Mormonism and the Trinity

[Daniel Peterson]

I haven't done any such thing, LDS theology since it conception have not been reconized as Christian theology

Actually, it has been and continues to be. There is a range of non-LDS opinions on the topic. Markk is typical of some fundamentalist Protestants in confusing his recent little sect of western Protestantism with Christianity as a whole.

This isn't surprising: Most Protestants know little or nothing about Christian history. And, in that, they may be rather wise, since, as the great Protestant convert to Catholicism John Henry Cardinal Newman once put it, "To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant" (emphasis mine).

UTLM, McKeever, CRI exist because LDS doctrine attacks the Christian faith

UTLM, McKeever's operation, and CRI exist because UTLM, McKeever's operation, and CRI are attacking Mormonism. Markk needs to stop obfuscating the truth.

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.

Nineteenth-century religious and political rhetoric was extremely rough. Does Markk seriously think that such things (and much worse) weren't being said about Latter-day Saints by Christians

[Reklaw]

And, in that, they may be rather wise, since, as the great Protestant convert to Catholicism John Henry Cardinal Newman once put it, "To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant" (emphasis mine).

Oh, I like that. I like that one a lot.

[Daniel Peterson]

Gervin? Hello?

[cksalmon]

I expect that his response to me at a Sunstone symposium of years ago, in which he announced that I had convinced him (even though he still considered Mormonism heretical), is still available in a recording from the Sunstone Foundation.

Would you happen to remember the year? I haven't been able to locate this presentation using Sunstone's "new and improved, but actually, oddly, much less helpful" search interface.

cks

[Daniel Peterson]

Would you happen to remember the year? I haven't been able to locate this presentation using Sunstone's "new and improved, but actually, oddly, much less helpful" search interface.

It was a long, long time ago. 22 August 1986.

[cksalmon]

It was a long, long time ago. 22 August 1986.

That did it for me. Thanks. For others, perhaps this link will get you to it. In Windows, right-click and choose "save as."

cks

[Daniel Peterson]

That did it for me. Thanks. For others, perhaps this link will get you to it. In Windows, right-click and choose "save as."

Tell me if you find his comment. I'm going on a twenty-three-year-old memory of the exchange, and have never listened to a recording of it. He may have made the remark during the Q&A session, but I seem to recall it coming during his more "formal" response.

He said something like, "Okay. Peterson has persuaded me that Mormons are Christians. I still think they're heretical Christians, but somehow I get the impression that that won't bother Peterson as much." Whereupon I nodded that he was right. It doesn't. The judgment of "heresy" is manifestly one made from a particular ideological location, and doesn't attempt to masquerade as universal, objective truth.

[Calm]

UTLM, McKeever, CRI exist because LDS doctrine attacks the Christian faith

And do you use this same reasoning where anti-mormons attack the Catholic Faith (as at least CRI does).

[Daniel Peterson]

And do you use this same reasoning where anti-mormons attack the Catholic Faith (as at least CRI does).

James White's Alpha and Omega Ministries certainly exist, in large part, because Catholic doctrine attacks the Christian faith (in Dr. Dr. Dr. White's view).

Blame the victim!

[Tanyan]

I can see James White Of Alpha and Omega ministries having lunch with Jack Chick of Chick Publications here in So Calif !. .

Tanyan - LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[Cold Steel]

So now you're 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 read the first two or three chapters of Eph. like I asked?

Yes, and in the first chapter, first verse, Paul writes that "by the will of God" he is writing to whom? To the "saints which are at Ephesus" and to the "faithful in Christ Jesus."

To Latter-day Saints, church is a body of believers who have been baptized by authorized (ordained) agents of Christ. "Saints" are members of the church, obedient to the will of God and who have been confirmed members of the church and given the gift of the Holy Spirit. And who are the faithful in Christ Jesus? They are the ones who have not strayed from the pure doctrine of Christ, nor followed after strange doctrines and precepts. He tells them they are "fellow citizens with the saints and are the household of God." One great big happy family.

