Mormonism and the Trinity

[Daniel Peterson]

Yes we are, it's a totally different Gospel Dan it's....well different, different Jesus, Different Father, different bad guy, different plan of salvation...it's just different.

Well, this is truly stunning. Totally different! I would never have predicted that.

Latter-day Saints believe that salvation is available only in and through the merits of Jesus of Nazareth, who atoned for our sins, was crucified, rose again the third day, and sits at the right hand of the Father.

Now you're revealing -- to my considerable astonishment -- that you believe in a totally different plan of salvation than this, a totally different gospel, involving a totally different Jesus, a totally different Father, and even a totally different Lucifer who opposes your Jesus.

I must say that, sometimes, the exchanges on this board become a little repetitive. But this one is both revelatory and amazing.

You've certainly kept your secret well, up till now!

I knew a fellow when I was growing up in California whose name was Jes

[Calm]

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)

This type of logic would make Markk's belief of Jesus into a created being as well. After all, if the eternal aspect of Jesus being clothed in a spirit makes Jesus a created being (and since Markk was such a long time member he knows this is what LDS believe, not that Jesus came into existence when his spirit was created), then surely the eternal and spiritual aspect of Jesus being clothed in a physical body makes him a created being.

* Equality with the Father before the incarnation. Nonsense.

And contradictory to the claim that LDS believe Christ is a created being.

[Daniel Peterson]

Markk has a different devil.

That explains a lot, maybe.

[Calm]

Markk has a different devil.

That explains a lot, maybe.

Perhaps a different form of logic is also part of the package.

[clairc829]

Perhaps a different form of logic is also part of the package.

It seems that he believes if he repeats the same thing over and over enough times it will be true for everyone.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Let us take a look at a picture of the Flying Fooldini together and see how the Bananas in Pajamas describe the scene.

B1 sees a strange man with black long shorts jumping fool-heartedly into a pool of water.

B2 sees a strange man with a wonderful cape, some sort of yellow cap, and a fearless expression, as he flies through the air using his superpowers of enhanced vertical levitation.

B1 and B2 may seem to be describing two different people. But let us take a look at the picture they are describing and see if this is the case:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v722/LifeOnaPlate/flop.jpg

It seems to me that they are talking about the same person, only emphasizing certain things differently, though there are some similarities. It is still the great Fooldini.

[zerinus]

Yes we are, it's a totally different Gospel Dan it's....well different, different Jesus, Different Father, different bad guy, different plan of salvation...it's just different.

Maybe; but there is an underlying false assumption here. â??Differentâ? is not the same thing as â??falseâ?. Sure there are differencesâ??maybe even big differences, if you insist. The issue is not that there are differences. Everybody knows that there are. The issue is which is the right oneâ??and how are you going to determine that. What criterion do you use? That is the real issue, not that there are differences.

I think that you believe in a different God, a different Jesus, and a different devil than the one taught in the Bible. Your religion in fact is not Christian according to the definition of the Bible.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Maybe; but there is an underlying false assumption here. â??Differentâ? is not the same thing as â??falseâ?. Sure there are differencesâ??maybe even big differences, if you insist. The issue is not that there are differences. Everybody knows that there are. The issue is which is the right oneâ??and how are you going to determine that. What criterion do you use? That is the real issue, not that there are differences.

I think that you believe in a different God, a different Jesus, and a different devil than the one taught in the Bible. Your religion in fact is not Christian according to the definition of the Bible.

See my example above, B2.

[Greg Smith]

Hi Greg,

Very true, but if your going to tell somebody they are wrong, expect a reaction and a defense,

A "defense" doesn't need to include misrepresenting the views of one's "opponents."

and part of the defense here is the LDS theology is not Christian theology. What do you expect.

Ah, we're back to the self-fufilling definitions. So, Mormons say you are wrong, so you counter by saying, "Oh yeah? Well Mormons aren't even Christians!"

What is this, third grade?

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.

You're welcome to make sure everyone knows that Mormons aren't Baptists or Calvinists, or whatever. You're just not welcome to redefine a word to your liking and use it to mislead people. (He said, pounding his head against the brick wall.)

"Mormon" is pretty generally understood as referring to the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS. (Just ask the associated press style book.) "Christian" is not generally understood as applying to your particular group of chosen sectarians, however defined.

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?

Well, as you said later on in the post: "You simply can not attack another's faith and then expect them to not defend against that attack."

FARMS and FAIR exist because, as you note, when people misrepresent our faith, we reactâ??by describing our faith properly and calling attention to their mistakes. But, we don't set out to misrepresent the beliefs of others. We would think some people would realize that their understanding is flawed. But, anti-Mormonism is nothing if not inbred, tenacious, and endlessly repetitive (present company included).

