Book of Mormon is Christian?

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by Don Layton:
Our doctrine differs, but there is only one Jesus. He is the great Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, the promissed Messiah, the Redeemer of the World, and the Mediator of the New Covenant.

"In bearing the testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckly spoke of those outside the church who say, Latter Day Saints don't believe in 'the traditional Christ'. 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whoom I speak'. - LDS Church News (week ending 6/20/98, pp7)

"It is true that many of the Christian churches worship a different Jesus Christ than is worshipped by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" LDS Seventy, Bernard P. Brockbank (The Ensign, May 1977, pp26)

It's true. The Jesus of Christianity and the Jesus of Mormonism are very different.

For instance, Mormonism teaches that Jesus is the literal, physical child of Elohim and the spirit brother of Lucifer, while Christianity teaches that Christ is eternally pre-existant in both being and in diety and Creator of all things.

Brigham Young taught in Journal of Discourses 14:71-72 that there are many different redeemers while Christianity teaches that Christ and Christ alone is our redeemer and mediator.

Mormonism teaches that Jesus was a polygamist. There is no such Biblical or historical evidence to support such a claim.

In "The Moral Messiah", Bruce McConkie teaches that "Jesus kept the commandments of his father and thereby worked out his own salvation, and also set an example as to the ways and means where by all men must be saved", while Christianity teaches that Christ is sinless by His very nature, thereby not needing salvation. Christianity also teaches that Christ's substitutionary death on the cross and subsequent resurection are the only means by which man can attain salvation.

By the way, if Christ had already become a god in his pre-exsistance, as McConkie teaches earlier in that text, why did he need to be saved?

Journal of Discourses 6:95-96 teaches that Christ sinned while on Earth (which, BTW, would seem to contradict McConkie's teaching that Christ followed God's commands, doesn't it?), while Christianity teaches that, while Christ took on a human nature in addition to His divine nature, and therefore could have sinned, He didn't. Otherwise, he would not have been the spotless Lamb and his sacrifice on our behalf would have been worthless.

In the LDS tract, "What the Mormons Think of Christ", it's taught that Mormonism teaches that "Christians so often speak of Christ's blood and it's cleansing power. Much of what is to be believed is so palpably false that to believe it is to lose one's salvation". The tract goes on to explain that "Many go so far as to pretend, at least, to believe, that if we confess Christ with our lips and avow that we accept him as our personal saviour, we are thereby saved. His blood, without any other action than mere belief, they say, makes us clean.

Christianity, on the other hand, teaches that to confess with you lips and believe in your heart on the Lord Jesus Christ is precisely how we are saved and that there is no other act than faith in His shed blood that makes us clean.

Mormonism teaches that it's the shedding of a man's own blood that makes him clean, while Christ and Christ alone is the only one who can save.

Clearly we are talking about two different Jesuses. Your own people, Gordon Hinckly and Seventy, Bernard P. Brockbank admit as much.

You say "our doctrine differs, but there is only one Jesus" as though these differences are trivial, but, Don, if you're not talking about the eternally pre-exsistant, Author of Creation, spotless lamb of God, singular Source of salvation Jesus, then you're not really talking about Jesus at all.

Forgive me if you have previously discussed this.

We have (or at least I tried to. She won't answer)

Also please inform me if we are applying similar standards for Joseph and Biblical prophets.

I don't see any distinction made by either LDS doctrine, the Bible or Smith himself.

Is not the Father and the Son of "one substance"?

Yes, but two disticnt persons.

Oh good grief! Alma was written before Jesus came in the flesh. The D&C was given afterward.

Doesn't matter. Here, you have two works claiming to define Mormon doctrine which contradict each other.

The order in which they were written has nothing to do with the fact that, logically, they cannot both be true.

One says "spirit". One says "flesh and bone". Which one is correct and why hasn't LDS removed the wrong conclusion?

Fallacious fallacy. LDS are not inerrantists.

Doesn't matter. I still don't see that example in the Bible or, as far as I'm aware, in Mormon doctrine.

