Mormonism and the Trinity

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

In what way are they one though?

[igotthetruth]

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.

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

You are quite correct! The only truth in the LDS church is found in the Original 1830 Book Of Mormon. And you won't find anything taught in the church today in this book. The Book of Mormon was altered during it's second printing in 1837. Joseph Smith was told that everything needed to establish the church was found in the Book of Mormon that he was translating. But Joseph got carried away and came up with polygamy, endowments and sealing for time and eternity, which is false. The entire temple experience is based on freemason ideas. All the tokens, signs, handshakes, robes, garments, etc. are all masonic. The endowment has been changed so many times it is ridiculous. The blood oaths are satanic and of Lucifer. The LDS church is the Great and Abominable church. The Original 1830 Book of Mormon clearly states that God And Jesus are one and the same person. For references see The Lectures on Faith no. 5 Just Google it. See D Michael Quinn's Books Mormon Heirarchy Origin and Extensions of Power. The first vision was even altered. But Mormons won't even take a look they are so brainwashed!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You are quite correct! The only truth in the LDS church is found in the Original 1830 Book Of Mormon. And you won't find anything taught in the church today in this book. The Book of Mormon was altered during it's second printing in 1837. Joseph Smith was told that everything needed to establish the church was found in the Book of Mormon that he was translating. But Joseph got carried away and came up with polygamy, endowments and sealing for time and eternity, which is false. The entire temple experience is based on freemason ideas. All the tokens, signs, handshakes, robes, garments, etc. are all masonic. The endowment has been changed so many times it is ridiculous. The blood oaths are satanic and of Lucifer. The LDS church is the Great and Abominable church. The Original 1830 Book of Mormon clearly states that God And Jesus are one and the same person. For references see The Lectures on Faith no. 5 Just Google it. See D Michael Quinn's Books Mormon Heirarchy Origin and Extensions of Power. The first vision was even altered. But Mormons won't even take a look they are so brainwashed!

Is this is joke? I think that if you would calm down a bit and try engaging in a serious discussion instead of beating your chest you might learn something. I think most people on this board are well arware of the differeing accoutns fo the first vision. I suppose you think some one changed those accounts and that it wasn't JS telling them. Were is your evidence for that?

The funny thing too about the masons is that JS went through the masonic rituals after the endowment had been revealed. It is some what striking that there are similarities but JS didn't take anything from the masons as he yet wasn't one. JS got carried away??? Ok, if you say so. I guess that Abraham and some of the other OT prophets got "carried away" too. Your argument is not looking to hot.

[Daniel Peterson]

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.

Not true, Markkkk. Not true.

You came onto this thread drawing a sharp distinction between Mormons and Christians, to which I reacted.

Have you read Offenders for a Word? It's devoted, at great length and with considerable detail, to investigating the historical semantic range of the term. I discover patterns of usage; I impose no definition.

God is the only definer of who a Christian is.

In some ultimate sense, looking toward the Judgment, that's certainly true. But, in this life, there are dictionaries and encyclopedias and other such reference books. The term Christian is used and applied and defined all the time. We confidently and intelligibly say that Italy and Colombia are Christian countries, while Thailand and Saudi Arabia are not.

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.

Of course I'm correct. It's a logical truism that, if Whoville is ten miles from Shantytown, Shantytown is ten miles from Whoville. The distance is precisely as far in one direction as it is in the other.

But that has nothing to do with whether or not Protestant doctrine is 180 degrees from LDS doctrine. Your claim finds no support in what I said.

Right or wrong, I believe along with Millions that LDS doctrine is not Christian Doctrine

And you claim to be able to do this without defining what is Christian and what isn't Christian!

[Joseph Antley]

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.

You are quite correct! The only truth in the LDS church is found in the Original 1830 Book Of Mormon. And you won't find anything taught in the church today in this book. The Book of Mormon was altered during it's second printing in 1837. Joseph Smith was told that everything needed to establish the church was found in the Book of Mormon that he was translating. But Joseph got carried away and came up with polygamy, endowments and sealing for time and eternity, which is false. The entire temple experience is based on freemason ideas. All the tokens, signs, handshakes, robes, garments, etc. are all masonic. The endowment has been changed so many times it is ridiculous. The blood oaths are satanic and of Lucifer. The LDS church is the Great and Abominable church. The Original 1830 Book of Mormon clearly states that God And Jesus are one and the same person. For references see The Lectures on Faith no. 5 Just Google it. See D Michael Quinn's Books Mormon Heirarchy Origin and Extensions of Power. The first vision was even altered. But Mormons won't even take a look they are so brainwashed!

