Offenders For A Word Falls Short

[thesometimesaint]

From the Watch Tower

http://www.watchtower.org/e/bh/article_04.htm

[Zakuska]

Really, that's news to me. So did JS teach that Jesus and the Holy Ghost were with the Father when he was a man on another planet? Or how did the Godhead exist before Jesus was the first born spirit son of the Father?

Do not the scriptures teach Christ was in the Bossom of the father from all eternity.? D&C 76 declares that.

So yes Christ existed from all eternity just like the father did.

[djholmess]

So while you are willing to establish the rules of an interfaith dialogue on who is and isn't a Christian, you are not willing to abide by those rules and instead keep going back to simply your opinion without actual documentation from the NT. Got it. Not particularly interested in having a discussion on this anyway. I let God judge myself.

I think you misunderstood my intention. I never said this was the time or place for such a debate. I said that in order to even have the debate in the first place it would be very helpful if both sides recognised the differing views held by each side.

On this thread many people have been unable to understand why an Evangelical would want to say Mormons aren't Christians. I've simply been trying to explain that based on what we believe the NT teaches we believe we must be clear is saying you aren't.

It seems to me that again and again LDS won't accept that the Evangelical thinks the differences are too big. I know the LDS position is that the differences aren't but until it is recognised that Evangelicals think they are any debate is pointless.

[Vance]

Oh, boy!!! Here we go again.

This is neither the topic nor useful place (very heated) to discuss this in detail but I'm sure you're familiar with how a Evangelical would present this.

1) OT teaches monotheism - only 1 God in existence; Jehovah

Josh. 22:22 The Lord God of gods, the Lord God of gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression against the Lord, (save us not this day,)

Deut. 10:17 For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

Ps. 136:2 O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever.

Dan. 2:47 The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.

Dan. 11:36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

So, are these other gods in existence or not?

2) The NT presents the Father as Jehovah

3)The NT presents the Son as Jehovah

Whatever!

4) The NT presents the Holy Spirit as God along with the Son and Father.

Not true. NOWHERE in the NT is the Holy Spirit described as God.

All I’ve been trying to say here is that Evangelicals hold a certain belief about Jesus and our belief is different to yours and to us the difference is so great that we do not think you follow the same Jesus.

It is ok if you want to believe in a different Jesus. We will gladly continue in believing in the real one.

In that regard I am not saying anything different to your Prophet Brigham Young

"Should you ask why we differ from other Christians, as they are called, it is simply because they are not Christians as the New Testament defines Christianity" (Journal of Discourses 10:230).

Whatever.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Vance

[Calm]

If this is not the time for a discussion about what makes a Christian or not, then why are you discussing such in your own posts?

On this thread many people have been unable to understand why an Evangelical would want to say Mormons aren't Christians.

I think most, if not all, understand why an EV wants to say LDS aren't Christian. They just don't all agree that it is a valid reason.

[Zakuska]

I think you misunderstood my intention. I never said this was the time or place for such a debate. I said that in order to even have the debate in the first place it would be very helpful if both sides recognised the differing views held by each side.

On this thread many people have been unable to understand why an Evangelical would want to say Mormons aren't Christians. I've simply been trying to explain that based on what we believe the NT teaches we believe we must be clear is saying you aren't.

It seems to me that again and again LDS won't accept that the Evangelical thinks the differences are too big. I know the LDS position is that the differences aren't but until it is recognised that Evangelicals think they are any debate is pointless.

The flip side of this is we beleive the same thing about you. So where does that leave us?

Two guesses.

[Calm]

I know the LDS position is that the differences aren't but until it is recognised that Evangelicals think they are any debate is pointless.

From what I've seen, most LDS think the debate is pointless to begin with even though they recognize that EVs think there is a need for debate. It is the EVs who are constantly pushing for a debate.

LDS leave the topic that EVs want to debate in the hands of God, the Eternal Judge.

If you want to discuss how we can become better Christians, LDS are willing to do that from what I've seen. Not so interested in debating who is and who isn't a Christian, whether good, bad or indifferent.

Edited July 31, 2012 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

From the Watch Tower

http://www.watchtowe.../article_04.htm

Here is part of a quote from the Watch Tower website on the "where are the dead" topic, that I didn't know was a belief...

