Mormonism and the Trinity

[Daniel Peterson]

Your spinning now Dan.

No I'm not. Don't try to misrepresent the context of what I said when it's right here on the thread for all to see.

I'm the one who says, as you spin it, that professing Christian pedophiles should probably be termed Christians. The LDS Church hasn't said anything of the sort, and your description of this as an LDS "belief" that you're going to teach others about is simultaneously ridiculous and contemptible.

Did you read the quotes Dan, obviously not

I said that I had read them, and that, indeed, I've been familiar with them -- and with your sources for them -- for many years.

Are you deliberately accusing me of being a liar, or are you just calling me a liar through carelessness?

"Should you ask why we differ from other Christians, as they are called, it is simply because they are not Christians as the New Testament defines Christianity" (Journal of Discourses 10:230). Brigham Young

First, BY questions if others are Christians, and then says the NT defines Christianity, and your claim is that the NT does not define who a Christian is.

I've invited you several times, on this very thread, for the past several days, to provide me the passage or passages in which the New Testament defines the term Christian. I again invite you to do so.

I don't believe that President Young was using the verb to define in a literal sense. (If he was, he was plainly mistaken.) You shouldn't either. There are only three places in the New Testament in which the term Christian occurs, and none of them offers anything even remotely like a definition.

I commend you on your sudden urge to believe Brigham Young, but I'm afraid it strikes me as cynical rather than sincere. The New Testament is accessible to you -- if you don't actually own one, it's on line -- and you're still welcome to produce the New Testament definition that you keep mentioning but never actually furnish.

I thought that the Bible did not define who a Christians is, here a LDS prophet disagrees, this has nothing to do with the apostasy in context of or conversation, it has to do with a contradiction in your theory and you should adress this contridiction.

See above. The New Testament outlines the general form that the Church ought to take and the basic doctrines that it ought to teach. In that sense, and that sense alone, it "defines" Christianity. But it never defines the word Christianity. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

"virtually all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ whom they vainly suppose to be a spirit essence who is incorporeal uncreated, immaterial and three-in-one with the Father and Holy Spirit" (Mormon Doctrine, p.269);

"Mythical Christ?" Could this be another Jesus Dan. See Claim 1.

I agree with Elder McConkie that mainstream Christianity has misconceived the nature of Christ in certain fundamental ways. But no, they still believe in the Jesus who was born at Bethlehem, who was crucified at Calvary, and who rose from the tomb on the third day, just as the Latter-day Saints do.

Brigham Young stated this repeatedly: "When the light came to me I saw that all the so-called Christian world was grovelling in darkness" (Journal of Discourses 5:73);

"The Christian world, so-called, are heathens as to the knowledge of the salvation of God" (Journal of Discourses 8:171);

"With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world" (Journal of Discourses 8:199

Strong nineteenth-century language, no question about that. (For a sampling of the language -- frequently even rougher, and often backed by weapons and mobs -- that nineteenth-century Protestants were using about the Latter-day Saints, see Terryl Givens's important Oxford University Press book Viper on the Hearth.) I'm personally happy that we've left such vituperative language behind.

As you would know if you had actually read my book, though, Brigham Young also refers to non-Mormon Christians as . . . well, Christians.

BY certainly disagrees with your book

LOL. He's read even less of it than you have, if that's conceivable.

so-called implies that they are only a Christian because they think so, LDS teaching by a prophet was that they weren't.

As you would know if you had actually read my book, though, Brigham Young also refers to non-Mormon Christians as . . . well, Christians.

Kent Jackson said Christianity died, that it was dead, and that it was due to the rejection of true doctrine, and that this is what caused the apostasy.

Kent Jackson is a colleague and a neighbor of mine, has been a friend of mine for nearly thirty years, has served closely with me in two different Church assignments during that time, has traveled with me on academic assignments, etc. We know each other extremely well. Kent absolutely doesn't consider Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Quakers, Anglicans, or Congregationalists to be non-Christians. You fundamentally misunderstand him if you imagine that he does.

