A biblical definition of “Christian”
There has been some discussion recently on another Mormon Coffee thread about the biblical definition of the word “Christian.” Some years ago I studied out this question. When I had my answer I wrote the following:
What is a Christian?
The word “Christian” is used 3 times in the New Testament.
“…And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.” Acts 11:26
“And Agrippa said to Paul, ‘In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?’” Acts 26:28
“Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name.” 1 Peter 4:16
The Greek word, ‘Christianos,’ means simply “follower of Christ.”
What does it mean to follow Christ?
“And he said to all, ‘If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.’” Luke 9:23
“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.” Matthew 7:13, 14
“‘And you know the way to where I am going.’” Thomas said to him, ‘Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?’ Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’” John 14:4-6
“‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?” And then will I declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.”’” Matthew 7:21-23
One who follows Christ is one who does the will of the Father.
What is the Will of the Father?
“For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” John 6:40
“Then they said to him, ‘What must we do, to be doing the works of God?’ Jesus answered them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.’” John 6:28, 29
“And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.” 1 John 3:23
The will of the Father is to believe in Christ.
What does it mean to believe in Christ?
“You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!” James 2:19
“And immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit. And he cried out, ‘What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God.’” Mark 1:23, 24
Clearly the belief of these demons, recognizing who Jesus is and understanding His presence, is not what Scripture refers to when we are told to “believe in Him.”
What does it mean to believe in Christ?
“…’The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart’ (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, ‘Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.’ For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’” Romans 10:8-13
“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” John 3:18
“And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:12
“But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.” John 1:12
Believing in Christ is not just a head knowledge, but requires complete trust and reliance on Christ, and Christ alone, for all that salvation means.
What is Salvation?
“But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.” Romans 5:8, 9
“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.” John 5:24
“And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him.” Colossians 1:21, 22
Salvation, then, is being justified by Christ’s blood, saved from the wrath of God, passing from death into life, being presented unto God holy and pure.
Where is Salvation’s Eternity?
“If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there will my servant be also. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him.” John 12:26
“…If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father…” John 14:28
The eternal dwelling place of those saved through Christ is in God’s presence, in His kingdom.
What is a Christian?
A Christian is a follower of Christ. A follower of Christ is one who does the will of the Father. The will of the Father is believing in Christ. Believing is not merely acknowledging, but trusting Christ alone for personal salvation. Personal salvation is being reconciled to God, having the promise of spending eternity in His presence.
The relevant question we are tempted to ask here, then, is “According to the biblical definition, are Mormons Christians?” This is not a question we can answer; thirteen million Mormons represent thirteen million different hearts. We can, however, look at the LDS faith system and examine the gospel it promotes. We can determine if Mormonism helps or hinders a person who desires to be a true follower of Christ.
Setting aside, for this discussion, the question of who the Christ of Mormonism actually is, my erstwhile essay on the biblical definition of “Christian” continued,
As we have seen, God has a specific definition attached to the word ‘believe’ when He reveals salvation and His Son to us in Scripture. Mormon doctrine does not allow for the granting of personal salvation to those who trust in Christ alone to be reconciled to God.
[Consider what] Brigham Young taught:
“no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, 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…” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 289)
“All those who believe in their hearts and confess with their mouths that Joseph Smith is a true Prophet, at the same time trying with their might to live the holy principles Joseph the Prophet has revealed, are in possession of the Holy Spirit of God and are entitled to a fullness.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p. 312)
The Book of Mormon…says:
“For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.” (2 Nephi 25:23)
Joseph Smith, the LDS Priesthood, personal worthiness…Mormonism teaches that God requires all of this (and more) to be added and combined with Christ, in order for an individual to gain a place in God’s presence for eternity. Therefore, based on my understanding of the biblical definition of “Christian,” I regard Mormonism to be a severe obstruction for any Latter-day Saint longing to follow Christ.
Comments (116)
Sharon,
” What is a Christian?
The word “Christian” is used 3 times in the New Testament.
“…And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.” Acts 11:26
“And Agrippa said to Paul, ‘In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?’” Acts 26:28
“Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name.” 1 Peter 4:16
The Greek word, ‘Christianos,’ means simply “follower of Christ.”
What does it mean to follow Christ?
“And he said to all, ‘If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.’” Luke 9:23
“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.” Matthew 7:13, 14
“‘And you know the way to where I am going.’” Thomas said to him, ‘Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?’ Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’” John 14:4-6
“‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?” And then will I declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.”’” Matthew 7:21-23
One who follows Christ is one who does the will of the Father.
What is the Will of the Father?
“For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
Cont.
“Then they said to him, ‘What must we do, to be doing the works of God?’ Jesus answered them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.’” John 6:28, 29
“And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.” 1 John 3:23
The will of the Father is to believe in Christ.
What does it mean to believe in Christ?
“You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!” James 2:19
“And immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit. And he cried out, ‘What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God.’” Mark 1:23, 24
Clearly the belief of these demons, recognizing who Jesus is and understanding His presence, is not what Scripture refers to when we are told to “believe in Him.”
What does it mean to believe in Christ?
“…’The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart’ (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, ‘Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.’ For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’” Romans 10:8-13
“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” John 3:18
“And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:12
(cont.)
Cont.
“But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.” John 1:12
Believing in Christ is not just a head knowledge, but requires complete trust and reliance on Christ, and Christ alone, for all that salvation means.
What is Salvation?
“But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.” Romans 5:8, 9
“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.” John 5:24
“And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him.” Colossians 1:21, 22
Salvation, then, is being justified by Christ’s blood, saved from the wrath of God, passing from death into life, being presented unto God holy and pure.
Where is Salvation’s Eternity?
“If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there will my servant be also. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him.” John 12:26
“…If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father…” John 14:28
The eternal dwelling place of those saved through Christ is in God’s presence, in His kingdom.
What is a Christian?
A Christian is a follower of Christ. A follower of Christ is one who does the will of the Father. The will of the Father is believing in Christ. Believing is not merely acknowledging, but trusting Christ alone for personal salvation. Personal salvation is being reconciled to God, having the promise of spending eternity in His presence.” End quote.
I can only say, Amen.
Let me take this up a notch. “Who is Jesus?” If someone doesn’t get that right, they’re not a Christian. Jesus is not the spirit offspring of a father/mother god. He is the eternal God manifested in the person of Jesus Christ. He is not “a god”. He is thee God. It makes a difference regarding whether someone is a Christian and more importantly, if they have eternal life by placing their trust in Him. An “a god”, a created being cannot provide salvation and eternal life. In order to provide for the substitutionary atonement the sacrifice had to be spotless and without blemish. Only God fits that description.
We read in the BoM, Supposedly the Most correct Book ever Written. And According to A of F 8, it is above the Bible as being MORE ACCURATE than the Bible. Any way we read in
Ok, First off, notice in these verses they use the Word Christian This is a problem, if the Book of Acts is to be true, Why? In my copy of the BoM dated 1920 Down the bottom of the page, it dates these happenings to be Both BC 72 AND 73 If they were called Christians After the death and resurrection of Christ, how Could this occurrence of the Word Christian, take place before Christ was around?
Now lets look at what the word Christian first meant.
Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary – christian
The name given by the Greeks or Romans, probably in reproach, to the followers
of Jesus. It was first used at Antioch. The names by which the disciples were
known among themselves were “brethren,” “the faithful,” “elect,” “saints,”
“believers.”
Cont:
But as distinguishing them from the multitude without, the name
“Christian” came into use, and was universally accepted. This name occurs but
three times in the New Testament (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16).
Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary
And Wikipedia:
“Christian” was at first a derogatory term meaning “Christ-like ones” related to persecution, but early Christians were taught by their leaders to bear that name proudly. Previously, they had no specific name for their faith, and so they simply referred to it as “the way”.
Now if we look back through the Bible, starting back in Genesis, We Find God created man and women.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
No mention of them being Christians. They are believers in God. Then we read in Genesis 17:5
Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.
God made Abraham the father of many Nations. Now we find we have Gentiles (Non-Jewish) People, and the Jewish people. Again no mention of CHRISTIANS. Their is only Jews and Gentiles. If the Gentiles convert to Judaism they are simply followers of God, Not Christians.
Once we get into the new testament, We find, before the Death of Christ, they still are simply followers of God. Then after the Resurrection, we find only 3 times is the word Christian used. And as I stated above, it first started out as a derogatory term. The 3 times we see the word Christian used are
Acts 11: 26
26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
Act 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
I may not contribute a lot on this blog yet it amazes me how much I can learn from reading it. My hat is off to Berean, Germit, Sharon and the many other contributors that actually do the research and lay out many ideas I had not thought of. It is making the transition from lds to non-lds very comforting. Keep up the great work.
Sharon that is a great post. I especially appreciated this commment:
“The relevant question we are tempted to ask here, then, is “According to the biblical definition, are Mormons Christians?” This is not a question we can answer; thirteen million Mormons represent thirteen million different hearts. We can, however, look at the LDS faith system and examine the gospel it promotes. We can determine if Mormonism helps or hinders a person who desires to be a true follower of Christ.”
This blog and others should not be viewed as an indictment of mormons, but rather a critique of mormonism. I don’t know what any individual mormon believes, and clearly there are mormons who are God’s elect (case in point: me!) Just like anyone else, we should seek to proclaim the revealed Christ to mormons no differently than we do anyone else in this lost and dying world. But clinging to faith as a mormon does not make one a Christian.
The concern of Christians who seek to witness to mormons is not (at least it shouldn’t be) to prove them wrong, but to show them Christ, to take their zeal and turn it to the Christ of the Bible. Mormonism is not a path to Christ, but a path to a different gospel that has no power to save. No matter how many times the name of Christ is invoked, if you fail to recognize who He revealed Himself to be, you cannot truly be one of His followers (see Matt 16:13-17). The real issue is not who is right or who is wrong, but how is a sinner made right with God. The Bible tells us that we are justified by our faith in Christ, and by His imputed righteousness alone. That is the message we should be sending in our discussions with mormons to set aside their self-reliance and their good works, and place their faith in the sovereign Lord of the universe, God in flesh, Jesus Christ.
Sharon said in the article –
”A Christian is a follower of Christ. A follower of Christ is one who does the will of the Father. The will of the Father is believing in Christ. Believing is not merely acknowledging, but trusting Christ alone for personal salvation. Personal salvation is being reconciled to God, having the promise of spending eternity in His presence.”
Interesting, but I see nothing about believing in a ‘Trinity’ in this statement, which is one of the big arguments that is usually given on this site about LDS not being Christian.
But if we look at what RickB has dredged up we find that the ORIGINAL Biblical meaning is just -
Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary – christian
The name given by the Greeks or Romans, probably in reproach, to the followers
of Jesus. It was first used at Antioch. The names by which the disciples were
known among themselves were “brethren,” “the faithful,” “elect,” “saints,”
“believers.” But as distinguishing them from the multitude without, the name
“Christian” came into use, and was universally accepted. This name occurs but
three times in the New Testament (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16).
Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary
As I have said, when they came around to round up the Christians for the circus, they would not sit there and interrogate the person to find out exactly how they believed in Jesus, they would just find out yes or no if they believed and then they were Christian. As we know all of the epistles were written to stop wrong teachings and beliefs in the early church so not everyone believed the same, and some believed in “works assisted grace” (as you like to put it) as we LDS do. So what is the original Biblical meaning? A follower and believer of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Redeemer. It does not have any other attachments/clarifications to it.
Probably one of the most important questions found in the Bible is still relevant today. It’s in Matthew 22:42 where the Lord even asked the question:
“What think ye of Christ? whose son is he?”
That is very important when talking with Mormons or any person of any other faith for that matter. What a person believes about Christ can decide whether or not that person has eternal life or eternal damnation in outer darkness. If one has the wrong Jesus they are lost for all eternity.
There was a problem with the Jesus ID problem even in the early church. If there wasn’t, then Paul never would have said what he did in 2 Cor 11:4 or Gal 1:6-9. There were false Christ’s and prophets then and even more so today. Satan has gotten very cunning in how he disguises fake Jesus’. Each cult and abstract religion has their form of Jesus. There is only one correct Jesus.
Why isn’t the word “Trinity” in the definition? This is a term brought about later to describe in one word a series of scriptures throughout the OT & NT that shows the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are God, co-equal, co-eternal, one nature but three persons. This belief is the center of Christianity. In Mormonism they are three separate gods without equal attributes.
Is “eternal progression” or “celestial/eternal marriage” in the Book of Mormon? No. But it’s a fundamental teaching of Mormonism.
Christ followers believe in what the Trinity means. Those that didn’t were not considered Christians, but were instead labeled “heretics” in the early church. Mormons must choose what label they want. If you follow what Joseph Smith said (three gods), then by default you choose “HERETIC” – not Christian.
Not alot of time this morning. I’ll just leave you a scripture out of the Book of Mormon I just happen to come across this morning.
Helaman 3:27-28
Thus we may see that the Lord is merciful unto all who will, in the sincerity of their hearts, call upon his holy name.
Yea, thus we see that the gate of heaven is open unto all, even to those who will believe on the name of Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God.
BAM,
Nice quote, but I’m going to keep pounding my theme because it’s fundamental to any discussion of Mormonism and Biblical Christianity. That is, who is Jesus? Now my understanding is that the BoM, which you quote, is more a reflection of 19th century evengelical Christian revivalism which Joseph Smith was influenced by than it is a reflection of later Mormonism in doctrine and practice. That is why at least one sect of Mormonism rejects Joeseph Smith and sees him as a fallen prophet in his post 1832 Book of Commandments stage. So which is it? Either the BoM is wrong in it’s more traditional view of the nature of God and Jesus or Joseph Smith’s subsequent “revelations” are wrong.
Anyone who is depending on the current Salt Lake City based Mormon Church doctrinal view of the nature of God and Jesus for their salvation, are placing their hopes on a false god and a false Jesus. The fact that Joseph Smith’s view of God and Jesus “evolved” ought to be a headsup to LDS members who are worshiping a god who once was a man and depending on a Jesus who is the spirit child of a male-god who progressed to godhood from being a man and his goddess wives of which the father god can have many.
