The Book of Mormon
discussion
Is Mormonism a form of Christianity?
Benjamin wrote: "Noel wrote: "Benjamin wrote: "Hello everyone who is LDS that has commented on this paper, I agree with monkey, the LDS church is not Christian, many LDS members, however are, this is because many M..."okay.... Jesus Christ is the Son of god he is my savior and my hope who has provided me a chance to live with god again. i also believe that the book of mormon is true and that JOseph Smith and Thomas S. Monsen are true Prophets.
Benjamin wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Benjamin,Your are of course free to agree or disagree with Monkey but interestingly in doing so you have made my point. Monkey is not asking, he is arguing for a particular positi..."
Well, you talk to real "mormons" and u will get the truth about our church. there are people who are branching off of the lds church. they are the ones who are trying to bring polygamy back.
Benjamin,You responded:
“Well yes I accept the idea that the Son has a body of flesh and bones but not the Father.”
If indeed you accept that God, in the person of the Son, has a corporeal form then what could be so objectionable about the Father being attributed a corporeal form? The Son is “the express image [Gr. charakter:] of his person” (Hebrews 1:3). That is, “the exact expression (the image) of any person or thing, marked likeness, precise reproduction in every respect, i.e facsimile.” (http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexico...) If the Son is indeed “the exact expression (the image)” of the Father, a “precise reproduction in every respect” a “facsimile” then there must be a model from which the “facsimile” was produced.
Granted, the Greek refers to this “express image” being in relation to the Father’s hupostasis, or (as translated in the KJV) “person,” which could merely mean that they share the same essence, the same “substantial quality, nature, of a person or thing.”
This would comport quite well with Trinitarian theology which employed a similar although non-biblical term, homoousios (same substance) to describe the relationship between Father and Son. Many translations prefer “substance” or “nature” in translating the Greek hupostasis for this very reason; as “express image” implies corporeality. Of course the word also implies “a substance, real being.” The Father actually exists.
The real rub though is that the passage does not say that the Father and the Son share the same “nature” or “substance” but rather that the Son is the “exact representation” (NASB) of the Father. In context the resurrected, glorified, corporeal Son is the “exact representation” of the “substantial quality” or qualities of God. What could be more “substantial” than corporeality?
There could simply be a disagreement over what is the most “substantial quality” of deity. And is a “substantial quality” a quality related to essential nature (something more nebulous than the physical) or to physical material? In LDS thought corporeality is essential, a necessarily and even desirable quotient which results in a fullness of joy and a realization of divine prerogatives through the grace of Christ. We consider it to be just as essential to God’s identity as it is to Christ’s identity. We can agree that our conception is different but biblically I see it as still falling within the scope of what is Christian.
You continued:
“And what did I ever claim to be asking questions here, I was totally open to the fact that I agreed with and was arguing for a specific point of view.”
I do believe that I was referring to Monkey’s post at that point and referencing your understanding thereof as support for my denunciation of his questions as rhetorical nonsense. You saw them as expressing an opinion on the matter (although an irrational one in my opinion) and therefore you vindicated my position.
You wrote further:
“And by the way, I wasn't just making up the unofficial doctrine stuff, multiple LDS apologists from fair told me that.”
Yes, well, I am a member of FAIR (Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research) and although there certainly exists reservation in regards to the term “official doctrine” that which has been accepted by common consent in General Conference assembled as guides in faith and doctrine is indeed “official.” In the words of Professor Robinson “The only binding sources of doctrine for Latter-day Saints are the Standard Works of the Church: the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. The only official interpretations and applications of these doctrinal sources are those that come to the church over the signatures of the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (collectively). All the rest is commentary.” (HWTD, ISBN 0-8308-1991-6, p. 140)
For a brief sampling of the general attitude of FAIR see Mike Ash’s little piece on the matter: http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures....
Of course I agree with Blake Ostler (http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publi...) as to “how most Latter-day Saints in fact weigh what they should believe.” They usually appeal to “a continuum of sources, some more and some less authoritative, as a source of Mormon beliefs.” This is not to say that this continuum defines what must be believed but rather what is more likely than not the case based upon the authority of the source. Ostler offers “other sources to which Mormons can look to assist them in interpreting the scriptures” but in the end these are indeed “commentary”; helping them to make sense of a passage but do not supersede the clear implicates of the passage or the “official interpretations and applications… that come to the church over the signatures of the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (collectively).” Where there may be a dispute they appeal to what they consider a more authoritative interpretation but the primary source is still the Standard Works.
Back to your response:
“Don't believe me ask them if the church has any official doctrine, and I guarantee you they will say no.”
You are free at your discretion as is anyone else interested in the topic to follow this URL (http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai231.html) and read FAIR’s articles on “Official Doctrine.” You will find that your impression is mistaken. There is indeed an aspect to LDS doctrine which is non-negotiable or official.
You concluded:
“My point is that the church does have official doctrine they just deny that they do, and claim that they don't, sorry if I wasn't clear on that.”
Ah, but this is logically fallacious. You wrote that “multiple LDS apologists from fair told me that” which regardless of what weight you might place on their view these “LDS apologists” are a clear minority within the larger group you are now referring to as “the church.” The fallacy of composition consists of “arguing (a) that what is true of each part of a whole is also (necessarily) true of the whole itself, or (b) that what is true of some parts of a whole is also (necessarily) true of the whole itself.”
That “multiple LDS apologists from fair” allegedly told you the Church does not have official doctrine does not mean that “the church” collectively then believes the Church has no official doctrine. In fact, it doesn’t even establish that all “LDS apologists from fair” believe the Church has no official doctrine. That is the problem with what is commonly called sweeping generalizations, there are always exceptions.
Further, “LDS apologists” are hardly in a position to articulate the Church’s position, let alone an “official” position, on a matter. Rather, a better resource would be the Church (as an organization) itself. See for instance this official press release http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsro....
This is as close to the Church’s official position on “official doctrine” as you are likely to get. Note that:
“Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church.”
And:
“With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.”
