:
18 For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: 19 whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame—who set their mind on earthly things.
2 Peter 2
1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does[a] not slumber.
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.