7 Reasons Why Mormonism and Christianity Are Not the Same

[Teancum]

On 6/27/2023 at 11:21 AM, Navidad said:

There is a significant part of Christianity that does not and has never defined itself by the Nicene or any other Creed. I certainly don't. Much of Protestant Christianity is not creedal at all. I know I am not. If I had to choose one, I would much prefer the Apostolic Creed over the Nicene, but I choose neither! Take Care.

But do you believe what the creeds teach about the Godhead?

[Teancum]

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Gosh, you sound like a Pharisee. No offense intended, but wasn't that their stance? We've been following the Law of Moses for 2000 years. You can't just show up and fulfill it! 

Not really.  Orthodox Christianity does seem to have essentials that are important and essential and the creedal concepts about the Godhead seems to be one of those and had been applied fairly consistently. It is not pharisaical to want to be consistent with the historic application of the doctrine.  Latter-day Saints have similar essential doctrine do they not?

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The Nicene Creed was formulated at the command of the pagan emperor Constantine I. Because he wanted to make Christianity the state religion, but couldn't do it effectively without ironing out all the bumps in belief throughout Christendom. So a committee was formed to decide who or what God is. What authority did the committee have? The authority of a pagan monarch. 

This is an old canard and really not correct. Latter-day Saints love to say this but really don't know the history generally. Constantine was a convert if I recall. So at the time he was no longer a pagan. The schism on the Godhead primarily generated by Arius and his teachings about the godhead that seemed to conflict with the doctrine of many other bishops.  The council had every authority to work through the issue.  Constantine called the council so the respective bishops could settle the dispute. What you are doing is seeking to poison the well be  disparaging the council simply because constantine called the the council.

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Pardon me if I don't feel particularly inspired by the outcome.

Whether you are or are not is really irrelevant to the outcome.  Mormonism's doctrine about the Godhead does not inspire many as well.  So?

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Sara H said:

I've already cited this Jeffrey Holland presentation in another post, but I believe it still holds true here.

I don't think I've ever head a member refer to a conference talk as a 'presentation' before. Are you sure you are (or were) LDS?

 

Quote

He emphasises that while Christians do not adhere to actual post-New Testament Christian history, the LDS church does, and that as a result of the gospel's return to earth, we are currently the only church that does.

I have no idea what it means to "adhere to actual post-New Testament Christian history."

I'm genuinely confused by this statement. Is this a multiverse kind of thing where the LDS church is following cannon and all of the other churches are variants? Hmm...

 

Quote

He continues by explaining how the Nician Creed and later creeds created a God who is not recognised in the gospel.

Yeah, we don't accept the Nicene creed as authoritative.

 

Quote

Again, the audience LDS members chuckle at Holland's definition of the Christian God, which has never sat right with me.

Here's what Elder Holland said (and when the audience laughed):

These various evolutions and iterations of creeds—and others to come over the centuries—declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, immanent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time. In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted “mystery of the trinity.” They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible.

We agree with our critics on at least that point—that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible.

You may not know many Christians outside the LDS faith - I don't recall how long you said it's been since you left - but we aren't the only ones who make jokes about the incomprehensible nature of the Trinity. I've heard the same from priests and pastors plenty of times, so I don't consider this much of a dig. YMMV.

 

Quote

Is Holland correct, then? Is the Christian God illogical, obscure, and unknowable?

While I personally think there are some logical problems with the classical definition of God, Elder Holland didn't actually use the words "illogical" or "obscure." He said what I quoted above, and if you have taken even a rudimentary class in the philosophy of religion you would know that the words he used are, in fact, representative of how classical theologians define God.

 

Quote

In essence, he is suggesting that the God of Christianity is a created deity, not the God we worship.  

I disagree. He is merely pointing out that there are attributes which have been attributed to God by theologians that we do not believe are true - not that we worship a different God.

Again, are you sure you are (or used to be) LDS?

 

Quote

A lot of people have written to me asking what a TRUE Christian is [...]

Really? Are these same people asking you to opine about what makes someone a FALSE Christian?

Are there bands of atheists out there running false-flag operations, masquerading as FAUX Christians or something? Inquiring minds want to know!

 

Quote

He claims that anyone who rejects the idea of an embodied God is also rejecting the crucified Christ. 

This feels like a bit of equivocation on your part. The line you are referring to here seems to be this one: Any who dismiss the concept of an embodied God dismiss both the mortal and the resurrected Christ.