The 1830 edition does not state that the Son and the Father are one person. I assume here that you are referring to 1 Nephi 11:21, which originally said "Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!" In the 1837 edition, this verse was amended to state "even the Son of the Eternal Father", which is reflected in all subsequent editions.

No edition of the Book of Mormon has ever stated that Jesus Christ and God the Father are "one and the same person", although references to Jesus Christ as "the Father" are plentiful. Mosiah 14:2-4, for example, both states that he is the Father and subsequently explains how he can be both the Father and the Son. Repeatedly, the Trinity is called "one God" throughout all editions of the Book of Mormon. There is nothing especially significant in the alteration of 1 Nephi 11:21.

But again, nowhere in the Book of Mormon is it stated that the Father and the Son are "one person". In fact, the opposite seems to be presented in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon (such as in events where the Father and the Son are manifested simultaneously but separately, such as at Jesus' baptism or his manifestation at the temple Bountiful). Your modalist view of the Godhead is antithetical to both Mormonism and mainstream Christianity.

[zerinus]

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

God does not define or classify people according to whether they are "Christians" or not. He defines them according to whethere they are righteous and keep His commandments or not: "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." (Acts 10:34-35.) Your difficulty is that you adhere to a religious tradition that is apostate that has corrupted true Christian doctrine, and you are blind to it.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Some here might perhaps be interested in an article that, despite the date given on the periodical, I've just published in the journal of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology:

Daniel C. Peterson, "Mormonism and the Trinity," Element 3/1-2 (Spring/Fall 2007): 1-43.

The concluding paragraph of the article reads as follows:

This scripture seems to scream "Trinity"...

2 Nephi 31: 21

21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

What do you make of it?

[The_Monk]

This scripture seems to scream "Trinity"...

2 Nephi 31: 21

21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

What do you make of it?

Papa, this says nothing about ontology, subordinationism, etc. There's more than one way or sense of meaning, even within orthodox historical Christianity, to assert that there are three members of the God head who are one. It doesnâ??t automatically entail classical Trinitarianism.

[jwhitlock]

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.

Then why the need to rephrase it - and misrepresent it - if it clearly states what you claim it does?

Answer: It doesn't, and you know it. Rather than quote it directly, you rephrase it to suit your claim. We call that dishonest.

[jwhitlock]

The first vision was even altered. But Mormons won't even take a look they are so brainwashed!

Well, if it makes you feel superior, go ahead and delude yourself about us.

Jeesh, there are some real whack jobs out there.

[Joseph Antley]

Well, if it makes you feel superior, go ahead and delude yourself about us.

Jeesh, there are some real whack jobs out there.

Don't worry, he was apparently just a troll who had no interest in backing up his absurd statements or engaging in any type of discussion.

[Markk]

Hi Dan,

How ya doing?

Not true, Markkkk. Not true.

You came onto this thread drawing a sharp distinction between Mormons and Christians, to which I reacted.

Have you read Offenders for a Word? It's devoted, at great length and with considerable detail, to investigating the historical semantic range of the term. I discover patterns of usage; I impose no definition.

This is your opinion of who a Christian is, in your own words..."...Because Christians are people for whom Jesus is uniquely normative, people for whom Jesus is Lord..." http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...0God&st=360 post 371

You are giving your opinion and interpretation of who a Christian is, which I disagree with.

Dan,

Your view and definition of Christian demands that you accept a church that teaches that Jesus Christ teaches it is OK to have sex with children as a Christian church. I do not believe that a church that teaches pedophilia as a Christian doctrine and that are practicing pedophiles can be Christians. I suppose I am being a hypocritical here in that I am stepping out of "my pay grade" in saying who and who is not a Christian, but I do not believe, based on biblical teachings, that this kind of sexual immorality can be practiced by a Christian, no way. You have told me in the past that this church, who claim Christ as Lord and that He is "uniquely normative" in their ideology is a Christian church and those that practice this are Christian...again no way.

