Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Mormonism and the Trinity


Daniel Peterson

Recommended Posts

Posted
the LDS church claims to be the only true "Christian Church"
This is not accurate.

We do claim to be the "true Church of Jesus Christ", but that's not the same as being "the only true 'Christian Church'". You might conflate the two terms, but we do not, and more especially in recent times when the terminology has become better defined.

Even were it true, however, it still does not go to the point where you are, that of insisting that we are the only Christians. We accept you as "Christians", with the sole caveat of your having lost some of the elements of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That's a mighty big difference.

Lehi

Posted

Markk, do you believe if you are "Christian", you are all Christian or is it possible that there are aspects of yourself--behaviours, beliefs---that might not be Christian...at least not yet?

Posted

The Jehovah's Witnesses dropped by today. They certainly seemed to have changed their marketing strategies. Instead of wanting to come in, they read me a scripture and gave me a Watchtower with an article entitled, "Do All Religions Lead To the Same God?" The gist was that many people think we all worship the same God, but that it's not true.

...Hindus worship a multitude of deities, wherein Buddhists are said to be unsure about a personal God. Islam teaches that there is one God. So do the churches that claim to be Christian, but most of them also claim that God is a Trinity. Even among the churches, there is a wide range of dogma. Mary, the mother of Jesus, is the object of devotion for Catholics, but not for Protestants. Birth control is generally prohibited for Catholics but not for most Protestants. And Protestants cannot agree on among themselves on the subject of homosexuality.

"The world's religions have not brought peace and unity," the article continues. "Nor have they led to the same God. On the contrary, they have divided mankind and painted a confusing picture of who God is and to worship him."

It seems that the author of this piece would just as much like to determine what a Christian is as Mr. Markk. So why not let the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society determine who's a Christian and who isn't? One blogger I recently came across wrote this concerning "true" Christians:

What do I care which Christians are "true" and which are "fake"? I don't have any reason to think that "true Christians" are any better than just regular old Christians. ... even if I did think Christianity were essentially good, this piece of rhetoric would still fail at its basic goal. The basic goal is to say, "I am different from those other people. I am on God's side." What is wrong with all those other people? They only claim to be Christian. They're not actually Christian, in essence.

But if you claim to be a "true Christian," you're still in the same boat as all those other people. You only
claim
to be Christian. How do I know that you are actually,
truly
Christian? You think I'll take your word for it? In fact, how do you know? How would you know you are truly Christian, if you think the vast majority of Christians do not know? In a misguided attempt at arrogance, you've ended up disparaging a group which, as far as anyone knows, includes yourself.

Fairly well put, actually. Letting each denomination decide for itself which Christians are "true" Christians and which ones aren't would be the most obvious solution, in which case we could be like a group of popes excommunicating each other and independently claiming the keys of apostolic authority.

Markk, in his quest to be the arbiter of who is Christian and who isn't, has forgotten the other "popes" who stand ready to excommunicate him. And unless he can beat them back and suppress them, he risks being labeled a "false" Christian himself.

Since this is an LDS site, one would think it good manners to acquiesce (at least here) and not push the point too far. I recall my Baptist grandmother, a devout old soul who had a complete confidence in the Bible. Each time she went to church and recited the Apostles' Creed, she could never bring herself to utter that reference to the "catholic church," even with the small "c". Until the day she died she was utterly convinced that the Catholic Church was the Antichrist.

The JW article is right in saying that religions don't unite, they divide. And engaging in what Markk and other corrupt professors do in playing word games only stirs contention and misinformation.

Posted
Unless you've [Markkkkkkkkkk cool.gif] 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.

As I recall, that's his position, exactly.

I am an apostate Republican, since I reject their claim to being conservative (and, btw, I am an apostate conservative, too, being a libertarian, lo, these 45 years).

Markkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk cool.gif, like Billy and others here before him (and many doubtless yet to come), trumpets his insider status as evidence of his superiority (having seen the light) to the rest of us. He's not, perhaps, as violently blatant about it, but it's always there, lurking amongst the shadows.