Is this consistent with today's churches? If Paul were alive today, to whom would he write? The Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Catholics? If God called new apostles today, to whom would they write? What would your pastor say if he got a letter from someone claiming to be an apostle and urging unity? Do the upper echelon of your church have authority to correct Methodists? Can they call Catholics to repentance? No. They'd be (politely, I hope) told to mind to their own churches.

If your pastors received the word of God pertaining to their temporal existence, would their wisdom be welcomed by the whole body of believers? Again, no. Nor would your pastors receive the word of God from the leaders of other churches.

Are you getting my drift? The church, or the body of believers, has one set of leaders which are known by the entire church. No part of that body can say to another, "I have no need of thee."

The building must be "fitly framed together." This is not how it is today. Anyone can start a church, elect their own leaders and frame their own doctrines using the Bible as their guide. But why do they believe differently when they all use the same scriptures?

You say that we LDS try to tell you and others what they believe, but in truth very few Christians believe the same things, even about the creeds. But even if the LDS writers are wrong on some aspects, are they far from the truth?

If you look at the LDS church today, how different is it from the early church in the way it operates? We have scriptures, we have the apostles and prophets; everything is done with order and the leaders are known to the entire body of believers. They can write epistles to the various churches and the churches recognize the authority of the leaders as those called and ordained of God, the same as the ancient church. Doctrinal differences aside, that is how the ancient church operated, wasn't it?

The Bible was never intended to be a handbook. But if it wasn't, where is the handbook? Shouldn't there be one? Yet the Bible isn't clear in its doctrine, and it doesn't answer a lot of questions. I can give you a few if you don't believe me.

In short, the Bible doesn't provide the answers that believers need to establish or run a church. Look at the wide disagreements of the nature of God and ordinances such as baptism. We have one verse about baptism for dead and with one verse, church scholars think they know enough to speak intelligently on the subject.

[cksalmon]

I can see James White Of Alpha and Omega ministries having lunch with Jack Chick of Chick Publications here in So Calif !. .

Tanyan - LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

You know, I can, too. But, you appear to be blithely unaware of the many times on numerous occasions that James White has roundly, and specifically, criticized the method and approach of Jack Chick and his ilk.

You don't about that, I suppose. It would involve actually listening to James White. That's a lot of work, I know. He only does two free webcasts virtually every week of the year. They're only available on the "Internet," so they're sort of hard to come by.

As for Dr. Peterson's comment: "Alpha and Omega [Ministry certainly exists], in large part, because Catholic doctrine attacks the Christian faith (in Dr. Dr. Dr. White's view)." It's hard to know what to make of it. Certainly, it's intended to be derogatory. Note the thrice repeated title. I would like to think that Dr. Peterson is above such petty nonsense. But, he's obviously not. A rip-roarin' good time had by all.

But, yes, the utterly inept apologia by popular Roman Catholic apologists (Ray, Bellasario, Matatics [no longer in communion with Rome, it seems], Sungenis, etc.) against the tenets of the Reformation form the impetus of some of White's "anti-Catholic" Protestant apologetic. As well they should, to my mind.

I am a Protestant, after all.

At any rate, you might want to give ol' James a couple of listens before you jump aboard the "anti-White" train. I know the thinking about White has already been done long ago on this MB, but still, just to keep up appearances and all...

cks

[Daniel Peterson]

As for Dr. Peterson's comment: "Alpha and Omega [Ministry certainly exists], in large part, because Catholic doctrine attacks the Christian faith (in Dr. Dr. Dr. White's view)." It's hard to know what to make of it. Certainly, it's intended to be derogatory. Note the thrice repeated title. I would like to think that Dr. Peterson is above such petty nonsense. But, he's obviously not. A rip-roarin' good time had by all.

Nor are my evangelical friends Paul Owen and Carl Mosser above it.