My original point is that your view waters down the meaning of Christian that is sacred to others, just as sacred as the LDS Temple is to the LDS faith, you have to understand that. It is safe to say to the saint the word Christian is just a generic term for anyone who wants to claim it.

Also in the mix, that we have not discussed is the LDS teaching that they are the only TRUE church. And that the LDS church is organized and comes out and claims that all other "Christian" churches are apostate and that they teach a doctrine that is a abomination to God and if they ( the professors)believe it they are corrupt. In other words LDS believe they are the only true Christian Church and all the other Christian Churches are just false Christian Churches. Is this a fair analysis of LDS ideology?

But that has nothing to do with whether or not Protestant doctrine is 180 degrees from LDS doctrine. Your claim finds no support in what I said.

How far apart are we Dan? I am "shantytown" and I say we are about as far apart as one can get on our doctrines (whoville).

And you claim to be able to do this without defining what is Christian and what isn't Christian!

No, I said LDS doctrine is not Christian doctrine, I have said that is my belief many times on this site, what I said is I can not say "who" (not "what", your putting words in my mouth) is or who is not a Christian on a personal level, although I admit that I am wrongly a hypocrite on this when it comes to pedophiles who claim to be a Christian.

Take care

Mark

John 1:12

[zerinus]

You are giving your opinion and interpretation of who a Christian is, which I disagree with.

I gave you my definition of a Christian earlier on in another post somewhere which you completely ignored and never replied to. Here it is. Care to tell us what objection you have to that definition, and why?

[Daniel Peterson]

This is your opinion of who a Christian is, in your own words..."...Because Christians are people for whom Jesus is uniquely normative, people for whom Jesus is Lord..." http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...0God&st=360 post 371

I repeat my question: Have you read Offenders for a Word?

If you have, you know that I begin with no definition of the word Christian, but simply study its historical use in various languages over the past two thousand years. My "definition," as you term it, is simply an attempt to describe how the term has been applied since its origin.

This is what lexicographers do. They don't invent definitions out of nothing. They deduce the definitions that people use from the way people use terms.

If you want to demonstrate that my portrayal of the use of the term is incorrect, the way to do so is clear: You need to gather your own evidence from the church fathers, the Reformers, modern historians, and the like, and, on that basis, to show that my description of the ways in which it has been used is incorrect.

You'll note that I didn't emphasize the Bible in the paragraph above. That isn't because Offenders ignores the Bible. Indeed, it examines all of the relevant occurrences of Christian(s) in the Bible -- there are only three -- and demonstrates that no definition of the term can be deduced from the biblical text.

You are giving your opinion and interpretation of who a Christian is, which I disagree with.

As I say, I offer, really, no definition of the term Christian, but simply study its historical use in various languages over the past two thousand years. I merely attempt to describe how the term has been applied since its origin.

If you want to prove that my portrayal of the use of the term is incorrect, the way to do so is obvious and, in a sense, easy: You'll have to gather your own evidence from the church fathers, the Reformers, modern historians, and the like, and, on that basis, demonstrate that my description of the ways in which it has been used is incorrect.

Your view and definition of Christian demands that you accept a church that teaches that Jesus Christ teaches it is OK to have sex with children as a Christian church.

I believe that you're referring to the so-called "Children of God." I don't really know enough about them to judge whether or not they were/are Christian, and take no firm stance on that.

But I do allow for the existence of sinful, murderous, adulterous, and/or heretical Christians. Indeed, the historical records are, sadly, brimming with such people.

To classify them as Christian (rather than, say, as Buddhist, or Hindu, or Jain, or Jewish) is in no way an endorsement. I think they're repulsive, too.

My original point is that your view waters down the meaning of Christian that is sacred to others, just as sacred as the LDS Temple is to the LDS faith, you have to understand that.

I understand the power grab you're attempting to make, but I don't grant your right to make it.

