WASHINGTON – Some experts predict Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s speech on Thursday addressing his Mormon faith will not likely allay suspicions, but rather open the floodgate for more questions.
-
(Photo: AP / David J. Phillip)Republican presidential hopeful, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney gestures during his address entitled, 'Faith in America,' Thursday, Dec. 6, 2007, at the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum in College Station, Texas.
In his brief 20-minute speech, Romney only mentioned the word “Mormon” once, choosing instead to replace the term with “my church,” “my faith,” and “my religion,” according to The Associated Press.
Instead, Romney focused on affirming the separation of church and state by declaring that if elected president, he would “serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause and no one interest.”
“Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions,” Romney said at the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum in College Station, Texas. “Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.”
Yet at the same time, he indicated he would not distance himself from his religion.
“I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs,” he said, adding that if his faith hurts his candidacy, “so be it,” according to CNN.
Romney’s speech takes place as a growing number of evangelical Christians begin to coalesce behind presidential rival Mike Huckabee, a former Southern Baptist preacher who runs on a conservative Christian platform. Romney’s speech is widely thought to be in response to Huckabee’s rise in polls last week that found him in dead heat or even ahead of the former Massachusetts governor in Iowa, which holds presidential caucuses Jan. 3.
Additionally, Thursday’s speech is also thought to be an attempt to counter criticisms against his record of flip-flopping on such issues as abortion and gay rights.
“The Romney strategy with the speech appeared to be to try to kill two birds with one stone – to placate voters who are apprehensive about him as a Mormon or as a flip-flopper,” said Costas Panagopoulos, a political scientist at Fordham University, to AP.
“But I am not convinced he was successful in doing either,” Panagopoulos said. “At the end of the day, it is very difficult to change voters’ pre-existing beliefs, and it would probably take a much more powerful speech than the one Romney delivered today.”
Meanwhile, Bill Bennett, a CNN contributor, commented, “I can see this speech he just gave being given by any of the Republican candidates and most of the Democratic candidates, frankly,” according to CNN. “I’m not sure he was responding to the concern ‘what about this Mormon thing?’”
“I think he will probably get more questions on it, not fewer,” Bennett said.
An AP-Yahoo poll last month found half of all respondents said they have problems with supporting a Mormon presidential candidate, including one-fifth who said it would make them very uncomfortable.
Moreover, 36 percent of white Republican evangelical Christians said they were less likely to vote for a believer in Mormonism, which many view as heretical, according to an August poll by the Pew Research Center.
“I don’t think his Mormonism is a deal breaker for most Americans, but only Mitt Romney can close the deal,” Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, told ABC’s “Good Morning America.”
When asked if he thought Mormons were Christians, the prominent Southern Baptist conservative responded, “No, I do not.”
Along with many Christian evangelicals, the Southern Baptist Convention does not consider Mormonism to be part of historic orthodox Christianity.
Romney did not go into specifics about Mormonism during his speech, saying to do so would amount to a "religious test," but acknowledged differences exist between the beliefs of Christian evangelicals and that of his church.
"I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths," he said, adding that these differences are "not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance," as reported by AP.
"Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree."
RSS
Evidentally you just do not appreciate the Bible. You must be reading too much of that ant-Christian rheteric:
"Take up the Bible, compare the religion of the Latter-day Saints with it, and see if it will stand the test."
-Brigham Young, 1873
lol.. Man, you are on a roll!
I wish it was comedy. Unfortuantely not only is Mormonism inconsisntant with the Bible, but it is actually inconsistant with the BOM.
lol... I don't know where you come up with these things, but they're pretty funny. Have you ever considered going into comedy?
So now you are suggesting that Joseph Smith was anti-Mormon?
You really need to open those history books and stop reading the anti-Mormon websites.
It takes more than just quoting from the Bible. Jehovah's Witnesses quote the Bible more than just about any religion. If that were the test of continuity, they would win over Mormons. Satan was the first to quote the Word of God. He was also the master of twisting it to his own advantage. I do not necessarily say that you are intentionally twisting it to your advantage, but Joseph Smith certainly did.
One case in point was the doctrine of Polygamy. One minute Smith condemned it. Then he got caught in polygamy and said he received a revelation. Even then he would not allow others to partake. When he did finally establish it as a law, it actually became a command. Those who refused to partake would be damned. I've watched the way Mormons dance around this, it is enough to make even Mohammed blush, saying that it was for the sake of widows losing their husbands to the war. Good grief, it is obvious that Smith was a scoundrel.
You claim that there is no continuity between the Bible and the LDS Church, yet we use the Bible every day in our worship and study, and I have quoted thoroughly from the Bible to back up my assertions. If there was no continuity, we wouldn't use the Bible. Thus, you are mistaken.
Sunesis is the connotation for intelligence.
I want to express my appreciation to the Pastor who shared the interesting link.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3803/is_199810/ai_n8808757
For some time I have given up the idea of mocking Mormon teachings (i.e. Quakers living on the moon, etc.), although others still use it. I think it has its place, but I prefer to build bridges and help people work out a system of epistemology that leads to a more sure foundation. Mormonism is not only incoherent in a real world of fallen people, but it is inconsistent with the Biblical record.
The bottom line that I am drawing right here, right now is that there is no continuity between the Bible and the LDS Church. The only tools available to the Mormon is conjecture and revelation knowledge. This is closerly aligned to gnosticism than apostolic doctrine.
PS I have started reading your citation. I am reading it slowly and thoughtfully, I do not want to miss anything. I hope that you are doing the same with my citation.
Hesadanza says: "Sometimes wisdom just means "accumulated knowledge or erudition or enlightenment." It depends on its usage. In the case of James 1:5, lacking wisdom, asking God for it, and God giving it to you is pretty plain. If we want to know something, we can ask God, and He will tell it to us."
_____________________________________________________________________
I hate to be so sarcastic, but I must ask if Joseph Smith received this definition via revelation?
Wisdom (sophia in the Greek) “is the insight into the nature of things,” Vine’s Expository Dictionary. According to Easton's Bible Dictionary wisdom is "a moral rather than an intellectual quality. To be "foolish" is to be godless" (Psalm 14:1; Comp. Judges 19:23; 2 Samuel 13:13).
You are just flat out wrong in your definition of wisdom as some sort of revelation knowledge or mystical enlightenment. To go one step further, why else would God give the gift of knowledge? The gift of knowledge was specifically a revelation knowledge that comes not by accumulating information. It does not take a literary genius to understand that James is referring to endurance and perseverance under trial when read in its context.
Knowledge is power
Wisdom is the ability to PROPERLY use that knowledge!
what good is a gun if you dont know how to use it?
No, seedplanter. Sometimes wisdom just means "accumulated knowledge or erudition or enlightenment." It depends on its usage. In the case of James 1:5, lacking wisdom, asking God for it, and God giving it to you is pretty plain. If we want to know something, we can ask God, and He will tell it to us.
Hesadanza says: ""Wisdom" is any kind of knowledge. If we lack wisdom, we can ask of God, and He will give to us. That is the promise of James. That includes knowing if a prophet is true."
_______________________________________
A couple of problems:
1) wisdom is different than knowledge and knowing.
2) As you stated earlier about creeds, James was not written early enough for this to be used as a principle to know true and false prophets.
Although, when we get an answer from God, we better have the wisdom to do something with it!
Obviously there is a lot of confusion in the world today over the gospel of Jesus Christ, that is why there are thousands upon thousands of different churches that have been established. I just heard of another one a couple days ago that split off. The Bible is not a completely clear book when it comes to doctrines. That is why there has been so much disputation over doctrine, and why a new church is formed practically every day.
