What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[altersteve]

Well if you don't beleive he was a prophet of God, then we must be talking about different people.

That's a good point. If Latter-day Saints believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, and evangelical Christians believe he was a fraud/liar/lunatic/whatever, then by djholmess' standard, we're talking about two completely different Joseph Smiths. I'd like to see djholmess try to work his way out of that inconsistency.

[Gervin]

I'd like to see djholmess try to work his way out of that inconsistency.

I don't see an inconsistency.

Mrs. Jerry Sandusky says that her husband is an innocent victim of lies and has never been inappropriate with a boy. Others who claim to be victims of Mr. Sandusky will say that he is a sexual predator. He cannot be both innocent and guilty - that is a flat out contradiction - so, for the latter group, Mrs. Sandusky is describing a different person.

Joseph Smith says that Christ told him that he should not join any church, that "they were all wrong ... that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt" ... etc.. For traditional Christians, those statements are flat out contradictions to what the they have believed, experienced and shared for 2000 or so years. Who is this Christ that comes condemning me? The Christ I am in relation with? I personally reject that Christ of the First Vision as a liar (and probably worse). The supporting evidence of my testimony, the Bible and 2000 or so years of Christian thought and scriptural exegesis (etc.) is probably not enough to convince a member of the LDS Church that we are talking about 2 contradictory Christs - but consider the case of Mrs. Sandusky; first hand testimony, purported eye witnesses, and incriminating evidence will not convince her that there is "another" Jerry Sandusky. Neither will her claim change the minds of those who claim to be victims. There are obviously (at least) two Jerry Sandusky's.

(my example is not meant to invoke a comparison between the Penn State scandal and the LDS Church or Sandusky and Joseph Smith. I was just looking for a current example.)

[altersteve]

Who is this Christ that comes condemning me?

Christ is not condemning anyone. He is condemning their creeds, because they leave no room for continuing revelation.

And I'm sorry, but there is one Joseph Smith. Different views on who he was does not change that. I don't see anyone who sees Joseph Smith as a liar/fraud as seeing a completely different person, only as believing incorrect things about him. Same with Jesus Christ and some of my fellow Christians.

[Gervin]

Christ is not condemning anyone. He is condemning their creeds, because they leave no room for continuing revelation.

The creeds didn't write themselves and they weren't perpetuated in a vacuum. A condemnation of the creeds is a condemnation on the writers and those who believe they reflect, accurately, their beliefs. I also don't buy that they don't leave room for revelation. About the time of the First Vision, Christ was revealing to a fellow by the name of George Muller an incredible calling. And so it has been throughout Christian history. BTW, Christ did (in the First Vision) condemn "those professors" - no one seems to know who they were but they were certainly chastised for preaching a false Christ.

And I'm sorry, but there is one Joseph Smith. Different views on who he was does not change that. I don't see anyone who sees Joseph Smith as a liar/fraud as seeing a completely different person, only as believing incorrect things about him. Same with Jesus Christ and some of my fellow Christians.

You've made my point.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Gervin

[Flyonthewall]

I don't see an inconsistency.

Mrs. Jerry Sandusky says that her husband is an innocent victim of lies and has never been inappropriate with a boy. Others who claim to be victims of Mr. Sandusky will say that he is a sexual predator. He cannot be both innocent and guilty - that is a flat out contradiction - so, for the latter group, Mrs. Sandusky is describing a different person.

Joseph Smith says that Christ told him that he should not join any church, that "they were all wrong ... that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt" ... etc.. For traditional Christians, those statements are flat out contradictions to what the they have believed, experienced and shared for 2000 or so years. Who is this Christ that comes condemning me? The Christ I am in relation with? I personally reject that Christ of the First Vision as a liar (and probably worse). The supporting evidence of my testimony, the Bible and 2000 or so years of Christian thought and scriptural exegesis (etc.) is probably not enough to convince a member of the LDS Church that we are talking about 2 contradictory Christs - but consider the case of Mrs. Sandusky; first hand testimony, purported eye witnesses, and incriminating evidence will not convince her that there is "another" Jerry Sandusky. Neither will her claim change the minds of those who claim to be victims. There are obviously (at least) two Jerry Sandusky's.