People have been plenty convinced that all Christian churches were "lost and broken" when they went and formed yet another denomination. The Mormons didn't suddenly thrust this issue into the spotlight. (The preachers of Joseph's day were busy damning other denominations to hellâ??this is why he was so confused. They were also damning unbaptized children to hell, as well as most of the world that never had the chance to hear their particular version of Christianity. All things that certainly merit the label 'corrupt.')

Remember the LDS church struck the "first blow".

So, rather than "turn the other cheek," because we "struck the first blow" (which is absurd if one knows anything about the history or polemics of Christian history, OR about what Christians were saying about each other which led Joseph to ask God prior to the first vision) you get to respond by misrepresenting what we believe and redefining the lexicon?

Got it.

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.

You know, folks, there isn't some nebulous group out there of "Church doctrine" aside from what members of the Church believe. Misrepresenting "church doctrine" is misrepresenting what we personally believe. (He said, surprised he had to explain this.)

The LDS church tells what others believe and teach, they beat the Nicene Creed thing to death,

If you don't believe the Nicene creed, then it would be wrong to impute it to you. One can disagree with the Creed all one wants. But, if I say some things about the creed, and several creedal Christians say, "You're not getting this right," it behoves me to FIRST get what I'm saying in a form they agree represents their beliefs. THEN I may critique it to my heart's content.

The problem is not in disagreeing, it is your misrepresentation, and inability to correct yourself. You're attacking and spreading lies and distortions.

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?

So, let me get this straight.

(1) The doctrine of those who want to proselytize the world is fair game, but

(2) you're upset and offended because LDS teachings about the apostasy imply that your views are wrong? So since

(3) Christians (of all people) obviously have no desire to proselytize the world so any doctrine of theirs is not "free game" (it might hurt someone's delicate sensibilities to be told they were in error) so to even implicitly disagree with some Christian idea is an attack (contra #1), so Mormons are guilty to "attacking" and "launching the first blow," but it's ok to misrepresent Mormon views? (because of #2)

I see.

I believe any LDS doctrine can stand investigation. But, I first insist on the caveat that it must actually be our doctrine and that we recognize it as such as an accurate statement of our beliefs. So far, you have been spectacularly unable to do so.

If anyone gets someone else's theology wrong, then they should correct it if they realize it.

(As an aside, I'm not surprised that members of the Church sometimes get other people's theology wrong, partly because on my mission I had many people who were Catholics tell me what they believed about God. Ironically, NONE of them got the creed right, they either taught modalism or (usually) something pretty darn close to what the LDS believe about the Godhead. We'd tell them what we thought and they'd say, "Oh, that's what we believe too." I always resisted the temptation to tell them that they probably didn't really believe thatâ?¦.would have seemed presumptuous for me to lecture them on Nicea or Chalcedon. :-) The JWs, by contrast, always knew what they believed, if not what we believedâ??I once heard one rag on the missionaries for 30 minutes proving that Nicea was not Biblical. The missionaries were taking notes the whole time. When they finally paused for triumphant breath and asked how we'd respond, the missionary just thanked them for the great scriptures, and said "we absolutely agreed" that Nicea was non-biblical. Much hilarity ensued by the JW preacher's cohorts.)

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.

It is when "Defend" = "attack and misrepresent" that there's a problem. And when lexicography games lead to choosing the meaning of words to mislead. Sort of like if Big Brother got religion.

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.

So, raised LDS you know now how "LDS people" see these things? They couldn't possibly see them in different ways than you? And, the Mormons you knew are representative and equivalent of all Mormons, everywhere? That you QUIT being a Mormon couldn't have any bearing on the question of whether you think the way Mormons who don't quit think, could it?

Greg, your talking to basically a Mormon, I am in many was just as Mormon as you,

I somehow doubt that.

If you were raised to dislike other denominations (i.e., "the Christian church," in your parlance) then you were never the kind of member of the Church of Jesus that my parents made me.

I've only seen my Dad really mad about six times. One was when (as a 5 year old kid) I heard someone talking about Catholics. Knowing virtually nothing about Catholics, but intuiting they were different than me, I announced "stupid Catholics"! (Demonstrating my message board skills before their time.) My father and mother got wind of that, and their reaction still makes me feel a little ashamed of myself when I realized what I had done, and why it was a sin.

I also don't know how I could have been taught those family home evening lessons on Catholic architecture, Anglican choral music, Bach St. Matthew's passion, and tales of the Baal Shem Tov, and thought these people were anything but God's children blessing us all. Thank goodness Markk is here to let me see the light of what we really believe.

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.

Oy vey. This is so bad I just don't know where to begin. I suggest with the entire Book of Mormon, and then D&C 20, and â?¦.sigh.

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.

Oh....my....aching....head.

LoL...give me a CFR for this social science study that studies people in my situation...that will be interesting.

It isn't a "study"; it's a well-known principle backed up by dozens/hundreds of studies with many person-years of experience. A good place to start is David G. Bromley (ed), The Politics of Religious Apostasy ISBN 0275955087.

