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."
Noted...
Thanks-
Maybe the poster believes the bible as it's written.
Here...
Revelation: 22:18..."IF anyone.. adds anything to what is written here...God shall add them to the plagues described in His book."
Perhaps you could place that in your system of theology and take it for what it says?
I dunno.....just seems like you really don't do what you say you do....
All the added verses and changes to Revelations done by Joe Smith in his ‘new translation of the King James Bible are considered ‘restored’ don’tchaknow! Bwahahaha, it takes maroons.
I'm at a giant loss to understand the veil, the shadow that shields those that cannot see it. But, I try my best to ask questions to prick the minds of those that are, I believe, deceived....
Very few men/women will admit to being wrong. Let alone wrong in a spiritual sense.
I only hope and pray that maybe some readers here...and some mormon posters have searched their hearts and minds...and come to know the truth.
That is my hope and prayer......
Old Mountain man,
I was asked to point to a place where another
poster had answered the question and just
say ditto. I did. I have described elsewhere
why I didn’t make a “critique” of my own.
ampu
“Clarification is badly needed in this dialogue of yours.”
Very likely.
“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 I didn’t mean it that way either, Christ has his godhood from the beginning. At that time however Christ had a mortal body, not a perfected immortal glorified body like the Father. More importantly, Christ is part of the Father’s dominion, the Father is not part of Christ’s dominion. The Father presides over the Son and so is greater than the Son in that sense.
“An outright lie because YOU are the one who inserts “Father” into the text”
Oh come on, it was a paraphrase, not a quote, and the paraphrase represents how I view it’s meaning. Christ objected to being called good and directed that compliment as properly being given to ‘God’. In the context of the verse we take that as refering to the Father.
“I mean you’re not going to tell us Jesus was wicked or evil, are you?”
Of course not. Christ was humble and he was to glorify the Father, not himself.
“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.”
I was talking of what he said AFTER he rose from the dead, no longer in hell, no longer dead. (John 20:17)
“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)”
No, I’m saying that the Father knowing it and the Son not knowing it demonstrates that they are not co-equal in terms of their knowledge, the Father is superior to the Son in that respect.
“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.””
The KJV renders it quite differently: “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him”
In other words, Christ didn’t consider being like the Father to diminish or take anything away from the Father, so he came to earth as a lowly mortal, obeyed his Father perfectly to the end of his life, and because he lived a sinless life the Father highly exalted him.
“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.”
Boy that is really stretching it Human nature and human substance are not the same thing. Taking on the nature of a servant has nothing to do with the ‘one substance’ claims of the trinity, it is about his mortal status, his duty to serve mankind and his obligation to submit to the authority of others.
“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”
Are you saying Christ only pretended to be a mortal man? That he was just faking it to trick us into following him?
“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?””
I actually do have a young son, he impresses me every day in many ways as he grows in many ways. Of course I see him as fully human, but I don’t see him as my equal in every way. I am a mature adult, he is not, I have wisdom and knowledge and experience he does not yet have, I preside over him as the head of this family, he does not preside over me. Can you deny that we are unequal in those areas?
Likewise, there are aspects where Christ and the Father are equal (power, glory, perfection) and other aspects where they are not equal. The declaration of them being co-equal in the trinitarian sense has never been presented to me as being limited to only some aspects.
“Three-in-one resurrection power. (Sounds trinitarian to me)”
Or that they all played a role in it. Consider a man who wants a building built. He give the money and plans to a contractor, the contractor goes out and hires workers who build it. The workers, the contractor who hired them, and the man who paid for it can all say they built it.
“More foundationless assumptions.”
Rom. 8: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
How can we be joint-heirs with Christ, if Christ is not an heir of God, how can Christ be an heir of God without receiving something? How can we be glorified together with Christ as join-heirs if Christ is not receiving glory as an heir of God?
James 2: 5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
How do we be a heir of the kingdom that is promised us without receiving power and dominion within that kingdom? If these are not what we receive as join-heirs with Christ, what do we (and Christ) receive?
“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?”
The cross never told Jesus to do this or do that, it was just some inanimate wood. Christ did not obey the cross, he obeyed his Father’s will. Sadly, too many Christians so seem to make it an object of worship.
“Actually, I study the bible in it’s entirety & do so often. Not just certain verses. “
If this is true, it would be reflected in the depth of your
posts. It isn’t, frankly. Nor have I interacted with a Mormon
on FR yet who knows how to study the Bible. Not one. This leads
them further into many errors. But then they don’t need to
study the Bible. They already know what is true because of
their feelings.
You can rightly conclude that I believe the Bible is the
Word of God and none other.
Reno, you can believe whatever you wish about why I haven’t
answered your questions about creeds or the John passage.
It simply doesn’t concern me and I’ve explained it for anyone
who was interested in the reason. And I have made suggestions
to you so that you can get your questions answered.
There are no contradictions in John 17, btw.
