What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[Dogmatic]

zerinus,

You wrote:

For the umpteenth time, I understand all this. My point remains not only unrefuted but untouched, which is that in LDS doctrine a traditional Christian church cannot be the instrument of salvation to such persons. These individuals who would have received the fullness of the gospel if they had heard it will have to receive it in the spirit world. Their reception of the less-than-full gospel of their traditional Christian church does not secure their salvation. Their baptisms in that church is invalid; they will have to accept the proxy baptism performed on their behalf by a mortal Mormon on earth. They did not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost in their church (even if, as has been mentioned, they might have experienced some illumination by the Holy Ghost in lesser ways) and so could not benefit by that specific gift during their mortal lifetimes. They had no opportunity to be sealed in marriage for eternity. In all these ways and for these specific reasons the traditional Christian churches, according to LDS doctrine, cannot be a means of salvation to the celestial kingdom, even though their members might still make it there by other means.

If I'm wrong about any of this, I'm open to being corrected. But so far the alleged corrections have been whizzing by and missing the target.

You do not understand it. Yes, you clearly know the words and maybe some of the concepts, but you apply everything to the limits that you have placed on Christ through adherence to the interpretations taught to you and your scholarly endeavors.

You are attempting to validate a truth by comparing it to a falsehood. The comparison works, but not in the way you want it to. It proves the falsehood.

Truth: The Gospel is simple

Truth: The fullness of the Gospel has been restored and fills in the holes opened over millenia

The entire process and gaining understanding is very simple - for us.

For you, not so much. You are confounded by the limits you are refusing to open up from. You are hindered by attempting to check and cross-check and verify every little thing - an exercise of the mind and not the heart. Your scholarly studies have led you to conclude that LDS Doctrine is false. You are approaching all of this by attempting to prove to us that it is false. You assume complexity where we see simplicity. We are converted and understand intimately. You are gnashing on an idiosyncrasy that you believe leads to a falsehood due to a lack of understanding. For us it is a very simple concept.

This is why we are saying we've explained it.

But, here you go again: Upon death, those who have lived a moral, good, Christ-like, etc life but have not received the fullness of the gospel will be offered it and will be given the opportunity to accept it. They themselves, in conjunction with Christ, will choose which level of glory fits them best.

That's it. It's very, very simple.

There is no damnation or whatever you consider the opposite of 'saved' to be. It's not that those of other faiths are not saved. It's that they will get the opportunity to serve where they most appropriately fit. What is missing (among other things) in your understanding and assertion is that I may not enjoy or feel comfortable or have the desire to serve in the Celestial Kingdom - it's the Telestial Kingdom or bust for me.

Do you remember when you overlooked me saying that the center-stone of the Gospel and the purpose of Religion is service, it was one of my 5 Keys? In the afterlife this holds true. Service is what we will be doing.

I also asked you, what you think we'll be doing for an eternity after being saved? Will we be sitting on a cloud playing a harp for time unending? Will we be participating in heavenly olympics? Do you have an answer to those questions? If not, why are you emphatic about desiring it?

[Dogmatic]

Better to address several points well than to fail to address any adequately.

I agree with you and I thanked you for doing so. Yet at the end of your post you claim that they are not worthy of your time.

I don't agree' date=' but for my purposes here it doesn't matter. The fact is that Mormon scholars do the very thing you are criticizing -- and I would argue they do it far more blatantly. Try reading Daniel Peterson's article in which he tries to argue that the idea of a Heavenly Mother is implicit in Nephi's vision, or any of the many pieces Mormon apologists have written trying to reconcile the strong monotheism of the Book of Mormon with Joseph Smith's doctrine of a plurality of gods. Whether these arguments are successful or not, it is incontrovertible that these are excellent examples of Mormon scholars trying to tease out of the Book of Mormon ideas that are not "clearly laid out" there.

[/quote']

They are not defending or explaining that to me or to any other converted member. An understanding of the doctrine itself, which is learned through reading the scriptures, completely justifies and explains Heavenly Mother as well as the proper order of the Godhead. These texts may serve to reaffirm these things to a member but they are not needed to explain things. Those who want explanation are those who are not members.

You seem to think that I started out as an evangelical Christian and went looking for evangelical beliefs in the Bible' date=' and when I couldn't find them resorted to scholarly chicanery to justify my preconceived notions. This is neither accurate nor fair. I started out with a simple belief in Christ, came to accept the Bible as the word of God, and then studied the Bible assiduously to see what it taught on various theological issues, constantly questioning and testing what evangelicals were telling me. I went through a period when I seriously doubted many orthodox, evangelical doctrines, such as the Trinity. All I wanted to know is what doctrines rested securely on the teachings of Scripture.

[/quote']

As I have explained to you, I too was a seeker of truth. I commend you for doing so. It is unfortunate that you no longer do.

I don't have the knowledge or competency to judge individuals' date=' especially individuals I don't know personally. That's not what I'm about. I'm certainly not going to speculate about your salvation. But let me remind you that in Mormon theology "the guy who has never heard of Christ" is not saved (to the celestial kingdom) -- at least not yet. He must hear of Christ in order to be saved. Mormonism teaches that this can happen in the spirit world after death, which is not an idea I find in the Bible. Likewise "the guy who couldn't make sense of your [LDS'] doctrine and dismissed it" is not going to be saved to the celestial kingdom unless he later changes his mind, according to the usual interpretation of the LDS doctrine. In any case, according to evangelical Christian doctrine, anyone whom God condemns will be judged justly on the basis of what he has done, not on the basis of what he has not understood or not heard or not had a chance to do.