As one expert put it:

Neither the objective sociological researcher nor the court of law can readily regard the apostate as a creditable or reliable source of evidence. He must always be seen as one whose personal history predisposes him to bias with respect to both his previous religious commitment and affiliations, the suspicion must arise that he acts from a personal motivation to vindicate himself and to regain his self-esteem, by showing himself to have been first a victim but subsequently to have become a redeemed crusader. As various instances have indicated, he is likely to be suggestible and ready to enlarge or embellish his grievances to satisfy that species of journalist whose interest is more in sensational copy than in a objective statement of the truth. (Bryan Ronald Wilson, 3 Dec 1994, Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford.)

The same author also noted:

The apostate is generally in need of self-justification. He seeks to reconstruct his own past, to excuse his former affiliations, and to blame those who were formerly his closest associates. Not uncommonly the apostate learns to rehearse an 'atrocity story' to explain how, by manipulation, trickery, coercion, or deceit, he was induced to join or to remain within an organization that he now forswears and condemns. Apostates, sensationalized by the press, have sometimes sought to make a profit from accounts of their experiences in stories sold to newspapers or produced as books (sometimes written by 'ghost' writers). [bryan Wilson, The Social Dimensions of Sectarianism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 19.]

Or:

â?¦.there are some voluntary apostates from new religious movements who leave deeply embittered and harshly critical of their former religious associations and activities. Their dynamics of separation from a once-loved religious group is analogous to an embittered marital separation and divorce. Both marriage and religion require a significant degree of commitment. The greater the involvement, the more traumatic the break-up. The longer the commitment, the more urgent the need to blame the other for the failed relationship. Long-term and heavily involved members of new religious movements who over time become disenchanted with their religion often throw all of the blame on their former religious associations and activities. They magnify small flaws into huge evils. They turn personal disappointments into malicious betrayals. They even will tell incredible falsehoods to harm their former religionâ?¦.

In short, on the face of things, apostates from new religions do not meet the standards of personal objectivity, professional competence, and informed understanding required of expert witnesses. (Lonnie D. Kliever, The Reliability of Apostate Testimony About New Religious Movements)

So, your claim to be "as Mormon as me" simply illustrates the pointâ??if you were as devout and dedicated a member of the Church of Jesus Christ as you claim, then you are in many ways the least reliable source for these matters: and you may not even realize it. That's why if you care about the truth and honesty, you will let us describe our faith and its official beliefs, and not cherry-pick quotations to fit some preconceived agenda.

And, it explains why you cannot seem to articulate our doctrine in a way that is accurate.

I have not misrepresented anything but possible your personal opinions, I have not on LDS theology, please show me where?

Yes, you have. Asked and answered.

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

It was not a "No," it was "I think so, but you can tell me if I've gotten in right." Unlike you, I try not to assume that my read of others' beliefs are accurate without their say so.

Greg

[LifeOnaPlate]

[Daniel Peterson]

Is Gervin gone for good?

[Markk]

HI Greg,

I'm starting out with the cfr, I found it, there's allot of questions and posts going on so please make sure to call me out if I miss a key point you are trying to make, right or wrong I want to be fair. I skimmed through and will reply, there is allot of garbage being said I won't be drawn in anymore, at least I hope.

Your asking the question and then asking for a CFR...OK thats a first but I'll do it.

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.

The first vision is the first and foremost proof text Greg, it is the key to the LDS church, it is the reason it ( the lost and broken church) needs a restoration, I'm sorry if you don't like what the first vision teaches, but it teaches what it teaches; that what I believe is an abomination, and that I am corrupt because I profess these teachings. I believe that would make me a false Christian. I hope you realize it is patronizing to me and others by calling us Christian without authority, and that we believe a doctrine that is an abomination before God.

9 And it came to pass that he said unto me: Look, and behold that great and abominable church, which is the mother of abominations, whose founder is the devil.

10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the bother is the church of the devil; wherefore, who so belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.

Well Greg, I don't know to many true Christians that belong to the church of the devil. If there is only One true chruch, the LDS church here in context, and all others belong to the church of the devil must really be demons...please explain to me how this works. We are true Christians that are in the church of the devil?

Jesus made his appearance on the earth in the meridian of time, and he established his kingdom on the earth. But to fulfill ancient prophecies the Lord suffered that kingdom to be uprooted; in other words, the kingdoms of this world made war against the kingdom of God, established eighteen centuries ago, and they prevailed against it, and the kingdom ceased to exist. The great beast that John saw made war with it and prevailed against it, and human institutions, without prophets or inspired men, usurped the place of the ancient kingdom of God (Pratt J. of D., Vol. 13, p. 125).