This would be an assumption on your part. I have studied many hours of Evangelical AND LDS theologies. I personally believe that the LDS faith is historically more in alignment with Chritianity than any other system of belief. You will certainly disagree.

I do disagree for the simple fact that there are no outside archeological or historical sources to support any of the claims of Joseph Smith or historical Mormonism, while there are many that support Christianity.

Have you ever considered what Origen, Tertullian and others believed in regard to doctrines such as the preexistence, the divine nature of man, the nature of God and the Godhead, among other topics. If the LDS are off base in regard to these things, so then were many of the early Christians.

I agree with you to a point. There are examples of gnosticism, docetism and others heresies that crept their way into the fledgling church. While they may still be around in one form or another, they're considered heresy by the church at large.

The point here, however is that we're talking about the fallacies of LDS doctrine, not the early Christian church.

If you would like to discuss difficulties in early Christian church teaching, I and many others here would love to meet you in another thread. Until then let's stick to this one subject.

Don, I didn't answer your questions about the Aaronic or Melchizdek priesthoods because they require a lengthy explaination and I'm kind of on a schedule this morning.

I will get back to you, though. If I forget, which I sonetimes do, please feel free to remind me.

Mike

 

[Eladar]

If Christ was before Abraham, as He claimed to be, then surely He must have manifested Himself to other nations beside the Jews, or other nations, including the Jews, must have derived their religious systems and ideas from some common source." (Lundy, Monumental Christianity, p. 98). "

There is faulty logic here. God has written his truths in our heart, and any man who seeks it will find it. This is why many religious systems are similar. It has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of physical manefestations.

When it comes to Joseph Smith, he does not pass God's test for being a prophet.

 

[Chemnitz]

Irrelevant conclusion. LDS are not bound to the post second and third century, non-Biblical theories of Closed Cannon and innerancy.

How convenient. I guess that means you can make up your scripture as you go.

For the umpteenth time, if this truth of yours is really revealed to you by God, why does so much of Mormonism contradict the Bible?

Does God not read His own book? Can He not make up His own mind?

Don responds:
Fallacious fallacy.

That is a legitimate question. Your going to have to answer the question and stop dodging the question.

 

[Fatherof4]

Smoke_Eater:
"In bearing the testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckly spoke of those outside the church who say, Latter Day Saints don't believe in 'the traditional Christ'. 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whoom I speak'. - LDS Church News (week ending 6/20/98, pp7)

"It is true that many of the Christian churches worship a different Jesus Christ than is worshipped by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" LDS Seventy, Bernard P. Brockbank (The Ensign, May 1977, pp26)

Don Replies:
I nearly included the first of these two quotes in my original post. Reason being, I knew that it would be included in a reply. If you read the quote as President Hinkley intended, he is not speaking of another being, but rather of a different conceptual picture of Jesus Christ. I would agree with that. My point is this. There is only one Jesus of the Bible. Our concepts of His nature DO vary substantially. In this sense, we do have a different understanding of the Savior than does traditional (post second century-post Helleninized) Christianity.

Smoke_Eater:
It's true. The Jesus of Christianity and the Jesus of Mormonism are very different.

Don:
The Jesus of post second century Christianity and the LDS understanding are different. The LDS version would align more closely with original Christianity.

Smoke_Eater:
For instance, Mormonism teaches that Jesus is the literal, physical child of Elohim and the spirit brother of Lucifer, while Christianity teaches that Christ is eternally pre-existant in both being and in diety and Creator of all things.

Don:
So, when the scriptures speak of Jesus as the Son of God, we are to understand that in a figurative sense, correct?

If I were to accept your premise of foundational truth, being exclusively 100% the Bible, this is what I would find.

Where do we ever find a son where there is not a father. Paul spoke of the unseen things of the Godhead being understood by the things that are made. (Romans 1:19,20) Are we to believe Paul here? If we answer yes, we are forced to conclude that the relationship in the Godhead is understood by the parental relationship here on earth.

