Mike Gallagher's Soft Bigotry

Nice rant.

I am glad you listen to Evangelicals. Now tell me what do Mormons and us have in common, theologically.

And please, your rants aren't going to win over anyone...

You used the word "rant" twice. That means "to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently; talk in a wild or vehement way; rave" (Dictionary.com)
I guess I missed the ranting part. The post was a well-reasoned challenge to Mike Gallagher to provide some proof of his claim that he is not a bigot because he is really concerned about how Mormonism in a president would influence how that man governed.
Mike threw out an awfully strange example if he really has been thinking about this issue. No one with any familiarity with Mitt Romney's record as a governor would call Mitt Romney a racist but the only actual example Mike G. could come up with had to do with Mormonism's past policy of with-holding the priesthood from blacks. His historical references to that policy were wildly inaccurate and highly charged. Maybe that's what you were referring to when you used the word "rant." Rant does not mean: "someone who does not agree with me and is better than I am at supporting their logic."

A rant is also a bit whiny.

You come out to defend Mormon's against Mr. Gallagher. OK, fair enough, but how many times in your posts do you need to complain how much us little non-Mormon folk think you commit sacrificaes in your temple?

That IS outrageous. I admit that. My take on Mormonism is that you have some funky beliefs, some that are really quite new age-ish, like saying that Christ is going to administer varying gifts and punishments to all people-- like there is no difference among us. Or, like beleiving that we will someday get our own world. (Say what you will, but THAT IS a Mormon belief.)

But I do not at all think Mormons to be evil or bad people. Quite the contrary. And most evangelicals I know think the same way.

See, it is a rant because you seem to have a chip on your shoulder; you seem to think we are out to get and convert you! Yes, and no. Just as you would like us to come to Mormonism, we would like you to come to our Christ-- THE Christ. But we are not going to beat you with our Bibles any more than your missionaries are us. Somehow, you know otherwise.

If you want, as your first post mentioned, to bring Mormon's and Bible believing Christians together, calm down some. There are bad apples out there under my flag, but those are everywhere under all flags. Realize this, Cassandra, and you won't rant.

what do we have in common theologically?

I just wrote a piece that I'd be curious to see how you interpret. Please stop by. I ask sincerely, as I present all my points sincerely.

Truly.

Virginia Daddy, Thanks for the conciliatory tone. I don't want to get into an argument about who's ranting and I don't want to sound whiny either.
I have avoided my blog for two days because it is really hard to be constantly told that you don't believe in THE Christ. The Christ I DO believe in has been awfully good to me. He has lifted my burden of guilt and filled me with his spirit. He has guided my life in a thousand ways.
This very day I have felt His spirit as I have prayerfully been working at my computer on a scripture study I am writing on the Book of Exodus to be used by Mormon women. His word is living water to my thirsty spirit.
Who do you think answers my prayers? Because Someone sure does. I have felt so close to God, I could never deny His loving, guiding hand in my whole life. He is everything to me. That you and I don't agree on every theological point about God does not seem to me to be as important as it is to you. But don't you realize how much disagreement there has been in Christianity over the centuries about the nature of God?
Did you read Frank Pastore's column on Mormonism, Romney & Hewitt? It is really scary to be called a "heretic." I am quite aware of where the end of that road can lead to.
By the way, have you actually read the Book of Mormon? Most anti's clearly have not. They only read professional anti-Mormon literature and then think they are experts on what Mormon's believe. This book is filled with pure Christianity of the kind even Martin Luther himself would approve of.
Here's one verse for example: "O Lord, and do not be angry with thy servant because of his weakness before thee; for we know that thou art holy and dwellest in the heavens, and that we are unworthy before thee; because of the fall our natures have become evil continually; nevertheless, O Lord, thou hast given us a commandment that we must call upon thee, that from thee we may receive according to our desires." Ether 3:2
And another thing, there simply aren't any scriptures in the Book of Mormon or Doctrine & Covenants that talk about "having your own planet."
This is a big church. The only things you have to believe to be a "good, temple attending" Mormon are the things in the scriptures and the things the prophets say when speaking officially. For example, the book, "Mormon Doctrine" contains one man's ideas and is not binding on me in any way. The prophet at the time it was published, David O. McKay, was very distressed that it had been published without his knowledge. There is more freedom to believe what you want (as long as you stay in line with the word of God) than people give us credit for. Just because Brigham Young said something in a conference talk doesn't mean it is scripture to me. However, the professional anti-Mormons seem to spend all their time digging around in these old sources to find "gotcha" quotes. I guess I could do the same with St. Augustine or Martin Luther, but what's the point. We (the Mormons) have grown up a lot as a church. You can say the same for the historical Christian tradition. It too has grown and matured and changed. (For example: the idea of The Rapture is a 20th century invention or realization, depending on your point of view.)
There are lots of Mormons I know that believe that this earth is "our planet" and that we are all going to live here together when this earth has been changed into a heavenly place where "they [live] and [reign] with Christ a thousand years" (Rev 20:4)
Please. The next time you want to convince me that I worship a "different Jesus," give me an example from something I consider scripture.

either.

But quite frankly, the differences between our faiths are too great to discount, and I have a hard time saying we worship the same Jesus. All of your points are taken with respect, though admitedly I disagree with many.

Yes, you can probly go to historical figures and quote various things to the same effect.

Yes, you can say this or that about Mormonism and Christianity. But you said something in there that was interesting: you say to me to quote something from something you consider scripture to prove our Jesus is different. Really, what does that mean? To me, it sounds as if you are trying to set the rules with scripture.

You also say that there is no place in your scriptures where it says you will have your own planet. OK, then why do so many actually think this? I have been told tihs is true by Mormon's here at this site, so evidently, there is truth to my claim. If they are wrong, OK, but it is a common belief.

The rapture is a new idea, and one that I don't necessarilly subscribe to. Its a non-issue to me, but I grant it is new, and many Christians by it. Fine.

Have I read the BOM? Honestly, I tried, but did not make it through. I have talked to many a Mormon and have made an honest attempt to get to know your faith.

But lets compare the two versions of Christ for a moment:
Me: Christ is the son of God, God, and the Holy Spirit, all in one.
You: They are all separate.
Me: Christ died on a cross and rose from the dead.
You: Christ likely did not die on it.
Me: Christ, after resurection, returned to heaven to rule until His return.
You: Christ eventually returned to America to preach to the folks here to finish his ministry.
Me: The Bible is the perfect and inspired word of God, and is sufficient on its own to study and know God.
You: You need other books, and the Bible is only so good as it is accurate.
Me: Faith in God/Jesus is all we need for salvation
You: Works are necessary for salvation.
Me: Baptism is not necessary for salvation.
You: Baptism is necessary.

These are but a few examples of the differences between our faiths. I bring them up not to divide, but to show why I have a hard time saying you are a Christian, by Biblical standards. I know Christ is the center of your faith. Good. But he is a different person from the Christ I know.

Heretical, I don't think I'll go there, but certainly you go beyond what is Biblical. And the Bible is what we use to define our faith.

1.Let's just stick to the Me: and You: statements. Your definition of the Trinity is not consistent with traditional christianity which says that they are three separate beings yet one. You apparently believe they are the same person. So explain the stoning of Stephen in Acts when Stephen looks up into heaven just before his death and says, "I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God!" (Acts 7:56) Was God standing next to Himself?
2. Of course we believe that Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead on the third day. I don't want to sound insulting but to believe otherwise is just complete ignorance of our beliefs. We believe in the literal ressurection of Jesus Christ. Perhaps you are confused because we don't use the symbol of the cross on our churches or jewelry. This symbol was made part of Christian worship by the Emperor Constantine and if it is meaningful to you, then that is great, but we have not introduced it because we do not do things simply because they are traditional or passed down to us. We believe that Christianity was "restored" through Joseph Smith and subsequent prophets, much like when a computer program becomes corrupted and must be reinstalled from the original disks. When God tells us to start using the symbol of the cross we will. But we absolutely b elieve Christ was crucified on a cross, died, and rose from the tomb on the third day.
3. Of course we believe that Christ returned to heaven and rules there. That doesn't mean he has to sit on the same chair forever. Do you believe he " went and preached unto the spirits in prison.Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing," (1Peter3:19,20) I know the Greek Orthodox believe he went there literally and preached after his death. Mormons believe his appearance in America was of a similar nature. He came down from heaven and preached. He did not appear as a man traveling on the earth, but as God. We believe that when he said in John 10:16, "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd," that this is referring to the groups of his people that had been led to the Americas. We believe that the reason He appeared to people in this hemisphere is so that there could be a second witness of Jesus Christ and his salvation to the earth.
4. I am glad to know that you believe that "the Bible is perfect and inspired word of God, and is sufficient on its own to study and know God." But where in the Bible is this doctrine taught? It is Martin Luther who introduced the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and all the other solas. Sola Christus and Sola Fides. Sola means alone. (Just for fun: the only place in the Bible where the words "alone" and "faith" appear in the same verse is James 2:17 "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone"). There is no teaching of Jesus that says He cannot reveal further truth or speak to other people. In fact, as I have quoted, he himself said he was going to go to some other sheep. Sometimes it seems as if evangelicals have made an idol of the Bible. It is Christ we worship. Not a book. I just listened to "the Great God Debate" on the Hugh Hewitt show with Christopher Hitchens and the minister, Mark Roberts, a New Testament scholar, readily admitted that the New Testament as it is currently, had things added to it many years later by other writers than the original gospel writers. In other words, it is not 100% reliable. That's from you guys, not me.
5. "Faith in God/Jesus is all we need for salvation." This is your statement. See James 2:17 above. Mormons are very misunderstood on this subject. It is God's work alone that provided the means for our salvation which He did by His death on the cross (and also we believe by His suffering in the garden of Gethsamane where his sweat was as great drops of blood." (end of Luke, don't have time to look it up). Our sins were laid on him in the garden where the weight of them was so infinitely great that they pressed him (The word Gethsemane means olive press) and he bore the weight to the cross and there, all our sins died along with him. That 's the way I think of the atonement.
But like a doctor who gives you medecine, the patient still has to take it. We obey the doctor. If he says show me you have faith in me by obeying my instructions, then we obey his instructions. If Christ said you must be baptized, then I'll be baptized. He makes the rules. I just obey. As far as being good, paying tithing, loving people, these are the fruits that show that a person is a true Christian and abiding in the True Vine. They are not part of salvation but show that salvation has already occured. Christ has promised, however, that he will give rewards at the judgement day. The New Testament speaks of rewards and they will not all be the same. I want the Lord to be able to say to me, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant." I heard a girl speaking on the radio to Hank Hanegraff of the Bible Answerman show. She wanted an abortion. "Can I still get to heaven if I have an abortion?" Hank talked and talked. Don't do it, he said. She interupted him. "You don't understand. I just want to know if I forfeit my salvation if I get an abortion." He had to say no. "Ok." she said, "That's all I want to know." So what do I think? No, she would not "forfeit her salvation" if she went ahead and had the abortion. But she would forfeit the reward she would have had if she had been faithful in the matter of the abortion. If there are no ultimate consequences when we choose to sin, the gospel is weak.
6. As for baptism, we think it is required. But we don't think everyone has to be baptized into the Mormon church to be saved. And we think that baptism is something that can be done by proxy in Mormon temples for those that don't hear the Christian message until after their death. We believe the "spirit world" to be a place where people can learn and still make choices. So a hypothetical 2nd century Mongolian man could hear about Christ there (remember the 1 Peter 3:19 quote about preaching to the spirits in prison?) and since baptism is something that it takes a physical body to do, it can be done by proxy for that person (that's one thing LDS people do inside of temples) and if our Mongolian brother chooses to accept that baptism, he has obeyed that command even though he never had a chance to hear the gospel in life.
And that is all I'm going to post on this thread. Go talk to some Mormon missionaries if you want the rest of your misconceptions cleared up.
PS. My definition of what is scripture to Mormons is simple. We have 4 books of scripture. They are: The Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. These four are it, no other writings are canonical though they may or may not be true. Sort of like the difference between Martin Luther's or Calvin's writings and the New Testament.

The trinity is insuated throughout. Who did Jesus claim to be?

This is a tough doctrine, yes. Tough to visualize, but yes, He is all three and one. This is the beauty of Christ, and of God. God loved us so much He took our form and died to save us, to redeem us. Further, Christ had to be fully human in order to fully take on that burden. And the Holy Spirit is God, the arms and legs so to speak.

And per the Bible, there is no evidence Christ was going to come back until He was ready to pull us up with Him. So, His return the North America is suspect.

I could go on, but the debate would be long and drawn out. I do see you mentioned Hank in there. Yes, the woman would lose rewards if she is indeed saved. And Hank would acknowledge that. He would also say a couple of other things: if she is willingly breaking this, her salvation is suspect

and that Christ forgives all sins, no matter what.

You say the gospel is weak. Quite the contrary, when you look at it. But since you are not going to respond, I guess there's little point in expanding.

And while I'm at it, not that I will get an answer, but what evidence at all is there to suggest the people's whom Mormons claim lived here actually lived here? Where are the plates? What is the language Joe used to translate? Isn't the method he used eerily similar to that used in various new age cults? What evidence, in the Bible, points to Joe? The point is this: the origins of your faith in and of themselves are suspect.

I know you have ready made responsed. OK. I am sure you've heard these questions before. But you have to look at them sincerely, and say they are valid questions.

And finally, how and why does the church change its position so often? An obvious example: blacks in the church?

To end, I swear :) you say I am talking to the wrong Mormons. They usually come to me and I have gotten wildly differing answers...

I see that Virginia Daddy has been here too and left his usual drivel. He is certainly ok with posting anti-mormon drivel on the blogs of mormons but he can't take religious criticism when it is posted on his blog.

Callagher is singing a different tune these days.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MikeGallagher/2007/11/09 /the_mormon_factor_isnt_one

I suspect that he has done some honest research of his own and discovered that a lot of what he had been told about mormons was false.

I is obvious that he has done that with regard to Romney.

in the event you stop back here, why don't you have you're own blog?

If you are to criticize me, why not set up your own? I'll come, and if you post about religion, I'll talk about religion, if you don't, I won't.

It's as simple as that.

I have thought (just a little) about it. I really don't think I have the time to spend to do it right. Unlike some people, writing isn't a talent of mine. I have to spend a lot of time with each post to make it say exactly what I want it to say, no more, no less. I am much better at verbal communication (not that I am good at that either).

Also on a personal level I am a very private person. I am less comfortable disclosing my inner self than I am with discussing religion and/or what the Bible does or doesn't say or politics. I do read your blog and find your posts interesting. More than once I have been tempted to comment but I alas I chickened out.

BTW enjoy your boys now as much as you can. All to soon they are grown and gone, and you find yourself no longer young.

No worries.

Just know that our debates on religion are just that, and are nothing personal at all.

I know the conversations get heated, but they, from my perspective, are not at all personal but theological discussions.

And really, if I ever post anything related to religion again, I have no problem talking about it in depth.

And please, do post-- I'd appreciate the thoughts. And I'm trying to take it all in now, though from what I am told by the time its gone you realize how much you've missed. And thanks, btw.

ones personal beliefs (religion) is by definition personal. It is very very difficult (although not impossible) to attack ones religion (or church) without it being interpreted as a personal attack.

Remember how you felt when I went to your blog and got in your face. Can I assume from your response that it was an unpleasant experience for you?

Now I do like you (although I don't know why). Perhaps because we are alike or maybe we are opposites.

What I have done over the years is to carefully take each item in my box of beliefs (so to speak) and pulled it out and examined it carefully and asked myself why do I believe this? Is it really true?

Somethings I have had to discard because I had no valid reason for keeping them or solid reasons to discard it, others after I have examined them have been returned to the box because I have had a spiritual witness that they are true. Others have been returned to the box simply because I had no valid reason to discard them, but I have acknowledged to myself that they don't have the rock solid foundation that others have.

Have you ever done anything similar?

subject. Which is why when I discuss, I try to keep it "respectable." And also why I wrote the piece a few months ago on the very topic. Religion is at the heart of who one is, and I understand that. But I also see discussions such as the ones we have had as ways to really get to know the person and their beleifs. Granted, in a forum such as this, you only see what they write, but you still get a better view of the beliefs. This is a big part of what I have tried to do. I know I may have frustrated you guys greatly, and to be honest, I still find your faith faulty, but I respect you.

As to that process you describe above, about checking your beliefs, well, that's another benefit of such discussions for me. I enjoy those that challenge my beliefs, because those who think differently always give a different vantage point than those with whom you believe completely. They cause you to rethink the positions from that vanatage point, so yes, I do.

As to how I felt at my place, honestly, I just didn't want to go off on a tangent there on a topic not related. As to Huchs and Benny Hinn, if you do some more research, and compare to what I believe, you will see what I mean. They are outside the fold of what is acceptable doctrine. They are a part of a movement called word of faith, which basically says if you pray for something enough, including and especially that new Mercedes, you'll get it. Joel Osteen actually comes close to this as well...

Anyway, that's that. Hope to hear from you soon, and enjoy your Thanksgiving.

I can understand that, from your point of view, that you find my faith faulty. There really is no way to start to understand it until and unless you read the Book of Mormon with a sincere heart. Nuff said on that topic already.

It is only if we are unafraid of truth that we can really find it. If we are afraid to pull an item out of that box and give it a serious look over then we can never really know for ourselves if it is true.

Now, not to be contentious, but from my point of view Huchs and Hinn are really no different than Solomon. I realize that in the details (oh, those blasted details again) they may be very, very different.

But they all:

>Claim the Bible to be their source of authority.

>Have specific versus they use to support their doctrine.

>(now this one I only suspect, I don't really know) Claim that other Christian ministers are teaching false doctrine.

>Have a following due to their charisma and showmanship.

Not to flippant but it seems to me that any "good" used car salesman can set up shop and sell religion, just claim to be Christian and Bible based. Elmer Gantry comes to mind.

I suspect that if I were interested (which I'm not) in investigating the "word of faith" thing I would most likely agree with your assessment of it.

But to me it still leaves open the question (as far as your brand of Christianity is concerned) as to who has the authority to decide who is teaching false doctrine and who isn't. Or rather what is true doctrine.

Any way have a great Thanksgiving. Drive safe (if you are driving any where). Remember you have valuable cargo.

Yes, but I can say the same thing in regards to reading the Bible with an open mind, including the OT and taking the Mormon beliefs out of it.
And that is where most religious conversations run into difficulty.
Word of faith, you should research. You cannot really leave it open that they are the same as me. This is an incorrect view point. So, I could look at you and the RLDS and say you are the same, despite obvious differences, and get to the same place.
If you are going to compare the religions on those terms, lets look at, for the sake of argument, Joseph Smith.
He claims the Bible as a source of authority, though, as a charismatic leader, adds that God revealed a book to him that completes the Bible. He has enough knowledge of religions and the Bible to make it seem believable, (verses to support his view), and sets out, as a used car salesman, and creates a religion that declares all others false.
This is how we view him, and what he did. I know that is heresy to you, but that's it. He was a charismatic man, smart enough to know enough about matters of faith who claimed he had the only truth out there. This is not to offend, but to offer a clear summary of the first and biggest problem Mormonism faces in our eyes.
And this is why all the historical mistakes (ie recent change in intro), the shifts in doctrine, clouding of issues, etc. are all important to us. They are indicative of a faith on shifting sand and not on the truth of the Bible.
And one more point, and I offer it in good faith: authority-- Joseph Smith claimed he was given authority, and that the priesthood is restored. What proof does he have of this? Why didn't this topic appear in documents at the time of the church's founding in 1830? It was not until a few years later we have references to the restored priesthood, so are we again to take this man's word for it all? Based on who's authority? Ultimate authority is found in heaven with God, and he gives us the Bible.

