Are Mormons Really Christian?

[Anakin7]

What is gospel principles? I have not heard of that, and I have been through the missionary lessons.

It is a New converts manual used for investigators/new members that they can read at home and is used in the Gospel Principles class at Church.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Calm]

What is gospel principles? I have not heard of that, and I have been through the missionary lessons.

Ask the missionaries for a copy, usually if an investigator goes to Church on Sunday this is the lesson manual they will be taught from. New converts will be given it as well. It is a great basic manual, provides a very easy, nicely organized, scripturally supported concise presentation of our doctrine and teachings. You can read it online (which has the added benefit of having the links to the scriptures at your fingertips) here: http://lds.org/ldsor...0004d82620aRCRD

It has about 40 chapters, but each chapter should take no more than 10 or 15 minutes to study even with scriptures references.

add-on: I try and make a habit of giving this link to any newcomer who seems sincerely interested in learning about LDS doctrine, even if the vast majority of them don't appear to read them as they keep asking questions that are answered by the manual...people generally prefer 'talking' to reading I guess. I had posted it and other links to online manuals several times right before or during your arrival and got confused into thinking I had posted this information to you before. So sorry I didn't as it may have saved you some significant time, however better late than never. Here's a copy of a post that has multiple manual links for newcomers and even longtimers who are interested in the basics:

Some recommendations to help with the confusion when new to the LDS faith:

Read the manuals available online (your ward library should have copies as well you can borrow or you can buy them online through the church distribution center...ask your ward librarian for help if you need it...for very cheaply, just a couple of dollars), specifically the Gospel Principles one if your missionaries haven't given that to you already---great for teaching the basic doctrine and how our faith fits together, not that good for teaching the cultural side of things as that is not its purpose.

see here for online copy, nice because you can link to the scriptures for quick references: http://lds.org/ldsor...0004d82620aRCRD

Also I would recommend the two volume LDS Woman, Part A and Part B, gets into the how tos more, though still pretty basic (and remember the 'ideal' or typical way is taught, but one is allowed to adapt certain things if one has limitations in that area, check with your church leaders if you have questions about what is and isn't appropriate, I would talk to several to get different ideas on how to make things work for you, then think about it and pray asking the Father which one He wants to you to do).

http://lds.org/manua...part-a?lang=eng

http://lds.org/manua...part-b?lang=eng

To see things from the man's side which can help with understanding what is expected of those who hold the priesthood and how the priesthood is supposed to interact in our lives even if we don't personally possess it or have it in our homes....

http://lds.org/manua...part-a?lang=eng

http://lds.org/manua...part-b?lang=eng

And if you are interested in how things are typically done, there is always part of the Church Handbook of Instructions which is useful for those who want to know the basics of their callings as well as some of the recommendations for certain policies, etc.

http://lds.org/handb...church?lang=eng

Handbook 1 is for Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics and not the general membership, but if you have a question from a topic in one of those, then ask your bishop and he may choose to either read it to you, let you read it yourself, or paraphase it. My opinion is that they don't put that handbook online so that members who are prone to be busybodies and know it alls aren't using the handbook to go to the bishop or other leaders and criticize how they are doing things because the Church leadership does want their leaders to rely mostly on the Spirit and use the handbook wisely, but not obsessively.

[Cold Steel]

Hi Cold Steel. I was very intrigued by what you said about this book, so I looked it up on Amazon and I'm going to purchase it for my Kindle. I was able to read the first chapter, however, and it intrigued me even more, because it very much fits in with where I have been going, myself, in regards to religion. ... I really do want to read this book. I am hooked, already. Thanks for the reference.

I just finished it and I, too, got the Kindle edition as I just bought the Kindle. Kindle users should know that the entire LDS Mobi-library can be transferred to their Kindles and can save them a bunch of $$$. Many books are ten bucks a pop on Kindle, so dropping less than a hundred bucks on the Library can be a bargain. I know these are available "used," but if you can find them in the prc format, they just transfer over.

Elane Durham's book is fairly solid and I can't poke any holes in it. I just finished Howard Storm's book on his NDE and much of it corresponds exactly. But other parts are troubling. Lance Richardson's The Message also is a good read, so don't miss it. It's not available through Kindle.

.

[Mudcat]

I'm very surprised at your experiences. I'm a recent convert and:

- I was told about spirit brothers by the mishies

- I was given a copy of Gospel Principles to take home and read.

Every investigator should read through Gospel Principles and ask questions. All my questions were answered.

I have had a few missionary discussions maybe 6 or 7 different sets of missionaries. I think it depends quite a lot on the missionary "couple" isn't the right term... "pair" maybe. Typically one does a great deal more talking than the other and the information dispensed is usually done by the more talkative one.

For the most part, the seemed to follow a very basic walk-through type format and didn't stray much from whatever their format was. In those situations, I would run into some theological brick walls and the missionaries would try and bring the conversation back into a format.

However two "sets" in particular were of a different sort. They were engaging and willing to let the conversation go in multiple directions. These were my favorite missionary discussions.

I think it just sort of depends on the person.