Dan, you can't separate the LDS teaching of the apostasy and true and false Christianity.

I back away from absolutely nothing in LDS teaching about the apostasy. Will you at least try to make an effort to attempt to understand what I've been saying to you?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true and living church upon the face of the earth with which the Lord is well pleased, speaking of the Church collectively and not individually. It is the only Church that possesses the divine authority of the holy priesthood, offers the saving ordinances, and teaches the fullness of the doctrines of salvation. While other churches do much good and teach much authentically Christian truth, no other church has the priesthood, offers the required ordinances, and teaches the fullness of the necessary doctrines.

What part of that is difficult for you to understand?

Then there's your personal view of what a Christian is, a view that claims very clearly that "a Christian is one that has Jesus as Lord," that is what you said, not me. How did you come to that conclusion Dan?

Through the evidence and analysis that I wrote up in a book entitled Offenders for a Word. You might want to read it sometime. At that point, if you make a real effort to follow and understand the argument of the book, we might have a productive conversation.

[Daniel Peterson]

One would expect these types of things to generally present the mainstream opinion as opposed to concentrate on the exceptions, wouldn't one?

Precisely.

Thanks for pointing that out.

[zerinus]

I haven't heard that taught either, what I have heard taught, and sat under this teaching, that all professing the Christian doctrines other that LDS doctrine are corrupt, let be clear here and just so as not to confuse here I 'll quote it one more time from the POGP...I'm glad you don't believe this teaching of the LDS church, by the way they refer to this as the apostasy. Z agree with it, he has called me a apostate many times on this thread, and thats OK, I understand, he is just saying what he has been taught.

Your perversion of Christian doctrine is beginning to affect your mind, it seems. I think you are losing it. I would see a doctor if I were you.

[Daniel Peterson]

Incidentally, Gervin, in the process of locating thirty-six (36) widely-varied sources affirming that Montanism was Christian, while (to my disappointment for this silly project, but quite understandably) I've come across at least half-again as many (that is, eighteen or twenty or so) that have neither affirmed nor denied its Christianity (presumably because its Christianity was presumed as obvious [e.g., in handbooks of Christian doctrine and lexicons of Christian history]), I have found not a single source, so far as I can see, that declares Montanism to have been non-Christian. Not even one.

It seems to me that, arrayed against your single and solitary source to the contrary, this says something fairly powerful about whether the general mainstream consensus is for or against identifying Montanism as Christian.

I presume that you'll disagree, but, if you do, I would be interested in the grounds for your disagreement.

Incidentally, I really do think it would be interesting to search to find whether there is anybody, anywhere, who believes that Tertullian (sometimes called "the father of Christian theology" and often regarded as the first important Christian author in Latin) actually left Christianity when he became a Montanist. That might be a fruitful undertaking on your part, and perhaps the most promising possibility you're going to have for proving me wrong on this point.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Papa, this says nothing about ontology, subordinationism, etc. There's more than one way or sense of meaning, even within orthodox historical Christianity, to assert that there are three members of the God head who are one. It doesnâ??t automatically entail classical Trinitarianism.

As EV's view it, it does. I once talked with a JW who read this verse and he seemed to think it taught this and said this is why he could never accept the BoM, "The Trinity". I include the verse again for those reading this post.

2 Nephi 31: 21

21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

[Daniel Peterson]

Papa, this says nothing about ontology, subordinationism, etc. There's more than one way or sense of meaning, even within orthodox historical Christianity, to assert that there are three members of the God head who are one. It doesnâ??t automatically entail classical Trinitarianism.

Absolutely true. And crucially important.

I discuss this at length in -- actually, it's one of the fundamental points of -- the totally forgotten article on "Mormonism and the Trinity" that was the subject of the completely forgotten opening post of this thread.

[mfbukowski]

Absolutely true. And crucially important.

I discuss this at length in -- actually, it's one of the fundamental points of -- the totally forgotten article on "Mormonism and the Trinity" that was the subject of the completely forgotten opening post of this thread.