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims the restoration of the Gospel and the re-establishment of the Church as of old, in this, the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. Such restoration of re-establishment, with the modern bestowal of the Holy Priesthood, would be unnecessary and indeed impossible had the Church of Christ continued among men with unbroken succession of Priesthood and power since the 'meridian of time.' The restored Church affirms that a general apostasy developed during and after the Apostolic period, and that the primitive Church lost its power, authority, and graces as a divine institution, and degenerated into an earthly organization only... The evidence of the decline and final extinction of the primitive Church among men is found in scriptural record and in secular history (The Great Apostasy, by LDS Apostle James Talmage, Preface).

"Saddening as the thought may seem, the Church founded by the labors of Jesus and His Apostles was destroyed from the earth; the Gospel was perverted; its ordinances were changed; its laws were transgressed; its covenant was, on the part of man, broken; and the world was left to flounder in the darkness of a long period of apostasy from Godâ?¦ a universal apostasy from the Christian doctrine and the Christian Church took place" (D.H.C., Vol. I, Introduction, pp. 39 and 41).

How can the above be True Chrisians, the only way is to reduce the word christian to some generic term. Basically your saying that the the early Christians that gave their lives for what they believed, are lumped in with all these others as christians that have satan as their head. You can believe, or buy that, I do not.

There is also some things we could talk about on this topic but not here, pm me if you want to discuss them, they are scared to the saint, and I understand if you don't/can't discuss them.

Take care

Your friend

Mark

John 1:12

[Markk]

Hi Dan,

Latter-day Saints believe that salvation is available only in and through the merits of Jesus of Nazareth, who atoned for our sins, was crucified, rose again the third day, and sits at the right hand of the Father.

LDS theology teaches that there are two types of salvation, un-merited and merited..universal and individual. Unmerited salvation is provided to all and is given to all whether they want it or not, this salvation is provide by the attonement relieveing mankind of Adams Transgressions. This was provided for Christ atonment in the garden before he went to the cross.

Individual salvation, or merited salvation, which BM called 'true salvation for the saint'. This is exaltation, which by obedience to eternal laws of the gospel. This salvation is earned by merit and duty.

The atonement as explained in LDS.org:

Atonement of Jesus Christ

As used in the scriptures, to atone is to suffer the penalty for sins, thereby removing the effects of sin from the repentant sinner and allowing him or her to be reconciled to God. Jesus Christ was the only one capable of carrying out the Atonement for all mankind. Because of His Atonement, all people will be resurrected (un-merited), and those who obey His gospel will receive the gift of eternal life with God(merited). (BOLD MINE)

2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adamâ??s transgression. (Christs attonement covers this)

3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. ( the atonement here allows mankind to progress by work, merit, and duty, to possibly be in the presence of Heavenly Father)

This is a brief exclamation of the LDS teaching of salvation, which is clearly a different plan of salvation.

Take care Dan

Mark

John 1:12

[Markk]

Maybe; but there is an underlying false assumption here. â??Differentâ? is not the same thing as â??falseâ?. Sure there are differencesâ??maybe even big differences, if you insist. The issue is not that there are differences. Everybody knows that there are. The issue is which is the right oneâ??and how are you going to determine that. What criterion do you use? That is the real issue, not that there are differences.

I think that you believe in a different God, a different Jesus, and a different devil than the one taught in the Bible. Your religion in fact is not Christian according to the definition of the Bible.

Hi Z

Paul goes on to say though that those that teach this different Jesus, different Gosple, and different Spirit, are indeed "false" apostles, I believe it is vrse 13. so in context different is false. In Gal. Paul says those thatteach a different gospel are "anathama" {sic?}, which as you know is a Godly curse. I disagree that I believe in the different Jesus, but I respect you understanding the context of Pauls teaching. I believe your going to have a tuff time finding the LDS Jesus, God and Satan in the Bible.

The issue is which is the right oneâ??and how are you going to determine that. What criterion do you use?

Fair enough, we can test or two different interpretation with the Bible. I believe you can not do that without adding LDS scripture and ideology to this, but hey...go for it it will be interesting.

Take care

Mark

John 1:12

[Daniel Peterson]

LDS theology teaches that there are two types of salvation, un-merited and merited..universal and individual. Unmerited salvation is provided to all and is given to all whether they want it or not, this salvation is provide by the attonement relieveing mankind of Adams Transgressions. This was provided for Christ atonment in the garden before he went to the cross.

Individual salvation, or merited salvation, which BM called 'true salvation for the saint'. This is exaltation, which by obedience to eternal laws of the gospel. This salvation is earned by merit and duty.

That is not true.

As is your habit, you misrepresent our doctrine, whether deliberately or through incompetence.

No Latter-day Saint who understands the gospel believes that we can ever "merit" either salvation or exaltation apart from the atonement of Christ. No communicant member of the Church believes that any of us will arrive at the pearly gates and be able to demand salvation or exaltation as our "right" because, solely by our own efforts, we earned it.

Please stop telling falsehoods about Mormonism. Believe whatever you want to believe, but stop distorting our faith.