He didn't say anything about rejecting Christ crucified. He's simply pointing out that an embodied God isn't outside the pale within Christian thought.

 

Quote

Holland goes on to say that the true gospel was restored to the earth on the day that the Gods appeared to Joseph Smith, implying that all of Christianity had been grovelling in the dark for thousands of years prior to the first vision [...]

You can infer whatever you like I suppose, but he neither said nor implied any such thing.

What he did say is that God restored prophetic truths that had been lost over time. But incomplete truth is not the equivalent of "grovelling in the dark."

 

Quote

 ...our doctrine is based on the notion that we are the only true Christians. 

If this were really our doctrine, why do you suppose it is that so many of us do not believe it? Or that it isn't actually taught in scripture or proclaimed by the mouths of prophets and apostles?

We certainly believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Christ's institutional church here on earth, but that doesn't mean we are the only true Christians.

 

Quote

He ends his testimony by declaring that anyone who want to seek the same confirmation is welcome to do so, and that everyone can know the one and only true God via the power of the Holy Spirit, again hinting that the Christian God is a man-made deity.

Remind me to never go into an escape room with you. You seem to be pretty bad with hints. Sorry.

 

[InCognitus]

53 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

It is actually an accurate summary of Constantine's role. Eusebius's biography of Constantine makes this certain. Read about the First Council of Nicea HERE. As you say, this council initiated it. Of course, later versions of the creed were formulated after Constantine. But he's the one who started the ball rolling.

Not only that, but according to Eusebius (in a letter he wrote to the church of Cesarea), Constantine is the one who requested that the word ὁμοούσιος (homoousios, "consubstantial") be inserted into the creed.  In his letter (found here), he explained how a creed was presented at the council (and it lacked any indication of a consubstantial Father and Son), and then he explains (as follows) how the word homoousios was proposed to be inserted into the creed at the reasoning of the emperor:

Quote

When this formulary had been set forth by us, there was no room to gainsay it; but our beloved emperor himself was the first to testify that it was most orthodox, and that he coincided in opinion with it; and he exhorted the others to sign it, and to receive all the doctrine it contained, with the single addition of the one word-`consubstantial.' He explained that this term implied no bodily condition or change, for that the Son did not derive His existence from the Father either by means of division or of abscission, since an immaterial, intellectual, and incorporeal nature could not be subject to any bodily condition or change . These things must be understood as bearing a divine and mysterious signification. Thus reasoned our wisest and most religious emperor.

And when the council deliberated on the meaning of the word, the reasoning they used sounds quite different than what it has come to mean these days (of course the meaning of the word was debated for decades and finalized by later creeds):

Quote

When they had set forth this formulary, we did not leave without examination that passage in which it is said that the Son is of the substance of the Father, and consubstantial with the Father. Questions and arguments thence arose, and the meaning of the terms was exactly tested. Accordingly they were led to confess that the word consubstantial signifies that the Son is of the Father, but not as being a part of the Father. We deemed it right to receive this opinion; for that is sound doctrine which teaches that the Son is of the Father, but not part of His substance. From the love of peace, and lest we should fall from the true belief, we also accept this view, neither do we reject the term `consubstantial.' For the same reason we admitted the expression, `begotten, but not made;' for they alleged that the word `made' applies generally to all things which were created by the Son, to which the Son is in no respect similar; and that consequently He is not a created thing, like the things made by Him, but is of a substance superior to all created objects. The Holy Scriptures teach Him to be begotten of the Father, by a mode of generation which is incomprehensible and inexplicable to all created beings. So also the term `of one substance with the Father,' when investigated, was accepted not in accordance with bodily relations or similarity to mortal beings. For it was also shown that it does not either imply division of substance, nor abscission, nor any modification or change or diminution in the power of the Father, all of which are alien from the nature of the unbegotten Father. It was concluded that the expression `being of one substance with the Father,' implies that the Son of God does not resemble, in any one respect, the creatures which He has made; but that to the Father alone, who begat Him, He is in all points perfectly like: for He is of the essence and of the substance of none save of the Father. This interpretation having been given of the doctrine, it appeared right to us to assent to it, especially as we were aware that of the ancients some learned and celebrated bishops and writers have used the term `consubstantial' with respect to the divinity of the Father and of the Son.

So it goes beyond Constantine initiating the council, for at least according to Eusebius, he had a hand in formulating the most controversial part of the creed itself.