The Book of Mormon helps to clarify the doctrines of the gospel of Jesus Christ. That is why God has brought it forth today. In the mouth of two or three witnesses will God establish His word.
Revelation also helps to clarify what God means when He says certain things. That is why revelation is absolutely necessary to understand God's word, and why we have living prophets and apostles on earth today.
I know what the formal definition of "wisdom" is, servent. But in this case in James 1:5, obviously it means if we lack knowledge in something, we can ask God for it, and He will give it to us. Wisdom doesn't always have to mean doing something with knowledge; wisdom can sometimes mean just "accumulated knowledge or erudition or enlightenment."
HesadanzaWed Dec 12, 2007 9:13 am : 0 : 0 Flag
seedplanter - "Wisdom" is any kind of knowledge.
again wrong. You can have all the knowledge in the world and not have wisdom. Wisdom is knowing what to do with the knowledge. True knowledge comes from God, remember King Solomon, what he prayed for.
You can read a book on physics and be able to quote it, but if you can't apply it to a real life situation you have NO wisdom. Yes you have knowledge of the subject but no wisdom.
If we have the Book of Revelation, then why do we need the Book of Mormon? What does Joseph Smith have to offer that the Bible hasn't already given us? If he gave a revealtion that is relevant, then what was it? Did it occur already?
Amendoza - I quote the Book of Mormon because it is the word of God, just like the Bible. If you would read it, and asked God if it is true, you would also come to find that out also.
I compared the "complexity" of the Lord of the Rings to the Book of Mormon, just as the Bible is a complex book, not the fictionality or reality of the accounts.
Do you believe in Christ and His teachings, that He is the Savior and Redeemer? Yes. Do I the same? Yes. That means we are both Christians. We belong to different churches, so obviously there will be some differences in our beliefs. But who are you to ask me to say that I don't believe in Christ, worship Him as the God in heaven, and consider Him my Savior? That is something the adversary would advocate, not a Christian. Those that are Christian encourage others to believe in Christ, and deny Him not (2 Ne. 25: 28-29). I will not deny Him!
Hesadanza, The fact that you quote the BOM means little and I find it ironic that your reference the Loard of the Rings (a fictional book) as a comparison to the BOM. There is not comparison to the Bible because it is the true inspired word of God.
I am not trying to debate weither Mormonism is false because like you said it all goes off faith and I cannot make the blind see. What I am trying to do however, it to get you to admit that there is no possible way that your religion and my religion can share the same name. There are so many theological differences right down to the divinity of Christbetween the two religions. I would have no problem with Mitt if he was not attempting to equate the two religions (also noting that Smith came up with Mormonism because Christianinty as I know it is from Satan).
Unfourtunatly, we are all going to have to agree to disagree. I will pray for you my friend, that God will open your eyes and save your soul.
God bless,
Anthony
www.bellybutton88.blogspot.com
seedplanter - "Wisdom" is any kind of knowledge. If we lack wisdom, we can ask of God, and He will give to us. That is the promise of James. That includes knowing if a prophet is true.
The Book of Mormon is very complex:
500+ pages
Ancient Religious history
Hundreds of ancient names and groups (Hebraic, Jewish, and Egyptian etymology)
Ancient manners, customs, arts, industries, politics, institutions, rites, traditions, military, economy.
1000+ years of history
Many interrelated local histories happen concurrently
Religous controversy
Philosophical discussion
Ancient literary conventions (chiasmus, Hebraisms)
Transmissions of records
If the Book of Mormon was so easy to produce, why hasn't anyone made a book similar to it under the same conditions, and with the same complexity?
I have already given you a long list of prophecies of Joseph Smith that have come to pass, but you won't recognize it. That's ok. I know he was a prophet.
Here are a few more scriptures that teach us that the Spirit witnesses of the truth (Luke 12:12; John 14:26; John 15:26; John 16:13; Acts 2:37; Acts 5:32; 1 Cor. 2:13; 1 Cor. 12:3; Heb. 10:15; 1 Jn. 4:6; 1 Jn. 5:6).
By the way, have you read the article on baptism for the dead by Hugh Nibley?
Here's an interesting thought . . .
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3803/is_199810/ai_n8808757
Hesadanz, “James 1:5 is specifically speaking of wisdom, not for whether or not someone is a true prophet. “If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.”
The Book of Mormon is hardly on par with the continuity and complexity of The Lord of the Rings. There are numerous inconsistencies in the BOM that I know of. Plenty of corrections and changes have been made over the years. I wonder if the LDS emphasis on subjective experience as to the standard of truth is to make up for the lack of evidence for the BOM. The Bible is much different however. Do you have any idea how many atheists began a quest to discredit the Bible and to debunk it, but came away with evidence that made them believers? Everybody has an epistemological standard for truth. The Biblical foundation draws from several.
Deuteronomy develops a standard whereby we can test a prophet. Notice it uses the epistemology of empiricism, authority and doesn’t even mention subjective experiences.
18:22 If a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by it.
13:1 If prophets or those who divine by dreams appear among you and promise you omens or portents, 13:2 and the omens or the portents declared by them take place, and they say, "Let us follow other gods" (whom you have not known) "and let us serve them," 13:3 you must not heed the words of those prophets or those who divine by dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you indeed love the LORD your God with all your heart and soul.
seedplanter - "By their fruits ye shall know them." That is how we know a prophet from "any other so-called prophet." And the Book of Mormon is Joseph's #1 fruit. Critics still have not been able to determine how he came up with it in just 65 days. I can barely read a book over 500 pages in 65 days, let alone write one as complex as the Book of Mormon. It's been compared in complexity to the Lord of the Rings series which took JRR Tolkien 12 years to write. So how did Joseph Smith come up with the Book of Mormon in 65 days? I testify that he received it from God, and his only work was to translate it.
You will never come to know the truth by evidence, seedplanter. Evidence is for those without faith. Evidence supports faith and increases it, but it does not replace it. You must come to know the truth through faith on Christ, and seeking to know the truth by asking God (James 1:5; Moroni 10:3-5). That is the only way to know truth. It is not by evidence, signs, or proof.
amendoza,
You are right; Jesus did tell us not to cast our pearls. . . . lest they become trampled upon. Everyone knows which gospel is the true gospel; take and God bless.
Hesadanza, I don’t think Amendoza was saying that you personally have changed your doctrines or beliefs, but that LDS have.
Unfortunately you still have not given me a good argument as to why anyone should believe Joseph Smith over Mohammed or any other so-called prophet. Just because Mohammed wasn’t orthodox in his beliefs isn’t conclusive, neither was Joseph Smith. If you are wondering, no, I do not adhere to the teachings of Mohammed.
From what you have said, it is evident that your whole argument rests on blind faith rather than evidence. This definitely does not correspond with examples of prophets in Scripture. They did not depend upon subjective truth (truth based on personal experiences). It is true that Christ did not give signs flippantly, but he did nevertheless. How did the early believers know he was the Messiah? His miracles were used as evidence. Numerous Old Testament prophecies fulfilled provided plenty of proof (i.e. John the Baptist, the virgin birth, his death and resurrection to name a few). Take a look at the Bereans and their response to hearing the Gospel.
Amendoza - I have not changed my beliefs in public, nor will I ever change my beliefs. For they are true. We accept all holy scripture as the word of God, but we also understand the context of how that scripture has come to us.
Once again, you will never be able to prove Mormonism is false, and I will never be able to prove to you that it is true. God works on faith, not "proof" or "evidence". A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign (Matt. 16:4).
2 Nephi 33 -
10 And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good.
11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness.