I was not asking you to judge me or anybody else. I was asking you to tell me what YOU teach regarding the individual states I listed. I have already stated the LDS view on this.

What does it mean when you say "anyone whom God condemns will be judged justly based on what he has done"? What if I have not accepted Christ? What if I accepted the WRONG Christ? What What does God condemn one for? When does this condemnation occur? What do I do if I escape condemnation through my actions or works? I'm not asking you to apply it to me, I'm asking you to preach YOUR teachings.

Frankly' date=' this is nonsense. The Scriptures are written in human language, which must be read or heard by a human being whose mind is actively engaged in thinking about what they say. The Scriptures are not designed to give readers warm fuzzy feelings in their hearts, but to give them the truth that the Holy Spirit uses to transform them by the renewing of their minds (see Romans 12:1-2).

[/quote']

You know full well what I mean when I use that metaphor. It is one of the common things between us and I have heard it spoken of by evangelical preachers. For you to reject the metaphor as a way of rejecting what I said and calling it nonsense is pretty bad form. Romans 12:1-2 is EXACTLY what I was talking about.

Your appeal to what Jesus said about scholars defeats your own claim. You are asking me to use my mind to think about what Jesus said in the Scriptures so that I can conclude with you that the Scriptures are not to be understood using the mind.

Jesus did not criticize scholars for using their God-given intelligence to understand the Scriptures. He criticized the scribes for abusing their God-given intelligence to distort the Scriptures.

See above. You have made my point. He criticized the scribes and the Pharisees for distorting the scriptures. He criticized studying the Word for the Word. Learning without understanding. Learning in order to coerce and control. All of that was my point regarding scholars.

No' date=' I think I have addressed the core issues quite thoroughly. Much of what you assert cannot be intelligently discussed as long as your stance is an anti-intellectual one that dismisses the use of reason in engaging what Scripture teaches.

[/quote']

You COMPLETELY mis-characterize what I have been saying. EVERYTHING I assert is that the scriptures teach us the Gospel and that scholarly interpretation is not required. My stance is not anti-intellectual, it is anti-Pharasitical. It is that the scriptures are ALL we need. God isn't dumb. He wouldn't leave our salvation to the hopes of scholars coming along and giving it to us.

[Rob Bowman]

Dogmatic,

You wrote:

You do not understand it. Yes, you clearly know the words and maybe some of the concepts, but you apply everything to the limits that you have placed on Christ through adherence to the interpretations taught to you and your scholarly endeavors.

I'll make this claim: I understand Mormon doctrine a lot better than you understand evangelical doctrine. The proof is in your silly questions at the end of your email (see below).

You wrote:

Truth: The Gospel is simple

Truth: The fullness of the Gospel has been restored and fills in the holes opened over millenia

I agree with your first statement but not your second. The gospel of Jesus Christ is simple: trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation and you are assured of complete forgiveness, reconciliation with the Father, and eternal life. As for the fullness of the gospel, with all due respect, we never lost it.

You wrote:

You are confounded by the limits you are refusing to open up from. You are hindered by attempting to check and cross-check and verify every little thing - an exercise of the mind and not the heart. Your scholarly studies have led you to conclude that LDS Doctrine is false. You are approaching all of this by attempting to prove to us that it is false. You assume complexity where we see simplicity. We are converted and understand intimately. You are gnashing on an idiosyncrasy that you believe leads to a falsehood due to a lack of understanding.

There's a whole lot of mind-reading goin' on.

You wrote:

But, here you go again: Upon death, those who have lived a moral, good, Christ-like, etc life but have not received the fullness of the gospel will be offered it and will be given the opportunity to accept it. They themselves, in conjunction with Christ, will choose which level of glory fits them best.

That's it. It's very, very simple.

There is no damnation or whatever you consider the opposite of 'saved' to be. It's not that those of other faiths are not saved. It's that they will get the opportunity to serve where they most appropriately fit. What is missing (among other things) in your understanding and assertion is that I may not enjoy or feel comfortable or have the desire to serve in the Celestial Kingdom - it's the Telestial Kingdom or bust for me.

Interestingly, the Book of Mormon knows nothing about all this. The Book of Mormon, like the Bible, repeatedly speaks about "damnation" (which you say is not in Mormon doctrine) and contrasts it with salvation. (The words condemn, condemnation, damned, and damnation appear in 203 verses of the Book of Mormon.) In order to deal with this inconvenient fact, you will have to engage in some intellectual gymnastics of your own or dismiss the point by claiming that I am wrong because I don't approach the text in the faithful and open way you do.

You wrote:

Do you remember when you overlooked me saying that the center-stone of the Gospel and the purpose of Religion is service, it was one of my 5 Keys? In the afterlife this holds true. Service is what we will be doing.

I understand that, but it doesn't negate my contention in this thread that Mormon doctrine denies the efficacy of the traditional Christian churches' gospel, teaching, and ordinances to secure a person's entrance into the celestial kingdom. I wonder if anyone here will ever address this simple point?

You asked (again):

I also asked you, what you think we'll be doing for an eternity after being saved? Will we be sitting on a cloud playing a harp for time unending? Will we be participating in heavenly olympics? Do you have an answer to those questions? If not, why are you emphatic about desiring it?

These are silly questions and reveal that whatever religious experience you had outside Mormonism didn't take. It is standard Mormon polemic to caricature traditional Christians as imagining that we will sit around on clouds doing nothing but playing harps for eternity. That is why I ignored your questions the first time around -- they really are silly, anti-evangelical polemic.