Edited June 28, 2023 by InCognitus

[BlueDreams]

On 6/27/2023 at 7:29 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

There's so much here, but I think there are three key categories. Based on interest, I can recommend tons of books/videos/podcasts in each of these vital areas:

• Church history from the New Testament through the Council of Nicaea. 
• Catholic belief and theology. Belief is to "architecture and interior design" what theology is to "structural and metallurgical engineering." 
• Catholic exegesis (scriptural interpretation).

I apologize for my delayed response. 

No worries. This would be something of a side interest to the things I'm looking into recently....so if it were something more on the brief end of things that would be great! I don't know if I had anything specific. I just saw a number of protestant oriented sources listing things they would describe as either essential or primary doctrine. This was considered different than secondary doctrine that they described as the reason for the variations in christian practice between denominations. I don't have one specific source for this as again it hasn't been a focus. This one gave a basic gist of what I'd see. 

Quote

What is that doctrinal core? What doctrines do we really need to know? Although it is over a century old, I believe the five basic doctrines identified by R. A. Torrey and A.C. Dixon in “The Fundamentals,” a set of essays written from 1910-1915, still provide the correct theological banks to the river. The five listed are: 1) The Trinity: There is one God in three persons, with each person possessing all the attributes of deity and personality; 2) The Person of Jesus Christ: Jesus is the unique God-man, possessing full humanity with undiminished deity; 3) The Second Coming: Jesus will one day personally return to the earth to rule and judge; 4) Salvation: Man is saved by faith alone in Christ alone; and 5) The Scripture: The Bible is the inerrant Word of God and therefore sufficient for all Christian life.

 

Another came from a video was close and had their list as this: 

sufficiency and authority of the bible

one almighty triune God

humans are lost image-bearers of God

Jesus is God and savior of the world

True church is all who have been born again

jesus will return

 

They ranged from around 5-14....but usually they were 5-8 core doctrines. Which the number itself seemed to indicate less of an absolute and more of an interpretation of importance. 

I don't know if you'd have something fairly brief that would give a more catholic/orthodox assertion on this. But if you do I'll take it  

With luv,

BD

[Sara H]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I don't think I've ever head a member refer to a conference talk as a 'presentation' before. Are you sure you are (or were) LDS?

 

I have no idea what it means to "adhere to actual post-New Testament Christian history."

I'm genuinely confused by this statement. Is this a multiverse kind of thing where the LDS church is following cannon and all of the other churches are variants? Hmm...

 

Yeah, we don't accept the Nicene creed as authoritative.

 

Here's what Elder Holland said (and when the audience laughed):

These various evolutions and iterations of creeds—and others to come over the centuries—declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, immanent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time. In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted “mystery of the trinity.” They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible.

We agree with our critics on at least that point—that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible.

You may not know many Christians outside the LDS faith - I don't recall how long you said it's been since you left - but we aren't the only ones who make jokes about the incomprehensible nature of the Trinity. I've heard the same from priests and pastors plenty of times, so I don't consider this much of a dig. YMMV.

 

While I personally think there are some logical problems with the classical definition of God, Elder Holland didn't actually use the words "illogical" or "obscure." He said what I quoted above, and if you have taken even a rudimentary class in the philosophy of religion you would know that the words he used are, in fact, representative of how classical theologians define God.

 

I disagree. He is merely pointing out that there are attributes which have been attributed to God by theologians that we do not believe are true - not that we worship a different God.

Again, are you sure you are (or used to be) LDS?

 

Really? Are these same people asking you to opine about what makes someone a FALSE Christian?

Are there bands of atheists out there running false-flag operations, masquerading as FAUX Christians or something? Inquiring minds want to know!

 

This feels like a bit of equivocation on your part. The line you are referring to here seems to be this one: Any who dismiss the concept of an embodied God dismiss both the mortal and the resurrected Christ.

He didn't say anything about rejecting Christ crucified. He's simply pointing out that an embodied God isn't outside the pale within Christian thought.

 

You can infer whatever you like I suppose, but he neither said nor implied any such thing.

What he did say is that God restored prophetic truths that had been lost over time. But incomplete truth is not the equivalent of "grovelling in the dark."

 

If this were really our doctrine, why do you suppose it is that so many of us do not believe it? Or that it isn't actually taught in scripture or proclaimed by the mouths of prophets and apostles?

We certainly believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Christ's institutional church here on earth, but that doesn't mean we are the only true Christians.

 

Remind me to never go into an escape room with you. You seem to be pretty bad with hints. 

 

Holland "Them to be three persons combined in one substance, a Trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures because it is not true." As a result of the fact that the majority of Christians adhere to the doctrine of the trinity, he asserts that the majority of Christians are worshipping a fictitious deity. 