But truly, Happy Thanksgiving. And enjoy your family.

Mine's already travelled, and I need to catch up...

VDaddy: Yes, but I can say the same thing in regards to reading the Bible with an open mind, including the OT and taking the Mormon beliefs out of it.

GB: Do you realize that in that statement you admit that Mormon beliefs are in the Bible. Although I suspect that you didn’t intent that, could it have been a Freudian slip. LOL

Actually whenever I read scriptures I let the Spirit do the interpreting for me. I never try to force any meaning into any scripture.

VDaddy: You cannot really leave it open that they are the same as me. This is an incorrect view point.

GB: But you provide nothing that really separates you from them.

VDaddy: So, I could look at you and the RLDS and say you are the same, despite obvious differences, and get to the same place.

GB: You could, but you know better. And if you did I would explain the fundamental differences to you.

VDaddy: . . . . Joseph Smith.
He claims the Bible as a source of authority, . . . .

GB: Ah, but he never claimed the Bible as a source of authority. He claimed to be called of God. He claimed to receive Priesthood authority from those who were clearly authorized to give it.

VDaddy: . . . . adds that God revealed a book to him that completes the Bible.

GB: He never claimed that the Book of Mormon (or any other of the scriptures he brought forth) completed the Bible. If you would read the Book of Mormon you would understand what I mean here.

VDaddy: He has enough knowledge of religions and the Bible to make it seem believable, (verses to support his view), and sets out, as a used car salesman, and creates a religion that declares all others false.

GB: Joseph Smith was an uneducated backwoods plow boy. He obtained his “knowledge of religions” through revelation from God.

I will quote him “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.

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.”

He again forbade me to join with any of them;

VDaddy: I know that is heresy to you, but that's it.

GB: No I don’t view it as heresy. I just know that you view it wrong, that's all.

VDaddy: He was a charismatic man, . . . .

GB: This is the second time you’ve said that. What relevance does that have? Isn’t Lon Solomon a charismatic man also?

VDaddy: . . . smart enough to know enough about matters of faith who claimed he had the only truth out there.

GB: Actually he never claimed to have “the only truth out there”. He claimed to be authorized by God and that he taught the restored Gospel as revealed by God. Every church that I am aware of teaches some truth, even yours. They just don’t have all of the truth that God has revealed. I don’t want you to give up any truth that you already have, I just want to add to it.

VDaddy: And this is why all the historical mistakes (ie recent change in intro), the shifts in doctrine, clouding of issues, etc. are all important to us.

GB: I find it humorous that you use standards against Mormonism that if were used against your church, the Bible, OT prophets, all would fail. LOL And that is besides the fact that you are getting your information from truly unreliable sources.

And you do err. The Doctrine in our scriptures has not changed only practices have changed.

VDaddy: They are indicative of a faith on shifting sand and not on the truth of the Bible.

GB: They are indicative of neither.

VDaddy: . . . . authority-- Joseph Smith claimed he was given authority, and that the priesthood is restored.

GB: And earlier in this post you claimed that he claimed he got it from the Bible when you knew differently. What was up with that?

VDaddy: What proof does he have of this?

GB: He had a second witness to the events (Oliver Cowdery). You know the importance of having two witnesses don’t you.

VDaddy: Why didn't this topic appear in documents at the time of the church's founding in 1830?

GB: What difference does it make to the truthfulness of it all?

VDaddy: It was not until a few years later we have references to the restored priesthood, . . .

GB: Actually that is not correct. Just because documents weren’t published until later, doesn’t mean that the subject was generally discussed, understood and written down long before publication. Remember the Bible wasn't assembled until after 300AD. So by your standard you condem the Bible.

VDaddy: . . . .so are we again to take this man's word for it all?

GB: Have I ever asked you to take his (or my) word for it? I think not.

VDaddy: Based on who's authority?

GB: That would be God’s (ie. the priesthood).

VDaddy: Ultimate authority is found in heaven with God, . . . .

GB: True.

VDaddy: . . . . and he gives us the Bible.

GB: What is your point? Just because we have the Bible doesn’t mean that it can be a source of authority.

I was reading through and got to the point where you said that JS was uneducated as a plow boy.

I honestly can't go too far beyond that as you miss the point. Joseph Smith was no idiot, like you guys want to make him out to be. He was obvioulsy charismatic, and reports of him and his family suggest an interest in spiritual matters. Yes, he knew enough about religion (why the heck was he praying which church was right if he didn't have an interest and some knowledge about them?) to be able to create this story.

Think about it.

Gunlock, as I read through some of your responses, like saying he never claimed to have the only truth, the whole most complete and true book ever written, and that all other churches are abonimations, his as the restored is the only true church, this kinda gives that impression. Yes, he said he had the only truth, and again, think about it.

Sorry, gunlock, but as I read through all of this, it is evident you believe in a shifting theology. Your beliefs have not changed only the practices? Huh? Don't practices reflect beliefs? How about believing blacks can't enter the priesthood, or polygamy? Do you still believe in it?

It really seems you willfully ignore the troubles. Why didn't they write anything down regarding the preisthood? This is a primary belief you hold, right? It seems suspicious as to why they dodn't write anything down immeidiately.

For the third time, think about it. Dig deeper and ask why. All down the road here, there are questions that are problematic. Do you not see this?

Having charisma is not necessarilly a bad thing. You compare Lon to my comment, which is a distraction. Charisma is a good thing when teaching. The ability to inspire is a great thing in that context. But charisma can be used to manipulate, as a Benny Hinn does, or a Jim Jones, or a Hitler, or a Stalin, or a Bill Clinton, or even a Joseph Smith. We don't know Joseph Smith, and all we can go on is the historical record-- the FULL historical record, not just the one filtered by the LDS. A great example is Nauvoo and the Expositor. Have you read the entire article? Were the men lying? Based on other reports, it seems entirely likely they were not. And this is exactly the direction one should go in investigating. A full record of what is available. See, Nauvoo is supported by other sources. And when we see that, it is reasonable to assume what they say is probably pretty true. And his behavior was made possible by his manipulative charisma.

The Bible. The Bible was not "put together" in the fourth century. This is a common tactic people will use, but it is decidedly not true. Actually, the Canon was pretty well established by that time. For a good synopsis on it, I would recommend you go to Aurorawatcher's blog. She has put together some good exposes on the subject.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/1 1/18/AR2007111801392_Comments.html


And don't forget to read the comments.

But the comments rehash much of what we have talked about. Nothing new and nothing convincing.

The article itself doesn't really show much, ecept some blacks in Africa who don't know the history think its great.

Actually, unlike you, they haven't been polluted by the false history put out by anti-mormons.

Here is another interesting article. I would like to know what you think about it.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_big_thaw_why_mit ts_mormoni.html

That's quite a word. Care to prove JS was not an adulturer?

First, the ideas presented are good. I think a dialogue is good, which is why I have continued our discussions. Without them neither of us learns a thing. I do wish many more Christians would take the approach, and that Mormons would be receptive to it. On an individual basis it seems both sides are very aggressive and defensive. We've both been through all of that, and probably to neither's benefit.

Second, I can't help but notice the author was a leader in Mitt's campaign. I can't, then, say it was from an inpartial source. This is important because it did have a slight pro-Mormon bias about it.

VDaddy: This is important because it did have a slight pro-Mormon bias about it.

GB: Then why is the only link in it to a paper written by two evangelical scholars? Or did you not notice?

How can you commit adultery with your wife?

to ignore the issues raised in the article (and in the linked piece).

Is it because you are afraid of what the implications are for some of the items in your belief box? Are you afraid to really examine them?

Is something entirely different. No?

I saw a piece written by someone on Mitt's campaign who talks about past efforts to bring together the two faiths in dialogue. At one point he references that Mormons may be winning and that these two authors have conceded that. He also states these two authors do not say that Mormonism is correct.

Again, as the author is on Mitt's campaign, I see a Mormon tilt to it, and I am not sure the issues I am ignoring. Further, if you'd like a more detailed response, let me know...

VDaddy: Joseph Smith was no idiot, like you guys want to make him out to be.

GB: There you go again twisting what I said into something I didn't say. I NEVER expressed or implied that Joseph was an idiot. I said he "was an uneducated backwoods plow boy."

Reverting to your anti-mormon tendencies are you?

VDaddy: Care to prove JS was not an adulturer?

GB: Care to prove Lon Solomon was/is not an adulterer? You do that first.

This is the issue you are ignoring.

FTA (In 2004, hundreds of Mormons crowded into the Provo Tabernacle and listened intently as the speaker, who was not a member of the LDS faith, declared: "We have sinned against you."

. . . it was noted evangelical scholar Richard J. Mouw, President of the Fuller Theological Seminary.)

Now tell me why an evangelical scholar and President of a theological seminary would feel compelled to apologize for sins committed against the LDS faith.

What do you think those sins were?

Was it the promotion of falsehoods about us and Joseph Smith?

Was it using sloppy and dishonest methods to produce anti-mormon material?

This is an interesting piece. It seems very impartial.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3945/is_200007/ai_n 8922399/pg_1

Interesting but not totally accurate.

Still avoiding the issues I see.

This is the same as trying to create a dialogue, no? And taking one man, really acting on his own, decides to issue an apology. So what? First of all, I cannot know why he felt the need to apologize. I can give assumptions, but can't know. Second, we can debate whether or not it was wise, needed, or even if he speaks for all of us.

Was it wise? Hard to say. I understand his intent, and that's fair, but I am not sure if in the end it was wise. This should become apparent in discussing the next two.

Let me address the last next. He does not speak for all Christendom. He speaks for himself, and this is important to remember when considering the aplogogy. He may feel we have been oerly harsh, and should work to come together. OK. But have we been overly harsh? I am not sure we have. But again, he is not speaking for all of Christendom.

Was it needed? Hard to really know. Are there lies out there about your faith? Probably. Has your faith sometimes been unfairly treated? Probably. Yet to take it upon himself and apologize as broadly as he did is a bit much. So I do not think it was needed, certainly does not speak for all, and was ultimately unwise.

Lon does not speak to or meet with a woman alone (someone else is in his office or room always in that situation), other than his wife or daughter, he does not hug women other than his wife or daughter, and certainly speaks of his devotion to his one and only wife. If he did commit adultery, he would be shamed and kicked out of his position (believe it or not, he does not run my church). And further, you deflect answering the question I posed: was JS an adulturer. Its not about Lon.

Finally, about JS's intelligience. His education is irrelevant. His intelligience and ability to pick up on things is what is important. That was my point. And actually, the article I just posted shows him to be very intelligient and aware, more than a "plow boy".

Hmm, it mentions some things that are not in line with official church history, I'd expect. Do you care to expand with what was not accurate and give sources?

This was, by the way, not a piece critical to your faith, only giving a history of JS and his run for the presidency.

VDaddy: Lon does not speak to or meet with a woman alone (someone else is in his office or room always in that situation), other than his wife or daughter, he does not hug women other than his wife or daughter, and certainly speaks of his devotion to his one and only wife.

GB: 1) That isn't proof. 2)You can't prove that your statement is 100% accurate. Has he been followed 100% of the time? NO!!

VDadd: If he did commit adultery, he would be shamed and kicked out of his position (believe it or not, he does not run my church)

GB: By this statement you admit that it is possible that he is an undiscovered adulterer. As long as he isn't caught he will have his position. But since it is impossible to keep tabs on him 24/7 it is possible that he is an adulterer.

Conclusion: You haven't proven that he isn't an adulterer.

Gunlock, in all due respect, you are grasping for straws now.

No, I have not proven it, and will never "know" for sure. But do you want me to take that logic to its end: ie, we can never know anything?

See, what Lon has NOT done is give me, or anyone else, a reason to think he has done anything wrong. Lets contrast this to Smith, who by more than one source, was an adulturer, taking women married to others, and marrying them himself. Further, he tried to deny it. So, as I've asked you before: THINK ABOUT IT.

You can't base your beliefs on mere possibilities. You need evidence. Suggesting Lon COULD be an adulturer based on the simple fact that he does not have someone with him at all times is foolish at best.

You really didn't respond to anything else, only Lon.

So you admit that Lon could be an adulterer. I am surprised that you even tried. I thought you would be smart enough to know that you can't prove a negative. The same applies to Joseph. It is impossible to "prove" he was not an adulterer. Just as it is impossible to "prove" that you aren't an adulterer.

The problem you have is proving that Joseph had sexual relations with the women who were SEALED to him while being temporally married to another man.

I suspect it is because of your ignorance (again) about Mormon theology.

We recognize that there is a difference between being temporally married (you know the "til death do us part" thing), and being sealed for all eternity.

But you in your willful ignorance have made no effort to understand the difference, because (like liberals) it doesn't advance the anti-mormon action line that you continue to try and push on me.

Adultery as defined by the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law is "voluntary sexual activity (as sexual intercourse) between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband;"

So technically speaking if Joseph was married to them, then he COULDN'T commit adultery. But even so there is not one shred of evidence that Joseph had sexual relations with any of the women that were sealed to him but temporally married to another man.

Therefore your accusation of adultery is bogus. I am deeply disappointed in your UNwillingness to find out the details before you make such slanderous accusations. But again you have the bad habit of taking the word of anti-mormons without question.

You will never see a legitimate evangelical scholar make such a silly accusation, because they require real evidence.

WAS: I am surprised that you even tried.

Should be: I am surprised that you even tried to defend him.

This is laughable.

Did he a) have sex with women already married? b) Did he "marry" women after they were already married?

And stop with the excuses that differentiate spirtual wives vs. human wives.

And by the way, you must explain WHY the folks, the "heathens" in Nauvoo lied about it. They were strong believers in the Mormon doctrine, even defending it while accusing him. And they are not the only ones suggesting JS did these things.

And if a group of people came out with these accusations against Lon, ie a bunch of people left the church and accused him of that, I certainly would think twice about Lon.

Yes, this is laughable.

Apparently you didn't read my post carefully. You seemed to miss "there is not one shred of evidence that Joseph had sexual relations with any of the women that were sealed to him but temporally married to another man."

And you seem to miss this:
Adultery as defined by the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law is "voluntary sexual activity (as sexual intercourse) between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband;"

So IF no sexual activity occurred THEN your accusation of adultery is bogus.

Oh and what is this "spirtual wives vs. human wives" crap? Did you get that from one of your unreliable anti-mormon sources?

I take it you couldn't find a legitimate evangelical scholar that would support such a bogus claim or I am sure you would have referenced him.

legitimate evangelical scholars, you continue to ignore the link in the article http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3803/is_199810/ai_ n8808757
and the issues it raises.

Wow.

You are going to accuse me of giving a load of crap when you argue that my pastor, living currently and leading a large and visible church, could not be proven either way whether or not he has committed adultury, thereby shows that JS is innocent, when there are many, many sources showing that JS engaged in inproprieties.

And lets just assume for a sec here that he did not have sex with these women: WHY WOULD HE NEED TO GET "MARRIED" TO THEM? There is NO good reason why. Further, it is laughable to think that he did not engage in sex with them.

And, no, this is common sense here. BTW, you have not addressed Nauvoo.

Do you not pay attention?

If I have not addressed a specific issue, please advise which one(s).

VDaddy: when there are many, many sources showing that JS engaged in inproprieties.

GB: Sources are not the same as evidence. If you are planning on being a lawyer you need to understand the difference. In American Juris Prudence a person is innocent until proven guilty. Proving guilt requires substantial evidence. All you have are anti-mormon sources but no evidence.

Therefore Joseph Smith remains innocent of your bogus charge.

VDaddy: And lets just assume for a sec here that he did not have sex with these women: . . .

GB: We have to assume that because there is no evidence otherwise.

VDaddy: WHY WOULD HE NEED TO GET "MARRIED" TO THEM?

GB: Again you expose your willful ignorance about Mormon theology. Joseph Smith was "SEALED" to them not "married" to them. Which means that they would be with him not during this life but in the eternities. And just because you get it all wrong doesn't make your case any stronger.

VDaddy: There is NO good reason why.

GB: Just because you don't understand the good reason doesn't mean it is nonexistent.

VDaddy: Further, it is laughable to think that he did not engage in sex with them.

GB: Only in your perverted mind. Unfortunately your statement reveals more about you than it does about Joseph.

From the Article "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormonism, has in recent years produced a substantial body of literature defending their beliefs.. . . . Some may criticize us for giving the Mormons too much credit and for being too harsh on fellow evangelicals. However, much like testifying against a loved one in court, we cannot hide the facts of the matter. In this battle the Mormons are fighting valiantly. And the evangelicals? It appears that we may be losing the battle and not knowing it."

Now why would two legitimate evangelical scholars make statements like that?

Why do anti-mormons ignore the "substantial body of literature defending their beliefs"?

Is it because they have no answers? Is it because that "substantial body of literature" exposes the flaws, deception and sloppy scholarship of the anti-mormon material?

Did Mosser and Owen recognize the flaws, deception and sloppy scholarship of the anti-mormon material?

I wonder if you have even read the entire article.

That is not expanded upon.

Are we coming across as angry and losing the PR battle?

What about theologically?

It does not say anything to clarify "the battle".

Oh, and by the way, they hold no authority over me, so I can fully say without contradiction this is THEIR opinion.

Well, an article written by many former followers, and influential ones at that, suggests that something may have indeed been amiss.

And here is the trouble with history, we can't go back to it. We have to make determinations on what is left behind. When I look at the historical evidence, Nauvoo, the progressive nature of this particular tenant, and others, it seems he likely was an adulturer, and a fraud.

The stories just don't add up. And sorry, I won't rely on lds.org, fair, or any other Mormon only source. I will consider them, and have, but they will spin anything to make them seem OK. But when looking at the whole picture, as presented elsewhere, these things become problematic.

Now, you address "assumptions" and sloppy work. Was it you who gave the account of Mormon's changing the opening of the book recently to correct "sloppy" scholarship?

V:What is the battle? That is not expanded upon.

Are we coming across as angry and losing the PR battle?

What about theologically?

It does not say anything to clarify "the battle".

Oh, and by the way, they hold no authority over me, so I can fully say without contradiction this is THEIR opinion.

GB: A 14 page article plus references and that is all you have to say about it? I am beginning to understand that you is CLOSED!!!!!!

Should be:I am beginning to understand that your mind is CLOSED!!!!!!

V: Well, an article written by many former followers, and influential ones at that, suggests that something may have indeed been amiss.

GB: And many other articles written by followers and non-followers, and influential ones at that, suggest that Joseph Smith was a man of the highest character.

V: When I look at the historical evidence, Nauvoo, the progressive nature of this particular tenant, and others, it seems he likely was an adulturer, and a fraud.

GB: Well duh? Since you only read one side of the story and totally ignore the other side I would expect nothing less. (Oh and BTW Nauvoo was a city not a tenant . . . . oh how those anti-mormon let you down.)

