What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[Vance]

Here are things that LDS believe about Jesus (as compiled by our anti-Mormon "friend" R. Bowman).

• Jesus was a descendant of King David (Matthew 1:1-17; 9:27; 15:22; 20:30-31; 21:9, 15; Mark 10:47-48; Luke 1:32; 3:23-32; 18:38-39; Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8; Revelation 5:5; 22:16).
  
• Jesus’ mother was a young Jewish woman named Mary, and Joseph was not his biological father (Matthew 1:19-25; Luke 1:26-34).
  
• Jesus was born in Bethlehem and grew up in Nazareth (Matthew 2:1, 23; 4:13; Luke 2:1-21, 39-40, 51-52; 4:16).
  
• Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist (Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22).
  
• Jesus lived a perfect, sinless life, despite the temptations of the devil (Matthew 4:1-11; 27:3, 19; Mark 1:13; 7:37; Luke 4:1-13; 23:41, 47; John 8:27, 46; Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 1:9; 2:17-18; 4:15; 7:26; 1 Peter 1:19; 2:21-22; 3:18; 1 John 2:1, 20; 3:5).
  
• Jesus loved people perfectly and felt deep compassion for them (Matthew 9:36; 14:14; 15:32; 20:34; Mark 1:41; 6:34; 8:2; 10:21; Luke 7:13; John 11:3, 5, 36; 13:1, 34; 15:9-13).
  
• Jesus performed the miracles reported in the Gospels—casting out demons, healing people’s diseases, turning water into wine, feeding the multitude, making the blind to see and the lame to walk, walking on the sea, and even raising people from the dead (e.g., Matthew 8:23-27; 11:2-6; 14:13-33; 15:32-39; 17:24-27; Mark 1:23-27; 5:19-20; Luke 5:1-11; 7:11-16; John 2:1-11; 9:1-7; 11:1-46; 21:1-14).
  
• Jesus chose apostles to speak for him and be the original leaders of the church (Matthew 10:1-5; Mark 3:14-19; Luke 6:13-16).
  
• Jesus suffered and was sentenced by Pontius Pilate to death on the cross (Matthew 26-27; Mark 14-15; Luke 22-23; John 18-19).
  
• Jesus rose physically from the grave on the third day to immortal physical life and appeared to his disciples (Matthew 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20-21; Acts 2:24-32; 13:30-37; Romans 4:24-25; 8:11; 10:9; 1 Corinthians 15:4-23; Galatians 1:1; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; etc.).
  
• Jesus ascended into heaven (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9-11; 2:33-35; 1 Peter 3:22).
  
• Jesus will return personally, bodily, and visibly to the earth to destroy the wicked, raise the dead, and administer judgment (John 5:28-29; 6:40, 54; 10:27-28; Acts 3:19-21; 17:30-31; 1 Thessalonians 4:16; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10; 2 Timothy 4:1, 8; Titus 2:13-14; Hebrews 9:26-28; Revelation 22:7, 12, 20; etc.).
  

So much for being a different Jesus.

[altersteve]

Mormonism teaches that ... only apostates will go to hell.

No it doesn't.

[volgadon]

Silly me. I thought People have Authority, not inanimate objects.

Matt 7

28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended athese sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:

29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

Protestants teach as the Jewish scribes. By placing "all authority" in an Inanimate book/scroll they set it up as an Idol inplace of the living breathing God.

Ironically, Djholmess' attitude is diametrically opposed to teachings from the Gospel of St. John.

http://calba-savua.b...r-all-else.html

Edited August 7, 2012 by volgadon

[KevinG]

I think people tend to read what they want to read rather than the assignments....I know I do.

Don't look at me I prepare me quorum lesson during Sunday School.

(kidding)

(sort of)

[djholmess]

No it doesn't.

So please explain to me who you believe will suffer everlasting punishment?

[djholmess]

Ironically, Djholmess' attitude is diametrically opposed to teachings from the Gospel of St. John.

http://calba-savua.b...r-all-else.html

Zakuska very unfairly misrepresented the Protestant position.

We believe that the Bible consists of the very words of God, they were inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore the Holy Spirit powerfully speaks through them.

So Peter can call the word of God the; 'living and abiding word of God' in 1 Peter 1:23.

Or for Paul the word of God is so closely connected to the Spirit that In Ephesians 6 he says

17 and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God

And in Ephesians and Colossians we see that for Paul the word of Christ and the Holy Spirit are almost interchangeable.

Ephesians 5:18-19

but be filled with the Spirit, 19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart

Colossians 3:16

16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

And most importantly as I have said before Jesus was very happy to quote Prophets in the OT and attribute their words directly to God. The words of the Bible are the words of God and they come with the same authority as if God was right there speaking them to you. Sure the paper and ink are inanimate objects but when God speaks his words are far from inanimate.

[Zakuska]

Zakuska very unfairly misrepresented the Protestant position.

We believe that the Bible consists of the very words of God, they were inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore the Holy Spirit powerfully speaks through them.

So Peter can call the word of God the; 'living and abiding word of God' in 1 Peter 1:23.

Or for Paul the word of God is so closely connected to the Spirit that In Ephesians 6 he says

17 and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God

And in Ephesians and Colossians we see that for Paul the word of Christ and the Holy Spirit are almost interchangeable.