Holland "the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the [New Testament].” Again, Holland asserts that the Christian god is nowhere to be found in the New Testament of the Bible. 

Holland "with post–New Testament Christian history and returns to the doctrine taught by Jesus Himself." This is where Holland makes the claim that the gospel of the LDS church diverges from the gospel that Christians preach and RETURNS to the gospel that Christ actually preached when he was on earth.

Holland "That day marked the beginning of the return of the true, New Testament gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and the restoration of other prophetic truths offered from Adam down to the present day." In this passage, Holland is asserting categorically that the genuine message of Christ's gospel was not available on earth until the time of the restoration. Take note of how he utilises the word "return" to imply that it was absent!

Holland "With such a confusing definition of God being imposed upon the church, little wonder that a fourth-century monk cried out, “Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, …" Holland is telling here how many Christians felt over a thousand years ago when the persons responsible for the creeds redefined and altered their Christian God into a being that is truly unfathomable. This occurred when the creeds were written. 

Holland "We agree with our critics on at least that point—that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible." Without a shadow of a doubt, Holland is arguing that the God of Christianity is completely incomprehensible in this passage due to the fact that the God of Christianity has been constructed to accommodate the whims of men.

Holland "I testify that my witness of these things is true and that the heavens are open to all who seek the same confirmation. Through the Holy Spirit of Truth, may we all know “the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom [He has] sent.” By adhering to the principles of the restored gospel, rather than the gospel that originated from the creeds, we have a chance of knowing the one and only real God. 

Holland "Then may we live Their teachings and be true Christians in deed" Without a shadow of a doubt, Holland is convinced that the only place where genuine Christianity can be found is in the LDS church, and that the rest of Christianity adheres to a version of God that has been fabricated over the course of hundreds of years, most likely by hundreds of men who felt they knew better than Jesus himself.

 

Edited June 28, 2023 by Sara H

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

But do you believe what the creeds teach about the Godhead?

I don't think I can answer that unless you specify which creed you are asking about. On the other hand, I can simply say I don't pay any attention to what any creed says about anything. But the Navidadivian creed would suggest that God exists. He exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God desires fellowship with humans and has made that possible.

[Sara H]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

I don't think I've ever head a member refer to a conference talk as a 'presentation' before. Are you sure you are (or were) LDS?

 

I have no idea what it means to "adhere to actual post-New Testament Christian history."

I'm genuinely confused by this statement. Is this a multiverse kind of thing where the LDS church is following cannon and all of the other churches are variants? Hmm...

 

Yeah, we don't accept the Nicene creed as authoritative.

 

Here's what Elder Holland said (and when the audience laughed):

These various evolutions and iterations of creeds—and others to come over the centuries—declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, immanent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time. In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted “mystery of the trinity.” They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible.

We agree with our critics on at least that point—that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible.

You may not know many Christians outside the LDS faith - I don't recall how long you said it's been since you left - but we aren't the only ones who make jokes about the incomprehensible nature of the Trinity. I've heard the same from priests and pastors plenty of times, so I don't consider this much of a dig. YMMV.

 

While I personally think there are some logical problems with the classical definition of God, Elder Holland didn't actually use the words "illogical" or "obscure." He said what I quoted above, and if you have taken even a rudimentary class in the philosophy of religion you would know that the words he used are, in fact, representative of how classical theologians define God.

 

I disagree. He is merely pointing out that there are attributes which have been attributed to God by theologians that we do not believe are true - not that we worship a different God.

Again, are you sure you are (or used to be) LDS?

 

Really? Are these same people asking you to opine about what makes someone a FALSE Christian?

Are there bands of atheists out there running false-flag operations, masquerading as FAUX Christians or something? Inquiring minds want to know!

 

This feels like a bit of equivocation on your part. The line you are referring to here seems to be this one: Any who dismiss the concept of an embodied God dismiss both the mortal and the resurrected Christ.

He didn't say anything about rejecting Christ crucified. He's simply pointing out that an embodied God isn't outside the pale within Christian thought.

 

You can infer whatever you like I suppose, but he neither said nor implied any such thing.

What he did say is that God restored prophetic truths that had been lost over time. But incomplete truth is not the equivalent of "grovelling in the dark."

 

If this were really our doctrine, why do you suppose it is that so many of us do not believe it? Or that it isn't actually taught in scripture or proclaimed by the mouths of prophets and apostles?

