A mediator between God and man

The other day I was invited to attend LDS seminary classes at the public high school my youngest daughter attends. Seminary, for those who don’t know, is a four-year program put together by the LDS Church for their high school students. The one-year topics are Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine and Covenants (church history), which is this year’s emphasis.

ProvoSeminaryMormon students throughout the United States typically meet before or after school at the local LDS chapel. In Utah, however, most high schools have a dedicated building located next door for the students to attend during the school day in a program called “release time.” The majority of this school’s student body—of the school’s 1,800 students, 1,000 attend seminary—are enrolled at this seminary, which is located directly behind the school. My middle child who attended a middle school in 9th grade five years ago told me how LDS students publicly bragged about attending these voluntary classes. She said such attitudes served as barriers with other students. Those Latter-day Saints who didn’t attend were shamed; those who weren’t LDS didn’t seem to matter.

A pastor friend and I are trying right now to begin an Evangelical Christian “seminary” class beginning next year. With 17 years of teaching experience, including my service as the Bible department head at a large Southern California Christian high school, we have an idea of what we want to do. Thus, we have been doing research to find out exactly what takes place in these seminary classes. The seminary’s principal and five teachers have been very accommodating. One teacher, whom I now consider a friend, even told me that he would have his 180 students get the word out to their non-LDS friends when our class begins in January. “Anything that leads people to Christ is worth promoting,” he told me. I told him I appreciated the offer; we’ll see where that goes.

first_vision_1838As I walked into this teacher’s room during his prep period, I was immediately struck by a large poster on his wall listing the scriptural memory verse for the first quarter, Joseph Smith-History 1:15-20 found in the Pearl of Great Price. Specifically, it deals with the all-important First Vision. Let me quote verses 18-20a to give you an idea of Joseph Smith’s account:

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.  19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”  20 He again forbade me to join with any of them.

An interesting set of verses to memorize, wouldn’t you think? More than half of my daughter’s friends (probably closer to 80%) are going to be reciting these verses in the upcoming weeks. Do the students realize the take-home message? I find this passage a fascinating choice for memorization.

The instructors are given freedom to teach the assigned material, the same across the board for all seminary classes this year. Doing their best to engage the students, the attitude of these five men (professional teachers who are paid a wage by the LDS Church that is equal to their public school counterparts) reminded me why I remained in Christian education for so long.

The lesson for this particular day covered D&C 1, emphasizing the importance of the LDS leadership. In fact, the journal assigned by one teacher asked, “Look around this room and see the different pictures. Who would you choose to eat dinner with and why?” On one wall were the individual photos of the three men comprising the First Presidency as well as the twelve apostles. In addition, pictures of each of the sixteen prophets, beginning with Joseph Smith, were displayed in the back of the room.

When the students were done with the assignment, they were allowed to share their choices with the class. One boy picked Brigham Young, a man he said was vital for the early growth of the church. Another girl chose Gordon B. Hinckley, an obvious pick for someone who was a child at the time when Hinckley was wrapping up his life. Nobody picked Jesus, even though there were two pictures of Him in the room. This would have been my choice, I suppose, if I had been given the assignment.

SeminaryIllustrationAn illustration epitomized for me the difference between Mormonism and Christianity. The teacher drew two stick-people figures on the white board and added a tall wall between them. He explained how human beings were represented by the figure on the right. On the left, he said, stood God the Father. The wall was symbolic of the inability for communication to take place between God and man. My brain’s juices were flowing. Certainly this wall must represent sin! (Rom 3:23; 6:23) Then he drew a third person standing on top of the wall, with arrows pointing up and down to the two lower figures. He said that this figure represented our mediator with God. In my mind, I thought, “What a great illustration! Yes, this is Jesus.” After all, 1 Timothy 2:5 says,For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.”

Unfortunately, this was not the pick of the seminary teacher. Instead, he explained how this figure represented the prophets…embodied today in the current prophet Thomas S. Monson. What was the take-home message? God has given humanity a living prophet to bridge the gap for humans to have access to God the Father.

On a street outside the Ogden temple last month, a Mormon said I was splitting hairs when I said the beliefs of Mormonism and my Christianity contradicted. They are really the same, I was told. “No ma’am,” I replied, “no hairs are split.” This illustration is the difference between truth and error, orthodoxy and heresy.

This entry was posted in LDS Church, Mormon Culture and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

114 Responses to A mediator between God and man

  1. falcon says:

    I’m a theological/doctrinal minimalist! I post this occasionally and I think it’s time again. If someone wants to judge a particular religious sect as to its orthodoxy, I think this is a pretty good jumping off spot. Examine where the sect stands on each of these points.

    1.The Bible is the Word of God.
    2. The Trinity; One God, three persons.
    3. The deity of Christ. He is God.
    4. The Virgin birth of Christ.
    5. Christ died for us. The blood atonement.
    6. Jesus’ resurrection.
    7. Saved by grace apart from works.
    8. Jesus second coming.
    9. The judgement of God.

    I wish I could say I put these points together myself but they come from an informative little book titled “Essential Christianity” by Dr. Walter Martin. It’s an invaluable resource because it provides basic information on each of these points. So if someone wants to know how a particular religious sect lines by with the orthodox doctrines of the Christian faith, they can use (these points).
    Every aberrant group or cult goes off the rails some place in each of these doctrines. Funny as it may seem, I listed these one time and a poster said he agreed with each of them. So we had to get specific as to exactly what he meant by “agreed”. It doesn’t take long to break-down these, “We’re the same as you.” pretenders. Define your terms should be a requirement of these groups that contend they are Christians. Who made the list? The Church Fathers by virtue of how they battled the heretics.

  2. falcon says:

    So take the LDS/FLDS sects in regards to “The Bible is the Word of God”. How do they treat the Bible? They tell their members is that the Bible is the Word of God as long as it’s translated correctly. The rank-and-file repeat this motto but I don’t think they have a clue what they are talking about. They might venture out by saying something like, “Well, the Bible has been copied so many times that it’s corrupted.” My favorite is, “Medieval monks conspired to leave Mormonism out of the Bible”. Motto Mormonism works well for chapel Mormons because they don’t venture outside the friendly confines of the wards where they can repeat these little ditties to one another.
    The Trinity, what will Mormons say about this? There best shot is that the word “trinity” doesn’t appear in the Bible. WOW what a deep and thoughtful argument. The only way to battle such ignorance is to tell them that those same Medieval monks who left the Mormonism out of the Bible left the word trinity out also.
    The deity of Christ. Easy one here. Who do Mormons tell us Jesus is? On course he’s one of many gods and the spirit off-spring of the god of this planet and one of his plural wives. This is too stupid even to comment on to say except to say “It’s stupid!”.
    The Virgin birth of Christ. Brigham Young had a great take on this. Its been severely down-graded in the LDS church because it’s even too bizarre for them. The idea of the Mormon god the father having physical sex with the Virgin Mary is even too much for the LDS church who never have met a bizarre idea it didn’t want to embrace.

