Sacred Taxonomy

Every now and then I hear a frustrated Mormon express something like this:

“Why are other churches so threatened by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Other churches even have classes against us! My Church would never do that. My Church never says anything negative about other churches.”

Apart from the fact that the LDS Church has and continues to say negative things about non-Mormon churches and beliefs, I’d like to attempt to explain, via a sort of parable, the Christian churches’ manifest evaluation of Mormonism (and other faith systems).

The Parable of the Mushroom Societies

A certain group of people loved mushrooms. They gathered together and formed a Mushroom Society. They frequently went into the woods, two by two, to hunt and gather mushrooms, later preparing meals and enjoying them together. Because some mushrooms were edible and some toxic, the Mushroom Society took great care to study mushroom characteristics, to learn to identify different species, and to understand how to prepare mushrooms for safe consumption. The society grew and flourished.

Across the county another mushroom enthusiast decided to form a similar mushroom society of his own. He talked to many people and invited them to join him in the new society he had founded: The One True Mushroom Society. While this society enjoyed mushrooms, there was only one variety they found acceptable – the cultivated white button mushroom. All other mushroom varieties were labeled bad. The One True Mushroom Society believed and taught that all other mushroom varieties were, in fact, toxic. Therefore, the only mushrooms the members of the society needed to know about were the white button mushrooms. So they grew their own mushrooms and took turns harvesting and eating them. They enjoyed their mushrooms, but they never learned anything about the hundreds of other edible mushrooms that were available – and delicious.

This simple parable should not be taken too far. I’m trying to demonstrate one basic fact: According to the LDS Church, all other churches are wrong, their creeds are an abomination, and their professors are corrupt. If this is the message (and it is), why should any time be spent educating Mormons about other faiths? Since Mormon leaders insist that the LDS Church is the “One True Church,” Mormons are expected to just believe it; what other churches teach for truth doesn’t really matter; it is enough for Latter-day Saints to be taught to group all outsiders into one big classification labeled “false.”

In contrast to the LDS Church’s position that all other churches are wrong, most non-Mormon churches recognize and acknowledge that God is present and active in multiple denominations and churches. Yet some organizations, like Mormonism, deviate so far from the fundamental essentials of the historic Christian faith that they lead people away from Christ rather than toward Him. Therefore, one reason it is important for Christians to learn about different denominations, different doctrinal systems, and different faiths is so that they are better equipped to discern the true from the false, and the (theologically) good from the bad.

Thank you for tolerating my parable. I hope it has shed some light on a subject that generally thrives in the dark.

About Sharon Lindbloom

Sharon surrendered her life to the Lord Jesus Christ in 1979. Deeply passionate about Truth, Sharon loves serving as a full-time volunteer research associate with Mormonism Research Ministry. Sharon and her husband live in Minnesota.
This entry was posted in Christianity, Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry. Bookmark the permalink.

107 Responses to Sacred Taxonomy

  1. Martin_from_Brisbane says:

    MrGermit wrote “Martin: yeah, sure…..next you’ll be telling me that the infinite Man-God Jesus is all into using HIS power to……I dunno…….like maybe…..WASH FEET or something…”

    Thanks for the chuckle – it brightened up my lunch hour!

  2. Martin_from_Brisbane says:

    Amanda says “…The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints…”

    …who is quite different from the JESUS CHRIST of the Bible. The key word being “of”.

    Its not simply that the Jesus of Latter Day Saints is described in a different book. The LDS Jesus has different origins, different goals and, because he is an invention of the imaginings of LDS prophets, he morphs from time to time from one thing to another.

    “7Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. 8Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” (Heb 13:7-8, NIV).

    Heaven help you if you try to imitate Joseph Smith!

  3. Amanda says:

    Martin,

    I’m really bored with the same tired argument that the Jesus Christ of the Book of Mormon is not the Jesus Christ of the bible…that is an assertion based on your biases and personal interpretation of scripture–I read the bible too, ya know…and it effortlessly conjugates with the message in the Book of Mormon–what makes your position holier than mine? Are you claiming authority to interpret? Are you a prophet?

    The proof is in the pudding. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck…it’s a duck. Anyone who says the Church ‘OF’ Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not a faith that believes in the Jesus of the bible is L-Y-I-N-G.

    “Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.”

    YES. Jesus Christ called apostles in His day. Jehovah (Christs’ original name, for those Jehovah’s witnesses tuning in) called prophets and apostles. Jesus commanded that all must be baptized in order to receive eternal life (John 3: 3-5).. and this baptism is done through priesthood AUTHORITY by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:17-20)

    Do you have this gift, Martin? Are you claiming authority to speak for God on this matter? What makes your position more authoritative than ANY ONE ELSE who reads the bible? Furthermore, please explain to me how I do not have a relationship with the REAL Jesus…and provide detailed evidence about my personal life that supports this implied theory of yours. I’m curious if you would feel comfortable making such a judgment.

    I would appreciate DIRECT answers to my direct questions. I’m growing weary of the usual talking points. Surprise me with sincerity. If you side-step my genuine inquiries, I’ll just have to write you off entirely…nothing personal, it’s just that I really dislike the holier-than-thou facade, it’s quite irritating. Anyone who thinks they know the intimacies of my relationship with God is flattering themselves, to put it diplomatically.

    Let’s be real- let’s step down from the judgment seat for a few moments in order to make a genuine connection as children of God. I think He would want that.

    Good night 🙂

  4. Amanda says:

    THIS IS FOR EVERYONE:

    I’m only interested in sincere responses.

    I have heard time and time again on this website that I am not a real Christian because I believe in a different Jesus. Really?! This is OH– SO convenient! Because if I DO believe in the Jesus of the bible–and the BoM testifies of that same Jesus–then a few of you might have to eat humble pie–which hopefully will happen in this lifetime.

    My question is a very serious one. I know that I poke fun a lot, and am sarcastic at times–but this is a rare exception.

    It is easy to claim that I believe in a diff Jesus. Let’s prove it, shall we? Someone please prove to me, that I PERSONALLY do not believe in the Jesus of the Bible. I would like specific evidences that rationalize this ridiculous position. And no, don’t answer my question with other questions, or provide the same worn out generalizations that you learned in Sunday school…

    Let’s be ‘intellectually honest’–shall we GUNDECK?

    Look forward to your replies!

  5. David says:

    Amanda,

    “I guess when you are on the Lord’s errand, you can’t worry too much about what others think.”

    Exactly

    “-Christ’s reputation put Him on the cross…and it seems His work again is garnering a negative reputation. It’s almost a prerequisite for knowing you are doing the right thing…if others scorn you.”

    Kind of like the “negative reputation” we are getting.

    “Now if your religion is defined by negating the restored gospel..what exactly would you name that faith?”

    My religion is only in part (a small part) defined by negating your false gospel. I also negate the false gospel of the Watch Tower society and the false Jesus of Islam. I do state my faith in “positive” terms like I affirm the deity of Christ, salvation of God’s elect, and creedal baptism.

    “Are you getting your information from youtube?”

    So are you saying there was never a time when your church did not call Christian ministers hirelings of Satan in your temple ceremonies?

    “On what terms is believing a prophet of God weak? Let’s throw out the bible then! ”

    Believing a prophet is not weak. Being easily offended when people challenge his status as a prophet is.

    “that game is for those on here who are ‘ministering’. ”

    Then I take it you are ministering here as you have no problem telling us how to go about our business.

    “Calling people to repentance is what those with AUTHORITY do.”

    Since when has someone needed a badge to say ‘hey, quit sinning’? I challenge you to look at the lives of the OT saints. By what authority did David slay Goliath? By what authority did Ruel advise Moses? By what authority did Samson slay the Philistines? Who laid hands on Elijah, Gad, Zechariah, etc.?

    “The facts do not support this one bit! You want to distance yourself from the justification of slavery by ‘Christians’ in early American history!”

    What facts? Are you telling me that ideological groups (religious or otherwise) do not define themselves by who and what they are not? And what does slavery have to do with anything? I know that some Christians used the Bible to justify it as well as some used the Bible to abolish it. Are you saying that you do not want to distance yourself from Brigham Young’s racist comments.

    “Early Christians disagreed to their very core about doctrine that violence and politics ensued for CENTURIES! You cannot honestly be a student of history and claim that ‘mainstream Christianity’ doesn’t have its’ roots in conflict and heresy. You can’t even be sure which translation of the bible is the most accurate!”