Ephesians 5:18-19

but be filled with the Spirit, 19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart

Colossians 3:16

16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

And most importantly as I have said before Jesus was very happy to quote Prophets in the OT and attribute their words directly to God. The words of the Bible are the words of God and they come with the same authority as if God was right there speaking them to you. Sure the paper and ink are inanimate objects but when God speaks his words are far from inanimate.

Paul quotes at least 6 times from Pagan writings. Does that make those Pagan writings the "Very Words of God", or was Paul deriving his "inspiration" from somewhere other than God?

Acts chapter 17, verse 8 – Epimenides

Acts chapter 17, verse 8 – Aratus

Acts chapter 26, verse 13 – Aeschylus

1 Corinthians chapter 15, verse 33 – taken from Euripedes, and probably Menander

Titus chapter 1, verse 12 – Epimenides

Edited August 8, 2012 by Zakuska

[Storm Rider]

What is evident is that no one has been able to deny that the Bible describes those who follow Jesus as his disciples and as Christians. The NT does not provide any doctrinal requirements to be called a Christian. If they sought to follow, if they had a desire to follow him, then they were Christians.

We have seen a myriad of excuses and reasons why a doctrinal requirement is necessary in the minds of some Christians, but this is completely self-imposed and has nothing to do with Jesus Christ and those who seek after him.

This is not to say that truth is not of value; to the contrary, LDS stand adamant that the pursuit of truth is vital in the role of being a disciple of Jesus Christ. We teach that not only should each individual seek after truth, but live the truths learned.

I must admit, as I have admitted before, that I have very little patience or love for Evangelicals. Having gospel discussions with them is often like eating strawberries in an outhouse. Agreed, I am speaking in generalities and I do have some wonderful Evangelical friends and family members; however, they seem to be the exception to the rule rather than the typical EV that I meet when discussing religion.

LDS believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; he descended into hell; on the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty; from there he will come to judge the living and the dead. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. We do not believe in the catholic church (we do not use the term catholic; we believe the Church of Jesus Christ is THE true church founded by Christ) nor do we believe in the communion of saints. Other than these two items, the Apostles' Creed is just as valid for a LDS as it is for the vast majority of Christians.

As one poster stated, it is "boggling" that anyone would deny that someone is Christian who can faithfully, honestly state these beliefs and bear witness to their truthfulness.

Does the LDS Church teach doctrines not found in other churches or that conflict with the teachings of other churches? Yes, a resounding yes. Our teachings are based upon the Bible and we believe our interpretation of scripture is accurate and Spirit led. We believe that God has restored his Church on the earth with the same structure he instituted in the meridian of time. We know these things to be true and we cannot deny them.

I still wait for an honesty of context to be instituted by those Christians who deny the Christianity of the LDS faith; the honesty to admit that their definition of Christianity has nothing to do with the Bible or the teachings of Jesus Christ and everything to do with their own beliefs.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Storm Rider

[djholmess]

Paul quotes at least 6 times from Pagan writings. Does that make those Pagan writings the "Very Words of God", or was Paul deriving his "inspiration" from somewhere other than God?

Acts chapter 17, verse 8 – Epimenides

Acts chapter 17, verse 8 – Aratus

Acts chapter 26, verse 13 – Aeschylus

1 Corinthians chapter 15, verse 33 – taken from Euripedes, and probably Menander

Titus chapter 1, verse 12 – Epimenides

I don't understand how this is a problem to anything I have stated I believe.

2 Peter 2:20-21

²⁰ Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. ²¹ For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Paul's using a extra biblical text does not make that text's source the Holy Spirit - it is Paul usage of that text is a result of being carried along by the Holy Spirit..

[Akboy]

It seems pretty obvious that the bible is just ambiguous enough for people to use it to support a million different teachings.

I'm guessing that david koresh, for example, believed that his teachings were very much supported in the bible. Catholics believe their teachings are supported in the bible. You believe your's are. LDS believe their's are. The bible was used extensively by Southerners before (and after) the civil war to support the institution of slavery.

I completely agree with what you're saying in theory but the real world application shows that such statements are practically worthless when it comes to discussions about who's doctrine is correct.

Don't blame the Bible for Koresh or other horrific crimes like the Inquisition. No matter how clear and unambiguous something is, it can always be misinterpreted, especially if someone is looking for an excuse to justify whatever they want.

Aren't there splinter LDS or RLDS groups who use the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith to justify continued polygamy and even underage marriage in some cases? But I'm not blaming the LDS Church or expecting you to abandon your faith because some people have abused it for their own ends. In the same way, I won't abandon my faith in a Biblical foundation just because some people abuse it.

If i am taught the doctrine, can i reject it as a heresy and still be saved?

In general, I would say yes. But the trinity affects many other doctrines. So I guess it's possible your rejection of the trinity could be a sign of a problem with a foundational gospel belief.

If you are speaking about Joseph Smith's vision, there are some important things to realize.

First-the scriptures teach that satan can imitate an 'angel of light'. No where do they teach that he can imitate Jesus or God the Father.

Like many deceptions, this one could have evolved into the one we hear now. This site points out multiple issues with the First Vision, including conflicting accounts: http://mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm#significant

James B. Allen, who served as assistant church historian, frankly admitted that the story of the first vision "was not given general circulation in the 1830's." (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, p.33).

