Mormonism and the Trinity

[coolrok7]

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

Greg

I believe there are no golden plates. If there were they would still be here in spite of the various testimonies of Mormons as given in all the writings of Mormons from the beginning. It seems there is a concerted effort now to downplay the inconsistencies by Mormons today towing the line of the authorities of today which I believe is whitewashing their history as is often observed (as discussed often in this website) by those who have taken the time to listen to the Mormon message.

A lot of testimony is given as to the experiences of individuals to confirm the validity of their own experiences in coming to faith in Joseph Smith as a "True Prophet" of God. So if you dispute their characterization of their own testimony as they were closer to it then you are, then why should I believe your characterization of what they understood at the time. Your words don't carry any authoritative weight. Likewise the url's of the organizations you provided, I've read somewhat and don't accept the premise of all of them, Joseph Smith being a "True Prophet" which is their and your prerogative to believe as they/you see fit.

It is in the light of Mormon missionaries over the last thirty or so years I've been listening to them (a lot of them) which speaks rather loudly in my ears from all the disengenuosness I've heard from them in how they present what I as a Christian (Lutheran Missouri Synod) believe from Scripture that is often misrepresented in Mormon apologetics and missionaries personally after informing them of this without any response except for them leaving and not coming back after they said they would. I get the same treatment the higher up the echelon I've tried to go to and get sent back to the missionaries.

Not to long ago I shared that I hade been on the phone with missionaries at the MTC as the result of the leadership providing phone lines for interested people to talk directly to them at the MTC. Dr. Peterson after I had shared my experience in that particular thread accused me of "feigning" the phone call this which of course was not true. It was based on another call to the MTC of one of the instructors that I had a conversation with in which I was explaining to the missionary the conversation.

If I quote their words as presented in the works (the address for the quotes) then how can I be faulted to arrive at the conclusions I've come to based on all the testimoby given that have been offrered by Mormons themselves in their apologetics and then fault me for the conclusions their testimonies lead to. I've weighed all the testimony given and it doesn't wash well with the Scripture. Especially with all the "word games" played by Mormons as charged to those not Mormon In Dr. Peterson' work always being referred to here as though it was "Scripture".

I've explained this in the thread I put up yesterday to interact with his book to which he chose not to get involved with on the basis of him responding in my post. I gave him my thought as to what was the premise of his book whch he said was not the premise after he asked what I thought it was:

That's incorrect.

That is not the premise.

I've already tried to discuss the book with people who don't understand its argument. I'm done with that.

I come to my conclusions after already being Christian prior to knowing anything of Joseph Smith. He contradicts the Biblical writers in his own writings (dictations from letters of light as the testimony is given) sufficiently to give him the label of "false prophet" as warned by about Jesus and the apostles. This after being invited to do so:

THE DIVINE MISSION OF JOSEPH SMITH

CHURCH STANDS OR FALLS WITH JOSEPH SMITH

Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead the people, then he should be exposed; his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false, for the doctrines of an imposter cannot be made to harmonize in all particulars with divine truth. If his claims and declarations were built upon fraud and deceit, there would appear many errors and contradictions, which would be easy to detect. The doctrines of false teachers will not stand the test when tried by the accepted standards of measurement, the scriptures. (Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith, p.188, 1954 edition)

In September of 1987, I received a letter (passed on to me) that was addressed to the Pastor of the Church that Iâ??m a member of (St. Lukeâ??s). The writers of the letter, Don and Brennan Kingsland, identified themselves as:

members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as Mormons, and we would like to ask you to investigate the TRUTH about our church.

The stated intent of the letter:

is simply an attempt to establish the TRUTH about our church and to undo the lies that are being told about us by certain deceitful people. . . .We would like to offer. . .a book about what Mormons REALLY BELIEVE, . . .To enable you to ascertain the TRUTH about our church, we are offering â??MORMONS ARE CHRISTIANS TOO!â?. . .to pastors. . . .

I responded to the letter and ordered the book. Along with the book came a personal letter from Brennan Kingsland:

Dear Sirs: Sept 11, 1987

As a member of St. Lukes Fellowship (Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod) and first and foremost as a professing Christian, I am also against and oppose falsehood or people intentionally misrepresenting anyone- religiously or otherwise.

I am interested in receiving a copy of the book â??Mormons are Christian Too!â? (In response to the letter that was received by my pastor Phillip Gehlhar).

Sincerely, Roy Koser

Dear Mr. Koser----

We received your order for the book, â??Mormons Are Christians Too.â? Your note sounded sincere, and so, in addition to the book, we are enclosing a copy of one chapter from our new book, â??Stop Culture Shock.â? This chapter is about ant-Mormon activities (the rest of the new book is not about anti-Mormons).

We hope you will pray as you read to have the Holy Spirit reveal to you where the deception is coming from and who is REALLY LYING!

Your note has restored our faith that there are sincere Christians out there who are really interested in the truth.

Every other response to the letters were sent to us unsigned, with comments about our being â??Satanicâ? and â??depraved tools of Satan.â? Some anonymous people sent us some new anti-Mormon books & pamphlets. As usual, they are filled with lies, even more

blatant than in the past.

We have come to the conclusion that these people are comfortable & secure in telling lies about us and our Church, because they know that the majority of Christians (unlike yourself) wonâ??t bother to check----and thus will never realize they are being lied to and misled.

Thank you for restoring our faith in the basic goodness of those Christians who are not Mormons.

If you have any further questions about our Church, please feel free to Contact us, or a local Mormon in your area. We are only too happy to tell people the TRUTH about what we believe.

May the Lord bless you And be with you, Brennan Kingsland

Author â??Mormons Are Christians Too! & â??Stop Culture Shock

I also tire of the often condescending remarks of Mormons (in thus case cold steel- please try to concentrate, etc. etc. with Mark who was a Mormon as if he doesn't have any idea of what he believed when he was Mormon) with those trying to have serious conversations about our doubts concerning the truthfulness of Mormonism's claims.

[Daniel Peterson]

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.