The “First Presidency… and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles… counsel together to establish doctrine… This doctrine resides in the four ‘standard works’ of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.” The repository from which they derive the “doctrine” they are consistently seeking to establish, even as the governing bodies in the church, is “the four ‘standard works’ of scripture.” Sounds familiar.
Now granted, they may indeed gather from other sources of instruction quotes they believe support a particular doctrine but they first firmly determine that the doctrine itself is contained within the standard works and then they clarify how the doctrine should be understood using authoritative quotations from those whom God has called both past and present to provide “official interpretations and applications.”
Regards,
Matt
Further, Benjamin, you took poor Noel to task with the following:"You know that you CHURCH is true, its not about the church its about Jesus Christ."
You strike me as being protestant or perhaps a member of some non-denominational sect rooted in protestant beliefs such as the rejection of the authority of Catholic sacraments and Catholic clergy. Unforunately, this view predisposes you to criticize Noel for stating, in your words, "that you CHURCH is true" because you likely accept a priesthood of common believers as opposed to a centralized authority.
However LDS Christians, much like Catholics, believe that in order for what the Catholics call sacraments (we would call them ordinances) to be efficacious they must be administed by one duly ordained by God to officiate in that capacity.
It not necessarily that baptism or the emblems of Jesus' blood and body save in and of themselves (as a Catholic might put it, "impart grace"), rather it is that these acts are our signature on our contract with Christ. We accept Him as Lord and Master and act accordingly and He conversely extends to us His limitless perfection. However just like you cannot act on my behalf in selling my home without my premission so to a man cannot act on Christ's behalf in ratifying the contract without Christ's permission.
Stating that one knows or has personal conviction that the Church is true is merely to state that they accept the concept of authority and believe that this authority resides within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
"Your church is merely an organization"
That is your opinion, stemming from the preconception that all church's are merely organizations. However, it fails to accept clear precedents witin the New Testament for a unique position filled by authoritative representatives of God and an organized ministry.
Consider the rather unambiguous "And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." (Hebrews 5:4) Or the example of Simon who "saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost." (Acts 8:18-19)
How did Peter respond? No, it wasn't "Sure, here is your degree now get to it." Rather it is "Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money." (v. 20) The authority of God is not purchased, it is not learned, it is a divine calling bestowed upon one by God or through God's authorized representatives.
No LDS Christian would dispute the preeminece of Christ. In fact Joseph Smith summed it all up quite well in stating:
“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”
It is obviously only in and through Christ that we have any hope but Christ extends to us His mercy through His authorized representatives. This is the New Testament pattern.
Regards,
Matt
But we do believe that God does have a body of flesh and bones.D&C 130:22
22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.
Monkey,Read Official Declaration-1 in the Doctrine and Covenants
Also here are some good reads for ya:
The creation
The Creation is by a Mormon Scientist, so you should find it interesting, it's about the creation, obviously :)
The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics
If you haven't read anything by C.S. Lewis you're missing out! If I'm not mistaken he was atheist for some time, but was later converted to Christianity.
Oh, also, your story about humans teaching aliens about Jesus reminded me of some other good books (one of the books in the series features humans teaching an alien race about Christianity), they're just novels though, so you can read them for fun. :) Here they are:
Ender's Game Boxed Set: Ender's Game, Ender's Shadow, Shadow of the Hegemon
Speaker for the Dead
Xenocide
Children of the Mind
Shadow Puppets
Shadow of the Giant
Monkey,I remember a friend of mine who converted to Mormonism a few years ago had a lot of questions and more similar to the ones you have. I was on a mission when he was baptized so I don't know all the details, but I do remember him telling me what convinced him of the truth. He read the Book of Mormon and sincerely prayed to God asking if it is true and the Spirit confirmed to him that it is true.
I have had similar experiences, I know the Book of Mormon is true, Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, and Jesus Christ died for our sins. I don't have a shred of scientific proof and probably never will, but even if I did it wouldn't matter. You can only know the truth through the Holy Ghost.
Well, the more testimonies, the better. I enjoyed reading other testimonies here, thank you.I know that the gospel of Jesus Christ is true and I know that the fulness of that gospel is only found in the doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I know that Joseph Smith was the prophet who restored this gospel to the earth under the direction of Christ Himself. I know that the Book of Mormon is true. I know that President Monson is the prophet today and that when he speaks in his capacity as the prophet, his words come directly from the Lord. I know these things are true because I've gone straight to the source and asked God in prayer.
Nothing can change what I know to be true.
(I won't drive the spirit away by disputing about these beliefs, so if you respond to what I've written, please don't be offended if I don't reply.)
Paula- I'm borrowing my husbands account :)
Hey Monkey,The only way to rationally respond to the question of this thread (Is Mormonism a form of Christianity?) is to have a definition of Christianity. Please forgive me if such a definition has been given previously. Would you please state your definition of Christianity?
Thank you.
My question is about YOUR definition of Christianity. So far, it seems, we have ruled out the divinity of Jesus who some call the Christ (Hindus who believe in Jesus are not Christian), Monotheism (Humans become gods), the incorporeal nature of god (he has flesh and bone) and even the Bible itself (otherwise, why would we need the Book of Mormon?).
My question is: What's left?
Much love,
Monkey
Did you know that you can find all of those in bible?Genesis 1:26-27
Exodus 33
11. And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.
Exodus 33
23. And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.
Exodus 34
5. And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there.
Ezekiel 1
27. And saw ... the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward....
Ezekiel 8
2. Then I beheld, and lo a likeness as the appearance of fire: from the appearance of his loins even downward, fire; and from his loins even upward....
And the B of M is a true account of Jesus Christ BUT it is not placed in Jerusalem. the B of M is here on earth to tell us another history of Christ. It is the same time period as the bible, but is based in the Americas. yes. that may be hard to comprehend. but it is true.
You should also go on Mormon.org and chat with some missionaries. they aren't afraid to prove u wrong.:)this is a suggestion for all non members.
you should also ask for god in prayer, and ask him if u really believe. if u don't, then you really dont want to know the answer.