Evangelicals believe that the redeemed -- all of them -- will live forever in the new heavens and new earth (2 Peter 3; Revelation 21), in the presence of God and in unending fellowship with one another. We will live, love, enjoy each other's company, and enjoy God forever. We will love God with all of our beings and we will love one another perfectly as well. We will be reunited with our believing loved ones and friends, and we will make a lot of new friends! Our relationships with each other will transcend the limitations and weaknesses of our sinful mortality as we experience perfect freedom and love with one another. We will fulfill God's creation mandate that human beings live as perfect bearers of his image, ruling as stewards of his creation on his behalf. We will have glorified, immortal, physical bodies, resurrected to powerful immortality and sinless perfection.

And we will be so joyfully happy, we just might sing!

[altersteve]

We will fulfill God's creation mandate that human beings live as perfect bearers of his image, ruling as stewards of his creation on his behalf.

Sounds a lot like our doctrine of exaltation.

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You commented on my description of the redeemed:

Sounds a lot like our doctrine of exaltation.

Well, there is some overlap. Our doctrines agree on some things and disagree on others. For example, evangelicals and other orthodox Christians reject the Mormon belief that some human beings will be all-knowing and all-powerful beings.

[Mudcat]

@ Dogmatic

Noticed you were a new poster. Thought I would take an opportunity to say..

Welcome to the forum.

I would advise that you heed the forum precautions about crash landings over water. The chips on our shoulders are to serve as flotation devices in such an occurrence. If in such an event you find yourself without a chip on your shoulder, let me know. I always have plenty of extras to spare

All the best,

Mudcat

[Dogmatic]

I'll make this claim: I understand Mormon doctrine a lot better than you understand evangelical doctrine. The proof is in your silly questions at the end of your email (see below).

First of all, I never claimed to understand evangelical doctrine. In fact, I stated multiple times that parts of your doctrine make absolutely no sense to me. Did you somehow think that I claimed to be a scholar?

My 'silly questions' as you say (never mind the ridiculousness of the questions you continually repeat) were exactly that - questions. You tell me I don't know your doctrine, then you mock my questions about it. Nice.

I agree with your first statement but not your second. The gospel of Jesus Christ is simple: trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation and you are assured of complete forgiveness' date=' reconciliation with the Father, and eternal life. As for the fullness of the gospel, with all due respect, we never lost it.

[/quote']

I am utterly shocked and taken aback that you do not agree with my second statement. Just as I'm sure that you are shocked that I consider your second statement to be incorrect.

Your last statement is something I find interesting. How do you know that you never lost it?

There's a whole lot of mind-reading goin' on.

Mind reading? I was talking about what you've typed in this thread.

Interestingly' date=' the Book of Mormon knows nothing about all this. The Book of Mormon, like the Bible, repeatedly speaks about "damnation" (which you say is not in Mormon doctrine) and contrasts it with salvation. (The words [i']condemn, condemnation, damned, and damnation appear in 203 verses of the Book of Mormon.) In order to deal with this inconvenient fact, you will have to engage in some intellectual gymnastics of your own or dismiss the point by claiming that I am wrong because I don't approach the text in the faithful and open way you do.

I never mentioned the Book of Mormon. It most certainly is in LDS Scriptures. I attempt to simplify as much as I possibly can to provide you with an answer you've been clamoring for and this is your response? I NEVER said that Mormon Doctrine does not include damnation. You made that up. I said that those who do not already have the fullness of the gospel are not damned. There is a HUGE difference. Go back and re-read what I wrote without what is starting to seem to be a chip on your shoulder. It's like you don't want anyone to actually provide an answer unless is contains the hook your expecting will be in it, whatever that is (I'm assuming that's what you're doing because it doesn't make any sense).

I understand that' date=' but it doesn't negate my contention in this thread that Mormon doctrine denies the efficacy of the traditional Christian churches' gospel, teaching, and ordinances to secure a person's entrance into the celestial kingdom. I wonder if anyone here will ever address this simple point?

[/quote']

Your point doesn't make sense and seems contradictory. I'm not sure how it has not been addressed.

These are silly questions and reveal that whatever religious experience you had outside Mormonism didn't take. It is standard Mormon polemic to caricature traditional Christians as imagining that we will sit around on clouds doing nothing but playing harps for eternity. That is why I ignored your questions the first time around -- they really are silly' date=' anti-evangelical polemic.

[/quote']

This is quite an ignorant statement. It appears that you are aware that that particular question (harps on clouds) was tongue in cheek. Note that it is surrounded by actual questions. They are not silly, I was asking for your clarification on positions.

Evangelicals believe that the redeemed -- all of them -- will live forever in the new heavens and new earth (2 Peter 3; Revelation 21)' date=' in the presence of God and in unending fellowship with one another. We will live, love, enjoy each other's company, and enjoy God forever. We will love God with all of our beings and we will love one another perfectly as well. We will be reunited with our believing loved ones and friends, and we will make a lot of new friends! Our relationships with each other will transcend the limitations and weaknesses of our sinful mortality as we experience perfect freedom and love with one another. We will fulfill God's creation mandate that human beings live as perfect bearers of his image, ruling as stewards of his creation on his behalf. We will have glorified, immortal, physical bodies, resurrected to powerful immortality and sinless perfection.

And we will be so joyfully happy, we just might sing!

[/quote']

I greatly appreciate this beautiful vision of resurrected existence. I would like to ask some clarifying questions - and I assure you they are not 'silly'.

