Mormonism and the Trinity

[Markk]

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.

Hi Cal,

If you eat so much that you do not accept Gods free Gift of Grace (because your stuffing your face...LoL), then yes.

That is not my POV at all, I never said anything close to that. I said practically a saved person is a sinner, but positionally they are clothed in the righteousness of Jesus Christ. We all sin, every day, all day, but if a person is clothed in the righteouness of Christ, having it imputed to them, then God does not, so to speak, see their sin, He see's the righteousness of Christ whom as a Body of believers we are clothed in.

The person who commits a habitual sin ha seither lost their salvation, or was never saved, I believe the latter, but if I am wrong I believe that if the person did lose their salvation it is not the cause of any specific sin, it is because they simply stopped believeing.

This position is held by millions of Christians, it is a standard belief, I understand that you most likely do not hold this belief, and that is certianly your choice, but I want to help you understand the belief of the imputed righteousness of Christ, and how as a believer they are in ChristI would love to walk you through the scripture on this.

Take care

Mark

John 1:12

MG

[Calm]

Hi Cal,

If you eat so much that you do not accept Gods free Gift of Grace (because your stuffing your face...LoL), then yes.

That is not my POV at all, I never said anything close to that. I said practically a saved person is a sinner, but positionally they are clothed in the righteousness of Jesus Christ. We all sin, every day, all day, but if a person is clothed in the righteouness of Christ, having it imputed to them, then God does not, so to speak, see their sin, He see's the righteousness of Christ whom as a Body of believers we are clothed in.

But isn't this ("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") the implication of what you are saying? I am not saying that your POV is that the person is thinking that he can get away with sinning as long as he's accepted God's grace, I am saying that your POV implies that someone can sin and even repeat the sin over time many times (even constantly) if that particular sin is/has not interfering/ed with his acceptance of God's grace (not just that he thinks it's not interfering, it truly isn't).

For example, take a smoker who is addicted; even if he is unable to give up smoking due to the physical effects on his body, if he has accepted God's grace, the addictive behaviour does not prevent him from being saved.

[Markk]

Hi Cal,

But isn't this ("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") the implication of what you are saying? I am not saying that your POV is that the person is thinking that he can get away with sinning as long as he's accepted God's grace, I am saying that your POV implies that someone can sin and even repeat the sin over time many times (even constantly) if that particular sin is/has not interfering/ed with his acceptance of God's grace (not just that he thinks it's not interfering, it truly isn't).

I'm not real clear as to what your saying, but I'll give it a shot. tell me what you believe here on this subject and it may help me understand where your going with this, it is interesting and a good exercise.

For example, take a smoker who is addicted; even if he is unable to give up smoking due to the physical effects on his body, if he has accepted God's grace, the addictive behaviour does not prevent him from being saved.

If he is indeed saved, he will just get to heaven quicker, a consequence of stupid living, just like over eating. I think energy drinks are as bad or even worse than smoking, with the exception of second hand smoke.

The Bible teaches that a saved person has the HS in them and are sealed my the HS until Jesus come again, I believe if the HS lives in a Christian there are certain things a person can not do habitually (Blinds them to Gods grace and commandments).

If I missed your point, I'm sorry, please rephrase it?

MG

[Calm]

Hi Cal,

I'm not real clear as to what your saying, but I'll give it a shot. tell me what you believe here on this subject and it may help me understand where your going with this, it is interesting and a good exercise.

If he is indeed saved, he will just get to heaven quicker, a consequence of stupid living, just like over eating. I think energy drinks are as bad or even worse than smoking, with the exception of second hand smoke.

The Bible teaches that a saved person has the HS in them and are sealed my the HS until Jesus come again, I believe if the HS lives in a Christian there are certain things a person can not do habitually (Blinds them to Gods grace and commandments).

If I missed your point, I'm sorry, please rephrase it?

MG

I am not going anywhere with this save to clarify your POV. Your response to the example demonstrates that my understanding of your POV on this is correct---as a most basic summary....sin, even repeated sins, won't prevent a saved person from reaching heaven. Thank you.

[Markk]

Hi Cal,

I am not going anywhere with this save to clarify your POV. Your response to the example demonstrates that my understanding of your POV on this is correct---as a most basic summary....sin, even repeated sins, won't prevent a saved person from reaching heaven. Thank you.

Of course, everybody is a sinner,forgiveness of sin's is what saves a person, that is why Jesus came. Do not though mixt his up with a habitual life of sin without repentence. As a Mormon I believed this also to a large degree.

Out of curiosity, what is your take on this?

MG

[Greg Smith]

Hi Greg,

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

Hmm. The ad hominem abusive play already? It's not clear to me why it is arrogant to assume that any normal person can be taught if they want to learn some subject, or what your management of construction projects or youth sports teams has to do with that.

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

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.

Let's just stipulate, to save everyone time, that I'm horrendously, terribly arrogant, ok?

I make Cosimo Medici look like Mother Theresa. My house is filled with heroic-scale sculpture of me in a Greco-Roman demi-god mode. My talent for self-promotion and navel gazing makes Oprah look like Gandhi. I'm also thoroughly despicable in other ways too numerous to go into here.

I find it funny you NOW want to talk about issues, after starting out with insults. Hopefully this means they're out of your system. This is tending to confirm my first impression.

Shoulda listened to Dan.

Greg

[Cold Steel]

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.

Nothing there, Markk. Jesus is head of the church. The body of Christ is the church. The body of Christ has apostles, prophets, teachers, deacons, priests, evangelists and other duly called and ordained officers. This is something you should have known from your own days as a LDS. Christ called those in the church, ordained them and set them apart as leaders. He wasn't referring to a bunch of denominations. If you're right, then anyone can start their own church. You need to convert back to the faith because I really have a hard time believing that you believe what you're saying. It's so against everything the apostles wrote, said and did. Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, "Now ye are the body of Christ." It wasn't addressed "to those it may concern."