12 And I pray the Father in the name of Christ that many of us, if not all, may be saved in his kingdom at that great and last day.
13 And now, my beloved brethren, all those who are of the house of Israel, and all ye ends of the earth, I speak unto you as the voice of one crying from the dust: Farewell until that great day shall come.
14 And you that will not partake of the goodness of God, and respect the words of the Jews, and also my words, and the words which shall proceed forth out of the mouth of the Lamb of God, behold, I bid you an everlasting farewell, for these words shall condemn you at the last day.
15 For what I seal on earth, shall be brought against you at the judgment bar; for thus hath the Lord commanded me, and I must obey. Amen.
Online4Him,
we are wasting our time with Hesadanza. Mormons are interesting as that they are the only religion that will change their beliefs in public to allign with another to gain credibility. you can use all the scripture you like but he/she will not listen to you as that Mormons do not believe that the Bible is as important as the book of Mormon. this the the fourth or fith post on Mormonism that is a continuous circle of people giving evidence against Mormonism and Mormons continuing to be blinded. My sugesstion is that we share the Gospel with those willing to hear and the lost group of Mormons will have to deal with their fate at death.
God bless,
Anthony
www.bellybutton88.blogspot.com
I MARVEL THAT YE ARE SO SOON REMOVED FROM HIM THAT CALLED YOU INTO THE GRACE OF CHRIST UNTO ANOTHER GOSPEL: WHICH IS NOT ANOTHER; BUT THERE BE SOME THAT TROUBLE YOU, AND WOULD PERVERT THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST.
BUT THOUGH WE, OR AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN, PREACH ANY OTHER GOSPEL UNTO YOU THAN THAT WHICH WE HAVE PREACHED UNTO YOU, LET HIM BE ACCURSED. AS WE SAID BEFORE, SO SAY I NOW AGAIN, IF ANY MAN PREACH ANY OTHER GOSPEL UNTO YOU THAN THAT YE HAVE RECEIVED, LET HIM BE ACCURSED.
GALATIANS 1:6-9
NEED WE HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING MORE?
Ether 12:6 - "And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith."
The revelations that we have received today do not have to be found in the Bible. Since when did Moses need to appeal to the Bible in order to receive and deliver the will of God to his people? Since when did Isaiah have to find everything that he wrote from God in previous holy writ? Since when did John the Beloved need to search the scriptures to write his glorious book of Revelations? Since when did Abraham, Enoch, Jeremiah, Joshua, or any of the other prophets of the Bible have to make sure everything they did was in accord with the Bible. No. Prophets use scripture to support the revelations that God gives, but they do not need to find "proof" of it in scripture. If God wants to speak, He will speak, and He isn't limited to what He has spoken before!
"Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7). It wouldn't be a secret if it was already written down in the scriptures, now would it. Revelation doesn't work that way.
Christians are those that believe in Christ, that He is the Savior and Redeemer, that He atoned for our sins, that He is God, and strictly follow His teachings. Anyone who can claim those things is a Christian, for Christ set the definition.
You say, "Since Mormonism is postulating new “truth” and “revelation” the burden of proof falls on you." Wrong. Faith was never meant to be proven. That is why it is faith. God could appear today and tell the whole world that Mormonism is His true Church, but he would never do it, because that would destroy the principle of faith. No. God requires faith in Him. Not proof. Evidences only support testimony, they don't prove it. Why did He take the golden plates back?Because He wanted us to exercise faith. Why isn't there a ton of substantial conclusive evidence of the Book of Mormon people in Central America? Because He wanted us to exercise faith. God has required His people to exercise faith since the world began. But that doesn't mean that the proof doesn't exist. Oh no. "If any man will do my will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself."
There are many instances in the Bible where people wanted a sign from God to prove His reality. Sometimes He gave it, but it was to their destruction. Those that follow God and His commandments receive innumerable evidences and proof, all according to the faith that they have in God.
I know that Jesus taught the same things in His time as the LDS church teaches today because the spirit has witnessed to me that it is true, and the spirit testifies of the truth. That is the ONLY way in which we may know what is true. It is not by evidences, or signs, or proof. It is having faith, and asking God in faith, with real intent. And God has promised that He will answer us. He has answered me.
maranatha7593:
your posted: "rubinlueski, was the US not attacked by Al Queda on 9/11? And if one traces the activities of Arafat/the PLO and other Muslims over the last four decades, it is obvious "jihad" didn't start then. I don't know for sure what we should have done after 9/11, but I do believe something needed to be done. It's very easy to be an armchair quarterback and judge those who have to make those decisions. And I think it's highly significant that we haven't seen any more attacks on US soil since 9/11. May God continue to have mercy on us all."
I repeat once again. A major factor for 9-11 is due to the imperial ambitions of the US in the ME to protect US oil interests. Most of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia. They carried out 9-11 because they wanted the to US to remove its military bases from Saudi Arabia. They and bin laden warned the US many times to leave. How would you, or any American, like having a foreign power establish a military base here to protect its interests. Again, read about ME history, start with the US CIA and British Intelligence overthrow of the Iranian prime minister and the placement of the puppet dictator- the shah. If not for interference from the west in Iran for decades, it might be a democracy today.
Also, please recall that it took about 8 years from the first attack on the world trade center to 9-11. Your conclusion that bush has prevented another attack has yet to be shown. In fact its just a matter of time before something else happens as long as the US continues to meddle in the affairs of the ME. Oh yeah, and that "something that had to be done". Wasn't the attack on Afghanistan about 9-11? How does Iraq fit in on that?
maranatha7593, rubinlueski wrote, "... the Europeans powers carved up the ME post WWI."
"Are you saying it was wrong for Israel's land to be restored to them? Please clarify."
ANSWERS:
As I stated earlier, you, and 95 % of America, really need history lessons on the ME. Study ME for the last 100 years and that will answer many of the questions concerning the problems of the ME caused by western countries and why 9-11 occured.
On the question of establishment of Israel in ME: VERY BAD IDEA. After the Europeans slaughtered the Jews, it would have made more sense to establish a jewish state using say some of Germany or perhaps Poland. Perhaps somewhere less political might have been desert region somewhere in the western part of the US. Why did the arabs have to pay for the crimes of europeans against the jews by confiscating arab land?
Hesadanza,
With all due respect; how can you say that Jesus taught the same things in his time as the Mormon church teaches today?
Salvation
"One of the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation." (Miracle of Forgiveness, Spencer W. Kimball, p. 206.)
A plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus offered a plan to the Father and Satan offered a plan to the father but Jesus' plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Savior of all Mankind and to "deny men their agency and to dethrone god." (Mormon Doctrine, page 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, page 8.)
Jesus' sacrifice was not able to cleanse us from all our sins, (murder and repeated adultery are exceptions), (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 247, 1856.)
Good works are necessary for salvation, Articles of Faith, p. 92.)
There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, p. 188.)
"The first effect [of the atonement] is to secure to all mankind alike, exemption from the penalty of the fall, thus providing a plan of General Salvation. The second effect is to open a way for Individual Salvation whereby mankind may secure remission of personal sins (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 78-79.)
"As these sins are the result of individual acts it is just that forgiveness for them should be conditioned on individual compliance with prescribed requirements -- 'obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.'" (Articles of Faith p. 79).
"This grace is an enabling power that allows men and women to lay hold on eternal life and exaltation after they have expended their own best efforts" (LDS Bible Dictionary, p. 697).
"We know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do," (2 Nephi 25:23).
It is doctines such as these that inherently disqualifies themselves of any inspiration. Where can these doctrines be found in the Bible? They are absent; therefore it becomes another gospel which Christians should and do not accept.