It's not an "LDS thought."It's the standard English (and German and Dutch and Norwegian and Italian and French and Arabic and Chinese) way of using the term Christian.Mormons didn't write the Oxford English Dictionary or Webster's Unabridged, let alone Duden or Wahrig or Larousse or the Lisan al-â??Arab, nor more than a handful of the scores of items cited in Offenders for a Word.

I believe there are no golden plates.

Unless you simply ignore the relevant historical evidence, there were plates.

[zerinus]

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

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.

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

Thank you Greg for taking the time to reply to my post. I respond with the following passage from an article in the Churchâ??s Newsroom:

If the Church allowed critics and opponents to choose the ground on which its battles are fought, it would risk being distracted from the focus and mission it has pursued successfully for nearly 180 years. Instead, the Church itself will determine its own course as it continues to preach the restored gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the world.

Source

.

I agree with the above sentiment. I try not to let the critics/enemies of the Church dictate to me how (and when) I choose to respond to them. I set the agenda for them. They donâ??t set the agenda for me.

[coolrok7]

It's not an "LDS thought."It's the standard English (and German and Dutch and Norwegian and Italian and French and Arabic and Chinese) way of using the term Christian.Mormons didn't write the Oxford English Dictionary or Webster's Unabridged, let alone Duden or Wahrig or Larousse or the Lisan al-â??Arab, nor more than a handful of the scores of items cited in Offenders for a Word.Unless you simply ignore the relevant historical evidence, there were plates.

Defining a word in a dictionary is not of Bible import and only has to do with the basic indentity of the word as used. This doesn't necessarily take into consideration of how it was used in the Biblical context it was taken from. The "Mormonism" of Joseph Smith is not "Christian". I would not necessarily say that you don't have any Christian belief. I do have concern with your and others Mormonism though.

I didn't ignore, I considered the testimony and rejected it on the basis that what was supposedly written on the "golden plates" (I believe was a ruse) which in my view contradicts the Biblical revelation as delivered to the saints of the first century. We disagree big time on that. You are of course entitled to explain it in the way you have chosen to. I have the right to respond in the way I choose which is disputed by you. I believe you are wrong as a Mormon as your church/Joseph Smith says that we are.

Your opinon as expressed in you book is not scripture and is your view of things but I did make the attempt. I read through it (and skimmed some of it). I know enough of the argumentation to know Mormons do the same (how may times the many different people express their concerns about what Momonism teaches as contrasted with the way Mormons do numbers wise as you argued for over at ZLMB, a point of yours there and in your book is not necessarily relevant as there are a lot more "other Christians" then there are Mormons).

[Greg Smith]

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.

Thank you, that is gracious of you. We shall speak no more of it.

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.

I presume we believe in the same Jesus--the person known as Jesus of Nazareth who was born of the virgin Mary, lived in the first part of the Christian century, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, died, was buried, and was resurrected the third day, appeared to women, the Eleven and then to five hundred brethren at once.

I do not presume that we believe the exact same gospel, since our beliefs are obviously not exactly the same.

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,"

Three points:

1) this is essentially what every faith says to every other faith--there would be no need to form another denomination if the previous denomination(s) were not deficient in some sense. Your practice is a rebuke to Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox who likewise trust in Christ and who likewise believe that their theology is both necessary and sufficient to assure their salvation.

2) If one is convinced of one's faith, one's eternal security, or whatever I don't see why one ought to be offended. Every other faith in the world disagrees with mine. So what? They are welcome to their views, and I'm happy to share mine with anyone who cares.

3) What I do find somewhat offensive, though, is being told what my faith means, teaches, or implies.

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."

We're not saying "don't worry about it." We think these issues matter very much, and should be discussed with the seriousness they merit. What we object to is being labelled as "non-Christian" because of some private definition or criteria, because it misrepresents what we believe, and confuses or deceives others.

And, we're not so quick to write other people off. Brigham Young said:

In the millennium men will have the privilege of being Presbyterians, Methodists or Infidels, but they will not have the privilege of treating the name and character of Deity as they have done heretofore. - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 12:274

We take a very long and broad view of this process, and see much good coming out of Christianity (or even theism) of every stripe. God will judge people according to what they have, not according to what they don't have. We have no doubts about either his mercy or justice in these matters.

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.

The evidence I have seen thus far would suggest not, as would the findings of social science who study people in your situation, since you continue to misrepresent what we believe, as I've demonstrated at length.

Why don't you stick to explaining what YOU believe, and leave defining, explaining, and representing our doctrine to US? That would seem a fair distribution of labor.

So I guess I would ask, " do you really understand the other side here?"

Well, you tell me. I'm restating below.

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,

Yes, people are. Or, they are covertly using such language to give that impression.

This is why the book was written. Dan can verify this if I've misunderstood, but having read it and seen the phenomenon to which he is replying, I'm pretty sure I'm on good ground.

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.

Right. So you want to reserve the term "Christian" for a subset of those groups who are labeled generally as "Christian Churches." You want to use "Christian" as a term for those who are saved, have the proper theology, have the proper relationship with Jesus, etc., i.e., when you say "Christian" you mean essentially the same thing when a Mormon says "true Church." These are the "real Christians" scattered among all the so-called "Christian denominations" who are right with God, part of the "body of Christ," etc.

Please correct this if I've gotten in wrong.

You're welcome to that terminology. But, when you turn around and say that Mormons aren't "Christians," unless you qualify very carefully that you're using "Christian" as an idiosyncratic shorthand for "people who share my beliefs, my theology, and my scriptural exegesis" it gives a completely inaccurate impression. When most people hear "Mormons aren't Christians" what it communicates is that Mormons don't worship Christ, don't find him normative, and don't revere him. And, Mormons object most strongly to that characterization. We object even more for that perspective being spread about us, even if unwittingly.

You wouldn't, I expect, like it if we went around telling people that you don't "worship Christ" when we were using the term "worship" to mean "attend LDS temples and worship there"; that's the only "true worship, the rest is false or pseudo-worship." "Worship" just isn't used that way in common discourse, and it would be lying unless I made it clear in what sense I was using the term "worship." But, if I did that, it would pretty much be a no-brainer, and so the rhetorical advantage of saying, "Non Mormons don't worship Christ in Mormons temples" would be effectively zilch and greeted with a yawn, and "Duh."