Today the body of Christ can be found throughout the world, but those who are of the body are baptized and confirmed members of the church of Jesus Christ.

Keep in mind that these epistles aren't addressed to everyone, but to the saints. If you and the Protestant culture are correct, how might the Bible be different? First, the apostles would have clearly stated that the body of Christ was some nebulous, metaphysical group composed of people who believed different doctrines and who had diverse leaders. Instead, they were letters of rebuke, chiding the people for their divisions and for not understanding the unity of Christ. Unity meant everything. "That they may be one, even as we are one," Jesus prayed of his apostles. Diversity was not stated even once as a divine principle. The epistles were written in an attempt to check the fragmenting of the churchâ??to unify those who are of Paul and of Apollos and of Cephas and of Christ. But you say that fragmentation is okay, that the only thing that counts is whether people as individuals can be a part of that mystic and diverse group of Christians.

If you read the Book of Mormon's account of Jesus teaching in this hemisphere, you'll see that it's entirely consistent with the New Testament teachings. Jesus divided the group into twelve and ordained twelve disciples, one to lead each group. Diversity wasn't encouraged and churches did not have the latitude of choosing and ordaining their own officers. This splintering occurred in the Old World and the apostasy resulted when those who were chosen and ordained by the apostles were rejected and replaced by those chosen by the congregations.

The term Christians is applied to all those who believe in Jesus Christ and the atonementâ??even those who might be "bad" Christians or even "misled" Christians. Why? Because if you begin stipulating that this person is a Christian and that person isn't, where do you stop? If we, as Latter-day Saints, attempted to draw those lines and exclude Baptists, Catholics and Seventh Day Adventists, do you really think we could ever find common ground for dialog? No, instead we would alienate them and cause contention.

There's no point in dragging this debate any further, but if you can't see our point, you really didn't learn much from your time with us, nor from your time here on this board.

[Markk]

Hi Greg,

Playing the old Ad hominem card huh!

Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensibly damning character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

But wait, this is the first interaction we had below, you wrote in your first few sentences to me out of the blue:

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?

We had never talked before, as far as I know correct me if I'm wrong, and you start out like that...LoL...thats a little hypocritical...to say the least.

I find it funny you NOW want to talk about issues, after starting out with insults. Hopefully this means they're out of your system. This is tending to confirm my first impression.

LoL...Look in the Mirror, who started out with insults to whom...classic, is that how you normally teach...? starting out by insulting your students!

Greg, just because a person is a teacher does not mean what they teach is the truth, logical, factual, or for that matter even in the ball park...would you like a few examples?

Take care

Mark

[Calm]

My house is filled with heroic-scale sculpture of me in a Greco-Roman demi-god mode.

I can see another great FAIR fundraising opportunity here!

[Daniel Peterson]

Let's just stipulate, to save everyone time, that I'm horrendously, terribly arrogant, ok?

I make Cosimo Medici look like Mother Theresa. My house is filled with heroic-scale sculpture of me in a Greco-Roman demi-god mode. My talent for self-promotion and navel gazing makes Oprah look like Gandhi. I'm also thoroughly despicable in other ways too numerous to go into here.

Hey. Are you poaching on my turf? Is this some sort of challenge? Have you been sneaking around my house, getting ideas?

There ain't room for two of us cosmic egotists on this here board.

[Markk]

Hi CS,

Nothing there, Markk. Jesus is head of the church. The body of Christ is the church.

That is what I said and you said..."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"

I'm not sure I follow your logic here CS, have you changed your mind, or are you saying Jesus is NOT the head, and the Body of Christ is not the church. Please clear this up you lost me here?

The body of Christ has apostles, prophets, teachers, deacons, priests, evangelists and other duly called and ordained officers.

I disagree, especially in an LDS context. This is a debate in it's self.

He wasn't referring to a bunch of denominations

OK, that's what I said, that is why I referred to them as fellowships, I stated this several times on this thread?

If you're right, then anyone can start their own church.

No, not at all, anyone can start their own "fellowship", we have established that Christ is the Church, if they are called it will succeed, if not it will fail. or suceed as a false church.

By your standard though anyone can start a church and it can be christian even if its "bad" (your own words here).

You need to convert back to the faith because I really have a hard time believing that you believe what you're saying.

Go back and Read my posts, your missing something here?

It's so against everything the apostles wrote, said and did. Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, "Now ye are the body of Christ." It wasn't addressed "to those it may concern."

I tell you what this is like the twilight zone, you tell me what I said, I'm lost here CS.

This what I wrote:

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).

Then you 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, history or tradition.

Know your saying you more or less agree with my original post and some how I am saying...just what?

O'well maybe you can straighten it out for me?

Today the body of Christ can be found throughout the world, but those who are of the body are baptized and confirmed members of the church of Jesus Christ.

...OK...then if Christ and the body are the church ( I agree with that) , and the body is only those baptized and confirmed members of the LDS church

(I disagree here), what do you call all the others...i.e Baptists, Catholics...etc?

Lets clear this up before I move on?

MG

[Greg Smith]

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

Pretty sweet. Except, Markk is under the illusion that I control people's grades and the like. I teach CLINICAL material. The exams are under academic's controls. It's more like a mentor or apprentice relationship.

With motivated students (which virtually all are, due to selection pressures!) if someone doesn't learn something, I presume it to be my fault.

That seems to be an arrogant stance to take, apparently, but I really do believe it.

I can see another great FAIR fundraising opportunity here!