- What is the point in this? What you describe sounds like an eternal dinner party which might be awesome for the first thousand or million years. But then what? What do we do day in and out?

- How does this vision justify God in putting us through being on earth in this state? It sounds like the point is to separate out those who don't follow Christ so they won't be reunited. Being with friends and loved ones is fantastic but in 5 million years, what are we doing that justifies our current state? Why do we need proofing for that?

- "ruling as stewards of his creation on his behalf" ruling over what? Isn't it over then? Everyone has been resurrected, right?

- Are you sure you aren't missing something that has been lost here?

By the way, still waiting on an answer to this:

I was not asking you to judge me or anybody else. I was asking you to tell me what YOU teach regarding the individual states I listed. I have already stated the LDS view on this.

What does it mean when you say "anyone whom God condemns will be judged justly based on what he has done"? What if I have not accepted Christ? What if I accepted the WRONG Christ? What What does God condemn one for? When does this condemnation occur? What do I do if I escape condemnation through my actions or works? I'm not asking you to apply it to me, I'm asking you to preach YOUR teachings.

[Dogmatic]

@ Dogmatic

Noticed you were a new poster. Thought I would take an opportunity to say..

Welcome to the forum.

I would advise that you heed the forum precautions about crash landings over water. The chips on our shoulders are to serve as flotation devices in such an occurrence. If in such an event you find yourself without a chip on your shoulder, let me know. I always have plenty of extras to spare

All the best,

Mudcat

lol! Thanks Mudcat! Been an unregistered lurker for quite a while. Thought I would spread my wings and try to avoid crashing It's always good to find practical uses for these stinkin chips!

[zerinus]

I asked: "Can someone do this in a traditional Christian church rather than in the LDS Church?"

Your answer, over a few posts, has been that a member of a traditional Christian church can attain salvation (to the celestial kingdom) through the proxy ordinances of the LDS Church and by accepting the fullness of the gospel (i.e., the Mormon gospel) in the afterlife.

I didn't say anything about proxy baptisms. I quoted you D&C 137:7–10 and D&C 10:53–56 (post #1140) to inform you that (1) God considers all true believers in Him to be part of His larger (spiritual) Church; and (2) that all those whose hearts God knows to be receptive to the message of the Restoration, now or in the future, are heirs of the celestial kingdom—regardless of whether they accept it in their lifetime or not.

As I have explained, this doesn't amount to an affirmative answer to my question, your protestations notwithstanding.

Yes it is. I had said, “In biblical terms, the simplest and most basic beliefs in Jesus Christ is sufficient for salvation, provided it is accompanied with a commitment live by His precepts and keep His commandments;” to which you had asked, “Okay. Can someone do this in a traditional Christian church rather than in the LDS Church?” to which I had said “Yes;” which is a correct answer to that question. I hadn’t said anything about proxy baptisms.

If one must wait until after death to accept the Mormon gospel and accept proxy ordinances performed on one's behalf in order to attain salvation, then what one obtains through a traditional Christian church is obviously not "sufficient for salvation."

There is no such thing as the “Mormon gospel”. It is all one gospel, the gospel of Jesus Chartist. The only sticking point is whether one is willing to accept the message of the Restoration or not. In all past ages when God has spoken out of heaven by a new dispensation of the gospel, men are expected to accept it at some stage in their lives to be saved—or else to reject it and be damned. That was true of the message of Moses, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Jesus, and everybody else, including Joseph Smith. When God speaks out of heaven we are expected to accept it in order to be saved. It is not a matter of one gospel over another. If you are asking whether one can knowingly and wilfully reject the message of the Restoration and be saved, the answer is no. But if you are asking whether the traditional churches can instil in their adherents a basic belief in Jesus Christ which can provide them with the foundation of faith to be saved the answer is yes. Those are two different things. You are trying to confuse issues in order to win an argument.

I explained this to you (rather patiently, I might point out), and instead of giving my explanation serious consideration you rashly accused me of dishonesty and of changing the question or issue. Your explanation merely confirms once again my point, even though you seem to think it disproves it. You write:

Fine. But if what the traditional Christian church provides is only a "steppingstone" that gets them part of the way home, then it is not "sufficient" to get them all of the way home. If what it offers can merely prepare them to receive the Restored gospel, and if that Restored gospel is necessary for salvation, then the preparation provided in the traditional Christian church is not sufficient for salvation.

All churches are a steppingstone to salvation. No church can save anybody in spite of himself, including Mormonism. Mormonism takes you one step further along the way.

The key point you are missing is that something can be helpful and still not be sufficient. I fully understand how Mormons can view traditional Christian churches as praeparatio evangelica, but the fact remains that according to LDS doctrine one cannot be saved (to the celestial kingdom) through the gospel and ordinances of a traditional Christian church; one must at some point (in this life or in the next) go on to accept the Mormon gospel and ordinances.

As I said, there is no such thing as “Mormon gospel”. It is true that one cannot knowingly and wilfully reject the message of the restoration and be saved, in this life or the next; but that was not your original question. Your original question was whether one can “do this,” (i.e. have a basic saving faith in Jesus Christ) in traditional Christian churches that can lead to salvation; and the answer to that is yes. Those are two different questions, which you are trying to mix up.

I respectfully request that you apologize for accusing me of dishonesty. I don't mind vigorous disagreement with my views, but your accusation is unfair and unfounded.

