Evangelical’S Highest Authority Says Mormons Are Christians

[maklelan]

"The LDS Church is the only true church."

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true church (Doctrine and Covenants [D&C] 1:30); all other churches are "wrong," all their creeds an "abomination," and all who profess them are "corrupt" (Joseph Smith, History 1:19, Pearl of Great Price).

Joseph Smith didn't say "all who profess them are corrupt," he said "all their professors are corrupt." What leads you to assert your interpretation instead of the interpretation that understands him to be talking about their theologians and scholars? Perhaps it's not you who interprets it this way, but the original author of your quote, whom you fail to cite.

Those of creedal or traditional Christianity have adopted "pagan beliefs" and are part of "false Christianity" (Gospel Principles, 100 [1979 edition]).

That chapter speaks specifically of Constantine's adoption of Christianity as pagan, although you don't have to cite the 1979 edition. You can cite the current one. Also, while the Church holds this belied about the apostasy, it works tirelessly to build bridges with other Christian faiths, as well non-Christian faiths. While it obviously believes that it has an authority the others lack, it does not diminish or marginalize their devotion to Christ or their Christianity. The story is quite different with fundamental Evangelicalism.

One either belongs to "the church of the Lamb of God" or to "the church of the devil" (1 Nephi 14:10). Joseph Smith taught that everybody but faithful Mormons will be damned.

He said many Mormons would be damned, too. Why don't you take this as the rhetoric it is instead of trying to insist this represents some well-reasoned statement of doctrine? Oh, I forgot. You didn't write this.

It might serve Mr. Bowman to remember the state of mind of his adversaries on this board.

It might serve you to be a bit more honest.

[maklelan]

Excuse me, I was only trying to help the Christian out a bit by quoting directly LDS doctrine. Since when is quoting official LDS doctrine 'deceiving or 'creating new cloth?"

Gospel Principles does not constitute official LDS doctrine, nor does Joseph Smith's hyperbolic quote about all non-Mormons and many Mormons being damned if they don't shape up.

[KevinG]

You can tell my state of mind by reading quotes of manuals wrested out of context on anti-mormon web sites!!!

Wow. That's quite a talent.

[LeSellers]

Joseph Smith didn't say "all who profess them are corrupt," he said "all their professors are corrupt."

Not quite.

He recorded that Jesus had told him that "... those professors were all corrupt". There's a difference, and it is not trivial.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

He said many Mormons would be damned, too. Why don't you take this as the rhetoric it is instead of trying to insist this represents some well-reasoned statement of doctrine? Oh, I forgot. You didn't write this.

As I read LDS doctrine, it is only Saints (one-time Saints we might specify) who can be damned, depending on the definition of "damnation".

Lehi

[maklelan]

Not quite.

He recorded that Jesus had told him that "... those professors were all corrupt". There's a difference, and it is not trivial.

Lehi

Yeah, I paraphrased. The difference really throws more support behind reading it as a reference to theologians and scholars.

[cdowis]

Excuse me, I was only trying to help the Christian out a bit by quoting directly LDS doctrine. Since when is quoting official LDS doctrine 'deceiving or 'creating new cloth?"

May I point out the obvious, that you were giving your own "summary" of what we believe, mingled with citations out of context. You are giving your personal interpretation of our beliefs. As you yourself admit, this is for those outside the church, to "help" them, selling your brand of hatred and bigotry (the 2011 edition).

Those who are informed know better and your attempt to deceive them will fail.

Edited November 1, 2011 by cdowis

[LeSellers]

The difference really throws more support behind reading it as a reference to theologians and scholars.

Yes, I believe it does.

"Those professors" refers to a specific group, and here we see that it is the "professors" Joseph spoke of in his history: the ones in charge of the "excitement" he mentioned: Reverend Lang Lane, for instance.(Sorry about the typo: old fingers or memory).

Lehi

Edited November 2, 2011 by LeSellers

[cdowis]

We believe:

The next life is based on ourselves, the decisions we make. Each of us is given the opportunity to become fully informed and to make our choices on that information.

We invite all to come to Christ. To take the good that they already have and to add to it the fullness of the Gospel.

All religions teach and practice principles of truth and the gospel, but there is only one organization on this earth that teaches the fullness of the Gospel.

Edited November 1, 2011 by cdowis

[IloveaMormon]

If only that were true.

When done it isn't. When it is claimed, but not done, then it is deceiving.

My apologies. I misquoted. You are right. I am wrong.

[mfbukowski]

My apologies. I misquoted. You are right. I am wrong.