  3. MJP says:


    I’ve told you much the samd things as ive told makeitshine. I know I’ve also pushed you. I hope its been fruitful and helpful. I must say I am happy to see your growth. We may not agree on everything, but that’s ok. However, i do think we agree on most things, at least essential things. I am still a bit confused about your reluctance to call Jesus Jesus, but if you see him as the auhor and perfector of our faith and that you can do nothing to add to his work, i am ok with it.

    you are right to point out many of the things you do, including that Smith’s religion as a fraud.

  4. Mike R says:

    Falcon, that last post of yours was vintage Falcon —- priceless .

  5. Mike R says:

    Us never been Mormon types on here get to pray for makeitshine and cattyjane , these two ladies
    need support to help them through their journey of transitioning out of a Mormon mindset .
    They’ve come a long way already in discarding many of the false doctrines of Mormonism .

  6. falcon says:

    So I’m picking up on a vibe of, “which church is the one true church” and an associated idea of “what church has the correct doctrine”?????
    It’s been pointed out rightly that the “one true church” is the invisible Body of Christ made up of all of those who have put their faith in Jesus for their salvation. These folks belong to various Christian denominations, some don’t belong to any particular group or sect but they are in Christ Jesus.
    I’m one of those who doesn’t belong to any particular group. I stay focused on the Lord Jesus Christ His cross and His resurrection.
    I was baptized as a baby since my family was Catholic. I wandered spiritually for several years as a pagan young man, became a Christian and decided to get baptized again later in life after being a Christian for about twenty years. I didn’t “feel” any compulsion to get baptized but I did, in a river, one summers’ day.

    Just as a note; my friend Andy Watson investigated the Greek Orthodox church because he really loved the reverence with which they approached God. Not to speak for Andy, but I think the thing that was a barrier for him in regard to this sect were the “icons” and the saints. He just couldn’t go there.
    The Lutherans? Well there are a whole lot of different Lutheran denominations. There’s even a group called “The Church of the Lutheran Confession”. There distinctive is that they hold strongly to Martin Luther’s “confessions” regarding faith in Christ.
    “All of the CLC member churches confess that the Bible is the inspired and unerring Word of God. They confess the creeds of the Lutheran Church without qualification, as they are found in the Book of Concord of 1580. Scripture itself is the source and foundation of Christian teaching and faith — The Lutheran confessions are a faithful setting forth of what Scripture teaches. The name of our church body is a witness to what we believe; it is a continual reminder of our responsibility to be truly Lutheran, and therefore Scriptural in our teaching and in our practice. This principle holds true among us: “If it is not Scripture; it is not Lutheran!”
    Actually, my wife and I attend a Lutheran church but it’s not “overtly” Lutheran. What I mean by that is that the focus of the church service is the preaching of the Word. There is no liturgy and they are really Christ centered rather, I would say, focused on Lutheran tradition per se.
    So what I do is take my “9” doctrinal points and see how a group lines-up. For example here’s the statement of faith on my “9” for the sect whose church service we attend.

    It’s a wonderful journey, learning more about the Christian faith, however the most(est:) wonderful thing is learning about God and drawing closer in a relationship with His Son Jesus Christ.

  7. MistakenTestimony says:

    Mike R,

    you said, “Us never been Mormon types on here get to pray for makeitshine and cattyjane , these two ladies need support to help them through their journey of transitioning out of a Mormon mindset .”



    Did you notice how no one objected to what I said but you? Do you now see that I did not have an issue with Makeitshine, rather you had an issue with me?

    And I am not impressed that you call “Lord, Lord” to the one you call Yeshua. I’m not impressed when Mormons do that either. I am not impressed that you are able to transliterate biblical words into a Hebrew cognate, and neither was Paul in 2 Tim 2:14 when he said, “Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.” I can guarantee you that you are not the only one here who is proficient in their knowledge of Hebrew, and those who are don’t give themselves an allure of higher knowledge by wanting “to quarrel about words.”

    And Paul isn’t condemning non-Christians outside the church in Titus 3:9-11 when he says, “But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.” On the contrary he is talking about people in the church.

    You are the one who cries out “Lord, Lord” then argues about the Law when you said, “Isaiah 56 speaks about the foreigners or gentiles being welcome at the alter of the Lord and not through Mikveh or baptism but through obedience.” Orthodox don’t even argue in that way. Obedience? Nobody here would define the Christian life primarily in that way; rather would all say through “Faith”! You are the one who over the past several months has been arguing about the 613 Mitzvot and obedience to the Law. Falcon can back me up if he were so inclined. But we know what Paul says in Rom 3:21, that “But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the Law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it.”

    You were the one who came to the faith after leaving Mormonism, I was there. Then later, you began speaking of a Rabbi you were talking with and weren’t sure in Christianity were true. Then you denied that Christ was ever prophesied or ever referenced in the Tanakh. You are not the only one here who has studied Judaism either. The Hebrew Roots movement, à la Bill Cloud, God’s Learning Channel, and others are those who teach that Christians are still to obey the Mosaic Law through crude sophistry. Then with regards to Messianic Judaism, there is David H. Stern and others who likewise teach that Jews who come to faith in Meshiakh are still to obey the Torah.

    There are, however, Messianic Jews who do teach a Christianity for ethnic Jews that teaches faith apart from works of the Law, such as Sam Nadler, and even the SBC has a fellowship of Messianic Jewish Congregations, http://www.sbmessianic.net. These are on the right side of where Christianity intersects Judaism in the modern western world, you however by your own words are on the wrong side of this. Even though you may cry “Adonai Yeshua Meshiakh” and say you are the ecclesia or synagogue, what you say is far from orthodox and is outside of mere Christianity.

    Makeitshine, I am not being mean to cattyjane, I am just doing what Paul says to bring her back. She gave you her email address, but if you email her you will only get more and more confusion. Email anybody here but her.

    Cattyjane, much love to you and we all want you to shed off these confusions and come back to where you were when you first believed. We are all praying for you.

  8. falcon says:

    You’re making my head hurt. Processing…………..processing………….processing…………….
    Good post though.

  9. cattyjane says:

    I dont know about any of those people you mentioned above. I havent learned thos out of books or youtube videos but whatever. I have told you a million times im not in some hebrew roots thing. I dont care if Makeitshine emails me or not. I think it would be better if she didnt since she attends church with her husband. They need to decide together what they are going to do. I am not prideful about anything that i have learned. You are assuming that because of your bias opinions regarding Judaism.