The term Christian is routinely and typically used in a very neutral way, in almanacs, encyclopedias, websites, histories, sociological studies, etc. Thus, to choose an illustration at random, it's generally agreed that roughly 10% of today's Egyptians are Christians. This is pretty non-controversial. Yet it's virtually certain that some of those counted as Christians are actually unbelievers, to say nothing of adulterers, fornicators, criminals, and the like. If we were obliged to go out and determine the precise moral character and theological viewpoint of everybody, and then to sit down in God's sit to judge each individual, before making so simple a statement as "ten percent of contemporary Egyptians are Christians," or "twelve percent of today's Koreans are Christians," most people would find that rather an absurd requirement.

I'm simply defending ordinary usage and ordinary language practice against people (apparently including yourself) who claim to control a word that actually belongs to the entire world, Christian and non-Christian. You have no proprietary right to control the term Christian. It's not yours.

I said LDS doctrine is not Christian doctrine, I have said that is my belief many times on this site

And I say, and have demonstrated in Offenders for a Word, that you have no sound historical or lexicographical basis for that declaration.

Have you read Offenders for a Word?

[Markk]

Hi Z,

I was under the impression you didn't want to have a discussion with me anymore, you bailed out of my last post to you and didn't respond in the several questions I asked, but, according to your blog that is the correct way to respond to "anti-mormons", but OK I'll bite.

I read your blog and so what? You again do not even understand LDS teaching in that according to LDS theology Christian were first called Christians about 7O years before the Christ was even born.

13 And he fastened on his head-plate, and his abreastplate, and his shields, and girded on his armor about his loins; and he took the pole, which had on the end thereof his rent coat, (and he called it the btitle of liberty) and he cbowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren, so long as there should a band of dChristians remain to possess the landâ??

14 For thus were all the true believers of Christ, who belonged to the church of God, called by those who did not belong to the church.

15 And those who did belong to the church were afaithful; yea, all those who were true believers in Christ btook upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or cChristians as they were called, because of their belief in Christ who should come.

16 And therefore, at this time, Moroni prayed that the cause of the Christians, and the afreedom of the land might be favored.

I suggest you read this and also notice the word Christ is used and re-work your theory on your blog.

Take care

MG

[Markk]

Hi Dan,

How ya doing,

I repeat my question: Have you read Offenders for a Word?

Several posts back I answered this question, but I've read more of your book since then. I first skimmed through it and then went back and started from the beginning and I am almost done with the first chapter, not a easy read with the foot notes, and I've heard most of these arguments in similar fashion before, I disagree with most of it. The first chapter reads very much like what you would call a "anti" book. But Dan, I plan to finish it even if it takes me awhile...Fair?

If you want to demonstrate that my portrayal of the use of the term is incorrect, the way to do so is clear: You need to gather your own evidence from the church fathers, the Reformers, modern historians, and the like, and, on that basis, to show that my description of the ways in which it has been used is incorrect.

I have no desire too, your portrayal and opinion is just.... another opinion? Zerinus as a saint has his opinion also, which I haven't quite figured out yet but I'm trying. Don't get me wrong I will discuss this with you and that's fine, but just because you wrote a book with your opinions doesn't make it fact or truth. Church fathers, Reformers, modern historians or alike are all over the board on any topic, if one thing is true, you can find anybody to agree with just about anything Dan...with all respect...so what! It is just like political polls, they (politicians) can find one to fit their current political agenda any time you want.

As I say, I offer, really, no definition of the term Christian, but simply study its historical use in various languages over the past two thousand years. I merely attempt to describe how the term has been applied since its origin.

You gave me your opinion last year....Because Christians are people for whom Jesus is uniquely normative, people for whom Jesus is Lord..." http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...0God&st=360 post 371

That's a opinion, there are allot of people that claim to be Christian who are not even close to having "Jesus as Lord". I know people that say they are Christian that have never read the bible, never really prayed, or have never been to church more than on Christmas or Easter. I worked with one for years, claimed to be Christian and NEVER went to church, prayed, or read a bible. Jesus is not his Lord...I think we both understand what Lordship is.

I base my views on this on both, right or wrong, what the Bible teaches, and, right or wrong, what the LDS church teaches/taught. I put high regard to the term Christian, it appears you do not, it is just a generic term. Were you would say a false christian is a christian, I would say that is a oxymoron. A false christian is just a word, a Christian is one who God saves.