    But all that just proves my point. They defined themselves by what they were not. They were not scared to call themselves Christian and the other side heretic.

    “LDS distances itself from other sects for obvious reasons…WE AREN’T THE SAME!”

    Oh so you say. But many of those polygamists will tell you that they are Mormon and that they are saints of these latter-days. There are indeed differences between them and you just like there are differences between you and me.

    “whereas the LDS church is absolutely accurate in distinguishing themselves from other religions! Ridiculous!”

    Yes, ridiculous! Show me the difference between what your doing and what I am doing. You want to distance yourselves from them just we want to distance ourselves from you.

    “Christ was a Jew who claimed to be the Savior of the world–and the mainstream Jews said “He is not the God of Abraham”.

    Mainstream Christians slam the restored gospel of Jesus Christ and say “you are not Christian”. You are really good at the irony stuff.”

    This is just a restatement of your position. Amanda, for the record I know you think your church is right. However, you challenge the right for a religious group to define who and what it is by also defining what is is not. The Nation of Islam may be the true Islam but if it is the rest of Islam is false. Just like your church may be true but if it is mine is false. And visa versa. They are indeed different.

  6. Megan says:

    Amanda, there are a few theological issues on here that I know we ALL get tired of going round and round on. But the reason they keep on popping up is because they are so important. You may be sick of hearing that you follow a different Jesus, but the thing is, there is no other theological point that is so important to discuss. Everything hinges on who Jesus truly is. Grace vs. Works, the nature of God, etc.; all of Christianity flows from who this Jesus guy is. So yes, this issue is going to keep on coming up. It is so central that we can not set it aside because we are tired of talking about it. I think we all have “discussion fatigue” of specific issues, but until we all reach agreement on them, they are going to continue to be discussed. And if you reply to me, would you please be kind by keeping your answer somewhat brief—thanks!

  7. David says:

    Amanda,

    First, if we were going to demonstrate to you that we believe that you believe in a false Jesus, it would first be necessary to establish that false Christs can and do exist. Jesus spoke of false Christs and false prophets (Matt 24:24) so they do exist. Our leaders have said that you have a different Jesus, And . . . your leaders have said the same thing.

    I can tell you that honestly we really do believe you have a false Jesus. We don’t just pull this one out for Mormon Coffee; it isn’t just “convenient” . We also refer to other Jesus’ as false. I have stated many times that Islam has an ahistorical, and thus false, Jesus. So it is not just you Amanda and it is not just Mormons.

    I do not think I can prove it to you but do know that we did not invent this “other Jesus” thing just for Mormons. You may not agree with it, but we (or at least I) really do see Mormonism as having a false prophet(s), a false Spirit, and a false Christ.

    I have honestly answered your questions. Please answer mine.

    Do you really believe we don’t believe that you have a false Christ? Do you even believe false Christs can exist? How different would your Jesus and my Jesus have to be before we call one false? Why is it so important for you that the other side call you “Christian”?Why do you believe that we have the same Jesus even though there are BoM passages that talk about two churches – the church of the Lamb and the church of the devil (supposedly mine)?

  8. rick b says:

    Amanda,
    I believe your the one who said this,

    “-Christ’s reputation put Him on the cross…

    That is simply not true, According to the Bible, it was Gods plan before the foundation of the earth, it was the fathers good will to crush the son. Jesus knew all His life that he was going to be crucifed, and it is through out the entire OT.

    Then Amanda, you say, please answer my Questions, I’m not avoiding them, I believe I have, if I am wrong then re ask them, so many people reply I miss stuff. But I can say honestly, many LDS Avoid questions.

    I can say honestly, I believe that LDS avoid questions because I have flat out said, LDS have avoided my questions so many times, that even fellow Christians have told me to give it a rest. So yes Amanda, your fellow brothers and sisters avoid questions like a plauge.

    Amanda, I am not trying to change the Subject, but you said you have the same Jesus as me, he is what your Prophet said and when your prophet speaks and says we will be dammed if we do not follow, then that means either he is lying, or God told him this.

    In the Journal of Discourses number 5 pg 203 Heber C Kimbal said this and I quote extra for context that some seem to feel people leave out.

    “Some quietly listen to those who speak against the lords servants, against his anointed, against the plurality of wives, and against almost every principle that god has revealed. Such persons have a half dozen devils with them all the time. YOU MIGHT AS WELL DENY “MORMONISM,” AND TURN AWAY FROM IT, AS TO OPPOSE THE PLURALITY OF WIVES. Let the presidency of this church, and the twelve apostles, and all the authorities unite and say with one voice that they will oppose that doctrine, and the whole of them would be damned. Also we read in vol 3 pg 266, where B Young said and I quote, “Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned. WOW B Young promises we will be damned if we stop this practice. I guess there will be many damned LDS, as the stopped doing this.

    Let me add this, it shows the god you believe in, who you claim to be the same God I believe in did speak and say the above quote to your prophet.

    D and C 132 1-3 2. Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter. So here we find it is “supposedly” of God. 3. Therefore ,prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; FOR ALL THOSE WHO HAVE THIS LAW REVEALED UNTO THEM MUST OBEY THE SAME. 4. for behold, I reveal unto you a new and everlasting covenant, then are ye damned;for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. I would like to point out some things here. First off in D and C 1:14 it says we must obey the lord, the apostles, and the prophets or we will be cut off.

    Amanda, as I get time I will post more things showing the God I serve is not the god you serve. Rick b

  9. Amanda says:

    David,

    I’m not suggesting that you aren’t on the Lord’s errand (with the exception of criticizing His restored gospel)-..whereas that is EXACTLY what is suggested time and time again on this website of LDS.

    you said, “we want to distance ourselves from you. ”

    LDS also distance our doctrine from that of mainstream Christianity…but it doesn’t accomplish anything to HARP on those differences..then infer personal judgments on those who are LDS regarding their eternal destinations and whether or not they personally believe in the Jesus of the bible! Make the distinctions when people are confused by the differences–all in all, the average person in western culture understands that the restored gospel is different from protestantism. This website is not about ministering, it’s about ‘distancing’..you said so yourself. Just look at the fruits–we go back and forth about our differences and hardly ever share or accept each other’s testimonies of the things we know are true. Any testimony I give of Jesus to anyone on this site would HAVE to be rejected for pride sake.

    You seem to think that the restoration of the FULLNESS of His gospel is a rejection of the pieces that you already believe in and accept. If the restored gospel is real then it doesn’t then mean you are attempting to assemble the wrong puzzle- you just didn’t have all the pieces and certainly deserve them!

    In contrast, mainstream Christians (on this site) outright claim that LDS are assembling an entirely different puzzle of a different Jesus. We are saying, “no really, here are the rest of the puzzle pieces…just TRY them!” And time and time again, it is rejected. And you are entitled to reject them! I don’t have a problem with you using your agency to make choices–only concern that you receive the same blessings I have through the restored gospel! Simply put, I can consider you a Christian and acknowledge your testimony as real–whereas you cannot do the same for me–because then that would legitimize the claim of the gospel. It’s a dichotomy that I believe you realize, which is why you are locked into asserting my non-Christian status. Everyone who reads the BoM or attends a worship service with us knows that is a lie.

    Christ died on the cross to save me from my sins, and that His purposes reach even further–to save families. It is all about families. Jesus was raised by a father and mother! The Abrahamic covenant was given to the posterity of Abraham! Gentiles can be adopted into this covenant! The spirit of Elijah is to turn the hearts of the children to their fathers–both temporal fathers and our Father in heaven (Malachi 4: 5-6). Where is Elijah in mainstream Christianity? What of birthrights and covenants? Where are those realized in the puzzle of mainstream Christianity? Without our families, our joy cannot be full! Those who accept the reality of His purposes on the cross can have those blessings!

  10. Rick B says:

    Amanda,
    A few more thoughts here.
    LDS claim we never talk trash about other faiths or people, Well I pointed out Wes K on the mormon hater show blog who claims to be a TBM does, then YOUR LDS PROPHETS said this.

    “B Young: “With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world” (Journal of Discourses 8:199). I quote 3rd president John Taylor (Brigham Young quotes Mr. Taylor) “Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell, the eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and kicked onto the earth” (J.O.D 6:176). I quote Heber C. Kimball “Christians-those poor, miserable priests brother Brigham was speaking about-some of them are the biggest whoremasters there are on the earth” (J.O.D 5:89).” then we can add the first vision by Joseph Smith. If God really did speak to him then he said all the Christian creeds are an abomtion in his sight.