I stand by what I said. I think that the answer you gave me was a dishonest answer. You were misrepresenting your own question as well as my answer to it, and I call that a dishonest answer.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

I didn't say anything about proxy baptisms. I quoted you D&C 137:7–10 and D&C 10:53–56 (post #1140) to inform you that (1) God considers all true believers in Him to be part of His larger (spiritual) Church; and (2) that all those whose hearts God knows to be receptive to the message of the Restoration, now or in the future, are heirs of the celestial kingdom—regardless of whether they accept it in their lifetime or not.

You referred indirectly to proxy baptisms when you wrote:

But there is a provision for those who "would have received the fullness of the gospel with all their hearts if they had been allowed to tarry" (I am paraphrasing) to be saved in the celestial kingdom as if they had already received it in this life--except that we have no way of knowing who such persons might be; only God who judges the thoughts and intents of the heart knows.

That "provision" in LDS doctrine is, of course, that the individual may receive the fullness of the gospel in the spirit world, including accepting the proxy baptism performed on his behalf.

You wrote:

There is no such thing as the “Mormon gospel”. It is all one gospel, the gospel of Jesus Chartist.

You might want to spell-check your posts. Someone might get the idea that you do have a different gospel after all.

You continued:

The only sticking point is whether one is willing to accept the message of the Restoration or not.

You're playing with words here. The "message of the Restoration" is exactly what I mean by "the Mormon gospel." Message = gospel; Restoration = Mormon.

If there is only one gospel -- which I agree is the case -- then either evangelicals have the gospel or they don't. If they do, then there is no need for it to be restored. If they don't have the gospel, then they cannot be on the path of salvation.

You wrote:

I stand by what I said. I think that the answer you gave me was a dishonest answer. You were misrepresenting your own question as well as my answer to it, and I call that a dishonest answer.

Why I would misrepresent my own question is a real mystery to me. Life is too short to waste further time with someone accusing me of being dishonest about my own question.

[altersteve]

If there is only one gospel -- which I agree is the case -- then either evangelicals have the gospel or they don't. If they do, then there is no need for it to be restored. If they don't have the gospel, then they cannot be on the path of salvation.

They do have the gospel. So do Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddists, and Hindus (etc.). They just don't have it in its fullness.

You're approaching this from a perspective that we simply don't see things from.

Edited August 24, 2012 by altersteve

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

They do have the gospel. So do Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddists, and Hindus (etc.). They just don't have it in its fullness.

You're approaching this from a perspective that we simply don't see things from.

I was addressing zerinus's perspective, which to me seems somewhat unclear or inconsistent. I understand that some Mormons view it this way. However, not all do:

"Who teaches this Gospel now? Do the Methodists, the Presbyterians, the Dunkers, the Baptists, or the Catholics? Could you find anybody that taught the doctrines that Jesus taught his disciples to teach? I have not found them anywhere; and yet the thing is so plain that he that runs may read." John Taylor, in JD 5:241.

"Christianity so-called has lost the knowledge of the true gospel of Jesus Christ as established in former times." Henry D. Moyle, Conference Report, Oct. 1953, 91.

"I have traveled among the nations preaching the gospel and have seen something of the conditions of the world; and I am aware that the gospel, as revealed in the Bible, cannot be found in modern Christianity. The ordinances of the gospel are not administered in any church except The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Joseph Fielding Smith, Conference Report, Oct. 1968, 124.

"As the early centuries passed, apostasy swept over the world, and what 'all nations' eventually received was not the gospel of Christ, but a manmade version of it. And today, though so-called Christianity is worldwide, it is merely an apostate form of that gospel, with its many creeds and ordinances, and sometimes without any ordinances at all." Mark E. Petersen, Abraham: Friend of God, 63-64.

"The gift of eternal life cannot be obtained outside of the Church established by the Father and the Son. The church set up by Christ in the meridian of time became apostate following the ministry of his apostles, and thus was steeped in error by false gospel teachings, changing ordinances, and loss of divine authority. The same condition prevailed during the dark ages, requiring a new gospel dispensation—the restoration of Christ’s church to earth." Delbert B. Stapley, "The Path to Eternal Life," General Conference, Oct. 1973.

But that was the time they commenced little by little to transgress the laws, change the ordinances, and break the everlasting covenant, and the Gospel of the kingdom that Jesus undertook to establish in his day and the Priesthood were taken from the earth.... The Lord has restored His gospel and priesthood authority in this final dispensation through the Prophet Joseph Smith. Generations have come and gone without the privilege of hearing the sound of the Gospel, which has come to you through Joseph Smith—that was revealed to him from heaven by angels and visions. We have the Gospel and the keys of the holy Priesthood." Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young (1997), chapter 14.

"We need to sense something of the depth of the spiritual darkness that prevailed before that day in the spring of 1820 when the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith—a darkness which was foreseen by the prophet Nephi and described as 'that awful state of blindness' in which the gospel was withheld from man." President Spencer W. Kimball, "How Rare a Possession--The Scriptures," Ensign, July 1985; Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Spencer W. Kimball (2006), chapter 6.

"The angel taught Joseph Smith those principles which are necessary for the salvation of the world; and the Lord gave him commandments, and sealed upon him the priesthood, and gave him power to administer the ordinances of the house of the Lord. He told him the gospel was not among men, and that there was not a true organization of his kingdom in the world, that the people had turned away from his true order, changed the ordinances and broken the everlasting covenant, and inherited lies and things wherein there was no profit." Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Wilford Woodruff (2004), chapter 1.

[altersteve]

Fortunately our understanding has increased since those statements were made.