"Jehovah had no reason to sustain disobedient Adam and Eve forever. They died, just as he had said they would. Adam and Eve ceased to exist. They did not pass on to the spirit realm. We know this because of what Jehovah said to Adam after confronting him with his disobedience. God said: “You [will] return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.” (Genesis 3:19) God had made Adam from the dust of the ground. (Genesis 2:7) Before that, Adam did not exist. Therefore, when Jehovah said that Adam would return to the dust, He meant that Adam would return to a state of nonexistence. Adam would be as lifeless as the dust from which he was made."

Wow, pretty interesting...I didn't know they believed Adam and Eve weren't saved for their sin of partaking the fruit of good and evil....it seems a bit harsh. But everyone's beliefs are different and we are commanded to love one another as He has loved us.....So Evangelicals and Mormons why are we haggling over the word Christian and being the one who can rightly carry the name....if we read the definition it clearly can be worn by several faith systems....

Chris·tian (krschn)

adj.

1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.

3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.

4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.

5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.

n.

1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Tacenda

[Zakuska]

Oh, boy!!! Here we go again.

Josh. 22:22 The Lord God of gods, the Lord God of gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression against the Lord, (save us not this day,)

Deut. 10:<a name="17">17 For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

Ps. 136:2 O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever.

Dan. 2:47 The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.

Dan. 11:36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

So, are these other gods in existence or not?

Another question... How can "non-existant" beings sing praises to and OBEY the one true God?

“Rejoice with him, O heavens;

bow down to him, all gods,

for he avenges the blood of his children

and takes vengeance on his adversaries.

He repays those who hate him

and cleanses his people's land.”

(Deuteronomy 32:43 ESV)

When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.

(Deuteronomy 32:

Edited July 31, 2012 by Zakuska

[Vance]

On this thread many people have been unable to understand why an Evangelical would want to say Mormons aren't Christians.

What if we believe that the reason you present is just an excuse to cover the real reason, which is to create a drastic "otherness" to prevent "sheep stealing"?

I've simply been trying to explain that based on what we believe the NT teaches we believe we must be clear is saying you aren't.

See above.

It seems to me that again and again LDS won't accept that the Evangelical thinks the differences are too big.

You are free to think and argue whatever you want. But your arguments are unconvincing.

I know the LDS position is that the differences aren't but until it is recognised that Evangelicals think they are any debate is pointless.

You think the differences are too big to allow us the title of "Christian". We get that. Do you get it that we think your arguments for exclusion are ridiculous? Do you get it that it is painfully obvious that any argument you present to exclude us also excludes other groups that you would include as Christian, and therefore your argument is unconvincing?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I think most, if not all, understand why an EV wants to say LDS aren't Christian. They just don't all agree that it is a valid reason.

Correct we all know why...it just seems they want to tell us constantly in hopes that we will agree. in their attempts to define the word they seek to own it...by owning it they hope to control the discussion thus having a copyright to the term.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This is neither the topic nor useful place (very heated) to discuss this in detail but I'm sure you're familiar with how a Evangelical would present this.

1) OT teaches monotheism - only 1 God in existence; Jehovah

2) The NT presents the Father as Jehovah

3)The NT presents the Son as Jehovah

4) The NT presents the Holy Spirit as God along with the Son and Father.

All I’ve been trying to say here is that Evangelicals hold a certain belief about Jesus and our belief is different to yours and to us the difference is so great that we do not think you follow the same Jesus.

In that regard I am not saying anything different to your Prophet Brigham Young

"Should you ask why we differ from other Christians, as they are called, it is simply because they are not Christians as the New Testament defines Christianity" (Journal of Discourses 10:230).

Rofl.This is comical. There is no NT scripture that identifies the Father as Jehovah.I wonder why the NT never identifies the HG as Jehovah or as the Father? One common thing that EVies do is try to say that the scriptures tell us that the Father and Christ are one being. What ever that means. Why is the HG always left out of the discussion? The HG is never refereed to as the Son or the Father. That should be a huge clue that he is different.And no the OT does not teach monotheism uni vocally. I admit that there are some verses that teach it but there are other that teach exactly the opposite.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[thesometimesaint]

Tacenda:

I just posted a Link to what they believe, and made no comment as to if I believe it.

I agree with the dictionary definition of a Christian. I don't see the LDS as haggling over whom is and whom isn't a Christian. But we do insist that we are Christians.