Here are some scriptural passages:

1. A messianic Psalm in Ps. 89:27 refers to Jesus Christ. "I will MAKE Him my FIRSTBORN". (E.A.)

2. Romans 8:29 teaches that God did foreknow Jesus and that he was "firstborn among many brethren". The LDS proclaim that this is more than wishful thinking.

3. As a sidenote, notice that Jesus is called the morning star in Rev. 22:16, there were preexistent morning stars that shouted for joy in Job 38:7, and Lucifer is called a "son of the morning" in Isa. 14:12. Jesus stated that he witnessed "Satan as lightning fall from heaven." (Luke 10:18) This indicates that Satan held some sort of lofy preexistent station. He was cast out for rebellion and pride. (see previous verses)

4. Hebrews 1:6 speaks of the Father bringing in "the firstbegotten into the world". He was not speaking in physical terms here unless you want to try to teach some sort of Adam-God theory. (grin)

5. Jesus is desribed as the "Only Begotten Son" of God in the flesh. This indicates a relationship that, going back to Paul, is similar to our father-son model. There are a number of Biblical passages that indicate the "seperateness" of the Godhead, as well as the superiority of the Father to the Son. Of the few passages that indicate a singularity, one is questionable at best (1 Jn. 5: 6,7), likely added by a scribe seeking affirmation of the Nicean creed of the Trinity. The best description of "oneness" probably occurs in John 17, where Jesus is literally praying to His Father (not to himself), and prays that his disciples may be one AS HE AND THE FATHER ARE ONE. Certainly this cannot be understood to be a literal unity, but rather that we should be unified in doctrine, purpose, love and etc.. Keep in mind that our "oneness" is understood by the Savior as similar to the "oneness" of the Father and the Son. This adds further support for the Pauline_Roman view of the Godhead.

As a side note, I have not been able to find any support for the Trinity prior to the second century. If anyone knows of ANYTHING along these lines, please let me know.

I find it somewhat disingenuous to fault LDS for doctrine that fits within Biblical parameters.

(More later)

Don

 

[Fatherof4]

Smoke_Eater:
Brigham Young taught in Journal of Discourses 14:71-72 that there are many different redeemers while Christianity teaches that Christ and Christ alone is our redeemer and mediator.

Don:
The Bible teaches the deification of man. LDS doctrine holds to a single redeemer, mediator and God to us.

Smoke_Eater:
Mormonism teaches that Jesus was a polygamist. There is no such Biblical or historical evidence to support such a claim.

Don:
This is not LDS doctrine. I realize that some early leaders speculated about this, but it has never been sanctioned as truth, nor do I personally believe it. If we are going to introduce aberrant philosophy, let's be consistent. You can find obscure quotes that do not reflect our doctrine, as I can find that do not reflect yours. Let's stay to the true differences, not imagined ones

Smoke_Eater:
By the way, if Christ had already become a god in his pre-exsistance, as McConkie teaches earlier in that text, why did he need to be saved?

Don:
Ditto to previous answer.

Smoke_Eater:
Journal of Discourses 6:95-96 teaches that Christ sinned while on Earth (which, BTW, would seem to contradict McConkie's teaching that Christ followed God's commands, doesn't it?), while Christianity teaches that, while Christ took on a human nature in addition to His divine nature, and therefore could have sinned, He didn't. Otherwise, he would not have been the spotless Lamb and his sacrifice on our behalf would have been worthless.

Don:
First, JofD is not official doctrine. Second, the quote that you provided does not (as I read it) say what you think that it says. Third, your description of Jesus taking on human nature is according to our belief. Therefore there is not any contradiction as far as I see it.

You next enter into a grace and works arena. I don't think we should really expand this at this time, but we certainly could later. Suffice it to say that LDS realize that they have absolutely no power to save themselves, outside of the grace of Jesus Christ. We are saved in Him.

Smoke_Eater:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is not the Father and the Son of "one substance"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, but two disticnt persons.