If you really do love a Mormon, if I were you, I would think it is important to get it right. His (I presume you are female from your avatar) religion is not quite what you think it is. If you want the truth, you should go here:

http://mormon.org/

[ERayR]

We believe:

The next life is based on ourselves, the decisions we make. Each of us is given the opportunity to become fully informed and to make our choices on that information.

Iinvite all to come to Christ. To take the good that they already have and to add to it the fullness of the Gospel.

All religions teach and practice principles of truth and the gospel, but there is only one organization on this earth that teaches the fullness of the Gospel.

The next life is based on the Atonement of Jesus

Christ. The whole plan from begining to end is based on the Atonement.

[Gervin]

Yes, I believe it does.

"Those professors" refers to a specific group, and here we see that it is the "professors" Joseph spoke of in his history: the ones in charge of the "excitement" he mentioned: Reverend Lang, for instance.

Lehi

You mentioned this Lang awhile back and there doesn't seem to be any evidence that he was the object of God's wrath. I'd be curious to see any information that calls out Lang and the reasons he was corrupt. Also, who were the other professors?

[KevinG]

In verse 9-10 of the Joseph Smith History prior to the statement about them not being correct there are some words that describe perhaps why the Lord was displeased with them.

9 My mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult were so great and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all the powers of both reason and sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were in error. On the other hand, the Baptists and Methodists in their turn were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others.

10 In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be ^aright, which is it, and how shall I know it?

tumult, war, sophistry, prove their errors, make them think they were in error, decidedly against... I'd say there was reason to be displeased with the way they were carrying on.

[Pahoran]

You mentioned this Lang awhile back and there doesn't seem to be any evidence that he was the object of God's wrath. I'd be curious to see any information that calls out Lang and the reasons he was corrupt. Also, who were the other professors?

First, a clarification: his name wasn't Lang, it was Lane.

Second: that "object of God's wrath" seems to be your own original contribution to the discussion; IOW, you appear to have made it up.

If you can't deal with what Joseph actually wrote, but have to replace it with a sneering caricature of your own, then you've already lost.

The Lord nowhere says that "those professors" were the objects of His "wrath." Instead, He simply dismisses them as "corrupt."

As to who the other ones were, if we go with Lehi's and Dan's interpretation, it would seem to be the rest of the local preachers and pastors, whose evangelical zeal was so quickly turned to sectarian quarrelling.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Hannah Rebekah]

"The LDS Church is the only true church."

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true church (Doctrine and Covenants [D&C] 1:30); all other churches are "wrong," all their creeds an "abomination," and all who profess them are "corrupt" (Joseph Smith, History 1:19, Pearl of Great Price). Those of creedal or traditional Christianity have adopted "pagan beliefs" and are part of "false Christianity" (Gospel Principles, 100 [1979 edition]). One either belongs to "the church of the Lamb of God" or to "the church of the devil" (1 Nephi 14:10). Joseph Smith taught that everybody but faithful Mormons will be damned.

It might serve Mr. Bowman to remember the state of mind of his adversaries on this board.

Either you are naive are just plain clueless. This should help you get up to speed:

http://www.cometozar...osser-owen.html

Also, just so you know, LDS Christians unlike other historical Christians don't claim to be 4th or 16^th century traditional Christians. Mormons are a restoration of the 1st century Christians.

Non-LDS Theological scholar Ernst W. Benz (1907-1982) a longtime professor of church history and dogma at the University of Marburg in Germany and one of the leading experts in the world of the Ancient Christian Church argued that Joseph Smith’s major contribution was that he offered a complete reinterpretation of the orthodox Christian concept of the nature of God and his views was closer to the original church.

“One thing is certain: Joseph Smith’s anthropology is closer to the concept of man of the original church than that of the protagonists of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, who considered the idea of such a fundamental and corporeal relationship as the quintessential heresy.” Ernst Wilhelm Benz, Archetype and Image: Man and the Mythical World, p. 326.

Now please show me how your beliefs are close to the 1st century Christians.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Hannah Rebekah

[cdowis]

The next life is based on the Atonement of Jesus

Christ. The whole plan from begining to end is based on the Atonement.

Every house has a foundation, and the atonement is that foundation. But the foundation alone does not make a house. We accept Christ's teaching that some will be on His left hand, and others will be on His right hand. That will be based on our choices in life.

Edited November 2, 2011 by cdowis

[diglot]

Non-LDS Theological scholar Ernst W. Benz (1907-1982) a longtime professor of church history and dogma at the University of Marburg in Germany and one of the leading experts in the world of the Ancient Christian Church argued that Joseph Smith’s major contribution was that he offered a complete reinterpretation of the orthodox Christian concept of the nature of God and his views was closer to the original church.