Lehi

P.S. I often make light-hearted fun of people's account names here, as, recently, "secretsaboutyou" whom I labeled "blackmailer" and "tattler", or, more distantly, "rhinomelon" as "nose fruit" and "nasal gourd". I assure you, it is solely for entertainment. LS

Posted
Letting each denomination decide for itself which Christians are "true" Christians and which ones aren't would be the most obvious solution, in which case we could be like a group of popes excommunicating each other and independently claiming the keys of apostolic authority.

Personally, I don't care what Markk or the JWs or anyone says about whether I'm "Christian" or not. Their opinions don't carry any weight with the One who really matters.

But (and it is a big but), you see, I made a covenant to "stand as a witness" of God and Christ "at all times and in all places, in whatsoever situation" I may be in, until death. I try to be a man of my word.

So, when Markk or someone else starts saying, "You're not a Christian," I feel morally honor-bound to say, "Yes, I am."

Not because I want to convince him or care what he thinks (save in the sense I think he'd waste less of his time if he understood the facts better than he has on this thread).

But, because I refuse to be ashamed of my core identity and aspiration. Perhaps my theology is mistaken. I'm sure my life doesn't measure up like it should to my pretensions, at least some of the time.

But, I'll be damned (and I use the word expressly) if I'll acquiesce with my silence to anyone telling me I don't worship Christ and hold Him out as the be-all and end-all, my only hope in this world or the next.

At the very least, to do would be astonishingly ungrateful of me.

Posted
Personally, I don't care what Markk or the JWs or anyone says about whether I'm "Christian" or not. Their opinions don't carry any weight with the One who really matters.

But (and it is a big but), you see, I made a covenant to "stand as a witness" of God and Christ "at all times and in all places, in whatsoever situation" I may be in, until death. I try to be a man of my word.

So, when Markk or someone else starts saying, "You're not a Christian," I feel morally honor-bound to say, "Yes, I am."

Not because I want to convince him or care what he thinks (save in the sense I think he'd waste less of his time if he understood the facts better than he has on this thread).

But, because I refuse to be ashamed of my core identity and aspiration. Perhaps my theology is mistaken. I'm sure my life doesn't measure up like it should to my pretensions, at least some of the time.

But, I'll be damned (and I use the word expressly) if I'll acquiesce with my silence to anyone telling me I don't worship Christ and hold Him out as the be-all and end-all, my only hope in this world or the next.

At the very least, to do would be astonishingly ungrateful of me.

Very well said, Greg.

Posted
But (and it is a big but), you see, I made a covenant to "stand as a witness" of God and Christ "at all times and in all places, in whatsoever situation" I may be in, until death. I try to be a man of my word.

So, when Markk or someone else starts saying, "You're not a Christian," I feel morally honor-bound to say, "Yes, I am."

Not because I want to convince him or care what he thinks (save in the sense I think he'd waste less of his time if he understood the facts better than he has on this thread).

But, because I refuse to be ashamed of my core identity and aspiration....

I grew up with my mother telling me that she chose my name to be a constant reminder of who I was and what I wanted to become (it means "follower of Christ"). I don't ever remember not knowing that about myself and accepting it without question as I grew in the LDS faith to know what that meant for me and others and why this was so.

I think at this point it would be easier to deny my family name and connections (and that would be hard) than it would be to deny that part of me.

Posted

Hi Dan,

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.

I don't believe you hate me, your too good a man for that, I believe the first time it was done, it was out of frustration and a emotional response that if you could have taken back you would have, and by still doing it some how justifies it. Dan, I really don't care, it doesn't bother me one bit,( I am in construction, I get beat up all day long)and when it was just three k's it didn't bother me either, I know my heart. I may be a idiot , but by golly I'm a honset and sincere idiot, and the only reason I brought it up is because of Greg's very hypocritical, arrogant, statement, he started his post like a "troll" starts a thread out of blind ignorance, and that OK, I understand it's not easy jumping in a thread like this without " being in the flow".