So when I say that LDS theology is not Christian theology I believe that it is a false doctrine that can not lead a man to salvation. If you want to say that LDS theology is a false christian theology I have no proplem with that. But if you say LDS theology is Christian theology I will disagree wit that every time.

Also in the mix, that we have not discussed is the LDS teaching that they are the only TRUE church. And that the LDS church is organized and comes out and claims that all other "Christian" churches are apostate and that they teach a doctrine that is a abomination to God and if they ( the professors)believe it they are corrupt. In other words LDS believe they are the only true Christian Church and all the other Christian Churches are just false Christian Churches. Is this a fair analysis of LDS ideology?

You didn't answer this, it is important to my point?

As far as the Children of God, by your opinion you must concede they are Christians , even if they teach and practice pedophilia and open free sex under the banner of Christianity. And you said they were already last year:

..."Actually, although I haven't made a study of the Children of God, I suspect that they are (or were) Christians, and would be so classified by most scholars. Deviant in doctrine and repulsive in practice, but, yes, Christians."

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...f%20God&st= 400 post 401

I understand the power grab you're attempting to make, but I don't grant your right to make it.

The term Christian is routinely and typically used in a very neutral way, in almanacs, encyclopedias, websites, histories, sociological studies, etc. Thus, to choose an illustration at random, it's generally agreed that roughly 10% of today's Egyptians are Christians. This is pretty non-controversial. Yet it's virtually certain that some of those counted as Christians are actually unbelievers, to say nothing of adulterers, fornicators, criminals, and the like. If we were obliged to go out and determine the precise moral character and theological viewpoint of everybody, and then to sit down in God's sit to judge each individual, before making so simple a statement as "ten percent of contemporary Egyptians are Christians," or "twelve percent of today's Koreans are Christians," most people would find that rather an absurd requirement.

I'm simply defending ordinary usage and ordinary language practice against people (apparently including yourself) who claim to control a word that actually belongs to the entire world, Christian and non-Christian. You have no proprietary right to control the term Christian. It's not yours.

But your saying it's yours (the term) though...geez, are you really that full of yourself? "Power Grab", your thinking way to hard on this Dan.

Anyway I am reading your book, hope you answer my questions.

Take care

Mark

John 1:12

[Daniel Peterson]

I've heard most of these arguments in similar fashion before, I disagree with most of it.

I'll be interested to know on what basis you "disagree with most of it." Evidence and logical analysis will be nice.

Church fathers, Reformers, modern historians or alike are all over the board on any topic, if one thing is true, you can find anybody to agree with just about anything Dan...with all respect...so what!

I wish you good luck. Thus far, nobody has even attempted to mount a serious case -- grounded in the patristic literature, the writings of the Reformers, and respected modern scholarship -- against my thesis in Offenders for a Word. Even if you don't succeed, you'll be the first to make the try, and I'll honor that.

there are allot of people that claim to be Christian who are not even close to having "Jesus as Lord".

That's obvious. God will know how to judge them.

I'm less convinced that we mortals always know how to do so.

I know people that say they are Christian that have never read the bible,

That would, of course, have been the case with all Christians in the first century, and would have remained true for virtually all Christians until at least the appearance of Gutenberg's Bible in the mid-fifteenth century. It probably continued to be true of the large majority of Christians into the nineteenth century, and may well still be so today.

Do you, incidentally, believe that Catholicism is a Christian faith?

never really prayed, or have never been to church more than on Christmas or Easter. I worked with one for years, claimed to be Christian and NEVER went to church, prayed, or read a bible. Jesus is not his Lord...I think we both understand what Lordship is.

And yet almost all of these, if pushed to their limits, would cry out to Jesus, not to Lord Buddha. Where do you draw the line? What equips you to do so? Is it really your place to be their judge?

I base my views on this on both, right or wrong, what the Bible teaches

Can you point me to the passage(s) in which the Bible defines the term Christian?

I put high regard to the term Christian, it appears you do not

That's insulting and uncalled for.

I simply defend the ordinary way the term Christian is used.