Also read.Epistle of James 1:5.
and... why would God only communicate with only certain people? and why are there more then one translation of the bible. if u were reading all of the bibles, they are different.
the B of M is also another testimony of Jesus Christ.
rEad 2 Nephi 29:3-4,6,and verse 10
Monkey,Interesting that you have ignored the larger majority of what all of us are writing. Nevertheless, you wrote:
“My question is about YOUR definition of Christianity.”
You have at no point posed that specific question. Rather, you have inferred that “Mormons” are not Christians as their doctrine does not conform to that which is considered in general to be orthodox in creedal, historically Christian circles.
“So far, it seems, we have ruled out the divinity of Jesus who some call the Christ (Hindus who believe in Jesus are not Christian)”
Far from it, I believe we have established quite soundly that LDS Christians, like the majority of those claiming the title, do indeed accept the divinity of Jesus Christ. I have no idea how you gained the understanding, from any of the LDS respondents, that the divinity of Jesus Christ is not a central consideration in determining ones Christianity.
As I said previously, Hindu's regardless of their belief in Jesus do not accept His divinity, as He defined it. They redefine His identity to accomodate acceptance of Jesus on their terms. This is obviously less than "Christian" as it ignores Jesus' clear claims to the contrary. In fact, Jesus' teachings preclude Hinduism as Christianity is inherently exclusionary.
“Monotheism (Humans become gods)”
Monotheism is all a matter of perspective. See for instance the fabulous article by Larry Hurtado entitled “What Do We Mean by ‘First Century Jewish Monotheism’?” or Peter Hayman’s “Monotheism—A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?” It can be soundly argued that not even first century Christians were really as ardently monotheistic as more historically orthodox Christians might prefer and the fertile soil of Judaism from which Christianity sprung is certainly not. By strict definition Judaism and early Christianity were henotheistic.
“the incorporeal nature of god (he has flesh and bone)”
The incorporeality of God is a Hellenistic imposition upon Christianity and it not fundamental to Christian belief. Indeed, the Bible itself declares in no uncertain terms that “every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God” this juxtaposed against “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God.” (KJV 1 John 4:2-3) Jesus was corporeal and therefore God is not incorporeal per se, even within more historically orthodox circles.
“and even the Bible itself (otherwise, why would we need the Book of Mormon?).”
This is another bait and switch. You infer that the standard of Christianity should be acceptance of the biblical text (which Latter-day Saints readily accept and conform to although they might interpret it a bit differently than other Christians) but then alter the requirement to include not merely acceptance of the biblical text but exclusive acceptance of the biblical text, another historically orthodox proposition called biblical sufficiency which not all historically orthodox Christians necessarily conform to.
Consider for instance Roman Catholicism (pretty much universally accepted as Christian) who defines belief not merely based upon reference to the Bible but upon tradition. Further, where within the Bible itself does any author pronounce the Bible to be sufficient? There is no such passage.
“My question is: What's left?”
Well you keep on checking items off a list of what is and is not Christian while we keep on professing that the items you are checking off aren’t being precluded as standards. Rather what is being precluded is the manner in which you are defining these items. I readily accept that “the divinity of Jesus” is indeed a fair standard upon which to assess ones Christianity but precisely what do you mean by “divinity?” Are you obscuring another bait and switch whereby we agree to the divinity of Christ without a clear understanding of what you mean by that term? That you actually mean “the divinity of Jesus” as defined by Nicene Trinitarianism?
I also accept “Monotheism” as a standard of Christian belief. However, as Larry Hurtado writes:
“on both sides of the issue (to varying degrees among the individual studies) there has been a tendency to proceed deductively from a priori assumptions of what monotheism must mean, instead of building up a view inductively from the evidence of how monotheism actually operated in the thought and practice of ancient Jews. There seems to be an implicit agreement on both sides that more than one transcendent being of any significance complicates or constitutes a weakening or threat to monotheism… In place of this rather Aristotelian approach, I urge us to work more inductively, gathering what ‘monotheism’ is on the ground, so to speak, from the evidence of what self-professed monotheists believe and practice. In fact, I suggest that for historical investigation our policy should be to take people as monotheistic if that how they describe themselves, in spite of what we might be inclined to regard at first as anomalies in their belief.”
This is not only true of those who argue over whether Judaism was truly “monotheistic” but of whether one belief in indeed monotheistic. If the standard of monotheism is indeed Judaism and Christianity adopted a similar if not identical conception of God from Judaism how in the world (to paraphrase Margaret Barker) did first-century Christians accept Jesus as a divine being while undoubtedly also accepting the preeminent deity of His Father? One plus one is two.
Hurtado in fact goes so far as to describe Paul’s belief (Paul, formerly Saul, the Pharisee turned Christian by a heavenly vision, who is referenced more often in regards to historically orthodox beliefs than Jesus) as “binitarian monotheistic devotion,” a clear oxymoron if one accepts that monotheism is the “doctrine or belief that there is but one God.” Obviously Judaism and Christianity left accommodation within their belief for other divine beings although they believed these beings to be subordinate to the “one God.”
I believe I have already amply addressed incorporeality and “the Bible” above but feel free to request elaboration where my rejection of your implicit assumptions may be unclear.
Regards,
Matt
I've looked back at the beginning of this thread and now at the latter part of it and it appears to me that everyone is just going in circles. To answer the question posed (Is Mormonism a form of Christianity?), we must have a definition of Christianity. Monkey, for reasons I suppose are sufficient to himself, has chosen to not give his definition in response to my request. But if we look back at his original post we see 6 beliefs he attributes to Mormons that he apparently believes disqualifies them from being Christian. I'll just pick one that he got pretty much right, his #2, "We are co-eternal with God". So, if the definition of Christian includes believing we are NOT co-eternal with God, then clearly Mormons are not Christians and therefore Mormonism is not a form of Christianity. Now, let's look at Sara's post (message 4 in this thread). Among other things, she said, "First, YES we claim to be Christian, because we ARE Christian. Accordian to Merriam-Webster, a Christian is "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ," which we do. We believe in and try to follow the teachings of the same Biblical Jesus Christ that all other Christian denominations profess to believe in and follow—the Christ that was prophesied of by all the Old Testament prophets, whose life is documented in the New Testament. Our other doctrines and beliefs are all subsequent to our CENTRAL belief that the only way for us to have eternal salvation is through Jesus Christ. We believe that he set a perfect example for us to follow, that he atoned for our sins, died for us, and was resurrected and lives again." Here she gives a definition of Christian from Merriam-Webster and applies it to the question at hand. By this definition, Mormons are Christian and therefore Mormonism is a form of Christianity.