V: The stories just don't add up.

GB: The ONE sided stories don’t add up? Big surprise there.

V: And sorry, I won't rely on lds.org, fair, or any other Mormon only source.

GB: Of course not. In your belief box is the item “Joseph Smith is a fraud”. You are unwilling to pull it out and look at it critically. Because you are so weak in your own faith and for some reason (or maybe it is unreason) you are afraid that admitting that Joseph Smith might have been a good man, will some how damage the foundation of your faith.

V: I will consider them, and have, but they will spin anything to make them seem OK.

GB: So obviously you don’t really consider them. You have pre-judged them to be unreliable. (Even though evangelical scholars have admitted otherwise.) You therefore can massage (or sear) your conscience in to rejecting them out of hand. Ah yes ignore all contradictory evidence. That is the ticket.

You dare not give them the same weight as your anti-mormon sources until proven unreliable. No No You will uncritically believe the anti-mormon sources (even when I can and have shown them to be untrustworthy) and view with skepticism any mormon (or should I say any non anti-mormon) source or material (Even the evangelical scholars that I have sourced. Go figure).

V: But when looking at the whole picture, as presented elsewhere, these things become problematic.

GB: And you say that with a straight face while only looking at half of the picture. Truly amazing.

V: Now, you address "assumptions" and sloppy work. Was it you who gave the account of Mormon's changing the opening of the book recently to correct "sloppy" scholarship?

GB: Twisting my words again I see. A nasty habit of yours.

I have finally found an "anti-Mormon" site that at least accurately states our doctrine using our scriptures.

Kudos to the makers of http://mormoncult.org/mormonism-vs-christianity.html

If you are still around, are you so sure they are all totally inaccurate?

Remember, we are looking at this from different perspectives. I read them from a view outside your faith, and as such, they seem totally reliable.

You learn from the beginning not to trust these sites and these people. They are liars from the beginning. It is natural for you to think that about them.

I have been there, and found it very helpful.

V: If you are still around, are you so sure they are all totally inaccurate?

GB: Yeah, I am still around. I had given up on you returning. I have noticed that you are less active, even on your own blog. I hope everything is well with you.

I think we miscommunicated. My point was that http://mormoncult.org/mormonism-vs-christianity.html
was actually accurately presenting LDS doctrine and they were using LDS scripture to it.

Something I have NEVER seen before, so you may want to take another look at it.

V: You learn from the beginning not to trust these sites and these people.

GB: Not so. I learned not to trust them by actually reading their material and finding it untrustworthy. But again I found this site to be the exception.

V: They are liars from the beginning.

GB: Possibly, but I can only say that about their current material.

V: I have been there, and found it very helpful.

GB: What did you part did you like the most?

Pardon me, the web address looked familiar, I have not been to that site, which is a Mormon site...

This is what I had expected to see:

http://www.carm.org/lds/compare.htm

I know now you are not a fan of CARM, but this is just an item by item comparison, pretty hard to distort. So, I'd like your thoughts on this list...

http://www.religionfacts.com/mormonism/comparison.htm

on regarding them with an open mind, but I am not sure you approach them as such. If you have been Mormon since birth, then chances are you were taught to approach such sources with great skeptisism.

I am reminded of a scene in the movie The Army of God where the established saint catches the doubting missionary reading through such sources. The saint tells the young man not to go to these and reading them will only poison his mind. By the end of the movie, the saint was truly deemed a saint, and the missionary quit his mission. The message could not have been clearer.

So, while I appreciate your candor, I expect you to approach these more like the saint. You doubt before even going to the material.

As you know, I doubt material given from LDS.org will give any credence or time to any thing not Mormon or anti-Mormon. I doubt they will use sources other than by those by Mormons themselves or approved through BYU. Sorry, but this is how I view it.

All is well. Had some changes at home (for the better) but nonetheless time consuming. Thank you for your concern. Hope all is well with you.

Its pretty silly.

Check out these definitions of cult: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult

Before I address anything from those anti-mormon sites I have a few questions.

1) Do you believe everything that they represent as being "christian" beliefs?

2) Have you ever found anything on official LDS sites that disparage any other church or belief system? If so, where and what.

3) Do you agree that by the definition of "cult" (that you linked to) that you are a member of one?

As an aside,

V: I understand your point of view on regarding them with an open mind, but I am not sure you approach them as such. If you have been Mormon since birth, then chances are you were taught to approach such sources with great skeptisism.

GB: Psychological projection.

V: You doubt before even going to the material.

GB: Based on experience yes. My first exposure to "anti-mormon" material was while I was on my mission. I went to the Philippines. There is a church there called Iglesia ni Christo. They put out a monthly magazine that was almost completely anti. Anti-catholic, anti-mormon, anti-jehovah witness, anti-baptist anti-any other church.

I was only interested in the anti-mormon parts. Since then I have found that the quality was similar to other anti-mormon material.

Maybe you don't, but I DO know when my beliefs are being misrepresented.

V: As you know, I doubt material given from LDS.org will give any credence or time to any thing not Mormon or anti-Mormon.

GB: Why should they? The church doesn't concern itself with stuff unrelated to its mission.

V:I doubt they will use sources other than by those by Mormons themselves or approved through BYU.

GB: News flash! BYU doesn't have any approval authority over the Church or its doctrine. The Church use sources and material approved by the leadership councils of the Church.

In the broadest definition-- that being a religious group, yes. But by modern interpretation of the word, no.

See this definition for a modern take:
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This cult (kult) Pronunciation Key
n.

A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
The followers of such a religion or sect.
Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
The object of such devotion.
A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.

Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
The object of such devotion.
An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.

If all sources are from like minded individuals, then the site is biased. Its like going to the GOP convention and thinking that what they say is what all Americans say. Or going to a Star Trek convention and taking all they have to say as truth. Its one sided, and does not represent the full spectrum. And when you rely solely on that, you will be misled.

This is what the LDS church does. It relies on opinions and evidence from Mormons only.

Now, I understand the point about supporting your faith, but in the case of this religion, there are so many other viable and accurate sources that lead to a very different conclusion. This is a problem for the LDS.

V: If all sources are from like minded individuals, then the site is biased. Its like going to the GOP convention and thinking that what they say is what all Americans say. Or going to a Star Trek convention and taking all they have to say as truth. Its one sided, and does not represent the full spectrum. And when you rely solely on that, you will be misled.

GB: So then if all or your sources are “like minded” anti-mormons , then “Its one sided, and does not represent the full spectrum. And when you rely solely on that, you will be misled.”

Are you then admitting that you are being misled about us? Because you ARE misled.

V: This is what the LDS church does. It relies on opinions and evidence from Mormons only.

GB: Wrong O there V!! The LDS church relies on REVELATION from Jesus Christ. It doesn’t rely “on opinions and evidence from” anybody.

V: there are so many other viable and accurate sources that lead to a very different conclusion.

GB: Accurate? Ah yes all those accurate anti-mormon sources. Mustn't forget those.

V: This is a problem for the LDS.

GB: No problem at all. In fact, when sincere people see the extremes to which the antis will go to fight against the Church, it makes them more curious. And when they investigate with an open mind and a sincere heart, the Holy Ghost helps them to find the truth and they end up joining. After all we only want sincere people who are receptive to the Holy Ghost. And so the Church continues to grow and strengthen.

More often than not, the "anti" Mormon sites are filled with quotes by Mormons.

I think you mistook my point. This is not unusual, but nonetheless important to point out. I am inferring that at places like LDS.org, and Farms and so on and so forth rely basically on research by Mormons. See, its not as if they use third party research very often at all, and pretty much only when it seems to support your point of view (almost always with scant eveidence, but it supports you).

Contrast those with the "anti" sites who use quotes from Mormons and from respectable sources. So be careful to categorize them as you do.

Finally, are admitting that its about leading people to your church by playing off extremes rather than a sincere desire to save them? You want only those who are since and receptive to the Holy Ghost. But you don't want the rest of us? Sounds real open and real sincere.

If you were to ask me, I'd say this almost sounds manipulative, playing off peoples' curiousity. Sure, I understand your desire to get people in your church and to save people, but the attitude behind it seems as if the Church is what is most important, and not the soul of each person saved. I get this from your comment "and so the church continues to grow and strengthen." It shouldn't be about the church, it should be about Jesus and the individual who was saved.

V: This is not unusual, . . . but it supports you).

GB: Yada, yada, yada, Blah blah blah. You are
so typical anti-mormon. Just believe what you are told and don’t do any investigating yourself.
I have posted this link before which puts the LIE to your words.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3803/is_199810/ai_ n8808757

V: Contrast those with the "anti" sites who use quotes from Mormons and from respectable sources. So be careful to categorize them as you do.

GB: Yada, yada, yada, Blah blah blah. You are so typical anti-mormon. Just believe what you are told and don’t do any investigating yourself.
I have posted this link before which puts the LIE to your words.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3803/is_199810/ai_ n8808757


V: Finally, are admitting that its about leading people to your church by playing off extremes rather than a sincere desire to save them? You want only those who are since and receptive to the Holy Ghost. But you don't want the rest of us? Sounds real open and real sincere.

GB: Why would we want to have someone who is insincere and unreceptive to the Holy Ghost and therefore to the TRUTH? If they don’t want to know the truth, then it is they who don’t want to join us, not the other way around. We, like God, want all to be saved, but we, like God, will not force any one to accept the truth. After all “a person forced against his will is of the same opinion still” (not sure who to attribute that to)

V: If you were to ask me, I'd say this almost sounds manipulative, playing off peoples' curiousity.

GB: I didn’t ask you. And of course you would say something like that; you are an anti-mormon after all.

V: Sure, I understand your desire to get people in your church and to save people, but the attitude behind it seems as if the Church is what is most important, and not the soul of each person saved.

GB: Seems? Only in the minds of the misled and/or willfully blind. The Church and its members spend thousands of man years every year looking for individuals. Why? Because we know the worth of the individual.
D&C 18: 10 Remember the worth of souls is great in the sight of God;
13 And how great is his (the Lords) joy in the soul that repenteth!
14 Wherefore, you are called to cry repentance unto this people.
15 And if it so be that you should labor all your days in crying repentance unto this people, and bring, save it be one soul unto me, how great shall be your joy with him in the kingdom of my Father!

V: I get this from your comment "and so the church continues to grow and strengthen." It shouldn't be about the church, it should be about Jesus and the individual who was saved.

GB: Ah, another false dichotomy!! Why shouldn't it be about the Church that is approved by God AND the individuals who accept it?

Gunlock Bill,

Yup. I am mindlessly following these sources, without thinking about them. I am typical anti-Mormon. I am an idiot.

Give me a break. Are you going to dicsuss the issues I have raised or are you going to call me names?

I raised some specific issues, one being that your apoligetic sources quote only Mormons. My sources also quote Mormons. Actually, they quote Mormons quite a bit.

Now, a point I brought up earlier, and I think it worth great consideration is this: we come at the issues with totally different view points. Its as if we speak different languages. Perhaps you don't see the problem I outlined as an issue, however, understand that it is a great problem for us "anti's".

BTW, I went to the site you posted after your yada, yada line. It was interesting, but I don't think it proves anything at all. It is a list of articles discussing various philosophical issues, some directly with Christianity others not.

What's most important? The church or each individual being saved? This is an important discussion, perhaps, as it shows what is valued most.

I expect you to say that yes, each individual is important. But I also expect you to follow it with something along the lines of without the church approved by god, those saved have nothing. In other words, one can only be saved with the one true church as its organization.

This differs greatly with what most Christians beleive, because most Christians are not concerned with the organization and are primarilly concerned with saving individuals. To most Christians, it matters not which church you go to, but that you follow Christ. Why? Because it is honoring God that matters and not the size of a congregation or heirarchy.

Compare that with what you told me, and don't think this as criticism but as pointing out differences between our faiths. The consequences of the two views are huge.

V: Yup. I am mindlessly following these sources, without thinking about them. I am typical anti-Mormon. I am an idiot.

GB: Admitting you have a problem is the first step.

V: I raised some specific issues, one being that your apoligetic sources quote only Mormons.

GB: You obviously didn’t read the article in the link I gave you, written by two evangelical scholars.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3803/is_199810/ai_n 8808757
FTA

“Too many evangelicals accept and propagate certain myths about Mormon scholarship. It is a myth that there are few, if any, traditional Mormon scholars with training in fields pertinent to evangelical-Mormon debates. It is a myth that when Mormons receive training in historiography, biblical languages, theology, and philosophy they invariably abandon traditional Latter-day Saints (LDS) beliefs in the historicity of the Book of Mormon and the prophethood of Joseph Smith. It is a myth that liberal Mormons have so shaken the foundations of LDS belief that Mormonism is crumbling apart. It is a myth that neoorthodox Mormons have influenced the theology of their church to such a degree that it will soon abandon traditional emphases and follow a path similar to the RLDS (Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) or the World-Wide Church of God.2 These are myths based upon ignorance and selective reading. Evangelicals who wish to be responsible must abandon them.

“In response to these myths, we assert five conclusions concerning Mormon scholarship. First, there are, contrary to popular evangelical perceptions, legitimate Mormon scholars. We use the term scholar in its formal sense of "intellectual, erudite; skilled in intellectual investigation; trained in ancient languages."3 Broadly, Mormon scholarship can be divided into four categories: traditional, neoorthodox, liberal, and cultural. The largest and most influential of the four categories is traditional Mormon scholars. The Latter-day Saints are not an anti-intellectual group like Jehovah's Witnesses. Mormons produce work that has more than the mere appearance of scholarship.

“Second, Mormon scholars and apologists (not all apologists are scholars) have, with varying degrees of success, answered most of the usual evangelical criticisms. Often these answers adequately diffuse particular (minor) criticisms. When the criticism has not been diffused the issue has usually been made much more complex.

“Third, currently there are (as far as we are aware) no books from an evangelical perspective that responsibly interact with contemporary LDS scholarly and apologetic writings.4 A survey of twenty recent evangelical books criticizing Mormonism reveals that none interacts with this growing body of literature. Only a handful demonstrate any awareness of pertinent works. Many of the authors promote criticisms that have long been refuted. A number of these books claim to be "the definitive" book on the matter. That they make no attempt to interact with contemporary LDS scholarship is a stain upon the authors' integrity and causes one to wonder about their credibility.

“Fourth, at the academic level evangelicals are needlessly losing the debate with the Mormons. In recent years the sophistication and erudition of LDS apologetics has risen considerably while evangelical responses have not.5 Those who have the skills necessary for this task rarely demonstrate an interest in the issues.

“Finally, most involved in the counter-cult movement lack the skills and training necessary to answer Mormon scholarly apologetic. The need is great for trained evangelical biblical scholars, theologians, philosophers, and historians to examine and answer the growing body of literature produced by traditional LDS scholars and apologists.”

V: Yup. I am mindlessly following these sources, without thinking about them. I am typical anti-Mormon. I am an idiot.

Also, I made a quick stop at
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=76
And went to the references for the Mormon apologetic article (that according to you only quotes mormons sources) and what did I find?

1. Discussion has focused on whether the names of Jacob, the father of the others listed (46:6, 8, 26–27), and Dinah (46:15) were to be reckoned so that the number totals seventy. See S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis, 5th ed. (London: Methuen, 1906), 365–66, 368; Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 402–3.
2. While Exodus 1:2–5 does not really say exactly what we find in Genesis 46 (see the discussion below), it is clear that the list of Exodus 1 refers back to that in Genesis. See Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974), 1–2; S. R. Driver, The Book of Exodus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911), 1; and Moshe Greenberg, Understanding Exodus, part 1 (New York: Behrman House, 1969), 18–19.
3. For the continuing discussion regarding Stephen's background, as well as that of his associates who had Greek names, see Johannes Munck, The Acts of the Apostles, Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967), 56–57; Ernst Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte, 15th ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968), 218–22.
4. Among recent discussions of Luke's identity and ethnic origins, see those of Leon Morris, The Gospel According to St. Luke (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974), 14–21; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (I–IX), Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981), 35–47; and Frederick F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles (London: Tyndale Press, 1962), 1–8.

GB: Need I post the other 39?

V: Yup. I am mindlessly following these sources, without thinking about them. I am typical anti-Mormon. I am an idiot.

V: My sources also quote Mormons. Actually, they quote Mormons quite a bit.

GB: Yeah, and often out of context and in the worst possible light. And they use standards that they would never apply to non-mormon sources. They call that “double standards”. Not honest at all.

V: . . . Perhaps you don't see the problem I outlined as an issue, however, understand that it is a great problem for us "anti's".

GB: Your problem, not mine.


V: I expect you to say that yes, each individual is important. But I also expect you to follow it with something along the lines of without the church approved by god, those saved have nothing. In other words, one can only be saved with the one true church as its organization.

GB: So then, did I meet your expectations?
Article of Faith #43 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

Since the “laws and ordinances of the Gospel” are only available in the true church, then the Church is very important. The Lord has restored His church to provide salvation to the individual.

V: This differs greatly with what most Christians beleive, . . .

GB: Ah the fallacy of appealing to numbers.

V: To most Christians, it matters not which church you go to, but that you follow Christ. Why? Because it is honoring God that matters and not the size of a congregation or heirarchy.

GB: Accept of course when it comes to Mormons. Then for some reason it really does matter to them.

V: Compare that with what you told me, and don't think this as criticism but as pointing out differences between our faiths. The consequences of the two views are huge.

GB: I can agree with that.

Edited a book after they wrote that article in about 98 called "The New Mormon Challenge" which is not friendly to Mormons.

The article basically calls us to be more aware of Mormon sophisitication. It does not say that Mormonism is right.

is an over reliance on Mormon sources. If I said or implied something unclear, my apologies. But I will stand by this statement.

I say this from what I have seen when I have gone to these sights.

I hear that often, that we take these items out of context. While this has to happen some, I am confident that that is in the minority. The scores of quotes and the scores of places you find them all indicate the sources said and meant what is inferred.

Your demonizing of the use of them as out of context is interesting. Its as if you are scared of them. Kind of like saying the Journal of Discourses are frauds, which is essentially what is said when the claim is made that someone attributed the wrong quotes to the wrong people or got details wrong.

Another trouble is that when people as close to Joseph Smith as many quoted were say he married other women or did something, there's credence to that. Its powerful when your sister says something about you.

Sorry, but I remain unconvinced its all a lie.

But see, this is a big difference, and you don't get the point, at least you have not indicated you get it.

The one true church is Christ and Christ alone. It is not an organized body. Bringing people to Christ is building the church.

The church as an organization is not what matters to us-- it is Christ. And our Christ's are not the same, so when you say the one and true church so Christ can save through that does not mean to us what it does to you. And this difference in Christ is also why we cannot truly consider you Christian. Actually, in the book by Mosser and Owen, they have a chapter on exactly that topic. Its interesting, you should check it out.

So really, you're still not convincing and could probably look at some other sources. I'll even post this for you to review of that book: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=pKxN6S1iVuMC&dq=car l+mosser&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=lI1dl4vMBM&sig= OlSQ1A0D9kpbEvh9ixw1W_lAnzg

This does not have every page, but you'll get the idea. The chapter on the topic of Mormons and Christianity starts on page 315.

V: What I have said about Mormon sources is an over reliance on Mormon sources. If I said or implied something unclear, my apologies. But I will stand by this statement.