The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory, nor send His messengers panoplied with aught else than the truth of heaven, to communicate to the meek the lowly, the youth of humble origin, the sincere enquirer after the knowledge of God. But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith Jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong; that they were following the precepts of men instead of the Lord Jesus; that He had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before Him." (Journal of Discourses 2:170-171)

(Many other similar quotes)

It seems that in the first 50 years since the first vision was supposed to have happened, that whenever the church leaders referred to the first vision, they were actually referring to the visit of the angel Moroni and not the first vision by God the Father and Jesus.

The evidence available from early sources, including Joseph Smith and his family establish a number of important facts.

First, Joseph did not relate his story consistently, but changed key elements over the years. He changed:

• The date / his age - from 1823 (age 16), to 1821 (age 15), to 1820 (age 14)
  
• The reason or motive for seeking divine help - from no motive (a spirit appears with the news of gold plates), Bible reading and conviction of sins, a revival, a desire to know if God exists.
  
• Who appears to him - a spirit, an angel, two angels, Jesus, many angels, the Father and the Son.
  

Second, common elements from early accounts raise questions about what appears to be a gradual evolution of Joseph Smith's first vision story. Did Joseph begin to include a "Christian experience" in the telling of his story because Bauder noticed it was lacking? The earliest accounts given to Chase and Harris do not include this. There is a noticeable shift in the context of finding the gold plates, from 17 year-old money-digger to 14 year-old spiritual seeker. Is this an attempt to put his story into a more socially acceptable context? It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that as time went on, Joseph omitted uncomfortable but true parts of his history and replaced them with fictitious elements in order to make his story more socially acceptable and spiritually compelling.

There's a lot more at that link. Could you read some of it and pray about it?

Second-Jesus taught that satan could not cast himself out (it's interesting how this argument of 'it was all done by satan' has always existed to bring doubt upon the true gospel of Christ). Read JS's story of everything that transpired before the first vision to understand why this is important.

Since there are conflicting reports of the vision from Smith, his family and other church leaders, isn't it possible there could be issues with the account of what happened before the vision?

Does the bible say it's possible for satan to imitate a witness of the Spirit though? Can satan bring peace to a person's soul or cause someone's heart to burn within them?

But how do you know what a witness of the Spirit feels like? If your first witness of the Spirit is really a deception, then your framework of understanding will be based on that deception. Since you'll be expecting similar witnesses, you'll be open for more deceptions or your expectations could trigger a placebo effect.

Are you saying peace in your soul can only come from God, Christ and/or the Spirit? Have you tried saying something like that to an atheist? Christians often want to reach out to atheists and tell them of the love and peace God offers. But this approach offends many atheists. They often already feel loved and peaceful despite the fact that they ignore, if not reject, any idea of God. Where does that peace come from?

Can satan do miracles or deceive if it is done in the name of Jesus?

Matt. 7

¹⁵ “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. . . .

²¹ “ Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. ²² Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ ²³ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’

It sounds like those false prophets honestly believed what they were preaching. But they were deceived. I doubt God was behind those miracles.

[altersteve]

So please explain to me who you believe will suffer everlasting punishment?

The only people who will go to hell (or, as we call it, "outer darkness") are those who willingly choose to reject God after having a full knowledge of Him. We often compare it to denying the existence of the sun, even though you fully know it exists. This is the unpardonable sin; it's not possible for this sin to be forgiven, because those who commit it have no desire to repent. So far, we know that only Satan and his followers, including Cain, have committed this sin.

So, in other words, people send themselves to hell. God is a loving Heavenly Father who does not want any of His children to suffer. When someone goes to outer darkness, God is not punishing them, because a "punishment" is ultimately for the benefit of the person being punished; instead, they choose to leave their Heavenly Father's presence, which results in only suffering. God doesn't want that.

What makes you think we believe that only apostates (people who leave the Church) will go to hell? Who told you that?

Edited August 8, 2012 by altersteve

[altersteve]

Don't blame the Bible for Koresh or other horrific crimes like the Inquisition. No matter how clear and unambiguous something is, it can always be misinterpreted, especially if someone is looking for an excuse to justify whatever they want.

Aren't there splinter LDS or RLDS groups who use the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith to justify continued polygamy and even underage marriage in some cases? But I'm not blaming the LDS Church or expecting you to abandon your faith because some people have abused it for their own ends. In the same way, I won't abandon my faith in a Biblical foundation just because some people abuse it.

This completely misses the point of what I think bluebell was saying. She wasn't blaming the Bible for these things. Her point was that quoting the Bible to prove your position is the correct one is a pointless exercise, because there are probably many different interpretations of the verse or passage you choose to quote.

In general, I would say yes. But the trinity affects many other doctrines. So I guess it's possible your rejection of the trinity could be a sign of a problem with a foundational gospel belief.

Which doctrines does the Trinity affect and how?

Like many deceptions, this one could have evolved into the one we hear now. This site points out multiple issues with the First Vision, including conflicting accounts: http://mormonthink.c...htm#significant

There are no contradictions in the First Vision accounts -- at least no major ones that should cause one to reasonably doubt that the event actually occurred. The First Vision "contradictions" are no more major than the contradictions between the four New Testament Gospels. Please study the information at this location.