Dan, I mean this from my heart, there can only be two motives for people who "waste their time...LoL" on these forums, they are either in it for an argument, or they have a passion for what their ideology is, I have the latter and I have know doubt that your motives are also honest....however wrong...LoL (a joke Dan).

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 agree, it's not easy on my end either Dan.

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.

That's why its hard Dan, you really believe you know it all. If I had an employee with this type of attitude I would make him dig a hole until he found some humility.

Take care

Mark

Posted

I'd still be interested in a response from Gervin, but, in the meantime, here's the opening post of the thread:

Some here might perhaps be interested in an article that, despite the date given on the periodical, I've just published in the journal of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology:

Daniel C. Peterson, "Mormonism and the Trinity," Element 3/1-2 (Spring/Fall 2007): 1-43.

The concluding paragraph of the article reads as follows:

Latter-day Saints and other Christians will continue to disagree on many things. But, if I'm correct, the doctrine of the Trinity need not loom quite so large among them.

Quite vainly, I think it's an article that might interest a few people.

Posted

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?

Posted
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.

Hi Greg,

I have seen allot in my years, but your arrogance surpasses all.

There was this professor, a very learned man, he had a couple of PH D's, a Pulitzer, and even a Nobel peace prize. He was published more than any of his peers. He decided to go golfing and was paired with a plumber. They played on and this scholar dazzled the plumber with his brilliance. He told him how he was loved, how he was cherished by his students. He boasted of his latest theory's and findings of his fields. He talked and talked, he boasted and boasted, he was letting this plumber know how learned and brillant of a man he was.

When they had gotten to the 15th hole there was a great cloud burst and it started to rain very hard on these two men. The professor in a state of panic looked at the plumber and said..." what do we do now!", the plumber calmly looked this great man in the eyes, smiled, put his arm on his back and said

"lets get out of the rain."

Greg, your all wet, you need to get out of the rain.

Myself, being a father for 22 years, having taught in youth ministry for 16 years, coached more youth sport teams than I can remember, managed multi million dollar construction projects and have ran very large construction crews; if I have learned anything ( by both success and failure) about teaching, and being a leader (a big part of teaching) is that you have to listen, be consistent, and have a little humility ( be real) , if not they are most likely kissing your rear for a good grade and respect is far and in between. I have no idea what it is like to teach on a level of Dan's, or maybe yours, but I do know people, human nature, and have commen sense, and again your arrogance amazes me.

Take care, look forward to discussing the "Issues", I'm working my way down to your last response to me.

Mark

Posted
The Church is the body of believers IN Christ, Jesus being the head. It is not a building or an organization. Believers, those that have been baptized by the HS into the body, (the church) are Christians. They can be any denomination or whatever as long as they have been immersed into the Body of Christ. There is absolutely no such a thing as Church's (plural) in context with the true Church, which is Christ, there is only one true Church and only one true Christ (Messiah).

That is the theory behind Protestantism, but it's far from being our belief or the beliefs of many others. It's nothing more than the private interpretation of scriptures and there's nothing whatsoever to support it in the New Testament writings, history or tradition. From the NT accounts, the church is indeed an organization, with designated officers. Your assertion, too, that Christians can be of "any denomination" as long as they have been "immersed into the Body of Christ." This is what I mean by making authoritative statements without any reference to scriptures. Immersion is done in water (baptism) and has nothing to do with the body of Christ. You also contend, erroneously, that there's no such thing as the church in the context of a "true" church. I think all of the apostles would have strenuously disagreed. They wrote letters of guidance to the various churches, which eventually mutinied and began electing their own officers. Thus the apostasy.

Very few biblical scholars would agree with you on any of these points. Nowhere do the scriptures say anything close to what you say about the church. In short, it's nothing more than the precepts of men. It's Protestantism. As Nibley pointed out, "The classical formula is given by Anselm: fides quaerens intellectum; you first decide what you are going to believe and then you set out to find intellectual demonstrations that will support it." And so you've done this here.