(my example is not meant to invoke a comparison between the Penn State scandal and the LDS Church or Sandusky and Joseph Smith. I was just looking for a current example.)

So there are as many copies of me running around as there are people that think different things about me...?!?! I never noticed any spontaneouslly generate from me...how does that work? please explain.

Or, admit that there is one person about whom different people beleive different things.

The Jesus Christ LDS worship is the SAME as everyone else's. We simply see Him from a different perspective.

Think of the 5 blind men and the elephant. Each described the elephant in different ways, but they referred to the same animal. Each description was not mutually exclusive of the other as each was correct from their perspective.

What would it seem like to you if a person who saw the whole elephant tried to tell those 5 blind men that an elephant is more than just a spear, a tree, a snake, a wall, a rope or a fan...and then for those blind men to argue the he must be referring to a different animal than what they are touching. It would be comical, ludicrous, and sad at the same time.

This exact same thing happened when Jesus Christ came and ministered. The Jews had a pre-conceived notion of who/what the Messiah would be that when He was in their midst, they rejected Him.

It was only those Jews that did not rely soley on the scriptures, but on the testimony of the Holy Ghost that recognized Him and accepted Him.

[thews]

Why the poop are you bringing up this rather unimportant (meaning with regards to this thread and the topic at hand) scripture up?

It's relevant due to the definition of what the word "Christian" encompasses. Mormon doctrine is exclusive to the Mormon faith. If the Mormon faith requires one to accept its doctrine with the penalty for rejecting it being damned, this theology is exclusive to the LDS faith and not the Christian faith.

[thews]

You are not even trying dude. You are going to get banned. And I will alert the mods. Please read the whole verse an try to understand what is being talked about in those verses. You are severely misrepresenting them.

What rule did I break in attempting to define the doctrine used to base the definition of what a "Christian" faith encompasses? Is discussing the doctrine of a religion against the board rules?

[KevinG]

It's relevant due to the definition of what the word "Christian" encompasses. Mormon doctrine is exclusive to the Mormon faith. If the Mormon faith requires one to accept its doctrine with the penalty for rejecting it being damned, this theology is exclusive to the LDS faith and not the Christian faith.

The Mormon position is if God commands us to do something and we disobey we are damned (i.e. we lose the blessing promised for obedience to that principle). It is not a position that we will burn in eternity for not being obedient to a practice we were not asked to partake of.

The Mormon position is that monogamy is the default setting for the new and everlasting covenant and that polygamy is only entered into when God commands it to build up or test his people.

Like I said. Learn about Mormonism before critiquing it or you just end up looking ignorant.

[Storm Rider]

Guys, this is all just such a joke. You have so-called "Christians" that revel in using the moronic allegation, "Oh, that is a different Jesus...." blah, blah, blah. Of corse, it is absurd and has no foundation. They just continue to repeat it while sticking their head in the ground. They remind of small children that begin screaming "I can't hear you!", while plugging their ears. There is no dicussion; just one sided conversations.

I only know one Jesus of Nazareth, Son of God, born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, bled from every pore in the Garden; hung on a cross until death; rose the third day; showed himself to the Apostles; returned to the Father and sits on his right side (which makes now sense if he is one person); and promised to return one day. That is a one, single Jesus. In their narrow vision this Jesus, the one that died on the cross is not big enough to save Latter-day Saints. None of these beliefs have any saving power. The only doctrines that have any saving power were created by men in the 4th century.

It is also a joke when Christians begin talking about Christianity as if it is a single, monolithic organization. There are over 36,000 different Christian denominations in the world and they all hold up a Bible (some with more books than the others) and proclaim they teach true doctrine. Christianity is anything BUT monolithic or united in a shared, uniform doctrine. There is as much conflict as there are different churches.

Jesus said that we can recognize the followers of Jesus by their good works. Frankly, this is such a tired argument because not a single one of these supposed Christians dares to use the Bible to prove their definition of a follower of Christ. If they did their entire argument fails immediately because they have no foundation in the Bible for their definition. Their definition begin no sooner than the 4th century and has nothing to do with the time of Christ or Christ's teachings.

Even more important, is the canard that all real Christians have the same "core" doctrines; the really important doctrines. However, if those core doctrines were really so important why are there so many denominations today? Answer: those core doctrines could not be that important and there must be far more important doctrines that caused them to split up repeatedly.

