Mormonism and the Trinity

[Daniel Peterson]

Then they better?

I don't think they need to? It's your issue, not theirs?

Your a LDS Bishop, correct me if I am wrong,

I'm an LDS bishop. LDS bishops don't set the doctrine of the Church.

you work for a LDS university, correct me if I'm wrong,

I work for an LDS university. Professors at LDS universities don't set the doctrine of the Church. (Some professors at LDS universities aren't even LDS.)

the web site I am reading your book on (NMI) is owned by the church, correct me if I am wrong.

You're substantively wrong. It is owned by the Maxwell Institute, which is largely owned by an LDS university, which is owned by the Church. It is not controlled by the Church.

The Maxwell Institute website does not set the doctrine of the Church. It is not the doctrine of the Church, for example, that the Sidon was the Grijalva, that a recently discovered photograph is probably that of Oliver Cowdery, or that the language of the English Book of Mormon antedates that of the King James Bible by a generation or two, let alone that Ibn Sina's emanationist view of God is inferior to the standard interpretation of the Qurâ??an as teaching creation ex nihilo.

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.

They have no position on the topic, one way or the other.

In your opinion... is it a bad thing for the church to support the view that is in question, what are you worried about?

It's a bad thing for you to make false statements.

You tell me what site it was and we will both know

????????

What has that got to do with what I said?

Different subject. Please try to keep focused.

I never called you a liar Dan, don't play the victim card so early.

You did, implicitly.

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

Different subject. Please try to stay focused.

And you're simply wrong. I know quite well what certain very vocal members of the evangelical or fundamentalist wing of the recent Protestant faction of Western Christianity -- who like to fancy themselves "the Christian world" -- think about Mormonism.

those quotes are very offensive and show a side of the church most LDS don't like, or at least I hope so.

Those quotes are, as I pointed out, fairly typical of nineteenth century religious (and political) polemics. In fact, as I pointed out, they're rather mild by comparison to many of the things that were being said about the Mormons at that period.

until you understand how deep this attack is, your going to continue to spin you wheels and just preach to the choir.

This has not the slightest thing to do with the thesis or the argument of Offenders for a Word.

And I don't appreciate your smug and wholly unjustified suggestion that I'm ignorant. If you really think I don't know something, prove it. Until then, keep your insults to yourself.

The Bible is not a dictionary Dan.

Thank you for the admission.

There is no biblical definition of the word Christian.

Again, thank you. You've finally acknowledged one of my fundamental points.

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.

And so on and so forth.

Whatever.

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

Perhaps you have some idea what you're talking about. I don't.

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.

Let's not, and say we did.

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.

And blah blah blah.

Do you really imagine I've never heard this sort of stuff before?

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.

Apostles always speak in the language of their day. That's why Paul wrote in Greek, rather than in French. That's why his language is koin

[Daniel Peterson]

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".

Obviously. So what?

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".

Obviously. So what?

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?

Yes. But it does so ambiguously. That's why there are Catholic Christians and Orthodox Christians and Presbyterian Christians and Methodist Christians and Mormon Christians and Baptist Christians and Quaker Christians and Pentecostal Christians and Calvinist Christians and Arminian Christians and etc. and etc.

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?

No second thoughts.

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

Candidly, I rarely if ever learn anything from these discussions.

So I'm opting out. I don't know what possessed me to engage you in the first place.

Best wishes, but sayonara.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

HI Mola,

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

MG

I don't really don't think you do error, Did I say you did? Hoops is the one that thinks it doesn't matter if we sin after we are saved. After all works do not save us hence they cannot damn us. I was just trying to get you 2 to talk about. Since after all if we don't believe the correct doctrine we are not Christian. Do you view Hoops theology as Christian? You don't view mormonism as Christian because we don't believe all of the same things that you do.

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm topping this in case Gervin chooses to reply further. I don't want it to be lost just yet.

[Markk]

Hi Mola,

I don't really don't think you do error, Did I say you did?

Yes you did,this is what you said...

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

You said I didn't understand faith, grace, and works, that would be saying someone is in error Mola.

Hoops is the one that thinks it doesn't matter if we sin after we are saved.