GB: I think you are trying to gloss over your screwup here, big time. Why do I say that? Because you said “I raised some specific issues, one being that your apoligetic sources quote ONLY Mormons.” From your Friday, February, 22, 2008 9:12 AM post (emphasis mine).

So in typical anti-mormon fashion, you used deceptive language and when caught at it you try to gloss over it instead of recognizing your use of deception and confessing to it and committing yourself to never do it again (that is to repent of it like a true Christian would do).

Roger Williams, pastor of the oldest Baptist Church in America at Providence, Rhode Island, refused to continue as pastor on the grounds that
There is no regularly-constituted church on earth, nor any person authorized to administer any Church ordinance: nor can there be, until new apostles are sent by the great Head of the Church, for whose coming I am seeking. (William Cullen Bryant (editor), Picturesque America, or the Land We Live In (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1872), 1:502.)

Williams also said, "The apostasy... hath so far corrupted all, that there can be no recovery out of that apostasy until Christ shall send forth new apostles to plant churches anew." (Edward Underhill, "Struggles and Triumphs of Religious Liberty", cited in William F. Anderson, "Apostasy or Succession, Which?," 238–239.)

In a work prepared by seventy-three noted theologians and Bible students, we read:

...we must not expect to see the Church of Holy Scripture actually existing in its perfection on the earth. It is not to be found, thus perfect, either in the collected fragments of Christendom, or still less in any one of these fragments.... (Dr. William Smith, Smith's Dictionary of the Bible (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1896).)

Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick, prominent American Baptist clergyman and author, described the condition of the Christian churches of the first half of the twentieth century in these words:

A religious reformation is afoot, and at heart it is the endeavor to recover for our modern life the religion of Jesus as against the vast, intricate, largely inadequate and often positively false religion about Jesus. Christianity today has largely left the religion which he preached, taught and lived, and has substituted another kind of religion altogether. If Jesus should come back to now, hear the mythologies built up around him, see the creedalism, denominationalism, sacramentalism, carried on in his name, he would certainly say, 'If this is Christianity, I am not a Christian.' (Fosdick cited in Daniel H. Williams, “The Corruption of the Church and its Tradition”, in Williams, Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism (Eerdmans, 1999): 101–131.)

This broad selection of quotations provides clear support for the idea that the doctrines and practice of the Early Church of the apostles had been altered dramatically within a few centuries at most:

• Will Durant, "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. The Greek mind, dying, came to a transmigrated [new] life in the theology and liturgy of the Church." (Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Volume 3: Caesar and Christ, (1944), 595.)

• Stuart Hall: “Fourth century orthodoxy is not the same as what Peter and Paul believed, any more than modern Roman Catholicism or Anglicanism is..." (Thomas Jefferson, cited in Norman Cousins, In God We Trust (Harper & Brothers, 1958), 162.)

• Thomas Jefferson, though surely not a cleric, was a great student of Christianity. Even he acknowledged the loss of the original gospel and said that he looked forward to "the prospect of a restoration of primitive Christianity. I must leave to younger athletes to encounter and lop off the false branches which have been engrafted into it by the mythologies of the middle and modern ages" (Stuart Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church, (Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; New edition, 2005), 36. ISBN 0281055092. ISBN 978-0281055098.)

• Philip Smith: "The sad truth is that as soon as Christianity was generally diffused, it began to absorb corruptions from all the lands in which it was planted, and to reflect the complexion of all their systems of religion and philosophy.” (Phillip Smith, History of the Christian Church during the first ten centuries (Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2007[1886]), 1:49. ISBN 1430455985. ISBN 978-1430455981.)

• J.W.C. Wand (former Anglican Bishop of London) “[t]he new Christian church was frankly national. The people were converted en bloc; the temples were turned into churches and the priests were ordained into the Christian ministry.”(J.W.C. Wand, A History of the Early Church to A.D. 500 (Methuen & Co Ltd, 1945), 244.)

• Robert Wilken, professor of the history of Christianity at the University of Virginia, wrote “only a few enterprising intellectuals, and only after more than one hundred years of Christian history, had begun to take the risk of expressing Christian beliefs within the philosophical ideas current in the Greco Roman world. Most Christians were against to such attempts. As late as the third century, after the apologetic movement had introduced Greek ideas into Christian thinking, Christian preachers complained that the rank and file opposed such ideas.”(Robert Louis Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (Yale University Press, 2003), 79. ISBN 0300098391. ISBN 978-0300098396.)

And I am sure you can find many more like them. SO what? How many people have given their opinions on the church over time? Not all of these men you quote are Christian, even. Most probably are not, despite where they gave their attention to. Several are historians. And even in reading through some of these quotes, such as JWC Wands, there is clearly information to be added to get a full understanding of what he is saying. In other words, these are not very direct. and quoting Jefferson does you little good, as he actually cut out many words he did not like out of his Bible.

So, again, despite your effort, you have failed to make your point successfuly. Anyone can go through and find quotes antithetical to Christianity. Its not new-- Christianity has been attacked since the time of Christ himself. Also, remember what we quote when we quote your historical leaders is them making direct and specific statements in regards to actions and beliefs held by members of your past leadership. We have many, many such quotes in a very short time. We also do not claim to be a perfect church ordained from God. We are led by men, men who are not prohpets nor speak directly for God as yours are supposedly called to do.

V: How many people have given their opinions on the church over time?

GB: I think everyone has an opinion about their church and their beliefs. And many said things in public and/or wrote them down. And most of the time it is just that OPINION!

V: Not all of these men you quote are Christian, even. Most probably are not, despite where they gave their attention to. Several are historians.

GB: Who made you the judge of other peoples Christianness? But obviously MOST (if not all) of them were Christian who gave their attention to understanding the Bible and history. Did any of the deny being a Christian?

V: And even in reading through some of these quotes, such as JWC Wands, there is clearly information to be added to get a full understanding of what he is saying. In other words, these are not very direct.

GB: An assertion with no support. Typically you. The JWC Wands quote was a DIRECT quote. If you want more context, the reference is provided.

V: and quoting Jefferson does you little good, as he actually cut out many words he did not like out of his Bible.

GB: What? You have no respect for Jefferson’s intellectual abilities? And yet he “was a great student of Christianity.” So his opinion wasn’t uninformed.

V: So, again, despite your effort, you have failed to make your point successfully.

GB: Only in your closed mind.

V: Anyone can go through and find quotes antithetical to Christianity. Its not new-- Christianity has been attacked since the time of Christ himself.

GB: Anyone can go through and find quotes antithetical to Mormon-Christianity. Its not new—Mormon-Christianity has been attacked since the time of Christ revealing himself to Joseph Smith.

V: Also, remember what we quote when we quote your historical leaders is them making direct and specific statements in regards to actions and beliefs held by members of your past leadership.

GB: Ah now you admit the double standard. When Christians make statements that you disagree with they are only “opinions”, but when a Mormon gives a statement of their personal understanding it is “doctrine” that all Mormons must be held accountable to.

Double standard? Yes.

Hypocritical? Yes.

V: We also do not claim to be a perfect church ordained from God.

GB: So your church isn’t ordained from God? Interesting admission there V. Why are you a member of it if it isn’t ordained from God?

V: We are led by men, . . .

GB: Another interesting admission.

V: . . . men who are not prohpets nor speak directly for God as yours are supposedly called to do.

GB: So in other words your leaders aren’t authorized by God to do what they are doing. Another interesting admission. Ah, I remember now, it is the cult of Lon Solomon to which you belong.

And yet the Bible says (Amos 3:7) Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

It is interesting that you expect perfection from “Mormon” prophets and leaders but allow for imperfections in Biblical prophets and apostles. Again can you say “DOUBLE STANDARD”?

Every book written by an LDS leader that I have ever seen, has a statement in the front where the author states that it isn’t official LDS doctrine and that they alone are responsible for the books content. But revealing that wouldn’t fit the Anti-Mormon agenda now would it? Better to ignore that and give the misimpression that the content is “official LDS doctrine”. And then give the Anti-Mormon desired meaning to it. Must not let Mormons define their own doctrine. They might make it sound reasonable and good if given a chance.

First: when a Mormon president is supposed to speak for god and makes a statement about your faith, it is a completely different matter when an evangelical theologian (or even just an historian) makes a comment or a study about doctrine. Clearly, this line of demarkation is huge. And notice or no notice at the beginning of a book, as prophet one clearly has assumed (rightly or wrongly) more authority on a matter, and as such more weight is rightly put on their opinions.

Second: I notice your language is getting quite angry here, so perhaps I have hit a nerve. Looking at your line: "the cult of Lon Solomon," I can't help but think you do not have anything left to go by. You also say a comment was "typically you". How nice. Are you going to argue the merits or call me names?

Third: Again, you miss the point of me pointing to quotes that are pretty direct from leaders and people of influence from your past. These statements are from people of power and close to those in power. JS's sister, for instance, gives us much insight into the man. His mother also claims that the first vision story was not present at the beginning of his ministry.

Fourth: so now you are going to jump on me saying we are led by men, and the assumption is that you are led by God and therefore the correct church. Hate to break it to you, but aren't you led by men? Isn't the prophet a man? Aren't his "prophecies" voted on by a group of men to ensure they are "prophecies"?

Surely you know the difference.

Surely you are joking when you ask me to prove they were not Christian.

"No, I am not joking, and stop calling me Shirley". Sorry for the allusion to Airplane, but I find these questions and assertions very telling, again, of what can be done to distort the discussion at hand.

First of all, not everyone who claims to be Christian is, so just because one might go to church does not make them Christian. Secondly, you make the comment without an answer yourself, so it is really nonsensical to ask. What if they indeed, as I would bet, are not Christian, and if any association, nominal Christian at best? Thirdly, have you ever read much in the way of academic histories of the church? The vast majority have critical thoughts on it, so it is best to proceed with caution when you read what they say. Fourthly, Jefferson doubted Jesus was anything more than a smart guy. He doubted his deity in any way shape or form, so he would discount Mormonism, too. Fifthly, you make a bit of an admission, too: you might make it sound reasonable if given a good chance. I know you say that with a sense of sarcasm, but it is interesting to hear you say that. It is interesting because this is really a big part of how we view how, and why, you have adjusted your doctrine through time.

V you don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept that the prophet is speaking for God ONLY when he is claiming to speak for God. NOT all of the time!!! Can you get that through you thick (closed?) mind? Apparently not.

V: it is a completely different matter when an evangelical theologian (or even just an historian) makes a comment or a study about doctrine.

GB: Why? Because you say so? If Mormons have to take ownership for all past statements then why don’t Christians? Again can you say DOUBLE STANDARD and HYPOCRISY?

V: Clearly, this line of demarkation is huge.

GB: ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!! It is call HYPOCRISY!!!!!!!

V: . . . as prophet one clearly has assumed (rightly or wrongly) more authority on a matter, and as such more weight is rightly put on their opinions.

GB: True, BUT they are still men and fallible. Get it !!!! And NONE of them ever claimed otherwise.

V: I notice your language is getting quite angry here, so perhaps I have hit a nerve.

GB: LOL !!! Your arguments are too flimsy to get my dander up. Some times I have to yell because your head is so thick or in other words you mind is so closed.

V: Looking at your line: "the cult of Lon Solomon," I can't help but think you do not have anything left to go by.

GB: No denial? Well at least you are willing to admit that you are a member of the cult of Lon.

V: Hate to break it to you, but aren't you led by men?

GB: Only one, the man Christ Jesus. Who speaks through his authorized servants the prophets and apostles. Check out the Bible it gives the pattern.

V: Surely you are joking when you ask me to prove they were not Christian.

GB: You are the one that branded them not Christian, and for simply not agreeing with you. And yet on Big G’s blog you claim all that accept the Nicene Creed are Christian. Which is it? Oh wait is this another double standard?

V: . . . so he would discount Mormonism, too.

GB: So now you can speak for of the dead. LOL!!!!!!!!!!! Had a little séance did you?

V: It is interesting because this is really a big part of how we view how, and why, you have adjusted your doctrine through time.

GB: We? Who is this we?

Practices have changed, Doctrine hasn’t. Get it?

Name a deed or quote from past Christian leaders and I will condemn them, as will any true Christian. Try me.

So, are you not led by men?

If you'd like to say I am in the cult of Lon, go for it. But look at what he believes and tell me what is so different from any other church? I'd love to know.

Doctrine has not changed? Hmmm... Polygamy, Adam/God, blacks and the priesthood (picking the easiest three). If these are not doctrine, what do you define as doctrine?

Not all who say they are Christian are. Not all who go to church are Christian. I cannot speak for those men, but neither can you, and you claimed they were Christian. All I can do is look at what they left behind.

V: Name a deed or quote from past Christian leaders and I will condemn them, as will any true Christian. Try me.

GB: So then you won't take ownership will you. This is just the same double standard. You will allow your past leaders to be fallible but won't allow the same for past (or present) Mormon leaders.

V: So, are you not led by men?

GB: We are led by the Man Christ Jesus! Get it?

V: But look at what he believes and tell me what is so different from any other church?

GB: What about the LIES he continues to put forth about Mormons?

V: Doctrine has not changed?

GB: That is correct!

V: Polygamy, Adam/God, blacks and the priesthood

GB: Doctrine is what is found in our scriptures. Polygamy and the priesthood are practices. Adam/God is neither practice nor doctrine.

V: Not all who say they are Christian are. Not all who go to church are Christian.

GB: Very judgmental aren't you!

V: I cannot speak for those men, but neither can you, and you claimed they were Christian. All I can do is look at what they left behind.

GB: Then why do you try?

Name one false doctrine or teacher and I will condemn them as such. Are you willing to condermn the Adam/God belief? Or polygamy?

No, you are led by men. Jesus Christ is not the president of your church. He does not make up the Quorum of the Seventy or any of the heirarchy of your church. You are led by men.

He (I believe you mean Lon) gave his thoughts on Mormonism, and he translates them as he sees them. Actually, when you get down to it, I think he's probably pretty close to getting to heart of your beliefs. Blacks could not be full Mormons until 79. He may have exagerated some in your eyes, but I don't think ultimately he's off on his claims.

Tell that to Brigham Young... And for kicks: doc·trine (dok'trin) Pronunciation Key
n.
A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.
A statement of official government policy, especially in foreign affairs and military strategy.
Archaic Something taught; a teaching.


[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin doctrina, from doctor, teacher; see doctor.]

I certainly can judge what I see. Can't you?

V: Name one false doctrine or teacher and I will condemn them as such.

GB: OK, The doctrine of the trinity is a false doctrine adopted from Greek Hellenism.

V: Are you willing to condermn the Adam/God belief?

GB: Perhaps, I don't know what is exactly because Brigham Young never defined it in writing. Apparently it wasn't that important to him.

V: Or polygamy?

GB: The doctrine of plural marriage is the same as it always has been. When God commands it (as he did to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob), it is to be practiced. When he resends, then it is not to be practiced. That hasn't changed.

V: Jesus Christ is not the president of your church.

GB: Correct, He is the Cornerstone.

V: You are led by men.

GB: We are led by Jesus Christ.

V: I certainly can judge what I see. Can't you?

GB: John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Chris·tian /'kr?st??n/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kris-chuhn]

–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.

2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.

3. of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.

4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.

5. decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.

6. human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn't Christian.

–noun
7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.

8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.

This does not mention who Christ was. And that is an important thing to leave out. This is a great and dandy definition for a cursory knowledge, however it does not address the theological side of it, now does it? So we are left to decide that amongst ourselves, huh?

First, you are led by men. Men occupy and run your temples and offices; you can say they are guided by Christ all you want. So can I, so that is a wash. Your religion is led by men. That line will get you nowhere.

And your answer to polygamy suggests you'd be OK marrying more than one woman. You essentially condone it, so you are not condemning your past.

And see you can't. You can't go back and say what any Mormons have done is bad. For whatever reason, Mormons just can't bring themselves to say bad things about their past actions OR beliefs.

Nope. You deliberately go to one we have been disputing. This is not intellectually honest. Of course I will not condemn it! Just as you will not condemn the separate god ida you espouse.

As to you "maybe" calling out the Adam/God idea, you are slick, but not answering the question. You sound like a politician, spinning the issue. Its a simple question: is Adam our God? This is what Brigham Young taught, or at least what the historical record shows. So, you must deny your leader, or your history, and both of which are problematic to your present. If we can't trust but one of your presidents, your lineage is shot, and if we can't trust your history, why should we trust anything you say now?

Judging? Yeah, I know the quotes-- "judge not lest you be judged" and all that. But we can get an idea of what folks think/thought by what they have done. Isn't this true? Ed Dekker? Sandra Tanner? Lon Solomon? Are you going to judge them? I think you have!

V: This does not mention who Christ was.

GB: We both know that it was talking about Jesus Christ of Biblical fame.

V: And your answer to polygamy suggests you'd be OK marrying more than one woman.

GB: ONLY if commanded by God to do so.

V: You essentially condone it, so you are not condemning your past.

GB: I will only condone it when God condones it. Are you saying I should condemn Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?

V: And see you can't. You can't go back and say what any Mormons have done is bad.

GB: Because when it is commanded by God, then it isn’t bad. Obedience to God’s commands takes precedence to everything else. Read the Bible, that is the pattern.

V: Nope. You deliberately go to one we have been disputing.

GB: That doesn’t change the fact that it is a false doctrine brought about by the pollution of Christian theology with Greek Hellenism, resulting in a schizophrenic god unsupported by the Bible.

V: is Adam our God? This is what Brigham Young taught, or at least what the historical record shows.

GB: “Historical record”? You and I both know that in those days unless the speaker wrote down his speech there is no ACCURATE record of what he actually said. As I said before, OBVIOUSLY Brigham Young was not concerned enough about what he was trying to communicate to write it down. The fact that he didn’t write it down is prima facie evidence that he wasn’t speaking for the Lord on that subject. Of course this is another example of your double standard.because you don’t have one.

V: Ed Dekker? Sandra Tanner? Lon Solomon? Are you going to judge them? I think you have!

GB: John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. How much do you know about Ed Decker’s personal life?

V: So, you must deny your leader, or your history, and both of which are problematic to your present.

GB: Only in the small intellect of the close minded hypocrite.

V: If we can't trust but one of your presidents, your lineage is shot, and if we can't trust your history, why should we trust anything you say now?

GB: Another double standard right. You don’t trust the leaders of your “Christian” church from, what 400 ad to 1500 ad? Perhaps even longer. You can’t even present a “lineage”

And I'm getting tired of it.

Answer my objections (all you;ve done is spun and weave), and I will continue.

But as a final post until you play ball, let me summarize:

1) When you and I talk of Jesus Christ, we talk of two people with the same name, kind of like there existing two Bob Turners. Same name, different person.

2) So, since it is not commanded by God, you can condemn it now, right? If not, you condone it as appropriate. Its an all or nothing and simple question. Anything short is, well, short of the mark.

3) That is hardly the case of the historical record. You and I know that. Someone wrote down his words. If they are wrong, what else is wrong with what was taken down? Again, you know this.

4) Will Sandra Tanner, a descendant of the very Brigham Young, go to hell if she has denied Mormonism as a previously active member? Isn't this one of those unforgivable sins?