These have itching ears and they all want a doctrine that meets their own desires and passions. When they start calling Jesus a liar; pray for them for their hearts are black and they cannot feel the Spirit of the God any longer.

[Deborah]

And with that anything else is

[Storm Rider]

It's relevant due to the definition of what the word "Christian" encompasses. Mormon doctrine is exclusive to the Mormon faith. If the Mormon faith requires one to accept its doctrine with the penalty for rejecting it being damned, this theology is exclusive to the LDS faith and not the Christian faith.

You continue to repeat the stupidity that Mormons believe you are damned if you don't accept Mormon doctrine. Where is the reference. If you do not have it, then shut the heck up and quit repeating lies. I have corrected you multiple times and you continue to babble the same stupidity. What is your reference? I also expect an apology for your continued objective to lie and create your own story about LDS beliefs rather than just listen to LDS. Pull your bloody head out of the ground and listen!

My language is strong because you have continued to repeat the same lie. Stop it! It is a lie and you know it is a lie.

[bluebell]

Thank you for being honest. You may not agree with Protestant tactics in interfaith communication, and neither do I in many cases, but can you see where we're coming from? We just believe some faiths and gospels are leading people down a wrong path and we believe the great commission is calling us to witness to them.

Earlier, you asked me something like 'If exegesis is so reliable, then why do so many Protestant churches disagree?' Well I have the same question about the Holy Ghost. If the HG is such a reliable test of truth and source of guidance to anyone who asks sincerely, then wouldn't Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, etc. all be in agreement? We're all sincerely praying to God and the HG asking for guidance. So why aren't we all getting the same answer?

I've talked with LDS missionaries before. They asked me to read multiple passages in the BoM and pray the prayer. I prayed it and didn't feel anything.

No, I didn't say the verses want us to have an expectation they are true. I said the verses tell us to pray with the expectation of receiving a positive answer. It's just like you said, 'pray with a sincere heart and you will know they are true.' If you expect to 'know they are true,' then your mind could generate a placebo effect based on that expectation.

The Bible never tells us to 'pray about it and you will know it is true.'

That's essentially what Protestant are doing. They proclaim the gospel as they know it to be true. They explain why they feel it is true. The don't expect anyone to drop to their knees, reject the LDS church and convert on the spot. No they're fully aware any real change take time and prayer.

It really bugs me when LDS say that to a Protestant. Are you adding to our knowledge of doctrines like the Trinity or salvation by grace alone, not by works? It certainly doesn't seem like it. If I made a thread on either of those issues, it would quickly become clear you don't want those doctrines in your church. It would be far more accurate to say 'The LDS church is one of adding to beliefs they already agree with and dismissing beliefs they disagree with.'

You're assuming there's a distinction where there isn't one. When we talk about our gospel and salvation by grace alone, those beliefs are our theology of having a relationship with Christ. I don't think someone has to be 100% correct in all their beliefs. But if their theology of the relationship has a foundational problem, then the relationship won't be right.

Hey Akboy, i've really enjoyed our discussions these last few days. I'll be gone all day off-roading in the mountains but i'll be sure and address your replies as soon as i can!

[djholmess]

Ok, so as requested a continuation of the reasons why I don’t believe I can label LDS believers Christians.

One of my reasons for believing LDS are not Christians is that they believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God.

In Mark 13: Jesus warns us that false prophets will arise:

²² For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

²³ But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.

So how can I distinguish between potentially real and false prophets?

Well firstly as I am not a Mormon I reject the idea that I can pray and ask for a witness of the Holy Spirit that JS is a prophet. This is something revealed through JS (via BoM) so I’m not going to trust it unless I already know he is a prophet and thus trust worthy.

Secondly I do not see the distinction current LDS make between a prophet standing up and speaking his opinion at times and then actually speaking for God at more ‘official’ times.

Thankfully though the Bible has set out ways in which claims to being a prophet can be examined.

One such test is found in Deuteronomy 13:1-4

¹If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,

² And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;

³ Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

⁴ Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.

Notice that God recognises that a false prophet may even be able to give a sign or wonder that actually comes to pass. However, this does not make them a prophet of God, the test they must pass is a test of their teaching. If they lead people after other gods, which are not known to the people of God then that prophet must not be listened to. He is clearly a false prophet.