I prefer the word "fellowship" over church so not to lose this understanding. Early Christians met in houses, fields or were ever and fellow shipped together and shared what they had with each other. They did not meet in a building designated as a church...

Here you illustrate my point. It's always what Markk prefers. Markk prefers thinking of the church as a mystical body; Markk prefers using the word "fellowship" to church, and Markk believes that Christians can be any denomination as long as they are part of this mystical entity. Isn't what the apostles thought important to this discussion? Didn't Jesus say, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you and ordained you..."? To cite Nibley again, what is a false prophet? "He is one who usurps the prerogatives and the authority which by right belong only to a prophet of God. The false prophet need not claim to be a prophet; indeed, most false prophets do not believe in prophecy or even in God, nor do they want anyone else to." By furthering your own ideas over that of the apostles and over holy writ, you set yourself up as a false prophet.

You say the first Christians met in homes and in fields, well, so did the early LDS church. We met in very tiny homes and in very large fields. What does that prove? Your statement that because the early saints met in homes and in fields, that Christians have no formal organization and should meet that way reminds me of Muslims who grow beards because Muhammad had one. True, they used to meet in homes and in fields, but they also met in buildings as time went on. The buildings they meet in don't have nearly the significance that the church having ordained and known officers does.

One foundation was laid, Christ being the Chief cornerstone. Then the Church (the body) is built on this foundation. The LDS version of this is not in any way shape of form like the early church, 12 year old boys were not deacons...etc.

You're correct that the church is the body of Christ, but you're wrong in saying that everyone claiming to be the body of Christ is "the church." We won't discuss the ordination of boys as deacons since that has no relevance to the issue at hand. We LDS have never felt compelled to operate exactly as the early church operated, but to operate as the Lord directs. The LDS church is still the one church that most resembles the early church. Has it changed to accommodate growth and communication? Certainly, but the scriptures nowhere limit us to doing things in a prescribed, unchanging matter (what use would we have of revelation?). Remember, too, that not everyone who saith, "Lord, Lord!" will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

I've been in construction for 30 years and have never replaced a foundation unless it was inadequate, or failing. One does not keep building a foundation, and the writers of the Bible understood this, it is a oxymoron to even suggest that one continues to add to a foundation after it was first build. Are you suggesting that the original foundation is not strong enough or that it is inadequate?

No argument with you there. In fact, the LDS faith fully agrees with you. Like the ancient church, it, is built upon the same foundation of apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone. Remember, however, that the apostolic offices aren't sepulchers.

CFR? [on the word apostasy meaning mutiny.]

Certainly. See Hugh Nibley's World and the Prophets and Richard Draper's Understanding the Book of Revelation. Also, note:

In an attempt to understand the message of Nephi and John, terms must be defined. The Greek word
apostasia
(apostasy) means "rebellion" or "revolution." It conveys the sense of an internal takeover within an organization or institution by factions hostile to the intentions of its previous leaders. The translation "mutiny" for
apostasia
, calls up the image of a ship being commandeered by those who are not authorized to do so and being taken in a direction the ship was not intended to go. Because early Christians often thought of the Church as a ship, it seems "mutiny" conveys exactly the right sense of what Paul and others meant by the term "apostasy." (
Book of Mormon Reference Companion
, "The Great and Abominable Church," 1 Nephi 13)

Also:

The Greek word used by Paul in 2 Thes. 2:3 is
apostasia
, from which we have the English word "apostasy." It is constructed from two Greek roots: the verb
histeni
, "to stand," and the preposition
apo
, "away from." The word means "rebellion," "mutiny," "revolt" or "revolution," and it is used in ancient contexts with reference to uprisings against established authority. The idea of a gentle drifting that comes to mind with the term "a falling away" is not one of apostasy's meanings.

In a revolution or rebellion, the objective is to remove the leaders and replace them with others whose views are more compatible with one's own. This results not only in new leadership but also in new policies of state and new national objectives. Similarly, in a mutiny the mutineers throw the captain and his loyal crew overboard, take control of the steering of the ship, and set course in a new direction for a new destination. ("Foretelling the Apostasy,"
LDS Church News
, 1995, 11/25/95)

Did you bother to check what I wrote, test me CS, I gave you a reference.