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.

Dan's point, though, is exactly what you have failed to grasp. Is point is that the term "Christian" as used throughout western history in standard discourse does not mean "only true Church of Christ." It just means "person who worships Christ and considers Christ unique and normative in their theology." It is applied to many denominations, which virtually excludes the possibility that it can intend "the proper/true mode of worship of Jesus."

Again, you are welcome to your own idiosyncratic use of the term. But, unless you use it with care and explicit definition of your terms every time you do it, you are going to confuse people and continue to offend people when they don't understand your meaning.

If your goal is to treat others as you would be treated, to communicate nothing that isn't false, and to communicate accurately, I can't see that being appealing.

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.

And yet, Dan has demonstrated that it is used as a generic term, and has been for centuries. What the early Christians may have thought about it, in a sense, is immaterial in communicating with modern readers.

Besides, early Christians weren't Nicene trinitarians, and you're happy to lump yourself in with them there. :-) Yet they wouldn't recognize Nicea from a hole in the ground.

If you're going to play the "what early Christians would think" card, you better be careful you want to pick up both ends of that stick.

The goal is not to communicate with early 1st century Christians. It is to communicate in the 21st century, and not bear false witness through misleading terminology insufficiently defined.

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.

I have no doubt that the Bible defines core beliefs of the true Church. I just reject that the term "Christian" applies only to those who match your (or my) reading of that data, about which we will not agree, and about which Chrisendom has clearly not agreed for 2,000 years.

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.

Again, I repeat, LDS doctrine does not say what you claim it does. You are misrepresenting it, and not getting the nuances. The core message of the Church of Jesus Christ to other Christians is, "Bring every good thing you have been taught and believed about Jesus. Through no fault of your own, important concepts about Jesus have been lost over time. God has been gracious enough to restore those truths, has called prophets again, and has taught us more about the Lord you already revere. You don't have to take our word for it; please compare what we have to offer with what you already believe, and ask God if it is true."

And, if people choose to reject it, we say simply, with Joseph Smith:

If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way. Do you believe in Jesus Christ and the Gospel of salvation which he revealed? So do I. Christians should cease wrangling and contending with each other, and cultivate the principles of union and friendship in their midst; and they will do it before the millennium can be ushered in and Christ takes possession of His kingdom. History of the Church 5:498-500; see also TPJS, 314.

Would this offend someone? Well, people can get offended at anything. But, I don't see why anyone secure and happy in their faith would be offended by someone else sharing their beliefs, including the belief that I'm wrong.

What I do find offensive, I emphasize again, is someone not of my faith telling me what my faith teaches and implies, and then teaching classes to others purporting to explain what my co-religionists and I "really believe."

I would find it likewise offensive if Democrats held themselves out as experts on Republican party platform ("trust me--I used to be a Republican, so I know their platform well"), or if Ford held itself out as an expert on the merits or problems of Chevy.

LDS missionaries do not, in my experience, go into Christian homes and hold forth on a deconstruction of why Nicene trinitarianism in their view is nonsensical, abiblical, or irrational. They simply teach what they believe about God, and why. Then it's up to the investigator.

You will not find us teaching classes on what Baptists, "Christians" of whatever stripe, or Muslims "really believe." We do not write books designed to attack other faiths. We do not protest at the opening of megachurches or mosques. And so forth.

There is a world of difference between preaching one's own views (which the Bible encourages), and attacking the beliefs of others (which it does not).

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.

And so, the "Christian" response is to "attack back" and tell the LDs what they "really" believe, and how they must understand their beliefs, and then speak to others to tell them what the Church "really believes"? I find this--as I always have--bizarre in the extreme.

It has always suggested to me a fair degree of spiritual insecurity, or an unwillingness to let others speak for themselves for fear they might seem persuasive.

All to often the LDS view is "naive" and "unfeeling" of their belief of the apostasy and restoration and how others view this.

That may well be. And if so, then we need to repent.

But, the solution is not for you to go around defining and "explaining" LDS doctrine. Because, quite frankly, your version is more offensive, more confrontational, and less like what we believe than some ham-fisted attempt some Mormon may have used somewhere when speaking with a non-LDS Christian.

Why not leave explaining and articulating to us, and you can spend your energies explaining your own views about your own faith? You getting it wrong isn't going to help matters.

Greg

[Greg Smith]

I believe there are no golden plates.

Obviously. I'm merely pointing out that if one begins one's evaluation with that as a given, then it will certainly never be altered.

If there were they would still be here in spite of the various testimonies of Mormons as given in all the writings of Mormons from the beginning.

So God could give metal plates, but He couldn't take them back again?

Wow, and here I thought He was prevented only from doing things like making square circles and round triangles. But apparently "when the Lord giveth" he never "taketh away" again. :-)

A lot of testimony is given as to the experiences of individuals to confirm the validity of their own experiences in coming to faith in Joseph Smith as a "True Prophet" of God. So if you dispute their characterization of their own testimony as they were closer to it then you are, then why should I believe your characterization of what they understood at the time.

Joseph never said what he saw in the hat. I've no doubt that Whitmer, for example, was sincere in what he believed. It's just not clear to me he was in a position to know what Joseph saw.

Your words don't carry any authoritative weight. Likewise the url's of the organizations you provided, I've read somewhat and don't accept the premise of all of them, Joseph Smith being a "True Prophet" which is their and your prerogative to believe as they/you see fit.

Wow, a gen-you-ine case of the fallacy of the appeal to motive. I thought those were extinct 'round these parts....

So, because an author or I might believe Joseph was a prophet, we have no credibility. You, however, do not believe Joseph was a prophet, and so your reasoning is clear and incisive. Hmmm.

Actually, I was trying to provide you with the evidence to assess and interact with. But, that doesn't seem to appeal if a Mormon might have written it. Sorry for troubling you.

Greg

[Calm]

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.

Isn't this what is being debated? I haven't seen you actually demonstrate beyond your personal interpretation/opinion that what the true sense actually was while Dan has managed to demonstrate the wide range of application at least (who were called Christians by those who considered themselves Christian).