I have a feeling you are taking him out of context here, but maybe not, give me a cfr. It does matter after you sin, but I will say the Bible teaches that God will forgive us for our sins, I have a feeling that was Hoops context, but I could be wrong, I need to see the cfr.

Since after all if we don't believe the correct doctrine we are not Christian

True, very, true. A false doctrine, or a false Jesus, can not save a person, we are warned over and over about this in the Bible.

You don't view Mormonism as Christian because we don't believe all of the same things that you do.

I do not believe LDS doctrine is Christian doctrine, LDS doctrine on the essential doctrines, are opposed to the teachings of the Bible.

Give me a cfr to Hoops posts that discuss this and I will be glad to tell you what I believe, and whether I believe he is wrong or not and why I believe it.

Can you tell me what you believe a Christian is, give me your definition and the LDS churches official definition?

Take care

MG

[Markk]

Hi Dan,

This is what you told me a few posts back:

I haven't heard this language of "false Christian" and "true Christian" much. It's foreign to my experience as a Latter-day Saint.

Then I answered a question by saying this

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".

You then wrote

"Obviously. So what?"

Dan, your contradicting yourself here, if the LDS church believes and teaches that there is such thing as a false Christian, then those people are not Christian, and that kinda destroys your theory.

Yes. But it does so ambiguously. That's why there are Catholic Christians and Orthodox Christians and Presbyterian Christians and Methodist Christians and Mormon Christians and Baptist Christians and Quaker Christians and Pentecostal Christians and Calvinist Christians and Arminian Christians and etc. and etc.

Dan, Mormons are not Christians, Baptists are not Christians, Quakers are not Christians, "Individual people" are Christians. Like I said in one of my first posts here, Mormon, Baptist, or Catholic will not be written in the Lambs book of life, only a persons name. Baptists, Mormons, and Calvinists do not have Jesus as Lord, Christian people do. Those that follow the teachings of the Christ. Those that are saved by Jesus by His grace. They can be Mormon, Baptists, and Catholic, but there will be many that will say " Lord, Lord..." , and Jesus will say he doesn't know them.

And this brings us back to the question of what is Christian doctrine.

No second thoughts.

Good, for the record then you believe those that teach what the "Family" (COG) teaches as Christian doctrine and that those the practice these teaching as Christians.

I'm an LDS bishop. LDS bishops don't set the doctrine of the Church.

Never said they did Dan, I said nothing about "doctrine", but you are a Bishop, and you do believe it, and many LDS here follow you, it is a teaching of a LDS Bishop whether behind the pulpit or not. You are a public figure and arguably one of the foremost LDS apologists and apologetic authors. It is a very fair, and rebuttal to your book to say that DP believes that anyone who claims to be a Christian, is a Christian, even if they teach and practice such things as pedophilia under the banner of being a Christian?

If the LDS church does not believe this, then I guess they had better say so if they do not want speculation that arises from a statement or teaching of a high profile Saint. They are the Leaders of the church, they should lead, and it puts many members in limbo in what the church believes, when they don't.

I work for an LDS university. Professors at LDS universities don't set the doctrine of the Church. (Some professors at LDS universities aren't even LDS.)

I never said a word about "doctrine", see above, bottom line you are a LDS professor and a Bishop that teaches the above. People listen and follow you, it is a heavy duty responsability.

You're substantively wrong. It is owned by the Maxwell Institute, which is largely owned by an LDS university, which is owned by the Church. It is not controlled by the Church.

The Maxwell Institute website does not set the doctrine of the Church. It is not the doctrine of the Church, for example, that the Sidon was the Grijalva, that a recently discovered photograph is probably that of Oliver Cowdery, or that the language of the English Book of Mormon antedates that of the King James Bible by a generation or two, let alone that Ibn Sina's emanationist view of God is inferior to the standard interpretation of the Qurâ??an as teaching creation ex nihilo.

Again, I never said a word about doctrine, but you do teach from this forum. And the LDS church I imagine could shut down the (NMI) at a drop of a hat if the choose to, correct me if I am wrong.

They have no position on the topic, one way or the other.