  10. falcon says:

    Your post also brought to mind for me the importance of who a person listens to. By listen I’m being rather broad meaning any process that someone goes through while obtaining information. I recall the apostle saying something regarding our need to focus on what is “right, lovely and of good repute”.
    I follow my 9 points in looking at doctrine, but finding reliable sources is critical. And then there’s the bottom line. That bottom line is connecting the dots and coming to reliable conclusions. People search for information which is really easy to get at now days. However the conclusions are vastly more important than simply gathering information.
    That’s why I don’t jump on things very quickly when I’m sifting through volumes of data. Often times I just let sit in the crock pot for a while.
    There is a reason why I keep coming back to Jesus and the cross and His resurrection. I admire people who seek after knowledge. It’s been said that knowledge is power. There are a whole lot of “yes but(s)” attached to that however.
    I fear sometimes people’s minds just get’s clogged with stuff and what’s needed is a good dose of Drain-O to clean the whole thing out!

  11. MistakenTestimony says:


    You said, “Your post also brought to mind for me the importance of who a person listens to.”

    Very true. And with that in mind,


    can you tell me your top 5 theologians to read and/or listen to. And don’t say John Piper, Josh McDowell, etc. because I am calling hogwash on that. Nobody who listens to those people would ever talk in the manner you do and with the emphasis you place on things.

    Please tell me, without any reservations, not 5 out of your top 20, who are your top 5 theologians to listen to?

    And I noticed in your last post you did not mention Christ or Christianity, but you did say, “You are assuming that because of your bias opinions regarding Judaism.”

    Please tell me, what exactly are my biases regarding Judaism? Let’s find out if A) my “biases” regarding Judaism are different from everyone else’s here, or if B) your biases regarding Judaism are different from everyone else’s here.

  12. MJP says:

    Falcon, you said this: “There is a reason why I keep coming back to Jesus and the cross and His resurrection.” This is precisely why I list the identity of Christ as the number one thing to define a believer by. In correctly identifying Christ, I believe your nine points will be satisfied by definition, which is why you keep coming back to Jesus and the cross and his resurrection.

    Catty, while I am open to where you are in terms of your journey, I encourage you to beware of your own warnings to us: becoming too stuck on what it is you think you know. You are pretty well established in your theology, which is based largely on a Mosaic foundation. That’s fine, as I have said over and over again, as long as you recognize Jesus (and its OK to call him that, good even) as your complete savior apart from any Mosaic law. We all know a thing or two about Christianity, and rather than seeking to enforce your belief upon us, perhaps you could recognize we are on the same team.

    Have you ever read CS Lewis’ Screwtape Letters? I suggest you do. Its a powerful look into how we as Christians can be led astray.

    Anyway, one thing I hope we all agree on is that Christ is our mediator, and all we need. He does not mediate based on our works, or use others to assist him. Even Catholics and other traditional sects, at least in word, believe that. We’ve said before that there is much to Christianity, and that it is not easy. Its not, but as falcon points out, it all comes back to Christ. We should always remember that.

  13. makeitshine says:

    Falcon, can I add/change something on your list? Since this blog is to lead Mormons to the trinity this might help.

    1. Jesus is the word of God. The Word of God is a person.
    1b. the Bible is the inspired written words about the the Word.

    Jesus is the one we are seeking. He Bible old testament and new are about Jesus. He was a real human historical person, but he also is beyond just the human we call Jesus.

    This was an absolute necessity for me to understand in order to even come close to comprehending the trinity. Mormons simply dont have the mind to understand the concept of 3 persons one being. You cannot recite the creed or try and explain it to them, they think its irrational. Its a hard thing.

    Now if you understand the word as a person, as a Mormon you can now understand that the trinity is in the bible. (but you also have to throw out the idea of the prexistence of the soul because that changes who Jesus is)

    “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ” The Word was God.

    “He was with God in the beginning”. – the Word is a person “HE”.

    “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.” – The Word became a man. Jesus.

    In order to understand this further they need to know what the word “Word” meant to the people of the time. This was the Logos of the greeks. The logos was the very foundation/pattern/wisdon of the universe. Also that a person is not the same thing as an individual. So once we get over that obstacle we no longer have to see an individual called Jesus, taking instructions from an individual called the Father to organize spirit-matter into a universe for his spirit children to incarnate on…..rather we get back to the biblical idea that in God we “live and move and have our being” Acts 17:28

    To Mormons Jesus is just an enlightened soul who came to pay a legal debt so that we can be saved, so hes like a thing of the past because that has already happened.
    Mormons then move beyond Jesus to becoming an individual God. Jesus is just a rung on the ladder rather than the Alpha and Omega.

    When I started my journey that was the question in my mind was who was Jesus, but because I couldn’t understand the trinity (by the general descriptions I read) I did not know if I could be Christian if Mormonism wasn’t correct. I think it was a Unitarian or some non trinitarian online bible study that I started with, comparing my LDS Gospel Principles book scripture references with theirs. The LDS interpret the Bible very differently because they see it through the lens of Joseph Smiths teachings, believe it might be corrupt/mistranslated in the parts that dont match up with their ideas.

    I want to clarify during my agnostic stint, I was not completely agnositc. More like uninterested, and when I would start thinking about religion and how Mormonism probably wasnt true, and how the trinity didnt make sense to me, I started to feel like there was a possibility all religions were just a bunch of made up fantasies and possibly that there was no God even. During this time I would have said that I believe in God, and that I was mormon but it was like both faith and doubt were in me, and the doubt was creeping in and taking up more and more space, so for the most part I just put it all on the backburner. This is probably what happens with most of the Mormons who become athiest.

    I had a talk with my brother about God one day. He thought that all Christians believed that God is a Sky Daddy type God (and does not believe in him), and was actually intrigued when I explained the trinity in language he could understand. I hope to have more conversations with him about this but haven’t had the chance, but he doesn’t seem that interested either. At least maybe I planted a seed.

    Thank you for all the prayers and Email invites. Maybe I do need some Drain-o for now, I study too much.

    I do want to compile a list at some point when I have time for MistakenTestimony, and CattyJane I will email you as I want to hear your story.

  14. cattyjane says:


    I dont have top theologins that i study from. I had a pastor that i studied under for a year and a half who taught me a lot of what i know. Its straight out of scripture tho. He was born and raised in Judaism. I do consider the Rabbinical writings on things but i always bring it back to the Torah. If it doesnt line up with the Torah than i throw it out. So what i base my beliefs on is the Torah first. I also look at the book of Isaiah a lot for understanding of things. After looking at these i take into account the cultural and Rabbinical understanding of it but it must line up with the Torah.
    I have not heard those guys you have mentioned nor would I consider it. I had a friend try to get me to listen to Mere Christianity by CS Lewis and i couldnt get past the introduction. There is one book that I have read some of and find it to be very convincing. Its called the Kosher Pig by Tzahi Itzhak Shapira. For reference purposes I have studied some of Nehemia Gordons writings. I will use Chabad.org and Aish.org for references as well, but I also cross reference it with scripture. I also use the Mezoretic text for reference as to what the Hebrew says in scripture. Im not a scholar in Hebrew by any means but I can read at a first grade level so it helps.