Hesadanza says, “Seems like you not only deny the Christianity of Mormonism, but you also deny the Christianity of those people that even followed Christ when He lived His mortal life.”
“Again, there was never a different Christ that lived upon this earth. There was never two Jesuses. There is only ONE Jesus Christ of Nazareth that lived His life. Saying that we believe in a different Christ is creating a different Savior, which we will NOT do, but which everyone else seems to like to do without hesitation.”
__________________________________________________________
You seem to be missing the point here. The apostles were eyewitnesses of Christ, they wrote the NT of course. We have that record which includes early oral traditions and sayings that can be traced back to a few years of Christ at the latest. We have some knowledge of the history of Christianity and its practices from other sources outside the church. It may be sketchy, but it is not absent.
What I was getting at is that Joseph Smith presented a different Jesus. Mohammed presented a different Jesus. The Gnostics presented a different Jesus. You say that you do not present a different Jesus. Then you say that everyone believes the same Jesus. You claim that Mormons are true Christians and not Muslims. Why?
Let me be very precise in asking, what makes Joseph Smith a more acceptable prophet than Mohammed? It is a fair question. Neither one agreed with the apostles on everything. Yet they both claim that they originate from the Old Testament prophets. Muslims include Jesus as a predecessor to their prophet. Both claim that Scripture has been lost and we cannot depend on the New Testament for reliability.
Since Mormonism is postulating new “truth” and “revelation” the burden of proof falls on you.
Amendoza - You are wrong. Mormons believe that Jesus is the only Son of God, with a capital "S". We believe that we are all sons of God, with a lower case "s", which we have been told innumerable times in the scriptures (Rom. 8:14-21; 1 Jn. 3:1-2; John 1:12; Matt. 5:9; John 11:52; Gal. 3:26). Satan too was a "son of the morning" (Isa. 14:12).
The Book of Mormon was written between 600 BC and 400 AD, and on the other side of the world. We don't agree with post-New Testament Christian history as it occured in the Old World.
To believe that the Bible is inerrant is being ignorant. Just the translation alone introduces errors of meaning into the text. Have you ever tried to translate from one language to another?
Again, there was never a different Christ that lived upon this earth. There was never two Jesuses. There is only ONE Jesus Christ of Nazareth that lived His life. Saying that we believe in a different Christ is creating a different Savior, which we will NOT do, but which everyone else seems to like to do without hesitation.
Nope. They might have been Jewish in name, but they rejected the doctrines and practices of the Jews. Jesus time after time rejected the doctrines that the Pharisees tried to pull over Him. They might not have been called Christians at the time, but we would certainly call them Christians today.
That is a great quote.
Hesadanza,
"Those that follow Jesus Christ, His gospel, His teachings, and believe in His sacrifice and resurrection, and that He is the Savior and Redeemer of the world, the only begotten Son of God, and that it is only in Christ Jesus that we are saved, what would you call those people?"
Mormons do not believe that Jesus is the only Son of God. They believe that Satan and the rest of is are children of god (I use little g because the god of mormonism is a created being and therfore not the true God)
"We return to the beliefs and doctrines that were taught by Christ, which have been restored today. We believe in New Testament Christianity, not post-New Testament Christianity."
How do you say that you do not believe in post- New Testament Christian history when the book of Mormon was written long after the New Testament and as it has been stated on this site before, Mormons claim that the book of Mormon is more correct than the bible.
The difference between the people you continually attempt to bring up that lived in the time of Christ and Mormons is that they believed in the true Christ not some suedo-Christ whos only similarity to the true Jesus Christ is the name.
What I think we are begining to miss is that the bible and all the other things do not make you a Christian, they show the Gospel and what you have to do to become Christian (for the record it is 100% true and inerrent). The only way to become Christian is to repent, turn from sin and trust in the one, true and only Jesus Christ.
God Bless,
Anthony
www.bellybutton88.blogspot.com
Basically.. the people following Jesus during his lifetime were.. Jewish. Not Christians since that word didn't exist then. They were Jesusians if you really want to label them.. Essentially they were heretical Jews.
Best part of the article: "Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree."
What a great quote.
Online4Him - my point is, those that followed Christ when He lived His mortal life did not have the compiled Bible, did not have the Nicene Creed, did not have 2000 years of so-called "traditional" Christianity development, yet we would not deny them to be called Christians.
Such are we. We do not believe in a sealed canon of scripture, we do not believe in the Nicene Creed, and we do not believe post-New Testament Christian history. Yet, we are still Christian. We believe and follow Jesus Christ, and accept Him as the Savior of the world.
Those who think we are not Christian base that fact on the history of Christianity that came post-New Testament, which we don't agree with. However, the early Christians didn't have that history yet either. We don't claim to be traditional orthodox Christians as the world has defined it today. We are different. We are peculiar. We are not the same as the majority of Christians out there. We return to the beliefs and doctrines that were taught by Christ, which have been restored today. We believe in New Testament Christianity, not post-New Testament Christianity. We would be very pleased if you called us New Testament Christians instead of traditional orthodox Christians, if you will. But saying we are not Christian at all is a lie, for a Christian is one that believes in Christ, and accepts Him as their Savior, which we most assuredly do.
Easier to read format:
Hesadanza,
It can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo. In the following we list some of the catalogues of the books of the Bible which are given by early Christian writers.
326. Athanasius, bishop at Alexandria, mentions all of the New Testament books.
315-386. Cyril, bishop at Jerusalem, gives a list of all New Testament books except Revelation.
270. Eusebius, bishop at Caesarea, called the Father of ecclesiastical history, gives an account of the persecution of Emperor Diocletian whose edict required that all churches be destroyed and the Scriptures burned. He lists all the books of the New Testament. He was commissioned by Constantine to have transcribed fifty copies of the Bible for use of the churches of Constantinople.
185-254. Origen, born at Alexandria, names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments.
165-220. Clement, of Alexandria, names all the books of the New Testament except Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. In addition we are told by Eusebius, who had the works of Clement, that he gave explanations and quotations from all the canonical books.
160-240. Turtullian, contemporary of Origen and Clement, mentions all the New Testament books except 2 Peter, James and 2 John.
135-200. Irenaeus, quoted from all New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John.
100-147. Justin Martyr, mentions the Gospels as being four in number and quotes from them and some of the epistles of Paul and Revelation.
Besides the above, the early church fathers have handed down in their writings quotations from all the New Testament books so much so that it is said that the entire New Testament can be reproduced from their writings alone.
It seems that your resources need to be re-checked again. Your arguments have not disproved that fact that Christianity as a whole does not accept Mormonism as a legitimate Christian Church. Why?
Hesadanza,
It can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo. In the following we list some of the catalogues of the books of the Bible which are given by early Christian writers.
326. Athanasius, bishop at Alexandria, mentions all of the New Testament books.
315-386. Cyril, bishop at Jerusalem, gives a list of all New Testament books except Revelation.
270. Eusebius, bishop at Caesarea, called the Father of ecclesiastical history, gives an account of the persecution of Emperor Diocletian whose edict required that all churches be destroyed and the Scriptures burned. He lists all the books of the New Testament. He was commissioned by Constantine to have transcribed fifty copies of the Bible for use of the churches of Constantinople.
185-254. Origen, born at Alexandria, names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments.
165-220. Clement, of Alexandria, names all the books of the New Testament except Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. In addition we are told by Eusebius, who had the works of Clement, that he gave explanations and quotations from all the canonical books.
160-240. Turtullian, contemporary of Origen and Clement, mentions all the New Testament books except 2 Peter, James and 2 John.