How do you know that? Have you asked them?

It's a bad thing for you to make false statements.

It is only false if they do not believe that the COG are Christians, if they do, then my statement is true. Personally I hope they do not believe as you do on this, I know that many LDS I know would never believe it. I tell you what Dan, I apologize for saying they would believe or teach such a thing, I sorry.

????????

What has that got to do with what I said?

Different subject. Please try to keep focused.

You said you knew what site I took the quotes of LDS leadership that I pasted, I asked what site it was in that I honestly do not know, I googled a quote I was familar with and got allot of the ones I pasted. My point was that you didn't know what site I got them off of in that they are on many, many sites. If you do know tell me and I'll concure, but I could really careless.

And I don't appreciate your smug and wholly unjustified suggestion that I'm ignorant. If you really think I don't know something, prove it. Until then, keep your insults to yourself.

Do you understand how offensive LDS teachings are to non Mormon's? The only thing wrong with being ignorant is not being able to admit it, that is called pride.

So I'm opting out. I don't know what possessed me to engage you in the first place.

Best wishes, but sayonara.

Sorry your ending this conversation.

Take care

Mark

[Greg Smith]

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

Wow. Rarely have I seen such a manifestation of snide obtuseness as this little exchange from "Markk."

Breathtaking, really.

Wow. Is this typical, or having a bad day?

Anyone who can't understand the difference between a Church being "true or false" (i.e., in an LDS context, having all necessary saving ordinances, authority, and adequate doctrine) and someone being a "true or false" Christian (i.e., truly having faith in Christ, truly trying to pattern their life after him, truly trying to honor and respect Him, truly trusting him, truly believing He is both Lord and God)--well, I'm just not sure that sort of thing is remediable.

Seems to be either a congenital inability to put oneself in the other's position and try to understand what they are saying (with an eerie ability to misconstrue nearly everything to mean the exact opposite of what one intends), or a personality/agenda unwilling to do so.

Other readers might just consider that if we think it's possible to be a true Christian who is not a member of the Church, then your grasp of LDS doctrine is sorely lacking if you think this isn't possible.

And, for the record, Brigham Young would agree:

Now, we ARE believers in the Bible, and in consequence of our unshaken faith in its precepts, doctrine, and prophecy, may be, attributed "the strangeness of our course," and the unwarrantable conduct of many towards this people. Come, my brother Presbyterian; come, my brother professors of every persuasion of long standing and popular distinction in the world, who are dubbed with the word "ORTHODOX;" come, we are all good Christians; I find no fault with youâ??why should you find fault with me? - Brigham Young, "Effects and Privileges of the Gospel," Journal of Discourses, reported by G.D. Watt (24 July 1853), Vol. 1 (London: Latter-day Saint's Book Depot, 1854), 237.

Greg, who will probably regret this as the first pound of his head against the wall....

[Cold Steel]

The part that if you believe that [Mormonism is] the true Christian Church and thus true Christians...how can all the others not be false Christians in a false Christians church?

Consider the words of Elder Jeffrey Holland:

Some Christians, in large measure because of their genuine love for the Bible, have declared that there can be no more authorized scripture beyond the Bible. In thus pronouncing the canon of revelation closed, our friends in some other faiths shut the door on divine expression that we in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints hold dear: the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and the ongoing guidance received by God's anointed prophets and apostles. Imputing no ill will to those who take such a position, nevertheless we respectfully but resolutely reject such an unscriptural characterization of true Christianity. ("My Words...Never Cease," CR April 2008)

And Elder Russell Ballard observed:

We accept as fellow Christians

all who believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God and the Savior of all mankind

. Many Christians do not understand that we have much common ground with them. Joseph Smith taught that Jesus Christ is the core of our belief, and everything else is an appendage to it (see Elders' Journal, July 1838, 44). The name of the Church is The Church of

Jesus Christ

of Latter-day Saints. We believe the original church that Jesus established was lost and has been restored again in our day. The priesthood, the authority given to man to act in the name of God, with apostles and a prophet to lead us, has been restored as have all necessary ordinances of salvation. We believe in and we use the Holy Bible, both the Old and New Testaments and we believe in the Book of Mormon and other books of scripture which support and authenticate the Bible and testify of the ministry and divinity of Christ and of God's ongoing revelation to man. Indeed, the Book of Mormon is "Another Testament of Jesus Christ." (Faith Family Facts and Fruits)

So what's to condemn as "non-Christian"?