[Calm]

And so, the "Christian" response is to "attack back" and tell the LDs what they "really" believe, and how they must understand their beliefs, and then speak to others to tell them what the Church "really believes"? I find this--as I always have--bizarre in the extreme.

Since the majority of nonLDS Christians in my experience do not respond in this way, it makes me wonder what the motivations of the small subgroup that does are. Certainly it is not just to witness to us as many nonLDS Christians witness to us just fine without doing this (evidence of this can even be found on this board!). It is not because they love us more in my experience, I've had some very, very loving nonChristians neighbours and not one of them has used this approach.

[Calm]

I believe there are no golden plates. If there were they would still be here

So where are the original autographs of the scriptures? By this logic, it would appear you don't believe they existed. Or the tablets of the Ark.

[Markk]

Hi Greg,

Long post, I have to chew through it, I got a new toy for fathers day so I am going to play, but I want to hit on this real fast.

I presume we believe in the same Jesus--the person known as Jesus of Nazareth who was born of the virgin Mary, lived in the first part of the Christian century, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, died, was buried, and was resurrected the third day, appeared to women, the Eleven and then to five hundred brethren at once.

LDS theology adds to this, and I think we both know this. The LDS church teaches that Jesus was a created being, man literal eldest brother, brother of Lucifer. One of many gods in the creation process, atoned for the sins of mankind before he was crucified (in the garden), appeared in the Americas, basically the sole God of the OT, Equality with the Father before the incarnation, fathers name Elohim, ..etc

GBH in his testimony..."No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak'" (LDS Church News, week ending June 20, 1998, p.7).

"It is true that many of the Christian churches worship a different Jesus Christ than is worshipped by the Mormons or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (LDS Seventy Bernard P. Brockbank, The Ensign, May 1977, p.26 ).

Given this, no matter who is right or wrong, don't we believe in another Jesus? GHB, and McKonkie believed this called my Jesus "mythical", it was taught so in the ensign...why should I or anyone believe you and others with your view over the churches teachings and one of the most loved prophets of the church, and a beloved Apostle?

Isn't fair to say that it your opinion we serve the same Jesus, but the church teaches we have another Jesus...why or why not?

I'll touch in later, I got a new roto tiller for my garden and I'm going to go out and put it together.

take care

Mark

John 1:12

[Daniel Peterson]

It looks as if Gervin isn't coming back.

Defining a word in a dictionary is not of Bible import and only has to do with the basic indentity of the word as used.

When anti-Mormons take out ads in newspapers announcing that "Mormonism isn't Christian," they're not having a quiet intra-evangelical discussion. To the extent that they're publicly using the term Christian in an unexplained private sense that differs starkly from standard usage, they're engaging (whether deliberately or through casual incompetence) in a fallacy of equivocation.

A significant proportion of such people also believe that "Catholicism isn't Christian," but they don't commonly explain that in their anti-Mormon ads because (I suspect) it would give the game away. Thus, Catholics and others, reading such ads, think they're reading a genuinely factual claim, whereas they're really only encountering an eccentric bit of evangelical jargon.

This doesn't necessarily take into consideration of how it was used in the Biblical context it was taken from.

I asked Markkkkkk many times for the biblical passage that defines Christianity. He never provided it. Perhaps you can.

My Bible doesn't contain books like 5 Corinthians and 2 Hebrews, though, so please provide the full text and references.

The "Mormonism" of Joseph Smith is not "Christian".

Yes it is.

Anybody can flatly assert.

Your opinon as expressed in you book is not scripture

????????

I know enough of the argumentation to know Mormons do the same

You persist in talking as if that were the topic or the argument of the book. It was not and is not.

You manifestly didn't follow the argument. You can't even accurately identify it.

[Cold Steel]

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).

Ah, yes. That's precisely where you're wrong. The church is a body of members (baptized by authorized servants of God). They are not a body of nebulous believers in Christ. The New Testament teaches of an actual church organized and built up by Christ. If you start your own church, you can believe all you want, but you're not of the body of Christ unless you're baptized by water and the Holy Spirit. You must also believe in Jesus and those whom He has sent. No man can testify Jesus is the Son of God and also denounce any of God's prophets, including Joseph Smith and, for that matter, Moses.

Your opinon as expressed in Daniel Peterson's book is not scripture....

Dang...that's not what they told me when I bought the leather-bound, gilded edge edition for $24 more than the standard edition! I guess I'll have to wait for him to become an apostle before I have to start carting it around with my Quad.

BTW, regarding my discussion with Markk, don't think for a moment that Markk is as obtuse as he appears. He knows full well that he's arguing the standard Protestant claptrap about the church being a nebulous body of believers from all walks. Such is not taught anywhere in the New Testament, but in the creeds of sectarians who have no other claim on divine authority.

As a former Protestant myself, I'm well aware of the teachings. It never made sense to me, then, but on the other hand, I bristled (initially) at the Mormon claims to exclusivity because I'd been taught to think in terms of damnation, and I saw the implication of exclusivity as being and exclusivity of salvation. When I learned the LDS view of salvation, it made far more sense than any sectarian view of the topic. Joseph Smith and Sydney Rigdon spent about an hour and a half in vision learning about what turned out to be the most profound and just system of salvation, exaltation and damnation, and they learned it from the Lord Himself.

It never made sense to me that the Lord would subject man to Earth life without his consent. Nor could I ascertain why the Lord would create some smart, some stupid, some ugly and some beautiful; or why some were born into good homes and others born into ghettos, where they had very little chance to grow up in God's good graces. Was Calvin right that some people were born to salvation and others to damnation?

At the time Joseph Smith was called of God, Christian salvation creeds were a disaster. Damnation (and tools like excommunication) were used as weapons. The preachers who came through upstate New York didn't just preach the qualities of their own beliefs -- they condemned the beliefs of others with the threat of damnation ever present for those who didn't see their points of view. We debate the relative merits of Mormonism on this board, but hell does not lie in wait for those who don't believe. All will eventually bend the knee and confess Christ. Hell, as I've said many times here, is remedial; it's not a place of endless torment, but a place where one comes to terms with one's weaknesses and sins. Since the Restoration of the Gospel, in fact, Christianity has largely changed and has become more just, and less arbitrary.