So there we have it. Mormonism is not a form of Christianity or it is, depending on how you define Christianity. Monkey seems to define it one way (although we have yet to get an actual definition from him), so he can rest secure that by his apparent definition, Mormonism is not a form of Christianity. Sara defines it another way, and by this definition Sara, and all those who accept Merriam-Webster as an authority, may conclude that Mormonism is a form of Christianity.
That should pretty much take care of it. Now we can all go do something more productive.
Noel said:
And the B of M is a true account of Jesus Christ BUT it is not placed in Jerusalem. the B of M is here on earth to tell us another history of Christ. It is the same time period as the bible, but is based in the Americas. yes. that may be hard to comprehend. but it is true.
So Jesus was bi-locational? Is that like another super-power? Wow.
Matt and John seem hung up on my definition, yet another attempt to derail the conversation. This thread is about what it means to be Christian. Does the Book of Mormon conform to the accepted standard of Christianity? Let's look at some more quotes from Mormons:
"This is not just another Church. This is not just one of a family of Christian churches. This is the Church and kingdom of God, the only true Church upon the face of the earth..."
- Prophet Ezra Taft Benson, Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.164-165
"Christianity...is a perfect pack of nonsense...the devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p.167); "Where shall we look for the true order or authority of God? It cannot be found in any nation of Christendom."
- Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, 10:127
"Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell. The eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and then kicked on to the earth."
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 6:176
"Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon' whom the Lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. Any person who shall be so corrupt as to receive a holy ordinance of the Gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent"
- Apostle Orson Pratt proclaimed, The Seer, p. 255
"After the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, there were only two churches upon the earth. They were known respectively as the Church of the Lamb of God and Babylon. The various organizations which are called churches throughout Christendom, though differing in their creeds and organizations, have one common origin. They all belong to Babylon"
- George Q. Cannon said, Gospel Truth, p.324
"When the light came to me I saw that all the so-called Christian world was grovelling in darkness."
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 5:73
"With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world."
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 8:199
"The Christian world, so-called, are heathens as to the knowledge of the salvation of God"
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 8:171
"Christians—those poor, miserable priests brother Brigham was speaking about—some of them are the biggest whoremasters there are on the earth, and at the same time preaching righteousness to the children of men. The poor devils, they could not get up here and preach an oral discourse, to save themselves from hell; they are preaching their fathers' sermons —preaching sermons that were written a hundred years before they were born. ...You may get a Methodist priest to pour water on you, or sprinkle it on you, and baptize you face foremost, or lay you down the other way, and whatever mode you please, and you will be damned with your priest.
- Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, 5:89
"The Gospel of modern Christendom shuts up the Lord, and stops all communication with Him. I want nothing to do with such a Gospel, I would rather prefer the Gospel of the dark ages, so called"
- Prophet Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p.196
"But as there has been no Christian Church on the earth for a great many centuries past, until the present century, the people have lost sight of the pattern that God has given according to which the Christian Church should be established, and they have denominated a great variety of Christian Churches ... But there has been a long apostasy, during which the nations have been cursed with apostate churches in great abundance"
- Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, 18:172
"What! Are Christians ignorant? Yes, as ignorant of the things of God as the brute best."
- Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 13:225
"What does the Christian world know about God? Nothing... Why so far as the things of God are concerned, they are the veriest fools; they know neither God nor the things of God."
- John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 13:225
"Doctrines were corrupted, authority lost, and a false order of religion took the place of the gospel of Jesus Christ, just as it had been the case in former dispensations, and the people were left in spiritual darkness." (p. 266). "For hundreds of years the world was wrapped in a veil of spiritual darkness, until there was not one fundamental truth belonging to the place of salvation ...Joseph Smith declared that in the year 1820 the Lord revealed to him that all the 'Christian' churches were in error, teaching for commandments the doctrines of men."
- Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, p.282
"...the Book of Mormon remains secure, unchanged and unchangeable, ...But with the Bible it was not and is not so....it was once in the sole and exclusive care and custody of an abominable organization (Christianity), founded by the devil himself, likened prophetically unto a great whore, whose great aim and purpose was to destroy the souls of men in the name of religion. In these hands it ceased to be the book it once was."
- Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, The Joseph Smith Translation, pp. 12, 13
"And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foudation of this (Mormon) church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth..."
- Supposedly Jesus Christ Himself, Doctrine and Covenants 1:30
Salvation not through accepting Jesus Christ, but Joseph Smith?
[There is:] "no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith. If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth...no man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God"
- Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p.190
"No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith...every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are"
- Prophet Birgham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p.289
"He that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith with the fullness of the Gospel to this generation, is not of God, but is anti-christ"
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p.312
"If we get our salvation, we shall have to pass by him [Joseph Smith:]; if we enter our glory, it will be through the authority he has received. We cannot get around him [Joseph Smith:]"
- Prophet George Q. Cannon, as quoted in 1988 Melchizedek Priesthood Study Guide, p. 142
"I tell you, Joseph holds the keys, and none of us can get into the celestial kingdom without passing by him. We have not got rid of him, but he stands there as the sentinel, holding the keys of the kingdom of God.. But I tell you, the pinch will be with those that have mingled with us, stood next to us, weighed our spirits, tried us, and proven us: there will be a pinch, in my view, to get past them. The others, perhaps, will say, If brother Joseph is satisfied with you, you may pass. If it is all right with him, it is all right with me. Then if Joseph shall say to a man, or if brother Brigham say to a man, I forgive you your sins, "Whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them;" if you who have suffered and felt the weight of transgression—if you have generosity enough to forgive the sinner, I will forgive him: you cannot have more generosity than I have. I have given you power to forgive sins, and when the Lord gives a gift, he does not take it back again."
- Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.154
Matt, John; It seems your own prophets argue against you? And what is the big deal, anyway? Just say, "I'm a Mormon, not a Christian, and I'm PROUD!"
Own it!
Love to all,
Monkey
well, thats not the only thing that you say is wrong. and all of thoses prophets and apostles are from when the church formed. why dont you look for qoutes from now.
well, thats not the only thing that you say is wrong. and all of thoses prophets and apostles are from when the church formed. why dont you look for qoutes from now.
Monkey, what's your problem? We, or at least I, have agreed that by what seems to be your definition of a Christian, Mormonism is not a form of Christianity. Who are you trying to convince with your 25 or so paragraphs of quotes? It's over. Find something else to do.
John, No rebuttal? Just a declaration of "It's over"?
It sounds like you are giving up, but I get the feeling you are just trying to shut down this conversation. Must be making you nervous.
If not, please respond to the quotes above. They are ALL from Mormon prophets and apostles...
Noel,
Quotes from when your church was formed are worthless? These are the very founders of what you believe in, please give them due respect!
Namaste,
Monkey
Monkey,It's not a matter of "giving up." It's a matter of making a rational decision based on the evidence at hand. I would think that you, of all people, would appreciate that. As I've already explained, you apparently believe that a Christian cannot believe we are co-eternal with God. Mormons believe that we are co-eternal with God. Therefore, according to your definition, Mormonism is not a form of Christianity. Is that so hard for you to understand?
Monkey,First and foremost, you have little if any direct knowledge of LDS Christianity and this is evident from your response to Noel. Where to begin…
I find it absolutely astounding that you have read the volume and claim it does not, at least in part, occur in Jerusalem. The narrative begins with Nephi and his family in none other than Jerusalem. Soon after they leave (although Nephi and his brothers later return for a time) but nevertheless Jerusalem is indeed one of the locals in which the events detailed in the volume occurred. Further, I thought you were arguing against the truth of the account so how can it be “a true account of Jesus Christ?”
Then we have the alleged purpose of the Book of Mormon, which you state is “to tell us another history of Christ.” That’s just simply not the case. More accurately is expands upon the “history of Christ,” recounting his interactions with other groups both previous to his incarnation and after His resurrection.
You then claim “It is the same time period as the bible, but is based in the Americas.” This is at least partially true as the narrative begins, chronologically, with the Jaredites or with the brother of Jared and a group whose language is not confounded at the tower of Babel. These are led to roughly the same locale (actually to the north) of the Nephites eventual landfall in the Book of Mormon lands. The volume then connects with the Bible again as it begins Nephi’s account in the “first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah,” roughly 600 B.C. The volume then continues through to roughly 421 A.D. So, it doesn’t cover exactly the same time period for it does not cover the creation up through roughly 100 A.D. (of course there is also a gap in the Bible between the Old and New Testaments) as the Bible does.
You claim that Jesus was “bi-locational” is yet another obvious demonstration of your ignorance. At no point does the Book of Mormon claim that Jesus is present both in the Old World and here in the New World at the same time. Rather, it specifically claims an appearance of Jesus pre-incarnate to the brother of Jared (in the Book of Ether) and to the Nephites after his resurrection (in 3 Nephi). Several individuals are also provided with visions of Jesus’ ministry in the Old World.
You claim John and I “seem hung up on [your:] definition” and that this constitutes “yet another attempt to derail the conversation.” What conversation? I make a point and you ignore it. I present an argument and you roll right by. John’s right, this is rather pointless. I could provide an equal number of quotations from past and present LDS leaders who claim that we are indeed Christians and then where are we left? At another impasse where I am claiming A and you are claiming B. In the end YOU do not define MY belief and you sure as hell do not define LDS belief.
I have been arguing for equity, what is sauce of the goose is sauce for the gander. You attempt to assert that this or that justifies B while I state that if indeed that is the case than a great number of those considered to be Christian, including those to whom the term was originally applied, are now excluded. Therefore, your criterion is flawed. You ignore it or switch tacks heading in another direction attempting to juxtapose my position against that of my “own prophets.”
This could go on and on. You are not interested in a conversation, in an exchange in which you address counter-points but rather in asserting that you believe “Mormons” aren’t Christians. Bully for you! Thanks for your opinion and I couldn’t disagree more.
-Matt
Boo-YA!!! and Monkey. just so u know, 1830 was a long time ago, and we have had prophets from our day tell us that we r part of the christian church. so if u want to just keep contidicting us, then do that. BUT, we will never ever in our lives say that the church is not true. Just understand that u dont scare us at all. with love, Noël:)
((contricicting)) oops.
Noel,So current prophets can just make up whatever they want to and that's the way it is?
Then what was the point of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon?
Yours,
Monkey
P.S. What would you be scared of? Questions?
Monkey,That is not, in any way, what Noel said. First of all the current Prophet and his apostles don't make ANY thing up. It all comes through divine revelation from God. And everything they say builds upon what Joseph Smith has said and what is written in the Book of Mormon.
Now, I have noticed a pretty consistent pattern through out your replies; you post quotes from the Journal of Discourses, and other similar books. If there are any inconsistencies in what the apostles and other prominent LDS members have said, it's due to human fallacy, nothing more. They were, after all, only human, just like the rest of us. Sometimes people get things wrong, or mixed up, or accidentally say things that don't fit exactly.
We are taught, and I wish I could find where exactly, that we can know for ourselves whether or not something is true. That is called personal revelation, and is a gift given to every human being when they are following God's Commandments, or laws. So if something sounds wrong, we have the opportunity to pray for guidance in knowing the truth.
I'm not going to slam you, Monkey, for supposed rudeness, etc. (Nor am I trying to insult anyone who believes that Monkey hasn't been very cordial) I haven't seen any rudeness, though I have seen a desire to pick apart our religion, trying to find weaknesses. (Don't take that the wrong way, it was just an observation)
As a side note, high praises to Sara and Matthew and John and everyone who has born their testimony. It is always wonderful (to me) to know that there are people out there who defend the Gospel.