[Anakin7]

Perhaps for the statements made by LDS at those time periods was because of the behaviour that evangelicals were demomstratinig tward one another and to the Mormons which was unchristlike and not adhering to the fuulness of the Gospel Of Our Lord and master Christ Jesus.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Dogmatic]

They do have the gospel. So do Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddists, and Hindus (etc.). They just don't have it in its fullness.

You're approaching this from a perspective that we simply don't see things from.

The only sticking point is whether one is willing to accept the message of the Restoration or not.

You're playing with words here. The "message of the Restoration" is exactly what I mean by "the Mormon gospel." Message = gospel; Restoration = Mormon.

If there is only one gospel -- which I agree is the case -- then either evangelicals have the gospel or they don't. If they do, then there is no need for it to be restored. If they don't have the gospel, then they cannot be on the path of salvation.

I was addressing zerinus's perspective' date=' which to me seems somewhat unclear or inconsistent. I understand that some Mormons view it this way. However, not all do:

[/quote']

Rob, you're demonstrating, yet again, exactly what I've been trying to explain to you. You have read all these things but you don't understand them. Zerinus and altersteve are telling you the same thing that I've tried to explain to you. I believe you're a very intelligent man and well learned. I also think that you believe you're right and that we don't know what we're talking about and so you're refusing to listen to us. You're not processing any of this with your heart. I'm going to try it one more time from a different angle:

You (evangelists) and as steve said, catholics, jews, muslims, etc have the gospel. However, what you have is a fragment, a partial, less than full, that which was not taken. The FULLNESS of the Gospel has been restored by Jesus Christ, whether you deny it or accept it is no matter - it remains, the partial that you have fits perfectly into the fullness, sans corruptions of men - such as the trinity, The fullness expands on your partial because of what it is - the fullness. It puts back things that have been taken away. It takes away corruptions and assumptions of man.

That's it. That is all there is to it.

I'll simplify it one more step for you:

You have part. The fullness has been restored. Your part fits directly into fullness sans corruption.

Apostocy (what you have): (7 - 3)+.5 Restoration (what is now available): (4-.5) + 3

The formula shows that removing the small things that have been added and folding it back into what was removed gets you back to the start.

If you are able to grasp that, then you'll come to understand that each of these quotes is saying what we're saying. The creeds are part of the corruption, the manmade part.

I have highlighted the parts of these quotes that actually do matter. The parts that explain over and over and over what we have been telling you. There is no inconsistency here, there is no confusion. We are all, including each of them, telling you the very same thing.

"Who teaches this Gospel now? Do the Methodists' date=' the Presbyterians, the Dunkers, the Baptists, or the Catholics?[/b'] Could you find anybody that taught the doctrines that Jesus taught his disciples to teach? I have not found them anywhere; and yet the thing is so plain that he that runs may read." John Taylor, in JD 5:241.

"Christianity so-called has lost the knowledge of the true gospel of Jesus Christ as established in former times." Henry D. Moyle, Conference Report, Oct. 1953, 91.

"I have traveled among the nations preaching the gospel and have seen something of the conditions of the world; and I am aware that the gospel, as revealed in the Bible, cannot be found in modern Christianity. The ordinances of the gospel are not administered in any church except The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Joseph Fielding Smith, Conference Report, Oct. 1968, 124.

"As the early centuries passed, apostasy swept over the world, and what 'all nations' eventually received was not the gospel of Christ, but a manmade version of it. And today, though so-called Christianity is worldwide, it is merely an apostate form of that gospel, with its many creeds and ordinances, and sometimes without any ordinances at all." Mark E. Petersen, Abraham: Friend of God, 63-64.

"The gift of eternal life cannot be obtained outside of the Church established by the Father and the Son. The church set up by Christ in the meridian of time became apostate following the ministry of his apostles, and thus was steeped in error by false gospel teachings, changing ordinances, and loss of divine authority. The same condition prevailed during the dark ages, requiring a new gospel dispensation—the restoration of Christ’s church to earth." Delbert B. Stapley, "The Path to Eternal Life," General Conference, Oct. 1973.

But that was the time they commenced little by little to transgress the laws, change the ordinances, and break the everlasting covenant, and the Gospel of the kingdom that Jesus undertook to establish in his day and the Priesthood were taken from the earth.... The Lord has restored His gospel and priesthood authority in this final dispensation through the Prophet Joseph Smith. Generations have come and gone without the privilege of hearing the sound of the Gospel, which has come to you through Joseph Smith—that was revealed to him from heaven by angels and visions. We have the Gospel and the keys of the holy Priesthood." Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young (1997), chapter 14.

"We need to sense something of the depth of the spiritual darkness that prevailed before that day in the spring of 1820 when the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith—a darkness which was foreseen by the prophet Nephi and described as 'that awful state of blindness' in which the gospel was withheld from man." President Spencer W. Kimball, "How Rare a Possession--The Scriptures," Ensign, July 1985; Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Spencer W. Kimball (2006), chapter 6.

"The angel taught Joseph Smith those principles which are necessary for the salvation of the world; and the Lord gave him commandments, and sealed upon him the priesthood, and gave him power to administer the ordinances of the house of the Lord. He told him the gospel was not among men, and that there was not a true organization of his kingdom in the world, that the people had turned away from his true order, changed the ordinances and broken the everlasting covenant, and inherited lies and things wherein there was no profit." Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Wilford Woodruff (2004), chapter 1.