The atonement as explained in LDS.org:

Atonement of Jesus Christ

As used in the scriptures, to atone is to suffer the penalty for sins, thereby removing the effects of sin from the repentant sinner and allowing him or her to be reconciled to God. Jesus Christ was the only one capable of carrying out the Atonement for all mankind. Because of His Atonement, all people will be resurrected (un-merited), and those who obey His gospel will receive the gift of eternal life with God(merited). (BOLD MINE)

Not only the bolding is yours. The words are yours. There is no reference in that entry to "merit." You've inserted that. (Shamelessly, I might add.)

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne...0004d82620a____

"As used in the scriptures, to atone is to suffer the penalty for sins, thereby removing the effects of sin from the repentant sinner and allowing him or her to be reconciled to God. Jesus Christ was the only one capable of carrying out the Atonement for all mankind. Because of His Atonement, all people will be resurrected, and those who obey His gospel will receive the gift of eternal life with God."

Plainly, when this paragraph refers to "the repentant sinner," it's referring to individual men and women and their individual sins, not just to Adam's. And plainly, too, the paragraph refers to eternal life as a "gift."

Please stop misrepresenting our beliefs. Just stop it.

[Calm]

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, ..... . "activate this grace" .

And yet you use a phrase in quotes that I have never heard in church and can't be found on LDS.org

[Markk]

Hi Greg,

A "defense" doesn't need to include misrepresenting the views of one's "opponents."

I give a defense to LDS doctrine in that I believe it misrepresents The Bible and the Historic Christian faith...it comes with the territory. Christ said that His wrod would devide, so if your right, or if I'm right that is a true statement either way.

I do not mean any disrespect out of what I am about to write, but I believe it with all my heart. One of the problems here is the lack of LDS leadership on these tough doctrinal issues. The LDS leadship has more or less stopped defining LDS core theology. When is the last time a GA has written a book like Gospel Through the Ages, or Doctrines of Salvation, Religious Truths Defined, or Mormon Doctrine? These Books were Bold exegesis of essential LDS doctrines. What I see is that LDS doctrine is being defined on sites like this, where has the leadership gone when it comes to clearly up these doctrines that are hashed over and over on sites like this?

Ah, we're back to the self-fufilling definitions. So, Mormons say you are wrong, so you counter by saying, "Oh yeah? Well Mormons aren't even Christians!"

What is this, third grade?

I didn't say that, and I have never said that, and if I did, I was wrong, I said I do not believe LDS theology is Christian theology. It a different theology Greg, I'm sorry but it is. And like I said many times on this site, we can both be wrong, but we can't both be right, that is a very objective observation of our two respective beliefs. I have said over and over, even on this thread that a Christian is one who has their name in the Book of Life...period.

You're welcome to make sure everyone knows that Mormons aren't Baptists or Calvinists, or whatever. You're just not welcome to redefine a word to your liking and use it to mislead people. (He said, pounding his head against the brick wall.)

I haven't done any such thing, LDS theology since it conception have not been reconized as Christian theology, and it will continue to be so. What you just wrote would be like me saying " your not welcome to send your youth around the world say we don't have authority and decieving people?" No disrespect, but you want to do exactly what you don't want me to do, just a different subject.

FARMS and FAIR exist because, as you note, when people misrepresent our faith, we reactâ??by describing our faith properly and calling attention to their mistakes. But, we don't set out to misrepresent the beliefs of others. We would think some people would realize that their understanding is flawed. But, anti-Mormonism is nothing if not inbred, tenacious, and endlessly repetitive (present company included).

UTLM, McKeever, CRI exist because LDS doctrine attacks the Christian faith, whenJ S said what he said about his vision in the grove, a defense began. You spend hundreds of Millions of dollars telling any one who will listen that what I believe is wrong, the LDS church misrepresents the article of faith at Nicene over and over. The leadership has said repulsive things like Satan sits on the throne of our church, it has portrayed the Christian pastor as a hireling of satan to millions. They have said we have no authority to act in Gods name, they have said our marriages are nul and void in Gods eyes, they have said we have false gods that just bear the name of Biblical Gods. They have said our children are illegitmate in Gods eyes, they said our churches can not save souls...etc...etc...etc. Is that a Misrepresentation of our faith Greg, or is it true, no matter what the LDS leadership has said every one of these things, I honestly hope you don't believe it.

More later

Take care

Mark

John 1:12

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hi Dan,

LDS theology teaches that there are two types of salvation, un-merited and merited..universal and individual. Unmerited salvation is provided to all and is given to all whether they want it or not, this salvation is provide by the attonement relieveing mankind of Adams Transgressions. This was provided for Christ atonment in the garden before he went to the cross.

Individual salvation, or merited salvation, which BM called 'true salvation for the saint'. This is exaltation, which by obedience to eternal laws of the gospel. This salvation is earned by merit and duty.