Finally, Joseph Smith was able to correctly prophesy in the Book of Mormon (if he was indeed the author) the future of the church he would have a hand in starting. Imagine now, 179 years later, that the church is still fulfilling those prophecies. Not bad for a back woods yokel, no?

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

[Markk]

Hi Greg,

Three points:

1) this is essentially what every faith says to every other faith--there would be no need to form another denomination if the previous denomination(s) were not deficient in some sense. Your practice is a rebuke to Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox who likewise trust in Christ and who likewise believe that their theology is both necessary and sufficient to assure their salvation.

Very true, but if your going to tell somebody they are wrong, expect a reaction and a defense, and part of the defense here is the LDS theology is not Christian theology. What do you expect. The LDS church is very clear that off shoots of JS teachings are not the COJCOLDS nor is their doctrine the same doctrine. It's kind of funny, I do allot of driving and I listen to allot of talk radio, and when ever a issue comes up with an off shoot church, the Warren Jeffs thing is the latest, 1/2 the calls seem to be from LDS members making sure the host gets it right that the fundy's are not in any way associated with the COJCOLDS...just a observation. Point being if you live in a glass house don't throw rock unless you know a good glazer.

2) If one is convinced of one's faith, one's eternal security, or whatever I don't see why one ought to be offended. Every other faith in the world disagrees with mine. So what? They are welcome to their views, and I'm happy to share mine with anyone who cares.

Muslims could care less about the difference between our two faiths, the issue here is that the LDS church makes it very clear that the Christian church is lost and broken and spends literally millions of dollars a year going out into the word to spread what most people would not believe is true. If what you say is true, why did Dan write his book, why is there a FARMS or FAIR or the NMI? Remember the LDS church struck the "first blow".

3) What I do find somewhat offensive, though, is being told what my faith means, teaches, or implies.

I agree when some one tells one what they personally believe, especially when they are wrong. BUT certainly Church doctrine is fair game as is Biblical teachings. The LDS church tells what others believe and teach, they beat the Nicene Creed thing to death, and the GA's have published books about others beliefs. I have two in my meager LDS collection, Religious Truths Defined by JFS jr and Gospel Through the Ages (Hunter), a Melk. teaching manual. Personally I believe if a org. is going to go out and proselytize to the world, then Doctrine is fair game, if it doesn't stand up then it is probably not worth defending. By your standard the LDS church is wrong for implying what others teach or what it means...is that fair?

We're not saying "don't worry about it." We think these issues matter very much, and should be discussed with the seriousness they merit. What we object to is being labelled as "non-Christian" because of some private definition or criteria, because it misrepresents what we believe, and confuses or deceives others.

It comes with the territory, I disagree with all the reasons you said, people believe LDS theology is not Christian theology just as strong as you believe it is, it is just the way it is. Their reasons are just as valid to them as your reasons are valid to you. You simply can not attack another's faith and then expect them to not defend against that attack. LDS theology and existence is based on what "we" believe, as being wrong, lost, broken, and non authoritative...again what do you expect? Just think about how the LDS alienates themselves from mains stream Christianity, they riducule the use of the cross, their respect for the Christian Pastor is almost zero (getting a little better)...etc. I was raised LDS and know how LDS people fell about the Christian church, how we viewed it as kids, how we viewed it as teens, and how we viewed it as adults. So if your concerned about the label that you feel in pinned on the saints, think about the label that LDS doctrine and thought pins on others. It's a two way street and if one plays the victim they will never understand.

And, we're not so quick to write other people off. Brigham Young said:

QUOTE

In the millennium men will have the privilege of being Presbyterians, Methodists or Infidels, but they will not have the privilege of treating the name and character of Deity as they have done heretofore. - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 12:274

I couldn't find that quote to read in context 274 is Wilford Woodruff. Can't commet yet. I believe it is not up to people to write anybody off, only Providence can do that, every knee shall bow and every tounge confess. Any was that a typo or is it on my end? http://www.journalofdiscourses.org/volume-12/

We take a very long and broad view of this process, and see much good coming out of Christianity (or even theism) of every stripe. God will judge people according to what they have, not according to what they don't have. We have no doubts about either his mercy or justice in these matters.

Greg, your talking to basically a Mormon, I am in many was just as Mormon as you, from pop corn popping on the apricot tree to give said the little stream, I may not be LDS anymore but I can't forget 34 years of belief, almost all my family are very active LDS, the Mormon lifestyle and culture is still very much part of my life and always will be. I know what LDS theology teaches and demands. Eternal law and obedience to these laws will determne ones final estate...period. Gods grace can only get a person so far the rest is dependant on them to more or less "activate this grace" through the atonement based on their individual works. Then we can discuss incress but thats for another day.

We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

The evidence I have seen thus far would suggest not, as would the findings of social science who study people in your situation, since you continue to misrepresent what we believe, as I've demonstrated at length.

Why don't you stick to explaining what YOU believe, and leave defining, explaining, and representing our doctrine to US? That would seem a fair distribution of labor.

LoL...give me a CFR for this social science study that studies people in my situation...that will be interesting. I have not misrepresented anything but possible your personal opinions, I have not on LDS theology, please show me where?

Well, you tell me. I'm restating below

I'll take that as a no, but I have taouched on ot enough in this post that it might get you thinking.

I'll finish up later on another post, when and if you respond maybe you should wittle it down a little, I think we are both too long winded, these post are getting to long, if not I'll keep plugging away.

MG

[Markk]

Hi CS

Ah, yes. That's precisely where you're wrong. The church is a body of members (baptized by authorized servants of God). They are not a body of nebulous believers in Christ. The New Testament teaches of an actual church organized and built up by Christ. If you start your own church, you can believe all you want, but you're not of the body of Christ unless you're baptized by water and the Holy Spirit. You must also believe in Jesus and those whom He has sent. No man can testify Jesus is the Son of God and also denounce any of God's prophets, including Joseph Smith and, for that matter, Moses.

So now your back to your original theory or at least closer to it, you need to make up you mind, is this the last version of what the church is? Did you readthe first two or three cahapters of Eph. like I asked ?