135-200. Irenaeus, quoted from all New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John.
100-147. Justin Martyr, mentions the Gospels as being four in number and quotes from them and some of the epistles of Paul and Revelation.
Besides the above, the early church fathers have handed down in their writings quotations from all the New Testament books so much so that it is said that the entire New Testament can be reproduced from their writings alone.
It seems that your resources need to be re-checked again. Your arguments have not disproved that fact that Christianity as a whole does not accept Mormonism as a legitimate Christian Church. Why?
Online4Him - they did not have the Bible as we have it today, sir. It was compiled into the book we now know as the Holy Bible several centuries after Christ, noting that many of the books they considered holy are now NOT in our book either. To be sure, The earliest official list of the books of the Bible we get from Pope Damasus I at the Council of Rome in A.D. 382. So the early Christians did not have this "sealed" canon of scripture that we call the Bible, which you say could not be "added to" or "taken from". Certainly they did not have all the books of the New Testament until long after they were written, since there were no printing presses back then. So to believe that only those that believe in the totality of the Bible are true Christians is being ignorant of history.
Hesadanza,
Your state: The early followers of Jesus Christ had no Bible. The Holy Bible was compiled many centuries later.???????????????????
This statement is incorrect; the early Christians had the entire Old Testament and some books of the New Testament had already been written. Remember John received and wrote the Revelation before his death; my point is that the early Christians had enough knowledge of what constituted true biblical theology.
Gospel of Mark: +70 AD (conservative dating may be as early as 50)
Gospel of Matthew: +80-90 AD (conservative dating in the 60s although as early as the 40s)
Gospel of Luke: +80–90 AD (conservative dating in the 60s)
Gospel of John: +95–110 AD (conservative dating in the late 80s to early 90s)
Acts: +80–90 AD (conservative dating in 60s)
James: ca.70–200 AD (conservative dating ca.45–62 AD)
Colossians: +60 AD+
Corinthians: +57 AD
Ephesians: +65 AD
Hebrews: +60–90 AD
Epistles of John: +95-110 AD
Jude: +70–100 AD (conservative dating in the 60s or earlier)
First Peter: ca. 90–96 AD (conservative dating ca.64 AD)
Second Peter: 100–140 AD (conservative dating ca.64 AD)
Philemon: +56 AD
Philippians: +57–62 AD
Romans: +57–58 AD
Galatians: +54–55 AD (conservative dating in the late 40s)
Thessalonians: +50 AD
Timothy: +70–100 AD (conservative dating ca.60)
Titus: +70–100 AD (conservative dating ca.60)
Revelation: +81–96 AD (dating in the 60s as a minority view among conservatives)
HyperionOverseer - you are forgetting one small detail. The early followers of Jesus Christ had no Bible. The Holy Bible was compiled many centuries later. So to make a statement that "true Christiantiy ONLY has the bible as our final word of authority that God gave us" denies the early followers of Christ to be Christians. They had no such book.
We accept Christ as our Savior just as those early followers of Christ did, and we are, with them, Christians.
if they accepted Him as their savior, THEN they are Christian,
Mormons believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit as three SEPERATE God beings, which is another lie Satan created along with the whole book he made for it.
True christianity ONLY has the bible as our final word of authority that God gave us. Anything else is "the book to the path of hell". Mormonism is slanted, VERY slanted!
Seems like you not only deny the Christianity of Mormonism, but you also deny the Christianity of those people that even followed Christ when He lived His mortal life. That is sad.
If you keep this up, you will soon find that no one in the world believes in God except yourself, a good strategy for Satan to use in pushing his atheism agenda.
Hesadanza says: “You still didn't answer my question, seedplanter. What about those early followers of Christ that lived at His time? What do you call them? Those that follow Jesus Christ, His gospel, His teachings, and believe in His sacrifice and resurrection, and that He is the Savior and Redeemer of the world, the only begotten Son of God, and that it is only in Christ Jesus that we are saved, what would you call those people? Sorry, Muslims and Gnostics don't fit that description.”
_________________________________________________
Why don’t you want to include Muslims? How can you accept Joseph Smith and not Mohammed? What difference is there besides what seems to be a minor variation of the crucifixion? How do you know this isn’t one of those lost secrets (i.e. that Judas took Christ’s place). How do you know whether or not Mohammed was a true prophet? He fulfilled many different prophesies, as you claim Smith to have. Is there any way of knowing a prophet was sent by God?
What charges were brought against Jesus that put him on the cross?
And neither do Bab and Wiccans fit that description.
You still didn't answer my question, seedplanter. What about those early followers of Christ that lived at His time? What do you call them?
Those that follow Jesus Christ, His gospel, His teachings, and believe in His sacrifice and resurrection, and that He is the Savior and Redeemer of the world, the only begotten Son of God, and that it is only in Christ Jesus that we are saved, what would you call those people?
Sorry, Muslims and Gnostics don't fit that description.
Let's not forget about the Bab and the many Wiccans who also claim the name of Jesus. Everybody is a Christian or not?
Hesadanza says: "If the early followers of Jesus Christ can be called Christian without believing in the Nicene Creed or the other developments of Christianity over the centuries, then why not others, today?"
That is exactly that I was responding to. Did you read my post? Why not include Muslims and Gnostics as Christians?
Yes maranatha7593, I was driving home the fallacy that just because Mormons believe in Jesus, it means that they are Christians.
rubinlueski, It may seem like a stretch of the imagination, but if you do your homework you will discover that the Bible is the bedrock of modern science. You are welcome to disagree, but the evidence is strong. Vishal Mangalwadi is working on the publication of his treatise, The Book of the Millenium. He gets a lot of his source material from non-Christian sources. He has some lectures online that you can download at:
http://www.maclaurin.org/mp3_group.php?type=The+Heretics+Series
If the early followers of Jesus Christ can be called Christian without believing in the Nicene Creed or the other developments of Christianity over the centuries, then why not others, today?
rubinlueski wrote, "... the Europeans powers carved up the ME post WWI."
Are you saying it was wrong for Israel's land to be restored to them? Please clarify.
Also, this is going WAY back, but I do think it pertinent that Christians are blamed for the Crusades (though it was only the Roman Catholic church which participated), yet 99% of their accusers neglect to mention that the RC's were responding to the aggression of the Moors (what Muslims were called then) who had invaded Jerusalem.
"Would you consider Muslims Christian? They also believe in Jesus. They believe that Jesus was a prophet sent by God. They believe he will come back to judge the world and that he was too holy to die in the first place. Never mind that Mohammed denied Christ's death and resurrection."
seedplanter, I do believe you were being facetious in your remarks, and I think you made great points. I just wanted to add one thing: In front of the "most holy" Islam mosque in Mecca -- the one every Muslim pledges to make a pilgrimage to at least once in his/her life -- is an obelisk, on which is inscribed these words:
"There is one God, and he has no son."
The Bible says, even the demons believe and tremble. But their belief is not saving faith. It is simply an acknowledgement of who Jesus is.
rubinlueski, was the US not attacked by Al Queda on 9/11? And if one traces the activities of Arafat/the PLO and other Muslims over the last four decades, it is obvious "jihad" didn't start then. I don't know for sure what we should have done after 9/11, but I do believe something needed to be done. It's very easy to be an armchair quarterback and judge those who have to make those decisions. And I think it's highly significant that we haven't seen any more attacks on US soil since 9/11. May God continue to have mercy on us all.