You attempt to use extremes to write off the outer fringes. Once that's done, you move in until you can eliminate everyone who doesn't believe as you do. What any one group claims makes no difference to me, as I don't equate Christians as members of Christ's church, but those who profess Christ. As Dan Peterson noted, apparently others thought of them as Christians or, at least, didn't go out of the way to argue their status as Christians. Suffice it to say that God will judge all, rich and poor, bond and free, Christians and non-Christians. In the end, I don't believe God will judge anyone based on labels.

Posted

Hi Greg,

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.

CFR, be specific, then we will see...fair, or you can just make blanket statements for the choir.

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.

Do some homework, read how this started, it goes back maybe a year or two, make sure you read in context, then give me your opinion, your speaking out of ignorance. I could really careless, it does not bother me, I brought it up because of your arrogant, ill-informed post. Do a search under Dan's name with my name spelled with three K's, and tell me if it was written in the context of being "funny"? Make sure to read the first time it occured.

Unless you've been a member of the LDS Church, I don't think categorizing you as "apostate" would be appropriate.

I was born and raised in the church, 4th and 5th generation, and a member for a long time, but that was not the context, did you read any of Z's posts? Again I could careless, it comes with coming here, just as when Dan goes to the other sites, I only brought it up because of you said about me, without mentioning the others comments about me, it was very hypocritical, unbalanced of you.

Here is a sample of the context:

You mean â??apostate Christian org.â? Agreed!

That is what apostate Christian theology teaches. Agreed!

I am sure it would be. I would say there is a BIG difference between the Mormon doctrine of the Trinity which is true and revealed from heaven, and the Trinitarian theology of apostate Christendom. Unfortunately I havenâ??t read Danielâ??s article, so I canâ??t comment.

am sure the apostate Christian world does not relate very well with the LDS doctrine of the nature of God.

Now that is a strange remark, because your theology of the Trinity is the product of the minds of men, not based on the revelations of God. In short, your Trinitarian theology is not biblical. I wish you would take your own advice and believe in the Trinity of the Bible, as the Mormons do, instead of the false Trinity of post-apostate Christendom.

You mean apostate Christian view of the Godhead. Agreed!

You just donâ??t get it do you. It is not a â??Christian point of view â?¦â? it is an â??apostate Christian pint of view â?¦â?. LDS point of view is the true Christian one. Got it?

Correction: You mean apostate Christian theology. Agreed!

These are quotes from just two or three posts from an LDS member here. This has nothing to do with me being a ex member, the post you wrote about me was out of ignorance and very hypocritical Greg.

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.

And? I agree with this more or less, it is a little deeper than the way yo put it. I bore my testimony many times saying pretty much the same thing, even when I was 6 years old and didn't have a clue what I was saying.

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

I couldn't disagree more, that is so lame..LoL. In the grove Jesus supposedly told JS that they were an abomination, and gave lip service only. That is what the POGP says and that trumps anything by LDS standards that anyone else can say. Please give me a short exegesis of the account of the vision as the POGP relates it, and how these churches that JS was not to join are "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.

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.

HuH? Greg, the Church is the body of believers in Christ, there is no other Church. That is so ridiculous, is this a official church teaching or your opinion, if it is official give me a CFR.

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.

Biblical CFR...Can you be a Christian outside the body of Christ?

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 your spinning, if not is it OK to join these Church's now? Why not? And it is not about teachers, it is about those that profess is anyone that teaches or professes to believe, you can not separate the two. It was because of what they taught, not a personal thing. If the same is taught today, then it would have to be equally an abomination. And given the "play", that was given until the late 1970's, the Christian pastor was not given much respect, to say it was just in JS day is just not the case.

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.

Your spinning, what did those teachers teach different from today teachers. I never said those "who professed to be a Christian", I said those Christians that professed the doctrines of their faith ("professing Christians"), your putting words in my mouth and misquoting me, re-read what I said.