Mormons are not Christians, Baptists are not Christians, Quakers are not Christians, "Individual people" are Christians.

All who believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God and the Savior of mankind are Christians, including the churches of which they are a part. This is a well established definition of who and what are Christians, and who are you (or anyone else) to say differently?

Elder Bruce Hafen correctly affirmed the Adversary's goal in this last great dispensation when he said, "Only the Restored Gospel has the fulness of these truths! Yet the adversary is engaged in one of history's greatest cover-ups, trying to persuade people that this Church knows leastâ??when in fact it knows mostâ??about how our relationship with Christ makes true Christians of us." ("The Atonement: All for All," Ensign (CR), May 2004, p.97)

Like I said in one of my first posts here, Mormon, Baptist, or Catholic will not be written in the Lamb's book of life, only a person's name. Baptists, Mormons, and Calvinists do not have Jesus as Lord, Christian people do. Those that follow the teachings of the Christ. Those that are saved by Jesus by His grace. They can be Mormon, Baptists, and Catholic, but there will be many that will say " Lord, Lord..." and Jesus will say he doesn't know them.

I believe that the Lord is here speaking of those who profess to speak for Him when, in fact, they speak for no one but themselves. I see nothing in the scriptures that reflect your views. Your mistake is that you think you know who those are who are saved by Jesus' grace and those who aren't. You're trying to redefine the term "Christianity" to your own narrow terms, and you lack the authority to do that. Since your definition of "Christian" isn't in the Bible, your only recourse is to publish your own dictionary.

[Ceeboo]

I am a Christian!!!

No, I am a Christian !!!

NO YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN, I AM A CHRISTIAN!!!

THEN HOW COME JOHNS AUNT SAID WE ARE NOT CHRISTIAN!!!!!

WHO SAID JOHNS AUNT SPEAKS FOR SHORT PEOPLE IN NEW YORK, THATS WHERE THE REAL CHRISTIANS ARE!!!!!!

I AM WAY MORE CHRISTIAN THAN YOU!!!!

OK, YOUR CHRISTIAN BUT I AM MORE CHRISTIAN!!!!!

GO AHEAD!!! LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OF CHRISTIAN AND YOU WILL SEE THAT MY GROUP IS THERE!!!

Peace,

Ceeboo

[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?

No, I do not.

Is it your position that Christians ([TM] and ©) never ever teach or practice anything that is not a Christian teaching?

How many non-Christian teachings is someone allowed to believe before they stop being a Christian ([TM] and ©)?

The fact is that, if you carry out your odious and immoral plan to "teach a class on Mormonism" that "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," you will be knowingly and intentionally telling cunningly devised half truths, and thus bearing false witness against us.

Does your deliberate and malicious flouting of the ninth commandment mean that you are no longer a Christian ([TM] and ©)?

Especially since, by your own admission, you make a regular practice of such deceit?

Because, of course, you know perfectly well that you are equivocating. Which is, that you are deliberately changing the meaning of a term in the middle of your discourse and hoping that nobody notices.

As you know, Dan argues that the most prevalent use of the word "Christian" -- by a large margin -- is as a morally neutral generic descriptor. It embraces all people who see Jesus of Nazareth as the paramount and uniquely normative figure in their faith.

Immoral Christians are still Christians. Hateful Christians are still Christians. Lying Christians are still Christians. Christian churches that devote their resources to inculcating falsehoods about other faiths are still Christian churches.

Because, you see, outside of your little gang of haters, "Christians" does not mean "our kind of folks."

It never has.

So when Dan says that the CoG's are a Christian body, he is not endorsing their practices.

And only a liar would try to deceive people to think that he is.

And when Dan says that the CoG's are a Christian body, he is not lumping them in with us.