    If this is the case how can you say you are Christians? Along this lines I would like to ask also, if you are Christians then why do you try and convert Christians to the Mormon faith if we all are Christians?

    OK, Now I will just post problems in general otherwise known as contradictions. But the problem with these is, either The Prophet Joseph Smith claims God told him or God himself said this stuff.

    Over in D and C 7 it teaches John the apostle was to live and preach till the lord returns. Read 3 NEPHI 28:6-7 It teaches the apostle John, Who walked with Jesus, Was told he will never die. Then over in ETHER 12:17 3 more disciples were also told they would never see death. Then read D and C 7:1-8 Ok now if this stuff is true there could never have been a total apostasy of the church, Because there were people who were living that had the gospel truth.

    1 NEPHI 1:8 It says ” I THOUGHT I SAW GOD” You either did see God or you did not, You cannot say I thought I saw God. Not only that but the Bible teaches no man can see God and live, Also over in D and C 84:19-22 Says if you do not have the priesthood you cannot see God and live. Here is another problem, When this guy said I thought I saw God, There is no mention of him having the priesthood. Also when Joseph Smith first had his vision and said he saw God, Then later said God came and baptized him he did not have the priesthood. So if Joseph Smith could see and talk with God then receive the priesthood, That means D and C 84 is wrong other wise the only other option is Joseph Smith lied. Either way someone lied.

    Now Amanda, I know some of this stuff I posted, you or other LDS will say, but that does not show a different God or different Jesus, But it does show a different Gospel and Paul speaks about that in Gal 1:8-9. Plus A different Gospel means a different Jesus and different God. So you or the other LDS can say what you want, but I answered your question very clearly with Scripture, I showed you we do not believe what you believe and you do have a different gospel and a different god.

    You can either explain how I am wrong, or do like many LDS do, dissaper for a time, till the topic gets buried then come back. Rick b

  11. SteveH says:

    RickB,

    To respond to your statement:

    “I can say honestly, I believe that LDS avoid questions”

    I and others have answered many of your questions (sometimes repeatedly). Unfortunately, it seems that you are simply not willing to acknowledge an answer that does not accord with your particular belief system.

  12. shematwater says:

    LET ME SAY A FEW THINGS ABOUT PRIESTHOOD AUTHORITY.

    The scriptures I gave put it very plainly that the Priestthood is the authority to act for god in presiding in the church and performing the ordinances of the Gospel. This found by a direct connection between Hebrews 5: 4 (where we are told that the authority, or honor, of a High Priest must be aquired in the same manner as Aaron received his authority) and 1 Samuel 2: 28 where it says that Aaron was apointed to act as a priest by God. Whether you choose to see it does not change the fact that it is there.

    In the entire list of verses given that refer to authority, I say few that dealt with the priesthood. Most were speaking of the secular authority of the government. Those that I did speak of priesthood authority generally were questions to Christ who did not answer them. Also, there are many places that do not use the term authority but are quite obviously speaking of authority. These would be times where it speaks of people being ordained, appointed, or chosen to fill a certain calling in the church.

    As to the descriptions of the different callings being different, I am not at all surprised. It was s different world, a different time. Do you know why Christ waited until he was 30 before he began his ministry? It was because, by Jewish Law one could not preach until one was thirty. By tradition one could not preach unless one was married. Of course they would have chosen from the older men those to fill these callings because doing so would make the work of spreading the gospel easier.

    However, after reading your references more fully I am even more convinced that the LDS church has it right. I assume that you are referencing the comments about having one wife when you are objecting to their age, which really doesn’t seem all that objectionable to me, as I pointed out the difference in the Secular Law at the time from ours.
    Also, all the verses that cite elders in Acts seem to point directly to the Orginization that the LDS church has. Elders presiding in each city, but the quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and the Seventy Elders presiding over the entire church from Jeruselum. When they went back to Jeruselem to settle disputes it was to the Apostles and the Elders, two distint groups. It was the Elders that were sent into the church to carry the discision of the councel to the members. This is exactly like the LDS church, the Apostles and the Seventy. Note the Seventy are Elders, and cannot be High Priests. Once they are called to be High Priests they are no longer part of the Seventy, as they are no longer elders.

    Your evidence seems to support my belief better than I could have hoped for.

  13. Amanda says:

    Rick,

    You claim that we truly do worship different Beings. If it HAS to be either/or–then you must consider the possibility that you worship a false God. I personally do not believe you do, simply because you haven’t accepted the fullness of His purposes yet. And you have yet to provide personal examples of my life that support your assertion! You just reference scripture–what of MY personal testimony? My relationship with God is personal–scripture cannot prove or disprove my personal choice in following Him. So please, prove to me that I do not follow Jesus Christ.

    Megan,

    HAHA! You adequately point out my Achilles heel. I certainly blather on and on. But you yourself said that it is an important matter–it is hard to sum up important matters in a few sentences, but I will try my utmost!

    I think there are some legitimate differences in what we believe Christ accomplished. But you illustrate grace/works as if we disagree on substance there. We don’t. No LDS believes it is our works that save us. We believe Christ sets the terms for His gift of Grace and we merely do what He asks. It’s called obedience and submitting our will to His–but some of our concepts of hell differ- consider the passage in D&C 19: 13-18

    The only legitimate difference in all of my contemplations and inquiries–is that we believe Christ came to save us and seal our families together for eternity! And that His physical resurrection is the promise of our own physical bodies being reunited with our spirits.

    I do have one last issue I would love for you to address, Megan. So much emphasis is placed on these alleged differences (which are based on any given interpretation of scripture)–instead of a personal connection with me, and finding out exactly what my testimony is! I have a very personal conviction of my Savior–yet no one is concerned with this! They would rather stand far removed from me personally, yet make very personal judgments about my beliefs! If my accepting YOUR Christ is so important to you, why not lay off the judgments and minister to my personal needs–if they are so great? I believe Christ gave us this example throughout HIS ministry…loving the Samaritan woman at the well and offering her LIVING water, and calling out the hypocrisy of those who would not throw stones at the adulteress!

  14. David says:

    “with the exception of criticizing His restored gospel”

    But if I am correct then I am doing right by God.

    “This website is not about ministering, it’s about ‘distancing’..you said so yourself”

    We see distancing, or border maintenance, as ministry to those in our camp and to those non-Mormons who are not in our camp.

    “Just look at the fruits–we go back and forth about our differences and hardly ever share or accept each other’s testimonies of the things we know are true. Any testimony I give of Jesus to anyone on this site would HAVE to be rejected for pride sake.”

    I cannot speak for everyone, but generally speaking non-Mormons here tend to steer clear of testimonies as they are non-transferables. I know you have a testimony that verifies your faith but I have one that verifies mine. Where does that get us? We do not reject your testimony out of pride, but because it does not accord with previous revelation.

    “You seem to think that the restoration of the FULLNESS of His gospel is a rejection of the pieces that you already believe in and accept. If the restored gospel is real then it doesn’t then mean you are attempting to assemble the wrong puzzle- you just didn’t have all the pieces and certainly deserve them!”

    That may be your personal view but it does not seem in harmony with what early Mormon leaders taught. They used words like “apostasy” which are much stronger then what you suggest.

    “Simply put, I can consider you a Christian and acknowledge your testimony as real–whereas you cannot do the same for me–because then that would legitimize the claim of the gospel.”

    I am not sure how you can rightfully state this as your scriptures and many leaders in your church have taught that there are two churches – the church of the Lamb and the church of the Devil. I do reject your gospel as I see it as a false gospel. I am commanded to such in Galatians chapter 1.

    “Everyone who reads the BoM or attends a worship service with us knows that is a lie.”

    I have done both and I do not think it is a lie. Others, even those who are not religious, can see two very different religions are being presented. Again I have to ask. Do you believe there are any false Christs out there? Do you think it is possible for false prophets, false Christs, and false gospels to exist?

    “Without our families, our joy cannot be full! Those who accept the reality of His purposes on the cross can have those blessings!”

    I think the difference for us is the commune of saints is a familial bond that supersedes our blood ties. It really gets down to how one defines the term Christian. If one takes the view that anyone who claims to be one is one then yeah Mormons are Christians (although for along time they do not use that name for themselves). However, I think that is not the right way to go. Muslims could legitimately claim to be Christians as they believe they are following the teachings of Christ and that Jesus and his disciples were Muslims. It is such a open definition that it renders the word meaningless.