5) A lineage. Yours starts at 1830. You have less claim than I, and I don't claim one. You put everything into this idea, and it falls short. I claim direct access to God of my own, and that a direct leader is unnecessary. I do not believe the Pope is any more related to God than myself or your president. That is your issue, not mine, so pushing it on me will get you nowhere.

6) You can disagree with me on the trinity. That is fine, but as long as you deny it and say that Christ is but one god among many and claim you can become a god, you are outside Christ's church.

V: When you and I talk of Jesus Christ, we talk of two people with the same name, kind of like there existing two Bob Turners. Same name, different person.

GB: Yup, two Bob Turners, born on the same day to the same woman, in the same place, but they aren’t twins. Both grew up in the same place, did the same miracles, died the same day in the same manner, and both were resurrected at the same time and place. But yet they are not the same?

I am very willing to discuss this subject rationally. If you can refrain from trying to tell me what it is that I believe and we use only the Bible as a source. Are you game for that?

V: So, since it is not commanded by God, you can condemn it now, right? If not, you condone it as appropriate.

GB: Currently it isn’t commanded by God, so yes I currently condemn anyone practicing it.

V: Someone wrote down his words.

GB: As he spoke them. Have you ever tried to do that?

V: If they are wrong, what else is wrong with what was taken down?

GB: We may never know. It isn’t like we can go back and review the tapes.

V: Will Sandra Tanner, . . . go to hell if she has denied Mormonism as a previously active member?

GB: That is between her and God. Not my call.

V: Isn't this one of those unforgivable sins?

GB: Not that I am aware of. I doubt she qualifies for blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.

V: A lineage. Yours starts at 1830.

GB: Our lineage starts with Jesus Christ.

V: You have less claim than I, and I don't claim one. I claim direct access to God of my own, and that a direct leader is unnecessary. I do not believe the Pope is any more related to God than myself or your president.

GB: OK

V: That is your issue, not mine, so pushing it on me will get you nowhere.

GB: OK

V: You can disagree with me on the trinity.

GB: How nice of you to allow that.

V: That is fine, but as long as you deny it and say that Christ is but one god among many and claim you can become a god, you are outside Christ's church.

GB: Again you are trying to put words in my mouth and beliefs in my heart that aren’t there.

Give it a rest. Let of your anger and prejudice and look at my claims of our different Jesus for what they are. You are not willing to discuss it rationally. I have been attempting to discuss rationally on this issue, but you continue to invoke your own prejudices into it and making it a right/wrong thing. I am not interested in that. We will not change minds at the moment on that specific issue, and I hope you see that.

The other points are getting old and drab. You do accuse me of putting words in you mouth, but you do believe Jesus is a god among many, no? That there are other gods of other worlds out there? I am not putting words in any one's mouth. I am taking a belief you have expressed and summarizing it.

When you can let go of the anger and prejudice, I will continue.

Give it a rest. Let go of your anger and prejudice and look at my statements for what they are. You are not willing to discuss it rationally. I have been attempting to rationally discuss these issues, but you continue to invoke your own prejudices and double standards into it. We agree that we will not change each other’s mind at the moment on these specific issues.

To state exactly what I believe, it is this.

I believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost. I call this the Godhead. I believe that they are separate and distinct Beings but are united in love and purpose. I believe that no other gods exist apart from this Godhead. All other gods (members of the council of elohim) are associated and united with, and subordinate to this Godhead.

I understand that you have different beliefs, but that doesn’t make me angry with you or hate you. I am very content to agree to disagree.

Rather than continuing to harp on what you perceive to be insurmountable differences, why don’t we try to find common ground?

I know what you believe, but these beliefs are still very different from mine. And this is the reason I cannot call you Christian in the same way I am Christian. The two are not the same. I simply hope you understand this point, and not get offended when I say such things, or when other Christians say the same thing. There is a reason for the belief.

And for whatever it is worth, even in your statement of belief you provide you contradict yourself. See what I refer to: "I believe that no other gods exist apart from this Godhead. All other gods (members of the council of elohim) are associated and united with, and subordinate to this Godhead."

It is comments like these that throw uss evangelicals off. Its either there are no other gods or there are, members of a council or not. Here, you say there aren't any others pretty clearly, but your next sentance is that there are. And I really don't care about heirarchy or who supports who; I care about consistency. This comment, and maybe you mispoke, is not consistent with your monotheistic claim.

I don't say this to provoke, really. But I do say it to explain why it is evangelicals get their ideas from. We don't take them out of thin air or purposefully twist what is said. We take what you say and get something very different from what you think your are communicating to us.

I've mentioned before that we speak different languages, and this is exactly the consequence of this difference.

I've told you before that you come into these discussions with you given bias and way of thinking.

To really communicate with us, you need to do two things: be sure you are speaking in a way we will understand and truly try to understand our point of view.

Believe it or not, my original (from way back when) claim is that I wish to gain an understanding of what you believe. This is to bridge this gap and to know you better.

Let me try to explain it again.

"I believe that no other gods exist apart from this Godhead. All other gods (members of the council of elohim) are associated and united with, and subordinate to this Godhead."

These two statements are perfectly reconcilable. The only gods/Gods that exist are the members of the Godhead and the members of the council of elohim.

The members of council of elohim (gods) are not apart from the Godhead but are associated with It, united with It, and subordinate to It.

Whether or not you understand that, can we move on in our quest to find common ground?

But still sounds polytheistic. The godhead, from what you speak of consists of three Gods (maybe two and a half). And you've also a coucil of a bunch of gods. Whomever you worship, there are many gods, of which you can become one.

So, I hope you understand my confusion on the matter, given that I have never heard a Mormon admit to polytheism.

It depends on which definition of polytheism you use.

1)the doctrine of or belief in more than one god or in many gods.

By this definition Paul was a polytheist (and so am I).

1Cor 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

Here Paul acknowledged the existence of many gods in heaven other than the Godhead.

2)The worship of . . . more than one god.

By this definition Paul was not a polytheist (and neither am I).

1Cor 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; . . .

Here Paul acknowledged the existence of "but one God".

It is interesting that in the next phrase Paul separates Jesus from God, the Father.

1Cor 8:6 . . . and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

I worship only one God, the Father, I do so in the name of Jesus Christ and by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Can we get back to our quest to find common ground?

First, check the dictionary definition of polytheism.

Second, "4So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one."

This is the verse prior to what you quoted. So, I am not sure if your explanation helps reconcile the "no God but one" line.

And if we take your position, Jesus cannot be a god, because there is only one, the Father.

So none of it really makes any sense to me. Call me crazy...

Something in common: Christmas!

V: First, check the dictionary definition of polytheism.

GB: The definitions I gave you came from dictionary.com

V: Second, "4So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one."

. . . So, I am not sure if your explanation helps reconcile the "no God but one" line.

GB: Then study Paul's explanation in verses 5 & 6.

V: And if we take your position, Jesus cannot be a god, because there is only one, the Father.

GB: Don't you mean Paul's explanation? Nothing I have said expresses or implies that Jesus can't be a god.

V: So none of it really makes any sense to me. Call me crazy...

GB: You are giving the impression that you don't want it to make sense, that you don't want to understand.

V: Something in common: Christmas!

GB: Virgin birth?

"American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This pol·y·the·ism (pol'e-the-iz'?m, pol'e-the'iz-?m) Pronunciation Key
n. The worship of or belief in more than one god."

The worship or belief in more than one god.

OK, so whether or not you worship more than one, you believe there are more than one.

You also do not get my point on quoting the prior verse. Paul says there is but one God. Let me also set some further context in the chapter: Paul is talking to those who worshipped idols, and those who say not to eat food sacrificed to them. He's talking to who think there are more than one. He's correcting them.

The virgin birth is debatable on your perspective. You don't look at it the same way. Check out Big G's. We just went through this if you'd like to check the recent posts.

V: OK, so whether or not you worship more than one, you believe there are more than one.

GB: Absolutely! Just like Paul and Jesus. This is the way we understand John 1:1 (with my comments)
1In the beginning (of the material creation) was the Word (Jehovah/Jesus Christ), and the Word was with God (Jesus Christ was with the Father), and the Word was God (Jesus Christ was given the power and authority to speak and act in the place of and for the Father).
Picture in your mind two separate people that:
1 Look exactly alike.
2 Know the same things (because the know them all).
3 Have the same personal chacteristics (love, kindness, humility etc.).
4 Have the same power (such that the elements obey their commands).
5 Have the same goals and objectives.
6 Work in a united effort to achieve those goals and objectives.
7 And these two people were related as father and son.
Would it be incorrect for the son to say that “I and my father are one”?

V: Paul says there is but one God.

GB: Actually what he says is “But to us there is but one God”. The “But to us” part leaves open the possibility of other gods, but means that we aren’t to worship them.

V: Let me also set some further context in the chapter: Paul is talking to those who worshipped idols, . . .

GB: Paul is talking to members of the Church in Corinth, who had been taught the truth previously but were now straying back to their former beliefs in worshipping many gods. He is trying to help them understand that although there are many gods in heaven, we are to worship ONLY God the Father.

V: The virgin birth is debatable . . . this if you'd like to check the recent posts.

GB: I read it. He did a good job of explaining it. You just don’t want to accept his explanation. So we (LDS) believe in a virgin birth, I assume you do as well.

Jesus baptized by John the Baptist?

You are polytheistic, point settled.

You did not do your homework and read 1 Cor 8:4: "So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one."

Let me take some words out and keep the context and grammer correct: "We know that there is no God but one." Well, gosh! It says it pretty plainly here that there is only one God.

And if you'd like, I'll post the rest of the verses in question: "5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."

I see some interesting words: so-called, for instance. I see "gods" and "lords". (Notice the quotation marks.) And from (and for) and through, all words in the way they are used here can be considered synonims. So, all came from god through Jesus, and we live for God through Jesus. This is not total separation by any means. Your verses fail to prove your point.

No, he is correcting them on the one god thing. Check out the previous paragraph.

Then you did not pay attention to my rebuttals and my distinctions. I know you say you believe in a virgin birth, but that whole "natural as any other" thing really is an unfortunate way to put it, for it really implies something else entirely. So, I feel more than safe saying it is something different than what you say.

Yes, we believe John the Baptist baptized him, so along with Christmas, there's something else in common. Not sure the ramifications of Jesus Baptism are looked at the same...

We can discuss things that may be in common, but I'm going to bet that as we dig deeper, they really are not that much in common.

The virgin birth, for example, is one we beleive is simply a miracle of God. God made her pregnant with a snap of his finger, if you will. He said it, and it happened.

You believe it to be much more involved, and your reconciliation between the actions of God and of the Holy Spirit does not do you any favors. As I told Big G, why would the Spirit have to intervene if nothing happened between God and Mary? Why would he have to clean up? That question was never really answered, and I don't think you have one, to be honest.

Jesus baptism was a sign that he was God. John's participation is important because he was to prepare the way for Jesus, and Jesus upon baptism, was then fully prepared, fully equal to that of mankind, who should be cleansed through baptism (remember, baptism to us is an outward sign of inward transformation). To further clarify, Jesus, God the father come to us as a man, needed to be made equal to us, sinners, in order to complete his mission here. For Him to be baptized is for him to complete that equalization.

Second, I compared the verse I quoted from 1 Corinthians with that from the KJV, which you quoted. Wow, what a difference. But this is why we need to review other translations. The sense you get from both are very different.

In looking at several other versions, they tend to stay closer to the NIV. Why might this be important? Well, with the newer translations, they come from better manuscript sources, that is they come from more and better old documents. Further, they do not use the King James English, with all the thees and thous and are much easier to understand using todays vernacular (before you jump on that, remember why it is you update and change the BOM-- to update the language and to clarify points).

So it is with the study of the Bible...

Sorry, I am inspired right now to talk about this some more...

The entire chapter is about whether or not it is OK to eat food that was sacrificed to idols. Paul says that it is OK to do so, because there is but one god and so it doesn't matter. But he acknowledges that some may be a bit spooked by that idea because some believed it was a very bad thing to do.

Paul's ultimate point is that the folks who are OK with it ought not to do it in the presence of those who are spooked by it, because it would make the "weak" (those who are spooked by it) worse off. And the practical application is that as believers, we are to try to make each other better and not do things to bring another down.

As an example, a woman should not tempt a man by wearing a shirt with a lot of cleavage, or a friend that shouldn't drink in the presence of one who struggled with alcohol, or people shouldn't eat cake in front of someone earnestly trying to lose weight.

This is a big principal to me. That of lifting your brothers up and not tearing them down. (Lon did a series on this awhile back, you should check it out.)

There are a few interesting little tidbits in here, too. Like verse three, it says that if you love God, you are known by God. That is an interesting thought, really. What do you think it means to be known by God?

But couldn't find it online. I'm trying to get it for you.

I did check this out, though, too. Its a ministry of McLean Bible that actually originally brought me to the church. Its called Frontline, and is a ministry (semi-related to McLean) directed to Gen-X ers and below. So, basically, 20's to 30's and maybe early 40's. Website: frontline.to.

You can find many sermons they have given there. Todd Phillips is the current pastor there, and when I went, it was a fellow by the name of Ken Baugh. They have some great stuff.

Interstingly, and I have not listened to it, looks like Todd just started a series called "No Other Gods". Check it out: http://www.frontlinedc.com/pages/page.asp?page_id=712#

V: The virgin birth, for example, is one we beleive is simply a miracle of God. God made her pregnant with a snap of his finger, if you will.

GB: So you admit that God has fingers?

Just pulling your chain there. LOL!

It looks like you aren't trying to understand but rather trying to convince me that Paul didn't mean what he said. Clearly he acknowledged the existence of other gods in heaven. Period!!!! No amount of your ramblings will take that fact away.

Also, no amount of rambling will take away from the fact that Paul separated the Lord Jesus Christ from God, the Father, in that verse and many, many others in his writings.

Mark S. Smith - professor of Ancient Hebrew at NYU (and a non-Mormon) had this to say concerning this distinction:

"The author of Psalm 82 deposes the older theology, as Israel's deity is called to assume a new role as judge of all the world. Yet at the same time, Psalm 82, like Deut 32:8-9, preserves the outlines of the older theology, Yahweh did not belong to the top tier of the pantheon. Instead, in early Israel the god of Israel belonged to the second tier of the pantheon; he was not the presider god, but one of his sons." (Smith, Mark S. "The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts" (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2001. 49).

Mark Heiser, a southern Baptist theologian and Ancient Hebrew scholar, and Simon B Parker, was considered the utmost authority on Ugaritic, an ancient Semitic Language, and was Professor of Hebrew at Boston University’s School of Theology until his death a year or so ago, have also written extensively on this topic. None of these scholars are Latter-day Saint. Parker says that according to the Hebrew Yahweh is just "one of the assembled gods under a presiding El…" (Parker, Simon B. "The Beginning of the Reign of God - Psalm 82 as Myth and Liturgy". RB 102 (1995): 534-35). These are serious Hebraic scholars with evangelical backgrounds. They are more interested in weeding out the truth than they are in the "traditions" of what their faiths have taught them.

Another evangelical scholar.

http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/MonotheismProblem.pdf

Just so you can know who the author is:

http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/MHeiserCV.pdf

Was Jesus baptized by complete immersion in the water?

No: I am saying Paul clearly says there is but one God. Did you read vs 4?

The Trinity is a hard doctrine, and I have admitted that. But despite your ramblings and attempts to say otherwise, there are enough verses, such as verse 4, that say A) there is but one God, and B) Jesus is that same God, Christ's reference to being "I am" is a great example of this one.

So really, and I don't want to rehash all this-- it is obvious we think differently, your stating it is very clear cut just isn't the case.

And I'm not sure I'd trust him completely. His involvement with UFO's and aliens sheds serious doubt on him.

Mark Smith seems to be a scholar, no doubt. But I am not sure he represents the majority of scholars. And he has not won complete support for is thesis.

Parker seems to address pre-Biblical writing, specifically that of Ugarit.

The idea of the ancient Jews as polytheistic is an interesting one. I'm not sure I can formlate a response on that now, but I have heard it before. From what I understand, the idea that the the ancient Jews (perhaps more specifically, those in the ancient newar-East) may have worshipped, or believed in multiple Gods is not yet fully substantiated. Its an interesting topic, though I am not sure when all is said and done with it, it will prove your faith.

Not so sure he was.

Matthew 3 doesn't explicitly state it. he says he came out of the water, but not totally immersed.


Mark 1 says something similar. (And a note, John the Baptist says one will come who will baptize with the Holy Spirit while he only baptized with water.)

Luke 3 only says he was baptized with the others.

So, using these verses that describe Jesus' baptism, it is unclear. Water was involved, yes, but full immersion, that is debatable. This is why some Churches only sprinkle, the Methodists, for instance.

If you read it at all: What does it mean to be known by God?

V: The Trinity is a hard doctrine, and I have admitted that.

GB: True, because it is illogical. 3=1 and 1=3 is illogical.

I don't see what the problem is here. Do I need to site more non-mormon scholars on this topic?

When Paul says there is one God, the Father, and separates the Father from the Son, Jesus Christ, it doesn't cause me grief. (see Tim 2:5) I understand that They are united in power, perfection and purpose. And we are to be one with Them.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

John 17: 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

I understand that you continue to by into the trinity stuff. I don't so can we agree to disagree on this and move on?

Do you believe Jesus baptized by complete immersion in water? If so then we have one more thing in common.

V: What does it mean to be known by God?

GB: Not sure. Never really thought about it but we do have this.

Matt 7:21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

It seems quit clear that for God to know us, we must DO the will of the Father.

Jesus reciting the parable of the ten virgins concludes it with this.

Matt 25:12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.

Here He says that those who haven't done what is needed to be prepared are not known to Him.

And I couldn't disagree more with your conclusion on God knowing us.

I read that verse, and I see Christ saying that there are many who did work under his name. "22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?"

See, notice in the prior verse, he who does his will will get to heaven. But what is lacking in this verse is what his will is. The next verse, which I copied above, says that there are many who have done wondrous things, yet they are left out.

Yeah, there it is again, this paradox. Its not clear entirely, and it is clear we are to do God's will. I have never said we shouldn't. I have only said it is our faith that gets us to heaven to be with God, and not our works.

And I think that with this reference to Matthew, we can return to 1 Corinthians for a second. Paul writes that if you love God, God will know you. Jesus said in Matthew that there are many who work and do things in his name who he will not know. Taking these together, it puts that reference in some different light, huh?

I expect you to disagree, and that's fine. I cannot make you understand our doctrines, as since I stated earlier, you come to this whole debate through a very different lens than I do.

And the Trinity. Oh, it exists, and I know I won't convince you of that. I can't do it on my own, and I know that. But I hope from our discussion of it you have a better understanding of what Evangelicals think of the concept.

is about the readiness we should have when Christ is to return. We don't know when that will be, and so we should be prepared for it always. I agree with that. But to be prepared, it isn't a matter of whether or not we have done X or Y, but that our heart is in the right place. So, those who toil trying to get ready very well may not be known. It is those who wait, with their hearts prepared, whom Christ will know.

You may disagree (and likely will) with this take on Matthew 25. That's OK.

See my prior post on the question. But there is no scripture to suggest he was or was not. Therefore, it is not something I think has huge implications. What is clear is that he was in water, and we can possibly assume he was (many Christians do), but we do't know that, for it is entirely possible John poured water on his head (as some others practice now).