HyperionOverseer, you wrote "Muslims are NOT Christian
if they were then they wouldnt have any reason to kill us all, which is exactly what they want!"
ahhh, if I'm mot mistaken, it is a so called christian peoples of the USA that invaded two muslim countries and are now reponsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi's and the destruction of their country. You might try studying the history of the Middle East and learn something about the destructive influence the West has had in general and the US in particular in the ME in the last 100 years. Start with the study of Iran and the US involvment in the overthrow of their democratically elected prime minister in 1953 and then study how the Europeans powers carved up the ME post WWI. Its all about controlling their oil. You might then learn why 9-11 occured.
seedplanter, reread my post, perhaps then you can then come back with a logical response. Atheists? where did that come from. I didn't mention anything about atheist. I used the term "eternal torture camp" to describe what many religious people use to describe where your loving god sends the nonbelievers. If you like then, hell.
Your statement: "I will go one step farther in asserting that science has made the most progress in the context of theism. I dare say that modern science itself is a derivative of Biblical influence (i.e. logic, coherence of creation, etc, etc.).
Dude, how did you come up with that one. Do you have any knowledge of science or the scientific method?
they are if they believe in His Word and Jesus as their Lord and Savior.
You didn't answer my question. Would you deny those early followers of Christ when He lived His life 2000 years ago to be called Christians?
Muslims are NOT Christian
if they were then they wouldnt have any reason to kill us all, which is exactly what they want!
and on top of that, Muslims dont believe in Jesus
they think he was just a man, a prohpet
BUT JESUS WAS THE SON OF GOD AND OUR SAVIOR AS CHRISTIANS! NUFF SAID FOR NOW!
to even consider muslim christian is a lie from the pit of hell!
Rubinlueski says: “Science has taught us much about the nature of the universe through observation and experimentation. As the years pass, science will continue to show us even more about the nature of the world and the universe. A hundred years from now, the overly religious will have the same ideas and arguments- whose religion is the correct one and who is going to the eternal torture camps for not having the correct thinking, etc,etc,etc. In the mean time science will continue to progress and enlighten mankind.”
I find it ironic that you actually used the term torture camps, which was prescribed by atheist regimes, in the name of science and human progress. Atheism may not necessarily be described as a religion, but it does have its ideologies, albeit naturalistic in its framework. They have proven to be more devastating than any theistic religion could ever imagine. I will go one step farther in asserting that science has made the most progress in the context of theism. I dare say that modern science itself is a derivative of Biblical influence (i.e. logic, coherence of creation, etc, etc.).
HyperionOverseer says: "Saying that a Christian is only one that believes in all the creeds and developments of orthodox Christianity over the centuries, or even in just the Bible itself, denies the belief of those very early Christians that followed the Savior in person, when He lived. They had no such creeds, no such development, and no such Bible, as we have today. Would you deny them to be Christian too?
“We may be different kinds of Christians, and have different beliefs about Christ, but we are all Christians nonetheless."
Would you consider Muslims Christian? They also believe in Jesus. They believe that Jesus was a prophet sent by God. They believe he will come back to judge the world and that he was too holy to die in the first place. Never mind that Mohammed denied Christ's death and resurrection. That doesn’t really matter, after all he didn’t have The Westminster Confession (1647), and thus Muslims should be called Christians too.
What about the early Gnostics? I bet that they were Christians too. They believed in the Christ. They acknowledged his disciples. They even believed in Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection. It really makes no difference that they thought Jehovah was an immature spoiled brat of a deity who didn’t deserve to be followed anymore than Baal. Since they didn’t have a copy of the Nicene Creed (325), Gnostics should be called Christians as well.
HyperionOverseer,
WELL SAID!!!!!!!!!!
I MARVEL THAT YE ARE SO SOON REMOVED FROM HIM THAT CALLED YOU INTO THE GRACE OF CHRIST UNTO ANOTHER GOSPEL: WHICH IS NOT ANOTHER; BUT THERE BE SOME THAT TROUBLE YOU, AND WOULD PERVERT THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST.
BUT THOUGH WE, OR AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN, PREACH ANY OTHER GOSPEL UNTO YOU THAN THAT WHICH WE HAVE PREACHED UNTO YOU, LET HIM BE ACCURSED. AS WE SAID BEFORE, SO SAY I NOW AGAIN, IF ANY MAN PREACH ANY OTHER GOSPEL UNTO YOU THAN THAT YE HAVE RECEIVED, LET HIM BE ACCURSED.
GALATIANS 1:6-9
NEED WE HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING MORE?
The doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) are very interesting. Most of the 'odd' ones are not initially taught to potential converts. But they should be. Instead, "they are revealed later as one matures and gains the ability to accept them." The LDS Church tries to make its official doctrines appear Christian but what underlies those Christian sounding terms is far from Christian in meaning.
Following are the teachings of its officials throughout the years. Please note that these teachings are documented from Mormon writers, not anti-Mormon writers.
Finally, many Mormons respond that most of the citations below are not from official Mormon writings, as if that disproves the doctrines they teach. If they are not official, fine. But, if not, then why have the Mormon apostles and high officials taught them, written them, and why are their books sold in Mormon bookstores? The truth is, the following is what Mormons are taught.
Salvation
"One of the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation." (Miracle of Forgiveness, Spencer W. Kimball, p. 206.)
A plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus offered a plan to the Father and Satan offered a plan to the father but Jesus' plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Savior of all Mankind and to "deny men their agency and to dethrone god." (Mormon Doctrine, page 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, page 8.)
Jesus' sacrifice was not able to cleanse us from all our sins, (murder and repeated adultery are exceptions), (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 247, 1856.)
Good works are necessary for salvation, Articles of Faith, p. 92.)
There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, p. 188.)
"The first effect [of the atonement] is to secure to all mankind alike, exemption from the penalty of the fall, thus providing a plan of General Salvation. The second effect is to open a way for Individual Salvation whereby mankind may secure remission of personal sins (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 78-79.)
"As these sins are the result of individual acts it is just that forgiveness for them should be conditioned on individual compliance with prescribed requirements -- 'obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.'" (Articles of Faith p. 79).
"This grace is an enabling power that allows men and women to lay hold on eternal life and exaltation after they have expended their own best efforts" (LDS Bible Dictionary, p. 697).
"We know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do," (2 Nephi 25:23).
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehendeda it not. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he powerb to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Would God entrust the truth to one man? Is this not what has been claimed in the founding of many of the major religions in the world, most of which do not deny the existence of Jesus Christ but deny Him to be God.
God has given us the Truth in his Word through many men, from many different continents, over many generations that all reveal Jesus Christ to be Emmanuel (God with us). If we put 30 people in a room and ask them to write what they think will happen in the Dallas Cowboy and Buffalo Bills game this afternoon, would they be able to write in agreement, much less be 100% accurate as to what will happen. That is how we know the Bible is true. God has given us the Truth in such a way as this through men.
I find the posts here rather entertaining. The ideas expressed concerning what god is or is not and if you don't believe in this or that, you are off to the eternal torture chamber, have not changed much in the last 100, 500, 1000.......years. With the mind set I see on these posts, mankind would still believe, through faith and "common sense", that earth is the center of the universe. Fortunately, there have been scientists as Galileo Galilei who found by observation and logic that the earth is not the center of the universe. Science has taught us much about the nature of the universe through observation and experimentation. As the years pass, science will continue to show us even more about the nature of the world and the universe. A hundred years from now, the overly religious will have the same ideas and arguments- whose religion is the correct one and who is going to the eternal torture camps for not having the correct thinking, etc,etc,etc. In the mean time science will continue to progress and enlighten mankind.
Then what do you call the followers of Christ in His own time? They didn't have the Bible as we have it today.