    I hope you acknowledge that we are sincere when we state you have a different Jesus. We do not do so merely as a polemic. Also, I hope you realize your faith is not the only group that we think has a false Jesus. We believe many religions have portions of the truth but their gross doctrinal errors undo whatever right they may possess. The apostle Paul anathemitized the Judaizers who had many of the same beliefs as the true saints. There is a biblical reason why we identify false Christs and false gospels.

  15. Amanda says:

    Rick B,

    The fact that I hadn’t even read that quote from Brigham Young before, only proves the point that we don’t focus on it. Brigham Young said it–we don’t build our religion around one statement over a hundred years ago. Besides, I am not disagreeing with his statement by rejecting the notion that because he said it, that somehow means we are obsessed with repeating it and blogging about it. YOU brought this quote up..that YOU find divisive–in order to further divide us!

    There is nothing I can say of my own strength or knowledge, no scripture I can reference on this site that will give you your own testimony. You are no exception to the rule…you must acquire it the same way everyone else does–by planting the seed and nourishing it. You seem to not even allow the seed to be planted, much less allow nourishment. Because of this, your testimony of the gospel doesn’t have a chance! Just as Naaman believed that something as simple as washing 7 times would make him clean–Nevertheless, he still did it–and it worked! Who’d a thunk it? You seem to think that something as simple as planting a seed and giving it a chance will not bear any fruit! And you rely on your own strength in logic to cast doubt on the process/outcome!
    2 Kings 5: 11-13 (with an important change 😉

    11 But RickB was wroth, and went away, and said, Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the Lord his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper.

    (this next verse seems to clarify the challenge..)
    12 Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? may I not wash in them, and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage.

    (I have a bible! Why is my bible not good enough? the bible and Christian credos are FAR superior, and sufficient!)

    13 And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean?

    We are all guilty of this–believing that a humble approach by following HIS will is certainly not fantastic enough!

  16. Amanda wrote:

    Furthermore, please explain to me how I do not have a relationship with the REAL Jesus…and provide detailed evidence about my personal life that supports this implied theory of yours. I’m curious if you would feel comfortable making such a judgment…It is easy to claim that I believe in a diff Jesus. Let’s prove it, shall we? Someone please prove to me, that I PERSONALLY do not believe in the Jesus of the Bible. I would like specific evidences that rationalize this ridiculous position.

    Please remember that Mormon Coffee is an environment for discussing issues, not individuals. If anyone wants to discuss Amanda’s personal life and standing before God, please take the conversation into a private environment. Thanks.

  17. Amanda says:

    David,

    “We see distancing, or border maintenance, as ministry to those in our camp and to those non-Mormons who are not in our camp. ”

    Exactly, this isn’t about ministering to mormons–we are forever doomed! You are only trying to deceive those who would otherwise be baptized by priesthood authority! Come on, surely you must see that the fruits of your approach divide and ostracize good and faithful people! That has been true of my approach on several occasions.

    David, speaking theoretically here, if you humbly attempted to plant the seed of the restored gospel, then you know you are lying. That simple. It’s okay though, we are all sinners–I don’t think any less of you for the indiscretion.

  18. Amanda says:

    Sharon,

    The issues are ABOUT people, especially if you claim to be ministering to them! Are the differences in issues more important than the salvation of souls?

    Christ’s ministry seemed to be more concerned with saving souls. You seem to be on your own errand.

  19. SteveH says:

    Gundeck,

    to respond to your comments and question:

    “I find it odd that you a Mormon, who must believe in the great apostasy as the central tenant of your faith, is now using the forms of Church government as they evolved in response to heresies and acceptance by the Constantinian Roman empire to prove the validity of your priesthood system. I am asking you the same question I asked Amanda, is it intellectually honest to use arguments that do not support your position?”

    My discussion about apostolic Christianity was part of my rebuttal against Sharon’s argument that LDS doctrine deviates from traditional Christianity. My point is merely that evangelical theology in itself is very deviant from traditional, apostolic Christianity in that it rejects many of the foundational tenets of the Christian faith.

    I have repeatedly affirmed my belief in the Great Apostasy. As I stated in a preceding post above:
    “The great claim of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that the direct priesthood lineage from Peter the Apostle was broken because of the martyrdom of the Apostles. This loss of direct priesthood lineage resulted in the cessation of priesthood authority on the earth and the ensuing Great Apostasy. Priesthood authority was restored in June 1829 when Peter, James and John conferred the priesthood upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery through the ordinance of laying on of hands. This act restored the proper authority of God on earth.”

    That seems pretty straightforward.

    You accuse the LDS of “intellectual dishonestly”. I find this accusation as absurd as it is baseless. Furthermore, such an accusation is highly hypocritical given the avalanche of intellectually dishonest statements made by Mormon “critics” such as yourself against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its doctrines, leaders and members.

    It is intellectually dishonest for Mormon “critics” to deliberately misrepresent LDS doctrine (such as claiming that the LDS Church currently practices and preaches doctrines like polygamy, blood atonement, segregation of blacks, etc. when such claims are clearly false). This is very much a recurring event on this website.

    It is intellectually dishonest for Mormon “critics” to slander and malign LDS Church leaders (such as claiming that Gordon B. Hinckley is not familiar with the doctrine of eternal progression when such claims are clearly false).

    It is intellectually dishonest for Mormon “critics” to state that Mormons are not persecuted when indeed Mormons are persecuted for their beliefs.

    It is intellectually dishonest for Mormon “critics” to deliberately misquote or take out of context words of an LDS leader in order to make a point contrary to the original intent of the author.

    The list of intellectually dishonest statements made by Mormon “critics” against the LDS Church, Leaders, doctrines, and people is endless.

  20. David says:

    Amanda,

    “Exactly, this isn’t about ministering to Mormons–we are forever doomed! You are only trying to deceive those who would otherwise be baptized by priesthood authority! Come on, surely you must see that the fruits of your approach divide and ostracize good and faithful people! That has been true of my approach on several occasions.”

    We do not believe you are forever doomed. MRM, and other ministries, do reach out to Mormons in addition to border maintenance. These ministries have been successful as some Mormons have left your church and come to our Jesus.

    “You are only trying to deceive those who would otherwise be baptized by priesthood authority!”

    Again, this is just a reiteration of your point. Don’t you see it as such?

    “Come on, surely you must see that the fruits of your approach divide and ostracize good and faithful people!”

    I see the problem (hell) as so grave that if at times it ostracizes people then so be it. There is Biblical precedence for this as well. When the gospel went out there were negative reactions. I think you already acknowledged this in your post to Sharon.

    “David, speaking theoretically here, if you humbly attempted to plant the seed of the restored gospel, then you know you are lying.”

    I am not sure what you are getting at here but I am not lying. I have read the standard works and I have been to LDS wards. Long ago the missionaries asked me to pray about the BoM which I did; I prayed as humbly/sincerely as I could. I got what I believe was a “no”. You can decide if that is planting a seed or not. However, I do not see how wanting something to be true, planting a seed, is necessary in order to come to the conclusion that something is true. I have come around to many truths in my life that I did not want to be true.

    I notice that you still have not answered if you believe that false Christs and false prophets can exist.

  21. rick b says:

    Steve, I never said, LDS Never answer any of my questions, I said they do not answer MANY. It’s to late to talk about it know, but the questions on Blood Atonement for example were never answered.

    Then Amanda, We cannot talk about you personally, Not so much because Sharon said not to, but because we only know you from what you tell us, So it’s kind of hard to talk about things going on with you, when we only know what you tell us.

    Then as for another Jesus and gospel, you can say we have the same Gospel and same Jesus, but the question is, When Paul speaks of another Gospel being different from what he taught in Gal 1:8-9, can you tell me, what is this different Gospel?

    Paul clearly said, it was anything different that what he teaches or we were taught from the Scripture, which at the time was the OT. The LDS beliefe system does not line up or even agree with what the Bible teaches.

    Yes you can say, I believe in Jesus, I believe in prayer, I believe in Baptism Etc, but your simply using the same word or names we use, once we get deeper behind the meaning we really find a different Gospel.