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.

The next verse says" 15 O the wise, and the learned, and the rich, that are puffed up in the pride of their hearts, and all those who preach false doctrines, and all those who commit ewhoredoms, and pervert the right way of the Lord, fwo, wo, wo be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell!

Are you saying the pastors of JS day are going straight to Hell...to a everlasting torment?

This was written supposedly 300 years or so before Christ was even born, which open another can of worms, I'm not sure a person can be a follower of Christ before his incarnation...but back to the context.

This has nothing to do with what Jesus supposedly said to JS in the grove. This was a couple thousand years before the vision, and if it is a prophecy the your stuck with these men being whores and worst and that they are in hell burning...do you agree with that?

"They rob the poor because of their fine sanctuaries; they rob the poor because of their fine clothing;" How many fine sanctuaries were in Josephs neighborhood?

Your throwing a big blanket, but I more or less I agree that this is a teaching of the church, what a mess.

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.

Never once said anything about what you believe, I just met you yesterday, I have no idea what you believe, I said what LDS theology teaches and demands. and having been a member, and still may be on the books, I have a good idea on LDS ideology although I admit it is changing, and thats a good thing.

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.)

No, he was just a walking contradiction, and as Dans book defines, Christian is just a generic term to anyone who wants to be one.

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

Take care

Mark

John 1:12

Posted
This is not accurate.

We do claim to be the "true Church of Jesus Christ", but that's not the same as being "the only true 'Christian Church'". You might conflate the two terms, but we do not, and more especially in recent times when the terminology has become better defined.

Even were it true, however, it still does not go to the point where you are, that of insisting that we are the only Christians. We accept you as "Christians", with the sole caveat of your having lost some of the elements of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That's a mighty big difference.

Lehi

Hi lehi,

Define Church for me, and who is the head, can a church not be Christian?

MG

Posted
Markk, do you believe if you are "Christian", you are all Christian or is it possible that there are aspects of yourself--behaviours, beliefs---that might not be Christian...at least not yet?

Hi Cal

I believe a Christian will not, or can not habitually practice sin. I am positionally a Christian (Child of God) , clothed in His righteousness, practically I fall short everyday, but by His grace I am saved having His righteousness imputed in me.

MG

Posted
Greg, give it up.

I mean, really.

Profit from my sad tale of woe.

Those who don't learn from history are fated to repeat it.

Hi Dan,

Come on, with out this I might have to get a life.

Take care, I mean it

Mark

Posted

HI CS

I wrote: The Church is the body of believers IN Christ, Jesus being the head.
CS wrote: That is the theory behind Protestantism, but it's far from being our belief or the beliefs of many others. It's nothing more than the private interpretation of scriptures and there's nothing whatsoever to support it in the New Testament writings

Col 1:18...And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.

1Cr 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. (read all of chapter 12 for complete context)

Read the first two or three chapters of Eph. and see how many times it says "in Him" and similar phases.

Your assertion, too, that Christians can be of "any denomination" as long as they have been "immersed into the Body of Christ." This is what I mean by making authoritative statements without any reference to scriptures. Immersion is done in water (baptism) and has nothing to do with the body of Christ.

1Cr 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also [is] Christ.

1Cr 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit

See Bold, the HS Immerses ( baptizes) a Christian into the body of Christ. baptism means ti "immerse", water does not mean baptism.

Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Notice how it says "all one in Christ" and " baptized (Lit. Immersed into Christ)

You also contend, erroneously, that there's no such thing as the church in the context of a "true" church. I think all of the apostles would have strenuously disagreed. They wrote letters of guidance to the various churches, which eventually mutinied and began electing their own officers. Thus the apostasy.

Read what I said, I said church plural, there is only one true church, the apostles wrote to only one church, the Church of Christ, this church was in different citys and lands, but none the less one church. Do you believe that the LDS church is one church or many churches?