In the five points of Mormonism i.e. Joseph Smith is a prophet, BoM is true, LDS one true church, current prophet is the real deal, NUMBER FIVE is “Jesus”. The Mormon Jesus doesn’t even get top billing and is offered as an add on to “Christian” the religion up a little. The Mormon approach is to take prospects to that little grove of trees where Joseph supposedly had his vision (pick your version of the vision because JS had several). The Christian approach is to take people to the Cross. To the Christian it’s all about the real Jesus and what He did for us on the Cross. He became sin for us and through his sacrifice we obtain the gift of eternal life. That’s what a Christian is. We depend entirely on Christ from the start for our salvation.
First lets look at a few verse we find in the Bible.
Ok, Paul here states that there is ANOTHER GOSPEL, Mormonism teaches this “Other” Gospel.
I find it really funny, Mormons can call themselves “Christian” Even though we clearly have vastly different beliefes, Yet the LDS refuse to call the FLDS, RLDS or other LDS off-shoot groups Mormons. Why is that?
The FLDS and RLDS and other off shoots of LDS have closer beliefes to those of the LDS than the LDS and Christians, Example, Christians do not believe in the other 3 standerd works like the BoM, D and C or the Pearl of great price. The FLDS believe the Teaching of D and C 132 not the Christians, and the teaching of D and C 132 is in the D and C which Mormons “LDS” believe.
So why is it with such great differences in beliefes the Mormons can say they are Christians, But the FLDS and RLDS, with closer beliefes are not Mormon? I did a topic called (WHAT IF) On my blog. I pointed out how If I as a christian were to dress as a mormon missionary and preach my beliefes the LDS would get mad and say I am not a real LDS member, yet LDS can call themselves Christian, and teach way different views to what I believe, Why is this? Rick B
Truth seeker,
“I may not contribute a lot on this blog yet it amazes me how much I can learn from reading it. My hat is off to Berean, Germit, Sharon and the many other contributors that actually do the research and lay out many ideas I had not thought of. It is making the transition from lds to non-lds very comforting. Keep up the great work.”
It is a difficult, jarring transition but it is worth it to know Jesus Christ! God bless you in your recovery from mormonism, please know that many of us who post here have walked the same path and are praying for you and the multitude of others who are finding freedom from mormonism.
Berean said:
“Each cult and abstract religion has their form of Jesus. There is only one correct Jesus.”
“Christ followers believe in what the Trinity means. Those that didn’t were not considered Christians, but were instead labeled “heretics” in the early church. Mormons must choose what label they want. If you follow what Joseph Smith said (three gods), then by default you choose “HERETIC” – not Christian.”
Must I constantly follow you around to correct your errors and signifcant omissions? Lets try this again:
“Each cult, abstract religion, and mainstream Christian has their form of Jesus. There is only one correct Jesus.”
“Heritics believe in what the Trinity means. Real Christians that didn’t were persecuted and killed for their faith in the true Christ, just like the apostles. Mormons must choose what label they want. If you follow what Joseph Smith said (the true God), then by default you choose “CHRISTIAN” – not Heritic.”
Just so you know, the topic of this tread is an “Exclusion by Definition” tactic.
To steal a phrase from “Are Mormons Christian” (I am learning to put my reference at the beginning of my quote to avoid inadvertant plagerism when I hit 2000 characters):
He who defines a term controls a term. For example, if the Latter-day Saints defined the term Christian to mean “one who believes in the divine calling of the Prophet Joseph Smith and in the inspired nature of the Book of Mormon,” then they would be technically correct (based on their own private definition of the term) in concluding that only Latter-day Saints are Christians. It is unlikely, however, that the rest of the world would agree with such a parochial and distorted definition, and Latter-day Saints would likely (and rightly) be accused of trying to stack the deck through the manipulation of language. For Mormons to define Christians as “people who believe what Mormons believe” and then conclude that non-Mormons aren’t Christians would be nothing more than to say that non-Mormons aren’t Mormons -without any consideration for what they may or may not believe about Jesus.
In fact, this manipulating of terms is exactly what does in excluding the Latter-day Saints from consideration as Christians. They define Christian not in the generic sense of common usage, but in a narrow sectarian sense that excludes anyone whose doctrine differs from their own. Individuals who wouldn’t tolerate a denominationally exclusive definition of the term Christian if it excluded them will often accept such a tactic if the tables are turned and the trick is played on someone else. Thus on the surface these individuals seem to be making the very serious charge that the Latter-day Saints do not believe in Jesus Christ or do not attempt to follow his teachings, but in reality they are only saying that LDS .
Arthur said, “The concern of Christians who seek to witness to mormons is not (at least it shouldn’t be) to prove them wrong, but to show them Christ, to take their zeal and turn it to the Christ of the Bible.” Amen!
Cluff quoted, “For example, if the Latter-day Saints defined the term Christian to mean “one who believes in the divine calling of the Prophet Joseph Smith and in the inspired nature of the Book of Mormon,” then they would be technically correct (based on their own private definition of the term) in concluding that only Latter-day Saints are Christians.” I have to do some mental gymnastics to believe that statement. How can “one who believes in the divine calling of the Prophet Joseph Smith and in the inspired nature of the Book of Mormon” be the definition of ‘Christian’ when Christ isn’t even mentioned in that???
What I’m reading in Sharon’s post isn’t just saying that the LDS do not believe in Jesus and therefore cannot be called Christian. We are in this very post defining what Christian means and Sharon has done that using Scripture. It is the Jesus of the Bible and His -and His alone- ability to save us that Mormon doctrine draws away from. That is why we shall not call Mormons “Christian”. Jesus is not at the center of what you do, JS’s commands and rituals are -those works are shrouded in a thin veil with the letters j-e-s-u-s on them, but I do not believe they have the real Jesus who is the Christ in them.
Along with my “what if” idea, how come LDS want to be called Christian, yet then turn and say, the bible cannot be fully trusted because it is missing plain and precious parts and it was not been translated correctly.
then the founding prophets and LDS said this about christians,
B Young:
3rd president John Taylor (Brigham Young quotes Mr Taylor)
Heber C. Kimball
(J.O.D 5:89)
JS,BY, And others did not seem to think Mormons are Christians, so why the big change? Rick b
Hello all.
This is a good post, and I think it gets to the heart of the distinction in all we have to do to be with God. I think this is why all to often discussiong with Mormons end up discussions of works v faith.
Its also hard to ignore the fact that Joseph SMith is the one that grants “passports”.
cluff,
“They define Christian not in the generic sense of common usage, but in a narrow sectarian sense that excludes anyone whose doctrine differs from their own. Individuals who wouldn’t tolerate a denominationally exclusive definition of the term Christian if it excluded them will often accept such a tactic if the tables are turned and the trick is played on someone else.”
Well that is patently false. I don’t define a Christian as someone who believes exactly as I do. I hold some pretty strong theological distinctives, many of which other Christians do not hold. Not agreeing with me completely doesn’t mean they aren’t Christians (it just means they are wrong!) This is similar to the mormon defense that the number of Christian denominations is proof of mormonism, which is just as silly. What Christians are united by are core beliefs we hold in common: the divinity of Christ, the inerrancy of Scriture, justification by faith, substitutionary atonement. These things unite us. Even though a Presbyterian couldn’t join the Baptist church I am a member of, we are still all Christians. we are united by a common belief and confession of Christ. It is the Biblical revelation of Christ as the eternal Son of God that we hold to and that is what defines us as Christians, and what excludes mormons from that definition.
Arthur and Andrea:
Lets define context for a moment so we can avoid a couple context errors that have appeared in your posts.
Perhaps it is my fault, because I had some problems getting the site to accept brackets.
The quote from “Are Mormons Christians” should go like this:
In fact, this manipulating of terms is exactly what (this thread) does in excluding the Latter-day Saints from consideration as Christians. (This thread) define(s) Christian not in the generic sense of common usage, but in a narrow sectarian sense that excludes anyone whose doctrine differs from their own. Individuals who wouldn’t tolerate a denominationally exclusive definition of the term Christian if it excluded them will often accept such a tactic if the tables are turned and the trick is played on someone else. Thus on the surface (this article)seems to be making the very serious charge that the Latter-day Saints do not believe in Jesus Christ or do not attempt to follow his teachings, but in reality they are only saying that LDS (don’t believe the all same things as they do).
That should make a little more sense.
So when Andrea said:
“We are in this very post defining what Christian means and Sharon has done that using Scripture. It is the Jesus of the Bible and His -and His alone- ability to save us that Mormon doctrine draws away from.”
she is attempting to define the term “Christian” as narrowly as possible to EXCLUDE Mormons. And is she doing so with statements that are in error. She makes assumptions that Mormons will not agree with.
What do you mean “Mormon doctrine draws away from Christ’s ability to save?” Dead wrong.
Let me read you the text on my Baptismal Invitation:
“Please join us as GRCluff accepts the invitation to come unto Christ by being baptised a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”.
Our disagreement lies in our definition of the term “save”, which SHOULD have nothing to do with the word “Christian”.
On my other posts, I am finding a disturbing trend. I find that when I reference Christ’s words from the New Testament more often than not the rebuttal comes from Paul’s writings.
I have developed a general rule of thumb when reading the scriptures. If there seems to be a contradiction in meaning, I give priority to the Saviors words.
Because so much of what evangelicals seem to believe comes from Paul’s writings- often it would seem to the neglect of the Savior’s- would it be correct to assume that you worship Paul?
Arthur said:
“What Christians are united by are core beliefs we hold in common: the divinity of Christ, the inerrancy of Scriture, justification by faith, substitutionary atonement. These things unite us.”
This is a statement that defines Christian not in the generic sense of common usage, but in a narrow sectarian sense that excludes anyone who might have a minor disconnect on any of your core beliefs that unite. You said that statement was patently false, but it is patently TRUE.
Not all Christians will buy the justification by faith concept, like all Catholics, for example? And if the divinity of Christ means he was born to a virgin and his real genetic father was God, then Mormons are the only ones who could be Christian with you.
You just can’t take a broad term that has been used broadly for centuries and re-define it narrowly to leave out Mormons. Any way you redefine it will leave out a lot more people that us. Sorry. Can’t do it. WRONG WRONG WRONG.
A broad, widely used term like Christian DEMANDS to be used in the generic sense of common usage. Why? Because it can’t be redefined over and over again based on whoever might be using it.
If Catholics were to take the same approach with Protestants, they would begin to insist that only Catholics can be called Christian. Anytime you tell someone that you are Protestant, they will look at you funny and say “Ohhh I heard that Protestants were not Christian!” Pretty rediculous? Yes. So stop it.
Grcluff said
LDS deny the trinity, grace alone, they believe in added books and revelations etc, and they want to be called “christian”.
I deny all of what LDS believe since I believe in grace alone, I believe in the trinity, the Bible alone Etc, so I guess I can be called a mormon and have the lds pristhood.
So from now on I will tell people I am a member of the LDS church and I teach a restored gospel, My restored gospel will consist of telling people that is is Grace alone in Christ that saves, the Bible alone is the only true source of scripture that is needed, I believe in ONE GOD ONLY, And that God is Jesus in the flesh.
So I guess I am a member of the LDS church that has the true gospel. Rick b
Why shouldn’t the definition be exclusive, GR Cluff?
Oh Cluff,
“Not all Christians will buy the justification by faith concept, like all Catholics, for example? And if the divinity of Christ means he was born to a virgin and his real genetic father was God, then Mormons are the only ones who could be Christian with you.”
I stand by my statement regarding justification by faith alone not to be a big meanie, but because the Bible makes it clear that man is justified by faith and not works. And since mormon leaders historically taught that God copulated with Mary, that means she wasn’t a virgin.
“You just can’t take a broad term that has been used broadly for centuries and re-define it narrowly to leave out Mormons. Any way you redefine it will leave out a lot more people that us. Sorry. Can’t do it. WRONG WRONG WRONG.”
The Gospel IS exclusive, it IS a divider. It confronts people with truth and demands a person make a stand one way or the other, it is the “narrow way”. It is not a “big tent” faith. It includes people of all sorts, but all of them are united by a common faith in Christ, a faith not shared by mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses or any of the myriad other faith groups who deny the divinity of Christ. Christ is divine not because He was spawned by an exalted man and his spirit wife, but because He is very God of God, fully human and fully divine at the same time (aka hypostatic union). He is eternal, uncreated, of the same nature as God. He took on flesh to dwell among us, but He did so not because He had to but rather so that He could be a propitiation for the sins of His people. You can’t believe in whatever you like and still be a Christian, it is not a cafeteria style religion and no matter how many times you type “WRONG”, it doesn’t change that truth.
OK, OK I give. Please, I cry uncle. I am no longer Christian, I am Mormon.
That introduces a few questions to consider.
If you are not Christian, why does the name of your Church include the name Jesus Christ?
Well, that is the name He gave us to use.
Who gave you that name?
Jesus did, when he was talking with our prophet.
So, your prophet talks to Jesus, but you are not Christian?
Yes, In fact, Jesus is the real leader of our Church, our prophet just takes direction from him from time to time.
So, the person AT THE HEAD of your Church is Jesus Christ himself, but you are not Christian?
Yes, I guess so.
How can that be?
Well, the people who control the meaning of the term defined it too narrowly to let us use it.
How did they do that?
They used the Bible.
Well, wasn’t Jesus, the same person who is at the head of your Church, somehow involved in creating the Bible?
Yes, but He somehow left out some important things that he wants us to believe today.
Isn’t that the Bible’s fault, or the the people who created in the Bible?
Yes, but we still don’t control the meaning of the term.
Shouldn’t Jesus Christ, the head of your Church control the meaning of the term Christian?
Hmmm. You are right. Maybe I will use the term anyway.
Why doesn’t Christ come down and tell the world who the real Christians are?
He does that all the time, through the Holy Spirit, but the idiots on this thread don’t seem to be listening.
That should be their problem not yours.
Right you are, sorry for the confusion.