Don:
I still don't know what that means. If they are of one substance, what does that mean? I have had about 10 different explanations that conflict with each other given by Evangelical Christians. Some say that if you saw them, they could stand side by side, and others say that they would not. Still others say that you would see the Son, but not the Father, but that the Father would still be there. It gets worse from there. So I'm confused. Who can tell me for sure, what the correct Evangelical doctrine is on this? I would really like to know!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh good grief! Alma was written before Jesus came in the flesh. The D&C was given afterward.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doesn't matter. Here, you have two works claiming to define Mormon doctrine which contradict each other.

The order in which they were written has nothing to do with the fact that, logically, they cannot both be true.

One says "spirit". One says "flesh and bone". Which one is correct and why hasn't LDS removed the wrong conclusion?

Don:
You are incorrect, it does matter. One was spoken of before Jesus came in the flesh, and at that time, He did not possess a body. The other was given to Joseph Smith, after Jesus had come in the flesh, and at which time he did possess a body. This is a very simple concept to understand.
Both statements were true when they were given.

Smoke_Eater:
I do disagree for the simple fact that there are no outside archeological or historical sources to support any of the claims of Joseph Smith or historical Mormonism, while there are many that support Christianity.

This is simply not true. Rather than going off into an entirely different direction, and providing evidence (not proof) of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, etc., I will simply point you to a couple of sites that deal with this issue.
http://www.fair-lds.org/ (you will have to go to the index)
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/5499/ldsstuff.html
http://members.tripod.com/~beardall/bm/evidence.html

There is some incredible evidence in favor of LDS claims. Evangelicals simply refuse, for the most part, to deal with it. Two well known Evangelical apologists, Mosser and Owen, are a couple of exceptions. They have acknowledged the evidence that is mounting in favor of the LDS position. They lament that the Evangelicals are "losing the battle and not knowing it" because of the fact that they do not deal with contemporary LDS apologetics. See the article here:
http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/cpoint10-2.html

Smoke_Eater:
Until then let's stick to this one subject.

Don:
I was using early Christianity to support LDS doctrinal positions on the subjects that we were discussing.

BTW, thank you for your straight up reply. It's nice to stay away from personal attacks. MIGHTY CHRISTIAN OF YA!

Don

 

[Fatherof4]

Tuor:
There is faulty logic here. God has written his truths in our heart, and any man who seeks it will find it. This is why many religious systems are similar. It has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of physical manefestations.

Don:
Whoa there big fella. I thought Evangelicals taught that the heart cannot be trusted. I am so confused now!

Tuor:
When it comes to Joseph Smith, he does not pass God's test for being a prophet.

Don:
Non sequitur. Please give an example.

Thanks,

Don

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by Don Layton:
If you read the quote as President Hinkley intended, he is not speaking of another being, but rather of a different conceptual picture of Jesus Christ.

That is how I understood his statement and I agree with both you and Hinckley.

The problem is that the Mormon "conceptual picture of Jesus Christ" differs greatly from that of (a) the Biblical Old Testament prophets and writers, (b) the Apostle Paul, (c) the Gospel writers, and (d) (and most importantly, Jesus Christ, Himself.

That is the sticking point. Whatever you or I may think of Joseph Smith of the Book of Mormon or any of the writings accepted by Mormonism as "inspired", it doesn't matter one bit until we understand who Jesus is.

In this sense, we do have a different understanding of the Savior than does traditional (post second century-post Helleninized) Christianity.

The authorities mentioned above are not "post second century".

The Jesus of post second century Christianity and the LDS understanding are different. The LDS version would align more closely with original Christianity.

Please see my response to your first point.

So, when the scriptures speak of Jesus as the Son of God, we are to understand that in a figurative sense, correct?

As opposed to a literal, physical son, born of a physical relationship with Mother God (Mary)?

Yes.

Here are some scriptural passages:

A messianic Psalm in Ps. 89:27 refers to Jesus Christ. "I will MAKE Him my FIRSTBORN".

Authority, not nature.