There's a lot more at that link. Could you read some of it and pray about it?

This request seems insincere, even mocking from my end, but I personally have no need to pray about the information on that page because I have already received a confirmation from God that He and His Son really did appear to Joseph Smith as he said they did.

Since there are conflicting reports of the vision from Smith, his family and other church leaders, isn't it possible there could be issues with the account of what happened before the vision?

I believe bluebell was talking about the account of Satan "binding" Joseph so he couldn't speak, which is often included as part of the story one tells when talking about the First Vision. This encounter with the devil is not mentioned in the 1832 or 1842 accounts, but all the rest are completely consistent with one another.

But how do you know what a witness of the Spirit feels like? If your first witness of the Spirit is really a deception, then your framework of understanding will be based on that deception. Since you'll be expecting similar witnesses, you'll be open for more deceptions or your expectations could trigger a placebo effect.

The adversary does not bear witness of Jesus Christ. My first spiritual witness testified of the reality of the Savior, so I knew it wasn't from Satan. As for what it "feels" like, there's a lot more to it than that. Don't you know what a spiritual experience is like? Did you have a strong experience when you first accepted Christ as your Savior? How do you know that experience wasn't a deception?

Are you saying peace in your soul can only come from God, Christ and/or the Spirit? Have you tried saying something like that to an atheist? Christians often want to reach out to atheists and tell them of the love and peace God offers. But this approach offends many atheists. They often already feel loved and peaceful despite the fact that they ignore, if not reject, any idea of God. Where does that peace come from?

I don't think bluebell was saying peace "can only come from God." Latter-day Saints don't believe that.

Matt. 7

¹⁵ “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. . . .

²¹ “ Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. ²² Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ ²³ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’

It sounds like those false prophets honestly believed what they were preaching. But they were deceived. I doubt God was behind those miracles.

People misinterpret this verse all the time. It's not talking about people who are deceived into thinking they worship God when they really don't, it's saying that these people do all these great things (performing miracles, prophesying, etc.), but they do not do the will of the Father. They do not do good things. Good works, if you will. It's right there in verse 21. Jesus is saying here that, no matter how much faith you may have, if you don't bring forth good fruits then you won't be accepted into His Father's kingdom. Those who do not do the will of God the Father are those to whom the Savior will say, "I never knew you." Not because they were "false prophets," but because they didn't bring forth good fruits by doing the will of the Father. Protestants, for example, who at LDS events hold up picket signs, desecrate the Book of Mormon and our sacred temple garments, and shout profanity at Latter-day Saints with a bullhorn as they walk by: this is NOT the will of the Father and I don't think these people will be accepted into the celestial kingdom unless they repent, regardless of their claim to be disciples of Christ. THAT is what this verse is talking about.

Edited August 8, 2012 by altersteve

[djholmess]

Protestants, for example, who at LDS events hold up picket signs, desecrate the Book of Mormon and our sacred temple garments, and shout profanity at Latter-day Saints with a bullhorn as they walk by: this is NOT the will of the Father and I don't think these people will be accepted into the celestial kingdom unless they repent, regardless of their claim to be disciples of Christ. THAT is what this verse is talking about.

I'm sure Akboy will reply to the rest of your post but I want to agree with you here - such people do need to repent. I beleive their behaviour does not reflect the behaviour Christians are called to express. Just as I believe some of the beliefs of the LDS Church leads me to question whether or not they are Christians I would also question whether these people are truly followers of Christ. I can only hope that LDS who encounter such people do not take then as the norm for evangelicals.

[djholmess]

Needing to know whether or not someone spoke for God does, very much, fits the context of needing wisdom. The context does not specify that only certain questions will be answered.

As I said in my previous post even allowing that you are right and knowing whether someone is a prophet would fall into context of needing wisdom it is not specifically mentioned in James 1. There are other parts of scripture that specifically set out how to know if someone is a prophet, none of them mention praying for wisdom, they talk about testing the words of the prophet.

But to go back to the context of James I do agree with you that testing a prophet is a matter of knowledge –‘know whether someone spoke for God.’ I do not believe that James 1:5 is talking about asking for knowledge but for wisdom.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wisdom

Wisdom

the quality or state of being wise; knowledge of what is true or right coupled with just judgment as to action;

Knowledge

acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation;

In the context of testing a prophet; I believe it is a fact of knowledge to know whether JS is a false prophet or not. It is an act of wisdom to know what to do with this fact.

So I may know the JS is a false prophet from testing his words as the Bible teaches to do and then I may pray for wisdom about what to do with this knowledge – ignore the LDS church or seek to better understand why LDS individuals who say they believe the Bible do not see JS as a false prophet. This is how I understand what James it talking about wisdom.

Of course scripture study is necessary. LDS do not claim otherwise. We very much believe in the necessity of scripture study. We believe it is a commandment of God to study our scriptures every single day. And not just to study-but to feast upon them and to ponder them.

But scripture study without the guidance of God through the Spirit cannot reveal God's truth to anyone-scripture study alone cannot tell someone if a person is a true or false prophet and the bible does not teach that scripture study alone will give someone that knowledge.



If you leave God's revelation out of the equation, you'll never come to the truth of the matter-as the Jews, who study the scriptures diligently yet still deny the divinity of Christ, have proven.