“One thing is certain: Joseph Smith’s anthropology is closer to the concept of man of the original church than that of the protagonists of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, who considered the idea of such a fundamental and corporeal relationship as the quintessential heresy.” Ernst Wilhelm Benz, Archetype and Image: Man and the Mythical World, p. 326.

Can you provide a fuller context for that quote? I am puzzled as to why Benz links the Augustinian doctrine of original sin together with the corporeality of God (I am assuming "corporeal relationship" is in reference to men being made in the imago Dei, hence the corporeality of God).

I don't see how the two ideas (original sin, and corporeality of God) are related.

Edited November 2, 2011 by diglot

[Gervin]

First, a clarification: his name wasn't Lang, it was Lane.

Ok, Lane

Second: that "object of God's wrath" seems to be your own original contribution to the discussion; IOW, you appear to have made it up.

I was simply using my words to describe the sentiment of the statement. Would you prefer I say "God's disappointment" or "God's displeasure"? Why not focus on the point of the CFR?

If you can't deal with what Joseph actually wrote, but have to replace it with a sneering caricature of your own, then you've already lost.

Lost? Lost what? I asked to get information about the names and actions of the "corrupt professors." It either can be provided, or it can't.

As to who the other ones were, if we go with Lehi's and Dan's interpretation, it would seem to be the rest of the local preachers and pastors, whose evangelical zeal was so quickly turned to sectarian quarrelling.

Who were these men and what did they do, specifically, to incur God's description of them as corrupt? Were they unique in displaying their corrupt nature and, if so, how?

[LeSellers]

You mentioned this Lang awhile back and there doesn't seem to be any evidence that he was the object of God's wrath. I'd be curious to see any information that calls out Lang and the reasons he was corrupt. Also, who were the other professors?

Thanks for the heads up. I changed the name "Lang" to the correct "Lane". My typo.

What's this "God's wrath" stuff? Joseph didn't say anything about His wrath, only that "those professors were all corrupt" (which does not necessarily mean they were evil personified, although I think they may have come close).

Who were these men and what did they do, specifically, to incur God's description of them as corrupt? Were they unique in displaying their corrupt nature and, if so, how?

"Those professors" were the ones whom Joseph mentioned here:

5 Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester, there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country. Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the people, some crying, “Lo, here!” and others, “Lo, there!” Some were contending for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist.

6 For, notwithstanding the great love which the converts to these different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion, and the great zeal manifested by the respective clergy, who were active in getting up and promoting this extraordinary scene of religious feeling, in order to have everybody converted, as they were pleased to call it, let them join what sect they pleased; yet when the converts began to file off, some to one party and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts were more pretended than real; for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued—priest contending against priest, and convert against convert; so that all their good feelings one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions.

...

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

...

21 Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them.

22 I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase; and though I was an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age, and my circumstances in life such as to make a boy of no consequence in the world, yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects—all united to persecute me.

23 It caused me serious reflection then, and often has since, how very strange it was that an obscure boy, of a little over fourteen years of age, and one, too, who was doomed to the necessity of obtaining a scanty maintenance by his daily labor, should be thought a character of sufficient importance to attract the attention of the great ones of the most popular sects of the day, and in a manner to create in them a spirit of the most bitter persecution and reviling. But strange or not, so it was, and it was often the cause of great sorrow to myself.

The Reverend Mr. George Lane was the Methodist, I believe, to whom Joseph referred in v. 21.

One wonders, too, if "their creeds" were more than the formal statements (Nicean, Apostles, etc.) but included informal beliefs, like "visions and revelations ... had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them."

Lehi

Edited November 2, 2011 by LeSellers

[Robert F. Smith]

It seems to me that you have misunderstood D&C 91. It doesn't say that some things may legitimately be called scripture at one time, and not scripture at another time. If something is not scripture at one time, it is not scripture at any time. Or if something is scripture at one time, it is scripture at all time. D&C 91 makes a categorical statement about that portion of the Bible (in certain canons) commonly known as the Apocrypha. It doesn't say anything about something being scripture at one time, and not being scripture at another time.

D&C 91 doesn't address the broader historical question, and we know for certain that some items have been included in the official Canon at one time and then eliminated from it at another. For example, what we know now as Ethiopic Enoch (not a part of the Apocrypha) was once part of the official Judeo-Christian Canon, and was later eliminated. The same applies more recently to the Lectures on Faith. The formal categories of "scripture," "Holy Scripture," and "Canon" do not always coincide, even if they sometimes overlap. As you know, different religious groups have different Canons.