So in light of Deuteronomy I can put JS to the test.

Possibly the clearest example of how JS fails the test is the King Follet Funeral Discourse. I’m taking my quotes from it from this link:

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon

The introduction to the sermon states this;

“The King Follett Sermon, one of the classics of Church literature, was given by the Prophet Joseph Smith at the April 7, 1844, conference of the Church in Nauvoo, Illinois. Some twenty thousand Saints were assembled.”

So JS was addressing a great number of LDS at an official conference. JS then himself goes on to say firstly that he wants prayers to set forth the truth.

“I want your prayers and faith that I may have the instruction of Almighty God and the gift of the Holy Ghost, so that I may set forth things that are true and which can be easily comprehended by you, and that the testimony may carry conviction to your hearts and minds of the truth of what I shall say.”

Then he boldly puts his very identity as a prophet on the line if he fails to teach the character of God in what he is about to say.

“My first object is to find out the character of the only wise and true God, and what kind of a being He is; and if I am so fortunate as to be the man to comprehend God, and explain or convey the principles to your hearts, so that the Spirit seals them upon you, then let every man and woman henceforth sit in silence, put their hands on their mouths, and never lift their hands or voices, or say anything against the man of God or the servants of God again. But if I fail to do it, it becomes my duty to renounce all further pretensions to revelations and inspirations, or to be a prophet; and I should be like the rest of the world—a false teacher”

And then he says what he is about to teach if proven by the Bible

“What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of man.”

So here we have someone claims to be a prophet of God, speaking to 20,000 people and he is prepared to put his identity as a prophet on the line with regard to the truthfulness of his statements. And not only that he asserts that what he is about to say is proven by the Bible. What does he then say about God?

“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man..... it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see...... It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did;”

So according to Joseph Smith God came to be God – he wasn’t God from all eternity. What does the Bible say? Psalm 90:2

Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

God has been God from everlasting, there was never a time when he wasn’t God! So from Psalm 90:2 alone it is clear that JS teaching in the King Follet sermon was wrong. Joseph Smith was not leading the people there after the God of the Bible. Rather he was trying to refute the Bible’s very presentation of God as the everlasting God. He was committing the sin of Romans 1:23

²¹ For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Claiming to be wise, they became fools, ²³ and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man

And Gods rebuke in Psalm 50:1 seems apt

These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.

The only conclusion that I can come to is that Joseph Smith is a false prophet and by extension all the prophets of the LDS church that derive their authority from JS are false prophets. I see no reason therefore to think that someone who is following a false prophet can also be a follower of Jesus Christ.

[Gervin]

So there are as many copies of me running around as there are people that think different things about me...?!?! I never noticed any spontaneouslly generate from me...how does that work? please explain.

Or, admit that there is one person about whom different people beleive different things.

My point wasn't about different people's perceptions but about the truth as it pertains to obvious contradictions.

The Jesus Christ LDS worship is the SAME as everyone else's. We simply see Him from a different perspective.

I've said nothing about the Christ that the LDS worship but I did say that for me the Christ of the First Vision is a liar. It's not a matter of perspective but of contradictory claims by Christ. What exactly were those professors teaching that Christ would proclaim them the "commandments of men having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof"? Christian doctrines are assumed to still be "all wrong" and our Christian churches an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. I see that as a contradiction not a matter of perception.

Think of the 5 blind men and the elephant. Each described the elephant in different ways, but they referred to the same animal. Each description was not mutually exclusive of the other as each was correct from their perspective.

What would it seem like to you if a person who saw the whole elephant tried to tell those 5 blind men that an elephant is more than just a spear, a tree, a snake, a wall, a rope or a fan...and then for those blind men to argue the he must be referring to a different animal than what they are touching. It would be comical, ludicrous, and sad at the same time.

Their descriptions were based on perceptions and not flat out contradictions.

This exact same thing happened when Jesus Christ came and ministered. The Jews had a pre-conceived notion of who/what the Messiah would be that when He was in their midst, they rejected Him.

It was only those Jews that did not rely soley on the scriptures, but on the testimony of the Holy Ghost that recognized Him and accepted Him.

Christ's claim as the Messiah (God/Man) was not a contradiction. As you say, their notions were pre-conceived.

