Mormonism and the Trinity

[Markk]

Markk, are you a Fundamentalist Independant Baptist ?, for some reason I am under the impression that you are, I may be wrong however. If not FIB what Church do you attend ?. Thanks.

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

Hi Tanyan,

I attend a small non denominational Christian fellowship.

MG

[zerinus]

Hi Tanyan,

I attend a small non denominational Christian fellowship.

MG

And what church would that be?

[Markk]

Hi Cal,

This does not support the point of "eternal progression" as far as you are interpreting it as it indicates there is an end to the learning---the top of the ladder so to speak when "all" (finite number note) has been learnt. It seems to indicate that such is done prior to judgment and actual exaltation to the CK as well in my reading.

Yea, I certainly understand what your saying, and I suppose your correct if you look at it that way, but it also opens up debate within LDS theology if God is all knowing or not, I've heard and discussed both views. Some saints will say that God has fully progressed and there is nothing he does not know, while other say that God is not all know and there are certain things that are beyond his knowledge. Dan P. told me that God does not know what decisions man will make.

But I more or less agree with you but there are different camps on this in the pale of LDS thought, but either way I believe the verse is a proof text for eternal progression according to LDS history. JS said "the Top" I would argue that means godhood, or at least what JS meant in context.

This scripture also does not serve your purpose since these truths spoken of here are not beyond God, but under his control/his placement.

I disagree, LDS theology is clear that God organizes, but can not create out of nothing. According to LDS thought this could means that a god can place an eternal truth or law in the sphere of man, it says very clear that "truth is independent". I see your point but it goes against the LDS teaching of eternal progression, at least the way it was taught up until 20 years ago or so, I'm glad this teaching is changing.

Your thoughts

Mark

John 1:12[

[zerinus]

Hi Cal,

Yea, I certainly understand what your saying, and I suppose your correct if you look at it that way, but it also opens up debate within LDS theology if God is all knowing or not, I've heard and discussed both views. . . .

I donâ??t agree that there is such a â??debateâ? within LDS theology. Some individuals may have their own private opinions; but I donâ??t think there is a question that LDS scripture teaches that God is all-knowing.

But I more or less agree with you but there are different camps on this in the pale of LDS thought, but either way I believe the verse is a proof text for eternal progression according to LDS history. JS said "the Top" I would argue that means godhood, or at least what JS meant in context.

The â??ladderâ? analogy that Joseph Smith used has nothing to do with â??eternal progressionâ?. What he was saying was that the principles of the gospel that one needs to acquire to obtain exaltation and eternal life (including the principles of righteous living and personal sanctification) is a gradual process. It does not happen all at once. Some of it has to be acquired in the spirit world, beyond the grave.

I disagree, LDS theology is clear that God organizes, but can not create out of nothing. According to LDS thought this could means that a god can place an eternal truth or law in the sphere of man, it says very clear that "truth is independent". . . .

Not quite. It says â??truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, . . .â? (D&C 93:30). Two different things.

[Markk]

Hi Z,

I donâ??t agree that there is such a â??debateâ? within LDS theology. Some individuals may have their own private opinions; but I donâ??t think there is a question that LDS scripture teaches that God is all-knowing.

I disagree, as does BY and others, including many here. It has been taught both ways through out the history of the LDS church, so unless you can show me an offical retraction of either one of these two views it will reamain as one of the many confusions in the LDS understanding of what the leadership has taught on the nature. Your interpretation of LDS scripture is obviously different than others.

BY... Smith's successor as president of the Mormon church, and his counselors pronounced (both in 1860 and 1865) as false doctrine Orson Pratt's claim that "God cannot learn new truths."

So OP believed as you do, and the rest of the GA including the prophet believed it was a false doctrine to believe as you.

Wilford Woodruff, a recognized Mormon authority, taught, "God Himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge, power, and dominion and will do so worlds without end."

A question for you Z, did God know in preexistence what children are going to be exalted to godhood and what children are not, does he send down his children to earth knowing that they are going to blow it and reject him and his teachings in full knowledge of the choices they will make? Or is free agency of man, the knowledge of what choices they will make, beyond the knowledge of God?

I agree that LDS scripture teaches that God is all knowing, I can also show you very clearly that the LDS church does not teach that, and what is important is the end when putting your eternal hope into a "church", is what does that church teach. The LDS church teaches and has taught both views.