I don’t think you’ve answered any questions yet Reno. Why
do you say it is one sided? I think you just don’t like
the answers I provided.
best,
ampu
I’ll take your attempted slight as sheer ignorance. Not necessarily stupidity, just ignorance. Perhaps you can get together w/ Ampu & discuss systematic theology, it might prevent further embarrassment.
Reno,
You are correct about the warnings in Revelation only applying to Revelation.
ampu
“I don’t have to, the Bible says what the fate of those who follow a false jesus and false prophets is.”
Boy, are you in for a shock.
Then just answer why Joseph Smith added so many words to the book of Revelation in the JST "version" of the Bible.
Good point. But is there a difference between adding & restoring? Also, the warning has to do w/ man adding. What if the Lord wanted to add or restore? Could he do so through a prophet? Is He bound by that warning? Remember even though Moses produced the Ten Commandments, they were the Lords words & at his behest.
Restoring ... like those fabricated prophesies of Joe coming ‘in these latter days?’ ... As add-ons to Genesis Chapter 50?
Just asking....as it seems either coordinated or very coincidental.
I most certainly realize when the Book of Revelations was written. And I can certainly attest to my maybe average intelligence...and I will admit to ignorance on certain topics on occasion...but I asked...and the person I asked said I wasn't on this point. Ha!
So...do you know HOW the book of mormon was translated? Please explain these magic "glasses" to me....And how often were they used? Were they in constance use by Smith...Were they ever used earlier for other "things"? Was he ever "called" on these "glasses"? Did he ever claim to use "seer stones"?
And the final arrow from my quiver tonight how do you justify the re-write of the Book of Revelations by J. Smith...considering your previous comment?
Many Catholics consider all other branches of Christianity cults.
And then, many Catholics are excepting and do not condemn other religions like some of the Southern Baptist folks I have met.
Many Catholics consider all other branches of Christianity cults.
And then, many Catholics are accepting and do not condemn other religions like some of the Southern Baptist folks I have met. :)
“And the final arrow from my quiver tonight how do you justify the re-write of the Book of Revelations by J. Smith...considering your previous comment?”
The same way many Catholics might accept you as a Christian and not a cultist.
My thanks for your time Grig.
May the God of grace grant you insight into His word, and free you from your bondage.
So, that promise & warning in Revelations was strictly for the book(or scroll as it were) of Revelations.
Then just answer why Joseph Smith added so many words to the book of Revelation in the JST "version" of the Bible.
Good point. But is there a difference between adding & restoring? Also, the warning has to do w/ man adding. What if the Lord wanted to add or restore? Could he do so through a prophet? Is He bound by that warning? Remember even though Moses produced the Ten Commandments, they were the Lords words & at his behest.
Well ... first of all, there is only the LDS claim ... apart from all Christians ... that anything was lost from any scriptures ... let alone from Revelations.
For the LDS to make such a claim, ... it is only to be expected that the claim be proven. Demonstrate exactly what was lost from the scriptures, when and how.
The rather feeble argument that it's possible doesn't prove anything. If you claim to have the authority to restore ... then you should be able to prove your claim.
When Jesus came and prompted the addition of new scripture ... He demonstrated His authority by His miraculous works which were acknowledged by all familiar with Him, whether friend or foe.John 14:11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.If God wished again to add (or restore) to His scriptures ... it would be expected that He would demonstrate authority in the one (prophet or other) assigned to the task.
Also note that even though Moses presented the Ten Commandments (along with the remainder of the OT Law) ... he had no authority to add to it.
Listen, when the Lord wanted to add a message, he started anew. 2 Samuel followed 1 Samuel. 2 Chronicles followed 1 Chronicles. When the Corinthians needed an additional message, it was 2 Corinthians. Same with the Thessalonians. Same with Timothy. On and on.
Just as the Holy Spirit guided men's words in their testimony (Matt 10), the Holy Spirit was promised to bring recall to Jesus' words in the minds & recordings of men.
What people don't understand with the New Testament is just how often it was recorded piecemeal in documents within several hundred years after they were recorded. IOW, it would be like somebody reviewing everything you said from one source--FREEPER archives--but dispersing EVERYTHING you said in other documents in circulation.
Even if the archives were lost, if all the other docs were rounded up, we could re-construct what you said originally.
IOW, it wouldn't ultimately matter (in terms of where we are now in history) if bits & pieces had lost (which they weren't). But again, let's assume worst case...that bit & pieces of the NT were stripped away every century for, let's say 10 centuries.
The fact is, there are enough historical documents where you can go and find scriptural quotations to reconstruct the NT in every essential essence, especially doctrine. (Now, there are some of Paul's letters that have not been found...for example, I believe they think Paul wrote 4 letters to the Corinthians). But that is a different matter than bits & pieces being allegedly stripped away. Therefore, that content hasn't been lost; therefore you don't need a "restoration"--I mean, Joseph didn't give us 3 Corinthians and 4 Corinthians.)
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.