    As to you claiming you have a changed life or a testamony that proves nothing. LDS and Muslims do not believe what LDS teach, but they claim to have a changed life, Other off shoot groups of LDS that you claim are not true LDS, like, the FLDS or RLDS claim to have a changed life, they claim to believe the Bible, the BoM they believe in JS and BY, yet you teach they are not True LDS, So your statement means Nothing. Rick b

  22. Amanda, I appreciate your perspective. However, Mormon Coffee is designed to be an environment for discussing issues concerning Mormonism and Christianity. These issues are not about the people who are part of the MC community, yet the things discussed do affect all of us. Please respect the rules of our coffeehouse even though you don’t agree with them. Thanks.

  23. Amanda says:

    Sharon,

    I have no intention of breaking your rules! I absolutely respect the right for you to create your own forum! I might question the sincerity of said mission and objective–not sure how that breaks any rules.

    Irregardless, I fail to see how a discussion revolving around my personal testimony breaks any of these rules:

    ‘Mormon Coffee is designed to be an environment for discussing issues concerning Mormonism and Christianity’

    If upon getting to know my personal convictions and testimony of God (because you cannot sincerely discuss ‘mormonism’ and ‘protestantism’ without acknowleding the reality of personal testimony) and the Savior, Jesus Christ–and you find that it is sincere and genuine–then you cannot claim the BoM testifies of a diff Jesus than that of the bible because I garnered a lot of my personal testimony from the BoM! If it leads me to my present convictions of Him–it is absolutely erroneous to continue to regurgitate insincere talking points. My personal testimony continues to be ignored! Doesn’t this negate fully the foundation of the protestant movement to assume Catholic-style authority over my relationship with God? Personal revelation and relationship with God cannot be ignored if you are really discussing principles of Christianity! Therefore, my personal convictions, and those attempting to understand them is absolutely relevant to what you say is the mission of your blog!

    Please, throw me a bone here- what of my personal experiences are NOT relevant to my faith?

  24. Amanda says:

    RickB,

    “As to you claiming you have a changed life or a testamony that proves nothing”

    You fail to see that my personal experiences DO prove something–to me! Am I to ignore those and defer to your personal conclusions? No. We act based on the knowledge we have. And I absolutely have a knowledge of the veracity of the restored gospel! NO DOUBT! That is a reality you all will continue to deal with as long as you ‘minister’ to
    ‘mormons’.

    David,

    “These ministries have been successful as some Mormons have left your church and come to our Jesus. ”

    Excuse me? YOUR Jesus? Jesus died for ALL mankind. I don’t care if you think your club of Christians is way better than any other religion claiming Christ—The Savior makes those determinations and invitations. You have no authority to exclude ANYONE from Jesus. I’m truly disgusted by this comment. I want nothing to do with your exclusive club! It is so opposite the message of Christ. Talk about false Christs. There’s a perfect example demonstrated in your own words!

  25. David says:

    Amanda,

    You misconstrue my words. “our Jesus” means the true Christ not that we arbitrate who is God’s elect and who is not. So, ministries to Mormons have been successful at winning the lost.

    If you believe that I have a false Christ then I guess you concede my point. We do not have the same Jesus, so to call the situation as such is not a cop out.

  26. Amanda asked,

    Please, throw me a bone here? What of my personal experiences are NOT relevant to my faith?

    Amanda, you’re missing the point. The discussion on Mormon Coffee is not supposed to be about Amanda and her personal faith; it’s about Mormonism. You are welcome to express your personal experiences and convictions. Your comments become problematic when you challenge other participants at MC to “provide detailed evidence about [your] personal life” and “prove to [you] that [you] PERSONALLY do not believe in the Jesus of the Bible.” That’s an important discussion, to be sure, but not a discussion for Mormon Coffee.

    What’s appropriate for Mormon Coffee (generally speaking) is a discussion about the teachings of Mormon leaders and Mormonism regarding the nature of Christ and how such teaching conforms to — or deviates from — historic biblical Christianity.

  27. shematwater says:

    TO ALL DISCUSSING THE DIFERENCE IN GODS

    We, as Latter-Day Saints, have a different understanding of God than do Christians (in general). Therefore it could be said that we worship two separate Gods. Even Joseph Smith said as much.

    Now, the real question is which one is the God taught in the Bible? As both sides can offer a substantial amount of evidence to both support their belief and refute the others it is a silly question. Neither side can prove, using solely the Bible, that they worship the true Christ. No one can tell another religion that they have the true interpretation of the Bible because there are a great many ways to interpret it. This is evident in the great number of sects and denominations.

    Now, both sides will claim the other to be false, but when asked for proof they cannot truly give it. This is why I have held the long standing that all we can do is hope for understanding of one another, and pray that God leads us all to the truth of his Gospel. (And please do not respond with a comment on how yours is the truth, because that just gets a little annoying.)

    I am willing to answer any question that any person has concerning the LDS faith to the best of my ability, and as far as my authority to do so allows. If I do not have the answer when asked I will do my best to find the answer before I commit myself to anything. If I give an answer and later find it to be false I will retract my previous statement, as I have done in the past.
    This is all I offer, and all I expect on these threads.

  28. rick b says:

    Amanda,
    Since you keep saying, you read the BoM and that has given you the info to know that Jesus is real, Here is something I wrote years ago, posted it on this blog 2-3 times and maybe 5 different times on my blog, in the years that I have had it posted, Not one single mormon has ever answered it, One LDS from this blog who has since left said, He would reply with a booklet of info, has never happend.

    Then One LDS tried, but never really answered it, so please do not ignore it but give an honest answer, I figure if the BoM gave you your testamony you should be able to answer this no sweat.

    In the Original 1958 Edition to the Book Mormon Doctrine By Bruce R.McConkie He states In the Preface:

    This Work on Mormon Doctrine Is unique–the first book of it’s kind ever published.
    It is the first major attempt to digest, explain, and analyze all of the important doctrines of the kingdom.
    It is the first extensive compendium of the whole gospel–the first attempt to publish an encyclopedic commentary covering the whole field of revealed religion.

    True, there are many Bible commentaries, dictionaries, and encyclopedias; but they all abound in apostate, sectarian notions. Also, there are many sound gospel texts on special subjects.

    But never before has a comprehensive attempt been made to define and outline, in a brief manner, all of the basic principles of salvation–and to do it from the perspective of all revelation, both ancient and modern.

    This work on Mormon Doctrine is designed to help persons seeking salvation to gain that knowledge of God and his laws without which they cannot hope for an inheritance in the celestial city.

    Since it is impossible foe a man to be saved in ignorance of God and his laws and since a man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge of Jesus Christ and the plan of salvation, it follows that men are obligated at their peril to learn and apply the true doctrines of the gospel.

    this gospel compendium will enable men, more effectively, to “teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom”; to “be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel,in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient” for them “to understand.” (D and C 88:77-7

    For the work itself, I assume sole and full responsibility. Observant students, however, will note that the four standard works of the Church are the chief sources of authority quoted and that literally tens of thousands of scriptural quotations and citations are woven into the text material.
    Where added explanations and interpretations were deemed essential, they have been taken from such recognized doctrinal authorities as Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith, Orson Pratt, John Taylor, and Joseph Fielding Smith.

    Two persons have been particularly helpful in the actual preparation of the work: 1. Velma Harvey, my very able and competent secretary, who with unbounded devotion and insight has typed manuscripts, checked references, proofread, and worked out many technical details; and 2. Joseph Fielding Smith , Jr., my brother in law, who both set the type and made many valuable suggestions as to content and construction.

    Abundant needed and important counsel has also come from Milton R. Hunter, my colleague on the First Council of the Seventy; Marvin Wallin, of Bookcraft; and Thomas S. Moson, of the deseret News Press. Salt Lake City, Utah June 1, 1958 –Bruce R. McConkie.

    Keep in mind Bruce stated He looks to people Like Joseph Smith and Bringham Young as recognized doctrinal authorities. So with that in mind, Is a Challenge as it were, Issued By Bruce R.McConkie.

    I have read all 4 standard works. I find nothing at all in the Book of Mormon to prove it is inspired by God as LDS claim. Bruce states we can find hundreds of topics, I would like to issue a Challenge to all my Latter-day saint friends to bring forth just 10 topics of your choice, compare them to the Bible and show me how they are a more accurate display of the Gospel. Please keep in mind, I am following Acts 17:11 and 1st peter 3:15. Then after you read Bruce’s Challenge, I lovingly added a list of things That LDS feel are core doctrine yet cannot be found in the BoM. This matter has everlasting eternal consequences. sincerely Rick b.

    In the Book Mormon Doctrine By Bruce R. McConkie, under the title Book of Mormon.
    bruce says the Purpose of the book of mormon is this.