The atonement as explained in LDS.org:

Atonement of Jesus Christ

As used in the scriptures, to atone is to suffer the penalty for sins, thereby removing the effects of sin from the repentant sinner and allowing him or her to be reconciled to God. Jesus Christ was the only one capable of carrying out the Atonement for all mankind. Because of His Atonement, all people will be resurrected (un-merited), and those who obey His gospel will receive the gift of eternal life with God(merited). (BOLD MINE)

2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adamâ??s transgression. (Christs attonement covers this)

3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. ( the atonement here allows mankind to progress by work, merit, and duty, to possibly be in the presence of Heavenly Father)

This is a brief exclamation of the LDS teaching of salvation, which is clearly a different plan of salvation.

Take care Dan

Mark

John 1:12

Dude, if I was taught what you claim as LDS I would leave the church too, you clearly have very little understanding of our faith. The worst part is that you know that you are mis-representing things, you just like to play dumb. Remember that Christ will use the same judgement on you that you have used on us. I will stand against you at the last day for the falsehoods and lies that you have spread here. I am not playing any games.

"This is a brief exclamation of the LDS teaching of salvation, which is clearly a different plan of salvation."

This is BS pure an simple. Stop it. I think you have gotten something wrong on all of your points here.

Now I will be Markk,

Markk sez, "What have I misrepresneted? All of it is accurate."

Well shoot Markk, I dunno, what do you think is wrong here?

Don't bother to respond. I am so through with you. I will be more then happy to merely point out when you are wrong, which will be often.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hi Greg,

I give a defense to LDS doctrine in that I believe it misrepresents The Bible and the Historic Christian faith...it comes with the territory. Christ said that His wrod would devide, so if your right, or if I'm right that is a true statement either way.

1)I do not mean any disrespect out of what I am about to write, but I believe it with all my heart.

2)One of the problems here is the lack of LDS leadership on these tough doctrinal issues.

3)The LDS leadship has more or less stopped defining LDS core theology. When is the last time a GA has written a book like Gospel Through the Ages, or Doctrines of Salvation, Religious Truths Defined, or Mormon Doctrine? These Books were Bold exegesis of essential LDS doctrines. What I see is that LDS doctrine is being defined on sites like this, where has the leadership gone when it comes to clearly up these doctrines that are hashed over and over on sites like this?

I didn't say that, and I have never said that, and if I did, I was wrong, I said I do not believe LDS theology is Christian theology. It a different theology Greg, I'm sorry but it is. And like I said many times on this site, we can both be wrong,

4) but we can't both be right, that is a very objective observation of our two respective beliefs. I have said over and over, even on this thread that a Christian is one who has their name in the Book of Life...period.

I haven't done any such thing,

5)LDS theology since it conception have not been reconized as Christian theology, and it will continue to be so. What you just wrote would be like me saying " your not welcome to send your youth around the world say we don't have authority and decieving people?" No disrespect, but you want to do exactly what you don't want me to do, just a different subject.

6)UTLM, McKeever, CRI exist because LDS doctrine attacks the Christian faith, whenJ S said what he said about his vision in the grove, a defense began. You spend hundreds of Millions of dollars telling any one who will listen that what I believe is wrong,

7)the LDS church misrepresents the article of faith at Nicene over and over.

8 )The leadership has said repulsive things like Satan sits on the throne of our church,

9)it has portrayed the Christian pastor as a hireling of satan to millions. They have said we have no authority to act in Gods name,

10)they have said our marriages are nul and void in Gods eyes,

11)they have said we have false gods that just bear the name of Biblical Gods.

12) (This is a doozey of lie)They have said our children are illegitmate in Gods eyes, they said our churches can not save souls...etc...etc...etc. Is that a Misrepresentation of our faith Greg, or is it true, no matter what the LDS leadership has said every one of these things, I honestly hope you don't believe it.

More later

Take care

Mark

John 1:12

You have told another lie Markk. I counted 12 in that post. You harldy got thing one right, I suggest you stop acting like you know what being an LDS is about because cleary you never learned it.

[Markk]

Hi Dan,

"We believe that through the sufferings, death, and atonement of Jesus Christ all mankind, without one exception, are to be completely and fully redeemed, with body and spirit, from the endless banishment and curse to with they were consighned by Adam's trangression: and that this universal salvation and redemption of the whole human family from the endless penalty of the original sin, is effected without ant conditions whatever on their part; that is, they are not required to believe or repent, or be baptized, or do anything else, in order to be redeemed from that penalty; for whether they believe or disbelieve, whether they repent or remain impenitent, whether they are baptized or unbaptized, whether they keep commandments or break them, whether they are righteous or unrighteous, it will make no difference in relation to their redemption, both soul and body, from Adam's transgression. The most righteous man that ever lived on the earth, and the most wicked wretch of the whole human family, were both placed under the same curse without any transgression or agency of their own, and they both alike will be redeemed from that curse, withoutany agency or conditions on their part." Apostle Orson Pratt in Remarkable Visions. (Articles of Faith apendix 4, paragraph 2 Copy right 1968 42 edition page 477