If the CoG's are "fellow-Christians" with us, then they are equally "fellow-Christians" with Lillburn W. Boggs. And Torquemada. And Tariq Aziz. And Hank Hannegraaf. And Aaron Shafavaloff. And you.

You might prefer to deny them the use of the Christian name, but that's only because you are not using the term correctly.

You never have.

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.

Where in the Bible does it say that a Christian can never make an error about a teaching of Christ?

Where in the Bible does it say that a Christian is "a person who has the Holy Spirit in them?"

Where in the Bible does it say how many sins a person can commit, or how long they persist in their sins, or what arguments they can use to justify them, before they stop being a Christian ([TM] and ©)?

This is an argument about word usage. Your appeals to emotion, and especially your dishonest and demagogical "damnation by association" ploy simply prove that you have no argument.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Markk]

Hi Greg,

Wow. Rarely have I seen such a manifestation of snide obtuseness as this little exchange from "Markk."

Breathtaking, really.

Wow. Is this typical, or having a bad day?

LoL, have you read this thread and what LDS members have said about me, Have you noticed how they add K's to my name (it's a hate thing), and flat out calling me a member of a apostate church, see a doctor, "I feel sorry for your poor mother", "I consider you an apostate. Clear enough?"( my favorite), etc...etc., and your appalled because I say I learned something with my conversation with Dan?

Anyone who can't understand the difference between a Church being "true or false" (i.e., in an LDS context, having all necessary saving ordinances, authority, and adequate doctrine) and someone being a "true or false" Christian (i.e., truly having faith in Christ, truly trying to pattern their life after him, truly trying to honor and respect Him, truly trusting him, truly believing He is both Lord and God)--well, I'm just not sure that sort of thing is remediable.

"Christian church", the LDS church claims to be the only true "Christian Church", you left a word out Greg.

What is your definition of a true Christian Church, and how did you come to that conclusion?

Other readers might just consider that if we think it's possible to be a true Christian who is not a member of the Church, then your grasp of LDS doctrine is sorely lacking if you think this isn't possible.

You left out the word Christian again, to be accurate with LDS theology you would have to say...Other readers might just consider that if we think it's possible to be a true Christian who is not a member of the only true Christian Church, which makes no sense at all, LDS standard doctrine calls professing Christians corrupt and what they believe and teach an abomination before God. Lets keep it in context here to what the LDS church actually teaches. And what you say is perfectly fine and totally fair that other readers might want to make up their own minds, but we need to state it fairly and it context.

The same is true with BY, he calls others Christians, and he also calls them so-called Christians, and in the same breath he says the are brothers and the next thay have no authority...he is all over the board. Hi opinions of "christians" is consistent with the POGP and the story of the grove.

Take care

MG

[Cold Steel]

Markk seems a lot like Johnny. He engages in hit and run tactics, spouts opinions without references to scriptures and uses his own posts as authoritative pronouncements.

[Markk]

Hi Pahoran,

No, I do not.

Good, that's a good thing.

Is it your position that Christians ([TM] and

[Markk]

Markk seems a lot like Johnny. He engages in hit and run tactics, spouts opinions without references to scriptures and uses his own posts as authoritative pronouncements.

Where? give me an example. By the way do you believe that a person can practice pediphila, teach it is a commandment of Christ, and do thing sexually that are even worst that that, and still be a Christian and teir teachings Christian? I asked this once, this is second request. If I send you a link of what they believe via a PM will you read it...warning it is terrible, but if you want to have a real clue you should read what they teach and believe.

Take care

MG

[Daniel Peterson]

The multiple k is a "humor thing," Markkkkkkkkkkk, not a "hate thing." I don't hate you. (Don't give yourself airs.) I just think "Markk" looks (and sounds) funny.

If I didn't laugh at our exchanges, at least a little bit, I'd have found it impossible to continue them even as long as I have.

Greg, who will probably regret this as the first pound of his head against the wall....

It's an exasperating exercise in futility, Greg.

After an exchange on another board just now, where, as here, I was met by utter incomprehension -- but also by sneering and an idiotic self-delusional victory jig -- I have to say that I just don't know why I waste the time. If I had a student like some of these folks, I'd fail him in a heartbeat.