Very few biblical scholars would agree with you on any of these points. Nowhere do the scriptures say anything close to what you say about the church. In short, it's nothing more than the precepts of men. It's Protestantism. As Nibley pointed out, "The classical formula is given by Anselm: fides quaerens intellectum; you first decide what you are going to believe and then you set out to find intellectual demonstrations that will support it." And so you've done this here.

Take some time and do a little study, you don't have to believe what I believe, but at least take the time to understand these verses and teachings.

take care

MG

Posted
Personally, I don't care what Markk or the JWs or anyone says about whether I'm "Christian" or not. Their opinions don't carry any weight with the One who really matters.

But (and it is a big but), you see, I made a covenant to "stand as a witness" of God and Christ "at all times and in all places, in whatsoever situation" I may be in, until death. I try to be a man of my word.

So, when Markk or someone else starts saying, "You're not a Christian," I feel morally honor-bound to say, "Yes, I am."

Not because I want to convince him or care what he thinks (save in the sense I think he'd waste less of his time if he understood the facts better than he has on this thread).

But, because I refuse to be ashamed of my core identity and aspiration. Perhaps my theology is mistaken. I'm sure my life doesn't measure up like it should to my pretensions, at least some of the time.

But, I'll be damned (and I use the word expressly) if I'll acquiesce with my silence to anyone telling me I don't worship Christ and hold Him out as the be-all and end-all, my only hope in this world or the next.

At the very least, to do would be astonishingly ungrateful of me.

A valid point Greg, but missing some important bits. When someone tells you that you are not a Christian, despite your protestations that you are, there are two possible cases to consider: either the person is mistaken; or else he does so with deliberate and malicious intent. If he is mistaken, the answer is simple: you provide him with the correct information, and the matter will be resolved. But if he is not mistaken, and he is your adversary, and he uses that as a deliberate tactic to attack you and what you stand for, and destroy it if he can, then a different approach is required than just providing him with the â??correct informationâ?. That is not going to do him (or you) any good because that is not what he is interested in. The issue is no longer an â??academicâ? one. Other factors come into play that can no longer be dealt with by a purely â??academicâ? argument.

Providing the correct information in such a case (such as writing a book for example), may be useful for helping others (who are not maliciously motivated) from being deceived by him; but it will not be of much help in confronting him directly. That is because his stance is inherently a dishonest one. An academic discussion requires, and assumes, honesty on both sides. If one side is inherently dishonest, and is not interested in the truth, then that is going to be a futile exercise. A different approach is required in that case.

Why do you think he has stopped answering my questions or debating with me altogether; but he is willing to carry on that endless discussion with the rest of you? Go back and read the exchanges I have had with him, and analyse them carefully, and you will find out why. If you donâ??t know how to handle a guy in that situation, the best strategy is simply to ignore him. Let him stew in his own juice. He is utterly powerless otherwise to prevent you from â??standing as witness of Jesus Christ at all times and in all places that you might be inâ?. You mind your own business and preach the gospel to those who are genuinely interested when you have that opportunity. How is he going to stop you from doing that? Of course he canâ??t. Maybe he will write a book telling people why we are not Christians! Well, so what? We will write a better book explaining to then why we are! and they can judge it for themselves. But when confronting him directly, you at first provide him with the correct information; and after he has demonstrated that he is not interested in the truth, you just ignore him, and find something more useful to do with you timeâ??unless you are like me of course, and you know how to bug him so that he will run away with his tail between his legs! :P

Posted

Hi Z,

The reason I stopped answering your posts is really simpler than you believe, I read your blog page that reads as follows..

The most important lesson you will learn from debating Mormonism on Christian discussion boards on the Internet is knowing when not to reply to someone. Very often it happens that the best reply you can give to someone is not to reply to them at all. In those situations, any other answer you give will be the wrong answer, and will put you at a disadvantage....Perhaps some would say, When these folks challenge our beliefs, then it becomes necessary for us to address their challenges because not to do so would amount to some kind of defeat in the eyes of others who are following the discussions. That is not true. Firstly, when someone is making bogus challenges, you are not the only one who will recognize it. Others will recognize it too, and will understand when you do not reply to them. Secondly, did you know that the most devastating response you can give to a persistent critic of the Church is to consistently ignore them? They feed on your replies. They thrive on it. Ignore them, and they will die away

Way back in our discussions you stated doing this, and it was not a discussion anymore.