And in conclusion I bear my own testimony of Jesus Christ, and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is filled with righteous Christians. I believe wholeheartedly that the Book of Mormon is full of truth and that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God. I feel a little bit sorry for those people who are anti-Mormon because I know that when the end comes and they learn the truth, like I have, they will feel regret and sorrow. (This is not meant to be a put-down in any way)
Elizabeth
I find it interesting that Monkey seems to ignore much of what is said in this thread in reply to his statements. For example, the post Matt made just before Noel's last post. I also find it interesting that Monkey claims to want to discuss "Is Mormonism a form of Christianity?" but he neglects to make a clear definition of what he believes Christianity is. So I imputed a definition of a Christian to him based on something he said in an early post, and then answered the question based on that definition. His response? He first accused me of "giving up" and then just ignored me as he has ignored Matt.It appears reasonably clear to me that Monkey is not interested in a rational discussion of the question "Is Mormonism a form of Christianity?". The question has actually been answered twice in this thread. The first answer given by Sara that Mormonism is a form of Christianity was based on a definition of Christianity given by Merriam-Webster. I provided the second answer, concluding that, according to what Monkey seems to consider a Christian, Mormonism is not a form of Christianity.
Monkey, the question you posed has been answered twice, based on two different definitions of Christianity. Most of what is posted on this thread has little or nothing to do with your original question. So I have a question for you. Why do you wish to continue this thread?
And, Monkey, please don't ignore or otherwise dodge the question.
John, I am no more ignoring your question than you have ignored mine.
Please go back and read the original post for my evidence, which is very clear on my reasons for wondering if Mormonism should be considered a form of Christianity.
It details the areas in which your religion and mainstream Christianity differ.
At which point does a "branch" of a religion become it's own religion? I would say replacing Jesus with John Smith (see message 131, above) would do it.
The next question is, really, why is everyone getting so bent out of shape about it? John even goes so far as to question my rationality. If you can't question the core beliefs that inform your every decision, the very foundation of your life, what kind of a life do you have?
Io Pan,
Monkey
Monkey,I see that, once again, you ignore the question that was asked. Your rational for this, based on your first sentence, appears to be that I have ignored your questions.
Let's examine that claim. You suggest that I "go back and read the original post for [your:] evidence". If you will please refer to post 130, you will see that I specifically cite your original post in concluding that, according to your apparent definition of Christianity, Mormonism is not a form of Christianity. Therefore the question upon which you originally based this thread has been answered. I further pointed out that by a definition suggested by Sara (the Merriam-Webster definition), Mormonism is a form of Christianity. Once again, your original question has been answered.
The careful reader will see then why I have questioned your rationality. A rational person is one who exercises reason. Is it reasonable to suggest to me that I refer back to your original post when I have already done so? Such a suggestion must mean that (1) you never read my post 130, or (2) you read it and then forgot what I said, or (3) you read it and didn't understand what I was saying. None of these is rational behavior for a person who is supposed to be engaged in a meaningful discussion.
I admit that I have not responded directly to many of your points. I did not consider it necessary given that the original question had already been answered. When a question has been answered is it necessary (rational) to keep answering it again and again?
Here's another possible reason to question your rationality. You said, "At which point does a 'branch' of a religion become it's own religion? I would say replacing Jesus with John Smith (see message 131, above) would do it." First, since you never mention "John Smith" in message 131, I assume you meant "Joseph Smith." I guess this isn't really irrational; it's just sloppy work. Here's the irrational part. A person exercising reason and good sense (a rational person) would refer to the original source of a quotation to see if it has been taken out of context. Here is the full text of the quote I assume you are referring to (the one from Docrtines of Salvation, Volume 1, page 190):
"If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth when he said that he stood in the presence of angels sent from the Lord, and obtained keys of authority, and the commandment to organize the Church of Jesus Christ once again on the earth, then this knowledge is of the most vital importance to the entire world. No man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of god. It is, therefore, the duty of every man to investigate that he may weigh this matter carefully and know the truth.
"Had Joseph Smith been a fraud, the work he established would have been destroyed many years ago. The fact is, it would not have survived him. At his death, if it had been possible for him to hold his followers until that time, they would have fallen away, the fraud would have been exposed to the face of the whole world, bringing about its destruction.
"Some one might say, "If what you say is true, would it not also be true of any other religious sect founded in error?" In time, yes. All man-made creeds and doctrines shall perish when the fulness of truth is come, when Christ reigns in power upon the earth, and when those who abide the day of his coming have all been converted to the one true Church."
You see that all references to Jesus in the quote you gave were conveniently excised. Further, the first part of the passage you cite ([There is:] "no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith.) is not part of what Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, but is a heading added by the editor. Note also Joseph Fielding Smith's qualifiers: IF Joseph Smith was a prophet; IF he told the truth. Only then will rejection of his testimony incur the dreadful consequence of keeping one from entering the kingdom of God. One could say the same consequence would occur from rejecting the testimony of Peter or Paul or John, the Beloved IF they were truely apostles of Jesus Christ and IF they told the truth.
Quoting out of context may be clever rhetoric, but it isn't a good application of rational argument. You can be forgiven for being sucked in temporarily by the source where you got that quotation, but you really should have checked it out before passing it along. That would have been the more rational behavior.
In all fairness I must now confess my own irrational behavior. It isn't really rational to expect the above to have any more effect on you that all the previous posts that you have effectively skipped over without rational reply. Matthew said it best in post 137 with the comment, "What conversation? I make a point and you ignore it. I present an argument and you roll right by." But hope springs eternal and I keep thinking, "Maybe this time will be different."
So I ask again, "Why do you wish to continue this thread?", hoping, but not really expecting, a rational reply from you.
John,Why do you pick the one quote and gloss over all the others?