Eph 1:3 Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ:

What does Paul mean by "in Christ" ? Go through and rea dand study and tell me what Paul means when he says, In Him, In Christ,

Eph 1:22 And hath put all [things] under his feet, and gave him [to be] the head over all [things] to the church,

Eph 1:23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

What does Paul mean when he says he is head of the church which is his body?

Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

What this mean being in Christ Jesus here?

Let me know

Mark

John 1:12

[Tanyan]

I thought the title of this thread was Replying to Mormonism and the Trinity ? .

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

[Daniel Peterson]

I thought the title of this thread was Replying to Mormonism and the Trinity ? .

The title suggests that, doesn't it?

But the thread was soon taken over by critics who hadn't read the article but had strong opinions about it nonetheless. What a surprise.

[Greg Smith]

Hi Greg,

LDS theology adds to this, and I think we both know this. The LDS church teaches that Jesus was a created being, man literal eldest brother, brother of Lucifer. One of many gods in the creation process, atoned for the sins of mankind before he was crucified (in the garden), appeared in the Americas, basically the sole God of the OT, Equality with the Father before the incarnation, fathers name Elohim, ..etc

Yup, you and I believe some different things about Jesus. So what?

But, I doubt very much we're talking about two different people or beings.

People in the North during the Civil War had quite a different view of Lincoln than people in the South. But, it is absurd to think they were talking about two different Abraham Lincolns. Muslims think different things about Muhammad than Jews do. Jews do not speak of a "different" Mohammad, however.

GBH in his testimony..."No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak'" (LDS Church News, week ending June 20, 1998, p.7).

Sigh. You're going back to cliche anti-Mormon. Resist the temptation.

In context, Pres. Hinckley was clearly talking about the post-biblical creeds which have been grafted on later. As I said, you and I believe some different things about Jesus. But, I don't think we're talking about a different person.

I fear you've been relying on anti-Mormon sound bites. Resist; info here makes his meaning very clear.

This seems a long way of saying that I believe some things you think are false, and you believe some things I think are false. Big surprise. Mormons and some other Christian groups believe different things. Gasp--shocking.

Arminians and Calvinists can't agree on whether Jesus died for all or some of humanity, but one hardly thinks that Arminians and Calvinists are talking about two different people who died for some subset (or not) of humanity.

"It is true that many of the Christian churches worship a different Jesus Christ than is worshipped by the Mormons or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (LDS Seventy Bernard P. Brockbank, The Ensign, May 1977, p.26 ).

Of course, it helps to read the very next sentences:

For example, from the Church of Englandâ??s Articles of Religion, article one, I quote: â??There is but one living God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions.â? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints worships a God and a Jesus Christ with bodies, with parts, and with passions. We also believe that the trinity of the Godhead is made up of three separate personagesâ??God, the Eternal Father; Jesus Christ, the Son of Godâ??our Savior; and the Holy Ghost. These two concepts of the Trinity and their attributes are completely different.

<a name="17"> The Jesus Christ of the holy scriptures has a body of flesh and bones and passions before and after his resurrection.

Clearly, Elder Brockbank does not think this is some "different Jesus," but merely that we teach and believe different things about Jesus and God--for starters, that Jesus has a body. The "concepts" that we have about them are different, but this does not mean there is a "different Jesus" in the mix. Jesus is who He is--but people may have different views about Him. What you or I think or don't think about them has no impact whatever on the facts of the matter.

If, on the other hand, you wish merely to claim that members of the Church of Jesus Christ believe things about Jesus that some other people don't believe--sure. And, so what?

Given this, no matter who is right or wrong, don't we believe in another Jesus?

Nope.

GHB, and McKonkie believed this called my Jesus "mythical", it was taught so in the ensign...why should I or anyone believe you and others with your view over the churches teachings and one of the most loved prophets of the church, and a beloved Apostle?

Because you're taking them out of context, and drawing implications they never intended, of course.

(Your claim to be well-versed in all things Mormon would be more persuasive if you could actually SPELL the "beloved apostle's" name, by the way--it's "McConkie." This is why you should stick to your own beliefs. :->)

Besides, there are things that you believe about that they (and I) regard as false or "mythic"--such as the idea that Jesus is of the same substance as God the Father.

Isn't fair to say that it your opinion we serve the same Jesus, but the church teaches we have another Jesus...why or why not?

No, it is not fair. It's silly. I've outlined why above.

I think it absurd to think that because people have differing views about a historical character that this some how means that one of the people is speaking of a completely separate person. I also think it absurd to think that having different opinions about a person means that the person who happens to be mistaken about a given point is not referring to an actual person at all, but only to an imaginary or "make believe" person.

By the way, I'm still waiting for my CFR on statements about other "Christians."

Greg

[Cold Steel]

...but if your (sic) going to tell somebody they are wrong, expect a reaction and a defense, and part of the defense here is the LDS theology is not Christian theology.

The supreme irony here, Markk, is that LDS theology is regarded by Latter-day Saints as being the quintessential Christian theology. The problem is, what is "Christian" theology? Saying that Mormonism isn't Christian isn't part of a defense any more than name calling is. It's more likely a reaction. You're hurt because you've been told that you're wrong, so you lash out and say, "Well, you're not Christian!" It's a way of saying, "You've offended me, so I'm going to respond by excluding you from my group." This is the grown up version of a well known child's response.

"I'm rubber and you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!"

"Oh...well, like I was saying, there was an apostasy sometimes afterand we believe that all churches today that descendants from those apostate faiths are apostate themselves."

"Boinnnnnng, stick!"

What do you expect? The LDS church is very clear that offshoots of JS teachings are not the COJCOLDS nor is their doctrine the same doctrine. ...whenever an issue comes up with an offshoot church, the Warren Jeffs thing is the latest, 1/2 the calls seem to be from LDS members making sure the host gets it right that the fundy's are not in any way associated with the COJCOLDS...just a observation. Point being if you live in a glass house don't throw rock unless you know a good glazer.