Romans 8:29 teaches that God did foreknow Jesus and that he was "firstborn among many brethren".

Authority, not nature.

The LDS proclaim that this is more than wishful thinking.

And it is much more than wishful thinking, but LDS doctrine reads way too much into it in asserting that it shows that Christ is God's literal, physical son.

Jesus stated that he witnessed "Satan as lightning fall from heaven." (Luke 10:18) This indicates that Satan held some sort of lofy preexistent station. He was cast out for rebellion and pride.

Yes, Lucifer was one of God's chief angels. This is widely accepted by historic orthodox Christianity.

I don't see what this has to do with wether or not Jesus is a literal, physical son of God.

Let's stick to one subject at a time, please.

Hebrews 1:6 speaks of the Father bringing in "the firstbegotten into the world". He was not speaking in physical terms here unless you want to try to teach some sort of Adam-God theory. (grin)

Agreed. On the other hand, if this is so, why does LDS doctrine teach an Adam-God theory?

Jesus is desribed as the "Only Begotten Son" of God in the flesh. This indicates a relationship that, going back to Paul, is similar to our father-son model.

In a vague sense, yes, insofar as that it shows that Jesus, who was equal to God the Father in nature, put Himself under submission to the Father during His earthly ministry.

There are a number of Biblical passages that indicate the "seperateness" of the Godhead, as well as the superiority of the Father to the Son.

Seperate in personage, yes, but not in essence.

Of the few passages that indicate a singularity, one is questionable at best (1 Jn. 5: 6,7), likely added by a scribe seeking affirmation of the Nicean creed of the Trinity.

The best description of "oneness" probably occurs in John 17, where Jesus is literally praying to His Father (not to himself), and prays that his disciples may be one AS HE AND THE FATHER ARE ONE.

Certainly this cannot be understood to be a literal unity, but rather that we should be unified in doctrine, purpose, love and etc..

I can buy that, but that passage is not to be confused with the passage in which Jesus says, "I and the Father are one.

The language is different and indicates that He means one in essence.

Keep in mind that our "oneness" is understood by the Savior as similar to the "oneness" of the Father and the Son.

In unity of doctrine or in essence?

This adds further support for the Pauline_Roman view of the Godhead.

Actually, I think it shows that you've misunderstood the Pauline view of the Godhead.

I find it somewhat disingenuous to fault LDS for doctrine that fits within Biblical parameters.

No one is doing that, Don. Our problem is with the LDS doctrine that falls far outside of Biblical parameters.

Don my posts today are done on kind of a "fly-by" basis, so if I left anything out or there's anything you want clarified, please let me know.

BTW, I didn't forget that I promised to get back to you about the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods.

Mike

[ September 06, 2002, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Smoke_Eater ]

 

[Fatherof4]

Chemnitz:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irrelevant conclusion. LDS are not bound to the post second and third century, non-Biblical theories of Closed Cannon and innerancy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How convenient. I guess that means you can make up your scripture as you go.

Don:
That's not even close.

Chemnitz:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the umpteenth time, if this truth of yours is really revealed to you by God, why does so much of Mormonism contradict the Bible?

Does God not read His own book? Can He not make up His own mind?

Don responds:
Fallacious fallacy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is a legitimate question. Your going to have to answer the question and stop dodging the question.

Don replies:
I am not dodging the question. I do not find the argument supportable. You have not demonstrated this to me. Perhaps the arguments were made earlier on, and I simply have not reviewed them.

I will tell you that I do not find any system of belief that is as Biblically correct as is "Mormonism". You and I may disagree on this point, but I have studied the issue from a fairly non-biased point of view.

Do you want complete honesty here? I will admit to you that there are about 3 or so passages that present some difficulty in my opinion. However, since we do not believe that the Bible is infallible, nor do we believe that it is complete, this is not a problem.

Now, having spilled the beans, I will also say that there are quite a few passages that disallow me to reconcile the Bible to modern Evangelical positions. This IS a problem for them, because they do adhere to inerrancy. (Most of them do anyway.)