For some reason, although we have no problem with people who don't have doctorates, we find people who purchase unaccredited doctorates -- especially in the plural -- problematic.

At any rate, you might want to give ol' James a couple of listens before you jump aboard the "anti-White" train. I know the thinking about White has already been done long ago on this MB, but still, just to keep up appearances and all...

I've exchanged letters with him, exchanged e-mails with him, debated him on the radio, been attacked by him on his web site for many years now. Are you suggesting that I don't yet have sufficient experience with him to permit me to be a non-fan? How much experience do you have with him?

[cksalmon]

Nor are my evangelical friends Paul Owen and Carl Mosser above it.

For some reason, although we have no problem with people who don't have doctorates, we find people who purchase unaccredited doctorates -- especially in the plural -- problematic.

I've exchanged letters with him, exchanged e-mails with him, debated him on the radio, been attacked by him on his web site for many years now. Are you suggesting that I don't yet have sufficient experience with him to permit me to be a non-fan? How much experience do you have with him?

Dan--

I disagree with your understanding of your received history RE: White's doctorate (singular) and the "purchasing" thereof. But, really, that's not my concern here. I don't care one whit that, for you, White falls somewhere between not having a doctorate and allegedly having "purchased" multiple doctorates.

You're welcome to those irrelevant concerns.

My point is that you are coming off as a jerk, here.

And you inevitably attract lesser moths to your flame. See Tanyan, for example.

Who has no clue who White is or what he is about.

I'm calling you to a higher standard, completely without reference to White. That's how I approach your work.

I can't say that I expect that much, frankly. This MB has proven itself to be utterly ridiculous in terms of its condemnation of White. Meh. Have fun with that.

Now, in contradistinction, I read your works on Mormonism for their actual content, regardless of their author(s).

cks

PS. I have no sacrosanct devotion to either Owen or Mosser. I appreciate much of what both have written. But, I don't take any theological cues from them.

[Markk]

Hi Greg

So your saying that the Chruch of the devil is not "Christian Churches?" and that Catholics, Protestents, JW's, Children of God, Evangelicals are all part of the one true church along with Mormons which is the Church of the Lamb of God as discribed in Nephi?

Thanks

Mark

[coolrok7]

(coolrok7 @ Jun 21 2009, 05:03 PM)

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

(Daniel Peterson @ Jun 21 2009, 07:10 PM)

Yes it is.

Anybody can flatly assert. . . .

Within the realm of belief people assert things all the time. What I assert is not based on just an opinion of mine but of the Biblical teaching which is authoritative for doctrine:

But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:14-17)

I would point out, as a Protestant Christian, that â??Mormonsâ? (and others) arrive at a different understanding of Biblical truths (original understanding) than â??Christiansâ? do. The following quote (in context dealing with constitutional jurisprudence) explains how I think the LDS Church fits that belief:

Those who deny the validity. . .of original understanding. . .â??The denial of a scheme wholesale is not heresy, and has not the creative power of a heresy,â? said Belloc. â??It is of the essence of heresy that it leaves standing a great part of the structure it attacks. On this account it can appeal to believers. . . .Wherefore, it is said of heresies that â??they survive by the truths they retain.â??â?. . .For that reason, it is crucial to recognize a heresy for what it is and to root it out, for â??heresy originates a new life of its own and vitally affects the society it attacks. The reason that men combat heresy is not only, or principally, conservatism. . .it is much more a perception that the heresy, in so far as it gains ground, will produce a way of living and a social character at issue with, irritating, and perhaps mortal to, the way of living and the social character produced by the old orthodox scheme. (The Tempting of America, Robert Bork, intro. P.11)

My belief/faith (its content as it is asserted in the context of evangelism, not in the sense of being intentionally offensive in that it goes with the territory in having opposing views) has an historic Scriptural context. People have never liked the assertion of "Christianity" as being the only â??trueâ? religious belief system as opposed to the others.