    1. To bear record of Christ, certifying in plainness and with clarity of his divine sonship and mission, proving irrefutably that he is the Redeemer and Saviour.

    2. To teach the doctrines of the gospel in such a pure and perfect way that the plan of salvation will be clearly revealed; and

    3. To stand as a witness to all the world that Joseph Smith was the Lord’s anointed through whom the foundation was laid for the great latter-day work of restoration. Almost all of the doctrines of the gospel are taught in the Book of Mormon with much greater clarity and perfection than those same doctrines are revealed in the Bible. Anyone who will place in parallel columns the teachings of these two great books on such subjects as the atonement, plan of salvation, gathering of Israel, baptism, gifts of the spirit, miracles, revelation, faith, Charity, ( or ANY of a HUNDRED OTHER SUBJECTS), will find conclusive proof of the superiority of the Book of Mormon teachings.

    Where in the Book of Mormon does it teach that Elohim (God the Father in Mormonism) was once a mortal man and that he was not always God?
    Where in the Book of Mormon does it teach that God has a body of flesh and bones?

    Where in the Book of Mormon does it teach that God is married in heaven?

    Where in the Book of Mormon does it teach that men can become Gods?

    Where in the Book of Mormon does it teach that temple participation is necessary to become exalted?

    Where in the Book of Mormon does it teach Jesus and Lucifer are brothers?

    Where in the Book of Mormon does it teach the blood of Christ does not cleanse certain sins?

    Where in the Book of Mormon does it say there is more than one God?

    Where in the Book of Mormon does it say males must hold either the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood?

    Where in the Book of Mormon does it teach that there are “three degrees of glory”?

    Now honestly tell me, if all this is true, how can your gospel not be different, since we dont believe this? If it’s a matter of we simply dont fully understand, then if you do, enlighten me, if you dont understand, then say so. Rick b

  29. gundeck says:

    Amanda,

    Regardless of your display of histrionics, if you are looking for me to convince you that your beliefs are incorrect then you are looking in the wrong place. There are any number issues that separate Mormonism from Christianity. You have been reading this site for quite some time and nothing that you have seen has caused you to question your belief in Joseph Smith.

    If I were to tell you one thing it is to apply the same uniform principles and use absolute consistency when you test or attack the Christian Faith that you use when you test Mormonism.

  30. gundeck says:

    SteveH,

    I am willing to assume that you think that it is relevant to show us how Protestants are not like Roman Catholics. I suggest that you check your facts before you do make your claims. If you have specific charges against me, make them, otherwise please don’t bring up your complaints about other people in posts addressed to me, you should address them to those you have complaints with. While I do think it is odd that your apostle/prophet/president distanced himself from your doctrines on cable TV, I have never commented on it. It is also important to note that it is not the Churches of the Reformation that claim to be like the church during the apostolic age, it is your Church that claims to have restored the gospel.

    I did not accuse the LDS of intellectual dishonesty; I asked you if you were being intellectually honest. It is not the Mormons whose positions on the history of apostolic succession, priesthood, bishops, et al are changing. Yours has, in every post you make. This all started with your claim that Protestants don’t know anything about “apostolic succession”. This was your baseless claim that you have failed to support, not the LDS. I asked you about intellectual dishonesty because you continue to refine and redefine your positions as they are found to conflict with the facts of history. You claim such a great understanding of Christian history and theology yet you fall short of even the simplest examination of the development of Church government in the early Church. For instance, unless something has changed your Church does not subscribe to the Roman Churches views on the “holy Eucharist”. Yet you deliberately choose to use this term? And you choose to do this after we discussed the role of the priest with regard to the sacrifice in the Eucharist. Is that honest?

    I have no doubt that you believe in the great apostasy, you have to. That makes it all the more odd that you use Roman Catholic arguments against the Churches of the Reformation. Especially since the Churches of the reformation do not claim to have the original form of government from the age of the apostles.

  31. Amanda says:

    Sharon,

    I wonder what you think about Paul’s admonition to the church in Corinth to cease bickering and dividing themselves…one church, one baptism…etc. Do you feel the many Christians sects always agree on doctrine–or are they divided..do you think that Christians who accept the restored gospel should be cast out of your midst?

    “Your comments become problematic when you challenge other participants at MC to “provide detailed evidence about [your] personal life” and “prove to [you] that [you] PERSONALLY do not believe in the Jesus of the Bible.” That’s an important discussion, to be sure, but not a discussion for Mormon Coffee.”

    Let’s be fair then. If you make ridiculous claims that I am not Christian without allowing me to challenge it–then stop making that claim- and don’t allow others to make it either. Otherwise, the conversation is rigged, courtesy Mormon Coffee administrators– something I find intellectually problematic. You are certainly entitled to on your own forum–and I guess you are even entitled to believing your approach is fair–but that doesn’t mean it is.

    Gundeck,

    “You have been reading this site for quite some time and nothing that you have seen has caused you to question your belief in Joseph Smith.”

    Exactly. Why do you think that is?

    “If I were to tell you one thing it is to apply the same uniform principles and use absolute consistency when you test or attack the Christian Faith that you use when you test Mormonism. ”

    Attack? Now who is employing histrionics? I never attacked Christianity, you are lying! I’m not letting you get away with that statement. I test Christianity by LIVING it..and don’t attack other Christians who do not accept the fullness of His gospel (of course understand this is my genuine perspective). When you are honest, I’ll consider your perspective. Until that point, I refuse to respond to assertions built on falsehoods.

    Rick

    Copy and paste your comment and send it to my email ([email protected]). Maybe people haven’t responded because your questions cover VAST amounts of information.. it’s kind of difficult to tackle that on the website especially as an LDS contributor because we are outnumbered. I would be happy to address you in a more feasible atmosphere.

    David,

    “If you believe that I have a false Christ then I guess you concede my point. We do not have the same Jesus, so to call the situation as such is not a cop out. ”

    For a guy who readily denies the existence of any authority on earth to speak for Christ–I wonder why you are so comfortable making such claims about where my faith lies!

    I never said I believe YOU have a false Jesus..I was pointing out the irony of your demanding I discuss the topic of a false Jesus on the cusp of claiming you own Him. Jesus is much bigger than your exclusive protestant club of those you feel theologically comfortable with. My being accepted by you as a Christian is not prerequisite to receiving His grace. PERIOD! And you cannot say otherwise unless you claim authority through Him who is mighty to save. According to your theology, as long as I believe in the Jesus of the bible, I’m saved–which of course I do…so you shouldn’t be ‘concerned’ or make statements you don’t have the authority to make.

  32. Amanda says:

    Rick, Sharon, Gundeck, David…and anyone else…

    If I assert that my interpretation of the bible supports the doctrine taught in the BoM —no one can deny this unless they claim authority to interpret scripture FOR ME.

    Is anyone willing to say that they have more authority than myself to interpret scripture?

    I don’t know if you guys still have a comment limit–if there is, I’m sorry because I’m sure at this point I have MORE than exceeded it. I will resume posting tomorrow 🙂 Or you all can email me at [email protected] if you want a response sooner.

  33. SteveH says:

    Gundeck,

    You really should try to read my posts a little more carefully before responding and spare yourself some confusion.

    Contrary to your rash charges I have never claimed that “Protestants don’t know anything about ‘apostolic succession’ ” rather my wording was that the the original concept of apostolic authority was foreign to evangelical theology (meaning that apostolic authority as originally defined is not part of evangelical doctrine). The original meaning of apostolic authority clearly denotes a direct priesthood lineage whereas the adulterated Protestant definition is based an some vague notion of Biblical correctness – two completely different concepts.

    Contrary to your faulty assertions, I have repeated this statement without variance numerous times.

    Contrary to your rash charges, I have never claimed “a great understanding of Christian history”.

    I used the term “eucharist” purely for convenience because not everyone on this site would necessarily be familiar with the LDS term of the “sacrament” – meaning the consecrated bread and water.

    My complaints about the intellectual dishonesty of Mormon “critics” is general and not directed at you personally. That should be clear.

    My whole point is that Protestant theology deviates radically from apostolic Christianity on many points. Thus to argue (as Sharon has) that Mormonism is different from evangelical theology is a hollow argument given that evangelical theology deviates radically from traditional apostolic Christianity.

  34. Respect the comment limit, please.

  35. David says:

    Amanda,

    “For a guy who readily denies the existence of any authority on earth to speak for Christ–I wonder why you are so comfortable making such claims about where my faith lies!”