The â??ladderâ? analogy that Joseph Smith used has nothing to do with â??eternal progressionâ?. What he was saying was that the principles of the gospel that one needs to acquire to obtain exaltation and eternal life (including the principles of righteous living and personal sanctification) is a gradual process. It does not happen all at once. Some of it has to be acquired in the spirit world, beyond the grave.

According to LDS ideology there is no exaltation without the eternal laws that allow this process, exaltation and eternal life is only possible by progression, you can not separate the two. Man Progresses from intelligence, to spirit child, to mortality, to a glorified nature, and then possibly to godhood. This is the ladder, this is exaltation, this is only possible because of the eternal laws that exist, this is eternal progression. I didn't just make up the teaching of "the laws of eternal progression" up, I was taught this as a child, LDS GA's taught this, and if your honest with your look at exaltation and the laws and ordinances of the gospel as taught by the LDS church, they demand this teaching of eternal progression. You also have to add the LDS teaching that God became God by this same process which only solidifies the LDS teaching of progression.

Not quite. It says â??truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, . . .â? (D&C 93:30). Two different things.

Is truth eternal or is it created according to LDS thought? If God was not always God as is taught by the founding leaders of the LDS church, then is truth eternal beyond God or after the first god became god did he simply create truth?

Take care

Mark

John 1:12

[Calm]

I believe the verse is a proof text for eternal progression according to LDS history. JS said "the Top" I would argue that means godhood, or at least what JS meant in context.

This certainly is not how LDS have understood what you are calling "eternal progression" in my experience.

[zerinus]

Hi Z,

I disagree, as does BY and others, including many here. It has been taught both ways through out the history of the LDS church, so unless you can show me an offical retraction of either one of these two views it will reamain as one of the many confusions in the LDS understanding of what the leadership has taught on the nature. Your interpretation of LDS scripture is obviously different than others.

I donâ??t think that you understand how correct doctrine in the Church is determined. Here is a quote from LDS website:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration,

the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications

. This doctrine resides in the

four â??standard worksâ? of scripture

(the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

BY... Smith's successor as president of the Mormon church, and his counselors pronounced (both in 1860 and 1865) as false doctrine Orson Pratt's claim that "God cannot learn new truths."

I would need to know the full background to that quote (including Prattâ??s), before coming to a conclusion.

So OP believed as you do, and the rest of the GA including the prophet believed it was a false doctrine to believe as you.

That is way exaggerated. It is not â??the rest of the GAâ?. There were just two or three that you mentioned.

Wilford Woodruff, a recognized Mormon authority, taught, "God Himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge, power, and dominion and will do so worlds without end."

Again, I would like to see the full context of that before making a decision.

A question for you Z, did God know in preexistence what children are going to be exalted to godhood and what children are not, . . .

Absolutely! He knows "the end from the beginning" (Abraham 2:.

. . . does he send down his children to earth knowing that they are going to blow it and reject him and his teachings in full knowledge of the choices they will make?

Yes!

Or is free agency of man, the knowledge of what choices they will make, beyond the knowledge of God?

No it isnâ??t. God knows the future as well as He knows the past.

I agree that LDS scripture teaches that God is all knowing, I can also show you very clearly that the LDS church does not teach that, and what is important is the end when putting your eternal hope into a "church", is what does that church teach. The LDS church teaches and has taught both views.

See the above quote. Just because a few General Authorities have taught it, that does not mean that the â??churchâ? has taught it.

According to LDS ideology there is no exaltation without the eternal laws that allow this process, exaltation and eternal life is only possible by progression, you can not separate the two. Man Progresses from intelligence, to spirit child, to mortality, to a glorified nature, and then possibly to godhood. This is the ladder, this is exaltation, this is only possible because of the eternal laws that exist, this is eternal progression. I didn't just make up the teaching of "the laws of eternal progression" up, I was taught this as a child, LDS GA's taught this, and if your honest with your look at exaltation and the laws and ordinances of the gospel as taught by the LDS church, they demand this teaching of eternal progression. You also have to add the LDS teaching that God became God by this same process which only solidifies the LDS teaching of progression.

You seem to like repeating the same thing over and over. That has already been addressed above, and no further replies are required.

Is truth eternal or is it created according to LDS thought? If God was not always God as is taught by the founding leaders of the LDS church, then is truth eternal beyond God or after the first god became god did he simply create truth?

Truth is the â??knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to comeâ? (D&C 93:24).

[Markk]

This certainly is not how LDS have understood what you are calling "eternal progression" in my experience.

what is your understanding?