So, if you are looking for common ground, this probably won't help you much. Baptism is a symbolic ritual for us that has no saving power. As John the Baptist said, Jesus came to baptize by the Holy Spirit and not by water.

Matt. 3: 16 when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water.

Mark 1: 5 baptized of him in the river.

Mark 1: 10 coming up out of the water.

John 3: 23 baptizing . . . because there was much water there.

Acts 8: 38 went down both into the water.

Rom. 6: 4 buried with him by baptism.

Col. 2: 12 Buried with him in baptism.

Matt. 3: 15 Suffer it to be so now . . . to fulfil all righteousness.

Matt. 28: 19 teach all nations, baptizing them.

Mark 1: 9 Jesus came . . . and was baptized of John.

Mark 16: 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

Luke 3: 21 Jesus also being baptized.

Luke 7: 30 rejected the counsel of God . . . being not baptized.

John 3: 5 Except a man be born of water . . . he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Acts 2: 38 Repent, and be baptized every one of you.

Acts 10: 48 commanded them to be baptized.

Acts 22: 16 be baptized, and wash away thy sins.

Titus 3: 5 saved us, by the washing of regeneration.

1 Pet. 3: 21 baptism doth also now save us.

"The virgins typify those who profess a belief in Christ, and who, therefore, confidently expect to be included among the blessed participants at the feast. The lighted lamp, which each of the maidens carried, is the outward profession of Christian belief and practice; and in the oil reserves of the wiser ones we may see the spiritual strength and abundance which diligence and devotion in God's service alone can insure." James Talmage

Five were wise, five were foolish, they weren't wicked, all ten had recieved invitations. All ten had a tesimonty of Jesus, some were valiant in that testimony and others were not. Hence, not everyone that says Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom.

Jesus gave us the parable in Matt 21:28-32 to consider.

And also Luke 12:41-48.

Eph 6 says that obedience and good works are the will of God.

1 Thess 4 says that obedience to God's commandments it God's will.

More doing, anyone?

So scratch the "Jesus baptism by immersion".

How about "His Father spoke from heaven at His baptism"?

Thanks for the posts on Baptism and the 10 virgins.

V and I have already made the rounds on Baptism being a requirement. No amount of Bible scripture will change his mind on this subject.

But thanks for the support anyway. I appreciate it, even if he doesn't.

Gen. 4: 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted.

Gen. 31: 16 whatsoever God hath said unto thee, do.

Ex. 19: 8 All that the Lord hath spoken we will do.

Deut. 5: 27 we will hear it, and do it.

2 Kgs. 22: 13 do according unto all that which is written.

Ps. 37: 3 Trust in the Lord, and do good.

Ps. 40: 8 I delight to do thy will.

Eccl. 9: 10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might.

Ezek. 36: 36 have spoken it, and I will do it.

Matt. 7: 12 (Luke 6: 31; 3 Ne. 14: 12) whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.

Matt. 7: 21 he that doeth the will of my Father.

Matt. 7: 24 (Luke 6: 47) heareth these sayings . . . and doeth them.

Matt. 19: 16 (Mark 10: 17; Luke 18: 18) what good thing shall I do.

Matt. 23: 3 whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do.

Matt. 23: 23 (Luke 11: 42) these ought ye to have done.

Matt. 24: 46 (Luke 12: 43) Blessed is that servant whom his lord . . . shall find so doing.

Matt. 25: 40 as ye have done it unto one of the least . . . ye have done it unto me.

Luke 6: 46 why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not.

Luke 8: 21 which hear the word of God, and do it.

Luke 10: 28 this do, and thou shalt live.

Luke 10: 37 and do thou likewise.

John 2: 5 Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

John 3: 21 he that doeth truth cometh to the light.

John 7: 17 If any man will do his will.

John 8: 29 I do always those things that please him.

John 15: 5 without me ye can do nothing.

Acts 2: 37 Men and brethren, what shall we do.

Acts 10: 38 Jesus . . . went about doing good.

Acts 16: 30 what must I do to be saved.

1 Cor. 10: 31 whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

Gal. 6: 10 let us do good unto all men.

Philip. 4: 13 I can do all things through Christ.

Col. 3: 17 whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord.

Col. 3: 23 whatsoever ye do, do it heartily.

Heb. 13: 16 to do good and to communicate forget not.

James 4: 17 knoweth to do good, and doeth it not.

2 Pet. 1: 10 if ye do these things, ye shall never fall.

Rev. 19: 10 (Rev. 22: 9) See thou do it not.

Rev. 22: 14 Blessed are they that do his commandments.

James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

I don't see where it says he was totally immersed. If you read my post you would see I said this is a distinct possibility, but not necessarilly so. My take still stands: scripturally. And you are right, no amount of your listing quotes that don't explicitly say he was immersed and those same quotes that say simply that he was in water will do it. And again, for the umpteenth time, Baptism is a symbolic gesture, symbolic of the inner transformation we experience when Christ baptizes us with the Holy Spirit.

You disagree, and that's your perogitive. And this one issue is not the defining difference between me and you.

Understand?

Baptism of what? Remember, in my last post and all through this, I have stated that physical baptism is symbolic and does not save. Water is part of the symbolism in cleansing, but Christ is the one who cleanses. I add this to help you understand the metaphor. It is interesting, Big G, how you quote this: John 3: 5 "Except a man be born of water . . . he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." What is missing? "and of the spirit". I do notice a lot ellipses there, for that matter.

I could go on, but seeing as we have done this multiple times, I see no point. I'll close it with this point, though: Paul tells the Corinthians that unless they love God, God will not know them. Christ says in Matthew that those who do great works will be expelled because he doesn't know them. The ten virgins gives a similar message (I'll get to that in a second). We have verses that say that faith is sufficient. Romans is an entire treaty on how we are to view law, and we are to put our faith in Christ, not in the law. It is clear that works are not such the requirement you make them to be, and as such, baptism, as a work, is not necessary for salvation.

See my last post, but works are not necessary for salavtion.

Here are a few verses:
For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” -Romans 3:28

“Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more…What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means” - Romans 5:20;6:1-2

“You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.” James 2:24;26

“For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.” Galatians 5:6

I'll even go to Genesis: 6 Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.

Back to Ephesians: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”

There are more.

Now, works are a part of a Christian's life. I have never said different. I have said that works do not save us, for that is reserved for our faith in Christ. Works, not rituals, are what shows our love for Christ. Christ even tells us that when we work for others, when we do good deeds for others, we show love to Him.

And I am currently drawn to the verse from 1 Corinthians 8:3: But the man who loves God is known by God. How true that is.

I can only really say this about your post on this, ou don't answer what it means to be prepared.

All are invited. Its not about being wicked. Its not about testimony. Its about having your heart well prepared. See, we do not know when Christ will return, therefore we must be constantly ready, and our hearts constantly in the right place. If we fail on that one, we're left outside. Its not about working.

The prable of the two brothers doesn't quite get there either. He's talking about one says won't but does and the one who says he will be doesn't. Again, this shows that what is inward is most important, as comparing to the pharisees who were all words but nothing on the inside. They said all the right things and did all the right things but were still empty. So the comparison with he brothers address this concern. Also nothing specific about what God's will is.

Luke is a bit closer, but this still doesn't quite prove we have to follow a proscribed list of ordinances. It means we have to continue to keep our hearts with Christ.

Now, I know you believe the will of God is to follow these ordinances, at least in large part. That's fine. But let me say that when we follow Christ, we will be led to do the right things. Its not about checking off a list, it is helping the man on the side of th road. Its about loving our neighbor. Its about lifting our brothers up. Its about teaching the truth in love. Its about Christ and following him in all aspects. In terms of baptism, we SHOULD ABSOLUTELY be baptized, and I have said that before, but baptism doesn't save us. Works are much more than ordinances and whether or not you miss a communion. Its about loving Christ all we can and therefore loving everyone we meet and doing all we can to show the love Christ has for us to others.

That, friend, is the ultimate will of God.

1 Cor 8:3: But the man who loves God is known by God.

Jesus said,
Jn 14:15 ¶ If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Jesus said,
Jn 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.

James said,
James 1:12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.

John said,
1 Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

John said,
2 Jn 1:6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.

So again, to love God, we must DO something and that something is OBEDIENCE to COMMANDMENTS.

If we have faith, we will be obedient.

If we love God, we will be obedient.

To be known of God, we must be obedient.

Joseph Smith was a liar, a sexual pervert, and a manipulator of weak minds.

Pointing out facts doesn't make a person a bigot.

These facts don't make Mormons evil, they just call into question their judgment.

This is a list of random sites I found (simply doing a search on the commands of Jesus. Its interesting. Only one I found mentioned baptism as a commandment...

Food for thought...

http://patriot.net/~bmcgin/pearl-thecommandmentsofjesus.htm l

http://www.bible.ca/7-keep-command.htm

http://www.isaiah58.com/broadcasters/command.htm

http://www.twopaths.com/greatest.htm

http://www.wowzone.com/commandm.htm

http://www.voiceofjesus.org/Witnesses/commandmentsofjesus.h tml

http://www.isaiah58.com/broadcasters/jesus2.htm

Do you get any converts from Mormonism to whatever cult you belong, with that approach?

Tuesday, March, 04, 2008 11:35 AM badcandie writes:
Mormonism is a Cult
"Joseph Smith was a liar, a sexual pervert, and a manipulator of weak minds.
Pointing out facts doesn't make a person a bigot.
These facts don't make Mormons evil, they just call into question their judgment."



badcandie belongs to a cult of apostate liars, sexual perverts, and manipulators of weak minds. Pointing out facts doesn't make a person a bigot. These facts don't make Catholics evil, they just call into question their judgment.

Pointing

What must one "do" to have their heart "constantly" in the right place? What musst one "do" to be ready?

What must one do to have their heart constantly ready?

Well I know where you are going with this but to start here are some SUGGESTIONS (not requirements): pray, followship with other believers, charity, read the Bible, read other inspirational books and books about the Bible, go to service, etc. Now, not all these are necessary, like I said, they are not requirements. Of these, I'd say prayer is the most important, as constant contact with God (Jesus) is the best way to keep your heart near.

As to where you are going, you are likely going to say we must "do" certain things to keep our hearts ready. Well, yes and no. These things make it easier to keep our focus, but again, they are not requirements. The only requirement is to accept Christ as our savior. Once you do that, truly do that, you will not lose our salvation, but this is not to say you can't stray. So, in part, the parable says, have your oil ready, give your heart to Christ, before he comes, and you are OK. These other things I listed help keep your heart closer.

According to your links, Prayer is a commandment. If it is a commandment, doesn't that make it a requirement?

Or aren't we required to obey the commandments?

Do you constantly pray? Do you pray without ceasing? I highly doubt it. But this is a "commandment", right? Even from the New Testament.

Do you, then, keep all the commandments? Do you constantly break them? Yes, you do, if not all, some. And this is the point of us needing to rely on Christ, and not on us. We are flawed and can never achieve perfection. Christ did that for us, and as such offers us forgiveness when he knows us.

So, is this a requirement? No, not for salvation.

So which commandments are required and which are only suggestions and how do you know the difference?

The only one that gets us to heaven is that one simple idea: Love Christ with all we have and trust him with all our heart.

Read Romans with what I wrote in my previous post in mind. The law, "the commandments", are things we cannot keep. Therefore, we cannot be justified by our actions and only Christ can do so. And he justified us when he died on the cross.

All other attempts, or works, lead us nowhere. Only belief in Christ saves.

John 13: 34 (John 15: 12, 17; 2 Jn. 1: 5; D&C 88: 123; Moses 7: 33) new commandment . . . That ye love one another.

John 13: 35 ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

John 14: 15 (D&C 42: 29) If ye love me, keep my commandments.

John 15: 10 keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love.

1 Jn. 2: 5 in him verily is the love of God perfected.

1 Jn. 3: 23 love one another, as he gave us commandment.

1 Jn. 5: 3 (2 Jn. 1: 6) this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments.

does it say in the scriptures that we are perfected because we keep the commandments. No where does it say that a belief in Christ only is required for salvation. Everyone falls short, that it the reason for the Atonement.

Yet we are still commanded to "be ye therefore perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect".

Perfection comes only through Christ, how can one be perfected while refuseing to keep all of God's commandements the best they can?

If we love God, we do our best to keep His commandments, through the Atonement, through repentence, through prayer,study, and service, we feel the love of God in our lives, otherwise, why would He give us commandments? If belief alone saves, why are we told "If ye love me, keep my commandments."?


The scriptures show us that those who believe Christ, ought to follow Him as their example, not just profess a belief, but to emulate the example He set for us.


Example of Christ
John 10: 27 My sheep . . . follow me.
John 13: 15 given you an example . . . do as I have done.
John 14: 6 I am the way.
John 21: 22 what is that to thee? follow thou me.
Eph. 5: 1 be ye therefore followers of God.
Heb. 4: 15 was in all points tempted like as we are.
Heb. 5: 8 yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.
1 Pet. 2: 21 Christ . . . an example, that ye should follow his steps.
1 Jn. 4: 17 as he is, so are we.

Keep on posting these verses all you want. Have you read Romans? And do you pray ceaselessly? When you pray, do you follow the Lord's Prayer, ceaselessly?

This is the point: no matter how hard we try, and how many times we repent, we will fall short. We will break these "commandments".

It is only with Christ's blood covering our sins, our broken "commandments", that we achieve salvation.

As I have said before, believe what you want to believe. But like it or not, this is what we believe and why. BTW, this is not a difference that divides Mormons from Christianity. It is your idea on what those works are and how you view Christ and our ability to become Gods, among others.

Got it?

But we cannot be perfect. We cannot do it. We are man, Christ is God. God himself had to come, become man, die for our sins. He had to shed his blood for us as a sacrifice for all we have done. This covers our sins, in the way OT sacrifices were made. God sees the blood of Christ and we are set free.

But again, we are not of the same essence as Christ. Christ is God, we are his creating and not capable of perfection.

I hope you read my post asking whether or not you pray without ceasing and pray the Lord's prayer when you do. That is a perfect example of how we cannot do it. We just can't because we are men.

This is precisely why we need to believe in him.

V,

May I assume that when you say "pray without ceasing" you are referring to 1 Thess 5:17?

The YLT renders it this way.

17continually pray ye;

18in every thing give thanks, for this [is] the will of God in Christ Jesus in regard to you.

You mistakenly are interpreting this to mean that we must pray every second of every day of our lives. And then you are using it as an EXCUSE not obey all the commandments that you are capable of obeying.

The context is that you should pray at every opportunity. Deep down you should know this.

V: The only one that gets us to heaven is that one simple idea: Love Christ with all we have and trust him with all our heart.

GB: But if we love Him we will keep His commandments. See my post above.


V: Read Romans with what I wrote in my previous post in mind. The law, "the commandments", are things we cannot keep.

GB: We “cannot” or we “will not” keep the commandments?

1 Cor 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

Ever heard of the saying “practice makes perfect”?

We are commanded to repent. This life is the time to prepare to meet God, by repenting and improving, learning Gods laws and obeying them. Jesus made repentance available to all through His sacrifice.

Heb 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Here Paul clearly states that eternal salvation will be given to all them that OBEY the commandments.

V: Therefore, we cannot be justified by our actions and only Christ can do so. And he justified us when he died on the cross.

GB: He justifies us when we have enough faith in Him to obey His commandments.


V: All other attempts, or works, lead us nowhere.

GB: Obedience to Gods commandments leads “us to nowhere”? See above.

V: Only belief in Christ saves.

GB: If we believe Him, we will repent and obey His commandments.

I never implied or said that we do anything ourselves or that we can save ourselves by our works. I said we all fall short and need the Atonement of Christ, that doesnt mean we give lip service to God and make excuses that we cant possibly keep all of His commandments and say, so why try.


So we are commanded to believe only for salvation?

We aren't commanded to do anything?

We can say we believe in Christ and still be saved while excusing ourselves from keeping the commandments, (eventhough Christ says we love Him if we do)becasue we cant keep them all?

John 14: 15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

How can we keep ourselves unspotted from the world and have the spirit to be with us without doing anything but believeing?

Faith is an action word. The fruits of faith are always present where there is faith.

Matt 19: 16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Jesus separates Himself from the Father and then clearly states that keeping the commandments will put us in a state from which He will raise us up to eternal life.

Can we get there on our own? NO!!!!

Will He give us eternal life if we don't obey the commandments? NO!!!!!

Failure to act on the commandments of God shows the absence of faith.

Faith in Christ means to follow Him, His example.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that DOETH the will of my Father which is in heaven" Matt. 7:21

Righteous living leads to greater faith while wickedness leads to diminished faith. I have hope in Christ through following Him.


Faith is also described as the armor of God, a "breastplate of faith and love" (1 Thes. 5:8) in protecting the faithful from evil.


As I study the scriptures, pray, repent of my sins, and do my best to follow the commandments, I have been promised to have His spirit with me and have more protection from evil.

If I neglect these things, then my armor is weakened and I am more susceptible to evil.

Works are part of the definition of faith and without them there is no faith. If a man says he has faith, but no works, his faith is dead, and dead faith does not exist anymore than a dead man lives.

There is no more power in faith that does not include works than there is strength in food that is not eaten, or warmth in clothes that are not worn.

Did not Paul say that salvation came by faith alone, without works? Yes, he most assuredly did; and he also said that the works he was talking about were the performances of the Mosaic Law; and then he said, that the works of righteousness are as implicit in and as part of faith itself were.

Effort to be righteous is necessary eventhough it will never be sufficient. That is the miracle of the Atonement.

We are saved by the grace of Christ, God will also render to every man according to his deeds.

The questions are.
In whom do I trust? On whom do I rely? Is my reliance on Christ's works, or do I strive to save myself?

Paul taught what James taught—that true faith is always manifest in righteous works (James 2) and that one who relies wholly on the merits of Christ, who has faith in him, will evidence that faith through noble actions and Christian conduct. To argue that we are saved by our works is to argue that Christ's atoning mission was unnecessary.

No man can save himself, let alone resurrect himself. No matter how good a man is or how many good works a man has, he cant save himself. Salvation comes through Christ and His Atonement.

Once again, good works are necessary, but will never be enough.

"I never implied or said that we do anything ourselves or that we can save ourselves by our works." To the contrary, you claim that there is not s single way to save us without works. That's enough for me to believe you think you can work your way into salvation. OK, you say that Christ grants it, but it is based on our works, ergo, we work our way into salvation.

It is a point of emphasis. Do we emphasie our works, ie our role, or do we emphasize our love for Christ? See, as you paint it, and no matter how much you say otherwise, its as I say in the previous paragraph. Because of the necessity of works in salvation, we work our way into salvation.

See, we see it otherwise. We see faith as the sole guarantor of salvation. Works play no role, especially ritualistic works. Good works, ie charity, flows out of faith.

Also, here are my thoughts on some specific issues:

Baptism: all believers should be baptized, though it is not necessary as evidenced by the thief on the cross. (I know, you believe paradise is not heaven).

Communion: all believers should take this seriously and partake. But again, it cannot be necessary since none of us is perfect in taking it. We miss the opportunity or our hearts are not in the right place.

Prayer: We should all pray. Prayer is the best and most direct way to commune with God.

Church attendance/fellowship: Not required, but when supported by other believers, it is harder to stray.

Philipp 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, WORK out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to DO of his good pleasure.