You can have these as soon as the FAIR females agree to do the "My FAIR Ladies" calendar--twelve months of demurely-clad lasses looking things up in dusty books in the bowels of the Church Office Building. ("Sister February's hobbies include Nauvoo-era women's stories; turn offs include Richard Abanes and Sandra Tanner.....")

Hey. Are you poaching on my turf? Is this some sort of challenge? Have you been sneaking around my house, getting ideas?

There ain't room for two of us cosmic egotists on this here board.

I like to think that my Donald-Trump-meeting-a-Starbucks-barista-who just gave him too little nutmeg on his double fat moca frappachino - level ego merely reflects the greater glory to Dan, in an eternal progression of ego, nastiness, and disinformation.

As yet, I don't make near the money that Dan does lying about my faith.

[Greg Smith]

Quoth Markk with only two ks:

CFR, [re: the thread issues which spurred Greg to be foolish enough to say anything] be specific, then we will see...fair, or you can just make blanket statements for the choir.

I already provided an example for this before you asked for them:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208678295

To which I commented: "'Remember what I said about deliberately obtuse?"

There are plenty of examples through the thread. The ones that pushed my incredulity over the edge included these:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208677216

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208677253

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208677298

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208677712

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208677748

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.

Frankly, Markk, the idea of searching for a year's worth of your posts doesn't appeal to me. As I said, I haven't misspelled your name, and if I do misspell it, you can call me "Gregggg."

I recommend: Matthew 5:39. Such obsessing isn't healthy or necessary.

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.

Matthew 7:12.

So, let me get this straight:

1) People say mean things to Markk like "apostate."

2) Markk also displays an inability to parse what people tell him without distorting it almost beyond recognition, which clearly frustrates other members of the thread, and they keep telling him so, but he never seems to get it.

I remark on how astonishing #2 strikes me--and I'm unbalanced because I don't chastize people for calling you or other doctrines they don't hold "apostate."

Even though that reflects their honest assessment of doctrine or your status. And, it reflects your view of theirs. (Aren't Mormons "apostate" from creedal Christian views? And, aren't you "apostate" from Mormon views? Wouldn't you be offended if we said you believed the same thing as Mormons? So, you disagree with Mormons, but it's rude for other Mormons act as if we think this is a GOOD choice? Wouldn't be an apostate Communist be a "good thing" in a Republican?)

Strange.

But, I agree everyone should play nice, be kind, and not say things to insult people. I hope all involved will consider the size of my ego, and how far I have stooped to deliver this blanket warning in Sinai-shaking surround-sound. Carry on.

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?

Some of them may be. Some of them may be not. I'm not in the business of judging people's eternal status before the Lord. As you have pointed out, there are many who will say, "Lord, lord," in that day, but the Lord will deny he knew them.

But, you're ignoring the point--the verse [2 Nephi 28:14] you have failed to deal with says there were Christians before the restored Church. Q.E.D.

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".

Jesus told Joseph their creeds were an abomination.

You may "disagree"--but, that really isn't the point. We get to define our doctrine and what it means, not you.

You've already ignored 2 Nephi 28:14.

But, if you insist, there's a very nice statement in early LDS scripture that makes it very clear that there are real, honest-to-goodness Christians outside of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

53 And for this cause have I said: If this generation harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them.

54 Now I do not say this to destroy my church, but I say this to build up my church;

55 Therefore, whosoever belongeth to my church need not fear, for such shall inherit the kingdom of heaven.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 10:53 - 55; Summer 1828)

So, two years before the Church was organized, the Lord says that his church (verse 53) will be established. But (interestingly) he says this isn't to "destroy" his church, but to build it up. So, his "church" in one sense already exists--all who are sincere Christians.

So, there are two uses of "church" here--"Church" (capital here for clarity) for the organization that will be established, the "institutional" Church. And, then there's "his church" (small c; again for clarity) that exists even before the 1830 re-establishment. A group of believing Christians, faithful to what they know, and not lifted up in pride, desire for gain, etc.

This dovetails nicely with 2 Nephi 14, etc. as well, and other apocalyptic texts (e.g., Revelation of St. John).

And, to bring it all the way to the present day, Elder Hales' talk in Nov 2007 includes the line:

"This is especially important in our interactions with members of other Christian denominations. Surely our Heavenly Father is saddenedâ??and the devil laughsâ??when we contentiously debate doctrinal differences with our Christian neighbors."

So, from beginning to end, it's there. There are Christians who aren't Mormons. Q.E.D.

But again, this is all moot. You may not think this makes sense. But, you're not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

You don't get to say what our doctrine means, or what its implications are, or how it should be interpreted. We do.

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.

Again, it would seem that teaching in this case is going to be relatively futile. I apologize for whatever part I play in that.

I've already provided you with one--in the Book of Mormon which you ignored, and went on to talk about the next verse about "wo unto the proud." But, you managed to ignore the verse I cited, which specifically says there are Christians when there's no "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" on the earth. The Book of Mormon is about as official as LDS doctrine gets. D&C probably comes next, so there you are above for number 2, I suppose.

There's also plenty of quotes where LDS people and leaders use the term "Christians" to refer to those not of their faith. It is simply absurd to claim that LDS doctrine teaches or requires one to accept the premise that one is not a "true Christian" unless one is in the LDS Church.

I gave you one from Brigham Young. Others throughout the course of LDS history are numerous; I tried to choose a variety of things to show how the 'commonsense' usage certainly prevails with us (all emphasis is mine).

Very early, Evening and Morning Star (Vol. 2 (1832-1833), p. 164):

While the apostles were living, both they and their brethren began to be called Christians; and since that time those professing the same religion, generally, have been known by the same name, especially by their enemies, till all who profess to be followers of the doctrine of the gospel of Christ, now call themselves Christians, with few exceptions.