[zerinus]

what is your understanding?

Understanding of what?

[Markk]

Hi Z

I donâ??t think that you understand how correct doctrine in the Church is determined. Here is a quote from LDS website:Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four â??standard worksâ? of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

What website, and who wrote this statement. Is this statement from the standard LDS works? Your being hypocritical. Your quoting a statement written by someone you most likely don't know who wrote it, which directly contradicts the words of arguably the founder of today's LDS church, Brigham Young. So tell me what LDS website you Got this from and who wrote it. Even if this statement was correct, it says ..." Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. There are some key words in this statement that contradict your claim that LDS doctrine is only in the standard works, this statement even contradicts it's self.CFR please.

I would need to know the full background to that quote (including Prattâ??s), before coming to a conclusion.

Pratt and Young were always at odds, OP was a scholar and well read and Young was the boss. They debated the nature of God and allot of it stemmed from Youngs teaching that Adam was the Father of mans spirit. OP was almost kicked out of the church for his opposition to young. There's allot written on it and it's easy to find with a kwik google. start here http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/conflict.html

That is way exaggerated. It is not â??the rest of the GAâ?. There were just two or three that you mentioned.

What did the rest of the GA's under these guys believe then, and for that matter who were they. Are you saying with BY, Orson Hyde and Wiford Woodruff believing God was not all knowing, that all the other GA's and people believed he was all knowing. If that is true it doesn't say to much for the shape of the church. Give me some names along with OP that spoke up against BY. JFS did many years later, but that just adds more to the confusions and contradictions.You also have to add in the mix that all the leaders believed and taught that God was once a man that progressed to the nature of God so I'm not sure how a person can progress through Godhood with all knowledge. These men also taught and believed that God had a Father who also had a Father, so these again lends to the mix.

Again, I would like to see the full context of that before making a decision.

Study this, it's not that hard to find.

Absolutely! He knows "the end from the beginning" (Abraham 2:.

OK That's fair. But I believe allot of saints would have a hard time with it, but I appreciate your openness. I wonder how that fits with the song "I am a Child of God", in that according to your view God sent most of his children away knowing they could or would never be in his presence again. I know one person that has been a strong member for 82 years that would strongly disagree with that...my mother.

See the above quote. Just because a few General Authorities have taught it, that does not mean that the â??churchâ? has taught it.

By was prophet longer than any other prophet,so I think it is safe to say that there was along period of time the church taught this. It would not take to much for a current leader to straighten it out, maybe they will someday?

You seem to like repeating the same thing over and over. That has already been addressed above, and no further replies are required.

Denying what has been taught will not make the truth any less truth. here something I read today...Former Mormon â??apostle,â? Bruce R. McConkie, defines the doctrine of eternal progression as follows:Endowed with agency and subject to eternal laws, man began his progression and advancement in the pre-existence, his ultimate goal being to attain a state of glory, honor, and exaltation like the Father of spirits. During his earth life he gains a mortal body, receives experience in earthly things, and prepares for a future eternity after the resurrection when he will continue to gain knowledge and intelligence. (D&C 130:18-19.) This gradually unfolding course of advancement and experience - a course that began in eternity past and will continue in ages future - is frequently referred to as eternal progression.I little home work will at least help you understand the teaching of eternal progression by the LDS church, denying it as a teaching won't change it being taught. from JS to Dallin Oaks this is a LDS teaching.

Truth is the â??knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to comeâ? (D&C 93:24).

Then my point stands, LDS theology demands through the eternal Lawof progression that Truth is not created and that God can only install truth, in this case into the sphere as the D&C verse in question, but none the less truth is independent according to LDS thought.

Thanks

Mark

John 1:12

Understanding of what?

eternal progression

[Markk]

Hi Cal,

This certainly is not how LDS have understood what you are calling "eternal progression" in my experience.

I was doing some reading tonight check out essay 15.

http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/harmo...tm#chapter%2015

Tell me what you think?

Mg

[zerinus]

Hi Z

What website, and who wrote this statement. Is this statement from the standard LDS works? Your being hypocritical. Your quoting a statement written by someone you most likely don't know who wrote it, which directly contradicts the words of arguably the founder of today's LDS church, Brigham Young. So tell me what LDS website you Got this from and who wrote it. Even if this statement was correct, it says ..." Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. There are some key words in this statement that contradict your claim that LDS doctrine is only in the standard works, this statement even contradicts it's self. CFR please.