The people during Christ's time also serve as a warning about the weakness of relying upon the scriptures alone to discern truth. They studied the scriptures, yet still crucified the Lord.

I agree scripture study is necessary, it sounds like our differences are in the sufficiency of scripture. I believe that scripture is totally sufficient in and of itself to (or alone if you want to put it that way) to discern the truth about Joseph Smith.

2 Timothy 3:

¹⁶ All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, ¹⁷ that the man of God^[b] may be complete, equipped for every good work.

So according to Paul scripture, because of its nature ‘breathed out by God’ is able to make the man of God complete and equipped for every good work. Now I think we would agree that testing a false prophet would be a good work for a man of God to do. Therefore I believe scripture alone is sufficient to test someone who claims to be a prophet.

Now let me be very clear, I guess that you will read the above and think I am making a dichotomy between scripture and the Holy Spirit – I am not. As I have said and demonstrated biblically a number of times in this thread I believe that the words of the Bible are the words of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit. So in the Bible God speaks with as much authority as if he is right beside you. Therefore for the man of God who has been regenerated and indwelt by the Holy Spirit when he prayerfully reads the words written by the Holy Spirit he is taught by the Holy Spirit the meaning of the words – meaning which corresponds to the meaning the words had when they were written by the power of the Holy Spirit.

In other words I do not see a distinction between the Bible and revelation from the Holy Spirit. Rather I see the Bible as the Holy Spirits revelation and therefore the Holy Spirit gives revelation through the Bible.

Now of course the Holy Spirit can give revelation outside of the scriptures but the scriptures are the only infallible source of revelation that makes the man of God complete and equipped for every good work. Therefore fallible experiences of what may or may not be revelation outside of the scriptures must fall under the authority of the scripture and be tested. I believe this is especially important because the Bible does not present a very positive picture of man’s heart and will and thus his ability to discern what is true or not.

Moses includes bats in the list of unclean birds in Lev. 11:19 and Deut. 14:18. Lev. 11:20 is where he teaches that fowls which creep on all fours are unclean.

I would be very slow to think this was a mistake on Moses part. Firstly if scripture is ‘God breathed’ then really the mistake must be attributed to God. But secondly the mistake seems to only be a translational issue. I doubt the Israelites had the scientific classification of animals that we have today – when we say birds we mean a specific type of animal e.g. mammals, reptiles, birds. When Moses said whatever word he used couldn’t the word just have been a generic word used by the Israelites to mean ‘flying animals.’ To say Moses made a mistake is to force our scientific definitions back onto Moses writing thousands of years ago.

He stood up and taught 20,000 people doctrine, which other people attempted to quote and publish years later. The words of JS as they were spoken could be considered doctrine. The words of the rememberance of that occassion cannot be.

You've demonstrated what the King Follett discourse says as it has come down to us through the years. You have NOT demonstrated that that's what JS actually taught.

You don't feel it is necessary to make sure that the words you are testing were actually the words of the prophet you are trying to discern? That's a pretty low standard you have set.

The LDS leadership is happy to present it as a part of the History of the church-which it is. They have never presented it as doctrine.

I took all my quotes from an official LDS source which itself was once a Ensign article published by the leadership of the LDS church for the LDS people, in the article it says,

“Longhand notes of the discourse were made by Willard Richards, Wilford Woodruff, Thomas Bullock, and William Clayton. This reprint was taken from the Documentary History of the Church, vol. 6, pages 302–17. That volume notes: “This was not a stenographic report, but a carefully and skillfully prepared one made by these men who were trained in reporting and taking notes.”

Further your former president Hinckley spoke of the King Follet sermon

“The text of that address has become an important doctrinal document in the theology of the Church. It is known as the King Follett Sermon.” (Ensign, Sept. 1994)

Now if you want to show me any evidence that any of the parts of the sermon I quoted from have their authenticity disputed I would be happy to look at it. However when your church is happy to give the sermon to its members and your former president counts it as an important doctrinal document then I have felt justified in examining it to see what JS taught.

[Akboy]

There are no contradictions in the First Vision accounts -- at least no major ones that should cause one to reasonably doubt that the event actually occurred. The First Vision "contradictions" are no more major than the contradictions between the four New Testament Gospels. Please study the information at this location.

What were these guys talking about?

In 1854

"Some one may say, 'If this work of the last days be true, why did not the Saviour come himself to communicate this intelligence to the world?' Because to the angels was committed the power of reaping the earth, and it was committed to none else." - Apostle Orson Hyde, General Conference Address, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.335

In 1855

The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory, nor send His messengers panoplied with aught else than the truth of heaven, to communicate to the meek the lowly, the youth of humble origin, the sincere enquirer after the knowledge of God. But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith Jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong; that they were following the precepts of men instead of the Lord Jesus; that He had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before Him." (Journal of Discourses 2:170-171)

In 1857

Church Apostle Heber C. Kimball, speaking Nov. 8th, 1857, seemed to be oblivious to any vision where Smith saw God and Christ: "Do you suppose that God in person called upon Joseph Smith, our Prophet? God called upon him; but God did not come himself and call, but he sent Peter to do it. Do you not see? He sent Peter and sent Moroni to Joseph, and told him that he had got the plates." (Journal of Discourses, vol.6, p.29)