I don't see how one can be more clear than that. Interestingly, it's part of a longer argument about how "Christian" was a name given by the Church's enemies, and how "Saints" was the name they gave themselves. So, it can hardly be seen to be an effort to appropriate the title of "Christian" for the LDS only.

"I may say that in Constantinople the conviction obtains among most Europeans that the Turks are the most upright of all the Orientals under the rule of the Sultan, and there are thousands of Christians of all denominations." (The Contributor VIII/5 Nov 1886-Oct 1887, p. 173.

So, thousands of Christians in many churches. And, at the time, probably not a one was LDS.

A tract printed in 1899 by Ben E. Rich contains the line:

"...the great mistake of supposing that the South is deficient in the matter of Christian endeavor or ecclesiastical institutions must not be made. Far from that! On the contrary, perhaps, religious feeling is more generally diffused, guarded, and defended as herein expressed, than in any other section of the civilized world;...." (Mr. Durant of Salt Lake City, "That Mormon."

So, there are both Christian people (or at least 'endeavors' which is hard to have without people) and churches (ecclesiastical institutions).

Elder Oaks, May 1995:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has many beliefs in common with other Christian churches....In common with the rest of Christianity, we believe in a Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost....We believe that most religious leaders and followers are sincere believers who love God and understand and serve him to the best of their abilities. We are indebted to the men and women who kept the light of faith and learning alive through the centuries to the present day. We have only to contrast the lesser light that exists among peoples unfamiliar with the names of God and Jesus Christ to realize the great contribution made by Christian teachers through the ages. We honor them as servants of God....Like other Christians, we believe in a heaven or paradise and a hell following mortal life...."

Interestingly, Elder Oaks discusses elsewhere a church which had "roots" in Christianity, but seems to have rejected a core doctrine about Jesus, and so he seems to make their status rather less "Christian," since they reject Christ's atoning sacrifice:

Another church that claims roots in "Christianity" maintains that Jesus' crucifixion was not the fulfillment of his mission, but evidence of its failure. They teach that he did not cleanse men of original sin, but that another messiah must come to complete our salvation and establish the kingdom of heaven on earth. (Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, Outline of the Principle, Level 4, 1980, pp. 79â??83, 238â??39, 247â??48, 252, 298â??99.)

I think Elder Oaks and I and the rest of the LDS in this thread are all on the same page. It is Markk that has our beliefs misunderstood.

Elder Wirthlin (Nov 1996) even turned to ("gasp!") a dictionary to define "Christian":

A dictionary defines a Christian as "one who professes belief in Jesus as the Christ or follows the religion based on [the life and teachings of Jesus]," and "one who lives according to the teachings of Jesus." Thus two characteristics identify Christians: (1) they profess belief in a Savior, and (2) they act in harmony with the Savior's teachings.

Elder Gary J. Coleman, May 2007:

Growing up in my family, we lived as devout members of another Christian faith. I was baptized a member of that church shortly after my birth. Our family went to church each week. For many years my brothers and I assisted the pastors who conducted our Sunday services. I was taught the importance of family prayer as our family prayed together each day. I thought that someday I would enter the full-time ministry in my church. There was no question in our minds that we could define ourselves as devout Christians....I am a devout Christian who is exceedingly fortunate to have greater knowledge of the true "doctrine of Christ" since my conversion to the restored Church.

Christian before --> Christian after with more knowledge.

Elder Holland, May 2008:

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.

These can't be Mormons! But they are Christians.

I could go on, but if these don't prove the point, then nothing will.

Now, I would like to see YOU come up with some LDS quotes that say, "We're the only true Christians. No one else deserves the label Christian. There are no Christians except in our Church."

I'm not asking for your reading of what the First Vision "must" imply--I'd like a direct statement like these are above--consider this a CFR. If this is an LDS doctrine, then our texts ought to be full of the teaching. You don't get to just squirrel it in there because it seems to be the logical consequence of how you read our scriptures.

Essentially, what you're asking for is "proof" that the LDS don't use "Christian" in some bizarre, newfangled way to justify your own lexicographical innovations. We don't. Sorry.

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

This question requires an agreement about what "Christian" means and what "body of Christ" means. Your question/definition risks circularity.

I'm not much interested in an exegetical or theological discussion with you. My interest is simply in seeing whether you can:

a> be brought to understand that your statement about what we believe is not accurate or complete;

b> manage to restate and represent our beliefs without misrepresenting them, even if you don't believe them.

Thus far, the evidence suggests not, but I am always delighted to be surprised. But, I'm certainly not going to try to agree on Bible interpretation with you when I can't even persuade you what the beliefs that I have--and you don't have--are. :-)

Again your spinning, if not is it OK to join these Church's now? Why not?

Markk, you may want to consider that just because someone disagrees with you about the reading of a text, they are not "spining," they are "interpreting." Everyone who reads a text interprets it--even, I dare say, you. If you don't think of your own honest attempt to represent the text as "spinning," maybe you could try not labeling everyone else's that way?

To answer your question: well, one is welcome to join or not join any Church one want. One certainly does not become "non Christian" by deciding to join the Baptists, or the Catholics. Whether one has the most accurate and rich theology and spiritual blessings--well, that's the point of debate, isn't it?

I would, of course, recommend joining the Church that I believe has the doctrine and authority. But, one must be persuaded that this is in fact the case. But, not doing it doesn't make you a non-Christian.