If I could be persauded to believe differently, and if I were willing to deny the Holy Spirit of God within me, I would be open to a different view. I really do seek the truth in all that I do.

BTW, before I go, I could make another confession. This would startle some of you here, but in a deep way, I think that parts of the Evangelical position of the Trinity are actually correct...only in a way that they don't fully comprehend. (I can't believe that I'm saying this, after I just criticized the Trinitarian theory on the other post.) I believe that Spirit, light and truth are analogous. There are elements that are one with one another. I won't go any deeper than that in a public forum such as this.

Anyway, just some thoughts,

Don

 

[Fatherof4]

Smoke_Eater:
The authorities mentioned above are not "post second century".

Don:
Huh!?!? You think that Hinkley lived before the second century?
More later...I hafta go!

 

[Mike McK]

I didn't say anything about Gordon Hinckley.

 

[Fatherof4]

I had just quoted you in your comments about Hinkley, to which you responded. If I misunderstood the "authorities" you spoke of, I apologize. It's moot anyway.

 

[Chemnitz]

Do you want complete honesty here? I will admit to you that there are about 3 or so passages that present some difficulty in my opinion. However, since we do not believe that the Bible is infallible, nor do we believe that it is complete, this is not a problem.

Now, having spilled the beans, I will also say that there are quite a few passages that disallow me to reconcile the Bible to modern Evangelical positions. This IS a problem for them, because they do adhere to inerrancy. (Most of them do anyway.)

As I said before how convienent. If you do not have an innerrant scripture than you can change what ever you like to fit your beliefs. That would explain how the lds has been changing its story to sound more and more Christian every day.

But if you are going to operate on this board you will either have to operate on the basis of inerrancy or successfully prove that the Scriptures contain errors, contradictions, etc. However, don't plan on rattling many trees trying to prove your point. Most of us on this board are very knowledgable on the Scriptures and will not be easily shaken.

No offense but I seriously doubt that your studies are unbiased. I do not mean to be insulting but no man is capable of making an unbiased study or decision.

BTW, before I go, I could make another confession. This would startle some of you here, but in a deep way, I think that parts of the Evangelical position of the Trinity are actually correct...only in a way that they don't fully comprehend. (I can't believe that I'm saying this, after I just criticized the Trinitarian theory on the other post.) I believe that Spirit, light and truth are analogous. There are elements that are one with one another. I won't go any deeper than that in a public forum such as this

Afraid of a challenge?

If I could be persauded to believe differently, and if I were willing to deny the Holy Spirit of God within me, I would be open to a different view. I really do seek the truth in all that I do.

I am not surprised that you find the teachings of the lds appealing. Many people (such as yourself) like to think they can earn their salvation, it makes them feel better about themselves. But salvation isn't something to be earned, its a free gift for the taking, Christ already paid the price.

 

[Fatherof4]

Chemnitz:
As I said before how convienent. If you do not have an innerrant scripture than you can change what ever you like to fit your beliefs. That would explain how the lds has been changing its story to sound more and more Christian every day.

Don:
Fallacious fallacy. Non sequitur. If YOU are making the claim of innerant scripture, then the burden is upon YOU to demonstrate that. How do you describe 1 John 5:6,7? Why are there so many contradictions in the Bible? The very word Bible means a collection of books. If the Bible were innerant, it would outline within its' pages somewhere, what these books would be, and state that the cannon would be closed afterward. It does not do so. In fact, the opposite is indicated.

LDS doctrine does not change. (Be careful here, I am speaking of LDS doctrine, not speculation that has never been accepted as doctrine.) Your assertion that "lds has been changing its story to sound more and more Christian every day" is incorrect. If you are referring to the post-apostolic version of Christianity, then that is the last thing we want to do. Please offer a little documentation along with your charges.

Chemnitz:
But if you are going to operate on this board you will either have to operate on the basis of inerrancy or successfully prove that the Scriptures contain errors, contradictions, etc.

Don:
Why is that? I don't have to prove anything? I am not here to destroy your faith. I am here to defend mine.