[Robert F. Smith]

You said:

So, if 1 Enoch was scripture, and it is extant today, why doesn't the LDS Church include it among its "standard works"?

So, what is the point of arguing that it ever was scripture? Why do Mormons constantly trot out lists of "lost books of the Bible" (and they typically include 1 Enoch in those lists)?

We rely on God to instruct us on what should be included in the official Canon. That does not of course mean that we cannot learn much from apocryphal and pseudepigraphal material, or from any other ancient writings. The context is so important.

We trot out lists of "lost books" for the same reasons that non-Mormons James Charlesworth and Bart Ehrman do: To broaden the perspective of those who don't realize the history of the Canon and how it was formed, and who therefore make claims which cannot be supported by actual history. See Charlesworth's comments in his Introduction to his Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, volume I:xxi-xxxiv.

[zerinus]

D&C 91 doesn't address the broader historical question, . . .

Which broader historical question?

. . . and we know for certain that some items have been included in the official Canon at one time and then eliminated from it at another. . . . The formal categories of "scripture," "Holy Scripture," and "Canon" do not always coincide, even if they sometimes overlap. As you know, different religious groups have different Canons.

I never said they did. I was talking about scripture, not about canon. I said that if something is scripture at one time, it is scripture at all time (in or out of the canon); or if something is not scripture at one time, it is not scripture at any time (in or out of the canon).

For example, what we know now as Ethiopic Enoch (not a part of the Apocrypha) was once part of the official Judeo-Christian Canon, and was later eliminated.

I am not sure that we "know" any such thing. At best we can make guesses.

The same applies more recently to the Lectures on Faith.

What applies to the Lectures on Faith? If it was scripture then, it is scripture now, in or out of the canon. If it was not scripture then, it is not so now, in or out of the canon.

Edited November 3, 2011 by zerinus

[Rob Bowman]

Robert,

You wrote:

We rely on God to instruct us on what should be included in the official Canon. That does not of course mean that we cannot learn much from apocryphal and pseudepigraphal material, or from any other ancient writings. The context is so important.

We trot out lists of "lost books" for the same reasons that non-Mormons James Charlesworth and Bart Ehrman do: To broaden the perspective of those who don't realize the history of the Canon and how it was formed, and who therefore make claims which cannot be supported by actual history. See Charlesworth's comments in his Introduction to his Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, volume I:xxi-xxxiv.

Actually, Ehrman trots out such lists in order to attack the very idea of a canon. In my experience, Mormons trot out the lists to establish that the Bible is missing scripture and therefore needs to be supplemented with additional scriptures, which Joseph Smith claimed to be the instrument for providing. But if the LDS scriptures do not restore the supposed lost books, then those lists are irrelevant; and if the LDS Church fails to restore one of these supposedly lost scriptures when it is extant, then the recitation of such lists is negated by that failure. Now I grant that Mormons take the position that 1 Enoch in its extant form(s) is not identical to the original book of Enoch, but it makes the same claim about the canonical books of the Bible. So again, the arguments seem inconsistent.

[Pahoran]

Actually, Ehrman trots out such lists in order to attack the very idea of a canon. In my experience, Mormons trot out the lists to establish that the Bible is missing scripture and therefore needs to be supplemented with additional scriptures, which Joseph Smith claimed to be the instrument for providing. But if the LDS scriptures do not restore the supposed lost books, then those lists are irrelevant; and if the LDS Church fails to restore one of these supposedly lost scriptures when it is extant, then the recitation of such lists is negated by that failure. Now I grant that Mormons take the position that 1 Enoch in its extant form(s) is not identical to the original book of Enoch, but it makes the same claim about the canonical books of the Bible. So again, the arguments seem inconsistent.

Rob, you really must try to break the habit of telling us why we do what we do. I realise that this would be fatal to all forms of anti-Mormonism, but you need to break it anyway.

The reality is that we "trot out" those lists to establish this sole fact: that the idolatrous notion of a perfect and inerrant canon is false. (This idolatrous notion is linked to a whole raft of other idolatrous notions, incidentally, one of which is the idea that the Bible is some kind of living being that can consciously choose to authorise a person to carry out specific acts, simply by allowing them to interpret passages in a particular way; but I digress.) A bibliolater naturally expects the loss of scriptural books to be made good by the restoration of those particular books; however, someone who really and actually (and not merely as a matter of lip service) gives God priority over the Bible is happy to accept a restoration of whatever truths we presently lack, including (but not limited to) whatever truths might once have been contained in those missing books.

If only you could wean yourself away from the comforting but idolatrous notion of a closed canon, you'd find the reality of living in a time when the fountains of revelation are flowing again to be exciting and invigorating.

Regards,

Pahoran