And, it would certainly be better to be a Christian of some sort than, say, a Hindu, Muslim, or secular humanist. See Elder Oaks' remarks above. (I can think of a very few denominations that I would be worse--the Westboro Baptists spring to mind, if only because they seem a particularly hateful bunch, so you probably have a better shot of being a non-hateful Jew, Muslim, or Hindu than you do Westboro Baptist. But, they're a fringe group, a real out-lier.)

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.

"Spining" again. Remember, we're all interpreting as best we can.

I'm not quoting you at all, Markk, I'm referring to the First Vision account of 1838. I'm telling you what I think those verses mean. I am not convinced that they mean what you are intuiting them to mean, and the history of LDS thought on this matter would seem to bear me out.

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.

Yet again, this is the problem. You seem to think that you're qualified to pronounce about LDS doctrine "teachings" is or "demands." You aren't.

Former members of any group (religious or otherwise) are usually the least reliable reporters about such groups. No social scientist would trust your report over the words of multiple members in good standing (including someone who teaches at the Church's flagship University and has written extensively on these issues).

It is possible this is a case of the Dunning-Kruger phenomenon.

Greg

[Greg Smith]

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 "correct information". 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 "academic" one. Other factors come into play that can no longer be dealt with by a purely "academic" argument.

True. I try to presume that people are sincerely motivated.

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.

Yes. Though my point was sometimes I need to say it for my own sake, and not because I think it will help anyone else. It is to remind me and because remaining silent when the risk is ridicule is probably not spiritually wise.

My point is simply that our insistence on our Christianity has very little to do with wanting Markk's or some other conservative/fundamentalist Protestant group or person to give us their seal of approval. It has to do with our own commitments and loves.

And, sometimes it's worth pointing out the dishonesty for those who watch. One can always hope that minds and hearts of those who are motivated with ill intent can be touched.

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 time

Well, I've provided the references he's asked for. If Markk can concede that how he sees the matter is not how the vast majority of Latter-day Saints through the years have seen the matter, well and good.

If not--well, Sensei Peterson is going to teach me how to get the world to revolve around me. It apparently involves a large volume of something called "Krispy Kremes."

After a certain point, it becomes clear that the problem is either an amorality or personality disorder. Both are subject only to the grace of God. Prayer is appropriate. Loss of breath or time may not be.

Greg

[Greg Smith]

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?

We had never talked before, as far as I know correct me if I'm wrong, and you start out like that...LoL...thats a little hypocritical...to say the least.

It's not clear to me why we'd have needed to talk for me to observe you being snide and obtuse in the thread. It seems so over the top, I thought you might just be a parody of an anti-Mormon. :-) I also noted what seemed 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."

If it was offensive, then I sincerely apologize.

I find it funny you NOW want to talk about issues, after starting out with insults. Hopefully this means they're out of your system. This is tending to confirm my first impression.

LoL...Look in the Mirror, who started out with insults to whom...classic, is that how you normally teach...? starting out by insulting your students!

Greg, just because a person is a teacher does not mean what they teach is the truth, logical, factual, or for that matter even in the ball park...would you like a few examples?

I seem to have somehow unintentionally struck a nerve my mentioning that I teach in my other life.

In all seriousness, I was only mentioning it as an explanation for why Dan Peterson and I persist in trying to honestly communicate with people who don't seem to be at all interested in learning. I wasn't trying to put other people down who don't teach, or insist that because I'm a teacher everything I say is automatically true. (And I again remain mystified as to how anyone could draw that conclusion--which takes me back to my original question, however inartfully phrased.)

When people teach and enjoy it, they tend to assume that people with questions really want answers. And so, we try to give them. And, we then get burned for the presumption. Call it an occupational hazard. It was a comment about me and Dan--and nobody else.

And, I don't think it was a completely worthless point, since other posters recognized its validity in their own case. Its hard to understand why someone wouldn't want erroneous ideas corrected. But, some clearly don't.

I apologize if I have made the discussion more difficult or sounded rude: that was not my intent. At the very least, I think my summary of the key issue has some value still:

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."

[coolrok7]

BCSpace:

While we're awaiting the article....

1. You are correct. LDS in the past, including some apostles and prophets, have not educated themselves well enough to address the trinity correctly. However, they are correct in assuming it's neither, correct, Biblical, or found in early Christian doctrine.

2. Anyone who takes certain verses from the BoM or elsewhere and represents them as trinity or modalistic teaching is also misrepresenting the LDS Church and the interpretation of it's own scriptures. We think of "one" and "in" and "same" in a more Biblical sense than traditional Christianity.

3. Certain well meaning but misguided LDS individuals have attempted in the past to reconcile the trinity doctrine with LDS doctrine. This is absolutely impossible and on top of that, ecumenism violates certain LDS principles and doctrines (only one true Church, universal apostasy, church of the devil, etc.). I predict failure for this latest attempt but am certainly willing check it out to see if there is anything not already done.

The Monk:

Indeed, if Mormons have misunderstand modalism to be what classical Trinitarianism really is, I blame all those Catholics and Protestants I asked about the trinity who explained it to me in just those terms.

On the accusation of modalism in the Book of Mormon see here.

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol...um=2&id=392

There are those who do and might even believe that Jesus and the Father are "the same person" but it is disengenuous for Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses to not make that distinction and to continue to misconstrue that the following (which is modalsim) is the Trinitarian view:

Elder: . . .BUT WHAT DO WE LEARN ABOUT GOD FROM THE EXPERIENCE OF JOSEPH SMITH?

Brown: That he has a real body.