Chemnitz:
However, don't plan on rattling many trees trying to prove your point. Most of us on this board are very knowledgable on the Scriptures and will not be easily shaken.

Don:
2 Tim. 3:7

Chemnitz:
No offense but I seriously doubt that your studies are unbiased. I do not mean to be insulting but no man is capable of making an unbiased study or decision.

Don:
I said that my studies were somewhat unbiased, simply for the very reason that you point out. As you have correctly stated, we all carry our biases. At that time in my life however, I had not made up my mind. I was sincerely looking for answers. I still look for answers, but with more biases than I previously had.

Chemnitz:
Afraid of a challenge?

Don:
If I were, would I be here? Heck, I live about 6 blocks from one of the staunchest anti-Mormons on the planet. (You would most definitely recognize his name.) I'm not afraid of him. I hope that people aren't afraid of me either.

You need to understand something about me. I am not afraid to learn the truth. If a Baptist teaches me something, I am better for it. I hope that you do. I beleive that you can teach me truth that I do not now have.

You seem to be somewhat defensive. I simply mean that you have assumed a position of "us against them." I will present my positions on things, but I don't really desire to argue. I really am open, but will not accept that which I sincerely believe to be in error.

Chemnitz:
I am not surprised that you find the teachings of the lds appealing. Many people (such as yourself) like to think they can earn their salvation, it makes them feel better about themselves. But salvation isn't something to be earned, its a free gift for the taking, Christ already paid the price.

Don:
You have completely misunderstood the teachings of LDS on salvation. There is not a thing I could do without Jesus Christ. I cannot save myself. I cannot even exist without Him. If LDS believe otherwise, they are in error.

Our D&C teaches this very clearly. The Light of Christ is in all things, is the power by which all things were created and governed, and is the light of our understandings. This light is extended to our salvation. Without the mercy and grace of our Savior,through His supreme sacrifice for men, we cannot be saved, regardless of how much good we do, for we are all sinners. I hope that this clarifies our views on salvation.

May God bless you!
Don

 

[Fatherof4]

Just to clarify one thing. I agree with you that salvation is a free gift. It is through Christ only. I have heard Evangelicals describe the rewards that will come to believers from works...on top of salvation. I don't know that all Evangelicals believe this. Maybe you could belp me out here. But this is very much akin to the LDS postion.

Don

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by Don Layton:
I had just quoted you in your comments about Hinkley, to which you responded. If I misunderstood the "authorities" you spoke of, I apologize. It's moot anyway.

In the previous paragraph, I had just mentioned (a) the Biblical OT writers and prophets, (b)the Gospel writers, (c) the Apostle Paul, and (d) Jesus Christ, Himself.

That's who I was referring to.

It most certainly is NOT a moot point.

How the Biblical authors viewed Jesus and the claims Jesus made about himself are very important.

Mike

 

[Chemnitz]

Fallacious fallacy. Non sequitur. If YOU are making the claim of innerant scripture, then the burden is upon YOU to demonstrate that. How do you describe 1 John 5:6,7?

You keep claiming fallacy, you should try stepping out of the box and look as to how your claims look to others. You make the claims that you have without fulfilling the burden of proof and you expect people to not think that the position of the lds is not a matter of convinience?

1 Jn 5:6-8 "This is he who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree. "
I am going to assume you made a typo on the verse numbers and proceed from there. The three are Christ's baptism, His blood shed for us, and the Holy spirit. This verse can serve dual purposes one as an argument against gnosticism and two the fulfilment of OT Law require 2 or 3 witnesses. Since you asked about it I personally wonder why you singled this section out.

Since it is your mission to defend your beliefs on a board populated by people who believe in the innerrancy, the burden of proof is on your head. You are basing innerrancy on your own faulty human logic. Lutherans have no position on the closing of the canon, however, we find it highly unlikely anything will ever be added to the canon.

The only contradictions are in your head.