Do you realize that John was referring to his own book, Revelations? Do you realize that Revelations was not the last book of the Bible that was written? Do you realize that the same curse was pronounced in Deuteronomy (Deu. 12:32)? If your interpretation is correct, then we shouldn't accept anything past Deuteronomy because it must be accursed to as "additions" to what was in Deuteronomy.
Oh, and we mustn't accept the Nicene Creed or any of the decrees or doctrines that have been sifted out over the centuries either, because they aren't written in the Bible either.
Sorry. The LDS Church is a Christian church, and its adherents are Christians. The Book of Mormon doesn't clash with the Bible. In fact, they are in harmony with one another, and testify of one another.
If all of God's prophets died 2000 years ago, and there have been none since, let's start packing our bags now (Prov. 29:18). God has called prophets since Adam. The reason we have the Bible is because of the prophets that have been called since Adam. Why do you think that God would all of the sudden stop sending His witnesses and messengers of His gospel to the earth? On the contrary, we are told that there will be such messengers in the last days prior to His Second Coming (Rev. 11:3-11, 14:6).
do not forget one thing
the bible is supposed to be our ONLY book as christians
to take into our fold another book is the same as violating the master rule in Revalation, that anyone who adds unto the bible, God will add to him the plagues that are in this book -Revalations 22:18
So in effect Mormonism has sealed its fate as as a non-christian cult, especially since its book clashes with MANY of God's founding principles and core systems(salvation, origins, etc).
And besides, God's prophets died almost 2000 years ago, there were really no more after that.
and yes that places Joseph Smith in Muhammad's area of deceptionship as well. The bible was made, by the hands of those God inspired to, and it was good, and it spread. Anything that comes after it comes to us by the hands of these false prophets, and i dont think it is right to pay them any heed.
heck, "I" could create a world encompassing religion if i wanted to, but God would plunge me into hell for doing just that.
I'm glad you don't take anything for granite, because that would be a hard thing. ;)
Who is anyone to define who is and who is not a Christian. Can we not all accept that Christ defined who is and who is not Christian? I don't define the term, you don't define the term. Christ was born, lived His life, made Himself a sacrifice for sin, spoke the words of salvation, died on the cross, and was resurrected on the third day. Those that believe in Him were and are called Christian.
Saying that a Christian is only one that believes in all the creeds and developments of orthodox Christianity over the centuries, or even in just the Bible itself, denies the belief of those very early Christians that followed the Savior in person, when He lived. They had no such creeds, no such development, and no such Bible, as we have today. Would you deny them to be Christian too?
We may be different kinds of Christians, and have different beliefs about Christ, but we are all Christians nonetheless.
moregood,
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by encouraging people like me not to believe ex-Mormons' stories. It may be true that everyone has a different story, but the positive "experiences" that you seem to be postulating do not automatically exclude an authentic personal testimony albeit negative.
You seemed to overlook that I specified that these two "ex-Mormons" were my wife and my best friend. Neither had been raised Mormons, but both became Mormons. I hardly think that is merely listening to the latest gossip about a church. I stated, The Reformed LDS Church seemed much more focused on Scripture, rather than the BOM. Does this sound like somebody who is slandering Mormons?
I acknowledge that Mormons and even Masons have done a lot of great things to help people. I would not however accept that they are Christians. They have their own beliefs about Jesus, as Muslims do. They both adhere to other prophets’ teachings, over and against the teachings of Jesus himself and that of the apostles. Mormons that I know completely accept President Hinckley whom I quoted ".The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak." This is the archetype, not stereotype. I agree that people need to investigate so-called cults for their self. When I interact with Mormons in person, I never take anything for granite.
Response to seedplanter:
The majority of people who separates from their churches usually have very strong reasons, maybe doctrinal or personal. I have heard from friends plenty of stories of corruption and unbiblical teachings among evangelical churches. However I find interesting that when we hear about ex-Mormons, everyone in the Evangelical community is expected to believe in their words without question.
I have decided personally not to define anyone religion or belief, but to find from myself and from the very own source in question.
May I suggest to my fellow Christians that before making judgments and stereotypes of a particular believe about any religious group or church, please visit the church in question and make your own personal conclusion.
I am convinced that the majority of Mormons really believe with all their heart that Jesus is the Son of God and accept Him as their personal Savior. Although Mormons have many religious ceremonies like baptism as a necessary prerequisite to go to heaven, to my surprise they also believe to be save by grace.
BTW, the Mormon churches I have visited on many locations belong to the LDS Church in SLC, UT.
moregood says: "The Mormon Church services are very Christ centered."
I know numerous people who say otherwise. My wife went to Mormon church regularly, they indoctrinate people with to believe in Joseph Smith. My best friend was also a Mormon and was married in a Mormon church. He also attended a Reformed LDS church, perhaps this is where you attended. They tend to be more Bible focused, rather than the BOM and their false prophets.
I have personally spoken with numerous Mormons in depth, including the previous Mormon Bishop about some of the peculiar docrines. I actually asked about the fact that Mormon in Chinese interprets in their language, "the gates of hell." He merely responded with, well I have been a Mormon my whole life what do you expect me to do?
Devil, the
The Devil was born as a spirit after Jesus "in the morning of pre-existence," (Mormon Doctrine, page 192.)
Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163.)
A plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus offered a plan to the Father and Satan offered a plan to the father but Jesus' plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Savior of all Mankind and to "deny men their agency and to dethrone god." (Mormon Doctrine, page 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, page 8.)
God
God used to be a man on another planet, Mormon Doctrine, p. 321. Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Vol 5, pp. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol 2, p. 345, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333.)
"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s..." (D&C 130:22).
God is in the form of a man, (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3.)
"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345
God the Father had a Father, (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 476; Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 19; Milton Hunter, First Council of the Seventy, Gospel through the Ages, p. 104-105.)
God resides near a star called Kolob, (Pearl of Great Price, pages 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, p. 428.)
God had sexual relations with Mary to make the body of Jesus, (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, p. 218, 1857; vol. 8, p. 115.) - This one is disputed among many Mormons and not always 'officially' taught and believed. Nevertheless, Young, the 2nd prophet of the Mormon church taught it.
"Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body . . . of flesh and bones." (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 38).
Following are the teachings of its officials throughout the years. Please note that these teachings are documented from Mormon writers, not anti-Mormon writers.
Finally, many Mormons respond that most of the the citations below are not from official Mormon writings, as if that disproves the doctrines they teach. If they are not official, fine. But, if not, then why have the Mormon apostles and high officials taught them, written them, and why are their books sold in Mormon bookstores? The truth is, the following is what Mormons are taught.
Atonement
"Jesus paid for all our sins when He suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane," (Laurel Rohlfing, “Sharing Time: The Atonement,” Friend, Mar. 1989, 39.)
"We accept Christ's atonement by repenting of our sins, being baptized, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and obeying all of the commandments," (Gospel Principles, Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1979, pg. 68.)
Baptism
Baptism for the dead, (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. II, p. 141.) This is a practice of baptizing each other in place of non-Mormons who are now dead. Their belief is that in the afterlife, the "newly baptized" person will be able to enter into a higher level of Mormon heaven.
Bible
"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. . ." 8th Article of Faith of the Mormon Church.
"Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God." (1 Nephi 13:28).
Book of Mormon
The book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible, (History of the Church, 4:461.)
The Mormon Church services are very Christ centered. I have personally attended many of them. It's is true that Mormons don't follow post apostolic creeds regarding the definition of the deity, which came 325 years after the dead of Christ ( First Council of Nicaea). It make one to think; why is that the word Trinity is totally absence from the Bible and why we still believe and follow doctrines formulated at councils given by a church (Catholic Church) that the Reformers denounced and protested and actually separated from. Creeds that defined and established as official doctrine the personality and substance of God. Councils that established doctrines outside the cannon of the scriptures, because the Bible was already written. We have to remember that 325 years are way too many years to wonder about the physical or spiritual attributes of God and or His substance.