Cluff, Cluff…all in a huff…seriously now here is an example of what you just referred to. Read Doctrines and Covenants Section 84. Jesus specifically revelates to Joseph Smith that a temple will be built in his generation in Independence, Missouri.
I live there…no temple was ever built…safe to say that generation has all died…so which one lied? Jesus or Joseph? Not a hard question…
Cluff, getting a bit testy?
Not to push you even further, but here’s a few questions for you to ponder:
Are you sure it is Jesus who told you to use that name? There are many demons out there who we should test before we believe them. So, are you sure this “Jesus” really was Jesus?
Are you sure your prophet talked to the real Jesus? See LDSstitanic’s evidence that he may not be a prophet. He said many things that are proven to be untrue, and his prediction of the civil war haredly counts as a prophecy, so are you sure you can believe him when he says he talked to Jesus. Or maybe it was “Jesus”, the demon we are to test from my question #1? What do you think?
I thought Monson was at the head of your church. What has he given that was definately from Jesus? What of his predecessor? And his? Are you sure their talking to Jesus, or “Jesus’?
Ah, so now you blame others for rebuking your claim to the term “Christian” when it is a distinct possibility the Jesus is but “Jesus” and should be tested (oh and before I forget, tested with something more than that burning).
And now we are to question if things were left out of the Bible. I am confident its all there, why aren’t you? Did ‘Jesus’ tell you? The same Jesus who said it is finished jsut before he died on the cross? The same Jesus who Paul writes about and says that all we need is him? The same Jesus himself who says all we need is him?
Why doesn’t Christ come down and tell us? Here, you are right. He did, and does. We do find it in the Bible, the very book that is second fiddle to the BoM, the book written to finish what he already said was finished. And if you listen to what he has to say, you’ll see your prophet really talks to “Jesus”.
Sorry if you don’t like this, but friend, there cannot be multiple definitions of Christian. Only one of us can be Christian. But if you really want to use the term, have at it. But you’re telling a lie.
Our disagreement lies in our definition of the term “save”, which SHOULD have nothing to do with the word “Christian”.
CLUFF: are you feeling OK? You didn’t get your 9 hrs of BYU extra credit with this kind of brain power. If the definitions of ’salvation’ DON’T MATTER when it comes to defining ‘christian’ than what does ?? I’ve asked this question only a zillion times here at MC, but are you, CLUFF and others (BornAgain) comfortable with putting your arms of common fellowship around ANYONE who mouths the words ‘I believe in Jesus Christ for my salvation’ NO MATTER WHAT THEY MEAN BY THOSE WORDS??? And of course, it’s not only ’salvation’ that is a key player here: grace, atonement, the work of Christ, and on…these words and more are defined in far diff. ways by the LDS (and many other groups) compared to orthodoxy. Sido’s comment is too restrictive FOR YOU, but you don’t want to give us (up front for all to see), YOUR restrictions. You are not the relativists that some of the New Agers are, I know the restrictions are there (not a problem to me, really, truth claims come with restrictions) what bugs me is your PRETENDING that you (LDS) don’t have them . Back to AARON and the lipstick lady: own up to your religion, folks, it isn’t nearly as ecumenical as you make it sound. GERMIT
PS:
and the ‘minor disconnect’ is only ‘minor’ to the one who wrote that quote. he or she can trivialize doctrinal distinctions, but our list of essentials has stood firm for thousands of years (I know this invites Catholic/Protestant comparisons, but I still hold it to be true); the LDS cannot make the same claim, you even brag about the inconsistency, a la ‘new revelation’ for this age.
Sharon,
This post is one of the best I have ever read on the subject. Thanks for writing about this. It is posts like this one which make me come back for more.
GRCluff said
GRluff Are you aware that in the early days, your Church was simply called (The Church Of Christ). So why would Jesus come along and Change it? Or Did He?
Then you said
When did this happen? during the first vision? If so, which of the nine first vision account did it take place?
Then you said
Really? From what I understand, Jesus told JS He would remain till the Lord returned, but in fact was killed in jail, False Prophecy?
Then after his death, Jesus never cleared the issue of, was it his son or BY to take the role, hence the split in the church, and depends on who you ask, which is true, the LDS verses the FLDS.
Then as other Christians have said already, What has the Lord clearly stated to any of the last 10 prophets that has come to pass in great detail?
Then you said,
According to JS in the D and C, Jesus/God COMMANDED JS and Sidney R to retranslate the Bible, now we have the J.S.T of the Bible. Sadly LDS rarly use it, and it is debated as to if JS really completed it. So even their God or JS failed again.
then you said
Seems simple to me, Unplug your ears and start listing.
cluff said to me, “What do you mean ‘Mormon doctrine draws away from Christ’s ability to save?’” That’s not what I said. Mormonism has nothing to do with Christ’s ability to save -what I mean is that Christ is the ONLY way to be saved and Mormon doctrine (temples, “by grace we are saved after all we can do”, etc) draws away from that fact.
My brain was tired on Friday and I wasn’t writing my posts very well, so I need to expand on my statement about Sharon’s definition of Christian as well. I agreed with Sharon’s approach of defining “Christian” by using scripture in the Bible -it seems an appropriate source (indeed, I think it is THE source to be consulting). If you feel that the definition concluded from scripture is narrow so as to exclude Mormons, well, then, I can’t answer that. Our definition of Christian excludes you; your definition of Christian excludes us. Mormons want to be called Christian (despite the early leaders’ opposition) because they see themselves as the true, you guessed it first century Christians, and we ev’s are not, according to Nephi. But it seems to be that modern-day Mormons do consider us to be Christian as well, so my question to you, cluff -but other LDS can feel free to answer as well- is what is your definition of Christian? I do agree with Michael and germit –why shouldn’t Christian be an exclusive definition?
Oh, and thank you for calling me an idiot –it’s okay, I still love you.
One more question cluff, ” If you are not Christian, why does the name of your Church include the name Jesus Christ?
Well, that is the name He gave us to use.
Who gave you that name?
Jesus did, when he was talking with our prophet.”
Can you show me where I can find this? I was not aware of this information.
Cluff, I prefer would prefer if you would use “idjit” when referring to me.
The problem with your line of reasoning is two-fold. Lots of Christian churches have the name of Christ in their title, and they teach something completely different than mormonism so the name on the sign is hardly a decent qualifier. If you have business cards with “Christian” on them, does that make you a Christian? I can print some cards up that say “Arthur Sido, NFL quarterback” and maybe I will get to play next Sunday (my Browns could certainly use the help)
The second problem is neither Smith nor any of the following presidents of the mormon church have direct contact with Christ, evidenced by the fact that what they teach is in direct contrast to what Christ and His true apostles taught. So it kind of makes your argument moot.
I am a little concerned about you, now you are having imaginary conversations with yourself. All kidding aside, in thread after thread you have been shown that mormonism teaches doctrines that are contradictory to Biblical Christianity, that stand opposed to the teachings of Christ and His apostles, that are based on the testimony of one man who was a notorious liar and has been proven on a number of occassions to be a false prophet. I do pray that God opens your eyes and takes away that heart of stone so that you can truly repent of your sins and find the forgivenss that Christ has paid for, forgiveness sealed by His blood and earned by His righteousness in spite of our lack of the same.
Gluff I bear you my testimony.
I believe In Jesus Christ, God who came in the flesh, No other gods exist, execpt false ones.
I believe the Bible is the only inspired Word Of God, that came From the only true and living God.
I believe we are saved by grace alone, Nothing but the Blood of Christ can save us, Nothing else can or will, not money, not good works, nothing.
I believe in one heaven only, not 3, I believe hell is real, and not every person is a child of God. Rick B (LDS priesthood holder)
OK RickB,
I’ve held my tongue on this for a while but I can’t anymore. Your ‘analogy’ of calling yourself ‘LDS’ but denying all of its doctrine and practises is very much flawed. You are Christian, but you only represent one denomination of Christianity, not all. Whereas we LDS are saying we are a Christian denomination as well.
Its like dogs – there are many types of dogs out there. A border collie is a dog; a spaniel is a dog; a golden retriever is a dog; a german shepard is a dog. BUT a border collie is not a german shepard; nor is it a spaniel or golden retriever, etc.
Let’s take this back to religion – you are not Roman Catholic, nor are you Anglican, yet these are Christian churches. This also means that you are not LDS and cannot say that you are even if we can say that we are Christian.
As you posted earlier, the ORIGINAL meaning in the Bible of the word Christian was a derogatory label given to those who professed belief in Jesus Christ by the non-believers. That is all the criteria there for the original meaning. If we look at the epistles, they were trying to stop people teaching and believing the wrong things but all of the congregations they were sent to were still classed as part of the ‘church’ even though some believed that circumcision was necessary, or some believed in works assisted grace, etc. So we profess a belief in Jesus as the Son of God and our Saviour, which is all that is required of the original meaning. But we believe differently with other things, so write to us the epistles teaching us of our errors like Paul and Peter did – but under the Biblical meaning we can be classed as Christian and part of the flock.
I used the “I” word generally, not individually, and I was NOT referencing intellectual capacity at all, but rather spiritual capacity. I needed to vent, OK- We are all Christians here, so no one will hold a grudge. Right?
OK, OK, I am sorry. Please forgive me. Does that help?
I guess now is the time for the examination of my evidence.
GRCluff said:
“If you are not Christian, why does the name of your Church include the name Jesus Christ?
Well, that is the name He gave us to use.
Who gave you that name?
Jesus did, when he was talking with our prophet.”
Revelation (from Jesus Christ) through Joseph Smith, Far West, Missouri, April 26, 1838. History of the Church 3:23-25.
Section 115:4 For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
So, if this was to be Christ’s Church, do you think He would want us to avoid using the term “Christian”?
The only good argument I will buy at this point is that he may prefer that we be called “saints”. The Catholic Church may have a small problem with that one.
I have offered up both scriptural and historical reference that this is the case. Now can we be called Christian?
Arthur said:
“neither Smith nor any of the following presidents of the mormon church have direct contact with Christ, evidenced by the fact that what they teach is in direct contrast to what Christ and His true apostles taught.”
It must be difficult for them, they seem to mingle Christ’s teachings with direct quotes from the Bible in nearly every discourse these days.
I haven’t noticed a single note of discord. The Holy Spirit is OFTEN present at the time, burning a witness of the truthfulnes of their words.
Yet, they are in DIRECT CONTRAST? Are we going to the same meetings?
Heres an idea. In a few short years, you and I will be in the spirit world WITH the original apostles and prophets. You know, Peter James and John? What are you going to do when Peter looks you in the eye and says. Yes, I did. On the banks of the Susquahanah river. I gave this man — pointing to JS — the same priesthood that Christ gave me. The Holy Spirit has been bearing witness on the matter at every opportunity for 150 years. Where have you been?
What will you say then? Will you quote Paul to the apostle Peter? Tell him he was wrong to ordain JS because HE introduced polygamy? Then Peter will begin to introduce you to his wives. Then what will you tell him?
Cluff:
Speak for yourself when you talk about your eternal destination location. When I die I will be in the presence of the Lord right along with Paul and the others (2 Cor 5:8; Phil 1:23).
Your idea/play along:
What will I say to Peter? I will say to him what Jesus said to Peter in Matt 16:23: “Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me”. I will know that this entity imitating Peter is a false angel (demon). When I was a youth at a Christian school there was a man that approached me while I was playing in the school yard and yelled at me through the fence to come to him. Being innocent and naive I did walk closer but stay at a distance. He told me that he was the dispciple Matthew. He was a liar and a fraud. I’ll put that “Peter” in the same category.
What will I say to John? “What are you doing here? The Mormons said you never died and would remain on the earth until Christ returns and ’shalt prophesy before nations, kindreds, tongues and people’ (D&C 7:1-3). Your work isn’t in the spirit world. It’s on the earth. You’re in the wrong place. You’re violating 1 Nephi 3:7!”
What will I say to Moses? “How did you show up at the Mount of Transfiguration in Matt 17:3 when you are a murderer (Ex 2:12)? Murderers aren’t forgiven in this life nor in the next (D&C 42:18,79). Mormon doctrine says that murderers will only inherit the telestial kingdom? Did a false spirit (demon) mimic you too just like the one imitating Peter over there?”
Back on topic:
It’s all in the name, huh? So if Jesus is in the title it’s Christian? Is this church below Christian?
The World Church of Jesus is Satan (Detroit, MI)
If I told you that I don’t believe the LDS Church is the true church, Joseph Smith was a false prophet, Thomas Monson isn’t a prophet today and the Book of Mormon isn’t the word of God, then would it be okay for me to call myself a Mormon? I assume “No!” That has always been the Christian position. Mormons aren’t Christian.
Ralph,
Like LDS say to us, Who are you to tell me I am not an LDS member? I am to, you cannot judge me. So please stop. Rick B (LDS priesthood holder)
BornAgain: before I forget, my comments were blocked on the same thread at almost exactly the same time yours were. It had nothing to do with you being Mormon, it had everything to do with the thread stalling out, there was nothing new being said, and as a case in point, you were busy telling us for the tenth time how essential baptism is/was. At least that is my “take”, only Sharon knows for sure, but there were not a lot new ideas getting put forward,seems to me.
It is very unlikely that this “who is called what” situation will get solved to anyone’s satisfaction. Kind of like “who can be called Mormon”. All I can say is I don’t have to consider, or label, LDS as christian, and when I tell people that LDS are non-christian (as a system of belief, only God knows an individual’s heart) that is a good conversation starter for me to explain WHY I make that claim. A claim that THEY are welcome to examine and contradict if the bible or LDS writings say something else. And I ALWAYS welcome that kind of “check what I say” response. If I’m right, the truth bears me out, if I’m wrong, they can find that out thru their own independent investigation. What the culture at large decides to do with these labels, I don’t know, but I don’t think it changes my approach for now. GERMIT
GRluff said
So let me ask you again, when did the change occur?
Have you not read, pg 73 of, an address to all believers in Christ, it teaches the original name was Church of Christ
Ralph,
Why is it, LDS can say, were just another denomanation of Christians. Yet you refuse to say, FLDS,RLDS or other off shoot groups are simple Demonations of the LDS faith or even of the Christians faith?