  15. cattyjane says:

    Guess i had better make sure you know the pastor i studied under was Christian.
    Ive also read quite a few books by other authors as requirement for my conversion but I had to read those.
    I dont know what your trying to get at. If you dont want me on here than just write a letter to Sharon or Aaron and have me banned. I dont understand what your big issue with me is. Maybe its just because you cant suff me into a mainstream christian doctrine box. It really irritates me that you think i say things a certain way in order to be prideful or arrogant. Im not like that at all.

  16. MJP says:


    One of the things Lewis brings up in Screwtape letters is how easily it is to look at others at church and compare oneself with them and say things like, “Well, I know this better than Bob, so I have to be a better Christian.” Or “I saw Suzy doing X, Y, or Z last weekend, so I am definitely better than her.” Or, “Steve never does this, and I do, so I am better than him, too.” On and on it goes…

    The point is that what I hear from you is that you absolutely KNOW that your approach from the OT is better than ours, and you say that we are closed to new information. Be careful in that.

    I will give you the benefit of the doubt and as such I don’t believe your intent is to come across as I accuse you here. Yet, that is how you come across nonetheless.

    We do, in fact, have a decent knowledge of the Bible here. My knowledge seems to be quite limited as compared to others, but I can certainly tell you much of what the OT tells us about Jesus.

    It saddens me that you would not consider reading Christian, Biblical scholars such as Piper or McDowell. Why? Because it reeks of someone with a closed mind, and especially one who tells us that our minds are closed.

  17. MJP says:

    And catty,

    I do believe you are Christian, just as I am. We come at Jesus from vastly different angles, but that’s OK. We both have areas we can grow in, no doubt.


  18. MistakenTestimony says:


    How is me asking you who your theological mentors are an attempt by me to get you banned? All I’m trying to find out is where you are coming from because you are clearly less than orthodox in what you are saying which concerns me. If it didn’t concern me I wouldn’t care what you said. I also agree with MJP’s concerns as well for where you are who is feeding you your clearly unorthodox and unchristian theology.

    But more importantly than who is feeding you these things you so confidently assert, I also asked a far more important question above. I will copy and paste it again in hopes that it does not get overlooked.

    And I noticed in your last post you did not mention Christ or Christianity, but you did say, “You are assuming that because of your bias opinions regarding Judaism.”

    Please tell me, what exactly are my biases regarding Judaism? Let’s find out if A) my “biases” regarding Judaism are different from everyone else’s here, or if B) your biases regarding Judaism are different from everyone else’s here.

  19. grindael says:

    Jesus is just an enlightened soul who came to pay a legal debt so that we can be saved, so hes like a thing of the past because that has already happened.

    This is actually quite insightful and well put. Jesus was a bit more than that in Mormonism though, he was the “first-born” of the Father (Yahovah/Michael) which carries weight in Mormonism. But it is true that in Mormonism, with their cycle of gods, Jesus was just another of a long line of “saviors” for an individual god who had made it to “exaltation”. If Jesus had not been chosen by the Council (but we all know how the Priesthood works so that was a given), another would have been, and if Jesus had failed, they would have sent another “savior” to perform the required legal debt of being slain for the first man (his spiritual father’s) sin. Jesus in Mormonism is simply another cog in the great wheel of the plan of salvation which happens over and over again, worlds without end, Amen.

  20. MistakenTestimony says:

    The following are the sources that Cattyjane provided for her sources of theology.

    This website is a rabbinical Jewish (non-Christian) website.

    This website is a rabbinical Jewish (non-Christian) website
    For example, read the following link, http://www.aish.com/sp/so/The_Anti-Missionary.html?tab=y

    Nehemia Gordon
    A Karaite (non-Christian) Jewish theologian, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehemia_Gordon

    There is a very serious problem when you get your biblical theology from non-Christian (Antichristian) sources, for obvious reasons. For example, compare the commentary in The Jewish Study Bible [JPS] (written by Antichristian Jews) and compare that with the commentary in something like The ESV Study Bible [Crossway] or The Lutheran Study Bible [CPH]. How do you think the Jewish commentary would address Christ throughout the OT? For example, to see how often Christ appears in the OT, just go to the article in the back of your ESV study bible entitled “History of Salvation in the Old Testament.” The Jewish bible drops the ball every time.

    There is also a book on my shelf right now called The Jewish Annotated New Testament [Oxford] which is a complete commentary on the NT written by rabbinical (Antichristian) Jews. How do you think they handle the text? I have a complete Antichristian Jewish commentary on the entire Bible at my disposal, and I’ll tell you what, I would not give it to my worst enemy.

    I don’t think we should jump to Cattyjane’s defense so quickly on her being a Christian without her explaining A) how Torah plays into the Christian life, and B) her full views on the Trinity (which I have in the past had to defend against her by quoting the Athanasian Creed in full), and C) her view of how central Christ is to the entire corpus of Scripture, not just the Greek text. Her saying “Lord Christ” will not suffice for Mormons or anyone else by that fact alone.

  21. makeitshine says:

    Just FYI both the Screwtape Letters and Mere Christianity are available to listen to on YouTube free.

    @cattyjane- I dont know if you meant you just got bored with mere Christianity or didnt like it for some other reason. I dont think I could have read it (short attention span), but listening was easy.

  22. falcon says:

    Very good post and please feel free to alter, adjust and reconstruct my 9 doctrinal points any which way you like. After all, they aren’t mine really, but just a frame work I like because it’s what Dr. Walter Martin used when discussing various religious groups.
    Actually, I’d say you are using higher order thinking.
    Knowing, Understanding, Applying, then we get in gear when we Analyze (take things apart to see the individual components, Synthesize (arranging the parts in new and creative ways) and finally Evaluation (having the skill to observe and assess).
    Sorry, but I can’t stop teaching. That little hierarchy comes from Benjamin Bloom.

    I hope you stick around here because you have a lot to offer. I’m enjoying your posts very much.