    When did I ever deny any authority on earth to speak for Christ? This is a strawman.

    “I never said I believe YOU have a false Jesus..I was pointing out the irony of your demanding I discuss the topic of a false Jesus on the cusp of claiming you own Him. Jesus is much bigger than your exclusive protestant club of those you feel theologically comfortable with. My being accepted by you as a Christian is not prerequisite to receiving His grace. PERIOD! And you cannot say otherwise unless you claim authority through Him who is mighty to save. According to your theology, as long as I believe in the Jesus of the bible, I’m saved–which of course I do…so you shouldn’t be ‘concerned’ or make statements you don’t have the authority to make.”

    I never said I owned Jesus and I even pointed out your misunderstanding of that. You do not understand my position on these issues. If you did (I am not saying you must agree with it) then you would understand why I take such a position. Also, I do not need a badge or secret handshake to bring light to darkness. Any impartial observer will see you have foisted positions on me that are not mine.

    Since you are not saying I have a false Christ, I will ask the question again. Do you believe false Christs can or do exist?

  36. rick b says:

    Amanda,
    You can say my post is to hard to tackle and your out numbered, Well On my blog No LDS replied and it was just me, no out numbered LDS, and all the time in the world to answer it, seems simple to me to take even one point and reply to it. Rick b

  37. Martin_from_Brisbane says:

    This will have to be a very quick response to Amanda, because my time is short…

    “what makes your position holier than mine? Are you claiming authority to interpret? Are you a prophet?”

    …actually, I’m pointing out what seems obvious to me. If I claimed to be a prophet, would it make you more or less inclined to listen to me?…

    The proof is in the pudding. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck…it’s a duck. Anyone who says the Church ‘OF’ Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not a faith that believes in the Jesus of the bible is L-Y-I-N-G.

    …so, if the Jesus of the Bible is the true temple (see Rev 22 etc), why do LDS need to build their temples all over the place?

    “Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.”

    Jesus commanded that all must be baptized in order to receive eternal life (John 3: 3-5).. and this baptism is done through priesthood AUTHORITY by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:17-20)

    …so there is more than one mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5) ?…

    “Do you have this gift, Martin? Are you claiming authority to speak for God on this matter? What makes your position more authoritative than ANY ONE ELSE who reads the bible?”

    …please be careful Amanda, I don’t claim any more authority than the authority afforded to me by you or anyone else. However, please be assured that I am sincerely trying to allow the Bible to steer my thoughts, and I’m telling you where my thoughts take me…

    “Furthermore, please explain to me how I do not have a relationship with the REAL Jesus…and provide detailed evidence about my personal life that supports this implied theory of yours. I’m curious if you would feel comfortable making such a judgment.”

    …Amanda, I don’t know you personally and even if I did know the details of your personal life, I wouldn’t post them here. My concern is that the picture of Jesus than LDS paint is mostly fictitious, but that’s a concern I have for any christianism, including my own…

    “I would appreciate DIRECT answers to my direct questions.”

    …which is what I’m attempting at present, though I’m frustrated at the haste at which I must conclude…

    “I’m growing weary of the usual talking points.”

    …I’d like to help you there, but what else do we talk about here…

    “Surprise me with sincerity.”

    …I know you might not accept this, but “m actually very sincere about what I read and what I write…

    “If you side-step my genuine inquiries, I’ll just have to write you off entirely…nothing personal, it’s just that I really dislike the holier-than-thou facade, it’s quite irritating.”

    …I’m sorry if the message I have projected gives this impression; it was not my intention. I’ll do what I can to avoid haughtiness in future posts…

    “Anyone who thinks they know the intimacies of my relationship with God is flattering themselves, to put it diplomatically.”

    …I’d agree, and I thought it would have been apparent that I studiously avoid questions along the lines of “is Amanda a Christian?” It doesn’t diminish my concern that the LDS movement diverts people who want to follow Jesus into something other than what he intended…

    “Let’s be real- let’s step down from the judgment seat for a few moments in order to make a genuine connection as children of God. I think He would want that.”

    …Amanda, the fact that you’re posting here, and I’m posting here is a genuine attempt at connection. And I’d wholeheartedly agree that its what he wants.

    May I make an observation? (Please believe that I’m not trying to be facetious). Your reaction is understandable, given that I have criticized the One True Church in which you have invested your faith, time and energies. I seemed to have pushed the button that triggered this explosion of feeling. You obviously feel that you need to defend your church, but where do your utlimate allegiances lie? Would it not be more appropriate to defend the Christ of the Bible, to whom your church claims to answer?

    You know my opinion, and I know yours. I’d welcome to continue a discussion on the specifics when time permits.

  38. Martin_from_Brisbane says:

    P.S

    If I can re-phrase my last question…”How much reliance do you put on your church to sustain your relationship with God?”

    I suppose we can test this by asking how your relationship with God would be if you were cut off from the church?

    I guess my alarm bells start to ring when the answer is “all” or “mostly” because it would signal to me that your faith is somewhere other than in Christ himself.

    I’m not disputing the importance of the Church, by the way. But its our faith in Christ that gives legitimacy to our claim on the Church; its, not our membership of the Church that gives legitimacy to our claim on Christ.

    If you think about it, we’re back to that old faith-works thing.

  39. Megan says:

    Amanda, you say that you have a very personal conviction of Jesus in your life, and I believe you. I’m not being sarcastic. I am sure that one reason why you are a Mormon is because you have received that conviction. People follow faith systems for various reasons, and one of them is a personal conviction and/or feelings that they are following the correct thing. I have read personal accounts of people coming to the Muslim faith, and I believe their feelings are genuine. But here’s the thing–I have had the feelings and personal conviction of Jesus in my life too. I have seen prayers answered, I have seen miracles happen, I have heard God speaking to my heart, I have felt swept up in Sunday morning worship, I have felt an unbroken connection to God since I asked Jesus into my life at the age of 5. I liked what David said, about spiritual experiences being non-transferrables. While I believe that God could have ministered to both of our hearts, only one of us has had these experiences as “proof” of truth. I am not you, so I can’t comment on your spiritual experience, but what I do know is that God is never going to confirm untruth as truth through the witness of the Holy Spirit. If eternal things weren’t at stake, I would feel happy for you and your spiritual experience, because obviously it means a great deal to you and brings you comfort. But false comfort is dangerous—as far as ministering to your needs, I AM ministering to your needs by telling you that I believe you are wrong. I believe one of the purposes of this blog is to sound the alarm to those who have a false Jesus, and whose eternal security is at stake. Okay, you did well with a brief reply, can you do it again? 🙂

  40. Okie1949 says:

    I got these quotes from the MRM web site:

    In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints ‘do not believe in the traditional Christ.’ ‘No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak'” (LDS Church News, week ending June 20, 1998, p.7).

    “It is true that many of the Christian churches worship a different Jesus Christ than is worshipped by the Mormons or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (LDS Seventy Bernard P. Brockbank, The Ensign, May 1977, p.26 ).

    It would seem to me that if you have a different Jesus then you have a different Gospel!

  41. faithoffathers says:

    Amanda’s argument is similar to what I have also maintained. Non-LDS people here have conviction of the truth of the Bible and the divinity of Christ. But LDS also have testimonies of these same things. You may interpret the Bible differently, but you have no authority or basis to claim your interpretation is correct and ours is wrong. After all, you claim your authority comes from the Bible- but we believe in that text as well as you. We are not rejecting or ignoring ANY authority in believing your interpretations are wrong. In other words, the Bible is not exclusively yours. We have just as much claim on that sacred book as you.

    The difference is the additional material that we have as LDS, much of which is not read or really understood by non-LDS people here. Yes- there are 1 to 2, maybe 3 EVs here that have actually read the Book of Mormon. But do you honestly think that you understand it as well as somebody who has read it their whole life- 20,30, 60, even 80 times? Thinking back to when I had read the BOM once, I see now that I had not even begun to scratch the surface of what is there. Similarly, if I had read the Bible just once all the way through, I would be embarrased to make any claim to really understanding the text.

    Since this thread started with one, let me add another short parable. A car accident occured in the middle of a city intersection. Besides the drivers of the two cars, two pedestrians were present and witnessed the crash. Attorneys from both drivers argued the case. The attorney representing one of the drivers based his argument on 1 of the 2 pedestrians who were witnesses. The attorney for the other driver incorporated the testimonies of both pedestrian-witnesses in his argument. Which of the attorneys has more perspective or objectivity to his/her case? Obviously the attorney who evaluated and weighed both pedestriains who witnessed the crash.