We certainly believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Christ's institutional church here on earth, but that doesn't mean we are the only true Christians.

 

Remind me to never go into an escape room with you. You seem to be pretty bad with hints. Sorry.

 

I am going to do some additional investigation in order to figure out who the LDS guy in this video actually is. On the other hand, I believe the Christian speaker in the video is right. He is stating how the majority of Christians I know perceive LDS, which is why I keep trying to explain why we shouldn't consider ourselves "Christians" in the traditional sense or in any other manner, because I don't see how we will ever be accepted. He is also explaining why I keep trying to explain why  we shouldn't consider ourselves "Christians." Everything that we believe and preach teaches us that Traditional Christianity is false and that we are the only authentic Christians. I'm at a loss to comprehend the rationale behind our decision to no longer make an effort to defend our philosophy. It is as if we are attempting to sneak into Christianity through the back door in the hope that no one would see us. It is not going to be successful. 

 

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Sara H said:

I am going to do some additional investigation in order to figure out who the LDS guy in this video actually is. On the other hand, I believe the Christian speaker in the video is right. He is stating how the majority of Christians I know perceive LDS, which is why I keep trying to explain why we shouldn't consider ourselves "Christians" in the traditional sense or in any other manner, because I don't see how we will ever be accepted. He is also explaining why I keep trying to explain why  we shouldn't consider ourselves "Christians." Everything that we believe and preach teaches us that Traditional Christianity is false and that we are the only authentic Christians. I'm at a loss to comprehend the rationale behind our decision to no longer make an effort to defend our philosophy. It is as if we are attempting to sneak into Christianity through the back door in the hope that no one would see us. It is not going to be successful. 

 

I'm a disciple of Jesus Christ and that's why I am a Christian.  Calling myself a Christian is how I make an effort to defend our philosophy.  I don't care what the council of Nicea decided in 385 AD.  That council, and everyone who agrees with it, is superfluous to whether or not I am a Christian.

[Sara H]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm a disciple of Jesus Christ and that's why I am a Christian.  Calling myself a Christian is how I make an effort to defend our philosophy.  I don't care what the council of Nicea decided in 385 AD.  That council, and everyone who agrees with it, is superfluous to whether or not I am a Christian.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/elders-journal-august-1838/12

 

Edited June 28, 2023 by Sara H

[Sara H]

https://journalofdiscourses.com/8/5

 

[teddyaware]

9 minutes ago, Sara H said:

I am going to do some additional investigation in order to figure out who the LDS guy in this video actually is. On the other hand, I believe the Christian speaker in the video is right. He is stating how the majority of Christians I know perceive LDS, which is why I keep trying to explain why we shouldn't consider ourselves "Christians" in the traditional sense or in any other manner, because I don't see how we will ever be accepted. He is also explaining why I keep trying to explain why  we shouldn't consider ourselves "Christians." Everything that we believe and preach teaches us that Traditional Christianity is false and that we are the only authentic Christians. I'm at a loss to comprehend the rationale behind our decision to no longer make an effort to defend our philosophy. It is as if we are attempting to sneak into Christianity through the back door in the hope that no one would see us. It is not going to be successful. 

 

You hit the nail on the head! The way I see the apparent need some members of the church have to be accepted as Christians by the non-LDS churches is not dissimilar from being willing to compromise one’s eternal principles in order to curry favor with those who scoff at the saints from the windows of the great and spacious building. Please note that I said this phenomenon of wanting to receive acceptance from the Non-LDS churches is ‘not dissimilar’ to what Lehi beheld in his vision, not that it’s precisely the same thing. After all, not all of our critics are people of hate and ill will.

Without apology, I make the following assertion: Like it or not, every non-LDS Christian is eventually going to have to accept and be reconciled to God through the Christ of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints or they will not be able to obtain salvation in any of the three heavenly kingdoms of glory. In saying this I know I’m going to cause a firestorm of protestations, but I can assure any who doubt me that they will eventually realize what I say is true. Doctrine and Covenants 138 makes it very clear. There is no salvation in any Christ but the Christ of the Latter-Day Saints.

As a test to determine if you’re one of those who’s too eager to be accepted as fellow believers by non-LDS Christians, read and digest the following verses from Doctrine and Covenants 1, and then examine yourself to see if you esteem these words from the mouth of the Savior to be true and doctrinally correct, or do you recoil at his words and find them offputing?