I for one have not forgotten, but life has delayed my intention to reply. Still working on it. I have some thoughts in this area, and I am waiting to see if you touch on those aspects or if perhaps I might actually be able to contribute something halfway intelligent, since that's all the intelligence I have at my disposal.

[Tanyan]

As to the question of has The Catholic Church ever practiced Baptism for the Dead, I do recall a paper done by LDS member John Tvedtness that he presented at a Symposism in The middle east some years ago that got favorable responses from those in attendance. I believe that the paper was entitled : "Baptism for The Dead, The Coptic Rational" in which he showed the Anchient and [Modern ?] practice of Baptism For The Dead by The Catholic Coptic Christians/Church.

In His Debt/Grace,, Tanyan, LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[Daniel Peterson]

Good memory, Tanyan.

You're talking about John A. Tvedtnes, "Baptism for the Dead: The Coptic Rationale," Special Papers of the Society for Early Historic Archaeology, no. 2, September 1989.

I have no idea whether it's available on line.

It may, however, be more or less included in (and, perhaps, even partially superseded by?) John A. Tvedtnes, "Baptism for the Dead in Early Christianity," which is available on line at

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/books/?book...&chapid=104

and which I don't believe I mentioned previously.

[gmormon]

Good memory, Tanyan.

You're talking about John A. Tvedtnes, "Baptism for the Dead: The Coptic Rationale," Special Papers of the Society for Early Historic Archaeology, no. 2, September 1989.

I have no idea whether it's available on line.

It may, however, be more or less included in (and, perhaps, even partially superseded by?) John A. Tvedtnes, "Baptism for the Dead in Early Christianity," which is available on line at

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/books/?book...&chapid=104

and which I don't believe I mentioned previously.

I took a chance and googled the title is this the same paper http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Baptism_for_th..._Rationale.html? It give 1981 as the date of the presentation.

[Daniel Peterson]

I took a chance and googled the title is this the same paper http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Baptism_for_th..._Rationale.html? It give 1981 as the date of the presentation.

Yup. That's it.

I'm really pleased that it's up on line. (I should have been aware of that.) Good for FAIR!

Incidentally, every faithful Latter-day Saint who's interested in the defense of the kingdom should support FAIR, if possible. And don't forget the annual FAIR symposium, coming up on 6-7 August this year, in Sandy, Utah.

http://www.fairlds.org/conf09a.html

[consiglieri]

Incidentally, every faithful Latter-day Saint who's interested in the defense of the kingdom should support FAIR, if possible. And don't forget the annual FAIR symposium, coming up on 6-7 August this year, in Sandy, Utah.

http://www.fairlds.org/conf09a.html

Thanks for the link, Dan.

So how come you and Sherlock are the only presenters with titles yet to be announced?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't know about Richard, but I haven't given them one.

Although I now have one in mind, and will probably send it to them shortly.

[Jan]

I don't know about Richard, but I haven't given them one.

Although I now have one in mind, and will probably send it to them shortly.

That would be a change - isn't it usually a surprise?

[Pahoran]

Hi Dan

Fair enough, for the record then, Dan Peterson and the LDS church believes that people who claim to be Christians, and teach and practice pedophilia are fellow Christians with the COJCOLDS, in the normal usage of the term of course. I will teach this the next time I teach a class on Mormonism..as long as my mother does not find out, as a LDS member she would disagree with that with whole heart.

That's very interesting, MarkKKK.

Tell us, please: in your doctrine, if a "Christian" falls into sin -- such as oh, I don't know, say, child molesting -- is that "Christian" no longer "saved?"

You may answer yes or no.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That's very interesting, MarkKKK.

Tell us, please: in your doctrine, if a "Christian" falls into sin -- such as oh, I don't know, say, child molesting -- is that "Christian" no longer "saved?"

You may answer yes or no.

Regards,

Pahoran

Accourding to Hoops the answer is yes.