Quoted from Newsroom; Church's official website. That statement would have been approved by the First Presidency before publication on the website.

Pratt and Young were always at odds, OP was a scholar and well read and Young was the boss. They debated the nature of God and allot of it stemmed from Youngs teaching that Adam was the Father of mans spirit. OP was almost kicked out of the church for his opposition to young. There's allot written on it and it's easy to find with a kwik google. start here http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/conflict.html

I canâ??t debate with books or articles. It is up to you to provide sufficient detail to make your quotes credible within context in which they were written or spoken.

What did the rest of the GA's under these guys believe then, and for that matter who were they. Are you saying with BY, Orson Hyde and Wiford Woodruff believing God was not all knowing, that all the other GA's and people believed he was all knowing. If that is true it doesn't say to much for the shape of the church. Give me some names along with OP that spoke up against BY. JFS did many years later, but that just adds more to the confusions and contradictions.

You also have to add in the mix that all the leaders believed and taught that God was once a man that progressed to the nature of God so I'm not sure how a person can progress through Godhood with all knowledge. These men also taught and believed that God had a Father who also had a Father, so these again lends to the mix.

I refer you to the quote from the Newsroom.

Study this, it's not that hard to find.

Detail please.

OK That's fair. But I believe allot of saints would have a hard time with it, but I appreciate your openness. I wonder how that fits with the song "I am a Child of God", in that according to your view God sent most of his children away knowing they could or would never be in his presence again. I know one person that has been a strong member for 82 years that would strongly disagree with that...my mother.

This is getting boring. Not sure how long I will be able to keep this up.

By was prophet longer than any other prophet,so I think it is safe to say that there was along period of time the church taught this. It would not take to much for a current leader to straighten it out, maybe they will someday?

See above.

Denying what has been taught will not make the truth any less truth. here something I read today...Former Mormon â??apostle,â? Bruce R. McConkie, defines the doctrine of eternal progression as follows:

Endowed with agency and subject to eternal laws, man began his progression and advancement in the pre-existence, his ultimate goal being to attain a state of glory, honor, and exaltation like the Father of spirits. During his earth life he gains a mortal body, receives experience in earthly things, and prepares for a future eternity after the resurrection when he will continue to gain knowledge and intelligence. (D&C 130:18-19.) This gradually unfolding course of advancement and experience - a course that began in eternity past and will continue in ages future - is frequently referred to as eternal progression.

I little home work will at least help you understand the teaching of eternal progression by the LDS church, denying it as a teaching won't change it being taught. from JS to Dallin Oaks this is a LDS teaching.

Boring. I donâ??t see why continue this repetitive line of debate. I repeat again for the last time: I do not dispute that this doctrine has been taught and is still taught. But I do not agree with it, at least as it has been taught. It is possible to define it in language that conforms to the scriptures; but that is not how it has been traditionally defined; and it conveys connotations and nuances that are not scriptural and theologically accurate. Theological concepts are best defined using scriptural terms whenever possible. I believe that the Church will some day agree with my view on this one.

Then my point stands, LDS theology demands through the eternal Lawof progression that Truth is not created and that God can only install truth, in this case into the sphere as the D&C verse in question, but none the less truth is independent according to LDS thought.

Donâ??t make sense.

[Markk]

Hi Z,

I can't make you study and actually learn LDS theology and History, that's up to you. I gave you a good start if you want to learn what the church teaches and what the church has taught then do a little home work.

In this thread you first denied that there was such a thing as the eternal law of progression, at least now you understand that eternal progression is a key doctrine of the church taught from JS to the current leadership, and yet you do not believe this...why are you LDS? Your theology on the nature of God is much closer to the reorganized church ( what ever their new name is).

Your being totally hypocritical by posting the News Room as a "proof text" and then say only the standard works are authoritative. The Melk. teaching Manual teaches many doctrines that you would deny yet in the first pages there are forwards by the GA that testify to there approving of the manual, President Benson encouraged and approved this manual by Hunter, by your standards this is a better source that an article by a un- named author.

Again my point is here is that your just picking and choosing through the maze of writings what fits best with your current ideology.

You said..."I canâ??t debate with books or articles." You gave me an article, that is what I mean by being hypocritical. I gave you a book reference not to debate, but for you to begin a study on the conflict and disagreements of Brigham Young and Orson Pratt which you said ..."I would need to know the full background to that quote (including Prattâ??s), before coming to a conclusion."