Your context in the sense of historicity didnâ??t exist until it came from Josephâ??s mouth and was then written down which at that point it does have an historical basis (a made up story, partly plagiarized as Joseph was already able to tell stories prior to the so-called translating of the BofM).

Josephâ??s mother enlightened us with how Joseph â??would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined.â? (before he even had the supposed plates in his possession):

During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent hid whole life among them. (HISTORY OF JOSEPH SMITH BY HIS MOTHER, LUCY SMITH, p.88)

There is a Biblical warning given by Peter concerning what Paul wrote (of which I believe the â??Mormonismâ? of Joseph Smith is guilty of):

Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvationâ??as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:14 16)

Before I ever knew anything of you I was already challenged to consider Mormonism. You are not a General authority and as you said, you are a bishop and do not set church doctrine. Iâ??m interacting (for the most part in my arguementation in the proper sense of the word) with â??officialâ? church teaching/doctrine in its own writings.

I have consistently responded to what is in the official church literature which would include what is identified in the "standard works of the Churchâ? and â??official statements made by our leadersâ?:

As Latter-day Saints we accept the following scriptures as the standard works of the Church: the Bible (consisting of the Old Testament and the New Testament), the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and official statements made by our leaders. Regarding the Bible: There is a misconception that the Bible is one book instead of a collection of sixty-six books, thirty-nine of which comprise the Old Testament and twenty-seven of which constitute the New Testament. (The Ensign, Church magazineâ??contains official statements of leaders, Church Conference, Elder Henry D. Taylor, Nov. 1976, p.63)

In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, Church publications, and instructions to local priesthood leaders. (Gospel Principles manual, Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1988, pp. 49-51)

The Standard Works of the Church constitute the written authority of the Church in doctrine. Nevertheless, the Church holds itself in readiness to receive additional light and knowledge â??pertaining to the Kingdom of Godâ? through divine revelation. . .We rely therefore on the teachings of the living oracles of God as of equal validity with the doctrines of the written word. The works adopted by the vote of the Church as authoritative guides in faith and doctrine are four: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Many books have been and are being published by officers and members of the Church, and such may be sanctioned by the people and the ecclesiastical authorities; but the four publications named are the regularly adopted â??Standard Works of the Church.â? Of the doctrines treated in the authorized standards, the Articles of Faith may be regarded as a fair though but partial summary. (The Articles of Faith, James Talmage, p.7)

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (known informally by the nickname Mormons) believe the Bible. Indeed, so literally and completely do their beliefs and practices conform to the teachings of the Bible that is not uncommon to hear informed persons say: â??If all men believed the Bible, all would be Mormons.â? Bible doctrine is Mormon doctrine, and Mormon doctrine is Bible doctrine. They are one and the same. But as is well known, the Bible does not contain all the doctrines and truths taught by the prophets and apostles, nor have the teachings preserved in it come down to us in an absolutely perfect form. There are and have been many translations and versions of the Bible, each of which varies from the others. (WHAT THE MORMONS THINK OF CHRIST pamphlet, p.3)

Those are the points made in these writings wherein Mormonism asserts things which all started with the things that came out of Joseph's own mouth beginning with the â??First Visionâ?.

. . .this is the pivotal thing of our story. Every claim we make concerning divine authority, every truth that we offer concerning the validity of this work, all finds its roots in the First Vision of the boy prophet. Without it we would not have anything much to say. . .This becomes the hinge pin on which the whole cause turns. If the First Vision was true, if it actually happened, then the Book of Mormon is true. Then we have the priesthood. Then we have the Church organizations and all of the other keys and blessings of authority which we say we have. If the First Vision did not occur, then we are involved in a great sham. It is that simple. (Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, p.237)

It logically follows that if one comes to trust in Mormon testimony then one would logically assert what one believes concerning that testimony.