I must genuinely be nuts. Are you?

[Cold Steel]

Where? give me an example.

Reading your posts in this thread is an excellent place to begin, Markk. Your insistence that "Christian" relates to individuals and not churches is a good one. In fact, in the early church, members did not pick their own bishops, but general authorities of the church. The apostles spelled out that the true church had a foundation of apostles and prophets (being built on revelation), with teachers, deacons, priests, evangelists and the others. As others have pointed out on this board, the word "apostasy" meant to supplant, or to mutiny. Thus, the apostasy was a mutiny against the officers who had been placed in the church by the apostles and other leaders and that the officers were supplanted by others lacking the proper authority. The idea of a "mystic" church didn't come into the scheme of things until the Reformation. Not having a leg to stand on apostolically, reformers had to invent a mystic church of believers, a non-scriptural interpretation designed as a reason to mutiny against the mutineers. Unable to wrest control of the main ship, the reformers simply bought their own ships, but their ships were not the great ship of Christianity.

By the way do you believe that a person can practice pediphila (sic), teach it is a commandment of Christ, and do thing sexually that are even worst that that and still be a Christian and their teachings Christian?

Probably not, but since when would such believe in Christ as the Son of God, the Messiah and the Atonement? And what does such have to do with whether LDS are Christians? I'm not sure I'd put a lot of stock in that abortionist, Tiller, being a Christian, either, but it would be counterproductive to label his Reformed Lutheran Church as non-Christian and to judge on a case-by-case basis on who I think is and who I think isn't a Christian.

Christianity is, according to both the scriptures and the dictionary, any person, persons or churches who or that believe in Christ as the Son of God regardless of what they may believe or not believe in addition to that. We LDS don't very much approve of the various desert cults that have tried to take over the Lord's church in our day. We may personally believe the people who live their principles are in error and that their leaders are corrupt scum, but we don't play semantic games with such. Why? Because it accomplishes nothing.

Look, Markk, you should be able to see that if some people let YOU determine who's Christian and who isn't, and other people determine that YOU aren't a Christian, or that we aren't or that the Jehovah's Witnesses aren'tâ??where does it end? Where is the line drawn? You may start with the weasels and eliminate them, then what? You go a little further and eliminate by and by everyone eventually who doesn't agree with every doctrine and belief that you have.

You say Mormons aren't Christians, then when pressed, you say, well, Catholics aren't Christian, either. And BTW, neither are Seventh Day Adventists or the Orthodox. (I'm old enough to remember when the debate in this country was over whether the Catholic church was Christian. They were always praying to saints, lighting candles and sprinkle baptizing babies.) So you eliminate the pedophiles and the wackos, then what? You don't think individuals can be just as whacked out as the organizations?

Again, where does it all end, and who gets to draw the lines?

[Greg Smith]

If I didn't laugh at our exchanges, at least a little bit, I'd have found it impossible to continue them even as long as I have.

It's an exasperating exercise in futility, Greg.

...

I must genuinely be nuts. Are you?

I think we're both teachers--you teach university, and I teach clinical medicine to students and residents in association with two medical schools.

As such, we have a congenital inability to believe that people who ask questions or who are ostensibly in a 'learning' posture really don't want to (or can't) learn something. And, when someone seems to not "get it," we presume it is simply because we haven't been clear enough.

Hope springs eternal. :-)

That's why I was amazed reading the thread--you have to WORK to be as dense as "Markk" seems to be trying to be.

[Doctor Steuss]

Mine eyes have seen the coming of the the glory of this post...

[Christians] can be Mormon...

[Calm]

I think we're both teachers--you teach university, and I teach clinical medicine to students and residents in association with two medical schools.

As such, we have a congenital inability to believe that people who ask questions or who are ostensibly in a 'learning' posture really don't want to (or can't) learn something. And, when someone seems to not "get it," we presume it is simply because we haven't been clear enough.

Sounds kind of like the Great Mythical Math Block.

[Greg Smith]

Hi Greg,

LoL, have you read this thread and what LDS members have said about me,

Yes, I read the whole thread--that's why I was amazed. You seem to be purposefully working to be dense/obtuse. I'm not surprised that people get frustrated.