Then I did not offer up an analogy, I spoke the Truth. I really believe you either refuse to hear what us Christians say, or simply do not care.
It has been spelled out to you many times before. Demonations are not of God but of men, they result in us not agreeing on minor non salvation issues. Like can we speak in tounges today or not, can women be pastors, which view of the rapture do you hold.
Yet Me, berean, falcon and others all agree on, who is Jesus, the trinity, salvation by grace alone Etc. So your wrong, please open your eyes.
Rick B (LDS PRIESTHOOD HOLDER) Sharing the restored Gospel of, Grace alone, the trinity, One God not many, Jesus who Died on the Cross for our Sins, not the garden, Etc.
“Section 115:4 For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” That’s funny –if this is true then why wasn’t it called “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” until the 20th century? Hmm.
Sorry Sharon/mods, I know the other thread was closed but I have to post this response to things said over there.
Cluff, your logic makes no sense at all. You use the heretic Christians to show that they practiced the same things (polygamy, baptism for the dead) that the Mormons did/do so therefore Mormonism IS 1st century Christianity –but then you say those heretics are the ones who decided on the canon of the New Testament and the translations. With that logic, Mormons should believe that the Bible ISN’T missing anything! You accept the heretical practices of early Christians because it supports your belief in Mormonism, but reject those heretical practices when it comes to the Bible….I’m getting so confused!!
You said “By admitting that early Christianity strayed into heresy, you are taking two steps in my direction. Maybe I can give you a little push into the light. It wasn’t just ’some people’ it was the entire Church.” Okay, Mormons believe that Jesus’ church was lost because the Christians went apostate –but you use the practices of the apostate Christian Church to support polygamy, baptism for the dead, belief that God the Father has a physical body. Talk about mental gymnastics; I have a headache!
Oh, and IF the heretic Christians who were practicing polygamy were the ones deciding on the books and translations, why oh why would they leave in the parts about having only one wife?? Why oh why would they leave in scripture that God is spirit? Why oh why did they not inject passages about how baptism for the dead should be performed?
I guess you are right that Mormons and early Christians had much in common. The early Christians were disobedient to God and so are the Mormons.
OK back 2 topic.
Mormon’s are christian. Not the narrow type of christian that you all describe, but we are christian.
But who cares! This is a question of vernacular… not doctrine. Cluff… very witty, and spot on. Rick, keep wishing. Berean, if you’re in the presence of God and you tell someone who is also in the presence of God to get thee hence Satan, I will be embarrassed for you, whether or not I’m there. And as far as grace alone… what are the commandments for? Why would we need to live by a set of guidelines (divine guidelines) if we’ll all be saved anyways?
Are Rick, berean, falcon, etc. all members of the same christian sect/church/denomination?
RickB,
So do you agree that the Roman Catholic and the Greek Orthodox churches are Christian? If you do then you are at opposition to a few members of this site – which means that even you ‘Christians’ can’t agree on what the term means. But with your comment about all ‘Christian’ denominations agreeing on “who is Jesus, the trinity, salvation by grace alone Etc” then you must believe that the RC and GO are not ‘Christian’ which then negates the common held meaning of the majority of the world.
But let’s go back to the definition you gave from the Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary – Christian The name given by the Greeks or Romans, probably in reproach, to the followers of Jesus. It was first used at Antioch. The names by which the disciples were known among themselves were “brethren,” “the faithful,” “elect,” “saints,” “believers.” But as distinguishing them from the multitude without, the name “Christian” came into use, and was universally accepted. This name occurs but three times in the New Testament (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16). As I said before – the epistles were written to communities that had ‘abberant’ beliefs to correct these for example the necessity of circumcision, and (for your benefit) works assisted grace – BUT these people were still considered as part of the flock as long as they believed in Jesus as their Saviour and the Son of God.
We LDS believe that Jesus is our Saviour and the Son of God, this fits the original Biblical definition of ‘Christian’ so we can be considered as a denomination of Christianity. But you represent only one denomination not all, so you cannot say you are LDS just like you cannot say you are RC or GO or Anglican. So if you keep saying you are LDS then you are bearing false witness which by your belief system shows you are not saved yet because you have sinned knowingly which negates your faith in Christ.
Ralph said
I do not know if they are or not. God knows, he judges salvation and peoples hearts not me. I can as the scripture teaches, inspect fruit, and see if what people say and do lines up with what scripture teaches.
Then Ralph said
The jesus you believe in, is not the Jesus the Bible teaches, plus the Bible says, Not all who say, Lord, Lord will be saved. these people who said, Lord, Lord did miracles and cast out demons, so they thought they were saved, but they were not. They they they knew Jesus, but Jesus did not know them. Rick B (LDS priesthood holder).
Cluff,
“Heres an idea. In a few short years, you and I will be in the spirit world WITH the original apostles and prophets.”
Well that is sweet and all full of ecumenical goodness, but it is also impossible. If what mormonism teaches is true, I am an apostate and condemned to outer darkness as a son of perdition. So we will not be roasting marshmallows in the spiritual world. If I am correct, then there will not be a polygamous Peter in heaven, nor Joseph Smith and tragically you will not be there either, having placed your faith at least is part with Joseph Smith’s story and your own works. I do hope to see you in heaven after you abandon mormonism and submit to Christ as Lord. I mean that in all sincerity. I left mormonism knowing that it meant that if mormonism were true I was condemned, but I also know from the Word of God that if I didn’t turn from mormonism and come to Christ, I was condemned justly to an eternal hell.
“Yet, they are in DIRECT CONTRAST? Are we going to the same meetings?”
One chuch teaches that there a prophets today, receiving ongoing revelation, that a temple is needed and has been rebuilt, that faith alone is inadequate to justify a sinner, that God is not eternal but was once a man, that Jesus and Satan are spiritual brothers and that Christ is a created being. The other church teaches that God is eternal and uncreated, that Christ is God and as such is also eternal and uncreated, that there is no need for either temples or prophets and that sinners are hopelessly lost and have only one hope, faith in Christ alone to justify them.
So yes, they are in direct contrast.
Reggie:
I haven’t officially welcomed you to MC so, “Welcome”. You’re going to need to “step it up” with your posts and be more substantive. Shallow answers and “rabbit trails” (what religion I am/others, etc.) isn’t going to cut it. We don’t drink “milk” here. It’s red meat.
I see that you didn’t want to tackle the LDS references I made in Cluff’s comical scenario especially regarding Moses and John. Am I going to be in the presence of God in the so-called Mormon spirit world? Not according to Mormon teachings. Heavenly Father isn’t there. He’s on Kolob and he is not omnipresent, remember?
What are the commandments for? Look at Romans 3:20 – “the law is the knowledge of sin”. The commandments show us the utter futility of trying to live the law perfectly. We can’t. Christians obey Christ not because of the law, but because of gratitude that He did for us what we could never do. This comes from the heart (Rom 6:17; Psa 40:8).
I know what “saved” in Mormonism means. Do you? Mormonism teaches “unconditional atonement” where all men are saved and have immortality. You are familiar with the “light of Christ” that you believe all mankind has, correct? That isn’t from the Bible. Mormons are the ones with the three degrees of glory and that all mankind is going to one of them even those in hell will eventually go to the telestial. Christians don’t believe that and the Bible doesn’t teach it. All are going to be saved in Christianity? Not hardly, but in Mormonism that is the teaching.
In your attempts of obtaining the “Christian” label, you are confusing your beliefs with ours. I know the Mormon Church wants the Christian label very badly. They aren’t going to be given it. Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz closed her eyes and clicked her heels three times to make things happen. That won’t work for Mormons in saying they are Christians no matter how many times they say it. Christians have over 2,000 years of history on our side. Mormonsim is new to the scene.
Arthur said:
“I am an apostate and condemned to outer darkness as a son of perdition”
I seriously doubt that you had a “real” testimony in the first place, so there is still a chance for you. Did God answer your prayers in the affirmative when you prayed to know the Chruch was true? Tell me yes, absolutely and completely, then you can become a son of perdition.
I was in the Church 10 years before I knew it was true the way God has always intended– how long were you a member before you dryed up and blew away?
Remember the parable of the sower?
Matt 13:19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.
20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;
21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.
22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.
23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.
From your arguments and stories, I will insist that you are described in verse 19. The sons of perdition have to get to vers 22 or 23 first, then deny that they felt the spirit at all.
Sorry, God’s not done with you yet.
Berean:
I think I feel those 9 extra credits of BYU religion kicking in. I wondered where they went.
Let start with the factual error and/or your erroneous assuptions about valid Mormon teachings.
1. It was Peter, James and John that restored the higher priesthood, John the Baptist that restored the Levitical priesthood, and the prophet Elijah that restored the sealing keys for temple ordinances. I don’t think JS met Moses personally. He did talk to Christ, face to face LIKE Moses a couple times, maybe that is where you get confused.
2. Heres a verse in the BoM that you will find interesting, given your particular belief on the matter:
Alma 40:11 Now, concerning the state of the soul between death and the resurrection—Behold, it has been made known unto me by an angel, that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are taken home to that God who gave them life.
Surpised? Your assignment to paradise or spirit prison while you wait for resurrection is a pre-judgement of sorts. If you believe in eternal progression, God gives you a job to do while you wait. If you just want to sit around, play your harp and sing Glory Glory, then God roles his eyes and says– send this one to spirit prison for re-education. He is getting on my nerves. (This part is not BYU education, just my vivid imagination at work)
3. On John and the 3 Nephites, you keep harping on where they are. Relax already– we teach that they can change their mind on that choice at any time.
You missed the “REAL” doctrinal problem in my post. Peter, James and John CAN’T be in the spirt world anymore because they had to be resurrected beings to confer the priesthood to JS. A spirit cannot confer the priesthood. It takes hand on head action. Touch is not available to spirit beings.
Hey Cluff, which version of the story do you quote on who restored the priesthood?
On John– Oh, they can change their minds on that choice at any time. (In the voice of the church lady– “Isn’t that convenient…”)
Sorry for the sarcasm, as these are serious subjects, but I couldnt resist given your tone yourself.
See, we get into this back and forth about what the facts are. A fact is that there are different versions out there about the restoration of the priesthood. It is also a fact that this is not recorded in any official document until after Smith supposedly restored the church.
As to the idea of John being able to change his mind, care to reference any Biblical/BoM/authoritative sources on that one?
Berean cont:
You thought I was done? I’m just getting started.
4. You said: “What will I say to Moses? “How did you show up at the Mount of Transfiguration in Matt 17:3 when you are a murderer ”
Check this out:
1 Nephi 4:17 And again, I knew that the Lord had delivered Laban into my hands for this cause—that I might obtain the records according to his commandments.
18 Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword.
So, one of the major prophets of the BoM killed a drunk man and stole his Bible!
Apparently, killing is not murder when God COMMANDS a prophet to do it. Moses was a prophet, and he was just following a commandment from God.
I think you need to enroll in those 9 credit hours at BYU – they are available online, and institute classes are available at any major college. These kind of errors are not at ALL acceptable. If you are going use your attack mode against Mormons you will need to appear a little more credible.
3. The BoM and D&C 7 state clearly where John & the 3 Nephites are supposed to be – alive and on the earth “to bring souls unto thee” (D&C 7:2) because “thou shalt tarry until I come in my glory…and prophesy before nations” (v.3). They can change their mind and do whatever they want after the Lord gives them a command? I don’t see that option in the text. Authoritative references?
You’re really sticking your neck out on this one.
There are many doctrinal problems in your posts. “Mormon Doctrine” on page 639 states that Peter, James & Moroni received resurrected bodies..nothing about John. D&C 7 is a lie because John died like all men. None of this squares with the Bible because nobody receives a glorified, resurrected body until Christ returns (Matt 24:29-31; 1 Thes 4:16; 1 Cor 15:51-52). Is Christ at Adam-ondi-Ahman (for Mormons)? Has He touched the Mount of Olives upon his return (Zech 14:4)?
4. I was reading that passage about Laban the other day and it made me think about Shiz in Ether 15:31 where he got his head cut off and then he raised himself up on his hands and struggled for breath with no head. Only in the BoM could this happen – unbelievable (funny). Moses didn’t commit murder because God commanded him to kill? Take another look at Exodus 2:12. God DID NOT COMMAND Moses to kill the Egyptian. Where do you get this? Did God command Joseph Smith to kill two out of the three people he shot at Carthage Jail? (HOTC, Vol.7, pp.101-103). I guess this reasoning makes sense now when Ralph said that he would “rob banks and kill people if Joseph Smith told me to.” The problem for Ralph on that line, using your response Cluff, is that a prophet told him to kill – not God. Still okay?
I think you need to ask BYU for a refund on your religion classes. I would like to recommend to you a good Sunday school class at maybe the local
Baptist church to learn the basics of the Bible. Your ignorance of the Bible is pathetic and laughable!
If LDS folks are Christian, what, in God’s name, are they doing by associating with a movement that so misrepresents the one whom they aspire to follow?
I am way out of the loop. Just came across this quote from CS Lewis that I thought was beautiful.
“We profanely assume that divine and human action exclude one another like the actions of two fellow-creatures so that ‘God did this’ and
‘I did this’ cannot both be true of the same act except in the sense that each contributed a share. In the end we must admit a two way traffic at the junction….We have nothing that we have not received; but part of what we have received is the POWER OF BEING MORE THAN RECEPTACLES.”
Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer pp 49-50
I don’t think he could have summed up Moroni 10 better.
Come unto Christ is the first step. Grace allows us to do this enabling us to become perfected in Christ. If we then refuse to deny ourselves of all ungodliness the road comes to an end. His Grace will not save us if we refuse to do our part. Lewis gets it! We are more than RECEPTACLES, which seems to be the major doctrine being taught by this crowd. To me that is Christianity.
Here is Bereans points 1 and 2 that he was unable to post. Doing him a favor burning one of my posts, so you better say thanks Berean! hah. [By way of explanation, Berean accidentally posted this comment on the wrong thread. It has since been deleted from that thread and, thanks to Jeffrey, now appears here. Part two of Berean's response will be found above. -Mod.]