When you go into a hospital in critical condition, the admitting officials will put a wrist band on your arm indicating whether you're Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or whatever. They will base their judgment on a simple question to somebody who knows you, if such a person is available. A nurse will do it, most likely. No panel of theologians will be summoned to evaluate whether, say, your view of the relationship between Christ's human and divine natures merits giving you a "Christian wrist band." No detectives will be summoned to determine whether or not you were faithful to your wife. Your family won't be interrogated to determine whether you prayed the requisite number of prayers per week or read a sufficient number of Bible verses per day.

A false christian is just a word, a Christian is one who God saves.

If you have any biblical passages that define the word in such a way, I'll be interested to see them.

So when I say that LDS theology is not Christian theology I believe that it is a false doctrine that can not lead a man to salvation. If you want to say that LDS theology is a false christian theology I have no proplem with that. But if you say LDS theology is Christian theology I will disagree wit that every time.

So, despite your denial, you do in fact have a definition of Christian/Christianity, and it excludes Mormons and Mormonism.

I repeat that I do not believe that such an exclusion can be justified on the basis of history and lexicography. You're welcome, of course, to attempt to prove my argument wrong on that point.

As far as the Children of God, by your opinion you must concede they are Christians , even if they teach and practice pedophilia and open free sex under the banner of Christianity. And you said they were already last year:

..."Actually, although I haven't made a study of the Children of God, I suspect that they are (or were) Christians, and would be so classified by most scholars. Deviant in doctrine and repulsive in practice, but, yes, Christians."

Obviously, we use the term Christian in different ways. I use it the way it has been historically used by humans in various languages over the past two thousand years, while you're endeavoring to turn it into a term of divine approval -- for which, incidentally, there is no precedent in the Bible.

[Gervin]

I wish you good luck. Thus far, nobody has even attempted to mount a serious case -- grounded in the patristic literature, the writings of the Reformers, and respected modern scholarship -- against my thesis in Offenders for a Word. Even if you don't succeed, you'll be the first to make the try, and I'll honor that

Can't we all at least agree that "Offenders For A Word" is probably one of the greatest, maybe the greatest apologetic work ever written. From the hallowed halls of higher learning to the great churches and cathedrals throughout all the lands ... no one person, no institution, and no hospital's emergency room admitting nurse - No One - has ever succeeded, nay even attempted, to challenge or otherwise overturn the theological precepts set forth in this tome that will live through the ages, likely surpassing such heretofore "credible" works like Pilgrim's Progress, The Cost of Dicipleship, and Imitation of Christ. Hear ye, hear ye, all who doubt my words. Google the title yourself and observe how the unflagging tenents, rock-solid theological underpinnings, and universal applications of this grand work are cited and referenced in any and all serious apologetic works dealing with the formidable topics of Christianity. It is essential, foundational, and unchallengable. It is seminal.

Besides, 10 people at amazon.com give it 5 stars.

[zerinus]

I read your blog and so what? You again do not even understand LDS teaching in that according to LDS theology Christian were first called Christians about 7O years before the Christ was even born.

13 And he fastened on his head-plate, and his abreastplate, and his shields, and girded on his armor about his loins; and he took the pole, which had on the end thereof his rent coat, (and he called it the btitle of liberty) and he cbowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren, so long as there should a band of dChristians remain to possess the landâ??

14 For thus were all the true believers of Christ, who belonged to the church of God, called by those who did not belong to the church.

15 And those who did belong to the church were afaithful; yea, all those who were true believers in Christ btook upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or cChristians as they were called, because of their belief in Christ who should come.

16 And therefore, at this time, Moroni prayed that the cause of the Christians, and the afreedom of the land might be favored.

I suggest you read this and also notice the word Christ is used and re-work your theory on your blog.

Take care

MG

I have read, and so what? Why should I need to â??reworkâ? it? The Book of Mormon content does not in any way alter the theological conclusions derived from the Bible with regard to the definition of the word â??Christianâ?. I did not include the Book of Mormon in that analysis because I was addressing people like you who do not believe in the Book of Mormon, and therefore do not consider it as a valid source of theological definitions. I confined myself to the Bible because that is the source that we can both agree upon as being a valid source of Christian theology. But if you have changed your mind and have decided to believe in the Book of Mormon, that is great; I look forward to seeing you being baptized very soon.