  23. falcon says:

    Now boys and girls………………………………
    I really don’t mind the sort of testy back and forth going on here. I like passion and I also enjoy churning away at various ideas.
    But here’s the deal. What’s the point?
    See being a guy, I like to bottom-line everything. I know enough about the Church Fathers and their struggle with the heretics that the end result was the articulation of the basic doctrines of the Christian faith.
    Since many of those who post here are former Mormons, you can see how Smith, Young and the rest of the crew got off on a nefarious spiritual journey that resulted in them being about as lost as anyone can possibly be. They are more of a threat to Biblical Christianity than atheists.
    I like the fact that folks are on-guard for aberrant teachings. I’ve seen where things can end-up especially with those into the “name-it-claim-it” fad, for example.
    So anyway, no one go away. Stick around.

  24. MistakenTestimony says:

    Why do we object that Mormons are not Christian? Because of the Book of Mormon? Because they have a living prophet? Because of polygamy? Not necessarily. The single reason that we can point to that Mormons are simply not Christians is one teaching alone: the Holy Trinity. The following is from the Eastern Orthodox wiki:

    Mormonism’s designation by Orthodoxy as being “heretical”—instead of “heterodox,” as is the case with the Roman Catholic and most major Protestant faiths—stems primarily from their spurious doctrines on the Holy Trinity and the nature of God, together with various other specious beliefs.
    Mormons have a very difficult time understanding why Orthodox and other Christians deny that they are Christian. The simplest answer to this question is that the Mormon god is simply not God—at least not the God worshipped by Orthodox Christians (and other Trinitarians). This does not mean that the Mormons are necessarily immoral or wicked people, simply that they worship a god completely dissimilar from the Christian Trinity.

    That’s it. That’s the issue. Think about how different the conversation would be if Mormons did not err on the nature of the one true God. If Mormons never taught that God was once a man; if they never taught that Father, Son, and Spirit are 3 separate gods; if they never believed in the corporeal nature of the Father… we would have been having an entirely different conversation for the past century and a half. Think about it. The Restorationist Churches (modern day Christian Churches and Churches of Christ) who refer to only themselves as Christians believe that they are the restoration of the one true church and believe anybody not baptized in the Church of Christ is going to hell, I would not imagine that anybody here says that they are not Christian but rather confused. When was the last time legitimate evangelicals came out and called the duck dynasty family a cult? How is their views on this dissimilar from the Great Apostasy of Mormonism? I’m not saying that we would welcome them with open arms, but we would have at least had a common core to stand on a conversation.

    The Trinity is not some marginal, trivial issue to simply split hairs over; it is the core of the Christian faith. To err on this will ripple throughout every other point of doctrine. I apologize if I take the worship of the one true God of the Trinity too seriously. I do apologize that that might offend some, but I can’t apologize for the truth. This is all I want Cattyjane to commit to—and not only myself but the Apostles and the Son of God require this as well—and then I will consider her a Christian: does she believe in the Trinity as taught by the Holy Scriptures and believed by the one holy catholic and apostolic Church for the past two-thousand years. If she can’t then I’m sorry, she’s not a Christian in God’s eyes. And that of course goes for anybody.

    She reads biblical exegetes who are opposed to Christ as Son of God. I have had to argue with her in the past over the Trinity when she rejected it. Has she changed her opinion since? I have no idea. Nobody here believes that when someone simply says “Jesus is Lord” they are a Christian by the mere work of the act, so why should we believe that on the MRM blog? We shouldn’t. What we believe on the streets should be what we believe on the Internet as well.

    Cattyjane, much love to you, my concern is for you in love. I’m not saying you’re not, the same way I didn’t say Makeitshine was not. I only raised the concern. MJP made the point that we need to pray for both of you 2 post-Mormons that they shed off the confusion, and I agree whole heartedly. Makeitshine has convinced me she is, now I’m just wanting you, Cattyjane, to convince me as well. I want to endorse you and be able to say, “Really awesome point, Catty!” Believe me, I truly do. But I need to know that these Antichristian materials you are fact checking against are not destroying you as a result. Please do understand this.

    Please, go read the Athanasian Creed online somewhere; it is simply a symbol (a convenient way to summarize what the Scriptures teach into one coherent thought) of the doctrine of the Trinity. Please read this and let me know if you disagree and if so where. I truly with the love of a sibling want to know where you stand on this. Also, please do consider moving away from these materials that are overtly against Christ as God and please look up Sam Nadler, a Jewish convert to Messiah. Listen to his archived sermons, especially the ones on Hebrews, he goes through the whole book.

  25. falcon says:

    You are speaking my language. I’ve always contended that what Mormons have come to believe about the nature of God is the primary topic to be discussed. If someone gets God wrong, what do we really care what they think about “grace” for example.
    I’ve often posted what the Community of Christ sect says about the nature of God. Think about it. This is the Mormon sect that Smith’s one legal wife Emma belonged to and Smith’s son was the “prophet”. That in and of itself out to give a Mormon pause.

  26. RikkiJ says:


    You’re right, but actually every major doctrine of the LDS community (main sect) is actually off kilter. I’m not knocking you for your discourse on the Trinity. What you have said, I agree with for the most part.

    However, there are major doctrines outlined by mrm.org that are consistently false, and that article is linked.

    Hope you can agree that biblical inerrancy, salvation by grace alone and the other doctrines all are significant disagreements that the LDS church has with evangelical Christians.

  27. RikkiJ says:

    Also, CattyJane has made a departure from the LDS faith, its significant in terms of anyone leaving what they believe to be the utmost in truth. These have not been easy times for her. MT, while I believe your questions have been valid, perhaps cut her some slack?

  28. MistakenTestimony says:


    You said, “Hope you can agree that biblical inerrancy, salvation by grace alone and the other doctrines all are significant disagreements that the LDS church has with evangelical Christians.”

    Agreed, which is why I said, “I’m not saying that we would welcome them with open arms, but we would have at least had a common core to stand on a conversation.”

    You said, “These have not been easy times for her.”

    Man, having never been a Mormon but knowing what I know my heart goes out to every Mormon who leaves the LDS church, even if they slipped into non-Christianity afterwards. We speak of the LDS church as a theological cult but in another very real sense it is a sociological cult as well. For that type of cult doctrine is irrelevant, it’s how lives are controlled by the organization that is oppressive.

    And you said, “perhaps cut her some slack?” But here’s the thing. I’m sure she’s hurting. That hurts me knowing that she might be. But someone I know once told me a story of a man they knew who was a non-Christian. He said to my friend upon learning that he was terminally ill, “I’m going to die, this is the worst thing that could happen to me.” My friend bluntly said to him, “No, dying without Christ is the worst thing that could happen to you.” The man was shocked by my friend’s blunt candor. The man eventually ended up being taught the Gospel of our Lord before his death. And that’s the truth of the matter, lives are on the line here. The situation is that serious that we should be able to look a person right in the eye who is terminally ill and tell them they need the one true God.