14 And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people;

15 For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant;

16 They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall. (Doctrine and Covenants 1)

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Sara H said:

I am going to do some additional investigation in order to figure out who the LDS guy in this video actually is. On the other hand, I believe the Christian speaker in the video is right. He is stating how the majority of Christians I know perceive LDS, which is why I keep trying to explain why we shouldn't consider ourselves "Christians" in the traditional sense or in any other manner, because I don't see how we will ever be accepted. He is also explaining why I keep trying to explain why  we shouldn't consider ourselves "Christians." Everything that we believe and preach teaches us that Traditional Christianity is false and that we are the only authentic Christians. I'm at a loss to comprehend the rationale behind our decision to no longer make an effort to defend our philosophy. It is as if we are attempting to sneak into Christianity through the back door in the hope that no one would see us. It is not going to be successful. 

 

Christians have to know that they are taking the name of Christ upon them when they receive the restored Christian ordinances. 

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Christians have to know that they are taking the name of Christ upon them when they receive the restored Christian ordinances. 

Why?

[Sara H]

When it comes to entering Spirit Prison, is it true that a Christian does not receive any more or additional special advantages simply due to the fact that they are a Christian?  When it comes to understanding the genuine gospel and consenting to baptism in order to be released from Spirit Prison and move on to Spirit Paradise, a Christian is not treated any differently than an atheist or a Muslim. When attempting to gain an understanding of traditional Christianity, this is a very significant issue to keep in mind. 

 

I have only recently become acquainted with this kind lady, and in my opinion, this is how the majority of Christians regard LDS. They are not going to acknowledge us as fully committed Christians under any circumstances. And I really can't say that I blame them. I believe it is best for us to have friendly relationships with Christians, but we should never lose sight of the fact that our doctrine was restored to combat the errors that Christian individuals have committed over the course of thousands of years. 

 

 

 

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

The way I see the apparent need some members of the church have to be accepted as Christians by the non-LDS churches is not dissimilar from being willing to compromise one’s eternal principles in order to curry favor with those who scoff at the saints from the windows of the great and spacious building. Please note that I said this phenomenon of wanting to receive acceptance from the Non-LDS churches is ‘not dissimilar’ to what Lehi beheld in his vision, not that it’s precisely the same thing. After all, not all of our critics are people of hate and ill will.

CFR please for who these Saints are who want to receive acceptance from nonLDS churches.  I would like to see who you are talking about.  It can’t be just any Saint who also calls themselves Christian as I am one and yet I expect to be seen as a heretic by those churches who just use the basic definition of Christian (believes in Christ as Son of God, our Redeemer) and as a nonChristian by those who have other qualifications for being a Christian, such as baptism to belong to the Body of Christ.

There is a massive difference from demanding to be called Christian as the ancient followers of Christ and past and current followers of Christ are because one sees oneself as a follower of Christ and because one wants others to at least understand one believes in Christ as the Son of God and someone who is hoping to receive acceptance” from other churches. 

Edited June 28, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Sara H said:

 

When it comes to entering Spirit Prison, is it true that a Christian does not receive any more or additional special advantages simply due to the fact that they are a Christian? 

 

Chances are neither does a Saint.  There is no guarantee a Saint is going straight to paradise or is in the accelerated program for early release just because they have been baptize. 
 

We don’t even know what goes on in Spirit Prison save people are taught the gospel and are given chances to repent. 
 

We don’t even know if it is actually a different place than paradise or hell. More likely it is a state of mind imo and baptism is necessary to move on to the kingdoms, but paradise is open to the unbaptized (it is highly unlikely the thief that was promised to be with Christ in paradise was baptized and no one was likely to have done a proxy baptism by the end of the day).  If baptism does not exclude anyone from paradise, then it is knowing enough of the gospel to move on to judgment that is the golden ticket. And Joseph seems to say no one was getting that right when they died or shortly after, instead it would take a long while after death before anyone, Saint or unbaptized spirit, comprehended the principles of the gospel.