In 1863

Church Apostle John Taylor explained in a sermon March 1, 1863: "How did this state of things called Mormonism originate? We read that an angel came down and revealed himself to Joseph Smith and manifested unto him in vision the true position of the world in a religious point of view." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, p.127)

Church Apostle George A. Smith, Nov. 15th, 1863, preached: "When Joseph Smith was about fourteen or fifteen years old,...he went humbly before the Lord and inquired of Him, and the Lord answered his prayer, and revealed to Joseph, by the ministration of angels, the true condition of the religious world. When the holy angel appeared, Joseph inquired which of all these denominations was right and which he should join, and was told they were all wrong,..." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.12, pp.333-334)

If Smith saw the Son and the Father in the first vision, why did early church leaders seem convinced it was an angel who visited Smith and not the Son or Father? I looked through the link you gave and it doesn't seem to address this at all.

This request seems insincere, even mocking from my end, but I personally have no need to pray about the information on that page because I have already received a confirmation from God that He and His Son really did appear to Joseph Smith as he said they did.

Bluebell has said she would respect a critic's points more if they asked her to pray about them. Of course that doesn't mean I'll ask her to pray about every point I make. But this issue directly relates to the foundation of your belief and how you know what is true.

The adversary does not bear witness of Jesus Christ. My first spiritual witness testified of the reality of the Savior, so I knew it wasn't from Satan. As for what it "feels" like, there's a lot more to it than that. Don't you know what a spiritual experience is like? Did you have a strong experience when you first accepted Christ as your Savior? How do you know that experience wasn't a deception?

The most effective lies and deceptions often contain a lot of truth. If Satan is trying to get someone to follow a false gospel, he would take current knowledge of Christ and add just enough false info to mislead someone.

My salvation experience wasn't telling me not to join any current church or to follow 'another testament of Jesus Christ.'

[altersteve]

Firstly if scripture is ‘God breathed’ then really the mistake must be attributed to God.

Then what about the contradictions in the New Testament Gospels?

[djholmess]

Then what about the contradictions in the New Testament Gospels?

I'm not a Greek Scholar or expect in the gospels but I have yet to be shown an apparent contradiction that either turns out not to be a contradiction once the passage is properly understood or else there is a reasonable explanation for the contradiction not in fact being one. I am happy to discuss any you want to bring up within the scope of my limited expertise - feel free to start a new thread and I will participate.

Let me ask you this though, do you believe something that is 'God breathed' can be contradictory?

[altersteve]

What were these guys talking about?

In 1854

"Some one may say, 'If this work of the last days be true, why did not the Saviour come himself to communicate this intelligence to the world?' Because to the angels was committed the power of reaping the earth, and it was committed to none else." - Apostle Orson Hyde, General Conference Address, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.335

In 1855

The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory, nor send His messengers panoplied with aught else than the truth of heaven, to communicate to the meek the lowly, the youth of humble origin, the sincere enquirer after the knowledge of God. But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith Jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong; that they were following the precepts of men instead of the Lord Jesus; that He had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before Him." (Journal of Discourses 2:170-171)

In 1857

Church Apostle Heber C. Kimball, speaking Nov. 8th, 1857, seemed to be oblivious to any vision where Smith saw God and Christ: "Do you suppose that God in person called upon Joseph Smith, our Prophet? God called upon him; but God did not come himself and call, but he sent Peter to do it. Do you not see? He sent Peter and sent Moroni to Joseph, and told him that he had got the plates." (Journal of Discourses, vol.6, p.29)

In 1863

Church Apostle John Taylor explained in a sermon March 1, 1863: "How did this state of things called Mormonism originate? We read that an angel came down and revealed himself to Joseph Smith and manifested unto him in vision the true position of the world in a religious point of view." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, p.127)

Church Apostle George A. Smith, Nov. 15th, 1863, preached: "When Joseph Smith was about fourteen or fifteen years old,...he went humbly before the Lord and inquired of Him, and the Lord answered his prayer, and revealed to Joseph, by the ministration of angels, the true condition of the religious world. When the holy angel appeared, Joseph inquired which of all these denominations was right and which he should join, and was told they were all wrong,..." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.12, pp.333-334)

If Smith saw the Son and the Father in the first vision, why did early church leaders seem convinced it was an angel who visited Smith and not the Son or Father? I looked through the link you gave and it doesn't seem to address this at all.

I guess you didn't look hard enough then.

For your first quote: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_First_Vision/Accounts/Orson_Hyde_referred_to_%22angels%22

Second quote: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_First_Vision/Accounts/Brigham_Young_said_the_Lord_didn%27t_appear

Third: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_First_Vision/Accounts/Heber_C._Kimball_denied_the_Father_appeared

Fourth: http://pt.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_Wikipedia/First_Vision/Interpretations_and_responses_to_the_vision (search for "1863" using CTRL+F for convenience)

Fifth: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_First_Vision/Accounts/George_A._Smith_said_First_Vision_was_an_%22angel%22

Bluebell has said she would respect a critic's points more if they asked her to pray about them. Of course that doesn't mean I'll ask her to pray about every point I make. But this issue directly relates to the foundation of your belief and how you know what is true.

Since it "directly relates to the foundation of [LDS] belief," it would seem logical that we would have already prayed about such an important event in our church's history.