Elder: Yes, he does. THE CHURCHES ALSO TAUGHT THAT GOD THE FATHER AND JESUS CHRIST, HIS SON, WERE BOTH THE SAME PERSON. . . . (A UNIFORM SYSTEM FOR TEACHING INVESTIGATORS, Aug. 1961, p.12)

Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost is only one God! I say that is a strange God anyhowâ??three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. . . .All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big Godâ??he would be a giant or a monster. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith)

The Oneness of the Father and the Son: There has been much misunderstanding regarding the oft-repeated statement that Jesus and his Father are one. A careful reading of the seventeenth chapter of John should clarify this matter fully. As Jesus was about to be offered up, he prayed unto his Father and thanked him for his apostles, saying, â??that they may be one, as we are.â? (John 17:11). . .Now it is very apparent that Jesus was not speaking of oneness of personage, but oneness of purpose, . . .(John 17:24). . .Again it is evident that the oneness referred to has no reference to oneness of personage, for if Jesus and his Father were one in person, how absurd to think that Jesus would pray unto himself, . . . (A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, LeGrand Richards, p.22)

If Jesus were the Almighty God, he would not have prayed to himself, would he? Since Jesus prayed to God, . . .the two could not be the same person (You can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, p.39)

I've been explaining to people (which includes Mormons) that the "Trinitarian" is the following: that within the nature of the one God there are three perons who all share the same nature of being God (Elohim) and are not the same person as implied in the quotes I provided then I'm not responsible for the mischaracterzation of others who are not accurate in explaining the "Trinitarian" view correctly.

The Nicene creed was established to refute the view of Arius of Alexandria and his teaching that: "once the Son of God did not exist" in spite of John 1:1. Jehovah's Witnesses are sympathetic (New World Translation translates John 1:1 as Jesus being "a god") to the idea of Arius as they believe that Jesus as a man had a beginning and is not eternal God in the flesh.

The words above and here of Joseph Smith here are the evidence that Joseph is responsible for the incorrect view that he held and confusing Trinitarian teaching with modalism:

AND now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Sonâ?? The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Sonâ??And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. (Mosiah 15:1-4)

[Greg Smith]

The words above and here of Joseph Smith here are the evidence that Joseph is responsible for the incorrect view that he held and confusing Trinitarian teaching with modalism:

You're presuming that the Book of Mormon represents "Joseph Smith's words." I don't think Mosiah 15 is talking about trinitarianism (in the creedal sense) at all or modalism. It's explaining how belief in the coming Messiah is not inconsistent with an Israelite-style monotheism.

On the (I, think, false) idea that Joseph was modalist, see:

Bruening and Paulsen, "The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God: Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths," FARMS Review 13/2 (2001): 109-69. http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol...um=2&id=392

Greg

[coolrok7]

You're presuming that the Book of Mormon represents "Joseph Smith's words." I don't think Mosiah 15 is talking about trinitarianism (in the creedal sense) at all or modalism. It's explaining how belief in the coming Messiah is not inconsistent with an Israelite-style monotheism.

On the (I, think, false) idea that Joseph was modalist, see:

Bruening and Paulsen, "The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God: Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths," FARMS Review 13/2 (2001): 109-69. http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol...um=2&id=392

Greg

Not presuming anything, the words came out of Joseph's own mouth and were written down according to the witnesses. Joseph didn't translate at all but read from the letters of light that supposedly appeared on the stone buried in his hat. They would not disappear unitl it was written down correctly.

Concerning the translating of the Book of Mormon, George Reynolds, who was a member of the First Council of the Seventy, 1890-1909, made this statement:

But at the outset it must be recollected that the translation was accomplished by no common method, by no ordinary means. It was done by divine aid. There were no delays over obscure passages, no difficulties over the choice of words, no stoppages from the ignorance of the translator; no time was wasted in investigation or argument over the value, intent or meaning of certain characters, and there were no references to authorities. These difficulties to human work were removed. All was as simple as when a clerk writes from dictation. The translation of the characters appeared on the Urim and the Thummim, sentence by sentence, and as soon as one was correctly transcribed the next would appear. (Myth of the Manuscript Found, 1883 Edition, p.71)

George Reynolds quotes the following from a letter written to the Deseret News by Edward Stevenson:

Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say, â??Written,â? and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used. (Myth of the Manuscript Found, 1883 Edition, p.91)

The Mormon apostle Orson Hyde claimed that the words appeared on the Urim and Thummim. He wrote a pamphlet in the German language entitled, â??A Cry From the Wilderness, A Voice From the Dust of the Earth.â? This pamphlet was translated into the English language by Justus Ernst of the Church Historianâ??s office, and is reproduced in a thesis by Paul R. Cheesman. In this account the following appears:

These were used in the following manner: These two stones, called Urim and Thummim, in diameter the size of an English crown (coin) only a little thicker, were placed where all light was excluded. The persons using these offered their prayers to the Lord, and the answer became visible, written in letters of light on the Urim and Thummim, but disappeared again soon after. Thus: â??The light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.â?? In this manner the sacred records were translated into English. (An Analysis Of The Accounts Relating Joseph Smithâ??s Early Visions, A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the Department of Graduate Studies in Religious Instruction, Brigham Young University, May, 1965, by Paul R. Cheesman, p.167)

Oliver B. Huntington recorded in his journal that in 1881 Joseph F. Smith, who became the sixth President of the Mormon Church, taught that the Lord gave Joseph Smith the exact English wording and spelling that he should use in the Book of Mormon:

Saturday Feb. 25, 1881, I went to Provo to a quarterly Stake Conference. Heard Joseph F. Smith describe the manner of translating the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith the Prophet and Seer, which was as follows as near as I can recollect the substance of his description. Joseph did not render the writing on the gold plates into the English language in his own style of language as many people believe, but every word and every letter was given to him by the gift and power of God. So it is the work of God and not of Joseph Smith, and it was done in this way. . . .The Lord caused each word spelled as it is in the Book to appear on the stones in short sentences or words, and when Joseph had uttered the sentence or word before him and the scribe had written it properly, that sentence would disappear and another appear. And if there was a word wrongly written or even a letter incorrect the writing on the stones would remain there. Then Joseph would require the scribe to spell the reading of the last spoken and thus find the mistake and when recorded the sentence would disappear as usual. (Journal of Oliver B. Huntington, p.168 of typed copy at Utah State Historical Society)