Edited June 28, 2023 by Calm

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Sara H said:

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/elders-journal-august-1838/12

 

Seriously, "Sara"?  You are going to make it this easy?  You are blowing your cover.  That's the same link I provided in response to Truth Teller (AtlanticMike) when he posted the same out of context quote taken from the Mormon Think website back on May 6 (the post can be found here).  Remember the response?  This is what I posted:

==========

Take your Elder's Journal quote for example, the full context can be found here:   https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/elders-journal-august-1838/10#full-transcript

That Elder's Journal article is about Doctor Philastus Hurlbut and Eber D. Howe's anti-Mormon book, Mormonism Unvailed [sic].  The "priests" mentioned in the article have to do with those associated with Hurlburt and Howe.  Hurlbut was a Methodist preacher but was baptized as a Latter-day Saint, but was later excommunicated for adultery.  He became bitter against Joseph Smith (and even threatened to kill him), and he began travelling throughout the country giving lectures against Mormonism.  As Benjamin Winchester put it:

"I would here observe, that while he [Hurlbut] was in connexion with the church of Latter Day Saints, the preachers and priests of the different denominations heaped their calumny upon the Society for fellowshipping him; and made a stumbling block of him, and said there was no mark of a Christian about him. But no sooner had he made his appearance, as the champion of sectarianism, and the assailant of Mormonism, than churches, chapels and meeting houses were crowded to hear him."

There is a very important context to every one of those quotes.

=========

Can't you see that from the context?

Edited June 28, 2023 by InCognitus

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Sara H said:

https://journalofdiscourses.com/8/5

 

Same with this quote, which was among the list of quotes included in a screenshot from the Mormon Think website on May 6, by AtlanticMike (posting as Truth Teller).

I don't think there is any coincidence that the Sara H user was created the day after Mike's posts were deleted and was banned.

Edited June 28, 2023 by InCognitus

[Amulek]

46 minutes ago, Sara H said:

Holland "Them to be three persons combined in one substance, a Trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures because it is not true." As a result of the fact that the majority of Christians adhere to the doctrine of the trinity, he asserts that the majority of Christians are worshipping a fictitious deity.

No, that's your spin on his comment - not something he actually asserted. And you can tell because...well, you know, he never actually said what you are claiming.

Latter-day Saints don't believe (nor did Elder Holland assert) that the majority of Christians worship "a fictitious deity."

Just because we reject the ontological formulation of the Trinity outlined in the creeds does not mean that we believe those who accept them as authoritative are worshiping "a fictitious deity." We simply disagree about the nature and/or attributes of the (very real) deity that we both worship.

 

Quote

Holland "the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the [New Testament].” Again, Holland asserts that the Christian god is nowhere to be found in the New Testament of the Bible. 

Again, that's not what he is saying. At all.

I would note that you seem to be equating "the formal doctrine of the Trinity" with "the Christian god [sic]" here - but that (fallaciously) begs the question.

Also, while we are on the subject of the formal doctrine of the Trinity, let's be clear about a couple of things:

No trinitarian doctrine is explicitly taught in the Old Testament.

The New Testament contains no explicit trinitarian doctrine either.

Those are facts. Plain and simple.

Christian theologians, apologists, and philosophers hold that the doctrine of the Trinity can be inferred from what the New Testament does teach about God, and that such a formulation is consistent with what is taught in the New Testament about God, but Elder Holland is right about the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils not being present in the Bible.

 

Quote

Holland "with post–New Testament Christian history and returns to the doctrine taught by Jesus Himself." This is where Holland makes the claim that the gospel of the LDS church diverges from the gospel that Christians preach and RETURNS to the gospel that Christ actually preached when he was on earth.

Yeah, that's literally what it means to be a restorationist church, which would be the category we fall under.

But again, just because we believe that certain truths were lost through the ages doesn't mean we believe other religions have no truth at all. Or that their adherents worships "a fictitious deity."

 

Quote

Holland "That day marked the beginning of the return of the true, New Testament gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and the restoration of other prophetic truths offered from Adam down to the present day." In this passage, Holland is asserting categorically that the genuine message of Christ's gospel was not available on earth until the time of the restoration. Take note of how he utilises the word "return" to imply that it was absent!

Ibid.

 

Quote

Holland "With such a confusing definition of God being imposed upon the church, little wonder that a fourth-century monk cried out, “Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, …" Holland is telling here how many Christians felt over a thousand years ago when the persons responsible for the creeds redefined and altered their Christian God into a being that is truly unfathomable. This occurred when the creeds were written. 

You do know there were those who disagreed with the creeds when they were formulated, right?

And if you think that a group of impoverished, mostly uneducated fishermen from a nowhere town in the middle east 2000+ years ago would have grasped the Middle Platonism (with elements of Stoicism and Pythagoreanism) laced throughout the Nicene Creed, then I should probably note that I've got this bridge over in Brooklyn that I've been trying to sell for some time now. Any interest?

 

Quote

Holland "We agree with our critics on at least that point—that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible." Without a shadow of a doubt, Holland is arguing that the God of Christianity is completely incomprehensible in this passage due to the fact that the God of Christianity has been constructed to accommodate the whims of men.