If it didnâ??t happen then it is a â??great shamâ? and if it did the possibility exists that it was and still is spiritual deception since it started with Joseph Smith and those who accept his testimony as President Hinckley stated above.

My leaning (as a belief) is that it was spiritual deception to begin with and is still being propagated by those who believe it and pass it on. This is based on the following Biblical warnings (Mormonism is not guilty of denying Jesus coming in the flesh but of a variation of the idea of Gnosticism in what would be called â??secret knowledgeâ? only obtained by the initiates in the temple):

â??Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheepâ??s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them. (Matthew 7:15-20)

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. (1 John 4:1-6)

With the following result:

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

There are a multitude of writings in addition to the Standard Works offered in the way of apologetics for non-Mormons to consider. I came to read a lot of them as I was being invited as an investigator since the late 1970's.

[Daniel Peterson]

My point is that you are coming off as a jerk, here. And you inevitably attract lesser moths to your flame. See Tanyan, for example.

You're the one who's fanning the flame, pal.

I made a passing, oblique reference. You're trying to turn it into a big issue. I have no desire to discuss Mr. White. I very seldom talk about him, and very, very rarely bring him up. But if you want to discuss him (including his alleged doctorate), I'm willing. I am, as I say, very decidedly not a fan of his. I don't offer that opinion up very often, but I'm quite happy to stand by it.

I can't say that I expect that much, frankly. This MB has proven itself to be utterly ridiculous in terms of its condemnation of White. Meh. Have fun with that.

Have you ever rebuked Mr. White? If you have, can you direct me to an example of this?

Is there any reason why we should hold him in affection here? Does he respect us? Even a smidgin? If so, can you direct me to any evidence of that?

I have no sacrosanct devotion to either Owen or Mosser. I appreciate much of what both have written. But, I don't take any theological cues from them.

Nor do I. But they're intelligent, decent, fair-minded, even kind people, and they're not Mormons, and they pretty much share my opinion of Mr. White. This is particularly so, I think, of Professor Owen, who has endured much abuse from Mr. White.

Coolrok, I understand that you reject Mormonism.

That's your privilege.

If and when you would like a discussion, let me know and I'll consider it.

[zerinus]

Hi Greg

So your saying that the Chruch of the devil is not "Christian Churches?" and that Catholics, Protestents, JW's, Children of God, Evangelicals are all part of the one true church along with Mormons which is the Church of the Lamb of God as discribed in Nephi?

Thanks

Mark

The â??church of the devilâ? in LDS theology are all those who â??fight against Zionâ? (meaning Godâ??s true Church). See 1 Nephi 22:19; 2 Nephi 6:13; 10:13, 16. They exist in all churches and denominations, including Mormon. That does not mean that anybody who belongs to another church is the church of the devil. Those of them who do not â??fight against Zionâ? are on the Lordâ??s side, even though they may not be Mormons. â??For he that is not against us is for usâ? (Luke 9:50).

[Tanyan]

I am a lesser moth to a Dan Petersons flame ? , pray tell ! I am an LDS JEDI KNIGHT. The True Flame I strive to follow is that of The LORD OF LIFE CHRIST JESUS. I am familiar with James White [i have known of him for a # of years now and have some of his publications].

As for our Missouri Lutheran synod friend coolrok why does he not answer his front and back door of those that are critical of Martin Luther or of the Lutheran Church Faith [Doctrine/Practices] ? .

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

[LifeOnaPlate]

And you inevitably attract lesser moths to your flame. See Tanyan, for example.

Wow. This comment in the middle of an accusation of someone else acting like a jerk...

[Tanyan]

Wow. This comment in the middle of an accusation of someone else acting like a jerk...

I forgive his Rhetorical Dialectic Diatribe .

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

[Greg Smith]

You don't about that, I suppose. It would involve actually listening to James White. That's a lot of work, I know. He only does two free webcasts virtually every week of the year. They're only available on the "Internet," so they're sort of hard to come by.