Have you noticed how they add K's to my name (it's a hate thing),

I thought these were typos. :-) Tell you what--if I put too many K's on the end, you can put too many G's on the end of mine.

and flat out calling me a member of a apostate church, see a doctor, "I feel sorry for your poor mother", "I consider you an apostate. Clear enough?"( my favorite), etc...etc., and

Unless you've been a member of the LDS Church, I don't think categorizing you as "apostate" would be appropriate. (In the LDS view, no other Christian denomination has had the authorized Church to apostatize FROM for nearly 2,000 years.)

Besides "apostate" is not typically a term of derision--it's a description of one's relationship to an established group. Thus, a Catholic might well regard a Protestant as an apostate Catholic--which the Protestant would probably take as a compliment, since they don't want to be Catholics. To apostatize from Catholicism would presumably be A Good Thing.

In any case, my reaction is not based on message board rhetorical shenanigans (who among us has not slipped on occasion) but on your posture of rather thick-skulled tendency to misconstrue and spin virtually everything someone says so as to mean the opposite.

Not only is that rude, but it's likely to rile people, especially if it appears you are not discoursing in good faith. It's hard to credit that this could be unintentional and unaware, but I've met some people in which it was a genuine affliction. Here's hoping its under conscious control, and you can do something about it.

your appalled because I say I learned something with my conversation with Dan?

And, there's that obtuseness yet again. I'm not appalled, I'm just well, amazed that anyone could be that dense without trying. I used this phrase to summarize the entire exchange. Shorter, don't you know.

"Christian church", the LDS church claims to be the only true "Christian Church", you left a word out Greg.

Listen carefully, Markk. This is a simple point, and it vital that you grasp it. There will not be an exam, but future behavior will act as a kind of test. I suggest boning up. It is not hard.

There are two principles that you are not grasping:

1) the Church claims to be the "only true and living Church" (of any sort--Christian or otherwise) on the earth. This means that it is the only organization with living prophets, viable priesthood authority and keys, and which teaches all doctrines necessary for exaltation.

2) Point #1 however, does not mean that the Church considers itself to be the only organization that is "truly Christian."

What is your definition of a true Christian Church, and how did you come to that conclusion?

Again, your question betrays a fundamental logical error. You are committing the fallacy of equivocation--when a word can be used in more than one sense, but you are using them in the same sense.

Only true (Christian) Church DOES NOT EQUAL only Church that is truly Christian.

In the first part of the sentence, "true" is used in the sense of "having all authority, being directed by a prophet," etc. In the second, "truly" means "genuine, real, actual" Christian.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Logical_fallacies#Equivocation

You can be a real, honest-to-goodness Christian without having priesthood authority. You can be mistaken about doctrine, and still be a Christian. To be Christian means to worship Jesus, to see Him as uniquely normative in your life, and as the route to salvation.

You left out the word Christian again, to be accurate with LDS theology you would have to say...Other readers might just consider that if we think it's possible to be a true Christian who is not a member of the only true Christian Church, which makes no sense at all, LDS standard doctrine calls professing Christians corrupt

Not all Christians; those professors (i.e., the teachers in Joseph Smith's day). I'd say "corrupt" was a pretty good description, given the role which many later held in armed persecution of the Saints.

Again, you're committing the fallacy of equivocation. The First Vision "professors" means those leaders teaching in Joseph's area about whom he was torn, not every Christian everywhere who "professed" to be a Christian.

The Book of Mormon is very clear about this. It discusses the universal apostasy, and before the restoration of the gospel, and yet it says:

14 They wear stiff necks and high heads; yea, and because of pride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms, they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.

So, these people are true Christians--they're mistaken about some things, but that doesn't mean they aren't "true Christians." But, they aren't "Mormons" or part of the true Church, because it hasn't even be restored at that point in the scripture!