[Pahoran]

Accourding to Hoops the answer is yes.

So I would expect. However, Hoops -- whatever else his problems may be -- has not lowered himself to using Markkkk's tactic.

Which is why I would like Markkkk to answer the question.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

That would be a change - isn't it usually a surprise?

I think "The Devil and Mr. Hitchens" was identified in advance.

[Cold Steel]

I'm not sure why [Dan Peterson] wrote the book, or to whom [he] wrote the book...but if it is a book that is intended to persuade mainstream Christianity to accept LDS theology as Christian, then your (sic) going to strike out.

Or perhaps it was intended to persuade mainstream Christianity not to exclude LDS theology as Christian. BTW, you never answered the question as to whether you consider any other avowedly Christian sect as non-Christian. The real concern is at what point does a doctrine make a church non-Christian? Does the veneration of Mary and the holy saints keep someone from being a Christian? Does praying to those saints keep someone from being a Christian? How about worshiping on Saturday? Would that keep someone from being a Christian? How about believing that salvation is a one-time event? How about rattlesnake handling, Markk? As prime arbiter of who's Christian and who's not, what say ye? Answer now forthwith!

If the Book was intended to support a view that the word Christian is just a generic term, then OK, I can kind of see where you are heading, if it was a book written trying to actually explain why Christians do not accept LDS theology then the book is lacking for reasons you did not address.

By George, you initially appeared to finally be getting it, but then you blundered. I read the book and I don't believe that Peterson was trying to explain why creedal Christians do not accept LDS theology. Perhaps that's why he didn't address them. Instead, he addressed why some dogmatic Christian extremists try to attach a certain, narrow, meaning to the term and why they should be ignored. At least that was my take.

As a Christian, if someone was (sic) to die in an accident and it was discussed with another Christian, one of the first question (sic) that would be asked is "were they a Christian, or were they saved? They would never say " were they baptists, or were they Catholic." By saying are you a Christian one is saying are the saved.

Nope, I don't believe that's ever come up in my own conversations. I don't rightly believe I'd ask if they were saved, either, as only God would know the answer to something like that. Or...do you presume to know that as well?

Now as a Mormon it would go along the lines of "were they a member", or "were they LDS", or even "were they active".

All you're you're showing us here is that diverse subgroups of Christians have their own terminologies and cultures. While it would be normal for an evangelical to ask if a person were "saved," a Catholic or Seventh Day Adventist would have different takes on the question that directly relate to their beliefs. This, more than anything you've said, indicates that you don't consider anyone outside of your particular subgroup a "Christian." Hugh Nibley once rightly observed that when people begin speaking or writing, they tell you what they mean to tell you, but in the process they also tell you what they don't mean to tell you. This is what's often meant by "in between the lines," and you've said quite a bit here.

This as you know reassures the LDS member that the person will be OK. I don't really expect nor do I want you to answer this, I just hope you can understand how the word Christian is used and what it means to today's Christian Church.

I don't blame you. But perhaps you could point us to the "Christian Church." Is it in the Yellow Pages? Is it the Campbellites? Church of Christ Scientist? I don't see any one church listed as the Christian Church.

Your book is nonsense in that it doesn't address the real issues of the division, and these issues have been hashed over billions of time on both sides of the coin, just on this site alone.

Both sides of what coin? Do you understand how many sides of the coin there is? You see it as you and us, but I assure you that most Christians don't see it as that at all. There are the Catholics and Orthodox, the Catholics and the Protestantsâ??what coin are you using? Peterson's book shows us that there are many coins and many sides. What gives your side of your coin the right to determine anything? Who anoints you as arbiter in chief of all Christendom in saying who's in and who's out?

I understand you don't want to get into the reality of the LDS church and it's history of teaching that the Christian church is lost and broken without any authority....

Your comments are meant for one of the chief apologists of the LDS church and you say he doesn't want to get into the history of the LDS teachings and the apostasy and Restoration?? He certainly picked a strange field to go into if he's trying to escape. In fact, he goes all over the country trying to escape these things. Alas, wherever he goes, people catch him and force him to speak against his will and to address all these things you say he doesn't want to address.