That's not an appropriate parallel at all. First, the fundies can claim anything they want, but the truth is that they really aren't members of the LDS faith at all. They've not been baptized (or they've been excommunicated). These are nothing but more games. We've repeatedly asked why you feel you can be the arbiter of who's Christian and who's not and you've never given any kind of an answer at all. On the other hand, we can give a simple, reasonable and concise answer as to our own ability to determine who's a member of our organization and who's not, and it has to do with legitimacy, which you've failed to establish for yourself. Again, name calling. You feel threatened, injured or whatever, so you simply resort to calumny -- a malicious claim designed to discredit or malign. You may not be able to convince everyone, but you convince enough so as to injure (through dishonesty) your opponents. Fortunately, calumny can't stop the gospel from rolling forth. Nothing can. In end, it's like hitting the tar baby.

Muslims could care less about the difference between our two faiths, the issue here is that the LDS church makes it very clear that the Christian church is lost and broken and spends literally millions of dollars a year going out into the word to spread what most people would not believe is true. If what you say is true, why did Dan write his book, why is there a FARMS or FAIR or the NMI? Remember the LDS church struck the "first blow".

First blow? So this is a matter of responding to an injury! Because we argue that the original church fell away, you're going to get revenge on us by telling everyone you know that pssssst, did you know Mormons aren't Christian?

But is this tactic of using false and misleading information against a people just for ticking you off justified? Other sects that don't tick you off get to keep their Christian titles, but the Mormons can't because they called your church "apostate"! This, Markk, is the real crux of the matter. As Ross Perot would say, "Now that's just plain sad."

[Daniel Peterson]

The LDS church teaches that Jesus was . . . brother of Lucifer.

If "the Mormon Jesus" is a "different Jesus" because he's the brother of Lucifer, then aren't we talking about a different Lucifer, too? After all, the Mormon Lucifer is the brother of Jesus, right? Quite distinct from the Christian© Lucifer.

So, on standard fundamentalist Protestant logic, what's the big deal?

[Tanyan]

The title suggests that, doesn't it?

But the thread was soon taken over by critics who hadn't read the article but had strong opinions about it nonetheless. What a surprise.

I agree.

[Greg Smith]

Hi Greg,

LDS theology adds to this, and I think we both know this. The LDS church teaches that Jesus was a created being, man literal eldest brother, brother of Lucifer. One of many gods in the creation process, atoned for the sins of mankind before he was crucified (in the garden), appeared in the Americas, basically the sole God of the OT, Equality with the Father before the incarnation, fathers name Elohim, ..etc

Yup, you and I believe some different things about Jesus. So what?

But, I doubt very much we're talking about two different people or beings.

People in the North during the Civil War had quite a different view of Lincoln than people in the South. But, it is absurd to think they were talking about two different Abraham Lincolns. Muslims think different things about Muhammad than Jews do. Jews do not speak of a "different" Mohammad, however.

GBH in his testimony..."No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak'" (LDS Church News, week ending June 20, 1998, p.7).

Sigh. You're going back to cliche anti-Mormon. Resist the temptation.

In context, Pres. Hinckley was clearly talking about the post-biblical creeds which have been grafted on later. As I said, you and I believe some different things about Jesus. But, I don't think we're talking about a different person.

I fear you've been relying on anti-Mormon sound bites. Resist; info here makes his meaning very clear.

This seems a long way of saying that I believe some things you think are false, and you believe some things I think are false. Big surprise. Mormons and some other Christian groups believe different things. Gasp--shocking.

Arminians and Calvinists can't agree on whether Jesus died for all or some of humanity, but one hardly thinks that Arminians and Calvinists are talking about two different people who died for some subset (or not) of humanity.

"It is true that many of the Christian churches worship a different Jesus Christ than is worshipped by the Mormons or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (LDS Seventy Bernard P. Brockbank, The Ensign, May 1977, p.26 ).

Of course, it helps to read the very next sentences:

For example, from the Church of Englandâ??s Articles of Religion, article one, I quote: â??There is but one living God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions.â? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints worships a God and a Jesus Christ with bodies, with parts, and with passions. We also believe that the trinity of the Godhead is made up of three separate personagesâ??God, the Eternal Father; Jesus Christ, the Son of Godâ??our Savior; and the Holy Ghost. These two concepts of the Trinity and their attributes are completely different.

<a name="17"> The Jesus Christ of the holy scriptures has a body of flesh and bones and passions before and after his resurrection.

Clearly, Elder Brockbank does not think this is some "different Jesus," but merely that we teach and believe different things about Jesus and God--for starters, that Jesus has a body. The "concepts" that we have about them are different, but this does not mean there is a "different Jesus" in the mix. Jesus is who He is--but people may have different views about Him. What you or I think or don't think about them has no impact whatever on the facts of the matter.

If, on the other hand, you wish merely to claim that members of the Church of Jesus Christ believe things about Jesus that some other people don't believe--sure. And, so what?

Given this, no matter who is right or wrong, don't we believe in another Jesus?

Nope.

GHB, and McKonkie believed this called my Jesus "mythical", it was taught so in the ensign...why should I or anyone believe you and others with your view over the churches teachings and one of the most loved prophets of the church, and a beloved Apostle?

Because you're taking them out of context, and drawing implications they never intended, of course.

(Your claim to be well-versed in all things Mormon would be more persuasive if you could actually SPELL the "beloved apostle's" name, by the way--it's "McConkie." This is why you should stick to your own beliefs. :->)

Besides, there are things that you believe about that they (and I) regard as false or "mythic"--such as the idea that Jesus is of the same substance as God the Father.

Isn't fair to say that it your opinion we serve the same Jesus, but the church teaches we have another Jesus...why or why not?

No, it is not fair. It's silly. I've outlined why above.

I think it absurd to think that because people have differing views about a historical character that this some how means that one of the people is speaking of a completely separate person. I also think it absurd to think that having different opinions about a person means that the person who happens to be mistaken about a given point is not referring to an actual person at all, but only to an imaginary or "make believe" person.

By the way, I'm still waiting for my CFR on statements about other "Christians."

Greg

[Calm]

Isn't fair to say that it your opinion we serve the same Jesus, but the church teaches we have another Jesus...why or why not?