    What was the post a few weeks back on looking at the big picture of what MRM is? Are we just moving people out of Mormonism here, or are we moving people out and bringing them into the body of Christ? Clearly the latter is our objective, and that is why the Trinity is so critical right now. If someone is placing their faith into a god that does not exist, have we done a service to anyone? They would be better of staying in the LDS church if that were the case. No, we need to bring people out, but we also with that same level of fervor need to ensure that they at the very least placing their faith into a God who actually exists. Judaism denies that Christ is God. There is no salvation in that. We are all going to die. If we can’t look one another in the eye and say bluntly, “You need the true Christ to forgive you life of sin” then we are not doing what body of Christ is moving to do. And when it’s all over many will say “Lord, Lord” but He will say “I never knew you,” and not everyone who says “Christ” means the Christ who actually exists. If we leave somebody’s faith in the one true God as an ambiguous or trivial end game then I fear that we would have actually done a grave disservice.

  29. RikkiJ says:


    I totally agree with what you have said. Without Christ someone is totally lost, and asking someone to be honest and open about their beliefs in Christ is a call we all share. I wholeheartedly agree that we need to lead those who are in Mormonism out of it and to the truth (Triune God through Jesus Christ). MRM is doing a phenomenal resource and ministry for this.

    The point of what I’m saying is this. I agree with your content, your questions are valid. Maybe tone?

    And don’t say John Piper, Josh McDowell, etc. because I am calling hogwash on that

    Drop me a line on [email protected] – I don’t want my response to your comments to become another thread!


  30. cattyjane says:

    Mist Test

    Athanasian Creed

    1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; (Disagree)

    2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. (I have no idea what this is talking about)

    3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; (Trinity is not in scripture)

    4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. (Im assuming this is still trinity doctrine so no)

    5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. (um…didn’t they just say trinity and now they are separate. Do they even know what they are talking about?)

    6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. (Authority given from the Father to the Messiah yes, one body no. God does not have a body.)

    7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

    8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. (I think the Spirit of the Messiah existed before creation of the world. I don’t know if it was created by God or not tho.)

    9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

    10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. (Yes God is eternal and His spirit is Eternal and the Messiah is Eternal)

    11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

    12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. (Can these people make things any more confusing. Are you kidding me?)

    13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

    14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

    15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

    16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

    17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

    18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

    19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
    (No. The book of Revelation does not even do this. Revelation 4-5 The Messiah is called the Lamb and yes the Messiah will be King in the world to come. Yes he will be given all authority but God is still God.)

    20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
    (Right, there is One God and One Messiah that He sent to be salvation for all. God is our salvation because he has sent the Messiah. But there is only one God.)

    21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. (Agree)

    22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten. (Messiah, I don’t know but I believe his spirit existed before creation)

    23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. (Agree. The spirit is the means by which God operates in this world so its part of him)

    24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

    25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another. (Disagree,
    the Father is greater John 14:28)
    26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal. (I think so)

    27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

    28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

    29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

    30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

    31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

    32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

    33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

    34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

    35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

    36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

    37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; (God provided the Messiah)

    38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; (I would say it different but yes…don’t know about the hell thing)

    39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty; (agree)

    40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. (agree)

    41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies; (agree)

    42. and shall give account of their own works. (agree)

    43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. (agree….not sure about the fire thing tho, but a place of separation yes)

    44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved. (I guess this is why I am not Catholic.)

  31. RikkiJ says:

    “However, there are major doctrines outlined by mrm.org that are consistently false, and that article …

    Sorry this is unclear. What I mean is that mormon doctrines that are consistently false are clearly outlined by mrm in that article. Sorry for the confusion.

  32. MistakenTestimony says:


    You are not a Christian then. I’m sorry but it’s true. In the same way Mormons are not Christian either.

    You said, “25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another. (Disagree, the Father is greater John 14:28)”

    But you did not even go on to read 33: “Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.”

    You said, “Trinity is not in scripture.” And where it says, “Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith” you disagree. Catholic meaning “universal” in Latin and more correctly “complete, entire” in Greek; this is the faith that was once for all handed to the saints and has been kept and faithfully defended against all levels of heresy for two thousand years. God is not something we just believe on our own terms.

    Where the three persons are defined you say, “didn’t they just say trinity and now they are separate. Do they even know what they are talking about?” and when they define the one essence of the Godhead you say, “Authority given from the Father to the Messiah yes, one body no. God does not have a body.” You later go on to say, “I think the Spirit of the Messiah existed before creation of the world. I don’t know if it was created by God or not tho.”

    Your views are no better that a JWs. We have literally moved Cattyjane from believing that there are 3 God’s to believing in a monad where the Son and Spirt are not of the same essence, the persons are separate, and the Son and Spirit are creatures. We have done absolutely no service here to Cattyjane. I’m sorry girly, but as long as you are here and you post and you do not believe what the Word of God says concerning the true nature of the one true God then I will have to oppose you from here going forward until you repent. I’m praying for you girl.

    And just so nobody thinks I was being mean, I asked who she listened to and what she believed and she provided that information. My radar was on full alert and my fears were concerned by who own admissions.

  33. falcon says:

    The falcon, in a perverse way, is sort of enjoying this. If rick is around I bet he is too. rick and I could probably be labeled “The Tone Brothers” not to be confused with “The Blues Brothers”. Maybe more accurately it would be “The BAD Tone Brothers” and that’s not as in, “You be bad tone, brother” sort of compliment. My apologies to those who can actually speak jive.
    I think I have taken the edge off a little over the past five years here. I can definitely say that rick has not.
    I think I may have asked the rhetorical question more than once which is, “Does anyone know of anyone who has actually led an active Mormon to Christ?” I don’t!
    So what’s my point? My point is that it appears to me that whether an active Chapel Mormon leaves the LDS church and finds Christ or just plain leaves, it’s a long process. The marginal LDS folks leave because they just aren’t all that into it. I believe they are the ones the LDS culture labels “never had a testimony”. Of those Chapel TBM types who do leave, what nudged them out the LDS door? I doubt if it was doctrine. Most of them don’t know enough about doctrine to even be shocked by it. Especially those who have grown up “in the covenant”. Face it, the average LDS member is really low information about the history and doctrines of Mormonism.
    I love to watch the YouTube videos of such individuals/groups like Earl Erskine’s “Ex Mormon Files” or those of “Sacred Groves” throw John Dehlin and “Mormon Stories” in there. I’ve learned about Mormons from every walk of life and what caused them to begin to doubt Smith’s religion. With Earl’s program, the folks have come to Christ.
    If there is a theme to the stories I think it would be that the person had a feeling that something just wasn’t right. With Lee Baker, who had been a bishop like Earl, it was because a young Christian man asked him a question and it bothered him that no official LDS person could or would answer (the question). I can’t even remember what the young Christian man asked him but it was enough that it took Lee on a several year journey to learn the truth about Mormonism and then into a saving relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.
    I guess my point is that all of us here, especially the former Mormons are at a certain point in their journey. I don’t think we can rush things. It just takes time. Sometimes it can be confusing and even a real mess.