The most effective lies and deceptions often contain a lot of truth. If Satan is trying to get someone to follow a false gospel, he would take current knowledge of Christ and add just enough false info to mislead someone.

But he wouldn't testify that Jesus is the Christ, would he?

My salvation experience wasn't telling me not to join any current church or to follow 'another testament of Jesus Christ.'

I didn't expect it to tell you that. That's probably not what your experience was about; it was probably (please forgive me if this is incorrect, as I don't mean to tell you what your experience means -- I'm just guessing based on what you've told me) about your acceptance of Jesus Christ as your Savior and Redeemer, which comes long before your acceptance of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or the Book of Mormon. The Church and the Book of Mormon are to add to you what you believe already about Jesus Christ as the Son of God. That belief is the first thing that should come, and the most important belief of all. Everything else gradually comes later, in God's time and on God's terms. I don't have any authority to speak on when or how that will come to you.

[altersteve]

I'm not a Greek Scholar or expect in the gospels but I have yet to be shown an apparent contradiction that either turns out not to be a contradiction once the passage is properly understood or else there is a reasonable explanation for the contradiction not in fact being one. I am happy to discuss any you want to bring up within the scope of my limited expertise - feel free to start a new thread and I will participate.

I have to get offline and drive my dad to the airport, but I'll be back later and start that thread.

Let me ask you this though, do you believe something that is 'God breathed' can be contradictory?

Yes, because it's "breathed" through fallible human beings. Even if something comes to us from God, it's still filtered through our flawed understanding and sinful hearts. There will always be flaws, no matter how small or insignificant they may be, in everything we do, whether it's "inspired of God" or otherwise.

[djholmess]

Yes, because it's "breathed" through fallible human beings. Even if something comes to us from God, it's still filtered through our flawed understanding and sinful hearts. There will always be flaws, no matter how small or insignificant they may be, in everything we do, whether it's "inspired of God" or otherwise.

Ok you seem to be talking as if this 'breathed' is coming through 'us.' In the context of 2 Timothy 3:16 Paul is saying that scripture is what is 'breathed out' by God. So do you also believe that 'God breathed' scripture can be flawed? I don't mean what we have to day of the NT, you obviously think there are contradictions in it. But when scripture was written on the original documents do you believed it was immediately flawed?

Edited August 8, 2012 by djholmess

[djholmess]

What part of Galatians 1 did he fail? Which prophecies failed to happen? Which requirements did he fail in Timothy?

Let’s start with Galatians 1:

⁶ I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— ⁷ not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. ⁸ But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. ⁹ As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

I believe Joseph Smith preached and taught another gospel and therefore falls under the curse of the above passage. Whilst the above passage doesn’t distinguish someone as a false prophet – the teachers of this false gospel in Galatia didn’t claim to be prophets, I think being under the curse of Paul would identify someone claiming to be a prophet as false.

In the Galatians Paul goes on to explain the gospel;

Galatians 2:

¹⁵ We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; ¹⁶ yet we know that a person is not justified^[b] by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Galatians 3:

⁷ Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. ⁸ And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify^[c] the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” ⁹ So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

¹⁰ For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” ¹¹ Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”^[d]12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.”

I am willing to be corrected but I have not seen anywhere where JS taught that justification was by faith apart from any works. Now he may have taught this at one time but he certainly didn’t teach it consistently – and as Paul said, even if Paul was to come and preach another gospel he would be accursed.

Now obviously Paul teaches what I quoted above time and time again, especially in Romans, but I think Ephesians 2:8-10 is a good summary:

⁸ For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, ⁹ not a result of works, so that no one may boast. ¹⁰ For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

I want to highlight two things,

1) Being saved through faith is not our own doing, it is a gift not of any works we do.

2) We are saved to do good works, not by doing good works, notice the For at the beginning of verse 10. Good works do not play a part in salvation, the reason people are saved is so that they can then do the good works prepared for them.

Now to give a couple of specific examples of Joseph Smith different gospel: I’m also quoting from the BoM because whilst I know you believe it was written by ancient authors I do not – and at the very least we agree that Joseph Smith was responsible for the translation we have today.

2 Nephi 25:23

For we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

As Ephesians 2 just said, ‘For by grace you have been saved through faith...not a result of works.’

Moroni 10:32

Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind, and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you

Romans 4:5

And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

I am aware that the JS translation adds a ‘not’ in front of the ungodly. I have yet to see any evidence at all that this what Paul actually wrote so I would add ‘altering the word of God’ to the list of evidences that JS was a false prophet.

D&C 89:18-21

And all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in obedience to the commandments, shall receive health in their navel and marrow to their bones;

And shall find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures;

And shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not faint.

And I, the Lord, give unto them a promise, that the destroying angel shall pass by them, as the children of Israel, and not slay them. Amen.

Isaiah 40:31

but they who wait for the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings like eagles; they shall run and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint

D&C 88

36 All kingdoms have a law given;

37 And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom.

38 And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions.

39 All beings who abide not in those conditions are not justified.

Romans 3

²⁸ Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ok you seem to be talking as if this 'breathed' is coming through 'us.' In the context of 2 Timothy 3:16 Paul is saying that scripture is what is 'breathed out' by God. So do you also believe that 'God breathed' scripture can be flawed? I don't mean what we have to day of the NT, you obviously think there are contradictions in it. But when scripture was written on the original documents do you believed it was immediately flawed?