So, your reading of what "LDS doctrine" teaches is fundamentally mistaken. Please quit telling us what we believe and what the logical consequences of it are. You are mistaken. Your logical is flawed. Please prove you can learn something, and quit making such absurd claims.

and what they believe and teach an abomination before God. Lets keep it in context here to what the LDS church actually teaches. And what you say is perfectly fine and totally fair that other readers might want to make up their own minds, but we need to state it fairly and it context.

Agreed. And, I, being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ, probably have a better bead on what it means, how we understand it, than you do. As demonstrated above. So, quit telling us what we believe and what it means.

The same is true with BY, he calls others Christians, and he also calls them so-called Christians, and in the same breath he says the are brothers and the next thay have no authority...he is all over the board. Hi opinions of "christians" is consistent with the POGP and the story of the grove.

Exactly--you can be a Christian and be mistaken about doctrine. You can be Christian and not have authority. You can be led astray and still be an honest-to-goodness Christian. (His "so called Christians" remarks usually referred to those whose behavior was anything but Christian--armed dispossession, religious persecution, etc. I'm inclined to agree.)

This really isn't complex. The teacher in me hopes you can get it.

Best,

Greg

[Daniel Peterson]

The fact is that, if you carry out your odious and immoral plan to "teach a class on Mormonism" that "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," you will be knowingly and intentionally telling cunningly devised half truths, and thus bearing false witness against us.

Why is it odious and immoral to teach a class on Mormonism?

This is the kind of nonsense -- illustrations could be multiplied many times -- that makes it so frustrating, and, ultimately, so futile, to attempt to converse with Markk.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

There are two principles that you are not grasping:

1) the Church claims to be the "only true and living Church" (of any sort--Christian or otherwise) on the earth. This means that it is the only organization with living prophets, viable priesthood authority and keys, and which teaches all doctrines necessary for exaltation.

2) Point #1 however, does not mean that the Church considers itself to be the only organization that is "truly Christian."

Again, your question betrays a fundamental logical error. You are committing the fallacy of equivocation--when a word can be used in more than one sense, but you are using them in the same sense.

This really isn't complex. The teacher in me hopes you can get it.

Best,

Greg

I figured this is worth a repeat, judging from Markk's participation on this board he seem to need things repeted.

I too, hope that Mark gets it this time.

[Greg Smith]

The fact is that, if you carry out your odious and immoral plan to "teach a class on Mormonism" that "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," you will be knowingly and intentionally telling cunningly devised half truths, and thus bearing false witness against us.

Why is it odious and immoral to teach a class on Mormonism?

It is not "odious and immoral to teach a class on Mormonism." It it "odious and immoral to teach a class on Mormonism AND in the course of such teaching say that Dan Peterson....etc., etc., etc.

[The insertion of the bold text is left as an exercise for the reader. Show your work, please.]

Remember what I said about deliberately obtuse?

[mfbukowski]

I think we're both teachers--you teach university, and I teach clinical medicine to students and residents in association with two medical schools.

As such, we have a congenital inability to believe that people who ask questions or who are ostensibly in a 'learning' posture really don't want to (or can't) learn something. And, when someone seems to not "get it," we presume it is simply because we haven't been clear enough.

Hope springs eternal. :-)

That's why I was amazed reading the thread--you have to WORK to be as dense as "Markk" seems to be trying to be.

Really good insight. This is one of my problems as well.

[Scott Lloyd]

It is not "odious and immoral to teach a class on Mormonism." It it "odious and immoral to teach a class on Mormonism AND in the course of such teaching say that Dan Peterson....etc., etc., etc.

[The insertion of the bold text is left as an exercise for the reader. Show your work, please.]

Remember what I said about deliberately obtuse?

It strikes me that Markk simply following the modus operandi of the anti-Mormon: Leave out essential context so as to distort what one's victim said.

It's a very old tactic, exemplified by Zeezrom in the account in Alma 11. Zeezrom asks Amulek if the Son of God would save his people "in their sins" (see verse 34). Amulek replied in the negative. Zeezrom then speaks to the crowd, distorting Amulek's meaning by leaving out essential context. He says, "See that ye remember these things for [Amulek] ... saiith that the Son of God shall come, but he shall not save his people" (verse 35). Zeezrom, of course, leaves out the crucial phrase "in their sins."