  34. falcon says:

    Thank you for that. It was very and I mean very illuminating regarding what you have come to believe. We’ve sort of danced around it here and I could never nail it down in regards to your doctrinal stance. At one point you say something like “couldn’t they make it more confusing”. Here’s a couple of thoughts. When I read the KJV of the Bible, I have to really slow it down and try to decipher the English form being used. The idioms, for example, are from another century. Shakespeare is the same thing. I remember as a high school kid wondering why someone didn’t rewrite it so I could actually understand what they were saying.
    Anyway, I checked in the Catholic Encyclopedia to see what they had to say about this creed. This link provides a short summary of the origin which I found pretty interesting.

    I like this explanation from another source:
    “While the authorship and timing of the Creed are hard to determine, it is not hard to determine the reason for the writing of the Creed. The Athanasian Creed is similar to the Nicene Creed in its defense of the Triune God and the teaching that Jesus was True God co-equal with God the Father. The chief difference between the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed is one of emphasis. The Nicene Creed emphasized the full deity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and only implies rather than explicitly explains the oneness of God. The Athanasian Creed, leaving nothing to be assumed, brings in the idea of the inviolate Oneness of God (there is only one God, not three) as a sort of a triumphant refrain repeated throughout the entire Creed.”
    The Athanasian Creed also deals with one additional error. At the time there were controversies being raised by some about the person and nature of Jesus. The previously written Nicene Creed clearly laid out that Jesus was True God from eternity. Scripture teaches that Jesus, who is True God, became fully human. Again, because this is not logical to us humans, some attempted to rationalize these clear statements of Scripture. All of the rationalizations, in one way or another, either removed from Jesus his true humanity or his true divinity or the idea that there was just one Jesus who was both true God and true man. Because each of these departures from the true teachings of Scripture touched upon the article of our redemption, undermining the believer’s assurance of salvation, a defense of the Truth was certainly warranted in the formal creeds of the church. From these defenses of Scripture, the Athanasian Creed was produced and accepted into the Church.”

  35. falcon says:

    I think you might enjoy “Christian History” magazine. It’s available on DVD. I keep a couple of the issues right next to me here. One issue is all about “Heresy in the Early Church” (Issue 51). Another issue (85) is “Debating the Divinity of Jesus”.
    In the latter, on the very last page is a good article titled “Surprised by Orthodoxy” by Thomas C. Oden. A memorable quote from the article is:
    “…….The reversal occurred when Will Herbert, my irascible, endearing Jewish mentor told me that I would remain theologically uneducated until I had studied carefully Athanasius, Ambrose, Basil, and Cyril of Alexandria.”
    “In his usual gruff voice, he said, ‘Tom, you have not yet met the great minds of your own tradition. Just as I, after my Communist days, found it decisive to read the Talmud and the Midrashim carefully to discover who I was as a Jew, you will have to sit at the feet of the ancient Christian writers to discover who you are as a possible person of faith. Without solid textual grounding, you will become lost in supposed relevance. If you are going to deepen to become a working theologian instead of a know-it-all contemporary pundit, you had best get at it.’ I was stunned. He had nailed me.”
    I guess my point is cattyjane, that since you have a great thirst for knowledge and to uncover the truth, maybe you should take the advice of Tom’s Jewish friend and get the works of the “Post-Nicene Fathers” and study them.

  36. cattyjane says:

    I think Toms Jewish friend gave great advice. Tom was a hard core Christian/Catholic and was wanting a better understanding of what he already believed. I don’t want anything with Catholic roots or anything that goes back to Constantine. I think Constantine tainted things with pagan beliefs. I don’t care what Mist Test thinks. I know that somehow the Father and Messiah are One as in a perfect unit working together. I don’t understand it and im not prideful enough to claim that I do. I know that the Messiah has authority but only the authority that was given to him by the Father. They are not some alien being squished into one body and they are not three gods. If I get this wrong about how the authority and power of Messiah and God work im pretty sure im not going to be cast into the abyss for it. All that I have to do is know that Yeshua is the Messiah that was promised and he is the one I trust in to be my High Priest and mediator. Not man, not doctrine, not baptism by bathwater, and certainly not some creed written by man. Everything will be explained in the world to come and he will make things right with everyone. You might find some things shocking when you arrive there as well.
    I am nothing compared to JW. They think the Messiah was Michael the arch angel. They also change scripture.

  37. cattyjane says:

    I think some of my last post was directed at Mist Test as well.

  38. falcon says:

    I have a post addressed to you that’s in mod jail. I’m thinking I’ll make bail soon and be sprung.

    You don’t want anything to do with the Catholics? That’s sort of too bad because they have some of the best “church” historians around. You know of course that I was raised a Catholic and I have my own issues with the religion however I know what to value within the historical context. I will occasionally turn on Catholic radio or TV if I see something in the “guide” that catches my eye or in the case of radio, ear. I often find myself doing a “Whoa, I didn’t know that.”
    I’m concerned that you are slamming the door shut. I’d encourage you to be a little more open. And then there’s Constantine. Another door slammed shut? I’m starting to get a rigid vibe coming from you. I don’t think even I, as hard-core as I am, could be that dogmatic.
    Well, at least I’m getting a little better idea where you are coming from and where you are getting your ideas that are shaping your thinking. Not to be condescending, but I hope this is a phase you’re going through.

  39. makeitshine says:


    22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten. (Messiah, I don’t know but I believe his spirit existed before creation)

    It sounds like the idea of a premortal existence (though maybe just of Jesus spirit?) is what is holding you back? I totally understand this, I was stuck here for a very long time…. like years. Maybe I can help? I have a couple different mental images I use, but I actually came to a better understanding by applying certain ideas from Quantum Physics, and new age-ish ideas + reading some of the very deep Christian theology books.

    I may agree with you on some of the points above also, so maybe there are some Christians that think my Christianity is less than…but they still are in perfect alignment with EO so I think I am safe.

  40. makeitshine says:

    @ oh also I also used to have a pretty bad aversion to (Roman) Catholisism also. Its a Mormon thing. I have overcome it somewhat, but there are still some things… just…eeeeh.

  41. MistakenTestimony says:

    Note that Cattyjane is equating Constantine with Roman Catholicism, which a fallacious back-read of history and simply not true. The Church would not split into east and west until several centuries later, and the Eastern Orthodox are most certainly not Roman Catholics. And the word “catholic” in the symbol of the faith I provided has nothing to do with Roman Catholicism, rather “catholic” as the transliteration of the Greek and Latin words meaning “of the whole,” as in the Holy Trinity is the teaching of the Complete Church in all times and in all places. I don’t know who injected Roman Catholicism into the conversation but I most certainly didn’t. And Cattyjane, the more you talk and explain your position, the more you show that you are truly outside of the catholic Church and Faith given by Christ to His Apostles.