Again I'm not asking you to debate the book, I was giving you a reference so you can begin to understand what these LDS Prophets and apostles taught concerning the nature of the LDS god. You can ether study the subject or be ignorant on it, it's your choice.

Donâ??t make sense.

Sure it does, at least in a LDS context, it is silly to me personally, but according to LDS thought truth was before God, so it can make sense. A major hole in LDS theology is that eternal progression demands a beginning, and it can not explain who the first God was and how it began. The Bile is clear that God is truth, and that He just is, He told Moses "I am that I am", It says "In the beginning God.." LDS theology demand a pantheon of gods who co-plan and create and who each one had a father so on and so on and that man can be "a God like him".

LDS ideology does not demand this stuff to all make sense, there are to many "trump" cards so to speak, the dead prophet, the living prophet, personal revelation, or the standard works. But in the end, the only trump card that matters is the "Survival of the Church". At all costs the Church must survive, and do to this ideology the LDS church is forever changing, denying and "forgetting". Until it is honest wit it's past, it won't be able to be honest with it's future. all this has basically silenced the leadership and site's like this are more and more defining LDS theology.

Hope you don't get to bored, there is allot we can explore and discuss.

take care

Mark

John 1:12

[zerinus]

Hi Z,

I can't make you study and actually learn LDS theology and History, that's up to you. I gave you a good start if you want to learn what the church teaches and what the church has taught then do a little home work. . . .

I think I have a pretty good idea of â??LDS theology and history,â? and â??what the Church teaches and what it has taught,â? thank you.

[Markk]

Hi Z

I think I have a pretty good idea of â??LDS theology and history,â? and â??what the Church teaches and what it has taught,â? thank you.

Ok,

Take care

Mark

John 1:12

[Tanyan]

Hi Tanyan,

I attend a small non denominational Christian fellowship.

MG

And the name of the non denominational church you attend would be ....... ? .

Non Denominational churches have names.

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

[Danna]

I take little interest in theological issues these days, but having read Offenders for a Word some time ago, and similar arguments, I don't think that evangelicals and others have a leg to stand on in attempting to expel Mormons from Christendom. There is nothing in LDS theology that does not have an even crazier counterpart in 'mainstream' Christianity, and Daniel did a pretty good job of showing that the majority of 'strange' LDS notions attacked by modern 'Christians' could be found in one or other early Christian sect.

I was taught that Jesus was our older brother, selected to be the messiah for our world. Also that he was Yahweh of the old testament, but not at that time of the stature of HF - more like a son given the power and authority to act for his father. After his resurrection, he became a God in his own right. Thus the OT could still be considered strictly montheistic from that point of view. As our messiah, we pray in Jesus' name, but not to him. The holy ghost is unexplained, (but my primary-to seminary level thinking had me secretly believing that this was the influence of Heavenly Mother). This understanding of the Godhead (minus identification of HM) is a form of social trinitarianism. It may not be perfect LDS doctrine, but it summarises the teachings as received at this end, transmitted through a number of well-meaning priesthood holders. And I have never since thought it incompatible with the Bible, which I now believe reflects a henotheistic culture.

Is the notion that Jesus is our older brother a church-wide teaching, or was I led astray?

Was Jesus a god before he received a body, died, and was resurrected?

[Markk]

Hi Danna,

What LDS ideology and Dan does is they take the word Christian and simply make it a generic term. Dan has said that the Children of God ( Now known as Family International) , a cult that believes that having sex with children, even their own, are unfortunantly also christians? They claim they are true christians and that christ is their lord...etc...etc. See their website and attached statements by former members of the cult.

http://www.thefamily.org/en/about/

http://www.rickross.com/reference/family/family59.html

http://www.rickross.com/reference/family/family63.html

This stuff is terrible and disgusting, and I don't care what you say, their doctrine is not Christian and if they believe and practice that doctrine they are not Christian.

Paul warned that there would be people that bring forth " Another Jesus" and " Another Gospel" , and it was for a reason, these people would obviously claim to be Christians, claim to have the truth. Pauls warning was for a reason, and that reason was that there would be false followers of the real Christ, following and teaching a false christ. Look at the " Families" website, they use christian terms and by looking at them in appearance you would never guess their history or practice..

Danna, like Dan do you believe this is a Christian org., that theirs is Christian doctrine, and those that believe and practice this garbage are Christian....let me know? But remember according to Dan's and others reasoning one has to except their theology, teachings, and them as Christian, this is what I mean by making the word Christian a generic term.