1. The Priesthood: Peter, James & John didn’t restore the Melchizedek priesthood because they never had it. Only Christ holds that office. It is unchangeable & untransferable (Heb 5:5-10; 7:24). The Aaronic priesthood was done away with – “changed” – by Christ (Heb 7:11-12) when the veil of the temple was torn (Matt 27:51). Mormons don’t even meet the criteria anyway for the Aaronic priesthood. Don’t Mormons say they are from the tribe of Ephraim? They are not qualified because the Aaronic priesthood was through the tribe of Levi. By Mormons supposedly giving this to 12 year-old boys they are also in violation of Numbers 8:23-25 where males were given the Aaronic when they turned 25 and they lost it when they turned 50. Speaking of qualifications, do Mormons meet the criteria for the Melchizedek priesthood in Hebrews 7:3&26? Nope…nobody does except Christ. You don’t think JS met Moses? According to D&C 110:11 in 1836 at the Kirtland Temple “Moses appeared before us.” There is no confusion on my part.
2. Alma 40:11 is in direct conflict with the Bible because “spirits..whether they be good or evil” don’t go to God for reassignment. Surprised? Yes, at your redefining of terms and reasoning. What you call “spirit prison” isn’t what it says in Alma 40:13 where it says “outer darkness”. That’s a completely different place in Mormonism. No, I don’t believe in eternal progression because it’s not taught in the Bible.
“Sit around, play your harp and sing Glory Glory” – you’re quite a sarcastic fellow aren’t you? I won’t return the sarcasm in light of Mormon teachings. Bible verses to support your wacky view? No, I guess not. God’s going to “role his eyes”? Will he spread his wings and rustle his feathers (Psa 91:4)? Will Christ stick out his tongue that is a sword (Rev 1:16)? It appears they don’t teach hermeneutics at BYU.
D.O.F. Said
This is the problem with Mormonism, You cannot be saved with out works. If someone Calls out to the Lord to be saved and they are on their death bed, then in Mormonism they cannot be saved, because they have not done works or kept the law.
As believers in Christ, we can be saved right before our point of death, even if that will come as a result of exectuion from comminting murder.
Go back and read the OT, account of the Mercy seat, and the Ark. If we remove the Covering of the mercy seat and look into the law, we will die on the spot. The law can and will never save us. We have to go out of our way to remove mercy in order to look into the law, sadly the result is death.
Read the account with Moses and the Serpents. The reason the Jews refused to look at the serpent on the pole and live, was because the law told them not to make and worship graven imiages, Yet if they broke the law and looked at the serpent on the pole, they would have lived. That was what GOD, Not moses said to do to be saved. Now in the NT we See Jesus on the Cross, look to him to be saved. Rick b (LDS priesthood holder)
Berean said:
“None of this squares with the Bible because nobody receives a glorified, resurrected body until Christ returns”
Matt 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
Is this the same Bible that you called square? Who were the saints seen in the city? Zombies? If the graves were opened and saints arose…
[Insults and some sarcasm removed by moderator.]
Cluff…have you ever read “Border Lines” by Daniel Boyarin? The alternative to Hellenistic thinking is generally thought to be Hebraistic thinking. Alot of Messianic Jews today will tell you that the Christianity has strayed from its Jewish roots and followed Greek thought.
Not saying I’m a proponent of that theory (I can’t imagine not sleeping in on Saturday) but if you are arguing against the direction the church went in history your other option would seem to be to go back to the Law of Moses…I guess you need to report to your local synagogue this Sabbath. Remember, Jews repeat twice a day “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God! The LORD is One!” I also don’t believe they have an eternal progression program…oi vey!
Berean also said:
“Only Christ holds that office. It is unchangeable & untransferable ”
You referenced the 5th Chapter of Hebrews, but you left out the relevant part.
Heb 5:1 For EVERY high priest TAKEN FROM AMONG MEN is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant,…
4 And no MAN taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
You have a rather obvious context problem, and your interpretation of the Bible is quite strange, I must say.
If Christ was the only why priest, why would verse one say that they (the high priests) are taken from among men?
And verse 5 says it all. MAN does take the priesthood upon himself when called upon AS WAS AARON. How was Aaron called- by a prophet- Moses.
I can think of only one true prophet that can claim the same honor, via Peter, James and John.
I can say that I am one– taken from among men — ordained a High Priest — but not having much compassion on the ignorant. I guess I need to work on my tone. Think compassionate, kind … take a deep breath.
Cluff,
“I seriously doubt that you had a “real” testimony in the first place, so there is still a chance for you. Did God answer your prayers in the affirmative when you prayed to know the Chruch was true? Tell me yes, absolutely and completely, then you can become a son of perdition.
I was in the Church 10 years before I knew it was true the way God has always intended– how long were you a member before you dryed up and blew away?”
I had no doubt at all that the church was true. I felt the “burning in the bosom”, I testified on testimony sunday, I argued with those mean Christians on chat boards in defense of mormonism, I was completely and utterly convinced it was true. Then I found that I had been deceived. While mormons would consider me an apostate, the only thing I have become an apostate from is a false gospel.
Your comments to berean are pretty strident and inaccurate. It is ironic that you quote Matt 27 to defend ghosts appearing to Joesph Smith and restoring a priesthood they never held when the verses that precede that account tell us of the veil in the temple being rent from top to bottom, the way to God reopened by Christ’s sacrifice and doing away with the need for an earthly temple forever, it’s purpose being fulfilled and the human priesthood being replace by our perfect High Priest.Last time I checked, the mormon temple still has a veil in it…
Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin. Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
(Heb 10:18-22)
Context Cluff context. I wonder if they taught you that in those 9 hours of extra credit at the Y?
Cluff, speaking of context you left out verse 3 in Hebrews 5. I assume that was an honest oversight on your part, and not an attempt to be deceptive by ignoring a key verse in the middle…
Because of this he is obligated to offer sacrifice for his own sins just as he does for those of the people. (Heb 5:3)
I think it is YOU who left out the relevant part. The human priests he is speaking of are the priests under the OLD COVENANT who had to offer sacrifice for their own sin as well as the people. It is not speaking of an ongoing need for a human priesthood. You are going to dig an even deeper hole for yourself by getting into Hebrews because if you read Hebrews in context and don’t “accidently” skip over key verses, it destroys the mormon notion of a “restored” priesthood. I don’t want a restored priesthood of 18 year old kids styling themselves as “elders”, Christ is sufficient for me.
Geez, and you accuse Berean of being ignorant of the Bible. This is basic stuff, the Old Covenant administration being replace by the New, the old temple done away with by the new in Christ, the old sacrificial system replaced by the perfect sacrifice of Christ, and on and on. Mormonism tries to return people to an Old Testament faith, as if Christ never happened which is ironic since you cry all the time about having the name of Christ on your signs. How about you recognize Him for what who He is instead of trying to turn back the clock 3000 years?
You need to get yourself to a Bible believing Christian church this Sunday and take a basic Sunday school class. I can recommend some good introductory books on Christianity for you if you like.
Please, friends, discuss your differences with respect and stick to the issues at hand.
Michael P said: (in the most respectful manner possible)
As to the idea of John being able to change his mind, care to reference any Biblical/BoM/authoritative sources on that one?
Sure, heres and old one:
(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 18: 21 – 22.)
Now these men lived in the first century of the Christian era on this continent; and when that generation all passed away they also lived in the second century of the Christian era, and ministered to the ancient inhabitants on this land. And when the second century had all passed off the stage of action they also lived in the third century; and in the fourth century the Lord took these three men from the midst of the remnant of Israel on this land. Where did he take them? I do not know, it is not revealed. Why did he take them away? Because of the apostacy of the people, because the people were unworthy of the ministration of such great an holy men; because they sought to kill them… their wickedness became so great that the Lord commanded them to depart out of their midst. And the remnant of Israel, from that day to the present—between fourteen and fifteen centuries—have been dwindling in unbelief, in ignorance, and in all the darkness which now surrounds them; but notwithstanding their darkness and misery, the three Nephites, for many generations, have not administered to them, because of the commandment of the Almighty to them.
Cluff–
Isn’t that the same source that is not authoritative because it is thought not to be an accurate transmission of what was spoken?
So, why should you take this seriously when you deny the Adam/God sermon from the very same source, among others?
Do you see our frustration in following what Mormon’s believe?
Cluff,
Heb.8:1(i) The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man.(i/)
It IS that simple my friend, if you want to beleive that restoring OT traditions merits something, then that is on you. Remember that when you do that, it will take what Christ has done for you/all and tramples it beneath the feet of men.
You also seem to be digging pretty deep into your churches history. Was that quote from a prophet of yours? If so, do all the quotes from the old prophets hold dear to you as to be the words of your god?
I hope this doesn’t put you on the spot. If you don’t feel comfortable answering them, you don’t have to. I know that your family is most likely deeply rooted into that faith and you have contention in trying to ensure it.
W/LOVE
Jeffrey & Sharon:
Thank you very much for cleaning up my mess that I left here late last night. Jeffrey, a special thanks to you for burning one of your posts on my behalf. I’m glad you thought it warranted it.
Cluff:
The context of Hebrews 5:1-4 is talking about the priesthood of Aaron from the Old Testament. In verse 5 it says “So also CHRIST”. There is nobody else but Him now. Move on to v.6 and we see Christ replacing and doing away with the Aaronic priesthood and taking the Melchizedek Priesthood all to himself. This completely flows with Hebrews 7:11-12 especially v.12 where it says, “For the priesthood being changed”. That priesthood (Melchizedek) is unchangeable (v.24) which also means it’s untransferable. You, nor Peter, James & John meet the criteria for that priesthood. Nobody has it but Christ. You can think you do all day long, but that doesn’t make it so. You have no priesthood authority. As a Christian, I get my authority from Christ (John 1:12).
Your source from the JOD to validate John being able to change his mind and check out of his commission given to him by Christ in D&C 7 doesn’t wash out. Is your reference authoritative on what the Church teaches today? You made reference that this is what your church teaches. I called Salt Lake City today and asked/stated what you said about John. I got some laughter back at me on the phone. It appears that you have new revelation. John didn’t change his mind and he didn’t have the option of it either.
The JOD reference says it was a “commandment of the Almighty to them.” That changes things and then it’s not a choice for John. Your initial statement doesn’t fly with this.
God isn’t subjective to our whims while waiting for us to make our move and then He counters. His will and plan has been established since the very beginning. For Mormons to believe that the gates of hell prevailed against the church in Matt 16:18 is another reason they can’t be defined as “Christians”.
> The context of Hebrews 5:1-4 is talking about
> the priesthood of Aaron from the Old Testament.
> In verse 5 it says “So also CHRIST”.
With you so far
> There is nobody else but Him now.
You certainly can’t get that from the above.
> Move on to v.6 and we see Christ replacing and
> doing away with the Aaronic priesthood and
> taking the Melchizedek Priesthood all to
> himself.
Actually verse 6 says “As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.”
This says nothing about the Aaron priesthood and says nothing about Christ being the only holder of the Melchizedek priesthood.
> This completely flows with Hebrews 7:11-12
> especially v.12 where it says, “For the
> priesthood being changed”.
Which priesthood was changed? The Levitical (Aaronic) priesthood or the Melchizedek?
> That priesthood (Melchizedek) is unchangeable
> (v.24)
So the Aaronic priesthood wasn’t eliminated, it was that priesthood that was changed.
> which also means it’s untransferable.
Well, no, it doesn’t. Here is the verse: “But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.”
So Christ’s priesthood is unchangeable, but that doesn’t preclude any others from holding the Melchizedek priesthood, now does it. Unchangeable in no way signifies unchangeable.
> You, nor Peter, James & John meet the criteria
> for that priesthood.
You left out your biblical citation for this.
> Nobody has it but Christ.
And this, as well.
> As a Christian, I get my authority from Christ
> (John 1:12).
Uh, John 1:12, says nothing about authority or priesthood. You must be confused. Here is the text: “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name”. You’ll notice the only thing given to His believers is the power to become a son of God.
> Matt 16:18
Doesn’t preclude an apostasy. Martin Luther, from who you get your skewed view of the priesthood, concurred.
Berean and Michael P:
A couple points of clarification. My quote from the JOD was from Orson Pratt. I had to do some searching to find someone in the church that could validate my opinion on the matter. I’m sure I heard it somewhere.
Brother Pratt is speaking about the 3 Nephites in particular, not the apostle John, but in my mind they are in the same boat.
As far as the JOD goes, I have never read them or studied them in any way, but they are in the path of my search engine, and that is where I found validation. I will say that the Adam God theory is constantly quoted out of context, just because people who use it are not looking for truth, they just want to find any out of context quote possible to make us look bad. They do the same kind of mud slinging in politics.
It has never been about what SLC will confirm, but about my opinion as a practicing Mormon. However, I reserve the right to change my opinion at any time. Before you get all pissy about that, relax, it is a minor change.
As I researched the topic, I have become convinced that the 3 Nephites, and John were probably commanded to abandon the people of earth during the dark ages because of apostacy and unbelief. It would not have been a choice on their part.
If you want more Mormons ammo, heres one. A quote from JS said that the 3 Nephites and John could have gone to another planet to serve their God. Put that one in your spam Gun to twist Mormonism out of its socket.
GSwarthout,
The entire point of the book of Hebrews is the explanation of the greater priesthood of Christ. It is a contrast between the priesthood of men through the levtical priesthood that oversaw the temple ceremonies and the greater High Priesthood of Christ. There is no mention of a single person in the New Testament who holds the priestly office of Melchizidek other than Christ. You are arguing from silence. The only two times we see Mel. mentioned in the Bible are the man himself in the OT and Christ fulfilling that role of the greater High Priest in the New.
The old priesthood, properly called the Levitcal priesthood, has been replaced. You seem to be missing the distinction between the old covenant priesthood and the New Covenant priesthood held by Christ alone, as mediator between God and man.
Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. (Heb 7:11-12)
Notice it is “priest” singluar who arose, not a new priesthood. Mormons don’t seem to get that it is not about restoring the old priesthood of the Levites. Mormons assume that because we see a priesthood of men in the OT, we must need one now, but they never seem able to explain why we need to restore a priesthood when the whole purpose of the human priesthood has been fulfilled and the office is filled by Christ. Why would you need a human priest when you have Christ, why would you need a priest of the Levites when the temple ceremony and sacrifice is obsolete?
GR,
I’m impressed you still throw the sarcasm out, trying now to bait us in.
I think the last quote you lobbed in should be left alone.
Have you ever read the sermon where BY discusses Adam/God? Seems like he’s saying it is true, and that the salvation of those listening depends on their belief of it. Its pretty clear to me. You can find a link to it several places if you have not read it.
As to the Nephites and John abandoning the people of earth, that, too sounds a bit far fetched, whether commanded to or not. Don’t you agree?
Michael P:
Since I haven’t met any of the 3 Nephites personally, I tend to agree that they are not around. At least not on this planet. Is that what you were asking?
The Adam God theory in my mind is just an extension of my belief in eternal progression. If some of us are ahead of others in that regard, Adam being the first could be closer.
Remember that we believe in the pre-existance of mankind’s spirits, and things that we did as spirits before we were born could easily count to our benefit. Adam must have done something right in the pre-existance to become the first man.
I’m sure that BY had some more specific knowledge on that matter, being in the presence of JS for so long and being a prophet etc. I won’t rule it out entirely, but I don’t think I agree with the far fetched conclusions that many aunt eye Mormons attempt to establish as our “rock solid most important teaching” . That is quite rediculous.
Actually, Cluff, I am questioning your use of words here: “As I researched the topic, I have become convinced that the 3 Nephites, and John were probably commanded to abandon the people of earth during the dark ages because of apostacy and unbelief. It would not have been a choice on their part.”
It is indeed obvious they are not here. But you say they were probably commanded not jsut to leave, but to abandon, and to abandon because of apostacy and unbelief. (This was even after you said John could change his mind.)
Adam/God. That’s not what BY said. BY said that Adam is OUR God. He also said that those listening had their salvation resting on whether or not they accepted the doctrine. I’ll ask again, have you read the sermon?
I agree that it is not one of your most important teachings. In fact, I’d even argue that you don’t teach it. But BY did, and his comments seem pretty straight forward…
GS: You’re coming in a little late in the discussion here. Many of the questions you asked were already discussed above. However, I’ll recap.
Nobody else is mentioned in Heb 5:5 – only Christ. The second part of this verse is quoted from Psa 2:7. It is in the singular tense.
Which priesthood was greater? The Melchizedek. Jesus was not called after the order of Aaron (Heb 7:11) because Jesus was from the tribe of Judah (v.14). The priesthood of Aaron was through the tribe of Levi. The Old Testament priesthood was changed and done away with at the crucifixion when the veil of the temple was torn in two (Matt 27:514). The atonement of Christ made it possible for us to have a one-on-one relationship with the Father without the OT priesthood. Christ is the fulfillment and completeness of both priesthoods. That is why it was changed (v.12). There is no perfection or righteousness through Levitical law. Christ is the fulfillment, perfection for us and “a better hope” (v.11&19).
Nobody can hold the Melchizedek Priesthood but Christ. Do Mormons meet the criteria in Heb 7:3,16&26? Not a chance! Ask yourself these questions: Are you without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life? Do you have the power of an endless life (indestructible)? Are you holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners and made higher than the heavens? No, you aren’t. You don’t meet the qualifications.
This priesthood is unchangeable because Christ has it permanently. It is untransferable because “All power is given unto me in heaven and earth.” (Matt 28:18). Nobody has all power but Christ. This is another disqualifier for Mormons.
Ask yourself this question: Where in the New Testament does it state that anyone other than Jesus had the Melchizedek priesthood? Jesus never gave the Melchizedek to anybody. Peter, James and John can’t give something that they don’t have.
John 1:12 says a lot about authority. “But as many as received him, to them gave he POWER”. In the Greek this word “power” is “exousia”. I invite you to scroll down to the bottom of your LDS Bible at the footnote for this verse. What does footnote 12b say? “GR (Greek) authority”.
Mormons want to know where Christians get their authority? It’s right there – full authority to proclaim every detail the gospel of Christ including preaching, baptism, marriages, etc. Mormons have no authority because they have relied on an invalid priesthood through the Aaronic and Melchizedek for which they are not qualified.
Is there going to be an apostasy? Yes! Martin Luther and those before him and after him are correct. Is this view of the apostasy different than the Mormons view? Yes! How so? Mormons believe that ALL have ALREADY apostasized (between 1 AD and 1820). Christianity teaches that there will be an apostasy (“falling away”) leading up to the coming antichrist (2 Thes 2:3). However, does this involve every person? No, because Mormons have not looked at 1 Tim 4:1 where it says, “SOME shall depart from the faith”. “Some” is not “ALL”.
All throughout scripture God always has a remnant of His people left even under the most dire of circumstances (Noah and his family?). Even during the Tribulation there will be 144,000 Jews who will proclaim the gospel (Rev 7:4-8). There will be a great multitude of people that come to Christ during the Tribulation that do not take the mark of the beast (Rev 7:9-14; 20:4).
To say there was a total apostasy is to credit Jesus with a gross lie and is blasphemous (Matt 16:18). Christians received a kingdom that cannot be moved (Heb 12:28). The Church grew daily (Acts 2:47). Christ is the head of the Church (Col 1:18) and He has all power (Matt 28:18). The gates of hell could not overtake him as Mormons say it did. Jesus is the Good Shepherd. Any shepherd that loses his sheep is not a very good shepherd (John 10:11).
More later.
> Nobody else is mentioned in Heb 5:5 – only Christ.
Correct, but beside the point. It doesn’t say Christ is the only holder of the priesthood, now does it?
> The Old Testament priesthood was changed
Yes, that is what scripture says.
> and done away with at the crucifixion when the
> veil of the temple was torn in two (Matt
> 27:514).
Scripture does not say this and your citation is incorrect.
> That is why it was changed (v.12).
Again, your citation doesn’t support your conclusion.
> Nobody can hold the Melchizedek Priesthood but
> Christ. Do Mormons meet the criteria in Heb
> 7:3,16&26? Not a chance!
Alas, your citation does not say what you would like it to say. Nowhere does it limit the Melchizedek priesthood to Christ alone. Did Melchizedec himself meet those so-called requirements? Of course not.
> It is untransferable because “All power is
> given unto me in heaven and earth.” (Matt
> 28:18). Nobody has all power but Christ.
Unless you are saying that Christ wasn’t all-powerful before He received the Melchizedek, you are too far out on a limb here.
> Ask yourself this question: Where in the New
> Testament does it state that anyone other than
> Jesus had the Melchizedek priesthood?
> Jesus never gave the Melchizedek to anybody.
Ask yourself this question: What authority and power did Christ give his apostles?
> John 1:12 says a lot about authority. “But as
> many as received him, to them gave he POWER”.
> … “GR (Greek) authority”.
Mmm, k, but the power to do what, the authority to do what? That is answered in the part of the verse you ommitted.
It does NOT give the authority to perform baptisms, despite what Martin Luther would have you believe. Is there any evidence in the primitive church of this priesthood of all believers? No, it is heretical and not born out by scripture.
cluff, I can no longer take anything you say seriously. It is clear from the following comments that you have not even read BY’s doctrine -not theory, doctrine. “The Adam God theory in my mind is just an extension of my belief in eternal progression. If some of us are ahead of others in that regard, Adam being the first could be closer.
Remember that we believe in the pre-existance of mankind’s spirits, and things that we did as spirits before we were born could easily count to our benefit. Adam must have done something right in the pre-existance to become the first man.”
First off, you assume that -being the first man and long dead- Adam may have already been exalted and become a god of his own world. That is partially correct (if Mormonism is correct), but BY taught that the world Adam created and is god of IS THIS ONE.
If the mods will permit, I’ll sum it up here:
“I tell you more, Adam is the Father of our spirits. He lived upon an earth; he did abide his creation, and did honor to his calling and Priesthood; and obeyed his Master or Lord, and probably many of his wives did the same, and they lived, and died upon an earth, and then were resurrected again to Immortality and Eternal Life. Our spirits and the spirits of all the human family were begotten by Adam, and born of Eve. I tell you, when you see your Father in the Heavens, you will see Adam; when you see your Mother that bear your spirit, you will see Mother Eve.(The Essential Brigham Young [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992] pp 96-97, 99 -this is a reprint of the JOD sermon) All bolded emphasis is mine.
Also check out JOD 1:50, 6:275, and 9:148.
Mods, if you decide to delete the quotes/summary that is fine as I realize it has nothing to do with the topic. I only ask that the book references be left in so Mr. Cluff can educate himself. Thanks.
GSwarthout…unlike the BoM we can refer to the orignal languages in Scripture to help sort out meaning. The Greek word “metatithemi” is used in verse 12 which is defined principally in Strong’s as “to transpose (two things, one of which is put in place of the other)” I think the context is clear that the Aaronic order has been set aside and the Melchisedec order has replaced it.
Secondly, the concept of priesthood of the believer has reference to the Old Covenant order of priests who were placed between God and the people. Our High Priest (Jesus) has made the way for us and we each have full access to God without needing any mediator other than Him. This is borne out in Hebrews 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; 21 And having an high priest over the house of God; 22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
GS,
Matt 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,…
All you have to do is read the whole thing my brother.
By the way, don’t get hung up on just chapter 5 of Hebrews. Try reading chapter 8, the exact point is written there.
W/LOVE
Dear LDSTitanic,
a good treatment of the LDS position on the priesthood is this article.
How do Latter-day Saints support the doctrine of Melchizedek Priesthood authority from the Bible?
James A. Carver, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Jan. 1986, 54
Mike Bennion
The Greek word “metatithemi” is used in verse 12 (of Heb 7) means “of-being-transferred” according to scripture4all.org.
I think the context is clear and the translation correct, that the Aaronic order was CHANGED, not eliminated.
After reading some (but not all, yet) of the posts here it is apparent that there is some question about who/what is the Biblical Jesus.
Critics of the Mormons claim that Mormons don’t believe in the Biblical Jesus because they don’t believe in the Trinity. Yet the term “trinity” is nowhere found in the Bible. (What happened to “sola scritptura”?)
The Mormons claim that they do believe in the Biblical Jesus, but not the concept of God as described in the doctrine of the Trinity.
Could one of you many critics of the Mormons answer three simple questions for me? (Of course, if you supply Biblical support for your answers they will carry more weight with all on this forum).
1) Do you believe that Jesus Christ was resurrected to a physical body of flesh and bones and thus returned to life?
2) Do you believe that Jesus Christ currently has a physical body of flesh and bones and is alive?
3) Do you believe that Jesus Christ will forever have a physical body of flesh and bones and live?
GB, I would encourage you to call the Dividing Line with James White and see if he concurs with your interlinear interpretation of Hebrews 7:12. I will admit that I don’t have a solid background in Greek, but I will check with my pastor who has many years in Greek and see what he has to say and post his response on the Fo-Mo Chronicles.
In the meantime…From the New Testament biblical record who in the church holds the levitical priesthood? None of the apostles are ever mentioned as holding a Levitical priesthood as their source of authority. In fact, when Paul defends his apostleship in 1 Corinthians he makes no mention at all of the levitical priesthood. In the pastoral epistles (1 Tim, 2 Tim, Titus) we see the qualifications for being an elder, and yet we see no mention of the levitical priesthood much less the Melchizidek priesthood. If that were really vital to being an elder such that the lack of it negates a church from being a “true” church and disqualifies any ordinances performed without it, you would think it would warrant mention in these key verses spelling out the qualifications to be an elder.
Examine the New Testament forwards and backwards and you will find no sign of the apostles claiming authority because of the Levitical priesthood. Smith “restored” a priesthood to the church that was never there in the first place. Indeed I would hazard to say that at least in the case of young John and fisherman Peter, they never held the Levitical priesthood at all and there is no record of them receiving it, so how would their ghosts have passed it on to Smith and Cowdery?
Let me see if you or GSwarthout or cluff knows the answer to these two questions: what was the purpose of the Levtical priesthood and what need is there for it under the New Covenant administration?
Andrea:
It seems like you are asking me to defend something I don’t believe.
I am a practicing Mormon, and I don’t believe that Adam is God the Father. I could be wrong, BY may know something I don’t but I don’t believe it.
It is not taught anywhere in the LDS Church today. The only time I hear it, it is from an aunt eye Mormon source.
I went to 4 years of early morning Seminary and graduated – nothing.
I went on a mission for 2 years, baptised 50 people – nothing.
I graduated from institute at BYU – nothing.
I took 9 extra credits of religion at BYU – nothing.
I took tons of grief for the 9 extra credits from Mormon Coffee posters – nothing.
Ahh – but I DO remember reading about it in the aunt eye Mormon tracts they handed me when I went up to campus. They had to stand off campus, and the garbage can recepticles for their materials were ON campus.
I would like you to defend something like that in Christianity. Lets see..
All the Catholic nuns are married to Christ, right? Christ is now a polgymst then right? Now can I reject Chrisianity?
Unless you can defend that belief, I will never become a Christian like you. It doesn’t matter that you don’t believe it– you still have to defend it. The Pope still teaches it, and he should be a credible source for all Christians.
Now I am going to bring it up with every Christian I see, just so I can justify not being a Christian myself.
A little off, right?
Cluff,
“All the Catholic nuns are married to Christ, right? Christ is now a polgymst then right? Now can I reject Chrisianity?
Unless you can defend that belief, I will never become a Christian like you. It doesn’t matter that you don’t believe it– you still have to defend it. The Pope still teaches it, and he should be a credible source for all Christians.”
Cluff, first your argument is silly because you are comparing two things that are completely dissimilar. The suggestion that nuns being celibate and being “brides of Christ” means that Jesus was polygamous is intentionally offensive. I disagree vehemently with the orders of nuns in Rome, but to say that women giving up married life to serve Christ is analogous to a dogmatic statement on a doctrinal issue from a self-proclaimed prophet is ridiculous.