It may be the reason why Mormons definition and understanding of God is not so strange after all. And also maybe why Mormons use the term Godhead instead of Trinity when referring to the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (God).
Just a thought... :)
The doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) are very interesting. Most of the 'odd' ones are not initially taught to potential converts. But they should be. Instead, "they are revealed later as one matures and gains the ability to accept them." The LDS Church tries to make its official doctrines appear Christian but what underlies those Christian sounding terms is far from Christian in meaning.
There are those who think Romney's speech was a breakthrough, a "Presidential moment." And there are those like Rush Limbaugh and Pat Buchanan who apparently can't stop talking about it, and how inspiring his speech was. BUT .... the fact remains that he is still seen with suspicion by many, and his Mormon faith and religion are the suspect. He is NOT a JFK, and this speech was no way near what JFK did when he spoke about Catholicism. In fact, although I distance myself from it, Catholicism has more in common with evangelical Christianity than Mormonism ever will!!!
Romney is still an empty suit, and he still doesn't understand basic civics. I will continue to dissuade voters, and particulary evangelicals NOT to vote for him. He DID NOTHING to show he had anything in common with Christians in Massachusetts (where I live), and he NEVER opposed the homosexual agenda in Massachusetts. At one point following the 2003 SJC ruling, he indicated that it might be nice if he was invited to the first homosexual wedding!!!
C'mon folks. WHO is this guy kidding???? Romney is NOT Reagan and he is NOT the only true conservative. We need to focus on Ron Paul, who is the ONLY true conservative. Romney's flips and flops will continue and this country will rue the day if the electorate puts him in the White House. He's the TROJAN HORSE, and a big spending Republican liberal socialist from Massachusetts!!! Jay Severin, you need to get a clue!!!
We are adimant on being considered Christians, because we are Christians. We believe in Christ and His teachings. Christ defined that term. Not you. Not I.
WHO flagged my comment? explain yourself!
Mormons believe that Jesus and Lucifer/Satan are both sexually-created sons of God. This is not the Jesus of the Bible. This is another Jesus, another "gospel", such as Paul warned about.
I do not understand why Mormons are so adimant on being considered Christians.
The only reason I can think of is by calling your selfs Christians, Mormons would not have the name of cult as they do now and people may be more likly to look into their religion.
I have made a blog post of this for all those that would like to leave comments because I know sometimes on this site people flag posts they disagree with (no profanity please)
God bless,
Anthony
www.bellybutton88.blogspot.com
diligentdave says: "What did Mitt (or, for that matter, what does 'Mormonism') say about Jesus Christ that conflicts with the Bible?"
"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths."
-Governor Romney's "Faith In America" Address
Such vague generalities used are hardly enough to examine Mitt's doctrines. I will say that to call on people of all faiths to pray for him seems a bit liberal. It doesn't seem to coincide with the teachings of the BOM to pray to other gods, but then again I guess it does.
As per LDS:
"In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'" (LDS Church News Week ending June 20, 1998, p.7 )
The Mormon Jesus
The literal son of god and his goddess wife begotten in the pre-existence.
The brother of all spirits born in heaven in the premortal existence.
One of 3 gods in the godhead.
The Trinity is three separate gods.
First one to receive a spirit body.
http://www.carm.org/lds/lds_jesus.htm
People should seek out the available information and make up their own minds.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ldsbom.htm
Very tendentious argumentation, diligentdave. The Constitution does indeed prohibit the government from specifying religious qualifications for office, but we as voters still do have the right to make our own decisions based on our own criteria--and we have the right to discuss amongst ourselves whether or not Mitt Romney shares our values. I'm sure you already know this.
Romney certainly doesn't share my values, and he's certainly not getting my vote.
If there were any doubts about Romney being a liberal, his speach should have cleared them up. I will admit that I did not disagree with every thing that he said. At the same time he didn't exactly clear the smoke screen. My issue with Mitt has nothing to do with him being a Mormon - he is a liberal Mormon, that's the biggest problem I have.
Mitt donated $10,000 to the "AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts", a radical homosexual "health" organization (publisher of "The Little Black Book"). This was four times the amount he gave to an organization promoting abstinence among teen girls, "Best Friends Foundation," in 2003.
Find out what the people of Mass think:
http://massresistance.org/romney/
diligentdave,
The difference between the Christ of the Bible and the Jesus of LDS church is that while The bible says that God and Christ are Eternal the LDS church states that both are created beings and that god was like man is at one point and mankind can become like god. Did I answer your question??
God bless,
Anthony
www.bellybutton88.blogspot.com
How can Jesus Christ be "the Savior of Mankind" and not have been fully God and fully man? How can anyone except God Himself be suficient in redeeming the sins of the world?
What could Romney have said more that would not bury him in a never-ending discussion of his religion, rather than the issues he needs to address as a candidate for the U.S. Presidency? Mr Bennett, a good Catholic that you are (other than on gambling), what did you want to hear that Governor Romney could have said AND still remain a viable candidate for president?
Why is it that the founders forbad a "religious test" in the Constitution, but anti-Mormons think to circumvent this with a "religious test' of one's voting Constituency? Apparently, either the pundits think the constitution is wrong, or they simply want to get Mitt mired in an eternally endless discussion of where and what in Mormonism differs in and from 'traditional Christianity'.
Entering such a discussion for a candidate for this office amounts to a "religious test". Are you all for pharisaically forcing the issue? You don't want to really know about "Mormonism". You rather want to embarass and embroil Matt Romney in a protracted back-and-forth explanation of teachings and practices (current and past) of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to make Mitt and Mormonism look heretical, weird and wrong.
What did Mitt (or, for that matter, what does 'Mormonism') say about Jesus Christ that conflicts with the Bible?
Answer me on this, and I will answer you!
Sorry about the grammer errors, here are the corrections:
"after the agreement about Jesus being the son of God, we pretty much separate on a lot things" you and I don't even agree on that! you believe that Jesus is a created being while I believe that Christ is God in the flesh and is 100% God and 100% man and 1 of 3 parts of the Trinity.
Just because you claim to be a Christian does not mean you are:
JLF,
If I take a box of kleenex and call it Jesus does it mean I am a Christian?? just because you call you your god Jesus does not mean he is the same as Christianity. You are not Christian. Christ never changes (see Hebrews 13:8) therfore the orgional thoughts on God are still for today.
"after the agreement about Jesus being the son of God, we pretty much separate on a lot things" you and I don't even agree on that! you believe that Jesus is a created being while I believe that Christ is God in the flesh and is 100% God and 100% and 1 of 3 parts of the Trinity.
Just because you claim to be a greastian does not mean you are:
Matthew 24:24 For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible.
2 Peter 2:1
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.
God bless,
Anthony
www.bellybutton88.blogspot.com
"Along with many Christian evangelicals, the Southern Baptist Convention does not consider Mormonism to be part of historic orthodox Christianity." Neither do Mormons. Mormons believe Jesus is the Christ and worship him. We don't claim to be like the historic Christians because of theological differences. We never have. But we are Christians. Our worship of Christ makes us so. Historic Christians claim to be the sole authority on who is and who isn't. They say real Christians must not only worship Christ they must adhere to a 4th century notions of the nature of God. Mormons disagree. So, after the agreement about Jesus being the son of God, we pretty much separate on a lot things. I could go into details of other things but won't. But we generally agree on other values.