Love,
Monkey
WOW. i don't think that it really matters what Monkey thinks about what we believe. he can just assume whatever he wants. we have tried to teach the truth, but he just skips over it. obviously, Monkey doesn't really care about what we think, all he wants to do is start arguments. I'm sorry, Monkey, but you remind me a high schoolers trying to when a fight with their boyfriend or girlfriend. I'm just tired of trying to make a pointy over and over and over (( you get the point.)) again. i don't get why you would start this conversation if you weren't really looking for answers. Just realize that with this attitude, you will never get anywhere with life.<3 Noël
Monkey,You're pretty funny. All you can think of to say is, "Why do you pick the one quote and gloss over all the others?" I gather you don't even know what "gloss over" means. I didn't gloss over all the others...I didn't comment on them at all. I picked the one quote because it's the one you mentioned in your post 143.
Now I've answered your question, why don't you answer mine?
haha this is starting get interesting:)
Noel,Interesting point; why do you care so much? You seem to be quite insistent in your attacks, and eager to crow your victory, but, if you don't care what I think, why not walk away?
Here is what I think: you have some deep-seated anger, perhaps that you are trapped in a place or culture that does not allow you the freedom you need. Maybe the kids at school that harass you about the polygamous sect in your community have made you withdraw into the only thing that has been constant: your religion.
The world is a big place, with lots to learn and discover. Even with my "attitude" been many places and learned things that have surprised and amazed me.
Don't withdraw into your corner of the planet, don't let others dictate your life to you.
If it really is "the truth", it will be there when you come back. If it isn't, then you will be a better person.
John,
Very good with the nit-picking; my choice of vocabulary stands corrected. So, here are the quotes your IGNORED:
[There is:] "no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith. If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth...no man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God"
- Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p.190
"No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith...every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are"
- Prophet Birgham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p.289
"He that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith with the fullness of the Gospel to this generation, is not of God, but is anti-christ"
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p.312
"If we get our salvation, we shall have to pass by him [Joseph Smith:]; if we enter our glory, it will be through the authority he has received. We cannot get around him [Joseph Smith:]"
- Prophet George Q. Cannon, as quoted in 1988 Melchizedek Priesthood Study Guide, p. 142
"I tell you, Joseph holds the keys, and none of us can get into the celestial kingdom without passing by him. We have not got rid of him, but he stands there as the sentinel, holding the keys of the kingdom of God.. But I tell you, the pinch will be with those that have mingled with us, stood next to us, weighed our spirits, tried us, and proven us: there will be a pinch, in my view, to get past them. The others, perhaps, will say, If brother Joseph is satisfied with you, you may pass. If it is all right with him, it is all right with me. Then if Joseph shall say to a man, or if brother Brigham say to a man, I forgive you your sins, "Whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them;" if you who have suffered and felt the weight of transgression—if you have generosity enough to forgive the sinner, I will forgive him: you cannot have more generosity than I have. I have given you power to forgive sins, and when the Lord gives a gift, he does not take it back again."
- Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.154
To answer your question: "Why do you continue this thread":
I seek the truth in all things.
Your turn.
Mahalo,
Monkey
Monkey,I appreciate that you acknowledged your faulty choice of words, but I'm sorry that you consider my pointing out your error as "nit-picking". Proper use of the language is critical to good communication.
I also appreciate that you answered my question regarding why you wish to continue this thread. But I'm a little puzzled by your answer. As I have pointed out in previous posts, the question posed in this thread has been answered about as completely as it can be. Therefore I can't see what additional truth can be gleaned in terms of the original question. If you have additional questions for which you wish to find the truth, perhaps you should start another thread with one of those questions as the focus.
In your post above you said, "So, here are the quotes your[sic:] IGNORED:" Actually the first of the quotes you give is precisely the one I didn't ignore. And the others you give are only part of the ones I did ignore. Once again you demonstrate a sloppiness inconsistent with rational discourse.
Did you seriously consider my post 144? This is not a rhetorical question, I really want to know. Your statement that I ignored the very quote I discussed in detail, suggests the answer is no. If you aren't going to give serious consideration to my replies to you, then this cannot be a fruitful dialogue.
Finally, what exactly do you want to know about the quotes you gave in your post above? You present them but ask no question. If you want to have a meaningful dialogue, why don't you give just one quote and ask a question about it, preferably in a new thread. Oh, and one more thing, if you would actually research the quote to make sure it hasn't been taken out of context, that would be appreciated.
Me ka ha`aha`a,
John
Monkey,I notice that you referred Noel to a web site about the February 26, 2006 Maha Shivaratri night. Does this mean you are a devotee of the Lord Shiva?
I realize this question doesn't fit in this thread, but your profile is set to private so I couldn't contact you directly.
Thank you in advance for your reply.
John
I have not read everything said in this discussion, so I am not sure if these questions have been asked. I am also a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.Why would we have Jesus Christ in the name of our church if we weren't Christians?
What is our purpose on Earth if it is not to be saved in the life after death?
Why would someone of another faith tell you that what we say is true if they do not believe it themselves?
This last question is for Monkey. You have said to ask different people of different faiths about our faith. Why would they tell you it is true when they do not believe it? How can you ask someone you know will tell you we are "wrong" and use it against us?
Monkey,You responded to Noel:
"Interesting point; why do you care so much? You seem to be quite insistent in your attacks, and eager to crow your victory, but, if you don't care what I think, why not walk away?"
Here's a little tidbit from S. Morris Engel in response:
"Unfortunately, in argument the one who talks longest, loudest, and last often comes out looking like 'the winner,' even though he or she may not have argued well at all. This is because if no one has answered the argument—if no one has actually shown that the argument is weak or unlikely, we are left thinking: the arguer could be right and, moreover, no one can point to anything wrong, so.... This is why we bother to dispute a point at all—if it goes undisputed we and others may be subtly or even heavily influenced by it, may in fact be weakened in our original disagreement with it, and may find it hard to refuse other arguments or even calls to action that derive from it. All of which can lead us to feeling that we have no choice but to say and do things that we do not, at heart, chose or believe in." (S. Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies, Sixth Edition [Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2000:], pp. 5-6.)
Pay particular attention to "This is why we bother to dispute a point at all—if it goes undisputed we and others may be subtly or even heavily influenced by it, may in fact be weakened in our original disagreement with it, and may find it hard to refuse other arguments or even calls to action that derive from it."
Silence implies tacit agreement and we certainly, collectively and individually, disagree with you.