  42. MistakenTestimony says:


    You said, “I may agree with you on some of the points above also, so maybe there are some Christians that think my Christianity is less than…but they still are in perfect alignment with EO so I think I am safe.”

    The Eastern and Western Churches differ on the Trinity at only one point: the procession of the Holy Spirit. Does the Holy Spirit proceed from only the Father, or from both the Father and the Son? That is not a make or break issue for the doctrinal agreement that we have with each other on the Holy Trinity. The Eastern Churches agree with the Athanasian Creed in full minus saying that Spirit also proceeds from the Son. So if you are indeed in perfect alignment with EO then you will disagree with anything that Cattyjane said above, unless of course in places where she “agreed” with it.

  43. MistakenTestimony says:

    And it is no surprise that Cattyjane would be opposed to Constantine because she most certainly argues like an Arian, or more correctly a Eunomian.

  44. cattyjane says:

    Not everything Catholic is bad but there are many things that have pagan roots within their doctrine.

    Read into it whatever you want. Where does it say in scripture that I am required to undestand the physical nature of God. From what I see in scripture i am to obey his commands and trust that God fulfills his promises and has provided the Messiah to make all things complete.

  45. MJP says:

    First, Mistakentestimony, I fully agree with this comment: “To err on this will ripple throughout every other point of doctrine. ” The point being the Trinity, of which Christ is an indispensable part. Now, as it comes out, Catty still has some hang ups on the Trinity, which puts some things in doubt. However, I do think she is making progress. It was not that long ago she did not think Jesus was even the Messiah. I am willing to be patient with her.

    Now, Catty, the rigidness falcon speaks of is what I am trying to impress on you about your complaints against us. We are not perfect, but we are open to new ideas and sources. However, most of us are more familiar with the things you think we are closed to. I applaud you for your progress and your search, but don’t let your heart become hardened to the likes Constantine and other early church thinkers.

    I’ll end by reminded of what set the early Jews off against Jesus more than anything else: his claim to be God. Don’t forget that Christ very truly claimed to be “I am.” Remember also that there is very clearly only one God.

  46. makeitshine says:

    ok so I really know nothing about the Athanatian creed, and not that much about history. But where I would disagree is

    1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

    2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. (ya I dont really know what this means either)

    Here’s why and here is what I have taken from all of my studies in Eastern Orthodoxy.

    Becuase I have not studied western theology other than a little bit of luther (which I agree with him on his oppositions to Rome) I really dont know much about evangelical or other protestants believe I have no idea if this is is in line with that.

    So #1. No I dont agree, why Well as far as I know EO doesnt have a DOCTRINE on salvation because they are not legalistic. Legal language is used sometimes yes, and also in the bible. I believe they would consider this to be “Milk”. Only God knows who is saved anyways.

    You will hear a couple things said in EO.

    1. No one can be saved outside the church… but then you must explain
    What is the Church.

    2.The Church is the body of Christ.

    3. EO will then say they are the Church beacuse they believe themselves to be the community Christ established and that has been handed down. But then they will also say we know where the Church is, but we cannot say where she is not.

    There may be SOME in EO who don’t agree with this, but since its there is no doctrine on it, there is freedom.

    Sooooo. I do believe a buhddist, or an unbaptised baby and many others can be saved. Why? 1. Because Christ has saved EVERYONE by his death on the cross. 2. because his sheep will know his voice. 3. These are CHRISTS WORDS. “This, then, is the judgment: The light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil.

    The light of Christ is the light that enlightens every man. Those who love the light will come to him, maybe only upon death or when he comes again, whichever comes first.

    There are people and religions in this world that are trying to steer people away from the Light, Mormonism and Mormon doctrine leads away from Christ and I believe leads to spiritual egotism maybe not in all followers, but in many. So we do need to guide these people away and to the true light of Christ.

  47. MistakenTestimony says:


    I understand what you are saying, and I agree. Patience is much needed now, but patience to a closed heart, for how long? We need to see progress to continue to give patience. That’s what I’m saying also, I hope you understand.

    And you said, “Remember also that there is very clearly only one God.” Here’s the thing, Cattyjane would agree with that. And so would Arius and Muhammad. She needs to say the there is only one God, and Jesus is that one God, the exact same being of that one God coequal to and coeternal with the Father and the Son, without uniting the three persons to be one person, and without dividing the one essence to be three similar but unequal essences.


    I will let someone else address your legitimate and relevant concerns of universalism and the LDS doctrine of the Light of Christ.

  48. MJP says:

    Is the Church the entire body of believers, or just those who believe in the EO tradition?

    I would describe the evangelical Church as the entire body of believers in Christ, no matter the tradition they serve.

    I would also state that not everyone is saved, as in Romans we read that people still have to make a choice. God’s evidence is all around us and He is revealed through it. Infants? I have no idea and don’t want to guess. I do know kids do bad things very quickly…

  49. MJP says:


    I generally agree with everything you wrote. I left part of my point regarding Jesus claiming to be I Am unstated intentionally. That point is that Jesus claimed to be God when he said that.

    I wish to let her consider the ramifications of that statement and how it applies to the Trinity.

    And I want to emphasize that the Trinity is not an easy thing to understand. Its just not. However, everything flows from it. And the beauty of God’s power and majesty becomes clear once one gets it.

    Tying it back to the idea of a mediator, God himself is our mediator, made possible when He humbled himself to become just like us and die humiliatingly on a cross between two lowly thieves. God sent His Spirit out into the world to reach us all and to provide that direct access. The very idea that God would do that so that He might save us is amazing.

  50. MistakenTestimony says:

    Well said, MJP.

    And that’s what’s so damning about erring on the Trinity. Take for example the Nestorians who believe that the divine and the humans natures of Christ are actually two separate natures rather one nature which is fully human and fully divine. Which nature died on the Cross to pay for the sins of the whole world according to Nestorians? The human nature. Here’s the problem with that though, a human nature cannot atone for the sins of any other human nature!

    A man merely Anointed by God can’t atone for the sins of the world, as some other heresies teach. A semi-divine similar-but-different being can’t die on the cross to atone for the sins of the world, as still other heresies would deceptively teach. No. God Himself had to die. He alone. Not something like Him. Not someone He merely anointed. No, God Himself had to die to save us! That’s the Gospel, that’s that good news that while we yet sinners God died for us. He came to serve, not to send someone or something else to serve on His behalf. We can’t waver on that issue, it’s critical.

Leave a Reply