Second, the pope is not a credible source for all Christians, the pope doesn’t speak for me or any other Protestant. To be a mormon one must affirm the man who holds the office of the President of the mormon church as a “prophet, seer and revelator” which leaves one very little wiggle room when that man speaks on a matter of doctrine.
Any thoughts on my question regarding the Levictical priesthood?
Maybe you should ask for a refund on those nine extra credit hours, it seems you didn’t get much out of them…
Mike, what is your take on the article from the Ensign that you shared with us? I read it and was reminded once again, this time by the author of the article, that the Bible is missing some key LDS doctrines.
As the article states, “The knowledge of an order of the Melchizedek Priesthood has faded from the biblical text.”
Since the Bible is missing the key doctrines on the order of the Melchizedek Priesthood, the article in the Ensign provided one of the more bizarre interpretations I have seen on two passages in Scripture that are problematic for their view of a need for a priesthood function in the church apart from Jesus.
First of all, their interpretation of Scripture would have us believe that the “rock” referred to in Matthew 16:18 is “the rock of revelation” even though the passage is talking about the foundation of the church and uses a play on words with Peter (petros which means ‘a little rock’) and Jesus said He would build His church upon “this Rock” (Petra/bedrock), meaning He would build the church upon Himself. I do not know how a person arrives at the idea that He meant “rock of revelation” except through imposing their pre-conceived view on the Scriptures (eisegesis).
Looking at I Peter 2:4-9 we see that Peter got Jesus’ meaning loud and clear and that’s why he informed the believers (continuing with the rock word play) that they were “lively stones,” built upon the chief corner stone, which is Christ, and that Christ is precious to those who believe, but He is a “rock of offence” to those who “stumble at the word…”
Peter went on to explain to the believers that they were “a holy priesthood” (v.5) and “a royal priesthood (v.9)…”
The key doctrine on the NT priesthood can be found in Hebrews, I Peter 2:5&9, and Rev. 1:6. Believers in Christ are priests with direct access to God through Christ’s atonement. Christ is our High Priest. There is no need for OT priests in the new covenant.
(cont)
The article went on to try to explain how Hebrews 7 does not exclude Mormons from holding office in the Melchizedek priesthood because the word “unchangeable” in Hebrews 7:24 does not mean it cannot be transferred.
The article does not explain where the Melchizedek priesthood was ever conferred upon humans.
The article does point out that Melchizedek was a type of Christ which I agree with, but it does not explain how Mormons meet the criteria for being a part of the Melchizedek priesthood.
As Berean pointed out, no one can possibly meet the criteria for this priesthood except Christ (Hebrews 7:3&26).
For the benefit of our Mormon readers who like answers more than unsubstantial one-liners, I will continue to give thorough, simple answers the best I can with the Holy Spirit’s guidance.
When the veil of the temple was torn in two at the crucifixion, what does that mean? Christ, our perfect sacrifice, now replaced animal sacrifices for forgiveness of sins – our atonement (Hebrews chapters 9 & 10). We now have complete access to the Father because of what Jesus did for us. The Levitical priesthood was now obsolete.
Mormons can argue night and day about the Melchizedek priesthood. If one cannot prove that Jesus gave this priesthood to the apostles, then they can’t give believers something they don’t have. Nobody meets the qualifications for the Melchizedek (as has been referenced above). Melchizedek has no traceable geneaology. I encourage Mormons to do a study on Melchizedek outside of LDS comfort zones to learn more about him to understand the Biblical text better. We all know how important Abraham was in the OT. He owned the priesthood. Abraham recognized that Melchizedek had a higher authority than he did (Heb 7:7).
No, I’m not going out on a limb here. Christ was and is all-powerful. He was the “Mighty God” (Isa 9:6) at the Virgin Birth. At an LDS ward priesthood meeting I was informed that Jesus was NOT the “Mighty God” when He was born. Jesus had the Melchizedek before the Virgin Birth (Psa 110:4) and sustained it throughout (Heb 5:5-6). This is another reason why Mormons are disqualified.
What authority did Christ give the disciples and all believers who are his children (John 1:12)? It’s in the Great Commission – Matthew 28:19-20. Evidence of a priesthood of believers? Yes, in 1 Peter 2:9 & Revelation 1:5-6.
By Mormons taking on a priesthood (Aaronic & Melchizedek) that they are not qualified for and have no authority, are more reasons why they don’t fit the Biblical definition of “Christian”.
Why the hostility towards Martin Luther? Mormon Apostle Russell Ballard had nice things to say about him:
“We owe much to the many brave martyrs and reformers like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Huss who demanded freedom to worship and common access to the holy books.” (Ensign, May 2007)
Actually, the Mormons already believe that Christ is a polygamist:
“Next let us inquire whether there are any intimations in Scripture concerning the wives of Jesus…it is necessary that He should have one or more wives by whom He could multiply His seed, not for any limited period of time, but forever and ever. If all the acts of Jesus were written, we no doubt should learn that these beloved women [Mary, and Martha her sister, and Mary Magdalene] were his wives.” (Orson Pratt, “The Seer”, p. 159)
“It will be borne in mind that once a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be discovered that no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married his intimacy with Mary and Martha, and the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the best of it. Object not, therefore, too strongly against the marriage of Christ.” (Orson Hyde, JOD, Vol.4:257)
“Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas. He [Jesus], according to Cephas, had a numerous train of wives. A belief in the doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and His followers. We might almost think they were Mormons.” (Jedediah Grant, JOD, Vol.1:341)
Heavenly Father is a polygamist too:
“We have now clearly shown that God the Father had a plurality of wives, one or more being in eternity, by whom He begat our spirits as well as the spirit of Jesus His First Born” (Orson Pratt, “The Seer”, p.172)
These are more reasons why Mormons are not Christians!
Cluff,
That you have not studied BY’s claim to Adam/God is really the point.
He said it, at least the JoD says he did. It is published in LDS materials even fairly recently that he said it. And you know nothing of it, except that us on the outside like to throw it out to you guys.
I don’t want to focus on this one issue directly, but rather demonstrate this as an example as to why we on the outside do not think of you as Christians. One of your prominent leaders is recorded as saying that Adam is OUR god. Rather than say he was wrong, you sweep it under the rug
With these nuggets still out there, is it any wonder why we view your take as heretic?
Berean…could you clarify what constitutes an “unsubstantial one-liner?” Surely you are not suggesting that unless we use 6,000 words our posts have no substance. I’m hoping I was tired and misread that…
Arthur said:
“Cluff, first your argument is silly because you are comparing two things that are completely dissimilar.”
You say this regularly, because you seem to miss my point on a regular basis. Yes, they are similar in an important way, perhaps the only way.
Adam being our God is an off the wall concept once taught by a Mormon authority figure that I don’t happen to agree with.
In a similar fashon, Christ being married to every Catholic Nun is an off the wall concept taught by a Christian authority figure that you may not agree with.
So, your asking me to defend the first concept is JUST like me asking you to defend the latter.
They ARE the same with regard to the point I am attempting to make. Why must you make it difficult by being so obtuse?
In that light you arguments fall flat. You don’t answer to the Pope? Well I don’t answer to BY either. He lived over 100 years ago. You just make my point for me.
When President Monson mentions that Adam IS in fact our God and my salvation depends on my understanding his true identity, then it will matter. Go find another stupid concept to harp on. (Please).
On the Levitical Priesthood:
Christ made a point to recognize the authority that John the Baptist had as a Levite and a holder of the Levitical Priesthood. How? By going out of his way to be baptized by him. If the Levitical priesthood was being replaced, he wouldn’t need to do that, right? Is that enough Biblical evidence?
I prefer to recognize the event that occured on May 15, 1829. That is when John the Baptist himself appeared to JS to confir the Aaronic priesthood for our use in this dispensation. That is all the evidence I need. It is still an active priesthood.
Cluff,
Do you deny, then, BY’s authority in the church? He’s the one who made the call on Adam.
See, we over here do not think the Pope has ANY authority. Some do, but that’s irrelevant to us. Arguing so confuses the issue.
If you wish to deny the authority Young had, we can talk. Otherwise, your comparison is not valid.
That you don’t agree with Young on the matter is a side issue. It is that he was your prophet, and spoke in this sermon as a prophet, that is relevant because it raises this important question:
How much do you have to believe your prophet and why or why not? If you can pick and choose based tn loose standards, his authority doesn’t carry much weight, don’t you think?
Cluff…you do make me laugh my friend. Have you never read that the church as a whole is the “bride of Christ?” I think it is just silly to take that metaphor and try to say that a nun truly believes she is becoming a polygamous wife of our Savior. Please document that from the Magisterium (you will be quite some time looking for a source).
Secondly, John the Baptist did not serve in the Temple although he was qualified. He would not have qualified to be the High Priest however. I challenge any Mormon to ask a Jew how many high priests there were at one time. With a few exceptions due to human arrogance the High Priest was a direct son of Aaron as per the Law of Moses. Here is a listing of them until the Temple was destroyed. After the Temple was destroyed they had no need for one since SACRIFICES could not be offered. Again the TOTAL lack of evidence for anyone being ordained to a priesthood in the Gospels and in the BoM says to me that this is something Joseph came up with after he wrote the BoM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_High_Priests_of_Israel
Michael P:
Interesting arguments. I don’t doubt that BY had authority, its just that this particular concept is irrelevant to us.
It’s like God living on Kolob. I think that is one that I can accept. How is that relevant to my salvation? It is a point of trivia.
What is relevant to salvation is that the priesthood authority was restored via JS, and that the principles of savlation are clarified and taught correctly. Let find a quote by BY on those topics to debate.
The principles of salvation are: Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, and laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. Now those principles are taught in the Mormon Church.
Are you trying to avoid those concepts by bringing up the Adam God theory? I have tryed to debate the theory using contextual arguments, because the common conclusions people make from the JoD record are in error. But that is a hard sell. No buyers on this blog. I find the better argument is that none of it is relevant.
You used the same approach above with the Pope:
“Some do, but that’s irrelevant to us.” I can buy that. We could begin to debate when the Pope lost his authority, and was Peter the first Pope. Do you accept Peter? It is better just to push the idea to irrelevant status. It the Pope never had any authority, how could protestants have authority? Don’t open that topic.
Cluff,
You seem to be missingmy argument.
Let me start by answering your questions. I do not accept Peter as a pope, and no pope has had any more authority than any other in relation to accessing God.
The pope’s claimed authority had direct relation to the reformation because the reformers saw the pope’s authority as false. This supports our argument that we each have direct and equal access to God without a heirarchy to get to him.
Bottom line: it matters not, on a level of authority, what the pope says.
Contrast this to your belief in the president. You view the president as your prophet and the one who leads your church. He gets revelation directly from God, and when he does so, his pronouncements are then held by the LDS as true.
When they speak from a position of authority, as the case in hand was, it is the understanding that such pronouncements should be held as the standard. Yet, this is not the case here, and begs the question, which was not answered by you, of when and why you accept comments from your presidents as doctrines.
The issue is that you can deny the commandments made by your leaders as opinion in some instances but still regard him as a prophet of God, even when his opinion was given in the context of speaking of God.
And I’ll also ask this again: have you ever read the Adam/God sermon?
CLuff,
“Christ made a point to recognize the authority that John the Baptist had as a Levite and a holder of the Levitical Priesthood. How? By going out of his way to be baptized by him. If the Levitical priesthood was being replaced, he wouldn’t need to do that, right? Is that enough Biblical evidence?”
Well no, because that is not Biblical evidence. Water baptism by immersion is not a function of the levitical priesthood. That is completely off the mark. Try to stay focused here, the issue at hand is the role of the levitical priesthood and the need for a continuing levitical priesthood in spite of the lack of Biblical command or example of the aforementioned priesthood being continued. So let me ask again, what is the role of the levitical priesthood (and it is NOT water baptism, the rites of Judaism and Christianity are different in intent and doctrine) and what need is there for a continuation of the levitical priesthood under the New Covenant administration of Christ as High Priest?
I have more thoughts, but I gotta run because a couple of missionaries are coming over in five minutes to tell us about mormonism.
Arthur Sido,
Who is James White that I should believe any thing he says?
All,
I see that my one of my earlier posts didn’t actually make it.
Since there is much discussion here about the Biblical Jesus, I would ask three simple questions.
1) Do you believe that Jesus Christ was resurrected to a physical body of flesh and bones and thus returned to life?
2) Do you believe that Jesus Christ currently has a physical body of flesh and bones and is thus alive?
3) Do you believe that Jesus Christ will forever have a physical body of flesh and bones and thus forever live?
Please support your answers with scripture as much as you can.
GB,
“Who is James White that I should believe any thing he says?”
You are responding to a statement I made on another thread (the “questions” thread) In response, let me ask you. Who is Thomas Monson that I should believe anything he says? Just an old guy who became prophet because he outlives other old guys? Since I reject the whole story of ghosts restoring a priesthood that the men they are alleged to represent never held, Monson is just another guy.
I assume that means that you are unable to addresss anything Dr. White has written, or you have never bothered to engage it at all. He is one of the preeminent Christian apologists out there, someone with a in-depth knowledge of the original languages and a world class knowledge of other belief systems. You should read some of his material. I have read some of Nibley’s stuff, even own a few of his books. The point is that Cluff, speaking about Nibley said: “Most will not care to look it up at all because they have already made up their minds.” My point is that mormons are at least as guilty of this because they avoid any non-faith affirming material like the plague. Most people witnessing to mormons have read quite a bit of the original material from prophets and interact with it, but many mormon apologists refuse to deal with the arguments made by Christians, dismissing them out of hand.