The LDS church in all reality wants to be Orthadox (sic) Christian on the outside in appearance, and sing Kum by ya, and then behind closed doors relish that they alone are the only true Christian Church, and only through it can a person ever have a hope of being in the presence of Heavenly Father. If your going to have credibility beyond the choir, then your going to have to deal with this, if not you can just add more K's to my name and keep believing what you believe.

Accusing the church of being disingenuous is one of the oldest anti-Mormon tricks going. The Jews did the same thing to the Christians and later, so did the Romans. You say Mormons don't want you to know these things, but that you're here to set everyone straight, even though everything you say we don't want known is all in the missionary discussions. It's in books, instruction manuals, encyclopedias and, oh yeah, even here.

We've had a chance to look at your views, Markk, and you're inconsistent, arrogant and condescending. You talk about the Christian church as though it were a cohesive whole. You even say we want to be Orthodox Christians when you, yourself, are not Orthodox. Orthodox Christians (capital "O") venerate saints, believe in transubstantiation and baptize by sprinkling. They're exclusive in believing themselves to be the only Christian church and they see Catholics and Protestants as being two sides of the same coin, a different coin. Now you want to be associated with them? Or did you mean "orthodox" with a little "o"? If that's the case, then answer this: Are the Orthodox orthodox? Or are the orthodox Orthodox?

Are you sure you want to traverse these waters? They can be awfully deep.

[Markk]

That's very interesting, MarkKKK.

Tell us, please: in your doctrine, if a "Christian" falls into sin -- such as oh, I don't know, say, child molesting -- is that "Christian" no longer "saved?"

You may answer yes or no.

Regards,

Pahoran

Hi Pahoran,

I was very clear in saying those that "practice" this sin; in context meaning as a habitual practice such as communion or some ceremonial act, and as a standard of their belief. And... certainly I do not believe that this teaching of having sex with Children is a Christian teaching...do you? If your asking me can a Christian fall into a terrible sin, sure, but if they continue in this sin with a non-repentant heart and actually believe this sin is a teaching of Christ then Absolutely Not, they are not a Christian, nor is it a Christian "church", a person who has the Holy Spirit in them could not do that.

You tell me Pahoran, is a church that teaches/taught pedophilia and incest under the banner of Christ, in your opinion a Christian Church, and a person that believe and practices pedophilia a Christian, if they do it under the banner of Christ's teaching, you tell me?

Look forward to your answer here.

Take care

MG

[Cold Steel]

...is a church that teaches/taught pedophilia and incest under the banner of Christ, in your opinion a Christian Church, and a person that believe and practices pedophilia a Christian, if they do it under the banner of Christ's teaching, you tell me?

What does this have to do with anything? Old men have been marrying very young women for generations. This happened not only in the LDS church, but the early Christian church and the Jews under Jehovah. It happened in many denominations just a hundred years ago. If we're to go by your arguments, then all Christian churches are not...Christian. Is that correct?

If I can find anyone in your church who married a woman several decades his junior, will you admit that your church isn't Christian? Are you aware that many cultures today still abide in this? Judging a church today by cultural mores that are exclusive to your own, modern mores is not an argument. A pretense of knowing what happened behind closed doors also is not an argument.

Why don't you stick to the argument at hand? You have plenty to deal with above.

[Markk]

Hi Dan,

The LDS Church hasn't said anything of the sort, and your description of this as an LDS "belief" that you're going to teach others about is simultaneously ridiculous and contemptible

Then they better? Your a LDS Bishop, correct me if I am wrong, you work for a LDS university, correct me if I'm wrong, the web site I am reading your book on (NMI) is owned by the church, correct me if I am wrong. If it is not a LDS teaching then they better have a talk with you Dan. If they do not believe this then consider your interpretation of a Christian wrong, if they do, then what I said stands. In your opinion... is it a bad thing for the church to support the view that is in question, what are you worried about? Their teachings are either Christian or they are not?