In other words just put your hands over your ears and go blah, blah, blah and shake your head back and forth. I'm simply am not going to waste my time on that kind of philosophical approach to talking with people, after all, whether we agree or disagree...this is a disscusion board.

take care

Mark

Posted
Hi Z,

The reason I stopped answering your posts is really simpler than you believe, I read your blog page that reads as follows..

The most important lesson you will learn from debating Mormonism on Christian discussion boards on the Internet is knowing when not to reply to someone. Very often it happens that the best reply you can give to someone is not to reply to them at all. In those situations, any other answer you give will be the wrong answer, and will put you at a disadvantage....Perhaps some would say, When these folks challenge our beliefs, then it becomes necessary for us to address their challenges because not to do so would amount to some kind of defeat in the eyes of others who are following the discussions. That is not true. Firstly, when someone is making bogus challenges, you are not the only one who will recognize it. Others will recognize it too, and will understand when you do not reply to them. Secondly, did you know that the most devastating response you can give to a persistent critic of the Church is to consistently ignore them? They feed on your replies. They thrive on it. Ignore them, and they will die away

Way back in our discussions you stated doing this, and it was not a discussion anymore.

In other words just put your hands over your ears and go blah, blah, blah and shake your head back and forth. I'm simply am not going to waste my time on that kind of philosophical approach to talking with people, after all, whether we agree or disagree...this is a disscusion board.

take care

Mark

Actually I didn't; but that is more or less what I am advising other people to do.
Posted
Myself, being a father for 22 years, having taught in youth ministry for 16 years, coached more youth sport teams than I can remember, managed multi million dollar construction projects and have ran very large construction crews; if I have learned anything ( by both success and failure) about teaching, and being a leader (a big part of teaching) is that you have to listen, be consistent, and have a little humility ( be real) , if not they are most likely kissing your rear for a good grade and respect is far and in between. I have no idea what it is like to teach on a level of Dan's, or maybe yours, but I do know people, human nature, and have commen sense, and again your arrogance amazes me.

So, what's it like having people kiss your tush all the time?

Posted
Hi Cal

I believe a Christian will not, or can not habitually practice sin. I am positionally a Christian (Child of God) , clothed in His righteousness, practically I fall short everyday, but by His grace I am saved having His righteousness imputed in me.

MG

Define "habitually" here please.

Can an alcoholic or someone who overeats consistently for example a Christian?

Posted

Hi Cal

I would say a alcoholic yes, someone that is so under the influence of alcohol that it is their god and can not see the free gift of Grace that is offered. But the Bible says that drunkards will not inherit the Kingdom of God and He will judge this.

1Cr 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

1Cr 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

They are not saved because of their sin, so to speak, but because of their "unrighteousness". They have not repented from their carnal nature and do not have Christs righteousness imputed to them.

So I would define "habitual" as being any sin that keeps one away form accepting Gods free gift of Grace.

Whether you believe this or not, does this make sense, why? why not?

Take care

Mark

John 1:12

Posted
Hi Cal

I would say a alcoholic yes, someone that is so under the influence of alcohol that it is their god and can not see the free gift of Grace that is offered. But the Bible says that drunkards will not inherit the Kingdom of God and He will judge this.

1Cr 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

1Cr 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

They are not saved because of their sin, so to speak, but because of their "unrighteousness". They have not repented from their carnal nature and do not have Christs righteousness imputed to them.

So I would define "habitual" as being any sin that keeps one away form accepting Gods free gift of Grace.

Whether you believe this or not, does this make sense, why? why not?

Take care

Mark

John 1:12

You responded to the alcoholic, I am curious if you classify overeating in the same way. Please specify this one.

To be clear, your POV is that someone saved can commit a sin (as long as it does not keep one from accepting God's grace), even if they repeatedly commit this particular sin.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...