V:Do we emphasie our works, ie our role, or do we emphasize our love for Christ?

GB: Just another FALSE dichotomy. Works of righteousness (obedience) emphasizes our love for God and our love for God is shown by works of righteousness (obedience).

Obedience and Love for God, they aren't separate, they are inseparably connected.

"If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:31–32).

The Apostle Paul taught that we can’t save ourselves; we need the Lord’s grace: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:8–10).

James explains: “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. … Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (James 2:17, 24).

The Savior told the rich young man who had been obedient and desired eternal life that there was yet more to do (see Matthew 19:16–22; Luke 18:18–23). LDS believe that the grace of Christ extends in its full abundance to those who believe in Christ and do the works He taught.

Gal. 6: 7-8.
7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

God is not mocked, and whatever he sos, he'll reap, yup. Don't be decieved, I think that's a good line, Big G. All your quotes on works do not take away what I am saying. In Ephesians, as you so eloquently pointed out, Paul tells us we are saved by faith, which is the gift of God. OK, he follows that we are created to do good works. OK. Again, if you've been paying attention to what I have been saying, you start to see it Biblically. Once we accept Chris, truly accept him, we will be led to do good works. Again, he does not say here various rituals, but simply good works.
You say this, "LDS believe that the grace of Christ extends in its full abundance to those who believe in Christ and do the works He taught." But you also say that Christ saves us after all we have done. These are not the same ideas.

Gunlock: Same thing, your quote from Phill we see God works in us. Its us letting him have full control over our lives. Its not about us. False dichtotomy? I'm not sure you understand my point of view. I don't think you ever have. It is really quite simple: submitting ourselves, humbling ourselves and giving all of ourselves to Christ, having full faith in him to provide and guide us through life is quite a bit different than saying you believe but still saying you have to work. The first is complete submission, and the second is not. The first gives up control, the second maintains it. I expect you to deny this control aspect, but when you rely on your own works, for as quoted earlier, "after all you have done", certainly implies a level of personal control in what you do. I also expect you to say, as Big G did, talk is cheap and no works is a lazy attitude. Perhaps, and there are some who profess but do nothing. They don't change, they don't give to the poor, they keep on in the same lifestyle and never grow in Christ. I am reminded of the hymn: They will know we are Christian by our love. A true Christian is not lazy and is a person of action and strength. But a true Christian acts upon the full power of Christ and none of their own. You both can say what you will, but the implication of relying on works, especially ritual works and progressive revelation based on those works, is that of self control, and not total reliance on Christ. We cannot earn a thing to merit what Christ did for us, for we can never fully keep to the law.

V: Its us letting him have full control over our lives.

GB: That’s a cop out. God doesn’t ever take “control” we are always in control. It is a cop out because you are now wanting to put the blame on God for any of your own shortfall. “God made me do it” is an unacceptable excuse. We must constantly strive to bend our will to His. He will NEVER force us to do anything.

V: Its not about us.

GB: Oh yes it is. It is all about US. Jesus was born for US. Jesus is the example for US. Jesus suffered for US. Jesus died for US.

V: I'm not sure you understand my point of view. I don't think you ever have.

GB: I say the same thing about you.

V: It is really quite simple: submitting ourselves, humbling ourselves and giving all of ourselves to Christ, having full faith in him to provide and guide us through life is quite a bit different than saying you believe but still saying you have to work. The first is complete submission, and the second is not. The first gives up control, the second maintains it.

GB: It appears that the difference is that you sit around waiting for God to tell you what to do and I want to be actively doing things that will please God without Him having to command me is all things. It is a wicked and slothful servant that must be commanded in all things.

Did Jesus sit around waiting for commands from the Father? No! He was actively engaged in DOING good works. And so should we.

V: But a true Christian acts upon the full power of Christ and none of their own.

GB: No, a true Christian uses his full power and all his talents to do works of righteousness. Just like Jesus did.

V: You both can say what you will, but the implication of relying on works, especially ritual works and progressive revelation based on those works, is that of self control, . . .

GB: True, after all to be a true disciple of Christ requires self control or self discipline. Discipline and disciple come from the same root word. It is about self discipline and us forcing ourselves to be like Jesus in spite of the “natural man” within us.

V: . . . and not total reliance on Christ.

GB: We do rely on Christ, who is mighty to save. We rely on Christ to make up the difference. We rely on Christ to make up for our shortfall which we want to minimize because we love Him. V: We cannot earn a thing to merit what Christ did for us,

GB: True, but we are still commanded to DO and are told that our reward depends on our DOING.

V: . . . for we can never fully keep to the law.

GB: But that doesn’t mean that we don’t do our best to fully keep the law. Practice makes perfect. When we fall short, we obey the commandment to repent and get back to being anxiously engaged in DOING good. For Jesus has said;

15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.
16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;
17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;
18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—
19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.
20 Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit.

A cop out? Huh?

Gunlock, I started to right a big response to your long and double-spoken piece.

I choose to now to not really say much on the specific issue of discussion. It is evident you really do not grasp what I am saying, and it is clear you are fully taken into the idea its Christ who does EVERYTHING, but ONLY after WE do OUR PART.

I am beginning to wonder if you cannot understand what I say, or if you choose not to understand. I wonder this because Mormonism is as much a lifestyle, a culture all its own, filled with its own very specific teachings and "hesitance" to consider outside views. It seems that at a very young age your children are taught more to obey than think in matters of faith.

In all of your posts, for as long as we have been talking, you have never really acknowledged, or tried to acknowledge, the points I have tried to make. Your posts have typically been defensive and stated that I am wrong. Its as if there is no real attempt to understand, only to prove. Many Mormons seem to take this approach.

And it is for this reason that I sincerely wonder if you are even capable of truly conversing.

We are taught at a young age to obey the commandments.

One of those commandments is to "search the scriptures".

John 5:39 ¶ Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

So we study the scriptures. We study the Bible. We acquire our own understanding from our own personal study.

I think I do understand your position, I just don't buy it. I think the Bible is clear that we are be actively engaged in doing good and that God will reward us for our efforts.

It makes me wonder how much personal study you have done.

I say all of that with this in mind as well: I am part to blame. I am not sure I have represented myself and my faith as well as I should have. Perhaps, I have been guilty of some of the things I accuse you of. Perhaps I should have been more patient myself. So, the point of the previous post is to talk about cultural differences between our two lives.

I know Mormonism is much more than a faith, as it involved your entire life, from how you live it, to your family relations, to your friends, and how you view the world.

I am sure you can justify each and every level, but this reveals a big difference in how we view the world, and consequently each and every topic we discuss.

For instance, you say that it is about us, and I say it is not. You say God did everything for us, and therefor, its about us and what we do deserves just reward/punishment. I say yes, God did do everything for us, but no matter what we do, we are to do it for God who did everything for us and what reward we get is not ours, but Gods.

Do you believe that Jesus Christ was resurrected to a body of flesh and bones?

This one idea alone has huge consequences in how we relate to God. Your idea of becoming gods yourselves is a reward that you seek to attain. You work, along with God, to achieve this status. You claim by doing so, you glorify God since that is what he created us for, and because he wants the best from each of us. Consequently, you seek the ultimate glory: godhood yourself. Everthing you do, then, is predicated upon personal glory, whether or not God is involved in this glory. You want to become a god! And to get there, you HAVE to do X, Y, and Z. Of course you are going to be very dilligient in following "the law" and doing what you are told, since that's the only way to achieve godhood. Its very "self"-centered.

Contrast that with our view, that all we do i for God and God only. We view us as far below God, us as scum, and us as unable to do anything to come close to earning the approval God. God has standards that are too high for us to follow successfully, and we cannot do it. We believe God is the only god and is very jealous and wants no one else put before him, especially ourselves. We are also called to do good works, but these works are to done not for our glorification, but for God's. God wants us, we say, to glorify him with all our hearts, and to put him first before anything else. We are told to love God more than our families, and to drop everything and follow him. But since God does love us, and wants our company, he came to earth in the form of Jesus Christ as a way to cover our sins. But still, all we do, we are to do it for him. We are not "self"-centered.

Hate to drag this on, but I think this is important to flush out.

I put self in quotes in the previous post because I know you don't view it as self centered. You view it as obedience to Christ, and perhaps unstatedly, to your Church.

This is what I brought up the cultural ramifications of how you are brought up. Not only must you live up to Christ's expectations, but that of an involved Mormon community. Your family, your ward, your friends, all around you in your faith, push hard for you to do the right things. As such, there must be a large part of this that is pressure driven. In other words, if you don't follow the ordinances or go slack in one ward, you are bound to hear about it from someone very close to you.

Now, I am sure some of this goes on in evangelical circles, too. Certainly, there is pressure to act in a certain way. For an example, look at the Pastor's Kids... How many have you seen go terribly astray? But the extent to which it goes, and the depth to which we expect and require of our children is far different.

I hope you remember me saying that we view these issues from an entirely different lens. This is a large source of why I said this. We come from terribly different backgrounds in faith.

I saw that you think you have an idea of what it is I mean, but I am not sure you truly do. I say this because you always go back to the same themes: we are lazy, but Jesus said "this", and you don't ever acknowledge at what it is I (we Christians/evangelicals) think. You only say we are wrong.

You also question how much personal study I have done. Could I have done more? Absolutely. But to make such assumptions is presumptious, and to make the assumption is very off topic, and serves no purpsoe other than to destroy credibility. I assure you, I have more than enough knowledge and understanding of scripture.

I hadn't planned on a fifth part, but a line in your response gave me reason to write it.

"I think the Bible is clear that we are be actively engaged in doing good and that God will reward us for our efforts."

See, you approach this with a few other assumptions about God and reward. First, you believe God was once a man, like you and me, somewhere in eternity past. And like his example, we, too can become gods as our reward. Second, due to our potential to become gods, we are to work our butts off in order to get that reward.

We view such a comment with very different assumptions. We view God as of a separate essence, not an exalted man from eternity past, but as full master and creater of the universe, someone, something beyond our full understanding, and something we can never become. As such, we seek to honor him for all he is, end of story. We are to work, because he loves us and we are to be an expression of his love. We know we can never be like him, but we can honor him in all we do.

Do you see this distinction I have talked about in these last few posts? I am not asking agreement or to be told I am wrong or to be told yours is better (as I know you don't agree and think yours is better), but do you see the distinction? Do you see how we believe we are to act and why we believe we should act?

Gunlock, see the above posts first.

Let's flush that out some and we can address common ground theologically (which I expect is less than you think).

V: Consequently, you seek the ultimate glory: godhood yourself. Everthing you do, then, is predicated upon personal glory, whether or not God is involved in this glory. You want to become a god! And to get there, you HAVE to do X, Y, and Z. Of course you are going to be very dilligient in following "the law" and doing what you are told, since that's the only way to achieve godhood. Its very "self"-centered.

GB: Classic strawman there V. I keep trying to tell you that we are trying to be like Jesus. We want to be His disciple. We want to emulate Him. We are commanded to follow Him and be like Him. You just don’t get it. We want to glorify God like Jesus did.

How do we glorify God?
Matt 5:16Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your GOOD WORKS, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

How did Jesus glorify God?
John 17: 4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the WORK which thou gavest me to DO.

V: This is what I brought up the cultural ramifications of how you are brought up. Not only must you live up to Christ's expectations, but that of an involved Mormon community. Your family, your ward, your friends, all around you in your faith, push hard for you to do the right things.

GB: You are making it sound like living up to Christ’s expectations is a bad thing.

V: As such, there must be a large part of this that is pressure driven.

GB: Speculating now are you?

V: In other words, if you don't follow the ordinances or go slack in one ward, you are bound to hear about it from someone very close to you.

GB: So we aren’t to watch out for each other?


V: But the extent to which it goes, and the depth to which we expect and require of our children is far different.

GB: Do you teach them that they need to sin once in a while just to show Christ how much they need Him?

V: We come from terribly different backgrounds in faith.

GB: I know, we are encouraged to do our own personal scripture study and come to our own personal witness.

V: . . . you don't ever acknowledge at what it is I (we Christians/evangelicals) think. You only say we are wrong.

GB: I have posted more scholarly work from evangelical scholars than you have. Admittedly, I am more interested in what they think than what you say.

V: I assure you, I have more than enough knowledge and understanding of scripture.

GB: That is exactly the problem. You think you know enough and are unwilling to learn more.

V: First, you believe God was once a man, like you and me, somewhere in eternity past.

GB: I take it that you think there is something wrong with believing that God would condescend to human level by being born of a woman, living a mortal life, dying and being resurrected to a body of flesh and bones to live forever more?
Why don’t you just throw the Bible away then?

V: We view God as of a separate essence, . . .

GB: Can you provide a scriptural reference for that?

V: We know we can never be like him, . . .

GB: Such a negative attitude. Haven’t you ever heard of the power of positive thinking?

1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

You don’t seem to understand that we become like Jesus by obeying His commandments and doing good works. If you start out being righteous (if this is you let me know) then you will do the good works. But if you are not righteous then you can become so, by doing good works and obeying the commandments.

You jump in and are immediately defensive. I am not trying to attack here, only to explain a difference in how we approach our lives.

You really do not get it, what I am expressing. You are programmed to defend, and not see a different point of view and understand it. You throw in various subtle attacks and don't seem interested in an honest exchange of ideas.

Look at what I wrote for what I say it is: an attempt to look at differences in how we view these issues. It is not about who is right at this moment. We know we each individually think we are right. That is well established, but you wish to seek common ground, and I am trying to make it more possible we can get there. When you are in attack mode, we will never reach it.

V: I am not trying to attack here, only to explain a difference in how we approach our lives.


GB: You need to try harder.


V: You are programmed to defend, and not see a different point of view and understand it.


GB: You are programmed to attack, and not see a different point of view and understand it.


V: You throw in various subtle attacks and don't seem interested in an honest exchange of ideas.

GB: I would say the same about you. I suspect I have read more anti-mormon and evangelical scholarly material than you have read of Mormon and Mormon scholarly material than you. I quote more Bible scripture than you. I quote more evangelical scholarly research and other Non-Mormon research than you. And when I ask you for a scriptural reference to back up one of your theological statements you ignore the request.

V: . . . but you wish to seek common ground, and I am trying to make it more possible we can get there.

GB: Try harder.

V: Let's flush that out some and we can address common ground theologically (which I expect is less than you think).

GB: Sounds like you are avoiding the common ground quest. BTW I have no illusion about how much we have in common.

You have no interest in moving past the same place we have been for ages.

I have answered your requests about common ground. I have tried to shift our focus, and you write the same crap all over again.

You accuse me of not using enough scrptur. Read through and see I have usedmore than enough, or offered alternate ways to view what you have quoted. Who cares if you have quoted more? More does not make right. Further, it is not a excersise on numbers. If you think it is, then the suspicion has more evidence: you are about outward appearance.

Here's the deal: address my points about our cultures, and I will continue, or this is done. Feel free to say you don't like or disagree with my impressions, but until you do so, one of the first things I told you when I came back into this about a month ago is that we have very different ways of looking into these issues. The point is two fold: First, we look at the same thing drawing from very different assumptions. Second, the culture that develops our assumptions is very different. This leads to an ultimte inability to commicate, and I think we have reached that point.

What I am posting is from a Mormon site. These are Mormons posting here, some active, others not-- but all Mormon of one stripe or another. Tell me there is not a separate Mormon culture.

http://mormonmatters.org/2008/03/04/my-top-ten-cultural-sin s-or-why-i-dont-mark-my-scriptures/

The site, even beyond this entry, is interesting...

I understand why you don't want to discuss Jesus Christ and His resurrection. Because doing so will expose a fatal flaw in your theology. So to protect your fragile belief system we can divert to cultural stuff.

Do we have a different culture? Most likely. God's people have always been different.

Ex. 19:5 . . .ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me. . .

Deut. 7:6 . . .chosen thee to be a special people. . .

Deut. 14:2 . . .Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself. . .

Titus 2:14 . . .purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

1 Pet. 2:9 . . .a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people. . .

Call us weird if you want.

You still don't get it and don't want to address these differences in culture.

Here's a hint: an appropriate way yo respond is as follows.

"Virginia Daddy, you are probably right about our differences in assumptions. These assumptions do play a large role in how we view our faith. And you are right that my church teaches and encourages involvement from all sources in our lives. But I am not sure you characterize them correctly. Here's why....

"Further, your faith certainly has some culture issues of its own. It certainly seems to be lacking in teeth because (pick your reasons)...

"Finally, I am comfortable in my assumptions because (pick your reasons) but do acknowledge that because they are so different, we have trouble getting our points across as we intend."

Or you can choose an entirely different approach, such as by saying that my theory is way too over the top, that my theory may be true in part, but does not, in reality, explain the differences (or similarities if you think they exist), or any other host of explanations. All you have done is quote more things verbatim without explanation.

See, I'm not wishing to discuss specifics of our different cultures. I seek to discuss the ramifications of these differences as they pertain to this ongoing discussion.

Got it? If you are unwilling to do that, then this is done. If you continue to post that simply you are right or rattle off incomplete and out of context Bible verses, this is done.

You didn't like;
Titus 2:14 . . .purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Was it the "zealous of good works" part?

Are we as a people different? ABSOLUTELY!!!

We aren't mind numbed robots. We are taught to get educated and to think for ourselves. We are taught to personally study the scriptures, not to just take someone else's word for it. We are taught to seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost. We are taught to be actively engaged in service to others.

I think you are taught to blindly trust your pastor and what he says. You are taught that it is easy to be deceived, that you can't even trust prayer. You are taught to let the pastor tell you what the scriptures mean and not let the scriptures speak for themselves.

The Church encourages us to study individually and discern the truth from the scriptures (see our 8th Article of Faith). Our Doctrine and Covenants instructs us to “study and learn, and become acquainted with all good books, and with languages, tongues, and people” (D&C 90:15) and to “seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118). All is not given automatically but must be “built line upon line and precept upon precept” (Isaiah 28:10).

Hence the "what a joke" title for the post. Count it as an attack, if you'd like, but until you continue to dodge the issue at hand, I'll have reason to think that. BTW, your offhand comment about me avoiding the topic of Jesus and his resurection is avoiding a major flaw is ridiculous. You fail to realize we have been talking about Jesus for how long now? And I highly suspect there's not much in common between our views rgarding Jesus being a man of flesh at one point. You also do not go anywhere near saying what that "fatal" flaw is. You only say it is fatal. This is begging the question.

(Just saw your post)

This is better.

You say you are not robots, and accuse us of more closely resembling them.

Here's something to keep in mind when you make this comment: who bans (or very strongly discourages them) books? Who can get ex-communicated for communicating too much about what is in these "books"? (Does Lyndon Lamborn ring a bell?)

Now, you say that we blindly follow our pastor. This is not really the case at all. More than once I have disagreed with a pastor's (not just Lon) use of a verse. I often think there are better ones or look deeper at what the verse meant in a different context.

As to study, I certainly do not rely on my pastor alone. I do not take anything blindly, and when something is questionable, I look into it. But I challenge you to find a sermon to call out Lon with (do not use the Mormon one, we've tackled that, and of course you'd object).

OK, then if you are called to expand your horizon so much, why do you ban some?

Further, its good to have your mission statement to go back to, but show this in practice. Show me, remembering you ban books, how Mormons don't know all of their history, especially the bad stuff on Joe Smith.