I said that I had read them, and that, indeed, I've been familiar with them -- and with your sources for them -- for many years.

Are you deliberately accusing me of being a liar, or are you just calling me a liar through carelessness?

You tell me what site it was and we will both know, I googled it and it was my first hit, did I misquote anything? I have most the books anyway, but google is much faster.

I never called you a liar Dan, don't play the victim card so early. I said what I said, because you obviously do not have a clue about how the Christian world feels about the offensive stance that the LDS church has on them, those quotes are very offensive and show a side of the church most LDS don't like, or at least I hope so. I understand, having been raised in the church, but from the other side LDS theology is a attacking theology, until you understand how deep this attack is, your going to continue to spin you wheels and just preach to the choir.

I've invited you several times, on this very thread, for the past several days, to provide me the passage or passages in which the New Testament defines the term Christian. I again invite you to do so

.

And I addressed that, over and over on this site for that last 5 years, give me a break. The Bible is not a dictionary Dan. Your presenting a strawman in the attempts to support LDS theology as Christian theology. LDS theology is not taught in the Bible, LDS church government is not taught in the Bible , just about every major doctrine taught in the Bible is 180 to LDS theology, it is a different Gospel and a Different Jesus. This has been debated over and over and just because you do not buy it does not make it so. If you want to debate verses like 2 cor 11, fine we can.

I don't believe that President Young was using the verb to define in a literal sense.

Yea right prove it, he was a commissioner of tolerance and a ambassador to the Christian world...Your joking right Dan. He was an ambassador to the dogs...um I mean gentiles. Geez

Speaking of gentiles maybe we should explore that, and how the LDS church refers to non LDS as gentiles, maybe the Bible will define how Christians are also gentiles to a non Jewish faith. We can save that for another day.

I agree with Elder McConkie that mainstream Christianity has misconceived the nature of Christ in certain fundamental ways. But no, they still believe in the Jesus who was born at Bethlehem, who was crucified at Calvary, and who rose from the tomb on the third day, just as the Latter-day Saints do.

They also believe he atoned for mans sin before his death, in the garden, that he was the brother to Lucifer etc, etc. Sometime adding to a truth, is more deceiving than changing the whole truth. That why the Bible uses the term a sheep in wolves clothing. Paul teaches the false apostles will appear as ministers of righteousness.

Strong nineteenth-century language, no question about that. (For a sampling of the language -- frequently even rougher, and often backed by weapons and mobs -- that nineteenth-century Protestants were using about the Latter-day Saints, see Terryl Givens's important Oxford University Press book Viper on the Hearth.) I'm personally happy that we've left such vituperative language behind.

Strong language for a teaching from the pulpit, from what was in his heart. BY did not like gentiles or Christians and he qualifies his interpretation of what a Christian is here...so-called. Many 19Th century protestants meant what they said and there actions proved it and it was sinful and wrong, but it was their hearts not their language, the same with BY and the early church. What comes out of a mans mouth in his heart. That is such a cop out to blame the language of a "apostle" of god on the language of the day.

LOL. He's read even less of it than you have, if that's conceivable.

LoL...Tooshay, thats a good one Dan, got me there. But I think you know what I meant in context, BY's interpretaion of what a Christian is disagrees with yours, I'll leave it at that. But in all honesty I have read more of your book than 6,792,467,727 people minus about the 2 or 3 thousand Petersonites, correct me if I'm wrong here so next time I subtract the right amount. Heck if this thread lasts much longer more people might read it than you book?

Kent Jackson is a colleague and a neighbor of mine, has been a friend of mine for nearly thirty years, has served closely with me in two different Church assignments during that time, has traveled with me on academic assignments, etc. We know each other extremely well. Kent absolutely doesn't consider Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Quakers, Anglicans, or Congregationalists to be non-Christians. You fundamentally misunderstand him if you imagine that he does.