It's not fair because the Church doesn't teach this:

As to whether we worship a “different Jesus,” we say again: We accept and endorse the testimony of the New Testament writers. Jesus is the promised Messiah, the resurrection and the life (John 11:25), literally the light of the world (John 8:12). Everything that testifies of His divine birth, His goodness, His transforming power and His godhood, we embrace enthusiastically. But we also rejoice in the additional knowledge latter-day prophets have provided about our Lord and Savior. President Brigham Young thus declared that “we, the Latter-day Saints, take the liberty of believing more than our Christian brethren: we not only believe ... the Bible, but ... the whole of the plan of salvation that Jesus has given to us. Do we differ from others who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ? No, only in believing more.”[x]

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/co...ut-jesus-christ

and:

With this background, we need to understand that there are many in the Christian world who believe this doctrine is inappropriate. In fact, there are many who say that Latter-day Saints believe in a “different Jesus” than do other Christians and that we are therefore not “Christian.” Here is another place that we can agree to disagree without being disagreeable. We believe in the Jesus of the New Testament, and we believe what the New Testament teaches about Him. We do believe things about Jesus that other Christians do not believe, but that is because we know, through revelation, things about Jesus that others do not know. It is a twisting of language to call this a “different Jesus,” as though we have created some other individual by that name.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1

and http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne...mp;hideNav=true

and

It’s possible that greater awareness and familiarity with Latter-day Saints could increase favorable impressions of the Mormon religion and could moderate the perceived differences. As people learn more about Latter-day Saint beliefs, they may see some distinct differences and yet find some unexpected common ground.

For example, recent addresses by Church President Gordon B. Hinckley and Church apostle Jeffrey R. Holland emphatically affirm Christ as the center of the Church while grounding Latter-day Saint doctrines of Deity in biblical teachings as confirmed by the witness of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland said that any criticism that the Church “does not hold the contemporary Christian view of God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost is not a comment about our commitment to Christ but rather a recognition (accurate, I might add) that our view of the Godhead breaks with post–New Testament Christian history and returns to the doctrine taught by Jesus Himself.” President Hinckley observed that for Mormons, the post-biblical fourth-century Christian creeds present a complexity not found in the experience and witness of Joseph Smith: “They spoke to him with words that were audible, and he spoke to Them. They could see. They could speak. They could hear. They were personal. They were of substance. They were not imaginary beings. They were beings tabernacled in flesh. And out of that experience has come our unique and true understanding of the nature of Deity.”

For some, these distinctions may be “very different.” But the fact that Latter-day Saints accept as fellow Christians all who believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Savior of all mankind, shows that there’s common ground for all Christians to occupy together.

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/co...anity#continued

and http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:gNssU...=clnk&gl=us

[Markk]

If "the Mormon Jesus" is a "different Jesus" because he's the brother of Lucifer, then aren't we talking about a different Lucifer, too? After all, the Mormon Lucifer is the brother of Jesus, right? Quite distinct from the Christian

[Greg Smith]

LDS theology adds to this, and I think we both know this. The LDS church teaches that Jesus was a created being, man literal eldest brother, brother of Lucifer. One of many gods in the creation process, atoned for the sins of mankind before he was crucified (in the garden), appeared in the Americas, basically the sole God of the OT, Equality with the Father before the incarnation, fathers name Elohim, ..etc

Here again we see Markk's inability to get LDS doctrine accurate. For example:

* Jesus is NOT a created being in LDS theology. (D&C 93:30)

* "One of many Gods" is a semnatic issue. There is a sense in which "God" may be spoken of as plural, and a sense as One. Nicene trinitarianism is one solution to the data. Since there are at least two persons involved (God the Father, and the pre-mortal Christ) using the plural is not inappropriate. But, using it here as you do implies that these beings are not utterly one, which is misleading. (It also ignores that Jewish theology until the 2nd temple period saw things in exactly the same way, with a figure often termed El Elyon--the Most High God--directing the action of other divine beings. Clever lad, that Joseph Smith).

* Jesus did NOT atone before the crucifixion. The process of atonement began before the crucifixion. (Indeed, in some ways, Jesus' entire life was part of the atonement, since without a sinless life, he could not have atoned for us.) The severe trial or "passion" began in the Garden, continued through the mock trials and scourgings, and reached its awful culmination on Golgotha. The suffering of the atonement was not done until Jesus said, "It is finished." (And, arguably, it did not reach its ultimate culmination until the Resurrection.) This is so fundamental to LDS doctrine, it once again demonstrates either your ignorance or malice toward the teachings of the Saints. A good recent review of the idea is Elder Holland's recent conference talk which describes some events on the cross as the worst part of the atonement for Jesus.

Tons of quotes here:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Atonement_not_car...ut_on_the_cross

* "Basically the sole God of the Old Testament"? Since in Trinitarian doctrine, there is only One God in the Old Testament, it's not clear to me why this is a huge problem or difference. But, in fact, early Jews were not strictly monotheistic in the Nicene sense. Again, Joseph's placement of YHWH/Jesus as the intermediary or ruling power for Israel under the direction of His father (often termed El Elyon) fits well with early Jewish usage. Since the Father and Son are perfectly one in intent, goals, and action the distinction would seem to be rather moot.

* Equality with the Father before the incarnation. Nonsense. Jesus is always subservient to the Father, both before, during, and after the Incarnation. It would be hard to get this more wrong.

** Moses 4:2

** John 8:29

** Matt 26:39

** 3 Nephi 11:11 ("...I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning."

** 3 Nephi 15:14-16

** 3 Nephi 17:2-4,14,

** 3 Nephi 19:29

And, as Calmoriah has shown, you misrepresent official Church doctrine--those newsroom posts go through Correlation Committee.

These aren't just my "personal views," that you feel free to distort. These are the official, sanctioned teachings of the Church.

And you've gotten every single one listed here wrong. I look forward to seeing your correction and retraction on this point.

BTW, the CFR which you asked me to repeat, which can be found here:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208678996

You've given me three CFR, and I've provided them--and, you've promptly ignored them. So, I think it's about your turn.

Greg

[LifeOnaPlate]

If "the Mormon Jesus" is a "different Jesus" because he's the brother of Lucifer, then aren't we talking about a different Lucifer, too? After all, the Mormon Lucifer is the brother of Jesus, right? Quite distinct from the Christian