That is universal or un merited salvation, taught by two LDS apostles

Only through sacrifice can we become worthy to live in the presence of God. Only through sacrifice can we enjoy eternal life. Many who have lived before us have sacrificed all they had. We must bewilling to do the same if we would earn the rich reward they enjoy (see Joseph Smith, Lectures on Faith, p. 58)." - Gospel Principles, p.171

This JS speaking of Indvidual Salvation, or merited salvation

The demands of justice for broken law can be satisfied through mercy, earned by your continual repentance and obedience to the laws of God. Such repentance and obedience are absolutely essential for the Atonement to work its complete miracle in your life. The Redeemer can settle your individual account with justice and grant forgiveness through the merciful path of your repentance. Through the Atonement you can live in a world where justice assures that you will retain what you earn by obedience. Through His mercy you can resolve the consequences of broken laws. (RGS. Ensign, Nov 2006, 40â??42. From General Conference, October 2006.)

Apostle Scott recently said the above...which is merited indvidual salvation...the atonment as I said many times on this site allows one to get their foot in the door, (see bold)

Take care

Mark

John 1:12

[Markk]

You have told another lie Markk. I counted 12 in that post. You harldy got thing one right, I suggest you stop acting like you know what being an LDS is about because cleary you never learned it.

Would you like the quote sources?

MG

[Markk]

Hi mola

Dude, if I was taught what you claim as LDS I would leave the church too, you clearly have very little understanding of our faith. The worst part is that you know that you are mis-representing things, you just like to play dumb. Remember that Christ will use the same judgement on you that you have used on us. I will stand against you at the last day for the falsehoods and lies that you have spread here. I am not playing any games.

"This is a brief exclamation of the LDS teaching of salvation, which is clearly a different plan of salvation."

This is BS pure an simple. Stop it. I think you have gotten something wrong on all of your points here.

Now I will be Markk,

Markk sez, "What have I misrepresneted? All of it is accurate."

Well shoot Markk, I dunno, what do you think is wrong here?

Don't bother to respond. I am so through with you. I will be more then happy to merely point out when you are wrong, which will be often.

Hi mola,

Read the quotes to Dan. JFS said something to the the affect that...'Jesus can not save us all the way, the rest is up to us' (paraphrase) I couldn't find it on line so I'll look it up "manually" , it's in one of the three volumes of DoS, I'll look it up tomorrow, it is an amazing teaching of the lDS view of

salvation.

If I'm wrong here and you now what LDS theology demands to be saved...tell me in a little detail, not a talking point, but let me know in your own words what you belive LDS theology teaches for a man to get to the presence of Heveanly Father?

Take care

mark

John 1;12

[Greg Smith]

Your asking the question and then asking for a CFR...OK thats a first but I'll do it.

The first vision is the first and foremost proof text Greg, it is the key to the LDS church, it is the reason it ( the lost and broken church) needs a restoration, I'm sorry if you don't like what the first vision teaches, but it teaches what it teaches;

So, this is the best you've got. I suspected as much.

Ok, so you don't have any evidence of your reading, except how you read our documents, which interpretation we reject.

I like the First Vision just fine; I just don't like how you interpret it.

Well Greg, I don't know to many true Christians that belong to the church of the devil. If there is only One true chruch, the LDS church here in context, and all others belong to the church of the devil must really be demons...please explain to me how this works. We are true Christians that are in the church of the devil?

Me either. I don't believe "true Christians" belong to the Church of the devil.

Sigh. This is an apocalyptic text. There are two great divisions--those who follow God, and those who do not. See Jesus' discussion of sheep/goats, see Revelation of St. John.

This does not mean that only those who are LDS are in the "church of God," nor that Mormons cannot be in the Church of the Devil.

D&C 76 says that terrestrial and celestial people get caught up to meet Jesus, and rule with him during the Millennium. They aren't Church of the Devil. Brigham Young taught there would be other religions on the earth during the Millennium besides Mormons. That means not just Mormons are in the Church of God in the sense used in these texts. Q.E.D.

Please stop lying and misrepresenting our faith.

There is also some things we could talk about on this topic but not here, pm me if you want to discuss them, they are scared to the saint, and I understand if you don't/can't discuss them.

Markk, I must be frank--I have no interest in discussing ANY topic with you, until you agree to let us define LDS doctrine. I'm only willing to discuss that which I actually believe. I've never heard the nonsense you attribute to my faith from any believing Latter-day Saint in my life, living from west to east in North America, and overseas, for decades.

The only place I've ever heard or read such nonsense is in anti-Mormon texts.

I'm not interested in your gloss or eisegesis of our texts. You don't believe them, and you clearly don't understand them. I won't tell you what you believe, and you don't get to tell us what we believe. I won't read your creeds or tell you what they require you to believe, or read the Bible and tell you what you or your denomination must believe from it. I expect the same courtesy.