GB,
You ask questions that don’t really matter as pertinent to your salvation or to the discussion of biblical Christianity. I used to think those questions meant something, too, and that by saying “yes” to them meant I was somehow enlightened. I don’t think we can even begin to fathom what Christ looks like right now and when He appears in all His glory. Like the song says: “I can only imagine what my eyes will see when your face is before me.” The real questions are these: “Do you believe that Jesus Christ was crucified on the cross at Calvary for your sins and that He rose the third day? Do you believe that you are justified by your faith, and that anything you could ever do in the way of works does not earn your salvation or enhance upon the Work of the Person of Jesus Christ? In other words, what Jesus did on the cross was sufficient to save you. Do you believe this? Do you believe in grace, and that it is free, and that salvation is a gift and not anything to earn? All we have to do is receive it. Do you believe this? These are the questions pertinent to this thread. These are the questions that any person must answer in the affirmative if they want to enter God’s presence for eternity. The questions you pose are not necessary to salvation, but are merely incidental to the nature of Jesus Christ. In posing such questions, Mormons shy away from the real questions that identify a Christian. We don’t need to be able to answer your questions, but it is necessary that anyone who seeks salvation can answer the questions I posed with a resounding YES!
Arthur Sido,
I am responding to a statement you made on THIS thread.
You say, “but many mormon apologists refuse to deal with the arguments made by Christians, dismissing them out of hand.”
LOL!!! Talk about having ones head in the sand.
Apparently you are unaware of this article written by two evangelical scholars.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3803/is_199810/ai_n8808757/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1
LDSSTITANIC,
I wasn’t referring to you, my brother in Christ. That comment was directed at our Mormon friend, GSWarthout, who just gives one-liners or four word answers that are unsubstantial to the points that I was making in my discussion with him. My posts have been in response to his as noted above.
Short posts are great if you can get in all that you want to say. I maximize and like to go into depth with my positions. That’s just me. I can write a short post, too. Your posts are great. Keep up the good work!
Jackg: Do you believe that you are justified by your faith, . . . .
GB: The Bible says; James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father JUSTIFIED BY WORKS, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
• • •
24 Ye see then how that BY WORKS A MAN IS JUSTIFIED, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot JUSTIFIED BY WORKS, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
Jackg: . . . and that anything you could ever do in the way of works does not earn your salvation . . . .
GB: I believe we are saved by grace, after all we can do.
Jackg: In other words, what Jesus did on the cross was sufficient to save you.
GB: Rom 2:6 (God) will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
Jackg: Do you believe in grace, . . .?
GB: Yes!
GB,
Thanks for the link to the article that was published in 1998. I’m afraid this research is a bit behind the times though.
Evangelicals have really stepped up their efforts in the past ten years in order to interact with the research of FARMS and FAIR.
In addition to all the very scholarly articles done by MRM, please see a scholarly response from evangelical apologists to a FARMS critique of their research:
http://www.lhvm.org/critique.htm
It appears Mormon scholars are not addressing some of the critical questions raised by evangelical apologists.
Sorry Mods, this was a bit off-topic for the thread, but I was responding to GB’s accusation that we have our heads in the sand.
Michael P must be channeling me! You are correct in the point I was making with Adam/God and went further down my line of thinking too. Thanks!
Okay cluff. Here’s the deal: the pope is the authoritative voice for Catholicism -we are not Catholics. The prophet is the authoritative voice for Mormonism -we are not Mormons. Do you see what Arthur was saying?
Secondly, you say that accepting Adam/God is not relevant to your salvation. Again, let me quote the JoD. (Please remember this sermon was given in the SLC Tabernacle -that sounds pretty authoritative to me.)
“When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken-He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. …
“[Jesus] was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. …
“Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.
Please please please read this sermon before you say another word on it. You can even read it online here.
Thank you mods!
GB,
“I am responding to a statement you made on THIS thread.You say, “but many mormon apologists refuse to deal with the arguments made by Christians, dismissing them out of hand.”
LOL!!! Talk about having ones head in the sand.
Apparently you are unaware of this article written by two evangelical scholars.”
My comment that referenced James White was on a different thread. “The works of people like James White, Bill McKeever, the tireless research of Sandra Tanner. What have you studied of their works?” from the questions thread. I think you may be getting a little confused.
As far as the article, I am not familiar with it but I do have Owen and Mosser’s book (along with Richard Mouw) “The New Mormon Challenge” which makes many of the same points as that article. I respectfully disagree with Mssr. Owen and Mosser in many regards. I have found some apologetic material aimed at mormons to be not terribly useful and perhaps even harmful, like the Godmakers series. As a whole however mormon apologetic material typically focuses on personalities instead of facts. Linking back to JessicaJoy’s comment there are a number of Christian scholars that haave addressed the work of FARMS and other attack dog apologetic groups. Here is an example of one from Bill McKeever:
http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2789327/k.B39F/JAM502.htm Stuff from FARMS sounds very scholarly until you start to dig into their claims.
I also noticed that, like Cluff, you leave out verses when quoting scripture. In this case you leave out verses 22-23 of James 2
You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”–and he was called a friend of God. (James 2:22-23)
I am sure that was merely an oversight on your part, but coupled with the rest of James in context and Romans 4 & 5 we see that man is justified by faith alone.
Andrea, Arthur and Michael P:
You each fell into my trap nicely. Loudly insisting that you are not catholics and the Pope is not your authoritive voice. You don’t believe what catholics believe? Christ is NOT a polygamst just because nuns are married to him?
OK then, are Catholics Christian? That IS the topic of this thread. You seem to have some significant differences with the some points of Catholic theology.
This smells like a double standard. You pick and choose the catholic doctrines you agree with when you define the term. Convenient.
This smells like a double standard. You pick and choose the Mormon doctrines you disagree with when you define the term. (Church lady tone now) Convenient.
You are quickly loosing credibility with me now. I hate double standards. They smell of hypocrisy.
hy·poc·ri·sy
a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
YOU CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. Either Mormons and Catholics BOTH are not Christian, or they both should be included.
Put that in you cynical pipe and smoke it.
Arthur said:
“Well no, because that is not Biblical evidence. Water baptism by immersion is not a function of the levitical priesthood. That is completely off the mark.”
So it was just a coincidence that John the Baptist was a Levite? Another pretty big coincidence that Levites perform baptisms in the Jewish religion? A third big coincidence that Christ sought out this obsolete an unimportant ordinance?
If Christ was the only High Priest why didn’t he just go baptise himself? He made it a point, in fact God the Father spoke at the time, IF you belive the Bible. He RECOGNISED the valid priesthood authority of a Levite. Deal with it man. Hollow– without pristhood authority that is what is left. A hollow shell of a religion. You cling to it like the bottom of an overturned boat. Grasping wildly for a grip.
Here is your grip. John the Baptist RESTORED the missing Levitical, the Aaronic priesthood to JS on May 29, 1829.
You turned in your valid baptism for a hollow shell. Good move Sherlock.
I am so disappointed that we have to hash through the same issues over and over. Bottom line is we will never agree on certain issues because the Bible leaves the valid points in either direction.
I was hoping that we would evaluate some of the early Christian authorities (other than the Bible) to see what they had to say. If there were really “plain and precious truths” left out/removed then we would at least see some hint in their writings. I realize that if they are present, one could just say they were preaching false doctrine, but at least it would confirm that JS didn’t just make this stuff up.
If any of my brethren would help me with this, that would be great. This thread doesn’t have much time left, I assume. Let’s try these for starters. Origen, Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Clement, etc.
What did they say about the PreMortal Life, Priesthood, Continuing Revelation, The Trinity etc.? I do think it a courtesy it to our Christian brothers/sisters to give some light on what these early leaders talked about. Courtesy not obligation. We are obligated to testify. Which hopefully is being done in a Christlike manner. The Church is true (sorry Sido, I know it isn’t spectacular and sounds repetitive) and we can never prove that. But citation to our early Christian brethren may be helpful. I have also been delving into CS Lewis. Although I don’t rely on him for doctrine, his teaching sound familiar. I can’t believe he wasn’t cast out (Christianity) long ago. His doctrine sounds like my Elders quorum class.
Cluff: who are your relatives? BYU ties? What about recent musicians?
I will get the ball rolling with a basic foundation of the necessity of LIVING prophets and apostles.
Origen
“Therefore we may see, that after the advent of Jesus the Jews were altogether abandoned, and possess now none of what were considered their ancient glories, so that there is NO INDICATION OF ANY DIVINITY ABIDING AMONG THEM. For they have NO LONGER PROPHETS OR MIRACLES, traces of which to a considerable extent are still found among Christians, and some of them more remarkable than any that existed among the Jews; and these we ourselves have witnessed, if our testimony may be received.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04162.htm
Remember painfully studying for the SAT’s? Here goes.
Mormons are to Christians as Christians are to Jews. Why? Living prophets. Origen used this as criteria #1 as evidence to the Jews that Divinity no longer rested upon them and had shifted to the Christians. That should stir up the pot a bit.
Cluff, you make no sense.
I do not think the pope is authoritative, and I do not believe everything the Catholics believe, but I do share many of the beliefs. But this is a distraction, since you DO recognize the authority and all beliefs of your presidents, or at least you should. He is afterall, god’s voice on earth and his pronouncements are binding on your church.
This is very different from my relationship to the pope.
Do you understand this difference?
Because it is key to understanding this criticism of your faith.
And I’ll tell you one thing, your argument makes no sense to me.
As to Catholics being Christian: I’d say they are. They do have some different takes on things, and come dangerously close to heresy on some, but they recognize the trinity as 3-in-1, the virgin birth, and that Christ is the only way to salvation. Areas where they are close to heresy are (not all inclusive) that Christ shows himself in the church, prayer through the saints, and recognition of the pope as Christ’s live representative on earth.
These are not issues if Christ is indeed the focus, but become problematic when the focus is on the rosary or St. John, for example, rather than Christ.
Shall we contrast these critiques with Mormonism? Let’s start with this: who do Catholics say Jesus is and who do Mormons say Jesus is?
Do you want to do this? Remember when considering the above that Christianity, through all its differences, retains several things that are core and essential. These remain in Catholicism, even though there are some distinct differences.
So, do you want to go here?
BTW, why is it that you can pick and choose which doctrines given by your prophet are authoritative (a question that remains unanswered)?
Arthur Sido,
One more time since you apparently can’t remember what you have posted on THIS thread!!
On the 12th you posted on THIS thread, and I quote; “GB, I would encourage you to call the Dividing Line with James White and see if he concurs with your interlinear interpretation of Hebrews 7:12.”
To which I responded “Who is James White that I should believe any thing he says?”
Perhaps you should see a doctor about your memory issues.
Since you seem to think “that man is justified by faith alone”, I did a search of the Bible on “faith” and “alone”, and the only verse that has both “faith” and “ alone” is James 2: 17. And just so you don’t accuse me of trying to hide something I will quote enough verses to provide context.
James 2:17 Even so FAITH, if it hath not works, is dead, being ALONE.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father JUSTIFIED BY WORKS, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how FAITH WROUGHT WITH HIS WORKS, AND BY WORKS WAS FAITH MADE PERFECT?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by WORKS A MAN IS JUSTIFIED, and NOT BY FAITH ONLY.
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot JUSTIFIED BY WORKS, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
And so we see that man is justified by faith AND WORKS, for “FAITH, if it hath not WORKS, is DEAD”!!!
GB,
As usual, a Mormon is dedicated to proclaiming a works-righteousness theology despite the fact that grace is the theme of the New Testament. It seems that Mormons just want to be able to brag about how righteous they are by what they are able to do. It’s very sad, indeed. By the tone of your comments to some of the Christians, here, it is clear that you are not ready to receive the grace God is offering you. The “after all we can do” clause from the BOM is false doctrine perpetrated on a people by a false prophet named Joseph Smith. The works that James refers to is evidence of our faith in Jesus Christ. Mormons present a backwards theology in perpetrating the lie that our works justify us. James is basically talking about genuine faith versus empty faith. If one is a Christian believer, just professing to be is not evidence. Works come after justification to prove our faith, but they are not prerequisite to salvation because prior to faith in Jesus Christ we can’t even enter into this discussion. So, works are evidence of our faith and an expression of God’s grace in our lives through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit as evidenced by the fruits of the Spirit. Works are evidence not justification; our faith justifies us.
It is very sad that you do not believe Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was not sufficient to save you. Good luck trying to save yourself through your works. Your low view of Christ is an abomination before God and requires that you repent of it. Here’s something to think about: “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith’” (Romans 1:16-17); and, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God”
(cont)
cont’d
(Romans 5:21). Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us. Everything is centered in Christ. Sadly, your leaders are anti-God and proclaim a man-centered gospel. Jesus Christ died for you, GB. There is nothing you can do to save yourself. All our works are nothing but filthy rags. They only earn us death; in fact, that is what we deserved. But, God, in His grace, wants to reconcile us to Himself, and that work was finished in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. He is mighty to save despite the fact that you don’t believe it. And, that is the gospel of Jesus Christ, a message of “good news” and hope to a lost and fallen humanity.
GRC,
I didn’t know it was proven that John the Baptist was a Levite. Where do you get your information? Besides, what really matters is that we are a priesthood of believers as has been so eloquently attested to by other Christians on this blog. It is a priesthood to minister in the name of Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. I am a part of this royal priesthood as is EVERY CHRISTIAN BELIEVER, MALE AND FEMALE ALIKE! Your insistence on the priesthood of the Mormon Church is a losing battle in light of Peter’s words, the same Peter whose name Jesus used as a play on words when revealing that He, Jesus, was the Rock on which He would build His Church. Peter understood this, otherwise we would not have 1 Peter 2: 4-12. Jessica Joy is spot on with her explanation. But, if you want to push the “revelation” envelope, the revelation to which Jesus refers to is the revelation that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. The fact that they walked with Jesus and witnessed His miracles and received His teachings first hand did not cause Peter to cry out that He was the Messiah, it was revelation from God. This is specific revelation that is the foundation for a testimony of Jesus Christ; it is not general revelation that you want to attach to your Church leaders who are false prophets. They are teaching you false doctrine as they set themselves up as authorities over you in a system that discourages you and all Mormons from questioning their utterances. It is all very sad, and I continue to pray for you and for all Mormons that you might all receive the grace of God offered to you through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross.
Time to move on. Thanks, all.