[Flyonthewall]

My point wasn't about different people's perceptions but about the truth as it pertains to obvious contradictions.

The example you used was that if two different people thought contradictory things about someone then there are two different people...you used Jerry Sandusky as an example. The FACT is that there are two different attributes of the same person.

I've said nothing about the Christ that the LDS worship but I did say that for me the Christ of the First Vision is a liar. It's not a matter of perspective but of contradictory claims by Christ. What exactly were those professors teaching that Christ would proclaim them the "commandments of men having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof"? Christian doctrines are assumed to still be "all wrong" and our Christian churches an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. I see that as a contradiction not a matter of perception.

The Christ of the First Vision IS the same Christ that LDS worship, which is the same Christ as all other Christians believe in.

The Pharisees and Saducees thought Jesus was not the person they were looking forward to because He did not match their interpretation of scripture. In fact, Jesus critisized them too...their actions were WRONG. They espoused the law but behaved totally hypocritically...

So, was Jesus a contradiciton? or was it a matter of perception?

Your perception of LDS belief is off. Joseph Smith also stated that ALL churches have a measure of truth to them, so their doctrines are not ALL wrong, but of the chuches that were on the earth at the time, none had the fullness of authority or the gospel.

As for having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof, well there are those on this very thread that deny any authority from God is needed...their authority comes from simply studying the scriptures and what ever they come up with as an interpretation it God's will. Didn't work for the Pharisees or Saducees, why would it work for anyone else?

Their descriptions were based on perceptions and not flat out contradictions.

Perceptions, yes. Just as the perception of Christians that did not have a prophet have come up with their interpretations of scripture have done.

As I see it, this is exactly what has happened to Christianity and why there are tens of thousands of different denominations. Everyone of them concentrate on something different.

Christ's claim as the Messiah (God/Man) was not a contradiction. As you say, their notions were pre-conceived.

Exactly, just as our teachings of Christ are not a contradiction. It is the pre-conceived notions held by traditional Christianity that blinds them to truth.

I have heard many traditional Christians state that anything God has to say MUST agree with the interpretation they already have, or it is false.

To the Jews at the time of Christ's ministry, Jesus didn't fit in their cubby hole they had prepared for Him so He was rejected.

Similarly, the truth about Jesus doesn't fit into the cubby hole prepared by traditional Christianity, so the truth is rejected.

Is there a pattern here that can be learned from?

[Calm]

There are obviously (at least) two Jerry Sandusky's.

So you are suggesting that the man Mrs. Sandusky was married to was not the same man who worked at Penn State.

Who was he then...his clone?

(You need to work on on your argument. In your attempt to equate the two using the same language, you come across as just silly in using such ambiguous language.)

[altersteve]

God has been God from everlasting, there was never a time when he wasn’t God! So from Psalm 90:2 alone it is clear that JS teaching in the King Follet sermon was wrong. Joseph Smith was not leading the people there after the God of the Bible.

You should realize, though, that Latter-day Saints do not see a contradiction between what Joseph Smith said and what Psalm 90:2 says.

[thews]

You continue to repeat the stupidity that Mormons believe you are damned if you don't accept Mormon doctrine. Where is the reference. If you do not have it, then shut the heck up and quit repeating lies. I have corrected you multiple times and you continue to babble the same stupidity. What is your reference? I also expect an apology for your continued objective to lie and create your own story about LDS beliefs rather than just listen to LDS. Pull your bloody head out of the ground and listen!

My language is strong because you have continued to repeat the same lie. Stop it! It is a lie and you know it is a lie.

Again, "lie" is a strong word. My opinion/questions are based upon D&C 132:4:

http://www.lds.org/s.../132.4?lang=eng

4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting ^acovenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye ^bdamned; for no one can ^creject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

They way I read this, one is damned for rejecting D&C 132:4, which is exclusive to LDS doctrine. This is just a discussion; just beause someone disagrees with you it doesn't make them a liar. To the OP of what defines a "Christian" by definition, what I've been told in this thread, is one is damned if they refuse the covenant of D&C 132:4. I was also told there will be second chance to accept it, but it's clear (to me anyway) if one rejects it they are damned. My point in discussing this isn't to claim which is right or wrong, but what is different between Mormon theology and Christian theology. Why can't we just have a civil conversation in understanding the differences?