Think about it?

take care

Mark

[Danna]

Hi Danna,

What LDS ideology and Dan does is they take the word Christian and simply make it a generic term. Dan has said that the Children of God ( Now known as Family International) , a cult that believes that having sex with children, even their own, are unfortunantly also christians? They claim they are true christians and that christ is their lord...etc...etc. See their website and attached statements by former members of the cult.

http://www.thefamily.org/en/about/

http://www.rickross.com/reference/family/family59.html

http://www.rickross.com/reference/family/family63.html

This stuff is terrible and disgusting, and I don't care what you say, their doctrine is not Christian and if they believe and practice that doctrine they are not Christian.

You have illustrated the problem, who gets to define 'Christian'?

By your view, the legitimate definers are the successors to the victors of an often bloody and violent purge of heretics in the early years of 'the church'.

200 years ago, the denominations you define as Christian endorsed slavery - using Jesus' words to do so. I find slavery beyond terrible and disgusting. But I would not deny Catholics, Protestants, and Baptists the right to interpret Christ and define themselves as Christian. Slavery itself had a similar factor contribute to its origins in some cases - some people defining 'human' as themselves, and other people as 'subhuman'. Please don't take this as an endorsement of the Children of God - I simply cannot question their right to identify with Christianity any more than I could question their right to claim nationality in their respective countries because their activities are 'unamerican', or 'unaustralian'.

Paul warned that there would be people that bring forth " Another Jesus" and " Another Gospel" , and it was for a reason, these people would obviously claim to be Christians, claim to have the truth. Pauls warning was for a reason, and that reason was that there would be false followers of the real Christ, following and teaching a false christ. Look at the " Families" website, they use christian terms and by looking at them in appearance you would never guess their history or practice..

I can't comment on the veracity of anybody's claim to represent the true Jesus. By my understanding of the NT all who approach God through Christ are Christian. Maybe some of those Christians are also committing sins or errors of doctrine, but that is up to the law in matters of legal importance (thus, of concern to society), as to 'legal' sins which don't concern societal order - that can only be a matter for God to decide. Recently, the Catholic church tried to prevent an 8yo, pregnant with twins through incestuous rape, from having a lifesaving abortion. The excommunication of medical staff who carried out the abortion was confirmed from Rome. I find that utterly abhorrent, but I would not deny the Christianity of the Catholics.

Danna, like Dan do you believe this is a Christian org., that theirs is Christian doctrine, and those that believe and practice this garbage are Christian....let me know? But remember according to Dan's and others reasoning one has to except their theology, teachings, and them as Christian, this is what I mean by making the word Christian a generic term.

Think about it?

take care

Mark

The LDS claim to be Christian can only be decided by their God (should he exist), in the same manner as any other organisation claiming to be Christian. Their theology and teachings represent a variety of Christianity as valid as any other self claimed sect. I don't see how 'Christian' can be anything other than a generic term - especially if you consider the varieties of Christian which have claimed the term through the past 2000 years. The theology of medieval Catholics would probably be rejected by modern Catholics today. Likewise early Protestants believing in the divine right of kings, tests of combat, and the witch trials.

I know that the LDS have annoyed a number of people by claiming that all other Christians are apostate. But didn't Luther do something very similar?

[Anijen]

You have illustrated the problem, who gets to define 'Christian'?

By your view, the legitimate definers are the successors to the victors of an often bloody and violent purge of heretics in the early years of 'the church'.

200 years ago, the denominations you define as Christian endorsed slavery - using Jesus' words to do so. I find slavery beyond terrible and disgusting. But I would not deny Catholics, Protestants, and Baptists the right to interpret Christ and define themselves as Christian. Slavery itself had a similar factor contribute to its origins in some cases - some people defining 'human' as themselves, and other people as 'subhuman'. Please don't take this as an endorsement of the Children of God - I simply cannot question their right to identify with Christianity any more than I could question their right to claim nationality in their respective countries because their activities are 'unamerican', or 'unaustralian'.

I can't comment on the veracity of anybody's claim to represent the true Jesus. By my understanding of the NT all who approach God through Christ are Christian. Maybe some of those Christians are also committing sins or errors of doctrine, but that is up to the law in matters of legal importance (thus, of concern to society), as to 'legal' sins which don't concern societal order - that can only be a matter for God to decide. Recently, the Catholic church tried to prevent an 8yo, pregnant with twins through incestuous rape, from having a lifesaving abortion. The excommunication of medical staff who carried out the abortion was confirmed from Rome. I find that utterly abhorrent, but I would not deny the Christianity of the Catholics.