[Vance]

Steve,

You wrote:

I was addressing zerinus's perspective, which to me seems somewhat unclear or inconsistent. I understand that some Mormons view it this way. However, not all do:

"Who teaches this Gospel now? Do the Methodists, the Presbyterians, the Dunkers, the Baptists, or the Catholics? Could you find anybody that taught the doctrines that Jesus taught his disciples to teach? I have not found them anywhere; and yet the thing is so plain that he that runs may read." John Taylor, in JD 5:241.

"Christianity so-called has lost the knowledge of the true gospel of Jesus Christ as established in former times." Henry D. Moyle, Conference Report, Oct. 1953, 91.

"I have traveled among the nations preaching the gospel and have seen something of the conditions of the world; and I am aware that the gospel, as revealed in the Bible, cannot be found in modern Christianity. The ordinances of the gospel are not administered in any church except The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Joseph Fielding Smith, Conference Report, Oct. 1968, 124.

"As the early centuries passed, apostasy swept over the world, and what 'all nations' eventually received was not the gospel of Christ, but a manmade version of it. And today, though so-called Christianity is worldwide, it is merely an apostate form of that gospel, with its many creeds and ordinances, and sometimes without any ordinances at all." Mark E. Petersen, Abraham: Friend of God, 63-64.

"The gift of eternal life cannot be obtained outside of the Church established by the Father and the Son. The church set up by Christ in the meridian of time became apostate following the ministry of his apostles, and thus was steeped in error by false gospel teachings, changing ordinances, and loss of divine authority. The same condition prevailed during the dark ages, requiring a new gospel dispensation—the restoration of Christ’s church to earth." Delbert B. Stapley, "The Path to Eternal Life," General Conference, Oct. 1973.

But that was the time they commenced little by little to transgress the laws, change the ordinances, and break the everlasting covenant, and the Gospel of the kingdom that Jesus undertook to establish in his day and the Priesthood were taken from the earth.... The Lord has restored His gospel and priesthood authority in this final dispensation through the Prophet Joseph Smith. Generations have come and gone without the privilege of hearing the sound of the Gospel, which has come to you through Joseph Smith—that was revealed to him from heaven by angels and visions. We have the Gospel and the keys of the holy Priesthood." Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young (1997), chapter 14.

"We need to sense something of the depth of the spiritual darkness that prevailed before that day in the spring of 1820 when the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith—a darkness which was foreseen by the prophet Nephi and described as 'that awful state of blindness' in which the gospel was withheld from man." President Spencer W. Kimball, "How Rare a Possession--The Scriptures," Ensign, July 1985; Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Spencer W. Kimball (2006), chapter 6.

"The angel taught Joseph Smith those principles which are necessary for the salvation of the world; and the Lord gave him commandments, and sealed upon him the priesthood, and gave him power to administer the ordinances of the house of the Lord. He told him the gospel was not among men, and that there was not a true organization of his kingdom in the world, that the people had turned away from his true order, changed the ordinances and broken the everlasting covenant, and inherited lies and things wherein there was no profit." Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Wilford Woodruff (2004), chapter 1.

The fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ WAS NOT and IS NOT had among them. They do have portions of the truth though.

One of the falsehoods had among Evangelicals is the belief that the Thief went to heaven. He OBVIOUSLY did not. I did have one Evangelical claim that Jesus used time travel to take the Thief to heaven. I suppose, for the dogmatic, any explanation will do.

[thesometimesaint]

Anakin7:

Like the old saying that "What you are doing is shouting so loudly, I can't hear a word you're saying".

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

Fortunately our understanding has increased since those statements were made.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You acknowledge that various LDS leaders from Brigham Young to Spencer W. Kimball taught that apostate Christian churches did not have the gospel. However, you think that in the last twenty years or so Mormon understanding has increased and you now all recognize that apostate Christian churches did and do have the gospel, just not its "fullness."

Is that what you mean to say?

[Rob Bowman]

Dogmatic,

You wrote:

You (evangelists) and as steve said, catholics, jews, muslims, etc have the gospel. However, what you have is a fragment, a partial, less than full, that which was not taken. The FULLNESS of the Gospel has been restored by Jesus Christ, whether you deny it or accept it is no matter - it remains, the partial that you have fits perfectly into the fullness, sans corruptions of men - such as the trinity, The fullness expands on your partial because of what it is - the fullness. It puts back things that have been taken away. It takes away corruptions and assumptions of man.

That's it. That is all there is to it.

Wow. Jews and Muslims also have the gospel? Jews deny that Jesus rose from the grave; Muslims deny that Jesus died or rose from the grave. Neither religion affirms that Jesus atoned for sins. Neither religion acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God. What part of the gospel do you think they have?

Why not go all the way and say that Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, and even agnostics and atheists have parts of the gospel? Everyone has some truth, after all. Is this really a meaningful position to take?

What does it mean to say that Jews, Muslims, and traditional Christians all have "the gospel" and then say that what they have are only "fragments" or "parts" of the gospel? If I have only a few fragments containing fourteen verses of the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, do I actually have the Epistle of Paul to the Romans? If I have three tires, a windshield, and a rusty carburetor, do I have a car?

[zerinus]

Perhaps for the statements made by LDS at those time periods was because of the behaviour that evangelicals were demomstratinig tward one another and to the Mormons which was unchristlike and not adhering to the fuulness of the Gospel Of Our Lord and master Christ Jesus.

I agree. It was a polemical response to the abuse that Mormons were receiving from Evangelicals Protestants at that time.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

I agree. It was a polemical response to the abuse that Mormons were receiving from Evangelicals Protestants at that time.