Remember Lyndon Lamborn? This is interesting: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Zc0uzYXb998&feature=related

Show me how and why so many still rely on the JoD as a reliable source when so many things attributed to BY are told to be wrongly attributed to him. Show me how this is when there are so many factual discrpencies in the BOM and it is still considered the most correct book?

Show me. Show me how your families would be OK if you left based on these truths.

Demonstrate this with action. See, the histories and stories and truths show a different story.

Show me there are no hymns to Joe Smith

Show me your faith likes associating with non-Mormons, or even lazy evangelicals like myself.

Show me there is not some level of condemnation to those Mormons who drink coffee.

Show me that not drinking "hot drinks" is something not addressed in the Bible.

V: who bans (or very strongly discourages them) books?

GB: Waiting for a reference to an official LDS list of banned books. Shall I hold my breath?

V: Who can get ex-communicated for communicating too much about what is in these "books"?

GB: Ex-communicated for teaching falsehoods. We do that. I guess you don’t?

V: (Does Lyndon Lamborn ring a bell?)

GB: Never heard of him before.

V: Now, you say that we blindly follow our pastor. This is not really the case at all. More than once I have disagreed with a pastor's (not just Lon) use of a verse.

GB: So was he teaching false doctrine or were you believing in false doctrine?

V: OK, then if you are called to expand your horizon so much, why do you ban some?

GB: Ban some what? Books? Still waiting for an official list.

People? If someone is teaching falsehoods and refuses to repent, what does your church do with them? Give them access to the pulpit? I think not.

V: Show me, remembering you ban books, . . .

GB: Still waiting for that list.

V: how Mormons don't know all of their history, especially the bad stuff on Joe Smith.

GB: Well gee, I guess we should trust all those history books written by anti-mormons, and not question anything in them, right? After all everything in them must be true, right? No matter how bad the scholarship, right. Or how unreliable their sources, right?

V: Show me how and why so many still rely on the JoD as a reliable source when so many things attributed to BY are told to be wrongly attributed to him.

GB: The JoD has some really good stuff in it, but it does in fact have some errors in it. However many of these errors can be attributed to the fact that the discourses given by the brethren were not always reviewed by them for errors (many gave their sermons impromptu, especially Brigham Young). This of course makes it much more difficult to determine the intent of the speaker. Such things as puns, sarcasms, and emphasis on different parts of a sentence (which can often change the meaning of a sentence) are very difficult to detect when reading sermons that would not have taken into account an audience who would never hear the discourses.

V: Show me how this is when there are so many factual discrpencies in the BOM and it is still considered the most correct book?

GB: The Book doesn’t claim to be perfect only that it will lead one closer to God than any other book.

V: Show me how your families would be OK if you left based on these truths.

GB: You haven’t presented any “truths”, only your twisted speculations.


V: Demonstrate this with action.

GB: And if I expose the fatal flaw in your theology would your faith crumble?

a nerve.

Nice anti-mormon rant.

It just lets me know that you are scared that I might expose a fatal flaw.

You are back to your old tricks.

1) The LDs strongly discourages its people to read certain books. You've said so yourself.

2) See Lyndon Landborn's story in the link provided. And, no we do not excommunicate.

3) I am saying neither. I am saying this is an obvious one for you to go after, and I know where you stand. Find another to talk about.

4) Yes, you should trust many of the books critical to your past. Because they discuss your past. See the link to Lyndon Landborn. (I'll post it again if you'd like.)

5) Well, now, that is a very different explanation than what Big G said, that BY was actually attributed sermons he didn't give. And it used to be a book of high priority, why did that change?

6) OK, so it is not the "most correct book" as Joseph Smith claimed. It will bring us closer to God than any other book, and it contains many, many factual errors? I don't think I'd say God would put his name to such a book if it was blatantly false in many areas.

7) Only twisted through the mind of a Mormon. Which is a big reason I bring up the culture. The culture you eschew supports and excuses all the above, and does so from your earliest years.

8) Another statement begging the question. This is a no-no. If you make a claim, make the claim.

9) A nerve, yes, you hit a nerve. You hit a nerve by dodging and going everyway possible except to go back into the same circle we have been around how many times now.

10) You are taught to think this way. You are trained in it, and it is supported by your culture. You may not know it, but check it out.

V: The LDs strongly discourages its people to read certain books. You've said so yourself.

GB: Please feel free to show me where I said that.

I am still waiting for an official list.

Never said there was. If you looked at the context of my claim, you'd see what I meant.

But tell me there are not books you discourage folsk to read.

What sort of training and leadership positions have you held in the Mormon church?

(Back to the assumptions we come from)

the ones with pornography in them.

I guess your church doesn't discourage those, right?

Isn't discourage different than ban?

So you admit that there isn't a book ban? Why did you claim one?

Do you believe that God created everything from nothing?

Does your church discourage reading the Book of Mormon?

Does your church ban the Book of Mormon?

Doesn't match with the words of many, many other Mormons, or what is promoted in your media.

I claimed a ban for emphasis. An official ban need not exist, if the culture around it is strong enough to keep people from reading the targeted material.

Does my church discourage reading the BoM? No. They do not discourage it, and hence, they do not ban it. Of course, when discussing it, they discuss it as a source of fiction, but they do not discourage it. Further, I would say they in some ways its digestion is actually encouraged as an educational tool to know what it says.

I am not sure your purpose in asking if God created everything from nothing. To answer the question, lest I be accused of dodging, yes, I do belive God created everything out of nothing. God created the earth, the stars, and sky, all life, including you and me, and everything good in this world.

V: Doesn't match with the words of many, many other Mormons, or what is promoted in your media.

GB: I am still waiting for a source from you.

V: I claimed a ban for emphasis.

GB: So you exaggerated to make things sound worse than they really are. How very anti-mormon of you.

V: Does my church discourage reading the BoM? No. They do not discourage it, and hence, they do not ban it.

GB: So why are you so afraid to read it with an open mind?

V: Of course, when discussing it, they discuss it as a source of fiction, but they do not discourage it.

GB: So according to you, your culture affectively bans it.

V: Further, I would say they in some ways its digestion is actually encouraged as an educational tool to know what it says.

GB: So you are told that you don’t need to read it. They will tell you all you need to know about it. As I said before, you are taught to blindly trust your pastor. And they teach you to fear the Book of Mormon, when in reality it is they that fear you reading it. You just might find the truth and leave their church taking your money with you. That is what they really fear. And all the while they pretend to be concerned for your soul.

So then, you believe that the elements that make up our physical bodies are not eternal. Is that correct?

Gunlock, you are exaggerating my use of the term to make it sound worse than it is, how very Mormon of you.
I have no interest in reading it. Its not about an open mind or not, I just have other things in my "queue" I'd rather read, first. Its kinda like something I would find terribly boring and not worth much to me. Again, not about the mind.
You equate two terms that are not equatable. It is not banned, or discouraged, but it is looked at as a very non-authoritative book, as fiction.
That is some good twisting there. You do realize that you are twisting an argument, don't you? I am not blindly following anyone. I actually took an interest in the faults of Mormonism before I found MBC. So, you can't really blame it on them, but you can on my reason.
What's interesting is that I am still utterly convinced you believe in a fraud for a founder, and that you have been indoctrinated to think in a certain way, based on your culture. Many of the items I posted earlier have gone untouched, like the existence of hymns praising good ole Joe.
Of course you are going to defend him. You believe everything your church says and have not tried to truly understand an alternate (our) point of view. I still have barely seen you even attempt to state our belief system, and when you have it has been woefully off. You told me earlier you "think" you understand it, but you don't buy it. Well, "thinking" you understand it is by no means understanding it.
So before you continue to criticize it, get to know it. And before you claim to qote "Evangelicals" to support your faith, check them out. Check their credentials in faith (scholars are not necessarilly very Christian), check all their work (Messer and Owen, for instance), and be sure you truly understand what these people believe and what they have done. Get to know us better. I've encouraged you to check out more of mcleanbible.org. I still encrouage you to do so.

His story right here:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Zc0uzYXb998&feature=related

I particularly like this quote about censorship: "... censoring has been a telltale sign of corrupt organizations since the beginning of time."

Enjoy.

Actually, I do think we will have perfected a glorious physical bodies (the same we have now, only better) through eternity.

V,

You are too funny.

I used your standard, that you use to claim that we ban books, to show that you also ban books and then you accuse me of twisting. LOL

Your continual use of double standards is hilarious. It is ok for you to "ban" books but not for us. LOL

You can't provide a list. Yet I provided an example of your "ban" on the Book of Mormon. LOL

You expect me to read all of your anti-mormon drivel and yet you refuse to read the Book of Mormon.

V: So before you continue to criticize it, get to know it.

GB: So before you continue to criticize the Book of Mormon, Read it, Ponder it and Pray about it.

V:And before you claim to qote "Evangelicals" to support your faith, check them out. Check their credentials in faith (scholars are not necessarilly very Christian), check all their work (Messer and Owen, for instance), and be sure you truly understand what these people believe and what they have done.

GB: So I should assume that because they disagree with you, they MUST be wrong!!! LOL

V: Get to know us better. I've encouraged you to check out more of mcleanbible.org. I still encrouage you to do so.

GB: Get to know us better. I've encouraged you to check out more of lds.org. I still encourage you to do so.

V: I particularly like this quote about censorship: "... censoring has been a telltale sign of corrupt organizations since the beginning of time."

GB: Who is being censored? No one is preventing whats his name from saying what he wants. Obviously he has complete use of the internet to get his "word" out.

His claim of censorship is laughable.

V: Actually, I do think we will have perfected a glorious physical bodies (the same we have now, only better) through eternity.

GB: That isn't an answer to my question.

"you believe that the elements that make up our physical bodies are not eternal. Is that correct?"

This is getting absurd.

You obviously do understand my thoughts on you discouraging certain books. Did you watch the piece of Lyndon yet? Have you ever seen the movie Army of God? Here are two sources that expand on the thought. You also don't get us saying the BoM is not a factual book, because we don't think it is. Unlike what is presented in the two sources (I have seen others, too), we do not discourage anything. I also TOLD you there was not an official list of banned books, but you don't seem to care about that.

The evangelicals I mentioned, especially Messer and Owen, published a book saying Mormonism was wrong. And posted excerpts from the book. You don't seem to care. Heiser also believes in UFO's, so I am not sure we can take him seriously (told you about that, too), and the others their level of faith is not clear, and I would bet it is not very high. Further, Smith's studies are based on a small number of documents, and seems to discuss some thoughts. They hardly seem definitive. With all of this, your sources are not what you think they are.

Why have I been in dicussion with you? I think an expressed purpose is to get to know your faith better. I think I have, and I certainly can capture your beliefs much better than you can mine. So, get to know why we believe what we do, scripturally (there are great answers), and spiritually. All you have done is say we are wrong.

Check out the rest of the piece on Lyndon. It explains a lot.

Criticize him if you will, but don't miss this detail: he criticized you for not being upfront and keeping certain things from being well known. Also, don't forget that when was the last time the LDS released their financials?

Oh, I do believe our physical bodies will be physical. Not sure what you are getting at, so care to expand?

This is getting absurd.

Did you read the Book of Mormon yet?

V: Have you ever seen the movie Army of God?

GB: Yeah, a few years ago. Here is a clue, it wasn't produced by the Church, but by an independent group. Get it?

V: You also don't get us saying the BoM is not a factual book, because we don't think it is.

GB: So because you THINK it isn't factual, it isn't factual? Nice logic. LOL

V: we do not discourage anything.

GB: Not even pornography?

V: The evangelicals I mentioned, especially Messer and Owen, published a book saying Mormonism was wrong. And posted excerpts from the book.

GB: What is the name of the book and were are the excerpts posted?

V: Heiser also believes in UFO's, so I am not sure we can take him seriously (told you about that, too),

GB: Logical fallacy called poisoning the well. Why don't you actually refute his argument instead of attacking his personal beliefs?

V: Further, Smith's studies are based on a small number of documents, and seems to discuss some thoughts.

GB: What Smith are you talking about here?

V: So, get to know why we believe what we do, scripturally (there are great answers), and spiritually. All you have done is say we are wrong.

GB: So, get to know why we believe what we do, scripturally (there are great answers), and spiritually. All you have done is say we are wrong.

V: Check out the rest of the piece on Lyndon. . . things from being well known.

GB: Not interested in Lyndon, his cause or wasting my time with it. I'm wasting enough time with you.

V: Also, don't forget that when was the last time the LDS released their financials?

GB: Why do you care? It isn't your money!

V: Oh, I do believe our physical bodies will be physical. Not sure what you are getting at, so care to expand?

GB: Are the elements/matter/substance (whatever you want to call it), which makes up those physical resurrected bodies, eternal?

Not mine, but says a lot of what I have trying to tell you: From Falcon, at blog.mrm.org.

May I repeat myself?

Mormon friends you obviously do not understand the Christian Gospel. And it’s important within your religious system that you not understand it. I have no gripe with you regarding your system. But understand, it is the product of a man who in order to sell it, had to degrade and impugn Biblical Christianity and, in the process, Mormonism had to declare the Bible corrupted. That technique and approach is an honored cultural tradition within Mormonism.
God did set an unattainable goal; sinless perfection. Now, I’m perfectly content to accept Jesus shed blood as total payment for my sins. I have an attitude of not wanting to sin, but I sin. Thanks be to God for providing the remedy for my hopeless condition. Paul pretty much lays out this perspective when he says, “Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? May it never be!” and “Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.” (see Romans Ch. 6) But my point is that it’s important within the Mormon system not to “get” this. Not getting it prevents the faithful from receiving the free gift of salvation that God offers through His Son Jesus Christ. Who benefits from this cloud of deception?

For those who claim our history is a problem for the church, I have to ask what they are reading for history.

Does the history they read include the lives, histories, and testimonies of the witnesses who said over and over again that they had seen the plates and they had seen an angel?

Does it include the story of Martin Harris complaining how heavy the plates were as he held them on his lap for an hour and a half?

Does it include Martin Harris saying, “Well as sure as you see my hand so sure did I see the angel and the plates”?

Does it include Oliver Cowdery speaking of the Book of Mormon translation from his deathbed and saying, “I know that whereof I testified is true. It was no dream, no vain imagination of the mind–it was real”?

Does it include the story of Katharine, Joseph Smith’s sister hiding the plates in her bed?

Does it include the quote from John Whitmer as he says, “I handled those plates; there were fine engravings on both sides”?

Does the history include the many reports from others who also saw angels?

Or the 121 independent eyewitness accounts of the mantel of Joseph Smith being passed on to Brigham Young on August 8, 1844, such as the one from nine-year-old William Van Orden who suddenly turned to his mother and said, “The Prophet [is] not dead, for I [see] him on the stand”?

From fairblog.org/2008/03/09/struggling-with-questions-of-history-or-doctrine/

it didn't go through.

But, from your fairblog comments: do we have the plates today?

What about the Book of Abraham?

Why did Joe try to sell the copyright to the BOM? Wasn't he acting on a command from God to do so? What was his excuse afterward?

What about his polygamy? Why did several members leave in Nauvoo?

Why did his story evolve over time, as corraborated by his mother?

Why has the most correct book been corrected thousands of times?

Why does it list factual inaccuracies?

I could go on, but you hopefully get the point.

BTW, what are your thoughts on Falcon's words?

President Gordon B. Hinckley said,

We seem to have a host of critics. Some appear intent on trying to destroy us. They mock that which is sacred. They discredit that which we call divine. Some critics have said that we have been caught with errors in our history, others have worked with great diligence seeking flaws in our early Church leaders. Those who criticize us have lost sight of the glory and wonder of this work. They are so busy finding fault with us that they do not see the greatness of the Lord’s work. They have lost sight of the spiritual spark that was developed in Palmyra, New York, which is now lighting fires of faith across the earth in many lands and in many languages.

President Hinckley went on to say,

From a vast amount of information our critics appear to select and write about those items which demean and belittle some men and women of the past who worked so hard in laying the foundation of this great cause. Readers of such writings seem to delight in picking up these unfavorable items. In so doing they are savoring some small morsel, rather than eating a beautiful and satisfying meal of many courses.

President Hinckley continues,

My plea is that as we continue our search for truth, particularly we of the Church, that we look for strength and goodness rather than weakness and failings in those who did so great a work in their time. We recognize that our forefathers were human. They doubtless made mistakes. Some of them acknowledged making mistakes. But the mistakes were minor when compared with the marvelous work which they accomplished.

There was only one perfect man who ever walked the earth. The Lord has used imperfect people in the process of building his perfect society. If some of them occasionally stumbled, or if their characters may have been slightly flawed in one way or another, the wonder is the greater that they accomplished so much.

assumption that if we just understand your gospel we will recognize it as truth.

But you are missing some very important parts of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

1) You have no authority to preach the gospel as the Bible clearly demands.

2) You ignore large portions of both the New and Old Testament and the promises and doctrine taught there in.

3) You have no central leadership authorized to maintain correct doctrine within the church ie. Apostle and prophets.

4) You fail to recognize the importance of and authority for Biblical ordinances like baptism and the sacrament of the Lord's supper.

5) You are totally ignorant about the Priesthood, its function and purpose.

6) You don't have the gifts of the spirit clearly described in the Bible.

7) You have absolutely no clue what the Abrahamic covenant is nor it's importance.

Is the witness of the Holy Ghost.

So the true church, that is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints will continue to grow and strengthen.

And there is nothing the Antis can do about it.

First of all Hinckley glosses psat these issues. Smiths involvement in fruadulent affairs is more than a mere personality fault. Its a huge thing to consider.

And you, my firend, make a mountain out of a molehill when discussing the complexity of salvation and the message of the gospel. You get lost in your priesthood, which has little Bible credence, you miss the points of spirtual gifts, you assume to have greater knowledge of the meaning of the Bible than I, but miss the point entirely. You mistake it as a guidebook on how to become a god, rather than a way to reach God relationally. You assume you have all the answers and authority, and as falcon said, it is important that you not understand what we know. This is exactly the culture I was speaking of.

And the Holy Spirit is a wonderful aspect of God. It is through it that we know God exists, and it is by it that we live closest to God.

The sooner you see these truths, the better off you will be. Stop striving for something you will never achieve, and rest in peace with the Holy Spirit in your heart, knowing God loves you.

Joseph Smith wasn’t involved in “fraudulent affairs”. Get over it.

And you, my friend, make a mountain out of a molehill when discussing the complexity of history.

You have no authority from God that the Bible clearly requires. But as I said before you ignore large portions of the Bible due to their contradiction to your doctrine.

I assume nothing; it is obvious from our exchange that I clearly understand the Bible to a far greater and deeper level. You are totally oblivious to many of the clear and plain doctrine presented in the Bible.

It is also clear that I would have to give up many great and important truths to accept the lesser portion you possess.

The witness of the Holy Ghost is a wonderful part of have the true Gospel and the true Church. It is too bad that you aren’t humble and sincere enough to allow Him to lead you to greater truth. He testifies of Jesus Christ and helps us become more like Him.

The sooner you see these truths, the better off you will be.

Still waiting for your answer. I think you are avoiding it. Are you scared to be shown the truth?

Are the elements/matter/substance (whatever you want to call it), which makes up those physical resurrected bodies, eternal?