Don:
2 Tim. 3:7

"always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth."
I have to wonder what is your point since in context it is in reference to hypocrits. If you are using it as a prooftext for the legitimacy of the book of mormon, you completely missed the boat.

Chemnitz:
Afraid of a challenge?

Don:
If I were, would I be here? Heck, I live about 6 blocks from one of the staunchest anti-Mormons on the planet. (You would most definitely recognize his name.) I'm not afraid of him. I hope that people aren't afraid of me either.

I was refering to the whole Trinity issue. If you look at the older threads you will realize why I said that.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Book of Mormons is as "Christian" as the Book of the Dead.

 

[Fatherof4]

Smoke_Eater:
Originally posted by Don Layton:
I had just quoted you in your comments about Hinkley, to which you responded. If I misunderstood the "authorities" you spoke of, I apologize. It's moot anyway.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the previous paragraph, I had just mentioned (a) the Biblical OT writers and prophets, (b)the Gospel writers, (c) the Apostle Paul, and (d) Jesus Christ, Himself.

That's who I was referring to.

It most certainly is NOT a moot point.

How the Biblical authors viewed Jesus and the claims Jesus made about himself are very important.

Don:
OK, now we are disagreeing as to what the disagreement is. Let's just say that you're right and I'm wrong, allright? It's not moot (whatever it was that we were claiming was/was not moot).

What does it mean to be moot anyway? The earliest Christians held to a non Hellenistic definition of moot. They did not believe in moot. If you look closely at moot, you will find that it is a latin derivitive of the more common form "moo". Now, we know that "moo" is what cows say. I know this because my 4 year old son frequently makes this sort of a sound as we pass by fields where these rather large, cumbersome animals graze. Anyway, just to make sure that we stay on subject, let's continue to examine the "moo" factor. If a cow, full knowing that his linguistic skills are somewhat limited, and as we have seen, are entirely dependent upon the original latin, were to trace his verbage back to the original, it is probable that she would find that some of the original Christians also "moo"ed. We know that from certain scriptural passages that escape my memory at the present time. Well, that's enough for now!

(Staying clear of flying objects!)
Don

[ September 08, 2002, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: Don Layton ]

 

[Fatherof4]

Pinoy:
Book of Mormons is as "Christian" as the Book of the Dead.
__________________________________________________

Don:
You may be right. I have never heard of the Book of Mormons.

 

[Fatherof4]

Chemnitz:
You keep claiming fallacy, you should try stepping out of the box and look as to how your claims look to others. You make the claims that you have without fulfilling the burden of proof and you expect people to not think that the position of the lds is not a matter of convinience?

Don:
Like I said before, I don't need to disprove your faith. I am here to defend mine. The arguments have been entered. As I previously posted, Mosser and Owen, two well known Evangelical scholars and apologists, seem to feel that the arguments have been made. They seem to believe that the burden has shifted to the Evangelical side. Should I take the time to reiterate each and every one?

1 Jn 5:6-8 "This is he who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree. "
I am going to assume you made a typo on the verse numbers and proceed from there. The three are Christ's baptism, His blood shed for us, and the Holy spirit. This verse can serve dual purposes one as an argument against gnosticism and two the fulfilment of OT Law require 2 or 3 witnesses. Since you asked about it I personally wonder why you singled this section out.

Don:
This passage has been demonstrated to have been added by a somewhat overzealous scribe. Go ask your Pastor.

Chemnitz:
Since it is your mission to defend your beliefs on a board populated by people who believe in the innerrancy, the burden of proof is on your head. You are basing innerrancy on your own faulty human logic. Lutherans have no position on the closing of the canon, however, we find it highly unlikely anything will ever be added to the canon.

Don:
Until a point has been demonstrated in attacking my beliefs, I feel no responsibility whatsoever to defend it. Until then, I will defend the "is so"s with "is not". Just because someone says, "You worship a frisbee in purple underwear" does not make it true.

Chemnitz:
The only contradictions are in your head.

Don:
Well, perhaps, but you worship a frisbee in purple underwear.