Since when does "God Breathed" = God wrote if physically? That seems to be what you are saying. We know the bible was written by inspired men. That is why there are issues because men wrote through the power of God.if it was God doing the physical writing then I don't believe there would be issues.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Let’s start with Galatians 1:

⁶ I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— ⁷ not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. ⁸ But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. ⁹ As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

I believe Joseph Smith preached and taught another gospel and therefore falls under the curse of the above passage. Whilst the above passage doesn’t distinguish someone as a false prophet – the teachers of this false gospel in Galatia didn’t claim to be prophets, I think being under the curse of Paul would identify someone claiming to be a prophet as false.

In the Galatians Paul goes on to explain the gospel;

Galatians 2:

¹⁵ We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; ¹⁶ yet we know that a person is not justified^[b] by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Galatians 3:

⁷ Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. ⁸ And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify^[c] the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” ⁹ So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

¹⁰ For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” ¹¹ Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”^[d]12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.”

I am willing to be corrected but I have not seen anywhere where JS taught that justification was by faith apart from any works. Now he may have taught this at one time but he certainly didn’t teach it consistently – and as Paul said, even if Paul was to come and preach another gospel he would be accursed.

Now obviously Paul teaches what I quoted above time and time again, especially in Romans, but I think Ephesians 2:8-10 is a good summary:

⁸ For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, ⁹ not a result of works, so that no one may boast. ¹⁰ For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

I want to highlight two things,

1) Being saved through faith is not our own doing, it is a gift not of any works we do.

2) We are saved to do good works, not by doing good works, notice the For at the beginning of verse 10. Good works do not play a part in salvation, the reason people are saved is so that they can then do the good works prepared for them.

Now to give a couple of specific examples of Joseph Smith different gospel: I’m also quoting from the BoM because whilst I know you believe it was written by ancient authors I do not – and at the very least we agree that Joseph Smith was responsible for the translation we have today.

2 Nephi 25:23

For we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

As Ephesians 2 just said, ‘For by grace you have been saved through faith...not a result of works.’

Moroni 10:32

Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind, and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you

Romans 4:5

And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

I am aware that the JS translation adds a ‘not’ in front of the ungodly. I have yet to see any evidence at all that this what Paul actually wrote so I would add ‘altering the word of God’ to the list of evidences that JS was a false prophet.

D&C 89:18-21

And all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in obedience to the commandments, shall receive health in their navel and marrow to their bones;

And shall find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures;

And shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not faint.

And I, the Lord, give unto them a promise, that the destroying angel shall pass by them, as the children of Israel, and not slay them. Amen.

Isaiah 40:31

but they who wait for the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings like eagles; they shall run and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint

D&C 88

36 All kingdoms have a law given;

37 And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom.

38 And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions.

39 All beings who abide not in those conditions are not justified.

Romans 3

²⁸ Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

I guess you missed that book in the bible called James?Also what about Mathew 25 and the parable of the sheep and the goats. Why were teh goats damned and the sheep not. What did the sheep do that the goats didn't.I really am not interested in your EV proof texts.

[altersteve]

Ok you seem to be talking as if this 'breathed' is coming through 'us.' In the context of 2 Timothy 3:16 Paul is saying that scripture is what is 'breathed out' by God. So do you also believe that 'God breathed' scripture can be flawed? I don't mean what we have to day of the NT, you obviously think there are contradictions in it. But when scripture was written on the original documents do you believed it was immediately flawed?

Like I said, I believe God inspires us to write scripture. He doesn't write it Himself. The Holy Ghost inspires us and tells us what to write. And since we fallible human beings are the ones who do the actual writing, some minor inaccuracies, like the two contradictory genealogies for Jesus given by Matthew and Luke, will be present. But these details, of course, are generally not significant and have no bearing on the doctrinal message of what is written. I don't think God cares about such trivial errors; the gospel principles taught within the scriptures are the most important thing and are what God is most concerned with. As long as those are accurate, nothing else matters. That's why what some see as "contradictions" within the New Testament Gospels and Joseph Smith's First Vision accounts, for example, really mean nothing to me, since I understand that these texts were written by flawed mortals and some slip-ups are therefore to be expected.

This does not decrease the importance of scripture in my view, however. Even with the presence of some inevitable errors, the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price are still the word of God, and other imperfect writings, such as the United States Constitution and the Qur'an, are still (to at least some extent in the case of the latter) inspired.

[djholmess]

This does not decrease the importance of scripture in my view, however. Even with the presence of some inevitable errors, the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price are still the word of God, and other imperfect writings, such as the United States Constitution and the Qur'an, are still (to at least some extent in the case of the latter) inspired.

That's intresting but obviously I disagree. I have never encountered someone who thinks the United States Constitution was inspired before is that typical amoung LDS?

From 2 Peter 1

²¹ For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Here Peter is explaining how OT prophets spoke; not by their own will but as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. So the Holy Spirit is directly active in the speaking and writing of prophecies this is why I believe Paul can say scripture is 'God breathed.'

If you do think there can be small mistakes what do you make of Matthew 5:18 where Jesus seems to place a great deal of significance on every little iota in the law?

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Edited August 8, 2012 by djholmess