[coolrok7]

(The other issue raised by some others here concerning Lucifer being the spirit brother of Jesus as I quoted from their own teaching manual, I'll answer next as I don't think I received a fair hearing on the issue)

From post # 162:

Coolrok7

The bottom line here is that YES we have doctrines which are not included in the Bible, because we believe that revelation is not complete and is on-going.

We believe that none of the doctrines we do have are in conflict with the Bible- just that the bible is not complete, and that there are additional ordinances required, like the endowment, to reach the Celestial Kingdom.

You believe that the Bible is complete and the inerrant word of God (I am speaking for you at this point- that is my bleief about your beliefs which I freely acknowledge may be inaccurate)

I think the bottom line disagreement between us is that question- whether or not the Bible ends revelation from God or not, and whether or not Joseph was a prophet.

You believe he was a false "prophet", and I think he was a true prophet.

I further believe that there is no possible way to resolve this question except by appeal to testimony. I base my beliefs on my testimony that the LDS church is the truest church on the earth today, and you disagree.

I don't think there can be any resolution to that conflict.

While I appreciate your disclaimer on my behalf, what you refer to as,

[Pahoran]

Mola, your feelings can get you into trouble if you're not careful. I'm only interested in the truth here, not the spreading of lies. Some Mormons are guilty of the same in my experience.

Really? And what "experience" is that?

You guys/gals here at times assume a lot of things I haven't said or wasn't really saying what you thought I meant by what I said. I'm not saying that the war in heaven (pre-existence which I don't believe is Biblical for us) and all that goes with that is not touched upon in a teaching context. I didn't say what you said (that we "hide it" or that "we don't teach it to new members" is false.).

What I'm saying is that in all the discussions I had with missionaries or any other member of the Church, not once did they mention that Lucifer was the spirit brother of Jesus, using this terminology as it is in the book I referenced earlier (they did talk about all of us, angels and men are considered as being sons of God in the same way; which I don't believe, also for biblicl reasons).

So the "spreading of lies" consists of precisely this: that they taught the correct doctrine with the correct emphasis instead of the "shlock-value" emphasis that you, exclusively for propaganda reasons, prefer.

Note that bald statements like "Lucifer was the spirit brother of Jesus," divorced from their proper context, imply that the pre-existent relationship between Jesus and Satan was particularly close, or in some way "special."

This implication is false. We have NO such doctrine.

And the fact that it is false is sufficient explanation for the phenomenon of Protestant propagandists screaming about it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

So the "spreading of lies" consists of precisely this: that they taught the correct doctrine with the correct emphasis instead of the "shlock-value" emphasis that you, exclusively for propaganda reasons, prefer.

Note that bald statements like "Lucifer was the spirit brother of Jesus," divorced from their proper context, imply that the pre-existent relationship between Jesus and Satan was particularly close, or in some way "special."

This implication is false. We have NO such doctrine.

There is nothing significantly important about Lucifer and Jesus being spirit brothers outside of the 'generic' spiritual relationship all mankind has with Christ (we all---including Lucifer---are his spiritual siblings).

Why in the world would we then have to make a specific point about the relationship between Lucifer and Christ since it has nothing to do with why Lucifer chose to do what he did (he was after God's glory, not Christ's, he wanted us to worship him, etc.) The only relationship that existed between Lucifer and Christ that has any significant relevance to LDS doctrine is that Lucifer stood in opposition to God while Christ humbled himself and was willing to do God's work....and this is what is taught over and over again.

Complaining that LDS don't emphasize this particular concept in our teachings is like complaining we don't officially label celestial marriage as "celestial sex". I remember a conversation with Richard Abanes who supported his usage of the term "celestial sex" with the claim that was how Evangelicals (Protestants, nonLDS...can't remember if there was a specific group mentioned, but his overall presentation tended to be heavily based on Evangelical sources and paradigms) understood what LDS belief was about life in the Celestial Kingdom. He ignored, IIRC, the point that if his book was to help nonLDS understand what LDS really believed, he should teach the correct LDS view, not the misunderstood nonLDS view; otherwise he was just perpetuating confusion, misunderstanding and falsehoods. Since he did not retract his claim in his second edition, IIRC, (and he continued to claim that its usage was appropriate after being challenged on it on the message board) it seems he didn't care enough about teaching what LDS really believe despite his claims to do so.

That one has to go back to the 40s to find a specific comment only demonstrates this is not a significant part of LDS teaching, but is merely an implication of it (the actual teaching being we are all spirit children). Therefore those who focus on the very minor implied point rather than the very major doctrinal concept are doing no one, especially themselves, favours in helping them to understand what LDS doctrine and what LDS believe and what this all means about their relationship with Christ and the Father.

As a side note, on occasion I will be asked this question (due to the big to do about it among anti-mormons in most cases) by a nonLDS friend. I will explain the actual doctrine and how that minor point fits into it; the most common reaction is 'yeah, that makes sense' along with 'that's a nice thought' in reference to us being literal children of God (though some point out that as nice as it sounds, it can't be correct due to the distinction being God, the creator and man, his creature...which of course goes into the discussion on the eternal nature of man if I didn't go into it already in explaining how God's creatures could also be his literal children).