Is White any more cogent and informed about the Church of Jesus Christ on free webcasts than in books that he writes and sells for money? I somehow doubt it.

At any rate, you might want to give ol' James a couple of listens before you jump aboard the "anti-White" train. I know the thinking about White has already been done long ago on this MB, but still, just to keep up appearances and all...

Having given "ol' James" several reads, I doubt listening to spontaneous remarks of his on-line is going to change my opinion of his particular brand of religious intolerance and polemic.

I can't speak to the value of his work on Roman Catholicism, but I surely wouldn't trust it further than I could throw him based on how badly he (mis)understands my own faith.

I just don't get the idea of deciding to "minister" to people, and then spending my time attacking straw man versions of their beliefs. Perhaps this is a special use of the term "ministery' along the line of "Christian" meaning "late-twentieth century conservative Protestant." :-0

Greg

[Markk]

Hi Z

The â??church of the devilâ? in LDS theology are all those who â??fight against Zionâ? (meaning Godâ??s true Church). See 1 Nephi 22:19; 2 Nephi 6:13; 10:13, 16. They exist in all churches and denominations, including Mormon. That does not mean that anybody who belongs to another church is the church of the devil. Those of them who do not â??fight against Zionâ? are on the Lordâ??s side, even though they may not be Mormons. â??For he that is not against us is for usâ? (Luke 9:50).

Are you saying that the BoM teaches that the "Church of the Lamb of God" (the church of Christ), includes Jw's, Catholics, Protestants...etc. In other words their church's are true?

Your on the record many times here saying, that my "church" (protestant), is an apostate Christian church...how does this all work?

If there are only two churchs, the Church of the Lamb of God (COLG), and the Church of the Devil , and if the COLG is the only true church as the BOM relates, then how can the LDS church be the "only true church" as the LDS claims?

Mark

[Joseph Antley]

Hi Z

Are you saying that the BoM teaches that the "Church of the Lamb of God" (the church of Christ), includes Jw's, Catholics, Protestants...etc. In other words their church's are true?

Your on the record many times here saying, that my "church" (protestant), is an apostate Christian church...how does this all work?

If there are only two churchs, the Church of the Lamb of God (COLG), and the Church of the Devil , and if the COLG is the only true church as the BOM relates, then how can the LDS church be the "only true church" as the LDS claims?

Mark

The Church of the Lamb and the Great and Abominable Church do not refer to specific denominations or organized sects. Being a "member" of either is not necessarily related to your literal membership in any church. As others have already pointed out, you can be on the membership roles of the LDS Church and not be part of the Church of the Lamb, and you can be on the membership roles of the Roman Catholic Church, an apostate organization, and still be a "member" of the Church of the Lamb.

What satisfaction does finding fault with the LDS Church and its members give you?

[Greg Smith]

Are you saying that the BoM teaches that the "Church of the Lamb of God" (the church of Christ), includes Jw's, Catholics, Protestants...etc. In other words their church's are true?

If there are only two churchs, the Church of the Lamb of God (COLG), and the Church of the Devil , and if the COLG is the only true church as the BOM relates, then how can the LDS church be the "only true church" as the LDS claims?

This has been explained to you twice already. As third witness, I'll reply. (And as I already pointed pointed out once already, the part about "only two churches" is an apocalyptic section.)

I post here a snippet from Book of Mormon Reference Companion (general Editor Dennis L. Largey, published by Deseret Book, I"m citing from pp. 310-315. I suggested getting it and reading the whole entry on "Great and Abominable Church" for the full details):

In 1 Nephi 13 the great and abominable church is one specfic church among many. Indeed, Nephi's description of it as 'most abominable above all other churches' (1 Nephi 13:5, 26) makes no sense otherwise. Moreover, it has a specific historical description: it would be formed among the Gentiles after the Bible has been transmitted in its purity to the Gentiles by the Jews (13:25-26), and it is the specific historical agent responsible for excising plain and precious truths from the scriptural record....[Thus] in chapter 13 [the term "great and abominable church] is used historically, and in chapter 14 it is used typologically, or apocalyptically.