Also the words of David Whitmer, one of the three Book of Mormon witnesses (Iâ??ve never seen any depiction in LDS literature of Joseph with his face in a hat):

I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principle scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by the power of man. . . . (An Address To All Believers In Christ, 1887, p.12)

[Greg Smith]

Not presuming anything, the words came out of Joseph's own mouth and were written down according to the witnesses. Joseph didn't translate at all but read from the letters of light that supposedly appeared on the stone buried in his hat. They would not disappear unitl it was written down correctly.

You are presuming that the words are Joseph's, and not an ancient Book of Mormon writer.

With due respect to all the sources you quoted, the research does not really bear them out on the method described (the hat part is right, but what Joseph saw is a matter of conjecture on their part, and not really borne out by either the extant original text or some other eyewitness aspects. The matter is more complex than you (or these authors) have presumed. I don't say that in a critical vein, but merely to point out that this is a point that has been missed in the past.)

Reynolds, Joseph F. Smith, and Hyde would have only learned about it second hand. Whitmer's report may well be the source for all the claims, and there are problems with his model.

The relevant starting point for reviewing the matter is here:

David E. Sloan, "The Anthon Transcripts and the Translation of the Book of Mormon: Studying It Out in the Mind of Joseph Smith," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 5/2 (1996): 57–81. off-site

Stephen D. Ricks, The Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon, Featured Papers, Maxwell Institute, Provo UT. off-site

Royal Skousen, "Joseph Smith's Translation of the Book of Mormon: Evidence for Tight Control of the Text," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 7/1 (1998): 22–31. off-site

See also a summary and links to further info here:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_translation_method

Greg

[LifeOnaPlate]

coolrok, it would also become you to cite the source from whence you culled your quotes.

[Markk]

HI Greg,

I appreciate the apology, although it was not my intent or disire for you to do so, but it shows a worthy attribute of your character, I also apoligize for anything or everything I said about you that was over the line. I understand very clearly that when I come "into your house" I will get a certain amount of "smack", kind of comes with the territory and believe me, it rarely gets under my skin.

It's not clear to me why we'd have needed to talk for me to observe you being snide and obtuse in the thread.

It set a very negative tone, it's that simple. That is a classic example of Ad hominem

but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensibly damning character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument.

I responded as that being a very arrogant start to a discussion. And, don't take this wrong, but if I told every person what I perceived as a fault or character flaw here it would one, get me booted off in a heart beat, and two, not be very nice. For me, to go around and "observe" peoples perceived flaws is not a very nice thing to do.

You wrote in your first post regarding me:

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.

Allot of people would fall into that category Greg. Your basic belief, correct me if I'm wrong, is that "we" worship and trust in the same Jesus and the same Gospel. You have to understand that it is very offensive to a person that believes in Christ and as you say, trusts in Him, and bases their eternal security into Him, and their perceived teachings that will secure a place with God, and then another faith comes along and says that what you believe is false, your perceived doctrines can not get you in the presence of God, " but don't worry about it we are all Christians, it is just that we alone are the only true church that teaches the only true teaching that can get you to the Father."

You really need to think about that, while you said..."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)..."

I understand this Greg, I have studied LDS doctrine very exstensively, and having been on "both sides of the fence", I can say with all confidence I understand BOTH side of the issue. So I guess I would ask, " do you really understand the other side here?"

In general my view of Dan's book is that it reinforces the LDS thought that being a Christian is just a generic term for a wide varieties of beliefs. And to a degree it is true, the word Christian has been thrown around in a generic sense throughout the ages, I don't think anyone is denying that, but because of that, it does not make a Christian a Christian, or Christian theology...Christian theology, or a Christian church a Christian church in the true sense of those that were first called Christians.

The word "church" might be a good example. I'm very sure, and correct me if I'm wrong here, that we could search early to late resources of both Christian and Non-Christians writing and show many examples of the use of "true church", and by Dan's own theory there would be a bunch of true church's. The JW's, SDA, "The Body of Christ as taught in the Bible..etc etc, all claiming to be the one true church. I just did a qwik google on "true church" and "true church's" and "early true church's " and got over a million hits, I'm sure we can created a similar book like Dans showing that every christian church is true.

I believe a Christian is not a generic term, I believe that the early Christians that died for their faith would not like being lumped into a generic term. I believe that through a inductive study of the Bible we can define what a Christian is, and would be more that glad to show you why I believe that this is true.

Again I apologize for anything and everything I said that was over the line, I hope you ponder on how a "Christian" might feel if some one knocked on their door and told them what LDS doctrines and teachings say about them and their beliefs. I'm not asking you to agree, I defend your right to do so, all I'm asking is that you honestly think about it, it can't be done in a few moments, and see how they would feel and view the LDS teachings as an attack on their faith. All to often the LDS view is "naive" and "unfeeling" of their belief of the apostasy and restoration and how others view this.

There are also other factors we can throw in the mix but this is a start.

Take care

Mark

John 1:12

[jwhitlock]

Pretty sweet. Except, Markk is under the illusion that I control people's grades and the like. I teach CLINICAL material. The exams are under academic's controls. It's more like a mentor or apprentice relationship.

With motivated students (which virtually all are, due to selection pressures!) if someone doesn't learn something, I presume it to be my fault.