Then the ensign shouldn't have printed his article that says the Christian church died and was dead. It's on LDS .org.

I back away from absolutely nothing in LDS teaching about the apostasy. Will you at least try to make an effort to attempt to understand what I've been saying to you?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true and living church upon the face of the earth with which the Lord is well pleased, speaking of the Church collectively and not individually. It is the only Church that possesses the divine authority of the holy priesthood, offers the saving ordinances, and teaches the fullness of the doctrines of salvation. While other churches do much good and teach much authentically Christian truth, no other church has the priesthood, offers the required ordinances, and teaches the fullness of the necessary doctrines.

What part of that is difficult for you to understand?

The part that if you believe that you ( Mormonism) are the true Christian Church and thus true Christians... how can all the others not be False Christians in a False Christians church? You want your cake and to eat it too? The opposite of true is false.

The key words here are "only" and "true" Dan, that would make all other "False".

Through the evidence and analysis that I wrote up in a book entitled Offenders for a Word. You might want to read it sometime. At that point, if you make a real effort to follow and understand the argument of the book, we might have a productive conversation

So your book defines that a Christian is one that has Jesus is Lord? Do you believe the Bible teaches what having Jesus as Lord means and implies?

I'm the one who says, as you spin it, that professing Christian pedophiles should probably be termed Christians.

I missed this the first time I read your post, is it "probably" or not, before you said they were Christians (bad ones), now it is "probably"? Are you having second thoughts Dan?

Great Discussion, I always learn something new discussing these things with you.

Take care

Mark

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hi Pahoran,

I was very clear in saying those that "practice" this sin; in context meaning as a habitual practice such as communion or some ceremonial act, and as a standard of their belief. And... certainly I do not believe that this teaching of having sex with Children is a Christian teaching...do you? If your asking me can a Christian fall into a terrible sin, sure, but if they continue in this sin with a non-repentant heart and actually believe this sin is a teaching of Christ then Absolutely Not, they are not a Christian, nor is it a Christian "church", a person who has the Holy Spirit in them could not do that.

You tell me Pahoran, is a church that teaches/taught pedophilia and incest under the banner of Christ, in your opinion a Christian Church, and a person that believe and practices pedophilia a Christian, if they do it under the banner of Christ's teaching, you tell me?

Look forward to your answer here.

Take care

MG

Sounds like you should go chat it up with Hoops. Apparently you Mark, do not understand faith, works and grace.

[Markk]

Hi CS

What does this have to do with anything? Old men have been marrying very young women for generations. This happened not only in the LDS church, but the early Christian church and the Jews under Jehovah. It happened in many denominations just a hundred years ago. If we're to go by your arguments, then all Christian churches are not...Christian. Is that correct?

If I can find anyone in your church who married a woman several decades his junior, will you admit that your church isn't Christian? Are you aware that many cultures today still abide in this? Judging a church today by cultural mores that are exclusive to your own, modern mores is not an argument. A pretense of knowing what happened behind closed doors also is not an argument.

Why don't you stick to the argument at hand? You have plenty to deal with above.

Who said anything about marriage, you obviously do not know what we are discussing, it is a sick cult that claims to be Christian, and that Dan and other LDS here have said are Christian, I disagree. Here is a site of their beliefs, they changed their name and are know called " Family International". They claim to believe in the same Jesus as the 20 elements in Dans book...but, it goes a little deeper.

WARNING if you have a weak stomach do not go to these sites. The first is how they portray themselves, the second is what they are.

http://www.thefamily.org/en/about/

EDIT< I took the second http off, it is to terrible what the teach and believe, do a google on them if you don't believe what I say they teach/

Hope his helps you understand my point here, I do not believe in anyway shape or form that this is a Christian Church, that those who practice the garbage what they teach and I don't believe that they serve the same Jesus I do....the question is do you CS?

[Markk]

Sounds like you should go chat it up with Hoops. Apparently you Mark, do not understand faith, works and grace.

HI Mola,

Please, tell me where I error in context with this conversation?

MG