    Pardon the cheesy parable, but it does demonstrate my point.

    Of course you will say that in my parable, the 2nd pedestrian-witness (Book of Mormon) was corrupt or not trustworthy. But staying with the analogy- these claims in dismissing the witness are not based on any direct evalutation of the witness himself, but rather upon heresay and 3rd and 4th hand claims.

    Peace!

    fof

  42. Megan says:

    Fof: Actually, we don’t read the same text. Apart from the fact that you read KJV and I prefer NIV (keeping in mind, that there are plenty of Evs who ONLY read the KJV), your Bible has been changed by JS through his “revelation”. So no, we don’t read the same Bible. As far as authority, I am not sure what you mean by that (priesthood authority? Not sure). JW’s read the Bible too, but neither of us agree with their interpretation. Every belief system has the right to call the shots as far as what their belief system entails. I may disagree with your interpretations, but I am not going to tell you that as a Mormon, you don’t have the right to interpret Biblical scriptures through the Mormon lense. It’s your religion and you have the right to defend it using your LDS interpretation of the Bible.

  43. shematwater says:

    I would like to respond to the so called challenge issued by RICK B, and I quote
    “I have read all 4 standard works. I find nothing at all in the Book of Mormon to prove it is inspired by God as LDS claim. Bruce states we can find hundreds of topics, I would like to issue a Challenge to all my Latter-day saint friends to bring forth just 10 topics of your choice, compare them to the Bible and show me how they are a more accurate display of the Gospel. Please keep in mind, I am following Acts 17:11 and 1st peter 3:15. Then after you read Bruce’s Challenge, I lovingly added a list of things That LDS feel are core doctrine yet cannot be found in the BoM. This matter has everlasting eternal consequences. sincerely Rick b.”

    I replied to this very issue in the thread entitled, Mormon Jurors not Welcome. In that thread the question was simply given as “What doctrine is clarified by the Book of Mormon?” I am sure we will all see the similarities in this question and the challenge given by RICK B. I will give the same reply I gave on the other thread.

    First, this challenge does not lend itself to fair discussion. It is a trap laid to ensnare all who would try to answer it honestly. To illustrate my point I will relate a story that I heard when I was in sixth grade.
    There was once a town ruled by a counsel of corrupt officials. These men desired only power, and wealth, and would persecute the citizens of the town to get gain.
    One day, a wise man came to the town and began teaching the people. His words had great power to stir the heart and people began to turn against the ruling counsel. The men of the counsel would frequently enter into discussion with this wise man, but could never prevail against him. So, one day they all met in secret to find a solution to their problem. They had to discredit this man or lose their influence and power.
    One of them came before the rest with a plan. “I will hold a small bird in my hands so he cannot see it and say to him ‘I have a bird in my hands. Is the bird alive or is the bird dead?’ If he answer that it is alive I will open my hands and it will be dead, but if he say it is dead I will open my hands and it will fly away alive.”
    The plan was agreed upon and the next day the council met the man as he was teaching in the market. The one approached him. “I have a bird in my hands. Is the bird alive or is the bird dead?” The Wise man looked at them, shook his head in sorrow and said “It is as you will it to be.”

    When you give the challenge to bring forth just 10 topics of your choice, compare them to the Bible and show me how they are a more accurate display of the Gospel you have asked “Is it alive or dead?” If one says it is alive, giving such doctrine as we both believe (such as baptism) you can reply that the doctrine is clearly taught in the Bible, thus the Book of Mormon is dead. If one answers that it is dead, giving such doctrine that we disagree on (such as Works and Faith) you can reply that the Bible does not teach that making the Book of Mormon an alteration and not a clarification, thus the Book of Mormon is alive.
    So in answer to the challenge to bring forth just 10 topics of your choice, compare them to the Bible and show me how they are a more accurate display of the Gospel, I respond “It is as you will it to be.” If you believe in the Book of Mormon there are many doctrines that it clarifies. However, if you do not believe in it there are none.

    Now, I said I would honestly answer any question asked, and I will, in a future post, respond to the challenge, however dishonest it is. Remember, Christ only taught the truth. It was the Pharasees who always challenged it.

    As regarding the doctrine not taught in the Book of Mormon, RICK B gave a list. to me it is of little concern, as there is no way a single book can contain all the works and laws of God. However, I will do a little research, and reply to this list as well, as some of them are taught, even if not directly.

  44. rick b says:

    Shem,
    What a sham on your part, Here the LDS cry, Christians cannot judge us, yet you judge me. I never put that topic toghter to set a trap, it was an honest question.

    It seems to me if Bruce is Correct and bold enough to claim Hundreds of things and I then say, just give me ten, I say give me only 10 so you cannot claim 50 or more is overwhelming.

    Then if the Bible speaks about Baptism, Since you brought it up, it seems to me, if Bruce is correct, then you should be able to say, Rick, the Bible says X,Y,Z About Baptism, but the Book of Mormon speaks about Baptism also, and he is why is clarifys the Bible and clears the confusion. You cannot do it, so you try and judge me and say I set a trap, Your the one who cannot do as Bruce said, just be honest. Rick b

  45. rick b says:

    Amanda said

    Rick B,

    The fact that I hadn’t even read that quote from Brigham Young before, only proves the point that we don’t focus on it. Brigham Young said it–we don’t build our religion around one statement over a hundred years ago.

    Amanda, I love how Mormons blow of what the Prophets said when it makes you guys look bad or you do not agree, Yet you guys do tend to still focus on the Prophets of old when it suits your needs, Like the K.F.D or like how Bruce M, quoted in my Bruce’s Challange, Bruce looks back at what they said and did. Rick b

  46. Megan says:

    I think Rick posed a pretty fair question, or, I should say questions.

  47. shematwater says:

    RICK B

    My judgement was not against you, or your intentions. I have no doubt you were sincerely asking in honest curiosity. My judgement is against the question, regardless of who asks asks it.
    Also, I do not say that you would follow the logic that I outlined. You, as far as I know, very likely would give serious concideration to an honest response, which is why I said I would respond. However, you must see that the logic I give is true, therefore others could use this in the way I have said, and thus implicate you for being the one to ask it.
    If your question was one that simply asked us to explain our understanding of what doctrine is clarified I would have had no problem. It is the demand that we prove it that is the problem. I can explain anything, but I cannot prove it.

    As to Bruce R. McConkie and what he said, his statement, though valid, was directed to the saints. The book Mormon Doctrine was written to assist the Saints in learning and teaching the gospel, it was not written to teach non-members. We know the doctrine, and can get a better understanding of it from the Book of Mormon than we can from the Bible. However, if you do not know the doctrine the same would not necessarily hold true.

    I offer a list of doctrines that I see as being clarified by the Book of Mormon. I will not explain them here, as it would take too long, but I give them as an example.

    The Fall of Adam
    Baptism
    Resurrection and Final Judgement
    The Spirit World (After-Life)
    Faith
    Repentance
    The apostosy
    The restoration of the Gospel
    Priesthood Authority
    The Atonement

    Here are ten doctrines that are made much clearer from the Book of Mormon. Each would require much more space than is allowed in these threads to explain, however. If you honestly want the explanation of each I am willing to go into full detail, but would need a different way to send it to you.

  48. rick b says:

    Post them on my mormon blog, that way if others here want to they can see your reply.
    My Mormon blog is, http://www.mormonismreviewed.blogspot.com

    Also You say, bruce was speaking to the saints, Here we go again, we say, your not Christian,, then you get mad at us for saying that. But then you imply were not “Saints” I have no problem saying, LDS are not Christian, But I do have a problem when, LDS get mad for me saying that, but the turn around and say, either, I’m not LDS or Were not both Christian.

    Your doing to me the same thing you get on me for doing to you. Rick b

  49. shematwater says:

    RICK B

    You really need to understand what is meant when I use the term saints. I was only intending to reference the church, as we are the only ones who claim to be saints, as is seen in the name of the church (Latter-Day Saints). You don’t seem to mind me refering to us as LDS when it means Latter-Day Saints. Why would you mind if I simple used the one word instead of all of them?

  50. Enki says:

    Megan,
    You said( to amanda) “…If eternal things weren’t at stake..”

    what do you mean by that statement?

Comments are closed.