Actually, I had not left the Book completely out of that analysis. I did mention that the word â??discipleâ? occurs 54 (actually 55) times in the Book of Mormon, which forms the lynchpin of the theological definition of the word â??Christianâ? in the Bible; and that likewise it occurs in the Doctrine and Covenants, from which I had actually given quotes and discussed. In the Book of Mormon we find that its author or compiler, who was called Mormon, identifies himself as a disciple of Jesus Christâ??hence a true Christian:

3 Nephi 5

:

13 Behold, I am a disciple of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I have been called of him to declare his word among his people, that they might have everlasting life.

With regard to the passages you had quoted from Alma 46, I donâ??t see how that alters the theological definition of a Christian. It only enhances it and adds to its meaning. It tells us, most significantly, that to be a Christian literally means â??taking upon you the name of Christâ?. That is the literal meaning of it. Well, that is what Latter-day Saints do when they are baptized, or every time they partake of the sacrament (see Moroni 4:3; 2 Nephi 31:13; Mosiah 5:8; Mosiah 5:10; Mosiah 6:2; Mosiah 25:23; Alma 1:19; Alma 34:38; Alma 46:18; Alma 46:21; 3 Nephi 27:5, 6; Mormon 8:38; Moroni 6:3).

So I donâ??t really know what you are on about.

[Markk]

Hi Dan,

Obviously, we use the term Christian in different ways. I use it the way it has been historically used by humans in various languages over the past two thousand years, while you're endeavoring to turn it into a term of divine approval -- for which, incidentally, there is no precedent in the Bible.

It's gone full circle, LDS and yourself believe the term Christian is a generic term that can describe even a practicing pediphile, I based my opinion on scripture which disagrees with that. The bible is clear certain people will not go to Heaven and I, even base on your own definition of a christian (which by the way contradicts everything your saying here), that it is one that must have Jesus as Lord ( the true Jesus based on scripture).

This is my third request for you to answer my question:

Also in the mix, that we have not discussed is the LDS teaching that they are the only TRUE church. And that the LDS church is organized and comes out and claims that all other "Christian" churches are apostate and that they teach a doctrine that is a abomination to God and if they ( the professors)believe it they are corrupt. In other words LDS believe they are the only true Christian Church and all the other Christian Churches are just false Christian Churches. Is this a fair analysis of LDS ideology?

You had some good question below I'll answer later, playing some golf this morning, I'll get to them tonight.

Take Care

MG

[zerinus]

Also in the mix, that we have not discussed is the LDS teaching that they are the only TRUE church. And that the LDS church is organized and comes out and claims that all other "Christian" churches are apostate and that they teach a doctrine that is a abomination to God and if they ( the professors)believe it they are corrupt. In other words LDS believe they are the only true Christian Church and all the other Christian Churches are just false Christian Churches. Is this a fair analysis of LDS ideology?

No.

[Calm]

I know people that say they are Christian that have never read the bible

I take it if someone is illiterate this automatically disqualifies them from being "Christian" in your belief system?

[Daniel Peterson]

Notwithstanding your typical sneering, Gervin, your post is essentially correct.

Nobody has made a serious effort, so far, to refute the thesis of Offenders for a Word.

I personally believe that that thesis is unimpeachable. It's a small and limited one, but it's irrefutably correct.

[Gervin]

Notwithstanding your typical sneering, Gervin, your post is essentially correct.

Nobody has made a serious effort, so far, to refute the thesis of Offenders for a Word.

I personally believe that that thesis is unimpeachable. It's a small and limited one, but it's irrefutably correct

The world ignores your book and you call it vindication. Ride on, emperor.

[Markk]

Hi Dan,

I'll be interested to know on what basis you "disagree with most of it." Evidence and logical analysis will be nice.

I haven't read the whole book yet, so let's keep what I said in context, you have a way with exploiting context with your short snipped quotes. I disagree with most of what I have read so far and what I have skimmed through, I just want to make this clear.