[Zakuska]

Correct we all know why...it just seems they want to tell us constantly in hopes that we will agree. in their attempts to define the word they seek to own it...by owning it they hope to control the discussion thus having a copyright to the term.

Why don't they just trademark it already...

Christian™

That would settle it for good.

[Calm]

So Evangelicals and Mormons why are we haggling over the word Christian and being the one who can rightly carry the name.

LDS are not the ones claiming sole right to carry the name. We are only saying that by the very definition that you post we have as much right to carry it as anyone else who claims the name. EVs can call themselves Christians if they want to as far as LDS are concerned. The "haggling" is pretty onesided from what I've seen. I've only seen a very, very few LDS insist that only LDS are Christians because we have the true gospel in their view. I think I can probably count them on one hand. Edited July 31, 2012 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

Zakuska:

Because that Trademark expired 2000 years ago.

[djholmess]

You are free to think and argue whatever you want. But your arguments are unconvincing

You think the differences are too big to allow us the title of "Christian". We get that. Do you get it that we think your arguments for exclusion are ridiculous? Do you get it that it is painfully obvious that any argument you present to exclude us also excludes other groups that you would include as Christian, and therefore your argument is unconvincing?

I haven't made any argument and haven't been trying to prove my beliefs in this thread all I have done is state them.

[Tacenda]

Tacenda:

I just posted a Link to what they believe, and made no comment as to if I believe it.

I agree with the dictionary definition of a Christian. I don't see the LDS as haggling over whom is and whom isn't a Christian. But we do insist that we are Christians.

It seems this whole thread is, ok, for a better term, discussing.

[Vance]

I haven't made any argument and haven't been trying to prove my beliefs in this thread all I have done is state them.

It isn't like we haven't seen the arguments that EVs make. Should we think that the arguments YOU would make would be different from the ones we have see ad nauseam?

[Calm]

I haven't made any argument and haven't been trying to prove my beliefs in this thread all I have done is state them.

And you see this as a good thing when the accusation that started this whole thread was that the book OFAW failed in proving its claims?

And yet you seem to think that simply stating your beliefs is more than enough of an answer to the book's premise that LDS qualify as Christian by any definition traditionally or historically used.

[Tacenda]

LDS are not the ones claiming sole right to carry the name. We are only saying that by the very definition that you post we have as much right to carry it as anyone else who claims the name. EVs can call themselves Christians if they want to as far as LDS are concerned. The "haggling" is pretty onesided from what I've seen. I've only seen a very, very few LDS insist that only LDS are Christians because we have the true gospel in their view. I think I can probably count them on one hand.

Sorry, in my post it made it sound like that. I think those on here that are LDS are just sticking up for their belief that they are Christian too.

[Calm]

Sorry, in my post it made it sound like that. I think those on here that are LDS are just sticking up for their belief that they are Christian too.

[Tacenda]

Tacenda:

I just posted a Link to what they believe, and made no comment as to if I believe it.

I agree with the dictionary definition of a Christian. I don't see the LDS as haggling over whom is and whom isn't a Christian. But we do insist that we are Christians.

I totally know you didn't post a link because you believed it. Maybe showing that they believe in Christ and therefore are just as able to be labled a Christian as other faiths can.

[ERayR]

I haven't made any argument and haven't been trying to prove my beliefs in this thread all I have done is state them.

I haven't made any argument and haven't been trying to prove my beliefs in this thread all I have done is try to find out why you think you have the right to define someone else"s Christianity.

[altersteve]

Where are you getting your definition? The greek word for 'Christian' literally means 'a follower of Christ,' not something like 'someone who tries to follow Christ.'

What's the difference?

You can try harder than anyone to follow Christ, but if you're following an inaccurate gospel, you'll be headed in the wrong direction.

We disagree with you. Just because someone has some things wrong in their understanding of God and His gospel, it doesn't mean they have an "inaccurate gospel" and it doesn't mean they're going the wrong way. It simply means they don't have the fullness of the gospel. And that's not to say that we have a complete understanding of the gospel either -- nobody does. But we absolutely acknowledge that all other people, Christian or not, have a lot of things right (regardless of the things they have wrong) and that God will bless them for that, and that's what I feel our critics can't seem to grasp.

Edited August 1, 2012 by altersteve