That seems to be an arrogant stance to take, apparently, but I really do believe it.

I enjoy Markk's posts because he lets a little too much of his true nature slip at times. Reading him is instructive on how the other side really thinks (or doesn't think, depending on your POV).

It also makes me really, really, really appreciate the side of the fence that I'm on.

Methinks he tried to distance himself from the kissing up environment by protesting just a wee bit too much.

Good luck with Cut-And-Paste-Rok, by the way.

[LifeOnaPlate]

coolpaste

[Cold Steel]

That is what I said and you said..."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"

Markk, please try to concentrate. The body of Christ is the church. Not the church like you're thinking of it, but the church as established by Christ. In today's case, the body of Christ is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In the Meridian of Time, it was the one church that Jesus established. In other words, manmade churches are not part of the body of Christ. You believe that the "church," or "body of Christ" is inclusive of all sorts of manmade churches and self-appointed priests and pastors. Christ is the head of the body that He created; He is not the head of sectarian churches that have rejected His prophets. That's logical enough, isn't it? I mean, if Joseph Smith was the Lord's apostle and prophet of this, the final dispensation, then all those who reject that prophet and those who follow are not part of that body. (For one part of the body cannot reject another part of the body and say, "I have no need of thee.")

It's just that simple, and I don't think you're as obtuse as you're making out to be.

Orson Pratt stated in 1859:

How could a young man, inexperienced as Joseph Smith was, have had all this foreknowledge of future events, unless he was inspired of God? How did he know that any Church believing in the Book of Mormon would arise? He was then in the act of translating these records; the Church had not yet an existence; and he was young, inexperienced, and ignorant as regards the education and wisdom of this world. How did he know that, after his manuscript was published, a church called the Church of the Lamb would arise and be built upon the fulness of the Gospel contained in the book? How did he know that, if it did arise, it would have one year's existence? What wisdom, education, or power could have given him this foreknowledge independent of the power of God? How could he know, if a church should arise, that it would have any influence beyond his own neighbourhood? How did he know it would extend through the State of New York, where it was first raised? How could he know that it would extend over the United States, and much more, that it would go to all nations and kingdoms of the Gentiles?And how did he know that the dominions of this Church among all the nations and kingdoms of the Gentiles should be small, because of the wickedness of the great "mother of abominations?" How did he know that the "mother of harlots" among these Gentiles would gather together in great multitudes among all the nations and kingdoms of the earth to fight against the Saints of the Lamb of God? Common sense tells us that this would be taking a stretch far beyond what any false prophet dare take, with any hope of fulfilment.

To prophesy that a church would arise and have place in all the nations and kingdoms of the Gentiles, and then to prophesy that the "mother of harlots" would gather together vast multitudes among all these nations and fight against the Saints, is taking a step far beyond what an impostor would undertake, if he were disposed to successfully impose upon mankind. How far has this been fulfilled? Only in part; so far, however, as to give us no possibility of doubting that the balance will be fulfilled, every jot and tittle. It is true, the Saints of the Lamb of God are not among all the nations and kingdoms of the Gentiles yet; but there are very many of the nations and kingdoms of the Gentiles where this little Church that was organized in 1830 actually has a dominion and place.

If we go anywhere throughout the nation of the Gentiles called the United States, we shall find in almost every State and Territory the Church of the Saints of the Lamb of God, that the world call "Mormons," "fanatics," "impostors," &c. If we go into Canada, we find them there. If we go across the great ocean to the island of Great Britain, we find them there numbering seven or eight hundred churches organized, and some four thousand Elders and Priests ordained to preach the Gospel contained in the Book of Mormon, as well as in the Bible.

The Saints in that country are scattered throughout England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. Tens of thousands of them have shipped for America, and tens of thousands still remain. Then cross the sea into that inhospitable country called Norway, and there we find many churches of the Saints. Then return a little south into Denmark, where thousands more will be found. Then go to the northeast of Denmark into Sweden, and we still find Latter-day Saints. Then go into Germany, and we find them scattered, more or less, throughout that confederation. I do not know that there is any Branch of the Saints in Prussia; neither do I know that they extend through all the German States; but we find them in several. Next, go into Switzerland and Italy, and we find them there. Then go to France, and we find a few there. Then go upon some of the islands of the sea, and a few thousands are found rejoicing in this Church. In Asia and Africa a few will be found. They are not among all the nations and kingdoms of the Gentiles, but they are scattered here and there among them; and their dominions are really small, because of the wickedness of the great and abominable church.

There may be many nations of Asia where the feet of Latter-day Saints have not trod. I do not know that any of the Elders of this Church have gone to Japan. If we go into the South Sea Islands, the Friendly Islands, the Society Islands, and the Sandwich Islands, we find Latter-day Saints on almost all of them. (

Journal of Discourses

, 26 vols., 7:, p.183 - 184)

Since then, things have even grown more quickly, and how did Joseph Smith do it? This is the body of Christ.

[Markk]

Hi CS,

You believe that the "church," or "body of Christ" is inclusive of all sorts of manmade churches and self-appointed priests and pastors.

This is what I said, more than once:

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).

The church in inclusive only to those whom are Born Again, Adopted as Children of God, and their name written in the lambs book of life, and baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body. It is my belief that these people are the only true Christians. I gav eyou the verses that say so on most of these and I will be more than happy to give you more. The book will not say Baptist, Mormon, Catholic, elder, pastor or prophet, it will only have their name...that is what I believe so please do not say what I believe unless you get it right, It would be better to say " this is Christian doctrine". or this is a "evangelical interpretaion"...etc, and then provide a proof text of some sorts, and then say I disagree and tell me why, other wise just bare your testimony because basically that is all you are doing..

MG