I also find it interesting that you accuse John of "nit-picking" as if it were a bad thing. Again, a little tidbit from some rather prominent philosophers:
"Philosophy is for nit-pickers. That's not to say it is a trivial pursuit. Far from it. Philosophy addresses some of the most important questions human beings ask themselves. The reason philosophers are nit-pickers is that they are concerned with the way in which beliefs we have about the world either are or are not supported by rational argument. Because there concern is serious, it is important for philosophers to demand attention to detail. People reason in a variety of ways using a number of techniques, some legitimate and some not. Often one can discern the difference between good and bad arguments only if one scrutinizes their content and structure with supreme diligence." (Julian Baggini & Peter S. Fosl, The Philosopher’s Toolkit: A Compendium of Philosophical Concepts and Methods [Blackwell Publishing, 2003:], p. 1.)
You have specifically stated that you believe this to be a vital topic, that your objections to LDS beliefs are important as LDS beliefs inform and even control how Latter-day Saints view the world around them. So if indeed this is not a “trivial pursuit” but rather one “of the most important questions human beings ask themselves” then what’s your issue with “attention to detail?”
Of course, I no more expect a substantive, rational and informed response to this post than to any of the others I have authored. Nevertheless, it needs to be said.
You have defined Christianity as a religion whose theology is consistent with historically orthodox creedal Christianity and as John stated, you’re right, by that definition LDS Christians aren’t Christians. Of course, I see a problem with a monolithic definition which would exclude the very persons first branded with the epithet (as originally applied) Christian and thus my objection to your definition. Nevertheless, you asked and answered your own question thus in essence merely stated your opinion which you refuse to abandon. Fair enough. However, do not attempt to tell me what I should and should not believe based upon your erroneous and incomplete understanding of LDS Christianity.
Regards,
Matt
John,The question, which you so eloquently avoid with your semantic dissections of spelling and grammar, is simple:
Does considering Joseph Smith the source of salvation remove Mormonism from the realm of Christianity?
To put it as simply as I can for you:
1. You believe that, to be a Christian, you must believe that salvation is through Jesus the Nazarene, who you believe to be the Christ.
2. Mormons, from the quotes I have given, believe salvation to be through Joseph Smith.
Therefore? If you can't figure THAT one out...
Malama pono,
Monkey
No Monkey, the question, which you so obviously avoid, is whether LDS Christians believe that “Joseph Smith [is:] the source of salvation.”Let’s begin with a little lesson in logic. A common informal fallacy of logic is what is called the straw man fallacy. It consists of “presenting an opponent’s position is as weak or misrepresented a version as possible so that it can easily be refuted.” Now of course the misrepresentation may or may not be intentional but if indeed you are attacking a mere caricature at best or a contrivance at worst then precisely how effective is your assault?
There is no quotation you can provide from any reputable source that would support the accusation that LDS Christians believe “Joseph Smith [is:] the source of salvation.” Rather, it would only establish that Joseph Smith is considered an intermediary (as all four of the quotes you provided bear out). So one must then ask if intermediaries are unchristian or even anti-Christian. Are they?
Be cautious here and show a level of willingness heretofore absent to do a little research. Is there any precedent whatsoever within modern or ancient Christianity for intermediaries?
Monkey,This is rich. You accusing me of avoiding questions! This is a wonderful example of the pot calling the kettle black.
I have to admit that trying to carry on a dialogue with you is getting tiresome, but I will try again. Please refer to my post 144 where I discuss one of the quotes you provide that you apparently believe demonstrates that we believe salvation comes only through Joseph Smith. In this post I provided the entire context of the quote and showed that it does NOT say we believe that salvation comes only through Joseph Smith. The other quotes you provide are more of the same. If you would look them up in their original context rather than just pull them off some anti-Mormon web site, you would find they no more present Joseph Smith as the author of our salvation than does the quote I dealt with in my post 144.
You claimed in your post 149 that you are continuing this thread because you "seek the truth in all things." If you really seek the truth in all things, then please consider these quotes:
"Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth. Behold he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered. Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise. Wherefore, he is the firstfruits unto God, inasmuch as he shall make intercession for all the children of men; and they that believe in him shall be saved." Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 2:6-9
"Take upon you the name of Christ, and speak the truth in soberness. And as many as repent and are baptized in my name, which is Jesus Christ, and endure to the end, the same shall be saved. Behold, Jesus Christ is the name which is given of the Father and there is none other name given whereby man can be saved." Doctrine and Covenants 18:21-23
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Bible, John 14:6
"What do members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints think of Christ? Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God the Eternal Father. He is our Creator. He is our Teacher. He is our Savior. His atonement paid for the sin of Adam and won victory over death, assuring resurrection and immortality for all men. He is all of these, but he is more. Jesus Christ is the Savior, whose atoning sacrifice opens the door for us to be cleansed of our personal sins so that we can be readmitted to the presence of God. He is our Redeemer." Elder Dallin H. Oaks, Ensign, November 1988, pg 65
"We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." Third Article of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
The above quotes are representative of what Mormons believe about Jesus Christ.
We believe Joseph Smith was a great prophet through whom the Church of Jesus Christ was restored in these latter days. We believe Moses was a great prophet who led the children of Israel out of Egypt and to their promised land. We believe Paul was a great apostle who, following his conversion, was a powerful proponent of Christianity in ancient days. But we don't believe that salvation comes through any of these men. Salvation comes through Jesus Christ.
This is the truth you so earnestly seek.
John,So, why did the Mormon Church change its mind?
-Monkey
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Screwtape Letters (other topics)
The Great Divorce (other topics)
The Abolition of Man (other topics)
The Problem of Pain (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Miracles (other topics)The Screwtape Letters (other topics)
The Great Divorce (other topics)
The Abolition of Man (other topics)
The Problem of Pain (other topics)
More...
You know that you CHURCH is true, its not about the church its about Jesus Christ. Your church is merely an organization, but Christ is our hope and has preeminence above all else, so instead of saying the church is true, try saying Jesus Christ is truly the Son of God, He is my savior and my hope, and through Him I can do all things.