[coolrok7]

For all that are accusing me of being guilty of things that I

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Many of the same folks who don't believe we LDS are Christians also don't believe that Catholics are Christian.

Good point...

[Vance]

LUCIFER

[mfbukowski]

I always try to go to the source of a quote rather than just take someone

[coolrok7]

If this is addressed to me, I apologize.

I was not aware I did this, and still am not aware of where I did it if I did.

In the future, it would be helpful that when you quote someone, you would include the reference to whom you are quoting- ideally by cutting and pasting the name and quote number from the original quote so that it catches the eye of the person you are quoting.

Leaving a string of quotes unreferenced makes it more difficult for me to know if you are addressing me or someone else, or even, frankly, if I said that

Sorry about that. I usually try to do what I underlined above. When I get a chance I'll go back and put where the quote/name attatched to it comes from. It wasn't so much you in a sense because I was interacting with some of what you had earlier stated when others kicked in and started making accusations that are not true. I can see now looking back where you would get confused.

I don't like criticism when it is not accurate, any more than anyone else does. Criticism is ok with me if I'm deserving of it, if it is accurate (without the usual fangs that go with it).

As I said earlier I'm interested in the truth, not the spreading of or the repeating of lies made by ignorance or intentional. Claims of truth and being the truth can be two different things at times.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Not that the teaching is that much of an issue for me- but it is weird the JFS said "the spirit-brother of Jesus" not "a spirit-brother of Jesus". It does, to the untrained eye, look as though he is putting Lucifer and Jesus on a different relational level then Jesus and us.

(BTW, I personally believe that Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of the Father from the beginning, and we become His sons and daughters through repentance, obedience to the commandments and ordinances, and enduring faithful to the end. Before then we are merely His creation.)

[coolrok7]

There, fixed the emphasis for you coolrok7!

Not true as it didn't need fixing as I provided the whole quote to begin with (it wasn't for emphasis). It was to point out both the statement and the context and/or source of the statement. As I said, not once did I see in writing (except for the book which doesn't necessarily mean it isn't anywhere else) or hear the statement from the mouth of a Mormon.

[Vance]

The Bible does teach that Jesus is our brother (not Lucifer

[mfbukowski]

Well, let's see here coolrok7.

We have this;

Job 1:6

[coolrok7]

Well, let's see here coolrok7.

We have this;

Job 1:6

[Vance]

I already acknowledged that angels and men are identified as sons of God but our beginnings are different and are at different times (as angels were created before man, prior the garden of Eden).

I am going to CFR the bold part.

Did you know that John the Baptist is an angel? The Bible (in the Greek) says so.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G32&t=KJV

Jesus is the creator of all things (even the angelic host) here stated in Colossians as was before all things:

Speaking of things PHYSICAL, not things spiritual.

Did you know that Genesis describes TWO creations?

Jesus was already God in the Godhead.

Yes, "in the beginning" of the PHYSICAL (or second) creation.

He

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I already acknowledged that angels and men are identified as sons of God but our beginnings are different and are at different times (as angels were created before man, prior the garden of Eden). Adam was created out of the dust of the earth and Eve was formed from a part of Adam.

Weather or not angels were created at a different time is totally irrelevant. Being created at a different time or even in a different manner does not mean that some how they are not the "Sons of God".

The reference you cite is pre-Jesus becoming a man (the Virgin conception/birth). Jesus is the creator of all things (even the angelic host) here stated in Colossians as was before all things:

Which again has nothing what so ever to do with the text in Job.

Jesus was already God in the Godhead. He

[mfbukowski]

I echo Vance

Likewise.

And Mola.

Angels are men and not ontologically different. They are called to act as messengers. You know, kind of like working for UPS!

[coolrok7]

(note: in any thing I say here I

[Vance]

As God is the creator of both men and angels, the nature of our creation is different . . .

This is a presumption on your part. It is not Bible based.

. . . in that men are born of Adam and Eve (who were formed out of the dust of the ground and as far as the angels go, . . .

This is a description of their PHYSICAL creation, it doesn't address their SPIRITUAL creation.

You do know that man is more than just a physical being, right?

. . . their created process is not described Biblically . . .

So, like I said, you are PRESUMING something that can't be supported by the Bible. This reveals two things.

1) You don't have a clue and therefore are left with a presumption.

2) The Bible is INSUFFICIENT.

. . . but is that of being spirit only , not flesh and bone.

This fails to reconcile the fact (brought up earlier) that John the Baptist is described as an angel in several verses.

You, obviously have failed to review the link I provided to support this claim.

Until you address this issue, further discussion with you on this topic is useless.

I Biblically disagree with the statement that

[coolrok7]

Vance, our

[Vance]

Vance, our

[Vance]

The pre-existence of man in heaven is Mormon teaching, not Biblical doctrinal teaching):

Ah, but it is. You just don't want to see or acknowledge it. We can go into this if you want, otherwise I won't waste my time.

Being born when it comes to humanity came after being created not the other way around.

Purely an ASSUMPTION on your part.

The fact that the term,