Edited August 4, 2012 by thews

[KevinG]

Yeah lie is strong. I prefer willfully ignorant.

[djholmess]

You should realize, though, that Latter-day Saints do not see a contradiction between what Joseph Smith said and what Psalm 90:2 says.

Sorry but Psalm 90:2 clearly says God was God from everlasting- from eternity. Joseph Smith said 'we have imagined and supposed that God was God from eternity. I will refute that idea.'

From the King Follot Sermon Smith presents God going from intelligence-man-exalted to Godhood. That is not God being God from eternity.

I know you believe JS was a prophet and so will try to match Psalm 90:2 with Smith's teachings or reject Smith's teachings as his opinion in this case. However starting from the point of investigation JS as a potential prophet based on biblical principles I can only come to the conclusion he was a false prophet.

[KevinG]

or reading comprehension problems. I'm all for that possibility.

[Gervin]

The example you used was that if two different people thought contradictory things about someone then there are two different people...you used Jerry Sandusky as an example. The FACT is that there are two different attributes of the same person.

The analogy may not be perfect but you're missing the point; if he is claimed by one person to be innocent and by another to be guilty then these are not "attributes" of the person. He is one or the other. Either Christ is alive in me and asking nothing of me but my whole being or I am an abomination in His sight and He is telling me to forsake my Church. I see contradiction.

The Christ of the First Vision IS the same Christ that LDS worship, which is the same Christ as all other Christians believe in.

That's my point: I can't worship the Christ that you attribute to the First Vision. How I can I worship Christ if I think He's a liar? That's an unresolvable contradiction unless that Christ is a different Christ.

... out the door and I'll respond further, later.

[Akboy]

or reading comprehension problems. I'm all for that possibility.

Seriously, if you don't want to make a serious contribution to the discussion, then don't hang around continually insulting people. We get it. You disagree with us. But when you insult people you disagree with, you only make yourself look worse.

I'm sure you guys don't like it when Protestants insult Mormons, yet some Mormons here seem to have no problem insulting Protestants. If the only response you can think of is an insult, then you need to take a break from the forums. Studies have shown that people who spend too much time using text based communication are more irritable and prone to arguing.

[altersteve]

Sorry but Psalm 90:2 clearly says God was God from everlasting- from eternity. Joseph Smith said 'we have imagined and supposed that God was God from eternity. I will refute that idea.'

From the King Follot Sermon Smith presents God going from intelligence-man-exalted to Godhood. That is not God being God from eternity.

I know you believe JS was a prophet and so will try to match Psalm 90:2 with Smith's teachings or reject Smith's teachings as his opinion in this case. However starting from the point of investigation JS as a potential prophet based on biblical principles I can only come to the conclusion he was a false prophet.

I was talking about Joseph Smith's statement that God was once a man. I see no contradiction between that and Psalm 90:2.

[altersteve]

Either Christ is alive in me and asking nothing of me but my whole being or I am an abomination in His sight and He is telling me to forsake my Church. I see contradiction.

It's not good to put words in the Lord's mouth. Again, He said the Christian creeds are an abomination in His sight, not you, and they're not an abomination because of what they say, necessarily, but because of what they do. Once again, they leave no room for continuing revelation, which means that with these creeds, one's understanding of His doctrine cannot be revised or expanded. THAT is what is abominable to Him and it's precisely why He appeared to Joseph Smith in the first place: to usher in the Restoration and re-open the scriptural canon. And continuing revelation does not refer to personal revelation, which has never gone away, so your earlier example about George Muller (to whom the Lord did indeed give an incredible calling) is irrelevant. All people, whether they are Christian or not, are able to receive promptings and inspiration from the Holy Spirit.

Regardless, none of that means Christ isn't alive in you or that He doesn't ask of you your whole being. He is alive in and asks that very same thing of all His disciples, LDS or otherwise.

Also, you said earlier that Christ's condemnation of the post-biblical creeds is the same thing as condemning those who believe in them. That's a huge leap of logic by anyone's standards, but for the sake of argument, that means your obvious condemnation of the Book of Mormon is equal to condemning us Latter-day Saints. Would you agree?

Edited August 4, 2012 by altersteve