There's a funny joke about this that gets shared from time to time. Stop me if you've heard it already...

As Jesus was with his disciples one day, he turned and asked them, “Whom do men say that I am?”

And his disciples answered and said, “Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elias, or other of the old prophets.”

And Jesus answered and said, “But whom do you say that I am?”

Peter answered and said: “Thou art the Logos, existing in the Father as his rationality and then, by an act of his will, being generated, in consideration of the various functions by which God is related to his creation, but only on the fact that Scripture speaks of a Father, and a Son, and a Holy Spirit, each member of the Trinity being coequal with every other member, and each acting inseparably with and interpenetrating every other member, with only an economic subordination within God, but causing no division which would make the substance no longer simple.”

And Jesus answering said “What??”

 

Quote

Holland "I testify that my witness of these things is true and that the heavens are open to all who seek the same confirmation. Through the Holy Spirit of Truth, may we all know “the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom [He has] sent.” By adhering to the principles of the restored gospel, rather than the gospel that originated from the creeds, we have a chance of knowing the one and only real God. 

Wrong again.

It is only through the Holy Spirit of Truth that we are able to know God.

 

Quote

Holland "Then may we live Their teachings and be true Christians in deed" Without a shadow of a doubt, Holland is convinced that the only place where genuine Christianity can be found is in the LDS church, and that the rest of Christianity adheres to a version of God that has been fabricated over the course of hundreds of years, most likely by hundreds of men who felt they knew better than Jesus himself.

I believe he is using the word "true" here to mean true as in faithful, not true as in 'the opposite of false.' A true Christian is one who follows Christ's teachings (e.g., if ye love me, keep my commandments).

But hey, if you can read minds or something, maybe you are right. Based on everything else you've been saying though, I'm doubtful.

Also, let's keep in mind what Elder Holland was actually advocating here - that "we live Their teachings and be true Christians in deed, and in word."

Even if we were to assume that Christ explicitly taught the doctrine of the Trinity (which he didn't), how would one go about living that teaching? It doesn't even make sense to think of it that way, but you seem to think that's what he means, so maybe you can explain it to me. I won't hold my breath.

 

[Amulek]

13 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I don't think there is any coincidence that the Sara H user was created the day after Mike's posts were deleted and was banned.

I admit, Sara H has been pinging my troll-dar from day one. I know I should probably follow my own advice and not feed her, but the flesh is week.

 

[MiserereNobis]

2 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I admit, Sara H has been pinging my troll-dar from day one. I know I should probably follow my own advice and not feed her, but the flesh is week.

 

That's me with Ahab. Whenever he shows up I just can't help myself. We're about due for a visit from him, aren't we?

[InCognitus]

1 minute ago, Amulek said:

I admit, Sara H has been pinging my troll-dar from day one. I know I should probably follow my own advice and not feed her, but the flesh is week.

It has been on my radar since day one too. 

This is what I wanted to post to Sara H after the first couple of posts:

 

[webbles]

38 minutes ago, Sara H said:

I have only recently become acquainted with this kind lady, and in my opinion, this is how the majority of Christians regard LDS. They are not going to acknowledge us as fully committed Christians under any circumstances. And I really can't say that I blame them. I believe it is best for us to have friendly relationships with Christians, but we should never lose sight of the fact that our doctrine was restored to combat the errors that Christian individuals have committed over the course of thousands of years. 

You are correct that many (possibly the majority) will never accept us as Christians.  And I don't really care if they do or don't.  I consider myself a Christian because I believe in Christ.  If they find me to be non-Christian or heretical Christian, I don't have a problem with that.

Many Christian denominations go through a process where they decide if they are in "communion" with each other.  During that process, they may change a few things doctrinally or procedurally.  At the end, if they decide they are in communion, then they will recognize each others authority, baptism, etc.  I don't believe we will ever be in "communion" with other Christian denominations.  We would have to change a lot for that to happen.  And that is just not going to happen.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Why?

Because not knowing they are Christian (whether by label, self-description or discipleship) or have His name upon them or a covenant relationship with Him can only get them so far (compared to knowing). Someone who believes in Christ and doesn't know they are Christian or that they can have His name upon them or have a covenant relationship with Him is missing something. Someone who follows the light of Christ within them and doesn't know what that is or any of the rest of this is missing something. This is why I like Mosiah Chapters 5 and 18. ETA: And Alma 46: 13 - 16.

Edited June 28, 2023 by CV75