NO TEXT can survive a hostile reading. There's ALWAYS a way to twist something so that it is negative, or off-putting.

You've got a bunch of LDS here, and none of them agrees with you. That should tell you something.

Gros bisous..... :-)

Greg

[Greg Smith]

Hi Greg,

I give a defense to LDS doctrine in that I believe it misrepresents The Bible and the Historic Christian faith...it comes with the territory. Christ said that His wrod would devide, so if your right, or if I'm right that is a true statement either way.

So, because Mormons are wrong, their beliefs should be misrepresented and attacked, rather than your own views and faith preached?

I do not mean any disrespect out of what I am about to write, but I believe it with all my heart.

Often in error, but never in doubt, I suppose.

One of the problems here is the lack of LDS leadership on these tough doctrinal issues. The LDS leadship has more or less stopped defining LDS core theology.

This is laughably absurd. The core doctrines and theology of the Church of Jesus Christ are right where they have always been.

When is the last time a GA has written a book like Gospel Through the Ages, or Doctrines of Salvation, Religious Truths Defined, or Mormon Doctrine? These Books were Bold exegesis of essential LDS doctrines.

What I see is that LDS doctrine is being defined on sites like this, where has the leadership gone when it comes to clearly up these doctrines that are hashed over and over on sites like this?

The only one doing the "hashing," Markk, is you--and that's simply because you won't believe us when we tell you that you've got it wrong. You believe you understand what we teach and believe, and won't accept it when we tell you you're wrong.

I didn't say that, and I have never said that, and if I did, I was wrong, I said I do not believe LDS theology is Christian theology. It a different theology Greg, I'm sorry but it is. And like I said many times on this site, we can both be wrong, but we can't both be right, that is a very objective observation of our two respective beliefs. I have said over and over, even on this thread that a Christian is one who has their name in the Book of Life...period.

You're entitled to whatever special definitions you want to use.

Will you at least admit that I consider Jesus to be Lord, God, normative in all matters of ethics and morals? That I regard him as my savior and only hope in this world or the next? You don't have to grant me the use of your revised version of "Christian"--I just want to know if I get to claim that I worship Jesus and do my best to do his will? Or is even that forbidden me?

I haven't done any such thing, LDS theology since it conception have not been reconized as Christian theology, and it will continue to be so. What you just wrote would be like me saying " your not welcome to send your youth around the world say we don't have authority and decieving people?"

No disrespect, but you want to do exactly what you don't want me to do, just a different subject.

No, it is not. You are welcome to say we are wrong. But, you are not welcome to misrepresent what we believe. You're welcome to claim we're deceiving people or that our doctrine is false, or whatever. Likewise, I'm welcome to say that I think Calvinism (for example) false and morally unappealing.

But, I don't get to claim that Calvinists believe in ritual cannibalism of babies--because Calvinists don't believe in ritual cannibalism: even if I can find the odd messed-up Calvinist somewhere who has engaged in ritual cannibalism. And, if I make a claim about Calvinism, and a bunch of Calvinists tell me I'm wrong, then I stop making said claims about Calvinism.

It is astonishing to me that this simple, fundamental distinction is incapable of penetrating.

Greg

[zerinus]

Hi Z

Paul goes on to say though that those that teach this different Jesus, different Gosple, and different Spirit, are indeed "false" apostles, I believe it is vrse 13. so in context different is false. In Gal. Paul says those thatteach a different gospel are "anathama" {sic?}, which as you know is a Godly curse.

There is a logical and linguistic fallacy here. â??Differentâ? by itself doesnâ??t mean anything. You have to specify different from what? Just â??differentâ? by itself means nothing. It has to be â??differentâ? form something. Paul didnâ??t just say â??differentâ?. He specified different from what. It was different from the gospel that he had taught. Well, you are the ones who are teaching a gospel that is different from what he had taught. Your religion is in fact apostate and contradicts the gospel that Paul (and Jesus Christ and all of His Apostles) taught. Therefore you are the ones who are teaching a different gospel, and the â??anathemaâ? therefore applies to you.

I disagree that I believe in the different Jesus, but I respect you understanding the context of Pauls teaching. I believe your going to have a tuff time finding the LDS Jesus, God and Satan in the Bible.

I think you are going to have an impossible time trying to find your Apostate religion in the Bible.

Fair enough, we can test or two different interpretation with the Bible. I believe you can not do that without adding LDS scripture and ideology to this, but hey...go for it it will be interesting.

Great! Ready to start? Letâ??s start with the definition of a Christian. That is a nice easy starting point. What is a Christian, and how do you define it in biblical, scriptural, and theological terms, and how do you justify that definition by logic, reason, and scripture? I have already given you my definition (more than once), and justified it, and explained it. I would like you to tell me what objection you have with my definition, and why you think your definitionâ??if anyâ??is superior to mine? Ready to go?