The article then digresses into the apocalyptic section (which I will cite below) and then returns to the issue of the historical agent discussed in chapter 13.

[This historic agent/"church" ] had its origins in the second half of the first century and had essentially done its work by the middle of the second century. This period might be called the blind spot of ecclesiastical history, for it is here that the fewest primary historical sources have been preserved. Essentially, what happened is that there are good sources for New Testament Christianity (the New Testament documents themselves). Then the lights go out (that is, there are very few historical sources), and in the dark one hears the muffled sounds of a great struggle. When the lights come on again a hundred years or so later, one finds that someone has rearranged all the furniture and that Christianity is something very different from what it was in the beginning.

So, this has nothing to do with modern day Catholicism or Protestantism--at worst, they are the victims of this process, not its cause.

Now, for the apocalyptic usage:

In apocalyptic literature (both Revelation and 1 Nephi 13-14 are apocalyptic in nature) the seer is caught up in vision and sees things from God's perspective. Time ceases to be an important element. This is why the chronology of John's revelation at times seems to bescrambled. Apocalyptic visions are highly symbolic, usually requiring an angelic interpreter for the seer to understand what he sees. But the symbols are inclusive, that is, they stand for archetypical categories into which all specific instances of something can be placed...

In apocalyptic literature the cast of characters is constant in every dispensation; they are these same archetypical categories into which all things can be placed. From the apocalyptic point of view there is one script, one plot, from the foundation of the world until its end....

In chapter 14, Nephi described the archetypical roles themselves: "There are save two churches only" (that is Zion and Babylon)....

Furthermore, individual oreintation to the Church of the Lamb or the great and abominable church is not only by membership but by loyalty. [Now, pay attention, Markk: the very important part is next:] Just as there are those on the records of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who belong to the great and abominable church by virtue of their loyalty to Satan and his lifestyle (2 Nephi 10:16), so there are members of the other churches who will eventually belong to the Lamb by virtue of their loyalty to him and to his lifestyle, which will lead to their accepting the saving ordinances [i.e., either now or in the next life]. The distinction is based on who has your heart, not on who has your records. Hence, it is unwise and inaccurate to point to any particular church or political system as the great and abominable church.... (emphasis and italics added, underlining is italics in original)

In the same vein, D&C 76 says that celestial and terrestrial will descend with Christ to rule--they're part of the Church of the Lamb in the apocalyptic sense. They aren't thrust down to hell.

Brigham Young says many Christian faiths and even 'infidels' will be on the earth during the Millennium, not just the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS. Thus, the "Church of the Lamb of God" in this sense includes more than just the LDS. Q.E.D.

You can be a non LDS-Christian (or even, I suspect, not a "Christian" at all) and still be part of the Church of the Lamb. You can be LDS and be part of the Church of the Devil. These are apocalyptic categories, not denominational labels. And, they are for God to judge, not us. We need only worry which side of the line we are on. This is right hand and left hand stuff, sheep and goats, etc.

I repeat: you are mistaken in our theology. You are misrepresenting what our scriptures teach, and what we believe. Please stop it. Three of us have explained this already, and I'm pretty sure Dan agrees with me because I've heard him say/write similar things.

I teach Sunday School in my ward: I've had the calling 3 times in 3 wards over seven years. So I have access to a pretty broad cross-section of opinion and views from "Latter-day Saints in the streets." These aren't apologists or scholars or some bizarre liberal elite.

I've asked my class this very question, and I have never had anyone say that the Church of the Lamb of God was only Mormons. So, I'm pretty sure I'm not some closet heretic on this point.

So, you haven't answered my question--by your lights, am I allowed to announce or insist that I regard Jesus as Lord, God, Savior, and normative in my life? Or is even that denied me by you?

Greg