The LDS claim to be Christian can only be decided by their God (should he exist), in the same manner as any other organisation claiming to be Christian. Their theology and teachings represent a variety of Christianity as valid as any other self claimed sect. I don't see how 'Christian' can be anything other than a generic term - especially if you consider the varieties of Christian which have claimed the term through the past 2000 years. The theology of medieval Catholics would probably be rejected by modern Catholics today. Likewise early Protestants believing in the divine right of kings, tests of combat, and the witch trials.

I know that the LDS have annoyed a number of people by claiming that all other Christians are apostate. But didn't Luther do something very similar?

Very good reply. Thanks Danna I agree completely

[LeSellers]

Non Denominational churches have names.

As far as I can tell, "Non-Denominational" is just another denomination. It's in the same class as "Bible-Believing", yet another denomination.

Lehi

[The_Monk]

Did a link to Peterson's paper ever get posted? There's a lot of noise in this thread.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Did a link to Peterson's paper ever get posted? There's a lot of noise in this thread.

Nope, not that I have seen. Doesn't that mean that those who have not read the article are ignorant? Are you not supposed to do something about that?

[Markk]

Hi Danna,

Great to talk with you.

You have illustrated the problem, who gets to define 'Christian'?

I disagree, it is Dan, and most LDS I have discussed this with say who Christians are, that's what Dan's book is, a book that makes an argument that the LDS church is Christian. They say "LDS Christians", "Baptist Christians", "Jehovah Witness Christians"...etc, they are defining who a Christian is, not me.

A Christian is a Christian, only God can truly decide that. A true Christians name is written in the Lamb's Book of life...period, if ones name is not in the Book, whether the Book is symbolic or not, they are not a Christian. In this book it will say Danna, Dan or Mark, it won't say Danna and Dan the Mormon's, or Mark the Evangelical. If our names are not written in the Book, then we are not Christians...it is that simple. That is what I believe and right or wrong that is the view I hold. I believe I am a Christian and my family, that is about as far as I will go.

By your view, the legitimate definers are the successors to the victors of an often bloody and violent purge of heretics in the early years of 'the church'.

How? I haven't even given you my view yet. But you will understand my view better after this post. God is the only definer of who a Christian is. I have never really said who is, or who is not a Christian directly, nor will I, and if I do, I am wrong....fair?

It seems by the quote above you already have a argument ready for my view, without even knowing my view?

200 years ago, the denominations you define as Christian endorsed slavery - using Jesus' words to do so. I find slavery beyond terrible and disgusting. But I would not deny Catholics, Protestants, and Baptists the right to interpret Christ and define themselves as Christian. Slavery itself had a similar factor contribute to its origins in some cases - some people defining 'human' as themselves, and other people as 'subhuman'.

When did I say that? Your assuming allot, like I said only God can say who is Christian is, in that He alone saves.

This is Important, I can not say who and who is not a Christian, but I can personally judge and test what is Christian Doctrine, as you can, WE can both be very wrong, but with out a doubt WE can not both be right.

IN Dan's Book he wrote:"...Protestant doctrine is precisely as far from Mormon doctrine, every bit as "different," as Mormon doctrine is from Protestant doctrine."(Claim 18) Please read in context to understand his argument.

Dan is correct here, Protestant doctrine is 180 degrees from LDS doctrine, we simply can not both be correct. If a person abused or broke any law, including moral law like slavery, and did so under the banner of "Christianity", then they will have to stand before God. This lends to my point that Dan and others make the word Christian a generic term.

Please don't take this as an endorsement of the Children of God - I simply cannot question their right to identify with Christianity any more than I could question their right to claim nationality in their respective countries because their activities are 'unamerican', or 'unaustralian'.

If you believe that the Children of Gods doctrine is Christian Doctrine, and that the Jesus they believe in is the Jesus that died for mans sins is the same Jesus, then that is your business, but I only hope that you think twice about that. The NT says concerning false teachers that can lead people from Christ... "You can know them by their fruits" . Having sex with Children under the banner of Christ, is not a thing a true Christians would prctice, that is a false teaching according to my moral mindset as both being ex-LDS and as a Christian. I can use another word for anybody who does this, it would be a sick pedophile, and that is being nice, it sickens me. The Bible is very clear that this kind of behavior is sexual immorality and they will not do well for this sin, not to mention Christ's teaching that it would be better to tie a anchor to them and throw them in the sea. To say that this doctrine is Christian doctrine and that it is Christian behavior is just wrong and I believe a sin. So I believe we can be fruit inspectors here, and as the NT say's use our noodles and realize that this behavior is not Christian.