How did that change sometime after the mid-1980s? What "abuse" were evangelical Protestants inflicting in the 1970s and 1980s that they weren't in the 1990s or even today?

[Dogmatic]

Dogmatic,

You wrote:

Wow. Jews and Muslims also have the gospel? Jews deny that Jesus rose from the grave; Muslims deny that Jesus died or rose from the grave. Neither religion affirms that Jesus atoned for sins. Neither religion acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God. What part of the gospel do you think they have?

Why not go all the way and say that Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, and even agnostics and atheists have parts of the gospel? Everyone has some truth, after all. Is this really a meaningful position to take?

What does it mean to say that Jews, Muslims, and traditional Christians all have "the gospel" and then say that what they have are only "fragments" or "parts" of the gospel? If I have only a few fragments containing fourteen verses of the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, do I actually have the Epistle of Paul to the Romans? If I have three tires, a windshield, and a rusty carburetor, do I have a car?

Seriously? I wrote all that and what you got out of it was Jews and Muslims?

Why do you equivocate and ignore the whole in order to stumble over such trivial and silly things? Are you playing a game or are you truly incapable of understanding this? When they un-harden their hearts and they look upon the restored gospel, they will recognize it as an extension of what they already know.

If you have 3 tires, a windshield and a rusty carb and YOU believe that it is a complete car, then you'll haul around your windshield while chasing your tires and dragging your carb while telling everyone that your car is amazing. Then one day you'll see someone in an actual car and you will immediately recognize the tires, windshield and the carb and finally understand that having a car means you can drive around and how all of it fits together to work properly.

So yes, if you have 3 tires a windshield and a carb you have a partial car. It is you who are insisting that your parts are actually a car even though you see cars driving by. When they go by you stomp your feet, spit on the ground, rub your carburetor and say "That's not a car, Henry Ford was a democrat, there's no way he could have built a car. Besides, a car looks JUST LIKE THIS, not that thing with all the other pieces. Not only that, windshield are supposed to be cracked - just like this one! Besides, your tires are fully inflated. A study group decided tires can only be partially inflated and full inflation is impossible. I can prove it because every time I take the air hose away before it gets full it doesn't fill up. Plus, carburetors have to be red or they won't work! That grey one, no way it will work. No, I won't try it, I'm a car scholar. I studied my carburetor for years. Now I've proven that what you have is not a car to my own satisfaction so I therefore declare to the world that you are a plane! Nothing at all like a car."

So uh, what kind of carb you got there?

[zerinus]

How did that change sometime after the mid-1980s? What "abuse" were evangelical Protestants inflicting in the 1970s and 1980s that they weren't in the 1990s or even today?

A lot has changed since the days of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff. In those days the United States press was full of anti-Mormon literature, all stirred up by the so called "Christians" of the time (mainly Protestants; Catholics weren't invollved). Anti-Mormon sentiments in those days were so strong that the US government even raised an army to attack the Saints in Utah--after they had perssecuted and driven them from city to town, and finally to the Rocky Mountains. Those polemics started back then, and some of it still lingered on until the 1970s, 80s, and 90s. But that is how it started; and these things wehn they start, take a long time to die down.

[Rob Bowman]

Dogmatic,

I'm so stunned by your post that I don't quite know how to respond. You made an indefensible claim (that Jews and Muslims have the gospel) and your attempts to deflect attention away from the problem by accusing me of ignoring the larger whole (etc.) do nothing to further illuminate the issue.

Your attempt to turn my car analogy around to criticize my position merely confirms what I have been saying all along. From the LDS perspective what traditional Christians have is not the gospel, just as a man with three tires, a windshield and a rusty carburetor does not have a car. That is exactly what I have been trying to get you and other Mormons to acknowledge. Instead you and others here are the ones playing games (as you put it) to avoid dealing with the implications of your own church's doctrine.

Mormonism claims that it alone has the true gospel, that it alone is the true and living church on the earth, that its baptisms alone are valid, that it alone among all churches or religions on earth has the priesthood, that its members alone may receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and that anyone who does not accept the Mormon religion in this lifetime cannot have eternal life unless they accept in the spirit world after they die. These are the facts concerning what the LDS Church claims. It doesn't seem too much to ask for Mormons to come right out and admit that this is their religion's position. But you can all see that frankly admitting this would seriously undermine your rhetorical strategy of trying to position yourself as the open-minded and tolerant religion and those who disagree with your religion as the narrow-minded, bigoted, anti-Mormon bogeyman.

[zerinus]

Mormonism claims that it alone has the true gospel, that it alone is the true and living church on the earth, that its baptisms alone are valid, that it alone among all churches or religions on earth has the priesthood, that its members alone may receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and that anyone who does not accept the Mormon religion in this lifetime cannot have eternal life unless they accept in the spirit world after they die. These are the facts concerning what the LDS Church claims. It doesn't seem too much to ask for Mormons to come right out and admit that this is their religion's position. But you can all see that frankly admitting this would seriously undermine your rhetorical strategy of trying to position yourself as the open-minded and tolerant religion and those who disagree with your religion as the narrow-minded, bigoted, anti-Mormon bogeyman.

I have not read Dogmatic's post, and I don't know what are the points that you are replying to. I am replying to your post as is, without attempting to agree or disagree with what others might have said. You are ignoring, or turning a blind eye to, what Mormon revelation actually teaches:

3 Nephi 16:

6 And blessed are the Gentiles, because of their belief in me, in and of the Holy Ghost, which witnesses unto them of me and of the Father.

This refers to the non-Mormon (Christian) Gentiles, not Mormons.