The context we are discussing is whether or not LDS theology is Christian. I have asked some very important questions that you are obviously refusing to discuss that lends to why mainstream Christianity does not accept LDS theology as Christian. So far in my reading your book does not discuss the LDS teachings that are very negative to Christianity.

The LDS church believes and teaches that Christian doctrines are a abomination and that those who believe it are corrupt, again I don't believe you mentioned this in your book.

If what the LDS church teaches, that they alone are the only true Christian church, and that there is no other, it makes it very difficult in reality for there to be "other" Christians, if infact that all others are false Christians. I'ts kind of like having a bowl of real fruit and a bowl of wax fruit, the wax fruit can be called fruit but in reality it is not, and anybody that eats it finds out soon that it is only fruit by look.

You use opinions of "church fathers" who have never even heard of Mormonism or their doctrines, it would be safe to say that most, if not all would call LDS doctrine heretical.

You mentioned dog tags (DT's) in your book in the very first paragraph, dog tags as far as I know would have a "P" for protestant, a "C" for Catholic, "LDS" for a Mormon, and a "H" for a Jew. What is very interesting is the LDS church offers their own DT's and urge military families to buy them and have their sons and daughters attach them to their standard issue DT's. They also provide a "permission slip" from the church saying it is OK to attach them to their standard DT's. These LDS DT's do not say Christian on them, they say "Mormon", "LDS"(written out), "Mormon Temple" (with a Picture of the temple) and a message saying..." In case of need notify L.D.S. chaplain or member." Why doesn't it just say notify a Christian? It is because the LDS church believes and teaches Christians do not have authority to act in Gods name, they do not hold the priesthood and could not administer healing blessings in a time when a LDS member might be injured. This lends to my belief that the LDS church uses the term and name Christian in a generic sense and does not put much strength behind the name, after all we have zero authority according to LDS teachings.

Hundreds and perhaps thousands of fundamentalist and other conservative Protestants in the United States and abroad are working desperately to alert mankind to the dangerous "Satanic nature of the Christ-denying cult of Mormonism

This is a quote from your book in the first few paragraphs. The LDS church has Hundreds of thousands of people, spending hundreds of millions of dollars telling the world that what we believe as Christians is false, lost, and broken, that it is in a complete state of apostasy and that our doctrines are an abomination and that those that profess it are corrupt, and on top of that they teach that Jesus told their founder this face to face.

LDS theology wants to teach and believe these things about another's faith, that is very important to them , and then complain when some (very few percentage wise) defend their faith and denounce LDS teachings.

Of course, these critics would not gladly admit that their denial of Mormon Christianity rests upon subjective grounds; they claim instead to issue their judgment on the basis of cold, hard, objective facts, submitted to rigorous, value-neutral analysis.

No Dan, this is VERY Objective...

18 My object in going to ainquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)â??and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those bprofessors were all ccorrupt; that: â??they ddraw near to me with their lips, but their ehearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the fcommandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the gpower thereof.â?

Speaking of "so called chritian churches"... "such groups may accomplish much good. Theymay be a great comfort to their members. But when it comes to saving sould in the kingdom of God, that is a different story." (Which Church is Right?, page 17, 1982 edition)

Apostle Penrose wrote speaking of Christian people and churches... "Their power is only human, their decisions, their commissions and their creeds are equally valuless in the plan of salvation."

He also wrote, and this is very Important Dan in that this Apostle makes it very clear what the LDS teaches of today's Christian church... Look at so-called Christendom today! There is no inspired apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers..."

Here an LDS apostle clearly taught what they thought who were true Christians.

There are many quotes that call protestant churches harlots and the whore of Babylon, the Catholic church the abomination of the earth, I can go on and on how LDS teachings attack orthodox Christianity.

My point being here Dan is that you did not cover this in your book, at least in so much as I have read and skimmed through. And this is by far the "ROOT" and the "beginning " of why many believe that LDS theology is not Christian theology, how can there even be an attempt of unity, when LDS theology teaches that the main reason for the LDS church to even be organized is to fix a lost and broken Christian Church that has absolutly no authority. Your book in utterly nonesense and a strawman, by avoiding such a root reason of this issue.

More Later

Take care

Mark

John 1:12