By putting a generic term to the word Christian, this demands you to except a doctrine that teaches pedophilia under the banner of Christ, and also as Christian doctrine, and those who act according to this false doctrine as Christians...your digging yourself into a deep dark hole Danna, be careful.

I can't comment on the veracity of any body's claim to represent the true Jesus. By my understanding of the NT all who approach God through Christ are Christian. Maybe some of those Christians are also committing sins or errors of doctrine, but that is up to the law in matters of legal importance (thus, of concern to society), as to 'legal' sins which don't concern societal order - that can only be a matter for God to decide. Recently, the Catholic church tried to prevent an 8yo, pregnant with twins through incestuous rape, from having a lifesaving abortion. The excommunication of medical staff who carried out the abortion was confirmed from Rome. I find that utterly abhorrent, but I would not deny the Christianity of the Catholics.

That's a tuff call, it has nothing what so ever to do with what we are talking about, Let God sort that one out. I understand both views and wouldn't want to have to make that decision, I believe I would save the "older" child. But again this has nothing to do with who and who is not a Christian. In the Book of Life, Catholic, or Pope will not be written in it, only names of people that are saved by God. Who are you to "deny" or "allow" anybody to be a Christian, it's not our call EITHER way? Why would you even "think about" throwing a blanket on all Catholics for the actions of a few, being a Christian is a personal thing, between that person and God...period

The LDS claim to be Christian can only be decided by their God (should he exist), in the same manner as any other organisation claiming to be Christian.

I disagree, being a Christian can only be decided by "the one true God", again we can both be wrong, but we can not both be right, our doctrines like Dan said are so far apart.

Right or wrong, I believe along with Millions that LDS doctrine is not Christian Doctrine, and we can and should debate that. Letting every one be a Christian just because they say so, doesn't make what they believe the truth or the Jesus they believe in the true Messiah.

I know that the LDS have annoyed a number of people by claiming that all other Christians are apostate. But didn't Luther do something very similar?

Yes, and he burned a person on a stake ( I think it was him?), so what, that does not make LDS ideology right. Luther is a man that will stand before God just like you and me. If he preached a gospel that compliments the teachings of God, great, but that does not excuse any sin in his life, or does it guarantee he is a Christian. If his statement nailed to the door is true, we can test that to see if it complimets or contradicts God word. It does not make the LDS claim any more or less valid.

There is something I call the "Bill Clinton defense", when he was busted for having an affair with Monica L. his supporters said..." well JFK, Roosevelt and Eisenhower had affairs too!..." That does not justify anything, either does saying Luther did this or that make the LDS claims against mainstream Christianity go away or any less true,false, or an insult.

Thanks for your time, enjoying this discussion.

take care

mark

John 1:12

[igotthetruth]

Mormonism seems to share a common misunderstanding of the â??Trinitarianâ? teaching concerning the nature of God and His relationship to creation. They along with Jehovahâ??s Witnesses and other groups think that Trinitarians believe (we donâ??t) that Jesus and the Father are the same person (some might/do believe this way). The following statements from a past missionary training manual reflect that misunderstanding (which has never been corrected as it misrepresents the Trintarian view:

This understanding of what is perceived to be the â??Trinitarianâ? teaching on the nature of God is more in line with the view known as â??modalism.â? This heretical view of God teaches that Jesus is the Father, is the Holy Spirit, all being one in person.

A modern example of this early heretical view is found in the Oneness Pentecostal movement (T.D. Jakes is a popular speaker on TBN- I believe he teaches a modalistic view of God if Iâ??m not mistaken).

Note the following teaching from the BOM:

Joseph's rendition of his view from the KFD (Joseph's teaching of men becoming "Gods" is identified in Mormonism as a pagan view):

Joseph said that God told him:

A Mormon apostle taught the following to students at BYU in 1984 at a devotional:

Jesus quoted from the Old Testament:

Jesus said:

Biblically speaking it is Josephâ??s and Lorenzoâ??s teachings that â??very closely resembles the teachings ofâ? â??The Mystery Religions, pagan rivals of Christianity,â?:

The Original 1830 Book of Mormon clearly states that Jesus Christ and God The Father are one and the same person. NO religion uses the unaltered 1830 BOM today.